I have been asked multiple times what basis I have for morality without God. To this I freely admit that I have no basis for absolute morality. Common sense and playing by the rules of society get me pretty far concerning a pragmatic concept of morality, secular philosophers wiser than I get further still, but I fall short of what Christians at least think they have. It is certainly the case that something in me wants to believe that good and evil are absolutes. However, even were I to judge the truth of Christianity solely on whether it gives me the comfort of moral answers, I would still reject it.
Christianity theology easily answers the question of how an absolute standard could exist, but it raises questions regarding many of the immoral acts in the Bible. Before I give a specific example, first consider the criticisms people have of the morality of radical Moslems. They spread their beliefs not through persuasion, but by the sword. They believe that at times, they are the instruments of Allah who are commanded to execute his wrath on the infidels by wiping them out.
Numbers 31:1-3, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17-18: “Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites;' ... Moses spoke to the people, saying, 'Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD'S vengeance on Midian.' ... So they made war against Midian, just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. ... The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; ... They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, ... Moses was angry with the officers of the army. And Moses said to them, ... 'kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.'”
Three thousand years later, the religion whose God ordered this slaughter would have evolved into a very different religion. This religion would include large segments who disbelieve in evolution because it justified the Holocaust - what would happen to society if everyone accepted a belief that condones genocide?
Psalm 34:8 - “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.”
Psalms suggests that when we see the Lord is good, this is evidence that the Lord actually is good. What should we then conclude when we taste and see that the Lord is evil?
Hitler is not the only moral monster whom Christians berate for behaving in the manner in which God commanded Moses to act. If it were Allah rather than God commanding this, Christians would see this as evidence that Allah is evil. To believe this genocide was commanded by God and therefore righteous is no more reasonable than the religion of Al Qaeda. What if Bin Laden made the argument that Allah is a god of both peace and justice, but Islam is just going through its old testament? Maybe it's a spiritual blindness to our own sinfulness caused by our rejection of Allah that causes us to condemn 9/11. Who are we to judge what Allah has called righteous?
If the fact that the Midianites were evil and would cause trouble in the future was sufficient to justify these actions, then Hitler was not evil but merely uninformed in his belief that the Jews were evil and would cause trouble. Does the end justify the means?
Another defense that is used is so bad that I'm only repeating it because it is used in the Bible. In Romans 9:22-23: “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...” Consider the reverse argument: maybe God wants all people to suffer, but in order to make them appreciate how great their suffering is, he blesses a select few. This makes more sense than Paul's argument for several reasons. First, a minority is blessed, so it makes more sense to rationalize how a evil God could bless a few than the rationalize how a good God could condemn so many. Second, it is unusual for people to be blessed out of the sight of the suffering, but common for suffering to be invisible to the blessed. Thus, if God is using blessings to taunt the cursed, he's doing a fine job, while if he's using the suffering to help the blessed realize how blessed they are, he's wasting a lot of suffering.
One way around my second objection is the early Christian idea that hell is visible from heaven, and the people in heaven will rejoice at the sight of the wicked being tormented. In a very twisted way, this would explain how suffering makes known the riches of his glory. The best argument against this view of heaven is that the cruelty of it makes one's stomach turn. Similarly, my stomach turns at the idea of “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” Why trust the former reaction, but not the latter?
This is not merely me standing in judgment of God based on what I think is right, but me observing that God doesn't follow his own descriptions of what he is, and therefore concluding that either God lied or didn't inspire the Bible - Romans 9:20 and Job 40-41 deal with the former objection only. I don't think that Midianite children burning in hell agree with I John 4:8's descriptions of God as love, or that this disagreement should be attributed to their sin causing them to miss the big picture. Little kids can be pretty bratty, but the punishment doesn't match the crime. They have no inherent right to heaven, but do they not have a right to a real chance to miss eternal torment? Supposedly, the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but in the context of the Midianite children, that's rather like Hitler telling a Jew he wishes all men were Aryan.
Deuteronomy 10:17-19: “For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”
Where was this God when the Midianites were being slaughtered at His command? Revealing his love for his chosen people through these vessels of wrath prepared for destruction is perhaps the most extreme form of partiality imaginable.
Deuteronomy 24:16 - “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”
I've always heard that one of the ways that the law points to God is that it reveals his justice. The justice of this verse is violated by God's actions. Why kill the children? Their death was not an unfortunate reality of war. They were captured, and then after thinking about it, slaughtered. It's not like the Israelites lacked the resources – they had no trouble providing for the virgin girls and saving them for whatever it is that victorious soldiers do with girls.
The one last argument that apologists grasp for is the “we don't know” card. Maybe the Bible doesn't teach with clarity that children passively accepting paganism go to hell. Maybe hell isn't eternal conscience torment. Maybe the children were vastly more wicked and more capable of choice than we suppose. To paraphrase Bertrand Russel, if someone opened a crate of oranges and found the top layer to be spoiled, they would not conclude that the bottom layer must be extra good to balance out the rottenness of the top. If the bottom cannot be inspected, the far better theory is that the entire crate is spoiled.
This is why I seek the truth about morality apart from Christianity. I don't want my basis for compassion to be mixed in with a basis for genocide. I'll take not knowing why or if Hitler's genocide was absolutely wrong over knowing for certain that Moses' genocide was absolutely right.
(By the way, this argument was not that significant to my change of position. It made a difference not as its own argument, but as a counter-point to the moral and anthropologic arguments for the existence of God. Neither of those two can persuade me as long as I consider them to be weaker than the genocide argument against Christianity, or more generally, the Problem of Pain.)
Hello.
ReplyDeleteat the risk of sounding nit-picky ...
Hell (as a place of unending torment) is a teaching, like purgatory, that has no basis in scripture. It is a tradition that has become orthodox, but scripture as in most cases runs contrary to tradition. Consider John 3:16 ... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that as many as believe in Him may not PERISH but have Eternal Life."
Life is a gift ... we are not owed life, but we each have it for a time. But it is inherently TEMPORARY ... having a beginning and an end. The doctrine of hell depicts no end ... no "PERISHING" ... but continued and unending conscious torment.
In reality, to accept the very Life of God is to be made alive by His life ... a Life that is unending and unbeginning .. .ETERNAL. To reject that Life is to remain temporal ... having no Eternal destiny.
To perish is to be UNFORMED to nothing .. and those that receive the second death to be made "no more" will have no thoughts to realize they have received it or not. Thoughts perish with the perishing
The serpent said: "You shall surely not die." ... and the church has been repeating the refrain, even when such teaching goes against the most popular verse ... John 3:16.
Perish means perish.
Consider this:
1/14/06 - From God the Father
...Shall I, even I, torment My beloved, they who are tormented continually by he who is, and has, torment in his vesture? Satan is the tormentor. ... Become, again, a child of God, and learn to walk uprightly, leading others into love, by love, not fear.MORE of this letter about unbiblical "hell" HERE
18 reasons why in a single verse
Theological Myth - Unending conscious torture
Revelations 20:10 "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
ReplyDeleteBut even granting for the sake of argument that hell isn't real, how do you reconcile God's descriptions of himself in the Bible with God's command to commit genocide?
Hello Jeffrey!
ReplyDeleteRevelations 20:10 "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
If ever a process begins then it is not eternal. Even if that process is said to go on forever and ever (as in final and irrevocable.) then even still it is not eternal, for eternal is not a sequence of happening or a series of endless days, but one day having no day after nor before ... eternal.
In short, there is a last day. Forever means "for the ever" or as long as there are days ... and alot of good that will do on the last day.
But even granting for the sake of argument that hell isn't real, how do you reconcile God's descriptions of himself in the Bible with God's command to commit genocide?
God knows the disposition of each soul that has ever lived. They are not here forever, but each of them lived for a time and died as all men do. Each day is a gift. Existence is a gift. What makes you think we are owed more than each of us are given?
Ripening,
Trent
>God knows the disposition of each soul that has ever lived. They are not here forever, but each of them lived for a time and died as all men do. Each day is a gift. Existence is a gift. What makes you think we are owed more than each of us are given?
ReplyDeleteWell, if you're arguing that the existence of God is plausible despite the problem of pain, you've got a point. But you're avoiding the arguments I've given.
Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God? If not, we're on the same page as far as this post is concerned.
If so, what does it mean for God to have a chosen people while the others are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and how is it consistent with not showing partiality?
Hello again.
ReplyDelete""If so, what does it mean for God to have a chosen people while the others are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and how is it consistent with not showing partiality?""
Matthew 22
"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.
"And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
"Again he sent out other slaves saying, `Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."'
"But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,
and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.
"But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.
"Then he said to his slaves, `The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
`Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.'
"Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.
"But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a R789 man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes,
and he said to him, `Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless.
"Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
"For many are called, but few are chosen."
There are a lot of ways to look at this passage ... but I think it speaks directly to your question ... I hope you don't mind that I just threw a bunch of verses at you ... that isn't my normal style, but in this case I believe it was the most direct way to answer a great question.
-Trent
Trent,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like what you are saying is that the difference between chosen and not chosen is, in the case of the parable, preparing one's self for the wedding, and outside of the parable, preparing one's self by means of proper attitudes, good works, faith or something in one's control.
Had Romans 9 taken the issue of vessels of wrath and discussed it very little, it would make sense to me to look to other chapters to elucidate what it means. However, Romans 9 directly answers the question of why some are and some are not chosen.
9:11,16,18: “[F]or though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ... So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ... So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”
Then Paul writes in 9:19 “You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” Paul is recognizing that it sounds like he just said that God is finding fault with people when their inability to resist his will makes them unable to not be hardened. That is, God makes some people sin and then punishes them it.
Suppose Matthew 22 and not Romans 9:19 is the proper response, and God is finding fault because some people were called but not chosen because they did not prepare themselves. Verse 20 would then proceed, “Of course not! You are misunderstanding me. Vessels' of wrath sin causes them to be vessels of wrath – not the other way around.” But Paul doesn't answer this way. Paul's response is that the objector had the wrong attitude but he confirms that they were properly understanding the way it works:
Romans 9:20-22: “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
The context of vessels of wrath is not guests who failed to prepare themselves, but Pharaoh's use as an example not depending on the man who wills or the man who runs.
There are places in the Bible which speak of God's love for the world, places that speak of God's justice, and places that speak of God's partiality. The first two fit together, while the third does not fit with the other two.
Hey, stick with my long response as you might be surprised how much I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteOf the many that are called to the wedding feast, if you set aside all those as unchosen, you will find that they are few, very few, that are chosen; many called to the wedding feast, but few chosen to the wedding garment, that is, to salvation, by sanctification of the Spirit. This is the strait gate, and narrow way, which few find.
The unchosen, are not so much deemed unchosen because they did not work at something, but they are the many unchosen because they are UNWILLING. The unchosen's unwillingness was revealed in three ways in this story. First by preoccupation with providing for themselves (those returning to business/farm affairs.) Second, their unwillingness was revealed by active opposition / anger against the invitation as if their worst enemy laid the invite at their doorstep to do them harm (probably the category you find yourself within.) Lastly, the third group is a minority of insincere or hypocritical person (apparently only a single person from among the unchosen) who was just faking for whatever reason. Nevertheless, the comon thread in all of the unchosen is UNWILLINGNESS ... which manifested in a variety of ways.
In summary:
God calls all.
Many are unwilling.
God does not force the unwilling by choosing them against their inclination.
YOU WROTE:""That is, God makes some people sin and then punishes them it.""
I congratulate you for understanding something that most church-goers are slow to understand. Whereas my commentary on Matthew 22 would find churchgoer approval, they would not take it in context of what Paul wrote in Romans 9 .. that a willingness or unwillingness revealed in a mans inclination towards or against the kingdom, is given by God. I believe that the pride of most churchgoers and their tendency to take their "right choosing" as a lofty perch from which to condescend to others has blocked thier understanding. Indeed, blessed is he who was given a willing heart by God to whom such a person ought to be grateful. And woe to the man whose heart has been hardened by God.
If a man (for the sake of argument) could, by their faculty of their own soul change (instead of simply reveal) their heart from willing to unwilling or vica versa, then would it not be fully credited to the man for each change, and thereby necessary to give man the glory for each and every response to the kingdom?
Thus it is written, Jesus knows His sheep and He will not loose a single one of them. ... so in that sense God makes some people sin (when such sin is defined by a hardened disinclination to partake of the Kingdom) and then punishes them for it (when punishment is described by not affording the benefits of the kingdom to those that are unwilling to partake of it.)
Since, you appear to really want my feedback in these matters, I don't mind saying that I see the punishment different than you do. I see it as a withdrawal of blessing even of the blessing of life / existence itself. The weeping and gnashing of teeth, is like a spoiled child that has sensed deprivation of the goodness to which they have grown accustomed, and crying about it like a brat.
And now let me address your main point: :"""There are places in the Bible which speak of God's love for the world, places that speak of God's justice, and places that speak of God's partiality. The first two fit together, while the third does not fit with the other two."""
There didn't need to be any invitation to any feast. God did not owe it to anyone to offer the Kingdom. Simple temporal existence is greater than no existence at all. Should the grass of the field take up a lament that it blossoms and then fades ... that it is here one day and withers the next ... is that really a travesty?
Being a vessel of wrath is no more personal than being a vessel of honor. I don't take my lot in life personal as if it was something to which I deserve credit for anything I have done, so if you are a vessel of wrath please don't take your lot so personal. Instead, enjoy each day as a gift ... I never asked for existence, but I am glad to have it, aren't you? When God's wrath is revealed, heaven and earth disappear and even the elements melt til nothing remains that is created. You just happen to be part of the cosmos that was created and will be destroyed. Big deal. Nothing is forever, as our study of stars and galaxies have demonstrated. You don't have to be like the sissies wailing and gnashing their teeth: "poor me, I can't exist without end.", do you?
Still ripening,
Trent
God accomplished several things in commanding the Israelite attack on the Canaanites. He first enacted a kind of corporate capital punishment on a people who were deserving of God’s judgment. This destruction was directed more at the Canaanite religion (Deuteronomy 7:3-5, 12:2-3) than it was against Canaanite people per se. It was not ethnically motivated. The Canaanites were known to engage in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm.
ReplyDeleteIn fact God has ended that. The final covenant God made through Christ is an alliance radically different from previous ones, that is why we Christians are to love our neighbor. The time for divine vengeance are over.
About Madiannites, their women had seduced the children of Israel and had worshipped idols.
Every time God works by vengeance to protect his chosen people, but this election no longer includes just the Jews but all believers in the new covenant.
That's how mass murderers usually justify their actions.
ReplyDelete"Jews are evil. They needed to die." - Hitler
"Americans are evil. They needed to die." - Bin Laden
"Canaanites are evil. They needed to die." - Moses
And what better way to punish child sacrifice than to kill the children? No, really. This is exactly what you are saying. The way to punish someone for killing some of their children is to kill all of their children.
>Deviant sexual acts were the norm.
1. Who cares?
2. Why should we take the Bible's word for it? Similar slander always accompanies the justification of genocide.
3. Do you know what's worse than getting it on with a goat? Slaughtering a neighboring nation.