Christian fundamentalists are evil!
Erland Gadde
Christian fundamentalists often view themselves as proponents of morality,
in a society which they consider as godless and immoral. In this article, I
will show that it is the other way round: Christian fundamentalists are not
only immoral, they are downright evil! The reason for that is that they
worship a god who, with every reasonable standard of ethics, must be
considered as monster of evil!
First, some clarifications:
With a Christian fundamentalist, I mean a person who believes that every
word in the Bible is literally true, and who considers himself/herself as a
willing follower of that god who is described in the Bible.
I restrict myself to Christian fundamentalists, because my knowledge of
other religions is not sufficient to make definite judgements about these.
But, since the Jews also have the Old Testament, most of what I say here is
probably valid for Jewish fundamentalists too. I guess that this is true
also for Muslim fundamentalists, but I need to study the Koran more closely
before a can make definite judgement about these. Maybe this also can be
said about Hindu fundamentalists with their Vedic songs and their caste
system, but my knowledge about that is even less.
I also restrict myself to Christian fundamentalists. I do not talk about
these many Christians who do not read all of the Bible literally, but who
use selected parts of the Bible for inspiration, and who do not defend all
these horrors I will describe below. Their position might be problematic
from an intellectual point of view, but they cannot in general be considered
as evil because of their religion, contrary to what can be said about the
fundamentalists.
I will also assume that the fundamentalists I attack not only believe that
every word in the Bible is true, but also that they consider all actions,
opinions, and commandments by God as good and just, and that God should not
only be obeyed, but also be happily worshipped.
Although I do not know any such person, one could imagine a person who
believes that every word in the Bible is true, but still consider God as
that evil monster he indeed is described as in the Bible. If he/she obeys
God, it is solely by fear. He/she may very well hate God at heart, although
this would probably be very unwise. While I would consider such a person as
a nut, he/she is not necessarily evil, so I do not attack such persons here.
So, the person I attack here is a person who believes that every word in the
Bible is literally true, that everything God does is right and just, and who
happily worships this God.
Such a person, I claim, is evil! It would be even worse, if such a person
actively works for a society which is based upon this literal interpretation
of the Bible. In my opinion, every decent human being has a moral duty to
work against all attempts by fundamentalists to gain political influence.
They must be voted out from all democratically elected assemblies, and they
must be deprived all influence over school curricula. No school ran by
fundamentalists should get a cent of public financing.
I think the best way to achieve all this is to simply push them down from
their pedestals and let it be publicly known what evil monsters they are, by
using the Bible against them, as I will do here. Not that my examples are
new or previously unknown in any way, but still, the Bible is very rarely
used against the fundamentalists. I recommend all decent people to carefully
read the Bible to find more examples of the kind I give, because of course,
I can only take up a few in this article.
Now, on what grounds do I claim that these fundamentalists are evil? Mainly
because they happily worship a god who, according to how he is described in
the Bible, is such an awful, egoistical, unfair, sadistic, and bloodthirsty
tyrant, that it is hard to imagine any such evil being for a modern human
being. It easy to prove this just by reading the Bible. And a person who
happily worships such an evil god and considers him to be just, must
therefore be equally evil himself/herself. It might happen that some
fundamentalists are not aware of the nature of the god in the Bible, and the
judgement of these is less harsh, but it is their obligation to find out how
their god really is, according to the Bible, and then it is their moral duty
to leave their fundamentalist denomination, and forcefully reject their
previous faith. The leaders of the fundamentalist denominations, however,
are certainly not ignorant about how their God really is described in the
Bible, and if they don't want to reconsider their positions and opinions,
they should be forcefully morally condemned by all decent human beings.
In order to make my moral points, I will, hypothetically, accept the
fundamentalist viewpoint that every word in the Bible is literally true.
This is, of course, an intellectually indefensible standpoint, but since the
issue here is morality, the fundamentalists must defend the moral views of
the Bible, whether or not what the Bible says is actually true, as long that
they believe that it is true. I will use the New International Edition of
the Bible.
OK, let us now see how God really is, according to the Bible.
Probably, that crime which is considered as the worst of all today is
genocide. Yet, genocide is not all uncommon in the Bible, which describes
several genocides carried through or sanctioned by God.
Many people believe that the fifth commandment "You shall not murder." (Ex.
20:13) prohibits all kinds of killing. This is completely wrong! First of
all, God himself kills whoever he wants, whenever he wants, without
inhibitions. The most prominent example of a genocide carried through by God
is, of course, the Flood of Noah. Genesis 6-8 describes how God opens the
floodgates of the heavens, and he lets it continue to rain until "Every
living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out; men and animals and the
creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped
from the Earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." (Gen.
7:23)
Now, what motive could God possibly have for undertaking such an
extraordinary measure? The Bible is rather vague at this point. All we get
to know is "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on earth had become, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the
time." (Gen 6:5). We are not told what these evil thoughts and wickedness in
general consisted of. But whatever the people of that time did to upset God,
there can be no moral justification whatsoever to simply kill every single
human being on the Earth, except Noah's family! The Bible does not say how
great the population was at that time, but maybe there were millions; if
not, it was certainly thousands of people who were brutally drowned! Even if
every adult human being was as evil as is indicated above, the children were
innocent! Yet, God didn't hesitate to kill a lot of innocent children, just
because what their parents had done! And what about all animals who were
also brutally killed? What harm had they done? It is of course meaningless
to claim moral responsibility from small children and animals. But God seems
to consider children (and animals) as objects without feelings, which he can
treat however he wants. As we will see, this behaviour of God against
children is rather common. Also, it is remarkable that God first gives
people free will, but when people then apply their free will in a way which
God does not like, he just kills them all! Why giving people free will in
the first place, then?
A genocide committed by God on a smaller scale is the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. As with the flood, we don't get to know what the
great sins of inhabitants of these cities were, although it seems to have
something to do with God's disgust for homosexuality (Gen 19:1-10).
Interestingly enough, Abraham tries to negotiate with God about saving
Sodom. "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are
fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not
spare the place for the sake of the righteous people in it?" (Gen: 18:
23-24). God says he will not, and Abraham then negotiates the necessary
number of righteous people down to ten. Apparently, there weren't even ten
righteous people in Sodom. The only people saved from Sodom are Lot's
family. Were really all the other people in Sodom and Gomorrah evil enough
to deserve this? The children too? Again, God's brutality wins over his
mercy.
Not only does God himself commit genocide, but he also commands his
followers to commit genocide. All those who believe in the generality of the
fifth commandment should read Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: "When the Lord your
God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out
before you many nations - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than
you - And when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have
defeated them, then you must destroy them totally: Make no treaty with them,
and show them no mercy. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take
their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from
following me to serve other gods, and the Lords anger will burn against you
and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do with them: smash
their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and
burn their idols in the fire." (Deut. 7: 1-5) It can hardly be expressed
more explicitly: You must kill all these people, and it is forbidden to show
them any mercy! And the reason for this is God's egomaniacal and senseless
jealousy against other gods, and his extreme fear for not being worshipped.
What does he care about thousands of men, women and children being brutally
slaughtered? Like Hitler, he cares for nothing except his own glory!
We will return to God's jealousy later, but first we will concentrate upon
the genocide aspect.
This "genocide commandment" was also applied when the Israelites marched
into Canaan under Joshua. First, they captured Jericho: "They devoted the
city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men
and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Josh. 6:21)
Next, the city of Ai meets a similar destiny: "When Israel had finished
killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had
chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the
Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand
men and women fell that day - all the people of Ai." This is ethnical
cleansing fully compatible with what has happened in former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda in the 1990s. But, whatever we might think about Joshua's and his men
's behaviour, it is God who bears the real responsibility for this genocide:
"The Lord said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the
whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your
hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You shall do to Ai
and its king as you did to Jericho and its king..." (Josh. 8:1-2) Earlier,
he had likewise delivered Jericho into the hands of the Israelites (Josh.
6:2). So, God first hinders the peoples of Jericho and Ai to successfully
defend themselves. Then, he commands the Israelites to brutally slaughter
them all without mercy! A more unjust and bloodthirsty tyrant is hard to
imagine! After that, the Israelite conquest of Canaan continues: "Except for
the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the
Israelites, who took them all in battle. For it was the Lord himself who
hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy
them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded
Moses." So, here, God goes even further in his evil behaviour towards these
poor people: He deprives them of their free will, just in order to get them
so hostile to the Israelites that these get a reason to kill them all
without mercy! He hinders them from even wanting to give up peacefully and
become spared!
How are these people conditioned, who today finds such a creature worth to
worship?
This idea of a favoured immigrant people who can do whatever they want with
a country's native population, has probably contributed to the
extermination of the Indians in North America. Remember that the early
immigrants were religious fundamentalists who considered themselves as
favoured by God, just as the Israelites!
Therefore, it is a disgusting hypocrisy when fundamentalists, which
sometimes happen, condemn the theory of Evolution for promoting ideas such
as racism and "the right of the strong." Look in the book of Joshua: The
racism and lack of mercy the Israelites show to their neighbours there, in
accordance to God's will, is much worse than any evolutionist would ever
dream of! "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye,
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Luke 6:41)
Many innocent people are murdered and plagued also on a smaller scale. In
Exodus, God lets ten severe plagues strike Egypt, in order to force Pharaoh
to release the Israelites (Ex. 7-11). But these plagues do not only strike
Pharaoh, but also a lot of innocent Egyptians. In particular, in the tenth
plague, God, again, murders innocent children: "Every firstborn son in Egypt
will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the
firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and the firstborn
of the cattle as well." (Ex. 11:5)
And it is even worse than that! We are told that "But the Lord hardened
Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go." (Ex. 10:20) This
happens at least four times (Ex. 9:12, 10:27, 11:10, also), in particular,
before the tenth plague (10:27). So, God does with Pharaoh precisely what he
later will do with Canaanite kings: He deprives Pharaoh of his free will,
and makes him unwilling to release the Israelites. After that he punishes
not only Pharaoh, but a lot of other Egyptians with new plagues, such as
child murder, when it is God himself who has deliberately caused Pharaohs
hardness! So, God plays an awful sadistic game with innocent Egyptians,
murdering their children and other things. Also the Israelites are stricken
negatively by this game, since they are being kept in slavery in Egypt
longer than necessary. I cannot find any other reason for God's behaviour
here than pure sadism!
In general, God does not seem to consider children as autonomous
individuals, but as chessmen he can use to punish their parents: "..for I,
the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of
the fathers to the third generation of those who hate me,"
(Ex. 20:5). One example of this is what happened to King David's and
Bathsheba's first child.
David seduces Bathsheba, a married woman, and she becomes pregnant. Then he
arranges so that her husband becomes killed in war (2 Sam. 11) That
displaces God, justly, for once. But how are David and Bathsheba punished?
"The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by
doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt (sic?),
the son born to you will die. (2 Sam. 12:13-14) So, an innocent child is
killed, while the guilty person, David, gets away, and, indeed, get a new
child with Bathsheba, Solomon (2 Sam. 12:24). What a supreme justice!
Those fundamentalists who works actively against abortion and research on
cells from foeti, therefore seems to do that without any support from God:
Since he has no respect at all for living children (nor animals, for that
part) why should he care a bit about foeti?
An example of how God brings up misbehaving children is this story about the
prophet Elisha: "As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of
the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up,
you baldhead!" He turned round, looked at them and called down a curse on
the on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods
and mauled forty-two of the youths." (2 King. 23-24) So, a suitable
punishment for a youth calling an man "baldhead" is death, according to God!
Not only children's lives, but also adult lives, do God use to play games
with. In Job's book,
Job is struck by one catastrophe after another, just because God in a game
with Satan wants to test his faith. But it is not only Job who gets struck:
"One day when Job's sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at
the oldest brother's house, a messenger came to Job and said, "The oxen were
ploughing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, and the Sabeans attacked and
carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one
who has escaped to tell you!"
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said. "The fire of
God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the
only one who has escaped to tell you."
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The
Chaldeans formed three riding parties and swept down on your camels and
carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one
who has escaped to tell you."
While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your
sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's
house, when suddenly a mighty suddenly a mighty wind swept from the desert
and the struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they
are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you." (Job 1:13-19)
Job's sons, daughters, and servants, (and animals) are killed for the solely
purpose of testing Job's faith. That they all had their own lives who now
were ended, doesn't God care about. He considers them as Job's personal
property, and only Job's feelings are interesting for him. Job is
compensated with new children and animals after having passed the test (Job
42:12-16). But the unjustly killed people doesn't get alive because of that!
Another example of how God punishes the innocent instead of the guilty part:
"Now there was a famine in the in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to
live there for a while because the famine was severe. As he were about to
enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you
are. When the Egyptians see you, they will say. 'This is his wife.' Then
they will kill me but will let you live. Say you are my sister, so that I
will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of
you."
When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw she was a very beautiful woman.
And when Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she
was taken into his palace. He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram
acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and
maidservants, and camels.
But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household
because of Abram's wife Sarai. So Pharaoh summoned Abram. "What have you
done to me?" he said. "Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? Why did you
say 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife. Take her and go!"
(Gen. 12:10-19)
So, the innocent Pharaoh (not to talk about his household!) gets inflicted
with diseases by God, while the liar Abram acquires a fortune in Egypt,
without punishment!
The same story is reapeated twice, once with Abraham, Sarah, and King
Abimelech of Gerar, (Gen. 20), and once with Isaac, Rebekah, and Abimelech
(Gen. 26), although Abimelech doesn't get any punishment in these cases.
God is also a true bigot when it comes to different kinds of sexual
behaviour, and that gives him more chances to satisfy his bloodthirst:
"If a man commits adultery with another mans wife - with the wife of his
neighbour - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a
man sleeps with his fathers wife, he has dishonoured his father. Both the
man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own
heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter in law, both of them must be put to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own
heads. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their heads. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he
and they must be burned in fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
(Lev. 20: 10-14)
Why can't he let people have e.g. homosexual relations without being
threatened by death?
One of the most striking features of God is his absolutely extreme jealousy
and his complete obsession with being worshipped in the right way. It is
because he fears that the Israelites will be influenced by the inhabitants
in Canaan to worship other gods, that the commands them to slaughter all the
inhabitants of Jericho, Ai, and other cities in Canaan. For more distant
cities, this danger was less acute, however: "When you march up to attack a
city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and opens their
gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work
for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay
siege on that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put
to the sword all the men in it. As for the women and children, the livestock
and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunders for
yourselves And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your
enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance
from you and do not belong to the nations nearby." (Deut. 20: 10-15)
For being God, this is really humane! As we have seen, the nearby cities
could never meet such a "happy" destiny, because of God's jealous fear of
other gods.
Moreover: "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams ... says: "Let us
follow other Gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you
must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer ... That prophet
must be put to death ...
If your very own brother, your own son, or the wife you love, or your
closest friend secretly entices you, saying "Let us go and worship other
gods" ... do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not
spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death, and then the
hands of all the people. Stone him to death ... (Deut. 13: 1-9)
And this was written millennia before George Orwell's 1984!
It is no wonder that the people of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel got
tired of their jealous and bloodthirsty God and also worshipped other gods.
In 1 Kings 18, there is contest betweens the Lord's prophet Elijah and 450
prophets of the competing god Baal. Elijah suggests: "Get two bulls for us.
Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put
it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put
it on the wood but not set fire to it. Then you call on the name of your
god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire -
he is God." (1 Kings 18: 23-24)
These arrangements are made. Baal's prophets call on Baal, and nothing
happens. Elijah calls on the Lord, and "Then the fire of the Lord fell and
burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked
up the water in the trench. When the all the people saw this, they fell
prostrate and cried, "The Lord - he is God!" (1 Kings 18: 38-39)
Now, when Baal's prophets had lost their face completely, the natural thing
would be to let them go with their shame, but no, our Lord craves blood:
"Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone
get away!" They seized them, and Elijah brought them down to the Kishon
Valley and slaughtered there." (1 Kings 18:41)
Not only must other gods never be worshipped, God must also be worshipped at
one specific place only: "You must not worship the Lord in their [the
dispossessed nations] way. But you are to seek the place the Lord your God
will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name for his dwelling. To
that place you must go; there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices,
your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill
offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There, in the
presence of the Lord your God, you and your families shall eat and shall
rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the Lord your God
has blessed you." (Deut. 12:4-7)
"Be careful not to sacrifice your burnt offerings anywhere you please. Offer
them only at the place the Lord will choose in one of your tribes, and there
observe everything I command you." (Deut. 12:13-14)
The place the Lord chose was the temple in Jerusalem, built by King Solomon
(See 1 Kings 8). Solomon, however, starts to worship other gods, influenced
by his many wives from other nations. "On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon
built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech
the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign
wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods." (1 Kings.
11:7-8)
God punishes him by after his death giving the northern part of the Kingdom
(Israel) to the rebel Jeroboam, while Solomon's son Rehoboam keeps the
southern part (Judah) including Jerusalem (1 Kings 11-12). "There was
continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam" (1 Kings 14:30).
Naturally, Jeroboam doesn't want his people to go to enemy territory
(Jerusalem) to make their offerings. "After seeking advice, the king made
two golden calves. He said to the people. "It is too much for you to go up
to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of
Egypt." One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan." (1 Kings 12:28-29).
Thus, Jeroboam broke two commandments, the prohibition of idolatry: "You
shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above
or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" (Ex. 20:4-5), and the
commandment of cult centralization (see above). This makes God furious,
despite that the intention was to worship him. But if he is worshipped in
the wrong way, this is as bad in his eyes as worshipping other gods.
"Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I
will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel - slave or free. I will
burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung." (1 Kings 10). And so it
continues. The history of Israel is an endless story of coups, where God
always supports the rebel, who nevertheless continues the sins of Jeroboam,
and worse, from God's point of view. (See 1-2 Kings) The most bloody of them
is Jehu. At his time, Baal worshipping occurs in Israel, introduced by the
previous king Ahab and his queen Jezebel (1 Kings 16:31-33). Their son Joram
is now king, and there is peace with Judah, and intermarriage between their
royal families. (2 Kings 8:26) Jehu gets assigned by God: "I anoint you king
over the Lord's people Israel. You are to destroy the house of Ahab your
master; and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the
blood of all the Lord's servants the prophets [earlier killed my Jezebel (1
Kings 18:4 f.)] and the blood of all the Lord's servants shed by Jezebel.
The whole house of Ahab will perish." (2 Kings 9:7-8)
So Jehu kills King Joram, his mother Jezebel, and King Ahaziah of Judah, who
temporarily visits Joram. (2 Kings 9-10). These people were hardly innocent
victims, but then Jehu continues to slaughter 70 princes of the house of
Ahab "Now the royal princes, seventy of them, were with the leading men of
the city, who were bringing them up. When the letter arrived, these men took
the princes and slaughtered all seventy of them. They put their heads in
baskets and sent hem to Jehu in Jezreel." (2 Kings 10:6-7). After that, he
meets a group of relatives of king Azaziah of Judah. " "Take them alive!" he
ordered. So they took them alive and slaughtered them by the well of Beth
Eked - forty-two men. He left no survivor." (2 Kings 10:14). "When Jehu came
to Samaria [the capital of Israel], he killed all who were left of Ahab's
family; he destroyed them, according to the word of the Lord spoken to
Elijah." (2 Kings 10:17). After that, Jehu dupes the prophets, ministers and
priests of Baal into coming to the temple of Baal:
"As soon as Jehu had finished making the burnt offering, he ordered the
guards and officers: "Go in and kill them; let no-one escape." So they cut
them down with the sword. The guards and officers threw the bodies out and
then entered the inner shrine of the temple of Baal. They brought the sacred
stone out of the temple of Baal and tore down the temple of Baal, and people
have used it for a latrine to this day. So Jehu destroyed Baal worship in
Israel. However, he did not turn away from the sins of Jerobeam son of
Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit - the worship of the golden
calves at Bethel and Dan." (2 Kings 10:25-30)
Such a butcher did God put on the throne! Yet he wasn't free from sin, in
God's eyes.
Finally, God loses his patience with Israel, and lets the Assyrians conquer
Israel and deport the population (2 Kings 17:6). Judah, however, is never
conquered by Assyria, and when the Assyrian empire declines, King Josiah
conquers earlier Israelite territory. Josiah is one of the few kings of
Judah who obeys God's commandments to 100%. This makes him into a precursor
to the Taliban, remembering how they destroyed the big Buddha statues in
Bamiyan earlier this year. Perhaps the Taliban really had Josiah as a model.
"He did away with the pagan priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn
incense of the high places of the towns of Judah and those around
Jerusalem - those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and moon, to the
constellations and to all the starry hosts . He took the Asherah pole from
the temple of the Lord to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it
there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the
common people. (2 Kings 23: 5-6)
"The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the
south of the Hill of Corruption - the ones Solomon king of Israel had built
for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile God of
Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon. Josiah
smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the
sites with human bones.
Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who
had caused Israel to sin - even that altar and high place he demolished. He
burned the high place and ground it to powder, and burned the Asherah pole
also." (2 Kings 23:13-15)
"Just as he had done at Bethel, Josiah removed and defiled all the shrines
at the high places that the kings of Israel had built in the towns of
Samaria that had provoked the Lord to anger. Josiah slaughtered all the
priests of those high places on the altars and burned human bones on them.
Then he went back to Jerusalem." (2 Kings 19-20)
"Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the
Lord as he did - with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his
strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses." (2 Kung 23:25)
Yes, fortunately for the people, they had been spared from such a
fundamentalist oppressor earlier!
Nevertheless, God did not forgive Judah for their sins during Josiah's
grandfather Manasseh (2 Kings 23:26), and he let the Babylonians conquer
Judah, destroy down the temple in Jerusalem, and deport the population. (2
Kings 25).
OK, enough about the Old Testament. What about the New Testament, Jesus and
all that?
I will not say much about that, because whatever God does in the New
Testament, this can in no way neutralize all these dreadful crimes he
commits in the Old Testament. Let me just quote Paul: "But now a
righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the
Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through
faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by
his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented
him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to
demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left sins
committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at
the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have
faith in Jesus." (Rom. 3:21-26)
Well, considering all these dreadful crimes God has committed against
mankind, it is he who should seek forgiveness from us, not the other way
round!
Also, it is he who has created us in such a way we cannot avoid to sin
against his commandments, so he is in this sense also responsible for our
sins, and he has no right to punish us for it.
But somehow, God seems to have finally realized that he cannot continue with
this eternal vengeance and punishing. As a Swedish phrase says: "When the
Devil becomes old, he becomes religious." (Of course, with such a God as in
the Bible, there is no need for a devil.)
But even if he is tired of punishing people, he must give vent to his
bloodthirst, so what does he do? He somehow lifts the sins he perceive from
all human beings, who are willing to accept this, over to his own son (which
identical to himself, according to the doctrine of Trinity, which not all
fundamentalists believe in.) The sadist has become a masochist! But this
doesn't make him more sympathetic.
He should come to terms with his extreme jealousy and need for vengeance,
and do a lot self-criticism, instead of doing this kind of bizarre
maneuvres. But no, he continues to believe that he is righteousness himself,
when he in fact is evil personified!
Fortunately, this horrible god does not exist, but those who insist in
believing in him and worshipping him, must be evil themselves. Their evil
activities must be stopped, for example, some fundamentalists refuse to give
sex education and condoms to youths, thereby contributing to the spread of
AIDS. This is murder, and as I have already said, it is a moral duty of
every decent human being fight against them!
Erland Gadde
Woodard R. Springstube
news:PWNm9.6576$814....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
> CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE EVIL!
>
And just how do you think that society should deal with these
"evil" Christian Fundamentalists? I believe that the Bible is
inerrant, but, of course, human interpretations of the Bible are
quite another matter, and this includes my own interpretation.
It seems that you are only trying to stir up a pogrom against
the followers of a religion that you despise. If so, then how
are you better than the "fundamentalists" whom you castigate so
roundly?
Again, how would you deal with the "problem" of Christian
Fundamentalism? Would you favor "re-education" camps? Denial
of civil rights? Torture? A "Final Solution"? Denial of
educational opportunities unless they forswear their beliefs?
Denial of employment? How would you deal with the "problem"?
I admit that some of the fundamentalist spokesmen are pretty
repulsive characters. I soundly dislike people like Jerry
Falwell (one of the most smugly self-righteous pharisees that I
have ever seen) or Pat Robertson. Sometimes I even doubt if
they believe what they claim to believe. I sometimes suspect
they they are in it for the money and power instead of any
sincere belief, but, of course, I can't know for sure. I said
that to say that I don't trust you any more than I trust them.
You present yourself as having the same opinion of your own
moral superiority that they claim for themselves. In either
case, that raises a red flag in my mind. I don't trust you or
them. Sorry about that.
Daryl
>: Christian fundamentalists are not
>only immoral, they are downright evil! The reason for that is that they
>worship a god who, with every reasonable standard of ethics, must be
>considered as monster of evil!
People of similar persuasion ran the United States for almost 200 years.
Consider the nations ruled by atheists, Thermidorian France, Communist Russia
and China for example.
"by the fruits of their labors shall ye know them"
Daryl
Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
Tom Wootton
> People of similar persuasion ran the United States for almost 200 years.
> Consider the nations ruled by atheists, Thermidorian France, Communist Russia
> and China for example.
Point taken, Daryl. Religion is no guarantee of bad behavior, just as
atheism is no guarantee against bad behavior. BTW, I think you meant to
write "Jacobin France", since the Church experienced a lessening of
persecution under the more moderate Thermadorians.
Tom Wootton
"Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits."
-----Mark Twain
Richard Alexander
> >"Erland Gadde" erl...@bredband.net writes:
>
> >: Christian fundamentalists are not
> >only immoral, they are downright evil! The reason for that is that they
> >worship a god who, with every reasonable standard of ethics, must be
> >considered as monster of evil!
>
> People of similar persuasion ran the United States for almost 200 years.
The strength of your counter-example lies in the assumption that the
United States is viewed positively. Mr. Gadde may not be of that
pursuasion.
I did a Google search for other posts that Mr. Gadde has posted, and
found that he is most active in a foreign political forum
(swnet.politik). As best I can tell, the standard language in that
forum is Swedish, and Mr. Gadde is conversing in that forum in
Swedish. With difficulty, I was able to piece together some crude
translations of his discussions regarding Lenin and Trotsky. I can't
determine exactly what Mr. Gadde's position is, but it appeared to me
that he was questioning the condemnation of the old Communist rule.
Incidentally, the post Mr. Gadde made to s.r.c. at the beginning of
this thread is identical to a post that he made to swnet.moral and
swnet.filosofi back on November 29, 2001, almost a year ago, and is
even written in English. Interestingly, all the replies to that post,
including his own, are written in Swedish. Thus, I suspect that Mr.
Gadde created his original post some years ago, and simply reposts it
from time-to-time in various forums as sort of a propaganda shot.
> Consider the nations ruled by atheists, Thermidorian France, Communist Russia
> and China for example.
>
> "by the fruits of their labors shall ye know them"
Mr. Gadde reminds me of a Calculus substitute teacher I once had. Both
completely excuse Communism of any evil, but do not hesitate to lay
full blame on Christian belief for the evils of the world. Thus,
merely mentioning the names of a few countries, without going into
detail of why those examples are meaningful, probably won't do much to
change Mr. Gadde's mind.
Then, again, if Mr. Gadde were interested in defending his position,
or changing ours, I would expect him to reply somewhat promptly. I
suppose he is testing the waters of this group, to see what our
reaction might be? I hesitate to give him attention. However, better
here than that he should corrupt simple minds elsewhere.
Richard Alexander
title document ("Christian fundamentalists are evil"), I ran across a
reply posted by Donald D. Jones on alt.religion, dated December 2,
2001. Mr. Jones' reply was so good that I wrote to him for permission
to repost his post to s.r.c. Mr. Jones has given me permission:
====
Thank you for your message. I would be honored if you would repost
that message.
Unfortunately, my work schedule barely allows me time to sleep.
Hopefully I will be free in the near future to post again.
Thank you,
Don Jones
====
The following is Mr. Jones' reply on December 2, 2001 to Erland Gadde:
====
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. Your arguments are not
new, or particularly thought through. You committed the following
logical errors:
First, you use special pleading. You stand in judgment over
fundamentalists and declare them evil, because the God they worship
stands in judgment over people and declares them evil. If God is evil
for judging Sodom and Gomorrah, then by your own reasoning, you must
be evil for standing in judgment over fundamentalists and God. If,
however, you have the right to judge others, then God's credentials
are unquestionably superior to yours. In short, you violate the very
principle that you try to use to prove your argument.
Secondly, you play to the gallery. You use common sentiments of evil
actions for an emotional appeal without backing them. As Friedrich
Nietzche said, "God is dead, and with him all values have died." In
other words, without God in the picture, the objective and external
basis for morality has vanished as well. Morality is purely
subjective and internal. For example, you appeal to children being
killed as being wrong. Prove it. You either have to resort to
playing the gallery ("everyone thinks so") or just your own personal
opinion ("well, I just feel that way"). Neither one is a sufficient
argument. If you are going to argue that God is not a sufficient
standard of good and evil, then to do so, you must have another
standard by which to judge him. What is that standard?
Thirdly, you use loaded words in ways that do not fit their
definitions in order to illicit an emotional appeal. The word
genocide involves the intentional destruction of an ethnic race. You
use the word genocide repeatedly in cases that had nothing to do with
the destruction of a race. The Canaanites, for example, were a
socio-political people, but the were hardly an entire race. They were
semitic, just as the other people in the area and the Jews themselves.
Whatever evil you claim for the destruction of the Canaanites, it
isn't genocide. Same thing with Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no
reason whatsoever to suppose that an entire race was contained in
those to cities, and eliminated by their destruction. Yet you refer
to it as genocide, because it presents an emotional appeal.
Fourthly, you commit the Is-Ought fallacy. Because something IS a
certain way today, it OUGHT to have always been so. By today's
standards of warfare, you declare the Israeli invasion of Canaan to be
evil. However, by the standards of warfare at that time, the actions
of Joshua and the Israelis wouldn't have even made for good gossip.
Fifth, you falsely compare a being with authority to those that have
none. If I find drugs in my kid's pocket, and lock him in the cellar
for ninety days, that is abuse because I have no authority to lock him
up. If the police find drugs in his pocket and lock him up for ninety
days, they have done nothing wrong, because they have the authority.
If I had carried out the death penalty on Timothy McVeigh, it would
have legally been murder, because I don't have that legal authority.
The government, however, did not legally commit murder, because they
have that legal authority. You try to place God on the same authority
level as John Doe down the street, and then judge Him evil. Affirming
the dependent with this false comparison is an outrageous logical
fallacy.
Finally, you present false alternatives. Either God must adhere to
your personal (because you have no objective standard) morality, or He
is evil. You completely blow over the third alternative. It is
equally possible that God has knowledge and authority that we do not,
so He is able to pass judgments and make declarations that we cannot.
It is also possible, since you've eliminated your only objective
standard for morality, that your personally moral standards are
mistaken. In either case, presenting only the options that
fundamentalists must change their views or they are evil is a classic
case of false alternatives. It is possible that fundamentalists
aren't evil; they simply don't agree with you. Believe it or not,
failure to share your personal views does not qualify anyone as evil.
====
Erland Gadde
>I did a Google search for other posts that Mr. Gadde has posted, and
>found that he is most active in a foreign political forum
>(swnet.politik). As best I can tell, the standard language in that
>forum is Swedish, and Mr. Gadde is conversing in that forum in
>Swedish. With difficulty, I was able to piece together some crude
>translations of his discussions regarding Lenin and Trotsky. I can't
>determine exactly what Mr. Gadde's position is, but it appeared to me
>that he was questioning the condemnation of the old Communist rule.
The posts you refer to mainly dealt with a quote, claimed to be from
Lenin, which lacked a correct reference, and which I, and many others,
are sure is a fake. (In the quote, "Lenin" said that one shouldn't
hesitate to kill 9/10 of the population, would that be necessary. An
obviuosly absurd statement.)
I am no defender of that kind of "communism" which ruled Eastern
Europe until 1989-91, and which still rules China and North Korea. But
I consider the Russian revolution in 1917 as a truly progressive
event, but that the socialism the bolsheviks tried to build
deteriorated, because of civil war and external pressure, into a
horrible stalinist dictatorship.
>Incidentally, the post Mr. Gadde made to s.r.c. at the beginning of
>this thread is identical to a post that he made to swnet.moral and
>swnet.filosofi back on November 29, 2001, almost a year ago, and is
>even written in English. Interestingly, all the replies to that post,
>including his own, are written in Swedish. Thus, I suspect that Mr.
>Gadde created his original post some years ago, and simply reposts it
>from time-to-time in various forums as sort of a propaganda shot.
Also, the same message was posted in soc.religion and
soc.religion.christian a year ago. But I have had troble with
soc.religion.christian, and I don't remember if the message ever
reached the group. Perhaps it was this original message that reached
this group at October 2nd. But I might also have reposted it, although
if so, I completely forgot about it.
>Then, again, if Mr. Gadde were interested in defending his position,
>or changing ours, I would expect him to reply somewhat promptly.
You're right, I should have replied before. Sorry for not doing that,
whatever the reason is.
Erland Gadde
Erland Gadde
> While I was looking through Erland Gadde's previous Usenet post of the
> title document ("Christian fundamentalists are evil"), I ran across a
> reply posted by Donald D. Jones on alt.religion, dated December 2,
> 2001. Mr. Jones' reply was so good that I wrote to him for permission
> to repost his post to s.r.c. Mr. Jones has given me permission:
And let me then repost my earlier published reply to Donald Jones's post:
"Donald D. Jones" <djo...@ddj.zzn.com> wrote:
> Please don't bother responding, because I've spent as much time on this as I
> intend to.
I'll reply anyway, because you take up important issues who need to be
discussed, and this discussion is important not only yo you and me, but to
all.
> First, you use special pleading. You stand in judgment over fundamentalists
> and declare them evil, because the God they worship stands in judgment over
> people and declares them evil. If God is evil for judging Sodom and
> Gomorrah, then by your own reasoning, you must be evil for standing in
> judgment over fundamentalists and God. If, however, you have the right to
> judge others, then God's credentials are unquestionably superior to yours.
> In short, you violate the very principle that you try to use to prove your
> argument.
This is a misunderstanding. The point is not that God judges Sodom and
Gomorrah. Of course, he must have right to make moral judgements. The point
is that he _kills_ the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, just because he judges
them evil. _That_ is what makes him evil! That is a major difference between
God and myself. Although I judge the fundamenatlists as evil, I don't want
to see them dead! What I want is that they should be voted out of all
democratically elected assemblies, and be deprived all influence over school
curricula.
> Secondly, you play to the gallery. You use common sentiments of evil
> actions for an emotional appeal without backing them. As Friedrich Nietzche
> said, "God is dead, and with him all values have died." In other words,
> without God in the picture, the objective and external basis for morality
> has vanished as well. Morality is purely subjective and internal. For
> example, you appeal to children being killed as being wrong. Prove it. You
> either have to resort to playing the gallery ("everyone thinks so") or just
> your own personal opinion ("well, I just feel that way"). Neither one is a
> sufficient argument. If you are going to argue that God is not a sufficient
> standard of good and evil, then to do so, you must have another standard by
> which to judge him. What is that standard?
In my article I say thay God must be considered as evil by "every reasonable
standard of ethics".
Common ethical standards are i.e. utilitarianism, Kant's cathegorical
imperative, and theories based upon "unalienable rights", such as the U.N.
declaration of human rights, and what is commonly called "Christian ethics"
(which is often more based upon humanism than upon the Bible). Most people
probably mix features from all these in their everyday's morality. The point
is that we reach the conclusion that God is evil whatever of these standards
we choose, and this is also in accordance with everyday's morality of most
people. Very few people would seriously consider it right to kill children
by the solely purpose of punishing their parents. It is not true that
morality is purely subjective and internal without God. Society has, a
common morality, based upon the morality of its inhabitants. This common
morality can of course be questioned, but if a person, contrary to the
common morality, claims that it is right to kill children for punishing
their parents, the burden of proof lies upon him/her, not upon the society
to prove the opposite.
> Thirdly, you use loaded words in ways that do not fit their definitions in
> order to illicit an emotional appeal. The word genocide involves the
> intentional destruction of an ethnic race. You use the word genocide
> repeatedly in cases that had nothing to do with the destruction of a race.
> The Canaanites, for example, were a socio-political people, but the were
> hardly an entire race. They were semitic, just as the other people in the
> area and the Jews themselves. Whatever evil you claim for the destruction
> of the Canaanites, it isn't genocide. Same thing with Sodom and Gomorrah.
> There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that an entire race was contained
> in those to cities, and eliminated by their destruction. Yet you refer to
> it as genocide, because it presents an emotional appeal.
I think you have a too narrow definition of "genocide". After all, the
massacres in Bosnia were sometimes called genocide, despite that the Serbs,
Croats, and Bosnian Muslims all are Slavs speaking a common language, and
noone had the intention of completely exterminating any of the groups. Also,
the Europaean Jews were not a race in the biological sense. Yet, everyone
considers Holocaust as the primary example of a genocide. Furthermore: In
Deuteronomy 7, God commands the Israelites to _destroy_ the seven Canaanite
nations completely. What is that if not genocide?
> Fourthly, you commit the Is-Ought fallacy. Because something IS a certain
> way today, it OUGHT to have always been so. By today's standards of
> warfare, you declare the Israeli invasion of Canaan to be evil. However, by
> the standards of warfare at that time, the actions of Joshua and the
> Israelis wouldn't have even made for good gossip.
While it is certainly true that this kind of cruelties was common back then,
it is still true that the Israelites had the _choice_ to spare the lives of
the people in the conquered cities. Were there no such choice, there would
have been no need of God's "genocide commandment" in Deut 7. And there
_were_ merciful and tolerant rulers also in ancient times. For example,
Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, treated the defeated people with
mercy and tolerance. For example, he allowed the Jews to return from Babylon
to Palestine to rebuild the Temple. This mildness of the Persian rulers
probably contributed to that they could conquer and rule the World's
greatest empire at that time.
The point is, however, not to judge the actions of Joshua and the
Israelites, but to judge _God_ and his commandments. While we possibly could
say about Joshua that he didn't know about any other kind of warfare, we
cannot say this about God! An omnipotent, omniscient, and benovelent God
must certainly understand that other standards of warfare can be applied,
and therefore, there can be no excuse for him when he commands genocide.
> Fifth, you falsely compare a being with authority to those that have none.
> If I find drugs in my kid's pocket, and lock him in the cellar for ninety
> days, that is abuse because I have no authority to lock him up. If the
> police find drugs in his pocket and lock him up for ninety days, they have
> done nothing wrong, because they have the authority. If I had carried out
> the death penalty on Timothy McVeigh, it would have legally been murder,
> because I don't have that legal authority. The government, however, did not
> legally commit murder, because they have that legal authority. You try to
> place God on the same authority level as John Doe down the street, and then
> judge Him evil. Affirming the dependent with this false comparison is an
> outrageous logical fallacy.
This argument is obviuosly invalid. By your way of reasoning, Hitler did
nothing wrong when he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews in the gas chambers,
because he had the _authority_ to do so. ou may object that Nazi Germany
was not a democracy (but remember that Hitler originally was democratically
elected!), but a theocratic dictatorship ruled by God is no democracy
either. God has never been democratically elected.
> Finally, you present false alternatives. Either God must adhere to your
> personal (because you have no objective standard) morality, or He is evil.
> You completely blow over the third alternative. It is equally possible that
> God has knowledge and authority that we do not, so He is able to pass
> judgments and make declarations that we cannot. It is also possible, since
> you've eliminated your only objective standard for morality, that your
> personally moral standards are mistaken. In either case, presenting only
> the options that fundamentalists must change their views or they are evil is
> a classic case of false alternatives. It is possible that fundamentalists
> aren't evil; they simply don't agree with you. Believe it or not, failure
> to share your personal views does not qualify anyone as evil.
Normally, I don't reason in terms of evil. But in this case, my intention is
to hold a mirror in front of the fundamentalists and put myself on their
level, by saying: "You say that a lot of other persons or activities are
evil (e.g. homosexuality, evolution, socialism), but look at yourself, and
your God!"
I want to beat them with their own weapons!
Regards,
Erland Gadde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erland Gadde
> CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE EVIL!
>And just how do you think that society should deal with these
>"evil" Christian Fundamentalists? I believe that the Bible is
>inerrant, but, of course, human interpretations of the Bible are
>quite another matter, and this includes my own interpretation.
>It seems that you are only trying to stir up a pogrom against
>the followers of a religion that you despise. If so, then how
>are you better than the "fundamentalists" whom you castigate so
>roundly?
>Again, how would you deal with the "problem" of Christian
>Fundamentalism? Would you favor "re-education" camps? Denial
>of civil rights? Torture? A "Final Solution"? Denial of
>educational opportunities unless they forswear their beliefs?
>Denial of employment? How would you deal with the "problem"?
I suggest people who share my opinions to talk openly about the truth
of the biblical God and the horrors in the Bible, as I did in my post.
They shouldn't hesitate to confront fundmentalists with this in
private and, more important, in public. Why not form an association
with the purpose to fight fundamentalism? The programme of such an
association should be to vote fundamentalists out from all
democratically elected assemblies and to deprive them (legally of
course) all influence over school curricula. Very important is to gain
media coverage. I would love to see TV-documentary about the horrors
in the Bible (as in my post), sent in prime time! If I had resourses
of that kind, I would make such a documentary myself. Unfortunately,
all I can do is to post articles on the net.
>I admit that some of the fundamentalist spokesmen are pretty
>repulsive characters. I soundly dislike people like Jerry
>Falwell (one of the most smugly self-righteous pharisees that I
>have ever seen) or Pat Robertson. Sometimes I even doubt if
>they believe what they claim to believe. I sometimes suspect
>they they are in it for the money and power instead of any
>sincere belief, but, of course, I can't know for sure. I said
>that to say that I don't trust you any more than I trust them.
>You present yourself as having the same opinion of your own
>moral superiority that they claim for themselves. In either
>case, that raises a red flag in my mind. I don't trust you or
>them. Sorry about that.
My idea behind depicting the fundamentalists as evil was to beat them
with their own weapons. Normally, I don't analyze phenomena from such
an extreme moral standpoint, but more calmly in terms of sociology,
economy, politics etc.
But in dealing with fundamentalism, I think one must appeal to
feelings. For example, showing a TV-documentary about fundamentalism
from a cold socio-economic perspective would probably have little
effect, while a documentary of the type suggested above probably would
have significant consequences.
The main message is this: Fundamentalists claim themselves morally
superior and their opponents as immoral. But in fact, it is the
fundamentalists themselves who are immoral (since they worhip such a
horrible God)!
In this way, we push the fundamentists into a defence position,
instead of letting them set the agenda. I am actually surprised that
opponents of fundamentalism so often just accept a defence position,
instead of taking the initiative themselves.
And no, I am in no way a saint, far from it, but I am infinitely
morally superior to the fundamentalists, simply because I don't
worship such a horrible God.
Erland Gadde
Paul M Davis
news:Z_gE9.24229$mL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Woodard R. Springstube (springst...@Diespammer.net)wrote:
> "Erland Gadde" <erl...@bredband.net> wrote in
> news:PWNm9.6576$814....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
[snip]
> And no, I am in no way a saint, far from it,
I doubt that there were many who had you confused for one.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> And let me then repost my earlier published reply to Donald Jones's post:
[snip]
> > First, you use special pleading. You stand in judgment over fundamentalists
> > and declare them evil, because the God they worship stands in judgment over
> > people and declares them evil. If God is evil for judging Sodom and
> > Gomorrah, then by your own reasoning, you must be evil for standing in
> > judgment over fundamentalists and God. If, however, you have the right to
> > judge others, then God's credentials are unquestionably superior to yours.
> > In short, you violate the very principle that you try to use to prove your
> > argument.
>
> This is a misunderstanding. The point is not that God judges Sodom and
> Gomorrah. Of course, he must have right to make moral judgements.
What is the use of God making moral judgement if He is forbidden from
acting on that judgement? If you were taken to court for a crime, and
the court found you guilty, only to turn you loose immediately, what
was the use of the court? It would be a process in foolishness, an
empty exercise that accomplished nothing!
> The point is that he _kills_ the people in Sodom and Gomorrah,
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah are not the only people who die;
everyone will die, eventually, by the act of God. What you have failed
to acknowledge is that God has the right over the life of all
Creation, and that we only live by His permission. He is the one who
gave all life in the beginning, and it is His right to revoke life.
> just because he judges them evil.
God has the right to punish and destroy evil. This is His Universe,
the world of His creation. He is fully within His right to remove that
which does not measure up to His standards.
> _That_ is what makes him evil!
So, you believe that God is evil for punishing evil? Do you not
realize you are contradicting yourself?
> That is a major difference between God and myself. Although I judge
> the fundamenatlists as evil,
...as if you--a mere man!--have the moral right to judge anyone...
> I don't want to see them dead!
That is as well, for the judgement of man is corrupted.
> What I want is that they should be voted out of all democratically
> elected assemblies, and be deprived all influence over school
> curricula.
What you describe is not only discrimination, but religious
persecution. Christian fundamentalists are law-abiding citizens in
this country, and, as citizens, have the full right to representation.
You are trying to deprive them of the rights of citizens. You are also
trying to divorce the US from its Christian background. You are trying
to drive fundamentalists in ghettos, out of your own sense of moral
superiority.
When I was in the US Navy, I met a lot of people like you. They hold
positions of authority in the Navy. Like you, they hate
Christians--people who actually live consecrated lives and shun sin.
But, in the Navy, they had the power to practice their bigotry with
impunity. They harassed me every way they could, but now I am finally
out of their Satanic hands. The curse of God came on the Navy for what
they did to me. That is my explanation for the turmoil the Navy
suffered in the late 1980s, culminating in the unprecedented 3-day
world-wide Navy stand-down for safety evaluations.
> > Secondly, you play to the gallery. You use common sentiments of evil
> > actions for an emotional appeal without backing them. As Friedrich Nietzche
> > said, "God is dead, and with him all values have died." In other words,
> > without God in the picture, the objective and external basis for morality
> > has vanished as well. Morality is purely subjective and internal. For
> > example, you appeal to children being killed as being wrong. Prove it. You
> > either have to resort to playing the gallery ("everyone thinks so") or just
> > your own personal opinion ("well, I just feel that way"). Neither one is a
> > sufficient argument. If you are going to argue that God is not a sufficient
> > standard of good and evil, then to do so, you must have another standard by
> > which to judge him. What is that standard?
>
> In my article I say thay God must be considered as evil by "every reasonable
> standard of ethics".
Reasonable according to whom? To you? To any number of men? Does
number of people make a moral standard right? I say it does not!
Rights spring from ownership, and it is God who owns the lives of all
living. All human rights come from God, not from man. Man can only
impede the exercise of other men's rights.
> Common ethical standards are i.e. utilitarianism, Kant's cathegorical
> imperative, and theories based upon "unalienable rights", such as the U.N.
> declaration of human rights, and what is commonly called "Christian ethics"
> (which is often more based upon humanism than upon the Bible).
The Bible pre-dates what is known as Humanism.
You have it backwards; the only reason that Humanists have most of
their moral standards is the influence of Christianity informing them
of it.
> Most people
> probably mix features from all these in their everyday's morality. The point
> is that we reach the conclusion that God is evil whatever of these standards
> we choose,
That would only prove that those standards are defective, for it is
God who is the ultimate, perfect standard. He is the definition of
morality. He is the ultimate authority.
> and this is also in accordance with everyday's morality of most
> people. Very few people would seriously consider it right to kill children
> by the solely purpose of punishing their parents.
Very few (that is, none but God) have the right to make such a
judgement, either.
> It is not true that morality is purely subjective and internal without God.
> Society has, a common morality, based upon the morality of its inhabitants.
You are arguing in circles. What is the common morality? It is the
morality that everyone has. What is the morality that everyone has? It
is the common morality.
You have no objective moral standard without God, for an objective
moral standard must exist outside of mankind, and must come from an
authority over all that is measured.
> This common morality can of course be questioned, but if a person, contrary
> to the common morality, claims that it is right to kill children for punishing
> their parents, the burden of proof lies upon him/her, not upon the society
> to prove the opposite.
The burden of proof is on you to show that "common morality" has any
authority at all over the lives of people.
> > Thirdly, you use loaded words in ways that do not fit their definitions in
> > order to illicit an emotional appeal. The word genocide involves the
> > intentional destruction of an ethnic race. You use the word genocide
> > repeatedly in cases that had nothing to do with the destruction of a race.
> > The Canaanites, for example, were a socio-political people, but the were
> > hardly an entire race. They were semitic, just as the other people in the
> > area and the Jews themselves. Whatever evil you claim for the destruction
> > of the Canaanites, it isn't genocide. Same thing with Sodom and Gomorrah.
> > There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that an entire race was contained
> > in those to cities, and eliminated by their destruction. Yet you refer to
> > it as genocide, because it presents an emotional appeal.
>
> I think you have a too narrow definition of "genocide". After all, the
> massacres in Bosnia were sometimes called genocide,
Proving what? That someone might be using the word, "genocide"
incorrectly? Maybe people try to call it a genocide simply for the
emotional effect, not because it is the accurate use of the term?
> despite that the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims all are Slavs speaking
> a common language, and noone had the intention of completely exterminating
> any of the groups.
That calls into question the accuracy of calling the murders,
"genocide." It does not in any way justify broadening the meaning of
the word.
> Also,
> the Europaean Jews were not a race in the biological sense. Yet, everyone
> considers Holocaust as the primary example of a genocide.
Hitler would not have limited himself just to killing European Jews,
either. Hitler's goal was to destroy all Jews everywhere, as he
believed they were genetically prone to undermining nations. Hitler
was attempting genocide, and not because he was just killing European
Jews. Had he succeeded in killing all the Jews, he would have
accomplished genocide. He did not actually succeed completely in that,
but he was in the process of it.
> Furthermore: In Deuteronomy 7, God commands the Israelites to _destroy_
> the seven Canaanite nations completely. What is that if not genocide?
You might as well ask what a mis-spelled word spells, if not what you
claim it spells.
[snip]
> The point is, however, not to judge the actions of Joshua and the
> Israelites, but to judge _God_ and his commandments. While we possibly could
> say about Joshua that he didn't know about any other kind of warfare, we
> cannot say this about God! An omnipotent, omniscient, and benovelent God
> must certainly understand that other standards of warfare can be applied,
> and therefore, there can be no excuse for him when he commands genocide.
Why? What makes you believe that genocide is evil? What objective
measure can you give me that would give an absolute reason for
genocide being evil?
Furthermore, given that all life belongs to God (as He is the source
and sustainer of all life), what objective basis can you give for
claiming that God does not have the right to do with what is His as He
desires?
> > Fifth, you falsely compare a being with authority to those that have none.
> > If I find drugs in my kid's pocket, and lock him in the cellar for ninety
> > days, that is abuse because I have no authority to lock him up. If the
> > police find drugs in his pocket and lock him up for ninety days, they have
> > done nothing wrong, because they have the authority. If I had carried out
> > the death penalty on Timothy McVeigh, it would have legally been murder,
> > because I don't have that legal authority. The government, however, did not
> > legally commit murder, because they have that legal authority. You try to
> > place God on the same authority level as John Doe down the street, and then
> > judge Him evil. Affirming the dependent with this false comparison is an
> > outrageous logical fallacy.
>
> This argument is obviuosly invalid.
Red flag: When someone says a view is "obviously" a certain way, it
should warn that the view is not so obvious.
> By your way of reasoning, Hitler did nothing wrong when he exterminated
> 6,000,000 Jews in the gas chambers, because he had the _authority_ to do
> so.
What was the source of that authority? If one argues that rights come
from the state, or from a group of men, then your viewpoint would be
correct, and Hitler would be no better nor worse morally than any
law-abiding person. However, if rights come from God, then Hitler's
actions are a grave transgression of God's rights over the lives of
humanity, and the laws of God.
> ou may object that Nazi Germany
> was not a democracy (but remember that Hitler originally was democratically
> elected!), but a theocratic dictatorship ruled by God is no democracy
> either. God has never been democratically elected.
One need not argue that rights come from a group of men--though that
is contrary to the position of Socialism. It is also Socialism that is
the great advocate of democracy--the US form of government made only
limited use of democracy, intentionally.
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the
rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives
as they have been violent in their deaths."
(Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, "The Federalist on the
New Constitution" [Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818], p 53, #10,
James Madison.)
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit
suicide."
(John Adams, "Works," Volume VI, p 484, to John Taylor on April 15,
1814.)
"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its
own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation
their way."
(Fisher Ames [author of the House language for the First Amendment],
"Works of Fisher Ames" [Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809], p 24, Speech
on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.)
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the
ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
(Fisher Ames, "Works of Fisher Ames" [Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809],
p 384, "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.)
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human
governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and
short-lived."
(John Quincy Adams, "The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse
Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the
City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the
Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as
President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789"
[New York: Samuel Colman, 1839], p 53.)
"Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the
departments of state--it is very subject to caprice and the madness of
popular rage."
(John Witherspoon, "The Works of John Witherspoon" [Edinburgh: J.
Ogle, 1815], Volume VII, p 101, Lecture 12 on Civil Society.)
[snip]
> Normally, I don't reason in terms of evil. But in this case, my intention is
> to hold a mirror in front of the fundamentalists and put myself on their
> level, by saying: "You say that a lot of other persons or activities are
> evil (e.g. homosexuality, evolution, socialism), but look at yourself, and
> your God!"
You lack the moral authority to do as you desire.
> I want to beat them with their own weapons!
You would have to be your own god, your own supreme moral authority,
to do that. If you do that, we would rightly reject you.
Erland Gadde
> erl...@bredband.net (Erland Gadde) wrote in message news:<__gE9.24232$mL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
[---]
> What you have failed
> to acknowledge is that God has the right over the life of all
> Creation, and that we only live by His permission. He is the one who
> gave all life in the beginning, and it is His right to revoke life.
[---]
> God has the right to punish and destroy evil. This is His Universe,
> the world of His creation. He is fully within His right to remove that
> which does not measure up to His standards.
[---]
> > In my article I say thay God must be considered as evil by "every reasonable
> > standard of ethics".
>
> Reasonable according to whom? To you? To any number of men? Does
> number of people make a moral standard right? I say it does not!
> Rights spring from ownership, and it is God who owns the lives of all
> living. All human rights come from God, not from man. Man can only
> impede the exercise of other men's rights.
>
> > Common ethical standards are i.e. utilitarianism, Kant's cathegorical
> > imperative, and theories based upon "unalienable rights", such as the U.N.
> > declaration of human rights, and what is commonly called "Christian ethics"
> > (which is often more based upon humanism than upon the Bible).
> You have no objective moral standard without God, for an objective
> moral standard must exist outside of mankind, and must come from an
> authority over all that is measured.
[---]
> > By your way of reasoning, Hitler did nothing wrong when he exterminated
> > 6,000,000 Jews in the gas chambers, because he had the _authority_ to do
> > so.
>
> What was the source of that authority? If one argues that rights come
> from the state, or from a group of men, then your viewpoint would be
> correct, and Hitler would be no better nor worse morally than any
> law-abiding person. However, if rights come from God, then Hitler's
> actions are a grave transgression of God's rights over the lives of
> humanity, and the laws of God.
>
> > ou may object that Nazi Germany
> > was not a democracy (but remember that Hitler originally was democratically
> > elected!), but a theocratic dictatorship ruled by God is no democracy
> > either. God has never been democratically elected.
>
> One need not argue that rights come from a group of men--though that
> is contrary to the position of Socialism. It is also Socialism that is
> the great advocate of democracy--the US form of government made only
> limited use of democracy, intentionally.
All your reasoning about these matters is completely unacceptable, and
it is very dangerous, at least potentially. You say that since God has
created us, he has the right to do whatever he pleases with us, and
that God defines morality; if God says that X is right and Y is wrong,
then X IS right and Y IS wrong, by DEFINITION, and God doesn't need to
justify this in any way. If God would say that torture is right, then
torture would be right. Period.
This means that we human beings should deny ourselves the right to use
reason to make moral judgements (except possibly in the trivial sense
that we should make deductions from God's commandments). If God
commands us to do something, we should just obey him, whatever we
would think ourselves (we could use our free will and disobey him, but
a righteous person wouldn't do that). When Abraham was ready to
sacrifice his son Isaac at God's order, he was considered as a very
righteous man.
Let's see where this would lead us in an analogous case:
Imagine a science fiction scenario where I could create my own private
world with artificial intelligent life (in a real, physical sense).
These intelligent beings have emotions and senses, just as we have. I
would then, according to you, have the right to do whatever I want
with the inhabitants in that world. I could pain them, punish them,
and kill them, just for my own sadistic amusement, if I had such a
desire. That the inhabitants have both feelings and intellect, and
that they suffer from my actions, gives nobody any right to criticize
me, since I am the creator and the owner of this private world.
Does this seem right to you?
For a less far-fetched example: Since parents have made their
children, they should have right to do whatever they want with them.
They could abuse their children and even kill them if they want to.
Does this seem right to you?
This attitude, that what God says is always right, and that he always
should be obeyed, is very dangerous. It has caused a lot of suffering
and death throghout history. Because, according to the Bible, God
doesn't always act directly, but use his followers to carry out his
will. It was on his orders that the Israelites killed all the people
in several Canaanean cities. It was by his will, they believed, that
the Medieval crusaders slaughetered thousands of people in Palestine.
It was by his will, they believed, that the Inquisition burned
heretics at the stake. It is by his will, they believe, that some
extreme anti-abortionists kill abortion doctors. It was by his will,
they believed, that Mohammad Atta and his friends hijacked planes and
crashed them into the World Trade Center (they were Muslims, not
Christians, but that's not relevant in this case). These exapmles
could be multiplied.
No, we human beings cannot give up our right to formulate our moral
principles ourselves. It is certainly not an easy matter; it is very
difficult, maybe impossible, to find an objective ground for morality.
Yet, we have no choice but to try, and to do our best. Because a
society without morality cannot exist.
Those examples I mentioned above: utilitarianism, Kant's cathegorical
imperative, and human rights philosophy, are all good attempts, but
they have also their drawbacks. I have no definite answer of how moral
issues should be settled in all cases. But I can say that much: A
moral system which doesn't percieve genocide as wrong, is worthless.
And I don't have to give any particular argument for genocide being
wrong, it is just obvious for me, as it is for most people in the
World, I'm sure of that. And I dare to say that you also, Richard,
consider genocide as wrong, and that is not because you have read that
in the Bible, or that you have been told so by some preacher. No, I
think that's something much deeper in you, and in almost all of us.
Erland Gadde
Erland Gadde
> erl...@bredband.net (Erland Gadde) wrote in message
news:<__gE9.24232$mL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
[---]
> > This is a misunderstanding. The point is not that God judges Sodom and
> > Gomorrah. Of course, he must have right to make moral judgements.
>
> What is the use of God making moral judgement if He is forbidden from
> acting on that judgement? If you were taken to court for a crime, and
> the court found you guilty, only to turn you loose immediately, what
> was the use of the court? It would be a process in foolishness, an
> empty exercise that accomplished nothing!
That depends upon the punishment and the crime. If I would get a death
sentence for e.g. parking offense, that would be wrong, even if
parking offense is wrong and immoral. And to wipe out two entire
cities and all their inhabitants, including children, just because one
disapproves of their lifestyle (or whatever the reason was) is
certainly wrong, in particular for an omnipotent and omniscient being,
who could have found a less extreme solution of the problem.
[---]
> So, you believe that God is evil for punishing evil? Do you not
> realize you are contradicting yourself?
No. See above.
> > What I want is that they should be voted out of all democratically
> > elected assemblies, and be deprived all influence over school
> > curricula.
>
> What you describe is not only discrimination, but religious
> persecution. Christian fundamentalists are law-abiding citizens in
> this country, and, as citizens, have the full right to representation.
> You are trying to deprive them of the rights of citizens. You are also
> trying to divorce the US from its Christian background. You are trying
> to drive fundamentalists in ghettos, out of your own sense of moral
> superiority.
I don't want to deprive them any constitutional rights. I just want
that other people, who are not fundamentalists, should use _their_
constitutional rights to deprive the fundamentalists influence. Not
succeeding to be elected, and not succeding to decide over school
curricula, doesn't imply that one's rights has been violated.
[---]
> You have it backwards; the only reason that Humanists have most of
> their moral standards is the influence of Christianity informing them
> of it.
I don't agree. I think that it was when the Church's grip of peoples
minds began to loosen, during the Renaissanse, that people started to
think more for themselves, that ideas about humanism began to flourish
and evolve significantly.
[---]
> > I think you have a too narrow definition of "genocide". After all, the
> > massacres in Bosnia were sometimes called genocide,
>
> Proving what? That someone might be using the word, "genocide"
> incorrectly? Maybe people try to call it a genocide simply for the
> emotional effect, not because it is the accurate use of the term?
I use words in the ways they are commonly used.
[---]
The following people have been proven wrong by the 20th century history of
the western world:
Regards,
Erland Gadde
Denver Fletcher
....
> That depends upon the punishment and the crime.
Indeed.
> If I would get a death
> sentence for e.g. parking offense, that would be wrong, even if
> parking offense is wrong and immoral.
So here you attempt by implication to characterise evil as unimportant,
and/or as an arbitrary yet essentially meaningless distinction.
> And to wipe out two entire
> cities and all their inhabitants, including children, just because one
> disapproves of their lifestyle (or whatever the reason was) is
> certainly wrong, in particular for an omnipotent and omniscient being,
> who could have found a less extreme solution of the problem.
So, you admit that you don't understand their crime, or the severity of it,
and you aren't omniscient nor omnipotent (so you have no real basis for
criticism of God, who is) and yet you feel totally confident in condemning
God.
As was written by the other respondent, you contradict yourself.
> [---]
>
> > So, you believe that God is evil for punishing evil? Do you not
> > realize you are contradicting yourself?
(I snipped your assertions about proving people wrong about democracy,
since that is a political argument and not a religious one. But I would
note that the jury is still out on democracy, and even the 20th century was
not so kind to it as you presume. History spreads rather a wider net than a
mere 100 years.)
Matthew Johnson
>
[snip]
>I use words in the ways they are commonly used.
You might honestly believe that nonsense, but it is still nonsense. And that you
don't even _understand_ how these words are 'commonly used' is amply proved by
your quotation below, where you completely misunderstood the word 'democracy' in
each of the authors quoted!
>
>[---]
>
>The following people have been proven wrong by the 20th century history of
>the western world:
No, they have not, because in the era when they wrote, what we _now_ call
'democracy' was called 'republicanism', which had NOTHING to do with what we now
call the 'republican party'.
>
> "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
> have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the
> rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives
> as they have been violent in their deaths."
>
> (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, "The Federalist on the
> New Constitution" [Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818], p 53, #10,
> James Madison.)
And when do you think 20th century history 'proved him wrong'? Hamilton was NOT
talking about _republican_ governments such as ours in the US or constitutional
monarchies as in Britain. He was talking about _pure_ democracies, which are
quite rare these days. But the closest 20th century history got to his topic was
the Weimar Republic, which example proved him RIGHT, since the people freely
elected a madman who led the whole country and much of the world into an orgy of
bloodshed.
>
> "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
> murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit
> suicide."
>
> (John Adams, "Works," Volume VI, p 484, to John Taylor on April 15,
> 1814.)
I could say the same here, and
> "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its
> own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation
> their way."
>
> (Fisher Ames [author of the House language for the First Amendment],
> "Works of Fisher Ames" [Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809], p 24, Speech
> on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.)
here too.
>
> "The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the
> ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
>
> (Fisher Ames, "Works of Fisher Ames" [Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809],
> p 384, "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.)
And there _are_ a lot of people today who believe that Western Europe and
America today illustrate this quite well.
[snip]
I could go on, but the point is made.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Visit http://www.voskres.ru/pesni/music/janna.htm for moving
Christian Spiritual music.
BHZellner
> judgements. The point is that he _kills_ the people
> in Sodom and Gomorrah, just because he judges
> them evil. _That_ is what makes him evil! That is a
> major difference between God and myself.
Hello! In the natural course of events, every single
inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah would have died
more than 4000 years ago. Do you blame God for
not keeping them alive on this earth, all that time?
> Although I judge the fundamenatlists as evil, I
> don't want to see them dead!
Can you resurrect us, after we've been dead a few
thousand years? So what do your wishes count? If
you don't want to see us dead, will your wishes keep
us alive the next 4000 years?
And who gave you the right to make such judgements?
Of course, if your were our Creator, that might be
a different matter...
Ben
Erland Gadde
> In article <kpAH9.43484$%r6.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Erland says...
> >The following people have been proven wrong by the 20th century history of
> >the western world:
>
> No, they have not, because in the era when they wrote, what we _now_ call
> 'democracy' was called 'republicanism', which had NOTHING to do with what we now
> call the 'republican party'.
You mean that Hamilton and the others talked about "direct democracy"?
Maybe, but if so, the original comment in this group, concerning these
quotes, by Richard Alexander, becomes pointless:
"One need not argue that rights come from a group of men--though that
is contrary to the position of Socialism. It is also Socialism that is
the great advocate of democracy--the US form of government made only
limited use of democracy, intentionally."
> But the closest 20th century history got to his topic was
> the Weimar Republic,
On what grounds do you claim that the Weimar Republic was the closer
to direct democracy than other comparable nations during the 20th
century?
The problem with the Weimar Republic wasn't that there was too much
democracy, but too less, and that when democracy was threatened, which
it was already before Hitler became Chancellor, the Social Democrats
and other democratic parties did nothing to defend it.
Erland Gadde
Erland Gadde
> "Erland Gadde" <erl...@bredband.net> wrote in message
> news:kpAH9.43484$%r6.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
[---]
> So here you attempt by implication to characterise evil as unimportant,
> and/or as an arbitrary yet essentially meaningless distinction.
I just say that any kind of punishment isn't appropriate for any kind
of evil.
> So, you admit that you don't understand their crime, or the severity of it,
> and you aren't omniscient nor omnipotent (so you have no real basis for
> criticism of God, who is) and yet you feel totally confident in condemning
> God.
OK, then tell us for what kind of crime you think that this extreme
punishment, (wiping out two entire cities and their inhabitants,
including innocent children) could possibly be appropriate! And keep
in mind that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, must have
alternative ways to solve the problem.
Erland Gadde
Denver Fletcher
> "Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<aVTH9.45126$ic6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> > "Erland Gadde" <erl...@bredband.net> wrote in message
> > news:kpAH9.43484$%r6.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> [---]
>
> > So here you attempt by implication to characterise evil as unimportant,
> > and/or as an arbitrary yet essentially meaningless distinction.
>
> I just say that any kind of punishment isn't appropriate for any kind
> of evil.
Hmmm.
How very interesting.
You were making an argument (or at least attempting the feat) that God was
evil for punishing evil.
Now you're just saying "I just say ... etc"
I note that this is NOT an argument.
> > So, you admit that you don't understand their crime, or the severity of
it,
> > and you aren't omniscient nor omnipotent (so you have no real basis for
> > criticism of God, who is) and yet you feel totally confident in
condemning
> > God.
>
> OK, then tell us for what kind of crime you think that this extreme
> punishment, (wiping out two entire cities and their inhabitants,
> including innocent children) could possibly be appropriate! And keep
> in mind that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, must have
> alternative ways to solve the problem.
The bible is quite specific about the sort of things that bought on this
retribution.
It is also rather emphatic about the character of God.
But if the evidence it contains of these matters is not sufficient for you,
why is the evidence of the retribution such a big deal?
Why can you not dismiss it as airily as you dismiss these matters?
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> All your reasoning about these matters is completely unacceptable, and
> it is very dangerous, at least potentially.
What is the nature of this danger? Would my arguments change God?
Would my arguments change what God would do? If not, then the danger
is in man, and what man would do.
It is true that persuasion is dangerous, but I am not the only threat
in that regard. You are also dangerous, for what you argue would also
persuade men in how they use their power. In short, humanity always
possesses dangerous power, and the greatest danger is in the decisions
they make. You cannot avoid that danger simply by denouncing
fundamentalism.
> You say that since God has
> created us, he has the right to do whatever he pleases with us, and
> that God defines morality; if God says that X is right and Y is wrong,
> then X IS right and Y IS wrong, by DEFINITION, and God doesn't need to
> justify this in any way.
That is the nature of an objective standard.
Think about what you say. How do you justify a moral decision? Is it
not by appealing to a moral standard of some sort? Then, how do you
judge that standard? There must ultimately either come a point in
which you can no longer reach a higher standard, or you must dismiss
all standards.
You have decided to reject God as a moral standard. You have replaced
God with another standard, a vague, ad hoc morality that is more
concerned with evading responsibility than in answering for true
morality.
> If God would say that torture is right, then
> torture would be right. Period.
It would; and, what would you use to dispute it?
Likewise, if a godless society were to decide that torture is right,
what would you use to dispute them?
> This means that we human beings should deny ourselves the right to use
> reason to make moral judgements (except possibly in the trivial sense
> that we should make deductions from God's commandments).
On what could you reason? What precepts would serve as your standards?
Are ad hoc pronouncements your standard? Perhaps you believe the whims
of society would be a better judge of right and wrong? Or, do you
believe that some men are above the madness and shortsightedness that
has afflicted human judgment since the beginning of time?
> If God
> commands us to do something, we should just obey him, whatever we
> would think ourselves (we could use our free will and disobey him, but
> a righteous person wouldn't do that). When Abraham was ready to
> sacrifice his son Isaac at God's order, he was considered as a very
> righteous man.
Yes, and God provided a ram as a substitute for Isaac.
> Let's see where this would lead us in an analogous case:
Be careful--argument by analogy is the weakest form of reasoning,
partly because it is so prone to questionable comparisons (which is
probably also the reason that young people are so fond of using it).
> Imagine a science fiction scenario where I could create my own private
> world with artificial intelligent life (in a real, physical sense).
> These intelligent beings have emotions and senses, just as we have. I
> would then, according to you, have the right to do whatever I want
> with the inhabitants in that world.
What you neglect is that you are still subject to laws that are above
you. Your ethics are not absolute, and the world you created is part
of our Universe. You have not completely escaped your past, simply
because you created a new world.
> I could pain them, punish them,
> and kill them, just for my own sadistic amusement, if I had such a
> desire.
How would one know that your desire is sadistic, unless there were
some standard against which you could measure your actions?
> That the inhabitants have both feelings and intellect, and
> that they suffer from my actions, gives nobody any right to criticize
> me, since I am the creator and the owner of this private world.
Are you truly the creator and owner of them? Are you truly the
absolute standard? Or, is there another standard that still has
authority over you?
Do not think that by replacing God with your own reason that you have
succeeded in establishing a more just system.
> Does this seem right to you?
It seems to me that you lack many of the qualities of God--all wisdom,
all knowledge, all power, all justice, needing no support from anyone
or anything, but all things depending on Him for their existence.
Thus, you analogy is questionable.
> For a less far-fetched example: Since parents have made their
> children,
Parents only use what God has provided.
> they should have right to do whatever they want with them.
The rights of parents come from God.
> They could abuse their children and even kill them if they want to.
> Does this seem right to you?
God owns all. The parents are bound by the laws of God. If one is to
judge the parents, it would have to be against a higher authority than
the parents possess.
> This attitude, that what God says is always right, and that he always
> should be obeyed, is very dangerous.
This attitude, that man can trust his own reason and thoughts of what
is right and wrong, is not only dangerous, but disastrous.
> It has caused a lot of suffering and death throghout history.
Humanism, the placing of moral authority in man, has been a disaster
every time it has happened.
> Because, according to the Bible, God
> doesn't always act directly, but use his followers to carry out his
> will. It was on his orders that the Israelites killed all the people
> in several Canaanean cities. It was by his will, they believed, that
> the Medieval crusaders slaughetered thousands of people in Palestine.
> It was by his will, they believed, that the Inquisition burned
> heretics at the stake. It is by his will, they believe, that some
> extreme anti-abortionists kill abortion doctors. It was by his will,
> they believed, that Mohammad Atta and his friends hijacked planes and
> crashed them into the World Trade Center (they were Muslims, not
> Christians, but that's not relevant in this case). These exapmles
> could be multiplied.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that you rectify man's mistakes
simply by removing God from the equation. Rather, you severe the one
real hope mankind has. In the examples you cited, you indicate
disapproval of the judgment of the followers. Do you believe that you
eliminate disastrous misjudgment simply because you eliminate God? Are
you and others like you immune from mistakes? Was Stalin a Christian?
[snip]
> A moral system which doesn't percieve genocide as wrong, is worthless.
What makes you think so? Can you give me any non-arbitrary reason that
genocide would be wrong?
Is it always wrong to kill? Is genocide worse than the killing of one
person?
> And I don't have to give any particular argument for genocide being
> wrong, it is just obvious for me, as it is for most people in the
> World, I'm sure of that.
Ah, morality based on intuition--it just "feels" right to you, so it
must be right.
Intuition is unreliable.
> And I dare to say that you also, Richard,
> consider genocide as wrong, and that is not because you have read that
> in the Bible, or that you have been told so by some preacher. No, I
> think that's something much deeper in you, and in almost all of us.
What would you suppose is the source of our awareness of morality?
Sackbut
> You say that since God has
> created us, he has the right to do whatever he pleases with us, and
> that God defines morality;
> if God says that X is right and Y is wrong,
> then X IS right and Y IS wrong, by DEFINITION,
No. Not by definition. X would be right in fact, and Y wrong in fact, but
in neither case "by definition". This is important to distinguish. It
makes a difference.
> and God doesn't need to
> justify this in any way. If God would say that torture is right, then
> torture would be right. Period.
Well, no! God would be lying. But he doesn't lie. Which is why he has not
said that torture is right!
> This means that we human beings should deny ourselves the right to use
> reason to make moral judgements (except possibly in the trivial sense
> that we should make deductions from God's commandments).
See, your asserting a false choice between (a) believing that God's morality
is arbitrary and tantamount to fiat, vs. (b) assuming personal autonomy
w.r.t moral judgement.
The Christian position is neither one of these. The Christian position can
be described as faith that whatever it is that is perfectly loving, wise,
and just, is that which God in fact does.
> If God
> commands us to do something, we should just obey him, whatever we
> would think ourselves (we could use our free will and disobey him, but
> a righteous person wouldn't do that).
Right. I have no problem with that. For instance, God commands (in the
Bible) "love your neighbor", and so my understanding is that I'm supposed to
obey this. Etc...
> When Abraham was ready to
> sacrifice his son Isaac at God's order, he was considered as a very
> righteous man.
Yes.
Cheers,
- Mark
Sackbut
"Erland Gadde" <erl...@bredband.net> wrote in message
news:__gE9.24232$mL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> The point is not that God judges Sodom and
> Gomorrah. Of course, he must have right to make moral judgements. The
point
> is that he _kills_ the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, just because he
judges
> them evil. _That_ is what makes him evil!
Well, in that case, that's not the worst of it!
What Scripture teaches is that _every_ person is evil enough to deserve
death -- not just the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
And, as you may have noticed: everyone in fact *does* die :-/
So one way to look at it is that the only difference between the people in
Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the reprobate, is that the "fire and
brimstone" just started a few minutes before their physical deaths.
Compared to eternity, that's not even worth quibbling about, right?
Some people think the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about an erratic God
inflicting an extreme punishment (maybe he was having a bad day or
something).
I rather think it is about a merciful God who simply may not, in this case,
have extended some clemency that He more often _does_ extend.
Also... some people judge God in this story as if what we see in the story
is _all_ that there is... some buggery punished by a summary (and
incendiary)
execution. But it's possible that you and I have no idea of the true extent
of the sinfulness of those people, and you and I may have no idea how many
times or for how long God may have warned them.
I'm not saying you're wrong here, I'm just saying... think about it.
>
> In my article I say thay God must be considered as evil by "every
reasonable
> standard of ethics".
> Common ethical standards are i.e. utilitarianism, Kant's cathegorical
> imperative, and theories based upon "unalienable rights", such as the U.N.
> declaration of human rights, and what is commonly called "Christian
ethics"
> (which is often more based upon humanism than upon the Bible).
ok...
> Most people
> probably mix features from all these in their everyday's morality. The
point
> is that we reach the conclusion that God is evil whatever of these
standards
> we choose, and this is also in accordance with everyday's morality of most
> people.
MAYBE so (subject to some heavy caveats, which we can go into later...).
But even granting this... why assume that "everyday morality" is incumbent
upon the God who is supposed to be the designer, creator and sustainer of
the
universe and all it contains? The fact that your terminology must qualify
the term "morality" with "everyday" is attestive. The reason is that you
must admit of certain contingencies and limitations in this morality. You
certainly don't have to go so far as God to find agents who are exempt from
"everyday morality" ("EM", let's call it for short). For instance, EM does
not
allow me to incarcerate you under lock and key. However, law enforcement
and judicial authorities (and mental hospitals) can do this without moral
culpability,
so apparently they are exempt from "everyday morality", although they are
clearly under some kind of moral obligation.
Or for another example... EM does not allow you to force me to go and sit in
the corner. However, you may do this very thing (or whatever your preferred
punishment is) with your children when they're disobedient or whatever.
(Arguably, you have in fact a moral obligation to discipline them). So does
that mean that some aspects of EM do not hold between parents and children?
Or does EM contain its own provisions for that case? And if it does, than
why might it not also contain special provisions for other cases, like that
of a sovereign God? Where do you draw the lines here? You can't just say
"it's obvious", because it's obviously not obvious :-)
And even if you can make a reasonable attempt to delineate EM within a
single culture, if you look across all of the customs of different cultures,
you might have trouble getting a concensus on just precisely what EM
entails... in fact, I suspect that you might run into some real
disagreement. My guess is that where you find a group that feels really
oppressed and marginalized, this may represent a culture is morally aberrant
in some way (e.g., in a culture that doesn't recognize that slavery is evil,
I'm betting the slaves disagree). However, my guess is that you would find
some cultures where _everybody_ is in agreement with the cultural standards
for morality, yet those standards are at variance with EM as defined in some
other culture.
So I think your notion of EM is problematic in its own right, without even
subjecting it to the hazards of trying to apply it to God.
> This common
> morality can of course be questioned, but if a person, contrary to the
> common morality, claims that it is right to kill children for punishing
> their parents, the burden of proof lies upon him/her, not upon the society
> to prove the opposite.
Fair enough... but how does it follow, if God should appear to countervail
the "common morality", that God owes any "burden of proof" to "society"?
God is not a member of society. I'm not saying here that you are
necessarily wrong and that God is necessarily right... I'm just saying that
I'm at a loss to find any strength in your argument here.
> > Whatever evil you claim for the destruction
> > of the Canaanites, it isn't genocide. Same thing with Sodom and
Gomorrah.
> > There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that an entire race was
contained
> > in those to cities, and eliminated by their destruction. Yet you refer
to
> > it as genocide, because it presents an emotional appeal.
>
> I think you have a too narrow definition of "genocide". After all, the
> massacres in Bosnia were sometimes called genocide, despite that the
Serbs,
> Croats, and Bosnian Muslims all are Slavs speaking a common language, and
> noone had the intention of completely exterminating any of the groups.
Also,
> the Europaean Jews were not a race in the biological sense. Yet, everyone
> considers Holocaust as the primary example of a genocide.
I agree that the person you are responding to here probably does have a
narrower definition of "genocide" than you do. I'm going to presume that
his/her definition is similar enough to mine that I will call it "my
definition" (because that's easier to write :-) and because mine works just
as well in this argument). My definition is narrower, but not because it
has anything more to do with race, language, or extent of destruction. It
is narrower because it has to do with (a) the motives of those who carry out
the action, and (b) at whose initiative it the action is conducted. Which
is why we are going to end up chasing each others' tails in this debate :-)
> Furthermore: In
> Deuteronomy 7, God commands the Israelites to _destroy_ the seven
Canaanite
> nations completely. What is that if not genocide?
Well, according to my definition it is certainly not genocide, whatever else
it may be! (My point: declaring it to be "not genocide" does not depend on
being able to say what it rather is). But as it happens, I _can_ say what I
think it was... it was (a) God carrying out punishment on some cultures that
had exhausted his patience and proved themselves to be incorrigibly evil;
(b) using the Jews, for their own benefit, as the instrument for
administering this justice, and (c) concomitantly fulfilling his promise to
Abraham to bring Abraham's descendants into the land of Canaan.
Alternatively, the destruction of the Canaanites _was_ genocide under some
definition, but then in all likelyhood that would be a definition of
genocide under which I cannot admit "genocide" to be categorically evil. I
think the burden of proof would lie with you in that case, and I think that
you would be hard-pressed to come up with anything better than the "everyday
morality" argument (in fact I think this is just another instance of that
argument). But you can't have it both ways and equivocate on the meaning of
"genocide", and you can't establish disputed definitions by arguing from
examples.
The question of whether something like this is necessarily "genocide" is
analogous to the question of whether killing is necessarily murder.
For instance, when a soldier kills in battle, is that (morally, not legally)
murder? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on his attitude and motivations.
Murder is contempt (hatred or indifference) expressed by the taking of a
life. The soldier has the legal right to kill, but not the moral right to
murder.
When an executioner carries out the sentence, does he murder? He may, or he
may not, according to the same standard.
Remember also that in the Bible, God condemns actions that you and I both
would consider to be acts of genocide, including campaigns carried out by
Israel (see II Chronicles 28:9 and context).
> The point is, however, not to judge the actions of Joshua and the
> Israelites, but to judge _God_ and his commandments. While we possibly
could
> say about Joshua that he didn't know about any other kind of warfare, we
> cannot say this about God! An omnipotent, omniscient, and benovelent God
> must certainly understand that other standards of warfare can be applied,
> and therefore, there can be no excuse for him when he commands genocide.
This is a puzzling argument. In this case, the method of warfare was
dictated by its geopolitical objectives, which in turn are supposed to have
followed from God's own moral, judicial, providential and covenental
objectives. You are right that limited warfare would have sufficed, for
more limited objectives. But as it is, you're applying the standard
mistakenly. If we're going to judge God, then in _this_ case, we have to
judge at the level of his motives and objectives, not of his methods.
Clearly, this war fails the "just warfare" standard (for instance), which
would prohibit expansion through conquest. And of course, the "just war"
standard is supposed to apply to warfare prosecuted at human initiative and
for human objectives; never was it supposed that God is subject to those
rules. If exactly the same campaigns were carried out, but at human
initiative and for human reasons, it would be unjust war. But so what?
That's not supposed to have been the case in the first place.
I guess it boils down to this: I agree with you that God often acts in ways
that are "immoral" according to human standards of morality. So there's
little point in offering examples to demonstrate something that's already
agreed upon. What we disagree on is whether it makes any sense to hold God
to those standards. I do think the burden of proof lies with you, and
here's why: Christianity has a system of morality -- in which everything
derives from God -- which defines ethical obligation for all individuals,
groups, governments etc., and which also accounts for the morality of all of
God's actions... it's just that it does not necessarily allow us to
understand in detail precisely how any particular single action of God is
moral. But that is reasonable, because such an understanding may well
depend on knowledge that is not available to us (and it's not clear that God
owes it to us to share that knowledge with us, just so that we have all the
evidence to correctly judge Him... as if we would do so in any case). It
only gives us to understand that his actions *are* in fact moral. You may
complain that this is unacceptably vague and evasive, but then, unless you
can systematically elaborate an ethical doctrine that includes God from the
first and defines morality for all of his actions, then your position is in
no way better! You cannot simply define an ethical system for mankind and
then transfer it to God, because that is question-begging and entirely
unpersuasive to one who does not hold this assumption. You can't just
_assume_ that it applies to God, you have to actually show how and why it
does, and I think that means that this applicability will have to be "baked
in" to your system at every stage of its development.
You can think of the Christian system, on the other hand, as a situational
ethic with an underlying absolute moral imperative, but in which the
respective situations of God and mankind are completely different. By way
of analogy, for a surgeon to cut a person open may be an act of benevolence,
and even a moral necessity, even though for anyone else to do the same thing
would be an act of cruelty... and more importantly, even though the
surgeon's action would be totally incomprehensible to a person with no
knowledge whatsoever of surgery or medicine.
>
> This argument is obviuosly invalid. By your way of reasoning, Hitler did
> nothing wrong when he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews in the gas chambers,
> because he had the _authority_ to do so.
No... he did NOT have that authority in any relevant sense.
He had the _power_ to do so, and he arguably had at least a semblance of
legal authority to do so. But that is not the same argument. God's
authority is categorically different from any human authority, because it
rests on entirely different claims.
> ou may object that Nazi Germany
> was not a democracy (but remember that Hitler originally was
democratically
> elected!), but a theocratic dictatorship ruled by God is no democracy
> either.
No... it's much, much better :-)
> God has never been democratically elected.
Of course not, but the authority of God's rulership is never supposed by
anyone to have been based on the consent of the ruled.
Best Regards,
Mark Lundquist
Abu Mustafa
it in 1976 before the success of Islamic revolution in Iran. The book
title is "THE CONCEPT OF FORCE/POWER IN ISLAM". It is not only about
Jihad. It discusses the Islamic view on FORCE / POWER.
The writer is a fundametalist. The book was translated recently in
2002.
I need some polite Christian bishops or priests to read and reply. It
realy paint the killing of Muslims to others! Please guide me to
some Christian scholars who can reply by logic not by emotion. Write
their sites please.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:jUuL9.28493$_S2.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
I don't qualify as either a bishop or priest (and what is
wrong with a Protestant preacher or theologian--not all
denominations have bishops or priests), but one quick thought
came to my mind. The problem with the use of force/power by
Islam is exactly the same problem that Christianity had with
the Crusaders and various inquisitions and heresy hunts. When
nominal christendom tried those tactics what they accomplished
was to create a thousand years worth of fear, hatred, and
criticism for Christianity. Oh, they did one other thing:
Forced conversion/orthodoxy is one of the best methods known
for creating false professions of faith. It makes for
widespread hypocracy throughout the population.
I was recently in a Lilly Conference on Christianity and
Economics at Baylor University. The session I moderated
included an econometric study of church attendance in
countries with established churches and those with freedom of
religion (Gwin and North, 2002). They found that regular
church attendance decreased about 16-17.5% in countries with
established, state churches. While elimination of the
establishment and allowing voluntary exercise of religion
would add about 0.7% per decade to church attendance. While
the fundamentalist muslim countries likely enforce (I don't
know if they do--this is just speculation on my part)
attendance at the Mosques, outward conformity with inward
rebellion is not a good thing for any faith.
Gwin, Carl R., and Charles M. North, 2002, Religious freedom
and the unintended consequences of the establishment of
religion, presented at the Pruitt Memorial
Symposium/Lilly Conference at Baylor University, Waco,
Texas, Nov. 7-9.
Carl Gwin and Charles North are in the Economics Department at
Baylor University. You could probably contact them to get a
copy of the paper.
They also studied Islamic countries and found that they tended
to trade less with the rest of the world than either Christian
or Buddhist nations. This is a shame, since the Islamic
countries were once some of the greatest traders of the
Eurasian land mass.
In Christ,
Woodard R. Springstube, Ph.D.
BHZellner
> use _their_ constitutional rights to deprive the
> fundamentalists influence. Not succeeding to be
> elected, and not succeding to decide over school
The problem here is the implicit assumption that
elected officials will have decision power over
school curricula.
A very, very bad idea. Do you really think that
*government* should be telling all of us how,
and what, to think?
How about the idea that we erect a wall between
education and state, at least as high as the wall
between church and state?
Ben
Erland Gadde
> erl...@bredband.net (Erland Gadde) wrote in message news:<rrgH9.11755$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>
> > it is very dangerous, at least potentially.
>
> What is the nature of this danger? Would my arguments change God?
> Would my arguments change what God would do? If not, then the danger
> is in man, and what man would do.
Of course the danger is in man. People's perception of God and of what
he commands. Ans since God, according to the Bible, and the Koran, did
command mass murders and other horrible acts in the past, it is not a
so big leap to believe that God commands similar things today, just as
Osama bin Laden and his followers believe, and act according to.
[---]
> You cannot avoid that danger simply by denouncing
> fundamentalism.
True, but if we get rid of fundamentalism, peacefully, then there is
at least one important source of danger less.
> > You say that since God has
> > created us, he has the right to do whatever he pleases with us, and
> > that God defines morality; if God says that X is right and Y is wrong,
> > then X IS right and Y IS wrong, by DEFINITION, and God doesn't need to
> > justify this in any way.
>
> That is the nature of an objective standard.
I can do nothing but notice thar your opinion and mine cannot be
reconciled.
Also, even if you let God define your moral standards, why do you
choose to follow God and his commandments? Why don't you follow Satan
(or some other powerful being) and his standards instead? In some way
you must view God as better than Satan. By what standard do you make
that judgement? How do you justify this standard?
[---]
> You have decided to reject God as a moral standard. You have replaced
> God with another standard, a vague, ad hoc morality that is more
> concerned with evading responsibility than in answering for true
> morality.
No, you are the one who evades responsibility, by uncritically letting
God define your moral standards.
[---]
> > If God would say that torture is right, then
> > torture would be right. Period.
>
> It would; and, what would you use to dispute it?
If there really was such a god saying this, then I suppose I couldn't
do much but to shot up and suffer. Fortunately, there is no such god,
and the there is still hope for mankind.
> Likewise, if a godless society were to decide that torture is right,
> what would you use to dispute them?
The values of societies change over time. I could try to form an
opinion, and use other means, to change the view of torture in that
society.
Could we also influe God to change his mind?
[---]
> On what could you reason? What precepts would serve as your standards?
> Are ad hoc pronouncements your standard? Perhaps you believe the whims
> of society would be a better judge of right and wrong? Or, do you
> believe that some men are above the madness and shortsightedness that
> has afflicted human judgment since the beginning of time?
As I said, there are no simple answers to this question.
[---]
> > Imagine a science fiction scenario where I could create my own private
> > world with artificial intelligent life (in a real, physical sense).
> > These intelligent beings have emotions and senses, just as we have. I
> > would then, according to you, have the right to do whatever I want
> > with the inhabitants in that world.
>
> What you neglect is that you are still subject to laws that are above
> you. Your ethics are not absolute, and the world you created is part
> of our Universe. You have not completely escaped your past, simply
> because you created a new world.
But I am the owner of this universe, just as, according to you, God is
the owner of our universe. Why shouldn't I have the same right over my
universe as God has over his, then?
> > I could pain them, punish them,
> > and kill them, just for my own sadistic amusement, if I had such a
> > desire.
>
> How would one know that your desire is sadistic, unless there were
> some standard against which you could measure your actions?
Just look up "sadism" in a dictionary, It is definied without
reference to morality. The judgement of sadism as being wrong, though,
is of course a moral judgement.
[---]
> Do not think that by replacing God with your own reason that you have
> succeeded in establishing a more just system.
Oh yes, we have, if we talk about the biblical God. Although I am as
imperfect as any human being, I am not an such an egocentrical,
unfair, sadistic tyrant as He is, according to the Bible.
[---]
> God owns all. The parents are bound by the laws of God. If one is to
> judge the parents, it would have to be against a higher authority than
> the parents possess.
[---]
> This attitude, that man can trust his own reason and thoughts of what
> is right and wrong, is not only dangerous, but disastrous.
People of all sorts of religious and non-religious views have
undoubtedly committed the most horrible crimes, but there is no
evidence supporting that religious fundamentalism has made people
better in this sense. On the contrary!
> > It has caused a lot of suffering and death throghout history.
>
> Humanism, the placing of moral authority in man, has been a disaster
> every time it has happened.
Oh? When?
[---]
> Do not make the mistake of thinking that you rectify man's mistakes
> simply by removing God from the equation. Rather, you severe the one
> real hope mankind has. In the examples you cited, you indicate
> disapproval of the judgment of the followers. Do you believe that you
> eliminate disastrous misjudgment simply because you eliminate God? Are
> you and others like you immune from mistakes? Was Stalin a Christian?
No Stalin was not a Christian (although he was studying at a priest
seminar in his youth), and religious fundamentalism is in no way
responsible for all horrendous crimes a of mankind, but it is
responsible for a substantial part of these crimes. Getting rid of
fundamentalism, peacefully, is therefore necessary, but not
sufficient, if we want to build a better world.
[---]
> [snip]
>
> > A moral system which doesn't percieve genocide as wrong, is worthless.
>
> What makes you think so? Can you give me any non-arbitrary reason that
> genocide would be wrong?
It is obvious to me (and to you?). And what non-arbitrary reasons do
God have for his commandments?
> Is it always wrong to kill? Is genocide worse than the killing of one
> person?
In some exceptional cases, such as self-defence, killing might be
necessary. And one must say that it is worse to kill many people than
to kill only one person, although some would possibly dispute that.
[---]
> Ah, morality based on intuition--it just "feels" right to you, so it
> must be right.
>
> Intuition is unreliable.
Still, it is all we got. Our moral "axioms" cannot be based on
anything but intuition. And I prefer an unreliable standard, before a
standard which is reliable and disastrous.
[---]
> What would you suppose is the source of our awareness of morality?
It must be a combination of genetic inheritance and environmental
influence.
Merry Christmas!
Erland Gadde
Woodard R. Springstube
news:HqSL9.38811$4W1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>
> They also studied Islamic countries and found that they
> tended to trade less with the rest of the world than either
> Christian or Buddhist nations. This is a shame, since the
> Islamic countries were once some of the greatest traders of
> the Eurasian land mass.
>
> In Christ,
> Woodard R. Springstube, Ph.D.
>
>
Two bits of errata for the above: One: hypocricy is spelled
with an "i," not an "a". (Thought that I had better do the
correction myself before I got flamed!)
Two: I should have looked at the papers before I posted. The
trade data was from the following paper:
Mehanna, Rock-Antione, 2002, International trade, religion,
and political freedom: An empirical investigation, Pruitt
Memorial Symposium/Lilly Conference, Baylor University, Waco,
Texas, Nov. 7-9, 2002.
Sorry about that.
Woodard R. Springstube, Ph.D.
Erland Gadde
[---]
> No. Not by definition. X would be right in fact, and Y wrong in fact, but
> in neither case "by definition". This is important to distinguish. It
> makes a difference.
I notice that your opinion differs from Richard Alexander's here. Your
opinion is more reasonable than his, in my opinion.
[---]
> Well, no! God would be lying. But he doesn't lie. Which is why he has not
> said that torture is right!
But in the Old Testament, He ordered mass murder, among other things.
[---]
> The Christian position is neither one of these. The Christian position can
> be described as faith that whatever it is that is perfectly loving, wise,
> and just, is that which God in fact does.
Thus you and I agree that ethics and morality are not defined by God,
so that God's utterances do not automatically make things right or
wrong.
[---]
> Right. I have no problem with that. For instance, God commands (in the
> Bible) "love your neighbor", and so my understanding is that I'm supposed to
> obey this. Etc...
That's nice, but what do you do if he commands you to kill your
neighbour? And don't say that he can't command you that. He did
command mass murders in the OLd Testament.
Merry Christmas,
Erland
Richard Alexander
> po...@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote in message news:<hFcJ9.7171$_W1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> > erl...@bredband.net (Erland Gadde) wrote in message news:<rrgH9.11755$361....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
> >
> > > All your reasoning about these matters is completely unacceptable, and
> > > it is very dangerous, at least potentially.
> >
> > What is the nature of this danger? Would my arguments change God?
> > Would my arguments change what God would do? If not, then the danger
> > is in man, and what man would do.
>
> Of course the danger is in man. People's perception of God and of what
> he commands. Ans since God, according to the Bible, and the Koran, did
> command mass murders and other horrible acts in the past, it is not a
> so big leap to believe that God commands similar things today, just as
> Osama bin Laden and his followers believe, and act according to.
The biblical commands from God to engage in war or execution were not
simply standing orders given generically, but were direct commands for
specific occasions against specific people. The Bible only records
them as historical events, not as standing commands. I am not an
expert on the Koran, but my understanding is that the Koran contains
standing, general commands for Moslems to slaughter infidels.
The bigger point that you miss is that people are apt to make bad
decisions whether or not they are following their religious beliefs.
Contrary to what you indicate later, eliminating religion from the
equation does not reduce man's capacity at all to err.
> > You cannot avoid that danger simply by denouncing
> > fundamentalism.
>
> True, but if we get rid of fundamentalism, peacefully, then there is
> at least one important source of danger less.
You have yet to demonstrate that Christian fundamentalism is a source
of danger. I take the position that the true danger is man's natural
tendency to make bad decisions, and man's inherent violent, depraved
nature.
> > > You say that since God has
> > > created us, he has the right to do whatever he pleases with us, and
> > > that God defines morality; if God says that X is right and Y is wrong,
> > > then X IS right and Y IS wrong, by DEFINITION, and God doesn't need to
> > > justify this in any way.
> >
> > That is the nature of an objective standard.
>
> I can do nothing but notice thar your opinion and mine cannot be
> reconciled.
>
> Also, even if you let God define your moral standards, why do you
> choose to follow God and his commandments? Why don't you follow Satan
> (or some other powerful being) and his standards instead? In some way
> you must view God as better than Satan. By what standard do you make
> that judgement? How do you justify this standard?
The children of God are inclined to listen to God, and the children of
the devil are inclined to listen to the devil. There is in each of us
an inherent nature that has certain values and sympathies. Those who
are sympathetic to God will follow Him.
> > You have decided to reject God as a moral standard. You have replaced
> > God with another standard, a vague, ad hoc morality that is more
> > concerned with evading responsibility than in answering for true
> > morality.
>
> No, you are the one who evades responsibility, by uncritically letting
> God define your moral standards.
It is your claim that defining my moral standards is my
responsibility. However, what authority do you have to make that
pronouncement? What gives you the right to pronounce the definition of
moral and immoral, even for yourself?
I am not evading responsibility in this matter; rather you are
usurping responsibility in matters that are not your right.
[snip]
> > Likewise, if a godless society were to decide that torture is right,
> > what would you use to dispute them?
>
> The values of societies change over time. I could try to form an
> opinion, and use other means, to change the view of torture in that
> society.
OK, but what would be your basis for arguing against society's
decision? Why should you disagree with society? If man determines his
own morality, and society has determined that torture is moral, then
who are you to disagree?
When I was in the US Navy, I faced a situation in which the teachings
of my church ran contrary to my religious training. One of the
officers in my chain-of-command told me that society determines
morality. I posed to him the hypothetical question of whether it would
be moral to feed a group to lions purely for entertainment if society
decided that is moral. He replied that it would be moral, because
society defines morality. Of course, there actually was a time in
human history when a society fed various people to lions, purely for
entertainment. It was Christianity that denounced the practice, when
the world thought the entertainment was moral.
> Could we also influe God to change his mind?
Why should we? On what basis would we have grounds to make a
complaint?
> [---]
>
> > On what could you reason? What precepts would serve as your standards?
> > Are ad hoc pronouncements your standard? Perhaps you believe the whims
> > of society would be a better judge of right and wrong? Or, do you
> > believe that some men are above the madness and shortsightedness that
> > has afflicted human judgment since the beginning of time?
>
> As I said, there are no simple answers to this question.
>
> [---]
>
> > > Imagine a science fiction scenario where I could create my own private
> > > world with artificial intelligent life (in a real, physical sense).
> > > These intelligent beings have emotions and senses, just as we have. I
> > > would then, according to you, have the right to do whatever I want
> > > with the inhabitants in that world.
> >
> > What you neglect is that you are still subject to laws that are above
> > you. Your ethics are not absolute, and the world you created is part
> > of our Universe. You have not completely escaped your past, simply
> > because you created a new world.
>
> But I am the owner of this universe, just as, according to you, God is
> the owner of our universe. Why shouldn't I have the same right over my
> universe as God has over his, then?
We need to come to an agreement on the meaning of the words we use.
By definition, there is only one universe, for the word means, "one,
all things combined [into one]." We may distinguish one type of
universe from another, as in the physical universe from the spiritual
universe. The physical universe consists of all regions in which the
physical laws are applicable. The concept of parallel universes is
actually mis-named, for all the parallel regions are part of one
universe, and even one physical universe (as long as the same physical
laws apply).
God did not simply assemble a collection of parts to create the
physical universe. Rather, He actually created the parts and the
operating principles of the physical universe, creation out of nothing
(ex nihilo), and it is only by His support that those parts continue
to exist.
In contrast, the world you would make is really an assembly of parts
from out of the physical universe that belongs to God; so, God still
owns those parts, and they still operate according to His principles.
> > > I could pain them, punish them,
> > > and kill them, just for my own sadistic amusement, if I had such a
> > > desire.
> >
> > How would one know that your desire is sadistic, unless there were
> > some standard against which you could measure your actions?
>
> Just look up "sadism" in a dictionary, It is definied without
> reference to morality.
Where did you get this dictionary? I suspect you found it in *our*
universe, where the dictionary is applicable. You have applied a
definition from *our* universe to *your* world. If your world were
truly a separate universe of your own creation (and ownership), the
dictionary in our universe would not be applicable. However, if you
are using the principles of our universe in your world, we have strong
reason to believe that you are not the highest power in your world,
and so cannot assign moral values according to your own will.
[snip]
> > Do not think that by replacing God with your own reason that you have
> > succeeded in establishing a more just system.
>
> Oh yes, we have, if we talk about the biblical God. Although I am as
> imperfect as any human being, I am not an such an egocentrical,
> unfair, sadistic tyrant as He is, according to the Bible.
That is, of course, your own judgment of yourself. I would say that
you are biased.
> > God owns all. The parents are bound by the laws of God. If one is to
> > judge the parents, it would have to be against a higher authority than
> > the parents possess.
>
> [---]
>
> > This attitude, that man can trust his own reason and thoughts of what
> > is right and wrong, is not only dangerous, but disastrous.
>
> People of all sorts of religious and non-religious views have
> undoubtedly committed the most horrible crimes, but there is no
> evidence supporting that religious fundamentalism has made people
> better in this sense. On the contrary!
The United States was founded by such people, and, I argue, the world
is better for it. Thus, I present a direct contradiction to your
statement.
> > > It has caused a lot of suffering and death throghout history.
> >
> > Humanism, the placing of moral authority in man, has been a disaster
> > every time it has happened.
>
> Oh? When?
The free-love movement, which is destructive to society, is based on
man's own decision of morality. The spread of AIDS to the Western
world and in much of the African world is due to people engaging in
behavior that is contrary to religious morality (but people still feel
entitled to engage in such behavior). Several societies around the
world have seen an increase in crime as they have become more
secularized.
Then, there are the big examples, such as Stalin and Communism, the
killing fields of Cambodia, the barbarism of North Korea and the
anarchy of Albania (the first officially atheistic nation), not to
mention many more such examples.
> > Do not make the mistake of thinking that you rectify man's mistakes
> > simply by removing God from the equation. Rather, you severe the one
> > real hope mankind has. In the examples you cited, you indicate
> > disapproval of the judgment of the followers. Do you believe that you
> > eliminate disastrous misjudgment simply because you eliminate God? Are
> > you and others like you immune from mistakes? Was Stalin a Christian?
>
> No Stalin was not a Christian (although he was studying at a priest
> seminar in his youth),
Stalin was sent to a seminary, because that offered him the chance for
an education. However, Stalin did not base his own philosophy on the
religious education he recieved.
"My father never had any feeling for religion. In a
young man who had never for a moment believed in the
life of the spirit or in God, endless prayers and
enforced religious training could only produce
contrary results .... From his experiences at the
seminary he came to the conclusion that men were
intolerant, coarse, deceiving their flocks in order
to hold them in obedience; that they intrigued, lied
and as a rule possessed numerous faults and very few
virtues."
(Svetlana Alliluyeva, "Only One Year." New York: 1969.
Pp 313-314. Quoted in "Parallel Lives: Hitler and Stalin.
Alan Bullock. Copyright 1991.)
"A Marxist regime was 'godless' by definition, and
Stalin had mocked religious belief since his days
in the Tiflis seminary. ...
"...Hitler poured scorn on the earnest efforts of
those among his followers, like Himmler, who tried
to reestablish pagan mythology and rites or, like
Hess, who resorted to astrology and reading the
stars. In such matters he shared with Stalin the
same materialist outlook, based on the nineteenth-
century rationalists' certainty that the progress of
science would destroy all myths and had already
proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity. ...
"Stalin's assault on the Russian peasantry had been
as much an attack on their traditional religion as
on their individual holdings, and the defense of it
had played a major part in arousing peasant resistance,
especially among the women. Only when Stalin began to
cultivate Russian nationalism did he begin to moderate
his hostility to the Orthodox Church. ..."
(Bullock, Alan. "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives."
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Copyright 1991. Pp 385 - 386.)
> and religious fundamentalism is in no way
> responsible for all horrendous crimes a of mankind, but it is
> responsible for a substantial part of these crimes.
You originally condemned Christian fundamentalism, but now you justify
your condemnation by mixing all fundamentalists together, as if they
all behaved the same way. That sort of generalization naturally leads
to bigotry.
> Getting rid of
> fundamentalism, peacefully, is therefore necessary, but not
> sufficient, if we want to build a better world.
You would do better if you would examine specific failures.
> > > A moral system which doesn't percieve genocide as wrong, is worthless.
> >
> > What makes you think so? Can you give me any non-arbitrary reason that
> > genocide would be wrong?
>
> It is obvious to me (and to you?).
If there is one thing that science has taught us, it is that sometimes
the obvious is incorrect, and the non-obvious is correct.
You need a better reason than intuition.
> And what non-arbitrary reasons do God have for his commandments?
I am not God, so perhaps it is inappropriate for me to speak on His
behalf. His decisions are His own. I can say, though, that God is
absolute and supreme.
> > Is it always wrong to kill? Is genocide worse than the killing of one
> > person?
>
> In some exceptional cases, such as self-defence, killing might be
> necessary. And one must say that it is worse to kill many people than
> to kill only one person, although some would possibly dispute that.
Stalin did; "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions
is a statistic." But, why should killing ever be morally wrong? What
basis could you use for making your decision?
> > Ah, morality based on intuition--it just "feels" right to you, so it
> > must be right.
> >
> > Intuition is unreliable.
>
> Still, it is all we got.
No, it isn't. We also have God, and the laws of God. You reject God,
for whatever reason, so maybe intuition is all you have. I accept God,
so I still have Him for my moral basis.
> Our moral "axioms" cannot be based on anything but intuition.
Only if we are creating them, in which case there is no reason to
believe they are correct, or that there even exists such a thing as
correct morality.
> And I prefer an unreliable standard, before a standard which is reliable
> and disastrous.
I ask that you demonstrate that Christian fundamentalism is inherently
(as opposed to anecdotally) disastrous.
> > What would you suppose is the source of our awareness of morality?
>
> It must be a combination of genetic inheritance and environmental
> influence.
If that were so, then the study of genetic inheritance and
environmental influence would be the supreme judge of morality,
instead of intuition.
Daryl
>with an "i," not an "a". (Thought that I had better do the
>correction myself before I got flamed!)
And it ends in sy not cy :-)
Daryl
Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. Psalm 127:1
(remove nopax for e-mail)
BHZellner
... sometimes ...
> and the children of the devil are inclined to listen to
> the devil.
Yes, indeed! And often what the devil tells them is
to counterfeit the Children of God.
Ben
Sackbut
"Erland Gadde" <erl...@bredband.net> wrote in message
news:dtUI9.1074$QJ4...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> "Denver Fletcher" <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<aVTH9.45126$ic6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
> > So, you admit that you don't understand their crime, or the severity of
it,
> > and you aren't omniscient nor omnipotent (so you have no real basis for
> > criticism of God, who is) and yet you feel totally confident in
condemning
> > God.
>
> OK, then tell us for what kind of crime you think that this extreme
> punishment, (wiping out two entire cities and their inhabitants,
> including innocent children) could possibly be appropriate!
Erland, I think you've gotten ahold of the wrong end of this thing. Someone
who believes everything in the Bible must say that, appropos of Sodom and
Gomorrah, they come to mind as a perfect example of a crime that for which
this punishment must have been appropriate! I don't see how finding
*another* example is necessary to make this case.
On the contrary, since you are the one who claims that this punishment was
out of proportion to the crime, it you who should tell us for what kind of
crime you think this punishment would be appropriate, or else claim that no
possible crime could possibly deserve this punishment, and explain why you
think this is so.
But actually, I think that's not really so important... I just think you
lost track of the argument a little. There's more that is more important,
so moving on:
> And keep
> in mind that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, must have
> alternative ways to solve the problem.
OK, I think this illustrates the error that is at the core of your argument.
Let me outline what I think the argument is, and let's see at what point you
think I am misstating it:
1) An all-knowing/good/wise being would have at least as much knowledge and
moral enlightenment as I do. (Let's call such a hypothetical being Theos,
for discussion's sake).
2) Therefore, all of the beliefs I hold are contained within Theos' own body
of knowledge/belief.
3) Given my state of knowledge and moral enlightenment, I believe that
alternate solutions existed to deal with the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah.
4) From (1) and (3) it follows that Theos would have to also know that
alternate solutions existed.
5) Assuming Theos also to be omnipotent, he then has the power to carry out
such alternate solutions, i.e. they are viable and truly available to him.
6) The God of Genesis (call him Yahweh, for discussion's sake) did not
pursue the alternate solutions.
7) Therefore Yahweh, if he exists, is not Theos.
If this is your argument, I think you will have to agree that it fails at
(2). It does *not* follow that whatever a more limited being believes is
believed by a less limited (in particular, an unlimited) being!
I could get more technical here, but I think you can figure out the logic of
that on your own. What I'd rather do is ask you to give some thoughtful
consideration to the full meanings of terms like "omniscient", and their
ramifications...
God is supposed to be omniscient, i.e. all-knowing. "All knowledge" would
include *full* knowledge of everything:
(i) everywhere, at all places;
(ii) at all times, past, present, and future (what will in fact come to
pass);
(iii) at all scales, from the subatomic to the cosmic;
(iv) not just of states of affairs, but also of all causal relationships
(v) not just in the physical world, but full knowledge of the spiritual
world as well, which includes full knowledge of his own nature and purpose,
all knowledge about other spiritual beings...
(vi) ...and of course full knowledge of all people, including all of their
experience, thoughts, attitudes, and motives; including that which for us is
preconscious, unconscious, or forgotten, and that of which we are in denial;
(vii) and in all of these things, not just knowledge of the actual, but also
*subjunctive* knowledge, i.e. what would have obtained had conditions been
otherwise...
God's also supposed to be all-good (or as some say, "omnibenevolent"). If
so, then he is concerned for the ultimate highest good of *all* people...
that includes:
i) All people as they are affected in any way, directly or indirectly and
through any causal chain, by any given action or event. In instances of
wrongdoing, that includes not only victims, but also perpetrators and
onlookers, and others who are not effected by the event in any way that is
apparent to us;
ii) For the "timeline" of each human life, it includes not just that portion
that intersects with history, i.e. life on earth, but also eternity...
compared to which the earthly lifespan is like an eye-blink;
iii) In seeking the highest good of each, God is willing to "lose the battle
to win the war" by allowing suffering in the life of a person as part of a
process that in the end (in eternity, but perhaps also in temporal life)
will result in a better outcome for that person.
With regard to the extent both of God's supposed knowledge and his
goodness... we as limited beings must know and judge classes or categories
of situations, consequences, events etc. However, for an all-knowing and
all-good being, the classes/categories are completely irrelevant. They
serve for limited beings to generalize in the absence of full specific
knowledge, but an unlimited being is beyond generalization, because such a
being would have absolute objective knowledge about the reality and true
consequences of every specific situation (such as, for instance, the saving
of a life, or the death of a child). Such a being would have no opinions,
theories, or interpretations, only knowledge.
It seems to me that if an all-knowing/good being existed, we should not
expect concordance between our beliefs and those of such a being. Rather,
we should expect variance as the rule and concordance to be the exception!
I would think it would be apparent from the ramifications I've listed above,
that the gulf of knowledge and goodness between any given human person and
an *all*-knowing/good being would be unutterably vast.
It's worth spending some significant time thinking about this, IMHO.
Best Regards,
-- mark lundquist
Sackbut
"Erland Gadde" <erl...@bredband.net> wrote in message
news:vsvM9.52042$_S2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Sackbut" <no....@getalife.com> wrote in message
news:<lLyJ9.3379$QJ4....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>
>
> > The Christian position is neither one of these. The Christian position
can
> > be described as faith that whatever it is that is perfectly loving,
wise,
> > and just, is that which God in fact does.
>
> Thus you and I agree that ethics and morality are not defined by God,
Actually, it's very interesting that you should put it that way. I can
think of two distinct senses of the word "define" that are relevant here, a
sense in which morality is not "defined" by God, and and sense in which it
largely is.
The first sense of the verb "define" is the active sense, referring to the
establishing of definitions. For example, the term "circle" is "defined" by
mathemeticians, and/or by the writers of dictionaries, and/or by speakers of
a language -- all valid ways of looking at it with this sense of the term.
In any case, "circlehood" is thereby "defined" by whatever constituency you
prefer to regard as the "definers" of the term "circle".
As you say,
> so that God's utterances do not automatically make things right or
> wrong.
And you're correct that we agree on this. (But to re-emphasize... I would
however say that God is entirely truthful in all His utterances, including
of course those about moral right and wrong).
That's the first sense of the term "define". To continue with the "circle"
analogy, here is a statement that illustrates the second sense:
"A center and a radius define a circle".
Same word "define", completely different meaning. And here is the sense in
which I think a great deal of morality *is* "defined by God", e.g. has its
meaning in relation to God. It's an ontological sense of the term "define",
as distinct from the active sense (at least in my analogy of "terminology").
IMHO, a lot more of morality has its meaning in relation to God than would
be obvious to a person who has not spent some significant time reflecting on
the ethical ramifications of theism.
(Just so there's no confusion, I realize that the "defining" of moral values
is of a different category than the "defining" of *terms* such as
"circle"... the latter I'm using as an analogy to the former. My point is
that both senses of the term "define" have meaning in both categories...
which indeed is the motivation for my analogy).
>
> [---]
>
> > Right. I have no problem with that. For instance, God commands (in the
> > Bible) "love your neighbor", and so my understanding is that I'm
supposed to
> > obey this. Etc...
>
> That's nice, but what do you do if he commands you to kill your
> neighbour?
Well! :-) Hypothetically speaking, if I were able to be absolutely
convinced that God had commanded me to do that, then of course I would do
it. But I'm not sure that I can even imagine what kind of evidence would
persuade me that any experience I might have would represent such a command,
and I am quite skeptical indeed that such evidence could even exist...
A few things to consider:
In the Old Testament, when (as you point out) God commands killing, he
always gives a reason. God never just says "OK, you have to kill
so-and-so." There's always a reason. So let's say I'm hearing voices in my
head telling me to kill my neighbor, Jones: "Mark, this is GOD... Jones must
die!" :-) If that's all there is to it, and no reason is given, I really
doubt that it's God. While in general I'm against blindly assuming that if
God does things in a certain way in the past, he must always do things in
that same way, this would be something in which I would feel safe in
applying that test. No reason given = it's not God.
But there's more... in the OT, the reasons God gives are always consistent
with His character and purpose (his purpose for the victims, and also his
purpose for those who are carrying out the killing -- remember, an
omnipotent God does not need humans to do his "dirty work" for him). So
suppose the voice in my head says: "Mark, this is God. You know your
neighbor Jones... well, he slurps his coffee, and that is one thing that
*really* annoys me. I want him dead, you hear me, dead! Death to the
coffee-slurper!" I couldn't accept that that's God talking. The reason
doesn't sound like Him.
But even if there was a reason and the reason sounded good to me...
The way I understand things from the Bible, it's like this... in the days of
the patriarchs, God's way of communicating to his people was through special
revelation. So you had God actually appearing to Abraham and talking with
him. Once the nation of Israel was established, it was the prophets who
receieved special revelation, and that was God's communication with the
nation through them. God wasn't appearing to everybody individually and
talking to them. This was also a theocracy where God was the ruler (well,
up through the period of the Judges anyway... after that it, under the kings
it was something else... a compromised theocracy I guess). But I don't live
under the Old Covenant (nobody does now, according to scripture), and I
don't live in a theocracy, either. I live in the church age...
>From my understanding of scripture, special revelation is not normative for
this epoch. What I'm supposed to do is not to expect God to appear to me
and tell me what to do, but rather to know the Scriptures so that I know
God's moral will, which establishes the parameters for my decisions -- and
then, operating out of a prayerful and surrendered relationship with God, to
make the wisest decision I know how within those parameters. That's the
model, not special revelation! So if a voice said to me, "Go down right now
to the Gas'n'Sip and buy ten lottery tickets!", I'd really be skeptical that
this was the voice of God. How much more so if I hear a voice telling me to
go and kill Jones?
This is consistent with what Scripture says, which is to "test the spirits",
and to "test everything". It also says that "Satan himself masquerades as
an angel of light"... in other words, if I have some kind of subjective
spiritual experience, it doesn't matter how transcendent or convincing or
beautiful it seems -- if it contradicts the word of God, then it's not God!
So I'm supposed to judge every "spiritual experience" according to
scripture...
....and what scripture says is that, as a Christian, my model for living is
Jesus Christ. And Jesus wasn't about killing people. His whole purpose and
way of life was all about laying down his life, not taking anybody else's
life! That's to be my orientation and way as well... the way of humility.
So, based on Scripture, I really do not think that God *would* ever
_command_ me to kill my neighbor, and because of that belief, I doubt that I
could ever judge any kind of experience as an authentic command from God for
me to do something like this.
In light of all this, IMHO, this question of what I would hypothetically do
if God were hypothetically to command me to kill my neighbor, is really an
unimportant and unproductive side-trail to the question of God's
relationship to morality.
Merry Christmas!
-- mark lundquist
Richard Alexander
> > The children of God are inclined to listen to God,
>
> ... sometimes ...
I would like to expand on this a bit further. It could be asked of me
if the inclination to listen to God is intuition? I believe I need to
justify my statement, as I have claimed that intuition is unreliable.
I believe that people are inclined to follow God through a sort of
intuition. However, in contrast to the case of resolving one's
morality through the use of intuition, the child of God only uses
intuition to the point of recognizing God. After the child comes to
God, it is no longer intuition, but is rather faith in God and God's
Law, that directs the child of God's morality. Thus, the child does
not use intuition to determine his morality; he only uses intuition to
find his authority, and then the authority defines his morality.
Incidentally, my explanation is found in Scripture, though I have not
cited any Scripture to support my statements.
> > and the children of the devil are inclined to listen to
> > the devil.
>
> Yes, indeed! And often what the devil tells them is
> to counterfeit the Children of God.
There is a strong effect in the world to mislead even the child of
God, and it is certainly possible for even the holiest person to make
a mistake in judgement. However, a premise of my argument is that
these errors are failures of men to reach a standard to which they are
striving, rather than the failure of the standard itself.
Loren
> bhze...@aol.com (BHZellner) wrote in message news:<CIwN9.36331$3t6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
> > > The children of God are inclined to listen to God,
> >
> > ... sometimes ...
>
> I would like to expand on this a bit further. It could be asked of me
> if the inclination to listen to God is intuition? I believe I need to
> justify my statement, as I have claimed that intuition is unreliable.
>
> I believe that people are inclined to follow God through a sort of
> intuition. However, in contrast to the case of resolving one's
> morality through the use of intuition, the child of God only uses
> intuition to the point of recognizing God. After the child comes to
> God, it is no longer intuition, but is rather faith in God and God's
> Law, that directs the child of God's morality. Thus, the child does
> not use intuition to determine his morality; he only uses intuition to
> find his authority, and then the authority defines his morality.
You're very close here. I've gone to great length in the past to try
and post on this but truth be told, you need to read a book. May I
suggest VanTil's "Christian Theistic Ethics" ? I've seen used copies
on the net for $5. I think our moderator has read and is
knowledgeable of VanTil's "presuppositional" theological approach in
regards to the "regenerated consciousness." It is well worth your
effort both to obtain the book and your effort to read it (it is not
sunday suppliment reading). As I live life, it seems that VanTil's
presuppositions conform to the way we actually live life.
-L
----
[No, I haven't read Van Til himself, though I've seen summaries of his
views. From those summaries I would agree that his approach is similar
to mine. --clh]