Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP, 60: Illustrating an all too common atheistical attitude

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The below is taken from a typical Internet Atheist trollish rhetorical stunt, illustrating all too familiar patterns of fallacious reasoning that are here seen in an attempt to bully and stereotype Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. For first level responses see here [Jesus], here [worldviews], here [evil Christians].

This sort of polarising snide stunt is what we need to recognise as a real problem (and no, turnabout projection is not an acceptable response), acknowledging that it is unacceptable bigotry and intellectual irresponsibility, and then set such aside, there are fate of civilisation issues on the table:

Now, let us ponder:

Where we do not need to go. END

U/D, Oct 1, on the real political spectrum by way of the Overton Window and BATNA concept:

Comments
F/N: We seem to be struggling with the concept of God (omnipotece, omniscience, inherent goodness, supreme Lord and Judge, creator, necessary and maximally great being . . . ) -- for starters, Grudem's Systematic Theology https://archive.org/details/WayneGrudemSystematicTheology Next step, a few notes on roots of reality. 1- We live in a credibly actual, going concern, physical-spatial-temporal, thermodynamically constrained world, as creatures with enough responsible rational freedom to reason, argue, warrant and in part know. 2- it is not credible that such a world succeeding by years, is infinitely old in some physical form; as, this requires that for any remote past stage k', there was without limit k'-1, k'-2 etc as once present now stepwise succeeded stages to now. This implies transfinite traverse by successive finite stages which is infeasible, for cause. 3- nor is circular retrocausation feasible [the not yet reaches back and brings itself about], nor any other form of a world from utter non being. 4- That leaves, finitely remote, necessary world framework being as root cause. one, capable of being cause and sustainer of a world, one with morally governed creatures, us. 5- That requires inherently good and utterly wise, capable creator of necessary being character. 6- inherently good and utterly wise points to supremacy of being, maximal greatness. 7- A familiar figure, and, surprise -- NOT! -- utterly unlike the sour, caustic blood libel that has been painted. 8- Now, serious candidate necessary being [flying spaghetti monsters etc, being composite and contingent, need not apply] has a singular characteristic: impossible as a Euclidean plane square circle, or actual. As, framework for any world to be. (Try to think of a world without two-ness and all that brings, and you will begin to get the drift.) 9- So, in reality, objectors such as atheists need to provide good reason to infer not implausibility to them but impossibility. 10- Post Plantinga, dead, though there are attempted resurrection miracles. Failed. No prospects of reversal. 11- So, that God is, as inherently good, utterly wise creator God; a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of respect, loyalty and our reasonable service that accords with our evident nature is a serious position. 12- In that context, we can make sense of classic divine attributes, noting how these are echoed in the Hebraic-Christian scriptural tradition. 13- For instance, a facets principle obtains, showing deep coherence not just happenstance consistency: each facet reflects and is a microcosm of all, and in turn each contributes to the all. 14- Ethical theism is a serious position. KFkairosfocus
October 8, 2022
October
10
Oct
8
08
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
JVL, a FYI. I point to a classic text on the six foundational principles of Discipleship, echoed in the early church sermons in Ac [and, FG, integrating discipleship is pivotal]:
Heb 6: 1 . . . the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,1 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. [Cf, too, 9: 27 ". . . as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation" with Ac 17: 28 at Athens "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." [Cf 1 Cor 15:1 - 11] ]
We may observe how:
Ac 24: 24 "And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee . . ."
KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2022
October
10
Oct
7
07
2022
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
JVL at 129, I understand.relatd
October 7, 2022
October
10
Oct
7
07
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Relatd: Not what you were expecting? I was focusing entirely on the consequences of being separated from God. Of living apart from Him. My only, woefully inadequate, knowledge of the final judgement comes from a vague understanding of Revelations. So I asked what were the Biblical references since I suspected there was more to it than that.JVL
October 7, 2022
October
10
Oct
7
07
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
JVL at 127, Not what you were expecting? I was focusing entirely on the consequences of being separated from God. Of living apart from Him.relatd
October 7, 2022
October
10
Oct
7
07
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Relatd: Thanks! Nothing from Revelations which is what I was expecting.JVL
October 7, 2022
October
10
Oct
7
07
2022
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Just curious . . .
