Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Let’s See If Graham2 Sticks To His Nihilist Guns

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The commenter who goes by “jerry” writes:

‘What does the term evil mean?’ If we are going to use it, then we should define it . . . I have asked this question several times over the years on this site and so far no one has been able to answer it . . . no one will offer up a definition.

I responded:

OK, why don’t you offer up a definition? Your choices now are: 1. Dodge the question (which is what I predict you will do); 2. Offer up a definition; 3. Say the word has no meaning.

Graham2 jumped in uninvited and responded:

I would pick 3.

Let’s test this. Consider the following truth claim: Torturing an infant for pleasure is evil.

Given Graham2’s statement, he must respond that the truth claim is false. He says the word “evil” has no meaning. He says that the statement is akin to saying “torturing infants for pleasure is mudnelsday, where “mudnelsday” is a made up word without any meaning.

BTW, for those who are curious, jerry fulfilled my prediction by offering a “definition” of evil that is absurd on its face. Under jerry’s definition, torturing infants for pleasure would not be considered evil. Thus, he essentially dodged the question.

I am thankful for both Graham2’s and jerry’s willingness to express their nihilism so candidly on these pages so that we can examine it. (Truly, I sometimes wonder if they are not fundamentalist Christians shilling for rhetorical effect.) We are back where we started. A self-evident proposition is one that can be denied only on pain of descent into absurdity. Both Graham2 and jerry appear more than willing to descend into such absurdity. They do not need an argument. Again, one cannot argue for self-evident propositions. Graham2 and jerry need simple correction, and I will correct them once again.

Graham2: The term “evil” does have meaning, which I am sure you would be the first to admit if you were kidnapped, robbed, raped, shot and left for dead. You would not say of your assailant that in your fallible subjective estimation you believe he might possibly have done evil if only that word had meaning. You would say he did evil, and the word you used to describe your assailant’s actions would have meaning, and the meaning would apply to the evil done to you, and you would be absolutely certain of your conclusion (and correct BTW).

Jerry, torturing infants for pleasure is evil. You are a fool (and a liar) if you say otherwise.

Of people like jerry and Graham2, I believe KF has had the best word.

Those who choose to cling to absurdity after correction, we can only expose, ring-fence and seek to protect ourselves from. And, we can look at the systems that lead people into such confusion and ring fence them too as utterly destructive.

