Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Liar, liar, pants on fire”? Ten Tough Questions for Professor Dawkins.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For several years now, Professor Richard Dawkins, the renowned evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, has refused to debate the topic of God’s existence with the philosopher and Christian apologist, Professor William Lane Craig. That is Professor Dawkins’ privilege; he is under no obligation to debate with anyone. Until recently, Dawkins’ favorite reason for refusing to face off against Professor William Lane Craig was that Craig was nothing more than a professional debater. But now, in an article in The Guardian (20 October 2011) entitled, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins leads off by firing this salvo: “This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.”

In the same article, Professor Dawkins savagely castigates William Lane Craig for his willingness to justify “genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament”. According to Dawkins, “Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament” – unlike Craig, who argues that “the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered.” Dawkins then quotes William Lane Craig as justifying the slaughter on the grounds that: (i) if these children had been allowed to live, they would have turned the Israelites towards serving the evil Canaanite gods; and (ii) the children who were slaughtered would have gone to Heaven instantly when they died, so God did them no wrong in taking their lives. Dawkins triumphantly concludes:

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

Professor Dawkins, allow me to briefly introduce myself. My name is Vincent Torley (my Web page is here), and I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I’m an Intelligent Design proponent who also believes that modern life-forms are descended from a common ancestor that lived around four billion years ago. I’m an occasional contributor to the Intelligent Design Website, Uncommon Descent. Apart from that, I’m nobody of any consequence.

Professor Dawkins, I have ten charges to make against you, and they relate to apparent cases of lying, hypocrisy and moral inconsistency on your part. Brace yourself. I’ve listed the charges for the benefits of people reading this post.

My Ten Charges against Professor Richard Dawkins

1. Professor Dawkins has apparently lied to his own readers at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. In a recent post (dated 1 May 2011) he stated that he “didn’t know quite how evil [William Lane Craig’s] theology is” until atheist blogger Greta Christina alerted him to Craig’s views in an article she wrote on 25 April 2011, when in fact, Dawkins had already read Professor Craig’s “staggeringly awful” essay on the slaughter of the Canaanites and blogged about it in his personal forum (http://forum.richarddawkins.net), three years earlier, on 21 April 2008. In other words, Professor Dawkins’ alleged shock at recently discovering Craig’s “evil” views turns out to have been feigned: he knew about these views some years ago.

2. Professor Dawkins has recently maligned Professor William Lane Craig as a “fundamentalist nutbag” who isn’t even a real philosopher and whose only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater, but his own statements about Craig back in 2008 completely contradict these assertions. Moreover, Dawkins’ characterization of Craig as a “fundamentalist nutbag” is particularly unjust, given that Professor Craig has admitted that he’s quite willing to change his mind on the slaughter of the Canaanites, if proven wrong. Although Professor Craig upholds Biblical inerrancy, he does so provisionally: he says it’s possible that the Bible might be sometimes wrong on moral matters, and furthermore, he acknowledges that the Canaanite conquest might not have even happened, as an historical event. That certainly doesn’t sound like the writings of a “nutbag” to me.

3. Professor Dawkins says that he refuses to share a platform with William Lane Craig, because of his views on the slaughter of the Canaanites, but he has already debated someone who holds substantially the same views as Craig on the slaughter of the Canaanites. On 23 October 1996, Dawkins debated Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who also believes that the slaughter of the Canaanites was morally justified under the circumstances at the time (see here and here). What’s more, in 2006, Dawkins appeared in a television panel with Professor Richard Swinburne, who holds the same view. Dawkins might reply that Swinburne did not make his views on the slaughter of the Canaanites public until 2011, but as I shall argue below, he can hardly make the same excuse about not knowing Rabbi Boteach’s views. If he did not know, then he was extraordinarily naive.

4. Professor Dawkins refuses on principle to share a platform with William Lane Craig because of his views on the slaughter of the Canaanites, yet he is perfectly willing to share a platform with atheists whose moral opinions are far more horrendous: Dan Barker, who says that child rape could be moral if it were absolutely necessary in order to save humanity; Dr. Sam Harris, who says that pushing an innocent man into the path of an oncoming train is OK, if it is necessary in order to save a greater number of human lives; and Professor Peter Singer, who believes that sex with animals is not intrinsically wrong, if both parties consent.

5. Professor Dawkins refuses to share a platform with William Lane Craig, who holds that God commanded the Israelites to slaughter Canaanite babies whom He subsequently recompensed with eternal life in the hereafter. However, he is quite happy to share a platform with Professor P. Z. Myers, who doesn’t even regard newborn babies as people with a right to life. (See here for P.Z. Myers’ original post, here for one reader’s comment and here for P. Z. Myers’ reply, in which he makes his own views plain.) Nor does Professor Peter Singer, whom Dawkins interviewed back in 2009, regard newborn babies as people with a right to life. (See this article.)

6. Apparently Professor Dawkins himself does not believe that a newborn human baby is a person with the same right to life that you or I have, and does not believe that the killing of a healthy newborn baby is just as wrong as the act of killing you or me. For he sees nothing intrinsically wrong with the killing of a one- or two-year-old baby suffering from a horrible incurable disease, that meant it was going to die in agony in later life (see this video at 24:12). He also claims in The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006, p. 293) that the immorality of killing an individual is tied to the degree of suffering it is capable of. By that logic, it must follow that killing a healthy newborn baby, whose nervous system is still not completely developed, is not as bad as killing an adult.

7. In his article in The Guardian (20 October 2011) condemning William Lane Craig, Professor Dawkins fails to explain exactly why it would be wrong under all circumstances for God (if He existed) to take the life of an innocent human baby, if that baby was compensated with eternal life in the hereafter. In fact, as I will demonstrate below, if we look at the most common arguments against killing the innocent, then it is impossible to construct a knock-down case establishing that this act of God would be wrong under all possible circumstances. Strange as it may seem, there are always some possible circumstances we can envisage, in which it might be right for God to act in this way.

