Matt Powell, who has been commenting here for the last couple of weeks, writes on his own blog about the bible and slavery. His post includes the following statement:
And I reject a divine command theory of morality, which would teach that anything that God commanded is moral. Rather, I believe that the Bible teaches that morality flows from God's nature, and God cannot contradict his own nature. Therefore we avoid both saying that God could be absolutely capricious in His commands or decrees, and that God is subject to some prior or superior standard of morality. The first possibility could lead to the conclusion that God could command a heinous crime and it would then be good. Skeptics (including Ed) are right to assert that this means moral standards are impossible. If it could be shown that God gave commands that were contradictory, or issued moral principles that were contradictory, then that would be a strong objection to the truth of the Bible, I believe. I have never heard any such demonstration, however.
I would suggest that reading the exchange we had about David and Bathsheba over the last week or so shows quite well why he has "never heard any such demonstration" - because when he encounters one, he resorts to semantic word games and silly rationalizations to explain it away. When confronted with the obvious contradiction between the numerous biblical declarations that the child should not be punished for the sins of the father and the biblical story wherein God visits illness and death upon the child of David and Bathsheba for their sins, Matt struggled in vain to find some reasonable way to explain away the contradiction and, instead, settled on two or three unreasonable ways to do so.
He first claimed that killing the son was punishing David, not the son:
So the effects transfer, but the guilt does not. I am not guilty of the sins my father committed, but I certainly feel the effects in my life. So, there's no contradiction.
This is quite silly, of course. David sinned and God made the child suffer with disease and then die. That may be punishment on David, but it is also obviously visiting pain and suffering on the innocent child for what the guilty father did. The fact that punishing the son (inflicting the suffering upon the son) also caused pain for the father does not change the obvious truth here.
Then he claimed that the illness of the son was merely the "effects of the sin", not punishment:
There is a distinction in the Christian faith between suffering the effects of other people's sins for a variety of reasons, and being punished for those sins. You can refuse to acknowledge that distinction if you like, but saying that you don't like an argument doesn't make it false.
But that is nonsense. It is not a natural consequence of David's sin that his son would suffer and die, that consequence was, according to the text, willfully and explicitly inflicted upon the innocent child by God because of what David did. Of course it is true that a father could do something wrong and it could have negative effects on the innocent. A father with an alcohol problem, for example, could harm his child by not providing for him and that would be an example of the innocent suffering as a result of the sin of the father. But this example is simply not the same thing. The suffering and death of the child was not a natural consequence of David's sin, it was deliberately inflicted upon the child by God in response to David's sin, according to the text.
Then he claimed that anything short of eternity in hell would not be "punishment":
Your entire point about David and Bathsheba falls apart if you can't demonstrate that God actually punished the child. And short of showing that the child spent eternity in hell, it's impossible for you to make that case.
That's so ridiculous that it hardly deserves to be answered. If Matt was right, it would contradict his claim that making the child sick was a punishment for David, since that falls quite short of sending David to hell for eternity.
So it is clear that Matt has not seen any demonstration of the contradictions in the moral system attributed to God in the bible simply because he finds illogical ways to explain those contradictions away rather than deal with them honestly.
- Log in to post comments
It is not surprising that Matt's 'argument' fell apart because frankly ALL that fundamentalists and evangelicals and other biblical literalists know is memorized buzzwords and trick questions with tricky answers, semantics, twisting of scriptures and all sorts of silly rationalizations. Often times, they have never been taught or encouraged to learn how to reason; they prefer memorization over logic.
There is a horrible dippy spinister on xtian radio named June Hunt of Hope for the Heart (the daytime fifteen minute program) and Hope at Night (the two hour midnight call-in program) who claims that she is not answering biblical questions, she is telling everyone God's answers from the bible and thru a process of loony word association she can apply just about any verse willy nilly and inappropriately to any question whichis asked. Truly pathetic.
You are completely correct in your interpretation of the contradiction seen with David and his dead son. But there are just so many more! For one thing, David had a harem of wives and concubines (not at all what Jim Dobson would called Traditional Family Values!)and might be said to have been totally immoral in that sense, yet he was also called (by god supposedly) The Man after God's Own Heart. By which I suppose them to mean that David was more beloved to god than any other mortal. And yet if you listen to a whole buncha Baptists todaythey would say that someone like David's has a life so full of ongoing 'sin' and 'immorality' that supposedly god would not have been able to even 'look upon him' due to his filth and corruption. So which is it? David did not repent of having a life of sexual excess (except for the fact that he was on a practical level saddled with way too many bratty kids)he didn't do all that Lordship crap of repenting and surrendering reforming his life etc etc. yet the bible insists that he was still god's favorite of all human beings.
Sounds to me like god isn't quite the leglistically bound hard ass that fundamentalists like to believe he is, so as to justify their own Pharisee like behavior and condemnation.
Devin
Just curious, Ed ... when you argue with these creationists and Biblical literalists and similar moron-ists, has it ever once happened that they respond to one of your arguments and say that you are right?
As a digression I am reminded of the years when I was refereeing basketball, and one time, my partner called a foul and the player said "That's a good call" and the ref said "I have been reffing 40 years and that's the first time a player ever agreed with me. I think I'm going to faint"
Ed,
I think it's kind of amusing that you say you don't find my positions worth answering, and then answer them, not just once, but repeatedly. Frankly, it smacks of desperation. I relinquished the argument in your comments section already where we discussed this exact issue at length, wrote an article on my own blog on a different subject (written mostly before the other argument even concluded), and you feel the need to take yet another whack at me, with all of the clever verbal abuse that you've become so well-known for. I already gave you the last crack at this discussion. Why go at it again? Will you settle for nothing short of your opponents bowing at your feet and acknowledging your superior intellect? You apparently didn't want me to let the argument go, despite your statements to the contrary, so I'll try again, though I'm sure my response will simply earn me more abuse at your hands.
The Bible tells us that EVERYTHING that happens to us is caused by God, good or ill. God inflicts a great deal of suffering on His children in this vale of tears, and it's always as the result of someone's sin (if nothing else, Adams sin), though not always the sin of the individual who does the suffering. This is never presented as punishment (except in the cases where God directly inflicts suffering on someone for that person's sin), for the simple reason that God's children gain much from suffering. We are refined as gold in the fire. Temporal pain often gains us eternal blessings. Look at the story of Job for a great example of this. Job suffered, because of the sinfulness of Satan, and this was all said to be the work of God. The story of Job explicitly rejects the idea that this suffering could possibly be the result of Job's sin, though this is the case that Job's friends try to make. Rather, Job's suffering served God's entirely different purposes that had nothing to do with Job. And God takes full responsibility for the suffering, because he allowed it when He could have easily stopped it. He doesn't dodge anything by saying, "it's not my fault, the Devil did it." But Job ended up learning a great deal from his suffering.
As another example, most of the people of Israel (except those who were killed) were taken captive into Babylon, as a result of the sin of Israel. This captivity included righteous men such as Daniel and Ezekiel. This action is presented as punishment for Israel, but for the righteous individuals who shared the suffering, it was not punishment since God had ultimate good in mind for them through the suffering.
You say, The fact that punishing the son (inflicting the suffering upon the son) also caused pain for the father does not change the obvious truth here, and in another place God made the child suffer because of what David did. That is all that matters here. That is punishing person A for the actions of person B. Your whole argument rests on this equality, Deliberately inflicted suffering caused because of sin= punishment. And Im telling you, its just not the case. That is not an equality within the Biblical framework. The Job case and the Ezekiel / Daniel case are examples of God causing someone to suffer because of someone elses sin, and the idea that this was punishment is explicitly rejected.
Ezekiel 18:20, the passage you think establishes this contradiction, says this:
"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
In order to establish your contradiction, you have to show that David's child "bore his (Davids) guilt". That's what it means to be punished, not just suffering. Did David's son bear the guilt (not just a certain amount of suffering, but the _guilt_) for his father's sins? According to the passage itself, no, because the child went to Paradise.
You will no doubt reject my arguments, since you reject the presuppositions that lie behind them. But in order to establish a true contradiction, you have to show that "X = Not-X", at the same time and in the same respect. This is elementary logic. You've only established the contradiction by defining all the terms in your own way, rather than in the Bible's way, and all this proves is that you don't agree with the Bible. It does not prove a contradiction.
Finally,
[Ed]"Then he claimed that anything short of eternity in hell would not be "punishment":
[me]Your entire point about David and Bathsheba falls apart if you can't demonstrate that God actually punished the child. And short of showing that the child spent eternity in hell, it's impossible for you to make that case.
[Ed]"That's so ridiculous that it hardly deserves to be answered. If Matt was right, it would contradict his claim that making the child sick was a punishment for David, since that falls quite short of sending David to hell for eternity."
The difference is, God _said_ He was punishing David for his sins. He did not say that about the child. Only Hell in eternity is _unambiguously_ punishment for sins. For temporal, earthly punishment, we can only know for sure that it's punishment if God tells us that it is. I apologize for not making this explicit before.
And while we're on the subject of morals, do you think it's 'moral' to so constantly denigrate your opponents as idiots incapable of thinking? Would that be how you would like to be treated? In what 'rational' or 'objective' system of morality is it acceptable to constantly verbally abuse those with whom you disagree?
I think it's kind of amusing that you say you don't find my positions worth answering, and then answer them, not just once, but repeatedly.
Once again, Matt, I have to wonder about your reading comprehension skills. I have never said that your positions aren't worth answering (I did say in my very last reply that one of your arguments was so ridiculous that it was "hardly worth answering", but I still answered it). I have said that they are silly and irrational and even stupid, and they are, but they are worth answering simply because nonsense and stupidity should never go unchallenged. And because there might well be someone reading this who is struggling with those issues just like I did and can't swallow ridiculous and inconsistent rationalizations, like I couldn't.
I relinquished the argument in your comments section already where we discussed this exact issue at length, wrote an article on my own blog on a different subject (written mostly before the other argument even concluded), and you feel the need to take yet another whack at me, with all of the clever verbal abuse that you've become so well-known for. I already gave you the last crack at this discussion. Why go at it again? Will you settle for nothing short of your opponents bowing at your feet and acknowledging your superior intellect? You apparently didn't want me to let the argument go, despite your statements to the contrary, so I'll try again, though I'm sure my response will simply earn me more abuse at your hands.
Matt, go back and look at what I said to you about giving up on the argument. Here, I'll paste it for you:
Notice that it does not say "I want you to let the argument go". It says you need to let the argument go because you're making yourself look foolish by offering silly rationalizations, one after the other, each one worse than the last. And this last one is, indeed, worse than the first three combined. Let's take a look at it:
The Bible tells us that EVERYTHING that happens to us is caused by God, good or ill.
This is your latest rationalization, that the suffering visited by God upon the child of David and Bathsheba was not technically "punishment" because every bit of suffering that human beings face is caused by God and we wouldn't call every type of suffering a punishment. Never mind that the text says that God sent this particular suffering specifically in response to David's sin, which would, by any reasonable criteria, make that suffering a transfer of punishment from the one who sinned to an innocent party. That alone makes your argument patently absurd, but that's not the biggest reason why this is argument is so nonsensical.
If everything that happens to us is caused by God (directly caused by God, not indirectly, because it must be direct if you want to pretend it is equal to what God did directly to the child in this scenario) then that includes everything done to us by other people. And if the actions of other people are caused by God, then our own actions are also caused by God, because everything we do has an effect on other people. Well Matt, you've pretty much destroyed any legitimate basis for judging anyone or anything as bad. Hitler's crimes, according to your reasoning, was "caused by God" (directly, don't forget) because EVERYTHING that happens to us is caused by God. Every abortion that takes place is caused by God.
Indeed, how dare you get all huffy with me about my alleged "verbal abuse". After all, by your own reasoning, I'm "verbally abusing" you because God caused me to do so. Perhaps it's a punishment for your sin. Or perhaps, like Job, God is using me to "verbally abuse" you "for the simple reason that God's children gain much from suffering" (sound familiar?). In fact, this is the resolution for the entire issue of morality. If everything is caused by God, then my moral position is, in fact, caused by God. There, problem solved, now I get to say "God said so" and, according to you, I'll have an objective basis for my moral code!
Once you take the position that every single thing that we experience is directly caused by God, free will is gone. And once free will is gone, personal responsibility is gone and any valid basis for judging the behavior of others is gone. Hence, your entire moral position goes out the window too. So your latest rationalization is not only not a good answer to the problem we've been discussing, it's an answer that quickly throws your entire belief system into a logical maze from which there is simply no escape. But again, this is what happens when you're trying frantically to defend the indefensible. You throw up one absurd ad hoc rationalization after another, oblivious to the logical implications inherent in them, and eventually you'll be reduced to doing what everyone does in such situations - saying something like "who said God has to be logical?" or "our finite minds can't understand God", which is simply an intellectual trump card that you hold in your hand as a last resort. When you can no longer defend this position rationally, you throw it down and deny that rationality matters at all, and wander off with your beliefs having been protected from logical analysis by this anti-thinking force field. I'm sure you will think that this is "verbal abuse", but just remember - EVERYTHING that happens to you is caused by God. So I'm just doing what the big guy wants me to do.
Ed,
Just because you don't understand the Bible doesn't make it contradictory.
The same event can be said to have two different causes- one creaturely, caused by the human agent who bears responsibility for what he does whether good or evil, and one eternal, caused by God for His own purposes. There are countless examples of this in Scripture (Joseph being sold into slavery, Israel being destroyed by the Assyrians [see Isaiah 10], Judas betraying Christ and the Jews crucifying Him.) Constantly in Scripture, people are said to bear responsibility for wicked actions that God also reveals to be part of His plan for good. Are you really unfamiliar with this whole strain of Christian philosophy?
I address this some here if you want to pursue this. But I didn't know we were having the "problem of evil" talk. I thought we were having the "David's Child Dying proves the Bible is contradictory talk".
You can only prove the contradiction by proving that David's child "bore the guilt" for David's sins. I think I've proved enough examples from the Bible of God causing suffering that was not punishment. To prove the contradiction, you have to prove that he bore the guilt. Can you do this, or did you just want to change the subject?
And Ed, none of this is a new defense or the "latest rationalization". This argument is the same one I've been making the whole time. I just find myself needing to clarify more and more because I assumed you understood more about the Biblical system that you criticize than you actually do.
And I was asking you to judge your actions by your own moral system, not by mine. Another nice dodge.
The same event can be said to have two different causes- one creaturely, caused by the human agent who bears responsibility for what he does whether good or evil, and one eternal, caused by God for His own purposes. There are countless examples of this in Scripture (Joseph being sold into slavery, Israel being destroyed by the Assyrians [see Isaiah 10], Judas betraying Christ and the Jews crucifying Him.) Constantly in Scripture, people are said to bear responsibility for wicked actions that God also reveals to be part of His plan for good. Are you really unfamiliar with this whole strain of Christian philosophy?
Of course I'm familiar with this strain of Christian philosophy, I just think it's irrational. This claim that there can be two causes, when one of the causes is omnipotent and omniscient and whatever he wants to happen is absolutely guaranteed to happen no matter what, is just plain ridiculous. If everything that happens to us is caused by God, as you claimed, and God's will cannot possibly, even hypothetically, be subverted because he is omnipotent, then any claim of free will is absolutely gone. If God wills that you will eat eggs and bacon tomorrow morning, you WILL eat eggs and bacon tomorrow morning and you can't even potentially NOT eat eggs and bacon tomorrow morning. Your position makes every single thing that happens predetermined and pre-scripted and NOTHING could possibly change what is going to happen because that would violate God's omnipotence. You just keep saying, "Well the bible says this", but I just don't care. If the bible says something that is ridiculous, it's still ridiculous. Apply the same standards of reasoning to claims in that book that you would apply to any other book. If someone made this claim in any other context, you would howl with laughter that anyone could believe something so stupid. You just refuse to apply logic to your own beliefs.
I address this some here if you want to pursue this. But I didn't know we were having the "problem of evil" talk. I thought we were having the "David's Child Dying proves the Bible is contradictory talk".
We were, but then you made the argument that the suffering visited upon David's child was not a punishment because ALL suffering visited upon is is caused directly by God. The problem of evil is not a problem for me because I don't think God causes every single thing that happens to us and I don't conceive of God as omniscient and omnipotent. It's only a problem for those, like you, who believe that everything that happens is set in stone and cannot change because God is those things.
You can only prove the contradiction by proving that David's child "bore the guilt" for David's sins. I think I've proved enough examples from the Bible of God causing suffering that was not punishment. To prove the contradiction, you have to prove that he bore the guilt.
LOL. No, I don't. All I have to show is that God visited suffering on an innocent person in response to the behavior of the guilty person. That is, by any sane criteria, punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty. You can play word games with it, but that's exactly what they are, games. There is no intellectual honesty there, and frankly I can't imagine why anyone would want to maintain a belief system that is so weak that it can only be defended by such silly ass semantic nonsense. In any other context, you would consider it punishment. If a teacher expelled your son because of something another child did, you would say your innocent child was being punished for the behavior of another. And if the teacher said, "No, no, it's only punishment if your son actually "bore the guilt" of the other child. But he's not bearing the guilt, he's just taking the consequences", you would think that is the dumbest excuse you've ever heard. And you'd be right. I know, I know, you're going to say it's not analogous because the teacher isn't God. But that is irrelevant, the analogy deals only with the meaning of the verb "punish", which doesn't change depending on the noun in the sentence.
All right, Ed. You win. You have proven conclusively that you don't like the moral system of the Bible. I don't see any real advantage for either of us continuing this.
If you'd like to learn something about the Biblical system of philosophy and morality someday, let me know, and I'll help any way I can. If you just want to continue to assert your moral and intellectual superiority over it and any of us who believe it, feel free. I've wasted enough time on this already.
All right, Ed. You win. You have proven conclusively that you don't like the moral system of the Bible. I don't see any real advantage for either of us continuing this.
I didn't prove that I didn't like the moral system of the bible, I proved that the moral system of the bible is irrational and cannot be defended without resorting to ad hoc rationalizations that no one would do anything but laugh at in any other context. This despite the fact that there are many moral statements in the bible that I consider entirely valid and true, particularly in the ethical system of Jesus. When divorced from the need to believe (and defend) that every single word of it is absolutely true no matter how illogical or irrational, one is free to use their mind to evaluate the statements and decide which ones really make sense and which ones don't.
If you'd like to learn something about the Biblical system of philosophy and morality someday, let me know, and I'll help any way I can. If you just want to continue to assert your moral and intellectual superiority over it and any of us who believe it, feel free. I've wasted enough time on this already.
LOL. I already understand the biblical system of philosophy and morality. I've studied theology too, Matt. I've read all the major theologians, from Augustine to Aquinas to Van Til and many others. I didn't come to my position frivolously, I spent many years studying it and I did so while I was a Christian in an attempt to maintain my faith, not to destroy it. What your statement really means is, "If you'll promise not to disagree with anything I say, I'll be glad to teach you", which is not only presumptuous and condescending, it's absurd.
Ed, normally I'd agree with your statement that stupidity and irrationality must be challenged, but I must say, in practice, you have an incredibly strong stomach.
If everything that happens to us is caused by God (directly caused by God, not indirectly, because it must be direct if you want to pretend it is equal to what God did directly to the child in this scenario) then that includes everything done to us by other people. And if the actions of other people are caused by God, then our own actions are also caused by God, because everything we do has an effect on other people. Well Matt, you've pretty much destroyed any legitimate basis for judging anyone or anything as bad. Hitler's crimes, according to your reasoning, was "caused by God" (directly, don't forget) because EVERYTHING that happens to us is caused by God. Every abortion that takes place is caused by God.
Very nicely done. That's pretty damn rock solid.
Good Evening
I have been following this discussion and debate and finally emotional argument for some time. It has caused me a great deal of amusement.
It all boils down to one thing for me. If this question could be answered then I think we could have clarity.
Is God omnipotent?
Sincerely
Steve
Matt,
What about God's sins? Is he going to punish himself or are we his punishments / life lessons? After watching us all this time, giving us "lessons", hasn't he figured out that we aren't going to get it?
Vanity - you can't try another religion without him getting pissed off. He seems kind of needy. Wants you praise him all the time.
Arrogance - seems like all the "punishment power" goes to his head. He requires you to turn the other cheek but not him.