When somebody starts with "just curious" better don't read...whistler
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
FG, again, UD is not a Bible study site. I suggest the case in Ac 27 where we see Paul's intervention in a council of ship. Admittedly, that eventually led to the first Christian nation, Malta, I discussed this above. KFkairosfocus
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
KF: 'FG, not everything is about evangelism (especially as fairly narrowly defined by too many evangelicals). Here, there are issues of worldviews and cultural/ civilisational agendas, and it is time to do in effect as Paul did at Fair Havens, Ac 27: caution the community on a voyage of folly. KF" KF, I'm curious as to what you mean by evangelism being fairly narrowly defined. Obviously you feel this is your calling to do what you do, although I'm not sure how much a blog like this can be all that influential. But I hope it all goes well for you, although I'm going to retire from commenting any further on the blog (so no more annoying questions from me after the one above!).Fordgreen
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
2 Timothy 4:1 "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:" 1 Peter 4:5 "but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."relatd
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Relatd: Final judgment rests with God and all of us risk a severe outcome if we don’t repent. Just curious . . . what are the scriptural and other references/justifications for the final judgement?JVL
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
SG, you have given me no reason to believe you will be responsive; on grounds of track record. For record, I point to the empty chair debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP9CwDTRoOE in which Craig responded to Dawkins' ill mannered behaviour and want of substance. Peter Williams, at about the same time had some sobering remarks also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwE Both of these have actually been linked above, but of course, were side stepped, the better to double down on talking points. KF PS, the opening remarks, by philosophy professor Prof. Peter Millican of Oxford (an atheist), who began by showing his own 1980 copy of an early book by Craig, can be taken as a subtle correction to Dawkins' attitude in itself.kairosfocus
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
"If the intent is to reach them with the gospel" Fordgreen, some are going to reject it all the way to the grave, no matter what is said. There is criticism that can be placed on both sides, but I don't think the truth should be diminished, no matter what the goal. There's no magic spell, feelgoodism only goes so far, and the truth persists, anyway. Andrewasauber
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
FG, not everything is about evangelism (especially as fairly narrowly defined by too many evangelicals). Here, there are issues of worldviews and cultural/ civilisational agendas, and it is time to do in effect as Paul did at Fair Havens, Ac 27: caution the community on a voyage of folly. KFkairosfocus
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Fordgreen at 117, When you discipline a child, you show him the error of his ways. Yes, I'm sure atheists are offended, but what is the alternative? Jesus came to call all men to repentance. An atheist might say, "Repent what? Leave me alone, I'll live how I want." Jesus and His disciples saw that in His time on Earth. Final judgment rests with God and all of us risk a severe outcome if we don't repent.relatd
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
KF has made a case that atheists have an attitude problem and are irresponsible, among other faults. I'm sure most Christians would not dispute that. I think too most Christians would say that the only solution to this is for the Christian to find salvation in Christ, through a conversion experience - to be "born again" in other words. I think Christians would say that unless this occurs, then nothing is likely to change an atheist's attitude. I don't know if KF is also believes that and that perhaps his way of leading them to Christ is to point out their many faults, as he has been doing many times in this thread - with the hope that they will see the light. I'm not sure though that this is working as an effective strategy, because to be honest some of the posts come across as quite judgmental and severe. Or is the purpose of this thread really intended for believers to showcase the attitudes and faults of atheists? That's why I said earlier I'm not really sure of the point of all this, and I'm still not. I doubt if any atheist is likely to change their minds at all from is being discussed, if anything it's just making them dig in deeper. If the intent is to reach them with the gospel, it does not seem to me an effective way to go about it. If you want to win hearts and minds, I'm not sure that constantly showing somebody the error of their ways is a good way to achieve that.Fordgreen
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
SG at 109, Another one who judges God. I remind you that we will all stand before Him at the final judgment.relatd
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
SG at 114, A classic error. Adam and Eve were given one commandment. A creature appeared to Eve and instead of listening to God, she listened to the creature. Can you force anyone to love you? God will not force you to love Him.relatd
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
KF: you obviously have no serious candidate reality root capable of bearing the weight of ought, you parasite on what you would overthrow.