8. Professor Dawkins declines to say whether he agrees with some of his fans and followers, who consider the God of the Old Testament to be morally equivalent to Hitler (see here and here for examples). However, the very comparison is odious, for in the same Old Testament books which Dawkins condemns, God exhorts the Israelites: “Do not seek revenge”; “Love your neighbor as yourself” and: “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:18, 33-34, NIV.) That certainly doesn’t sound like Hitler to me – and I’ve personally visited Auschwitz and Birkenau. I wonder if Professor Dawkins has.

9. Dawkins singles out Professor William Lane Craig for condemnation as a “fundamentalist nutbag”, but he fails to realize that Professor William Lane Craig’s views on the slaughter of the Canaanites were shared by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, the Bible commentator Matthew Henry, and John Wesley, as well as some modern Christian philosophers of eminent standing, such as Richard Swinburne, whom he appeared on a television panel with in 2006. Is he prepared to call all these people “nutbags” too? That’s a lot of crazy people, I must say.

10. Unlike the late Stephen Jay Gould (who maintained that the experiment would be just about the most unethical thing he could imagine), Professor Dawkins believes that the creation of a hybrid between humans and chimps “might be a very moral thing to do”, so long as it was not exploited or treated like a circus freak (see this video at 40:33), although he later concedes that if only one were created, it might get lonely (perhaps a group of hybrids would be OK, then?) Dawkins has destroyed his own moral credibility by making such a ridiculous statement. How can he possibly expect us to take him seriously when he talks about ethics, from now on?