Comments
CS: It's not an assumption, it's an inference. ;)Phinehas
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Phinehas: Judging one’s omnipotent Creator is sheer folly. Period.
You assume the text describes my omnipotent creator. That's sheer folly.CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Phinehas @148, I think you got it backward. It is not I who must make a good impression on this forum. It is this forum that must make a good impression on me. This forum has turned into a religious free for all but it's mostly a fundamentalist Christian forum. I was hoping for a more balanced, more scientific, less dogmatic and less preachy, pro-ID forum. This is not it. It's not all that bad, mind you, but UD needs fresh blood and more creative thinkers who are not afraid to rock the boat, so to speak. I do like the fact that it maintains a steady stream of interesting subjects and news stories. The huge, excessively wordy posts have to go, though. Most of them are boring, badly argued and most people don't have the time to read them. So yes, I'll be leaving soon but I just thought I would say what's on my mind. And I always tell it like I see it.Mapou
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
CS:
You can sugar coat it all you want, but it doesn’t sound like Yahweh is concerned with the welfare of the children and babies here.
Judging one's omnipotent Creator is sheer folly. Period.Phinehas
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Mapou: You keep threatening to leave but evidently cannot help but drop bombs on the way out the door. Your personal attack on KF is completely uncalled for and says more about you than about him. I don't know what has gotten into you other than that a few have politely dissented from your admittedly unorthodox views on a physical God. However, I don't think you will do yourself any favors by leaving everyone here with a sour taste in their mouth. What is it that you hope to accomplish with the kind of post you've written @145 above? If you are determined to leave, please at least leave behind memories of the Mapou who earned our respect instead of undermining all of your past contributions.Phinehas
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
StephenB: Perhaps you can answer my question @84.
Sorry, I didn't see it until now.
What is your position on abortion?
I think it is acceptable until brain-waves start. After that I am against it.CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
vjtorley: I would certainly ignore any voice that commanded me to kill an innocent human being.
Certainly glad to hear it. :)
Second, in answer to your question about why God didn’t command the Israelites to adopt the babies, I suspect one possible reason could be that He knew they were too hard-hearted to take care of them all properly. War in the ancient Near East was a bloody affair, mainly about land and spoils. Any children taken would have been taken for their economic value, and it is doubtful whether the Israelites would have complied with a request to feed and clothe orphaned children unless they could enslave them – which may have led to further cruelty and abuse. So it may have been that God, foreseeing the Israelites’ cruelty, ordered them to destroy the entire population.
Almost a good retort, but not quite. Yahweh allowed the Israelites to take the virgin girls and children from surrounding populations after they had done their business in Canaan. That seems to refute your explanation. Or had the Israelites had a change of heart after the Canaan affair?
Third, in answer to your question about where Scripture says that the children were killed painlessly, my answer is that it doesn’t. It does, however, say that God is just, merciful and loving, and that He doesn’t punish children for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18: 4-5). Consequently, if He did order the death of an innocent person, He must have done so in a manner consistent with His perfection, as an all-loving God.
Or it could be that Ezekiel was a true prophet, and that the Canaanite story was a gloss that was written around the time of Ezra, and that the Canaanite slaughter never happened. (Which is what I think.)
Fourth, your quotation of Psalm 137:9 proves nothing, as it does not contain a teaching or a command from God, but merely records the psalmist’s bloody wish for revenge on Babylon. Scripture does not say that God endorsed this wish. The psalm could reasonably be interpreted as a warning that Babylon would be repaid for its sins against Israel – which in no way implies that those innocent people who suffered in the process deserved to die.
Almost a good retort, except that the Psalm 137 a prediction that those who dash the Babylonian babies' heads against the rocks will be "happy" or esher. That is, in a blessed state. Check out how that word is used throughout the Old Testament. Now, take a look at Psalm 135 and 136. Was the (inerrant?) Psalmist in error when he praised Yahweh saying, "Praise Yahweh... he struck down the firstborn of Egypt"? Consider this: "This is what the Yahweh Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." You can sugar coat it all you want, but it doesn't sound like Yahweh is concerned with the welfare of the children and babies here.
Finally, a question for you: do you believe that God could never take the life of an innocent human being, under any circumstances whatsoever?
