The Nature of Morality part 1a of 2

This is wonderful. I've really struck a chord with the previous post about morality. Beechbum has actually provided comments worthy of response. His response is in black and mine are in red! I've changed the format of his response to make them easier to read.

Beachbum said...

You don't think the bible treats women as property:

"Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't."

This is from the King James Version: Judges 19:23-25 (King James Version)

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

And if you want a real good definition of chattel, read to the end of the chapter. But I have more, just in case; Genesis 19:7-9 Another case of Women as property

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

But does god punish Lot for throwing his daughters to the mob, of course not, he protects him from the harm that besets the cities by sending him out of Sodum and Gomorrah, but wait the god is not done yet he then turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back in remembrance:

26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

No, your religion doesn't treat women as property, it treats them much, much worse. But you have asserted even more from your state of... anyway. From your point of view slavery of biblical times isn't real slavery, not compared to, as you say; "the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans" Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed. So this is one heinous act regulated by the godly that proves morality is not objective, therefore can be changed and if it can be changed it is subjective but when it can be changed for the better, but is stopped by superstitions or a superstitious tyrant - that is truly heinous.

January 8, 2010 4:23 AM  

All Beechbum has managed to prove is that he is so biased he can't read properly. No where in the passages he quoted does the Bible say "This is good idea...this is how you should live.". It's not God commanding the men in these passages to do these heinous things. The Bible does not condone these behaviors. It only describes what happened. Description not prescription. What does the Bible really say about the equality of men and women.

for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.- Galatians 3:27-29

I have written an extensive blog post truly describing how the Bible portrays women: An "Evil" of Christianity. Beechbum obviously needs to study more. I doubt Beechbum even knows why Lot's wife was punished. She wasn't punished because she was a woman. She longed for the life in Sodom that God was delivering her from. That was why she got what she deserved. And don't think that we all don't deserve the same. We should be grateful for God's mercy.

As for slavery, I was not referring to slavery practiced in all the ancient Mediterranean but only to the slavery as it was described in the books of Moses. Is Beechbum really trying to suggest that the same the same things as he referred to in the following quote happened in ancient Israel?

Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed.

If such was practiced in ancient Israel. it was against scripture. No where in scripture does it say that one person can own another as property and be pleasing to God. Slavery is still with us today...denouncing it is not universal but I wish it was. I've also written more about this at Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 1.

Beachbum said...

"Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us."

Stoning is vastly different than capital punishment, not in the result of course, but for the crime that incited such action, i.e. being in the company of the wrong gender, or religious affiliation, being raped or molested. You know, crimes of the heart or mind, for the act of being too desirable or speaking out against the perpetrator.

 Beechbum calls himself moral relativist but he feels like he has the right to judge ancient Israel for the crimes that were considered capital offenses in comparison to what is a capital offense today. The word "Hypocrite" comes to mind. "Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay."  Which side of the road one drives on is arbitrary as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by the community at large, that was the point. I wouldn't equate transportation regulations with a personal choice, that would be as silly as saying adultery was wrong because your sky fairy said so. Adultery is wrong (immoral) because infants without two fulltime parents are less likely to do as well in this world, and it was even worse in our evolutionary past when social cohesion was built on the family, even extended family, unit. Along similar lines, is the socially destructive nature of theft, societies that didn't curtail it did not persist through time. The motivation for attaining goods in such a society were greatly diminished without a trust that one would reap the full reward for ones labors. Like all of your "misguided" concerns with regards to morality, while this one is only a vitriolic example of arrogance from ignorance, sex with little children has been a heinous act and treated as such for far longer than your superstitious god(s) have been poisoning the minds of man. But this does show the level one will stoop to protect their silly superstition. Do you honestly think anyone would condone a world view that would permit such an act, hardly, but the religious relish your decrepit attempt at fear mongering, disgusting. I wonder if Beechbum really does think that sex with children will never be the majority view? Just 50 years ago, homosexuality was wrong from the majority point of view and as far as I can tell had never been mainstream or a bedrock of any society. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was accepted as long as you kept a wife and family.. There are a lot of taboos and crimes that were shunned by the majority of people that are no longer viewed as wrong today. They are condoned and on public display. I agree that sex with children is awful and horrible and should never be considered as plausible. However not everyone agrees with us on that point. What if they manage to convince more people that it does not harm children and the majority starts thinking that adults can have sex with children and not harm anyone. They'd be wrong, but then that would be minority view. According to Beechbum, then sex with children would then be moral. This isn't attempt at fear mongering. This is the logical conclusion for Beechbum's worldview. If morality is subjective and depends only on the opinion of the majority, then what's to keep things from going in horrible ways?

January 8, 2010 4:25 AM  

Beechbum wrote:

The rights of one individual end where another individual's begin, that is why it is not your place to tell someone else how they can live their life, as long as they don't infringe on your rights. Like your use of the old canard about Hitler, the majority took him down because he was wrong, conducting himself immorally. Who says he was wrong? By what right do we have to tell the Nazi's they were wrong. According your worldview we have nothing to stand on except  most of the nations on this world said "No, you can't just do what you want and roll over us." The majority is the only authority, because of examples like Hitler's affiliation with the Church and their interpretation of what god(s) "supposedly" said or commanded him to do about the Jewish problem. The power of morality, moral choices of right and wrong, in the hands of the power hungry is what gave us a Hitler, or the Aztec kings, just about all totalitarians in history. What if the majority is wrong? The majority of the German people were wrong. What if the majority of the world had agreed with Hitler? Would Hitler still be wrong if the majority of the world agreed with him? According to Beechbum's worldview, no Hitler would not have been. According to mine, Hitler was wrong no matter who agreed with him. Since you cannot prove your god(s) even exists, how are you going to convince me that you can talk to him. Which means I would be a fool for taking your word for anything. But that doesn't matter, the community knows that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds, because there is no god(s). You had better be glad that morality is not stagnant and objective or we would still be living with the morality of Lot's daughters or the concubine, slavery or any of the bloodthirsty acts in the bible. The very fact that our morality has evolved is the proof that you are wrong about objective morality, it has already changed. You said the magic words yourself, "remember when it was illegal."

The point having a personal relationship with God is the fact that you don't have to take my word for anything. You can go to God yourself and let Him tell you how things are. The argument that my good is just as good as yours carries little weight.  We have people in this world who are happiest and pursue happiness in denying you yours. Is their good just as good as yours? If so I hope Beechbum will give me all his money, because that would be consistent with His worldview. The morality in the Bible has not changed because it is based on the unchanging character of God. Our understanding has changed. Our moral views have changed not God. When I said "remember when it was illegal" I was talking about our culture not the one God has painted for us. In that scenario - theocratic Israel - there is no such thing as "when it was illegal".

 ¹Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. ²This is what the ancients were commended for.

 ³By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. ⁴By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

 ⁵By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is."

Good evolves with our understanding of how our actions affect our surroundings, our society, and our future. Morality, improves as our understanding improves, there is no standard but that of Confucius, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, what Christians call the golden rule, and what every 10 year old in the world understands, it is innate in us all. And one final note; You already live in the world I described, because it is only people that make it good or bad. There is no god to interact in the actions of man and if the bible is a testament to the world with a god, be very glad he does not exist.

 January 8, 2010 4:27 AM

          Beechbum is incorrect about the "Golden Rule". Jesus and Confuscious actually said two different

          things. Jesus did not say "Don't do to others that you don't want done to you." Jesus said that we

          should do to others as you we want done to us. It included what Confuscious said but calls us higher.

          Just don't do to other what you don't want done to yourself, but do good to others as you want them to

          do to you! That's higher. We can't just not help others but help others the way we would want to be

          helped even if they are unable to help us. This is antithetical to what is in us inherently. We only really

          want to do these types of things for friends and family if that. Jesus is commanding more. We are to

          show love like this to everyone...even enemies.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

So who has the higher morality? Jesus. We should follow him.


What had happen' was.....: The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

Reasonable Faith: question_16_Slaughter_of_the_Canaanites

I respect William Lane Craig. He is a gifted scholar and debater. I was recently pointed to an essay he wrote on his website answering the question as to how could God order the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations and still be moral. I like his answer and I wanted to call attention to it. I disagree with what he said about biblical inerrancy. It is just as important as the deity of Christ or the existence of God because it is by the Bible we have proof of these things. Craig is an existentialist which is not a bad thing. but it does mean that we see something differently.

Reasonable Faith: question_16_Slaughter_of_the_Canaanites

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Most Ancient Hebrew Inscription Deciphered

Dr Mariottini has posted an interesting article on the  Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription.  It is the oldest inscription in Hebrew ever found from the 10th century BC and it has been translated. It is inscribed on a shard of pottery. Dr. Mariottini quotes a passage from his source showing why this is noteworthy:

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: "It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."

Anything that give us more insight into the world in which the Bible was written can only deepen our understanding on scripture. Dr. Mariottini has given a great place to start researching this. If you are interested the resource quoted by Mariottini also gives the translations of the text.

English translation of the deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

Professor Mariottini has provided the most up-to-date information. When the pottery shard was first found many thought it was about King David directly. To see the older information follow this link.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Most Ancient Hebrew Inscription Deciphered

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 2 of 4

Here is the second part of  Mariano's four-part series telling more about the differences between Judaism and Christianity sees Psalm 22. It's brilliant. This part covers more rabbinical sources on the subject.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 2 of 4

Apologetics 315: Antony Flew's Change of Mind

Apologetics 315 has posted a pretty great discussion concerning Anthony Flew's recent book, The Big Picture: There Is A God. Anthony Flew is one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century and he has spent most of his career arguing for atheism....until about 2004. He used to argue, debate, and try to disprove the evidence for God for about 50 years! There has been shock and awe that he now says, after looking at the current evidence, the he has changed his mind. The discussion is about what caused him to change his mind. It's extremely useful to hear this discussion. The post also has other resources and documentation showing that Flew has indeed had a change of heart. I want to make clear that I am not saying that Flew is now a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. He has merely stated that now he has gone from saying that there is no God to agreeing that there is a possibility that there is a God. This is monumental and goes to show his character. Most people would rather not say anything than admit that they have changed their mind after expousing something for 50 yrs.

Apologetics 315: Antony Flew's Change of Mind

The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

I've been debating Beechbaum on Saturday on the basically the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he says he can refute.  Craig has a  three-point  reasoning the  existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Subject: Slaughter of the Canaanites

Beechbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to to have morality. I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in red font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective. He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: Kung San in Africa and The Na of China. I will be writing a second post on this. 

On Thursday 31st December 2009, @Beechbum said:

@_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question:

"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"

to highlight an inescapable property of morality.

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like say; the freezing/boiling points of water, E=MC² or the properties of thermodynamics. This is to say that morality is not, nor has it ever been, an objective property of nature, i.e. the universe. Morality is the excepted convention of the majority, concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents, the surviving members of an evolving society, it is subjective, (subject to a given situation). This is why we, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property etc. all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't. As for slavery, the Bible neither condemns or condones slavery as institution because the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans. In no way were the Israelites were supposed to think of their slaves as their own personal property nor could they treat themselves that way. Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us.

Like the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain for example is a case where civil law is enacted to instill a convention throughout a populous that is neither right nor wrong, just excepted and practiced. Morality is the practiced conventions of a society, excepted by the majority as good and right for all, which is why societies are evolving toward the betterment for all in free societies, but stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is right or wrong. This is also the proof anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, for the same reason that morality is a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, allowed to flourish, grow intellectually, pragmatically and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that  adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual? Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong? We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, and take everything you have  even if you can't stop me. Why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that its wrong?  We know it's not the latter because then you have to say why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image.

So, to the question; can one be good (moral) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! Now, the glaring question is, Can one be good (moral) with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to doubt that very assertion, also emphatically.

Not so fast. Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is. If I think that stealing your car is good, then why would I be wrong? What if I could convince the authorities that it was my car and not yours? Would I still be wrong? According to Beechbum, no. Do you really want to live in a world like that? Didn't think so. Be glad that there is a God. . 

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse their concerns that without some central authority, all is permissible. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the age of the Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide right and wrong, that is morality.

Maybe it's because Beechbum does not live on the continent, but he seems to have forgotten that the government is organized into a representative democracy because they thought that the common man was unable to govern themselves. The checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were put in place because they didn't trust people to not become power drunk or abusive.  Trust had nothing to do with it. There was an elitist attitude coached in "We the people". They really meant "US" (meaning they). I was three-fifths a man back then!  And they could have never conceived that there would ever be a black man in the highest office in the land a scant 233 year later. Looking at all that I don't want me or any other human being determining right and wrong because it will not always be in my interest. It's far better to follow after God's interest and trust Him, because we sure can't trust our elected officials.  We need to pray for them.

Twitlonger: @_7654_ @zaloomination I brought up Euthyphro's Dilemma - Socrates' question: "Is what you're

Original Sin on Trial

I came across an interesting article written by a lawyer arguing against the doctrine of  "Original Sin".  His argument is that according to the American Justice System, common sense, and justice it is unfair for God to hold us accountable for the disobedience of Adam and Eve. He makes some point that are, at first blush, thought provoking.  I have reproduced his essay below with my comments in red.

I am a former Christian and a lawyer.

Did he mean that he used to be lawyer? Oh well.
 
Soon after becoming a Christian, I struggled with the concept of original sin and its moral implications. According to Christian theology, man is born into this world with the stain of original sin – the sin committed by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God’s direct command and ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The consequences of original sin are two-fold. First, man is doomed to spend the rest of eternity in Hell, unless he accepts Jesus as his savior. Second, man is a slave to a sinful nature that he cannot escape during his lifetime, although accepting Jesus is supposed to curb the "lusts of the flesh".

The term "original sin" does not explicitly used in the Bible. But the doctrine is taught and while this essay's author does a fair job in explaining what the concept is he still falls short. Since the author seems to enjoy quoting Romans (read down further to see what I mean), I think Romans 5:12 -21 is awesomely bette

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.


But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.


Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.


The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The promise isn't to just curb our sinful desires but to be free to to do right and to be ju0stified despite our sin. The gift is forgiveness.
.
Here is my question: Would the charge of original sin and the imposition of the sentence of death on all people born after Adam and Eve stand up in an American Court? I think this question is a pivotal one, because the foundation for the need of a savior in Christian theology is based on original sin. I have explored this question with many Christians and I have never gotten a satisfactory response. Most Christians say that God is God and He can do what He wants with us because we are His creation. But, is that an acceptable answer? Others will say to me, “Well, God’s ways are not ours, so we have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” Still, others will say, “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have disobeyed God, so we all are guilty.”

If these are the only answers this man has gotten to his question then no wonder he is so smug. I think the question he poses is two-fold.. The imposition of death isn't just talking about hell or dying but its the reality of living fallen, incomplete lives, riddled with sin and suffering. Doing evil to ourselves and others day in and day out without remedy or cure. No hope or forgiveness. That is what Jesus delivers us from. Therefore for clarification we need to ask is the punishment being unfairly applied or is the part being born into sin the part that is unfair?

I will address each of those popular responses later, but first I want to explore the concept of original sin within the context of our criminal justice system. When a person commits a crime, the prosecutors will usually submit their evidence of the crime to a Grand Jury, who will weigh the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and investigators and then either hand down and indictment against the suspect, or refuse an indictment. If an indictment is handed down, the accused is formally charged with the crime and then arraigned in court. There, he can plead “guilty” and go straight to sentencing or plead “not guilty” and demand a trial. If he is convicted and there are no accomplices, then he and he alone bears the full burden of guilt. He is sentenced to a punishment, whether it be jail time or death and no one else shares the punishment.

Agreed

If you apply the facts of God’s case against mankind in the doctrine of original sin to our criminal justice system, you can immediately see that it does not fit. According to the doctrine of original sin, God holds everyone born after Adam and Eve wholly responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. He punished Adam and Eve and He also punished all of their progeny. Is that just? Imagine if we held the children of a murderer responsible for his crime and punished his children the same way we punished him. What would we say about a system of justice like that? First of all, from a legal standpoint, the prosecutor in our American criminal justice system would never get the indictment against the children of a murderer, unless they were involved in the murder in some way. Secondly, from a moral standpoint, it would be considered barbaric and inhumane to punish the children of a murderer, if they had nothing to do with the crime itself.

Stop the bus. Let's rewind for a moment. It's not right to equate us being hell-bound because of Adam's disobedience as the same as punishing a child as a murderer because his/her father is a murderer. The author is presupposing that we go to hell because Adam disobeyed. No. People go to hell because of their own sins not Adam. Table the discussion of if it's fair for each of us to be sinners from birth and just grant that given the first 5 chapters of Romans, we are all sinners and deserve to go to hell on our own merits.  Read Romans 3. It's not about Adam it's about us.

But Christians refuse to look at the doctrine of original sin through the lens of justice and fairness. Why is that? Why can’t they see the glaring moral implications of holding everyone responsible for the sins of two people? As I said above, the most popular answer that I get in response to my objection to original sin is, “God is God and He can do what He wants to us, since we are His creation.” This is exactly what the Apostle Paul said to similar criticism of the concept of Predestination in Romans, chapter 9. When Paul's controversial doctrine of Predestination was challenged, Paul replied, "Does the clay pot ask the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?'" I have always wanted to respond to Paul, "If the clay pot could talkm you better bet it would ask, why".

God allows us to ask  "Why?" That does not mean He has to give us an answer.  Or an answer that we want. "Sovereign" truly means that God can and does do however He likes. And sometimes He reveals the answers to our questions and sometimes He does not. The thing about dumb, blind clay pot is that compared to God we are just as weak, dumb, and blind. Just be glad that He has chosen to save some of us He didn't have to.

Back to my point about the "God is God" response: Is God above acting moral? Can He circumvent the very moral laws that He imposes on us? I have a huge problem with that. It is one thing if you create an inanimate object, like a clay pot and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It is another thing if you create an independent being, with a conscience and emotions and then decide to destroy it because you do not like it. It seems very hypocritical that God would be able to treat us differently than He commands us to treat one another. I doubt if executing the children of a murderer for the crime committed by their father would be considered just under any circumstances. After all, isn't our system of justice is derived from the concepts taught in the Bible?

God does not destroy anyone because He does not like it. The author talks like humanity has some intrinsic value that means that God must do what we think is best. No such thing. Who says that God is acting immoral? He's not. Again how do you know that God is acting immoral because He is doing things in away you wouldn't. God does not execute children of murderers for what our father  Adam has done. No everyone's sin is on his own head.

The word of the LORD came to me:  "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
       " 'The fathers eat sour grapes,
       and the children's teeth are set on edge'?   "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die - Ezekiel 18: 1-4

If I go to hell it won't be for the sins of Adam or my daddy, but my own.  In the same way I won't get into heaven because my daddy believed God (and He does). I must believe and follow Jesus for myself or I will not be going to heaven. Same as everyone else..

The next response I always get to my objection to original sin follows the one I just talked about above. Christians will say, “Well God’s ways are not our ways and we just have to believe that He is just and moral in charging us with original sin.” And I have to hand it to them, there are specific verses in the Bible that support their response to my objection. However, do you really believe that there is some hidden moral justification for original sin that only God knows about? And even if there is, why would He withhold that from us? I challenge anyone reading this to come up with a valid, moral justification for holding the children of a murderer responsible for their father’s crime. You cannot do it. Trust me, I have tried.

Of course you can't because that scenario is not in the Bible. And yes God has not given us all the pieces to the puzzle of reality. There are things do not know and we may never know.

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
- Deuteronomy 29:29

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:11-13

Another response I get from Christians to my objection to original sin is this: “Well, no matter who was in Adam and Eve’s shoes, they would have done the same thing, so we all are guilty.” Think about that response for a minute. If no one could have resisted the fruit, then that means we lack free will, which raises even more questions of fairness and morality. If no one could have said to the serpent, “No, I think I will just eat something else”, then that means God predestined the fall of man. How could God hold us responsible for doing something that we are unable to resist doing? Believe it or not, the Apostle Paul addressed this very question in the same chapter 9 in the Book of Romans.

Something very important. The serpent did not make Adam or Eve do anything. They willingly chose to disobey God. Now Eve was completely tricked. But Adam understood what he was doing - rebelling against God.  Their wills was not violated and neither is ours when we sin. We sin because we want to. That is why we deserve hell.

Paul was asked by someone listening to his Predestination sermon, “Who can resist God’s will?” In other words, the person was asking how is God just in punishing us for doing what He willed us to do. And do you know that all Paul could muster in response to that very thoughtful and compelling question was, “Who are you, O’ man to question the motives of God?” That was it. I call that the “Wizard of Oz” response to the moral objection to Predestination. “Who are you to question the great and mighty Oz”, said the Oz to Dorothy and her companions. Paul’s response is no response, in my opinion. Of course it is wrong for God to hold someone responsible for something that He willed them to do.

The Bible Disagrees with you.

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

- James 1:13-15

Original sin makes a mockery of our concept of justice and fairness and would never pass muster with us, if it was a rule that we enforced in our criminal justice system. But for some reason, God gets a pass and Christians just accept that God can do what He wants, even if it means doing something that violates His own concept of morality. Christians approach original sin from a biased point of view – God gets the benefit of the doubt. But at some point, you have to draw a line and begin to question foundational issues like original sin. I understand that there is room to argue over things like the Immaculate Conception, women in the pulpit, faith versus works, and other issues that do not implicate basic moral principles. But when the very foundation upon which a faith like Christianity is based –original sin – implicates those principles, you cannot just ignore it and give the Maker of the faith a pass. For if you do, then the faith itself becomes meaningless.

The entire argument is what is referred to as a "straw men argument". A characature of "original sin" is defined and refuted. Original sin refers to the taint all us have giving us the propensity to sin. God does not need a pass because no innocent man or woman is being punished for something that they did not do.

All have sinned fallen short of the glory of  God. - Romans 3:23

I agree that this is an important issue and foundational. It goes with faith verses works. because we are saved by faith in Jesus to do good works. Salvation from hell and good works are the byproducts of our faith not means of our salvation.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
-Ephesians 2: 8-10

Original Sin on Trial

Apologetics 315: The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right? - MP3 Audio by Richard Bauckham

There is an excellent lecture I listened to from Apologetics 315 blog. It is a lecture by Richard Baukham in which he gives the reasons why it is good history to believe and trust that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should be in our canon and other "gospels" are not for good reasons. I highly recommend this for anyone interested in beginning to study the canonization of the gospels.

Apologetics 315: The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right? - MP3 Audio by Richard Bauckham

Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation of the Bible

James White has written a great post on his blog dealing with textual criticism. He made some comments about his debate with Bart Ehrman last year. His whole point is that Ehrman is wrong: Textual variations due to Biblical transmission does not invalidate  the Bible's inerrancy or inspiration. Just because you don't like how God has preserved His revelation to us, does not mean that God did not preserve His word. Above Dr White did a compare the texts of Hebrews 2:9-18 from the Byzantine Priority Text and the Westcott/Hort text. These arecfrom two different lines of transmission. If Ehrman was right one woujld expect them to say contradictory things, but they don't. If you haver question about if you can trust the New Yestament in light of scholar's like Bart Ehrman, I recommend you read Dr. White's post! I want to end this with a quote from his article.

So as I consider God’s gift of His Word, I am thankful that I have been forced to examine its history closely, and from many angles. And when I do, I am again and again forced to my knees in thanksgiving for what He has done. He has not left us to wander in darkness. He has provided us with a reliable, trustworthy guide in Holy Scripture.

AMEN


Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Circular Alogic - “Who Designed the Designer?”

Anyone who has heard or read atheistic arguments against the existence of God has no doubt heard of this one that Mariano readily and easily rebuts. The argument says that there is no God because if everything needs a beginning we have no way to explain how God came into being. I love the way Mariano deals with this. You owe it to yourself to check it out if you want to know what the answer is.

Atheism is Dead: Atheist Circular Alogic - “Who Designed the Designer?”

Biblical Exegesis:Revelations 22:16

Although this passage was pointed out in an attempt reject the virgin birth, TheGodless (from Twitter), doesn't seem to recognize that He pointed out a verse of scripture that says a lot about who Jesus is.

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." - Revelations 22:16

Let's unpack this. This is the resurrected Christ speaking. The Apostle John is telling about the revelations he has been given. This includes Jesus speaking to him directly. While TheGodless wants to focus on the pharse "the Offspring of David," because it shows that Jesus was David's descendant which he says means that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. However he missed the point...Jesus was not Joseph's blood son, but Mary's and she was a descendant of  David. Also, more importantly,. look at what Jesus says. Jesus says He is the Root and Offspring of David. This means He is the source and the descendant of David! He also says He is the bright Morning Star. The original audience of the the Book of Revelations would have understood Jesus to be talking about His Deity. The only way a person can be all of these is if He is God.

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 5:6: Who are the Ungodly?

On his blog Brennon, offers an exegesis on Romans 5:6. He understand it to be saying that Jesus died for every single human being because we are all ungodly. I agree that we are all ungodly. Let's look at the passage in a broader context verses 1-11

¹Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ²through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. ³Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; ⁴perseverance, character; and character, hope. ⁵And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
 ⁶You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. ⁸But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
 ⁹Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! ¹⁰For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! ¹¹Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Okay, now let's look at Brennon's argument, with my responses in red.

A single verse I think speaks volumes about the extent of Christ's atonement is Romans 5:6. Paul writes, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (NASB).Paul tells us here explicitly who Christ died for; the ungodly. Now, many Calvinists claim that Jesus only died for a select few on the cross. He only paid for the sins of the elect. But if this is the case, then Romans 5:6 would indicate that the non-elect aren't ungodly, since Christ died for the ungodly. Or it means, as the Arminian insists, that Christ really did die for the ungodly; namely all those who are at odds with God because of their sin, who Paul identifies as every individual on earth (Romans 3:23).

We are in complete agreement that every human being is ungodly.

The only other alternative I could see the Calvinist presenting here is that Paul only means the ungodly among the elect, since Paul says "while we were still helpless." However, this is a tortured reading of this text and in no way follows. "We" clearly means humanity as a whole, but even if it means the specific people Paul is talking to, it doesn't alter the fact that he writes that "Christ died for the ungodly." So if we are to take "we" to mean the elect, it could still read "while [the elect] were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." The article "the" modifies the noun "ungodly" in a way that it causes it to mean ungodly people in general. There really is no other way to read this verse: Christ died for every individual since every individual is ungodly.

In light of the verses preceeding verse 6, I don't think we can say that because Jesus died for the ungodly, he died for every single human being.  In context, Paul limits for whom the sacrifice is made although all need justification and sanctification. Paul is talking directly to the church - those who believe and reminding us that Jesus died for us although we don not deserve it. Look at verses 1 and 2.

¹Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ²through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

The reason why we are "justified through faith" and have peace and the hope of the glory of God"  is because Jesus died for us. We are ungodly but not all of the ungodly are saved. Putting aside the question of why some ungodly are not saved  and some are saved for now and just ask isn't the ungodly who are saved in verse 6 the same as those who are "justified through faith" in verse 1? I would stay they are. So unless everyone is justified or Jesus did not die for every single individual or "the ungodly" in verse 6 only refers to the elect - those who believe. What about verses 9-11

⁹Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! ¹⁰For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! ¹¹Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Paul says that the same people he has been talking to since verse 1 (and before) are saved from God's wrath and receive reconciliatio. This can only be talking about those who will ultimately be saved through faith who were still the ungodly in verse 6. I think the key is that throughout the passage, Paul uses the personal plural pronouns "us" and "we". He is referring to just the body of believers throughout all of time, not ever human being. Yes, all people are sinners and ungodly, but only the elect are saved from God's wrath.

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 5:6: Who are the Ungodly?

Google Engineers Argue Over Superpowers - ComicsAlliance.com

The Comics Alliance blog has posted an article about engineers at Google seriously discussing which Superpower is the best:

1. Invisibility
2. Flight
3. Teleportation

Apparently, this is something that the Google engineers have been trying to hash out amongst themselves, and like any good nerds, they have taken a silly, theoretical question and analyzed it in quantifiable, serious, empirical ways.
A traditionally short conversation ("Would you rather have the power of invisibility or the power of flight?") rapidly spins off new and philosophical threads enumerating hidden caveats and analyzing cost-benefit scenarios. Under the black-markered "The power to move you," someone uses a blue marker to replace "you" with "anyone." "What do you mean by move?" asks a red marker. "You made this no fun anymore," complains a blue marker, underscoring that point with a frowning face.

Does this surprise me? No, when I was doing engineering at Berkeley I found myself drawn into such conversations. I mean a lot of my peers in Engineering loved science fiction, horror, and comics as much I do. I found that it was the inspiration for getting into science/engineering. One friend told me, "I want to build 'Robocop'!" I wholeheartedly concur - now and then. It doesn't surprise me that Google would have engineers friendly discussing such things. I often still wish I was still in an environment like that sometimes (No, I don't want to go back to University).



Google Engineers Argue Over Superpowers

TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In! - Theology Forum | Theology Online

I have heard about an interesting Internet Forum. It seems every day a question or topic is posted and members discuss it. Go ahead and check it out.

TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In! - Theology Forum | Theology Online

JP Holding on the Christ Myth

I came across this brilliant lecture from JP Holding.He discusses the growing movement denying that Jesus Christ existed. He also took on the assertions that Christianity borrowed from several pagan religions. It's an awesome summary. It should be he runs Tekton which i pulled a lot of resources to write my posts concerning the relationships between Jesus and several pagan myths. the man has a sense of humor and it shows through in his articles. I think that this one is definitely something everyone should listen to.

JP Holding on the Christ Myth

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 1 of 4

Mariano is starting another series about how Judaism looks at a particular passage contrasted with how Christians look at it. This time he considers Psalm 22. I was aware that while I, as a Christian, would say that it is a messianic prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ from about 1000 years before Jesus was crucified and long before crucifixion was invented. When Jesus was on the cross He said

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34

The Christian interpretation is that He was quoting Psalm 22:1 and was pointing out that at that moment the whole of Psalm 22 was being fulfilled. In light of this, I always wondered how do Jews who reject Jesus' messiahship answer this. Mariano has begun a series to answer this very question! Thanks, Mariano.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 1 of 4

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Sanctity of Marriage

Dr. Claude Mariottini is starting a series on his blog that should be extremely interesting . He started with pointing out that Joseph Fletcher wrote a book in 1966.Mariottini wrote the following:

The book, Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), caused a furor because Fletcher was advocating a new form of morality, a morality based on individual responsibility in which a situation decided whether an action was right or wrong.

Fletcher developed the argument of his book by saying that “any act, even lying, premarital sex, abortion, adultery, and murder, could be right depending on the circumstances.” To Fletcher, when love reigns, love dictates what must be done. Thus, when a person is confronted with a moral decision, the solution is relative. The most loving thing is the answer to the problem. The introduction to Fletcher’s book quotes him saying: “Rising above any creed, this renewed morality of loving concern is based on agape, the love of which only God is capable, but which every man must endeavor to emulate. Just as Jesus defied convention to make decisions on the basis of particular people and particular circumstances, so must modern man.”

The reason I think we need to discuss these points that Mariottini is bringing up is that moral relativism is a drum being beat by the "new" atheists. They really think that under certain circumstances anything is moral. They conclude that with no objective moral standard that there is no god. The problem I have with Fletcher's book is that the Bible does not give situational ethics any quarter. It never says "Thou shalt not....unless.....".  Agreed Jesus defied the traditions of  his day, but never the law of God.  I agree that there is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". I even agree that we must always do the most loving thing - but the most loving thing is what God tells us to do and in our own human intellect it doesn't seem all that loving all the time because it's not what we want to do; I know we need to obey God and use his definition of "loving" not our own. . 

Fletcher illustrated his points by providing anecdotal scenarios where immoral acts could be more moral given their context. In his series of posts, Mariottini is going to present  some of them and is inviting readers to comment on them.  Checkout the link below to get the first  one.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Sanctity of Marriage

Diary of a Tired Black Man - The Movie

I recently had the opportunity to see the movie called Diary of a Tired Black Man. It is really more of a documentary than a drama. The film contains dramatized scenarios in a marriage of a black couple and then after the scene, real people are interviewed for their reactions. It's very telling. The film is actually an answer to many of the other movies depicting angry black woman who are angry because they have been misused and abused by black men. I think the movie is good because both men and women are interviewed. I really liked the scenes. The woman took out her pain from previous relationships on her husband although all he tried to do was be good to her. The film was not saying that all men were good or that all women were bipolar and evil Unfortunately, many movies brow beat men so much and make it sound like there are no good men left. I highly recommend this movie because it's great to generate discussion.





http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=887748A73F0DBC0E&search_query=Diary+of+a+Tired+Black+Man


Diary of a Tired Black Man - The Movie

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Praying for the Death of the President

Dr Claude Mariottini has written a great article on his blog refuting Wiley Drake who is advocating that we prary that God kills Barack Obama. His article is awesome and really exegetically sound. I think its important that Christians stand up and call Wiley Drake's remarks what they are: unbiblical. I would also add that  I think Wiley Drake is racially motivated. It can't be because of Obama's religion or policies because the truth is they are not much different than any President we have had up until now.  I loved the graphic Mariottini included in his post. Please read his post.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Praying for the Death of the President: "Wiley Drake"

Christian Apologetics Pagination

Mariano had done us a favor. He has created a one-stop website that aggregates his considerable web presence in one place!. This is a portal to his blogs, t-shirts, twitter feed, merchandise he creates, and resources that he considers valuable! He also lists his favorite websites and blogs for more information. IT is now one of my favorite places on the internet. He has also done me the favor of linking to this blog. Go check this site out.

Christian Apologetics Pagination

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Shape of Noah’s Ark

Dr Mariottini has called attention to a 3,700 year-old cuneiform tablet saying that the ark built to survive the world-wide flood was a circular raft made of reeds. I agree with Mariottini's assessment that the shape of the ark was more like an immense box not unlike the Ark Covenant was really a box. The Genesis account does not leave room for imagining the shape of the ark as circular. This tablet and Genesis can't both be right. SO I'll put my trust in the Genesis account. Also I have no idea how the animals could have been transported on a raft with no roof. Take a look his post.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Shape of Noah’s Ark

Good Sex, Bad Sex - Mark Driscoll

I heard about this sermon, but I never saw it until now. Mark Driscoll has gotten a lot of flack for choosing to preach on sex. He had been accused of using "Sex" to feel his pew. I wondered if that was true or if he was truly giving a word from God. Of course God has something to say to us about sex. So I listened to the sermon below. I disagree with the criticisms. The problem is that he really hammers what the Bible says in no uncertain terms. Things that need to be said but no one want to hear or say.





Good Sex, Bad Sex - Mark Driscoll

Bibledex - Expert videos about every book in the Bible

Here is a website where there is a list of video that claim to summarize books of the Bible by the University of Nottingham. The videos do not summarize the stories but background and some content. They are not anything I would base my understanding of the Bible on but worth checking out and taken with actually reading the Bible yourself and checking out their comments for yourself.

Bibledex - Expert videos about every book in the Bible