If a candidate reality root is needed then I have no problem in the postulate that it is God. But if the OT is an accurate depiction of God’s actions, then I have a very hard time reconciling the “all loving” characterization with the “kill everything with a flood” story. Or giving Adam and Eve free will and then punishing them and all future generations for exerting that free will.Sir Giles
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
You have to sit in God's lap to slap his face.kairosfocus
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
Funny they don't even realise that they are inside the trap because they are presenting their argumentation very proudly.whistler
October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT
F/N: For the non cynical, sobering viewing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCbh_1SlwEkairosfocus
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
SG, doubling down and studiously ignoring evidence on the table not to mention as linked. As you obviously have no serious candidate reality root capable of bearing the weight of ought, you parasite on what you would overthrow. More can be said but after dozens of comments it remains clear that you have allowed yourself to be poisoned by anti-semitic [God of OT = God of Israel], anti Christian and anticivilisational slanderous scapegoating and that you refuse to acknowledge the core as actually presented, now including case study no 1 that undermines the suggestion that the Hebraic-Christian tradition creates murderous oppressive nazis by following a destructive sky god. It is further evident that there is an underlying challenge that radical secularist regimes over the past century have murdered 100+ millions and in the past 50 or so years up to 1.4 billion unborn, too; so what we are seeing is in part distractive projection, hence the unresponsiveness and tone issues as noted from OP on. We have a civilisational foundational framework that has a track record of positive transformation and reformation, rooted in the only serious candidate for bearing the weight of ought, so good sense is to start there and handle difficulties as difficulties, not to try to burn down the civilisation by running riot rhetorically, academically, policy wise and too often on the ground as the record of jacobins shows all too well to the historically informed. (But, ever so conveniently, history is bunk, mere victory propaganda, the cynicism is manifest and we have Ac 27 as warning.) Those who have serious questions on difficulties and troubling texts including what it means for God to be judge of all flesh [not just in history but at end of days] implying our accountability up to and including over our souls and what it is to have to deal with hereditary war with a shame honour culture capable of extending ruthless war across a thousand years [as we have faced with radical Islamism since the 700s], have already been directed to resources that will be helpful, in the first paragraph of the OP. The real issue, then -- based on their unmistakably bitter* polarised tone and unresponsive doubling down -- is the agenda of polarisation pushed by the new atheists, which is what leads to the sort of assertions as a religious upbringing is child abuse etc. KF * Is it any surprise that hyperskepticism feeds cynicism, which means, bitterness, a common mark of poisons? And, poisons of superficial sweetness like the apple like but caustic manchineel are even worse. PS, just for record, I again point to Boteach's response to Hitchens:
. . . any Rabbi who was to praise a Jewish murderer would be fired from his post and banished from his community. The Torah is clear: 'Thou may not murder' (Exodus 20) and 'Thou shalt not take revenge' (Leviticus 19). Second, no Biblical story of massacre, which is a tale and not a law, could ever be used to override the most central prohibition of the Ten Commandments and Biblical morality. Murder is the single greatest offense against the Creator of all life and no Jew would ever use a Biblical narrative of war or slaughter as something that ought to be emulated. In our time Churchill and Roosevelt, both universally regarded as moral leaders and outstanding men, ordered the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants in the Second World War through the carpet- bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and Tokyo. Truman would take it further by ordering the atomic holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How did men who are today regarded as righteous statesmen order such atrocities? They were of the opinion that only total war could end Nazi tyranny and Japanese imperial aggression. They did it in the name of saving life. [--> WW2 was a nuke threshold war, behind the scenes, and such leaders could not disclose that hidden, deadly arms race to the public] Which is of course not to excuse their actions but rather to understand them in the context of the mitigating circumstances of the time. I do not know why Moses would have ordered any such slaughter even in the context of war. But I do know that the same Bible who relates the story also expressly forbids even the thought of such bloodshed ever being repeated.
Dr V J Torley's challenge by asking Dr Dawkins, who used these texts as an excuse not to debate his anti-Christian claims in his The God Delusion with Dr William Lane Craig is also relevant:
"would you be willing to debate the topic of God's existence with an Orthodox Jewish rabbi holding such a view [as Boteach's]? Would you be prepared to look a rabbi in the eye and tell him, "Your God is a genocidal monster"? Or do you also consider rabbis holding such views to be beyond the pale of civilized debate, and would you shun them as you have shunned Professor Craig? "
kairosfocus
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
KF: No entity as was suggested by Dawkins would be the source of the ethical system in the Bible. We see this easily from the ethical systems for want of a better word from the various pantheons.
All Dawkins has done is to draw conclusions from God’s actions as depicted in the Old Testament. Did he not kill almost everything on earth with a flood? Did he not decree that homosexuals and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night should be killed? Did he not instruct the Israelites to kill all men in a defeated city and to take their women? Did he not kill all of the first born of Egypt? Did he not instruct Abraham to kill his son to prove his loyalty? I could go on, but I think you get the point.Sir Giles
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
W, yes, we are manifestly seeing trollish irresponsibility. What they don't realise is that the laughter of a fool is as the crackling of [burning] thorns under a pot. The reckless display above is now a permanent record showing the attitude of the rabid, radical secularists of our day, their fundamental hostility and their irresponsibility. We know from actual cases they have scant regard for our civilisation, for moral foundations [and worldviews analysis implications], reflect attitudes pervaded by warped hostile thinking. Anticivilisational misanthropy does not bode well for people. I suspect, they did not realise they gave us a slice of their thinking, attitudes and rhetorical patterns that tells us about the unwisdom of allowing such to set the cultural, civilisational agenda. That does not mean they will not further succeed in pushing it, but it does highlight the point of Plato's parable of the ship of state and Ac 27 regarding voyages of civilisational folly and shipwreck. Regrettably, it seems some pretty stormy waters lie ahead for the USA and our wider world; one hopes we will relearn some lessons we were most unwise to forget. The laughter of a fool . . . KFkairosfocus
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus SG, further doubling down. You are clearly missing the essential character of God.
