Malachi 2 (NIV)
Additional Warning to the Priests
1 “And now, you priests, this warning is for you. 2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name,” says the LORD Almighty, “I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.3 “Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it. 4 And you will know that I have sent you this warning so that my covenant with Levi may continue,” says the LORD Almighty. 5 “My covenant was with him, a covenant of life and peace, and I gave them to him; this called for reverence and he revered me and stood in awe of my name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth and nothing false was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and turned many from sin.
7 “For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty and people seek instruction from his mouth. 8 But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the LORD Almighty. 9 “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”
I can never remember any preacher, Sunday School teacher, or my mother telling me about God threatening to smear dung in the faces of his priests. This is one example of the very coarse language often found in the bible and often in direct quotes from God.
Some apologists claim that God will not really rub literal dung into the priests faces, but that it is a threat of some type of punishment. I even had one Christian tell me that this is just like someone saying “eat shit.” Others note that verse two begins with “If you do not listen…”, noting that it is OK for God to rub dung into the faces of his priests because he warns them.
If you reply, please read the ABOUT section first or click here: http://rarebible.wordpress.com/about/.
By: edhensley on April 10, 2011
at 12:59 pm
Hi Ed,
Thanks for posting this one. I like the description of God saying “eat shit” to the priests.
This was the part I found most interesting though:
“…because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”
The purpose of God saying “eat shit” to the handlers of the law is the unequal application of the law. Apparently God is against Rex Lex, what do you think?
By: Russell on April 10, 2011
at 6:01 pm
I have not read Rex Lex (or the book Lex, Rex), but am a little familiar with the topic. I do not believe in God, so I can not answer your question. If you are referring to the translation “The King is the law”, then the God of the Old Testament is against that.
By: edhensley on April 11, 2011
at 12:03 am
Hi Ed,
Do you agree with the point of this passage then, the point being that the king or priests are not above the law? That the rule of law should prevail and be applied evenly among people?
By: Russell on April 11, 2011
at 3:59 pm
I would agree that kings should not be above laws or morality, and I would accept that this is part of what this passage is about.
Should gods be above laws or morality, or should the rule of law prevail and also apply to them?
By: edhensley on April 11, 2011
at 6:06 pm
Hi Ed,
Great to see that you agree with the point of the passage. I agree with the point as well. Should gods be above laws or morality? That is a very interesting question worth discussing. Do you think that applies to this passage or is that outside the scope of discussion?
By: Russell on April 11, 2011
at 6:12 pm
It is outside the scope of this passage. I will briefly (I hope) make a statement and let you reply, then we can drop that thread.
Let’s examine the explanation by Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig on the slaughter of the Canaanites at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767.
Question 1
Question 2
Craig’s Replies
Craig claims that the god of the Old Testament is justified in killing innocent children. In fact, it is a good thing, because it will send them straight to heaven. The major difference between this killing and Islamic terrists is that Muslims worship the wrong god.
When people put a god above morality, his followers then justify all kinds of immorality. Notice that in this story and in most biblical stories involving genocide, the god of the Old Testament does not kill people himself, but rather commands his chosen people to do the killing. I think the world would be a better place if we stopped believing in such gods.
By: edhensley on April 11, 2011
at 7:02 pm
Hi Ed,
I’d like to be permitted to post a more thorough response, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging. A quick note of thought.
“Has the potter no right over the clay?”
By: Russell on April 13, 2011
at 4:56 am
Try not to make it any longer than my last comment. But I find it funny how quickly you can claim kings and priests should not be above laws and morals and then you turn around and hem and haw about whether gods should be above laws and morals. The secular humanist answer is a simple NO. The Christian answer, as recorded in the Bible and admitted by Craig, is that God can do anything he wants that would be immoral if we did it, including the killing of innocent children. I understand why you will need to write a long piece to attempt to justify this.
By: edhensley on April 13, 2011
at 10:27 am
Hi Ed,
Thank you again for bringing up interesting Bible verses, I consider it a blessing to see some of the more obscure passages brought out in the open. Thank you again for agreeing with the point God (or whoever you believe wrote it) is making that no one is above the law. Glad to hear you agree with this part of the Bible.
As for the vulgar language, I appreciate that as well, as I would be suspicious of a book that claimed divine inspiration but did not speak to the real, and messy, world in which I live. Sometimes it helps to have a translation like yours to refocus the meaning of middle-English. If you are charged with upholding the law and give preference to your friends, God says “eat shit.” Right on. What do you think, does this language offend you?
