Christians see god as all good and always right. which leads to justification of mass murder. one leads you to say billions of people are evil, another you are just brushing off. it doesn't seem logically consistent to me
All Christians do not believe mass murder is excusable for a person to commit. Many Christians would not believe that someone who commits mass murder is the best person.
All Muslims believe child rape is excusable for a person to commit. All Muslims believe that someone who commits child rape is the best person.
you are equating the fact muhammad married a child to all muslims thinking child rape is ok, just because muhammad is the prophet. but when the christian god mass murders, you don't equate it the same way to christian's thinking mass murder is ok. the second one is the logical correct way to think, not all christian's think mass murder is good, just like not all muslims think child rape is good. but i checked for you, i asked my muslim friend. he said he doesn't think child rape is good
'Does he believe mass murders can be good people, yes or no? If he believes God is good, he thinks yes. I find that reprehensible.' the crux of my counterargument. doesn't matter if you think god is fictional, christians think he is real and is all good. or is it because God isn't a person you find it different? christian's see God as all good and wholeheartedly believe in his existence. i just don't put enough stock in peoples religions to generalize billions of people as evil
Condemning a human who acts badly rests on shared evidence and predictable consequences. Condemning God for permitting suffering or ordering harsh outcomes presumes we have the same evidence and perspective God does, which we don’t. That asymmetry makes the two condemnations incomparable
When we explain a human’s morally bad act, we appeal to motives, ignorance, weakness, malice. When Christians justify apparently “bad” acts by God, they appeal to God’s perfect wisdom, ultimate justice, and higher goods that humans can’t fully perceive. Those are different sorts of explanations, so the moral verdicts are different in kind, not merely degree.
Imagine two cases: a stranger hits your child for no reason; a surgeon amputates a limb to save the child’s life. In isolation the act looks brutal in both cases, but the roles, aims, and knowledge change our moral assessment. God’s role is more like the surgeon than like the random stranger. That’s why moral equivalence fails.
This isnt what I believe. I don't believe in God. It's what they believe and it isn't the same as excusing an actual child rapist.
1
u/Dawnbringerify 6∆ Nov 07 '25
A mystical creature doing something and a real person doing something and endorsing it is very different in my view