Correct. But my foundational views about God are (I'm sure) quite a bit different than yours. I could explain them, but you'd probably be quite bored. Anyway, the texts say what they say. And there is no indication in the stories themselves that Yahweh cared about the welfare of the babies. Your explanation that Israel would have abused the babies falls flat given that fact that they were allowed to keep virgin girls and babies from other settlements after they did their deed in Canaan. Thank you for the reply. P.S. while I have strong views on this subject, and vehemently disagree with you and others here about some of these matters, I do not think ill of you for it, nor cast aspersions on your character.CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @136: I realize now that you just love to talk. I am beginning to suspect that you suffer from some type of OCD. People have to wade through your interminable essays (or are they speeches?) only to find that you really wrote nothing of substance that anybody would want to write home about. It's no wonder this forum is populated by only a few commentators, i.e., the regulars and the fanatics on both sides of the issues. And your logic is consistently and blatantly flawed. You remind me of those birds that spread their wings in order to appear bigger than they really are but underneath it's all fluff. And all along I thought that UD was dedicated to common sense and logic.How did you get to such an esteemed position on this forum? Enquiring minds and all that. As an aside, the nonsense I see being regurgitated here is no better than the nonsense being regurgitated at the materialist forums. You are all birds of a feather.Mapou
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Hey Jerry, I appreciate how you are looking to view theodicy from a more eternal perspective. I also think that is the right track to take. I also tend to view theodicy (especially when faced with personal tragedy) in terms of what I am "meant-to-be." If a seed had the ability to reflect, I wonder what its perspective of the farmer would be. - The evil one who buried me alive - The ruthless one who pressed me down and heaped dirt on top of me - The cruel one who left me in the dark and walked away - The hateful one who returned only to drown me in water - The callous one who remained absent while I began to unravel and fall apart But is the farmer really evil? The problem, of course, is that the seed doesn't know what it is meant to be, let alone what it takes to help it become what it is meant to be. Surely, we are in no better position to judge our Creator. But I think this is very different than judging the nature of the actions of another human being, which I think was more in line with some of the points made by other posters.Phinehas
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Stephen B Some corrections:
You are simply an ID supporter who also believes in universal common descent,
I agree with Meyer. UCD is unproven. It could be true but the mechanism for new species is unknown. If some intelligence intervenes, does that make the new species a descendant. I sort of feel it is a non issue but it is absolutely essential for the materialist. The Cambrian Explosion really undermines it though. Remember one of Eliazbeth Liddle's last threads that she participated on. She was trying to make what Meyer was saying in his new book all about UCD when that was nonsense. It was a consequence of his analysis but far from the main thing. I thought she may be trying to undermine Meyer by doing so because she believed UCD was a proven fact.
On the subject of evil, however, I think you are missing the connection between our earthly behavior and our final destiny.
Not true. Never disagreed with that connection. Believe in it wholeheartedly. I want to put in perspective what happens on earth and what happens as a result of our actions here on earth. The only non trivial things that happen on earth are those that affect salvation. Most of the things that affect us certainly don't seem trivial when they happen though. My primary issue is not with human actions but with nature. My issue is can God be called evil or does He countenance or permit evil? I said several times, my interest is the theodicy argument.
On the one hand, I certainly agree with you that the ultimate evil is the loss of one’s soul. I don’t think there can be any doubt of that. Eternal suffering trumps temporal suffering every time.
If we don’t recognize these temptations for what they are and do battle with them, we become progressively more fit for hell and, failing any remedial action, will find ourselves one day in that state.
We are in agreement.
The longer one waits to embark on the road to salvation, the less likely it is to happen. Very seldom does anyone over the age of forty repent and come back to God. The momentum of their continued participation in evil habits makes it increasingly difficult to turn it around, and without the help of God, it cannot happen at all.
Don't agree with you here. I have seen many elderly people who live Christian lives based on Christian values but who never participate in any religious activity and many do not consider themselves a Christian anymore. Most of their actions are based on the training they had as children in their religion. The sad thing is that they think their children will not need the education and training they received. That is where it is breaking down. We are in the beginning of the great changeover. It may take a generation or two before it is all gone. Did you see VJ Torley's survey information on religion? You should read Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" That will scare you. But who knows what the future will bring. Maybe the seeds of a counter revolution is happening some place right now and we can not see it or know it. After all I think you will agree the evidence is on our side.
Now on to the theodicy issue.
If all the bad things that happen to people on earth that are caused by nature are essentially trivial compared to the lost of salvation, then can their occurrence be called evil? And can the person who allowed them to happen, namely the Judeo/Christian God, be called evil? If you are interested go to the following link and follow my conversation with keiths down the thread. It takes up several comments but is too long to repeat here. I am sure most will not get this far in this comment let alone read the other thread. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-a-photo-is-this-a-slur-is-this-an-argument/#comment-463638 I will gladly reply to any feed back. But you should see where I am coming from. And it all came to me while I was teaching advertising to college students.jerry
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Phinehas, Thank you.jerry