Professor Dawkins, I understand that you are a very busy man. Nevertheless, I should warn you that a failure to answer these charges will expose you to charges of apparent lying, character assassination, public hypocrisy, as well as an ethical double-standard on your part. The choice is yours.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comments
It is a well-known historical fact that early Christians refused military service. This was not on the grounds that any particular conflict was immoral. It is also observable that as this stance changed, Christendom was straying from nearly every aspect of scriptural teaching - incorporating the use of idols, pagan festivals, and greek philosophy, as well as granting titles, robes, and giant hats to to those taking the lead. Are we to understand that those present at the outset misunderstood these points, and that the latter were enlightened? Or did the scriptures plainly foretell apostasy and corruption? Human wisdom tells us that we must fight Hitler and Hussein. Proverbs 3:5 tells us "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." Jesus also said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35) Name one cross-bearing religion the members of which have not killed each other in a 20th century war with the full support of their clergy. Human wisdom says defend, fight. But now those blood stains won't come off, and those that participated cannot be identified by the above verse. When the issues become complex and difficult, that is when we must determine whether we will lean on God's understanding on our own. That's where the rubber meets the road. Perhaps that's why Jesus also said the road to life would be narrow and difficult, and that the other would be more popular.ScottAndrews2
October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
SA & CY: A thoughtful exchange. The issues are deeply connected, through the question of how we make our judgements, and how we base our arguments. In particular -- and as I have noted elsewhere -- a major problem with Christian ethics on the ground, is that we tend to absolutise the turn the other cheek principle, taking it out of its proper context -- do not be waspish in the face of insults and personal abuse, and turn it into a governmental mandate. If you look carefully in the Gospels, you will see that Jesus has occasion to deal with the question of force in the teeth of determined evildoers. For instance, that lurks under his dealings with soldiers including Centurions. He does not say, quit; he says, serve God. When he deals with the Herod family, as a prophet he is pretty direct in criticising the pattern of injustice. When challenged on taxes, he gives a classic: give Caesar what is his, and God what is his. The subtlety involved is what Paul discusses in Rom 13:1 - 10. Caesar is God's servant to do us good by defending the civil peace of justice, holding the power of the sword in that cause and having taxing power in support of that mandate. Of course, as God's servant, he is accountable under God for justice. Also, elsewhere in scripture -- Moshe's "Let my people go" is classic -- when a tipping point has been reached; i.e. when evil triggered by selfish abuse of the power of choice becomes an exceeding danger in the teeth of obvious consequences and ignored correction God will act on the behalf of an oppressed people. And a part of that can be expressed in popular uprising and actions of legitimate representatives. This by the way is what across 2,000 years of Christian influence on our civilisation, was channelised into the peaceful means of the general election. Then, when Jesus comes towards the end of his ministry, there is a crucial but puzzling incident. For, he says go buy a sword, and he is understood literally, there are two swords. He says, that is enough. Backdrop. Then, we come to Gethsemane, and Peter pulls one of the swords and tries to start the revolution. There is a palpable echo here of the situation in the Maccabees where at Modein, the pagan rulers have sent agents to make the village sacrifice pigs to idols. The revolution begins when the first Jew to turn traitor and blasphemer steps forward and the sword is pulled, cutting him down, with the officials who came to impose evil and apostasy by force. To abuse the power of the sword in the hands of government to protect the civil peace of justice. Wolves, in shepherd's clothing. The father and six of seven Hasmonean brothers perish in the struggle, in which the recurring theme is, that the Gentiles always break their treaties. This is the background against which Peter tried to cut off the head of the servant next to him; he ducked, that's why the ear was cut off instead. Jesus' reply was that those who live by the sword die by it. And he healed the servant. Somehow, that did noting to defuse the situation, and seemingly, it was suspiciously missing in action in the trials that followed. Somebody was suppressing highly relevant evidence that did not suit the kangaroo court's agenda. Jesus' mission was NOT to launch a new Maccabean revolution. Indeed, that is what comes out very explicitly in his trial: the authorities are reacting to a teacher of righteousness who is making them uncomfortable in injustice, hypocrisy and corruption [don't forget, he seems to have cleansed the temple twice, driving out the money changers at whip point] by treating him as if he were a rebel. Indeed, they end up manipulating the crowd -- notice, the issue of the flip side of democracy, misrule influencing and influenced by manipulated, intimidatory mobs shouting out foolish slogans as popular will -- to literally put him in the place of a notoriously murderous leader of rebellion and brigandage, Barabbas. Notice, when he does speak before a judge willing to at least listen to the sound truth -- he is silent before those who are jut raging mobs dressed up in fancy robes and sitting in seats of government -- he points out that he has not been leading rebellion, but publicly teaching the truth and calling men, including of course men in government, to repentance in light of the Kingdom of God in heaven. The ultimate kingdom foreshadowed by Daniel that shall grow as a mountain filling the whole earth, shattering the proud and arrogantly wicked kingdoms of unjust man in rebellion against his maker. A kingdom that comes peaceably by the truth in love, in the teeth of fire and sword. So, he is cutting clean across those who would lead a revolution against Rome: Rome has not yet filled the cup of its iniquity, but ISRAEL has, now culminating in scheming against Messiah. An Israel that will not heed the sign of Jonah, nor the counsel of God by the example of Assyria: repentance even on the brink of prophesied national destructive judgement by disaster may avert it. For, God is merciful. Something that Dawkins et al conspicuously omit in their overheated incendiary rhetoric. Against that backdrop, those who tried to rise up against Rome, three times [once in the diaspora], would fail, at horrible cost to the nation over the next 100 years. There are many lessons in that for our time and our civilisation, one that is rapidly filling up the cup of its iniquities. In that context, I think we need to take serious and sobering stock of what it is for leaders of government to confront radical, out of control evil, and the dilemmas they often face of choosing the horrible in the face of the worse than merely horrible. And, we must tear our hearts through that reflection, until we have been opened up to be wounded, so that our hearts have lurched in the face of such terrifying dilemmas. So, let us stand by the side of the road with Petain, watching the young men he is forced to send to their doom because foolish policies maintained for years in the teeth of his own advice [advice that seems to have retarded his career . . . ] have brought the nation to that point where the forts they needed were not well guarded, had indeed been stripped of guns, and the officer corps was not properly prepared to handle the challenge of Germany; they had been trained to think in terms of fast-moving infantry attacks and cavalry tactics, in the face of over a decade of evidence from South Africa and from Eastern Russia on how much the world had changed thanks to the rapid fire long range rifle and the machine gun. Not to mention, the heavy mobile, rapid firing guns that were needed were missing -- they were only then being hastily designed or improvised. Stand by Petain as he sees the ashen faced, staggering few survivors coming back down the same road a matter of days later. Knowing that this horrendous rent in blood was what was holding the pivot of the line. (The very reason why Verdun -- guard city of a major invasion route ever since the days of Gaul -- had in the 1880's been re-fortified in the modern way [a ring of more or less underground forts at enough distance to keep artillery out of range of the key point] in the aftermath of the defeat at the hands of Prussia in the 1870's, and had been