On to your tertiary question of whether God or gods should be held to the same standard of the law. A few thoughts come to mind. One is that who is going to hold any type of god to anything? I certainly am not capable. Are you Ed? Another is the conception of the law. If the law giver is saying “Thou (that means you) shall not murder.” perhaps, in a bit of legalese, He is not breaking the law by killing? Does the law against murder apply to acts of war? There is an entire body of philosophy called the just war theory that suggests there is a difference between cold blooded murder, and killing in war-time. I’ll leave that to a different day, but simply want to point out that if you or I are to be the judge of whether a deity (real or imagined) has actually broken a law, we may be acting quite boldly, and with much hubris. Just food for thought, for me, some humility is valuable in handling these sorts of questions.
To the point though, it is my belief that the law is an extension of the nature of God. To break the law is to go against His nature. His nature is expressed in His actions, which by definition (in a circular sort of way) cannot be breaking the law. The end result is a yes and a no. Yes, God can be held to the exact standard of the law, and no, He does not break it. If He did, He would be acting contrary to His nature. This is non possumus. That’s what makes the work of Jesus Christ on earth so remarkable. I’ve stood on the Mount of Beatitudes, near a Catholic church which until recently had inscribed on its floor a thank you note to Mussolini (true fact.) The hill is covered with yellow flowers in the springtime, its a beautiful setting. What was purportedly said there is even more beautiful. Perhaps you can write a post on that scandal of the law?
Again, thank you Ed. It’s hard to tell if I’ve kept this short enough to be included in your blog, but I sure hope I did. For the record, Craig’s perspective is rife with doctrine that is likely unsupported by Biblical text.
Let me know if I am allowed to continue conversing.
By: Russell on April 14, 2011
at 3:47 am
Thank you for your reply. I want to bring this thread to an end soon. I am glad that you disagree with Craig’s doctrine. Unfortunately, that is the doctrine of many Christians. There are other Christians who quote the bible and claim God can do whatever he wants with his creation. Craig defends biblical literalism, and many biblical literalists have referred me to writings and videos by Craig (and Strobel’s The Case For Christ, in which Craig helps in chapter 12). These Christians are unaware of Craig’s extremism due to his biblical literalism. I agree that there are many interpretations of the bible (including many different interpretations that claim to be literal), and I would probably like your interpretation (and my Mom’s) better than that of Craig and other literalists.
By: edhensley on April 14, 2011
at 11:59 am
Hi Ed,
I hear you on the different interpretations. Since we agree together and with the Bible on the major point of this passage, I simply have one thought to posit.
Perhaps the question we should ask ourselves isn’t so much about God being subject to the law, and whether or not He breaks it, but rather we should look in the mirror, and compare ourselves to the law. Are we just and good? Are we righteous by any standard? Do we uphold the law with 100% of our beings?
To clearly define the terms of this question “the law” is anything that you set up as a standard, whether that be the ten commandments, a commitment to tolerance, or simply obeying the speed limit. We should ask ourselves, if we’re honest, do I measure up to the law? If so, my behavior is impeccable, including my thoughts, and I am qualified to judge others. If not, then I am a law breaker.
I’m sorry it doesn’t have to do with dung Ed, but when we talk about the law this is what comes to my heart. I have asked these questions of myself, have you?
By: Russell on April 15, 2011
at 7:20 am
It is good for anyone to examine and determine if they could become a better person.
Your questions not relating to dung were valid since they were related to other aspects of this passage.
By: edhensley on April 16, 2011
at 5:04 pm
Thank you Ed. Just to try not to be misunderstood, I’m not convinced that by introspection one can become a better person. There is value in comparing ones self to an external standard, but self-improvement may not be that value. Again, thank you.
By: Russell on April 16, 2011
at 8:47 pm
It is regrettable that those responsible for your education neglected to teach you these important lessons. Failure to teach is, ironically, precisely the issue in the passage you quote here.
This message of condemnation and judgment is directed to the priests of Israel, who were charged with acting as teachers, judges and intermediaries between the nation and God. Offering the proper sacrifice, explaining the meaning of the sacrifice and overseeing of the propriety of the sacrifice was crucial in the role of the priest. Failure in this duty was tantamount to despising God. God was and is this tiny nation’s life and hope, and He instituted laws for their protection and preservation. To neglect that which is necessary to life and health is no small matter.
All of these sacrifices, ultimately, point to the ultimate sacrifice of God Himself, in the person of Jesus, upon the cross. See Luke 24: “25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
Israel was given several kinds of offerings, each having its own laws. The sin offering comes first before all others, because God’s holiness requires that we deal with sin before we approach Him for any other purpose. The sin offering required certain parts of the animal, including its dung, to be carried outside the camp and burned. Look at Exodus 29:14: “But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it [is] a sin offering.”
Dung is an understandable symbol of that which is rejected and filthy. Christ, who became the filth of our sin for us, was also treated this way. See Hebrews 13: “11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”
As an aside, we Christians expect to be treated as scum / trash / dung by those who live by the standards of a God-rejecting world, because our Lord was so treated. See 1 Cor. 4:13 “Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, [and are] the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
Prisoners will crawl through the filth of sewer drains to escape, and gratefully pay this small price in exchange for their freedom. The price here is greater than temporal freedom – it is survival at its most basic.
By: Julia Gwin on April 11, 2011
at 1:01 pm
Thank you for your opinion.
By: edhensley on April 11, 2011
at 5:45 pm
So if god smears the poo on ya would it be considered “holy shit”?
By: Mike M on April 12, 2011
at 4:13 pm
This whole post about smearing dung on faces has got me thinking about dung. I just have to add a small note. Dung is, of course, nasty stuff, but Jesus was very clear that our excrement does not defile us:
Mark 7:18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”[g] 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
Dung is physical. The really nasty stuff, though, is not physical.
By: Julia Gwin on April 13, 2011
at 1:13 pm
You say to Russell: “But I find it funny how quickly you can claim kings and priests should not be above laws and morals and then you turn around and hem and haw about whether gods should be above laws and morals. The secular humanist answer is a simple NO.”
I find it odd / “funny” that the secular humanist / atheist has any answer at all! Logically, if God does not exist, then the question does not even arise. But then we would miss all this fun.
You and Russell are discussing different things. You reference “gods” and Russell references the God of the Bible. Logically, defeating Christian presuppositions means addressing them and exposing their logical fallacies – not creating foreign presuppositions (straw men) and knocking those down.
If you concede (only for the sake of argument) that God exists, then, to expose Christian failures of logic and reasoning, you must address God as He describes Himself in the Bible. The Potter and clay reference is germane, because God has the right to do whatever He pleases with His creation. See Rom. 9:21; Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6. You can disagree with this, but then upon what basis / evidence does this disagreement rest except upon your own ideas of law and justice?
Although God is not subject to law (or anything else), He cannot be accused of hypocrisy, lack of sympathy, or lack of understanding. He became a man, clothed in flesh like ours, VOLUNTARILY SUBJECT TO HIS LAWS (both natural and moral), and lived a perfect, sinless life.
He invited his adversaries openly to convict him of any sin (lawlessness) and was met with silence. At Jesus’ trial, Pilate publicly announced he could find no fault / sin / offense / lawlessness in Jesus. Yet, Jesus endured a humiliating, naked, painful death to satisfy the REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW. He did this for those who are condemned under that law – for you and me. He is not subject to the law, but he did subject himself to its fullest punishment on our behalf.
By: Julia Gwin on April 13, 2011
at 8:07 pm
Russell said the bible verses were about god desiring kings and priests to follow the law and asked if I agreed with that and if I believed kings and priests should follow the law. I agreed, and asked him if gods should follow laws and morals. There is not a straw man here but a open display of Christian hypocrisy and lack of logic. Your claim that my use of the word “gods” makes it “foreign” is nonsense. Gods is a plural term that can mean whatever god any person believes in whether or not that god is real or not. If you want to assume that the God you worship is real, that is fine for this discussion.
The bible states that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords ( 1 Timothy 6:15, Rev 17:14, Rev 19:16). Therefore the BIBLE says Jesus is a king. Christian doctrine says Jesus and God are one and the same. So the God of the bible is a king as declared in the bible.
Russell implied that kings and priests are not exempt from following laws and morals. I showed him via the Dr. William Lane Craig link examples in the Bible where God kills innocent children. This was offensive to two Christan writers to Dr. Craig because the King of King was breaking his own laws (or ordering people to break his laws). I provided Dr. Craig’s response, which was basically that God can kill innocent children if he deres to do so. And you agreed with that reply in YOUR response!
You ADMIT that God can kill innocent children! Of course, he does so (and orders others to do so) in the Bible on multiple occasions. These verses are provided in the Craig link (and other sections of this blog) and admitted to by the two Christian questioners and by Craig.
So the Christian hypocrisy is shown for all to see! One Christian claims that kings and priests should not be above the law, but then the king of kings is above the law and can kill innocent children.
Now to address one of your many other mistakes. You confuse atheists and secular humanists. Atheism is the rejection of theism, the claim that one or more gods exist. Secular humanism is a value system based upon the elimination of unnecessary suffering and equality of all people. Atheists are not necessarily secular humanists, and not all secular humanists are atheists.
