[net.religion] Maroney's illogic

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/22/84)

[Lamentations 3:39 "Why should any living mortal, or any man,
		    offer complaint in view of his sins?"]

Tim: "The thesis of this essay is that even if a God as described in
      the Bible does exist, he is not fit for worship."

Is this indeed the thesis of Maroney's essay? For the purpose of
discussing a particular Being, Tim asserts a certain Book as being the
source authority for his information. But does he stick to that, or does
he go contrary to it?

For what purpose, you ask? Tim's entire essay is predicated on taking
selected items regarding God from the Bible, while ignoring many other
things of what the Bible says about God. He also COMPLETELY IGNORES
everything the Bible says about man in relationship to God. Since his
argument rejects his own thesis, his conclusion is not logical.

I don't know what Tim's view of justice is, but he certainly misses the
mark when he doesn't apply it to God. As I noted with a net.religion
correspondent who wanted clarification of God's justice vs. man's
justice, justice is based on law. Law determines right and wrong. In a
sense, law determines morality. The question is "What (or whose) law?"
As important, on what is the law based?

Any logic system must have a basepoint - an axiom beyond which there is
no appeal. (Any system without one is inherently circular.) What is the
basepoint for "the morality of the average high school student"? If, as
another netter suggests, it's "minimal interference," how far does this
extend? It is very likely that cases requiring more-than-Solomonic
wisdom would be needed. And should it apply only to humans?

As much as justice is based on law, it operates on causes for actions
(e.g., you committing a crime gives the state cause for action against
you).  This is important in considering morality and actions. Specific-
ally, has an action been taken by initiative or as the result of a cause?

Do Tim's arguments follow his thesis? The core of his argument is found
in a few paragraphs in the middle:

> Of course, you will sometimes hear rationalizations of this slaughter.
> There are three major forms: ...corruption..., ...universal criminaliz-
> ation..., and ... mercy .... The first and second say that those
> slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the third says that
> since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate them.

Since I don't subscribe to the third, we'll check the others.

> The corruption argument simply does not hold up. The people slaughtered
> in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless....

WAITACOTTENPICKINMINNIT! Sez who? Tim has stated that the Bible would be
the source authority for his argument, yet here he denies it. Contrarily,
Psalm 14 clearly states "They are corrupt, they have committed abominable
deeds; there is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven
upon the son of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek
after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good, not even one." Paul uses this very passage
in Romans 3, when he concludes the whole world deserving of judgment.

Psalm 130:3-4 reiterates the point while showing God's mercy: "If You,
LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is
forgiveness with You, that You may be feared (==reverenced)."

Thus, by basis of law, Time has rejected his thesis.

> The universal criminalization argument is silly.... All men are vile
> sinners who deserve to be killed. When Yahweh kills some of them, he has
> every right to, because they are vile sinners. Hmmm. In that case, if I
> decide that someone is a vile sinner and deserves to die, then that is a
> correct perception....

[Tim later adds arguments similar to this.]

This requires both basis of law and cause for action. We must determine
the basis for "sin," and who has cause for action against one who sins.
Using the reference postulated by Tim's thesis, sin is determined by
measuring against God. Whatever falls short loses out. In his later
argument (e.g., on hunger, etc) Tim uses man as the measuring stick -
again denying his thesis. Further, God judges the *heart*, so what may
appear good on the outside (which is all humans can determine) may not
really be good.

Now for cause for action: if a man is a sinner, who has cause for action
against him? Logically, the one he has sinned against! Since Eden, God
has had a cause for action against man. Tim complains about God's
judgments instead of reading Lam.3:22-23 "It is of the LORD's mercies
that we are not consumed, because His compassions never fail.  They are
new every morning; great is Your faithfulness." [Yes, those words *are*
familiar - check your hymnal.]

Further, Tim says "Neither apostacy nor fornication deserve the death
penalty." According to God's standard for man, they deserve *worse* -
Tim again denies his thesis. James 2:10 says "Whoever keeps the whole
law and yet stumbles in one point ... has become guilty of *all*."

Tim makes bold as to try to do as God does. But man does not always
have cause for action against man. Further, since all men are debtors to
God, any man-against-man cause for action must be tempered by knowledge
that each us has given God a cause for action against us. According to
the sourcebook in Tim's thesis, man does not always judge accurately,
but God does. Therefore, Tim's "perception" is inadequate cause for
action (except maybe against himself).

Tim does not want to attribute some of the more mundane problems of the
world (e.g., hunger, disease) to man's sin. Yet as we read the source
book of Tim's thesis, we find that, as a result of sin, man would have
to work for his food. Further, the promise of death set in, in a variety
of ways. God intends both to cause to man to look to Him, yet even as
Hosea declared (ch.4) man in his stubbornness would not return to God.

Yet the mercy of God is readily available, even for the chief of sinners
(Paul did not choose that title by chance). The book of Jonah is a
glorious presentation of the mercy of God - Jonah preached judgment
against Nineveh, knowing full well that the Ninevites would repent at
his preaching and God would forgive them (which Jonah didn't want).

According to the source book, God's actions are not capricious, but
rather in judgment on the sins of man (Tim apparently knows nothing
about the religious worship of the Midianites). Neither does He "gloat
on the fate of sinners in the afterlife." Rather, He says in Ezekiel
33:11 "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that
the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your
evil ways! Why then will you die?" That last question implies a choice -
although death is deserved, life is available for the asking.

And so it goes with Tim's illogic - stating a thesis, then superimposing
his own views over it to the effect of denying it. His essay is an
attempt to intellectually justify what he wants to believe. The attempt
fails.
-- 
		The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
		{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab

You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.