Although I don't subscribe to the Left Behind-style theology of this video (at least not anymore), I thought I'd post this for my pre-mill dispensationalist friends.
Stick with it until the end and you'll either find this awesome in a scary way or scary in a funny way. (I found it to be both.)
As an unapologetic, traditional dispensationalist, I found the misuse of Mt. 24 a problem. Never have been a fan of scare tactics, either. Yet I don't see any humor.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
zoiks.
(and isn't the phrase "traditional dispensationalist" oxymoronic?)
It would have been much more affective if the preacher had been left behind.
At first I thought the preacher got hit by lightning... which I thought was where the "scary/funny" angle was at.
That Bible hitting the floor got me to thinking though... When these folks are getting raptured, things they are holding in their hands fall to the ground. Yet the clothes on their bodies are transported with them. Is God's rapture-beam so accurate it can capture a body in direct contact with an object while leaving the object behind, yet so inaccurate that it cannot tell where the foot stops and the socks begin?
Are we going to be forever wearing the same underwear we were raptured in? Or is the rapture-beam like the Batman pole, where you get on one end wearing one suit, and exit the other with your holy robes of righteousness.
Just wonderin'...
Eh, I don't find this to be compelling. The compelling story of Christ is not his second coming, but his first. The love and compassion He showed for each of us. The sacrifice He made for each of us. The exemplar life He led. This is the compelling story and the one I prefer to share with non-believers. Love binds people better than fear.
Besides, I have always seen the eschatological parts of the New Testament to be something for people who are not only believers, but who are well grounded in the faith. Even people who have dedicated their lives to studying the Bible can not give us definitive answers as to what will happen. To the layman it is so much gobbledygook or B horror movie thrills. In any case, what might or might not happen, when Christ arrives, when His people are raptured, how long the tribulation lasts has no bearing on each person's salvation; so why even bring it up?
kbiel, I agree with you in so many ways, but some churches could use a straightforward discussion between the pastor and the congregation about the different end-times beliefs. If the pastor is postmillenial and preaches things like this, "God has called us (the church) to be co-creators of the world," and the majority of the congregation is premillenial or amillenial, confusion can result. That statement only makes sense if you are postmillenialist who believes, as Joe wrote,
If you're not a postmillenialist, the idea that we're "co-creators" with Christ is heretical.
elj,
I don't consider it heresy. Just "error".
Collin
What a sad, sorry religion that must rely on fear tactics to gain converts. If there were a hell, it would only be suited for those who used the threat of hell to frighten children and the gullible. Actually, even those people don't deserve hell. Here's some heresy for you - no human being deserves hell. I believe that torture is wrong under almost any conceivable circumstance, but it is pure evil when inflicted on someone to no end. Excuse me while I go vomit.
Eh, they lost me at the "6000 years later" line. The ignorance, it burns!
ex,
I wouldn't the point quite as strongly as you, but I do agree with the thrust of what you say. But I've come to call myself Christian. Not all Christians embrace moral absurdity.
Ex-Preacher,
Just because something is scary doesn't mean it isn't true. The military uses "scare tactics" to demonstrate the true horrors of nerve agent chemicals and the scary result of negligence of duty. The fact is that while this video may be inaccurate, Jesus Christ is returning to judge the world. Just because that frightens you doesn't mean you will be exempt in that day.
I'm running to my closet now to get my necktie!
This video is the kind of stuff Chris Hitchens takes aim at in his book "God Is Not Great".
Religious people who are not crazed millenialists might have a tough time understanding Mr. Hitchens stubborn insistence that "religion poisons everything". Even agnostics and atheists might have a tough time accepting such a harsh judgement on religion. But this video makes Mr. Hitchens' case almost as well as he does himself.
Why?
Because it shows that even Christians are susceptible to the kind of soul-crushing propaganda that one usually associates with fanatical Islamist jihadis.
That said, I personally found the video to be more funny than scary. Although any use of the tragic tsunami or the 9-11 attacks as talking points to reveal the biblical wrath of God is so repugnant and morally disgusting, that anger is the primary reaction that I experience.
Whoever made this video has no shame. I would love for Mr. Hitchens to debate him, or I would love to debate him myself. He deserves the mother of all rhetorical spankings. On the other hand, he is so far out there that probably the best thing to do is to ignore him entirely.
This video is the kind of stuff Chris Hitchens takes aim at in his book "God Is Not Great".
Religious people who are not crazed millenialists might have a tough time understanding Mr. Hitchens stubborn insistence that "religion poisons everything". Even agnostics and atheists might have a tough time accepting such a harsh judgement on religion. But this video makes Mr. Hitchens' case almost as well as he does himself.
Why?
Because it shows that even Christians are susceptible to the kind of soul-crushing propaganda that one usually associates with fanatical Islamist jihadis.
That said, I personally found the video to be more funny than scary. Although any use of the tragic tsunami or the 9-11 attacks as talking points to reveal the biblical wrath of God is so repugnant and morally disgusting, that anger is the primary reaction that I experience.
Whoever made this video has no shame. I would love for Mr. Hitchens to debate him, or I would love to debate him myself. He deserves the mother of all rhetorical spankings. On the other hand, he is so far out there that probably the best thing to do is to ignore him entirely.
Matthew Goggins,
I wonder why you assume that the first part of the video is meant to depict the wrath of God? Perhaps it is meant to highlight the folly of man and the need for the Savior's return.
Did I say it frightened me, Brad? I stopped believing in fairy tales a while back.
Ex-Preacher,
I believe that your original objection was to the religious, especially Christian, use of "scare tactics." Since you would probably agree that fear is a useful tool for teaching in some cases like those I described, you have now resorted to calling the certain return of the Lord Jesus Christ a "fairy tale."
The problem with your previous objection is that you thought the "scare tactics" used in the film were horrible. I pointed out that if the outcome of an event is certain, like death in the case of nerve agent poisoning, then giving the subject a healthy respect of the subject matter is altogether appropriate.
Your secondary, and far more serious problem, is that you deny the certain return and judgment of Jesus Christ. This video isn't an unlawful scare tactic because His reign is certain and your judgment inevitable. And so the Scripture that says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" is true (Proverbs 1:7). You would do well to heed it.
Brad, I'm sure you are a good person, so you might not want to take my disgust for your theology too personally.
But any God who deals with folly by ordering tsunamis and jihadi attacks is a perfectly evil son-of-a-b***h, and deserves scorn and rejection.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but I do hope there is a quiet place in the back of your mind where can appreciate a little bit what I am saying.
Matthew Goggins,
I understand your objection, but I think that you're missing my point. My point is that the suffering in that video, besides the tsunami, is caused by the actions of men. It seems that you see men run amok and somehow equate that with God. The point I'm making in this is that because men have run amok, we need God to right the things that have gone wrong.
As for the tsunami, all of creation is affected by the sin of men. Certainly, God could have prevented these catastrophes, and He could have even ordained them to come to pass. The point where we disagree is whether or not death and suffering are a deserved consequence for rebellion against God. Could it be that people are worse than you think? And couldn't it be that the point of this video is that Christ is returning, and in that return He will cure the world of her sinful ills?
Brad,
My point is that the suffering in that video, besides the tsunami, is caused by the actions of men.
The tsunami was caused by the sudden release of tension in the tectonic plates at the bottom the Pacific Ocean.
Could it be that people are worse than you think? And couldn't it be that the point of this video is that Christ is returning, and in that return He will cure the world of her sinful ills?
Yes, but it is not possible that people are as bad as you think.
Yes, that is the point of the video, but it is a morally repugnant one, for it assumes God has the right to punish or to send messages through mass death and destruction.
If I disagree with you, an effective way of expressing my disagreement would be to punch you in the face. It would be a powerful way of communicating my thoughts and feelings. But it would be very wrong to do so.
I don't hold God to a lower standard.
(Please note I have no desire at all to touch you in any way other than to shake your hand or pat you on the back. My example is purely hypothetical.)
Matthew Goggins,
It is not possible that people are as bad as you think.
Yes it is.
If I disagree with you, an effective way of expressing my disagreement would be to punch you in the face. It would be a powerful way of communicating my thoughts and feelings. But it would be very wrong to do so.
Not necessarily. C.S. Lewis makes this point pretty well in Perelandra. Sometimes it might not only be warranted to punch someone in the face; it might even be a moral obligation.
Violence is justified to restrain someone else who is violent. That's it, period.
Who was God restraining with the tsunami? According to you, he wasn't restraining anyone, he was punishing people or sending the world a message about human folly. Pure evil, and you're defending it.
Matthew Goggins,
Who was God restraining with the tsunami? According to you, he wasn't restraining anyone, he was punishing people or sending the world a message about human folly.
I said that God wasn't restraining evil? Where did I say that? He could have been punishing evil and sending a message to the world when He ordained this disaster to occur. I have no idea the many good and just reasons that God has for calamities. Would you object that the surgeon's cut is evil? Only if you were completely ignorant of what he were up to. In the same way, you are not privy to the full counsel of God, and nor am I for that matter. But I am convinced that all He does is good, and I am convinced that men are evil and deserving of punishment. And yes, a tsunami's wrath would fall within God's jurisdiction to use, if He so chooses.
Just to be perfectly clear here, I'd like to ask you a question.
You are kind of waffling back and forth between, "Yes I know and understand the theology behind the tsunami" and, "It's actually all just a mystery that I can't explain very well".
My question to you is: Are you saying that the people who were killed in the tsunami were evil, and that they deserved to be punished by God by perishing in the tsunami?
How is this for scare tactics:
Read Revelation 19:11-16. It speaks of Christ judging and waging war when he returns, that his eyes are a flame of fire and that he is wearing a robe drenched in blood. Out of his mouth comes a sword in which he smites the nations and rules them with a rod of iron (yes, that tender loving Jesus). "He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty" (vs. 15). Picture the divine warrior stomping upon grapes (i.e. people) as they spurt forth reams of bloody goo all around the wine press. This man verse 16 says is the "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords." Mock to you own demise.
On the tsunami question read luke 13:1-5. God has appointed the time of all who die. All who die are not innocent, regardless of the otherwise tragic circumstances of their death. Whether you die at the hands of a gunman on the campus of Virginia Tech, thru a tsunami, Katrina or of good old age, you never die innocent. We erroneously assume that because someone dies tragically that entitles them to claim a free ticket of innocence. Jesus says no one who dies tragically is a worse of greater sinner then others. The lesson of tragic death is simple: "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." That is the sober truth that is never told.
How is this for scare tactics:
Read Revelation 19:11-16. [ ... ] Mock to you own demise.
Scott, if you read and believe the book of Revelation literally, then you are susceptible to committing the same self-righteous atrocities in the name of God as the Koran-inspired jihadis.
Shame on you for allowing your intellect and your conscience to be hijacked by evil millenialism. The beliefs that you wish to place beyond mockery are thoroughly disgusting and immoral.
Any preacher who promotes this vile junk is committing a crime against humanity, or he would be to the extent that anyone takes him seriously.
The lesson of tragic death is simple: "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." That is the sober truth that is never told.
So, on the biblical authority of Luke 13, you are answering my question to Brad in the affirmative:
Are you saying that the people who were killed in the tsunami were evil, and that they deserved to be punished by God by perishing in the tsunami?
If I am wrong, and your answer to my question is not yes, then please correct me.
Matthew Goggins,
I'm not trying to waffle between the theology of disaster and mystery. Perhaps I should say that I believe that God ordains all things, (I'm a soft determinist), but that I do not know His reasons for everything that He does in the short term. I know that all things occur, in the end, to demonstrate His glory. Both the glory of His mercy and of His justice. That's the best I can do in a limited space.
As for whether or not I say people are evil, the point is moot. The Bible, however, is explicit in this area. Ephesians 2:1-3 states, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Examples affirming the universal sinfulness of man in the Bible could be multiplied if this one isn't adequate.
So yes, no one dies who does not deserve death. However, death is not the end, either for the Christian or the non-Christian. If a Christian drowned in the tsunami, they were ushered into eternal life with the Lord. If not, then they were ushered into everlasting condemnation. So then, the tsunami could have been an instrument of God's mercy to bring someone to paradise or an instrument of judgment to bring someone to deserved punishment.
But this is all rather beside my original point. My original point was that the clip of the tsunami, jihads, disasters (both human and natural) could have been put in the video to show the need for order to come to this chaos. That will be established in the return of Jesus Christ, which is the point of the video. The hope of this video is that people will think about the end, consider their way, and be moved to follow Christ. It is not to gloat over destruction.
Brad,
I respect you for sticking up for your beliefs in a polite and thoughtful way. But the divergence between your good character and the horrible things you claim to believe is just made all the more stark to me by your calm, rational delivery.
Ephesians 2:1-3 states, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others." Examples affirming the universal sinfulness of man in the Bible could be multiplied if this one isn't adequate.
"Lusts of the flesh and of the mind", and being "children of wrath", are not necessarily sinful aspects of humanity. These things can lead to sin if we allow them to, either out of weakness or selfishness. But most people get along just fine in their daily lives managing their various lusts and passions and wrath. Most people are very good, and just don't have a big problem with their sinful proclivities.
So yes, no one dies who does not deserve death.
Yes, the six-year-old boy who is stricken with a malignant brain tumor, he was just asking for it, wasn't he? Examples affirming the arbitrary unfairness and tragedy of death could be multiplied if this one isn't adequate.
If a Christian drowned in the tsunami, they were ushered into eternal life with the Lord. If not, then they were ushered into everlasting condemnation. So then, the tsunami could have been an instrument of God's mercy to bring someone to paradise or an instrument of judgment to bring someone to deserved punishment.
This is the crux of where you are trying to lead people astray.
Good people come in all religious flavors: Christian, Muslim, athiest, agnostic, and so on. Bad people come in all religious flavors: Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, and so on.
If God exists, he is much more concerned with the content of our character than he is with the content of our beliefs. If he cares about anything, it is about how we treat each other, not whether or not we believe in him, or in Jesus.
To say the following about tsunami victims is the height of arrogance and un-Christian-ness:
If [they were] not [Christian], then they were ushered into everlasting condemnation.
I challenge you, as a good person, to look closely at what you are professing in this blanket condemnation, and to repent your hard-hearted misrepresentation of God's will, of God's love for all people, regardless of creed.
Can you picture yourself in Indonesia or Thailand at the time of the tsunami? If someone who had lost a family or a village in the floods had heard that you condemned those who had died to eternal damnation, would you be able to repeat it to that person's face? How could you -- and if you couldn't, doesn't that tell you that maybe you are not as privy to God's counsel as you think you are?
When you said, in comment 23, "And yes, a tsunami's wrath would fall within God's jurisdiction to use, if He so chooses", apparently that means it is "an instrument of judgment to bring someone to deserved punishment". So you are saying, not only is the person who is not Christian condemned to eternal punishment, he also deserves to die in a tsunami.
This is just craziness, it's pure, insane evil, served up with the self-serving justification of ministering to people's souls. Don't you see how fine a line it is between advocating the glory of God's mercy in sending us devastating tsunamis, and advocating the glory of suicide-bombing, or nuclear terrorism, on behalf of inducing submission to Allah's will?
You have traveled a few steps over the border into fantastic-land, home of the religious fanatic, and I invite you in the strongest terms possible to hop back over onto the much safer ground of a common-sense humanism.
God will forgive you if you do.
My original point was that the clip of the tsunami, jihads, disasters (both human and natural) could have been put in the video to show the need for order to come to this chaos. That will be established in the return of Jesus Christ, which is the point of the video. The hope of this video is that people will think about the end, consider their way, and be moved to follow Christ. It is not to gloat over destruction.
You don't gloat over destruction, because you are a good person. But you defend it as divine justice, as divine mercy, when in fact a tsunami is the opposite of justice: it is 200,000 people killed in a couple of hours, for no good reason whatsoever. If that is divine mercy, then God is an evil, insane tyrant, and his mercy is worse than worthless.
If you want people to follow Christ, the loving, forgiving moral teacher (as opposed to the angry millenialist), then you should lead by example and love your fellow men, and not defend a God who would cast good people into hell or drown them arbitrarily in a devastating flood.
You should really be ashamed at the way you ascribe sadistic punishment to God and Jesus.
Matthew Goggins,
Your rhetoric is impressive. The simple fact is that if you are any student of the Bible or of historical Christianity, then you will be forced to admit that my position is not that of a "religious fanatic." Unless by that you mean that I am committed fanatically to God's sovereignty over all things and to the glory of the resurrected Christ.
You, however, are fanatically committed to a fallacious view of human character. Scripture is clear that men are born with a sinful nature; that's Christianity 101. You also err in making such a boogey-man out of death. Yes, six year olds die of brain tumors, but I have repeated that death is not the end of life. You cannot even bring yourself to call me evil even though you believe I hold horrific thoughts about people. Certainly, I would mourn over the death of so many in any place. But I would tell them frankly that apart from salvation in Jesus Christ, they will certainly perish in eternal seperation from God. The same goes for you, too. And me, for that matter.
Further, you err in your assumption about God Himself. It bewilders me to think that your concept of God is one in which He cannot control or prevent tsunamis or earthquakes or terrorists on planes. At least I can say this much about God; He's not Zeus. Since Scripture teaches that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28), then I have to believe that tsunamis and brain tumors somehow work into this equation. It's not as if Christians are unaware of suffering or immune to it. There is at least one book in the Bible dedicated to it (Job). We've been answering these objections for centuries. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of this.
Finally, you err in believing that God is more concerned with our character than in what we believe. This is absurd. What you believe is precisely the thing that molds your character. A person's character flows from his faith. And the idea that being a "child of wrath" simply means that folks struggle with sins is contextually impossible from Ephesians 2:1-3. Unless, of course, you are willing to concede that Christians no longer struggle with such things. Paul's point, after all, is that Christians are no longer children of wrath.
So what sort of God do you believe in, Matthew? One who cannot stop disaster? Does he know the future? Is he powerless to stop suffering? If he can stop suffering and brain tumors in six year olds, why doesn't he? I'd be surprised if you could answer these questions and still maintain your espoused beliefs and at the same time keep a consistent portrait of any semblance of the God of the Bible.
Matthew,
Yes I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and I interpret it in a historical-grammatical fashion. Though Revelation 19 contains obvious figurative imagery it speaks of a literal return of Jesus Christ to judge this present evil world.
On your other question, I answer yes. As harsh as it may sound, Jesus in Luke 13 is saying everyone is evil and so deserves death. Since God is in control of life and death, nobody's death is an 'accident.' When I say everyone is evil, I mean by that that everyone has rebelled against God, supressing the truth they know about God in their consistent unrighteous behavior (Read Romans 1). I am not saying that the deaths suffered in the tsunami or other similar tragic events are necessarily the result of direct divine judgment for specific acts of evil. Nonetheless, all who die regardless of the circumstances surrounding their death ultimately die because human sin has brought death into the world and the death rate for humans is 100% (not withstanding believers who are alive at Christ's return). Since the death rate is 100% we surmise that the rate of corruption among human hearts is 100%. This is why Jesus is so insistent that people repent of their sins and believe in Him. He is the only solution the sin/ death rate problem.
Matthew,
On another note I wish to pose some questions for you. On what basis can you claim that
"The beliefs that you wish to place beyond mockery are thoroughly disgusting and immoral"? How do you determine what is moral and what is not? Upon what authority do you make such an assertion? Do you believe that this "crime against humanity" is deserving of punishment? Should God punish me for such a crime? If so upon what basis would you assert this? Why is this a crime against humanity? Do you believe in moral evil and the necessity of justice that punishes moral evil? Furthermore, is God the ultimate judge of what is morally right and wrong? Your considered answers to these questions will help me with the credibilty of your assertions.
Matthew,
I have come to respect the fact that you are an honest and thoughtful debator here. However, I'm struck by how often the basic tenets of Christianity somehow seem so morally shocking to you. For me, the Bible perfectly describes the human condition in a fallen world and the consequences of sin for humanity. Therefore insead of becoming outraged, I nod my head in agreement and pray for God's grace upon our fallen world.
One passage in your comment struck me, you wrote "But most people get along just fine in their daily lives managing their various lusts and passions and wrath. Most people are very good, and just don't have a big problem with their sinful proclivities."
Whether you believe it personally or not, can't you see that no Christian can agree with that statement? Christianity teaches that no one is good. Sin is not something that we can manage, and deal with. It is a death sentence, because no Holy God can tolerate sin.
Finally, I don't want to discourage you from dialoging with us, but to come to the discussion expecting Chrisitan doctrine to be something it isn't is pretty counter productive.
Brad,
Your rhetoric is impressive.
Thank you.
The simple fact is that if you are any student of the Bible or of historical Christianity, then you will be forced to admit that my position is not that of a "religious fanatic."
Historical Christianity is replete with stories of the most atrocious fanatacism.
The crusaders who liberated Jerusalem from the infidels proceeded to massacre thousands of men, women, and children until the streets were literally drenched in blood. More recently, many men and women were routinely burned at the stake for heresy or witchcraft.
Burned at the stake, Brad. Can you imagine what that means, to be secured to a wooden post and burned alive?
If the people who authorized that in Jesus' name were not fanatics, then is anyone a fanatic?
Unless by that you mean that I am committed fanatically to God's sovereignty over all things and to the glory of the resurrected Christ.
Well, that is part of it, but that is not the most important part of it.
What really makes you a fanatic, a fanatic in a truly bad way, is that you believe that mass death, suffering, and destruction gives glory to God, and is a just punishment administered by God. I certainly hope you would never act as God's agent in administering any of that death, suffering, or destruction.
But if you really profoundly believe that such things glorify God and are what we deserve, then what is to really stop you from taking the next logical step and actively helping God in his evil agenda of sadistic punishment? The only thing which is restraining you, apparently, is the common-sense humanism that the vast majority of us share (and which, of course, has plenty of biblical warrant in the New Testament teachings of Jesus).
That is why I urge you to embrace that humanism fully as part of your theology. If it remains subordinated to your insane millenialism, it might become reflected in your actions one day, or in the actions of someone who takes your teaching to heart.
You, however, are fanatically committed to a fallacious view of human character.
You are mistaken.
You already asked me, in comment 19,
Could it be that people are worse than you think?
And I directly answered you,
Yes, but it is not possible that people are as bad as you think.
In other words, yes it is possible that my views on human nature are fallacious. But I admit that possibility, and I am open to changing my mind based on evidence contrary to what I believe.
I am not going to burn people alive for disagreeing with me, or believe that they are condemned to hell.
Scripture is clear that men are born with a sinful nature; that's Christianity 101.
I agree that sinfulness is part of our make-up. But so is goodness.
When I observe the people around me, I observe a lot of very good, decent people who aren't going to hell -- and that definitely includes people who aren't Christian. If that basic truth is not part of your scripture or your Christianity, then your scripture and your Christianity is wrong on that particular point.
You cannot even bring yourself to call me evil even though you believe I hold horrific thoughts about people.
There are many people who cling fast to evil beliefs, but who allow the better side of their nature to govern their day-to-day lives. But when times get tough, there is always the danger that such people resort to acting out upon the evil that they profess.
Words are cheap. The acid test for beliefs is how we behave, what our actions are. If your actions were to reflect your beliefs, if you were to become a terrorist, for example, then I would be very happy to call you evil and treat you accordingly.
Certainly, I would mourn over the death of so many in any place.
There's hope for you :)
But I would tell them frankly that apart from salvation in Jesus Christ, they will certainly perish in eternal separation from God. The same goes for you, too. And me, for that matter.
Well, you're a fanatic, but you're consistent, so at least you're not a hypocrite.
It's not as if Christians are unaware of suffering or immune to it. There is at least one book in the Bible dedicated to it (Job). We've been answering these objections for centuries. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of this.
You are right, I am aware of the theological debates over suffering.
I personally find the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, evil, plagues, cancers, and so on to be rather inconsistent with the idea of an all-powerful and all-loving God. It just doesn't fit together in any rational way.
My own belief is that a supernatural, omnipotent, personal God does not exist. That is a hard pill for a Christian to swallow, so I don't expect to convert you to my belief. But I do hope you can re-examine your "If God isn't torturing us or destroying us we should be eternally grateful" theology.
Finally, you err in believing that God is more concerned with our character than in what we believe. This is absurd. What you believe is precisely the thing that molds your character.
What you believe about good and evil is precisely the thing that molds your character. But any person, religious or not, can choose to be good or evil. There are plenty of good people from every religious background, and plenty of bad people as well.
A person's character flows from his faith. And the idea that being a "child of wrath" simply means that folks struggle with sins is contextually impossible from Ephesians 2:1-3. Unless, of course, you are willing to concede that Christians no longer struggle with such things. Paul's point, after all, is that Christians are no longer children of wrath.
If you believe you need your faith to be a good person, then be a good person and don't worry if I don't agree with your faith. Just make sure that the God-is-angry parts of your faith don't lead you astray, and that your over-arching concern at all times is to be a good person, and not a death-dealing agent of divine justice.
And make sure you stress that in your sermons, too. One of the members of your congregation might misinterpret you, so you need to be careful.
So what sort of God do you believe in, Matthew? One who cannot stop disaster? Does he know the future? Is he powerless to stop suffering? If he can stop suffering and brain tumors in six year olds, why doesn't he? I'd be surprised if you could answer these questions and still maintain your espoused beliefs and at the same time keep a consistent portrait of any semblance of the God of the Bible.
I'm sorry I've led you to think I was Christian in my theology. When I make reference to God, I should make it more clear that I mean "if he exists, which I don't think he does". The language of religion is very handy when I'm talking to a believer, so sometimes I use it a little too freely. I apologize for misleading you.
Scott,
I am not saying that the deaths suffered in the tsunami or other similar tragic events are necessarily the result of direct divine judgment for specific acts of evil.
That is good. It is not really good enough, though, unless you take out the word necessarily:
I am not saying that the deaths suffered in the tsunami or other similar tragic events are the result of direct divine judgment for specific acts of evil.
If God exists, which I don't think he does, he wouldn't visit such horrible suffering and devastation to innocent people. Unless, of course, he is evil, and you don't believe that he is.
I can't walk up to someone and pummel him on the street just because the Bible says we are all sinful children of Adam. And if I can't do it, and you can't do it, neither can God. Because when push comes to shove, if something is allowed to God, then it is allowed to men as well, since God is the source of all goodness and all morality (if you believe in God, which I don't).
Nonetheless, all who die regardless of the circumstances surrounding their death ultimately die because human sin has brought death into the world and the death rate for humans is 100% (not withstanding believers who are alive at Christ's return).
What about gazelles?
Are gazelles hunted by lions because human sin has brought death into the world? Are gazelles ripped alive by lions because gazelles themselves are sinful in God's eyes?
Since the death rate is 100% we surmise that the rate of corruption among human hearts is 100%.
You are wrong. Not about the death rate, but about the rate of corruption. There are good people in the world, and they are living refutation of your theology. Or they would be if you allow yourself to admit their existence.
"The beliefs that you wish to place beyond mockery are thoroughly disgusting and immoral"? How do you determine what is moral and what is not?
Morality is how we interact with others.
If we choose to be good, that means we are choosing to deal with other people in the way that other people want us to treat them. Likewise, if we choose to be bad, we are treating people in a way that they don't want.
So determining what is moral or immoral is not normally a difficult thing to do. In any given situation, it usually boils down to the simple principle: help other people, and avoid harming other people.
For example, don't cause a tsunami or fly a jet plane into a building. Do warn people about an imminent tsunami, or try to stop the jet plane from flying into a building.
Upon what authority do you make such an assertion?
Upon the authority of reason in the service of compassion. By viewing morality as an end in itself, not a mandate from a holy scripture or a divine lawgiver.
And if someone doesn't happen to be interested in rationality or compassion or morality, then I assert my morality on the authority of myself and all those who agree with me, that is to say, on behalf of civilized society.
Do you believe that this "crime against humanity" is deserving of punishment?
Everyone enjoys freedom of conscience. Beliefs, even evil or crazy beliefs, are not crimes in and of themselves.
Preaching evil or insanity, however, is a serious business. Anyone who directly incites violence should be restained by the force of law. Anyone who preaches evil or hate should be strenuously debated and challenged by people who are opposed to evil and hate.
If one uses the book of Revelation to exhort Christians on a mission to convert faithless nations, lest they get trampled upon the Lord's bloody winepress, then that is certainly a disservice to humanity. People should accept the teachings of Jesus to the extent that he espoused a new, better morality, not to the extent that he threatened people with biblical calamities.
And it would be a positive crime against humanity if such Revelation-based preaching was intended to incite violence in the name of Jesus, or if it succeeded in inciting violence. If such were the case, then it should be punished.
Do you believe in moral evil and the necessity of justice that punishes moral evil?
Yes.
Furthermore, is God the ultimate judge of what is morally right and wrong?
No.
Even if God existed, he would only be good if his will could be judged to be good by the standards of morality. If he were to will something that wasn't good, then he would not be perfectly good.
In other words, if God existed (which I don't believe he does), and if he were good, he would be good because his nature or his will conforms to some standard of goodness which was independent of his will.
Oclarki,
I have come to respect the fact that you are an honest and thoughtful debator here.
Thank you.
For me, the Bible perfectly describes the human condition in a fallen world and the consequences of sin for humanity. Therefore instead of becoming outraged, I nod my head in agreement and pray for God's grace upon our fallen world.
Death, suffering, disease, chaos, and evil are all part of our lives. If religion helps us to accept that reality and deal with it, then that is a good thing.
But there is a big difference between accepting that evil exists, and holding it up as the handiwork of God's justice or mercy.
There are people here who look at the tsunami and think that anyone who wasn't Christian deserved it.
If I were to tell a mainstream Christian what has been said in this comment thread, he would accuse me of slandering Christianity and religion. And he would be right -- if I were making it up. But I'm not making it up, Brad and Scott are freely owning up to their beliefs and preaching their religion to others.
Anyone who believes that non-Christians deserve to be killed by acts of God is a deeply, deeply deluded religious bigot and fanatic. Anyone who believes that non-Christians deserve eternal damnation is also a religious bigot and fanatic.
Christianity teaches that no one is good. Sin is not something that we can manage, and deal with. It is a death sentence, because no Holy God can tolerate sin.
Is this a core belief of Christianity? Maybe, maybe not. Some Christians believe it, some don't, that is something for Christians to decide and settle for themselves.
I disagree with it, because it doesn't mesh with what I observe to be empirical reality. And I'm glad it doesn't seem to be true, because it seems like an awfully gloomy and sour way to view your fellow human beings, not to mention one's self.
And if Holy God views ordinary sinfulness as a capital offense, then perhaps he isn't so holy. (If he exists, which I don't believe he does.)
Finally, I don't want to discourage you from dialoging with us, but to come to the discussion expecting Chrisitan doctrine to be something it isn't is pretty counter-productive.
One of the odd things about fervent religion is that it makes the most absolute sort of pronouncements on every aspect of our lives and our world, and yet it gets kind of prickly and offended when people give their honest reaction to this or that piece of the dogma.
Actually, it's not that odd, I guess, it's just human nature. But from a scientific perspective, for example, contrary views are not just tolerated, they are welcomed as in integral part of the whole enterprise of uncovering the truth.
I'm struck by how often the basic tenets of Christianity somehow seem so morally shocking to you.
The word "shocking" does reflect the level of disgust and scorn that I have, but it doesn't precisely reflect my emotional reaction.
I am not shocked that a preacher would create a video that claims that the tsunami and 9-11 were expressions of divine wrath -- how could I be, when I remember how Jerry Falwell (peace be upon him) said the same exact thing just a few days after the World Trade Center collapsed.
My reaction to the video is anger -- anger that a man who holds himself out as a role model and a teacher uses the dead bodies of innocent people as evidence of their evil nature. This is morally repugnant callowness, no matter how you slice it.
As for Brad and Scott, I am sorry they defend this garbage, but I'm sure they are good people whom I would like personally if I knew them face-to-face in the non-virtual world.
So they don't shock me either, they just make me concerned for their spiritual well-being, and the well-being of those who belong to their congregations.
Matthew,
I wanted to react to a couple passages in your post. first, "Is this a core belief of Christianity? Maybe, maybe not. Some Christians believe it, some don't, that is something for Christians to decide and settle for themselves."
What will it take to convince you that the fallenness of humanity and the consequences of sin are not a debatable point of christian doctrine?
Second, "But from a scientific perspective, for example, contrary views are not just tolerated, they are welcomed as in integral part of the whole enterprise of uncovering the truth."
Really, what about those that question manmade global warming?
Finally, "And if Holy God views ordinary sinfulness as a capital offense, then perhaps he isn't so holy."
That one sentence explains so concisely why you cannot comprehend the character of God. To use a scientific analogy. The Logos of the universe, Gods Word incarnated in the person of Christ set the rules that govern the universe. Its physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, and at its very foundation, math.
Let us say that as a result of sin, humanity has ceased to function within the foundation and rules that God has laid out for the universe. Therefore our seperation and condemnation are similar to a math equation that states 2+2=5. there is no way such an equation can rationally exist within the confines of what we know as mathematics. In the same way we must remain seperated from God.
What is interesting to me is that you profess gloom and dispair that Christianity makes such claims about the nature of humanity, but then stop halfway in evaluting the full claim of Christianity which is no one has to suffer condemnation at all. Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, humanity has a way to escape God's wrath and be restored to full fellowship with the God if the universe. That should be good news to anyone!
Oclarki,
You are a good person.
You feel the pain that afflicts people, and you want God to save us from that pain and from death. And the same is very probably true of Brad and Scott.
So how can I reject millenialism as evil and crazy?
Because the belief that all people are evil beings who deserve death and eternal damnation is a belief which is dangerously unhinged.
If you, or anyone else, believes in millenialism, then you are motivated to save yourself, and to save the souls of others. Quite often that can lead to very good things, such as a fervent embrace of Christian ethics, including love, forgiveness, respect, humility, and charitable works.
But there is a dark side to the belief as well.
You view people as evil, including yourself, who are in no way close to being evil, including some very good people indeed. This is just psychologically screwed up, even if doesn't surface a lot in your normal interactions with others.
You may very well make religious conversion a higher priority than treating people with simple, unconditional love and respect. Such an inversion of priorities can lead to all kinds of mischief and trouble.
And finally, it is possible, in theory at least, that someone with your theology could be susceptible to undertaking various immoral, or even insane, projects that appear to be warranted by the Bible. Assassination of abortion providers; extreme ostracism of unbelievers, even if they are family members or friends or neighbors; religious terrorism; joining an apocalyptic cult.
Once faith in the holy writ of scripture is made the ultimate authority, then all competing claims on one's conscience will be given relative short shrift, whether they ought to or not.
What will it take to convince you that the fallenness of humanity and the consequences of sin are not a debatable point of Christian doctrine?
With all due respect, who died and made you Pope?
You might not approve of Unitarians or other liberal churches, or liberal Catholics for that matter, but that doesn't mean they're not Christian.
But I suppose my objection is mostly semantics. If you use the word "Christian" as shorthand for "orthodox Christian" or "ultra-orthodox Christian" or "Calvinist", then your point stands.
By the way, is it Christian doctrine that the earth is 6,000 years old, that adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned, and that we should keep kosher kitchens?
Really, what about those that question manmade global warming?
Man-made global warming is not an established scientific fact. Those who insist it is equivalent to revealed dogma are politicians or activists with an agenda, or simple blowhards.
Not every scientist adheres to the scientific ideal of embracing doubt and skepticism. But that's because scientists are imperfect humans like everybody else. A scientist who is practicing science will not dismiss contrary views or evidence.
Therefore our seperation and condemnation are similar to a math equation that states 2+2=5. There is no way such an equation can rationally exist within the confines of what we know as mathematics. In the same way, we must remain separated from God.
What is interesting to me is that you profess gloom and dispair that Christianity makes such claims about the nature of humanity, but then stop halfway in evaluting the full claim of Christianity, which is no one has to suffer condemnation at all.
Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, humanity has a way to escape God's wrath and be restored to full fellowship with the God if the universe. That should be good news to anyone!
According to your interpretation of the Bible, God creates us unworthy of life. But if I submit to him, he will be merciful and grant me eternal fellowship.
Well God can take his wrath and stuff it, thank you very much. If he exists, and is a good being, then I will allow him to be my friend. But if he is responsible for evil and hell and whatnot, he can take an eternal hike.
That is to say, the "good news" is not good news to me. God has a lot of explaining to do, and the odds that he can finesse everything that can be observed in the cosmos are slim to none, his alleged omnipotence notwithstanding.
Oclarki, let me emphasize again that I acknowledge your goodness, and I respect your willingness to engage me on such civil and thoughtful terms.
Religion is not the source of all evil. As I said above, religion is the inspiration and the guide for much good and noble behavior.
But some religious beliefs are bigoted, evil, or even crazy. If one is Christian, one should use one's conscience to pick out and hold fast to the good bits in the Bible and in Christianity, and to identify and reject the irrational and immoral bits.
Thank you very much for the constructive dialogue.
Cheers,
Matthew
In comment 13, I mentioned Chris Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great".
I tried to link to it, but I messed up the link. Here it is again: "God Is Not Great".
Matthew,
I do not think you have an adequate basis for morality. Who is to say that one thing is wrong and another right? For example take abortion. Pro-lifers say it is murder and therefore morally evil. Pro-choicers say bans against abortion rob women of the right to choose what to do with their bodies and so banning abortion is morally evil. Considering that our society is divided on this issue how do you determine who is right and on what basis do you condemn the views of those that disagree? Unless you look to a source for moral judgments outside of what is socially constructed, you are hopelessly lost in a morass of personal opinion. Why for example should a western, "civilised" culture look down upon a canabalistic one? If cannabalism is the cuturally accepted norm, is cannabalism right or wrong?
You misunderstand the Christian doctrine of human depravity. It does not teach that people are "thoroughly" evil. In other words, by God's common grace, He restrains evil in the world on the one hand, and upholds the moral consciences of all people so that we are internally restrained to some extent by our own consciences. This reflects that we are all created in the moral image of God, the source of all goodness and righteousness. However, the Bible teaches that we go against our better judgment (i.e. we violate our consciences) and that sin has corrupted us.
When we say there is no such thing as a good person, we don't mean that people cannot act morally good. What we mean is that humans do not meet true moral goodness which is divine perfection. All men fall short of the divine standard of moral goodness because their hearts are corrupted. Jesus says even if you are angry with your neighbor in an unrighteous way, you are a murderer. Murder starts in the heart long before it becomes an action and often never becomes an action. Likewise, he says that if you lust in your heart after a woman, you have already committed sexual immorality with her even though no actual sexual act was performed. There are many external restraints placed upon our behavior that if removed would release the monster that lives in our hearts.
Pride is the most fundamental sin of the heart and it is pride that prevents us from seeing that we are all morally culpable even though we may act with utmost kindness at times. True humilty always points the finger at one's self before he points the finger at others. But a true perspective on good and evil realizes that all men have corrupted hearts that bely their consciences. It may appear that Christians are always pointing the finger at others, but the reality is - if they are true Christians they have first pointed the finger at themsleves and say, "If it were not for the grace of God my own evil would indeed be unhinged." We fall upon God's grace (i.e. His undeserved favor towards sinners) to pardon us from our guilt and sin before His holy bar of justice. We believe Christ met the necessary demands to aquit us of guilt and punsihment before God, the supreme judge of human evil, by acting as our substitue and taking our punishment for us. This is why the cross of Christ is at the center of Christian belief. Without the cross we are hopelessly doomed by our own corrupted hearts that have rebelled against God and have despised all things divine.
Scott,
You misunderstand the Christian doctrine of human depravity. It does not teach that people are "thoroughly" evil.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that man, inasmuch as he is created in the image of God, is blessed with a good, solid conscience, and is at least partially good.
However, when faced with temptation, we allow sin to corrupt our good nature, and thus our goodness falls short of perfection. Inasmuch as we are not divinely perfect, we are not good, but corrupt.
You then go on to say that even when we don't give in to temptation, we can also be guilty of moral imperfection, because we have imperfect thoughts or emotions, such as unrighteous anger or lust, or the worst emotion of all, pride. You go further in your argument and state that these emotions, which give shape to the "corrupted hearts" that drive our personalities, are forces that "bely our consciences".
Our "corrupted hearts" -- our impure emotions - are "bely[ing] our consciences". In other words, when one looks at human nature, the good part, or the conscience which has been made in the image of God, is trumped and betrayed and outclassed by the bad part, by the lust and the anger and the overarching pride which constitute our corrupted hearts.
Fair enough.
I'm sure you can find biblical warrant aplenty for this theological portrait of human nature.
Although I do think your phrase, "the Christian doctrine of human depravity" is a bit overwrought. The traditional orthodox church would have made reference, instead, to a doctrine of "original sin", a phrase which I believe better conveys the nuances of your views.
But what have I myself been saying about this doctrine?
I'm not saying that you can't find it in the Bible. Of course you can.
And I'm not saying it wasn't a doctrinal pillar of the Christian church for many centuries. Of course it was.
And I wasn't even saying that the doctrine says we are 100% evil, as opposed to 51% evil or whatever percentage you are claiming it to be.
All I was saying is that this particular bit of biblical wisdom is just flat out wrong.
Why?
Because it is.
Sure, there are bad people who give free rein to their lust and their anger and their pride, and to some other bad stuff as well.
Sure, all of us (or nearly all of us) have lust and anger and pride that engage in regular combat with our consciences.
But many, if not most of us, do pretty well in promoting the precepts of our consciences over our tendencies to surrender to (and/or to actively seek out) sinful temptation. And some of us are so good at maintaining and obeying a vital, vigorous conscience that it would be absolutely slanderous to describe such worthy folk as anything less than good.
In attempting to deal with the classic theological problem of the existence of evil, your theology creates and stumbles into a problem of its own making: the denial of good, virtuous people.
And it does so by means of a clumsy attack on human emotion which takes perfectly fine, even noble, feelings and mis-characterizes them as monstrous and corrupt.
For example you say,
... if you lust in your heart after a woman, you have already committed sexual immorality with her even though no actual sexual act was performed.
Lust, however, is most emphatically not sexual immorality at all. Ordinary lust is a perfectly normal, healthy, good emotion, and it is shameful to preach that anyone should be ashamed of it.
Acting on lust can be, and often is, a whole different ballgame. But the lust itself is no more immoral than daydreaming about a delicious hamburger (or a delicious salad, if you prefer).
Likewise, you make disparaging comments about anger. But anger, like lust, is nothing to be ashamed about. It is what we do as a result of our anger which determines whether or not we are immoral. Even you admit that there is a distinction between "righteous" and "unrighteous" anger.
Worst of all, you confuse humility with a calling to automatically and neurotically blame oneself, as a matter of course, for the bad things that happen in one's life:
... we are all morally culpable even though we may act with utmost kindness at times. True humilty always points the finger at one's self before he points the finger at others.
While it is good to have self-awareness and to have a willingness to be self-critical, your knee-jerk "humility" is a travesty of intelligent self-reflection. Blaming-oneself-first-and-foremost is a ridiculous recipe for misunderstanding oneself and one's role in the world.
The whole point of my anger with the person who made the millenial video was that he took the bodies of good, innocent people and held them up in front of our faces as evidence that they were evil people who deserved death and damnation.
Such an absolute desecration of the lives and memories of the tsumami and 9-11 victims is disgusting and repulsive. But unfortunately, the desecration flows logically and easily from the video-maker's theology of original sin and Christian redemption, especially when you throw in some feverish second-coming millenialism for good measure.
People, at least most people, are good, not evil, and some are very, very good indeed. To claim that people only deserve death and damnation unless they accept Jesus as their savior is evil and crazy. What you have written about "human depravity" does not contradict my evaluation of your theology; it only reinforces it, by spelling out in greater detail the reasons you believe men are unworthy of life and happiness.
I do not think you have an adequate basis for morality.
I am tempted, out of natual humility, to agree with you. How could I be so smug as to assert that I, or my moral philosophy, have the answers, or a way of finding the answers, to every ethical question, problem, or dilemma?
But the truth is, my morality is superior to a morality based on a literal reading of the Bible.
When you claim that my morality is inadequate, you imply that yours, with its basis on the word of God himself, is much more adequate, if not actually divinely perfect. And I obviously can't agree with either of those implications.
The Bible is full of a wide variety of material -- good, bad, and indifferent. It is the moral obligation of every Christian to evaluate each moral pronouncement of the Bible on the merits, and only keep those which are actually good.
Considering that our society is divided on [the issue of abortion,] how do you determine who is right and on what basis do you condemn the views of those that disagree? Unless you look to a source for moral judgments outside of what is socially constructed, you are hopelessly lost in a morass of personal opinion.
The Bible, and religion in general, are man-made, so you are substituting your own morass of slowly-evolving human tradition for my alleged morass of conflicting and competing personal opinions.
However, since everyone is his own moral arbiter, whether religion is true or not, there is no getting around the morass of personal opinion, even if one wanted to. My morality has the great merit of confronting the morass head-on and applying some simple and direct principles in order to get a handle on it.
Not perfectly satisfying, perhaps not even "adequate", but it's the best we have available.
Matthew,
I will comment on one statement you made.
"...since everyone is his own moral arbiter, whether religion is true or not, there is no getting around the morass of personal opinion, even if one wanted to."
This is as close as a basis for morality that I believe you have stated. If morality is based upon our own opinions and we are each our own moral arbiters then you have no business condemning the morality of others, including those who made the video. On your view they have just as much a right to state what their morality is as you do. Why should you impose your personal view on another? The only reason that you could impose your view of morality upon another is if their existed some outside objective standard by which everyone is obligated to follow. But if morality is merely a matter of individual opinion then there is no basis to say someone else is right or wrong.
Furthermore, you cannot say that morality is based on social consensus. My guesss is that you might support abortion rights and possibbly even homosexuality as a legitimate moral lifestyle. Yet neither of these positions can claim the majority of social consensus. Many people are seeking to change the consensus on homosexuality and have made a conserted effort for the last 30-35 years or so. But what right do they have to buck the prevailing consensus? My point is, even if you accept socially constructed morality based on the cultural consensus, even that must be said to originate with the personal opinions of individuals that then seek to impose those opinions on others. If morality is a matter of personal opinions nobody has the right to impose their opinion on others.
But of course societies do not function well under such a philosophy. North America was founded upon the notion that a morally objective standard exists outside of personal opinion by which all men are bound. That notion grew out of the belief that the Judeo-Christian tradition provided that standard based upon the objective law of God that is not only stated specifically in the text of the Bible but something stamped on the human heart.
Your conception of goodness in many ways reflects that morally objective standard. Any honest person would say that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, kindness is good, honesty is good, loyalty is good, etc... These are universal invariant obligations that any properly ordered society understands is necessary for its proper functioning and survival as well as the functioning and survival of individual relationships. They are not based on personal opinion but they reflect an objectibve standard by which human relationships function well.
What is interesting is that if we believe we are created in the image of a personal and morally righteous God, such a notion makes perfect sense. Such a God is a God who desires harmony in relationships between not only human beings, but between human beings and Himself. This reflection in humans of a persoanl God is what distinquishes us from the animals and makes us unique in all of creation. Corruption enters the picture when we realize that we as humans have failed to meet the standard of God's righteousness and have abandoned our relationship with Him. Although we retain His image and therefore are capable of maintaining a decent and moral existence, there is still something missing. Even the best of human relationships are marred by our own selfish and prideful ambitions. we seek out our own interests before the interests of others and often operate in a way that seeks our own ultimate benefit. We trade in self-sacrificial love for a love that is extended if we get something out of it. This demonstrates that something is amiss in the human heart. That missing piece is our broken relationship with God whom we have rejected and have substitued all manner of countefiet satisfactions that in the end do not satisfy. This is what Christianity believes is at the heart of the human problem.
Scott,
If morality is based upon our own opinions and we are each our own moral arbiters then you have no business condemning the morality of others, including those who made the video.
If morality is based upon our own opinions, and not based upon objective standards, then I can understand your objection. For on what grounds could we say that one opinion is better than another?
But I didn't say that morality is based upon our opinions.
I said that morality is based upon the principle of treating other people in the way that they would like to be treated. And from that basic underlying principle comes a very handy, broad moral imperative: help other people, and avoid hurting other people.
And where does the principle of treating other people in the way that they would like to be treated come from?
It comes from the definition, or meaning, of morality. Morality is, by definition, the way in which a person chooses to interact with other people. Morality is the rules of conduct that a person chooses to live by. So if a person is moral, that means he is taking other people into account when he is deciding what his behavior should be, and he is declining to treat other people as a means to an ends. Rather, he is treating people as ends in themselves, who are worthy of respect and consideration.
No one has to be moral. We are free agents, and immorality is always an option.
And it is not always clear, sometimes it is very far from clear, what it actually means to "help people" or "to avoid hurting people". This is the area which you have identified as a "morass" of conflicting and competing notions of what is good and what is bad. This is where opinions insert themselves into the debate and make things complicated and occasionally very difficult, if not practically impossible, to resolve one way or the other.
But the basis of the moral debate is not the opinions themselves. The basis is the notion that we are seeking to implement the fundamental principle of "help, don't hurt", or the even more fundamental principle of acting in a manner that others would want us to act.
These are the objective standards that shape our quest for a good morality -- not the shifting, conflicted opinions that everyone and his mother have on various moral dilemmas.
I will comment on one statement you made.
"...since everyone is his own moral arbiter, whether religion is true or not, there is no getting around the morass of personal opinion, even if one wanted to."
I got into this whole discussion of morality, and the basis of morality, because of the questions you asked me in comment 32:
On what basis can you claim that
"The beliefs that you wish to place beyond mockery are thoroughly disgusting and immoral"? How do you determine what is moral and what is not? Upon what authority do you make such an assertion? Do you believe that this "crime against humanity" is deserving of punishment? Should God punish me for such a crime? If so upon what basis would you assert this? Why is this a crime against humanity?
Do you believe in moral evil and the necessity of justice that punishes moral evil? Furthermore, is God the ultimate judge of what is morally right and wrong? Your considered answers to these questions will help me with the credibilty of your assertions.
So I was talking about how millennialism was evil, indeed I was talking about how millennialism was evil and downright deranged, and you asked me to detour into the much broader questions of where does morality come from and how can we go about using morality to pass judgement on theological claims. You were, in effect, changing the subject, but I thought your questions were reasonable and appropriate, and I was happy to oblige you.
But having obliged you, I repeated my original assertions that your theology is bigoted, fanatical, deluded, and evil. Now rather than tackle my criticisms about your theology head on, you choose to focus your response on alleged flaws in my own thinking about morality.
That is all well and good, I generally enjoy talking about morality and the basis for it. But at this particular point it has turned into a distraction.
I've been talking about a pornographic snuff video that desecrates, in the worst possible way, the victims of the tsunami and the 9-11 attacks. I'm talking about the messed-up theology which motivates such crazy and evil propaganda. I'd appreciate it if you could acknowledge my specific criticisms and either grant that they have merit, or explain how they are off-base.
So far all you have done is question the foundations of my morality, which is highly tangential to what I've been talking about, and re-summarize and elaborate upon the points of your theology without explaining why my criticisms are either on or off target.
Specifically, can you address the following:
I assert that it is crazy to say that all people are on balance so evil that they deserve to be damned forever. I also assert that it is crazy and evil to say that death and eternal damnation are the just rewards for anyone who declines to accept Jesus as his personal saviour.
I remember this when it showed up on a link from Slacktivist's Left Behind Review blog.
Actually, pretty well-done; you know where it's heading in the first three seconds, yet the climax still comes as a shock.
It's hard to hit the viewer up side the head with what he's been expecting all along; the only other one I can think of that pulled it off is the scene in Deadwood where Hickock gets killed. Even when you knew what was coming, it still came as a surprise.