updated in the early 1900's.) Let it rip a hole in our hearts, a sobering hole that can open our hearts and minds to understand that things too often are much much more painful, difficult, horrible and complex than we would like them to be. THEN, we can safely address the sorts of issues that Craig was grappling with, with a perspective that is sufficiently broad to see that whichever way we come out on it, there will be horrific difficulties that we with our bounded rationality cannot fully understand. And in particular, we must come to grips with the sort of dilemma a Churchill faced as he made the decision to send in heavy but fragile and vulnerable bombers to force Germany to fight a major home front attritional campaign that drained it of the crucial resources that would otherwise have made mincemeat of the Russians. For just one crucial instance, if the capacity to make the infamous 88 mm anti aircraft and antitank dual use gun was not largely diverted to protecting German cities, it would have been available on the Russian Front, with predictable horrific consequences -- think of the slaughter just a few of those guns did so often in the Middle East at that time, or indeed how Rommel's gun line of just such guns had stopped the counterattack at Arras at a crucial point in the May 1940 campaign. The same, for the fighter and fighter-bomber capacity that went into fighting off the bombers. And the imposed losses on the cities put a severe restraint on the capacity of German war production to surge. But, at a horrific cost in civilian lives, including children. Because Rommel's improvised gun-line held in May 1940, there was not going to be a Western Front in France until the Germans had been bled white through horrific attrition, on the East Front and over Germany. Attrition that could not even be put in words to the public who had seen what the Western Front in 1914 - 18 had cost and would do almost anything to avoid that again, which is exactly what led to the ill-advised passivity and appeasement in the face of Hitler in the 1930's when he could have been stopped at far lower cost. (And let us not forget, the Russians paid something like over 20 million lives to defeat the Germans. But the alternative was much, much worse.) I hope this is enough, that we have been duly torn, sobered up and shamed over our habitual superficiality and glib gotcha rhetorical tactics. Those who refuse to learn from bitter history, are doomed to repeat it. It is in that context, that I am utterly incensed at Dawkins' cynical cowardice, lying -- VJT has demonstrated that beyond doubt -- and slander. Neither Craig nor any other responsible Christian leader or thinker is an advocate of genocide; something Dawkins full well knows. They are grappling -- and sometimes stumbling in the grappling -- with issues that cut right across history and come down to today as we see how we foolishly talk about an Arab Spring, not seeing the rising tide of Islamist naked aggression that seeks to exploit the uprisings, or the Iranian nuke and ballistic missile programmes that back it. Why is it that in an information age with experts on instant tap, we are so willfully ignorant of the religiously motivated ideology of the IslamISTS? Why do we not even know that even the DATE of the 9/11 attacks -- 318 years, less one day from the last IslamIST surge high water mark at the gates of Vienna in 1683 under the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph, just before Jan Sobieski of Poland personally led the Cavalry charge on the 12th of Sept that broke the siege -- is pregnant with symbolism of the IslamIST intent? (Hint: UBL was making a bid to be Caliph, and his base "in the direction of Khorasan" was itself pregnant with symbolism connected to the end of days global conquest Black Flag Army and related hadiths.) We live in a very, very dangerous time, and are too often willfully ignorant and foolish. That is the price we pay for the sort of foolish gotcha polarising rhetoric that we tolerate in public discussions. A price that predictably leads on to blood. Rivers of blood. That is the context in which Netanyahu has denounced the UN as a theatre of the absurd and has declared: better a bad press than a good eulogy. Israel faces an existential crisis manipulated by Iran as it races to complete its nuke programme. I am highly confident on the track record of 1967 that Israel will act decisively soon, regardless of the horrific cost and the price they will pay in the eyes of the world as "neighbourhood bully" [Thanks, CY]; for the alternatives are far worse than merely horrible. (Indeed, in that regard, I think the Schalit exchange is a clearing the decks for action.) Against that backdrop, Dawkins is using the excuse of a known false accusation of support for genocide, to duck being held publicly responsible for his many ill-founded but manipulative statements over the course of decades. That is a strong sign of a man who knows he is in the wrong, but is too proud to climb down, whatever the cost to others. THAT is the main focus that his thread has from the Original Post. The tangential and poisonous distractive talking point does need to be addressed, but it can only be soundly addressed in a context where we have first taken the time and effort to build enough background and have had enough moral pain to feel the weight of the full balance of the issues. A weight that must start with: why is it that we find ourselves inescapably under moral government, even in the teeth of the materialistic ideology that Dawkins et al champion in the name of science, that leads to the implication that there is no real OUGHT, there is just IS, and no is that -- per materialistic premises, can ground ought? From that and other related considerations, we will then see that ethical theism is a serious and respectable position. Then, we can look at the central warranting argument and grounds that are foundational to the Christian, ethical theistic tradition; a point that has been central to the Christian intellectual-prophetic challenge to our civilisation ever since Paul challenged the Stoics and Epicureans on Mars Hill on 50 AD. (This point, we must note, is pivotal to Craig's argument as he then goes on to grapple with a difficulty on grounds that are much less firm either way. A responsible addressing of what Craig actually argued, would fairly deal with that context in a sober fashion instead of brushing it away in a gleeful, willfully out of context "gotcha and so I don't need to talk to you.") Look back above and in other threads where this has come up, onlookers, and see if the objectors have seriously and soberly grappled with that context. On fair comment, no; this has all been an exercise in selective hyperskepticism and too often gleeful rhetorical bashing. That should be sobering, and it is a big part of why I have called up the sort of wider context as above. We must be responsible. In that context, we can then reasonably look at the particular issues in a more balanced, more informed, more sober-minded way. One that I find conspicuously missing in action. And, onlookers, it is no accident that, after several times of linking the discussion just linked, there has been no responsible addressing of these aspects form the circle of objectors. Red herrings, led away to strawmen soaked in vicious ad hominems [the false charge of support for genocide fairly drips with the implied accusation, Nazi] and ignited through incendiary gotcha rhetoric are rhetor5ically very effective. But hey come at a terrible price: clouding the issues, poisoning the atmosphere, polarising it, and stirring hostility that all too soon becomes hate and scapegoating, leading on to violence, overt mob violence or covert violence by abuse of the power of law and policy and institutional dominance. Those are the tactics that Dawkins et al have been indulging for decades, and it is high time that they were called to public account for that. That will not happen if we keep on following red herrings and cheering on the burning of ad hominem soaked strawmen. So, please at lest think about what is at stake in the wider context of all this, for our civilisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 30, 2011
October
10
Oct
30
30
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
You know I find myself agreeing with most of what you say. Except with the concept of protecting others from evil. Turning the other cheek has limits. You don't turn the other cheek to a madman who intends to bomb a group of people to smithereens; you stop him. Sometimes in the process that might mean that some people might die simply because they are close enough to or in the danger zone. You can't help that, but you must stop that bomb from going off. Tough choices, but they fall quite within obeying God in my view. And sometimes you don't know if it's the man with the bomb who's the madman, or the man with a gun to his head. But when you do know, I think you're quite warranted and to do so; and you're being obedient to God as in doing good so that others can live. Francis Schaeffer has some interesting writings on what makes for a just war. The criteria is always when there's a significant threat to the safety of others. turf wars on their own are never just, and religious on their own wars are never just, but when the safety of human beings is at stake, in some cases certain types of conflict can be justified. All of the situations I've mentioned fit that criteria. But I fear we're getting into the OT zone here, as the original turn towards this subject was KF's mention of a battle during WW1 and how it relates to the situation of the Canaanites.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
CY,
Our task as human beings is to protect our fellow human beings from dying. We can’t logically do that if we have a position that we don’t fight powerful and evil enemies because people will die. We have to weigh the consequence of even many more people dying if we don’t act.
Our task as human beings is to obey God. (Ecclesiastes, final verses.) The Bible says, more than once, that the world is ruled by the Devil. These are his wars. They are not for Christians. In both world wars, men who called themselves Christians killed one another, and their clergy blessed them. God commanded the extermination of Canaan. Hiroshima, Baghdad, and all the rest are just people killing each other. Consider Jesus' own words. Turn the other cheek. Do the labor they force upon you, give them what they seize from you, and them some. Love your enemies. This is where we put our money where our mouth is. I'm sorry if that sounds dogmatic. Everyone loves Jesus right up to the part about loving your enemies, loving fellow Christians, not living by the sword, and suffering wrong rather than committing it. Then suddenly they treat Jesus like a child who doesn't understand what the grown ups are talking about. No offense.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
"I see human history up through the present as a morass of ill will and conflicts that pause or end when too many have died..." Well now see that's a problem right there, because conflicts don't end when too many people have died. Too many people have already died, and yet conflict continues. Our task as human beings is to protect our fellow human beings from dying. We can't logically do that if we have a position that we don't fight powerful and evil enemies because people will die. We have to weigh the consequence of even many more people dying if we don't act. I mentioned Dylan in another post below. Compare: Bob Dylan - 1963: "How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?" - Blowin' in the Wind Bob Dylan - 1983 (20 years later) "He [Israel] destroyed a bomb factory and nobody was glad. The bombs were meant for him, he was supposed to feel bad." - Neighborhood Bully Ya think Dylan had a wake-up call from his peacenick days? And the difference is that he was a Christian in 1983, supposedly. I'll have to leave it at that. difficult issues. Thanks for your thoughts.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
You are correct about human beings' inability to effect lasting peace by their own wisdom. Well said. But we must not forget that there are powerful and evil people in the world and if we ignore them, they will do what they intend to do. We have learned that with every one of these evil leaders we have had to face in the past. Churchill didn't ignore Hitler, and we are alive today because of it. Obama did not ignore Osama bin Laden and several others of his cohorts, and the world is safer because of it. George HW Bush, Clinton and George W Bush did not ignore Saddam Hussein, and we are alive today because of it. These are all political leaders, and there were many more political leaders from many countries involved than just them; So politics plays a part. But I can imagine when you're in those positions and have to face really tough decisions that offer no clear and easy solutions, the politics go out the door. Sometimes you benefit politically from those decisions, and sometimes not, but you still must make the decisions that seem crucial at the time. And then we have Israel, who remains one state completely surrounded by well-armed enemies intent on obliterating them. And we make it into a political issue rather than a human issue - that because of them there is relative peace in the Middle East. If they were not there, Saddam Hussein would have won, as KF pointed out, so the peace is relative to the absolute carnage and unspeakable death (probably in the tens of millions) that would have occurred if they hadn't destroyed that nuclear facility in 1981. Remember, at that time the Western world was still doing business with Saddam, and ignoring the threat. My father was an aerospace engineer at the time - 1979, working in Saudi Arabia for a US corporation, who sent him to Baghdad to negotiate a contract for a radar ground system. So I know full well that even in 1979 the US and other Western countries were friendly with Iraq, while at the same time Iraq was building nuclear arms facilities, and preparing to engage in a 9 year war with their neighbor Iran. It's because of these circumstances, and because of my even limited knowledge of history that I am not a pacifist - but equally as troubled by war and conflict as you. It saddens me and often scares me to death.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
CY, I don't see good foreign policy decisions. I see human history up through the present as a morass of ill will and conflicts that pause or end when too many have died on one or both sides, or one yields to the domination of the other. That sounds awfully negative, but the worst mistake is to try to case a positive light on it. The question should not be, 'when will the war end,' but, 'when will wars end?' Isn't that the outcome that Christians are waiting for, or should be? The Bible describes the earth's rulers as opposed to the rule of God's son (Psalm 2) and counsels not to put faith in them (Psalm 146.) Revelation 16 describes the kings of the entire earth unified against him. The Bible indicates that God's own rulership is the means by which he will accomplish his will. What comes before that is a demonstration of futility, several thousand years of solid evidence that no product of human wisdom can effect lasting peace. (Now you see why I mention that I have no political affiliation.)ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Scott, And that's just the sort of emotion-driven argument that Hitchen's brother Peter used in that debate - only he was much more emotional. I don't like talking politics either, but this is more than a political issue. The problem is when we try to make it into a political issue rather than the world survival issue that it was. If it had to do with oil then that's one thing, and a sad excuse; - unfortunately, the Arab world is both dangerous, conflict driven and oil rich, so accusations that we're in it for something other than our protection often overlook the danger and conflict part. But I truly believe that there was something much worse at stake, and the outcome is that we got rid of the cause of that much worse evil. A lot of people are now rejoicing over the killing of Osama bin Laden. But we all pretty much knew that he had to be taken out one way or another. Saddam as the head of a militarized state that had acquired nuclear capabilities was much more dangerous than bin Laden, but many of us did not know it at the time of the Iraq war. He was more dangerous than Kadaffi, and even more dangerous than the North Koreans. Remember that during the first gulf war Saddam not only attacked Israel with scud missiles, but his arab neighbors like Saudi Arabia and several Persian Gulf states. My parents were living in the UAE at the time in Abu Dhabi, and they remember having to take cover from potential scud missiles. President Clinton ordered a hit on him in retaliation for his attempted assassination of President George HW Bush while visiting Kuwait in 1993 - 2 years after the gulf war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm So he decided to lay low for a while; but I think we can come to the definite conclusion that if we had not gone in there and taken him out, he would have eventually surprised the world with a nuclear attack on Israel and perhaps some of his other Arab neighbors in retaliation for their involvement in the gulf war. These are issues that the international community pretty much ignored, thinking that since he had complied with UN sanctions, we should let him be. But that's precisely what he was hoping for. It was his strategy. So these are the facts about Saddam Hussein that we often forget. 1) Committed genocide on his own people. 2) Invaded a friendly neighbor. 3) Built a nuclear arms facility - which Israel took out in 1981. 4) Attacked Israel with scud missiles during a war in which Israel was not a combatant. (and Israel exercised restraint and did not retaliate, and was never thanked for not getting involved, even though Israeli citizens died) 5) Attacked Gulf states that were not directly involved in the conflict. 6) Attempted to assassinate a US President under whom armies defeated him Belief that Saddam would just forget that and live in peace among his neighbors is simply illusory given his record and his stated intentions. And let's keep in mind also that Arab states are generally friendly towards their Arab neighbors. But in that conflict Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations got involved as enemies of Iraq. They wanted Saddam taken out, because they sensed how dangerous he was. That's almost unheard of in the Arab world, where they protect their own as brothers. Of course that's not so much true today with the Arab spring, but it was a reality at the time. This is Hitchens' argument, and his sources come from Iraqis themselves, who were in the know. I don't say this lightly, as I know that many people lost their lives and continue to lose their lives even today, sadly. But that's the whole point I think that KF is trying to make, that people will lose their lives in conflicts that must take place in order to have a safer world. There are no easy solutions to these problems, and those who have to make the decisions are often hard pressed for alternatives. Invading Iraq was not a clear go, and in hindsight, the reasons given for the invasion were perhaps ill advised, but the outcome and the facts that are known today on Saddam's intentions pretty much justifies what we did. I am not a believer in the idea that ends justify means. However, in this case we did have facts about Saddam's threat even at the time. We just didn't have the correct evidence to base the justification for an immediate invasion, but now we do. And Hitchens happens to believe that history will show the Iraqi invasion to be one of the best foreign policy decisions in American history.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
GUN: It seems you don't get it. The heart of the issue is that we ourselves need to reflect on what it is like to confront the choice of the horrible, and the worse than horrible. We need to feel enough moral pain that our hearts LURCH, to use what seems to be a more dynamically correct translation for Petain's response to those boys marching down the road to their doom in defence of France in 1916. It's like those songs that cannot really be sung till you have loved and been hurt, so you can sing with empathy colouring your voice. For me, that moment came early, when my dad took me aside and told me about the sort of decisions economists may have to make, did have to make. I am sick of superficial, dismissive talk that seems not to have enough depth of historically informed empathy to respond at enough depth. Do you realise how sickening the tone of much of the above is? I want to hear the timbre of someone who has vicariously stood in Churchill's shoes (especially), looking at the Eastern front, knowing the deep background nuke story, knowing what bombing will require and what it will cost, and knowing what not bombing would cost. Then, I want to hear the tone of someone who has felt what it is like to have to make that sort of decision, and not be able to explain it in the teeth of fierce criticism and second-guessing. Someone who is wounded, in short. Some things, only the hurt and hurting can safely, soberly deal with. The issue is tearing, heart-rending moral pain, not talking points. Beyond this, I struggle to put the matter in words. But, that does not mean that it is not supremely important. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
I have no political affiliation. But the invasion of Iraq benefited too many people politically and monetarily. When anyone gains power or money while justifying their actions with lies, they leave themselves open to suspicion. Countless civilians died. They went from a tyrant they knew to random suicide bombers, death by checkpoint, and valium addiction. Has anyone ever met these people? They are as hospitable and decent as anyone you know. If I were going to destroy that many lives, I would at least decline to run for a second term for fear anyone might wonder if I had done so for political gain. I would show that if thousands of people must die, at least one man's ambition and power should be sacrificed to attribute some small value to their deaths. Instead we just flushed human life down the toilet and people got rich and reelected.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
"Pardon, but I am in no mood for talking point exchanges. You are playing at the sort of superficial, distractive rhetoric that I cautioned against above." --Why are we reflecting on the orders of FDR and Churchill that killed so many innocents? I may be wrong, but I assumed that on this thread that you were using that as an analogy to the order of God to wipe out the Canaanites. In which case my response was hardly "superficial" but goes to the very heart of the analogy. I agree with you that FDR and Churchill ought to be held in high esteem - but the very reasons we feel for FDR and Churchill and don't blame them, is for the very reasons the analogy fails - FDR and Churchill aren't God. They aren't omnipotent. How powerless they must have felt during the war. How they must have wished that they had the power to strike down Hitler, Goering, Himmler, etc with lightning instead of blowing up village after village and houses, schools, etc. We aren't powerful enough to avoid collateral damage - precisely because we are so powerless. "Then, please stop playing at Monday Morning Quarterback; showing instead an appreciation for how hard it is to make the right decision in the face of such issues with so much at stake." --All I said was "there are some actions I wonder about" and gave the second nuke as an example and you actually jump on that? (and then you say you are "in no mood for talking point exchanges"? Really?) And I DO have an appreciation for how hard their decisions were precisely BECAUSE I ponder about some of their decisions - and each time I do I'm thankful to God (if there is one) that I wasn't the one that had to make the decisions. "And, BTW, the two nukes backed up by the bluff that more was behind BARELY sufficed to get the Japanese to surrender." --Yes, I think so too. I have been involved in some debates regarding the nuking of Japan, and most opponents of the nuking don't realize how opposed to surrender their military was. We had a third nuke ready and very nearly had to use it.goodusername
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
And here's the lyrics: http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/neighborhood-bullyCannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Videokairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Yes, as a Bob Dylan fan, I'm constantly reminded of that event in one of his songs from his 1983 album "Infidels" - "Neighborhood Bully." - with Israel as the neighborhood bully. Part of the lyric: "He destroyed a bomb factory, and nobody was glad. 'The bombs were meant for him; he was supposed to feel bad. He's the neighborhood bully.'"CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
CY: Actually, the world owes Israel an unacknowledged debt there. In 1981, with their first F16's backed up by their first F15s, they hit Osirak, that had been so unwisely built with French aid -- Chirac. That bought the 10 years that made all the difference in 1990/91. And ever since. All the Israelis got over that was denunciation and more. We had better do some serious re-thinking. Especially given what has happened with Iran. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
GUN: Pardon, but I am in no mood for talking point exchanges. You are playing at the sort of superficial, distractive rhetoric that I cautioned against above. Look, again, at the dilemma confronting Churchill and Roosevelt, who knew what was at stake far away on the Russian front, and what they were doing, when those bombers went in. Bomber Harris knew, and Saunders -- whose health broke -- knew too. Reflect on what would have happened if these men did not bleed Germany by aerial bombardment; at a horrific cost in Commonwealth and Allied Airmen, as well as ever so many civilians who were inevitably killed. Think about a Germany sitting on the Persian Gulf, with the oil of the Caucasus AND the Middle East, with nukes and the rockets to launch them. Think about it again, and again till it goes home that the real cost on the other side of decisions we can so easily criticise, lies in what the men we pour so easily scorn on and find fault with forestalled, at terrible, terrible cost. Then, when your heart has lurched, think about the choice between the horrible and the worse. Then, think about why you find yourself in moral pain and under moral government. Then, look hard at the worldviews that are so touted in our time that have in them no foundational is that can ground the ought that tears you. But instead are reduced to "might makes right," to manipulation of emotions, and to unacknowledged borrowing from that which it would scorn and supplant. Then, rethink your worldview, and your basis for moral judgements. THEN, you can begin to deal with how to approach a difficult issue, where we do not know all the relevant facts, save for a crucial one: a world in which love is genuinely possible is one in which choice is real, and so too the consequences of choice. Including the choice not to love. Then, please stop playing at Monday Morning Quarterback; showing instead an appreciation for how hard it is to make the right decision in the face of such issues with so much at stake. And, BTW, the two nukes backed up by the bluff that more was behind BARELY sufficed to get the Japanese to surrender. Let's just say, that nearly seventy years later, last I heard, the US forces were still drawing on the stocks of Purple Hearts made in anticipation of the expected losses in an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Second guessing on hindsight is easy. Playing gotcha rhetoric is easier yet. But the matters at stake go far beyond such. Time for some very sober thinking. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Yes, ponder. Modern tendencies are to think "what does that have to do with me? What does it have to do with human progress?" Everything. Personally for me, as I was watching that video I was thinking about my father's father, who was among thousands of Canadian soldiers who fought in the trenches of France during WW1 and lived to tell about it. Even though I never met my grandfather, It has everything to do with me. I owe my existence to an event that happened in a certain way such that something more ominous was prevented - including the potential death of my grandfather on a battlefield before he could raise a family. There is something miraculous in that for me. Some might say "well if he didn't have to be on that battlefield in the first place your life would have been even more probable." Not so. If he didn't have to be on that battlefield, that does not mean that the threat was not there. We owe our existence to the bravery of those who died as well as those who survived to tell about it, and who prevented a more evil outcome. Ultimately I believe it was God's providence. Those who say that He does not exist must have to ponder such things in the darkness and meaninglessness of it all. I don't. I fully believe that God has the potential life of future humans in mind when He drives the outcome of certain conflicts caused by willful disobedience to His commands. We live because He has willed us to live. He has fine tuned a lot of things, among which is history towards a certain purposeful outcome. We have to think of how many more humans would have died in the following couple of decades if the outcome had been different. - or if Hitler had maintained power into the 1950s and gained nuclear weapons. Would we even exist? If we hadn't stopped Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons would we be here today? If we don't stop that guy in Iran from getting them, then what? These are our problems, clearly. I often get pretty ticked off when I read comments on the internet that we shouldn't be involved in foreign conflicts. "We're not the world's police force." True, there are some conflicts we could avoid. I'm not certain if Libya was the right thing to do from the air like we did, where we had no control over what happened on the ground. Now somewhere there's some weapons that could very easily get into the wrong hands. It might end up being a learning experience that makes us think twice about such strategies. I hope not. I hope it proves to be successful in the long-term, and I'm glad that there's one less dangerous dictator in the world, and hope for people who had to tolerate him for the last 42 years.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Verdun -- let us watch, ponder and learn.kairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
"So, now, do you rightly accuse these men and the airmen in those fragile bombers over Germany of being genocidal mass murderers?" --I don't, and the reason I don't is because they were far from being omnipotent - their power was quite limited - and they were up against a force about as powerful as theirs was. And thus their ability to avoid collateral damage was very limited. I'm sure the bombers were hoping that their bombs did, somehow, miss killing children. If it was within their power to send in Seal Team 6 in a helicopter and kill off a few key targets within the Nazi and Japanese leadership and end the war, but decided to carpet bomb and drop nukes anyway, then I would accuse them of being mass murderers. There are some actions I wonder about (was the carpet bombing of Dresden really necessary? Was the SECOND nuke necessary? Or, could we have at least waited a little longer than 3 days to drop the 2nd to see if Japan would surrender?) But anyway… for the most part, I think they were just doing the best with what they had.goodusername
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Thanks. Sobering.kairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Chaz,
I simply mean that one is entitled to enter a debate on morality, and argue against (ie challenge) someone’s position, without sharing their view on its source. The fact that one does not share their belief does not disbar one from pointing out inconsistencies in their interpretation.
You certainly are entitled. But eventually your arguments dissolve into rhetoric. Like many you are willing to educate yourself exactly enough to point out supposed inconsistencies, but your interest appears to stop just short of understanding the explanations. It gives the impression that you aren't particularly interested in understanding the matter, only at pointing out what seems wrong on the surface, for whatever juvenile satisfaction that gives you. You're entitled to do so, but it is, to be blunt, a display of willful ignorance. It isn't the basis for any meaningful debate. You're entitled to express yourself. But showing genuine interest in what you're talking about is what separates discussion from mockery, whatever your motivation may be. Self-righteousness, I'm guessing. And that goes for pretty much all of you.ScottAndrews2
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
KF, Christopher Hitchens, a materialist atheist made a similar argument in favor of our involvement in Iraq. His argument is that Saddam Hussein stated that if he had waited to attack Kuwait until he had nukes, he would have been more successful, and this is why he cooperated with international authorities, believing that if he could convince them he had no further intentions on Kuwait, he could pursue them again when things quieted down. I don't think most understand just how dangerous the man was. Begin here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmnVQLOd9Lg Unfortunately we live in a time when any conflict is unpopular among those who live comfortably on the sidelines of the tough decisions that must be made in order to have a safe world. I don't normally agree with Hitchens, but when he made that speech during a debate with His Christian brother arguing the other side, I sided with the atheist.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Folks: I took a moment to skim back across the above. We should be ashamed of ourselves for the rhetorical games I see above. Yes, ashamed. Terribly ashamed. For, the above underscores to me the superficiality and foolish one upmanship games that typify far too much of current discussion in our civilisation. Let me explain why, amplifying aspects of what I have linked above (and which has been studiously ignored by those hastening to score one upmanship points over Craig and those much despised Christians . . . ). VJT cites Boteach who reminds us of the horrible decision confronting Churchill and Roosevelt within living memory. The only means to restrain Hitler, running rampant in the East was the heavy bomber; and if Hitler defeated Russia and seized the Caucasus, the war was over. That meant a LOT of civilians were going to die. And, many tens of thousands of young airmen too. If Hitler won, and if he got his heavy water in Norway, the rest of the world would be under the gun of German nukes. Mein Kampf made it all too plain what you were looking at as a consequence: the cat does not look with pity on mice. So, the choice was not whether innocents would die in huge numbers, slaughtered; including of course a very large number of innocent children. It was which innocents, and how many, and what that would mean for the whole world. (And BTW, that is why my dad warned me not to go into Economics: son, you may face decisions as to how many will starve, this year, or in the next several years. You are not cut out for that. His heart bled, and he did not sleep as well as he would have otherwise slept, but he made the decisions he had to. And, I respect him for it. In the end, our nation