Ex-believer responded to Steve's post and I'll offer some commentary. Steve is much more capable than I and can easily defend himself. I'm just taking out some garbage for him.
"I don't usually respond to Steve because, quite frankly, he is equal parts loser and asshole. I say this because of my first exposure to Steve. Steve does not attempt to simply point out the errors in someone's reasoning; he attempts to personally humiliate them. In his first post about me, he decided to refer to me as "Exbrainer." He wasn't content simply to disagree, he wanted to mock and humiliate. Since then, I have found that this is his common practice. Even though this has been pointed out to him by Christians and non-Christians alike, Steve feels there is nothing wrong in heaping insults on top of his arguments. I really want nothing to do with that kind of dialogue."
Yes, Steve's been very mean, that's why I'm calling you the atheist stud muffin. You're so smart and I just don't know how to answer your arguments. We should all crumble before your arguments. We don't because we're blinded by faith. You're the man. Three cheers for ex-believer, atheist stud muffin.
"I am choosing to respond to Steve on this one, however, knowing full well that I will have to subject myself to his usual insults."
I'll confer with Steve and ask that he refers to you as "The Stud Muffin" from now on.
"After quoting my first argument from evil (P1: An omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent being would not commit an evil act. P2: Ordering an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants is an evil act. P3: The Christian God ordered an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants. C: Therefore, the Christian God is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.), Steve wrote:"
1.Exbrainer assumes the existence of evil. Does he believe in moral absolutes?
2.The Bible gives a reason for holy war (e.g. Deut 9:4; 20:18). Exbrainer never addresses the reason given in Scripture.
3. How is it necessarily ad hoc to deny a uniform code of conduct to God and man alike?
To take an example from human affairs, most of us believe in age-appropriate conduct. Not everything thatÂ’s proper for adults is proper for children.
Is that an ad hoc distinction?
4. I've blogged on the Euthyphro dilemma on several occasions. It's an artificial dilemma.
5. God is not merely dealing with people qua creatures, but with people qua sinners.
6.The fact that holy war is indiscriminate doesn't imply that God is exacting judgment on the sins of each individual victim.
Natural disasters are also indiscriminate. The righteous are swept away along with the wicked. But that's not the end of the story.
P2 does not have the proper information, though. It has baggage attached to it. It has assumptions attached to it. The premise should be, if you're going to be consistent with Christian theology and not beg questions in your argument,:
P2: The Christian God ordered an army to put to death people who justly deserved death.
So, we can change your argument: P1: An omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent being would not commit an evil act. P2: Ordering an army to put to death people who justly deserved death is not an evil act. P3: The Christian God ordered an army to put to death people who justly deserved death. C: Therefore, the Christian God did not commit an evil act.
Now what's the problem? There is none.
"1) [See Steve's #1 above] My moral philosophy is irrelevant to the argument. The premises stand or fall on their own no matter what my personal belief is. The question is, "Is it morally wrong to order an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants?" One either believes it is or that it isn't. This is Steve's attempt to focus the debate away from the actions of his god."
No, your moral position IS relevant to the discussion. Here's how. If you do not have an absolute an authoritative standard in terms of which you can call something evil then YOU must not think this is an evil act. So, what can we infer if this is the case:
1a) Ex-believer does not think it is immoral "to order an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants."
2a) Therefore exbeliever does not think the Christian God committed an immoral act.
So then, if he's going to make this argument what he must mean is that the Canaanite incident is immoral and evil ACCORDING TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. To do this, though, he must attack THE ENTIRE Christian worldview. But, I've already shown that, INTERNALLY, there's no problem.
"Steve claims that his god's actions are justified because of the wickedness of the people there. I wonder what wickedness the children and infants were guilty of. Yes, total depravity, according to Steve's Calvinism, but the infants and children of Israel were equally depraved according to his theology."
So, ex-believer notes that Calvinism has a consistent answer to the problem. Instead of granting us the argument he offers a red herring and brings up the total depravity of the Israelite children. But what does this have to do with the Canaanites? It appears that ex-believer's argument is:
1. If people are totoally depraved then God must kill them when he kills other totally depraved people.
2. Israelite children were totally depraved.
3. Therefore God must kill them when he kills other totally depraved people.
While formally valid, ex-believer offers no argument for this assumption. It's not obvious in any way that I can tell, at least.
