Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
DaveScot writes:
My position is that in the ordering of baby killing God was wrong and therefore cannot be a trusted source of moral absolutes. If the Old Testament is a true accounting of God's interaction with the world then I have no choice but to conclude that my morals are superior to His. But rather than believe that I choose to believe that the Old Testament is not a true account of God's interaction with the world but is rather, at least in part, a rather destructive immoral human fabrication created during a much more barbaric, violent time and place in world history when the sword was more respected than the olive branch.
I agree with all of that. And watching some of the commenters attempt to dispute this is great fun. Like this one:
If God ordered me to kill a baby i think I could not do it. But when He did order the killing of all first born it was to show that He is not be made fun of I think. He gives life, and takes it back, it's like that.
Well then I guess that makes it okay, doesn't it? Well no, actually, it doesn't.
Jonathan Sarfati, a man few will confuse with a deep thinker, offers this response:
How crass. As the Creator of life, God has the right to take it.
Yes, how crass to object to an order to murder babies. How terribly crass.
A third offers this standard response:
We already know that some killing is justified. Indeed, this is the principle behind the "just war" theory and the principle of self defense. So, it should not surprise us that God can be justified in killing in some circumstances. It is important to remember that the road to New Testament ethics was a long, arduous process. The so-called "People of God," were, in the beginning, extremely crude, and in some cases, downright barbarous. You can't begin the process of self-actualization with the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. People have to be formed over multiple generations before they will even consider such appeals. It is also important to remember that some civilizations can become corrupt to the point of being irredeemable.
Funny, God doesn't seem to have to ease them into "thou shalt have no other gods before me" or "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" over multiple generations in some long, arduous process; he simply gives them an explicit commandment to do it or not do it. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult for him to have said "don't kill the babies of your enemies during war." Instead, several times he gives the explicit order to do so. This isn't God struggling in some long term process to reform their morality, it is God (allegedly) ordering the very immorality he is supposedly attempting to reform. Just a silly argument.
And I love this one:
In the case of the population of Canaan, for example, the people were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.
And so therefore....it's okay that God ordered the Israelites to do the same thing. It's different when our God tells us to do it than when their God tells them to do it. For lucky, special, magic reasons. This is what happens when you attempt to defend the indefensible, you tie yourself up into all sorts of logical knots.
Comments
Yeah I was slightly fascinated by Davescot's venture into the land of the rational for a few days.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 12, 2008 9:45 AM
Heh, I also liked his response to Sarfati (a thoroughly obnoxious man. I tangled with him when he used to frequent the Theology Web discussion forum - a venue from which he was subsequently banned):
The only crass thing here is the image of the creator you cling to.
DaveScot also said something sensible recently about Darwin and the Holocaust IIRC.
Posted by: SteveF | May 12, 2008 9:46 AM
You write this as if you see something wrong with killing babies.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 12, 2008 10:00 AM
"It is important to remember that the road to New Testament ethics was a long, arduous process."
Now, I have heard this argument before in a differant context. It was about the LDS church and its racist history. I find the whole "oh they just weren't ready for gods true message" line to be a load of shit. If the message is coming straight from god I would think these god-fearing folk would do what he said and worry about the consequenses later or at least wring their hands, say its gods will and do it anyway. They sure seem to respond that way with the rape, genocide and murder orders. Why not the "I want everyone to love everyone" orders?
I'm also fairly surprised that DaveScot said something rational. I'd love to think it was a sign of future reason... but I don't. Call me jaded.
Posted by: jba | May 12, 2008 10:01 AM
Not to mention that God allows children to die from cancer today, because Eve sinned once at the beginning of time! How come Jesus didn't absolve her sin as he did for every other person in history?
I am also constantly amused by how Christian apologists can't distance themselves fast enough from the Old Testament. Isn't that the same God as in the New Testament - really? Wasn't Jesus supposedly a devout Jew who wanted everyone to heed the laws of the Torah?
The psychological compartmentalization and logical gymnastics of religious apologists is a sight to behold.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 12, 2008 10:05 AM
When Christians ask me what turned me to atheism, I tell them I read the Bible and recognized that the God of the Old Testament is not worthy of worship.
The correct response when Abraham was asked to kill his own son was to tell god -No, You gave me this life to raise and to protect and I will do so- Instead he agreed to kill his child in Gods name and the descendants of Abraham have been killing kids in Gods name ever since
Posted by: Kevin | May 12, 2008 10:06 AM
I'm glad you offer some support to DaveScot as he struggles with these issues.
The many ancient documents pulled together into what we call the Old Testament tell us much about how various people saw God, and reveal many of the same issues that people struggle with today, I think.
It's easy to be contemptuous of these early people and the terrible defects in their slowly developing ethical systems. But the world today still has a long way to go. We still see the tendency to dehumanize our enemies, and in many parts of the world we still have many, many people excusing or even rejoicing over the killing of children. And look at how many here in our own country justify and excuse the use of torture.
DaveScot is figuring out that just because some people are recorded in an Old Testment manuscript believing that God wanted them to murder helpless people, it doesn't mean that it was so. He deserves support, not mockery, in this perhaps difficult stage in his thinking and/or commenting.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 12, 2008 10:07 AM
Can a leopard change his spots?
DaveScot just banned Creo-Nut Sarfati... Stay tuned. Could DaveScot actually be looking to turn back to the path of sanity and stop drinking the ID kool-aid? Ever since Expelled hit the theaters, I think it's been harder for DaveScot to continue pretending that ID is all about the science. Could this be a signal of the end for DabeScot as the UD Moderator? Will Dembski have to take over himself?
Posted by: J-Dog | May 12, 2008 10:19 AM
destructive immoral human fabrication created during a much more barbaric, violent time and place in world history when the sword was more respected than the olive branch = liberal darwinist lie?
It's Davescot, so maybe one or two days before he actually says something like that. Davescot always delivers.
Posted by: tincture | May 12, 2008 10:20 AM
"is rather, at least in part, a rather destructive immoral human fabrication created during a much more barbaric, violent time and place in world history when the sword was more respected than the olive branch."
And that is different from modern times exactly how????
Posted by: RAM | May 12, 2008 10:26 AM
If one takes seriously the Christian notion that the afterlife is the only issue of real importance, not only infinite in span but also qualitatively greater than this mortal veil, and if one further accepts some kind of moral principle that subordinates earthly issues to eternal issues, then virtually anything here can be justified with reference to a god that controls that afterlife.
Mind, I'm not saying any of this is sane. But given the premises...
Posted by: Russell | May 12, 2008 10:32 AM
You know, I see this sort of response to the Abraham-Isaac story frequently, and it always strikes me as missing the point. Abraham is the person who Paul says believed God and was consequently credited with righteousness, and it's important to consider the story in that light (and the fact that no killing happened, despite Abraham's willingness to obey God, and that it wasn't even in the plan for the killing to occur).
To the original: I don't know exactly where I stand on the OT, but I do tend to see the violent elements as a product of the time, even though there is a fair amount of evidence that those elements are at least minimized somewhat from other ANE cultures. (Disclaimer: That last clause should not be seen as a rationalization, and anyone making such a claim will be shot.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 10:33 AM
If he were any shallower, he'd be empty.
If we were talking about a potter creating clay pots, sure he has the right to destroy those he doesn't like. But we're talking about creations that are self-aware. If they have a right to life, then that right supersedes any right of their creator to destroy them.
If any Christians disagree, then why do they fight against abortion rights? Surely by the same logic, when a man and a woman create life, they have the right to take it. Even after it comes out, for that matter.
Posted by: ShavenYak | May 12, 2008 10:34 AM
> But rather than believe that I choose to believe that the
> Old Testament is not a true account of God's interaction
> with the world but is rather, at least in part, a rather
> destructive immoral human fabrication
*boggle*
This is one of the many things I don't understand about religious folks. How can _some_ parts of their holy book be the Undeniable Word of their God while other parts are "not a true account"? How do they know which parts are which?
As for:
> It is important to remember that the road to New Testament
> ethics was a long, arduous process.
If God is _perfect_ then His actions should not be different between the Old and New Testaments (as who could a perfect being change his mind?).
I find it endlessly saddening that religious people are often less well read up on apologetics then non-religious folks.
Posted by: David Durant | May 12, 2008 10:38 AM
Your argument is interesting, but I would guess that very few Christians with this viewpoint would agree that a man and a women create life in the relevant sense for the argument to work. In other words, humans might create life in the sense of propagation, but it is God who imbues each person with life and a soul. I wouldn't be surprised if there's anti-abortion literature that calls it "playing God," in fact.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 10:42 AM
Posted by: Bob O'H | May 12, 2008 10:46 AM
Wasn't Jesus supposedly a devout Jew who wanted everyone to heed the laws of the Torah?
As has been pointed out on this blog before, no. Jesus repeatedly ignored various ancient Hebrew laws, and when confronted on it, explicitly justified his actions by saying that laws had to be applied and interpreted with an eye toward mercy and common sense. Mark 2:22-28, KJV:
21No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
22And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 12, 2008 10:47 AM
Oh, that's an easy one... The bits you like are the Undeniable Word of God, the bits you don't like are "not a true account". Simple.
Posted by: Dunc | May 12, 2008 10:51 AM
...and that it wasn't even in the plan for the killing to occur...
It was in Abraham's plan for it to occur. The fact that God stopped him makes it no less heinous that he was willing to do it. To me, the very point of the Abraham-Isaac story is that you should be willing to do anything at all, no matter how repulsive or immoral it seems, if God commands you to do it. If that's missing the point, then what is the point?
Posted by: Eric | May 12, 2008 10:53 AM
Kevin,
DaveScot apparently is now thinking of the Old Testament accounts (at least the early ones) as stories, rather than as literal historical fact. Good for him. Saying that there is a "correct response" for Abraham to make is rather like claiming in all seriousness that Little Red Riding Hood should never have spoken to that wolf. To me, a more interesting question is how Abraham's response functions as an element in a story.
Eric,
Stories rarely have a single clear point the way arguments do, but can be very, very powerful nonetheless in changing people's minds.
The sacrifice of Isaac is a story coming from a period when human sacrifice, yes of one's own children, was accepted and done. Had Abraham, as a character in the story, have said "no" to God, it would have, in its early context, been merely a story about a disobedient person, and so the audience would not have been willing to identify further with Abraham as, in this period without very clear ethical standards, obedience to one's tribe/patriarch/leader was considered a great virtue.
Instead, with the issue of disobedience put aside, it becomes a tale about God's not wanting child sacrifices. Today when child sacrifice is unthinkable for us, we lose sight of the earlier power that story could have to change the behavior of those who did believe that the gods were pleased by child sacrifice.
Given that the Abraham/Isaac story is in the context of other stories in which warriors were ordered to kill the helpless even against their inclination not to, it seems that the early Jews were far quicker to believe that God did not want them needlessly killing their own children than to believe that God also valued their enemies' children. Surely not surprising.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 12, 2008 11:01 AM
The only thing strange about this discussion is otherwise rational people defending heinous acts in a book simply because they have an emotional attachment to a belief about a book primarily implanted in childhood.
It is an utterly bizarre and study worthy aspect of human psychology and occurs worldwide with whatever book is venerated by the culture.
But I'm with Ed here, DaveScot is impressive for once.
Posted by: GH | May 12, 2008 11:08 AM
I never understand the Christian angle fully on abortion. If babies go to heaven then really we should be doing them all a favor. I know the 'Thou shalt not Kill' idea but you would save millions of baby souls each year. You'd be the supreme martyr.
Posted by: GH | May 12, 2008 11:12 AM
But abortion doesn't destroy the "soul" in any theology that I know of, it only eliminates the portion of life that was propogated. So again, if parents can give it, then by the moral logic mentioned they can take it away.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 12, 2008 11:14 AM
IF the Old Testiment is not to be believed as the word of god, rather as a story made up by men, then why not believe the New Testiment is made up also? Why believe the bible at all? Does rhis mean Dave Scott is turning away from Genesis, creation, orginal sin & all?
That dull thud you heard was my head going supernova.
Raging Bee - Mark was (as I understand it) a friend that John met after Jesus has "ascended to heaven" so he is not a direct witness to anything Jesus said or did, therefore anything he says is hearsay. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 12, 2008 11:23 AM
Another bit on the Abraham story:
God insisted on a sacrifice - originally wanted Abe to off his most-loved son.
After God told Abe to spare Isaac's life, He convieniently provided a ram as a stand-in.
So what exactly did Abraham lose in the exercise?
He still had his son, and the ram was not his to begin with but was a stray.
Abraham 'sacrificed' nothing.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | May 12, 2008 11:25 AM
I hear this "defense" most often. My response is that Nissan made my car but I'd still them where to stick it if they later told me I had to wreck it.
Posted by: Jeremy | May 12, 2008 11:29 AM
'This isn't God struggling in some long term process to reform their morality ...' This is actually interesting. It appears that DaveScot is comfortable moving between God as a person and God as a kind of a metaphoric 'human collective conscience'. This doesn't seem to be all that unusual among the religious.
Posted by: Flaky | May 12, 2008 11:41 AM
Up is down and right is wrong, so long as a sky-god wills it. DaveScot is wandering into some inconsistent vegetarian philosophy with his objections, but he is firmly grounded in the idea that killing innocent babies is wrong - no matter who instructs it.
It is simply hilarious to see people arguing from "imperfect knowledge" to say that it must be OK for god to order people to smash the heads of innocent babies on rocks. It's the old 'god only does what is good' versus 'whatever god does is good' argument, and they are totally inside-out.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | May 12, 2008 11:42 AM
I think one of the greatest secrets of the christian right is that the bible doesn't actually say anything regarding abortion. There are two verses that can be related to it by a huge stretch of interpretation, but even those don't clearly condemn. They instead talk a lot about 'God's children' and throw around 'murder' frequently, but they don't actually have an 'abortion is evil' verse they can cite.
GH: Translation error. The bible doesn't say anywhere 'thou shalt not kill.' The more accurate translation is 'thou shalt not murder.' It's a small difference in appearance, but huge in meaning - because murder is only unlawful killing, it allows for all the exceptions later on in the OT (Gays, sabbath-breakers, adulterers, etc) without creating any conflict. This is also how modern christians who support the death penalty are able to reconcile the apparent contradiction. Importantly, there is no definition given in either testament for exactly what murder is - making it very easy to define something either as murder or not, according to personal preference.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | May 12, 2008 11:47 AM
Blaidd, Abraham sacrificed his intelligence, his will, and his family life (I would be amazed if Isaac had anything but disgust and anger at his dad for his willingness to sacrifice him. Imagine the table talk that evening. One book I read says that the Abraham story seems to be a mix of two, with one thread having Isaac actually killed, since the story flows with no mention of Isaac thereafter. I haven't sat down and tried to see if I can discern these two stories, or look for mention of Isaac. If this is true, then this story could represent a record of a child sacrifice that was redacted to cover it up. Be interesting if this argument is true, but I can't say one way or another.
Posted by: Badger3k | May 12, 2008 11:47 AM
Beginning to view the Bible as "a rather destructive immoral human fabrication created during a much more barbaric, violent time and place in world history" is a good first step for any Christian to take. De-emphasizing a knee-jerk reflex towards literal interpretations of the myths in the Bible can only make Christianity a healthier religion in the long run, so I hope DaveScot keeps going down this line of thought. It eventually led me to atheism, but I know that's not the case for everyone - and any deemphasis on the literal interpretation helps people to get a little deeper into what was recorded by the prophets on actual pertinent issues (like poverty and war, for the most part).
As far as the Abraham/Isaac story goes - the first step is to remove the idea that it's a description of a historical event from your mind and treat it as you would any other "Just So" story in any other world religion (this is a good practice to get into for the entire book of Genesis, actually - moreso than the rest of the Bible, Genesis is a large compilation of "Just So" stories"). In this case the story of Abraham answers the question "Why don't we perform human sacrifice like our neighbors among the Canaanites?" And the answer is that God told Abraham (the founder of their tribe) not to. A simple answer, but if you tell it in a compelling story your fellow tribesmen have a reason to remember it when their neighbors are telling them the story about why Molech wants them to burn their children alive for his glory. And the story of Abraham is a pretty compelling story.
Posted by: NonyNony | May 12, 2008 11:47 AM
You can cherry-pick support for either side of that issue:
Mat 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | May 12, 2008 11:48 AM
Speaking of god as a potter.
personally I'm with the last pot to speak:
DINGO
Posted by: DingoJack | May 12, 2008 11:50 AM
Surely the only evidence we have of the Canaanites sacrificing anything at all, is the bible.
Is there any other evidence of human sacrifice in the Med basin in the 9th or 10th centtury BCE? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 12, 2008 11:59 AM
I think the discussion is about more than Abraham/Isaac, where in the end Isaac wasn't killed, we also have the killing of the firstborn on passover, the various slaughters of women & childen in Canaan, etc.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | May 12, 2008 12:13 PM
So much to respond to.
Eric:
Abraham's willingness to obey was conditional: only if God tells me that this is the way He's working out His promise. The point is that God had made other arrangements where the fulfillment of the command would not be necessary; it is the willingness, again, that's the point of the story. You can practically hear the sigh of relief when you read the passage and see that Abraham realizes that God hadn't planned on making him go through with the sacrifice.
I think your point might be better taken if God hadn't intervened and Abraham had actually gone through with it. Even Kierkegaard (whose interpretation I don't fully buy) had it somewhat right when he suggested that there was a tension between what Abraham knew of God and what God was telling him to do; the fact that the tension was resolved without Isaac's death says a lot about the intent.
GH:
That would be if the ultimate goal in life is merely to get to heaven; I doubt many Christians would agree with that (nor should they).
Shygetz:
Point well taken, but I still don't think mere propagation is the criteria that would be used for this. Another tack that could be taken is the idea that the parents of a child cannot know what sort of future the child will have and hence have no right to deprive the child of a meaningful future existence; God, on the other hand (one might argue), has full knowledge of a person's future existence and the role that person will play in some divine plan. It's at least a somewhat relevant difference, albeit somewhat tendentious.
Blaidd Drwg:
You're exactly right on that, and it's good reason to note that the point wasn't the sacrifice - although it is more than a little bit of foreshadowing for Christ - but in the trust that Abraham had in God's providential hand. Again, there's plenty of evidence in the Bible to support this view.
Badger3k:
There's absolutely no evidence to support either of those three claims. Certainly Abraham did not "sacrifice" his own will anymore than I "sacrifice" my will in doing things that my wife requests of me or even (to use a less relevant example) in paying taxes - it's still a free choice. And the whole bit about the family life - well, it's totally the author's creation, not anything that could be read from the text itself.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 12:26 PM
It doesn't really matter in this context.
Thats just a two step. What is a hundred years here compared to eternity in Heaven? It doesn't change the fact the stance on abortion is logically incoherent if a greater good is attained by the action.
Posted by: GH | May 12, 2008 12:31 PM
Jeremiah 9:8 might be appropriate here (remeber these are the inerrant word of GOD:
On the other hand can you really trust god?
King 22:21-23
especially a self loathing god:
Proverbs 6:16-19
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | May 12, 2008 1:20 PM
GH, you have far from established that getting to heaven without experiencing life on earth is a greater good than getting to heaven after experiencing life, however brief. What's more, you have a huge burden of proof if you want to claim that getting to heaven is the ultimate goal as prescribed by the Bible. (Then again, you could just accuse me of another "two step" since I'm not agreeing with your response. That was pretty effective the last time.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 1:24 PM
How crass. As the Creator of life, God has the right to take it.
I think this entire line of defense fails to get to the crux of the matter. The question at issue here is not whether God is right -- or "has the right" -- to take life because He gave it. It is whether God is right/has the right to ORDER Human Beings to kill in His name, and expect that they will know the difference between a real order from God and a mistaken one, and approve.
The Amalekites did not die from disease, lightning, flood, or other direct "Acts of God." They were slaughtered by human beings who thought they were acting on God's behalf. They were really, really sure God wanted them to kill other people. God loves that kind of certainty, under those kinds of conditions. Maybe.
From the human point of view, we never, ever start out with "God said this" or "God wants this." Not being the Omniscient narrators of reality, we all start out with our own flawed human selves and our own unreliable human perspectives. We don't get to sneak to the back of the Story of Life and peek at how it's all really going to turn out, and who got God right, and who only thought they got God right. Not even the ancient Hebrews got to be characters in a book -- from their own perspective.
"I believe that God said this" or "it is my conviction that God wants this." I had a hallucination which I consider to be a true vision. It seems to me that I heard a voice in my head which was not my own, and I just have this knowing sensation that it was God. We heard a big booming voice from the sky, we're pretty sure. The holy text in which I have faith looks like it should be interpreted this way. I trust my parents, and they told me to trust the priest, and he told me to trust that he knows all about what God wants. All of us here came together and agreed that we understand God just fine. There's no mistake anywhere, I'm sure.
And God said kill other people. I'm certain He did, so that means He really did.
God would work that way. He'd encourage it.
Two questions:
1.) Would a God who knows how unreliable people are when it comes to separating true faith from false order people to commit what would otherwise be murder, and be pleased they ignore the self-doubt that warns us we might be mistaken?
2.) Would it be morally justifiable if He did?
Those questions have nothing to do with God taking life. They have to do with God giving humans permission to be so sure of their religious opinions that it's okay for them to act as God's proxy and take life. They have to do with the morality of God wanting humans to wipe the blame off murder, and kill with a clean conscience.
Posted by: Sastra | May 12, 2008 1:40 PM
Tegumai: Yes, and I'm cherrypicking the good and sensible stuff in order to get a good and relevant doctrine that people today would find useful in improving their lives. You got a problem with that? It's pretty much what Jesus himself did.
As for your Matthew quotes, Jesus seemed to be referring to God's plan/law for Man and the Universe, not to any specific body of OT or other law. Furthermore, the quotes you pasted come after all the "blessed are..." statements, which didn't refer to OT law at all. Also, your Matthew quotes do not in any way contradict or nullify Jesus' teachings about Hebrew law, nor do they advocate rigid obedience to any code of human laws.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 12, 2008 1:46 PM
haha, burden of proof? There is just about zero proof for any of it. Your entire point of view doesn't address the primary point that being against abortion even if I would grant your ascertion still isn't doing any real harm to a baby and in fact may prevent the child from making the kind of choices(albeit absurd choices) that send the child to hell(however fictional).
Posted by: GH | May 12, 2008 1:50 PM
Bee I agree with much of what you say but on this I disagree Jesus(or whoever attributed the saying to him) clearly was talking about OT law. I think it is one of the more clear directives in the book and thats saying something.
Posted by: JimC | May 12, 2008 1:54 PM
What? Assuming the typically held Christian position that babies (being kids younger than the age of accountability) are not send directly to Hell then they are guaranteed everlasting life in Heaven (there is no other choice). Even if there is no solid theological reason to justify that belief, it is a hope that has been held by billions of grieving parents over the centuries. Thus what loving parent would not want their child to be assured of an eternity in paradise when the alternative is essentially a lottery with perhaps a 20% chance of getting to Heaven if they let them grow up. Bypassing a brief life on Earth (that includes a good chance of going to Hell) for a guaranteed ticket to an eternity in Heaven is a trade off any rational human being would make in a heartbeat.
What other goal could there be more important than the destination of your eternal soul (if such a thing really exists)? The only way some Christians demote this goal is by claiming that either all people will go to Heaven or all but the truly evil people (like Hitler and Stalin) will be admitted.
Posted by: tacitus | May 12, 2008 2:04 PM
Is there anything in the Bible forbidding wanking? The Onan bit was about Mr. O having it off with his brother's wife, and spilling his seed on the ground. Which is surely coitus interruptus. More on topic, my recollection of the tale is that God, enraged by this loss of future members of the tribe, kills Onan. Bizarrely illogical.
The undelying problem in all of this is the idea that morality has to come from an authority figure. To many Creationists that's the only posible source, and they think the only reason not to do nasty things is fear of their invisible authority figure. A very dubious basis. Morality as evolved socially successful behaviour is much more sane than fantasies of heaven and hell.
Posted by: dave | May 12, 2008 2:18 PM
GH's disappointing response:
I didn't realize there was "just about zero proof" for the existence of a sacred text which is the best-selling book in history and revered by millions of people all over the world. (In other words, don't be a dolt: I'm asking you to look for textual evidence in the Bible that supports your point. Go ahead; it isn't there.)
I would contend that preventing someone from making choices - yes, even bad ones - is not a good at all.
tacitus:
Even if I were to grant that this is true (and I don't), how does it follow that killing a person young enough for this to apply would suddenly be moral? Christian ethics aren't utilitarian; the right thing isn't merely what gets the most people into heaven.
It's sort of amazing to me that I ask for evidence in the Bible to support this view, and you say, "What else could there be?" There are lots of things: making the willing choice to serve one's Creator, giving witness to the glory of God, living a virtuous life, and so forth. If you can't think of anything else, you're either not thinking hard enough or you're not looking in the right place (hint: the Bible).
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 3:00 PM
So if your child wanted to run into traffic, you wouldn't prevent them? If your child didn't want to be immunized for deadly diseases, you would simply say "It's their choice"?
Man, I feel sorry for your kids....
And those are, of course, completely unconnected with the final destination for one's soul.
Posted by: Tulse | May 12, 2008 3:19 PM
Once in a while Davescot will take a sensible position against the screaming idiots at UD. Don't let that fool you, though. He is still an asshole, and stupid.
Posted by: steve s | May 12, 2008 3:29 PM
RagingBee:
"Wasn't Jesus supposedly a devout Jew who wanted everyone to heed the laws of the Torah?
As has been pointed out on this blog before, no. Jesus repeatedly ignored various ancient Hebrew laws, and when confronted on it, explicitly justified his actions by saying that laws had to be applied and interpreted with an eye toward mercy and common sense."
It may have been pointed out previously, but it is still wrong. Jesus (supposedly) was a very conservative guy, and on a permanent rant to break up different viewpoints in the community and pull them all back to the Talmud.
Here is an excerpt (forgive the pdf copying errors) from a highly regarded source that discusses one of the (commonly misinterpreted) quotations you provided:
from:
THE WITNESSES TO THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS by Arthur Drews, Ph.D.
sections from pp 236-238
Jesus is supposed to have preached in the synagogues, of which the Pharisees were the masters ; he cannot, therefore, have infringed
the law.
Moreover, he is supposed to have adhered strictly to the law, since he says that he had not come to undo, but to fulfill it (Matthew v, 17) a saying that is found almost word for word in the Talmud : "Not a letter of the law will ever be destroyed," and " The laws of Noah
have not been abolished, but increased" (Cosri, i, 83).
In passing over one or other prescription, or interpreting it in an unfamiliar sense, he did nothing extraordinary. There were among the Pharisees and scribes themselves many differences in the exposition and application of the prescriptions of the law, though this never led to charges of heresy or persecution.
One of the worst of his transgressions is that he and his disciples are said to have violated the law of the Sabbath by healing the sick on that day. Even among the rabbis, however, the holiness of the Sabbath had to give way when a man's life was in question. In fact, it
was obligatory to disregard the Sabbath when there was danger in the observance of it, and the man who in such a case held to the letter was regarded as a " murderer."
We read in Lev. xviii, 5 :
" Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments ; which, if a man do, he shall
live in them." And in the Talmud (Tract. Joma, 856) we read :
" The Sabbath is given to you, not you to the Sabbath."
To heal by merely stretching out one's hand
over the patient, as Jesus is said to have done on the Sabbath in Mark iii, 5, was not forbidden by the rabbis, and therefore the Pharisees could not be " filled with
madness," as they are said to have been on such an occasion in Luke vi, 11.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 12, 2008 3:30 PM
And now was response is disappointing, ho-hum.
I think in your overzealous state to be correct you are missing the entire point I was making above. Fortunately the other commenters have not been so benighted and correctly see the point. And as to the bible being a bestseller thats a little bit of hyperbole.
As mentioned by Tulse above this can be silly. In this case even if what you say is true it is the most minor of offenses and is far outweighed by the greater good. it doesn't make abortion stance any less illogical.
Support what view? That things in life are worth living? I certainly agree. However again this is rather beside the point and would be completely secondary to an eternity in Heaven. Unless of course such a place is completely imaginary as what is 100 years of an eternity?
Posted by: GH | May 12, 2008 3:50 PM
Tulse:
Right, because that's exactly what I said. It couldn't have been the logical conclusion that depriving someone of the ability to choose for themselves as a fetus will deprive them of the ability to choose as an adult.
Despite your sarcastic statement, they aren't ultimately concerned with it, either.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 4:01 PM
Thats just a two step. What is a hundred years here compared to eternity in Heaven? It doesn't change the fact the stance on abortion is logically incoherent if a greater good is attained by the action.
GH: You're treating abortion as if the only soul involved from the Christian perspective is the baby's soul. I suspect that the greater good would not be baby goes to heaven while mother and abortion doctor go to hell. It would be all three go to heaven.
Posted by: Dr X | May 12, 2008 4:05 PM
GH, your penchant for twisting what I'm saying, being almost intentionally obtuse, claiming I'm just not seeing something when you're being so obtuse, making assumptions about me, and so forth have caused something that's rare for me: a total lack of desire to respond to your inane response. As a result, I won't be. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | May 12, 2008 4:07 PM
Hey, how 'bout that fun god and moses have w/the midianites?
http://sanguineinseattle.blogspot.com/2008/02/bible-quote-of-day.html
Posted by: lauram | May 12, 2008 4:18 PM
these were the same people who gave us rotation of crops, the forgiveness of debt, the care of the entire group. something we need to think about - making sure EVERYONE in society is cared for. not to mention Women as Judges: Ruth. As Heroes - Yael, Judith, Esther.
So, let's just focus on the negative. it's so much easier than the positive aspects of these people.
Posted by: KelL | May 12, 2008 4:22 PM
I think I'm right in thinking that DaveScott describes himself as an agnostic?
Posted by: MH | May 12, 2008 4:23 PM
Dr.X- I agree but it could still be an act of matrydom on their behalf and they could always beg forgiveness but really what would they have to be forgiven for as they helped the little tike out in the long run. And for that matter they haven't really 'murdered' anyone either as the being exists in a state of perpetual bliss.
You are a bizarre one. I haven't twisted anything you said at all. Nor have I made an assumption about you. Nothing inane in my response and the only thing you have offered is well, really nothing. Some tripe about how not having a choice somehow is better than Heaven.
Like I said it's a tough position to defend. Being intentionally obtuse- thats just rich. But whatever there fella.
Posted by: GH | May 12, 2008 4:30 PM
Well, exactly what you said is:
How is the example I provided a misrepresentation of that? Perhaps you meant something more nuanced?
Posted by: Tulse | May 12, 2008 4:34 PM
Oh puh-leez it's not as if groups weren't caring for each other before this or forgiving debts. Don't be myopic.
Posted by: JimC | May 12, 2008 4:38 PM
Jesus(or whoever attributed the saying to him) clearly was talking about OT law.
No, that entire chapter in Matthew was about how various people were blessed by God for their good intents, and for actions generally pursuant to said intents; OT law simply was not the subject of that particular discourse of his.
Jesus (supposedly) was a very conservative guy...
"Conservative" means he didn't explicitly advocate sweeping radical change or revolution (which many at that time wanted him to do); it does NOT mean, and never has meant, rigid unchanging adherence to any code of laws, or refusal to change the laws under any circumstances. You seem to be confusing "conservative" with "reacionary."
Moreover, he is supposed to have adhered strictly to the law, since he says that he had not come to undo, but to fulfill it (Matthew v, 17)...
AS has already been pointed out, he did not "adhere strictly" to the laws; he bent or broke them when he, in his judgement, thought it the most beneficial course in a given situation. He was not a revolutionary, but he angered a ruling class who enforced and depended on strict adherence to the law (and by saying that they were not intermediaries between Man and God); who then labelled him a threat to the current order.
(Besides, "fulfilling" a law may mean achieving its basic intent, not necessarily obeying it mindlessly.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 12, 2008 4:51 PM
"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
I remember reading long ago (don't know where) that the proper translation from Hebrew was "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live", which to me makes much more sense. Translations are dangerous things!
Posted by: Alan | May 12, 2008 5:04 PM
It may also mean completing it, finishing it, bringing it to an end. A prophecy that has been "fulfilled" is over and done with; no more is to be expected from the prophecy. It served its purpose in its time, and its time is gone. The same may be said of fulfilling the law.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 12, 2008 5:04 PM
Cynic, I'm afraid that GH is right this time. He has done nothing beyond the pale, unless you consider pointing out the inconsistencies and inanities in your positions "beyond the pale". Walking off in a huff is less effective when there's a record of the exchange.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 12, 2008 5:09 PM
You seem to be confusing "conservative" with "reacionary."
You seem to be confusing me with someone who thinks that by you repeating yourself in direct contradiction to a well acknowledged biblical historian will at last be convinced of your argument. ;D
Frankly, we have roamed so far afield from the original post I can only make it out on the horizon. Plus, we are talking about the Jesus figure as if he actually existed and are quoting Biblical verse as if they had any historicity, which they, well,... don't.
What is driving me crazy is that I recently read a really well researched article on exactly the topic about which we are arguing , and I can not put my hands on it for you. Sigh.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 12, 2008 5:28 PM
Gingerbaker,
As far as I can tell, you are arguing that Jesus was an extremely conservative person who wanted all Jews (everyone?) to obey the Jewish laws forever, and the only evidence you offer for that claim is a nearly 100-year-old book that says Jesus never existed at all.
I'm usually pretty good at following arguments, but that one is beyond me.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 12, 2008 5:36 PM
Raging Bee:
Not so. Matthew 5:1-16 is indeed about "how various people are blessed by God fro their good intents." But the rest of the chapter is about the OT law.
In Matthew 5:17 Jesus refers to "the law and the prophets" -- this is a reference to the OT law. If not, what was he referring to?
5:18 Jesus says "not one letter, not one stroke of a letter" will pass from the "law". This is another reference to the OT law. It isn't "God's plan/law for Man and the Universe" because that isn't made up of letters and strokes of letters... unless you agree it's in the OT?
5:19 Jesus condemns whoever breaks the least of "these commandments". Here we have a reference ("these") back to the "law and prophets" of verse 17; the word "commandments" is another reference to the OT law.
5:20 Jesus tells his audience that their righteousness must exceed that of the "scribes and Pharisees" -- who were big exponents of the OT law, yes? So Jesus is conflating righteousness with following the OT law.
5:21 Jesus references a specific OT law, "You shall not murder"
5:27 Jesus refers to a specific OT law, "You shall not commit adultery"
5:31 Jesus refers to a specific OT law, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce."
5:33 Jesus refers to a specific OT law, "You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord."
5:38 Jesus refers to the OT law "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
5:43 again Jesus refers to a specific OT law, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
Jesus, in Matthew 5:17-48, isn't talking about fulfilling the law in its basic intent. From verse 17 onwards he tells his followers that they must adhere to standards even strcter than those specified by OT law, so that the OT law is fulfilled in its every intent. Not one letter, not one stroke of a letter of it was to be ignored.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | May 12, 2008 5:55 PM
Alan Dershowitz in his neat volume,The Genesis of Justice, notes that Abraham does indeed argue with God, and God sometimes changes His mind. For example, when God originally tells Abraham He's about to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham argues that's not a good idea, since surely there must be a few righteous people there. There ensues an interesting bargaining session that must have been the inspiration for the witch-burning scene in Monty Python's epistle about the Holy Grail. Abraham bargains to save the city if there are 50 righteous people, and God agrees -- then 40, then 30 . . . he stops at 10.
As it turns out, of course, there aren't even 10 righteous people in the city, according to the text. But the precedent is set.
Woody Allen's version of the Abraham/Isaac sacrifice story is also worth a read.
Do you think the crazed nature of UD finally just got to him? I feel no problem saying I agree with DaveScot on his comments -- clearly he's come around some to a more rational view.
Odd, isn't it? It's okay for a not-too-faithful follower to bargain with God -- "I'll do anything, God, just get Junior through this round of finals" -- but so many who claim to follow the Bible and allow such bargaining on the human side forget, or ignore, that such bargains require bargaining on God's side, too. Taking the Bible literally, when it plays the fool, just doesn't make any sense. We had a kid in our Sunday school a few years back who wrote a nice little poster: "Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds." More than a decade later (and the kid gone on to a nice record of study at great universities), it's still true.
Why do so many otherwise Christians work so hard to deny it?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 12, 2008 6:08 PM
The other way to look at it is, as many thinking Christians insist, this is God's way of sending a message that human sacrifice isn't the path any more (if it ever really was). God notes that a ram works just as well.
The Bible is a book of increasing morality, it seems to me, just as the U.S. national law history is a history of creeping, increasing morality. In Abraham, we get an end to human sacrifice. In Jesus, especially with the bread and wine, we get a substitution of bread and wine for flesh and blood sacrifice.
Those are good moves, especially at the time.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 12, 2008 6:23 PM
"Dr.X- I agree but it could still be an act of matrydom on their behalf and they could always beg forgiveness but really what would they have to be forgiven for as they helped the little tike out in the long run. And for that matter they haven't really 'murdered' anyone either as the being exists in a state of perpetual bliss."
That would be fine, except that none of what you're proposing remotely qualifies as ethical for