After a long day at work, three baseball umpires meet at a diner for a drink. When the discussion turns to their philosophy of umpiring, one ump declares, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way they are." Another responds, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way I see 'em." The third says, "There's balls and there's strikes, and they ain't nothin' until I call 'em." The third umpire, who sees truth as entirely personal, is what we might call "postmodern." Christians, on the other hand, would be more like the second umpire, who recognizes that there is an objective reality even if our ability to perceive it is somewhat limited.
I believe that the second umpire is not only correct, but that he knows more than his postmodern colleague. The postmodern ump believes that because there is no outside standard by which they can determine if something is objectively true, the best that they can claim is that it is either "true for them" or "false for them." Two or more humans might collectively agree, but that is a decision they make rather than a standard imposed upon them from the outside; it is a matter of consensus rather than of objective fact.
Postmoderns can combine statements about ethics (X is moral) and epistemology (X is true) but neither type of statement has an objective or absolute value. When a postmodern person makes a moral statement such as, "It is true that it is wrong to torture babies", they are simply saying, "I prefer that babies not be tortured." If another person agrees, then they share the same opinion. But if the other person disagrees he cannot, in any meaningful objective sense, be considered morally wrong. The postmodern worldview puts all ethical knowledge squarely within the realm of epistemology, and since all knowledge is individual, moral statements are simply matters of opinion. Anytime a po-mo umpire says something is "immoral" or "unethical" you can replace those terms with the phrase "something they don't like" and have the exact same meaning.
In the absence of consensus, the postmodern moral skeptic requires pressure in order to ensure that their preferences are carried out. If they prefer not to have their donuts stolen then they must rely on the pressure provided by such forces as the legal system (I'll go to jail for stealing the donut), societal norms (donut thieves are viewed with disdain), or violence (you'll punch me the piehole if I take your bearclaw). The problem with this view is that it equates the group that can muster the most consensus (tyranny of the majority) or pressure (might makes right) with being the most moral. We might not like this hard truth, but the consistent po-mo moral skeptic can only shrug and hope that their preferences line up with the group's socially-constructed reality.
Christians, however, can know moral truths and thereby know more than their po-mo neighbors. This is an admittedly humble assertion, claiming only that we can know something to a greater degree than can our postmodern friends. It does not mean that we can know all truths or even know many truths. But fortunately, all it takes is to be able to call at least one strike more objectively than the po-mo ump.
But first we should explain what we mean by absolute moral truth (hereafter abbreviated as AMT). Let's start by defining moral act and moving from there.
--A "moral act" is one in which it is (a) the right thing to do, (b) in the right proportion, and (c) for the right motive.
--A "moral truth" is an ought statement about such an act ("A person ought not kill innocent humans for fun.").
--An absolute moral truth is one that is a moral truth that applies to everyone, at all times, throughout history.
Either there is at least one moral act that is also an absolute moral truth or there is not. (Presumably, if there is one there is more. But to prove that unicorns exist you only need to capture one unicorn. The same goes for AMTs.)
I propose that the following statement is an AMT:
It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure.
This statement, put in the negative form, includes a right thing not to do (torture infants), the right proportion (no torture at all), and right motive (not for pleasure). Many people will be tempted to gloss over this statement as trivial but if you believe that morality is at all meaningful then you must address the question, "Could this act ever, at any time, be "moral"� If you answer no then you must agree that this is one AMT. We've captured our unicorn.
Our postmodern friends, however, may not agree that we can possess such knowledge. Ostensibly, they either believe that the statement fails in some way to meet the criteria for absolute moral truth or that it cannot be known with certainty. In order to claim that the AMT fails on the first part, they must provide an example of when it would be morally right or good to torture infants for pleasure -- and do so without invoking the addition of criteria that would change the moral calculus. If the AMT fails to be an absolute moral truth then it should fail on its own merits.
The other way that our po-mo friend could argue is that we cannot know that this is an AMT. In order to do so, however, they must make a claim about our ability to know some things with certainty. Simply because they do not have the cognitive abilities to discern AMTs does not mean that we are not able to do so. They may also claim that we ought not make such claims about moral truths but that would require them to create and apply their own standard of absolute moral truth.
The fact that we know more (at least one thing more) than our po-mo friends should not be cause for gloating, but rather lead us to be compassionate. The shackles of their own reasoning prohibit them from providing an adequate rebuttal for postmodernism is a straightjacket that can cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, making it difficult for our neighbor to think clearly. Instead of mocking him, help loosen the buckles in order to set them free from their self-imposed cognitive restraints. It is, after all, the (absolutely) moral thing to do.
More than once in the Old Testament, God either directly kills children or orders his followers to do so. Based on the methods of killing that he used (drowning in the story of Noah and the sword in Joshua and elsewhere), I think it's safe to say that the infants were tortured prior to their deaths. For what reason? God's good pleasure. Therefore the God described in the Old Testament is evil. Or maybe he's a post-modernist. After you explain this away, please let me know the purpose of leukemia.
I think it's safe to say that the infants were tortured prior to their deaths.
I don't think that's safe to say at all. In fact, I'd say that is an unwarranted assumption.
"I don't think that's safe to say at all. In fact, I'd say that is an unwarranted assumption. "
Not all that unwarranted...very few deaths are instantaneous...drowning for instance can take a few minutes of excrutiating pain as your prospective child attempt to breath the water...and swords/spears/maces often left their victims in agony for days at a time. any death that is not painless is to be considered torture from the perspective of God commanding them,since he would have to power to cause whoever he wants gone to simply and instantaneously cease to exist but he chooses not to. The point here i think is that things are never completely black and white,even with gods....no matter how hard you want may want them to be. I m also curious about the purpose of leukemia myself....
You are more of a data dump kind of guy than a creative writer Joe.
Telling you so is not mocking, it is the compassionate and absolutely the moral thing to do. Just loosening those buckles to set you free.
"The Bible contains many references to infanticide. In idol worship, people (including Israel and Judah) sacrificed their own children (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; 33:6; Ezek. 16:20-21). In war (even in holy war), entire cities/nations of people were sometimes killed (Num. 21:35; 31:17; 1 Sam. 15:3; 2 Sam. 22:19), including infants. Also, in Jeremiah 19:9 we read that God threatened to afflict his people so greatly that they would eat their own children, and in Lamentations 4:10 we have an indication that this may actually have come to pass. Then of course we have the famous stories of kings who kill infants in order to control threats to their kingdom (Exod. 1:22; Matt. 2:16; Acts 7:19). God himself killed all the firstborn of Egypt at one time, among which were certainly many children (Exod. 12:29), not to mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), or the much more terrible flood of Noah's day (Gen. 6-9)." Reformed Answers
Based on the methods of killing that he used (drowning in the story of Noah and the sword in Joshua and elsewhere), I think it's safe to say that the infants were tortured prior to their deaths.
_______________________________________________
Any death that is not painless is to be considered torture from the perspective of God commanding them,since he would have to power to cause whoever he wants gone to simply and instantaneously cease to exist but he chooses not to.
If were going to get into the semantic swamp, then it might be advisable to figure out what we mean by torture. "Ex-preacher", I believe, was talking about humans intentionally causing pain by purposefully causing a lingering death. That *is* an unwarranted assumption. You're saying that torture is God refusing to withdraw pain at the point of death.
The problem with this is that pain in life was judgment given when Adam and Eve was expelled from the Garden, so why would God suddenly withdraw it? And there are quite a few painful illnesses that one can live a very long time with. Of course, why do such pain exist at all?
Romans 8:20-25
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
Let's say you had a life-threatening illness that would end your life in three years and I decide to tell you, but you don't believe me. Do I (a) be merciful and supply you with a drug that will relieve the painful symptoms that will emerge, or (b) allow those symptoms to occur in hopes that you will believe me and seek treatment?
From a Christian perspective, this world is temporary, even as what happens with in its confines has implications for eternity. Having to competing moral imperatives, e.g. the relief of pain or getting someone's attention about their eternal fate, the eternal stuff tends to win out.
Death and pain slow us down, humble us, and make us wrestle and ask questions. Some come to resent God and turn away, while others turn toward him.
...and swords/spears/maces often left their victims in agony for days at a time.
I've certainly never heard that before. In the heat of battle, an adrenaline surge will cause things like tunnel vision, "slow motion", and loss of fine motor skills. What this means is that you are going to rely on gross motor movements (hacking, slashing, and thrusting), aiming for large targets; the torso predominately and the limbs and head secondarily. Psychologically, it also means that you're not consciously aiming for precision. If the first swing or two didn't kill them, then you're going to keep going until their down. Considering that even a light blade was probably weighing in at north of ten pounds, the kinetic energy would cleave through quite a bit of flesh and bone, having a good chance of reaching major organs.
In the context of the specific judgment against the Canaanites and other peoples, the order was to dispatch them, not to leave them in agony, so it serves no purpose to let them linger.
As for the deluge, the waves came on suddenly and I would think it likely that the sheer mass of the waves crushed them, which would have been a comparatively quick death.
For what reason? God's good pleasure. Therefore the God described in the Old Testament is evil.
Care to cite a verse where God takes pleasure in inducing pain, or are you just randomly pulling a phrase you half-remembered from the Bible and hoping it sounds like a logical argument? I've read in Scripture that Creation exists for God's good pleasure and that he takes pleasure in justice and righteousness.
Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel? -- Ex 33:11
After you explain this away, please let me know the purpose of leukemia.
See above. For further reading, try, Outrageous Reasoning, Know Nothin' on Know It All, How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?, shouldn't the butchering of the Amalekite children be considered war crimes?, and Answers in a Nutshell.
You are more of a data dump kind of guy than a creative writer Joe.
That appears to be exactly what your doing here.
The Bible contains many references to infanticide. In idol worship, people (including Israel and Judah) sacrificed their own children...
For which God judged them for that, you know, whole sin thing. Or do plan on ascribing the actions of human beings as independent moral agents to God?
In war (even in holy war), entire cities/nations of people were sometimes killed (Num. 21:35; 31:17; 1 Sam. 15:3; 2 Sam. 22:19), including infants.
Total annihilation may have been merciful, given various circumstances. See the above articles I cite.
Also, in Jeremiah 19:9 we read that God threatened to afflict his people so greatly that they would eat their own children, and in Lamentations 4:10 we have an indication that this may actually have come to pass. Then of course we have the famous stories of kings who kill infants in order to control threats to their kingdom (Exod. 1:22; Matt. 2:16; Acts 7:19). God himself killed all the firstborn of Egypt at one time, among which were certainly many children (Exod. 12:29), not to mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), or the much more terrible flood of Noah's day (Gen. 6-9).
All of which, again, are judgments for collective sin, preceded by numerous warnings, sometimes spanning decades. And considering everything I discussed above, I think we can figure out all the reasoning. Of course you weren't reasoning, but dumping a spate of passages into a post without providing one bit of context.
I think what we have here, Joe, is agreement. It looks like Ex-Preacher, Ludwig and Bene D all agree with you that you've captured a unicorn.
So they've taken the next step. Instead of argue against your very sound logic, they've decided to say, "You're right, and therefore God is immoral." Of course, they tried to skip over the "You're right" part and move on to a new topic. Namely, that God is not moral.
But at least they've admitted you are right. It's a step in the right direction. Or maybe their just aren't any po-mo's left in the world?
Oh but he is right...we do agree that there is such a thing as morality. we just dont agree with your christians on what it is. You believe that moral is whatever God says is good and immoral is whatever God says is bad. So when God says to go out and slaughter midianite sucklings,as a christian your are obligated to view the killing on midianite babies as a moral thing to do. We just believe that for absolute morality to exist,absolute morality must exist as an independent absolute to whihc EVERYTHING is subject,without exception...otherwise,the concept is meaningless...so if its wrong to kill little babies,its wrong to kill little babies ALL THE TIME,IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES,REGARDLESS OF WHO ORDERS THE KILLING...thats what absolute means....without any possible exception imaginable....so if you start making exceptions for God,you just became a post modern relativist.
Ludwig:
so if its wrong to kill little babies,its wrong to kill little babies ALL THE TIME,IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES,REGARDLESS OF WHO ORDERS THE KILLING...thats what absolute means....without any possible exception imaginable....so if you start making exceptions for God,you just became a post modern relativist.
Joe isn't arguing that it is wrong to kill babies at any time. You've set up a straw man and knocked it down. Joe's statement was that it is wrong to kill babies for fun. And, since it is wrong to kill babies for fun, AMT exists. Because AMT exists, how and why does it exist and how do we determine what it is. I would argue, as others far smarter than I do, that AMT can't exist by itself, but requires a higher authority.
ex-preacher
For what reason? God's good pleasure.
Where does it say that God delights in punishment? It says that God delights in mercy. I punish my child but I don't delight in the punishment. However, would you deny that punishment is necessary? Does not punishment of the guilty affect the innocent at times?
Anyways, what does your post have to do with Joe's. His question is do you believe there is AMT?
so if you start making exceptions for God,you just became a post modern relativist.
In my house, I am lord and master (and my wife gives me permission to say so). That means I allow myself to do lots of things that I don't allow my children to do. For example, I can drink alcohol, I can stay up all night, I can even through a hammer through the TV if I choose (refraining from doing this can become a challenge during football season). Now, occasionally I will make exceptions and allow my children a sip of wine or to stay up past their normal bedtime. Now, does this make me a post-modern relativist or does this mean that my position of authority confers on me privileges (and responsibilities) that I don't allow my children. If God is the Lord and Master of the entire universe, why is it wrong from him to allow himself privileges that he doesn't allow us and to occasionally delegate to us the authority to do those things he normally forbids?
its wrong to kill little babies,its wrong to kill little babies ALL THE TIME,IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES,REGARDLESS OF WHO ORDERS THE KILLING
The killing of children is not unusual in nature. Furthermore, countless human cultures have practiced infant or child sacrifice, just as countless haven't. It is arguable that our own culture practices infant sacrifice through abortion. Why, other than your personal preference are the cultures that practiced child sacrifice wrong, while the ones that didn't right?
I can even through a hammer through the TV
I can throw a hammer through the TV, not through one through it. Doh!
Joe,
The construction of your argument instructs the reader very nicely.
But that third statement has some issues.
--An absolute moral truth is one that is a moral truth that applies to everyone, at all times, throughout history.
Two problems I see are:
1) There's no Transcendent origin.
2) This ignores God's plan for history using a nation differently than the ekklesia.
It's unfortunately closer to the categorical imperative than to Revelation.
Ludwig,
Not "instantaneous" does not equal "torture". Unless, of course, you serve in Congress today.
I do believe you are more correct on the application of "absolute" in this discussion.
Even if Joe were to correct #3 to be more distinctively "Christian", I suspect your reaction would still be similar.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Chris Joe isn't arguing that it is wrong to kill babies at any time. You've set up a straw man and knocked it down. Joe's statement was that it is wrong to kill babies for fun.
Excellent point, Chris. You're exactly right. Ex-Preacher, Ludwig, and Bene D are all conflating the example I used with the statement: It is morally wrong for God to order the killing of infants in order to fulfill his purposes.
Now obviously, I don’t think that statement constitutes an AMT. They might disagree and claim that it is and that God is subject to it as well. We could then veer off into a discussion about where absolute moral truths are grounded if not in God or some other transcendent being. But that is a different discussion for another day.
As Baggi points out, they all seem to agree with me that there are such things as AMTs. While we may disagree about the specifics, we are on the same side against the po-mo relativists.
Colin 1) There's no Transcendent origin.
Well, we're only discussing the epistemology of AMTs (whether they can be known) not the ontology of them (where they come from). You and I, of course, would agree that they are transcendent in origin. But agreeing on that is not necessary to agree that they exist.
Ucfengr:
In my house, I am lord and master (and my wife gives me permission to say so). That means I allow myself to do lots of things that I don't allow my children to do. For example, I can drink alcohol, I can stay up all night, I can even through a hammer through the TV if I choose (refraining from doing this can become a challenge during football season). Now, occasionally I will make exceptions and allow my children a sip of wine or to stay up past their normal bedtime. Now, does this make me a post-modern relativist or does this mean that my position of authority confers on me privileges (and responsibilities) that I don't allow my children.
What it means is that your rules and regulations are not absolute moral truths. If it is usually wrong for your children to drink alcohol, but sometimes you permit it, then the rightness or wrongness of drinking wine is relative and context dependent. The rule would only be absolute (in the context of your family) if it always applied.
So take the statement "Genocidal butchering of children in the war is wrong." Is that an AMT? Your analogy would seem to argue that it is not. It is usually wrong to butcher children, but occasionally God orders it. Therefore, "genocidal butchering of children is wrong" must be context dependent, even if it is wrong in the vast majority of contexts.
What does this have to do with Joe's argument? Joe has asserted that "It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure" is an AMT. I certainly hope that everyone reading that statement is revulsed by the idea of torturing infacts and considers it a heinous crime. But then, I would hope that we are all revulsed by the idea of genocidal butchery of children, and I'd have serious concerns about anyone who wasn't. Apparently, though, it is not an AMT that we shouldn't butcher children, because sometimes God orders it. It is a truth that applies to almost everyone at most times, throughout history.
So, how do we demonstrate that "It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure" is an AMT that applies to everyone, in all situations, throught history? Failure to come up with a situation in which it would be moral isn't sufficient to demonstrate that it is an AMT. At best, we can say that Joe has come up with a candidate AMT, but examples from the old testament show that apparently strong candidates for AMTs are sometimes nothing of the kind. In that situation, the burden should be on Joe to demonstrate that he has identified an AMT, not just challenge the po-mo relativists to show that it ain't so.
Until I hear you repudiate the continued occupation of Iraq...this is just a bunch of hot air and moral relativism..
This statement, put in the negative form, includes a right thing not to do (torture infants), the right proportion (no torture at all), and right motive (not for pleasure). Many people will be tempted to gloss over this statement as trivial but if you believe that morality is at all meaningful then you must address the question, "Could this act ever, at any time, be "moral"� If you answer no then you must agree that this is one AMT. We've captured our unicorn.
I would say this is a moral statement for human beigns but not a universal statement. I wouldn't say a bear or animal that kills an infant is immoral...even if they did it for pleasure (animals do sometimes kill for reasons unrelated to defense or food). As ucfengr demonstrated on this list, this 'AMT' doesn't apply to God:
[I'd be careful here ucfengr. You're asserting a 'might makes right' morality. You are saying you can order everyone in your house around because you are its ruler and that is moral...likewise God can order you around because he's bigger than you. Imagine, though, you visit your brother's house. You see he let's his one son play video games and stay up to 10 PM. OK he is master of his house. but what if you see his stepson who is the same age isn't allowed to play games, must be in bed at 8PM and has to do all the chores in the house while his son is pampered. Is it still ok? Or do you perhaps have a sense that he is using his power in an immoral fashion?]
Collin,
Ludwig,
Not "instantaneous" does not equal "torture". Unless, of course, you serve in Congress today.
Are you saying the slaughter of infants was carried out in a humane manner? Please tell us more? (I'll save the next post you write in case you're ever running for office).
2) This ignores God's plan for history using a nation differently than the ekklesia.
So the absolute moral statement has an exception if your infant slaughter is part of a 'plan' for a 'nation'? It's ironic that Collin would complain about Congress. We recently had an official of the Bush Administration refuse to say the President was legally prohibited from have the child of a terror suspect tortured if he deemed such torture could get the suspect to give up valuable information. It would seem the AMT allows even even us humble humans to not have our 'plans' disturbed by moral truths.
Bringing this back to a discussion we had before, I would say the slaughter of infants is subjectively wrong for humans to engage in. This does not lead, though, to a tyranny of individual 'preferences'. As I pointed out in the last thread, subjective feelings are often immune to your preferences. If I put salt on your tounge you're going to subjectively experience the taste of saltiness. You're going to experience that whether or not you happen to like salt. In fact, even though taste is a subjective experience you can even view it as absolute truth. If I put salt in Joe's mouth and Joe says it tastes like sugar we would all agree he was telling a lie.
I think where Ex falls down here is by making the mistake that God is like a human beign. I can see where one can get this notion because Christianity centers on Jesus who is God and Man but also because God is traditionally seen as some type of super-human old man with magical powers. Thinking of him as a human beign causes one to expect him to act as a human beign should.
But does Ex feel hurricane Katrina was immoral? It killed children? What about malaria or the sugar in high frutose corn syrup? Does it make sense to apply morality to these 'forces of nature' that are not human beings but most of us do not think of as anything supernatural?
I don't know why I commented at all on this post as I don't really have time today to do this, but isn't this post a rerun?
"This ignores God's plan for history using a nation differently than the ekklesia"
I must say i m amazed every time i hear this "God has a plan" mantra. dont you realise that an all powerfull being doesnt NEED a plan to do anything? Plans are only usefull to LIMITED beings with LIMITED ressources and LIMITED time to accomplish specific goals not to a being that can restructure reality around any thoughts traversing its mind at any given moment however often IT decides to. You might as well say God has a palm pilot and it would not sound any less ridiculous.
Ludwig,
The assertion was made that the killing of infants amounted to torture. Your support of that position involved the presence of time, hence time to suffer, in defining this instance of torture. My response was that time does not determine the character of torture. (Unless, of course, one uses the new analogical PoMo dictionary.) Torture is active, immediate, and direct infliction of pain. Not all suffering, and certainly not all killing, fits that understanding.
I said nothing about any killing being "humane", but only wanted to address the error of your construct.
My allusion to Congress was an attempt to bring to light the breadth of today's convenient and political (very emo) definition of torture -- any pressure that does not feel good.
There should be no irony about my statement. Just because I'm a conservative evangelical doesn't mean that I've ever given this, or any other, administration, let alone Congress, a freedom from scrutiny. That said ...
... defending a nation is dirty business. It's not a job I ever want to have. The fallenness of humanity demands that some make these dirty choices. That practice is where I draw the line for Christian involvement in civic affairs. Conversely, much of the Left with its convenient political pacifism has a difficult time lifting a finger to defend even our borders and developing any suitable and functional strategy which does not involve some level of capitulation.
Joe,
Employing the term "absolute" necessarily takes us to the ontological question. As Christians we should not try to argue around the point, either for the sake of the construct or politeness.
Joe,
Well, we're only discussing the epistemology of AMTs (whether they can be known) not the ontology of them (where they come from).
It seems to me that the only AMT that we can know is "we ought to obey God." That statement applies to all people, at all times, throughout history. For all other putative AMTs, including your suggestion, the best we can say is that we know of no situation where God has ordered an exception. We can know that the apply to us, and we can know that they apply to most people at most times, but we cannot know that they are AMTs.
Going back to ucfengr's analogy, his children can never know whether his regulations are absolute or whether, like drinking wine, he might make an occasional exception. And here's where the analogy breaks down, because Ucfengr's children cannot even know that he should always be obeyed. Since he is fallible, there will be situations where the prudent response is disobedience.
I suspect, however, that obeying God is not a particularly useful unicorn for your purposes, since the moral skeptic could simply take issue with the existance of God.
Collin:
Torture is active, immediate, and direct infliction of pain.
Your definition is insufficient. Killing someone with a sword is active, immediate, direct, and involves at least some pain. Is it torture?
The fallenness of humanity demands that some make these dirty choices.
What does "dirty" mean in the context of moral choices?
So take the statement "Genocidal butchering of children in the war is wrong." Is that an AMT? Your analogy would seem to argue that it is not. It is usually wrong to butcher children, but occasionally God orders it. Therefore, "genocidal butchering of children is wrong" must be context dependent, even if it is wrong in the vast majority of contexts.
Which "war"? Do you mean to say that genocidal butchering of children in any war is wrong or is there a specific war you are referring to? From a Biblical standpoint, God has ordered the nation of Israel to wipe out entire tribes, not just to the last child, but even to their livestock, so I must concede that there is at least one circumstance in which "genocidal butchering of children in war" is not wrong.
What does this have to do with Joe's argument?
I don't know, but then I wasn't responding to Joe's argument, I was responding to Ludwig's comment. That's why I quoted it. What does "the genocidal butchering of children in the war" have to do with Joe's assertion that "torturing babies for pleasure" is always wrong.
I'd be careful here ucfengr. You're asserting a 'might makes right' morality. You are saying you can order everyone in your house around because you are its ruler and that is moral.
No, I am not. If you are a parent, you will understand why, if you are not, explaining it to you goes way beyond what I wish to get into.
Or do you perhaps have a sense that he is using his power in an immoral fashion?
The difference between me and God is that by definition God is unable to use his power in an immoral fashion. Of course, this isn't the only difference.
ucfengr:
Which "war"? Do you mean to say that genocidal butchering of children in any war is wrong or is there a specific war you are referring to?
Any war. That was an extraneous "the." The putative AMT was that butchering children in any war is wrong.
The difference between me and God is that by definition God is unable to use his power in an immoral fashion. Of course, this isn't the only difference.
But, as we see from considering the butchery of children in war, the morality or immorality of an act is defined by God. So, your statement boils down to a tautology: God is unable to use his power to do what God doesn't do.
Ludwig says:
"dont [sic] you realise that an all powerfull being doesnt NEED a plan to do anything?"
All bets are off when God desires that free beings come to freely love Him. God can create a universe as effortlessly as I can blink my eyes - it costs him nothing at all. No doubt He could make me love Him. But if He were to do so, that love would be of lesser worth than if I were to freely choose to love Him. But God of course wishes for the better thing, not the worse. So He allows us the freedom to reject Him, and the plan he has put in place is a plan to non-coercively lead us, if we will but follow, to love of Him.
Christian Theology 101 - I'm a bit surprised you thought you have a novel, or forceful, objection here.
Nick,
You're correct. I should have used a dictionary.
The dirty character of all killing, whether in a just war or not, is a tragedy of our mere fallen existence.
Nick,
You're correct. I should have used a dictionary.
The dirty character of all killing, whether in a just war or not, is a tragedy of our mere fallen existence.
Nick,
You're correct. I should have used a dictionary.
The dirty character of all killing, whether in a just war or not, is a tragedy of our mere fallen existence.
But, as we see from considering the butchery of children in war, the morality or immorality of an act is defined by God. So, your statement boils down to a tautology: God is unable to use his power to do what God doesn't do.
I never commented on what God can or can't do, so nice try, but no. My comments referred to human morality. Since God is the author of human morality, what he orders us to do is by definition moral, and yes, that has included genocide. As a Christian, this makes me uncomfortable, but I am not going deny the Old Testament to save myself some discomfort.
Let's gets back to your original assertion; why is butchering children in a war wrong? The killing, even the mass killing of children is not an uncommon occurrence in either the human or animal kingdoms. What is the scale you use to measure right and wrong?
The difference between me and God is that by definition God is unable to use his power in an immoral fashion. Of course, this isn't the only difference.
Hmmmm, so God lacks free will? :)
the postmodern moral skeptic requires pressure in order to ensure that their preferences are carried out
Or as one postmodern professor admitted, "Truth is what my colleagues allow me to get away with saying".
(ref. "Reclaiming the Center", a collection of essays on postmodernism edited by Millard Erickson.... a thick book, so I'm too lazy to look up the page #)
David M # 2:
"You are more of a data dump kind of guy than a creative writer Joe.
That appears to be exactly what your doing here."
Yes.;^)
Baggi #6
"Of course, they tried to skip over the "You're right" part and move on to a new topic. Namely, that God is not moral."
No.
Ucfengr -
I certainly have trouble justifying the genocide of the OT in the abstract. I wrote a couple pieces struggling with those incidents:
In Defense of Genocide
Genocide for Jesus
"Christian Theology 101 - I'm a bit surprised you thought you have a novel, or forceful, objection here."
God cannnot wish,want or desire ANYTHING and remain God since all 3 are the characteristics which define NON-all powerfull beings...thats REALITY 101 and i m surprised that christians still try to use free will as a counter argument to this inescapable fact.
Ludwig,
That claim about the inability of the deity to desire a thing - I need that one explained to me.
Desire is wanting something that is not reality. If I desire an ice cream cone it is because reality is that I don't have one now. Maybe I will in half an hour but that will be reality then, not now.
If you are the author of reality what can it mean to desire something? It's like saying I wish I didn't write that last sentence? What do you mean? I can just delete it before I click post. If I'm unable to do that then I'm not the author of this post.
Sorry to put words in Ludwig's mouth but I felt like taking a stab at it. He can tell me if I'm wrong....
How silly. I don't know of any Christian that would use 'free will' as a counter to such a gordian knot of contradiction and illogic. 'Free Will' doctrine applies to finite beings such as people, not an omnipotent being such as God. At any rate, it is beyond my understanding how you as a finite non-omnipotent being can even know what is possible or not possible for an omnipotent being... what have you got to go on other than your own fevered imaginings?
I disagree; I think it is an AMT. The reason God can order us to operate counter to any AMT is because he has the ability to judge whether or not that would be a greater or lesser evil. God would know whether or not destroying all (or very nearly all) of mankind would be better than allowing the evil they (and their descendents)might be perpetrating from then on.
Hi Joe,
Very strong post today. It's a good follow-up to our discussion from Monday.
It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure.
This is an Absolute Moral Truth (an "AMT").
It is wrong for anyone, anywhere, at any time to torture infants, to the least extent, for pleasure.
That said, I can imagine a scenario where it would not be immoral for someone to torture an infant for pleasure.
If a person were insane, and had the delusion that God wanted him to torture an infant for pleasure; if furthermore, this insane person had a sadistic streak which would actually allow him to enjoy torturing an infant; and finally, if this insane person had the opportunity to obey God's command, as he understood it, to torture an infant for pleasure and took advantage of the opportunity and did it; then the torturing of the infant by the deluded, sadistic theist would not be immoral. It would be a tragic natural event, akin to a mauling by a bear or a cougar, as opposed to a genuinely evil act.
This is such an unusual outlier of a scenario that I still feel comfortable categorizing "don't torture babies" as an AMT. But at least hypothetically speaking, it actually is not an AMT, because I've been able to come up with a hypothetical exception.
Hi all,
A very interesting comment thread today. A good back-and-forth and progression.
My favorite comment so far (even more than my own) is Nick's comment 13. He starts out by dissecting Ucfengr's analogy (which is a very good analogy), and he ends up by concluding:
At best, we can say that Joe has come up with a candidate AMT, but examples from the old testament show that apparently strong candidates for AMTs are sometimes nothing of the kind. In that situation, the burden should be on Joe to demonstrate that he has identified an AMT, not just challenge the po-mo relativists to show that it ain't so.
I think Nick is exactly right, both in his argument and in his conclusion.
That said, I am willing to concede that AMT's do exist, since that is what I believe myself.
The problem with AMT's is not that they do not exist. The problem with AMT's is that Joe, and others who think like Joe, don't follow AMT's to their logical conclusion.
Which is, AMT's are valid not just for humans, but for God himself. Joe really does not want to go there, for the simple reason that he cannot. Because in Joe's worldview, what God says (as revealed in the infallible holy writ of the Bible) is what goes.
So you have an intelligent, a very, very intelligent person like Ucfengr saying something along the lines of
Since God is the author of human morality, what he orders us to do is by definition moral, and yes, that has included genocide. As a Christian, this makes me uncomfortable, but I am not going deny the Old Testament to save myself some discomfort.
Let's gets back to your original assertion; why is butchering children in a war wrong? The killing, even the mass killing of children is not an uncommon occurrence in either the human or animal kingdoms. What is the scale you use to measure right and wrong? [Comment 28]
Genocide is wrong because it is wrong. It doesn't matter if the Bible says it's okay -- it's still wrong.
As Chris Hitchens has said in this context, an atheist is just as capable of gross immorality as a Christian or a theist. But it takes religious faith in order to get ordinary people to a level where they can commit the most heinous crimes imaginable.
To summarize: AMT's exist. AMT's apply to God. When an AMT is in conflict with God, go with the AMT.
Actually Matthew, I would state the summary differently... AMT's exist. God is the Source of AMT's. If God chooses to ignore an AMT, who's to judge him? If an order from God is in conflict with an AMT, go with God.
Besides, I don't think that the Bible ever stated that genocide was okay. The discernment was that it was better to follow God's will even if it meant doing something that people would not believe is okay.
"That claim about the inability of the deity to desire a thing - I need that one explained to me."
simple...how can you desire anything when reality is solely dependent of whatever thought traverses your mind? Desire comes from wanting something you dont have yet...if you re all powerfull,you allready have everything that can be had BY DEFAULT. does that clear it up for you?
Matthew
To summarize: AMT's exist. AMT's apply to God. When an AMT is in conflict with God, go with the AMT.
I think where the confusion in this debate is over the motivation aspect. Let's take Joe's example of it is wrong to kill babies for fun. This AMT does not apply to killing a baby to save the life of the mother during labor. Therefore killing a baby may be perfectly acceptable depending on the situation.
Now I believe that AMTs are inseparable from God because they are based on God's nature. Where I think we run into to trouble is that we don't know and probably can never know God's motivation for certain acts. Ucfengr touched on this point with regards to his children. Certain aspects of his nature may say that it is okay from time to time to allow his children to have a sip of alcohol. The children probably doesn't understand his motivation behind the action and likely won't until much they are much older.
That said, I can imagine a scenario where it would not be immoral for someone to torture an infant for pleasure.
Actually, it is still immoral for the person to commit the act. The only issue here is that the person committing the act is incapable of making moral distinctions due to their insanity.
I'm glad to see that everyone believes in AMTs.
Matthew,
Hitchens' rather popular recipe is one of select observation mixed with a dash of prejudice. Can the irreligious commit equally heinous acts? Ask Mao.
Joe,
I think we need to explore the original challenge a bit more.
It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure.
It seems we're confusing some things in the whole discussion. We're looking for AMTs but we're discussing AMPs (practices, in this case the immoral practice torturing infants for pleasure). The Truth and the Application of the truth are not the same thing. The post made that distinction but not adequately. Why is it not adequate? Because the Truth included an Act, and that begs the question.
This limited the Truth to a specific Act, making it no longer an AMT, but reducing it to a description of an Act. The statement should not be seen as a Truth.
A truth must be an abstraction to be applied and cannot include its own application. Follow:
"Thou shalt not steal."
It's wrong to steal, but it not the same thing (in Biblical morality) if a starving person steals as if an otherwise healthy yet greedy person steals. Finding the suitable application of the principle to real life is often difficult.
But is the commandment a principle, an AMT? No. It is a Rule, a Law. What's the principle behind it? There are most certainly several, especially regarding things like respect and ownership, etc. And even behind the enforcement of the Law there is still Charity to account for extenuating circumstances.
So what is the original statement:
It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure.
It is a mix of a law ("Do not torture infants for pleasure.") and a Truth without a predicate ("It is morally wrong.").
This is the wrong trap for catching a unicorn.
Collin
Genocide is wrong because it is wrong.
Matthew, your an intelligent guy, but come on. If I told you the sky is blue because it is blue, you'd laugh me out of wherever I happened to be at the time, and I'd deserve it. Genocide is a common theme throughout human history. Tribes and peoples have been wiping each other out since long before Israel wiped out the Midianites. Why is it wrong? What model are you using to determine right and wrong? What are the variables and assumptions? At what point on the scale does an action become totally right, like saving a baby from a burning building or totally wrong like wiping out a tribe?
To summarize: AMT's exist. AMT's apply to God. When an AMT is in conflict with God, go with the AMT.
There is a sense in which I actually agree with you, Matthew - in fact there is even some grounds for it in the Bible. Look at Job's comforters for instance. The problem of course is that, while you may affirm AMT, or what Plato calls "the good", you do not have unfettered access to it. Indeed, one might even question whether morality, while absolute, is ever uncontextualized. This doesn't mean the claim on us is ever less than absolute, but that our context is actually part of that moral truth.
There is certainly a balance between pontificating your perception of absolute moral imperatives and understanding of the context God has put you in. One must seek to understand, and then to judge - yes, even in cases so horrific as ancient genocide.
Until I hear you repudiate the continued occupation of Iraq...this is just a bunch of hot air and moral relativism..
Sorry, John, I don't feel like bowing down to the idol you've set up.
But is the commandment a principle, an AMT? No. It is a Rule, a Law. What's the principle behind it? There are most certainly several, especially regarding things like respect and ownership, etc. And even behind the enforcement of the Law there is still Charity to account for extenuating circumstances.
Perhaps the principle is "act to relieve suffering when possible and avoid inflicting suffering when possible". This follows directly from cause and effect. Try to act contrary to this principle and you'll increase suffering (kind of obvious I guess). I suppose you could call that not just a AMT but the only AMT. On the other hand it's rather subjective since we all recoil from suffering but that is our subjective experience. Like the taste of salt or sugar you can't really describe happiness or sadness unless you experience it firsthand.
Taking it to the next level, though, it also seems pretty objective. Suppose you have a person who says they like suffering therefore they should behave in the opposite manner. But if they enjoy suffering then acting to increase suffering would make them suffer less so you end up going in a circle (remember the joke about the sadist and masochist: Masochist says, "Hurt me" and the sadist says "no").
Rules that follow from that are only applications hence not necessarily absolute. Even to use Joe's example, perhaps a creative writer could come up with a convoluted scenero where torturing infants for fun would seem to be moral.
Uncengr,
Torture (I mean "enhanced interrogationi techniques") is OK because George Bush says its ok because of the "new kind of war" against "terror". That apparently is your AMT or idol..
John
Uncengr and Colin,
Is sticking things like broom handles into detainees rectums torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques"?
Joe, excellent post.
Some great points being made in response. To clarify a couple things about God:
1) "just obey God" has the connotation that God is constantly changing and so humans are constantly having to align their obedience to a changing God. But God does not change in his eternal nature; for example his divine character does not change and provides the basis for what is right and wrong. So if we know something about God's character, we know more AMT's than "just obey God." If God's character is such that he does not delight in the infliction of pain in and of itself, then we can deduce that humans are not to take pleasure in inflicting pain in and of itself. "In and of itself" is an important phrase, because there is a sense in which it is right and good to delight in the punishment of evil. Delight is a proper response in this case, but because justice is done through the punishment, rather than because of the pain narrowly considered. Does that seem plausible?
I would argue then that it is in this sense that God takes pleasure in the (painful) destruction of the wicked.
Let's table the discussion of whether the pagan nations and children were wicked or not. For the sake of clarify of discussion, let's assume that they were wicked. Assuming that they were, then it is plausible that God delight in the destruction of the wicked.
So is Scripture wrong then when it says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked?
No, because there is a sense (already articulated above) in which God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, namely when he sees that death narrowly apart from its justice.
To use an example, if I see a (guilty) serial killer executed, there's a sense in which I'm looking at pain and loss of life which is horrible in and of itself and so I take no pleasure in that. But there's a morally good human capacity (which images our God) for a sort of pleasure in seeing that our justice system has worked and justice has been served for the sake of the victims.
Does that seems plausible? It's not simplistic, to be sure, but we can expect truth not to be simple at times.
My second point concerns the difference between the nature of God and of humans that ucfengr brings up and its implications. This is to say that because God is different than humans in nature, God has certain rights that humans do not have such that when humans try to take these rights for themselves, they are attempting to displace God as God. This seems plausible, but people in heated discussions often implicitly deny its plausibility.
One example is that God commands worship from humans in a way that humans may not command from other humans. But a crucial point that was obfuscated in ucfengr's comment is that such commands arise out of a divine nature including a divine character such that the commands are not arbitrary but intrinsically are moral not simply because of the divine attribute of omnipotence (or else it would be "might makes right") but because that attribute is united with divine goodness and wisdom such that the commands are to be obeyed not simply because they come from someone stronger, but because they come from someone who is stronger and wiser and good.
Reducing God to one attribute will often caricature him and render arguments against God facially plausible but actually sophomoric. Those making these arguments should be aware of their own tendency to do this. Christians on the other hand should not reduce their God to a caricature of himself because it's blasphemous and false, even if done unintentionally.
The third point concerns whether God desires. A couple commentators have suggested that God cannot desire something because his desires (or I guess pre-desires) simply are fulfilled before he can come to desire something. There is a sort of logic going on here which is cloudy (like what is the nature of these pre-desires if you postulate their existence), but it is sufficient to note that this claim denies the personal nature of God not in the sense of "my personal bathroom" or "accepting Jesus as a personal Lord and Savior" but in the sense that God exists in three persons (let's table the discussion of the Trinity and limit ourselves to personhood and desires), and persons have desires. If it belongs to the nature of persons to have desires (this seems plausible so I'm not going to argue it), and God exists as persons (which we are assuming because we've tabled the Trinity discussion), therefore God must have desires. Indeed, Scripture claims that God does have desires.
So, the next question to ask is whether divine desires operate in divine nature in the same way that human desires operate in human nature. Here we're beginning to "stare into the sun" as one theologian put it. We're talking about the inner workings of a God that finite minds cannot possibly fully comprehend; that may sound like a cop-out to some, but if God really was God, wouldn't it be true and not a cop-out?
Anyway, there are some clues and ways to begin thinking about it. The commentators have been right in suggesting that there is a sense in which when God wants or wills something, it must immediately come to pass. Therefore, when God wanted light, he spoke and it came to be.
But there's another sense of wanting or desiring or willing that is not immediately effective but simply means that a person is disposed or inclined to something, in other words that it aligns with or reflects someone's nature or character. For example, being a human, it belongs to my nature to desire beauty. I am disposed and inclined to beauty by ontological nature; beauty aligns with or reflects my personal nature such that it can be said of me that I desire beauty or want beauty or will it.
Theologians have historically called the first kind of will which effectuates the "will of decree" and the second kind of will which reflects God's moral nature the "will of command" (because God commands humans in accordance with his moral nature, though he obviously decrees that humans and angels choose sin and evil for his greater purposes of showing the full range of divine glory). The relationship between the two wills is that God decrees that some things come to pass because they are necessary to demonstrate various things that God does desire. For example, God desires justice, so he ordains or decrees that angels exercise their creaturely free will to choose evil, that he might judge them justly. So God desires obedience from angels, but in his wisdom he's decreed and eternally planned that they choose disobedience so that his desire for justice might be shown and fulfilled.
The unrepentant might not like how this works and claim to know better or be more enlightened, thereby taking the place of God and justifying their end, but they simply have not seen the infinite majesty and love of God because they are too prideful and self-righteous. Moreover, there is no other way for the full range of God's glory to be shown (which is the reason everything exists and the goal of history), goodness, justice, mercy, holiness, hatred of evil, kindness, vengeance, power, wisdom.
Can you think of a better way?
In the end, this is to say that God is certainly more complex than humans are and yet still unchanging, perfect and single-minded. This is plausible in the same way that human consciousness is more complex and greater than whatever passes for a mind in an ant or dog.
"giggling"
If i may,the whole problem you have with weather or not God can desire is your perception of what God is...namely,an all powerfull HUMAN MIND. You think of God in strictly human terms,no matter how much you may wish not to. you try to raise the point that there is a difference between desire of man and desire of God and there is ONE indeed...the former exists and the later does not. Desires and wants are strictly the province of non-all powerfull beings and there is simply no way around that. In fact,virtually every aspect that is attributed to God,such as love,wisdom,authority,wants,anger,sorrow and even intelligence itself are all aspect that depends entirely on some form of imperfection or incompleteness in order to even exist. So how can they exist in a complete,perfect being?...the short answer is they cant. And turning to the bible to defend this position only compounds the logical falacy even further,since the bible is a human made book,inspired by human experiences of the physical world. There is no single aspect of the bible that is not the pure product of HUMAN THINKING.
Ludwig, the problem with your critique of "giggling"s post, is that you are conceiving the notion of what a perfect all-powerful being would be according to HUMAN notions of logic and perfection. Stop it, would you!
I mean it - stop thinking with a HUMAN mind - it'll only get you into trouble.
Torture (I mean "enhanced interrogationi techniques") is OK because George Bush says its ok because of the "new kind of war" against "terror". That apparently is your AMT or idol..
John, you seem to be confused about the difference between and AMT and an idol. An idol is something set up in place of God, like your obsession with the Iraq War. An AMT (Absolute Moral Truth) is one of those things that is always morally right or always morally wrong, like Joe's example of it being always wrong to torture babies for pleasure. Regarding Bush, I don't know that he ever said it was okay to torture people because of the war on terror.
Is sticking things like broom handles into detainees rectums torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques"?
I don't know; I imagine some consider it foreplay.
Wonders for Oyarsa
Perfection is not a human concept...its not present in any part of human experiences...which means that anything that anything that can be described through human experiences cannot by definition be God. I hate to be the one that breaks this to you but no one has ever written a single word that pertains to God...all we have are man made concepts of gods and whatever the religious creed,there is no known exception to that rule. But if you dont believe me than go ahead and try to find a god that has any aspect you cannot associate with human experiences or explain through them.
"no one has ever written a single word that pertains to God"
You've in effect said that God is ineffable.
But that is itself a statement about God.
Seems to me your presuppositions are getting in the way.
IF there is a God like the one posited in Christianity, then that God has chosen self-revelation through human language and through Incarnation and has affirmed His knowability.
We are not so foolish as to think we have exhaustive knowledge. But we take Him at His word when He says we can know Him.
"no one has ever written a single word that pertains to God"
You've in effect said that God is ineffable.
But that is itself a statement about God.
Seems to me your presuppositions are getting in the way.
IF there is a God like the one posited in Christianity, then that God has chosen self-revelation through human language and through Incarnation and has affirmed His knowability.
We are not so foolish as to think we have exhaustive knowledge. But we take Him at His word when He says we can know Him.
"no one has ever written a single word that pertains to God"
You've in effect said that God is ineffable.
But that is itself a statement about God.
Seems to me your presuppositions are getting in the way.
IF there is a God like the one posited in Christianity, then that God has chosen self-revelation through human language and through Incarnation and has affirmed His knowability.
We are not so foolish as to think we have exhaustive knowledge. But we take Him at His word when He says we can know Him.
Uncenfr,
What I meant to say earlier was that your idoltrous love of George Bush or the "fox-news political worldview" blinds you to the fact that what was done at Abu Graib was torture and besides whatever happened it was "just a few bad apples" anyway.
It is nice to see that you agree it's an "AMT" that torture is always wrong though.
What I meant to say earlier was that your idoltrous love of George Bush
You seem to confuse idolatrous love with not thinking someone is the second coming of Hitler. They are not the same.
or the "fox-news political worldview"
What is a Fox News political world view? Is it the one held by Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteran, Bill O'Reilly, or Shepherd Smith? Other than occasionally watching the business shows during my morning workout, I really don't watch much Fox News, so I have no idea what their "world view" is or if they have one.
blinds you to the fact that what was done at Abu Graib was torture and besides whatever happened it was "just a few bad apples" anyway.
I think most reasonable people agree that what was done at Abu Graib was torture and that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld didn't approve it and didn't know about it when it was going on. I do realize that my definition of reasonable probably excludes you.
It is nice to see that you agree it's an "AMT" that torture is always wrong though.
I don't remember agreeing with that statement, though I will concede that torturing babies for pleasure is always wrong.
You actually believe George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld didn't know about the torture and it was the fault of a few bad apples on the night shift?
Next you'll be saying we have to remain in Iraq to promote democracy, Iraq is the central front on the "global war on terror", and we "must fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over there". You should call up the Whitehouse, they'll be glad to know someone actually still believes their lies...
You actually believe George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld didn't know about the torture and it was the fault of a few bad apples on the night shift?
Pretty much; do you have any evidence to the contrary, like maybe a signed order or pictures of Bush et. al. with Lynndie Englund, or something more than unnamed sources told "x".
The evidence is out there. There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.
"IF there is a God like the one posited in Christianity, then that God has chosen self-revelation through human language and through Incarnation and has affirmed His knowability.
We are not so foolish as to think we have exhaustive knowledge. But we take Him at His word when He says we can know Him."
Revealed where? in the Bible? how exactly? the bible is a clear unmistakable work of purely HUMAN origin and every one of its passages were clearly inspired by human experiences of the physical world and inked by humans in the physical world. Its a collection of allegorical fiction mixed with some historical truth here and there and it contains no more divine message or inspiration than the Quoran,the collected works of JRR Tolkien or this post i just typed. Attempts to see metaphysics in the bible are acts of self dellusion and repeating it 3 times or 1000 times will not make it otherwise.
Ludwig, are you trying to be obtuse here? If God wants to make himself known to us, he will do so in ways that we can relate to. What's more, we are told that the human itself is the divine signature on his creative work. To object to something for being "human" in the context of philosophy or religion is to object to it for existing. We are human. Get used to it.
What's more, the fullest expression of God we have ever seen (an arguably ever could see) was in the human being Jesus of Nazareth. When you look at him, you rightly say not just ecce homo, but ecce Deus.
This is the Christian faith. Feel free to disagree. There are some decent grounds to disagree. But the faith is coherent - and your above arguments look little more to me than intentional block-headedness.
The evidence is out there.
In other words, you don't have any, but Bush is so darn evil it just must be true. John, have your explored any career opportunities in network news? They need people like you.
"Ludwig, are you trying to be obtuse here? If God wants to make himself known to us, he will do so in ways that we can relate to. What's more, we are told that the human itself is the divine signature on his creative work. To object to something for being "human" in the context of philosophy or religion is to object to it for existing. We are human. Get used to it. "
Actually,Obtuse is anyone trying to say that the belief of "created in God's image" is anything other than pridefull self adulation.
"What's more, the fullest expression of God we have ever seen (an arguably ever could see) was in the human being Jesus of Nazareth. When you look at him, you rightly say not just ecce homo, but ecce Deus. "
once again,we fall back on claiming than a book which is obviously the product of human imagination,is somehow a divinely inspired account of supernatural events...but then again,as a christian,thats not like we have anywhere else to go now do we....
"This is the Christian faith. Feel free to disagree. There are some decent grounds to disagree. But the faith is coherent - and your above arguments look little more to me than intentional block-headedness."
Faith is nothing more than wanting something to be true which you know deep down almost certainly isent.
Joe, out of curiosity, where are you getting your information about what postmodernists supposedly believe? With all respect, your post seems to reflect a pretty superficial misunderstanding of what you're calling "postmodernism" (which you seem to be conflating, without much discussion, with "relativism"). Your example of the three umpires is instructive and provocative. Let's go back to it for a minute. Are you saying that -- in terms of absolute, ultimate reality -- there really are such things as balls and strikes? Or do you believe that balls and strikes are "socially constructed"? After all, they exist within the context of a game made up by human beings at a certain point in historical time and within a certain cultural surround. If you were to try and exercise a measure of intellectual generosity towards your third umpire and make him more authentically reflect "postmodern" thinking (that can mean a lot of different things, obviously, but for the sake of argument...) you might have him say something more like this: "There's balls and there's strikes, and I call them according to my best interpretation of the socially-constructed, evolving rules of the game."
You might wonder what this has to do with torturing babies. Well, I admit it's a stretch. But I would contend that your average postmodernist has no interest in trying to argue that torturing babies is O.K. Rather, he would probably be trying to point out that the terms you use -- "torture" and "fun" spring immediately to mind -- are pretty subjective in nature. Does traditional Jewish circumcision of male infants count as torturing babies for fun? What about piercing the ears of a little girl? I'm sure many readers of this blog will scoff, but the point is that postmodern claims tend to have more to do with the constructedness of language and how it affects our experience, not with the critique of specific moral rules. Ultimately, I don't think your point is wrong, but i don't think it justifies the conclusion that umpires one and two actually know more, in any objective sense, than umpire three.
Uncengr,
Re your Post No. 65:
I'm just saying there is plenty of evidence out there demonstrating that the Bush administration condones torture (now referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques). There are justice dept. memos freely available for you to read that seek to justify the torture and there are documents and emails related to the Abu Graib situation that have been released too. You are an adult (with a master's degree), you should be able to find this stuff. It's my opinion that no amount of evidence would convince you and it's not my job to educate you.
Curious, why should I see a career with the media. Is it because the media is predominately left-wing moonbat america haters. Or maybe you think the media is too conservative and they need some balance. Which is it?
You have trouble grasping this whole idea of concepts, don't you? It just kind of boggles your mind that mankind can imagine perfection, doesn't it? So you've constructed this disconnect between human experience and imagination in order to prop up your house of cards logic there.
I'm just saying there is plenty of evidence out there demonstrating that the Bush administration condones torture (now referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques).
Then it shouldn't be to hard for you to back up your claims, should it, John? Especially the implication that George Bush authorized the Charles Grassley's and Lyndie Englund's (spelling?) abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib
Sounds like your unicorn has a point.
Ucfengr,
Here's some stuff for you to read regarding torture.
Note I included a commentary from the Washington Times (not a liberal paper) and testimony from a former member of the justice dept. in the Reagan administration.
I'd be interested to see what you think of these items.
The Tabuba Report: news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html
www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/122004.html (the documents speak for themselves-don’t dismiss them merely because they are collected on the ACLU website)
judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1969&wit_id=5482
judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1841&wit_id=5201
From Washington Times:
64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_R4CTpHEo_0J:www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051219-091756-7399r.htm+bush+torture+%22bruce+fein%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
impeachforpeace.org/evidence/pages/torture.html
Here's some stuff for you to read regarding torture.
Looks like what you have is a report on Abu Ghraib that doesn't even mention President Bush, a couple of legal opinions by an attorney (Bruce Fein) on signing statements and the terrorist surveillance program that reference allegations of torture by detainees, and some allegations by al Qaeda detainees that they were tortured. I am really not sure what to make of this. The only proof you have of torture is allegations from al Qaeda members being held in Gitmo and your assumption that they are credible, because as we all know, al Qaeda members may be murderers and terrorists, but they would never lie.
If you look more closely at the summary of the documents (and then go look at the actual documents), you'll see emails that reference an executive order and also the fact the torture/enhanced interrogation techniques was approved.
How about the constitutional scholar's opinion that Bush has clearly exceeded his executive powers and usurped checks and balances. Reasonable? If not, why not?
This president has clearly failed to preserve and protect the constitution-his number one constitutional responsibility. Will you concede the president has exceeded his constitutional powers? Keep in mind Bruce Fein clearly deals with the idea the president should have "special war-time powers" because of the "war on terror" and indicates this idea is not valid.
Just to clarify things. I wouldn't desire some far-left socialist government in this country. I'd be satisfied with a federal government that follows the constitution. The democrats are no better than the republicans in this regard. I would hope that we would both agree our government needs to follow it's constitution, right?
"You have trouble grasping this whole idea of concepts, don't you? It just kind of boggles your mind that mankind can imagine perfection, doesn't it? So you've constructed this disconnect between human experience and imagination in order to prop up your house of cards logic there."
imagination is an extrapolation of human experiences,its not born out of the blue. Incidently,every story of the bible can be tied to any number of human experiences which is what makes it easy to identify as a product of human imagination and nothing else.
Nathan,
Interesting comment.
I think you're right in one sense that Derrida's deconstruction of language had more *common influence* on our Postmodern era than Kant's mere relativism. But the conclusions of Nietzsche regarding relativism is what has led us here, and that nihilistic relativism is behind the current abuse of language. John Milbank's postmodern theology (RO) pursues and expresses this substance as he argues in futility against Nietzsche but for relativism.
If anything is being tortured in the west today, it is words. They are suffering the greatest of all abuse. The neo- and Platonists are, with permission from Derrida, removing all meaning, all substance, from language. (We need a new Realism to supplant the current Nominalism.)
Collin
http://philosophyforchristians.blogspot.com
smmtheory
You have trouble grasping this whole idea of concepts, don't you? It just kind of boggles your mind that mankind can imagine perfection, doesn't it? So you've constructed this disconnect between human experience and imagination in order to prop up your house of cards logic there.
Just a question here; are you sure mankind can imagine perfection? Or do we just imagine something that's better and we call it 'perfection' but it isn't really perfection we are imagining.
I sometimes feel the same way about infinities. Do we really imagine an infinite set like the set of all even numbers or are just just picturing a really really big finite set in our mind and we say we are thinking about an infinite set?
Boonton,
I'm not sure, but I think it is probably impossible to directly imagine an infinite set.
On the other hand, we can mathematically explore many varieties of infinite sets and the different properties of those sets. And then we can develop an intuitive understanding of infinity which can be very powerful and sophisticated, despite its being based on somewhat indirect methods.
Try this. Imagine a sphere, or spherical shape. Do you picture it with or without flaws? Do you imagine it with or without imperfections?
If you look more closely at the summary of the documents (and then go look at the actual documents), you'll see emails that reference an executive order and also the fact the torture/enhanced interrogation techniques was approved.
You keep using the terms torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques" as if they're interchangeable. I don't know that they are. When I think of torture I think of pulling fingernails, the cat o' nine tails, red hot pokers, thumbscrews, etc.; when I think of "enhanced interrogation techniques", I think of loud music (maybe some Slim Whitman), turning up the A/C or heat, maybe a little yelling. Stuff that may get a case thrown out of a civilian court, but that is appropriate when dealing with illegal enemy combatants. Obviously, one of these things is not like the other.
How about the constitutional scholar's opinion that Bush has clearly exceeded his executive powers and usurped checks and balances. Reasonable? If not, why not
Do all constitutional scholar's agree with Bruce Fein? Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia apparently doesn't (www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
LAC.20070616.BAUER16/TPStory/TPNational/Television/) with respect to torture.
This president has clearly failed to preserve and protect the constitution-his number one constitutional responsibility. Will you concede the president has exceeded his constitutional powers? Keep in mind Bruce Fein clearly deals with the idea the president should have "special war-time powers" because of the "war on terror" and indicates this idea is not valid.
Bruce Fein is not the only constitutional scholar in the world. Do all "constitutional scholars" agree with him? Do a majority?
Just to clarify things. I wouldn't desire some far-left socialist government in this country. I'd be satisfied with a federal government that follows the constitution.
Where is the Constitutional authority for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or welfare? In previous posts you have indicated that you have a problem with the government spending more on defense, something specifically granted the federal government, than they do on the various welfare programs, which are not. How do you justify this with your stated desire to have a government that operates within the Constitution?
I would hope that we would both agree our government needs to follow it's constitution, right?
I think I agree with the statement, I am skeptical that you do.
"Where is the Constitutional authority for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or welfare? In previous posts you have indicated that you have a problem with the government spending more on defense, something specifically granted the federal government, than they do on the various welfare programs, which are not. How do you justify this with your stated desire to have a government that operates within the Constitution?"
I imagine in the same place where we find the constitutional autority for having a police force,fire departements,a postal servic