"His reference to Deuteronomy 20:18 is interesting as well. Here, it explains that these children and infants were killed because they would lead God's people to worship other gods. But why take wrath out on those who "tempt to sin" instead of those who would "fall to sin." Why couldn't god just say, "Yo, those infants and children that you leave alive will grow up one day and try to tempt you to worship their gods. Don't do it. Keep following me."? This seems a little more humane."
Though many things could be said here I'll just point out that this isn't an argument but simply ignorant conjecture. The Christian worldview is not refuted by conjecture.
"3) It seems ad hoc to "deny a uniform code of conduct to God and man alike," because Steve claims that moral standards are universal. We have an action that, presumably, Steve would agree is "evil"--viz. ordering an army to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants. All of a sudden, the same act is not evil if committed by the Christian God. Wanting to save god from evil, the Christian simply says, "This doesn't apply to God."
Well, ex-believer doesn't apply it to God, does he? He conveniently leaves out the premise that God can justly put to death criminals worthy of death. God can take any life since it is *HIS* to take. Ex-believer simply assumes the falsity of Christianity in order to argue against it. How uninteresting.
"I addressed this specifically in my support of this argument. I said that referring to god's nature doesn't help this specific problem because if morality is based on god's nature and god's nature says that it is immoral to kill non-combatant women, children, and infants, then god's nature would not allow him to do so either."
See, and now this is just getting old. I can go on or stop. I'm just mopping up now. The battle has already been won: It is not inconsistent with God's nature to justly put to death criminals worthy of death.
"That aside, it is really hard for me to believe that any Christian really believes this kind of act is good."
Ex-believer says he was a Christain yet here he claims that it's hard for him to believe that a Christian could find the just punishment of criminals good. So, I must assume that ex-believer thinks that it is NOT GOOD for criminals to get their just reward. Reader, you choose which worldview you want to win the day.
There's more that could be said but that's all I want to speak on at this time. It's also all that I have time for! Suffice it to say that the rest of his argument is refuted by the Christian's claim that God does whatever brings Him the most glory. The way He set up the world and history bring Him the most glory. Therefore this world is the best world God could create since this world will bring Him the most glory (i.e., through fall, sin, redemption, glory). Secondly, he says that our worldview is not falsifiable and so is not reasonable. To that I simply say, "Hey stud muffin, the 50's are calling and they want their arguments back."
Anyone who can rationalize killing children is a hopeless case. I'm unsubscribing.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteMaybe at the Discomfiter's blog emotional outbursts carry weight, but not here.
I thought you were a Christian? Says who? God. The determiner of right and wrong. The one who cannot lie. The one who is always right. That person.
I mean, you can use emotional language and poison the well all you want, but it doesn't bother me.
John. Who says you can't murder and eat little infants? You? Mother nature? Modern people? Who? No one! That's who!
"Who Are You to Say?
Gregory Koukl
The "Who are you to say?" challenge is used by non-Christians and Christians, especially by those who deplore the "heresy hunters" in the church. This rejoinder, though, deftly sidesteps the real issue.
Today I was thinking about a concept that came up in conversation, a challenge raised to Christians who offer their point of view. The challenge is: "Who are you to say?"
This question it comes up in one of two contexts. The first one is secular. You'll hear it quite frequently when another person disagrees with your point of view, especially a moral one. They immediately challenge you with, "Who are you to say?"
Taken at face value this is an attack on you . It's a response that focuses on the person, not the argument. Instead of dealing with a person's point, you attack the individual in some way. This is called an ad hominem , a type of informal fallacy. An ad hominem might be when you say, "You jerk. You're just stupid," or, "What do you know?" or something of that order. It's a form of name calling.
There are lots of sophisticated ways people use ad hominem that slip by us in addition to the obvious ones just mentioned. "Who are you to say?" is one of them. It's a challenge addressed to the person and not the argument.
The challenge comes up in a second context, when Christians with positions of visibility challenge those inside the church who disagree with them. They sometimes refer to their attackers as "heresy hunters" to disparage them. (Some, I guess, might have called me that, though I don't know specifically if I've been labeled in that way.) This is the same kind of comment as, "Who are you to say? Who made you in charge? What right do you have to challenge my doctrine?"
This question is completely irrelevant. Here's why. When I offer a point of view-- whether it's moral, to a non-Christian, or theological, inside the church-- the strength of the objection is not based on who I am, as if I were speaking on my own authority, but on the content of my objection.
