I was fascinated by a recent podcast conversation (by Stand to Reason) with 'Dan in Colorado' who wanted to know about God's killing babies.
He
was referring to the war against the Midianites in Numbers 31:17-18 and
the punishment of Ephraim for apostasy in Hosea 13:16.
I
appreciate you didn't have the time available for a lengthy discussion
with him, but it got me thinking. How would I respond to his questions?
The
first observation I would hazard is that Dan takes an a-historical view
of the texts coupled with, perhaps, a deterministic view of God's acts
being the source of human/historical acts.
Yet, God's action is
in history within its context, as is man's, and the texts report on
this. They show God in historical interaction; that is his action is in,
through and by history: in a manner, God uses the unfolding of the
history of human depravity to achieve his good ends despite the
depravity of man which produces a history of degeneracy.
In his
'a-historical' view Dan seems also to have missed the entire point of
the OT. It is not merely a collection of narratives, but it lays out the
flow of history bringing the Messiah and delineates the historical man
in desperate need of the Messiah. It is about the formation and choosing
of Israel, itself delivered from slavery, as the base for the Messiah
who will deliver us all from slavery to sin and death.
God,
rather than being stifled by the reversal in death that man brought upon
himself, uses the history marked by it to advance his long game to
bring eternal life to all who believe.
Dan seems to take a
'sentimental' view of death. Everyone killed in these judgements,
wreaked in the normal course of ANE warfare, itself constrained by the
circumstances of the times (more on this below) would have died anyway:
as do we all. Death is never 'special' in the history of man. It is
condition-normal in our corrupted state and from which we are to be
rescued...the great love of God is that he uses the progression of the
state of horror we are in to retrieve a people through the coming of the
Messiah. He is not finally frustrated by it!
The point of
history is not the terminal undoing of mankind in dissolution and death,
but in salvation and life. Dan seems to have not considered this.
Dan
also seems to bring God wholly into the cosmos with a Euthyphroean
option: that 'right' is external to and at least logically, prior to
God. Whereas the scriptures teach that all value and ethical judgements
flow from God's nature: being that he is love, as John tells us. 'Moral'
is what marks our choices because we have the frightening choice: to
choose or reject repentance! God, oddly, does not have such a choice: he
is who he is, and cannot 'un-be' himself.
Nevertheless, 'love'
is also a long game in a world that is full of hate and decay (moral,
physical and spiritual) resulting with all this being overturned and put
right in the New Creation. God has no 'blood on his hands'.
Moreover
the evil done by those who visit it on Ephraim will itself be repaid,
as is Moab experiencing, being punished for its rejection of God and
its clear and present danger to the mission of Israel for the rescue of
the world. God responds to and uses the evil of Moab and Shalmaneser
respectively; he does not cause it, yet is working by it his ultimate
Good for those who love him despite the blood-thirsty waywardness of
mankind. Working in and by (Romans 8:28) the 'warp and woof' of human
history, because the world is given to man (Ps 115:16) wherein man makes
significant choices which must play out, yet will not and cannot
frustrate God's ends.
Dan also seems to misunderstand death. I
can't remember who stated this, but death is a change of location, not
annihilation. Any babies killed would, I think we expect from the
scriptures, not be excluded from the love of God, but be saved from the
course they would have otherwise gone on. Death in these terms is not
the offense of murder.
The practicalities of the ancient world
also must be taken into account. They would be twofold: who would look
after surviving babies, bearing the financial burden in a very small and
fragile economy, to succour the children of the enemy? Moreover, any
surviving children would soon enough learn their history and plot to
retaliate: who is going to preserve a future guerilla force of angry
young men who would be expected to seek their destruction? We see the
sentiments of young Arabs in Gaza: perhaps this would be the picture of
the adolescent Midian children!
'Evil' is not merely a set of
actions that can be abstracted to a particular moral category, but is
actions that are 'not-God' or in denial of who God is. This seems to not
be fully grasped by Dan. Thus it has no utility apart from sounding the
loudest possible alarm that all is not right with the world. That we
detect it (as you say, something is not right with the world), says that
we have a transcendental connection to a more basic reality-structure
than the world exhibits, by virtue of our imageness of God, I daresay.
The
evil in which is the history of the establishment, preservation and
preparation of Israel for the Messiah's coming is what life post-fall
is, entirely. Dan picks and chooses his 'evils' in some sense. To
side-step the evil would be to overturn the fallen world, meaninglessly,
as the fallen-ness would continue. Thus, this can only truly be done in
the New Creation.
2) God and temporality (the following podcast from the one mentioned above)
I
liked the segment in the more recent podcast about God and time. I tend
to agree with you, but would fine-tune my own statement of position to
recognize that God explicitly engages with his creation temporally.
I've no idea how an a-temporal being would 'work', of course given our
experience is of a creation both separate from God, per se, but also
congruent with who God is.
Nevertheless, God shows that he is
temporally 'synched' with his creation in that he created in the
specific cadence of the days that give the tempo to our own experience
of the creation. God thus couples with us temporally and substantially
in his acts of creation (the ground of fellowship: the parties in the
same place and time). He thus sets the context for his other acts within
the creation, culminating in the Incarnation.
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 12, 2025
The Man Who Judged God
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Singer! So what?
Koukl on Singer's metaethics: edited transcript of a podcast in answer to a question regarding a Singerian atheist and his view that an objective morality can exist without God.
Koukl:
When atheists claim an ethical basis for an action, they usually cite something objective that is not morality.
Morality entails obligations. We are obliged to do something by something that is outside of ourselves, that is grounded outside of ourselves. If it is not grounded outside of ourselves it is not objective. If it does not entail ethical obligation it is not morality.