:) KF you know they are clowns ,right ? They are laughing at you.
With the pure You will show Yourself pure; And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.(Psalm 18:26)
whistler
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
F/N: Case study no 1 on the self admitted worst of sinners, Saul of Tarsus. That is, we here see by live example the actual effect of the ethical framework:
1 Tim 1:8 Now we know [without any doubt] that the Law[--> of Moses] is good, if one uses it lawfully and appropriately, 9 understanding the fact that law [--> notice the shift to the generic, endorsing legitimacy of just law in general] is not enacted for the righteous person [the one in right standing with God], but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for sexually immoral persons, [--> a very broad term, Strong's G4205 ?????? pornos (por'-nos) n.1. a (male) prostitute (for hire). 2. (by analogy) a sex addict, a debauchee, a pornographer. 3. (by extension) one who is sexually or morally unrestrained.] for homosexuals [cf. Rom 1:16 - 32 and 1 Cor 6:9 - 11 on this form of sexual immorality], for [a]kidnappers and slave traders, [--> so, this condemns the slave trade of recent centuries, which was based on kidnapping] for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, [--> notice, sound doctrine cannot be severed from sound ethics and sound conduct] 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, [--> integral to the gospel!] with which I have been entrusted. 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has granted me [the needed] strength and made me able for this, because He considered me faithful and trustworthy, putting me into service [for this ministry], 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer [of our Lord] and a persecutor [of His church] and a shameful and outrageous and violent aggressor [toward believers]. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted out of ignorance in unbelief. [--> In short, Paul here specifically notes on his repentance from trying to impose his prior theocratic agenda and doctrine by the sword and by judicial murder.] 14 The grace of our Lord [His amazing, unmerited favor and blessing] flowed out in superabundance [for me, together] with the faith and love which are [realized] in Christ Jesus. 15 [b]This is a faithful and trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance and approval, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost. [--> so, these acts of murderous violence are singled out as of the worst category of sin] 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost [of sinners], Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example or pattern for those who [c]would believe in Him for eternal life. [AMP]
In short, the very opposite of what you have endorsed. KFkairosfocus
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
SG, further doubling down. You are clearly missing the essential character of God. No entity as was suggested by Dawkins would be the source of the ethical system in the Bible. We see this easily from the ethical systems for want of a better word from the various pantheons. And of course, you are here assuming and endorsing the essential accuracy of Dawkins' assertions, which was the point. believing such slanders will warp your ability to evaluate. KFkairosfocus
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
KF: Dawkins presents an ethical caricature of God distorted to the point of slander, precisely by signally failing to recognise the core ethical framework of the Hebraic-Christian scriptural tradition and its importance for civilisation.