The challenge "Who are you to say?" misses the point, because I'm not offering a judgment by fiat, based on my own authority. I'm not saying, "This is the way it's got to be because I say so." If I were speaking by fiat, based on my authority, then it would be appropriate for someone to say, "Who died and left you God? Who made you the authority so that whatever you speak ought to be listened to and ought to be obeyed?"
When someone fires the who-are-you-to-say salvo, I carefully explain to them they've misunderstood my approach. I'm not saying anyone should believe me because I say so , because I'm the authority, because I have the proper jurisdiction to proclaim truth by fiat, whether it's moral truth or theological truth. I'm saying something quite different.
So-called heresy hunters, those who are trying to correct problems inside the church, are never saying, "Believe me on my own authority." They are generally appealing to the authority of the Scriptures instead, which should be the deciding factor in any discussion of truth. Instead of going back to the Scriptures in question, though, those under question simply cry "heresy hunter." They attack the person and not the argument.
It's an ironic challenge because this is actually the kind of claim these so-called "heresy hunters" are trying to oppose: errant teaching by those who claim their own authority to speak for God. These false teachers don't make the foolish mistake of saying, "I am the authority." No, it's done more delicately. They say, "God told me," which really amounts to the same thing: Their subjective opinions have the weight of divine decree.
And you see, it creates problems in the Body of Christ when some person proposes to speak for God and then doesn't allow his point of view to be challenged or questioned. When you question it, someone will say, "Where do you get off? Who made you the chief heresy hunter in the world?" Well, that misses the point.
So when one says to me, "Who are you to say?" they misunderstand the issue. I'm not saying you ought to believe me on my own authority, but rather that you ought to believe my views because of my reasons, including my justifications for my view from Scripture. There's a difference. I'm not saying, "Listen to me." I'm saying, "Listen to my argument. Consider my evidence. Search the Scripture."
The irony, ladies and gentlemen, is that those who make this challenge almost never make any attempt to deal with the argument, the text, the evidence itself. They ignore it completely. Instead they choose the diversion of attacking the person. Their response is "to the man,"-- ad hominem --not to the point. Their response misses the real point entirely."
"You just cannot get it, can you? Criminals, eh? You mean people who go through their whole lives doing nothing but what God decrees that they do such that they cannot do any differently, and then punishing them in barbaric ways for doing what God wants them to do?"
ReplyDeleteStraw-man.
"Many of these so-called crimes are nothing more than a few lies, a little selfish pleasures, and a little greed..."
All of which are sinful and thus, detestable in the eyes of God. The penalty of sin is death. Letting the Canaanites live as long as they did was a showing of God's grace.
"but are committed by people who are otherwise known by friend and foe, by family, neighbors, and the community in which they live to be loving people."
Actually, the Canaanites committed child sacrifice and were allies of the Egyptians. They were enemies of Israel and probably would have tried to do the same had they had the chance (and for the few that Israel spared, they did). This is from a utilitarian point of view. Either way, since God is the ultimate (and absolute) source of morals and meaning (and logically there can be no other), whatever He says is just is just.
"...but are committed by people who are otherwise known by friend and foe, by family, neighbors, and the community in which they live to be loving people."
Yet another subjective value judgment.
"Anyone who can rationalize killing children is a hopeless case. I'm unsubscribing."
Even if those children would grow up to be an army that would threaten you and your children? The Israelites did let some of the Canaanites live, and they allied with the enemies of Israel. Also, this is another subjective value judgment.
Lastly, it should be noted that these atheists are looking at this from a modern American point of view, totally devoid of historical context.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou're so far out there that there really isn't much to say.
Paul's worldview says the Amalekite infants were criminals who deserved to die.
I say that non-combatant infants should be spared.
"Reader, you choose which worldview you want to win the day."
exbeliever,
ReplyDeleteThat's not a critique mr. "number your premises" and *argue* for your position.
Yes, my worldview says that.
Your worldview says they should be spared, but it's *arbitrary* and relative.
Anyway, we see that at the end of the day your arguments are based on an intuited dogmatism.
And, not :liking" my worldview does not mean that it's wrong, now does it?
Why do atheists refuse to act reasonable when it comes to questioning *their* assumptions.
Anyway, at the end of the day we both know I've *at least* shown that exbeliever's argument from evil never landed, indeed, the bomb was a dud.
"You're so far out there that there really isn't much to say."
ReplyDeleteTranslated in exbeliever language:
"Paul, you don't have my language game. According to my language game you're far out there. But you already knew that, didn't you? So, I didn't even need to point out that I disagree with you. I mean, why should I, an athest, come to a Christian's blog post and tell him I disagree with him? I shouldn't."
I'm a better exbeliever than exbeliever.
Part of the issue that the atheists are missing here is that the Israelites were under orders directly from God to do these things. God had decided to bring about punishment on the whole of the Canaanites and was just for doing so, because everyone is born into sin and deserves death for it and committed sins (Romans 5:12, 3:23,6:23). God was just in doing it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we don't go around wiping out nations today, man woman and child. God has His church, but not a theocratic state as existed in Israel. So, the issues are indeed different, and might even be that way if a theocratic state were to exist (different I mean). No way to know.
Anyway, I hope this adds to the discussion and not the confusion. :)
For the glory of Jesus,
David B. Hewitt
For any atheist to say that the Bible God was "wrong" to order the extermination of all the Amalekites is a juggling act that he desperately hopes no one sees him doing. By what stable criteria does any atheist establish a moral rule that shows the Old Testament deity committed an "evil" act? You have to use Christian morality to condemn the God who gave Christian morality, which is absurd.
ReplyDeleteWho says that babies shouldn't be killed? Prove that precept, and then supply its background justification.
The thumbnail-sketch of that issue is that:
Children usually inherit the earthly consequences of their parents' good or evil deeds.
God gives life and takes it away as He sees fit. Every single person who dies, dies by God decree, and in the manner and by the means that He decreed.
Christ's agonizing death purchased eternal life for all children (this is my belief, partly based on Jesus' teachings about child salvation in Matthew 18:1-14, particularly 14, and Matthew 19:14, and Paul's claim to have been 'alive' prior to his own awakening to the moral law, Romans 7:9)). So I believe that all infants and children who die prior to inner moral awareness are elect, and Christ particularly died for them.
Dear lads, when I see Loftus' argue about crimes being:
ReplyDelete"committed by people who are otherwise known by friend and foe, by family, neighbors, and the community in which they live to be loving people."
I sigh deeply. Know what? This can be said of most criminals, especially white collar ones. Does that mean we should not punish them? God's common grace keeps the world from becoming a hell in itself.
I remember a column in a local paper written by a young lady who had worked with child sex offenders. She found them to be charming and human people, not the monsters the tabloids make them out to be, and accordingly felt thay were being poorly treated.
And it's hard. Should we dehumanise criminals so we can punish them? Or should we weep as the tumbril passes by on the way to Tyburn and, casting our eyes to the earth mutter 'there but for the grace of God go I.'
The problem, John, is that what was a right punishment one generation, becomes unacceptable in the next. Punishing the deliberate, wolfish slaying of man by man with death was once seen as the only right way, then it gave way to 'life inprisonment', and now this is felt to be unfair.
We must look to society and not to the individual criminal, wrenching as it may do.
Lastly, no individual will be in Hell who does not deserve to go there, and no sinner does not love to wallow in his sin, as the pig loves to wallow in the mud. The guilt felt by the sinner is the fear that he will be caught, and his lament of his sin is no more than sorrow that he was caught.
And no individual will go to heaven who deserves to go there.
And what's wrong with a little selfishness and greed anyway, eh? I mean, these people are still good neighbors and love their families (look at Ken Lay of Enron, he was a fine gentleman. I heard he even had a puppy). They're loving people, just because they're a little selfish and greedy! I mean, c'mon! That doesn't give anyone the right to be mean to them. You people are really something. Barbarians!
ReplyDeleteJustify abortion? I don't think so. Since God dictates "Do not commit murder", we have no right to commit murder. Were we to reply back to God, "But I was sending a child to You", God would still condemn us. Shall we do evil, so that good may come?
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between God's rights and ours. That pertains to these criticisms of the Lord ordering a mass war against the Canaanites. God as God decrees who shall be born (and in what circumstances) and who shall die (and in what circumstances). He is the Master of life and death.
God, through the prophet Moses, ordered the Israelites to exterminate the Amalekites. This was His right to do. What is the origin of the ethics rule that says God can't end a life? The criticism by its very nature idolizes mankind, and regards God as subject to the same rules that we are. The ending of a life is God's domain; we're only allowed to do it in self-defense, defense of another, or as punishment for a crime. The "holy wars" of the Old Covenant were an exception to those three standards, given by special prophetic revelation to a specific people in their national role as God's agents, aimed at a different set of specific people who were horrifically evil, on the principle that parents bring the consequences of divine judgment down on their whole household (which principle itself is meant to psychologically deter sin).