Singer's relies on axioms (Sidgwick's?): fairness, for conscious beings (animals too), least amount of suffering.
Singer here has given examples of things we are morally obliged to do: fairnes and least suffering. I don't know what 'fairness' is acccording to him. It entails a certain definintion of something as to how goods are distributed (that is, ethical 'goods') but it also smuggles in a moral obligation in trying to defend morality. What is it that makes fairness a moral obligation? And why is it that we have to create the least amount of suffering? Why can't we create the most amount of suffering?
People are going to say that its obvious that less suffering is better than more suffering; but better in what sense? Better in a pleasure sense? Yes, in that way, but in a moral sense? That's another question.
Even if they said it was obvious in a moral sense, they've confused some categories now because I would agree that it's better in a moral sense. I would say it's obviously better in a moral sense. However, that doesn't tell us why it's obligatory for us to do that. It tells us that we know it's better but to whom or to what are we morally obliged?
We are morally obliged to conscious beings according to Singer but who is obliging us regarding conscious beings?
This is called the grounding question.
Objective morality: when I say God is the moral standard of the universe and he creates moral principles [by the nature of who he is and by this what is groundingly real] that I am obliged to him to obey [to be consistent with what is real and who I truly am], I have just grounded and made sense of my moral obligation in an objectives sense, whether you agree or not.
Singer is not grounding his principles in any way, he merely declares fairness as a moral good [asserts them without basis, except for some posited affective inclination, but so what]. But who says? His grandmother? Did he just make it up? Is it his culture's view that we shouldn't have suffering for people? He says it is obvious that we shouldn't. Yes, it might be obvious that we shouldn't cause suffering, but I want to know what causes it to be wrong. That's the grounding issue.
This is what no amount of atheistic thinking can accomplish for morality. It simply cannot ground objective obligation in a godless world [that is, in a closed material system of impersonal cause and effect].
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Explain 'moral', Christopher.
Christopher Hitchens was famous for his debating ploy with Christians, asking them to name one moral act that Christians can to that atheists cannot do.
Most are flumoxed.
Here's a reply a pal of mine would make:
Sorry Christopher, but your question is misconceived because Christians are capable of doing every moral act whereas atheists are incapable of doing anything morally right.
When Christopher's apoplexy ended you
would have placed the burden of proof back onto him by asking him to
explain how any act within a materialist worldview can be moral. In
other words, on what true and justified meta-ethical basis can an
atheist say he is acting morally without question-begging, invoking
brute facts (a disingenuous blood relative of question-begging) or
forever cascading along that infinite regress.
An alternative is:
A person who is not a Christian is incapable of any morally upright act.
Again, after the apoplexy dies down.
Christopher, you are using your incomplete world view to batter my complete world view. Step inside mine for a moment.
Paul in Romans 3 starts this passage with perhaps Psalm 14:3, and then runs through a number of Old Testament ideas:
“There is no righteous person, not even one;
11 There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;
12 They have all turned aside, together they have become [i]corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The venom of [j]asps is under their lips”;
14 “Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And they have not known the way of peace.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
He also deals with the universal dilemma of the reflective person: "I do what I don't want to do, and don't do what I do want to do" Romans 7:21-25.
What's your solution, dead Christopher? Avoidance? Denial? Rejection of your own failings?
Wednesday, June 24, 2020
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
But what about earthquakes?
I've discussed the atheist and human depravity: all our thoughts are evil all the time (Bible ref), but how does that make earthquakes?
When A&E chose idolatry over their relationship with God; as custodians of the material cosmos, they effectively ejected God from their lives and the place God created as the setting for fellowship.
Kick the builder off your land, tear up the contract for your new house, repudiate the warranty, and don't complain when he doesn't turn up to repair the leaks, the shifting footings, the sagging roof beams, the de-bonding tiles in the bathroom. Heck, he won't even come back to fix the dripping tap.
Once one thing in a perfect cosmos is imperfect, the whole cosmos is imperfect. God's curse is his custodial separation from his creation because his creature-in-his-image has separated from him.
Further to that, most of our experience of 'natural' brokenness can be put down to our own mistaken cupidity: there is no boon here, but as we misplace our efforts, misjudge our environment and invest in it foolishly, we get bad results: we build cities on fault lines, we build houses in flood plains, you get the picture. And it goes on. We invest in weapons rather than medical research...we have to...but that's the choice we make.
We decide DDT is bad for bird eggs, so we let countless millions in Africa die of malaria. Our doing, not Gods.
The list goes on.
Put a fool in charge and you get fool outcomes. Simple.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
The athiests' ruse
The greatest challenge to the atheist is the 'problem of evil'.
It is so great a challenge to the atheist's construction of the world that he (and if a woman, she) has to use it to attack Christian theism...as they conceive it.
Most Christians seem to fall in to the trap, alas. And a trap it is; but most atheists also fall into it because they can't think of what to do with their own problem of evil: that they can detect objective moral failure in a material world, in a world of evolution where all but the least unfit are annihilated and where random changes in the genome while the putative engine of change, are the source of misfitting, disease, disability and life's existential struggle, in every dimension. That's their world, but they don't seem to find it congenial.
Thus they use it to attack the Christian vision because, they claim, it doesn't solve the 'problem' which in their world cannot exist, because it is a world without objective moral content.
To carry off their attack on the Christian vision, they have to pretend it is other than it is. They have to attack a 'straw' vision.
So they create a straw-god, and then claim he is not doing his job, and fabricate a straw-Christianity, and claim that it is incoherent.
Most Christians seem to also not know their faith very well. Faith is confidence based on knowledge. Our current Christian culture is light on knowledge in too many circles, and lets our detractors define faith as some sort of phantasm.
Here what's they miss out in their straw-manning of God and our faith.
God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving....then they go to town with their God the beneficent puppet-master.
Christianity, they see, is about obeying the rules, about 'cow-towing' to a mean dictator who demands that we set aside our rationality (which he created, don't you know), and 'just believe' despite the 'evidence' as they see it of evil, which has no reality in their own construction of the world.
All pretty amusing in a pathetically forlorn way.
So, how do they 'straw-man' God.
The omit his critical 'attribute' God is holy. The atheist's god is made in the image of the atheist: how the atheist would like God to be: a sort of moralistic-therapeutic-deism with God as the failed absentee sugar-daddy in the sky.Sort of like Stanley Crawford's Gascoyne who elusively runs his show without showing up.
They decline to understand that the faith of Christ is not to join a rule-club, but to join the opposition to evil, to be rescued from it in prospect of the main game, the new creation.
Oh, they also decline to know what evil is. Evil is the denial of God, it is living in 'not-Godness'.
We can only do this not because of some cute 'free-will' as though free will is a triviality, but as those who are able to fellowship with God we are also able to meaningfully dis-fellowship with him. Otherwise it was not fellowship in the first place and WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENJOY GOD FOREVER if we were not true persons (i.e. in God's image as he is a person).
The atheist's mission is to live in not-Godness while having God prevent us from experiencing living in not-Godness. Not possible. Its like wanting to enjoy marriage by remaining single (married bachelors can line up over there).
Christianity is about our relationship with God as being in his family: to ultimately enjoy him forever, to inherit all he has prepared for us, to rule with Christ for eternity. Rule here as God showed what 'rule' is like in Genesis 1 and then in the incarnation: to do what is very good for others.
It is also about understanding that not-Godness discontents us with life cut-off from him to prevent complacency about our state. Not-Godness started when our first parents (A&E chose the idolatry of seeking knowledge from the tree, and not from God. They wanted to strike out without God, and of course, reject God and you reject his credit line at the same time).
All I ask the atheist is two questions: how is their rejection of God helping to undo evil (the outworking of our rejection of God and absent re-birth), and having rejected God, why would the world want to experience his goodness? After all, everything the world's denizens do is to reject God while usually complaining at the results of that obstinate choice.
But of course, the nail in the coffin of their view: who told them there is evil?
By their construction of the world they should be puzzled that anyone can even notice that there is a disparity between 'good' and 'bad', because there is no value basis in it by which to make such judgements. All they have is relative subjective uncongeniality of circumstances. Big deal, but that's all evolution gets you.
However, there is a point of contact. We do experience a disjuncture between what we think should be and what is. This results from the disjuncture between the world we experience and the base reality of the way of God. We are in a bubble of 'anti-reality'. God is thus merciful to enter into this 'bubble' to preserve this 'bubble' and us in it so that we may turn to him and finally enjoy him forever in a renewed creation.
Friday, April 24, 2020
Genocide is immoral?
Doodling around the Internet I came across this article in The Guardian (that one-eyed leftist rag should get alarm bells sounding straight away) by Richard Dawkins (Dick, as I call him) "Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig". And it's not because he has two surnames!
Dick's chief reason appears to be because of Craig's apparent endorsement of genocide in Deuteronomy 20:13-15.
I've only got two comments.
1) Dick thinks that material is the entirety of reality and that it operates with pitiless indifference to human interests or moral considerations. Thus 'genocide' is neither good nor bad, but just is.
2) If genocide, however, has good reason: such as the tribes in Canaan being worse human rights abusers than even Isis, taking delight in incinerating their live babies, for instance, then it must be a moral good!
3) And this comment for free: If God wants to judge people for resolutely foul behavior that is entrenched in every aspect of a culture, then maybe that's a good idea.
So, all I can say to Dick is what's your solution for human horror games? Blind pitiless indifference?
Dick's chief reason appears to be because of Craig's apparent endorsement of genocide in Deuteronomy 20:13-15.
I've only got two comments.
1) Dick thinks that material is the entirety of reality and that it operates with pitiless indifference to human interests or moral considerations. Thus 'genocide' is neither good nor bad, but just is.
2) If genocide, however, has good reason: such as the tribes in Canaan being worse human rights abusers than even Isis, taking delight in incinerating their live babies, for instance, then it must be a moral good!
3) And this comment for free: If God wants to judge people for resolutely foul behavior that is entrenched in every aspect of a culture, then maybe that's a good idea.
So, all I can say to Dick is what's your solution for human horror games? Blind pitiless indifference?
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Is God good?
The problem of evil is the classic of the village atheist in his (or her, thinking of Madeline Murray O'Hare) empty quest to make out that God doesn't or couldn't exist.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets it out thus:
Thus this formulation is the problem for the conveniently defined 'philosophers' god. Not the living God, who's told us a completely different story about us and himself. (See Pannenberg for more humour on this topic).
The point of departure is in the notion of 'good'. Good here is defined as the speaker seems to behold it, as some platonic quality hovering off in Plato-land, imposing its imagined meaning (imagined by the speaker and for the speaker's convenience) on all and sundry. Including God.
But God is not subject to our self-serving definitions, nor our requirements that God submerges in our lakes of fantasy.
God is, above all, holy.
By comparison, and by God's declaration analyzing man's rejection of fellowship with God, and of his own 'god-likeness, man is an evil and corrupted piece of slime existing in a soon to be consummated living death.
The 'problem' of evil is the atheist's problem. Not the Christian's. The atheist has to explain how he gets to define good and evil, how he gets to exempt himself from the doers of evil, how he is reversing the evil defined only by that which is not-god-likeness, which can only really be reversed by turning to that same God in repentance, praise and thanks for his mercy and love in rescuing us from the mess of our own obdurate making.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets it out thus:
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient GodBoth clearly have nothing to do with the God who created. The one popularly known in Western countries as 'the Christian God' (as though there is a gallery of actual gods when the gallery is of fictional gods).
Thus this formulation is the problem for the conveniently defined 'philosophers' god. Not the living God, who's told us a completely different story about us and himself. (See Pannenberg for more humour on this topic).
The point of departure is in the notion of 'good'. Good here is defined as the speaker seems to behold it, as some platonic quality hovering off in Plato-land, imposing its imagined meaning (imagined by the speaker and for the speaker's convenience) on all and sundry. Including God.
But God is not subject to our self-serving definitions, nor our requirements that God submerges in our lakes of fantasy.
God is, above all, holy.
By comparison, and by God's declaration analyzing man's rejection of fellowship with God, and of his own 'god-likeness, man is an evil and corrupted piece of slime existing in a soon to be consummated living death.
The 'problem' of evil is the atheist's problem. Not the Christian's. The atheist has to explain how he gets to define good and evil, how he gets to exempt himself from the doers of evil, how he is reversing the evil defined only by that which is not-god-likeness, which can only really be reversed by turning to that same God in repentance, praise and thanks for his mercy and love in rescuing us from the mess of our own obdurate making.
Saturday, April 11, 2020
What about children and bone cancer?
So quipped the no-show intellect, Stephen Fry (an actor and comedian...his best role Jeeves in Jeeves and Wooster, with Hugh Laurie)
I wondered how to rebut this question. I mean, rebut for the smarty-pants show-off like Fry, but also how to engage with a person in real personal distress.
1. The rebuttal (because it's more fun).
As I pondered this, I realized that I had dealt with it in conversation with an avowed atheist a while back. I had been at a debate between some Christians and members of the Humanist Society and afterwards at afternoon tea got chatting to one of the atheist cheer squad. He was an elderly and quite gentlemanly fellow who asked a question similar to Fry's, but without Fry's braggadocio. It was 'what about children dying?'
I enlarged it and asked him, 'What about anyone dying?, What about old people dying? The problem is death itself. Why do we all face it? It makes life a futile joke, doesn't it? We grow, and work, and achieve a few things, and shortly thereafter, we turn to dust: nothing! on your view.'
He had no response. To put a point on it, I'd say to Fry: "I'll respond to that when you tell my how it fits into your world view." and await the empty blathering of a fool who claims there is no God as he tried to explain the difference between dust in a pile, and dust organized into a human form all sound and fury, achieving nothing.
Then it goes to the basic 5 finger exercise of the story of reality. In this, the pointy bit would be number 2: we reject harmony with God, and so live resolutely in dis-harmony; God respects our choice of life in the sewer, but points to life with him through Christ as being the better option, there for the taking.
2. Discussion with a not-so smarty pants (because it may be more productive)
First I would ask at what age he thinks bone cancer should kick in, or when life should end, and under what circumstances.
Noting that we all die after a life of much pain, sadness, frustration, and disappointment, perhaps an early death is better.
And then, why is death bad, anyway. If our life is merely meaningless bluster of a pile of randomly organized particles with the brain similarly a random accident, what value has any of its cogitations?
Then, while we are at it, I note your implicit criticism of your bowdlerization of God. So where do you get the meta-ethical epistemology that gives you greater insight into evil than anyone else, or is this just your random opinion? And if you are so down on evil, what do you do about the evil in the world, in your own life, indeed, in your innermost being? Nothing, I'll bet, except excuse it, exculpate it, ignore it and deny it...painting the shit box of your life in colours that will only fade and peel off.
3. Fold-back
An assertive questioner will often be at least an unconsidered materialist, believing in evolution. In that case, just advise that in an evolutionary world, the sick and weak die off. That's what's happening here, strengthening the gene pool for subsequent generations. Nothing personal, because in evolution, there is nothing personal, just blind pitiless indifference, to quote Dick Dawkins.
4. In genuine compassion
We are all in this broken world, all we can do is grieve with each other and know that the loss, pain, and suffering are real, because all people have real value.
If the question goes to 'why God', the response might be God has given us this world and we, collectively have chosen to live away from God. Our suffering is a clarion call for us to be in his family, instead of outside it, and with his family look in hope to the resurrection to live everlasting that all his family will be blessed with, as demonstrated by the resurrection of Christ.
I wondered how to rebut this question. I mean, rebut for the smarty-pants show-off like Fry, but also how to engage with a person in real personal distress.
1. The rebuttal (because it's more fun).
As I pondered this, I realized that I had dealt with it in conversation with an avowed atheist a while back. I had been at a debate between some Christians and members of the Humanist Society and afterwards at afternoon tea got chatting to one of the atheist cheer squad. He was an elderly and quite gentlemanly fellow who asked a question similar to Fry's, but without Fry's braggadocio. It was 'what about children dying?'
I enlarged it and asked him, 'What about anyone dying?, What about old people dying? The problem is death itself. Why do we all face it? It makes life a futile joke, doesn't it? We grow, and work, and achieve a few things, and shortly thereafter, we turn to dust: nothing! on your view.'
He had no response. To put a point on it, I'd say to Fry: "I'll respond to that when you tell my how it fits into your world view." and await the empty blathering of a fool who claims there is no God as he tried to explain the difference between dust in a pile, and dust organized into a human form all sound and fury, achieving nothing.
Then it goes to the basic 5 finger exercise of the story of reality. In this, the pointy bit would be number 2: we reject harmony with God, and so live resolutely in dis-harmony; God respects our choice of life in the sewer, but points to life with him through Christ as being the better option, there for the taking.
2. Discussion with a not-so smarty pants (because it may be more productive)
First I would ask at what age he thinks bone cancer should kick in, or when life should end, and under what circumstances.
Noting that we all die after a life of much pain, sadness, frustration, and disappointment, perhaps an early death is better.
And then, why is death bad, anyway. If our life is merely meaningless bluster of a pile of randomly organized particles with the brain similarly a random accident, what value has any of its cogitations?
Then, while we are at it, I note your implicit criticism of your bowdlerization of God. So where do you get the meta-ethical epistemology that gives you greater insight into evil than anyone else, or is this just your random opinion? And if you are so down on evil, what do you do about the evil in the world, in your own life, indeed, in your innermost being? Nothing, I'll bet, except excuse it, exculpate it, ignore it and deny it...painting the shit box of your life in colours that will only fade and peel off.
3. Fold-back
An assertive questioner will often be at least an unconsidered materialist, believing in evolution. In that case, just advise that in an evolutionary world, the sick and weak die off. That's what's happening here, strengthening the gene pool for subsequent generations. Nothing personal, because in evolution, there is nothing personal, just blind pitiless indifference, to quote Dick Dawkins.
4. In genuine compassion
We are all in this broken world, all we can do is grieve with each other and know that the loss, pain, and suffering are real, because all people have real value.
If the question goes to 'why God', the response might be God has given us this world and we, collectively have chosen to live away from God. Our suffering is a clarion call for us to be in his family, instead of outside it, and with his family look in hope to the resurrection to live everlasting that all his family will be blessed with, as demonstrated by the resurrection of Christ.
Why did you kill all those people
In an old taped lecture by Dr, Dr, Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (yep, three doctorates) he got to a discussion of 'theistic-evolution'. He recounted this report:
A British clergyman spoke to one of the Nuremberg war criminals before his execution, about his crimes and did he wish to take this last opportunity to repent before God.
He replied with a 'no'. And why should he, he said. He was only doing God's work as the church had told him, evolution and all its death of the weak was God's means of creating. He was only weeding out the weak and felt no guilt at all.
A British clergyman spoke to one of the Nuremberg war criminals before his execution, about his crimes and did he wish to take this last opportunity to repent before God.
He replied with a 'no'. And why should he, he said. He was only doing God's work as the church had told him, evolution and all its death of the weak was God's means of creating. He was only weeding out the weak and felt no guilt at all.
Monday, March 30, 2020
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Can we be good without God?
Bill Craig has a video of a lecture on this subject, but not quite. His lecture is on the notion of being good without God providing a standard of 'good'. Fair enough, but it's not about the question.
It get's the mealy-mouthed answer of 'yes' of course an atheist can be a good person. But this is 'good' without belief in God. Good without God is a different kettle of fish.
The answer?
No!
And why?
Firstly, people broadly have a moral sense because God is. His nature defines what is 'good' (or God-like) and in the default, what is not good, or evil (or not-God-like). Without this, there is no definition outside personal convenience, accidental convention, and power. It comes down to taste or power. This is the 'earthworm reality'. Earthworms live on the basis of convenience and power and that's it.
So for a person to hold that they can be good, or that the concept of 'good' has any real meaning, without God they have to prove that there is no God and material, or impersonal force is all there is.
Craig does go into this, but for the ordinary conversation, the implication is that a person who doesn't believe in God can be good.
Of course they can, and that is only because God is (i.e. he exists). Otherwise good has no meaning. See above. We can do good and often aspire to be good (or delude ourselves that we are: that 'good' has some intrinsic value and non-material significant meaning) because we are made in the image of God. That is, we are morally meaningful and in the context of the reality that is God.
Naturally, the question that flows from this is how then is 'evil'. Or the antithesis of good? Evil is the absence of good. It is of 'not-God'. It is from the exercise of will in contradiction of God-like-ness. That is, of not-love. We can only do this because we are in God's image and are morally meaningful.
Why did God make us so...that we could act ungodly? Because having this capacity is the only way we could truly enjoy fellowship with God.
It get's the mealy-mouthed answer of 'yes' of course an atheist can be a good person. But this is 'good' without belief in God. Good without God is a different kettle of fish.
The answer?
No!
And why?
Firstly, people broadly have a moral sense because God is. His nature defines what is 'good' (or God-like) and in the default, what is not good, or evil (or not-God-like). Without this, there is no definition outside personal convenience, accidental convention, and power. It comes down to taste or power. This is the 'earthworm reality'. Earthworms live on the basis of convenience and power and that's it.
So for a person to hold that they can be good, or that the concept of 'good' has any real meaning, without God they have to prove that there is no God and material, or impersonal force is all there is.
Craig does go into this, but for the ordinary conversation, the implication is that a person who doesn't believe in God can be good.
Of course they can, and that is only because God is (i.e. he exists). Otherwise good has no meaning. See above. We can do good and often aspire to be good (or delude ourselves that we are: that 'good' has some intrinsic value and non-material significant meaning) because we are made in the image of God. That is, we are morally meaningful and in the context of the reality that is God.
Naturally, the question that flows from this is how then is 'evil'. Or the antithesis of good? Evil is the absence of good. It is of 'not-God'. It is from the exercise of will in contradiction of God-like-ness. That is, of not-love. We can only do this because we are in God's image and are morally meaningful.
Why did God make us so...that we could act ungodly? Because having this capacity is the only way we could truly enjoy fellowship with God.
Saturday, February 9, 2019
Cooking it up
Brenton Cook, in his somewhat OK article Hume's Guillotine makes some interesting comments which, to my mind, betray a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Creation.
A few quotes:
Ex. 1
The Divine Command Theory at work? The problem is that this does not go to the heart of the matter. Murder is not 'wrong' becuase God says so. God tells us it is wrong because in a fallen state we are not able to live out our 'image-ness' and be in harmony with God who is love. It is not part of basic reality (shown in the Trinity) that one murders another. This is inconsistent with the first ontological step. That God (in three persons) is love and is always, without beginning or end. To murder is to turn your back on how God is and thus how we truly are, under the besmirching of sin. It is to participate in 'not-God-ness'.
Ex. 2
As I alluded above, Christianity almost begins with the personal basis of reality. I say almost because that is rather abstractly philosophical. The Christian begins with God in three persons who is love. The loving relational basis of reality!
Ex. 3
Only a Calvinist would choose this illustration! Read the extract, then read Philippians; try 3:7-16.
Our relationship with God is completely different from the reflexive Calvinist talks about commands, not love! Compare some scriptures about fathers and children: What father gives his son a stone? (Matt 7:9); and how are we to care for our children? (Eph 6:4); (Col 3:21). And an example of it: 1 Thess 2:11. Simple; we are not to anger or exasperate them. Nothing like the first stop of Calvinism. For a biblical approach to the example in Extract 3, see my remarks above.
A few quotes:
 |
| Ex. 1 Divine Command |
The Divine Command Theory at work? The problem is that this does not go to the heart of the matter. Murder is not 'wrong' becuase God says so. God tells us it is wrong because in a fallen state we are not able to live out our 'image-ness' and be in harmony with God who is love. It is not part of basic reality (shown in the Trinity) that one murders another. This is inconsistent with the first ontological step. That God (in three persons) is love and is always, without beginning or end. To murder is to turn your back on how God is and thus how we truly are, under the besmirching of sin. It is to participate in 'not-God-ness'.
 |
| Ex. 2 Begin with the Personal |
As I alluded above, Christianity almost begins with the personal basis of reality. I say almost because that is rather abstractly philosophical. The Christian begins with God in three persons who is love. The loving relational basis of reality!
 |
| Ex. 3 Paternal Command Theory |
Ex. 3
Only a Calvinist would choose this illustration! Read the extract, then read Philippians; try 3:7-16.
Our relationship with God is completely different from the reflexive Calvinist talks about commands, not love! Compare some scriptures about fathers and children: What father gives his son a stone? (Matt 7:9); and how are we to care for our children? (Eph 6:4); (Col 3:21). And an example of it: 1 Thess 2:11. Simple; we are not to anger or exasperate them. Nothing like the first stop of Calvinism. For a biblical approach to the example in Extract 3, see my remarks above.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Evil
At the recent houseparty ('camp' in Baptist argot) that one of my children enjoyed, I was pleased that the topic of theodicy was touched upon.
That is, how can there be evil when God is good: is he not powerful enough to overcome it, or is he not good?
Leaving aside the moral epistemological question of God not being good (then how is good defined: the 'earthworm' rule: it feels good to me?), the summary sheet used a couple of approaches, boiling down to the 'it'll be better later' view twinned with the so-called 'free will' defence.
Elements of both are true, but I think that the whole question is mis-founded. We usually allow ourselves to be trapped into using categories that come from elsewhere that de-personalise the question and envisage a philosphical god, not the real God.
In the Bible, from Genesis 2 on, its an entirely personal question; and the person in question is, of course 'God'. The personal aspect is that 'evil' or 'good' in themselves do not exist; rather, they are the result of relational congress: either the relationship is conditioned by love (of God primarily: God being love, but in all relationships), or it is not. If it is not, it is unaligned with the life of God, if it is, it is.
What we call 'evil' arises from rejection of God's fellowship (and it is not an 'absence' of something, as Augustine held, or a 'thing' as others have insisted, in idealist fashion); and has from day 6 (or soon after). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is like a wedding ring: if you don't want to be with me, toss the ring; I'm not imposing on you; thus, if you don't want to continue in relationship with me (God), then eat of the tree: this is a free relationship of persons (but differs from the absolutist 'free will' defence in that it is not primarily about will in a universe of choice, but a decision in a known context between known people), and in that respect, of equals. 'Knowing' evil is, for Adam and Eve, participating in it; knowing it existentially. That's what they chose; they chose to participate in 'not-related-to-God, or 'evil' in rejecting God from their locus of conscious interest, and because of its creation-wide consequences there is no going back, until the new creation; and it is that which is required to undo the universal effects of the breach between creature and creator chosen not as general 'free will' but by an act of rejection of relationship.
We all suffer because we are unavoidably in a world alienated from God: we cannot escape (but through Christ). Those who question God as being the author of this state of affairs are typically those who would reject him; and so are hypocritical in their complaint.
The rest of the answer is in the Bible...the arc of salvation from fall to resurrection.
That is, how can there be evil when God is good: is he not powerful enough to overcome it, or is he not good?
Leaving aside the moral epistemological question of God not being good (then how is good defined: the 'earthworm' rule: it feels good to me?), the summary sheet used a couple of approaches, boiling down to the 'it'll be better later' view twinned with the so-called 'free will' defence.
Elements of both are true, but I think that the whole question is mis-founded. We usually allow ourselves to be trapped into using categories that come from elsewhere that de-personalise the question and envisage a philosphical god, not the real God.
In the Bible, from Genesis 2 on, its an entirely personal question; and the person in question is, of course 'God'. The personal aspect is that 'evil' or 'good' in themselves do not exist; rather, they are the result of relational congress: either the relationship is conditioned by love (of God primarily: God being love, but in all relationships), or it is not. If it is not, it is unaligned with the life of God, if it is, it is.
What we call 'evil' arises from rejection of God's fellowship (and it is not an 'absence' of something, as Augustine held, or a 'thing' as others have insisted, in idealist fashion); and has from day 6 (or soon after). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is like a wedding ring: if you don't want to be with me, toss the ring; I'm not imposing on you; thus, if you don't want to continue in relationship with me (God), then eat of the tree: this is a free relationship of persons (but differs from the absolutist 'free will' defence in that it is not primarily about will in a universe of choice, but a decision in a known context between known people), and in that respect, of equals. 'Knowing' evil is, for Adam and Eve, participating in it; knowing it existentially. That's what they chose; they chose to participate in 'not-related-to-God, or 'evil' in rejecting God from their locus of conscious interest, and because of its creation-wide consequences there is no going back, until the new creation; and it is that which is required to undo the universal effects of the breach between creature and creator chosen not as general 'free will' but by an act of rejection of relationship.
We all suffer because we are unavoidably in a world alienated from God: we cannot escape (but through Christ). Those who question God as being the author of this state of affairs are typically those who would reject him; and so are hypocritical in their complaint.
The rest of the answer is in the Bible...the arc of salvation from fall to resurrection.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Strangers in your midst
There's a huge refugee problem in the world.
At church we are studying the problem in a sermon series and home group studies using Scott Higgins book "Boundless Plains to Share".
The book is an interesting exercise in anachronism and conflation of the personal, the historic and the present. It brings up the requirements of Israel to look after (its own) widows and poor, and its (occassional?) strangers with nation states looking after the people of other nation states where those states have failed.
It then does the same thing with the New Testament taking what we are to do personally and locally with the ones we are in contact with -- our neighbour -- with the action of nation states with respect to the failures of other nation states.
In a way this puts us on a war footing with the failed nation state!
We want our country to act honourably. I do not think we want it to act foolishly.
The refugee crisis exists because of the failure of nation states. They either descend into war, there is no rule of law (producing inequity, economic failure and oppression), or the culture is underpinned by beliefs that undo it (religious, social, philosophical). Of course, when people see places that do not have these problems they leave the bad and seek the good.
Our call is to do what we can, recognising that the government has a role to govern. It does not have a role to undo the nation.
For example, if Australia accepted 20,000 annually. Over a lifetime with natural growth this would represent more than 10% of our population, less with assimilation; but assimilation across radically different cultures is slow if it occurs at all. The proportion would lead to enclaving: the problem Sweden faces, and threaten the safety and peace of the country.
The job of the government is to protect its people. The job of the church is to proclaim the gospel.
What then is the best to do? Current intake processes control the intake to a safe level for the long term good and stability of the country and prevent criminal transport of would be immigrants who bypass safe but less attractive alternatives to Australia.
Other action: support through the UNHCR for people in refugee camps, action in the UN and economically to pressure failed states to not fail...and most importantly, send missionaries to the failed countries to proclaim the gospel.
At church we are studying the problem in a sermon series and home group studies using Scott Higgins book "Boundless Plains to Share".
The book is an interesting exercise in anachronism and conflation of the personal, the historic and the present. It brings up the requirements of Israel to look after (its own) widows and poor, and its (occassional?) strangers with nation states looking after the people of other nation states where those states have failed.
It then does the same thing with the New Testament taking what we are to do personally and locally with the ones we are in contact with -- our neighbour -- with the action of nation states with respect to the failures of other nation states.
In a way this puts us on a war footing with the failed nation state!
We want our country to act honourably. I do not think we want it to act foolishly.
The refugee crisis exists because of the failure of nation states. They either descend into war, there is no rule of law (producing inequity, economic failure and oppression), or the culture is underpinned by beliefs that undo it (religious, social, philosophical). Of course, when people see places that do not have these problems they leave the bad and seek the good.
Our call is to do what we can, recognising that the government has a role to govern. It does not have a role to undo the nation.
For example, if Australia accepted 20,000 annually. Over a lifetime with natural growth this would represent more than 10% of our population, less with assimilation; but assimilation across radically different cultures is slow if it occurs at all. The proportion would lead to enclaving: the problem Sweden faces, and threaten the safety and peace of the country.
The job of the government is to protect its people. The job of the church is to proclaim the gospel.
What then is the best to do? Current intake processes control the intake to a safe level for the long term good and stability of the country and prevent criminal transport of would be immigrants who bypass safe but less attractive alternatives to Australia.
Other action: support through the UNHCR for people in refugee camps, action in the UN and economically to pressure failed states to not fail...and most importantly, send missionaries to the failed countries to proclaim the gospel.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
No sign of Christianity
One Stephen Morgan wrote linking various bad people with Christianity. A number of letters rebutted his assertion. He then batted it back, completely failing to understand Christianity's self definition as discipleship of Christ. This writer then caught him out:
In the circumstances, it was probably a better letter than the one I submitted:
"Stephen Morgan still misses the point. ETA, KKK and Hitler are not
'terrible representatives of Christianity'. They are not representatives
at all.
Just because they operated in nations
where a lot of people were or are Christian is of no import.
Christianity is not a cultural posture, it is the religion of devotion
to Jesus being the Son of God and creator.
Did
Hitler read the Bible and pray daily? Did he seek a life of humble love
of others? Did he repent of the wrong he did and thought? Did he attend
his local church and seek to be instructed by the minister and his
fellow believers? I think not. Thus he was not a Christian and in no way
a representative of Christianity. The very thought is repugnant and
insulting to Christians."
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Pain
A while back in a post I mentioned that sometimes the cases I see at work move me.
If people in need come to my attention, often they will not get better. I know this is the experience of others as well, and all terminal illness in children is heart breaking, but here's a selection that I've seen recently. Just turn your mind to them when you think things are not going so well for you.
Juvenile Batten disease: parents watch their children slowly regress physically and mentally, typically loosing their sight at about 5-7 years of age, then after years of deterioration, die.
x-linked chronic pseudo intestinal obstruction disease: your child is sick and maybe in pain all the time, tube fed, weak and facing serious and life-threatening complications, organ failure, then death. Little, if anything, can be done.
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: your child's connective tissue becomes bony. They cease to be able to move. People with this affliction can live quite a long time as they gradually turn to bone.
I also see a lot of Huntington's disease. When you see the info on the internet, just bear in mind that juvenile onset is worse. Also bad is watching other family members succumb to it over years then find that you are developing its symptoms. It won't stop, and will kill you just like it did them and you know that you will be physically and mentally crippled. Your behaviour will change, you will loose your engagement with friends and the world about you...
Recently there was film on TV about a person with short term memory loss who had 50 dates, all just like first dates...cute in a movie, but real life with severe short term memory loss is not like that. Your life disappears. The result can be confusion, anger, sadness, isolation. Zero fun and unrelieved.
Another class of cases is acquired brain injury. I really feel for those who acquired it through a cerebral accident (stroke or aneurysm, for example, or HERNS syndrome). It can take years to gradually bring back the basic skills that you've lost: walking, eating, bathing, but sometimes they don't come back. Maybe you'll never read again; maybe you'll never remember who you were...but also maybe it came about because of a drug overdose or an accident while drunk. Sometimes partial drowning.
How do I as a Christian think about such things? Do I rail at God? Do I wonder why he didn't make the world better? Do I think, like Leibnitz that this is the best of all possible worlds anyway?
I think this is a broken world, its back turned on God and resolutely. We reap that day in and day out because he made the creation for his glory, but our care. So its all marred. But I go on to think that he has acted to rejoin fellowship with us in his kingdom and we look to a new creation.
If people in need come to my attention, often they will not get better. I know this is the experience of others as well, and all terminal illness in children is heart breaking, but here's a selection that I've seen recently. Just turn your mind to them when you think things are not going so well for you.
Juvenile Batten disease: parents watch their children slowly regress physically and mentally, typically loosing their sight at about 5-7 years of age, then after years of deterioration, die.
x-linked chronic pseudo intestinal obstruction disease: your child is sick and maybe in pain all the time, tube fed, weak and facing serious and life-threatening complications, organ failure, then death. Little, if anything, can be done.
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva: your child's connective tissue becomes bony. They cease to be able to move. People with this affliction can live quite a long time as they gradually turn to bone.
I also see a lot of Huntington's disease. When you see the info on the internet, just bear in mind that juvenile onset is worse. Also bad is watching other family members succumb to it over years then find that you are developing its symptoms. It won't stop, and will kill you just like it did them and you know that you will be physically and mentally crippled. Your behaviour will change, you will loose your engagement with friends and the world about you...
Recently there was film on TV about a person with short term memory loss who had 50 dates, all just like first dates...cute in a movie, but real life with severe short term memory loss is not like that. Your life disappears. The result can be confusion, anger, sadness, isolation. Zero fun and unrelieved.
Another class of cases is acquired brain injury. I really feel for those who acquired it through a cerebral accident (stroke or aneurysm, for example, or HERNS syndrome). It can take years to gradually bring back the basic skills that you've lost: walking, eating, bathing, but sometimes they don't come back. Maybe you'll never read again; maybe you'll never remember who you were...but also maybe it came about because of a drug overdose or an accident while drunk. Sometimes partial drowning.
How do I as a Christian think about such things? Do I rail at God? Do I wonder why he didn't make the world better? Do I think, like Leibnitz that this is the best of all possible worlds anyway?
I think this is a broken world, its back turned on God and resolutely. We reap that day in and day out because he made the creation for his glory, but our care. So its all marred. But I go on to think that he has acted to rejoin fellowship with us in his kingdom and we look to a new creation.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Scripture...ethics?
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, John Dickson made the remark: "Well conducted SRE programs reflect this balance perfectly. It is
available but voluntary, and ethics classes offer an excellent
alternative."
Ethics is an outcome of religious instruction (one hopes); a result of the underlying beliefs of the particular instruction. Just 'teaching' ethics as though it's the primary objective without a structural rationale can end up as arbitrary, tyrannical, or oppressive...without an overarching structure, it could produce the tyranny of the masses, rather than something that results from an external reference point.
Ethics is an outcome of religious instruction (one hopes); a result of the underlying beliefs of the particular instruction. Just 'teaching' ethics as though it's the primary objective without a structural rationale can end up as arbitrary, tyrannical, or oppressive...without an overarching structure, it could produce the tyranny of the masses, rather than something that results from an external reference point.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Ethics at school
We received a letter from children's school that ethics classes were about to start for children who didn't attend scripture lessons.
Not a bad idea; I hope they start with ethical epistemology and the naturalistic fallacy just to get things straight. That is, on what basis can ethical judgements be made in a materialist world that don't descend either to the convenience of the individual, or the will of the powerful. If you think that 'community agreement' is a valid basis, then you are voting for the will of the powerful, and that can change at a moment's notice.
The other problem with 'ethics' is I wonder where forgiveness is located. In a Christian ethical framework I know where to find it, but what if you make ethical mistakes, or cannot keep up with your own ethics? Does this leave a child with an unsolvable dilemma?
Not a bad idea; I hope they start with ethical epistemology and the naturalistic fallacy just to get things straight. That is, on what basis can ethical judgements be made in a materialist world that don't descend either to the convenience of the individual, or the will of the powerful. If you think that 'community agreement' is a valid basis, then you are voting for the will of the powerful, and that can change at a moment's notice.
The other problem with 'ethics' is I wonder where forgiveness is located. In a Christian ethical framework I know where to find it, but what if you make ethical mistakes, or cannot keep up with your own ethics? Does this leave a child with an unsolvable dilemma?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)