By this argument, we should forgive or overlook serial killers if they otherwise contribute significantly to society. Personally, I can’t see any way to justify the killing of all but a handful of people, many of them children and the unborn, as well as 99.99999999999999% of all breathing animals on earth.Sir Giles
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
F/N: I think it is now helpful to pose Copan's comment on the rhetoric of the new atheists, bearing in mind the lopsidedness they pose. Again, I clip [and augment] from the above linked notes:
The new atheists are certainly rhetorically effective [--> by way of using toxically loaded accusations against God, failing to recognise the core ethical framework in the Hebraic-Christian scriptural tradition], but I would contend that they have not handled the biblical texts with proper care [--> precisely], and they often draw conclusions that most Christians (save the theonomistic sorts) would repudiate [--> lurid, lopsided misrepresentation, i.e. a toxic strawman caricature game]. And this judgment is not the refined result of some post-Enlightenment moral vision, but the biblical writers themselves point us toward a moral ideal [--> i.e. the core texts on ethical principles and worked out cases in the trajectory of Biblical history], despite the presence of human sin and hard-heartedness [--> which shows the moral hazard of being human: finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed or even stubborn] . . . . OT historical narratives often present role models in action who make insightful moral judgments, show discernment, and exhibit integrity and passion for God-aside from the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Wisdom books, which also provide moral illumination. According to John Barton, the OT ethical model incorporates the imitatio Dei, natural law [--> first, self evident duties of reason, starting with: to truth, to right reason, to prudence (so, to warrant), to sound conscience, to neighbour, thus to fairness and justice etc cf, Lev 19:9 - 18 as key case], and obedience to God's declared will,[28] [--> love God, love neighbour as self, act to truth, uprightness, justice etc] and we see narrative undergirding and permeating each of these themes. Brevard Childs observes that the Torah's legal material is consistently intertwined with narrative, thus providing "a major commentary within scripture as to how these commands are seen to function."[29] [--> ignored in the course of erecting the lurid, loaded caricature] Unlike the new atheists, we should not approach the Law of Moses as a holiness code detached from its broader narrative and canonical context-as though this legislation offers an ultimate ethic with nothing further to consider.[30] And while Christians can rightly criticize negative moral exemplars and actions with the best of the new atheists, we should also recognize commendable characters and their virtues well -Abraham's selflessness and generosity toward Lot (Gen. 13) or Joseph's moral integrity and sexual purity as well as his astonishing clemency towards treacherous, scheming brothers (Gen. 39, 45, 50) . . . . As we read the OT narratives, we detect a clear Ethos (a moral environment or atmosphere), as Eckart Otto affirms, rather than an Ethik (mere moral prescriptions).[33] These stories and role models in the OT canon remind us that lawcodes and rule-following are inadequate. Rather, we see in them a spirit directing Israel to higher moral and spiritual ground . . . . While the new atheists are correct in pointing out moral flaws and horrendous actions of OT characters, they often imply that "if it's in the Bible, it must be approved by the author." Yet we see from 1 Corinthians 10 that many of Israel's stories involving stubbornness, treachery, and ingratitude are vivid negative role models-ones to be avoided. The OT's "is" does not amount to "ought" [--> and ought is laid out in significant detail that new atheists and fellow travellers typically omit even as they erect lurid, lopsided caricatures] . . . . The new atheists miss something significant here. [--> they are erecting strawman caricatures] They assume that the ANE categories embedded within the Mosaic Law are the Bible's moral pinnacle. They are, instead, a springboard anticipating further development-or, perhaps more accurately-pointing us back toward the loftier moral ideals of Genesis 1 and 2 and even 12. These ideals affirm the image of God in each person, lifelong monogamous marriage, and God's concern for the nations. The implications from these foundational texts are monumental . . . . Rather than attempt to morally justify all aspects of the Sinaitic legal code, we can affirm that God begins with an ancient people who have imbibed dehumanizing customs and social structures from their ANE context.[39] [--> the hardness of hearts amelioration towards reformation rooted in transformed hearts principle expounded in Matt 19:1 - 10] Yet this God desires to draw them in and show them a better way: if human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the "better way" must come gradually. [--> amelioration towards reformation] Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand.[40] [--> reformation rooted in analysis and foresight is already difficult; building a critical mass for amelioration, much less reformation, is far harder, and the entrenched powerful tend to push business as usual till things go over the cliff, cf. Ac 27] To completely overthrow these imbedded ANE attitudes, replacing them with some post-Enlightenment ideal, utopian ethic would simply be overwhelming and in many ways difficult to grasp. We can imagine a strong resistance to a complete societal overhaul . . . . According to Birch, we should acknowledge rather than ignore or downplay morally-objectionable practices and attitudes within Israel such as patriarchalism, slavery, ethnocentrism, and the like. He adds a crucial point, however: none of these practices and attitudes is "without contrary witness" elsewhere in the OT.[43] The new atheists gloss over any "contrary witness," focusing only on the morally problematic. However, closer examination reveals that Scripture itself (rather than twenty-first-century critics) has the resources to guide us regarding what is ideal and normative and what is temporary and sui generis in the Bible.[44] John Goldingay urges us to appreciate the tension between the ideal and the actual-between the high standards God desires from his covenant people and the reality of dealing with a sinful, stubborn people in a covenant-unfriendly ANE environment. [ "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics," Philosophia Christi, Vol. 10, No. 1 ( 2008), pp. 7 - 37. It is advisable to follow up specific details and concerns by making reference to the full PDF form, here. ]
This sort of corrective commentary is a useful first point to understand realities of principled reform and amelioration that are also relevant to, say, a sounder understanding of abolition of slavery and the rise of constitutional, stabilised democratic self government, mass education, universal sufferage and more. It also helps us to begin to correct the lurid, lopsided, blood libel caricature we have seen. KFkairosfocus
October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply