Fear not the Compass
December 1st, 2007 
Since our previous discussion about “The Golden Compass” seemed to be of interest to so many folks, here’s another thought-provoking article for you, courtesy of Jeffrey Overstreet, in Christianity Today.
It’s interesting to note that Pullman’s dismissal of Christianity skips over one little detail: Jesus. Pullman’s story never makes any attempt to explore or refute the claims and ministry and person of Christ. He has, in effect, set up a “straw God” rather than a “straw man,” and his fans are congratulating him for knocking down Pullman’s flawed perception of God rather than the God of Christianity. He’s not really undermining Christian belief as he thinks he is; he is undermining the abuse of authority, something altogether contrary to the gospel.
Pullman points to bad people as a way of saying that the faith is wrong. For examples of religious folk, he illustrates people who abuse power. That’s not God. And Christ would frown on the persecution carried out by The Magisterium. In the history of the church, followers of Christ have been persecuted and oppressed by others far more than the other way around. So when one of Pullman’s heroic characters, the ex-nun physicist Mary Malone, tells our heroes (in the third book) that “The Christian religion is a powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all,” well, she’s not talking about Christianity at all. She’s talking about Pullman’s misrepresentation of the church.
He answers such questions as “Should Christians be afraid of The Golden Compass?” “Do Pullman’s stories pose a threat to children?” “Is Pullman overrated? Is he a good storyteller?” etc.
He also provides some thoughts about how Christians should react to the movie:
Essentially, don’t behave in ways that the Magisterium in Pullman’s books would behave. You’ll just make his stories more persuasive, by confirming for the culture around us that Christians only really get excited when they’re condemning something.
Instead, respond with grace and love. And truth. Admit that, yes, Christians have committed grave sins in the name of Christ, and that those shameful misrepresentations of the gospel have made many people fearful of, and even repulsed by, the church. But Christians have been called to serve the oppressed, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring healing to the sick, to seek justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly, and to bring good news of “great joy.” And by God’s grace, many are living out that calling. They paint quite a different picture than what Pullman has painted.
You may not agree with all his conclusions, and judging from our other discussion on the topic, many of you won’t. Nonetheless, it’s still an article that’s worth your time and consideration.
Pullman’s god seems to be the god of Gnosticism, rather than that of Christianity. What dies in the end is the demiurge.
Tim, thanks for this particular article. Overstreet is dead-on. I’ve said on my blog and elsewhere that what we need to be doing is approaching His Dark Materials redemptively, using it evangelistically as well as taking advantage of the teaching moments it provides for our children and church members.
Does anyone honestly think the average moviegoer, much less the average Christian will draw these conclusions?
The vast majority will sit there like sponges, soaking it up as entertainment fare and thus allowing it to enter their mind as an influence on their thoughts rather than critically analyzing it and looking for teaching moments.
I don’t have to make my child ingest arsenic just so that I can teach him that it is dangerous. By the same token, I don’t have to go out of my way to make him sit there and fill his mind with atheistic babble just so I can teach him that God really is real.
Good post, Tim. He makes some great points.
I wrote a
piece on this myself, over at my blog, if you are interested.
My take is similar to that of Overstreet in some ways.
Oh, and Tim, you have remained silent on this topic and have yet to really tip your hand as to your feelings on this issue.
Where do you come in on this topic?
This ties in neatly with your recent string about Islam. If fallen men can corrupt the truth religion so badly, how much more so will they corrupt a false religion? And I am sympathetic toward your point, too, Gordon; this is why discipleship within churches and families is so vitally important.
Craig, maybe Christianity is the false religion and Islam is the true one.
Okay, that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Talk about logical self-consumption.
Well, maybe you need to see it in context. Here you go Stephen… Even Stephen, Islam vs Christianity
I still don’t understand why some Christians are so upset about The Golden Compass. It’s just a movie. Just enjoy it.
Cineaste, what you have rejected is philosophical religion, which is all you know. Most, if not all, of the people you’re chatting with here have a completely different religious experience. Just so you know.
“Cineaste, what you have rejected is philosophical religion, which is all you know.”
What does that mean?
You know, there is a lot of talk about how “The Golden Compass” is BLASPHEMOUS! I just wanted to put the concept of blasphemy in perspective. This goes for both Muslims and Christians…
B l a s p h e m y !
Enjoy!
Pullman and other atheist’s take on God’s nature is understandable from this standpoint: they are writing/speaking from inexperience, that’s all. Faith is experiential. Believer’s have engaged God - taken Him at His word - and found His nature to be above reproach. It’s our human nature that is the problem. While atheists would probably argue that it’s the other way around - they are fine, God is the one with the problem! Which is what I found out a couple years ago in a similar discussion:
I wonder why they don’t appreciate this verse where God invites us to come to Him and reason with Him…
Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool”
The invitation at the beginning has to appeal to them, but the last half of the verse seems to be what drives them away. God in His wisdom has tied our reasoning to the inescapable realization of our own sin problem. We can’t reason it away. We can’t find a mathematical proof to solve it. We can’t explain it away with the scientific method. There lies the heart of the matter. We have a problem that we can’t fix on our own.
If you intellectually look for God, you’ll never come to Him. If you’re in need of a Savior, you’ll run to Him.
(sigh)
Man, Cineaste, some days your insistence on contrariness is tiresome..
I’m with you, Gordon.
I agree with Overstreet “that those shameful misrepresentations of the gospel have made many people fearful of, and even repulsed by, the church.”
Voltaire wrote about this hundreds of years ago and was a much better writer than Pullman, I might add.
“Man, Cineaste, some days your insistence on contrariness is tiresome..”
Well Luke, that’s your own fault. You could easily remedy this by agreeing with me more often.
Cine you keep comparing Christianity and Islam in talking about the one true religion.
Do you know the history of Muhammad and how he claims the Quran was revealed to him? He is the only source for the writings. He tried to kill himself several times. He married 15 times, once to a 7-year old girl. Without getting into all of it, there are tremendous differences between how the 2 books came to be. And we’ve taken those into consideration.
Z, there are equally ridiculous claims to be found in the Bible. I just recently pointed out the “Grab nuts, lose hand” law that is viewed as a “divine” injunction. To me, this doesn’t sound “divine” at all. It sounds like a man who got his junk grabbed by a chick made this law, not the all loving, all knowing, all powerful God of everything. It’s easier to see what I’m saying when you juxtapose the two…
God > If a chick grabs your nuts, show her no pity and cut her hand off.
So, while events in the Qu’ran are as repellent to me as they are to you, I don’t view the Bible as that much different. Both of them seem to be the product of men, not Gods, who lived in a barbarous time. To me, God would be above nut grabbing and poop burying laws (reference from J razz I think). Now I know the response to this is, “God works in mysterious ways, who are we to question God.” Well, I look at how obviously “Non-divine” these injunctions are and I can’t help but question.
>I just recently pointed out the “Grab nuts, lose hand” law that is viewed as a “divine” injunction.
So, you’re dismissing all of scripture because of one hard verse? You give up way too easy! Consider this verse a challenge and do some contextual Bible study and figure out why it’s in there.
Roger, there are many other’s I can point to but the “God’s honest truth” of it, is that I’m holding back because I don’t want to offend to the point of insult. I do respect the people here. I hope I have some respect too. It’s very hard for me to walk that line. I’ve said some things that I never dreamed would ever be found “inflammatory” but have been deemed so. Basically, this is a sensitive subject which should probably be left alone for now because there are some really “Hard” verses that can be found in the Old Testament and the Qu’ran.
Yes, there are plenty of hard verses in the Bible. Even Peter complained that Paul was hard to understand, didn’t he?
The point is - do we dismiss it as not true because that’s not what we ‘expected’ - (ala the Pharisees when God showed up on earth in the form of a man - a servant instead of a king) - or do we seek truth at all costs? The truth is worth it. Our lives are worth it. Since you’re familiar with scripture, you know the verses where God tells us to ask Him for wisdom. Will God reject a truth seeker?
“Consider this verse a challenge and do some contextual Bible study and figure out why it’s in there.”
I think the verse is in there because someone got his nuts crushed by a chick.
Cine you raise a good point but I was speaking more to the authenticity of the books and how they were written. Muhammad claimed to have visions from God and had scribes write them down. The Bible on the other hand is historical and written by eyewitness testimony.
The Quran has much more in common with the Book of Mormon than the Bible.
I understand that every religion has a ‘holy book’ but there are many things that set the Bible apart from them.
Cineaste,
I don’t know the meaning of Dt. 25:11 either. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it first appears. I have been guilty of labeling parts of scripture in the past as ‘arbitrary’ and God is showing me deep spiritual things which prove me wrong!
The key is having a teachable spirit as we seek the truth.
God says - ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.’
Now there’s a verse that is NOT hard and very straight forward. Let’s be obedient to the verses we do understand and see what God teaches us about the rest of scripture…
Cineaste,
I’m inclined to agree with you about the nut-crusher law. Sounds to me like a law arising from experience, as many laws do. I doubt anyone will ever find deep spiritual significance in it.
Jesus makes clear that the significance of the law is not in the details. It’s in the underlying intention, which is justice. The whole idea of the golden rule formulated in Matthew 7:12, is to treat others with the same respect and sense of fair play that you would like to have for yourself. By the way, I think that’s something you do.
Jesus makes clear that the significance of the law is not in the details.
Chip would you mind clarifying this? Thanks.
j razz
Cineaste,
It’s strange that you are surprised to have “said some things that I never dreamed would ever be found “inflammatory” but have been deemed so.”
Especially when you crassly paraphrase what we believe to be one of God’s tenets as “God > If a chick grabs your nuts, show her no pity and cut her hand off.” Dude. You repeatedly denigrate statutes and aspects of our faith and have still been treated with respect and gentility. It is a testament to the grace and love of the people on this board that you are still welcome here to continue making simplistic comments like the one I referenced above.
I have two responses to your statements:
1) Dt. 25:11 was written during the time of Law. We are not living in that time any longer. We are now under Grace not under the Law. The Law simply served to show us how much we needed the saving grace of God, as our own works and righteousness were woefully insignifigant. This is not to say that we should throw out the 10 Commandments, but Christians are called to recognize the futility of trying to “live up to the law” and humbly accept the grace that has been given.
2) To me, the fact that God communicated the law in such minutae as he did is MORE inspiring than if he would have communicated only in platitudes. The fact that the Creator of All took the time and effort to communicate to man laws in such detail is awe-inspiring. Then to follow it up, he fulfilled his own prescription by living a sin-free life through his Son, culminating in selfless sacrifice for an undeserving world.
I’m sure that you will rebut these statements with Nietzche or some other misguided philosopher, but it remains. The Bible is our Creator’s revealed word to us, individually and corporally. You can either nitpick and poke fun or you can (as Roger says) “seek truth at all costs”.
“Especially when you crassly paraphrase what we believe to be one of God’s tenets as “God > If a chick grabs your nuts, show her no pity and cut her hand off.”
My point is that God is better than that. I think you actually belittle God by associating this crude passage with Him. Grab nuts, lop off hand. Dude. My observation is that’s obviously a man made law, not a divine one.
“You repeatedly denigrate statutes and aspects of our faith”
I question them. I criticize them. I don’t share them. But you know what? If your faith is worth it’s salt, you should be able to defend it logically. Don’t play the “you must respect my faith because it’s a sacredly held belief that demands respect” card with me. If I’m going to respect your ideas, your faith, that respect must be earned. I’m not going to agree with you simply because you feel that I’m too critical of your beliefs.
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion,but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” - Henry Louis Mencken
It’s interesting that you take offense when I challenge the thinking behind your religious beliefs.
“I’m sure that you will rebut these statements with Nietzche or some other misguided philosopher…”
“The [Luke Hamilton] doth protest too much, methinks.” - William Shakespeare, Hamlet
The bearing of children was intensely important in ancient Hebrew culture, much more so than modern man’s mere desire to have little crumb-crunchers running around. Much of it had to do family inheritance that went down through generations. When Abraham made his servant swear that he would find an appropriate bride for Isaac, he made him lay his hand not “under his thigh” as translated, but literally on his private parts. To lose the ability to father children was much more important than the loss even of a hand.
Cineaste, if you’re going to insist that respect for the Christian faith must be earned, you should not be surprised that some of us Christians have concluded that you do not, in fact, respect our faith.
I for one think it’s clear that you don’t, and, more than that, I think you have very little regard for many us of as individuals, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.
You write that Luke, for instance, should be able to defend his faith logically rather than play the card that his faith demands respect. He did just that, providing two points in response to your criticism of Deuteronomy 25:11. But you didn’t acknowledge those points, much less offer a substantive response to them.
To have done so would have undermined your insinuation that Luke offered nothing of substance.
“…you should not be surprised that some of us Christians have concluded that you do not, in fact, respect our faith.”
I respect Christianity as much as you respect Islam or atheism.
“I think you have very little regard for many us of as individuals, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.”
How do you figure? I don’t agree with you and I am critical of Christianity so you take it personally? If you have such a difficult time with criticism on a religious level, I can only imagine how upset you might get if someone actually did criticize you on a personal level.
“You write that Luke, for instance, should be able to defend his faith logically rather than play the card that his faith demands respect. He did just that, providing two points in response to your criticism of Deuteronomy 25:11.”
Luke did play that card right off the bat. Despite that, I immediately addressed his two arguments with, “My point is that God is better than that.” His two points did nothing to change my thinking about that. It sounded as if he was trying to convince himself with Christian doctrine, not me. Craig pointed out that “To lose the ability to father children was much more important than the loss even of a hand.” That’s fine, but it’s still barbarous and I can think of more humane ways to get women to stop grabbing men’s nuts. God would know this, a man living in that age wouldn’t. It still seems like a man made law, not divine.
(1 Corinthians 1:18)
Mark, I’ve said it before, I don’t have a problem with you questioning my faith or why I believe the way that I do. I have a problem with the flippant tone that you use to question something that I take very seriously.
“I have a problem with the flippant tone that you use to question something that I take very seriously.”
In reviewing what I said in this thread I don’t see what I said that’s gotten you so upset. Was it the Monty Python video on Blasphemy? Because right after that is where you started commenting about me. If you feel Monty Python is “flippant” maybe you shouldn’t be so sensitive about it. There are people here who like reading my comments. I’ve gotten some very nice emails from them telling me so.
Okay, I’m seriously trying to figure out what The Golden Compass has to do with a law about a woman trying to end a fight between her husband and another man by grabbing the other man’s family jewels.
If I got in a fight, and the other guy’s wife tried to manually castrate me like that, I’d show her no pity either, as the following verse instructs. And so would you, if you had any sense. We might not cut off her hand, but the defensive reaction some of us who are trained in self-defense would give in response might make her wish we had instead.
[tongue-in-cheek] Now that I have settled this silly argument [/tongue-in-cheek], we can return to the topic of discussion.
Cineaste:
“I think you have very little regard for many us of as individuals, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.”
How do you figure? I don’t agree with you and I am critical of Christianity so you take it personally? If you have such a difficult time with criticism on a religious level, I can only imagine how upset you might get if someone actually did criticize you on a personal level.
See, these questions assume that I didn’t try to explain my conclusion that you have little regard for us, but I did offer an explanation in the very next sentence, where I wrote that, “for instance,” you acted as if Luke Hamilton offered nothing but a substantive argument; you comment to this one sentence as if it was made with absolutely no context, you respond to it in isolation, but the reality is that the context of this assertion explained the assertion; most people — including you, I will note — do not express an entire thought in one sentence, instead choosing to make their point in several sentences or paragraphs; to pretend that people do not this, in order to look at one sentence in isolation and to criticize that one sentence as if it were actually made in isolation, may be easier than tackling the entire argument that was made, but it is unfair, disrespectful, and ultimately foolish.
“Okay, I’m seriously trying to figure out what The Golden Compass has to do with a law about a woman trying to end a fight between her husband and another man by grabbing the other man’s family jewels.”
It was a response to Zoner’s question.
“We might not cut off her hand…”
Might not? YOU would not, especially since cutting off her hand would be “punishment” after the fact and not in an attempt to defend yourself. I’m not being “flippant” about this, as Luke says. I’m dead serious. So, please answer this question Yes or No…
Is it morally right or is it morally wrong to lop off a woman’s hand because she grabbed someone’s nuts?
I hope you agree that cutting off her hand is morally wrong. I believe you are a good person and you’d find this “punishment” as repulsive as I do. If anyone thinks cutting off a woman’s hand is morally right then they probably come from Saudi Arabia where they lash rape victims.
Also, I know that you are not a moral relativist. Morality is objective not subjective. You believe that what’s right, is right. And, What’s wrong, is wrong, irregardless of time, place and culture. So knowing this, if you answered cutting off a woman’s hand is morally wrong today, you also think cutting off a womans hand because she grabbed a man’s junk is morally wrong even when that law was originally made. This puts you between the devil and the deep blue sea. On one hand, you think cutting off a woman’s hand is wrong but how can it be wrong if it’s “God’s law?”
I know, I know, you’ll say Christians are not bound by mosaic law anymore. Irrelevant. The question I asked was if you think cutting off a woman’s hand because she grabbed someone’s junk is moral or immoral. There’s still a conflict with the morality of the “grab junk, lose hand” law regardless of whether you feel bound by it or not.
Now you have two choices here…
1. Bite the bullet and say that cutting off a woman’s hand for grabbing a man’s junk is morally right. If you say this I’ll reply that this is an absolutely barbarous practice. If one truly believes in this kind of barbaric punishment then they are a backward, barbarous, savage person. This punishment goes against the tenants the United States was founded upon that, as Americans, we hold dear enough to die for. [The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) - “cruel and unusual punishments” shall not be inflicted] I’d have trouble bringing myself to hit a woman much less cut her hand off, even if she grabbed someone’s balls. It’s a sick law.
2. Bite the bullet and say that cutting off a woman’s hand for grabbing a man’s junk is morally wrong. If you say this I’ll reply that this puts your own moral stance about this law in direct conflict with God’s. God obviously believed this law to be moral but you don’t?
But, what if it’s not God’s law at all. This law seems to be made by man not God, and you agree with me. But that can’t be either since it’s in the Bible so it must be God’s law.
So Stephen, you’re stuck in a Catch-22 of your own accord.
Actually, Cine, that is a Catch-22 of your own making, not mine or God’s. You think you’re being clever, when in reality you’re being obstinate. And that shouldn’t really surprise anyone here, since Romans 1 is very clear about people who do what you do. You don’t like what the Bible has to say, so you find some way to make it go away. In your case it’s through ridicule and obfuscation.
The above comment is a blue-ribbon example of the type of illogic I’m talking about. For starters, you attempt to impose modern morality on ancient culture, which any decent historian/anthropologist/archaeologist can tell you is a big no-no. You flat out fail to consider the culture and history in question. Second, you completely fail to take into consideration what the verse actually says. This is about a woman physically trying to harm someone who is in a fight with her husband.
You see, my reaction to a woman who tried to stop a fight by grabbing my jewels is analogous to lopping off her hand. I’ve just meted out severe punishment in a defensive reaction. The only difference is that she’ll recover from the butt-whooping I gave her. I may not have cut off her hand, but the physical punishment with which I defend myself is just as satisfactory to me.
Today, others (especially non-believers) would “lop off the woman’s hand” by pressing charges or suing her, would they not? Many would likely go so far as to include the woman’s husband in the suit.
So whatever you want to say, you’re still being flippant, misrepresentative, and obfuscating. Now, can we get back to the real subject, His Dark Materials? Thank you.
“For starters, you attempt to impose modern morality on ancient culture, which any decent historian/anthropologist/archaeologist can tell you is a big no-no. You flat out fail to consider the culture and history in question.”
Objection anticipated in my previous post as if I had read your mind…
“Also, I know that you are not a moral relativist. Morality is objective not subjective. You believe that what’s right, is right. And, What’s wrong, is wrong, irregardless of time, place and culture.”
“This is about a woman physically trying to harm someone who is in a fight with her husband.”
So what? The punishment is barbaric, cruel and savage.
“…she’ll recover from the butt-whooping I gave her.”
Good for you. But then, under this sick law, she now gets her hand cut off. Is this right or is it wrong? It’s wrong. But how can this be wrong? It’s God’s law. But how can this be right? Cutting off someone’s hand IS cruel and unusual punishment. Cruelty is wrong. Catch-22.
“Today, others (especially non-believers) would “lop off the woman’s hand” by pressing charges or suing her, would they not?”
You equate cutting off a woman’s hand with suing her. What are you thinking?
“…you’re still being flippant, misrepresentative, and obfuscating.”
Sticks and stones, Stephen. You’re still stuck.
“Now, can we get back to the real subject, His Dark Materials? Thank you.”
Sure.
Cineaste, the immediate context of the passage in question is concerned with having children, a very important concept in a society where Social Security was not possible: for most people living four thousand years ago, children were the only realistic source of economic support in one’s old age.
The passage is concerned, not merely with a man’s “junk” being grabbed, but with the genitals being grabbed with the intent of causing permanent damage, during a circumstance where such damage was literally a threat to their long-term well-being.
Now, suppose that two men are fighting, and that a third party intruded on the fight, permanently damaging one man’s genitals. Suppose that this man had no children, so when he gets old he will have no heirs to take care of him. The woman has, in fact, robbed him of his retirement.
What’s the appropriate punishment, Cineaste?
“…the immediate context of the passage in question is concerned with having children, a very important concept in a society where Social Security was not possible: for most people living four thousand years ago, children were the only realistic source of economic support in one’s old age.”
So are you telling me that cutting of lopping off a woman’s hand was moral four thousand years ago but it’s not moral today? This sounds like the argument of a moral relativist. Do you think morality is subjective?
“What’s the appropriate punishment, Cineaste?”
Jail time.
I left a reply but it seems it got eaten. It was probably lopped off by Tim’s spam catcher for grabbing someone’s jewels.
Anyhow, I said something along these lines:
Cine, you’re still committing a very basic error — you are continuing to impose modern morality onto an ancient culture and practice.
I mean, come on. You contradict yourself within your own response to me! You say that you “anticipated” my objection and then you turn around and do the very thing you ought to know better than to do as if I had never objected. You need to take a course in basic logic as well as get a familiarity with cultural study.
Suing the woman is the modern equivalent of “lopping off a hand.” This ought to be the most blatantly obvious comparison, so put your shock and dismay away. These days, we (that is, non-believers) don’t do that “eye for an eye” thing anymore, we just sue their pants off. Accomplishes the same effect, practically. Are lawsuits any less “barbaric, savage, and cruel?” Not really. I’d argue that in some cases suits are actually worse than dismemberment.
Unless, of course, we’re that lawyer who sued the dry cleaners.
Jail time?!?!? You can’t possibly be serious. You continue to impose modern morality onto an ancient practice. Wake up over there. Would you want someone in 3007 to judge you by their moral standards, or would you want to be judged by 2007 moral standards? If you can honestly say 3007, I’d say you’re either deluded or you’re deliberately attempting to provoke people around here.
Now, let’s get back to the real topic. I’ll start: The Golden Compass movie as depicted in the trailers thus far show a world much more fancy and advanced than the novels seemingly portray. Discussion? Anyone?
“You flat out fail to consider the culture and history in question… you are continuing to impose modern morality onto an ancient culture and practice… Would you want someone in 3007 to judge you by their moral standards, or would you want to be judged by 2007 moral standards?”
Well Stephen, it seems we do agree about this after all. I had assumed you didn’t believe in subjective morality like I do. I thought that, like most Christians, you believe that “what’s right, is right. And, What’s wrong, is wrong, irregardless of time, place and culture.” I thought you believed in absolute morality, i.e. what’s morally right today was morally right 4,000 years ago and what’s morally wrong today was morally wrong 4,000 years ago. But reading your words above, you are actually saying that I should “consider the culture and history” when evaluating morality. Moral subjectivisim a very liberal stance you have. I never pegged you as a liberal but in this regard, but you’ve demonstrated otherwise. Stephen, you make an excellent post modernist.
“Are lawsuits any less “barbaric, savage, and cruel?””
Um…, the obvious answer is yes, lawsuits are less barbaric, savage and cruel than chopping someone’s hand off. Am I being unchristian in thinking so?
“The Golden Compass movie as depicted in the trailers thus far show a world much more fancy and advanced than the novels seemingly portray. Discussion? Anyone?”
Agreed. I wonder why.
“I’d say you’re either deluded or you’re deliberately attempting to provoke people around here.”
Stephen, let me tell you a story that might provoke people around here. It’s the story about my fantasy football team, the Chicago Ligers. The Ligers are the worst team in Tim Ellsworth’s league. They are named after huge hybrid sterile cats and they play like it. They earned their way to a pathetically perfect record of 0-11. It seemed there was no hope for them to win, especially with the league leading Fat Monkeys, owned by Tim, for their next game. The question was posed, “What are the chances of The Ligers beating the Fat Monkeys?” “Less than a snowballs chance in Hell” came the reply. But the Ligers never gave up hope and Hell froze over! Despite almost insurmountable odds, the Ligers prevailed that fateful Sunday afternoon and made fantasy football history (in their league) by defeating Flying Monkey’s. By dint of their magnificent victory, the Ligers have given teams who face Tim in the playoffs renewed hope.
By now Stephen, you may be asking yourself what the point of this story is. I’ll tell you. The moral of the story is, even though it seems lady luck has you by the balls, don’t cut off her hand!
I thought that, like most Christians, you believe that “what’s right, is right. And, What’s wrong, is wrong, irregardless of time, place and culture.”
Making a man sterile is wrong no matter what time or place it is Cineaste. I don’t think Stephen has changed his stance on that. The issue is the punishment. Judges try murder cases and hand down a sentence. All judges that are handed a guilty verdict deliver a sentence- some include death while others include jail time while others include probation. Sentences are not always the same, but the guilty verdict is.
I believe that murder is wrong, but I believe that murder in self-defense is permissable. Does this make me a moral relativist?
j razz
Cineaste:
Jail time.
I expected an answer no less glib than this.
It is worth noting that it’s not as if prison sentences were commanded in other parts of the Mosaic law. I believe there’s a pretty good reason for this: when the law was first given, the nation of ancient Israel was literally nomadic, spending decades wandering in the wilderness and then conquering the Promised Land. A prison system was probably not logistically viable, at least perhaps until the time of Israel’s kings.
With ancient Israel, we have a culture in which having children was the only safe bet to staying well fed and warm in old age, not because the culture was brutal, but because living conditions 4,000 years ago were brutal, to a degree that you apparently are unwilling to imagine. And, we have a culture where a prison system was probably not viable, at least initially.
Do you have any appreciation for that fact? Not at all, and so you offer the most glib of answers, “jail time.”
You don’t even display an effort to be specific about the prison sentence: should the woman spend two days in jail, or two decades? You don’t say.
You ask:
So are you telling me that cutting of lopping off a woman’s hand was moral four thousand years ago but it’s not moral today? This sounds like the argument of a moral relativist. Do you think morality is subjective?
My position sounds like relativism simply because you’re taking a very shallow approach to issues of morality, an approach I doubt you would take in real life.
Morality is objective: if an act in a given set of circumstances is morally wrong, then it is objectively wrong, and a similar act is similar circumstances is similarly wrong, but circumstances do matter.
It’s wrong to lie, but the question of what is true depends on circumstances. The truth of the statement, “I am sitting down while I am typing this” depends on whether I am actually sitting down.
We have a moral obligation to tell the truth, but different deviations from that obligation are wrong in different degrees. Deliberating telling what you believe to be a lie is very immoral. Telling what you believe to be the truth when you eschewed the responsibility of due diligence in fact checking is also immoral, but not as immoral as a deliberate lie. If you took great pains to ascertain the truth and told what ended up being incorrect, it’s not immoral at all: it’s only an error.
And, while proportionality (lex talonis) should guide society in its decisions regarding criminal justice, circumstances may limit those decisions.
Let’s suppose that, in most circumstances, assault should lead to what you call “jail time.” What if assault occurs on a sixteenth-century ship making a long journey across the ocean? What if that ship needs all its crew members being productive in order to guarantee more fully a safe journey for all involved? Weeks in the brig mean that there’s a crew member who isn’t working to ensure a safe journey; working under guard also wastes resources in that a crewmember who should be productive is watching the criminal; doing nothing is unjust, and even waiting to reach shore might be unjust, as justice delayed can be seen as justice denied.
Therefore, a dozen lashes may be equally just in proportionality to a few weeks in the brig, but whipping the crewman and putting back to work is safer for the entire crew. The fact that it’s more brutal is mitigated by one simple truth, that real life is often brutal, and that truth still holds even if you ignore it from your comfortable desk.
Morality isn’t subjective or relativisitic, but it isn’t glib, either, and in demonstrating an unwillingness to wrestle with real issues of morality and all their messy details, you show a flippancy that disqualifies you from legitimate discussion.
>The fact that it’s more brutal is mitigated by one simple truth, that real life is often brutal
Yep, that’s SIN for ya. We can either blame God for the consequences of sin even though we’re the ones sinning, or we can admit we have a sin problem, and that it leads to consequences - not only physically, but spiritually as well.