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer, Thank you for your comments. In response to your questions: first of all, like yourself, I would certainly ignore any voice that commanded me to kill an innocent human being. While I am prepared to entertain the possibility that God may have asked the people of Israel (a fledgling society) to wage wholesale war on powerful neighboring societies that were depraved from top to bottom and whose practices would inevitably have corrupted Israel had they been allowed to live, no such excuse exists today. Ancient Israel was clearly a one-off situation. Second, in answer to your question about why God didn't command the Israelites to adopt the babies, I suspect one possible reason could be that He knew they were too hard-hearted to take care of them all properly. War in the ancient Near East was a bloody affair, mainly about land and spoils. Any children taken would have been taken for their economic value, and it is doubtful whether the Israelites would have complied with a request to feed and clothe orphaned children unless they could enslave them - which may have led to further cruelty and abuse. So it may have been that God, foreseeing the Israelites' cruelty, ordered them to destroy the entire population. Third, in answer to your question about where Scripture says that the children were killed painlessly, my answer is that it doesn't. It does, however, say that God is just, merciful and loving, and that He doesn't punish children for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18: 4-5). Consequently, if He did order the death of an innocent person, He must have done so in a manner consistent with His perfection, as an all-loving God. Fourth, your quotation of Psalm 137:9 proves nothing, as it does not contain a teaching or a command from God, but merely records the psalmist's bloody wish for revenge on Babylon. Scripture does not say that God endorsed this wish. The psalm could reasonably be interpreted as a warning that Babylon would be repaid for its sins against Israel - which in no way implies that those innocent people who suffered in the process deserved to die. Fifth, I would ask you to consider Jesus' saying that a bad tree does not bring forth good fruit. Ancient Israel gave us the Judeo-Christian ethic, with its absolute prohibition of infanticide and its condemnation of abortion (a topic on which you have been curiously silent, in response to StephenB's questions). I don't know for sure what happened in ancient Israel, but I know they must have done something right. Finally, a question for you: do you believe that God could never take the life of an innocent human being, under any circumstances whatsoever?vjtorley
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Jerry, I am well aware of the fact that you are a Christian and that you take the objective moral code seriously. Clearly, you are not a materialist or anything close to it. You are simply an ID supporter who also believes in universal common descent, which places you in a lot of good company. These facts ought to be on the record. On the subject of evil, however, I think you are missing the connection between our earthly behavior and our final destiny. On the one hand, I certainly agree with you that the ultimate evil is the loss of one’s soul. I don’t think there can be any doubt of that. Eternal suffering trumps temporal suffering every time. On the other hand, an evil end is always the product of an evil life. The two cannot be separated. Sew a thought, reap an act; Sew an act, reap a habit; Sew a habit, reap a character; Sew a character, reap a destiny. No one wakes up in hell one day and asks, “How did that happen?” Every day we are tempted by evil influences, evil inclinations, and evil motives. If we don’t recognize these temptations for what they are and do battle with them, we become progressively more fit for hell and, failing any remedial action, will find ourselves one day in that state. There are no spiritual planes. We are either becoming a better person or a worse person with each moral act. Vice is easy; virtue is hard. It requires strenuous moral exertion to resist destructive influences, overcome bad habits, challenge selfish motives, and refrain from malicious actions. The longer one waits to embark on the road to salvation, the less likely it is to happen. Very seldom does anyone over the age of forty repent and come back to God. The momentum of their continued participation in evil habits makes it increasingly difficult to turn it around, and without the help of God, it cannot happen at all. It is a great mistake to think that all those evil acts, which can rob the receiver of his earthy happiness and the doer of his salvation, are not, themselves, evil.StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
CentralScrutiner, Perhaps you can answer my question @84.StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
BTW, I think that it was a mistake to target jerry as the OP has done. I've seen nothing that would indicate jerry believes in nihilism and feel his perspective has been grossly misrepresented. I hope this mistake will be corrected.Phinehas
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Perhaps you can answer the simple questions I asked vjtorley.CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
CS: Pardon, I ask for patience. Do you yet understand why I have raised the specific context of hearts that have "lurched"? (And why in that context I have asked that you read the unfortunately necessarily extended response to a wide cluster of deeply entangled issues?) That reference to hearts lurching is an historical allusion to one of the most tragic of French figures, then General Petain, at the battle that made his reputation, Verdun, 1916. The defense and heavy artillery advocate forced to throw away a division every few days by more or less marching boys of 18 to the slaughter in order to save what he could in a vital battle France could not afford to lose at any cost. Standing by the roadside of the Sacred Way, and watching those boys march to the slaughter and a few days later, the shattered remnants limping back with ashened faces. War -- especially total, existential war with the survival of a people or civilisation on the line -- is an awful evil, one imposed by our own wickedness and it is an evil that leads to many other evils. Including, that -- given the moral hazard of being human, thus finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed, there will always be war crimes and atrocities including on the "good" side -- And Mapou, it illustrates aptly how evil is not a thing in itself, but the perversion or privation of something else that leads to chaos, deception, destruction and ruin, namely a perversion or privation of the good. For, success in war requires courage, discipline, self-sacrifice, commitment to stay the course, and more. And among the horrors involved, is that war entangles us in a matrix of other evils, forcing us to choose the least of evils. Which is still an evil. In turn, that invites cheap propagandists to play dirty rhetorical games as though the real-world limited choices among evils did not exist. As in, a couple of ancient Roman insights aptly summed up by of all people, Macciavelli: (i) there is no avoiding war in dealing with determined aggressors, it can only be postponed to the advantage of enemies; and (ii) political disorders are like Hectic Fever, at the first hard to diagnose but "easily" cured, but at length when -- for want of prompt diagnosis and proper treatment -- the course of the disease is obvious to all, it is far too late to cure. As a consequence, any movement, any nation, any civilisation with a significant history is going to be tainted with war and what comes with war. And, any civilisation or movement of significance carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. My first concern, therefore, as a lifelong student of history, is: the fundamental unseriousness, flippancy and divisive, polarising and ultimately suicidally foolish gotcha rhetoric sophomoric superficiality that characterises far too much discussion of deeply, broadly entangled issues such as this one. (And -- by way of an example -- I watched this play out across the past decade and a half, with the global geopolitical struggle with resurgent IslamISM, a struggle now at the verge of going nuclear. Our grandchildren are probably going to curse our memory for the price that is likely to have to be paid for our Civilisation's fecklessness in the face of rising mortal peril at the hands of those raised in a culture of hereditary, total and implacable war. [Have you considered the implications of the culmination of the 1,000 year hereditary struggle that is described in Haman's attempt at REAL genocide, and the counter-move taken by Queen Esther after risking her life? Or of why the Romans found themselves in a lingering death-struggle with Hamilcar's sons, noting that Carthage was a colony from the same Phoenician-Canaanite culture we are dealing with?]) In that light, I ask you to scroll up and read Rabbi Boteach's response to Christopher Hitchens at 128, and ponder the context. At risk of being cruelly caricatured, I will comment: 1 --> A flippant, superficial gotcha rhetorical approach to a difficult and deeply entangled issue is the surest sign that the matter has not been thought through in light of comparative difficulties of live option alternatives. Where the best definition of philosophy is that it is the study of just such hard and fundamental questions. (And there are abundant signs of such superficiality at work.) 2 --> The terms too often cast into this situation by the likes of Dawkins et al, genocide and support of genocide, are utterly inappropriate. Hence, the significance of Boteach's reply to Hitchens, and of Torley's challenge to the likes of Dawkins. If you cannot freely say the same in the same tone to a Rabbi whose family perished in Auschwitz, why are you [speaking generally] casting this sort of talking point and tone in the teeth of despised "fundy" Christians? 3 --> The new atheists and their fellow travellers are exploiting emotional perceptions and out of context angry at God misreadings of texts, in a context where they have not seriously faced the question of the grounding of morality in light of the only place where the IS-OUGHT gap can be bridged, the foundations of our world, and thus also of our worldviews. 4 --> That is, we find ourselves inescapably under moral governance, and indeed promoters of amorality are here inadvertently showing the inevitable absurdity of their views by appealing to our moral sensibilities to try to undermine confidence in the only serious candidate for an IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT: the inherently good creator God. (And, moving from the God of philosophy to that of the Judaeo-Christian scriptural tradition, the pivotal case for his reality and nature is the prophesied, fulfilled, witnessed life, service, redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Until that context is taken soberly and seriously, with all due respect, this sort of exchange is little more than a toxic distraction: red herrings, led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight with incendiary rhetoric to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere we must all operate in. I therefore suggest a look at the 101 here on. But, some things are serious enough to require a responsible answer and maybe even an introduction for those who need some motivation to take the time to look at the more complex reflection.) 5 --> That is also why a first, sobering question is: you [speaking generally] here seem to imply that OUGHT is real and binding (if you are not just cynically manipulating moral sensibilities), so, kindly explain to us how you ground OUGHT in a worldview foundational IS. 6 --> The predictable answer from the unserious is silence on the point, multiplied by diversionary, turnabout tactics. But, until there is a serious answer, there is no right to appeal to ought. 7 --> In that context, the issues over OT atrocities and similar difficulties, real or apparent, is a reasonable concern for those who have seen the quality of the core moral framework taught in the same scriptures. It is a struggle, like the one over why the same law that teaches thou shalt not kill, sanctions murder with the death penalty and speaks of cleansing the land by that means. (Yet another entanglement.) 8 --> One of my personal conclusions, is that that painful tension with no easy resolution is intentional. It is there to force us to face and stretch our minds and hearts in ways that prepare us to face hard, hard things with the right attitude. Until our hearts have lurched, deeply wounded, we are not equipped to make the leadership level decisions necessary in a world of the lesser of evils -- if we are lucky. We may face the prospect of an end in horror or of horrors without foreseeable end, if we are not so lucky. (Many years ago, I was warned by my father -- a practising policy level Economist -- not to go into that field, because of the horrific choices that would be forced on me. He cast it in terms of, do 400 die this year, or 800 over the next few years? Think about eating at the table of one forced to make decisions like that, knowing what the real cost of that table was.) 9 --> So, where do I come out, where should you? ANS: With no easy answer, just some reasonable inferences. As was laid out in the linked. Where, no summary can properly stand on its own. (And will be pounced on by those whose interest is to play unserious and absurd games.) 10 --> Before I forget, the wider context of moral struggle and growth of a culture is also a factor. Reflect on why the God who says, "I hate divorce," "for the hardness of men's hearts," provides ameliorative regulations instead of the simplistic outright ban. 11 --> It does seem however that in context some of the ferocious language was in a high-context culture (the simplistic literal meaning is not the full or real story), and served as war rhetoric and a notice to ordinary people get out of the way and/or switch loyalties [don't forget the Gibeonites and Rahab], isolating the hard core leadership and henchmen who carried forth a destructive culture and proved capable of carrying on a battle to the death for a THOUSAND years. 12 --> Displacement and replacement of an irretrievably corrupted power-culture that had become a destructive contagion and plague on the earth . . . much as our own civilisation is now fast decaying into as it willfully forgets God. Multiplied, by the equivalent of the dilemma facing a Churchill or a Roosevelt in addressing a bombing campaign under the circumstances. And, the challenge faced by a Petain, sending men to die that a vital nation may live. 13 --> Again, in the wider context so aptly illustrated in a crucial parallel in the Exodus narrative: Egypt, having refused to heed the consequences of national wrong and the corrections of the prophets sent to it, faced ten successive destructive judgements and failed. Israel, having escaped, faced ten successive tests and judgements, and failed. With one proviso, in pursuit of a long term project of redemption, transformation and blessing for the world, judgement was tempered and a remnant went forward to the next phase in the plan. Indeed, a foreshadowing of similar judgement against Israel hundreds of years later that ended in exile and then onwards restoration. 14 --> Yet again, in the wider context of the warning to a mortal enemy, destruction in forty days. Heeded, and leading to relenting. And then, we see the prophet's complaint as to why he tried to shirk his call, and the Divine reply:
Jonah 4: 1 But it [the relenting of God from destructive judgement, in the face of penitence] displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2 And he prayed to the LORD and said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. 3 Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.” 4 And the LORD said, “Do you do well to be angry?” . . . . [After a shade vine was made to grow and wither] 8 When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint. And he asked that he might die and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.” 9 But God said to Jonah, “Do you do well to be angry for the plant?” And he said, “Yes, I do well to be angry, angry enough to die.” 10 And the LORD said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
15 --> Are we more like Jonah, or more like God? Until we reach the latter state, our hearts have not lurched enough. KFkairosfocus
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Central Scrutinizer, my question for you @84 persists.StephenB
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
WJM:
A god that provides morality by decree, or by authority, is as guilty of might-makes-right as any human. The only way to avoid “might makes right” is if “what is good” refers to an innate characteristic of god that god itself cannot change, which would then show up in the fabric of whatever god creates.
I think I agree. For me, this is the most reasonable response to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Good is not about what God commands, nor is there a transcendent standard of good to which God is beholden. Rather, God and good are inseparable concepts. You cannot speak of one without automatically implying the other.
Also, IMO, the consequences of immoral behavior would be as sewn into the fabric of reality as gravity, entropy or time. There is no need for god to “punish” anyone for immoral behavior because the consequences are innately inescapable and something even god cannot change.
When I hear Christ talking about not coming to condemn the world because the world was condemned already, this is very much the idea I hear in His words. However, the finishing thought in those same words is very much about what God can change and His plan for how we can escape (or, at least, move beyond) the inescapable consequences. By faith, we can be identified with Christ in his suffering and death so that we endure, in Him, those inescapable consequences. And by faith, we can be identified with Christ in His victory over the death that is an inescapable part of the inescapable consequences. And having been freed from death, by faith, we can be identified with Christ to live out the inescapable consequences of His perfect and spotless life.Phinehas
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Evil is the absence of God, like darkness is the absence of light.Phinehas
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
"If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn There are some more thought-provoking quotes from him here: http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2944012-1918-1956Querius
