Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, November 20, 2011, 19:49 (4752 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

PART ONE

TONY: […] the tree itself was NOT the tree of good and evil.

Thank you for correcting my careless mistake. King James version: “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”; New World Translation: “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad”. I’m going to be stubborn, though, and argue that it doesn’t change anything. God could not have planted the tree if he himself had not known the difference between good and evil, and as the “first cause” he could not have known the difference if it had not already been part of himself.

TONY: Good and Evil, as we think of them, are entirely human ideas.

You are a very clever debater! “As we think of them” naturally makes the ideas human. You later say, quite rightly: “You have a preconceived notion of what good and evil is, with incomplete knowledge (no offense, we all suffer from that condition), and you are using it to cast judgment.” Let me put that together with your earlier comment on Adam & Eve: “The entire account is about the arrogance of human knowledge, and the suffering that is caused when we place our own ideals over the ideals of God.” If God exists, we do not and cannot know his ideals. We only have human interpretations of them. And so of course all concepts of good and evil are human, based on subjective codes that vary from one society to another – even from one individual to another – leading to preconceived notions and judgements passed accordingly. However, the fact that we have incomplete knowledge and preconceived notions does not counter the argument that God created good and evil. We just don’t know how far our own concepts coincide with his. Having said that, though, there is a general consensus concerning a number of “evils”. I don’t know of any societies that condone murder, rape, robbery, for instance. And finally on this point, I must stick in my humanist oar and say that most concepts of good and evil are based on what is useful for society in general. We do not need human interpretations of God’s ideals to establish these codes.

As for peeing on God’s sandals, it was Adam and Eve, not Abel and Cain that did that. There is no indication in the bible of the motive for the sacrifice – it just seems to be taken for granted that they would make it. In your earlier words, Cain wanted favour (glory), and in my earlier words, so did Abel. Abel got it (in my modern translation, God “was looking with favor upon Abel and his offering”) and much good it did him! If this interpretation is correct, currying favour is the motive, and God is open to offers. I agree with Casey (DH) that Abraham’s ordeal was a test of faith, and God is obviously delighted to prove Satan wrong when it comes to testing Job’s faith – all of which makes me ask why God is so concerned that people should prove how much they love and trust him. You have offered an analogy between God and a car designer. Let me take up your second analogy instead. I hope my children love me and trust me. What sort of father would I be if I made them prove it through sacrifices and ordeals? I’d deserve to be thrown into jail or a lunatic asylum if I asked my younger son to cut my grandson’s throat (even if I sent a messenger to stop him) – and my son would deserve the same if he agreed to do it. You can come up with as many long-term strategies as you like, but such interpretations have no more authority than this one. It’s the same story with Pharaoh: God sends his plagues, the last of which entails killing the firstborn of every Egyptian (as with the flood, indiscriminate slaughter). How this protected the Israelites from the famine I don’t know. God’s motive? How about: “That ye may know how that I am the Lord.” (Exodus, 10 ii), or “...the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’ (Exodus, 11 ix). An exhibition of raw power at the expense of helpless kids.

But you are a genuine (and excellent) attorney for the defence, whereas I am merely playing the role of prosecutor. I must now jump out of this role for a moment to emphasize that while you believe “the vast majority” of what you read in the bible, I see no reason to do so. This is a collection of books written by fallible and often anonymous authors – sometimes centuries if not millennia after the events they either describe or fabricate – and interpreted by equally fallible translators and readers. Some of the stories may indeed be consistent with those of other cultures – humans like to use stories to explain mysteries, disasters and natural phenomena, many of which the various cultures have in common. Perhaps all religions have their share of the truth, whatever that may be. Maybe even Abel’s theology is true, and he just can’t express it as coherently as Moses, Matthew or Mohammed. But I need a lot more than assurances from a believer that the story-tellers are all telling the truth.

(Contd. in Part Two)