1

The Bible claims that no one is good. We think that corruption and injustice is caused by our situation or environment. The Bible says that it is our nature that is corrupt. We think we are deserving of peace and happiness. The Bible tells us that we are deserving of eternal damnation.

The Bible says many things that are contradictory, so I'm not sure that this is the only interpretation of the Bible that is correct.

But if we assume that this is the correct interpretation of the Bible, then we should feel confident in concluding that the Bible is false. If God really believes that we deserve eternal damnation, then God is mistaken.

Inasmuch as books that are false are harmful, then I would agree with Joe that the Bible is harmful. But I don't think that is what Joe means.

And I don't think that false books are necessarily harmful in the first place.

First of all, it's kind of hard most of the time to pin down a book as true or false.

And just as importantly, any book, whether "true" or "false", is just a means of communication. It can used for good or evil, just like any other tool. A "false" book is no more intrinsically evil than a gun, a hammer, or a microwave oven.

About this "deserving of eternal damnation" business:

There is definitely a case to be made for regarding humans as imperfect, flawed creatures who are capable of both great and mundane evil. But that is only one aspect of human nature.

To obsess over sin is to distort the reality of who we are. People are good by nature as well as bad. And to conclude that any normal person derserves eternal damnation, no matter how nicely it fits into your theological constructs, is just plain wack.

2

Joe: And Freud’s Introduction to Psychoanalysis is directly responsible for producing Woody Allen.

Blasphemer! The blogging here is terrible, and with such small portions...

3

"But if we assume that this is the correct interpretation of the Bible, then we should feel confident in concluding that the Bible is false. If God really believes that we deserve eternal damnation, then God is mistaken."

Matthew, you continue to absolutely flabbergast me. Why should the fact that you don't like the Bible's teaching be a legitimate basis for declaring it false? Isaiah 55:9 says "For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" A being deserving of the title "God" would by definition be a being superior to you (or any human). If there is a God who can and did create this whole world, He's not going to shamefacedly pop out of existence just because you try to tell Him that you think His policies are unfair, or silly, or whatever. This isn't Hitchhiker's Guide, y'know.

Furthermore, false information is much more harmful than a gun, hammer, or microwave. What we believe always influences how we behave.
John 8:32 says "You will know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

4

To obsess over sin is to distort the reality of who we are.

A Christian would counter that to obsess over sin is to acknowledge the reality of who we are and what we would do if we gave our desires free rein. Even a cursory look at world history shows that the last 40 years of Western civilization are an aberration; that for most of history the world looked more like the Sudan than Main Street, USA.

If God really believes that we deserve eternal damnation, then God is mistaken.

I am sure God is glad that you were able to clear that up for him.

5

blest,

Surely it's a little joke of yours when you foist on Matthew the belief that his little argument would make God 'pop' of our existence. I take him to mean that there simply could be no such being as a God who believes that we deserve eternal damnation.

I'm in sympathy with Matthew here. I find that such a God as this seems morally absurd, just as it seems morally absurd to me to say that God loves us perfectly and yet will condemn some of us to eternal torment. I will not abandon my moral convictions in the face of a dogmatic religious claim. Indeed I think my only guide on religious matters is my moral sense.

Thus, this disjunction seems true to me: Either (i) the Bible, if properly interpreted, does not say that some will be sentenced to eternal damnation, or (ii) the Bible, if properly interpreted, does say this and thereby says a thing that is false. I have no idea which is true, but from my point of view it makes little difference. I have no attachment to any doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

6

You can say something with humor without its being a joke.

You and Matthew seem to share a belief that if you don't like something it is therefore false. A souped up version of "If it feels good, do it!" Reminds me of the time I was watching Jeopardy with my husband and he said of an answer "Well that must be wrong! I've never heard of it." Both of you are setting yourselves up as gods, letting your own senses be the final arbiter of truth.

7

I'm not sure what you mean by 'If it feels good, do it!' and thus I'm unsure if I suscribe to this kind of view or not. If it means a kind of live for the moment, pay no heed to the future ethic, I most certainly reject it.

What seems inescapable to me is this. We are confronted with many inconsistent voices and texts that claim to reveal God's will for us. Each of us has made a decision about which to trust, if any. That decision cannot be made arbitarily. Rather we must look within ourselves to find a standarnd to separate the true from the false. And to me it seems that the moral sense is the best guide in these matters.

So I ask you this, Why do you believe that your scripture is genuine relevation and the others not? What is your guide in this?

Oh, and I am a theist. And I do not intend to place myself over God. I quite firmly believe that I am under Him. And I believe that He has placed in me the means to find him. This is all I meant to say.

Not all theisms are of a sort, and not every ethic that differs from yours (as I suspect mine does) is a kind of human-centered relativism. (I'd guess that this is what you mean to accuse me of.)

8

Blestwithsons,

I say "We deserve eternal damnation" is false, not because I don't like it, but because it is false.

If something in the Bible is false, it doesn't become true because it's in the Bible.

There are lots of true things in the Bible, but the belief/opinion/statement-of-fact that "We deserve eternal damnation" can be analyzed and verified independently of all the true things in the Bible.

Although I am not surprised that I flabbergast you, that is not my intent.

My intent is to promote the truth as best as I can determine it. If you disagree, then peace be on you and yours, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I know you are a truly smart and loving person, but smart people disagree on the most important things all the time. If you follow your conscience, I have total respect for that, and I will follow mine.

9

If you do not believe we deserve eternal damnation then why, and for who, did Christ die?

If you do not believe Christ died for anyone then don't bother responding because we are speaking two different languages anyway.

10

son,

I tend to shy away from a view on Christ's life and death on which he payed a price for us. For I do not understand how one can expiate the sins of another. If I have sinned, nothing that another can do will in any way remove my guilt.

I think that Christ is best thought of as a perfect moral exemplrar who instituted and new and superior ethic. Indeed it is, I think, the final ethic, or at least contains within it the seeds of the final ethic. For it is an ethic of love.

On this view, Christ's death merely signifies that we humans we not yet ready to begin to live as he bade us. On this view, it is his life that is of genuine significance.

11

So many of the comments on Joe's articles head straight into the same quagmire: "You can't prove this is true" vs. "You can't prove this isn't true." Obviously we each have our own presuppositions, but it's easy to forget they're not shared by the rest:

1. Quoting the Bible to someone who has just said he doesn't necessarily recognize its authority is as pointless as pronouncing God mistaken is arrogant.

2. If God is indeed God, then He sets the standard as to what constitutes a state of sin worthy of damnation, as well as the conditions for grace and mercy which redeem the unworthy one. Finding fault with His conditions is pointless; He's the potter, and I'm the pot.

Seventeen Magazine, the teen rag, used to periodically publish a test for "how to know you're in love." But since anyone truly in love would not need to take the test, the way to know for sure you were NOT in love was taking it.

What about a test on how to know there's a God or that the Bible is true? Right, stupid idea. There's really only one way to know, and empirical observation is never going to get you there. Either He proves Himself, or He doesn't.

12

Franklin--If Jesus is God, then surely he is able to "expiate" the sin of others. If he is not, then who give's a rat-a**? Why should I view his moral example as any better than anybody elses? If all we are is the product of random processes acting over billions of years, what virtue is there in self-denial?

13

"If God really believes that we deserve eternal damnation, then God is mistaken."

On what objective evidence is this based? Do you have indisputable proof that humans are NOT deserving of eternal damnation? Or, as I rather suspect, are you merely stating opinion and preference as fact?

14

Rob,

My thought is really quite simple (and quite possibly mistaken):

If I sin, you cannot pay the price for me. It is my sin, not yours, and I bear the guilt for it. For instance, if I burn my neighbors house to the ground, you can certainly step in and help my neighbor. But no matter what you do, no matter what you suffer, you cannot lessen my guilt one iota. I do not see that the situation is changed in the least if the 'you' is God. I am not God, and my sins are mine alone, not God's.

I think that the Gospels provide ample evidence of Jesus' quite extraordinary moral character.

As to your last question: I do not see its relevance here. You seem to assume that I'm a materialist of some sort. I am not.

15

Franklin,

"What seems inescapable to me is this. We are confronted with many inconsistent voices and texts that claim to reveal God's will for us. Each of us has made a decision about which to trust, if any. That decision cannot be made arbitarily. Rather we must look within ourselves to find a standarnd to separate the true from the false. And to me it seems that the moral sense is the best guide in these matters."

You are half right here, the inner moral compass that God give us is a good guide in these matters. The moral code of every major religion agrees on many points - don't murder, honor your parents etc. but these same religions differ drastically in their idea of God. Our inner moral sense doesn't tell us everything about God. Here I think we have to look outside ourself to see how God has reveled himself in history. To me when I look at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ I find God revealed in a more complete way then in any other religion or text. His morality is faultless and the claims of his resurrection credible. People have been convicted in court on a lot less evidence then we have for the resurrection.

As far as eternal damnation goes, what do you think God ought to do with evil people who refuse to change their evil ways? What about the child molester who refuses to change? The justice of God is part and parcel with his love. Even our own inner moral sense tells us that evil ought to be punished. If we are honest with ourselves we know we have done things that ought to be punished. God is a God of law - he created physical and moral laws on which this universe operates Those moral laws are an outgrowth of his own character. He can not just ignore them because he loves us. This is why Jesus had to come and die. If there was an easier way, if He could just forgive the evil done in the world would not He have jumped at it? I am sure you would never ask your son to do something very painful and degrading unless there was an overwhelmingly important reason and no other way to accomplish it. And so we ought to look at the Jesus as an example of what a perfectly moral life looks like and try to emulate it.

Rob,
Unfortunately many Christians do tend to "obssess over sin", mainly in the area of telling other's their sin. The problem is that most Christians follow Paul's example rather than Jesus's when talking to people outside the church. Paul in his letters is speaking to the Church, encouraging them to live more righteous lives. These are people who already have seen how sin is "killing" them and have come to Jesus for help. But the message of Jesus to the world was "I came to set you free from guilt and condemnation. I came to give you life." Peolpe need to know what Jesus has to offer - the freedom from guilt and enjoyment of life, a hope for the future -This is the good news. Let's worry more about preaching the gospel and only worry about sin when people reach the point where they see it's detrimental effects in their own life and ask for help cleaning it up.

16

Corrie,

I suspect that the idea is really quite simple, and it is, I think, implicit in our system of law. At least for many of the wrongs that we do to others, justice demands only a finite sentence. Indeed for many wrongs, the idea that we should be punished without end sees repugnant. I steal your collection of crystaline unicorns. Perhaps I should do a bit of time. But infinite punishment? Punishment that extends throughout all of future time? Doesn't that seem grossly unfair to you?

Do I have indisputable proof that humans do not deserve infinite punishment? Of course not. I take myself to have no induspitable proofs about these very difficult matters. But it does on reflection (the kind of reflection that I describe above)seem to me that what I say is so. Is it mere opinion? Perhaps. But it does seem to me that I have some reason for what I say, and it seems to me that my opinion is better than its contrary. (But what did you expect? It is my opinion, after all.)

17

Franklin, your view of Christ is consistent with many mainline denominations today. The problem is that focusing on emulating Christ is less than half a loaf. The point of Jesus' life WAS his death. We can truly emulate neither.

We can love our neighbor, yes. We can sell all we own and give to the poor, yes. We can wash feet. That's following the example of Jesus' TEACHINGS, not his LIFE.

We can't multiply loaves and fishes. We can't heal (not most of us, anyway). We can't drive out demons on our own recognizance. And we certainly can't die for the sins of even one other person, much less the whole world.

Jesus's death was a substitution, not an example to follow. Sin is an offense against God. Yes, it may also be an offense against your neighbor, but it is first and foremost an offense against God. Since Jesus IS God, He can and will forgive your sin. All you have to do is ask.

18

I agree with Franklin et al. It seems to me that those who really believe that any man deserves eternal damnation ipso facto reject the natural law and attach themselves to an entirely arbitrary, nihilistic, standard of justice that = God's word (or what they take to be God's word). If God tells you to murder your son, the Jews, the Infidels, or fly planes into buildings where innocents are working, well that's "Just" because God said so.

The natural law holds that there is an inchoate standard of justice that is accessible to all men as men. For instance, nearly all societies -- or the vast majority many of which have no connection whatsover to the Ten Commandments -- believe it's wrong to murder innocents or steal.

The same axiomatic principles of natural justice tell us that it is wrong to infinitely punish anyone for finite sins. Even Hitler and Stalin. Even if we were to say, sentence Hitler to one-million years in Hell for each innocent life he was resonsible for (and I'd say that is quite a harsh sentence), there will still come a time when his sentence is served.

Men who are "imperfect" sinners may not be deserving of an enternity in Heaven, but are far LESS deserving of enternity in Hell.

2 + 2 = 4

19

EXCELLENT point, Franklin. Infinite punishment for sin is just because the offense of sin is infinite.

Punishment is proportional to the crime. If you break one of my daugter's crystal unicorns, it's not even a crime. She'll cry and you'll replace it out of remorse. If you break into our house and steal the object, you'll do time (assuming you survive the burglary attempt). If you kidnap and kill her while stealing the object, you'll get the cot and the needle.

Greater offense = greater punishment.

God is infinitely holy, infinitely glorious, infinitely worthy of praise and obedience. Failing to do that in the smallest matter is an offense of eternal, infinite magnitude.

Therefore, the only just punishment is also eternal. We can't bear it. But Jesus, who was not only without sin in his finite human life but was also eternal God himself, could.

20

Jon - murder destroys a unique, irreplaceable human being. That is not a finite offense, and it is why many societies have the death penalty for murder.

21

-- Infinite punishment for sin is just because the offense of sin is infinite. --

It's obvious that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Murder is not an infinite sin. Murder doesn't destroy an immortal soul (if it did, then maybe....)

And the murderee is going to die eventually anyway. If Frank murders Jill at 20 and Jill otherwise would have lived to 85, then Frank has in effect stolen 65 years from Jill. That's not infinite.

Face it, infinite punishment for finite sins is unjustifiable by principles of natural justice that demand proportionate sentences for crimes.

22

The point of this debate about hell is not really about whether or not wickedness deserves punishment. I think most would agree that evil behavior must face a consequence, and that consequence must be just or else it will be evil as well.

For example, if I get caught speeding, it seems just that I pay a reasonable fine. However, if I am taken into the public square to have my toes smashed off for speeding, then that is an extreme punishment and evil. (I certainly hope that we can agree on this!)

The punishment should fit the crime. The more heinous the crime, the more severe the rebuke. The problem with an eternal concious punishment can be viewed thus, I think:

1. It is evil of God to punish a finite being for an eterntity for blaspheming the holiness and goodness of God.

2. God's holiness and goodness is so wonderful and infinite that the only just punishment is an eternal punishment that is terribly horrific.

If the answer is number one, then I have to re-examine my doctrine. However, the answer could very well be number 2. In which case, if God has decreed this type of punishment, and if He is good, just, and loving, and yet this is still what He has decreed, then sin must be exceedingly horribly because of the great goodness of God.

The problem, as I see it, is not misunderstanding the punishment. Biblically (if you accept that) it is clear enough. If you don't believe the Bible, then you should at least grant that would it says -could- be true. And if it is, then your understanding is not lacking in comprehending the terrible and just punishment that sin deserves. Your error lies in your misunderstanding of the infinite and gracious character of a holy God who will defend infinite goodness with all the zeal of an eternal fire.

By the way, such a line of reasoning is not original with me at all. I learned this type of argument from C.S. Lewis and others. I have flagrantly stolen most things that I know from others. Just so you know.

23

I like what John Adams has to say on eternal damnation. He like most of our most important Founders was a theist, but the furthest thing from an "orthodox Christian." He, like Jefferson, seem to despise both dogmatic Catholicism AND Calvinistic Christianity.

Now, my friend Jefferson, can prophecies and miracles convince you or me that infinite benevo-lence, wisdom, and power created and preserves for a time, innumerable millions, only in the end to make them miserable forever, and for no other pur-pose than his own glory?

Wretch! What is glory? Is he ambitious? Does he want promotion? Is he vain, tickled with adulation, exulting and triumphing in his power and the sweetness of his vengeance? Pardon me, my Maker, for these awful questions…but I believe no such thing. My adoration for the author of the universe is too profound, too sincere. The love of God and his creation—delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existence—are my religion.

24

Exactly, Brad. We finite, fallible beings can't really grok infinite holiness or infinite justice. Nor can we grok infinite mercy. The Cross is necessary because that's the only way to satisfy both justice and mercy.

THAT'S why the point of Jesus' ministry was not his life, but his death. It was at the moment when he cried out, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" - when Jesus *became* sin on our behalf, when God turned his back on his Son in perfectly holy disgust and revulsion, that mercy met justice.

The problem that most folks have is that they look at things from a human standpoint. When you try to see things - however imperfectly - from God's point of view, then things make a lot more sense.

25

John Adams missed the point entirely. Great political thinker, lousy theologian.

God created us (along with the rest of the universe) to glorify himself. *Everything* God does glorifies Himself, because He is supremely happy being God. Because he enjoys being God, he does things that only God can do. He doesn't do it so that we'll clap and practice out vowel sounds, he does it BECAUSE ONLY HE CAN.

I play guitar. I play my own music for me, not for the cheers of crowds. I noodle around in the basement for the sheer pleasure of making music.

Create a universe populated by beings with free will that will reject you and therefore deserve eternal punishment so the only way to save them is to become one of them and die... that's something ONLY GOD could do.

Read John Piper's treatise on "Is God for us of for Himself?" for the details.

26

It is a bit ironic that each of these books can be read in the public school, where [the Bible] cannot. Which one should be considered more dangerous?

Heh, it's more ironic than that. If you went to the site you'll notice that every one of these 'harmful books' titles happens to be a link that will take you directly to Amazon where you can buy it! Gee if they were doing a story on pornography do you think they would helpfully provide links in their articles? If they had a bit more wit they might have made each link take you to an Amazon page for subscribing to their magazine or maybe a conservative book on the 'harmful book'.

I think this is quite typically of the conservative mindset. For all their faults, I find it hard to imagine liberals doing a story like this (say citing William F Buckley's God and Man at Yale as the most harmful book or whatever). Interestingly the underlying premise is perfectly non-conservative. It assumes humans are innocent angels until they get corrupted by some 'bad idea'.

Take their description of Kinsley's book, for example:

Summary: Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University who, in 1948, published a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, commonly known as The Kinsey Report. Five years later, he published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. “Kinsey’s initial report, released in 1948 . . . stunned the nation by saying that American men were so sexually wild that 95% of them could be accused of some kind of sexual offense under 1940s laws,” the Washington Times reported last year when a movie on Kinsey was released. “The report included reports of sexual activity by boys--even babies--and said that 37% of adult males had had at least one homosexual experience. . . . The 1953 book also included reports of sexual activity involving girls younger than age 4, and suggested that sex between adults and children could be beneficial.”

Let's look at the "normalization of promiscuity and deviancy". The laws of 1940 included not only bans on gay sex but also laws on sex outside of marriage, oral/anal sex in marriage, and even mastrubation. Is it really shocking to see how 95% of males had violated at least one of those laws at some point in their lives? It's quite typical to believe that 95% of males didn't even mastrubate once in 1939 but started going crazy in 1950 when they read Kinsley's report!

27

-- Create a universe populated by beings with free will that will reject you and therefore deserve eternal punishment so the only way to save them is to become one of them and die... that's something ONLY GOD could do. --

Adams, Jefferson et al., disbelieved in the Trinity as well -- sometimes absolutely railing against it.

Read the letter to which I linked where Adams explains why he doesn't believe in that doctrine.

I wonder -- when I die and go to Hell, will I be able to converse with Jefferson & Adams about these things?

BTW: I play guitar too. I graduated from Berklee College of Music.

28

Why has no one mentioned the writings of Pythagorous?

Clearly the 'victory' of the pythagorian theorum injected the notion of 'irrational numbers' into the system as the work around for the value of the hypothenus of the unit square.

Clearly with that piece of evil demonic onslaught against our white christian america - every innocent american child has been informed - under the guise of 'learning math' that things may not be as linear, simple and straight forward as they were taught in sunday school.

Clearly if we must stop evil books - then Geometry Has To Go First! Then we can address the problem of the adoption of the hindoo notion of Zero! and with it all of the evils of the east!

29

Since this comment board has diverted into a discussion of damnation, please hop on over to the discussion boards for a discussion of the merits or demerits of the "list of harmful books". I'm about to hop over there and post a reply to Joe's critique of the list, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with thoughts on the subject.

30

First time I've been to this site and it's fascinating! I've been absorbed reading all these posts, but one thing leaps out at me - all those who complain how could a just and loving God want to eternally damn me - have you not understood why God sent Jesus to die for us? It is this exact reason. He does not want us to be punished - he wants us to die totally sinless so that we can chill out with him eternally in Heaven. Hell is not God's punishment to those who choose not to take up a relationship with him, it is the alternative. For, as I understand it, Hell is a place without God. As God is love, Hell is therefore a place without love. It's our choice whether we want to get to know God and accept his wonderful gift of Jesus so that we can be with him when we die. If we don't want it then we've made our decision and after we die we will be without God - as we wanted. I don't understand how people can get so upset about the thought of going to Hell when God has given us the choice.

31

If you do not believe in the Gospel you are already dead and damned.

For a Christian eternal damnation is in the past. For the unbeliever the eternal damnation is all that there ever was, all that there is, and all that there will ever be.

32

Even though I'm a Christian, I will have to side with John Adams on the question of whether God does everything for his glory.

Not six chapters in to Genesis, he is already regretting his decisions. Halfway through Exodus, he has to be talked out of killing the entire race of Israel. He beats the stuffing out of his chosen people for rejecting them and then lets them come crawling back when they are sorry. All through the Bible, God seems to suffer for our sake. How glorious does God look when he suffers for us in order to have relationship with us. Just as God humbled himself in the form of Jesus, he also humbles himself because he loves us. To me, that's better than glory. I think glory is overrated as a divine trait. To me, God's infinite patience, love, and ingenuity at wooing us back is much more worthy of awe. Displays of power brings glory easily. Trying to convince fallen man to deny himself out of love for God... that's the real miracle.

33

The idiots who come up this and other lists of "dangerous" books are really worried about "dangerous" ideas. They just concentrate on books because they are far easier to dispose of than an idea. Books can be burned, but in order to quash an idea you have convince someone else to change their mind. So they take the easiest and most cowardly route possible. To try to limit the exposure to the idea.

For example, lawmakers in Oklahoma are trying to outlaw books that mention gay or lesbian people from High School libraries. But it is not the books that they have a problem with, it's the dangerous idea that gay and lesbian people are normal that is the real problem. They hide it by trying to say they don't want "children" exposed to sexual writing. But really, how sexually titillating is it to read, "Gays and lesbians are normal"?

If Christians and Conservatives are so convinced that their ideas and the Bible are correct, why do they constantly attempt to cut off debate by removing the source of an idea rather than engaging with it? All you have to do to win the argument is convince someone else you are correct. Stop trying to unfairly stack the deck in your favor.

34

corrie,

You say: "God is infinitely holy, infinitely glorious, infinitely worthy of praise and obedience. Failing to do that in the smallest matter is an offense of eternal, infinite magnitude.

Therefore, the only just punishment is also eternal. We can't bear it. But Jesus, who was not only without sin in his finite human life but was also eternal God himself, could."

I am tempted to say the argument here is fallacious. But perhaps I've misunderstood. Here's my worry:

1. One cannot be held responsible for a thing if one was unable to do otherwise.
2. No doubt we fall infinitely short of God's perfect goodness. But this cannot have been otherwise, for we are finite and what measure of goodness we can achieve is finite as well.
3. Thus we cannot be held responsible for falling infinitely short of God's goodness.
4. Instead we can only be held responsible for not doing that which a human being is able to do.
5. And although I no doubt fall short of this mark, I do not fall infinitely short of it. For the mark after which we aim is a finite good.
6. Whatever offense I commit, it lies in the difference between how I am at present and the mark after which we aim.
7. But that as said is finite.
8. Thus my offense is finite.
9. Thus I do not deserve eternal damnation.

35

Joe,

One quick observation: Silent Springs did not result in a campaign to prevent the use of DDT for the purpose of controlling malaria. In fact, no such campaign ever occurred. It has been consistently been used to prevent malaria where it is effective, and when its use to prevent the spread of malaria has been stopped, it has been because of fears of pesticide-resistant strains. The fact that the list attempts to perpetuate the myth that the campaign against DDT has caused the spread of malaria goes a long way towards discrediting the list itself.

36

Chris,

One quick observation: Silent Springs did not result in a campaign to prevent the use of DDT for the purpose of controlling malaria.

Technically, you are correct. The purpose of the campaign was not to prevent the use of DDT for controlling malaria; the purpose was to vilify DDT as a carcinogen (which was never proven) and to limit its supposedly malevolent impact on wildlife.

In fact, no such campaign ever occurred.

The Federal government would disagree with your claim. According to their biography of Carson on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website:

Carson had become interested in the danger of pesticides while still associated with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Her concern was accelerated with the introduction of DDT in 1945. Although she had left the Service to work on Silent Spring, her marine studies while there had provided her with early documentation on the effects of DDT on marine life. …She had long hoped someone else would publish an expose' on DDT but realized finally that only she had the background as well as the economic freedom to do it. She made the decision to produce Silent Spring after years of research …The federal government, however, ordered a complete review of its pesticide policy and Carson was asked to testify before a Congressional committee along with other witnesses. As a direct result of the study, DDT was banned. With the publication of Silent Spring, Carson is credited with launching the contemporary environmental movement and awakening concern by thinking Americans about the environment.

It has been consistently been used to prevent malaria where it is effective, and when its use to prevent the spread of malaria has been stopped, it has been because of fears of pesticide-resistant strains. The fact that the list attempts to perpetuate the myth that the campaign against DDT has caused the spread of malaria goes a long way towards discrediting the list itself.

If it is a myth then why did the Malaria Foundation International work so hard to prevent the UN from issuing an outright ban on DDT? Do you know something they don't?

37

Joe, apparently I do know something you don't, but with all the misinformation out there on such a politically-charged issue, that's not surprising.

To learn more about it, you can start with the posts here.

38

Chris,

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation (Silent Spring was full of it) and that politics tends to cloud the issue. I also don’t want to make too much of Carson’s contribution. She was not the only one that vilified DDT and here book was not the only reason that it was banned in the U.S. and other countries.

To learn more about it, you can start with the posts here

If you’ll notice, the link you provided makes this point:

But reference 63 is to the Stockholm Convention on Persistant Organic Pollutants, which specifically exempts DDT use for vector control from the ban. Banning agricultural use of DDT greatly aids its use against malaria, since mosquitoes will be much less likely to develop resistance.

Notice that the link goes to the Malarial Foundation International website, the same group that I mentioned that had to lobby the UN to prevent a complete ban on DDT.

39

Joe, it may very well be the case that they had to lobby to prevent the banning of DDT for vector control, but the fact is that they didn't, making the harm caused by Silent Springs to populations at risk for malaria infection non-existent.

40

Chris,

Joe, it may very well be the case that they had to lobby to prevent the banning of DDT for vector control, but the fact is that they didn't, making the harm caused by Silent Springs to populations at risk for malaria infection non-existent.

Let me see if I understand the point you are making. Are you saying that the use of DDT was never limited because of the campaign sparked by Carson? Is it that you think DDT was never limited or banned in malarial countries or do you think that its just that Carson had nothing to do with it?

41

To Franklin, and perhaps others
I usually only prowl this site mostly so that I can gain a better understanding of what those who do not come from a Christian perspective are thinking and how they are expressing it.

"If I sin, you cannot pay the price for me. It is my sin, not yours, and I bear the guilt for it. For instance, if I burn my neighbors house to the ground, you can certainly step in and help my neighbor. But no matter what you do, no matter what you suffer, you cannot lessen my guilt one iota. I do not see that the situation is changed in the least if the 'you' is God. I am not God, and my sins are mine alone, not God's."

In personal meditation and study on the meaning of justice and how it is manifested by God I continually came to the conclusion that the only unjust act God made was to forgive our sins. I had already been convinced of my own and mankind’s need for forgiveness, but I could not understand the mechanism God was using in order to arrive at the forgiveness. I had already accepted the idea that Christ had died for my sins, but even that did not seem just for the reason that your analogy illustrates.

The root of my dilemma was in my misunderstanding, and likely the lack of correct use of the word propitiation, or your word expiate or the equally appropriate word atonement. (I am glad to see people using correct words as I am constantly battling to find them myself.) The word propitiate is found in Romans 3:25 among other places, however, as the greater part of the present seems to be centered around issues dealt with in Romans 3 we’ll stick to that passage. Propitiate in this context is translated from the Greek word, hilasterion, which means to (big surprise) expiate or cover guilt. To propitiate means to pay the price for sin or some wrong done. Approaching God’s justice with this understanding I have been better able to understand what Christ did, why it was necessary and how it maintained the integrity of God’s holiness and justice.

When Jesus was crucified our guilt didn’t just evaporate, but it was propitiated. He covered our sin and paid the price that a just God demanded. We can find examples of this occurring in present day circumstances when people do not have the means to pay their debt for crimes judged by society. If a minor, or anyone I suppose, is cited for speeding and doesn’t have the money to pay the fine someone else may pay the fine and thus assume the penalty for the crime. If you burned your neighbor’s house down and I had means I might be able to cover the full debt of your neighbor; constructing him a new house, replacing valuables, compensating for sentimental loss etc. There are crimes where society cannot find a suitable way for others to cover or pay the debt of the guilty person. The parents of murderers likely have difficulty buying their offspring out of their life sentence or death penalty, although in our flawed system I am sure it has happened. The reason for this, as I see it, is that our justice is not perfect as we are not perfect, so that we cannot measure or meet the standards necessary for propitiation. With God it was different. First, the debt had to be paid for any to be saved. It happens that, according to the Bible, all are guilty and the price must be paid by one who is not. Christ covered sins with guiltless blood, fulfilling the law and offering mankind the opportunity to be reconciled to God in spite of his sin. So, God didn’t take your guilt per se, but he did offer his son to pay the price for your guilt so that you could be reconciled to him.

Just as my personal journey with God brought me to this question it has brought me to the understanding I now have. As he is eternal, I am sure my understanding would also have to be eternal in order to apprehend it fully.

Questions that follow this point or precede it: Why is everyone guilty and deserving of the same penalty? Why should our sin offend God? Why can’t I pay my own debt? Why would God choose to pay our debt? On and on and on…
Thanks for reading, P

42

Plewis,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. But you seem to have a concept of justice that I do not understand. For you, it seems that (if you'll allow me to speak pictorially)there is a great universal resevoir of injustice to which we add whenever we sin. Our injustice is, as it were, detached from us and added to the rest. Jesus, then, by has sacrifice was able to empty the resevoir.

Or perhaps the picture is one of a great set of scales on one side of which is placed all sin and on the other Jesus' sacrifice; and it balances, or swings to Jesus' side.

The problem with this, it seems to me, is that it there can't be a literal truth behind it. You can pay the financial damages incurred by my crimes, but it would be morally absurd for you to do my time. You do not thereby remove my guilt, and surely no one would think that justice had been done if you go into prison for me. What does the family of the victim want? Justice of course. Does this mean that someone or other, it doesn't matter who, has to serve time? No, it means that the perpetrator has to do time.

'You expiate my guilt' seems just as conceptually incoherent to me as 'You feel my pain' (if we understand the latter to mean that the pain is mine and yet you literally feel not just something like it but that very pain).

43

PLewis,

I think you miss the point in answering Franklin. The idea here is that a third party cannot pay for the sins I have committed against someone else. But what needs to be seen here is that Jesus is not a third party. All sins committed against another person are sins committed against God because he is the Creator and in sinning we are in someway harming or dishonoring His creation. So if someone can accept that Jesus is God then then its easy for them to accept that Jesus can pay for sins against God. If a person stole my car I could say to them, "You may keep the car and I won't press charges."

As far as eternal damnation goes it is not that we commit finite sins that God gives an infinite punishment for. And He certainly doesn't hand out punishment simply because we fall short in paying him due honor - Then he would be a Tyrant. But if he offers to forgive us and we refuse His love, He will not force us. The consequences of the decision are that we are removed from the source and presence of all Goodness and Love. What worse fate can you think of? C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce gives a fascinating picture of heaven and hell.

The actual need for Jesus to die in order for our sins to be forgiven is a much more complicated issue and I am not going to go into it here. It might be an interesting topic for the discussion boards. I think far to many evangelicals say Jesus needed to die for our sins without having a clue why. After watching the Passion of the Christ it was one of the questions I walked away with. I haven't totally come to a satisfactory answer.

44

Grace,

I do understand the view expressed in your second paragraph. And I very much like it.

But I still don't understand this idea of Jesus' expiation. You say: "All sins committed against another person are sins committed against God because he is the Creator and in sinning we are in someway harming or dishonoring His creation. So if someone can accept that Jesus is God then then its easy for them to accept that Jesus can pay for sins against God." So, then, the view is that if you wrong me, I can expiate your sin if I suffer the punishment that was due you? That seems bizarre to me. You kill my wife. But I offer to die in your place and this removes your guilt. Do you really believe such a thing? I understand of course the claim that if I am wronged by you, I can forgive you the wrong. But this is not the claim you've made. Forgiveness I understand. Expiation of my sins by another remains a mystery.

45

Thank you for shooting for the heart of this matter throughout the discussion.
I think I screwed up in communicating my primary point. I will try to clarify.
To propitiate is not to remove, but to cover guilt. It removes the punishment or consequences from one to another it does not delete the guilt or it would have to also remove our memory of the act.

I view the debt that each of us has as a result of committing injustices as personal, not as something that might be pooled. I blelieve that everyone will have to stand before the seat of judgment individually.

It is only a matter of degree when considering whether I should do your time or give you money to pay a fine. In either case I would be removing the penalty for your actions and taking the penalty upon myself. You would still be the one to enter a guilty plea. In essence the way to accept Christ begins by registering a guilty plea before him.

My analogy to the justice of society can only be carried so far, because human justice is not a perfect model. However, we can see that the underlying principle of something like propitiation exists. We can then view the example presented by the propitiation of our sins by Christ on the cross. As imperfect humans we have an imperfect ability to offer propitiation. Christ, however, was able to offer full propitiation for all the sins of mankind because he was completely without sin.
I hope this gets things straight.

P

46

I'm new here where are the discussion boards?

47

Grace, I am sure I have a lot to learn about what we are discussing, but I don't quite get the third party line. Our sin set us against God. We needed something to reconcile us to him. Well, first we needed something to show us that we were separated, then we needed something to close the gap. None of us could do it. So, God decided to send his son because only he could do it. This functioned not only rescue us but also to demonstrate to us what perfect love is. The way I see it, the rules don't keep a third party from being eligible to offer propitiation. Instead, the third parties (us) are unable to do so, and God, desiring for none to perish, sent someone who is able.
P

48

Franklin,

I appreciate your straight foward questions. I guess in my first paragraph I should have stuck with using the word forgiveness rather than "pay for" The issue of expiation is really what I was suggesting in the second paragraph we move to the discussion board. I really do believe it. From my point of view it is a legal issue having to do with the spiritual laws God has set up. However, from reading some of the posts on your own blog (very interesting thoughts by the way)I think there are a number of issues we would need to understand each other on before I could start to explain myself and even so my thoughts are still only half formed. Basically at this point I am still working backwards - because it is a prerequesite of my understanding of God's character I am working at figuring out the reason why the cross was necessary- I believe in the death and resurrection of Christ as presented by the gospels because of the historical, moral and logical evidence. Jesus's own statements and the resurrection prove that his death was not an accident, that it was for a purpose. But if there was an easier way, if God could just forgive the evil done in the world then Jesus would not have had to die. His death would have been senseless. Therefore there must be a very good reason. I will try to post something of the reasons I see tomorrow on the religion discussion topic.

PLewis,
evangelicaloutpost.com/forum is the address for the discussion boards

49

I thought we Christians are to spread The Gospel (the Good News). God through the Holy Spirit will take it from there. The "hate book" (The Bible) takes as it's hate theme John 3:16. Go figure!

50

Anybody want to read a really long--but good--treatment of the penal substitution theme (Is it legal and moral for an innocent person to be punished for a guilty one?), look at this Christian-Thinktank article:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/inmyplace.html

51

The Bible is a little like Atlas Shrugged. the scenario of Atlas was that when energetic, intelligent and productive people are removed from society, the world becomes virtually hell-on-earth. The thesis of the Bible is that when an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God departs from earth, the world becomes literally hell-on-earth.

Now Atlas and The Fountainhead are dangerous books! I've heard of people who've left careers, left spouses, left churches because of those books. But Atlas is the darkest and most negative, most dangerous if taken too literaly. In tha sense, they're like the Meccan and Medinan verses of the Koran; the former extolling benevolence and human virtue, the latter wanted to see people who don't tow that line destroyed. People can make alot of mistakes when they fail to see the flaws behind her philosophy.

The dirty little secret of Atlas is this: Rand doesn't care that everyone dies and society shuts down--even if it effects relatively innocent parties. She does not think that other people--simply for being people--have any value to an individual, so that she should save them. To her, I would posit that if her housecat were about to jump out of the window of her high-rise apartment, for the selfish reasons of preserving the aesthetic beauty of the cat, and preventing the aesthetic uglyness of seeing it die, she would intervene to save it. If so, would not the aesthetic beauty of a human soul be worth saving, and the uglyness of its death be worth preventing?

52

Joe: Trackback looks broken, so I'll just say my reply's here

53

Protagonist,

What you seem to miss is that in both cases, there are no innocent people. It's just our fallen or destructively selfish view that we are innocent. In the Bible's case, you are not innocent because you have sinned, in Ayn Rand's case you are not innocent because you supported a state which raped and pillaged the productive who have now left society. Either way, you caused your own misery because you pushed away the one who was giving to you.

There is something too that those who cannot accept eternal damnation fail to accept. God is the creator of even right and wrong. He, not you, decided what is just and well, if you REALLY want to disagree what are you going to do about it? Get into a pissing match with an all-powerful God who could smite you without the slightest effort? All you have to do is say you're sorry by repenting and turning to Christ. Then it's all water under the bridge as far as God is concerned. It's all about human pride. No one wants to admit that to be untouched by the Holy Spirit means that no offense, you're an @$$hole by God's standards and God, like humans, doesn't like to associate with @$$holes.

54

Wikipedia is usually a good place to go for such matters:

As of 2005, DDT continues to be used in other (primarily tropical) countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are greater health problems than DDT's potential toxicity. Use of DDT in public health to control mosquitoes is primarily done inside buildings and through inclusion in household products and selective spraying; this greatly reduces environmental impact compared to the earlier widespread use of DDT in agriculture. It also reduces the risk of resistance to DDT. A FAQ on how DDT is currently used against malaria is available at [2] (http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html).

The Stockholm Convention, ratified in 2001 and effective as of 17 May 2004, calls for the elimination of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, barring health crises. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. However a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because of the prohibitive costs of alternative insecticides. Countries can apply for exemptions to use DDT for health reasions. The WHO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) review the DDT exemption every 3 years. Rules and regulations regarding the trade, storage and use of DDT under the convention have made DDT use more difficult and expensive.

As has been pointed out, if DDT is not used for agriculture but is used for mosquito control then that is probably better since it reduces the chance of resistence developing. While there is a convention against DDT there's no evidence that anyone has died from maleria because Rachael Carson's book kept their gov't from spraying DDT.

There is a possibility that DDT might be ok after all and we've incurred a huge cost due to banning its use in the US in favor of less effective alternatives. However considering all the bad things that has happened in the last 100 years or so this hardly seems the 'most harmful'.

But the larger question is why was this book selected as harmful? Like my question with the Kinsley book it seems to say less about the book than about the authors. It can't be because the science has been questioned (no one, BTW, has shown that DDT is safe and considering it has a 'half-life' of 2-15 years before it breaks down people are right to be skeptical). How many popular science books have come on gone since the 1960's? We've had theories about birth order effecting personality, Vitamin C fighting colds, more diets than anyone could ever list and so on.

I suspect the real reason they attack the book is that it spurred the environmental movement which today includes rigerous testing of newly created chemical compounds. Is this really a bad thing?

55

Let me see if I understand the point you are making. Are you saying that the use of DDT was never limited because of the campaign sparked by Carson? Is it that you think DDT was never limited or banned in malarial countries or do you think that its just that Carson had nothing to do with it?

1. DDT use was limited as a result of Carson and the campaign afterwards.

1. a. This does not necessarily have anything to do with malaria control. DDT has lots of uses beyond killing mosquitos. Banning its use there does not imply it was ever banned for malaria (as was pointed out...banning its wider use may actually boost its potency against malaria).

2. The Stockholm Convention was signed in 2001 & didn't even become effective until 2004. Carson's book was published in 1962. The process to stop using DDT didn't even begin in the US until 1971. Naturally banning a substance in a developing country would take much longer (see, for example, how CFC's were handled for developing countries).

So trying to find people harmed by Carson's book would appear to be as hard as finding actual people harmed by DDT itself!

56

Franklin,

Since the topic of this discussion is harmful books i'd like to ask you a question.

Joe claims that the most harmful book is the Bible. I -think- you have claimed yourself to be a Christian (Maybe i'm mistaken here). Do you accept the Bible as accurate, or do you only accept those parts you agree with and reject those parts you don't like?