“The customer can have any color he wants,” Henry Ford once said, referring to his Model T, “as long as it’s black.” Apparently Afghanistan, a country we recently liberated from oppression, is taking Mr. Ford’s approach when it comes to religious freedom. Afghans can have any religion they want…as long as it’s Islam.
According to the BBC, an Afghan man is being tried for converting from Islam to Christianity. Abdul Rahman, who could be sentenced to death for his “crime”, allegedly confessed to the authorities that he converted to Christianity when he was 25. Prosecutors offered to drop the charges if Rahman agreed to reaffirm a belief in Islam, but he refused. He now faces execution if convicted under Sharia law.
I wish I could say that I'm shocked by this tragic injustice. But over two years ago I warned of the threat to religious liberty posed by the newly drafted Afghani constitution (Creating Taliban-Lite and Fisking a Constitution). At the time, the White House was issuing a mealy-mouthed statement ("The United States takes note...of the draft...") while another government agency had the courage to say what the document was creating: Taliban-lite.
As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, noted in 2003, “the new Afghan draft constitution fails to protect the fundamental human rights of individual Afghans, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in accordance with international standards.”
Freedom-loving Afghans won't be able to rely on conscientious judges to protect religious freedom without an explicit reference to it in the constitution. Afghanistan's chief justice, Fazl Hadi Shinwari, for example, has shown little regard for those who disagree with his hard-line interpretation of Islam. He told us that he accepted the international standards protected by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights – with three exceptions: freedom of expression, freedom of religion and equality of the sexes. "This is the only law," the chief justice told us, pointing to the Koran on his desk.
Commission Chair Michael K. Young said, “Without [religious] protections, not only will the current transitional Afghan administration have failed its people, but the United States will have failed in its efforts to lay the foundation for a free and stable Afghanistan.”
The persecution of Rahman is evidence that we have failed in our efforts in Afghanistan. We weren’t even able to instill a love of freedom into President Hamid Karzai, who has refused to intervene in the case. “Within years of another President intervening on his behalf when fascists overran his country,” says John Coleman, “Mr. Karzai has decided that fascism is the way to go.”
When the Afghani constitution was being drafted, the American press was too distracted trying to determine what type of computer the Democratic presidential candidates preferred to notice the threat. Paul Marshall, a guest writer at National Review Online, was one of the only ones to notice how badly the media mangled the story. The New York Times, Reuters, and Associated Press all mistakenly reported that the draft made "no mention of Shariah, a legal code based on the Koran...." In fact Article 130 says that, in the absence of an explicit statute or constitutional limit, the Supreme Court should decide "in accord with Hanafi jurisprudence," one of the four main Sunni schools of sharia.
Sadly, the blogosphere also failed to express concern over our nation helping to build an Islamic theocracy. The deafening silence continued months later when President Bush and the U.N. were praising the adoption of the new constitution. Even astute political pundits like Ed Morrissey failed to recognize the threat, repeating the claim that “there will be no mullahs passing supreme judgment on government and no Shari'a.” Rahman would beg to differ.
Did American troops give their lives removing the repressive Taliban government only for us to replace it with Taliban-lite? Will we once again remain silent as a government we helped to install executes a man for his religious beliefs?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil,” said Edmund Burke, “is that good men do nothing.” We did nothing to stop the adoption of a theocratic constitution, believing at the time it was a “necessary evil.” Will we continue to do nothing and allow evil to triumph?
1
Joe, thanks for taking an interest in this story and for trying to draw attention to this issue. I started posting about it Sunday night and had a follow-up today on my blog at: http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2006/03/save-abul-rahman.html.
Hoping to see this get more attention -- particularly in the Christian world. Any ideas about what can we do to try to get this more publicity?
Really love your blog and extremely glad to see you pick up this story!
Your bodacious brother in Christ,
~ Brian
http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/
2
Constantine the Great joins Christian church with secular state – 325 AD
One thousand four hundred sixty-six years pass.
USA Founding fathers separate Christian church from secular state – 1791 AD
The prophet Muhammad dies, leaving the Qur’an – 632 AD
One thousand four hundred sixty-six years later – 2098 AD
So if Islam follows the Christian pattern, Muslims will be due for a secular democracy no sooner than about one hundred years from now. Bush is way before his time.
posted on 03.21.2006 1:27 AM3
The difference is that Christianity, even at the beginning, inherently recognized the difference between church and state ("render unto Caesar...render unto God"). That doesn't mean that a lot of Christians, past and present, don't get confused about using secular means to attempt spiritual progress. But at least the different spheres are defined.
There is no such distinction in Islam. Faithful Muslims MUST seek to impose Sharia because under Islam, it is the only legitimate form of government. Constantine may have made Christianity the official religion of Rome, but he had no New Testament mandate to do so. Thus, the enlightenment separation of church and state was a rediscovery of first principles. There can be no such "discovery" in the Koran, which allows for no distinction between mosque and state. The argument that Islam just needs a little more time to "mellow" the way Christianity did ignores important theological differences between the two worldviews.
Recommended reading: The Sword of Islam, by Serge Trifkovic.
posted on 03.21.2006 6:45 AM4
We were able to bring democracy to Japan and Germany only after completely destroying their respective countries and to a large extent their cultures. We literally (as opposed to figuratively) brought democracy out of the rubble of those two countries. That is not the case in Afghanistan or Iraq; both suffered relatively lightly. Maybe it is impossible to impose something new on a country unless you totally destroy what you are trying to replace. During the US Civil War, Sherman's March to the Sea was as much to destroy Southerm morale and confidence in their system as it was to damage their capacity to wage war. It may be that to change the deeply ingrained culture of Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq, we needed to do something similar. It is a very sad situation.
posted on 03.21.2006 7:09 AM5
Joe,
The persecution of Rahman is evidence that we have failed in our efforts in Afghanistan. We weren’t even able to instill a love of freedom into President Hamid Karzai, who has refused to intervene in the case. “Within years of another President intervening on his behalf when fascists overran his country,” says John Coleman, “Mr. Karzai has decided that fascism is the way to go.”
In a country that is fighting a hot war against the remnant of the Taliban, and which is struggling to curb the outsized influence of several ruthless warlords, the only explanation you think is possible for President Karzai's decision to not intervene so far is that he has no "love of freedom".
A modest question: if President Karzai offered to step down as president of Afghanistan and hand the job over to you, would you accept it?
And if your answer is no, does that mean you have misplaced your "love of freedom" or that you are willing to tolerate the spead of islamo-fascism in Afghanistan?
posted on 03.21.2006 8:11 AM6
I think moderation and compromise here is unworkable. The remaining Taliban elements in the country will not be sympathetic if the current President and gov't has a little bit of Islamic law. What should be made clear is that the Taliban lost 100% of the right to govern the country when they refused to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11. Going forward the country can have Islamic law only to the degree it does not contradict fundamental rights.
posted on 03.21.2006 8:37 AM7
The difference is that Christianity, even at the beginning, inherently recognized the difference between church and state ("render unto Caesar...render unto God"). That doesn't mean that a lot of Christians, past and present, don't get confused about using secular means to attempt spiritual progress. But at least the different spheres are defined.
All that means literally is that it is proper to pay taxes if you live in a non-Christian land (or in Jesus's time a non-Jewish land). It's a real stretch to read into this that should a King convert to Christianity he should have established a Jeffersonian secular state where the Church had nothing to do with the gov't and vice versa.
posted on 03.21.2006 9:01 AM8
All that means literally is that it is proper to pay taxes if you live in a non-Christian land (or in Jesus's time a non-Jewish land).
Actually, they were in a Jewish land, ruled by the Romans. Anyways, there are more discussions in the Bible than just the verse you mention about the roles and responsibilities of the two spheres.
It's a real stretch to read into this that should a King convert to Christianity he should have established a Jeffersonian secular state where the Church had nothing to do with the gov't and vice versa.
A nice strawman here. You tied the statement made by Thorsby to one verse and then declare it's a stretch for his general statment. His point is that Islam does not have any religious justification for separating government and religious spheres of influence. Christianity on the other hand does have a Biblical and historical basis for that model. That doesn't mean you end up with a modern democracy, but it does allow the possibility. Islam does not allow that in any religious or historical context.
Matthew Goggins:
In a country that is fighting a hot war against the remnant of the Taliban, and which is struggling to curb the outsized influence of several ruthless warlords, the only explanation you think is possible for President Karzai's decision to not intervene so far is that he has no "love of freedom".
I agree with Boonton here. It is unlikely that having a little Islamic theocracy will placate the opposing forces. Also, this hasn't been the first time a problem like this has come up. A newspaper editor was jailed for publishing an article about expanding the freedom of women.
Boonton:
Going forward the country can have Islamic law only to the degree it does not contradict fundamental rights.
Many muslims will tell you that Islamic law is fundamental to human rights. Anything that contradicts it is oppressive.
We were able to bring democracy to Japan and Germany only after completely destroying their respective countries and to a large extent their cultures.
Which is why I have a problem with the whole "democracy project." I prefer we defend ourselves and let them live how they want. Both invasions were justified, beyond that, we should have just left.
posted on 03.21.2006 9:37 AM9
Islam is completely unsuitable to exist in a democratic society. There is no room to allow individuals to exercise free will in the Islamic world view. Only in Christianity do you find a diety that honors free will and allows men to choose for themselves.
posted on 03.21.2006 10:26 AM10
Kind of makes you wonder what the country would be like if we had just left well enough alone after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan rather than supply support to the Taliban.
Going forward the country can have Islamic law only to the degree it does not contradict fundamental rights.
Nice sentiment but (a) how would you enforce that, and (b) who would get to decide just where Islamic law conflicts with fundmental human rights?
Probably be a bit more tractable if we didn't have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Don't we teach our children to complete one project before starting another?
posted on 03.21.2006 10:37 AM11
Only in Christianity do you find a diety that honors free will and allows men to choose for themselves.
But it was here on this blog that I learned that the Christian God will torment me in Hell forever if I don't accept His way. That's an odd notion of free will.
Perhaps after looking at the strife around the world caused by religious conflict (Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus standout) we could conclude that de-emphasizing religion in public life would be the best way toward building a world without war and terrorism.
posted on 03.21.2006 10:44 AM12
Won't there be a huge reaction from the rest of the world if this man is sentenced to death for changing religions? Unless he is sentenced and put to death quickly, surely there will be more news stories. Where are the death penalty objectors when you need them?
posted on 03.21.2006 10:45 AM13
Inquiring Minds,
There is no room to allow individuals to exercise free will in the Islamic world view. Only in Christianity do you find a diety that honors free will and allows men to choose for themselves.
Does this mean you disagree with Joe Carter, who says that people who refuse to accept Jesus as their savior will spend an eternity in hell?
Doesn't spending an eternity in hell more have more of a damping effect on free will than being executed?
14
Both invasions were justified, beyond that, we should have just left.
If that's your position, we better finish the job and make sure that it will be generations before they could even begin to threaten us. In the case of Iraq, we should have confiscated their oil as war reparations, and completely destroyed any industrial or transportation infrastructure. One of the main reasons we had a Second World War is because we didn't finish the job in the First One, as Pershing wanted to. We needed to defeat their armies, not just allow them to retreat to their pre-war borders. We needed to occupy Berlin and the Ruhr and put the Kaiser on trial for war crimes, not just allow him to abdicate and impose war reparations. Just lopping the top off the power structure is not enough.
posted on 03.21.2006 11:40 AM15
Actually the blogs have been covering this story since it first surfaced and for the past few weeks has hit it everyday. This today from FRC . . .
Afghanistan: Liberated for This?
The Bush administration assured us late last year that the new Iraqi constitution would not threaten religious liberty. This, despite the provisions saying no law could be passed that was "inconsistent with Islam." Our concern that such promises of religious freedom will be meaningless in light of Islamic law is once again justified by religious persecution in Afghanistan. The Afghan constitution, adopted after America liberated that country from the Taliban, has a provision similar to that of the new Iraqi constitution. Now, we receive a horrifying report of Abdul Rahman, 41, who is on trial for his life in Kabul, Afghanistan. Rahman's crime? He has admitted converting to Christianity. That there should even be such a trial is an outrage. How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? Such a "trial" is a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights--which the current Afghan government even incorporated into its constitution. Article 18 reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read Hamid Kharzai's government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs.
posted on 03.21.2006 11:41 AM16
Matthew,
Doesn't spending an eternity in hell more have more of a damping effect on free will than being executed?
Why would that have a dampening effect if that was your free choice? You've said before that you want no part of the Christian God so why would he force you to spend eternity with Him?
Here is another way to think about hell: Imagine a young man in his twenties is offered the love and affection of a young woman for the rest of their lives. She wants to marry him and clearly says so. She pledges to make him happy and love him forever but he isn’t ready to settle down, his self-love is too great to allow anyone else into his life. So he chooses to remain on his own.
After several years, the girl ends up marrying someone else. Upon hearing this the man realizes his mistake. He also realizes, however, that it is too late for him to do anything about it. His life falls apart. He’s distraught and racked with emotional pain and loneliness. He can’t imagine living with the choice he has made, yet he can do nothing to correct it.
God is not punishing people simply because they are “evil” and deserve what’s coming to them (we all have it coming). He accepts their choice and allows them to live with the outcome. How is that dampening free will?
As for the pain those in hell feel, it is, I believe, not only a physical torment (though that is certainly possible) but the loss one feels in missing out on the highest in human fulfillment and happiness.
posted on 03.21.2006 11:51 AM17
Jemison, all good points, my post of course was a tad facetious.
However, regardless of what the text of scripture says we must note that the Roman Catholic view of church and state dominates the history of Western Civilization. Pope Boniface VIII believed the powers of the state being completely superseded by the powers of church. In the Unam Sanctam (1302 AD) Boniface even claims scriptural backing for this worldview:
We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal.
In his view, the powers of the state are subordinate and subjected to the spiritual powers wielded by the Church. If Christendom can abuse scripture in such a way then perhaps it is not too much to hold out that Muslims might see a different interpretation of their text. But I admit I would not recognize the Qur’an if it ran up and bit me in the leg so I could be wrong in hoping for that kind of interpretational latitude.
AndyS wrote, ”But it was here on this blog that I learned that the Christian God will torment me in Hell forever if I don't accept His way. That's an odd notion of free will.” And Matthew Goggins echoed his sentiments.
If you go to a restaurant and order ostrich for the first time, and you dislike it, do complain to the waiter that he restricted your free will? Wherever did you get the idea that “free will” implies that choices are “free of consequences”? What an odd notion of free will you have.
posted on 03.21.2006 11:56 AM18
I pray for the safety of my brother-in-Christ in Afghanistan. However, belief in Christ is not a survival plan, at least, in any temporal meaning.
Our first and foremost reason for taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq was to defend the U.S. The Taliban had to be destroyed to stop the continual aid to, and protection of, Al Quaeda. Period. They are an enemy who assisted in attacking us. There is no distinction between the Taliban and Al Quaeda. The only difference is that the Taliban was able to take control of Afghanistan, while they planned to take control of other nations. Their goal, both the Talibana and Al Quaeda, is to re-establish the Caliphate and return Islam to it's former glory. We struck back to prevent a repeat of their attacks on the US.
We will likely see similar things happen in Iraq. It doesn't matter. We still have to defend ourselves.
I know that the following statement will produce much foaming at the mouth, but it really doesn't matter. The existing intelligence at the time pointed to Saddam as terrorist threat. Liberal Saint Bill the Clinton said the same thing. Even Hans Blix believed that Saddam had WMDs, which is why he was still trying to conduct weapons inspection in Iraq.
OBTW, the recently released Iraqi documents appear to confirm what we suspected at the time: Saddam was aiding the enemy of his enemy, Al Quaeda.
Again, first goal: protection. Second goal: nation building to create a nation that doesn't want to destroy us. Anything else is a bonus.
(I also am aware that Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he did not agree with using the military for nation building. He learned that he didn't have any choice. The alternative is annihilation of our enemies. We just don't do that anymore.)
Initially, democracy will not prevent Islamic customs from continuing. Religious freedom will not exist in these areas for a long time. Sure, it would be good if we could prevent the execution of a Christian. But his execution does not mean that the US was unsuccessful in achieving goals 1 and 2. Other things make make us unsuccessful, like the democrats demand to withdraw from the battle, but the execution is not an American failure.
Our third goal may be to influence these societies toward real freedom. But achieving #1 and 2 is still the most important in the short term.
posted on 03.21.2006 12:07 PM19
Joe,
Imagine a girl that you love putting a gun to your head and asking you if you love her. She says she wants you to be honest, but that if you don't love her, she will kill you.
This is what the Christian God offers to humans. Love me back or go to hell. It's your choice. What kind of choice is that?
Those of us who reject God don't do so because we want to go to hell, but because we don't believe he exists.
A God with any brains or compassion wouldn't send anyone to hell because they don't believe in him.
The difference between humanism and Christianity boils down to this:
Humanists, deep down, believe that everyone deserves to be happy.
Christians, deep down, believe that everyone deserves to go to hell.
posted on 03.21.2006 12:09 PM20
ucfengr:
If that's your position, we better finish the job and make sure that it will be generations before they could even begin to threaten us.
I would say they already can't threaten us in any significant way today.
In the case of Iraq, we should have confiscated their oil as war reparations, and completely destroyed any industrial or transportation infrastructure. One of the main reasons we had a Second World War is because we didn't finish the job in the First One, as Pershing wanted to. We needed to defeat their armies, not just allow them to retreat to their pre-war borders. We needed to occupy Berlin and the Ruhr and put the Kaiser on trial for war crimes, not just allow him to abdicate and impose war reparations. Just lopping the top off the power structure is not enough.
So we have to change their view of the world, correct? How can we do that? Well, based on your analogy, we have to basically bomb them back to the stone age. That is really what we did with Japan and Germany. We bombed them, inflicting tens of thousands of casualties at a time. Are you willing to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only that, are you willing to dictate to them what their religion can and cannot do? Are you willing to tell them that Islam can play no part in the way they govern? Won't that make the moderates turn against us?
Germany's return to power could have been easily squashed at any point in the early and mid-30's. A lack of backbone led to the return of German power. Japan is a completely different set of circumstances but again, most nations preferred not to face the situation.
It is interesting that many people are surprised that majority Islamic countries want to base their laws on Islamic law. We gave the people of Afghanistan and Iraq a choice and this is what they picked. Ucfengr is on the verge of claiming that we need to inflict massive death and destruction, beyond our own self protection, to psychologically shock them into changing their culture to meet our values (freedom of religion, women's rights, etc.). In a sense, he wants them to become secularists or something else through force. I don't wish that fate on anyone unless they represent a dire threat to our country.
I will offer the opinion that if we act firmly to protect our interests while allowing them to operate freely in their own sphere, we will have a lot less destruction and bloodshed. An isolated Islam will either continue to remain backwards (not a serious threat if isolated, mass immigration to the West makes this a problem), reform (not a threat), or collapse and the population convert to another belief system (not a threat).
posted on 03.21.2006 12:23 PM21
Humanists, deep down, believe that everyone deserves to be happy.
Oh come on, you know you don't believe that. Do you really think Bush deserves to be happy? Cheney? Ken Lay? Karl Rove?
Christians, deep down, believe that everyone deserves to go to hell.
What do you mean deep down? Dude, that's basic Christian thelogy, it's right there on the surface. Read Romans 3:10. The whole basis of Christ's sacrifice is that none could be saved with out it. Silly statements like this would probably explain why you are an ex-preacher.
posted on 03.21.2006 12:24 PM22
Ex-preacher,
Yes, Humanists, deep down, believe that all humans deserve to be happy. But the problem is that humanist must then define the best idea of what is “human” and what is “happy” and then, well, take the most direct possible steps to get there. This is pretty much what Adolf Hitler did.
Yes, Christians, deep down, know that everyone deserves to go to hell. But the “rest of the story” is that they also know a Creator who loves us anyway, enough to enter humanity and buy it back, at a terrible price. Without Jesus it would indeed be a downer of a message. Maybe Jesus is what you’re missing?
posted on 03.21.2006 12:30 PM23
Hitler was a lot of things, but he wasn't a humanist.
Yes, I know about Jesus. I know that he was the one to introduce the notion of hell into Christianity. Especially the Jesus in Matthew (although he seemed to think the people going to hell were those who didn't help those in need). The Jesus in John seemed to have forgotten about hell. Also, Paul didn't know about it.
Does it trouble you at all to think that the Jews who perished in Hitler's ovens got a straight ticket to God's eternal ovens?
posted on 03.21.2006 12:41 PM24
I would say they already can't threaten us in any significant way today.
I would agree, but neither was Germany a threat in 1921.
Ucfengr is on the verge of claiming that we need to inflict massive death and destruction, beyond our own self protection, to psychologically shock them into changing their culture to meet our values (freedom of religion, women's rights, etc.).
I'm not on the verge at all. I am of the Sherman mindset, "War is cruelty, you can't refine it." I am coming to the opinion that if you want to change a country's culture, you have to utterly destroy it's predessesor, like we did in Germany and Japan. If your goal is merely to remove them as a threat, then you better do the job right and make sure that generations will pass before they could ever threaten anyone again.
posted on 03.21.2006 12:42 PM25
ucfengr
I am of the Sherman mindset, "War is cruelty, you can't refine it." I am coming to the opinion that if you want to change a country's culture, you have to utterly destroy it's predessesor, like we did in Germany and Japan.
So we should now incinerate Iraqi cities in order to bring demoncracy to that country? Nothing like a good firestorm to bring out the best in people.
posted on 03.21.2006 1:08 PM26
Ex-preacher > Hitler was a lot of things, but he wasn't a humanist.
Nor a Scotsman, I suppose.
Ex-preacher > Yes, I know about Jesus.
Why do I find myself doubting this? Perhaps because you decided to miscast Christianity by bringing up hell without mentioning the redemption offered in Christ.
Ex-preacher > I know that he was the one to introduce the notion of hell into Christianity. Especially the Jesus in Matthew (although he seemed to think the people going to hell were those who didn't help those in need).The Jesus in John seemed to have forgotten about hell. Also, Paul didn't know about it.
John’s Jesus and Paul’s preaching sure had a lot to say about the righteous judgment. I guess they figured that we would have judgment day, and then … cotton candy for everyone!
Ex-preacher > Does it trouble you at all to think that the Jews who perished in Hitler's ovens got a straight ticket to God's eternal ovens?
Where eternal justice is concerned, I lack understanding and perspective. So in God’s justice I can have no reason to doubt. What troubles me, and what should certainly trouble any apologist for humanism, is the regularity with which humans are willing to practice such evil upon one another. My faith is in an eternal God who keeps his promises. But the humanist’s faith is that man will somehow improve his moral station even though countless ages have proven this optimism, well, misguided at best.
posted on 03.21.2006 1:11 PM27
So we should now incinerate Iraqi cities in order to bring demoncracy to that country?
I never said we should, only that total destruction may be what it takes, ultimately to radically change a nation's culture. We did that in Germany and Japan and within a generation, they were prosperous, democratic nations. Perhaps in a generation, Afghanistan and Iraq might be at similar points, but it is not looking promising. Maybe the Germany/Japan/American South model is the only one that works in bringing about democracy to undemocratic regimes. When fighting a war, we know the Sherman model works, we have yet to see if the Bush model will.
posted on 03.21.2006 1:26 PM28
"Yes, Christians, deep down, know that everyone deserves to go to hell."
Yes, Kaffinator, and that is one of the scary things about Christians.
"But the “rest of the story” is that they also know a Creator who loves us anyway, enough to enter humanity and buy it back, at a terrible price."
Let's see: beaten, crucified, dead for three days, then eternal paradise. Nowhere near the price you think I'll pay for not believing as you do.
"Without Jesus it would indeed be a downer of a message."
It is still a downer of a message. There can be no heaven if there is a hell.
posted on 03.21.2006 2:00 PM29
I would agree, but neither was Germany a threat in 1921.
So, you have to have some basis for claiming they are a future threat. Just because you and I may not like their culture does not make them a future threat.
If your goal is merely to remove them as a threat, then you better do the job right and make sure that generations will pass before they could ever threaten anyone again.
In this case, the only way to do that is to remove the jihad ideology from Islam. If we try to do that, we are going to face a lot of angry muslims.
I never said we should, only that total destruction may be what it takes, ultimately to radically change a nation's culture.
What part of the culture are we trying to change? Does a culture which kills apostates and homosexuals necessarily pose a threat to our country and interests? Or is our goal simply to insure that the countries in question do not pose a threat to us and we'll let them work out how they want to live?
When fighting a war, we know the Sherman model works, we have yet to see if the Bush model will.
Bush's model is doomed. But, I think a model of containment (ala the Cold War) is also viable and proven to be effective. And I believe that Islam will collapse if forced to manage on its own without the support of the rest of the world. Sherman's model might cause a population to renounce conflict for some generations, but it doesn't change attitudes.
posted on 03.21.2006 2:00 PM30
Ex:
"Yes, I know about Jesus. I know that he was the one to introduce the notion of hell into Christianity. Especially the Jesus in Matthew (although he seemed to think the people going to hell were those who didn't help those in need). The Jesus in John seemed to have forgotten about hell. Also, Paul didn't know about it."
In the OT "hell" is mentioned over thirty times. It was NOT a concept that Jesus introduced. John did NOT forget about hell. He wrote of it four times in Revelation.
31
Terence,
The word translated "hell" in the Old Testament in the King James is usually Sheol. A better translation for Sheol is grave, the word used by newer and more accurate English translations (also see Strong's Lexicon). The idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is almost entirely absent from the OT. In addition, the concept of heaven can hardly be found. The ideas of hell, heaven, and Satan were picked by Jews in Persia from Zoroastrianism. (This is why Satan is only mentioned in three places in the OT, all post-exilic in compilation.) They then became popular among some Jewish sects (such as the Pharisees) and were thence picked up by first century Christians.
Yes, I know that hell appears in Revelation. What I said was that it doesn't appear on the lips of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
posted on 03.21.2006 3:07 PM32
Actually, they were in a Jewish land, ruled by the Romans. Anyways, there are more discussions in the Bible than just the verse you mention about the roles and responsibilities of the two spheres.
Yea but the 'render unto Ceasar' was the first line choosen to defend the view that Church State Sep. is Bibically based. If the other discussions are weaker or equal to than that I don't think you have an impressive case. Someone reading the Bible without the benefit of knowing about modern, Enlightenment and beyond political theory could probably not catch Church State Sep. as obvious at all.
A nice strawman here. You tied the statement made by Thorsby to one verse and then declare it's a stretch for his general statment. His point is that Islam does not have any religious justification for separating government and religious spheres of influence. Christianity on the other hand does have a Biblical and historical basis for that model. That doesn't mean you end up with a modern democracy, but it does allow the possibility. Islam does not allow that in any religious or historical context.
Actually Islam has a lot about how to live in a non-Islamic state. Mostly what you'd expect a religion to say. Don't cause trouble but don't be pushed to do things against your religion. Religions have historically been quite creative in reading practical necessity into their core texts.
Many muslims will tell you that Islamic law is fundamental to human rights. Anything that contradicts it is oppressive.
Turkey is an example of a country that is democratic but remains respectful of its Islamic heritage. Regardless, most Muslims have lived under dictatorships that oppress their fundamental human rights. Whether or not they get their reading of Islamic law written into the Constitution they cannot argue it wouldn't be an improvement.
Which is why I have a problem with the whole "democracy project." I prefer we defend ourselves and let them live how they want. Both invasions were justified, beyond that, we should have just left.
No one expected Afghanistan to be transformed into a second US, fit for MTV to host a season of 'The Real World' in and for the next 'Girls Gone Wild' video to be shot. It's a primitive country whose people still live more in small tribes. They are much less modern than Iraq or other major Arab countries. No one should have expected a modern nation to emerge from this unless they were willing to embrace the idea of nation building or the name it went by before which was colonialism.
posted on 03.21.2006 3:49 PM33
We were able to bring democracy to Japan and Germany only after completely destroying their respective countries and to a large extent their cultures. We literally (as opposed to figuratively) brought democracy out of the rubble of those two countries. That is not the case in Afghanistan or Iraq; both suffered relatively lightly. Maybe it is impossible to impose something new on a country unless you totally destroy what you are trying to replace.
We did not destroy German and Japanese culture during WWII. They did however each face a large shock, the Atom Bomb, and the concentration camps. It is also a somewhat apples and oranges comparison. Germany and Japan each had prior experience with a democratic form of government, even if it was controlled by fascists.
The US goal in Afghanistan really seems to be to get in and get out as fast as possible. But it also seems to me that we are just creating the environment for another Taliban-like situation to occur there. It didn't take Afghan military might to strike at us on our own soil, it was a low-tech, low-manpower approach. Terrorist training camps are easy to reconstitute. By ignoring Afghanistan, we are guaranteeing that we will have to be back again someday.
posted on 03.21.2006 3:53 PM34
We did that in Germany and Japan and within a generation, they were prosperous, democratic nations. Perhaps in a generation, Afghanistan and Iraq might be at similar points, but it is not looking promising. Maybe the Germany/Japan/American South model is the only one that works in bringing about democracy to undemocratic regimes. When fighting a war, we know the Sherman model works, we have yet to see if the Bush model will.
The South was fully integrated into the US economy so its post-Civil War prosperity should not be so shocking and should not be credited to Sherman's march. Even so, the South trailed the North both economically and socially until this day.
You also neglect to note that the Cold War gave post-war Germany and Japan strategic significance. As a result they enjoyed both indirect and direct aid for decades. For examples, both countries could spend the entire Cold War with the US covering 90% of their defense needs leaving them free to build their economies.
posted on 03.21.2006 4:14 PM35
I said, "Yes, Christians, deep down, know that everyone deserves to go to hell."
Rob > Yes, Kaffinator, and that is one of the scary things about Christians.
Why is this something that is scary about Christians? We probably wouldn’t even believe in hell if Jesus hadn’t preached about it. What you mean to say, is it is one of the scary things about Jesus Christ. If he was lying, misled, or insane you basically have nothing to fear, and Christians like me are just fools. The alternative is that he actually knew what was talking about and you should be scared. But don’t fear Christians. Fear God.
Rob > Let's see: beaten, crucified, dead for three days, then eternal paradise. Nowhere near the price you think I'll pay for not believing as you do.
Is this idea sooo poorly preached? It not really lack of belief that condemns us. It is our sin, our basic disobedience to God, that causes the problem. It is belief in Christ that “saves” us from the ultimate consequences of that sin. If you want the abundant life that Jesus offers, just turn away from that sin and turn toward Him. But if you choose not to believe Him, then you can have no complaint because you probably don’t believe in hell either.
In other words, you want to think the message of Christianity is unjust because of one piece of its doctrine, jilted out of all surrounding context, and subjected to a faulty analysis. What did you expect?
Rob > There can be no heaven if there is a hell.
Oh, is that so? How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
36
ex-preacher wrote:
Imagine a girl that you love putting a gun to your head and asking you if you love her. She says she wants you to be honest, but that if you don't love her, she will kill you.
Hardly an apt analogy, since you're going to die, one way or another.
This is what the Christian God offers to humans. Love me back or go to hell. It's your choice. What kind of choice is that?
It's a perfectly reasonable choice. Do you honestly think that you would be happy in heaven? In fact, you're going to be miserable regardless of where you end up. God will not allow you to pollute heaven with your misery. (That's one reason why hell is likened to Gehenna -- it's a cosmic garbage heap).
Those of us who reject God don't do so because we want to go to hell, but because we don't believe he exists.
If you really believed this, you would ignore us Christians instead of trying to find fault with our doctrine. In any case, unbelief has no place in heaven, so you're simply making the bed you'll have to lie in. You can stop blaming God now for the result of your decisions. But if that were to happen, you'd be halfway to being a Christian. Hell will be full of people who continue to blame God for all eternity. By definition, that's irrational and idiotic.
A God with any brains or compassion wouldn't send anyone to hell because they don't believe in him.
You aren't suitable for heaven in your current condition. So what do you want Him to do?
The difference between humanism and Christianity boils down to this:
Humanists, deep down, believe that everyone deserves to be happy.
Christians, deep down, believe that everyone deserves to go to hell.
What an utter crock. Christians want everyone to be happy, but realize that happiness is to be found only on God's terms, not man's.
C. S. Lewis once observed that there are only two kinds of people. Those who, in the end, say "Thy will be done" and those who say "my will be done." Since you're in the latter camp, you'll never find true happiness, since you are ill-suited for heaven and will never be happy there.
posted on 03.21.2006 5:25 PM37
On the one hand, Justice Ginsberg is faulted for saying that the US should look to other countries for our laws. On the other hand, Afghanistan is encouraged to meet "international standards".
Do I detect a double standard here?
posted on 03.21.2006 5:28 PM38
ex-preacher wrote: I know that he [Jesus] was the one to introduce the notion of hell into Christianity.
Utter nonsense:
posted on 03.21.2006 5:32 PM
And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. [Isa 66:24]
39
EX:
"The idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is almost entirely absent from the OT. "
The very first mention of hell in the OT is pre-exilic. "". . . and shall burn in the lowest hell . . ." (Deut 32:22) In some cases it refers only to the grave in other cases it clearly is a place of punishment.
"In addition, the concept of heaven can hardly be found.
The ideas of hell, heaven, and Satan were picked by Jews in Persia from Zoroastrianism."
Heaven a Persian invention? Persia reached its peak at around 500 BC. Heaven is mentioned over 200 times in the OT most of the time before Persia existed. The 70 year Jewish captivity to Babylon was around 597 BC. Isaiah alone, who prophecied of the Jewish capitivity, wrote of heaven a dozen times and that was at least 200 yeaars before the peak of the Persian empire.
" (This is why Satan is only mentioned in three places in the OT, all post-exilic in compilation.)"
Satan is mentioned eighteen times in the OT. In all but two of the cases it was pre-exilic.
"They then became popular among some Jewish sects (such as the Pharisees) and were thence picked up by first century Christians."
Hell 30 times in OT.
Heaven 200 times in OT.
Satan 18 times in OT.
40
Boonton:
Someone reading the Bible without the benefit of knowing about modern, Enlightenment and beyond political theory could probably not catch Church State Sep. as obvious at all.
You might want to tell that to St. Augustine who wrote "The City of God" in the early 5th century. He discussed the separate roles of spiritual and secular authority.
Actually Islam has a lot about how to live in a non-Islamic state. Mostly what you'd expect a religion to say. Don't cause trouble but don't be pushed to do things against your religion. Religions have historically been quite creative in reading practical necessity into their core texts.
We've been through this before and Islam is told to act one way when weak and another way when powerful. Also, we aren't discussing muslims in non-muslim countries. We're discussing whether Islam can, when in power, allow a separation of earthly gov't and religious authority. The answer is no since Mohammed himself represented absolute authority over both spheres.
Turkey is an example of a country that is democratic but remains respectful of its Islamic heritage...
You're joking right? Turkey monitors mosques and the gov't controls what imams can and can't say. Turkey walks a fine line and the military, which was designed by Ataturk as a highly secular institution, is the only safeguard from Turkey becoming an Islamic state.
No one should have expected a modern nation to emerge from this unless they were willing to embrace the idea of nation building or the name it went by before which was colonialism.
I think a lot of people did expect it to happen. I prefer to remove those who would do us harm, put in those who will at least "play nice" and let them sort out the rest.
posted on 03.21.2006 6:16 PM41
TM: "The very first mention of hell in the OT is pre-exilic. "". . . and shall burn in the lowest hell . . ." (Deut 32:22) In some cases it refers only to the grave in other cases it clearly is a place of punishment."
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Deuteronomy is post-exilic. Furthermore, the reference you give is best translated grave or transliterated Sheol.
TM: "Heaven a Persian invention? Persia reached its peak at around 500 BC. Heaven is mentioned over 200 times in the OT most of the time before Persia existed."
Are you under the impression that everything that appears in your Bible prior to the telling of the Babylonian Captivity was written prior to the exile? If you check out those passages I think you'll find that nearly all of them are speaking of the skies when they use the word "heaven."
TM: "Satan is mentioned eighteen times in the OT. In all but two of the cases it was pre-exilic."
The three places I'm speaking of are 1 Chronicles 24, Job 1-2, and Zechariah, all of which are post-exilic in composition. How many times are you counting the references in Job 1-2?
posted on 03.21.2006 7:09 PM42
It's not clear that a death sentence for conversion implies a failure of separation of church and state. That would only be the case if they did not accord the same willingness to carry out cannonical laws of other religions for infractions by those other religion's members.
43
"Why is this something that is scary about Christians?"
Because Christians believe it. People who can seriously argue that eternal torture is just under any circumstances are scary.
"It not really lack of belief that condemns us. It is our sin, our basic disobedience to God, that causes the problem."
It is human nature to do what Christians refer to as "sin". There are no exceptions. I didn't create my nature, I am merely a manifestation of it. If I am a defective product, blame the manufacturer. God might as well walk down the street shouting "I am God! Look not upon me!" and shoot everyone who quite naturally looks.
"Oh, is that so? How exactly did you come to that conclusion?"
Very few people I know could be happy in paradise when their friends were enduring eternal torment. I wouldn't wish that upon Hitler. I am more merciful than your god.
Kaffinator, how can you believe that eternal torment could ever be just? Wouldn't any god worthy of the title be above that sort of thing? I've read many defenses of the hell doctrine, most notably Edwards's "Justice in the Damnation of Sinners", but none have been satisfying in the least. They all resort to logical contortionism to present the infinitely unjust as infinitely just. Perhaps you can recommend someone who does a better job.
44
EX:
"I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Deuteronomy is post-exilic. Furthermore, the reference you give is best translated grave or transliterated Sheol."
The entry into Egypt has traditionally been called the "Sojourn.
The departure from Egypt -- the "Exodus." The Babylonian captivity -- the "Exile" or the "Captivity." The dispersion of the Jews in 70 A.D. -- the "Diaspora." A random search of "first Jewish exile" should annul any notion that the "Jewish exile" was post Deuteronomy, which is one of the earliest books of the Bible. Futhermore, if words have meaning, the passage that I quoted ". . . and shall burn in the lowest hell . . ." (Deut 32:22) refers to more than just "the grave." I can provide other examples, if you wish.
"Are you under the impression that everything that appears in your Bible prior to the telling of the Babylonian Captivity was written prior to the exile?"
Yes.
"If you check out those passages I think you'll find that nearly all of them are speaking of the skies when they use the word "heaven."
In the Bible the skies usually refer to the "heavens," of which there are 150 more references. The Bible distinguishes between the two in this way. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's. (Psalm 115:16) A great number of the "heaven" references refer the place where God dwells. Check it out.
"The three places I'm speaking of are 1 Chronicles 24, Job 1-2, and Zechariah, all of which are post-exilic in composition."
Job is considered the oldest book in the Bible and could hardly be considered "post exilic" by any stretch of the imagination. Chronicals is pre-exile and Zechariah, I believe, was between the 1st and second Jewish exile.
"How many times are you counting the references in Job 1-2?"
Almost five times as many times as you have said that satan is mentioned in the entire Old Testiment.
45
Deuteronomy and Job are generally dated in the 6th century BC.
Yes, the OT talks about God living in heaven. But the idea is of a god who lives high up in the sky. Heaven there is not a reference to a place where the saints live forever in bliss after their lives on earth are done.
When I said that Satan is mentioned in three places, I was referring to the three passages: 1 Chronicles 24, Job 1-2, and Zechariah 14. If you want to count "Satan" 13 times in Job 1-2, okay. How many passages besides those three post-exilic ones can you find?
posted on 03.21.2006 9:33 PM46
Ex:
"Yes, the OT talks about God living in heaven. But the idea is of a god who lives high up in the sky. Heaven there is not a reference to a place where the saints live forever in bliss after their lives on earth are done."
Job said, to paraphrase, "I know that my flesh shall see Him."
David said, referring to his deceased son, " He can not come to me, but I can go to him."
Yes, there was knowledge of an after life in heaven, but it was not until the advent of Christ that the specifics of heaven were revealed.
"When I said that Satan is mentioned in three places, I was referring to the three passages: 1 Chronicles 24, Job 1-2, and Zechariah 14. If you want to count "Satan" 13 times in Job 1-2, okay. How many passages besides those three post-exilic ones can you find?"
There is also Psalms 109, but all this is off point. That you would continue to refer to the above examples as "post-exilic" leads me to wonder if we are spinning our wheels. Please clarify.
47
Joe Carter,
I've been working all afternoon and into the evening, so I was surprised to check in a little while ago and find out how the conversation got side-tracked onto heaven and hell and such.
When I read your response to my question about hell putting a damper on free will, a little light bulb went off in my head. I felt as if I finally understood why you insist on insisting that God sends non-Christians to hell.
You didn't actually say anything today that you haven't told me several times already. But your repeating it in the context of today's discussion allowed me to connect a few dots that weren't strongly connected before.
Allow me to explain.
You make an analogy with someone who loses his true love forever because he was too self-involved to make a timely commitment to her. You explain that you view God as punishing non-Christians in a similar way: believe in My son Jesus before you die or you will regret it forever (and possibly suffer great physical torment as well).
As I said, this is nothing new, you've explained this to me several times over the past year or so.
What clicked for me tonight, though, is how thoroughly fragile your theology is, how tenuously it holds together.
You have a need to fervently hold on to the belief that a God who is willing to severely punish a normal person for all eternity is also a God who respects our free will. If this little stone in the arch were to fall out, then the whole arch-itecture of your God-understanding would noisily collapse onto the floor of the archway, a pile of forlorn bricks that once was a skillfully crafted self-supporting semi-circle over your head.
The reason you get this nasty little snark in some of your posts is because you resent it when people like myself, but even worse, when so-called Christians don't seem to understand that we deserve to be condemned forever, and that by refusing to acknowledge this simple, obvious fact, we are committing the worst possible act of ingratitude imaginable.
By asserting/believing that I don't deserve to be miserable forever (or tormented physically forever, too), I am being ungrateful!
Joe, take a deep breath. Hold it, release. Repeat.
Now, Joe, you are not an evil person. Got it?
Even if you've done things which you are ashamed of, even if you hate yourself for one or two or three reasons, you are still not an evil person.
Saddam Hussein was an evil person. His son Uday was an evil person. And there may be thousands of other people around the globe who fall into that category as well.
But you are not an evil person.
I am not an evil person. In fact, I feel much more confident in asserting my non-evilness than I do in asserting yours, just because I am intimately familiar with myself and with all my failings.
So are you still with me: you are not an evil person, and I am not an evil person. Have faith in me, Joe, it's true.
I could continue. In fact I will.
You mom is not (was not?) an evil person. My mom is not an evil person. My wife and her mom are not evil people. My six-year-old boy is not an evil person.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm wrong.
Let's say, for example, that you, Joe Carter, are indeed an evil person. A really bad, evil person.
Joe, even if you are an evil person, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY. Even if you don't acknowledge Jesus as your personal Savior, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY.
Now I know you disagree with me on this. And that's O.K. We all have free will after all, and freedom of conscience.
But if you really believe that you and I, and your mom and my mom, and my wife and my mom-in-law and my son all deserve to be punished for all eternity -- if you really believe that -- then you know what, Joe?
You may in fact be "missing out on the highest in human fulfillment and happiness".
I know it sounds kind of crazy, but I do think it's a possiblity. Something to think about a little, at least.
posted on 03.21.2006 11:42 PM48
Good morning everybody,
I've dedicated my latest post on my own blog to Joe Carter:
"The Bronx Blogger Talks About Religion"
Enjoy,
Matthew
49
Matthew: most evil people don't know that they are evil, and may never recognize the extent of the depravity in their heart. Do you really believe that Hitler, Milosevic, Pol Pot walk around boasting in their evil like the villain off the Care Bears? No. Even if that is so, you have no authority by which to say that you aren't really so bad, because evil people regularly hide behind their rationalizations and good intentions.
Frankly, it is not up to you to decide because that assumes you are the lord of your own destiny. You are placing yourself in the position of judge, jury, and sentencer - a position that belongs to God alone or at least to somebody who is in a higher authority than yourself. As such, you are rejecting him, because you stubbornly insist that you are wiser than He is and know better and more than Him. That - to me - is one of the most wicked attitudes a person can have, even if you don't see that (yet?). You choose your own will - we choose God's. The very essence of evil is to choose to live for oneself and one's own wisdom.
"Every man proclaims each his own kindness, but who can find a trustworthy man?"
You provided nothing logically compelling to back yourself up except for human authority. If there is no higher authority than human authority, we are left with relativism and potential tyranny of the state. There's no way you can adequately determine what is or is not 'evil' (much less whether somebody deserves 'hell') on this basis except through your own feelings, but we all know that human feeling is notoriously unreliable and subjective.
You are saying nothing new. Most secular non-Christians believe as you do on whether they 'deserve' hell. I've heard it many times, and I've said it to myself before coming to Messiah. Repeating it to yourself or Joe over and over again and putting it in big bold letters may be intellectually intimidating to some, but not to me. I understand that you are probably sincere in your convictions and that you feel you have 'good intentions', but I choose not to submit myself to your moral presumptions. You don't have that kind of authority and my faith is not in any human being, esp. somebody I don't know on the internet, and JC shouldn't have that kind of faith in you, either.
I really don't get the flak, though. If you choose to disbelieve in Him, then you won't belive he will place you in hell, anyways - so the coercion aspect of the whole thing is rendered ineffectual (even if you could plausibly argue that).
posted on 03.22.2006 9:19 AM50
We were able to bring democracy to Japan and Germany only after completely destroying their respective countries and to a large extent their cultures
Culturally Japan is much stranger than any Muslim country is to us. Islam is a monotheistic religion which shares much of the same fundamental characteristics of the other two monotheisms. They believe in a single God who revealed himself to Abraham. The Ten Commandments, that humans are distinctly different and inferior to God (no 'joining with God' or 'becoming God' thru enlightened meditation etc.).
To the extent that Japan had a religion it was that they were literally descended from the Sun & all other humans were little more than animals who had learned to talk. Nationalists played upon this sense of superiority to push for the horrible atrocities they committed in their quest for domination at the beginning of WWII. They also introduced the idea of the suicide bomber in modern warfare (although Nazi Germany also did the same thing but on a much more limited scale).
It's stunning evidence of how plastic human ideology and religion can be to note that today Japan is considered an exceptionally peaceful nation that wouldn't harm a fly. This was not accomplished by 'destroying their culture'. You'll recall their Emperor was allowed to remain on the throne (which upset more than a few Americans) and while today there are more Christian Japanese than there were at the end of WWII there was no effort to force them to give up their religious beliefs.
On Hell:
It's a perfectly reasonable choice. Do you honestly think that you would be happy in heaven? In fact, you're going to be miserable regardless of where you end up. God will not allow you to pollute heaven with your misery. (That's one reason why hell is likened to Gehenna -- it's a cosmic garbage heap).
I think ex would be quite happy in heaven. The difficulty with this matter of faith is that it seems like you're being punished for making an essentially uninformed choice. To use the girl analogy, it's like the girl is 99% hidden and you must choose now. If you choose wrong you'll be unhappy because you missed out on what could have been really good. But this seems less like an informed choice than some type of gameshow (You can keep your $5,000 or take what's behind curtin #3!).
Some Eastern religions though clarify this idea in making less a game show type of choice but more of a process. You have to work your way into heaven to really enjoy it...sort of like how someone who never learns to read is not going to enjoy going to the best college around so he will be unhappy while someone who works hard to make the most of it will find it incredibly rewarding.
51
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the honest response.
Kaff >> "Why is this something that is scary about Christians?"
Rob > Because Christians believe it. People who can seriously argue that eternal torture is just under any circumstances are scary.
Remember, it's Jesus teaching this, not us. You are saying Jesus is scary. How do you suppose people worldwide have been bamboozled into thinking that Jesus was morally pure when he had what you see as this glaring moral contradiction sticking out?
Kaff >> "It not really lack of belief that condemns us. It is our sin, our basic disobedience to God, that causes the problem."
Rob > It is human nature to do what Christians refer to as "sin". There are no exceptions. I didn't create my nature, I am merely a manifestation of it. If I am a defective product, blame the manufacturer. God might as well walk down the street shouting "I am God! Look not upon me!" and shoot everyone who quite naturally looks.
Yes, we are each manifestations of our inherent sin nature. God is Just and intends to do something about it. Do you really seek to worship a god who overlooks injustice?
Rob > Very few people I know could be happy in paradise when their friends were enduring eternal torment. I wouldn't wish that upon Hitler. I am more merciful than your god.
This "god" you speak of. If he is subject to a higher law which requires him to be merciful according to your parameters, he's not really "God", is he? But if He is God, and thus the author of the very notions of mercy and justice themselves; who are you to tell Him what is merciful or what is just?
Rob > Kaffinator, how can you believe that eternal torment could ever be just? Wouldn't any god worthy of the title be above that sort of thing? I've read many defenses of the hell doctrine, most notably Edwards's "Justice in the Damnation of Sinners", but none have been satisfying in the least. They all resort to logical contortionism to present the infinitely unjust as infinitely just. Perhaps you can recommend someone who does a better job.
I wish I could. I will be bluntly honest with you Rob, the doctrine of Hell is difficult to accept. Anyone who says differently is probably trying to sell you something.
I think many of our problems with this doctrine stem from a very human sense of entitlement. We like to think that God owes us something, that we deserve something because we aren't all that bad and if we were it's God's fault anyway. But if God is all-holy, all-powerful, and all-sufficient (and if he weren't he wouldn't be God) then none of those propositions can be true.
52
Crystal Lake,
Repeating it to yourself or Joe over and over again and putting it ["you don't deserve hell"] in big bold letters may be intellectually intimidating to some, but not to me.
I find it deeply, deeply ironic that you think,
"YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY"
is an attempt to be intellectually intimidating.
I'm not saying, "Agree with me or you will be punished!"
I'm not saying, "Agree with me or I'll assault you and make fun of you."
All I'm saying is, "You don't deserve to be punished for all eternity."
That's it, nothing else. You don't deserve to be punished for all eternity. Take it or leave it, your choice, my friend.
The reason I put it in bold caps (twice) is because I believe it needed to be strongly emphasized. If you find that intellectually intimidating, then I'm sorry. I think that the bold caps are very appropriate in the context of my comment.
Frankly, it is not up to you to decide because that assumes you are the lord of your own destiny. You are placing yourself in the position of judge, jury, and sentencer - a position that belongs to God alone or at least to somebody who is in a higher authority than yourself. As such, you are rejecting him, because you stubbornly insist that you are wiser than He is and know better and more than Him. That - to me - is one of the most wicked attitudes a person can have, even if you don't see that (yet?). You choose your own will - we choose God's. The very essence of evil is to choose to live for oneself and one's own wisdom.
I disagree.
If we have free will (and Joe insists that we do), then we are forced into the position of being our own authority. We simply have no choice at all in the matter.
Of course, we can choose to let the Bible or some preacher serve as our religious and moral authority. But the catch is, if we have free will, the only way the Bible can be our authority is if we choose to make it so! With free will, there is no escaping the lonely responsibility of choosing our moral bearings and our religious identity.
I really don't get the flak, though. If you choose to disbelieve in Him, then you won't belive he will place you in hell, anyways - so the coercion aspect of the whole thing is rendered ineffectual (even if you could plausibly argue that).
You see, Crystal Lake, that's precisely the little light bulb that went off over my head last night.
I was talking about Hamid Karzai and Afghanistan and Abdul Rahman (the man who committed the captial offense of converting to Christianity) on this comment thread yesterday morning. When I saw AndyS respond to Inquiring Minds about how the Christian God doesn't necessarily respect our free will, I dropped a brief comment in support of AndyS' point.
When I came back from work about ten hours later, I was a little shocked to see how the thread had jumped in that direction. I was particularly surprised to see Joe Carter respond to my comment, since it wasn't even addressed to him. I was just challenging Inquiring Minds because he seemed to be making a false distinction between Islam and Christianity.
So when I read Joe's comment -- Ding! -- a little bulb flashed on and I realized that Joe's Calvinistic cosmology hinged on the paradox of an all-powerful God threatening us will eternal torment in spite of the fact that one of Joe's moral/philosophical axioms is that we all have free will!
To Joe this is a beautiful and glorious paradox, to me it's a pile of hooey. But I realized that Joe's paradox is really the keystone in his theological/philosophical/moral arch. He uses it like a shield (just like you seem to be doing): "Hey there you not-sufficiently-Calvinistic-Christians and all you other un-believers: you can't tell me what God does or doesn't do, because if you disagree with me you're going to hell, and if you don't believe in hell, then what the hell are you doing talking to me about it (and that goes double for you all atheists)!"
In other words, believe in hell AND free will, or you will be freely choosing hell. And whatever you do, don't tell me God doesn't exist, because by telling me that, you're actually admitting that God and hell really do exist and that you (in your smarty-pants evil kind of way) are currently headed straight there.
It all makes perfect sense now, so to speak.
posted on 03.22.2006 12:07 PM53
Yada, yada, yada. Of course some of you guys don't believe in hell, some of the vilest criminals don't believe that they deserve prison, either. The fact is, apart from salvation through Jesus Christ, you are going there. Just like the child molester has to put his name on the internet to announce his crime.
Now, can we get back to the discussion of Afghani law?
posted on 03.22.2006 12:08 PM54
Boonton and Ucfengr,
You are both right.
We didn't reduce Iraq and Afghanistan to a dire state of unconditional surrender, so we don't have that powerful cultural lever at our disposal.
And we didn't actually destroy the culture of Imperial Japan -- we took its bombed out husk and used it as a prop to make MacArthur's new constitution palatable to the Japanese.
What's going on in Iraq (I'm not so sure what's going on in Afghanistan) is that President Bush is trying to thread the needle between using too much force and too little force. So far he's been doing a tremendous job, and I'm optimistic that our alliance with the lovers of freedom in Iraq will eventually pay off handsomely.
posted on 03.22.2006 12:16 PM55
Brad Williams,
Let me toss Crystal Lake's question back at you:
Why all the flak?
If you want to talk about Afghani law, then why don't you?
Why is your comment about "salvation in Jesus Christ" versus going to hell?
If you don't want to talk about your glorious paradox, then why even mention it?
56
The South was fully integrated into the US economy so its post-Civil War prosperity should not be so shocking and should not be credited to Sherman's march. Even so, the South trailed the North both economically and socially until this day.
The South is a good example what total war can do to a country's economy. It is also a good example of what happens when you don't follow it up by imposing a democratic structure. Remember, the South did not become fully democratic until more than a century after the Civil War. Furthermore, I think it is pretty clear that "Jim Crow" also served to keep the South economically backward, in addition to maintaining the serf status of blacks.
You also neglect to note that the Cold War gave post-war Germany and Japan strategic significance. As a result they enjoyed both indirect and direct aid for decades. For examples, both countries could spend the entire Cold War with the US covering 90% of their defense needs leaving them free to build their economies.
Their strategic significance was a big factor in the rapid re-building of their countries. I think Iraq is similarly significant, which is why I think it is critical to establish democracy there. My point is that it may be significantly more difficult to do so without inflicting the total war type destruction that we inflicted on Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan were pretty well convinced that they were totally defeated, post WW1 Germany was not, and that may be the case in Iraq and the Middle East.
posted on 03.22.2006 12:23 PM57
What's going on in Iraq (I'm not so sure what's going on in Afghanistan) is that President Bush is trying to thread the needle between using too much force and too little force. So far he's been doing a tremendous job, and I'm optimistic that our alliance with the lovers of freedom in Iraq will eventually pay off handsomely.
I tend to agree, but am probably a bit less optimistic. Also, while I like Bush and largely agree with his strategic vision, I think it is a bit early to call his work here tremendous.
posted on 03.22.2006 12:36 PM58
Ucfengr,
Compared to what our grunts on the ground and their Iraqi allies have to go through, Bush's hard work, sacrifice, and dedication do seem modest in comparison.
But compared to say, the efforts of the loyal Democratic opposition, President Bush is a towering colossus, standing astride the Potomac holding aloft the beacon of liberty and personal responsibility to hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world :)
If you don't believe me, go to Kurdistan and ask some people there what they think.
posted on 03.22.2006 12:44 PM59
Matthew Goggins wrote: To Joe this is a beautiful and glorious paradox, to me it's a pile of hooey. But I realized that Joe's paradox is really the keystone in his theological/philosophical/moral arch. He uses it like a shield (just like you seem to be doing): "Hey there you not-sufficiently-Calvinistic-Christians and all you other un-believers: you can't tell me what God does or doesn't do, because if you disagree with me you're going to hell, and if you don't believe in hell, then what the hell are you doing talking to me about it (and that goes double for you all atheists)!"
You miss the point. It isn't that you can't tell us what God does or doesn't do, it's that you can't tell God what He may or may not do. Your statement, "You don't deserve to be punished for all eternity." is a perfect example of this. If God says you do deserve this, then you do deserve it, regardless of what you may want. Man does not get to sit in judgment of God. Any attempt to do so simply shows how broken an individual is.
Elsewhere, the complaint "why did you make me like this" is an example of the same type of thinking.
60
Wrf3,
Thank you for responding to my argument without accusing me of some kind of evil hubris.
You miss the point. It isn't that you can't tell us what God does or doesn't do, it's that you can't tell God what He may or may not do.
Why can't I?
I mean, I believe I can't, because I don't believe God exists.
But what if God does exist? Why can't I tell him anything I want to tell him? Especially if I am good person speaking in good faith?
Let me show you what I mean.
I am going to address a comment to God.
"God, Matthew Goggins here. I don't believe in you, but you would know that. I know it's kind of illogical for me to be addressing you right now, but I sincerely believe that if you do exist, you can handle the bizarre circumstance of an atheist addressing you in this manner.
"Like I just said, I don't believe in you. But if you do exist, I don't think it is just in any way, shape, or form for you to send anyone to hell for all eternity, or to allow anyone to spend an eternity in hell due to their own foolishness.
"I would find eternal damnation particularly loathsome if you considered it appropriate for anybody I know personally. The people I know are basically very good eggs, and if you punished them in any hell-like fashion, even for a finite time, then I would shame you and disown you and consider you to be a generally despicable person/entity/whatever.
"I can't say I'm particularly worried about all that, however, since I know you don't exist, and since I know that you would agree with me if you did exist.
"Thanks for hearing me out, and please get back to me if you really do exist."
Now, I think your point, Wrf3, is not that I can't tell God what I think. I think your point is is that I can tell God whatever I want, but then God would be right and I would be wrong.
If you believe that, I can't prove that you are wrong. You are automatically right by your own definitions. You define "right" to be whatever God says is right -- I can't argue with that.
If you have some other basis for saying I'm wrong, then let me know and I'll have a shot at it.
posted on 03.22.2006 1:22 PM61
Matthew Goggins wrote: Now, I think your point, Wrf3, is not that I can't tell God what I think. I think your point is is that I can tell God whatever I want, but then God would be right and I would be wrong.
Mostly correct; there could also be the case where what you tell God happens to agree with what God says, in which case you would both be right.
If you believe that, I can't prove that you are wrong. You are automatically right by your own definitions. You define "right" to be whatever God says is right -- I can't argue with that.
That's due to an worldview-invariant truth: right and wrong are purely subjective opinions. In theism, there is only one opinion that counts; in atheism there are as many as there are people.
If you have some other basis for saying I'm wrong, then let me know and I'll have a shot at it.
I would be very interested in hearing the basis on which you think God is wrong regarding eternal torment. Because either you elevate your subjective judgement above God's (and there is no rational basis for this), or you point to some external basis for morality which binds both God and man (and this doesn't exist). So I don't see how you can sustain a rational argument in support for your position.
posted on 03.22.2006 2:10 PM62
Wrf3,
Thank you for your latest response. I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful tone.
I would be very interested in hearing the basis on which you think God is wrong regarding eternal torment.
Correction: I don't think God is wrong.
I think God would be wrong if God tormented people eternally. However, I am convinced that God is in fact not wrong. I am convinced that God, if God existed, would agree with me and disagree with you.
Because either you elevate your subjective judgement above God's (and there is no rational basis for this), or you point to some external basis for morality which binds both God and man (and this doesn't exist).
I am not elevating my judgement over God's, because I believe God would agree with me.
I am "elevating my judgement" over your opinion of what you believe to be God's judgement.
So I don't see how you can sustain a rational argument in support for your position.
My argument is that no normal person deserves hellish punishment, not even for one second. This is a very rational position, even if it is rational for you to disagree with me.
You do not speak with God's voice, so your opinion's rationality does not trump the rationality of my position.
If God were to miraculously appear in support of your position ("Hey Goggins, cut that no-hell baloney out now or I'll fry your computer"), then your point might have some merit. But just because you believe you know the will of God doesn't mean you are correct.
posted on 03.22.2006 2:26 PM64
Matthew Goggins,
I don't mind talking about hell at all. I don't mind telling you that you will go there if you do not repent and believe the gospel. I further do not mind telling you that hell and God's love are not paradoxical at all. They are, I believe, quite complementary. But it takes space to develope those points and for you and others to argue to the contrary. Right now, in this forum under this topic, it seems that the best we could do is trade barbs with one another.
I just thought it was good etiquette, but perhaps I erred.
posted on 03.22.2006 2:38 PM65
That is, I thought it was good etiquette to stay on topic.
posted on 03.22.2006 2:40 PM66
Brad Williams,
That is, I thought it was good etiquette to stay on topic.
You are right to think so.
I've seen people hijack comment threads to pursue their own hobbyhorses -- it's rude, very poor etiquette.
But if you mean it's bad etiquette to disagree with your host, then I would disagree with you. Joe makes his arguments, and I counter them when I think its appropriate.
If you think I'm being rude, I'm willing to hear you out. But don't expect me to agree with you and Joe about everything religious for courtesy's sake.
If you wish, I welcome you to come to my blog and express your feelings and beliefs over there.
I put up a post on my blog this morning summarizing how I feel about Joe and his way of dealing with the question of un-belief. I encourage you to drop by there and unload whatever comments, questions, or criticisms you may have for me.
Here's a link to my blog-post: "The Bronx Blogger Talks About Religion".
If you and Joe are right about Christianity, then you should welcome the opportunity to correct the misguided scribblings of a lost soul such as myself, even here at the E.O. :)
posted on 03.22.2006 2:56 PM67
Matthew Goggins,
No, I did not mean to imply that you were rude to disagree with the host about issues. It is equally rude for me to correct the host to get back onto topic if indeed he started this secondary subject. So, I will go back to my lurking now and probably head over to your place.
posted on 03.22.2006 3:58 PM68
Matthew Coggins wrote I think God would be wrong if God tormented people eternally.
Well, yes, we know that. The problem is that you have no rational basis for saying this. Later, you write, My argument is that no normal person deserves hellish punishment, not even for one second.
First, this doesn't define what "normal people" are. Second, it doesn't say why people don't deserve hellish punishment. Again, you are making a moral judgment, yet you fail to define what the basis of your morality is. If it's simply your opinion, then that carries no weight whatsoever. If it's some standard external to man, then you haven't shown what that standard is. If it's God's revelation (which is the only way to know what God thinks about a particular issue), then on what basis does God make this pronouncement?
I am not elevating my judgement over God's, because I believe God would agree with me.
Is there anything more to this than wishful thinking based on your personal preference?
I am "elevating my judgement" over your opinion of what you believe to be God's judgement.
So, somehow, your judgement is better than mine? That would be because... ?
69
"Again, you are making a moral judgment, yet you fail to define what the basis of your morality is. If it's simply your opinion, then that carries no weight whatsoever."
If you say that tha god of the bible is the basis of your morality, how does that carry any more weight than Matthew's seemingly untethered personal morality? After all, that your god exists at all is only your opinion. Your morality is just as subjective ultimately as anyone else's.
posted on 03.22.2006 7:02 PM70
I think you all should shut the hell up with your speculations about what I might say.
Fyi, Goggins: January 4, in your sleep.
posted on 03.22.2006 7:17 PM71
that your god exists at all is only your opinion
In my opinion, Rob Ryan does not even exist.
posted on 03.22.2006 7:42 PM72
Rob Ryan wrote: If you say that the god of the bible is the basis of your morality, how does that carry any more weight than Matthew's seemingly untethered personal morality?
Because at least I'm being consistent in the application of my worldview. Matthew isn't. Consistency isn't proof of correctness, but inconsistency is a sure sign of error.
After all, that your god exists at all is only your opinion.
I see. Is the American Civil war only someone's opinion?
The weight of historical evidence is that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.
Your morality is just as subjective ultimately as anyone else's.
There's a glaring assumption in there that God has not spoken to man.
posted on 03.22.2006 8:04 PM73
wrf3
The weight of historical evidence is that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.
My copy of the Lord of the Rings weighs more than most Bibles.
So the weight of historical evidence is that Frodo Lives.
74
Wrf3,
First, this doesn't define what "normal people" are. Second, it doesn't say why people don't deserve hellish punishment.
Why do I have to define normal -- I'm not using it in any special way -- I just mean normal people like you and me, as opposed to murderous criminals or evil dictators or serial rapists or what have you.
And why are you asking me why people don't deserve hellish punishment? What could you possibly mean by this? If someone picked you up off a street corner and started torturing you, is the only reason he is wrong to do so because you have allegedly been saved by Jesus?
You accuse me of wishful thinking and personal preference -- if that's what you believe, that's fine by me. But you're not actually engaging my ideas or arguments.
Likewise, when you say I'm being inconsistent, it seems to me you're not really paying attention to what I'm saying. I'm not aware of any inconsistencies on my part, so unless you can be a little more specific, you're not really advancing the discussion much.
I appreciate the fact that you want to talk things over, but we haven't really rolled the ball along very far. Maybe you could focus in on one or two things that I say that seem wrong to you.
posted on 03.22.2006 9:48 PM75
God,
Fyi, Goggins: January 4, in your sleep.
Hey, Terence Moeller told me that the Book of Revelations has me down for February 14 in a traffic accident. Who am I supposed to believe?
posted on 03.22.2006 9:52 PM76
Matthew Goggins:
"Especially if I am good person speaking in good faith?"
What criteria do you use to call yourself a good person? How about the ten commandments?
Have you ever lied?
Have you ever stolen anything (even something small)?
Have you ever disrespected your parents?
Have you ever looked lustfully at a person not your spouse (adultery at heart)?
77
Matthew Goggins wrote: Why do I have to define normal -- I'm not using it in any special way -- I just mean normal people like you and me, as opposed to murderous criminals or evil dictators or serial rapists or what have you.
I understood how you meant it, but one demands logical rigor in arguments of this type. By using the term "normal", and further giving the example of murderers and dictators, you have made the unproven assertion that "normal" people are no less evil than the class you cited. So again you make an argument from your morality, without having given an objective basis for what that morality might be. For if it's only your personal preference then who cares?
In particular, why is murder or tyranny any worse than, say, rejection of God?
And why are you asking me why people don't deserve hellish punishment?
Because you're making a claim that you seem to think must be self-evident. It isn't to me, so I want to know if you have anything to back it up. It seems to me that murder and tyranny pale in comparison to rejection of God. Why do you disagree?
What could you possibly mean by this? If someone picked you up off a street corner and started torturing you, is the only reason he is wrong to do so because you have allegedly been saved by Jesus?
The only reason? That's a false dilemma.
Furthermore, this analogy is simply wrong. God does not torture people in Hell. People will lie in the beds that they have made. Having rejected God, you are making yourself fit for hell. It is the necessary consequence of your choices.
You accuse me of wishful thinking and personal preference -- if that's what you believe, that's fine by me. But you're not actually engaging my ideas or arguments.
Sure I have. You haven't yet answered the question that underlies your arguments, namely, what is your basis for morality, e.g. that it's wrong to for people who reject God to be consigned to an eternal hell. So far, all you've offered is that it offends your sensibilities. Well, so what? You aren't God.
...
I appreciate the fact that you want to talk things over, but we haven't really rolled the ball along very far. Maybe you could focus in on one or two things that I say that seem wrong to you.
I have. Several times. The problem is that your position is flawed at it's deepest levels and you're having trouble seeing it.
posted on 03.22.2006 10:13 PM78
Wrf3,
The problem is that your position is flawed at it's deepest levels and you're having trouble seeing it.
Well, that's certainly one explanation isn't it? :)
But at least you're not pretending to not understand what I mean by "normal" anymore, so we're making progress.
You want logical rigor -- you've got it:
We are all unworthy sinners.
Jesus expiated our sin on our behalf.
We are all saved.
Logic problem number one: if we are all saved now, then why does it make any difference whether or not a sinner acknowledges it (Hint: It doesn't make any logical difference.)
Logic problem number two: how does Jesus suffering and dying save you and me (Hint: It doesn't logically, but God doesn't obey the rules of logic, does He?)
I'm not really interested in getting in a logic pissing contest with you, because frankly, no religion holds up well when analyzed in a ruthlessly logical fashion, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
My comments have been along the lines of existential truth and falsehood: Does it make sense to have a God wh