Religions

[gejyspa]

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

Just to take one story, the Great Flood, what percentage of the human species did God kill? 99.9%? Are there others who are admired for killing a large percentage of the human species?

Then there is the problem of God's inaction in the face of evil. Several years ago, there was a case of two teen friends. One of them walked into a restroom to see his friend sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. He said and did nothing to stop his friend. The girl was later found killed in that same restroom. There was universal condemnation of the teen who saw the crime in progress yet did nothing. Presumably, any omniscient God also saw the crime in progress and did nothing. The standard defense of the God who allows evil to happen is that to stop evil would be to destroy free will. However, the teen who did nothing and others in similar situations have responsibilities to act, and we can assume that those actions would not destroy the free will of the criminals they hinder. So why doesn't God stop evil - at least the worst cases of it? If someone could have stopped the Holocaust, knew it, and yet did nothing, we would condemn that person. Was God unable to stop the Holocaust, or unwilling?

Theodicy, is of course, a classic problem in theology for millennia. And of course the classic answer is "just because a person wasn't punished in this world by being struck by lightning, or whatever doesn't mean that they weren't punished afterwards." Why is evil allowed to exist? Because it has to, if free will is to have any meaning at all. The Jewish formulation is "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the heart of man"

[RedQueen.exe]

Gah, I really, really wish I were capable of stopping myself, but one of the things that drives me particularly nuts about organized religion is that it makes good people justify awful things.

I don't really feel like going into those myself and tearing them apart, because slavery is immoral even with some basic ground rules, and so would be a god that permits it. However, I get the feeling that these are cherry picked. Just taking one example:

5) Killing a slave has the same punishment as killing a free person -- execution (Ex. 21:20)

The very next line, Ex. 21:21 says "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

So, as long as the slave survives a day or two after the beating, the slave owner gets no punishment at all? That's not particularly redeeming.

The bible contains some good moral guidelines mixed in with some abhorrent ones. It is certainly possible to paint the picture one way or another, but that is what I would expect to come out of a moral guide of ancient people, revised and added to over time, not an infallible being.

[RedQueen.exe]

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

Just to take one story, the Great Flood, what percentage of the human species did God kill? 99.9%? Are there others who are admired for killing a large percentage of the human species?

Then there is the problem of God's inaction in the face of evil. Several years ago, there was a case of two teen friends. One of them walked into a restroom to see his friend sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. He said and did nothing to stop his friend. The girl was later found killed in that same restroom. There was universal condemnation of the teen who saw the crime in progress yet did nothing. Presumably, any omniscient God also saw the crime in progress and did nothing. The standard defense of the God who allows evil to happen is that to stop evil would be to destroy free will. However, the teen who did nothing and others in similar situations have responsibilities to act, and we can assume that those actions would not destroy the free will of the criminals they hinder. So why doesn't God stop evil - at least the worst cases of it? If someone could have stopped the Holocaust, knew it, and yet did nothing, we would condemn that person. Was God unable to stop the Holocaust, or unwilling?

Theodicy, is of course, a classic problem in theology for millennia. And of course the classic answer is "just because a person wasn't punished in this world by being struck by lightning, or whatever doesn't mean that they weren't punished afterwards." Why is evil allowed to exist? Because it has to, if free will is to have any meaning at all. The Jewish formulation is "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the heart of man"

Does that mean we shouldn't lock up child molesters, because their free will is more important than a child's right to not be abused? If not, then why should god be excused for effectively doing exactly that? think the rest of Chris's quotes really need to be a part of that, because it answers the question. Evil does not have to exist for free will to have any meaning (not that contra-causal free will actually does have any meaning, imo, but I don't really want to have that debate). I have never felt the urge to commit atrocities on people - does that mean that I don't have free will? God must answer for giving people the desires to commit evil acts, and then not giving them sufficient will to resist it. God must answer for why he thinks a child-molester's right to free will is more important than a child's right not to be raped.

[Chris]

Theodicy, is of course, a classic problem in theology for millennia. And of course the classic answer is "just because a person wasn't punished in this world by being struck by lightning, or whatever doesn't mean that they weren't punished afterwards."

Punishment is hardly ideal. It represents a failure to prevent something that shouldn't happen. It's a second-best answer for those of us who have limited abilities and knowledge, but it does nothing to vindicate an all-powerful being who chooses to allow evil to happen.

Why is evil allowed to exist? Because it has to, if free will is to have any meaning at all. The Jewish formulation is "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the heart of man"

If Lex Luthor shoots a bullet at Lois Lane, does Superman have to let the bullet hit her, so that good may exist? If Superman intercepts the bullet, he hasn't robbed Lex of free will. Lex is just as evil, even though his plan to kill Lois failed. If Hitler's plan to exterminate millions of Jews had failed, he would have still been evil. Was the Holocaust necessary so that good may exist?

[Henkie]

The 10 commandments aren't exactly a good basis for law.

In fact, the 10 commandments have underpinned western law for centuries, indeed for millenniums, they took a code of morals which say basically, you don't kill, you honer god, you don't steal etc. etc. Now ofcourse anybody will now ask: What's wrong with them? Now, with those 10 there is nothing wrong in particular. But the problem lies in what they don't do.
They don't stop slavery, for instance. There is no mention of it and the people in those days kept slaves! So what a perfect society they have because they abide their 10 'commandments'. What did God forget hmm?
The 10 commandments are the hysterical believings of a group of desert tribes. Those desert tribes have stored up more misery for mankind than any other group of people in the history of the planet. And they are doing it to this very day. Those commandments, even the name: commandments! The Christian Faith bid us be commanded, life is much more exciting than that! It has to do with finding out, not with being told what to do by some awful patriarch. They say life has improved because of them, I say they've suppressed, tyrannized and bullied.

It's true, they did have slaves. But let's not color our view of slaves by the way slavery was expressed in Egypt, Greece or pre-US Civil Law. Let's look at what Judaism and the Bible says about slaves:
1) Slaves were to go free in the seventh year, and with payment for his service (Deut 15:13-14)
2) They may voluntarily give up this right, but must be released in the jubilee year (Lev 25:39-40)
3) Physical injury of a slave frees him immediately (Ex. 21:26-27)
4) Runaway slaves are not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16)
5) Killing a slave has the same punishment as killing a free person -- execution (Ex. 21:20)
6) Slaves must rest on Shabbat the same as free men (Deut. 5:14)
7) You must provide your slave with food and a bed at least as good as your own (and if there was only one bed, the slave got it) (Talmud tractate Gittin and Kiddushin 22a)
The slave must not be forced to perform demeaning, degrading, or disgusting tasks, nor even just "busy work" (dervied from Lev. 25:43)
9) Slaves in priestly households could even eat the holy food, something that no free non-priest could do (Lev. 22:10-11)

So as you can see, slavery (which mostly existed as an institution to which a poor man might sell himself as a slave in order to survive, or a thief might be sentenced by the court to be a slave of his victim, if he hadn't the means to make restitution), while not a perfect institution in the eyes of modern sensibilities, was not like that practiced by other nations.

So there were ehm.. 'softening measures'. Doesn't disprove my point. Besides, 90% of people follow the commandments, not the exact words in the book. My specific complaint was against the ten commandments, not about how the 'true faith' has been squandered by misinterpretations and power-hungry dictators. And indeed as RQ indicated so smoothly, the bible is full of contradiction, which makes it so beautiful to quote in reaction to well.. Everything! Because it literally sais.. Everything! Pro or con...

[Snickie]

And indeed as RQ indicated so smoothly, the bible is full of contradiction, which makes it so beautiful to quote in reaction to well.. Everything! Because it literally sais.. Everything! Pro or con...

Is it? Have you read it through and through, word for word? Read it the whole way through and then come back and tell me it contradicts itself.

(I can't honestly say I have read the whole thing, but I'm working on that!)

[Henkie]

I have read every word, though that has been 3 years ago, and I did not like what I read.

Some examples:

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."


EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen: ????
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

[RedQueen.exe]

And indeed as RQ indicated so smoothly, the bible is full of contradiction, which makes it so beautiful to quote in reaction to well.. Everything! Because it literally sais.. Everything! Pro or con...

Is it? Have you read it through and through, word for word? Read it the whole way through and then come back and tell me it contradicts itself.

(I can't honestly say I have read the whole thing, but I'm working on that!)

You actually don't have to read the whole thing to see if it contradicts itself. Finding one example of contradiction that stands as contradiction under scrutiny is sufficient. That's the thing about absolutist statements like saying god or the bible is infallible, it only takes one example of imperfection to prove wrong. But, having been raised catholic, I have read much of it.

And I should almost just recuse myself from the thread. Chris puts things better than I do.

[gejyspa]

Gah, I really, really wish I were capable of stopping myself, but one of the things that drives me particularly nuts about organized religion is that it makes good people justify awful things.

I don't really feel like going into those myself and tearing them apart, because slavery is immoral even with some basic ground rules, and so would be a god that permits it. However, I get the feeling that these are cherry picked. Just taking one example:

5) Killing a slave has the same punishment as killing a free person -- execution (Ex. 21:20)

The very next line, Ex. 21:21 says "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

So, as long as the slave survives a day or two after the beating, the slave owner gets no punishment at all? That's not particularly redeeming.

The bible contains some good moral guidelines mixed in with some abhorrent ones. It is certainly possible to paint the picture one way or another, but that is what I would expect to come out of a moral guide of ancient people, revised and added to over time, not an infallible being.

Please, RQ! Don't apologize. This is a safe harbor for people to discuss religion. And I'm also glad that you actually DID check up my sources. And you are absolutely right -- I did cherry-pick, and I also blurred the distinction between the laws for Hebrew slaves and those of Canaanite slaves. Now, your last paragraph is very on-point. The rabbis of the Talmud have always understood the Torah to be a vehicle towards attaining a higher sensibility, one that had to take an ancient nation, steeped in the (im)moral ideas of the time, by baby steps into higher paths. So, for example, while forbidding child sacrifice (practiced by other cultures at the time), it permitted animal sacrifice, but the ideal expressed in the Talmud that prayer can substitute for sacrifice (Hosea 14:2) to divorce ourselves completely from that model of animal sacrifice that the Torah spends a great deal of detail on.

(As far as Ex 21:21 -- correct. If he lingered for a day or two, it was taken as an indication that the intent was not to murder, because who would want to destroy a slave, who is clearly worth more alive than dead?)

[gejyspa]

Unfortunately the old testament is full of awful, awful examples. The god of the old testament is a vain tyrant, with little to distinguish him from modern day dictators.

Just to take one story, the Great Flood, what percentage of the human species did God kill? 99.9%? Are there others who are admired for killing a large percentage of the human species?

Then there is the problem of God's inaction in the face of evil. Several years ago, there was a case of two teen friends. One of them walked into a restroom to see his friend sexually assaulting a 7-year-old girl. He said and did nothing to stop his friend. The girl was later found killed in that same restroom. There was universal condemnation of the teen who saw the crime in progress yet did nothing. Presumably, any omniscient God also saw the crime in progress and did nothing. The standard defense of the God who allows evil to happen is that to stop evil would be to destroy free will. However, the teen who did nothing and others in similar situations have responsibilities to act, and we can assume that those actions would not destroy the free will of the criminals they hinder. So why doesn't God stop evil - at least the worst cases of it? If someone could have stopped the Holocaust, knew it, and yet did nothing, we would condemn that person. Was God unable to stop the Holocaust, or unwilling?

Theodicy, is of course, a classic problem in theology for millennia. And of course the classic answer is "just because a person wasn't punished in this world by being struck by lightning, or whatever doesn't mean that they weren't punished afterwards." Why is evil allowed to exist? Because it has to, if free will is to have any meaning at all. The Jewish formulation is "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the heart of man"

Does that mean we shouldn't lock up child molesters, because their free will is more important than a child's right to not be abused? If not, then why should god be excused for effectively doing exactly that?

No, no. You misunderstood entirely. We don't venerate free will. The very point is that without free will, culpability is meaningless. You CAN'T punish someone for doing something they were "programmed" to do. That solves nothing. You MUST punish evil doers, because they chose to exert their free will for evil. That's why there is a positive commandment on all nations to establish courts of justice (See my previous post on the noachide laws)

I think the rest of Chris's quotes really need to be a part of that, because it answers the question. Evil does not have to exist for free will to have any meaning (not that contra-causal free will actually does have any meaning, imo, but I don't really want to have that debate). I have never felt the urge to commit atrocities on people - does that mean that I don't have free will? God must answer for giving people the desires to commit evil acts, and then not giving them sufficient will to resist it. God must answer for why he thinks a child-molester's right to free will is more important than a child's right not to be raped.

They have the will to resist it. They chose to listen to their evil inclination, rather than their good inclination.

[gejyspa]

Theodicy, is of course, a classic problem in theology for millennia. And of course the classic answer is "just because a person wasn't punished in this world by being struck by lightning, or whatever doesn't mean that they weren't punished afterwards."

Punishment is hardly ideal. It represents a failure to prevent something that shouldn't happen. It's a second-best answer for those of us who have limited abilities and knowledge, but it does nothing to vindicate an all-powerful being who chooses to allow evil to happen.

Why is evil allowed to exist? Because it has to, if free will is to have any meaning at all. The Jewish formulation is "everything is in the hands of Heaven except the heart of man"

If Lex Luthor shoots a bullet at Lois Lane, does Superman have to let the bullet hit her, so that good may exist? If Superman intercepts the bullet, he hasn't robbed Lex of free will. Lex is just as evil, even though his plan to kill Lois failed. If Hitler's plan to exterminate millions of Jews had failed, he would have still been evil. Was the Holocaust necessary so that good may exist?

No, you are making the same mistake as RQ did. Lex Luthor is evil, and Superman must stop him. Because Lex Luthor had free will, he is punished. To punish a baby for wetting a diaper, on the other hand, would be just silly.

[gejyspa]

I have read every word, though that has been 3 years ago, and I did not like what I read.

Some examples:

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."


EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen: ????
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Okay. MY turn to cry "foul" and "cherrypick". (I will stick, of course, only to the Hebrew Bible portion of your quotes). Ex 33:20 does not contradict 33:23, it exactly explains WHY Moses can only see God's "back", not his "face" It's the same paragraph! Gen 32:30 Jacob was speaking metaphorically, for he did not see God at all, but only an angel. Ex. 33:11 is also metaphoric, and refers to "speaking", not "seeing". It's talking about the intimacy of their relationship, likened to two friends. Of course, "seeing God's face" is ALSO metaphoric, since God is without form. It means to understand completely all his ways and rationales, something that no human being can do.

[Snickie]

Dear Henkie, RedQueen.exe, and Chris,

Do me and yourselves a favor, and stop beating around the bush. If you want to argue with me, refute all parts of my argument, not just the parts that are "easy" to lash out at.

Sincerely,
Snickie

[curious]

For the record... a statement like 'The bible is infallible' is actually irrefutable.

The 'problem' with the bible is that is has an inherent defence against refutation, and on, at least, two rounds:
1, it is a work of interpretation, and is capable of representing many many features of the human condition.
2. the bible is not a scientific pursuit, and therefore shouldn't be read through a scientific lens... that is. the arguments of falsifiability and refutation do not apply.

People shouldn't confuse their philosophy and/or their methodologies for applying a critique here. Science is pretty much a self contained pursuit, and is mutually exclusive to 'other' ways of knowing the world.

An example of a refutable statement would be the old classic:
All swans are white.
This is an interpretation based on a statement of 'fact'... a 'fact' that can be disproven via a single event (the observation of a black swan). It is based in logical positivism (the nuts and bolts of scientific principles)

An example of a irrefutable statement might be:
Some of the reasoning on these pages is very weak.
This is debatable, and yes, granted, it may coincide with a fact... but you can't know it.

[gejyspa]

2. the bible is not a scientific pursuit, and therefore shouldn't be read through a scientific lens... that is. the arguments of falsifiability and refutation do not apply.

True, but on a tangential note, systematic approach to Biblical exegesis have been around for millennia. The following is part of the Jewish prayer service every morning (in Aramaic, not English) and was written 2000 years ago:

Rabbi Ishmael says: There are thirteen exegetical principles by which the Law is expounded:—1. The inference from minor to major. 2. The inference from a similarity of phrases. 3. A general law may be derived by induction from different cases which, occurring in the same or in different verses, have yet some feature in common. 4. A general proposition followed by the enumeration of particulars already comprehended in the general proposition, (in which case the scope of the proposition is limited by the things specified) 5. An enumeration of particulars followed by a general proposition in which they are also comprehended, (in which case the scope of the proposition extends also to the things not specified). 6. Two general propositions, separated from each other by an enumeration of particulars, include only such things as are similar to those specified 7. An inference drawn from a general proposition complemented by a particular term, and an inference drawn from a particular term complemented by a general proposition. 8. If anything is included in a general proposition and is then made the subject of a special statement, that which is predicated of it is not to be understood as limited to itself alone, but is to be applied to the whole of the general proposition 9. If anything is included in a general proposition, and is then singled out in order to be made the subject of a special statement, similar to the general proposition, this particularisation is intended, so far as its subject is concerned, to lessen and not to add to its restrictions. 10. If anything is included in a general proposition, and is then singled out in order to be made the subject of a special statement, not similar to the general proposition, this particularisation is intended in some respects to lessen and in others to add to its restrictions. 11. If anything is included in a general proposition, and is then made the subject of a fresh statement (not in harmony with the former), the terms of the general proposition will not apply to it, unless the Scripture distinctly indicates that they shall apply. 12. The meaning of a passage may be deduced from its context, or from some subsequent passage. 13. Similarly, when two passages are in contradiction to each other, the explanation can be determined only when a third text is found, capable of harmonizing the two.

(Those are simply very brief descriptions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmudical_Hermeneutics for a longer explanation and how they are actually applied. Yes, this is the legalistic Pharaseeism that the authors of the NT went on about -- using systematic reasoning to try to understand the particulars of God's word)