recognised that, too.) We rightly see Churchill as the greatest Prime Minister of modern Britain, and FDR as one of the greatest American Presidents. So, now, do you rightly accuse these men and the airmen in those fragile bombers over Germany of being genocidal mass murderers? Or, do you recognise that there are situations where we confront radical evil in a world where our choice is between the horrible and the worse than merely horrible. I do not have a note on the personal reaction of these two men to what they were doing, but I do have such for Marshall Petain of France, in 1916 as he stood by the roadside and watched young French soldiers marching to the front in the teeth of a German attack where he literally had to simply send in divisions to stand and die by the tens of thousands to hold an attack that pointed like a dagger to the vitals of France -- and attack he must have known was in part designed to bleed France white in a desperate defense. He wrote words that deserve to be more famous than his "They shall not pass!" Namely: "My heart lurched . . . " And, unless our hearts have lurched, we should have the decency to refrain ourselves on this matter. After you understand that sometimes you face horrible choices and have the courage to chose the lesser of evils even as your heart lurches, then you can look at the basis for the value: ought, and whether you can ground it on an is in your worldview. If you have no such is, have the decency to know that your worldview boils down to basing moral feelings on might, manipulation and borrowing from other views and traditions. Then, face the history of such amorality. And, be ashamed of the manipulation games you have tried above in this thread and elsewhere. Including you, Mr Dawkins and co. The bottomline on the text in view is that they are one part of a much bigger picture, as Mr Craig pointed out in the parts that were brushed aside in the haste to play at gotcha. There are no easy answers on the texts in view, and that holds for all answers including the dismissive ones. But, on the premise that we understand that we deal -- as guilty sinners -- with a God who is moral, and dread, just judge, we will understand that we do not deserve mercy. Mercy is by grace and bought at a stiff price out of loving mercy (one that Mr Dawkins and ilk sneer at). On that strength, millions have come to be reconciled and morally transformed by God, leading to the reformation of our civilisation across centuries. The sort of struggle you see Craig having grows out of that, as he then confronts a governmental case involving nations gone bad, nations that had 400 years of warning of the just judgement of God. (How I remember how in my childhood, we would so often go across to Port Royal and see the former richest wickedest city in the world reduced to a fishing village by a shattering quake that was regarded by one and all as a just judgement.) There are no easy answers to such a case, but neither were there easy answers, good answers for Churchill and FDR. So, now, let us pause and re-think. Then, let us think again, before hitting "Post Comment" where we have not had our hearts lurch. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Nope, ought derives from PURPOSE, not subjectively chosen goals. Purpose points to source and intent of that source. No source in mind, no purpose. No purpose, no ought.kairosfocus
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
William Lane Craig Responds to Richard Dawkins 'Genocide' Claim http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-responds-to-atheist-richard-dawkins-old-testament-genocide-claim-59702/bornagain77
October 29, 2011
October
10
Oct
29
29
2011
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
I believe that the only being who has complete free will is God himself. Since we are contingent beings, we are limited by the very "nature" of God. This is partly why I believe that Jesus said "the truth will make you free." Not completely free as in having God's attributes (there are some quasi-Christian groups that believe that), but free as being endowed by God with some of his freedoms. Some of that comes in mortal life (the ability to freely love and other physical freedoms and freedoms of the mind - to create and to think rationally), and the rest comes after. So perhaps in the after life we might have the ability to travel to other worlds in an instant, and to conjure up worlds of our own; but we will still be contingent beings. Everything we do freely could not overstep the will of God. We will not in that sense be gods, as some believe. The primary purpose in my understanding of the end of creation is God's glory, and His creatures loving Him without the constraint of separation (sin) from Him. Since sin is separation from God, when we are finally set free from those constraints we will no longer be separated from Him, but we will still be separate as in not being God ourselves (again, as some believe). So in my belief, it is our willful sin that separates us from the more complete freedom that God has stored up for us in the afterlife. Faith in this life gives us the ability to overcome some of those constraints; as Jesus stated "If you have faith like a mustard seed...." So being more Christlike and loving towards others and God in this life makes us more free than in continuing along the path of sin, which leads to the loss of even those freedoms we now enjoy. Our free will is always subservient to either the will of God or to sin itself. Ideally, if we submit to God's will, we are less subservient to our own sin. So while we have the freedom to do as we please, the consequences of what we choose to do determines the level of freedom that we have. A bit more theological than some here would prefer, I'm sure, but those are my views on the matter.CannuckianYankee
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
UB, I've wondered myself if physicality grounds us in a dimensionally constrained reality. Instead of providing us with physical perception, I sometimes wonder if the physical body limits us to a fixed point in time and space. I know this is not the whole story; certainly being unconstrained from the physical body would not necessarily grant us access to all of time and space. Perhaps in this realm, limited by three spacial dimensions and a partial fourth, we are given access to, and at the same time constrained to, this side of a tear in a wider reality. No, I haven't been smoking anything; and no, I've never been institutionalized. xpmaterial.infantacy
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Hi CY, I wonder. Since freedom from physical determinism seems to be the manifest observation in phenomena, such as the existence of information, and indeed of life itself, I wonder IF there is any limit at all. Perhaps the limit we have simply suggests that we have minds without limits, but bodies which must follow the laws as they are. Ah well, nevermind. :)Upright BiPed
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Going a step further, note that God did not kill Adam and Eve. He had given them a gift, they rejected him, and so he withdrew it. From that day on, not one person was entitled to life. Every living person, even with the best of intentions, was entitled only to death. That puts his acts of execution in a different perspective. The same sentence he executed upon the Canaanites was also suffered by Abraham, Moses, David, etc. Everyone wants to live and yet dies. It is not as though death is a natural part of God's purpose, inflicted upon some and sparing others.ScottAndrews2
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Markf, Free will is always limited. I want to step off the edge of my roof and keep going, but free will does not empower me to do that. Speaking from a Christian perspective (so that hopefully I sound explanatory and not dogmatic) it is a fundamental law that all things must exist in harmony with God's purpose. To hope to live indefinitely otherwise is like hoping to stay underwater without breathing. Free will doesn't make that possible. So from that perspective, it's not God limiting their free will. They may choose to live within the parameters of the universe God created, or they may opt out. For them to stop living is their own preference, not God's. It's not a matter of taking away someone else's freedom. But that freedom has limits. And even still, whether to live within those limits is a choice. That's a lot of choices, and a lot of freedom. And what's more, there's plenty of room to move within those limits. It's not crowded and restrictive. Look at Adam and Eve. Eat from any tree in this whole garden, just not this one. Somehow they found that restrictive, but can we honestly say that God was unnecessarily limiting their freedom? (Again, explaining, not trying to be dogmatic. I speak within the context of my beliefs, not assuming that everyone shares them.)ScottAndrews2
October 28, 2011
October
10
Oct
28
28
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply