For Scott - Evil and Justice

[Azor]

I originally posted these in the call for questions for ep60 - they haven't been answered. Perhaps here is a better spot? Or feel free to answer verbally on the podcast.

QUESTIONS FOR SCOTT:

1) You are clearly very Christocentric - focusing on 'Jesus'. However, you seem to have a tough time with 'God' - especially his OT rampages. Since the God of the Bible appears to be so evil in so many places in the Bible - how are you certain that the God of the Bible isn't the devil of some other religion luring you with Jesus - distracting you from the 'good' God?

2) There is a lot of talk on the podcasts from the Christians about how God is a 'just' god. Could you please explain how God is a 'just' god and define 'justice'? It is one thing to forgive someone for their wrongdoing, but it is the furthest thing from justice to abstain someone from the responsibility of their actions and then subject someone else to the consequences. As Pastor Danny said in the latest podcast, if Hitler had turned to Jesus in the final moments of his life he would have been saved. This is NOT a system of justice.

Thanks.

[Emery]

Hi Azor, this is a very good topic for a show. How do we know that God is just? I have an answer to your second question, which I don't think Scott embraces since he is not a Calvinist as far as I know. But Geisler may agree since he is, I think.

The answer has to do with the "total depravity" doctrine. That says that we're all so depraved that we all should go to hell, and it is only through God's magnanimous mercy that anyone is saved. To understand the Hitler thing, we must realize how much depravity they're talking about. Let's say we tally everyone's depravity points, and give Hitler an extra 6 million points for all the people he killed in concentration camps. That may seem like a lot, but not if we realize that our original sin gives each of us far more depravity points to begin with (say a trillion). In that case, an extra 6 million points for Hitler is not all that much. If God is justified in saving you or me with our trillion depravity points, he is not moving the bar very much proportionally (less than 1/10 of 1%) in saving Hitler. Therefore it is not really unjust to allow Hitler a deathbed conversion if he allows one for you or me, since we're not much better than Hitler anyway.

That, of course, rests on the idea that we're all so depraved to begin with. But in a way it makes a perverse kind of sense: how else is God justified in burning us all in hell for eternity?

[Azor]

Hi Emery,

For your answer to the 2nd question...
Understood, but my response is still similar to my comment "it is the furthest thing from justice to abstain someone from the responsibility of their actions and then subject someone else to the consequences." The original sin idea makes someone else involuntarily subject to the consequences of another's actions. This is not only NOT justice, but also it is the opposite of the whole freedom and free will that Christians boast that God wants for us.

So the best system an all-powerful, all-knowing god could come up with is a system in which I'm responsible for and subject to the consequences of the actions of someone from thousands of years ago disobeying the god, and to top it all off, the system produces the likes of Hitler who could convert on their deathbed and be saved.

Sounds more like a system that would be designed to control people through fear.

Cheers

[Emery]

Ah, I see. So the question is how it's fair that Adam's original sin gets laid on us? Well, the answer is that sin is like a disease which we all contracted. Unfortunately, it is a disease that warps our free will. And here's the disconnect that I think you're zeroing in on: Christians say God is justified in punishing us for this warped will, or at least the consequences of acting pursuant to that will. I agree that is patently unfair. But, who is the pot to criticize the potter, right? (another morally bankrupt Biblical idea).

So, here is what we're left with: Adam's sin infected us with all with a sin nature. Nothing God can do about that, it's just the way the world works. He is justified, therefore, in punishing all of us, because our very existence is an affront to his holiness. We should be ashamed of even having been born, and if we only knew how awful we are compared to God, we'd send ourselves to hell.

So far so good. God has done nothing wrong, if you accept the idea that the transmission of original sin is something even he cannot contain (I know--you have to work with me here). Therefore the only just thing to do is to send us all to hell. Remember, justice is measured in relation to God, not in relation to us. Justice, as Tony has argued, is an unchanging part of God's nature, existent and complete long before we came on the scene. Therefore justice can only be defined in relation to God (who else, since God's nature was forged in the eternal past when he was the only being around), and that nature demands that any unclean thing be destroyed, and hell is the only divinely sanctioned way to destroy something unclean.

Now wait, you say, that doesn't seem fair! But unfair to whom? It's only unfair to humans. But fairness is not measured by humans, it is measured by God. Therefore it is perfectly fair, because God says it is, because his nature demands that it is, meaning anything he does is fair (since by definition one cannot act contrary to one's nature). Is this a circular argument? You bet. Does it make God's morality arbitrary? Yup (pay attention, Aaron ). But, that's just how it works.

And now that I've tidied it all up, all that's left is for pastor Scott to muddy the waters by injecting human morality into the equation, since whether or not he realizes it, he's actually far more moral than his god

[kobodur]

So, here is what we're left with: Adam's sin infected us with all with a sin nature. Nothing God can do about that, it's just the way the world works. He is justified, therefore, in punishing all of us, because our very existence is an affront to his holiness. We should be ashamed of even having been born, and if we only knew how awful we are compared to God, we'd send ourselves to hell.

God could(should have?) have neutered Adam and stopped the spread of the disease. Besides we don't come into the picture for a while. If he doesn't like our existance he could have stopped it from happening.

[tirtlegrrl]

kobodur wrote: God could(should have?) have neutered Adam and stopped the spread of the disease. Besides we don't come into the picture for a while. If he doesn't like our existance he could have stopped it from happening.

Who are you to question God's Perfect Plan (tm)?

Seriously, why is it that when Christians are faced with an example of God's apparent INjustice, they make excuses like "God's ways are not our ways"? I was raised with a pretty specific standard, supposedly derived from the Bible, of what right and wrong behavior is. Yet if I encounter a story in which God is portrayed as UN-just, such as the book of Job, I'm supposed to assume that it's the same God and keep my mouth shut. Switch the name of the Bible God with any other one for some of these stories, pretend they're in some other holy book, and Christians would use the stories as grounds for rejecting said deity.

Are we supposed to choose between a crappy God and no God at all? Or how about between a crappy God (who can read your mind and tell if you're faking devotion) and Hell?

Emery wrote: But, who is the pot to criticize the potter, right? (another morally bankrupt Biblical idea).

Well, it does no good to criticize the potter, because where God is concerned, might makes right. Or, I suppose, as far as the self-styled Apostle Paul (and the unknown author of Job) are concerned. I guess that's what most bugs me about the Christian God...if you're not happy with him, there is no higher court to which one can appeal. Who am I to judge God? Sorry, I can't help that I have a sense of right and wrong, and if I did get some of my morality from the Bible it's not my fault there are moral contradictions contained therein.

[Emery]

Good points guys. I believe I have sufficiently misrepresented Scott's position to make it interesting for him. Might make a good podcast topic as well.

[Azor]

So it seems that the Christian use of the word 'justice' is not the same as the common use of the word in the modern world. In order to not confuse things, I propose the use of an adjective to distinguish the two. When the 'Christian' meaning of justice is used, the term "tyrannical justice" should be used. This will help the listeners distinguish between the normal everyday use of the word 'justice', and Biblical 'justice'.

[ScottBarger]

Sorry, just stumbled across this one.

I am still not sure how to reconcile the activities of the OT God with message of Jesus. I have several theories that kinda work (a few have probably been kicked around here on the forum). But none of the theories really "solves" it for me. The best I have to offer at the moment is that God tends to operate incarnationally. By this I mean that he seems to operate within the confines of human culture and often plays by the rules of human culture. Therefore, in the kill-or-be-killed context of the ANE he issued orders for his people to kill. Like I said...I am not really sure.

As far as the justice thing goes...I think we are confusing the concepts of "punishment" and "justice." They are not the same thing (biblically speaking, anywho). Justice in the bible seems to be more along the lines of "making right that which is not right" this of course MAY involve punishment, but certainly goes way beyond that.

[NH Baritone]

I am still not sure how to reconcile the activities of the OT God with message of Jesus. I have several theories that kinda work (a few have probably been kicked around here on the forum). But none of the theories really "solves" it for me. The best I have to offer at the moment is that God tends to operate incarnationally. By this I mean that he seems to operate within the confines of human culture and often plays by the rules of human culture. Therefore, in the kill-or-be-killed context of the ANE he issued orders for his people to kill. Like I said...I am not really sure.

This suggests that God is entirely relativistic. And it suggests that Jesus could not be speaking to anyone other than first century Roman-occupied Jewry.

I have no dog in this fight, but you are not exactly pointing to a God who is "the same yesterday, today, & forever." If God is defined within the culture rather than outside of it, how is this any different than the God that the culture makes up on its own?

[Pseudonym]

I have no dog in this fight, but you are not exactly pointing to a God who is "the same yesterday, today, & forever."

I guess it depends what you mean by "the same". It also depends how much of the OT you attribute to God and how much to humans.

If God is defined within the culture rather than outside of it, how is this any different than the God that the culture makes up on its own?

I don't think that Scott is necessarily pointing to God being "defined" within the culture. Perhaps "discovered" in the culture, or "interpreted" in the culture, gets closer to it.

[NH Baritone]

If God is defined within the culture rather than outside of it, how is this any different than the God that the culture makes up on its own?

I don't think that Scott is necessarily pointing to God being "defined" within the culture. Perhaps "discovered" in the culture, or "interpreted" in the culture, gets closer to it.

So allow me a rephrase to meet your objection:
If God is discovered or interpreted within the culture, how is this any different than the God that the culture makes up on its own?

[Rian]

whoops - nevermind!

[darkumbra]

Sorry, just stumbled across this one.

I am still not sure how to reconcile the activities of the OT God with message of Jesus. I have several theories that kinda work (a few have probably been kicked around here on the forum). But none of the theories really "solves" it for me. The best I have to offer at the moment is that God tends to operate incarnationally. By this I mean that he seems to operate within the confines of human culture and often plays by the rules of human culture. Therefore, in the kill-or-be-killed context of the ANE he issued orders for his people to kill. Like I said...I am not really sure.

As far as the justice thing goes...I think we are confusing the concepts of "punishment" and "justice." They are not the same thing (biblically speaking, anywho). Justice in the bible seems to be more along the lines of "making right that which is not right" this of course MAY involve punishment, but certainly goes way beyond that.

Why? Why this concern for human culture? AND how/why did he let human culture drift so far from what he wanted it to be in the first place???

If he stumbled across this 'culture' after it had been active for a period of time... then I could perhaps understand this. BUT that's NOT (supposedly) what happened. Was it? Wasn't he there from the beginning o fall this? Adam and Eve and so on?

When did this 'culture' appear? Here's where your argument fall apart for me.

He creates Adam and Eve. What 'culture' do they have at this point?

He kicks them out of the garden of eden... does he then ignore them for a period of time and then return - and in the intervening time this bizarre culture pops up?

One that he MUST honor/respect/take into account for some reason? Why?

Like you said ... 'you're not really sure' ---

When does 'I'm not really sure of how to make sense of all the obvious contradictions' --- turn into 'Oh crap - this is all bullshit' ??

Christians are fond of stating that God offers an OBJECTIVE morality... Huh? What God seems to offer is a morality that shifts and wafts in the winds of human culture... just as most moralities do. ie. There is NO objective morality offered by God. None. Nada. 'He', like us - chooses what is good or bad behavior based upon the expediency of the times.

[Salwinder]

I think what the above discussion demonstrates is that the case for God is actually stronger if you discard scripture entirely. Without the inconsistencies and accounts of God-inspired slaughter and injustice to serve as a distraction, theists could instead focus on trying to construct philosophical and scientific rationales for God instead. Of course they would then be unable to fall back on "The Bible says..." as "evidence" for their argument, and so they would be left to struggle with logic, reason and coherent argument. However some theologians have done this throughout history and produced some genuinely challenging works - the medieval Muslim theologian al-Ghazali's "The Refutation of the Philopsophers" is a fine example. It's just a shame that theists today are so ready to fall back on scripture to argue the case for God instead...

IMHO the Bible is far more interesting as an anthropological study of ancient social morality and the all the weird and wonderful notions people had back then to justify genocide, sacrifice and eternal punishment. Is it any wonder then that those that do not build their world-view around the assumption of God's existence have such a hard time reconciling the barbarity of scripture with the "Love of God"?