Evaluating God's Righteousness, Part I - Underestimating Sin
A recent commenter documented an impressive list of biblical "absurdities" which, in his or her mind, make the Biblical account of God seem foolish, primitive, and in some cases, immoral. And while each proposed "bible difficulty" has an associated biblical apology to match, such apologies might not seem convincing to our mindset. So before jumping into "answers," I thought that I might outline some of the principles which Christians, and perhaps others who are considering putting "God on trial" ought to consider. Modern humanists might not agree with these principles, but they are part of the foundational assumptions underlying the biblical approach to judging the righteousness of the Biblical God and his people.
Before we decide whether or not, for example, God's killing of the firstborn in Pharoh's Egypt was just, we should consider the biblical viewpoints on sin, righteousness, and justice. The first reason why we may not yet be equipped to judge God's actions, instructions, or inaction is because WE OFTEN UNDERESTIMATE THE EGREGIOUSNESS OF HUMAN EVILS.
Before we even get to evaluting God and His actions and reactions to humanity, we must examine the factors by which we examine ourselves. While some "sins" sound innocuous to us, they may, in fact, be much more evil than we have imagined. Why would we make such a poor estimation of moral turpitude?
1. We tend to justify our own sins to make ourselves feel less guilty
Our estimation of the moral evils usually works this way - sins that I do NOT commit seem hard to understand and evil ("other" people's sins), while my own seem understandable, and so I make a little more allowance for them. In fact, as long as I am practicing a certain sin, I am usually going to mostly or entirely justify it until I admit it and repudiate it (i.e. repent).
This is clearly reflected in Jesus' teaching on not judging - note that he doesn't say that we should not correct others or make moral judgments, but that we should first be aware of our own sinfulness:
Matthew 7:1-5
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
The exception to this, of course, is the person who is in denial, but knows or believes that what they have done or are doing is sinful. In that case, in an effort to allay their own guilt, they may go on a crusade AGAINST the sin which troubles their own soul so deeply, in a mistaken effort to cleanse their own conscience.
2. Being sinful, we tend to justify sin as a general practice
The bible teaches that until we are born again, we are slaves to sin (John 8:34, Romans 6). The problem is that we are not objective. If we condemn sin, we often end up condemning ourselves, and most won't do that. While similar to the point above, this point is broader - as a general rule, we excuse and lightly esteem the damage of sin because we are swimming in it. We can't see it objectively because we can not step outside of it.
John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
We ought to be aware that when we try to evaluate particular evils, we should step outside of our frame of reference. But into what new frame of reference? One where we are willing to come to the conclusion that our own actions are entirely wicked, if that's where the data leads. It does not have to, but if we are not willing to become impartial enough to follow the data and assumptions where they lead, we can be sure that our lack of objectivity, and our own sinfulness, will deceive us.
Our tendency towards self-deceit, especially when it comes to seeing evil, is a common idea in scripture.
Jeremiah 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?Hebrews 3:12-13
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
3. Our basis for comparison of evils is often based on the wrong standard - mankind
It's human. We compare ourselves to other humans, rather than to a
holy and pure God, when judging righteousness. But this method has two
problems.
First, it is relativistic - if our companions or leaders or role models are exceptionally wicked, we might judge ourselves as pretty good, since we are better than them. If they are exceedingly virtous, like Mother Theresa, however, we might be doing a little better. Comparing humans to humans may seem like a reasonable thing to do, but in light of mankind's general historical record, why choose such a low standard (Mother Theresa's and Ghandi's are the exception.)
Second, humans are a vastly imperfect standard to measure
by. We ought to compare ourselves to a completely pure ideal - that
is, perfection. Not that we MUST be perfect, but that we should put
the bar high, start with the ideal.
You see, I might seem pretty good compared to say, Hitler, and maybe a little less than perfect when compared to mother Theresa (ok, a lot less), but we tend to choose human examples of righteousness rather than a perfect and pure example.
And even when we have a Ghandi or Mother Theresa, we often don't use them as a standard because they are a rarity, and so we excuse ourselves by ignoring even the best humans possible, again, in order to justify ourselves.
2 Corinthians 10:12
But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.
4. We live in a world system that is, in general, contrary to God's love and holiness, so we are often mis-educated about what is right and wrong.
By mis-educated (apologies to Lauren Hill), I mean brainwashed - morally and intellectually blinded. Scripture is clear that human culture, often referred to as "this world" or "the world" operates and teaches in ways that are contrary to God and His Kingdom, and we are blinded by it. In fact, Jesus taught that Satan was the ruler of this world system.
Jeremiah 9:6
You live in the midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me,” declares the Lord.John 14:30
I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world [Satan] is coming. He has no claim on me,Ephesians 2:1-3
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air [Satan], the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.2 Corinthians 4:3-5
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
The Apostle John clearly outlined the world's value system, which in itself, is an entire teaching.
1 John 2:16 (KJV)
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.1 John 2:16 (NLT)
For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world.
The Apostle Paul begged fellow Christians to not think or act like "the world," but rather, in order to rightly determine what God is like, and what God's will is, they should renew their backwards, worldly thinking.
Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness,"
Ok, that's a lot of scripture, but I am trying to support one idea - that our ideas about what is right and wrong are heavily influenced by this world, and scripture clearly teaches that until we are re-educated by God's ways, we are most certainly confused in our thinking, and in fact, CAN NOT rightly understand the spiritual perspective.
Romans 5:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.1 Corinthians 2:14
But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.
Note that in context, this last verse actually says that if you are not born again (a Christian), you can not understand the things of God - it's not talking about "spiritual" in a generic sense. But that's a separate point to explore elsewhere.
5. If we have persisted in wickedness, God may have judged us by taking away his correction, allowing us to be taken by our own deceptions
This is the subject matter of my two posts of The Wrath of God, which reveals that when a person or group of people persist stubbornly in moral decline, one of the ways that God judges them is by allowing their self-deceit to go unchecked - He "gives them over" to their faulty reasoning.
Romans 1:24-28
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie....For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions....And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
When asking ourselves if we are fit to determine what is right or wrong, we need to consider that our judgment may be severely clouded because we have been on a moral decline.
And as Romans 1 points out, the evidence of that moral decline and loss of discernment is the acceptance and practice of sexual immorality, and especially homosexuality. If we feel fine about hx, our ability to discern right from wrong is probably extremely warped.
CONCLUSION
So, with all of these impediments to our ability to judge what is right and wrong, what are the solutions?
- Be aware of our tendency towards self-justification and self-deceit
- Begin to re-educate ourselves about what is right and wrong by studying and applying scripture. I know that this is going to be circular reasoning for the secularist trying to determine if God is just - I mean, taking the biblical definition to determine of the bible is just is kind of circular - or is it?
- If you can't do the bullet above, at least orient yourself to the BEST examples of righteousness you can find, rather than setting a low bar. Again, we are trying to determine a standard for qualitatively measuring the wickedness of MAN's actions, so that we can take the next step of evaluating God's reactions.
- Repent of your own sins and ask God to restore you to holiness. Again, the secularist skeptic probably won't do this step. But if he or she wants to rightly judge, perhaps a request Godward to awaken and enlighten one's soul might be useful.
So, having dealt with our own mis-evaluation of sin, we can move on to Part II - by what rules should we qualitatively evaluate the wickedness of various actions?
This analysis is all well and good when directed at the Christian believer but, as you admit, it means little to the "secularist skeptic." And, since you meant this as a reply to my commentary (see first paragraph above), it has little relevance. First, I don't see the Bible as having much relevance as an authority; second, I don't acknowledge the existence of "sin" as a theological concept. To an outsider, your god still seems tribal, capricious, and a bit crazy. I know your book dismisses people like me and my objections, but that's really part of the problem, isn't it? Cults always seek to insulate their adherents from outside criticism in this manner, for if you were freed of the hypnosis by reason and skeptical thought, you would realize that it's all slight-of-hand, a trick to divert your attention while they pick your pocket. This stuff was invented and written down when most people has no education and no concept of rational thought. We have more information in a single newspaper than they had in their entire life. How can you expect modern-day, educated Westerners (at least) to just accept these primitive assertions without some evidence to back them up? All you can offer, it seems, is empty threats of God's wrath and assertions that non-believers just have "human" knowledge (to this I say, what other kind is there? Prove your God's existence and prove the validity of your holy book, don't just assert). Just because a cult is believed by millions of people doesn't make it any more valid.
Posted by: Skeptic | 23 June 2007 at 10:48 AM
as you admit, it means little to the "secularist skeptic."
It means little to them because they don't believe or understand it perhaps, but it does apply to them even if they don't believe it, like all objective truths do.
Of course, the objective reality of metaphysical truths is debatable, but that doesn't make them untrue.
First, I don't see the Bible as having much relevance as an authority
Again, I am not saying these things are true BECAUSE the bible says so, but merely that the bible reveals to us that these things ARE true.
I don't acknowledge the existence of "sin" as a theological concept.
That's fine, so you don't believe in the whole existential guilt part of it. However, there are REAL consequences to sin in real life - look at them as ethical and moral breaches that hurt ourselves and hurt others. I think that all of these principles and condemnations of sin are valid merely in our temporal world as violations of nature, of our bodies, our souls, and those of others.
And in a general sense, don't you agree that there are psychological truths in here that can be divorced from their religious moorings? Like our tendency to see the faults of others are more significant than our own, our tendency to excuse our own faults, to deceive ourselves when we don't like the conclusions of science or epidemiology or whatever?
As to spiritual blindness and the God of this world, I totally understand why you would not believe that. But you might agree that our current world culture, and esp. American culture, embodies all types of values that are inhuman, and align pretty well with those three sins that John mentioned.
I mean, would you not agree that our current cultures emphasis on and promised fulfillment in physical pleasures of sex and food ("lust of the flesh"), having the best possessions ("lust of the eyes"), and power and achievement ("boastful pride of life") are bad things as ends in themselves, and that such pursuits take us AWAY from compassion and loving our neighbor?
To an outsider, your god still seems tribal, capricious, and a bit crazy.
Perhaps, but I think in part, you are seeing what you are trained to see, and what you want to see much of the time. As a former liberal, I look back on many of my strongest opinions and realize that they were really nothing more than excuses to maintain my immature and rebellious views against authority, and against anyone telling me what is right and wrong.
This stuff was invented and written down when most people has no education and no concept of rational thought.
I think that's a typical modernist view, thinking that we are more enlightened than our predecessors. The truth is, men like Solomon had wisdom that in many ways outstrips our own. Additionally, intelligence does not equate to being moral, ethical, or compassionate. These qualities are more important, though intelligence can certainly make them even better.
We have more information in a single newspaper than they had in their entire life. How can you expect modern-day, educated Westerners (at least) to just accept these primitive assertions without some evidence to back them up?
That's a good question which I will ponder. My initial answer is that intelligence alone does not make us better - the Nazi's were smarter than the primitive people of the bible too. Very good scientists, but not good at the things that really counted.
I understand how the tribal history of Israel, etc. seem unrelatable, and perhaps I should spend time on the New Testament teachings.
One thing that has not changed are the central themes that scripture addresses - love, guilt, forgiveness, God, meaning, and principles for living.
I think of modern westerners like the Greeks of Paul's day. He said
What I understand from this is that westerners want the "proof" of practical wisdom, not claims of metaphysical truth. This is why so many bible churches focus their sermons on the biblical views on improving your marriage, your finances, and finding purpose in life. And often, fundies criticize them for pandering to the modern western mindset, which is only interested in self help, as it were.
But I take away two things from this. First, I think that it is entirely appropriate to display to non-Christians that the scriptures have more wisdom and answers for living life than many other modern sources (though I am not against other sources such as psychology and some Buddhist approaches).
However, along with Paul the apostle (and the fundies), I also understand that, when we preach the (primitive, tribal) gospel, some people stumble because we are not giving them what they are interested in, which is usually wisdom and ethics divorced from theological and metaphysical truths.
But SOME of those people, at various times in their lives, suddenly awaken to the truth of their need for God, their separation from Him, and their need for his love, plan, and salvation from guilt. They need a promise of a new life from within. To them, such metaphysical claims leave the realm of intellectual idiocy and become the thing that transforms their life. "To those who are being saved, it is the power of God," even while it remains a stumbling block to those who want merely wisdom or intellectual knowledge.
There is no shortage, btw, of intellectual rigor and knowledge in Christian pursuits, it's just that they are flavored by the historical Jesus and preceding Jewish history with God.
All you can offer, it seems, is empty threats of God's wrath and assertions that non-believers just have "human" knowledge (to this I say, what other kind is there?
I am not making threats at all. Truth always has two sides. Think of it like you were fighting some other fatal disease other than sin - say, AIDS. If you approach the uneducated with threats of "if you don't stop being promiscous and using drugs, you will die!" how will they react? Because they can't directly see the link between their behaviors and AIDS, they may mock you. They may say "is that all you've got is threats? I LIKE having sex with multiple partners, and without those condoms you keep trying to push on me."
Are you lying to them? Of course not. But perhaps you need to offer them something positive, like a better life, a life without fear of AIDS.
Same goes for the Christian faith. We must warn people, but you are right, if that's all we do, we may not get too far even if we are right. That's partly why Romans 2:4 says "it is the goodness of God that draws men to repentance." We do need to paint God as the loving Father who is calling us to a relationship of life and health and freedom and beauty.
Prove your God's existence and prove the validity of your holy book, don't just assert).
Now you sound like the aforementioned Jews, demanding a sign. Jesus answered such demands this way:
In the first case, he was chastising them because they did not believe him, and demanded miraculous signs. And of course, in other places, he DID do miracles, and many did, and many did NOT believe.
In the latter scripture, I think he is trying to say that even if someone comes back from the dead, those who request such miracles will not believe. Why? Because their hearts are already too hard.
And as for making demands, here's an enigmatic response from Jesus:
In other words, God does so much for us, yet because He doesn't jump through our hoops, we reject Him. I believe he is calling this a bit childish.
I understand the desire for miraculous confirmations, but quite honestly, you may NEVER get such. But it doesn't hurt to ask, for many people HAVE been converted by asking God for certain miracles.
Just because a cult is believed by millions of people doesn't make it any more valid.
Absolutely. In fact, Jesus taught on this, telling people to beware of false prophets. I did a sermon on that just a few weeks back, and if you like, you can listen to my explanation of how Jesus instructed us on how to tell false teachers from true in the realm of metaphysics and religion.
Posted by: seeker | 23 June 2007 at 04:54 PM
Regarding the validity of the bible, there are volumes on how archeology and history support the claims of the bible. In fact, one researcher went as far as to claim that "it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference."
But as for proof for miraculous claims, you will get no direct proof. However, one of the telling claims of Christianity is how the disciples, whom all fled at the crucifixion of their leader, were suddenly (three days later) transformed into men of such exceeding confidence that every one of them preached that Jesus had risen from the dead and was who he said he was. And they preached that till each was killed.
Would all 12 men die for a lie? Exceedingly doubtful, esp. if you view their previous behavior, in which they ALL fled harm. This sociological evidence is one proof given for the resurrection of Jesus.
If you want to read the proof that IS offered, I highly recommend that you read Lee Strobel's books:
- The Case for Christ
- The Case for Faith
Until you have read these or something similar (though these are excellent and are written with the skeptic in mind), I would say that you have not examined the proof. Until you have done so, I do not think you can say that there is no proof.
Posted by: seeker | 23 June 2007 at 05:16 PM
I've read through this and have to admit that I'm just too fatigued about it all to answer at length. Just a few brief points:
It means little to them because they don't believe or understand it perhaps, but it does apply to them even if they don't believe it, like all objective truths do.
Yet another baseless assertion. I demand proof or evidence and you simply provide more assertions, as if repeating it over and over again constitutes a valid argument. Evidence?
Again, I am not saying these things are true BECAUSE the bible says so, but merely that the bible reveals to us that these things ARE true.
See answer above.
there are REAL consequences to sin in real life - look at them as ethical and moral breaches that hurt ourselves and hurt others. I think that all of these principles and condemnations of sin are valid merely in our temporal world as violations of nature, of our bodies, our souls, and those of others.
I didn't say there are no valid ethical or moral concerns, just that there is no "sin," a theological concept.
Additionally, intelligence does not equate to being moral, ethical, or compassionate. These qualities are more important, though intelligence can certainly make them even better.
You're avoiding my point. I didn't say intelligence but education and knowledge. There is no question that we have advanced far beyond the ancients in our knowledge of the world and human nature, and we also have developed tools to understand these matters they never dreamed of (except, perhaps, the Greeks).
Now you sound like the aforementioned Jews, demanding a sign.
No, I don't ask for a "sign." I ask for proof and evidence. Quite different things.
I have studied the religion, more so than most. I still find its supernatural claims unconvincing, though as a record of a certain (small) portion of mankind's spiritual journey interesting and informative.
Posted by: Skeptic | 24 June 2007 at 09:52 PM
Hi Skeptic:
A couple of points. When Seeker made his assertions about sin and the consequences of it, he wasn't arguing for those assertions. His beginning post explained that he didn't expect secularists to agree to the posts claims, but that he posted them to explain his foundational assumptions. Then of course it was proper for you to inform him that he was right that at least one secularist wasn't buying what he was selling, that secularist being you. So now, the real debate can begin, the one about the specific claimed absurdities and claims answers to those claimed absurdities.
I am looking forward.
your friend
keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 25 June 2007 at 07:31 AM
No, he was directly trying to answer me ("a recent commentator"). I answered back. The debate has begun. Where were you?
Posted by: Skeptic | 25 June 2007 at 09:11 AM
hi Skeptic:
Where was I? I was in Ventura County:-)
But I agree he was answering your post. But he wasn't IN THIS THREAD arguing against your claimed absurdities. he explicitly said what he was doing:
So before jumping into "answers," [to the specific claimed biblical absurdities] I thought that I might outline some of the principles which Christians, and perhaps others who are considering putting "God on trial" ought to consider.
None of what he wrote in this thread addressed any specific claimed biblical absurdities; that's the debate I'm waiting on.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 25 June 2007 at 09:25 AM
Yes, before I got to answering specific "absurdities," I thought it prudent to give a preface on the subject of answering skeptics.
You see, many skeptics have no interest in changing their opinions, and will only accept certain types of proofs. Not only that, I think most of us are unaware of how our secular or worldly world views affect our thinking. I wanted to bring these to the surface first.
As for sin as a theological reality, I don't suppose I can prove our guilt, which in essence is proving that there will be a day of judgment when we give account before God. Such revealed truths are taken on faith.
However, we most certainly can see the effects of disobeying these spiritual laws in the temporal world. Commit adultery and see what happens. Stay involved in promiscuous behavior and see what happens.
But the only problem we are going to have there is that
- in the sowing and reaping game, sometimes reaping isn't seen immediately - so we'll have to rely on epidemiology, not personal experience
- some sins damage the soul mostly, and not the body, so are harder to measure. Again, however, broader statistics covering such things as rates of depression, suicide, divorce, etc. can help us there.
I understand if all of these influences of sin on the human perception are not acceptable to the secular mindset. But don't get caught in the use of the word sin. If we are going to JUDGE God on his morality (his sinfulness), we already have an idea of what we consider immoral (sinful). If you want to think of that only in temporal, ethical ways, that will do for this discussion, and we can leave the theological concept of sin and future punishment out of it.
We must, however, understand that, before we attempt to evaluate God, or anyone else's righteousness, we should examine our own standards for such, and in addition, consider the claim of scripture that our own standard may be warped - that is, we tend to excuse moral lapses, esp. our own, see the lapses of others as bigger than they are, and we also may have a poor sense of justice - i.e. we may not think that love and justice are compatible, and so when we see others, God or government, dispense justice, we may think of it as unfair and unjust, when in reality, it may not be.
Posted by: seeker | 25 June 2007 at 11:06 AM
Fine. I'll let you Christians fight that one out.
Posted by: Skeptic | 25 June 2007 at 11:24 AM
You see, many skeptics have no interest in changing their opinions, and will only accept certain types of proofs. Not only that, I think most of us are unaware of how our secular or worldly world views affect our thinking.
I have the same criticism of Christians. I see people like you and Keith as having no interest in changing your opinions and accepting only certain types of proofs (i.e., theological ones). And, are you aware of how your religious beliefs affect your thinking? It goes both ways. Sometimes I think its pointless talking to religious believers.
Posted by: Skeptic | 25 June 2007 at 11:32 AM
Hi Skeptic:
I don't have any interest in changing my opinions--all I want to embrace the truth whatever that may be. I disagree with your implied assessment of my open-mindedness. I believe I have considered your points and addressed them as well as I can. I'm not sure what you mean by only accepting theological proofs--have you provided non-theological proofs?
I also don't share your assessment of the point of talking with us believers. Is mind changing the only reason for debate, or does debate help us each understand the issues better? My money's on the latter.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 25 June 2007 at 02:04 PM
have you provided non-theological proofs?
I don't need to. I'm not asserting the existence of an all-powerful, perfectly loving, infinitely intelligent super-being. I think the burden of proof rests on those who assert the existence of something and not on those who don't.
Posted by: skeptic? | 25 June 2007 at 03:36 PM
I'm not asserting the existence of an all-powerful, perfectly loving, infinitely intelligent super-being. I think the burden of proof rests on those who assert the existence of something and not on those who don't.
OK, so this has gone astray from the discussion of how to judge whether or not the actions of the biblical god are immoral.
But listen skeptic, your request for incontrovertible scientific proof of God is one we hear all of the time from skeptics, and the answer is... you won't ever get it. So if that is enough to convince you that God does NOT exist (although that's an argument from ignorance), you can go merrily on your way.
However, if you want to examine what proof is out there, though it may not meet your narrow standards, it is there. Those books I recommended are good.
Posted by: seeker | 25 June 2007 at 04:47 PM
Hi Skeptic:
Nobody needs to prove anything as long as they don't expect their discussion partner to change opinions. But you made a comment about how seeker and I didn't seem interested in any proofs but theistic proofs. What did you mean then?
your friend
keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 25 June 2007 at 05:57 PM
Seeker said... Additionally, intelligence does not equate to being moral, ethical, or compassionate. These qualities are more important, though intelligence can certainly make them even better.
Skeptic replied... You're avoiding my point. I didn't say intelligence but education and knowledge. There is no question that we have advanced far beyond the ancients in our knowledge of the world and human nature, and we also have developed tools to understand these matters they never dreamed of (except, perhaps, the Greeks).
No, you are missing my point. I could, and DO make the exact same claim using the words "education and knowledge."
The Nazi's had more education and knowledge than the ancients, but that did not make them more morally advanced.
And regarding our greater understanding of human nature, I'll grant that psychology has come a small way and given us some improvements, but honestly, a large portion of what psychology has 'discovered' has merely confirmed what the spiritual traditions have been saying for generations.
I'd say that the fact that there is so much horror in the modern world shows that we know very little of how to change such things, despite our greater knowledge. And the "ancient" gospel is known to make huge changes in individuals and nations, so may all of our advanced modern understanding is good for solving technical problems, but maybe not problems of human nature.
I think you give the modern too much credit for advancement, and like most moderns, think of yourself as more enlightened than such uneducated and tribal people as Jesus, Buddha, Moses, or whomever. But I disagree.
And of course, arguably, the foundations of our own great nation were largely biblical, not merely based on enlightenment thinkers.
I think your thesis about moderns being more enlightened than the ancients is faulty, especially in light of the fact that moral collapses happen cyclically in nations.
Posted by: seeker | 25 June 2007 at 07:02 PM
I don't know about you, but I'd choose this age over any other in the history of the world.
Posted by: Skeptic | 25 June 2007 at 07:32 PM
I don't know about you, but I'd choose this age over any other in the history of the world.
Me too, but mostly because the freedom and light of Christianity has spread further, and influenced more important cultures (the entire west, basically), than in any other time in history.
Also, science has brought us quite a bit also, but some like Stark would argue that Christianity was largely responsible for the rise of modern science. The abundance of Christians scientists among the great is a testimony to that, but Stark talks about the Christian ideas undergirding modern science.
Posted by: seeker | 26 June 2007 at 01:11 AM
You really have a one-track mind! If Christianity was so great, why wasn't the Middle Ages the height of human history?
Christians are so smug.
Posted by: Skeptic | 26 June 2007 at 09:15 AM
You really have a one-track mind!
Not one track, but I am not bound by anti-Catholic enlightenment-thinker rhetoric and revisionists histories. I know we've been taught such myths as the "Dark Ages," but they are largely spun by anti-religionists. They are not objective. Reading Stark's book (also, perhaps not objective, but spun the other way) made me realize how much history can and has been spun.
It also makes you wonder how much you've trusted the "experts," and how biased and human they really can be. Same goes for evolutionary scientists - I remember my senior year in college when I started doubting evolution. I talked with three of my profs about it, with varying results. My zoology professor was haughty and dismissinve, my biochem teacher was amused and admitted the statistical implausibility of evolution, and my botany prof admitted that he thought evolution to be doubtful - I think he was a creationist.
Regarding the Middle Ages (I'm glad you used that term, and not "Dark Ages", I don't know that history all that well yet, but I have two answers to the middle ages:
1. The idea that these were the "dark ages" is really a construct of anti-Catholic enlightenment thinkers. There were plenty of technological advancements during that time.
2. The Catholic church was doctrinally, and in many other ways corrupt during that time, and that's why we needed the Protestant Reformation. That wasn't the pinnacle of Christianity, but a darker period when it got corrupted by power and bad, unbiblical doctrines. The current age we live in is more of the Christian age than then. And by Christian I mean "biblically oriented," not ruled by church officials.
3. Even though modern science had not yet picked up in the middle ages, and there was superstition and ignorance (in part due to lack of printing tech, thank you Gutenberg), it was not as dark as moderns like to think - they just imagine it as some hellish existence because that's all they can imagine without modern medicine and microwaves. There is some truth in that view, but it's hardly the fault of the Catholics alone.
Posted by: seeker | 26 June 2007 at 10:41 AM
The first part of the Middle Ages was pretty dark. It started to pick up during the second 500 years. However, I was thinking of being an average Joe, and during those times it was very dark for them. As bad as it seems nowadays, I'd take it over any other age. Modern medicine is one of the greatest advantages, of course, but that came about because of the scientific revolution (and its dependence on reason instead of belief). At least for those of us fortunate enough to live in the first world (and even many in other parts of the world), our lives are infinitely better than ages past, with advantages almost too many to enumerate. For me, one of the great things is not being under the thumb of any religion, of having the choice of whether to be religious or not. I also have had the privilege of an education previously undreamed of, and access to the accumulated knowledge of world history. My only fear is that religious fundamentalism, ecological disaster, or war (or a combination of all three) will send us back into that true dark age once again.
Posted by: Skeptic | 26 June 2007 at 02:23 PM
My only fear is that religious fundamentalism, ecological disaster, or war (or a combination of all three) will send us back into that true dark age once again.
I think those are logical fears, but I would add one more - that in response to such craziness as (fundamentalist) Islam, we retreat into a secular/atheist mindset, and find out (again) what man is like without God (cf. Communism). Wars don't come from religion, they come from the heart of mankind, and without genuine, healthy faith (as opposed to the crazy or liberal kinds), we will find out that we can not save ourselves through our intelligence or technology.
As the very wise founders of our nation concluded (a little quote mining):
Posted by: seeker | 26 June 2007 at 03:20 PM
I think people should be free to believe what they want in private. However, I remain adamantly against the combination of organized religion and government. I am for the free and unrestrained individual human being determining his or her own destiny by the light of their own reason and conscience in concert with other such human beings. If religion should conflict with this, then down with religion!
Posted by: Skeptic | 26 June 2007 at 05:52 PM
I think people should be free to believe what they want in private. However, I remain adamantly against the combination of organized religion and government. I am for the free and unrestrained individual human being determining his or her own destiny by the light of their own reason and conscience in concert with other such human beings. If religion should conflict with this, then down with religion!
I agree with those sentiments, though they leave much unspecified. Regarding separation of church and state, there are at least two flavors - the extreme version taken by many secularists and anti-religionists, and the biblical separation which, as described elsewhere, specifies separation of powers but does not exclude religious ideas from public policy. We have published much on this, including:
The Four Historic Models for Church/State Interaction
The Christian History of the US Government
American Gospel : God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation
Separation of Science and State
The Functions of Legislation
Is applying a biblical worldview to public policy theocratic?
Fascism and Separation of Church and State
What is "Separation of Church and State"?
Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone
The Religious Roots of American Democracy
Is the Christian Right Turning the US Into a THEOCRACY?
The Five Spheres of Government
The Five Functions of Civil Government
I know that's way too much to read, but suffice it to say that I don't think that the founders understood separation as the modern secuarlists do, and with good reason.
Posted by: seeker | 26 June 2007 at 07:10 PM
The problem is, which religion do you pick, and what do you mean by "biblical separation"? I suppose that, since this is a Christian-majority nation, you would argue for Christianity being the voice which influences government. However, that leaves the rest of us out in the cold. The best course is to keep religion out of government. I don't think it's so radical to keep religion in the private sphere, allowing voters to vote their values.
Posted by: Skeptic | 26 June 2007 at 09:44 PM
Well, the founders picked Christianity, and gave it a privileged place. And I agree with them - the historicity and ethical, moral, and spiritual value of Jesus and his teachings are true and correct.
The best course is to keep religion out of government. I don't think it's so radical to keep religion in the private sphere, allowing voters to vote their values.
That's not how the American experiment was started, nor was it the view of the founders. This country is built on the foundation of the Judeo Christian thinkers, and we abandon that foundation at our own peril. If you want secularism, you can see France. Really, I am not being dismissive.
I think logic, intuition, and history point to the truths of the Christian religion as true and superior to all others. Secularists don't like such language, and I understand why, but the founders, wise men all, understood and believed such with good reason.
Secularism and strict separation of church and state are bad ideas, since they depend on the virtues of man unaided by God, which is a non-starter, even though humanists would disagree. But they are wrong.
Posted by: seeker | 26 June 2007 at 10:01 PM
Hi Skeptic:
I'm not sure exactly where the controversy is, honestly. IMO, government entities ought not promote religion, so 10 commandment displays in schools, school endorsed prayers before football games etc. ought not take place. But on a lot of times the religious right isn't trying to force its religion on anyone, they are merely voting according to their individual consciences, informed by their religious beliefs. Consider abortion for example: how does church/state separation apply to this issue?
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 27 June 2007 at 06:43 AM
Funny, I do agree with some of the complaints of secularists - I do think that public, sectarian prayers may be inappropriate. But I also think that Christianity deserves special pleading, that is, some exemption from some of the general principles of separation because (a) our nation was founded on Christian principles by Christians (and many supposed deists, though even Franklin was not really a deist, since he believed in a Providential God that affected the outcome of nations), (b) Christianity is true.
I know that last statement will offend some who want a generic nation, but i don't think that last statement, or its application, are antithetical to freedom or separation of church and state. In fact, as the Declaration states, our rights and freedoms come from God, not man. And not any God, but the God of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: seeker | 27 June 2007 at 08:36 AM
But on a lot of times the religious right isn't trying to force its religion on anyone
Really? Then I suggest you read seeker's comment immediately above. Though he'll deny it, he's a theocrat and desires a Christian government and nation and to hell with the rest of us. Just look at his ridiculous claim that the founders were uniformly Christian and wanted a Christian society. A few comments taken out of context and...voila!...we have a theocracy.
Look up the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, which reads,
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This is included in an excellent article addressing the fallacies seeker produces above:
Early America
Posted by: Skeptic | 27 June 2007 at 08:52 AM
Just look at his ridiculous claim that the founders were uniformly Christian and wanted a Christian society. A few comments taken out of context and...voila!...we have a theocracy.
Fear-mongering about theocracy is a typical reaction to those uneducated in the thinking of the founders, and of Christian thinkers in general. I suggest you re-read the posts I made on theocracy, listed above.
As to the Treaty of Tripoli, that is NOT evidence of whether or not we are a nation formed by Christians on Christian principle. While anti-Christians like yourself like to trot out this one "clear" example, it is contradicted by the overhwheliming abundance of quotes by the founders, as well as some significant supreme court decisions.
I answered the Tripoli question previously, but essentially, we were dealing with the MUSLIM Barbary Powers, and were explaining that the Federal Government is not an arm of Christianity, nor do we intend to spread Christianity through government. That is the proper way to read that, in context. Out of it's immediate historical context, and out of the context of all of the other historical documents of the U.S., you might take that statement as a denial of our Christian heritage and principles. But you are mistaken if you do that, because you then have to explain away or ignore all of the other evidence.
Posted by: seeker | 27 June 2007 at 09:33 AM
Hi Seeker and Skeptic:
I suppose the question about the religious beliefs of founders has historical interest, but IMO it represents a distraction from the policy question. Suppose the founders actually wanted to create a Christian nation; so what? This doesn't mean it's a good idea. The opposite is also the case; if the founders wanted an inpenentrable wall between church and state, that doesn't mean we ought have such a wall. For Christians who believe that the ways of God, not the traditions of man, are normative, the implicit principle made by such theocrats as D. James Kennedy seems idolotrous, while the same principle in reverse seems ironic when argued by religious skeptics, given their proclaimed allegiance to making up our own minds instead of accepting what other people say on faith.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 27 June 2007 at 01:28 PM
I agree that Christianity has had a great deal of influence on America and, as such, it should be studied in its historical context. However, I reject seeker's attempt to portray all the founders as devout Christians who intended to create a Christian state. Sure, you can find quotes, pro and con, about their attitudes towards Christianity, but the salient fact was that they were reacting to England with its state-religion. There is no way they would sanction official Christian government, nor a government which requires its members and citizens to be Christians. From my studies, they were mostly deists, not formal Christians, and were not hostile towards religion itself.
Basically, I agree with Keith here: the attitudes of the founders are essentially irrelevant today. The country is so different, so multicultural, that we have to find our own way. As a democracy, we must reflect the beliefs of all our citizens, not just one group (i.e., Christians). seeker is a fine example of the danger some forms of religion takes: he just asserts that his religion is true, and therefore America should reflect his Christian values. He sees no problem with creating a Christian government because its true. Everyone else can just go pound sand.
btw: I'm not particularly anti-Christianity per se. I'm anti-religious fundamentalism of whatever stripe, and I want a wall between organized religion and the government. The state should be neutral, favoring no religion over any other, nor forcing anyone to bow to any particular religious belief. I find some good things about Christian belief, as I find them in other forms of religion. I just don't want to be forced to live by the beliefs of any particular organized religion.
Posted by: Skeptic | 27 June 2007 at 03:07 PM
I reject seeker's attempt to portray all the founders as devout Christians who intended to create a Christian state
Good, because you are rejecting a straw man. I never said such a thing, but you read that in. If you had read any of my previous posts, you might have understood that. But I am saying that Christianity and its ideas deserves a special place, not only in history, but in the present. Not all ideas are of equal value, and pure secularism is not what the founders intended, nor is it the best path to take.
Of course the founders were not all Christians. Happy now? Sheesh.
the salient fact was that they were reacting to England with its state-religion. There is no way they would sanction official Christian government, nor a government which requires its members and citizens to be Christians.
No argument. But their solution was not a government free from religious influence, but a church free from state influence, so that they could practice their faith freely. Legislation that reflects Christian principles is not theocratic.
From my studies, they were mostly deists, not formal Christians, and were not hostile towards religion itself.
You should study more. Deists believe that God does not interfere with history. Even the most "deistic" of the founders, Ben Franklin, believed that God managed the affairs of nations, and urged the Continental Congress to pray. Prayer reflects a belief in a God that answers, not a Deist god.
the attitudes of the founders are essentially irrelevant today.
Oh yes, their attitudes and opinions, including the Constitution, are all irrelevant. While their personal faiths do not indicate that they wanted (or did not want) a Christian nation, their words and actions surrouding the formation of our nation prove that they were not secularists, and that most placed the Judeo Christian history and principles above all other literature. In fact, one study showed that, among the writings of the founders, the most referenced work was not the writing of Locke or any enlightenment philosophers, but the Bible (though here's a rebuttal).
Posted by: seeker | 28 June 2007 at 10:17 AM
Oh yes, their attitudes and opinions, including the Constitution, are all irrelevant.
I didn't say that! I didn't include the Constitution in my statement! You accuse me of setting up straw men and then turn around and do it yourself! Sheesh! What I'm saying is that, while we can take their attitudes and opinions into account, we are not required to slavishly follow them forever. I also said that Christianity is important to the history of the country. But I also think that we needn't slavishly follow its dictates either.
The way to solve the problem is through democracy: the people vote their values. In the marketplace of ideas, the best should rise to the top. Of course, we also need the judicial system to monitor all this so that minorities don't get their rights trampled on by the majority. What bothers me is that religious conservatives have used their influence to stack the judiciary. Are my rights being protected by a Supreme Court loaded with religious conservatives? We have a diverse society and our government should reflect that. Just because you religious conservatives think that your religion is "true" doesn't mean that it deserves a special place over all of us. That's de facto theocracy.
As to the Treaty of Tripoli: I take its wording at face value: As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion... Why put that in if they didn't mean it? Why try to explain it away? It says what is says. It's the basic fact upon which all the rest follows. It's the given in the argument upon which they reason.
You keep claiming you don't want a Christian theocracy, and yet you make statements again and again which point in that direction. Maybe not de jure, but certainly de facto. I repeat, government should be neutral in regards religion, allowing all to flourish and protecting the minority from majority beliefs.
btw: It also protects religion from government influence.
Posted by: | 28 June 2007 at 11:08 AM
What I'm saying is that, while we can take their attitudes and opinions into account, we are not required to slavishly follow them forever.
Agreed, but since their perspectives led to the formation of such excellent documents, by what reasons would you want to reject them? In fact, all the more reason to accept them as valid, although not slavishly, as you said.
The way to solve the problem is through democracy: the people vote their values. In the marketplace of ideas, the best should rise to the top.
Yes and no. Actually, a true Democracy is a nightmare because it basically says "whomever is in the majority, their opinion is law."
As a representative republic, we rely not on the rule of majority, but the rule of LAW. That is, we appeal to a set of objective and timeless principles set out in our Constitution. We may add principles to it, and in rare instances reconsider some, but again, we are appealing to TRUTH, not majority opinion.
Now, public debate and voting may be a means to updating that document, but woe to us if we enshrine falsehoods in our basic principles.
Of course, we also need the judicial system to monitor all this so that minorities don't get their rights trampled on by the majority.
Actually, that is NOT the judiciary's job. That principle should be enshrined in LAW, which is the Legislative branch's responsibility. The Judiciary merely applies and interprets law when it is unclear. They don't have any resonsibility to protect minorities, only ensure that law is applied equitably. If the law omits minorities, they can't change law or create it. That is what's known as 'judicial activism,' a problem decried by the right.
But that's what the legislative process, run by our representatives (and so in some sense, is being run "Democratically") is meant to do. But even in that arena, I don't think that we are just making up subjective ethics, but should be determining what is objectively and reasonably correct.
Things are not moral or ethical merely because we say they are or are not, but because, in many instances, they ARE moral or ethical. But that gets into the whole objective v. subjective moral truth, which I outlined in Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone. In morality, there is black and white, but there is also gray, not to mention contextual considerations. But some things are nearly always wrong. And opinion does not change that, imo.
Are my rights being protected by a Supreme Court loaded with religious conservatives?
Only if they are strict Constitutionalists ;) What I mean by that is, I think the most reasonable course is to interpret and apply the Constitution (a) as the founders intended, because (b) they thought of those principles as timeless and objectively true, not just true for their time period. Of course, with modern consdiderations, we may need to expand or learn how to apply those principles, but they don't cease to be true.
I think this kind of judiciary is what is best. For example, Rudi Guiliani is very popular among Republicans, despite his pro-choice stance. Interestingly, yesterday, I heard Pat Robertson say that Giuliani's pro-choice stance didn't bother him because of Rudy's committment to constructionist judges! That is an amazing concession for one such as Pat.
But the reasons he did that make sense. First, he is probably a pragmatist, and realizes that the real way we overturn the poor RVW decision is by getting constructionist judges. Interestingly, the reason this is so is NOT because such judges are pro-life, but because their judicial philosophy excludes such poor legislation as outside of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, and also, a transgression of state's rights (since most contructionists believe in limiting the federal govt to the five functions of civil government outlined in the Constitution.
As to the Treaty of Tripoli: I take its wording at face value: As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...
If you take all of the other decisions and official proclamations at face value in the same manner, you are going to have a problem, since they disagree with the face-value interpretation of the above. The smarter solution is to understand the proclamation in context rather than taking it out of context in order to support your own view.
Why put that in if they didn't mean it? Why try to explain it away?
First, they did mean it, but I don't think you understand it's meaning. Second, they were appeasing the typical insanity of Islamist powers. Appeasment can call for some pretty language that means one thing to one side, while giving wiggle room to the other.
You keep claiming you don't want a Christian theocracy, and yet you make statements again and again which point in that direction.
It seems that way becuase most leftist thinkers can only consider a binary choice here - either total secularism in public policy, or theocracy. I have argued repeatedly for a type of separation that is less stringent, but still puts boundaries on the merging of civil and ecclesiastic powers.
I also admit, however, that I give special place to Christian principle, as did the founders, because it is TRUE, and the Judeo-Christian God and ethic should be honored as being true above all other systems. It has proved itself in our nation, and around the world. Think of all the free and prosperous nations around the world - which of these have had Protestant reformations in their recent history? Nearly all. And the converse is true as well. Look at the oppressed and poverty stricken countries - how many of these have experienced Protestantism? Nearly none.
And the reason I stress Protestantism is because Catholisicm has in it's history gotten so corrupted with power, and so unbiblical that it's presence does not really ensure the presence of biblical principles in public life, while Protestantism, while not perfect, usually does.
I repeat, government should be neutral in regards religion, allowing all to flourish and protecting the minority from majority beliefs.
Government should be neutral in regard to religious practice, but it should not be immune to timeless and true principles of morality - it does so at it's own peril, and secular ethics does not lead to adequate public policy or morality in public policy, because subjective human standards end up decaying over time, and lead inevitably to totalitarianism.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think that the total separation doctrine is not what the founders intended or practiced, and if try to practice it, we'll end up in moral and economic decline, just as Europe is right now.
Posted by: seeker | 28 June 2007 at 03:32 PM
Hi Seeker:
Funny, I do agree with some of the complaints of secularists - I do think that public, sectarian prayers may be inappropriate. But I also think that Christianity deserves special pleading, that is, some exemption from some of the general principles of separation because (a) our nation was founded on Christian principles by Christians (and many supposed deists, though even Franklin was not really a deist, since he believed in a Providential God that affected the outcome of nations), (b) Christianity is true.
I agree with (b) and for the sake of this debate I'll accept (a). Still, why does that mean Christianity deserves any "special pleading" in America? Maybe if you explain what you mean by that I'll get your point.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 28 June 2007 at 05:31 PM
While in principle I agree that public policy should be determined based on public ethic and reason, not appeals to religious authority, I do think that metaphysical statements such as "that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" and "in God we trust" are acceptable, as is our appeal to biblical morality. I do think that biblical principle should be followed in public policy, while I do NOT find Koranic principles authoritative, nor would I replace the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court with a list of Shariah law.
I know I'm not being clear, but what I am trying to say is that the founders gave deference to the God of the Bible, and we should also, rather than saying that all religions have equal access, influence, and value in public policy and life.
Posted by: seeker | 28 June 2007 at 05:37 PM
I think that this interchange of ideas has been valuable simply because it proves just how far apart our two sides are. Really, there is no possibility of agreement anywhere. We inhabit two extremely separate worlds, and I despair that we can inhabit the same country. I fear that you will win and my kind be left with nothing but ashes and despair and, possibly, if you have any kindness in your hearts, the option to flee this country. You have contempt for Europe while I view it as a beacon of hope, a shining bulwark against the superstitions of fundamentalist religion. Or, perhaps, Canada. Anywhere to escape the assault of religionists and their evil and horrifying gains.
Posted by: Skeptic | 28 June 2007 at 06:48 PM
Lucky for you, like those who do not appreciate the protection the military gives us here at home, the presence of Christianity and Christians in society will continue to provide freedom and virtue, and keep our nation healthy even though you can't see it.
Your fears are entirely misplaced, and you confuse good and evil. So you can worry all you like, but you are really wasting your time worrying about the wrong things, imo.
My list of worries are:
- Islam (in nearly all it's forms, save Sufism). Not only must we resist it's evil ideas in the west, we must send a cocktail of Christianity and secular humanism to them to deliver them from the oppression of Islam.
- Continued abortion on demand. What can be more important than the murder of thousands of innocents a day in the name of convenience? God will not withhold judgment forever on a nation that does violence to innocents.
- Vices and perspectives that undermine the traditional family and traditional sexual values. These values keep society safe, healthy, orderly, and provide the best environment for the raising of healthy children.
The enemies of society here are pornography, promotion of promiscuity and homosexuality in children's classrooms, anti-father values in the media, and esp. in the black community, and the promotion of gay marriage as an acceptable norm.
- Slavery - worldwide the slavery industry is still booming. Shutting down the child sex trade is critical
- Poverty, starvation, and illnesses in underdeveloped countries. Thankfully, Christians like Bono, Franklin Graham, and the thousands of organizations worldwide working on this are making some progress. But again, like the Muslims, they don't just need temporal help, but the spiritual liberation of the Christian gospel.
Posted by: seeker | 28 June 2007 at 11:24 PM
My point was about fundamentalists and religionists (inspired by your rants), not Christianity per se. Hopefully, our next election will see your kind repudiated.
Posted by: Skeptic | 29 June 2007 at 09:23 AM
Hi Seeker and Skeptic:
Looking for common ground, I hypothesize this point of agreement: we all agree on certain (very general) political principles. I don't want to get off into details, but one example might be that we all agree that the American Apartheid we called segregation was wrong...
1. Anyway, suppose we all agree that our government ought to promote X... Skeptic, not believing in God, has his own reasons for X-support. Seeker and I, being Christians, see X as being part of what God approves of. I assume that Skeptic doesn't care why we support X, and considering only the policy X, I for one don't care why Skeptic supports it.
2. On the other hand, suppose Skeptic and I disagree about policy Y. My support of Y comes from my Christian belief, but isn't what really matters to Skeptic is that I support Y? If my reason for supporting Y were not based on my religion, surely that wouldn't make the policy itself any less problematic for Skeptic.
So this is my conundrum: how does "separation of church and state" figure into a lot of the disputes between religious right and us center/leftists? Abortion? Gay rights? Immigration? How does the social conservative position constitute a violation of the wall of separation? Now I ask this as a strong supporter of the wall of separation. But what I mean is that I am concerned when the powers of government are used to promote religious values. IMO such support is poison to those religious values. Insisting that government display the 10 Commandments, fighting over it and claiming victory when we force them into government buildings seems to me to be behaving exactly contrary to how Christ taught us to behave. We abandon the way of Christ when we fall into the temptation. But aside from those kind of formal religion promotion, I don't see the rest of social conservative agenda as being related to church/state. Either of you disagree?:-)
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 29 June 2007 at 10:35 AM
But aside from those kind of formal religion promotion, I don't see the rest of social conservative agenda as being related to church/state.
I think that being pro-life, pro-family (against gay marriage), and pro-chastity are all based on solid ethics, history, and epidemiology, biology and/or psychology. I don't need to bring up religious values in ANY of those issues to make my case, even if my position is swayed by religious values.
But I suppose specific sectarian references, like the 10 Commandments, are explicitly religious, and I'm on the fence about such things, since i have competing values which I have not reconciled. Those values are:
- I do not want any religionists, even those I might agree with, running things with religion rather than ethics and logic
- I do acknowledge, with the founders, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Judeo-Christian history and principles are true, right, and to be heeded in our societal and governmental designs. Other faith systems may have some value, but they are not all of equal value.
For example, I would not want Shariah law, or OT Judaic law (death penalty for homosexuality), even if they reflect moral values that are true (homosexuality is sinful).
And if you look at most Buddhist nations, they have all kinds of poverty and injustice. Why? Not because Buddhism has nothing of value to contribute, but because it is incomplete, and does not translate well into public policy, esp. when it comes to crime and punishment. I think that Christianity stands above the rest, and to deny that is to turn away from truth and health, as individuals and as a civil government.
In God we Trust means something real, not just something sentimental about our history. Once we STOP trusting in God in practical ways in civil government (such as believing that human rights are not given by the state, but originate in God, and the state ought to acknowledge that or risk calamity), we are headed down the road of failure.
Hopefully, our next election will see your kind repudiated.
This is the problem. You have been deceived in to thinking that "my kind" are the enemy, when you miss the real enemies at our door. Islam, abortion on demand, and militant secular atheism are the enemies of freedom and justice in our country.
The threat of Islam goes without saying, but it will continue to become more clear as Islamists try to bully Americans into submission. As John Quincy Adams so rightly said:
Regarding abortion, we can't keep murdering and think there will be no spiritual and practical consequences. Just like Lincoln believed that the sin of slavery is what brought the bloody judgment of the Civil War upon us, I suspect that the blood spilled in abortion will not go unanswered either.
And militant atheism? It can only go in one direction - to suppression and persecution of faith, an increase in public vice, and moral and social confusion and chaos. As the story of Libral, MO so clearly illustrated
Atheists are usually intelligent, ethical, and nice people. But their philosophy does not scale up well at all, due to the nature of man. The ascendance of atheist dogmas leads to only one place - cruelty - and history is witness to that.
Posted by: seeker | 29 June 2007 at 11:32 AM
seeker is an expert at special pleading: Christianity is just true and can do no wrong while all other views or beliefs are wrong or, at best, incomplete and the source of all that is bad. He consistently either ignores or downplays the historic evils chargeable to Christianity while harping on the failures of other faiths and philosophies. And no matter what arguments and evidence we may muster, he will just bull ahead and repeat the same old tripe. It's getting boring. Why try to reason with such a man? Exchanging ideas is one thing, this is just plain masochism.
One good thing is that I now understand the enemy a lot better: irrational, bigoted, fanatical, essentially fascistic. The best part is that he'll turn off any fair-minded person, leading to the deserved marginalization of his looney beliefs.
Posted by: Skeptic | 29 June 2007 at 12:18 PM
He consistently either ignores or downplays the historic evils chargeable to Christianity
Actually, I do not ignore the foibles of Christianity, but I do discount the errors of pre-reformation Catholicism because it is demonstrably not BIBLICAL.
I evaluate ideologies primarily on what they teach, not just what people who call themselves by the name DO.
I believe that xianity deserves special pleading, and despite the faults of xians in history, it still provides the best that humanity has seen, and the relative success, freedom, and prosperity of the west is evidence of that.
One good thing is that I now understand the enemy a lot better: irrational, bigoted, fanatical, essentially fascistic. The best part is that he'll turn off any fair-minded person, leading to the deserved marginalization of his looney beliefs.
Fortunately for you, I am not marginal, even though many liberals dream of such things at night. The fact that you think that such reasoning and declarations are the "enemy" shows that you barely understand the true enemies of humanity and freedom, your unwitting ideological collusion with said enemies, your total lack of understanding of the roots and practices of fascism (historically rooted in atheism and social Darwinism), and that you have no understanding of the power and truth of the Gospel - that is, you are still wandering in the dark of your own reasonings and unbelief. May God awaken you from your deceptions!
Regarding the far right and fascism, such inaccurate use of language belies the mindset of many liberal pseudo-intellectuals and sycophants these days, as this LA Times recent review of American Fascists discusses:
Posted by: seeker | 29 June 2007 at 01:25 PM
Yes, I disagree with Hedges for we must have the right to expose and attack religionist fanatics (of whatever type) and the threat they pose to freedom.
Posted by: Skeptic | 29 June 2007 at 03:07 PM
Hi Seeker:
I'd have to hear details about what kinds of things Hedges is specifically referring to as being "incitement to intolerance and persecution" before I could say much. I tend to be a first amendment absolutist, so I might be less inclined than a lot of people to try to regulate what people say. I tend to believe that the answer to hate speech is for the non-bigots to speak up and defend the victims of hate speech.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 29 June 2007 at 03:36 PM
Yes, I disagree with Hedges for we must have the right to expose and attack religionist fanatics (of whatever type) and the threat they pose to freedom.
At least you understand the value of freedom of speech, which gets applied to fanatics and peddlers of moral and ethical error on all sides.
However, if you still think the christian right are "fascists," you have drunk the cool-aid of liberal anti-logic, and have yourself gone into "fanatic mode."
I tend to believe that the answer to hate speech is for the non-bigots to speak up and defend the victims of hate speech.
I think the whole idea of hate speech is a misnomer. Incitement to violence is hate. Making moral declarations about certain activities, be they adultery, theft, avarice, or homosexuality, are not hate at all.
Intimidation and violence should be illegal, but criticism, ESPECIALLY moral criticism, should not.
Now, hateful people might take that as a reason to act hatefully, but that will always happen when you have parties that disagree. But shutting down disagreement is fascism - something that both hate speech laws and blasphemy laws have in common.
Posted by: seeker | 29 June 2007 at 03:50 PM
Hi Seeker:
I don't know where you live, but where I live I hear hate speech all the time, directed toward Mexican immigrants. I'm not talking about threats and intimidation, I am talking about comments inspired by the speakers baseless hatred for brown-skinned people who talk differently from them. I don't think their racist gibberish should be illegal, but it is certainly loathable.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 29 June 2007 at 05:35 PM
I don't think their racist gibberish should be illegal, but it is certainly loathable.
Agreed, but racism has nothing to do with moral criticism, unless you are saying something dumb like "all mexicans are lazy and criminal."
Being mexican is not a moral issues, but sexual deviance is.
Posted by: seeker | 01 July 2007 at 12:57 AM
Hi Seeker:
I was just talking about the phrase "hate speech". It's not a misnomer. That's all I was saying. Anti-homosexual comments can be hate speech, but merely stating your opinion about a behavior isn't necessarily hate speech. It really all depends on what you say. I expect this would be true of any behavior, actually; it seems to me it could be somewhat hateful to call somebody "that no good X-doer", even if X is immoral.
your friend
keith
your frie
Posted by: keith johnson | 01 July 2007 at 07:19 AM
Anti-homosexual comments can be hate speech, but merely stating your opinion about a behavior isn't necessarily hate speech.
OK.
Posted by: seeker | 01 July 2007 at 10:07 PM
On the question of putting God on trial, you might consider this website http://www.bookofjob.org It is an online commentary about Job putting God on trial through an Oath of Innocence and God justifying Job for doing so.
Posted by: Robert Sutherland | 06 July 2007 at 07:36 PM