Cineaste,
As rough as Dt. 25:11 seems, it doesn’t compare with the brutality of a crucifixion. I can’t think of any punishment more brutal. I can’t think of any act more loving than someone allowing himself to be crucified in the place of someone who is guilty. But Jesus did it. It’s a historical fact. Does THAT sound like something man would do?
By the way, you’re not the first person to think the punishment for sin was too high. All believers have been there. But … then we took a hard look at the cross.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Don’t fight God over the consequences of sin. Just accept His gracious gift of life!
“Making a man sterile is wrong no matter what time or place it is Cineaste.”
Of course it is, J. But that’s not the question I asked. Earlier I asked, “Is it morally right or is it morally wrong to lop off a woman’s hand because she grabbed someone’s nuts? Yes or No?”
Now here is the dilemma: “But then, under this sick law, she now gets her hand cut off. Is this right or is it wrong? It’s wrong. But how can this be wrong? It’s God’s law. But how can this be right? Cutting off someone’s hand IS cruel and unusual punishment. Cruelty is wrong. Boom, Catch-22.”
Possible objection: “Sentences are not always the same, but the guilty verdict is.”
Agreed. She’s guilty. Does the punishment fit the crime? Cutting off her hand? Jail time, yes. Cutting her hand off, No.
Possible objection: “But cutting off a woman’s hand is not cruel. It’s justice.”
Then practice what you preach.
Possible objection: “But we are no longer under Mosaic law.”
Irrelevant. The question I asked was if you think cutting off a woman’s hand because she grabbed someone’s junk is moral or immoral. There’s still a conflict with the morality of the “grab junk, lose hand” law regardless of whether you feel bound by it or not.
Possible objection: “You flat out fail to consider the culture and history in question…”
This is EXACTLY the stance a post modernist would take. Yes, it is.
Possible objection: “I believe that murder is wrong, but I believe that murder in self-defense is permissible. Does this make me a moral relativist?”
Two different things. One is murder. One is murder in self defense. Take them separately. If you believe murder is wrong today but not 4,000 years ago, yes you are a moral relativist. If you believe murder in self defense is wrong today but not 4,000 years ago, yes you are a moral relativist. If you believe cutting off a woman’s hand as punishment for grabbing a man’s junk is wrong today but not 4,000 years ago, yes you are a moral relativist.
“By the way, you’re not the first person to think the punishment for sin was too high. All believers have been there.”
If you think lopping off a woman’s hand as punishment is morally right, I’d have to strongly disagree. It’s a savage, barbaric and cruel thing to do. It’s just awful. Am I unchristian for thinking so?
>It’s just awful. Am I unchristian for thinking so?
Do you think that Christians don’t think that is awful? Of course we do! But we accept it as fact. Do you think the cross of Christ is not barbaric, savage, cruel - and just plain awful? Jesus said He did that for you (Mark 10:45). Are you un-Christian for not accepting that as fact?
If some woman grabbed Cineaste by the testicles with the intent to cause permanent damage, he says he would support jail time (though, again, he makes no mention of the specific duration of the prison sentence he thinks is just). Well, giving that he wants people to practice what they preach, I can only surmise that he is also personally willing to abduct the woman in question for some indeterminate period of time.
Cineaste, supporter of abducting women, is telling us about what’s immoral.
But perhaps he will say that there’s a difference between a government imposing a prison sentence and an individual abducting a fellow citizen — just as he now argues that there’s a difference in acts in which one person kills another, depending on whether the act was committed in self-defense.
That’s just like the position held by a post-modern relativist who believes that morality is subjective.
Right?
–
See, Cineaste acknowledges that circumstantial differences matter in issues of morality, but only those differences that he likes.
He admits, the morality of killing is affected by whether or not the act was committed in self-defense. But he simply will not tolerate the possibility that circumstances may dictate whether certain forms of corporal punishment is appropriate in a given time and place.
That, he argues, is unacceptible.
Possible objection: “You flat out fail to consider the culture and history in question…”
This is EXACTLY the stance a post modernist would take. Yes, it is.
Sorry. Try again. The post-modernist wouldn’t even allow himself to give an answer that concrete. The post-modernist would say something along the lines of: “We need to have a 5-year moratorium on moral proclamations about the severing of said hand until such time as a joint study can be done to discuss the ramifications of whether or not it is an evil act.”
All I did was point out an obvious error in your interpretation, and you refused to listen. A reaction which, incidentally, is very post-modern. Everyone else is wrong except you. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.
Stephen, we agree. I think that the “grab junk, lose hand” is “the product of men, not Gods, who lived in a barbarous time.” So, I do consider the culture and history in question. I said this 3 days ago on this thread. What surprises me is that you think culture and history influence morality. I had thought Christians believed morality is objective not subjective. You’ve demonstrated otherwise.
My stance is that cutting off a woman’s hand because she grabs a man’s junk is morally wrong. I think its barbaric, savage, cruel and unusual. There are more humane ways to punish her. Most fair minded readers would agree. Why Christians are arguing with me that a sick law like this, which belongs in Saudi Arabia, is actually a good law is rather surprising. Why don’t Christians come out and call a spade a spade? Cutting off a woman’s hand because she grabs a man’s junk, is wrong, not right. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth of the matter. Don’t defend that which you know is wrong.
Cineaste asserts, regarding the punishment commanded to ancient Israel in the Old Testament, “There are more humane ways to punish her.”
There “are.”
Present tense.
Does he argue that there were more humane ways to punish her four thousand years ago, even while the Israelites were living as nomads, wandering in the wilderness for decades, and then during the conquest of the Promised Land?
Can he argue that these more human alternatives (such as jail time, though — again — he offers no hint about the duration) were logistically viable?
He seems to act as if it’s a denial of objective morality to note that living conditions were conceivably too harsh to devote massive resources to an extensive prison system.
Well, as I learned in ethics class, “ought” implies “can.” Cineaste must be able to demonstrate that more humane punishments are always logistically possible before he can prove that less humane punishments are always morally impermissible.
He refuses to make that argument, preferring to call the command “barbaric” than to deal with the realities of the issue.
I come back and I’m surprised there is even a reply to my last post. Clearly, I have the moral high ground when I say that cutting off women’s hands as punishment is simply wrong. Why insist maiming someone is morally right? Stop making excuses for a barbaric law. Don’t insist on defending what is clearly wrong because it makes you look like an advocate of maiming women for their crimes. Even I, a non believer, think that such cruelty is unchristian.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done
Everyone agrees; unchristian.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Why don’t you call a spade a spade?
Because, Cine, you’re looking at a club and trying to call it a spade. No matter how much you think I agree with you, I don’t, for the simple matter that you can’t get over two things:
1. The differences between modern and ancient culture;
2. Your own hubris in thinking you are lord over the scripture in question, which has led to several faults in your logic, most of which have been pointed out already.
And that doesn’t even take into account the many other things you are failing to “get over.” For starters, you’ve left out the “analogy of faith,” determining to allow that scripture to stand by itself, totally ripped from any context and authorial intent. That’s another big no-no. That’s also something televangelists do.
Are you a televangelist in training?
A haiku, representing what is apparently Cineaste’s final word on this issue.
My stance, clearly right,
Needs no substantive defense.
I’m shocked you disagree.
If there was no compelling criticism from us, that would be one thing. Instead, many of us have offered rebuttals that demand a response, and we have made requests that ought be addressed. Does Cineaste have a specific prison sentence that he thinks is just? Can he demonstrate that his more humane alternatives were logistically viable, even when dealing with a nation 4,000 years ago that began its existence by wandering in the desert for decades? Does he have a thorough enough understanding of culture and technology to demonstrate that what he thinks is morally obligatory in all circumstances is also always in the realm of the possible?
He does not answer any of these questions. His response remains as glib as it ever was.
–
Truth be told, while most Christians accept the morality of this and every other part of the Bible, this is one of those passages that even most Christians find hard to understand. We accept its morality, then, for other reasons, primarily these two:
1) Jesus’ claim to be God is credible, especially given the credibility of the claim that He rose from the dead and fulfilled numerous Jewish prophecies.
2) Jesus’ affirmation of the authority of all of Jewish Scripture, to the smallest penstroke.
I’ve been tempted to tell Cineaste, simply, that I believe this particular command is moral because Jesus Christ affirmed all of Scripture, implicitly including this command. If he has a problem with that, he should take it up with Him.
But there are non-Christians who aren’t even aware of this particular passage who think the God of the Bible is unjust simply because of the doctrine of Hell, a doctrine that Jesus clearly, emphatically, and repeatedly taught. “How could a loving God condemn anyone to Hell?” they ask.
I think there are good answers to that question, answers dealing mostly with free will, but what I reject is the assumption behind the question, an assumption with which Cineaste apparently agrees:
“The morality of every act and command of a moral deity ought to be immediately obvious.”
Is this assumption even remotely plausible?
Our minds are finite, but His is infinite. Our souls have been corrupted by sin, but He is holy.
There may be times that the actions and commands of an infinite and holy God are difficult for a finite, fallen man to comprehend, so that lack of comprehension is not prima facie proof that a particular command is unjust or otherwise immoral.
But by acting as if he already knows everything, Cineaste reveals that he is not at all teachable.
But by acting as if he already knows everything, Cineaste reveals that he is not at all teachable.
Bubba,
You are just now coming to that realization? Sin is indeed a blinding force that only God can reckon with.
That is why I took up praying specifically for him a while back. In hopes that God would have mercy on him and help him to see the truth of the gospel message and the truth that is God.
Cineaste, I am still praying for you.
j razz
I don’t know if he is acting like he already knows everything, I just think he takes a hard stance on his beliefs.
I do think though that he could lend more credence to some of the points made by some of the comments here.
What Cineaste doesn’t realize is that knowledge of Christianity isn’t inspired or revealed by the mind. As you guys know, it comes by revelation, and only then is enriched by the mind. So what he rejects is only the religion that he can see through philosophy, and that’s why he gets entangled by minutiae. But that’s all he’s rejected because he knows nothing else, so there’s hope for him.
Generally, I lurk around these lengthy threads without offering my two cents simply because most of you are much wiser than my 22-year-old self and much more adept when it comes to quoting/interpreting scripture.
However, I have had several occasions where someone who doesn’t believe the Bible has taken a scripture concerning an antiquated law or saying (such as Deut 25:11-12, which has been discussed ad nauseum here) found in Moses’ writings and try to discredit the Bible or pass it off as nothing more than an immoral, bloody history.
For me, here’s what it boils down to on this issue. I don’t understand many of the Mosaic laws and when examined, they can certainly deemed immoral and unacceptable in everyone’s eyes, whether it be cutting off a woman’s hand for groping another man, stoning a disobedient child… the list goes on and on. While I do believe that the scripture contains an abundance of types, allegories, etc., I’m sure that a lot of the scriptures concerning harsh rules and punishments can be interpreted as literally as they have been here. But do I feel that those examples somehow cheapen or discredit God’s Word? Of course not!
I refer to Paul’s writings; he deals directly with the issue discussed in this thread. All of those harsh, old rules that often come under scrutiny are found in the Mosaic Law, or the “old covenant.” When Jesus came and died for our sins, a new covenant was established with mankind. Paul details this beautifully in the 7th through 10th chapters of Hebrews. I highly recommend reading that passage of scripture for a better understanding on the subject. I would pick out some individual scriptures that I feel are pertinent to the discussion here, but I’m trying to keep this as short as possible.
In addition, Paul deals more directly with issues of the Mosaic Law in his letter to the Galatians. Again, the whole book of Galatians deals with this discussion, so it would be difficult to point out every single scripture that applies. I’ll try to quickly break it down and touch on the highlights as best I can:
Paul says we cannot be justified by the law, but by faith in Christ (Gal 2:15-21). He gives the purpose of the Mosaic Law (starting in Gal 3:19); he says that the law was added because of the transgressions of the people. It was to be followed until Jesus came; he calls the law “our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Once Jesus came, Paul says “we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Then in the 4th chapter, Paul uses the story of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory (he even says it’s an allegory: Gal 4:24) to detail how Abraham’s two sons represent the two covenants. The child of the bondwoman, Hagar, represents the old covenant; the child of the free woman, Sarah, represents the new covenant. In the scripture, when Isaac was born, God told Abraham to cast out the bondwoman and her child, for the son of the bondwoman would not be heir with the son of the free woman. Paul says that “we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free,” that is, we must live by faith in Christ under the new covenant rather than subject ourselves to the Mosaic Law under the old covenant. I could go on, but I think you all get the idea.
I hope that some of what I have written may shed some new light on the discussion of what to do about scriptures like Deut 25:11-12. This was not my attempt to persuade anyone to believe like I do, rather my humble attempt to justify my own beliefs on the issue and introduce a line of thought that correlates with God’s Word. In saying all that I’ve said here, I hope that the argument won’t be raised that I’m simply discounting the Old Testament or everything that Moses ever wrote concerning God’s commandments for the people of Israel, whether it be cutting off a woman’s hand or one of the Ten Commandments. That’s not a valid counterpoint to anything I’ve said. Paul qualifies everything he says concerning this issue, but I’ll quote him one last time to hammer my last nail:
“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by thy law.”
Here is what I believe:
Maiming women by cutting off their hands as punishment is wrong. It’s cruel and unusual punishment.
If maiming women by cutting their hands off is wrong then this law is wrong:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
And this similar law is also wrong:
“5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done”
Why insist maiming someone is morally right? Stop making excuses for these barbaric laws. I will gladly disobey these laws and I will show pity. Cruelty is wrong.
My stance, clearly right,
Needs no substantive defense.
I’m shocked you disagree.
Exactly, Bubba. My stance that such cruelty is wrong is like 2 + 2 = 4. I am indeed shocked.
Assume, for a moment, that these central claims of Christianity are true:
1) God exists.
2) God is omniscient.
3) God is perfectly moral and just.
Our minds are finite, His is infinite. Our souls have been corrupted by sin, but He is holy.
Is it so utterly inconcievable, Cineaste, that God would give man a command that he doesn’t comprehend, at least not initially and at least not fully?
If the entire point of our existence is a relationship with the Father that is built on trust, is it impossible to imagine that He would tell us things that we don’t understand? That He would deliberately withhold an explanation so that we learn to trust His voice rather than demand, like petulant children, that we understand the entire path from A to Z, even before we move to B?
Your lack of humility on this issue is, I think, a far more worrying thing than the Christians’ trust that even the difficult passages were inspired by God.
Cineaste,
“My stance that such cruelty is wrong is like 2 + 2 = 4.”
I am confused. Do you believe morality is subjective or objective? In past posts you seem to be promoting a moral relativist position. Have you recently changed?
LOL. WOW! What a thread!
Lots has been said, so I won’t add much. Somehow we were diverted from the OP into the intricacies of Mosaic Law. I wonder who could’ve taken us there?..
The bottom line is this, Cineaste. You are stuck in the same rut that your fellow modern humanists are. You are positing our human “morality” as universal morality. This is where your supposed Catch 22 comes from. What seems “right” and “wrong” to you doesn’t match some of the “right” and “wrong” found in Scripture. This is because you see humans and the physical world as the be-all and the end-all; morality is contained within the sphere of thinking and our society (or lack thereof). The difference is that as Christians, our moral code comes from God. What He reveals through His Holy Scriptures is our morality. It may seem barbaric, it may be confusing, it may not make sense. These concerns are beside the point, for Christians. Obediance and faith is paramount.
I don’t expect you to understand and accept this. At this point, I know that I can’t even expect you to show respect for something that I believe. You aren’t able to. See Psalms 115 5:7, Isa 11:2-4, Isa. 32:2-4, Rom 11:7-9 and many other places.
But most relevantly is 2 Timothy 4:2-4:
“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
And that leads us back to “His Dark Materials”. It is a myth. Myths can be dangerous but our Lord is more powerful. “You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word.” (Ps 119:114)
Assume, for a moment, that these central claims of Christianity are true:
1) God exists.
2) God is omniscient.
3) God is perfectly moral and just.
I don’t assume #1 so #2 and #3 don’t follow. I do assume cruelty is wrong. Any decent human being would agree with me about this. Maiming women by chopping off their hands for defending their husbands is wrong. It’s cruel. It’s barbaric. I do not agree with this supposedly divine law. I think it’s disgusting. Call me prideful all you want but I would disobey this awful law. I would show pity. I would be merciful. I would not be cruel. If there is a just God, He could not have made this cruel law. Maybe God would send me to Hell because I showed pity and thereby disobeying His law, but at least I could tell Him, and He would know that I truly believe this to the bottom my heart, maiming women is cruel. Cruelty is wrong. I am willing to go to Hell for for that conviction, I believe it so strongly. I’d go so far as to say that being kind to other people is part of our humanity.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
and
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done
…are clear violations of basic human rights.
I do not understand why you guys persist in making excuses for immoral laws. I’m shocked Christians would do this because they usually make themselves out to be champions of morality.
Guys, you’re free to continue this discussion with Cineaste, but it’s really pointless. He believes himself and his judgments to be the center of the universe, and thinks he is the arbiter of what is moral and what is not.
Until God opens his eyes to the truth and humbles him to his own shortcomings and sinfulness, no amount of logic or argumentation is going to convince him, no matter how truthful it is.
Carry on if you will, but do so with the knowledge that you’re wasting your time.
As I said, cruelty is wrong. It’s immoral. Kindness, mercy, justice are admirable. Tim is right. You are wasting your time trying to convince me cruelty is morally correct.
All the same, Cineaste is wasting his time trying to question our beliefs concerning Christianity and the Bible.
Agreed to that, Chris.
Why did you delete my comment?
Because we’ve been over it with you ad nauseam, and I’m not going to allow you to continue posting comments on issues that have been explained to you time and time and time and time and time and time again.
I remember that I used to be 22. I think I was smarter then…