So your statement finding it “funny” that the secular humanist / atheist has any answers at all is full of your own ignorance and religious bigotry. Secular humanists were central to the founding of the USA, the elimination of slavery, equal rights for women and minorities, homosexual rights, and many other wonderful transformations that we take for granted.
By: edhensley on April 14, 2011
at 2:13 am
This post will address your second point.
2. Accusation of “Christian hypocrisy.”
Your words: “So the Christian hypocrisy is shown for all to see! One Christian claims that kings and priests should not be above the law, but then the king of kings is above the law and can kill innocent children.”
Your logic appears to be as follows:
A. Kings are not (or should not be) above the law.
B. God is a king.
C. (Part 1)Therefore God is not above the law; and
(part 2) is guilty when He kills the life He has made.
Assertion A: Kings are not above the law.
This assertion is by no means universally true – even for mortal kings. The “Divine Right of Kings” and the Magna Carta represent opposite sides of the ancient issue. The question is STILL rattling around. Look what happened when Queen Elizabeth recently drove without her seat belt:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5485828/queen_elizabeth_the_second_breaks_the.html?cat=17
Human kings should be subject to the law because humans are easily corrupted by power, but God is the AUTHOR of natural and moral law. Logically, how can He be subject to it unless He voluntarily submits Himself to it? And God did precisely that. See Galatians 4:4: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made UNDER THE LAW, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Assertion B. God is a king. True. He is the King.
Assertion C (part 1): Therefore God is not above the law.
True and False. False because God IS above the law, naturally, as the Author of all reality. True because God voluntarily placed Himself under the law to redeem his guilty subjects.
But your charge is HYPOCRISY. If God laid aside His prerogatives and voluntarily placed Himself under His natural and moral laws, how is this hypocritical? Allah does not do this. Vishnu does not do this. There is no god anywhere like this God of the Bible.
Assertion C (part 2): As to the charge that God can kill innocent children and do no wickedness, the answer is yes, He can.
Deut. 32:39 See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.
1 Sam. 2:6 — The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
Psa. 68:20 –[He that is] our God [is] the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord [belong] the issues from death.
Job 1:21 — And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
Just as you can do what you wish with your own, so can God. This violates your atheist presuppositions only because you do not believe you are created by God. You believe that all the good in your life is obtained either by the strength of your own hand or blind luck, and that you have no obligation of thanks or acknowledgment to God. But if you challenge Christian presuppositions, you must accept those presuppositions (as they are – no red herrings) for the sake of a level playing field and fair argument: God is the creator of every human being and, as such, you must then deal with whether He has the right to do with His creation as He wills. If God does not have this right, then, logically, why not?
Because the atheist presupposes this life is all there is, the loss of mortal life represents the loss of everything – pleasure, power, meaning, love, etc. And, for the atheist, this is sadly, horribly true. But God does not view this life as the sole or supreme good.
The Christian views this life as his brief opportunity to serve God in adversity. It is a privilege that will not come again. Life is good, but temporary and fleeting. True life begins when death and sin are abolished. We are on a pilgrimage to a city not made with human hands, where there is no more sorrow, death or crying – because of the cross of Christ. I expect the innocent children (those too young to be responsible for moral choices) who died will praise God for His mercy to them.
Where is my hypocrisy? I think I am guilty only of disagreeing with you – and that is not such a bad thing.
By: Julia Gwin on April 14, 2011
at 11:26 pm
I deleted your prior post (part 1), because it was long and pointless. But thank you for this post (bold added by me), because it demonstrates a belief by a biblical literalist that other Christians and all secular humanists would find morally repugnant. You worship a being that can do no wickedness even when He is killing innocent children. What more can I say.
The second bold part once again shows your total misunderstanding about what proper presuppositions are. I told you my presuppositions in a prior blog post and have since posted them in my about section at http://rarebible.wordpress.com/about/. You then tried to tell me what my presuppositions were and posted a link that had nothing to do with presuppositions. Even your fellow Christians mentioned that in response. You confuse presuppositions with core beliefs or world views. You are presupposing conclusions. You need to talk to scientists and take a class in logic.
You presuppose that God exists (and then WRONGLY call this Christian presuppositions – not all Christians have this as a presupposition). Then you claim that I have to accept your presuppositions! I do not have to accept your presuppositions any more than you would have to accept a presupposition that Allah does exists or that God does not exist. Proper presuppositions are rules that help evaluate evidence and determine what is true. Any conclusion can be challenged.
Last of all, you are butting into a civil conversation between myself and Russell. I brought up dung in the bible. Russell brought up a good argument that these verses were (at least partly) about kings and priests not being above the law. I replied asking if gods are above law or morality. I used the plural “gods” because Russell used the plural “kings and priests”, and the use of the word “gods” is appropriate in this context when discussing issues about religion in a scholarly manner between people of different religions or non-religions. The conversation did not really benefit from your intrusion, although some of your comments have revealed to some Christians the points I have been making.
I really don’t want to see part 3 of your reply, so don’t waste your time writing it.
By: edhensley on April 15, 2011
at 1:56 am
Dang, I’d sure like to see what she posted. You keep all the good stuff to yourself
By: Russell on April 15, 2011
at 7:23 am
I think you misunderstand me. If you say my presuppositions are wrong, then you must address MY presuppositions in your argument – not any else’s. To do otherwise is a classic diversionary tactic of one whose arguments are weak or one whose thinking is confused.
You say not all Christians believe that God exists. The very statement negates itself. Christians believe that God manifested Himself in Christ, and worship Christ as God. One’s claims to Christianity are violated by simultaneous proclamations that God does not exist. You can only make such a statement (“not all Christians believe in God”) if you define as Christian anyone who makes the claim. If I claim to be a goose, does that make me one?
If you change your mind about my posts, or if you decide to let everyone else see my failures of reasoning and stupidity, then just let me know and I will re-send. I am using you as a teaching tool for my children and they are evaluating your claims and mine, so I am keeping my posts for them to evaluate my presuppositions in our interactions.
You stated elsewhere that one of your purposes in this blog is to teach. I think you are actually doing a great job. I teach my children by showing them logical implications of their thoughts and opinions and by offering contrasting positions because CONTRAST IS THE SOUL OF CLARITY. If I consider only my own naval, what good is this?
I invite you and all your supporting readers to evaluate the reasonableness and coherence of my assertions and welcome any help you or anyone else might give me to correct my errors and get me closer to reason and coherence.
I have respect for you and I apologize if my communications do not reflect this. Russell obviously has greater winsomeness and gentleness. His are the greater gifts.
By: Julia Gwin on April 19, 2011
at 12:58 pm
You are a nice person. We just disagree. For the record, I think that all Christians believe (with different levels of conviction) in a god (of different characteristics).
By: edhensley on April 20, 2011
at 2:55 pm
You know, Mr. Hensley, you are right.
I have been thinking about your words and your reasonings, and I think I am getting close to the heart of our differences.
It really does come down to presuppositions – the things we take as true without proof. At its most basic, you believe there is no God, god or gods. I believe there is God, god and gods (but only the first is true). You think I am irrational and insane – stupid, really. That’s okay with me.
But, if your presupposition of no God is true, then you are absolutely correct. I am insane, illogical and devoid of reason. Making a king from an imaginary creation of man is totally insane and ridiculous! This argument is completely consistent with your core belief. If we create God in our own image, then making Him a King is likewise very stupid.
But, if my presupposition is true, that God is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then it is also irrational to believe He should be subject to the laws of His creation. He may also do whatever He wills with what is His own – including each human being.
My beliefs are largely fundamental, literal and reformed Christianity. I love discussing Bible passages, and I acknowledge there are many difficulties in the Bible. I am an excellent foil for you to showcase the superiority of your own beliefs.
By: Julia Gwin on April 20, 2011
at 11:49 am
Our presuppositions are the major problem to long term back and forth online communication. Talking in person would probably be better. I do not think you are irrational, insane, or stupid. I think you are wrong, as you think I am wrong. You think that my conclusion (not my presupposition) that there is no god is wrong. I think your presupposition is wrong. If we all agreed on everything it would be boring.
By: edhensley on April 20, 2011
at 3:08 pm
Hi Guys,
Not to stick my nose in, but I saw something that appears to be a misunderstanding and am hoping I can help bring some clarity.
When referring to The Big Questions, or the field of epistemology, a presupposition is defined as this:
“a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence.”
Ed, when you say that Julia has a presupposition for the existence of God, and contrast that with your “conclusion” of atheism, what I’m reading is two ships passing in the night. You’re talking about two different things.
With accurately defined terms, it appears that Julia’s earlier statement is true: The overarching principle upon which your perspective is based is the lack of any God or gods in or around the universe. The primary principle upon which Julia bases her life is a God who is there.
Again, just observing, hoping to offer some clarification of definitions. I’ll go back to the peanut gallery now
By: Russell on April 20, 2011
at 3:18 pm
The overarching principle (as clearly stated in my presuppostions in my about section) is not believing in something for which there is no evidence. You falsely claim that my overarching principle is the lack of God or gods. If (for example) NASA were focus there telescopes in a particular direction and observe a place with golden streets, pearly gates and angels (humanoids with wings on there back or whatever), then I would gladly state that a place consistent with the Christian concept of heaven exists. Unfortunately, that has not happened. God or gods have no part in my presuppositions or overarching principles.
By: edhensley on April 22, 2011
at 11:33 am
Hi Ed,
I understand your stated principle of “not believing something for which there is no evidence” however, until you define terms in regards to evidence this is a nonsense statement. Evidence, in regards to The Big Questions, is philosophical evidence, and this deals with the field of epistemology, which is the study of human knowing, including its nature and limits.
When you bring the NASA example into the discussion, it appears to me that you are talking about scientific evidence. First, this is a violation of the definition of terms, because scientific evidence does not deal with The Big Questions, and the epistemology of science is clearly defined, but scientific knowing is a different scope of knowing than philosophical knowing.
Another sense of evidence is legal. Interestingly, the legal sense of evidence did not become popular until the 1500′s. The original conception of evidence is “appearance from which inferences may be drawn.”
In short, Ed, there are many things which you believe in, and base your life upon, for which you have little to no scientific evidence, and at the very least, less than the evidence which you have for a Creator. It is not logically consistent to declare this presupposition.
By: Russell on April 22, 2011
at 1:44 pm
If you want to examine the world without using scientific evidence or any methods developed since the 1500s, that is your right. However, it is not consistent for you to be entering comments into this blog. Everything about the computer you use, the electrical system that powers it, and the software behind it comes from scientific evidence and processes. Philosophers can imagine anything and build a philosophy around it. They can not “philosophize” a computer or any of the other products of applications of science.
If you go into a court with scientific evidence versus “appearance from which inferences may be drawn,” modern judges (not those from the 1500s you wish to return us to) will side with scientific evidence.
Your last paragraph contains two false statements. I do not base my life on anything not supported by scientific evidence. Your last sentence is total nonsense since I do not declare any presupposition regarding any Creator.
I really do not want to discuss via blogs everything that is wrong with your post because it would take too much of my time. I would recommend that you take some of these posts and the link I provided you from Henry Morris and go to a university philosophy department and discuss these topics with them. Perhaps there are philosophers online who can help you.
By: edhensley on April 23, 2011
at 12:05 pm
Hi Ed,
It would be educational to your readers if, instead of setting up and knocking down straw men of my argument, you address the important question.
My suggestion is that you are using the logical fallacy of equivocation by defining evidence as scientific evidence, but using it in the context of ontology, and its closely associated epistemology. By using this semantic shift you’re giving the impression of scientific authority to your statements, while your statement do not deal with science at all.
By: Russell on April 23, 2011
at 7:10 pm
Thank you for your opinion. I am ready to move on.
By: edhensley on April 24, 2011
at 12:44 pm
Oh yeah, one other thing. Ed, I think you’re 100% spot on, that in person, with the whole person in front of you, the two of you would get along a whole lot better. The areas where you disagree would occupy a smaller sphere of the conversation, the areas where you agree would become more prominent. In this format, the striking differences of disagreement are highlighted, and the agreement is assumed and goes left unprinted.
By: Russell on April 20, 2011
at 3:21 pm
Agree that variety is the spice of life, and I thank you for the grace you have extended to me. I hope I communicate this same grace to you. It is perhaps more difficult to do in writing because this form of communication eliminates the expression of the eyes, the tone of voice, posture, etc. that we humans need to interpret the messages of others.
So, if you will continue to consider my contributions, I want to endeavor to be very careful to understand you accurately. I will be careful also to choose my words knowing the potential for misunderstanding is always present and enhanced in this format.
One reason I enjoy your blog is that you make me think. This is perhaps laughable because I am by no means gifted with a great mind, but I enjoy peddling my little tricycle around anyway.
Can you tell me what you meant when you distinguished between “presupposition” and “conclusion”? I am not married to either term. I think that you and I have the same thing – whatever we call it. I am comfortable with “conclusion.” But I want to know if you agree – that our conclusions / presuppositions / guiding beliefs/ core values are equal and opposite (Christian Theism v. Humanist Atheist).
You seemed to carefully distinguish between my “presuppositions” and your “conclusions.” Can you explain your intent and / or meaning here?
By: Julia Gwin on April 21, 2011
at 1:04 pm
In language, a presupposition is a part of a statement or question assumed to be true. For example, the question “When was President Obama born in Kenya?” is nonsensical if President Obama was born in Hawaii or if a place called Kenya does not exist or if there is no Obama.
In logic, presuppositions are (usually) basic tenets assumed to be true in order to guide to further truth. The simpler the presuppositions, the better. If the presuppositions are wrong, everything else that follows is wrong.
Henry Morris (The Genesis Flood, 1961) was among the first to use presuppositions for creationism in Christian apologetics. He has a long discussion of it here: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_tbiatos/. I will quote here:
“But we are concerned here mainly with the Biblical framework, and with the assumption that the Bible is truly the Word of God as it claims to be. If one starts with the presupposition that God has written the Bible as His own perfect revelation of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the world, then it again is perfectly possible to correlate all the physical data of science and history within that framework. The decision as to which presupposition leads to the most logical and self-consistent system of interpretation must necessarily be based on statistical arguments, and these are notoriously subjective in nature. Thus, in the last analysis, it is a spiritual and moral decision rather than a scientific decision. One can interpret everything in terms of Biblical creationism and catastrophism or in terms of evolutionary uniformitarianism, and all the pertinent data can be understood, at least in broad outline, within the framework of either system. Our concern here is simply to show that the Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding not only religious truth but also physical processes. It may very effectively serve as a “textbook” of scientific principles within which we can satisfactorily explain all the data of science and history. Whether or not we choose to accept this framework is basically determined by whether or not we want to do so. Those who elect the evolutionary framework do so not because the facts of science require this, but because this is the philosophic thought-structure they desire. “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28). ”
Notice that Morris says truth is determined not by the evidence, but rather by the presuppositions. In this case, he is asserting truth rather than examining the evidence and determining what is true based upon the evidence.
Scientists and logicians will tell you that Henry Morris presupposes too much. For centuries, scientists have learned how to toss out invalid presuppositions, such as the belief that planetary orbits were in perfect circles because God loves perfect circles.
Christians also falsely claim, as you do, that scientists presuppose God or gods does not exist. Scientists simply do not have the presupposition that God or gods exist. There is a difference.
A conclusion is based on evidence (or lack of) and logic. Gravity, electricity, and evolution are conclusions based upon mountains of evidence. They are not presupposed. I can conclude that Zeus and bigfoot do not exist based on the current level of evidence. My presuppositions, however, permit me to change if there is more evidence. For example, if a bigfoot is captured live, I can easily change my conclusion. If NASA shows a video a giant being with a long white beard hurling lightning bolts, I can change my conclusion.
By: edhensley on April 22, 2011
at 12:06 pm
Hello again, Mr. Hensley!
I have carefully read and re-read your last entry. I want to thank you for BOLDING the key words, also, to help me see your emphasis.
You say: “Notice that Morris says truth is determined not by the evidence, but rather by the presuppositions. In this case, he is asserting truth rather than examining the evidence and determining what is true based upon the evidence.”
I cannot see that Morris says what you say he says. In fact, if Morris HAD said what you attribute to him, then I think Morris is an idiot. Either this idiocy makes a good straw man or I am hopelessly missing the point and border on idiocy myself.
Next, you say, “Christians also falsely claim, as you do, that scientists presuppose God or gods does not exist. Scientists simply do not have the presupposition that God or gods exist. There is a difference.”
Again, if I made such a claim, then I am an idiot! Everyone knows the atheist is the one who presupposes the nonexistence of God.
But, if I did NOT make such a claim, then you have created a straw woman in the guise of Julia Gwin.
Or, perhaps, you simply confused me with someone else. Whoever said that, though, was an idiot.
By: Julia Gwin on April 25, 2011
at 4:51 pm
NO NO NO NO NO!
I have told you and others over and over again that I do not presuppose the non-existence of God or gods. I have listed my presuppositions in my about section. You (and others) and I have had multiple discussions on my presuppositions, and yet you still make such false statements!
How many times do I have to tell you that I am open to any evidence for the existence of God or gods. It is not my fault that you can not provide any. You have no evidence for God or gods, no evidence for heaven, no evidence for hell, no evidence for angels. Your personal stories are no different from those of other people from other religions.
Hector Avalos, Charles Templeton, Dan Barker, and Bart Ehrman are just some of the thousands of formerly Christian ministers who became atheists after studying the bible. They did not presuppose the nonexistence of God, they believed in God but came to doubt his existence after studying the bible and early Christianity. Your statement is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE!
If you do not accept that my presuppositions are honestly my presuppositions, then we can not converse any further.
By: edhensley on April 25, 2011
at 11:00 pm
I accept your presuppositions. I agree with your presuppositions.
I thought I was careful to say “the atheist” and not “you.” Please read again. I meant to defend myself against your assertion that “Christians also falsely claim, as you do, that scientists presuppose God or gods does not exist.”
I was trying to say I understand the definition of one who does not believe in God as “atheist.” The definition of “scientist” has nothing to do with the definition of “atheist.” Just like the definition of “banana” has nothing to do with “bicycle.”
By: Julia Gwin on April 26, 2011
at 2:40 am
Your statement is still wrong, whether regarding only to me or to “the atheist”. I do not know of any atheist who has stated “I just decided one day that God or gods do not exist.”
Reasons for becoming atheists are varied. Many involve reason and evidence. Some involve traumatic or emotional experiences. If you want to here some atheists tell their reasons you can watch here. Yes, that’s me sitting on the chair under the TV. http://youtu.be/n9FUsOE6ThY. That links to one, but you can probably find others from the same meeting.
Terms are getting confused because we keep jumping back and forth between science and religion. I have found many creationists (Henry Morris, Ken Ham, etc) who openly presuppose that God exists. You can not examine anything that is accepted as a presupposition. By presupposing the existence of God, the creationist can not examine whether or not God or gods exist. By presupposing the bible is the word of God, the biblical literalist can not examine whether or not the bible is truly the word of God.
Creationists often tie both of the presuppositions I mentioned above (God exists, bible is word of God) together. Morris explains all of science under the presuppostion of “catastrophism”, which presupposes that Noah’s flood happened, due to the presupposition that the bible is the word of God, due to the presupposition that God exists.
Let’s look at what Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) admits: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/best-proof-of-creation “Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions.”
Ham is admitting that he can not prove the bible is the word of God. It is one of his presuppositions that he assumes to be true.
Ham later makes a false statement about scientists: “Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose (e.g., no God, or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the facts of the present. ”
Scientists (or his attempt to derisively call them evolutionists) do not reach their conclusions by presupposing them. Those who accept evolution do not do so because they presuppose that God or gods do not exist or did not perform acts of special creation. Many people believe in God or gods and also accept the evidence for evolution. Scientists accept evolution due to overwhelming evidence, not due to a presuppostion.
The presuppostions I listed in my About section are valid presuppositions for science. They do not assume any conclusions, but rather provide guidelines for explanations. The more you presuppose, the more likely you are wrong. Scientists do NOT presuppose conclusions.
Notice that Ham advises the Christian (“3.challenging the presuppositions of the other person “) to challenge the presuppositions of the other person. However, nowhere does Ken Ham defend or challenge his presuppositions! In his entire post, he is basically saying Christians do not have to prove anything and they can interpret any fact any way they wish in order to support their presuppositions.
Ham makes many other false statements on science in this post, but I do not want to spend all my time on that. The major point I want to make is that many creationists/Christians have been using the presupposition argument. They make false claims about the presuppositions of scientists and then wish to challenge those alleged presuppositions. They then try to hide behind their own presuppositions. They fail to see they are presupposing conclusions.
By: edhensley on April 26, 2011
at 3:16 pm
This post of yours is very helpful. Thank you. It will take time to absorb it.
If it is not too difficult, would you mind revealing what evidence you would consider to be evidence for the existence of God? Not necessarily SUFFICIENT evidence, but any evidence. I am interested in what you would think to be sufficient evidence, but I want to understand what you mean by “evidence.” Do you ever think it appropriate to apply the term “evidence” to the ontological realm? Or is “evidence” reserved for other arenas?
I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. No hurry. Answer at your convenience if you are disposed to do so. It will help me understand your thinking better.
By: Julia Gwin on April 26, 2011
at 6:11 pm
I do not wish to go back and forth on this topic. I have presented some ideas in prior posts and comments. I would recommend reading Victor Stenger’s book God, The Failed Hypothesis.
By: edhensley on May 22, 2011
at 1:01 pm
I am amazed that a humanist/athiest would be offended by dung being smeared on the faces of the priests. Most leftists/humanists/athiests usually don’t mind disgusting vulgar comments. They usually celebrate them as art. Perhaps there is a little hypocrisy here. God was warning them that he was going to humiliate them in graphic terms. What’s your problem with that? Are you offended by graphic language?
By: Tommy Harris on November 19, 2011
at 6:14 pm
These verses were presented in this blog because there were not read regularly in Sunday School while I was growing up. God was described as good and holy, not as something that would smear feces on the faces of his priests. So there is no hypocrisy.
Your claim that “most leftists/humanists/atheists usually don’t mind disgusting vulgar comments” is not supported by any research and is outside the scope of this blog.
By: edhensley on November 24, 2011
at 1:08 am