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @129, I don't think you can provide a satisfactory answer. You know why? It's because you don't even have a correct definition of evil. Here is the definition you gave earlier, quoting someone else:
evil is that which is a privation, abuse or perversion of the good out of proper purpose, which therefore ends in harm, damage, chaos, confusion, deception, ruin, destruction and in the end shame.
It's a flagrantly self-referential (and thus useless) definition because it is defining one concept (evil) in terms of its opposite (good).Mapou
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, You asked me some questions and I forthrightly answered them. I'm disappointed that you don't answer mine.CentralScrutinizer
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Mapou, sadly, you failed the test. Why didn't you have the courtesy to take time to read where I took time to address these issues at responsible length, and in light of many linked issues, before resorting to simplistic chest-thumping stereotyping and namecalling? I ask you to pause and take time to actually read and respond to what I say rather than a strawman of your imagination. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
CS: I am not trying to get into a debate because of some of the toxic undercurrents that are at work and which will poison a discussion unless they are faced and addressed. Let me highlight just one: veiled, perhaps unrecognised antisemitism. Yes, antisemitism. As in, there are some serious things out there being said at Christians based on anti-Christian bias or even bigotry multiplied by rage at God, that would have been a LOT more restrained if the objectors were to pause and take serious note that these are specifically Hebraic -- Jewish -- scriptures. If you are not prepared to look a Rabbi who lost close relatives to the Holocaust in the eye and indict him with believing in:
the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal,. . . pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully
. . . then, perhaps those who celebrate such, ought to take serious pause before taxing Christians with such. (And that people are acting like this and worse -- there is a wretched Atheist Anthem that was recently sung from the same stage that the author of the above, Dawkins, spoke from -- should give us very sobering pause indeed.) Let me expand, by citing a real-world case "starring" another of the leading "New Atheists" and a rabbi. Yes, this is real, and it is a part of my concerns expressed in the discussion I am still inviting you to take time to read. Let me clip:
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach speaks, soberingly, from a heart that has lurched like that [kindly cf. the context]. He wrote in reply to the recent accusation of New Atheism spokesman, the late Christopher Hitchens, that "Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs" in order to convert the West Bank zone of Judaea and Samaria into a radical Jewish theocracy, as follows:
. . . 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. 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.
(In short the antisemitism concern raised above is not just theoretical, for here we see a case of outright blood libel from one of the top several New Atheist spokesmen that takes advantage of high feelings on the admittedly thorny Arab-Israeli conflict, to slip in the poisoned rhetorical knife. So, it was entirely in order for Dr Torley to conclude 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: "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? ")
When we can answer to this and detoxify the situation, then a serious discussion can be taken seriously. (And yes, in part the requested reading and onward linked resources and video are a basis for such discussion. For instance, has your heart "lurched"? Why or why not. And, what historical circumstance am I pointing to in saying this, why?) KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer:
kairosfocus, I see you didn’t bother to answer any of my questions.
You got him. Obviously, neither kairosfocus nor any of the fundies can answer those questions in a satisfactory manner.Mapou
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, I see you didn't bother to answer any of my questions.CentralScrutinizer
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
You just illustrated the fallacy of the closed mind in action. You seem to be so sure you know everything material on the matter that you need not hear what someone else has to say, just smear and dismiss.
nope. It's not a fallacy to recognize when someone is attempting to divert the subject with irrelevant 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions. As you state, abortion is not genocide, from which you and I should be able to conclude that bringing questions of abortion into a discussion on genocide are nothing but a purposeful distraction. It really is that simple. try to do better.franklin
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
CS: I think you too may find reading this (and onward links) helpful. This is indeed a difficult matter with connexions that run as far as the mortality of humanity in general, and cannot be settled in a blog thread with a few simplistic talking points pro or con. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Franklin: You just illustrated the fallacy of the closed mind in action. You seem to be so sure you know everything material on the matter that you need not hear what someone else has to say, just smear and dismiss. Just where the spinmeisters want you to be: too angry and disdainful to actually think about what you may have missed. And BTW, what is happening with abortion in our civilisation is not genocide -- which is specifically racially motivated, but something else; destruction of it looks like coming on half a generation in the womb so far, mostly on excuses of convenience, with the onward effect of degradation of the value of life through the blinding effect of mass blood-guilt. Start from that. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply