• In total there are 29 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 29 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The Nature of Evil

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Flann 5, the author of that article is David R. Montgomery. He wrote The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood.

The author does NOT believe in the story of Noah's Ark. He does NOT believe in a global flood.

http://www.americanscientist.org/booksh ... s-dont-lie

Here is the same magazine, Discover Magazine, explaining how Noah's Ark and the global flood simply could not and did not happen.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/but-n ... b1cavmfaSo
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 423 times
Been thanked: 591 times

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Flann 5:
did a quick search on global flood and geological evidence and turned up this. I'm pretty sure this is a non religious science magazine.
It isn't saying there was a global flood but is saying that geological evidence supports something approximating to it.
http://www.discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/0 ... y-enormous
The author of this article is not suggesting anything near an approximation of global flooding, rather that there have been massive regional floods through out geologic time since 400 thousand years ago and that one in particular dates back 7 thousand years ago. Which would be recent enough for mythic legends to survive to this day.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Flann 5, the article and the book are a refutation of Noah's Ark.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:I think God can be justified in punishing evildoing and don't use the driving them out as a claim to say that he wasn't justified, but perhaps this was less severe in judgement than appears at first glance.
Here's Copan's talk on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60iXt47VfJE Does God command Genocide?
So I slogged through the 49 minutes of Paul Copan's speech. Although there are quite a few instances of Yahweh ordering genocide, Copan focuses mostly on Canaan. He makes two unusual statements: Canaan was a unique unrepeatable situation and that attack would not have been justified without Divine sanction. Copan doesn't elaborate, so I don't know what to make of that, except probably the attack would have been a war crime without that sanction.

Copan spends a lot of time defending the Canaan situation against a charge of ethnic cleansing. The Canaanites were connected to Israel, not ethnically different. Also they were attacked only due to their religion and morality. Amazingly, he states the slaughter was not done out of hatred and even helped prepare the way for the Messiah. But is this the best way to correct errant religion? An omniscient/benevolent being can't come up with a better way than a military attack? Isn't the answer to incorrect religion or speech more free speech and proselytizing, not deadly force?

Then Copan attempts to paint all this genocide and "don't leave anything that breathes" as a mirage. You see, there are conflicting stories. Joshua said he destroyed all who breathed, but later on people from Canaan and Judah still exist, so how can that be? Copan cites an archeologist who calls these disabling raids, not wholesale slaughter. He claims taking the later passages about survivors literally cancels out the literalism of the genocide, therefore it is actually an “unfair criticism” to decry genocide in the Bible. Copan goes further and claims when Yahweh commands “don't leave anything that breathes”, he doesn't really mean it! It's all hyperbole, just like in sports when the victors state “We totally destroyed that team!” God is merely using the hyperbolic language of the people to instruct them how to proceed. (Yahweh also threatens Israel with the same punishment if they behave like the Canaanites; somehow this is seen as comforting.)

There are several problems with Copan's “hyperbolic mirage” theory. Copan mentions the infamous slaughter in 1 Samuel 15 where Yahweh gives King Saul the typical instructions as follows.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. V. 3
After the attack, King Saul states “I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.” But Copan ignores the following passage, which is kind of funny in a sick way.
What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear? V. 14
King Saul attempts to justify this, saying some sheep and cattle were taken as plunder and others for sacrifices to God, but that argument is soundly rejected.
Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
    as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
    and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
    and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
    he has rejected you as king. V. 23
So although Saul killed all the humans as commanded (God doesn't acknowledge any surviving humans), because he allowed livestock to survive the battle, God rejected his kingship of Israel. The clear emphatic message from Yahweh is “Thou shalt follow my military commands as the Letter of the Law and implement Them precisely!

A second problem with the mirage theory is some of Yahweh's military arrangements are so powerful, it's very difficult to accept the intention as hyperbole. In one instance God arranges three armies against an enemy. (Sorry, I can't find the reference at the moment, but it's well known.) These three were commanded to attack in sequence in a familiar pattern. The first was to attack and kill all men, women and children. The second was to kill any surviving humans plus all livestock. The third was instructed to kill all remaining livestock plus of course “any living thing that breathes.” Given this array of power and detailed attack sequences, it is very difficult to intrepret these commands as Copan might have it: “OK now y'all just go in and kick a little ass 'til they surrender.”

A third problem with the mirage theory is the message from the loudest Christians, those with TV and radio shows and their followers. They all believe the entire Bible is literally true, without error, and no part is to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. The mirage theory flies in the face of all this, citing stories that conflict as to the outcome of the battles (i.e. some claim total annihilation, others have survivors). Conflicting stories indicate errors and hyperbole indicates metaphor. I expect these fundamentalists may embrace Copan's theory anyway because the alternative is even more disturbing. If this is all taken literally God failed to annihilate certain populations and permitted himself to be fooled by mere humans! (Except in the case of 1 Samuel 15 as noted above.)

A fourth problem with the mirage theory is just because there are human survivors after a military conflict, certainly does not mean genocide did not occur!

After all that, Copan goes even further. He states “God cannot command anything that is immoral.” Moreover “God is wrathful because he is Love.”

Although I was initially annoyed at the amount of time all this required, it turned out to be an interesting exercise in how believers are able to talk themselves into believing actions that appear to be evil in the Bible not only did not actually happen, but cannot be immoral, and were actually a great thing!
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:So I slogged through the 49 minutes of Paul Copan's speech.
You're a martyr for the cause Landroid.
LanDroid wrote: Canaan was a unique unrepeatable situation and that attack would not have been justified without Divine sanction. Copan doesn't elaborate, so I don't know what to make of that, except probably the attack would have been a war crime without that sanction.
Peter Williams covers this quite early in his talk so if you are interested you will find it there. Divine command theory and epistemic warrant.
LanDroid wrote:Copan spends a lot of time defending the Canaan situation against a charge of ethnic cleansing. The Canaanites were connected to Israel, not ethnically different. Also they were attacked only due to their religion and morality.
That's putting it euphemistically as their religion and morality, and it's spelled out clearly just what the judgement was for. It certainly wasn't on the basis of race or ethnicity.
LanDroid wrote: Amazingly, he states the slaughter was not done out of hatred and even helped prepare the way for the Messiah.

Of course, the reason was their corrupt practices and the divine command. And Rahab who was a prostitute and her family were spared, so she could respond and turn to God.
She articulates her understanding and knowledge of what had happened to the Egyptians which the inhabitants were also very much aware of,that God had miraculously parted the red sea and the defeat of two Amorite kings. Joshua 2;7-13.
LanDroid wrote: An omniscient/benevolent being can't come up with a better way than a military attack? Isn't the answer to incorrect religion or speech more free speech and proselytizing, not deadly force?
We see in the account that God had exercised considerable patience, and they were well aware of the supernatural demonstration of power by the true God yet did not repent. Rahab did. If she could do so, then they could too. Had they done so they would not have been judged and we find many examples of this throughout the bible.
They just dug in and prepared to resist.
As Copan said . God just said "enough of this."
This is why I can't understand atheistic complaints that God didn't intervene to stop the holocaust. Judgement would be
quite reasonable there. Benevolence for God, includes executing justice for the victims and penalising the perpetrators.
LanDroid wrote:Then Copan attempts to paint all this genocide and "don't leave anything that breathes" as a mirage. You see, there are conflicting stories. Joshua said he destroyed all who breathed, but later on people from Canaan and Judah still exist, so how can that be?
There was a dual mandate of destruction and driving out. Particular cities were targeted for destruction and there was also a process of driving out going on.
Copan thinks these were garrison cities but the basis seems to be they were particularly morally bad.
http://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-tes ... s-killings This article covers some of the issues involved.
LanDroid wrote:There are several problems with Copan's “hyperbolic mirage” theory. Copan mentions the infamous slaughter in 1 Samuel 15 where Yahweh gives King Saul the typical instructions as follows.


Quote:
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. V. 3



After the attack, King Saul states “I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.” But Copan ignores the following passage, which is kind of funny in a sick way.
LanDroid wrote:Quote:
What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear? V. 14



King Saul attempts to justify this, saying some sheep and cattle were taken as plunder and others for sacrifices to God, but that argument is soundly rejected.
I would agree with you here. There is no doubt that there were particular instances of commands to do this but it was not universal and it's clear from the texts that there was also a driving out of those not from cities devoted to destruction.

It seems to me that it is a moral requirement for God to judge evil and here we had their burning infants alive to their gods,bestiality and other practices unacceptable to God.
The real problem is the command to kill their children. All I can say is that God is the author of life and can take it and death is not the end of life from a biblical perspective.
There is a focus on omnibenevolence in a particular way by some, but which has to include the elements of human freedom and the requirements of justice and not tolerating evil,I think.
I'm including an article looking at how Christians have looked at this over the centuries. You might find it interesting or might not.
http://www.theologynetwork.org/christia ... ve-god.htm
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

This was sidetracked for a bit. Flann, have you thought about my earlier posts at all?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Interbane wrote:This was sidetracked for a bit. Flann, have you thought about my earlier posts at all?
I have Interbane. I had a look at some humanist websites to try to understand the thinking more clearly.

When I feel I understand it clearly I'll reply. I have been thinking about what you said and will respond.
I've been juggling a few themes here so am not exclusively focused.
User avatar
gbodor
Almost Comfortable
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:09 pm
8
Location: New Mexico
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Thank you Dexter and exactly! I am thinking that maybe what was jumped here is that all behavior is driven by internal drives encountering external stimuli in unmeasurable possibilities of combinations. Almost really that everything is predetermined by the factors that proceed it? Is this what is meant by Naturalism?

Is that right for those of you using the possible strawman here or am I way off as I think this has a great deal of deeper discussion potential?
Dexter wrote:
ant wrote:
I suspect a Naturalist believes (without evidence, of course) that prior to the rise of homo sapien intelligence, no intelligence existed.

That, and if homo sapien intelligence can not identify some thing unambiguously AS intelligent, it is therefore NOT intelligence per se. (non seq)

EDITED
Where did you get this strawman from? Got a single quote anywhere from one of these "naturalists"?
User avatar
gbodor
Almost Comfortable
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:09 pm
8
Location: New Mexico
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 8 times
Contact:

Re: The Nature of Evil

Unread post

Interbane,

Can I jump in back here and ask about clarifying what is meant by evil here in this discussion? One loose definition that I usually apply personally is based on somewhat of a Naturalist viewpoint mixed with subjective distinction about what defines evil. It goes something like this:

To harm another with no intention of meeting any survival needs or abate any fear either conscious or unconscious.

Where this shows up in nature is when things like an orca kills a seal for what seems to humans only entertainment (because we can only guess why they do not eat the seal). I know this is odd but I literally just watched a honey bee go at an insect over and over again on the ground no matter how many times the insect escaped. Honey bees do not eat insects so what in the world was that about? That would fall into possibly the human scenario of evil.

Does that resonate with anyone for a working definition here? If we are discussing morality, it is way too complicated to even get a foot hold I think.

gari
Interbane wrote:
Flann wrote:What I asked Landroid is if you believe genocide is evil how do you explain human evil based on your worldview?
Flann, what are you asking exactly? Evil is a subjective judgement, like that of beauty. But the judgement concerns behavior rather than appearance. All behaviors fall somewhere on this spectrum. Some behaviors we label good, others we label evil, and others are simply amoral, in between, gray.

Are you asking if there is more to evil than this, or why we judge actions? Or, why is it that we do things that are judged evil in the first place? I went into detail in a couple of posts regarding the naturalists perspective. What's left unsaid?
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”