By Kevin Parry I am not an expert on the Bible, but there are some things in that book that I find incredibly disconcerting, especially when it comes to God’s moral conduct. It is often said that a leader who is worthy of respect is a leader who sets an example. When I read through the pages of the Bible, I become more convinced that if the God of the Bible exists, he is the type of leader I will not follow, simply because he sets an example that at times I find morally objectionable. I’ve written this post in the realisation that I could be mistaken, that it is possible that I’ve missed something. If so, please let me know where I’ve gone wrong. One of the arguments for the truth of Christianity, put forward by various apologists, including CS Lewis, is that all humans are endowed with a moral sense of right and wrong. Due to the fact that this objective, moral sense exists, there must be a Moral Law Giver (i.e., God). For arguments sake, let’s accept that this divine moral sense exis...
Comments
We can see the same process in action on this very messageboad, with the various passing Xtians. A fairly recent one, who will go nameless, is nice, and has been well-received by all, in spite of the fact that s/he is not deconverting, nor is s/he making any re-converts among the population here. Meanwhile, there is no _need_ to name the Xtians who do a one-off drive-by "Jesus loves you, but you're all gonna fry" before scurrying off to brag about how they ventured right into the lions' den. Or the small-spirited self-hating misanthropes who, judging others by themselves, welcome an approaching self-fulfilling doom. (There should be a name for the tendency of stationary objects to cause the objects around them to also become stationary...)
Certainty-of-re-encounter was one of the conditions that Axelrod named as fostering the evolution of cooperation amongst populations made up of individual self-interested cells. I recommend the book very highly.
Post a Comment