Pharyngula

And this is supposed to make us respect him a little more HOW?

Posted by: Stanton | February 14, 2007 10:43 AM

Vox Day=David Koresh

Posted by: Steve_C | February 14, 2007 10:50 AM

Ah. Well of course, how could we have been so shortsighted and knee jerky.

Posted by: daenku32 | February 14, 2007 11:03 AM

Oh, and is it a lackey writing there or is Teddy Boy really referring to himself or his alter ego in the third person? Just back away slowly, don't make eye contact...

Posted by: Rey Fox | February 14, 2007 11:10 AM

That'll teach you to quote more accurately, I hope.

Speaking of accuracy, here's a hopeful sign: my pal and fellow blogger LotStreetWiz found a link to a site that has scientists on call so that celebrities can check their science before sounding off on miracle cures and the like.

Posted by: Monado | February 14, 2007 11:11 AM

. . . does one require the order to be a written one with a confirming endorsement from the second in command?

And remember, emails can be faked.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 14, 2007 11:41 AM

So how do we determine that Andrea Yates didn't get a command from God to kill her kids? How do we know that women who have abortions aren't doing so on orders from God?

I mean, how do we know?

Forget it. This is rationalistic gobbledygook, and I want no part of it. This is just about Vox Day believing he is uniquely qualified to know a message from God (and thus believing that he is God), that's all.

Posted by: Kristine | February 14, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm really glad he cleared that up, because otherwise people might think he was crazy or something.

Posted by: Carlie | February 14, 2007 12:01 PM

Why converse with him using that insipid pen name? Whenever "Vox" comes by looking for a fight, just call him Ted, or Mr. Beale. He's pretentious enough without us giving him the gratitude of using his false name.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 14, 2007 12:04 PM

Well, it does seem that you're misunderstanding him a little. I think he's saying that if you're SURE the command comes from God, it's ok, but if you only THINK it comes from God, you'd better not kill anyone just yet.

That still makes him an amoral son-of-a-bitch, though. If you can't repudiate God when he orders you to murder children, then you're a psychopath who relies on God's judgment because you don't have any of your own - a path which is incredibly dangerous even if you *do* have complete and accurate knowledge about God. (Just ask Jephthah, the guy who wasn't quite as lucky as Abraham.)

Since nobody *does* have 100% certain knowledge about God (although they may pretend otherwise), the real situation is even worse - you're making moral decisions based on what you *think* God would want you to do, when you don't even know whether or not God is good at all (having abandoned any attempt to establish standards for goodness and compare God to them) nor whether or not your ideas about his wishes are accurate.

Posted by: Chris | February 14, 2007 12:21 PM

So... the message consists of the following:
1) Incontravertible proof that the sender is the almighty creator of the universe
2) A non-ambiguous order to slaughter children

I guess his point is that it's possible that Jesus exists but is a less significant deity than he'd have you believe. (Which imaginary figure does Jesus whisper prayers to? :p)

So, fine. The original fault still applies, of course: the message doesn't contain proof that killing children is a necessary or morally valid action. He's claiming that the creator of the universe has the right to order the annihiliation of any portion of that universe. Spread the news! Microsoft can order the deletion of all copies of Windows off of your computers! All parents can kill their children! If Harrison Ford or Stephen Spielberg ordered you to destroy your Indiana Jones DVDs, the only moral act would be to destroy them!

It's a silly thought exercise from the beginning, probably made for shock value. And it's flawed: creation does not necessarily imply the right to destroy, and no reason is given as to why it should.

Posted by: Beren | February 14, 2007 12:28 PM

Best be careful, else Vox Dementis will send their special team after you:
"I am Hans."
"Und I am Franz."
"Und ve are here, to CHOP YOU UP! Got a problem mit dat, little Pharyngurlie man?"

Seriously, it reminds me of an old quote:
"What monsters would walk the streets, if men's faces were as unfinished as their minds." - Unknown.
In this case, they have but to open their mouths & volunteer their madness.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 14, 2007 1:10 PM

And this is supposed to make us respect him a little more HOW?

Well, he's basically admitting he would never kill toddlers because he doesn't have the balls to act out his sociopathy "the direct and 100-percent confirmed command of the Almighty" would be impossible to verify objectively, because "the Almighty" doesn't actually exist outside the minds of those who believe in it. So he's letting us know he can be safely ignored.

Posted by: junk science | February 14, 2007 1:37 PM

The obvious question, as others above have pointed out, how do you determine the order comes 100% from the Almighty? And if so which Almighty? I'm guessing if Osama bin Laden showed up on Vox's doorstep saying "I have orders, 100% from the Almighty, to bump you off", Vox is not going to lie down on the altar waiting for the sacrificial knife.

It's that whole "faith" thing again. My faith is 100% correct. Yours is nonsense.

Posted by: Narc | February 14, 2007 2:04 PM

Is that a note from God in writing, or just hearing the Voice in your head?

I'm so confused....

Posted by: donna | February 14, 2007 2:20 PM

Rocky, you make the very common stupid assumption that atheists and other Christianity critics don't know anything about the Bible, Biblical history, apologetics, etc. Guess what? Some people here know a lot about those topics, probably more than you do. Just because they're not arrogant enough to list all of their credentials with every post doesn't mean they don't know the goods.

Posted by: Carlie | February 14, 2007 2:32 PM

The REALLY funny part is that this "thought experiment" was put forth by one Jefferson, an apparent atheist on the blog.
HI-larious!

Posted by: The Aardvark | February 14, 2007 2:35 PM

What is unique is the new convenant created between God and Abraham when God said stop

Wouldn't it have made more sense as a moral story then if Abraham had offered the sacrifice first and God said "Um, no thanks, I don't work that way"? The way it's written, it's not as much of an example of how God differs from the other gods than it's an example that he's a sadistic bastard, putting Abraham and Isaac through hell for a day before pulling an Aston Kutcher punk'd on them.

Posted by: Carlie | February 14, 2007 2:43 PM

Carlie, et all..

Can you provide some background on what other traditions and practices were common at the time of Abraham. Namely, what other beliefs led to child sacrifice?

This is, in my experience, not a trivial thing to substantiate.

Posted by: dh | February 14, 2007 2:50 PM

It's interesting how atheists and those completely unschooled in Biblical history, apologetics, and interpretation on this site offer funny little quips on God, His character, His logic, and His relationship with His followers.

No, what's interesting is the absurd assumption that an atheist can have no knowledge of Biblical history, interpretation or apologetics. I'm an atheist and I've got a degree in classical history. I guarantee your ass I know more about Biblical history than 99% of the Christians in this country.

Yet at the same time ayone who has zero training in say biochemistry, archeology, mathematics etc. is laughed at they purport some insight into the validity of findings in those fields that may/may not support evolutionary science.

False dichotomy. Science is not theology. Science expects results. And archaeology has little to nothing to do with evolution. Paleontology does.

You can't have it both way folks.

Watch me.

Learn something about what you are commenting or or shut up, or allow all voices to be heard on all topics.

Your right to be heard is not a right not to be ridiculed because what you said is stupid.

All one asks is consistency, which seems rare on the side that doesn't salute the flag.

All we ask for is intellectual rigor, which seems rare on the side that respects the flag but not the Constitution. But seriously, your desire for consistency is a desire to put theology on the same footing as science and, IMHO, that does a disservice to both science and faith.

But what do I know? I've only studied, in depth, the mytho-historical basis of western civilization. I don't have the all high and mighty qualifications in apologetics and theology that you can only get by forfeiting all rational thought.

Posted by: Sarcastro | February 14, 2007 3:02 PM

dh:
Can you provide some background on what other traditions and practices were common at the time of Abraham. Namely, what other beliefs led to child sacrifice?
I can, & I'm an atheist! Oh, a flag-salutin' 1 at that!
Molech was actually a common cult in the times - the idol was actually a furnace. Men & women would chop off their naughty bits, & toss their infants into the fire.

Rocky:
What is unique is the new covenant created between God and Abraham when God said stop, defining a relationship with Him as unique to other Gods.
What's even UNIQUER, was this:
Gen. 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
Which reads (to me at least) that old Abe's deity made a whole lotta promises about taking care of Isaac & HIS kids.
Oh, wait: little voice in the head contradicting itself years later? Hmmmmm...maybe not so unique after all.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 14, 2007 3:20 PM

In fact, when I talk to Christians, I almost always find that I know more about the Bible than they do.

Not me! I know more about the Bible and Physics than you.

Posted by: The Physicist | February 14, 2007 3:22 PM

Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, chapter 4:

Since fundamentalists insist the Bible is the revealed word of God and without error, you would think they'd have read it. But you'd often be wrong. I gave a listing of the sixty-six books in the King James Bible to a large sample of parents and asked them, "How many of these have you read, from beginning to end? (Example, if you have read parts of the Book of Genesis, but not all of it, that does not count.)" Nineteen percent of the Christian High fundamentalists said they had never read any of the books from beginning to end, which was neatly counterbalanced by twenty percent (but only twenty percent) who said they had read all sixty-six. (I tip my hat to anyone who put her head down and plowed through the first nine chapters of Chronicles I. Look it up.)

On the average, the high fundamentalists said they had read about twenty of the books in the Bible--about a third of what's there. So they may insist that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches, but most of them have never read a lot of what they're so sure of. They are likely, again, merely repeating something they were told while growing up, or accepted when they "got religion." Most of them literally don't know all that they're talking about. (But they are Biblical scholars compared to others: Most of the non-fundamentalist parents had not read even one chapter.)

This explains the results of a multiple-choice "Bible Quiz" I gave university students once. It was a very easy test in which I just asked which book in the Bible contains a famous story or quote. It was so easy because most of the possible answers I served up would be ridiculous to anyone who knew the Bible even superficially.

For example, where in the Bible would one find the passage, "In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. Then the angel of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified...to you is born this day in the city of David a savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord"? The Gospel of Luke, The Book of Jeremiah, the Psalms, or Genesis? Since the last three are found in the Old Testament, and almost everyone who goes to a Christian church on Christmas hears this passage during the reading from the Gospels, the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it?

How about this one: Is the story of Samson and Delilah in Exodus, the Gospel of Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, or Judges? (Most students thought Samson was writ up in Acts, maybe because he was an action-hero.) The other questions involved the location of, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life," and who said, "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal...If I have all faith as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing...And now faith, hope and love abide, these three: and the greatest of these is love."

The sample as a whole barely scored above chance on my four-question quiz, which makes sense when you recall that most of their parents had not even read one book in the Bible. But what surprised me no end was how poorly the fundamentalist students did: overall they got only a 60%. They did best on that much-advertised quotation from John 3:16--which three-fourths of the fundamentalists got right. But all of the questions were so easy, why didn't they get an A+ instead of a D or an F?

The answer appears to be that, while they may tell everyone the Bible contains God's revealed truth to humanity, so everyone should read the Good Book, in truth they--like an awful lot of their parents--don't know what's in it because they haven't read much of it either.

I've also asked parents who do read the Bible how they decide what to read. Most fundamentalists said they read selected passages, which often were selected for them by their church, a Bible study group, the editor of a book of devotional readings, and so on. Very few bother to read all the infallible truth they say God has revealed. If you only get into heaven if you've been devoted enough to read the whole Bible, there'll apparently be no line-up before St. Peter.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 14, 2007 3:34 PM

Rocky #30, would you happen to know where I could find a source for that? Children are (at least prior to the industrial revolution) too economically valuable to sacrifice--you really need to keep them , especially in a pastoral society. I'd be interested to know what could lead to child sacrifice becoming acceptable. Maybe prolonged starvation?

Posted by: Xocolotl | February 14, 2007 3:36 PM

Anyone else notice the similarity between this tool and the sort of logic used to make heroes out of butchers and torturers? The whole thing where he'd impale toddlers on a stick, but boy would it weigh heavily on him--and the fact that he'd kill them anyway makes him that much more a hero. Here, I'll quote Slavoj Zizek:

In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most were well aware that they were doing things that brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. The way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying "What horrible things I did to people!" they would say "What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!" In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: the temptation to be resisted was pity and sympathy in the presence of human suffering, the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate.

Posted by: grendelkhan | February 14, 2007 3:45 PM

Dorid, I personally don't think the answer is any different that modern ethnic cleansing, it is and always has been killing for god to take someone's land, women, water rights, etc, etc. Just an easy justification. It is bad enough that the old testament Hebrew's think that hearing voices in their heads justify killing innocent persons. But modern people still use this retarded rational to kill each other for god. Orcinus recently had a great piece on intolerance of other peoples, and how religion was used over and over to justify killing anyone who is the "other" that needs to be controlled/eliminated.
Dawkins is right, religion is a dangerous fallacy.

Posted by: Another Rocky | February 14, 2007 3:45 PM

In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed.

The difference is the reality not the childish question posed for a "thought" excersise. The question was posed to Vox by an Atheist. Guess ya'll wasn't told that? The answer to the question was a simple answer to a stupid question as God has not comanded such atrocity to the Christian. We live under the new covenant and Jesus is God's Word and the Word is Jesus.

The problem that atheist have is they read the Bible like a literary work, The Christian should read it like it is a person, and that person is Jesus, the Christ.

Posted by: The Physicist | February 14, 2007 4:37 PM

Can you provide some background on what other traditions and practices were common at the time of Abraham. Namely, what other beliefs led to child sacrifice?

The belief that Jehovah craved the sweet savour of burnt animal offerings might offer a hint?

Posted by: windy | February 14, 2007 4:44 PM

I'm so sorry we're treating you with disdain, 'the physicist', but we're just a little tired out from the eighty thousand times we've refuted your exact same arguments in the past year. Forgive us if we're a little testy about some of the stupider canards.

Posted by: stogoe | February 14, 2007 5:01 PM

I'm so sorry we're treating you with disdain, 'the physicist', but we're just a little tired out from the eighty thousand times we've refuted your exact same arguments in the past year. Forgive us if we're a little testy about some of the stupider canards.

I must be missing something, no one here has ever refuted "My Arguments". Unless "Whatever" is a valid argument over here.

Posted by: The Physicist | February 14, 2007 5:07 PM

I know I am feeding the troll, but I feel like it deserves a chance to prove it's not a troll.

The Physicist wrote:
"The answer to the question was a simple answer to a stupid question as God has not comanded [sic] such atrocity to the Christian. We live under the new covenant and Jesus is God's Word and the Word is Jesus."

The old testament is FULL of instances of god ordering that settlements be razed, or destroying them himself. Or are you arguing that the infants in Soddom were guilty of something? Or are you arguing that god commanded the ancient Jews to kill innocents, not Christians? If you are, why does that matter? It's the same god, right? I am not trying to be flippant, I really want to understand your point of view about this. After all, you claim to know more about the bible and physics than the rest of us. This should be an easy one.

Posted by: John | February 14, 2007 5:23 PM

I must be missing something, no one here has ever refuted "My Arguments".

Well, for instance you're argument about the "problem" atheists have with how they read the bible...

I don't know about other atheists (we aren't organized, ya know), but my problem is with how Christian's read the bible. Some say it's a literal retelling of historical events. Others say that such an interpretation is absurd and that the bible is clearly a work of allegory and metaphor. The first group thinks the second group is absurd. Other groups identify some portions as literal and others as allegorical. This is not an uncommon complaint, so I'm surprised that you think it's never been addressed.

Now you come along and happily declare that the bible needs to be "read like it is a person" and presume that our problem is that we haven't been doing so. Has it not occurred to you that you're just one more voice in the cacophony of Christian voices telling us (and each other) the correct way to consume their ancient texts?

Posted by: Matt | February 14, 2007 5:31 PM

The answer to the question was a simple answer to a stupid question as God has not comanded such atrocity to the Christian. We live under the new covenant and Jesus is God's Word and the Word is Jesus.

I see, so your way around this is the fact that most of the atrocities committed and ordered by God were from the OT, and were therefore asked of Jews, right? And if you want to get technical, most NT atrocities weren't asked of Christians because there couldn't be Christians until after Christ's resurrection?

So, tell me, did God change after forming the new covenant? Is God now the same God who once killed every living thing (minus one boatful) on Earth? The same God who ordered a man to impregnate his dead brother's wife and then killed him for failing to go through with the act? Or did the "new covenant" wipe all that away?

The problem that atheist have is they read the Bible like a literary work, The Christian should read it like it is a person, and that person is Jesus, the Christ.

What the hell does this even mean? How do you read a person? Are you saying that the Bible isn't literally true, but is somehow symbolically evocative of Jesus?

Not that I think it's either one, of course, I just want to hear the reasoning behind this. This particular flavor of insanity is new to me.

Posted by: Tom Foss | February 14, 2007 5:35 PM

Well even if 1-4 are true, a moral person's take would be... Sorry. Won't do it.

Why is that hard to understand? Vox is willing to kill 2 year olds if he was asked by god.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 14, 2007 5:42 PM

The old testament is FULL of instances of god ordering that settlements be razed, or destroying them himself. Or are you arguing that the infants in Soddom were guilty of something? Or are you arguing that god commanded the ancient Jews to kill innocents, not Christians? If you are, why does that matter? It's the same god, right? I am not trying to be flippant, I really want to understand your point of view about this. After all, you claim to know more about the bible and physics than the rest of us. This should be an easy one.

You are correct God killed all those people. Now maybe I can answer a couple questions that I have seen. The Bible with out the magisterium and the HS is just a book. I'm Catholic ya see, and I don't pretend to interpret the Bible for myself. It has been interpreted by greater men than I, the doctors and fathers of the Church. This is how I know how to read the Bible, not because I want it to say something it doesn't say that many self-interpreters do.

As to your questions about how God killed all these Innocent people, there was always a reason, and you have to read it is Christ is the center of the book. All things point to Christ and his comming. Let's just take the flood for example. God killed everyone but Noah and a few was this a bad thing?

Absolutley not, the reasons stated is that they were evil and were trying to (the sons of God)keep jesus from coming by spoiling the genetic line, so he plastered them. There could be no salvation accept though Christ after the fall of Adam.

He protected his investment. The Christian believes that God in his love came to save us. He could have made robots that always obeyed, but what would be the point, robots can't love. God see's the smallest acts of charity in the sinner and smiles, whether Christian or not, because when we do the things that are pleasing to him we become more like him.

The flood was a foreshadowing of the sacrament of baptism, where water washes away sin and this was instituted by Christ himself. It is a cleansing from original sin and one of the keys to salvation. Salvation is what is important to God and those who love him. In the end when death chokes us from this life we will be given a final choice, and you get to choose, heaven or hell. Remember we choose, the gates of hell are locked from the inside as C.S Lewis says.

Posted by: The Physicist | February 14, 2007 5:53 PM

Please. Like Jesus can't forge God's signature? ANY kid can forge their parents' signatures. Duh.

Also, Physicist, you really think God never killed innocents?

Exodus 12:29. Got kills all the firstborn in Egypt.
Job 1:18-19. God either kills Job's family or encourages Satan to do so.
Isaiah 14:21. "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Jeremiah 11:22. "...the young men shall die by the sword; their sons and their daughters shall die by famine..."
Lamentations 2:20-22. This is a charming one; God kills pretty much everyone, then makes women eat their own children.
Nahum 3:10. God punishes Nineveh by dashing little children to pieces.

Mark 7:9-10. Jesus rebukes people for not killing their disobedient children.
Revelation 2:23. "And I will kill her children with death."

Try reading your own book sometime.

Posted by: Chinchillazilla | February 14, 2007 5:55 PM

Jess:
Either that, or you are simply incapable of following a logic-based thought experiment to its natural conclusion. Regardless of whether you believe in God, the sanctity of Christ, the value of human life, or the wrongness of murder - if you do not like the conclusion Vox came to, you should first examine the requirements of the question!
You're kidding, right? All 4 of your points are a given.
As the majority of folks here are atheists (I assume) - the supernatural is subtracted.
Ergo, it becomes a matter of just how crazed the entire idea is.
You may also want to re-read the post. PZ says:
It makes, of course, a huge difference in the moral status of the butchery of toddlers if it is done at God's command (thumbs up!) vs. Jesus's orders (no, no, no...although it does rather put a sinister twist on his command to "suffer the little children to come to me," doesn't it?).
I have to admit, I'm a little embarrassed for you.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 14, 2007 5:57 PM

I am indeed a re