This started on Facebook, which I've decided to start using as a storage medium for random debate-related things I'd like to remember. One of these, which I'm sure I've brought up a good many times in my time here, is "Mike's Treehouse." What exactly that is will be shown further on down.
A friend of mine, who I know in person, is a Christian apologist (correct me if I'm wrong), and took issue with the validity of Mike's Treehouse. Obviously, Facebook sucks for any actual sort of debate, so here we are.
This entire subforum is read-only to just about all of you.
This is effectively a public but closed conversation between me and Ardbob, in a space that's much easier to work for with regards to debate. One of my primary concerns here is that you'll all swoop in like the pack of fucking vultures you are and give the both of us too much to reply to and/or derail the conversation. Ardbob is a meek individual with fragile sensibilities, and this is his first time using a computer (which he called "an internet" -- is that adorable or what?). As with all of his voyages outside of his Amish village, he will be wearing his safety helmet as he types. Try not to scare him away.
Summary of the LOL INTERNET ARGUMENT so far:
Tsukatu wrote:Mike has a treehouse. Mike's treehouse is so rad, it's got all the awesomest comic books and the swellest toys. It's so gosh-golly wonderful. It's just the bees knees. Mike's treehouse has everything you could possibly want, and nothing that you would find distasteful. But only Mike's club is allowed inside the house. Fortunately for you, Mike's Super-Swell Mystery Team Crime-Fighting Astronaut Soldier Sleuths are currently admitting members.
So you come up to Mike and ask, "gosh, Mikey, do you suppose I could be part of the gang?"
"Darn tootin'!" replies Mike. "But you gotta follow the rules to get in."
"Aw, golly, that's mighty white of ya! So what've I gotta do, Mikey, old pal?"
"Well, it's pretty simple. Go out and kill a nigger. Bring his body back home so you can tie his wife down before him and burn the house down around them. Violate his virgin daughters, and kill his sons. Bring back his scalp to prove you've done it."
You're understandably apalled. You ask if it's some sick joke, but Mike is stone-faced. He tells you that you're getting off easy -- last week, Brian had to do this to a whole neighborhood in order to get in! You have at least the smallest scrap of integrity and morality, so you leave and avoid Mike like the plague.
Thousands of years later, Mike's little brother, an honorary member of Mike's club, comes knocking on your door.
"Heya. Mike's sent me to tell ya sumthin," he says as he smears his snot across his sleeve.
"I want nothing to do with Mike," you tell him.
"Yeah, but, well, he says that if y'wanna come to the treehouse you can. Y'know, if y'wanna." You're about to ask why you'd want to hang out with Mike, when his brother interrupts with, "and you don't have to do none of that other stuff. You just gotta say you're sorry to Mike. And that's it."
This confuses you. "I have to say sorry to him? First off, what've I got to be sorry for? And secondly, hell no."
"Yeah, but that's all you gotta do. You just gotta say sorry to him."
"So, what, he's realized how insane he was?"
"Oh, y- well, no, not really. I mean, all he said was that you gotta do diffrent stuff to get in now. I mean, he still wanted you to do that other stuff back then, and you still gotta say sorry for not doin' it."
You don't even dignify this with a response. You start closing the door.
"Oh wait! Wait! I forgot sumfin'. Yeah, so, you don't have to do that other stuff but you just gotta say sorry, but in order for that to work I have to kill myself."
"...what!?"
"Yeah, he sent me here to kill myself to show you how much he wants you to be part of his rad club." He pulls out a nailgun.
"Uhhhhh....."
His face turns to confusion as he looks at the nailgun. He turns to you hopefully. "Can you help me?"
"No. No, I cannot."
"Aw, please? It's real simple..."
Unbelievable, you think. "You can nailgun your own self in the head. I'm done with you nutjobs."
"Haha, no, I'm not gonna nailgun myself in the head. Nah, that'd be too quick. Yeah, Mike wants me to stay nailed to a tree, starving to death while my lungs collapse under the weight of my organs. Yeah, it's gotta be slow. That's the plan. And if you could stab me a bit with a spear, that'd be awful swell of ya."
"You don't have to do that. That's really not neces--" He puts the first nail through his palm.
You close the door. Mikey's little brother crucifies himself on the oak tree in your front yard.
QUIZ TIME!! :D Answer all questions as honestly as possible, keeping a tally of your score!
1. What is the next appropriate course of action?
A) Try your best to avoid Mike and/or call the authorities to prevent him or his depraved goons from hurting anyone else. (1 point)
B) Moved by the sight of his dead brother on your tree, run to deliver a deeply remorseful and heartfelt apology to Mike, since you now have an opportunity to hang out with all the people in the past who could bring themselves to do the things necessary to join Mike's club, and most importantly, with Mike himself. (2 points)
After you've answered all 1 of the questions, compare your score to these results:
1 point: You are a reasonable person.
2 points: Congratulations! You have the severe schizophrenia and/or moral depravity necessary to be a Christian!
In fewer words and more casual language:
Long ago, God asked people to do some terrible shit. God is also perfect and a moral standard. Clearly, God's moral principles could not have changed, otherwise God would either be imperfect or morality is subjective (and in either case, God is an unsuitable moral standard). When Jesus came and said that you only had to ask for forgiveness, why is it that people immediately excuse God for all the ridiculous, drippingly evil shit He was asking people to do for millennia? Why would you want to be in the presence of someone who asked people to do these things? And why would you want to be around others who actually obeyed?
I frequently get the feeling that most Christians have never begun to think critically about their faiths, not that getting to these questions even requires a serious amount of critical thinking.
Ardbob wrote:lol, funny stuff. Of course you know I don't agree with it's relation to Christianity, but funny nonetheless.
What evil things did God ask people to do exactly? I have heard the argument many, many times that God was vengeful and punished people harshly in the old testament but I've never heard anyone say that God told people to do evil, vile things.
another friend of mine, who didn't involve himself again wrote:2 words: Abraham, Isaac.
Sure it was stopped, but the principle is that god wanted someone to be prepared to do something terrible for him. An ego trip at best.
Spensor wrote:You're missing some steps between morality being subjective and God being an unsuitable moral standard. But that doesn't change the "facts" very much. Nice work.
Most of the cool Christians I know simply don't give a shit about the kind of stuff you have to say. The questions they consider critically are more along the lines of "how can I solve this homework problem?" In the long run, their questions are more valuable to them than your questions.
The uncool Christians I know, who take their faith way too literally and / or seriously, probably are too dogmatic to consider what you have to say.
With all that in mind, I assume you are writing to people who already agree with you. If you want to persuade anybody, you'll need a different angle.
Ardbob wrote:[other guy]:
"Abraham and Isaac" wasn't an ego trip or Him trying to test Abraham's loyalty to Him. God wasn't trying to see if Abraham would do ANYTHING for him. God was simply testing Abraham's faith in Him to show if it was strong enough that he would trust God that nothing bad would happen to Isaac. From Abraham's point of view he was thinking that God isn't a crazy psycho God. He doesn't want him to actually kill Isaac, so there must be something else going on. So he said alright, that he'd do it and just put his faith in God that either he wouldn't have to actually kill Isaac or God would bring Isaac back to life or something. Of course, God isn't evil, so he didn't let Abraham kill Isaac. In Genesis 22:8, Abraham actually tells Isaac, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering." He had enough faith in God to know that God wasn't actually going to have him kill his son.
Spensor:
Most Christians are basically retarded. Which annoys the hell out of me, because it gives me a bad name. Most Christians that read this analogy to Christianity would either not understand the connection [Tsukatu] was trying to make, or they would just get pissed off and start talking about how God is holy and we just have to believe in him or go to Hell. God doesn't want us to believe in him blindly. I believe he wants us to think for ourselves. I don't believe in God simply because he told me to, but because I see enough reason to.
Tsukatu wrote:Faith through reason is something else I have a whole lot to say on, so I hope you don't mind that I skip over that for now.
But as for God telling people to do vile things... are you serious? I know it's an overdone thing to ask in this context, but have you actually read the Bible?
Disregarding God's own malevolent actions and orders he gives on an individual level, it's the warring that stands out the most.
In Deuteronomy 2, God's army marches along the river Arnon and burns down every city it comes into contact with. Each city is "delivered by God" to the army, who "utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city." "We left none to remain." You'd think that God would stop after they did this to the first city if he disapproved, instead of continuing and rewarding them after each one.
In Deuteronomy 7, God promises to deliver seven surrounding nations, whom he expects his followers to "utterly destroy them" like before. But in this case, he also threatens that if you turn away, "so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." In other words, "kill them, or I'll kill you."
In Deuteronomy 12, you're ordered to slaughter your OWN cities if people in it are infidels, reducing them to rubble and killing ALL inhabitants, per usual. Furthermore, such cities "shall be an heap for ever... shall not be built again."
Joshua rocks the shit out of Jericho, slaughtering all men, women, children, sheep, and ass, and "smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded." (Joshua 10:40)
I mean, look, I understand war times are serious business, but even war criminals (like the Serbians being tried today, for example) have never stooped this low. This "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep" business is God's M.O., and it's stepping waaaay outside the bounds of acceptable conduct even during the bloodiest of wars.
And let's not forget the tremendously long list of offenses that would earn you a stoning or burning at the stake, including picking up sticks on the Sabbath, cursing your parents, being a homosexual, failing to scream loud enough while being raped, not being a virgin on the night of your wedding (for women). God, himself, takes shit extremely personal -- blasphemy also earns you a stoning, but He has also been known to immolate people for complaining loudly and dabbling in astrology.
There was a study that Richard Dawkins referred to in his lecture in Lynchburg (I can find details for you later, if you want) where the guy doing the study gave the story of Joshua to a bunch of Israeli school children and asked if they approved. Two thirds gave complete approval, and many of the dissenters stated disagreements like "to conquer the land, he would have to enter it, which would make him unclean." But when kids were given a version with "Joshua" replaced with "General Lin," and other names were changed to make it sound like Chinese History, the results were the complete opposite. The vast majority of the students thought General Lin was evil, not to mention a total dick. Once God was taken out of the context, anyone would agree the actions are deplorable. But for most religious people, anything's excusable if God does it; they'll happily toss aside their more reasonable conception of morality in favor of the blatant evil committed and ordered by God.
I realize I'm starting to ramble, but this'll be my last comment in this spree...
Mike doesn't even do God justice, since Mike only asked you to kill one person. God has actually asked his conquerors to bring back the foreskins of the people he conquered, not just their scalps. And Mike hasn't even started detailing all the rules of his club, most of which would state "the punishment is death." Mike, in this example, makes God look far nicer than He is depicted in the Bible, and so that's a case in which I'd agree with you that this isn't a perfect parallel.
Have at you, sir!
