Heath:
I am not defending ritualistic human sacrifice. You are mischaracterizing me. What I am saying is that we have societal controls in place to control religious nutjobs.
I'm not seeing that. What I hear you saying is that right action to take when you think your deity wants you to commit ritual human sacrifice is to say "Well, I guess you know better than me," and do it. That sounds like a defending ritual human sacrifice to me. It's an active rejection of the idea, ya know, ritual human sacrifice is something a good god wouldn't ask you to do. I don't see where societal control comes into that part of it.
Heath:
The point is this: If God knows everything we don't and is omniscient, then we cannot argue against the logic of someone saying they will do something because "God said so" from a religious perspective because the omnipotence of God will always trump mortal reason with lack of understanding.
Exactly. In that case, you're saying you have no ability to judge whether murder is wrong, ritual sacrifice is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. The
only thing you can say about them (in your view) is that God tells you not to do them. But look, Satan tells you to do them. How are we mortals, with our finite knowledge, and imperfect logic decide which to listen to? According to your logic, we can't. We just have to pick one and hope we've got it right. Any attempt to discern which is right and which is wrong is pointless, because we're "no more than ants" to them. I reject that. I say that while our knowledge may be imperfect, it's all we have, and we need to use it. We not only can, but MUST, decide that certain actions are evil and reject them when we're instructed to do them. Just as "I was just following orders" wasn't a sufficient defense for the nazi's, it's not a defense for the religious in my view either. We are each responsible for the actions we decide to take, and have a moral obligation to not do things we know are evil, even if someone with more knowledge tells us to do it.
Heath:
All we can do is (1) deny them the right to practice offensive behaviors based on societal controls and/or (2) try to convince them that their behaviors are inconsistent with their religion, so they must be misinterpreting what God is telling them. Assuming the latter fails (as it most likely will), we have to rely on societal controls.
That might be all that we can practically do to stop people carrying out acts, but I would add that we can try to convince people who may not be carrying out the acts of evil themselves that those who are are wrong. That's what I'm doing here. I'm trying to convince you that it's wrong to kill someone, even if you think God wants you to. Because maybe someday you'll go a bit funny in the head and start hearing voices. Probably not, but it happens to some people. And if it happens to you, I'd really prefer for you to tell the voices that you're a moral person and won't commit evil acts just because you're told to do so, rather than saying "well, you probably know better than me." I'm sure you don't think you'd ever be in a situation where you could mistake a "voice in your head" for God, but the fact is people do. It does happen to people. It's unlikely, but it's not impossible. And perhaps more likely, is if your religion tells you to do something you "know" is wrong. If your prophet says "this gay marriage thing has gone too far, it's time to start killing gays. This is what God wants!" Will you have the courage to stand up and say, "no, that's wrong, and I won't do it," or will you say "well, you're the prophet, you would know?" Again, I'm sure you don't think that would ever happen, and probably it won't. But it's possible. And it disturbs me that if you really believe the things you're saying here, you'd probably do as you were told.
Heath:
Your initial paragraph is completely misleading. You are saying that an omnipotent God should be ignored if we do not agree with Him because we have "taken a stand." This has nothing to do with right or wrong, but on obedience to God.
I'm saying if a deity demands an act of evil, then you shouldn't obey, because they've just proven themselves evil. Good gods don't demand human sacrifice. If you can't judge whether a god is evil, never say again that your god is Good. If you believe your god is Good, then you've just disproven your proposition that we can't judge a god. You can't really have it both ways. Either you're not qualified to say whether your God is morally superior to, say, Satan, or you are and that implies we're capable of judging the goodness/evilness of gods.
Heath:
Of course, human sacrifice is wrong.
Great! That's a start. Now, the next step is "if someone asks you to do something you know is wrong, what do you do?"
Heath:
Can an omnipotent God trump our understanding of right and wrong because he has ultimate wisdom and knows what is ultimately right and ultimately wrong in each particular case, as opposed to a blanket statement of right and wrong? How can you say "no" to that?
I can say no because even if they know better than me, they should know better than to ask me to commit an act of evil for them. They know my limited understanding, and know that I would view human sacrifice as evil. They would know that asking me to do it would convince me that they were evil. They should not only expect that of me, but demand it of me. A god that prefers obedience to morality doesn't sound like a good one to me. A good God wants you to do what's right, not just do what you're told. A good god would want you to make use of your moral judgement, not just be a mindless automaton following orders withing question.
Heath:
The key is knowing what is truly from God and what is from crazy people, misinterpretations or other imperfections of men. That's where society helps us out.
I'd say "he demands a human sacrifice" is strong evidence that it's not truly from God (at least not from a good god). It's from a crazy person, even if that 'person' is a supernatural being well beyond your level of understanding.
Heath:
I think your exposition of judging deities is also off. You seem to take the position that you have all knowledge of what is right and wrong and can therefore be the judge of that better than an omniscient being. I cannot take such a stand of hubris myself. This is where faith comes in.
Then never claim that your God is good, because you have no way of judging Him. Never proclaim the worthiness of your God for worship and praise, because you have no position to judge. Never say that your God is merciful, truthful, pure, just, or the like, because you're no position to judge. You implicitly DO believe yourself capable of judging deities by the simple fact that you've picked just one of them to follow, and by viewing him as Good, loving, merciful, just, etc. Whether you realize it or not, you already have judged God. It's not hubris, its a necessity. It's what allows you to say satan is the bad guy. It's what allows you to say "even though terrorists think they're doing Allah's will, they're still wrong, and it's still an evil act."
Heath:
As to terrorism, of course it's wrong. What I said was that we cannot condemn them religiously (i.e., short of convincing them they're wrong) but we can condemn them as a society. Society and government are not synonymous.
And I, as part of society, can likewise condemn Abraham for being willing to carry out human sacrifice. In each case, I'm forced to use my limited human understanding, and tell someone that what they believe their God is telling them to do is morally wrong. If it's unreasonable for me to say that Abraham is wrong for following God's order to commit human sacrifice, then it's unreasonable for me to say that al queda is wrong following allah's orders to commit acts of terrorism. I'm not willing to accept that we cannot question people's actions as long as they believe their god told them to do it.
Heath:
Isaac was not an "innocent bystander" like those killed by terrorists. He voluntarily participated, just like Jesus voluntarily gave up his life. That's a huge difference.
True, but it doesn't change the fact that Abraham shouldn't have been willing to do it. It's still an evil act to commit ritualistic human sacrifice, even if the victim is willing to take part.
Heath:
The lesson is that we are not here for God to do the hard stuff for us, but for us to learn to make difficult decisions, including based on obedience and faith, trusting that a loving God will have it be for our own good in the long run. Abraham trusted, and Isaac was not killed.
[emphasis added by Tycho]
Do you see no irony in this statement, given all you've been saying so far? We're not just here to let God do it for us, we've got to make hard decisions by ourselves. But when that hard decision comes, the right answers, so you tell me, is to punt and just do whatever God says because we're in no position to make the decision ourselves. Everything you've been saying is the exact opposite of making difficult decisions and not just letting God do the hard stuff. I'm the one saying Abraham should have used his own moral reasoning and made the hard decision to tell God to take a hike. You're the one saying we're simply not qualified to make our own moral decisions, and that we need to trust in God to sort it all out for us. Everything you've been arguing is precisely the opposite of what you're now saying the moral of the story is supposed to be.
Heath:
So the lesson here is also that Abraham was told to do something that seemed wrong, but he trusted that God would only do what's right and he had to have faith. In the end, he was right because he didn't have to kill Isaac after all and learned an invaluable lesson. The problem with your arguments is that you ignore the outcome: no person was actually sacrificed, but Abraham's obedience and faith were tested so he could understand God's difficult decision regarding Christ.
This reminds me of a joke I once heard (might have even been here? So forgive me if we've been over this already). Two men and a woman were in training for the CIA. They'd done all the drills and were about to graduate, when they were all taken into a room by an instructor. The instructor took the first guy, and told him, "in the next room you'll find your wife, tied to a chair. Take this gun, and go shoot her. We have to know that you're really loyal, and willing to do anything we ask you." So the guy takes the gun, goes into the next room, and a few minutes later comes back out, hands the gun over and says "I'm sorry sir, I just couldn't do it. I guess I'm not cut out for the CIA." He gets ushered out, and a few minutes later the instructor grabs the second guy, and tells him, "in the next room you'll find your wife tied to a chair. Take this gun, and go shoot her. We need to know you're loyal, and are willing do the hard stuff." So the guy takes the gun, goes into the next room. The instructor here's a "click", and a sigh of relief. The guy comes out, and says "there were no bullets sir," and the instructor says "yes, but now we know that you'll willing to do what we need you to do, no matter how hard. Welcome to the CIA." So he gets ushered out, and the instructor goes to the woman, and says "in the next room you'll find your husband tied to a chair. Take this gun, and go shoot him. We need to know you're loyal, and will do what we call on you to do." So she takes the gun, goes into the next room, and a moment later the instructor hears a "click" sound, then a bunch of loud thumping a grunts. After a few minutes she comes back out of the room, and hands the instructor a blood-covered gun, and says "there were no bullets, but don't worry, I used it to beat him to death."
Now, it's not the funniest joke (and is sexist, I suppose, though I don't think it was intended to be derogatory towards women--more so playing on the 'irony' that she's the most hardcore, I think), but it fits this story pretty well. Which if these characters was the moral one? I'd say the first. He didn't know that the gun was empty, but had to act on the assumption it wasn't, and made the correct moral decision based on the information he had. The second one didn't end up killing his wife, but he was willing to do it. She survived, but not because of any decision he made. She survived
despite his decision to kill her. That's the Abraham and Isaac part of the story. What about the last one? What she more or less moral than the others? She made the same initial decision as the middle guy, but she actually went through with it even after the information changed. You could say she had more "faith" than the original order was genuine, perhaps. But seriously, what is the right action in that situation, would you say, Heath? The instructor really did know more than the candidates. They had limited info, and had to make a moral decision, whether to follow orders that seemed evil, or to reject the authority of someone who "knew better" than them. Does the fact that the 2nd wife didn't actually die mean the 2nd guy actually made the correct moral decision, or did he just get lucky?
Heath:
I really don't like it when you mischaracterize what I said. You are essentially saying that I am equating a murderer (Laban) with heathens (the terrorists), and that I am saying it is justified in killing both using religion. That's not what I said at all.
Apologies if you feel I'm mischaracterizing you. It's not my intention. I honestly feel your argument leads to some contradictions. I know you don't intend them to be there, but they seem to follow from what you're saying. I know you're not saying that terrorists are justified in killing heathens. However, that follows pretty directly from your argument that if God tells you to do it, then you're justified in doing it. You didn't say it, but it's a consequence of your position.
Heath:
Laban was a murderer who was going to kill Nephi and his family. Our societal morality tends to justify Nephi's killing him, irregardless of religion.
Not my society! ;) You have a right to self defense, but not pre-emptive killing of someone who might kill you in the future but is no threat to you right now. Definitely some people, especially in the states, think that self-defense can justify revenge (ie, shooting someone in the back as they run away from you after you fought them off when they tried to mug you), but I don't accept that. If your neighbor threatens you, you don't get to break into his house the next night and stab him to death in his bed.
Heath:
What you are saying above is that heathens are "committing atrocities" that are akin to murder and the threat of murder. Is that what those in the Twin Towers were doing?
Is that what they were doing? No. Is that what the terrorists
believed they were doing? Yes. The terrorists were wrong, but they were almost certainly sincere in their beliefs. They really thought they were doing Allah's will. Their faith was strong, and it led them to commit an act of horrible evil. This is why I think it's important that we don't let our faith blind us to morality.
But really, let's take it to the logical extreme. Would you commit murder if ordered to do so by the prophet of the LDS church? If he said "God has told me that Joe down the road is going to do something really bad in the future, and he wants you to kill him," would you do it? I really hope not, but by your argument, it sounds like you feel like it would be the right thing to do.