We've just watched this documentary on BBC, available for a little while on iPlayer (UK only). For UK Christians this is almost a must-watch, and at least a highly-recommended-watch.
Deborah's 13, has been brought up in a rural area with 10 siblings and is a passionate evangelist, believing in hell and salvation. The program looks at her life on the farm and has her visiting her brother at university and getting pretty much her first taste of the outside world.
I could point out a few flaws here and there with this family (whether theologically or culturally - and I'm sure they could do twice as many back with 100 hours of documentary filming), but to do that would be to miss the point completely. The next reformation will come to Britain when Christians start thinking and living generationally and faithfully like this family. Please God, send us more Deborahs.
edit: Her website is here and you can find her on Twitter. She follows Mark Driscoll, Adrian Warnock and Ubuntu bugs amongst many other things. I think that makes her even more cool.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Deborah 13 - Servant of God
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
My reaction was quite different. I found myself quite disturbed by her utter single-mindedness and her crying at the end describing how bad she is and how good God is. I don't think this is a balanced approach to life or faith; rather it looks like someone with very low self-worth hiding it in her faith. I'm not a Christian, for what it's worth, but I used to be, and know this mindset very well. She seems to me to be personally unengaged with the people she talks to, simply treating them as souls to be converted.
If you want to revitalise the church, my feeling is that you need people who genuinely care about the population at large, and that means a lot more than just preaching the gospel. At the very least, it means being curious about their character, their opinions, their struggles. Think how you would feel if a Muslim started trying to convert you without getting to know you. That's probably what Christian's like Deborah make others feel. People aren't dumb - they know when someone cares about them or not, and from my experience in the church, there are far too many people who ignore this simple fact.
Hi Steve (do I know you personally?),
As I say, I could point out lots of issues some of which overlap with yours. We do have to be very careful because documentary makers always put spin on things. And with Christians, it's always to make them look weird/dangerous. So I really don't want to judge the real Deborah on clips here and there.
Having said that, the crying thing; well, yeah - perhaps unbalanced. She was 13 at the time and 13 year-old girls are famous for that sort of thing. On unengagement; you're probably right again. I am thoroughly on their side in terms of parents having the the responsibility to educate their children, from the very little I've seen this particular family seems to be a little unengaged. But when you look at their motive, which can't reasonably denied - they really believe what they believe and they love these people enough to want to make sure they hear the good news about Jesus. Unengaged perhaps, but unloving, no way.
Onto the second paragraph... absolutely, Christians need to care about the population at large. But I think Christians already know that (and fail to do it). They should absolutely be curious about charachter, opinions and struggles. Although we're not always great at this as Christians, we do tend to try, and we do so because it holds no risk of being unpopular. The Drappers in the documentary are not afraid of being unpopular if it means even one person hears the gospel and is saved. It may not be completely engaged, or the whole picture but they are brave and a good deal more consistent in their actions than most Christians.
Personally I'd be perfectly happy for a Muslim to try to convert me without getting to know me, but I know that's not the same for everyone. I'm confident enough that I've already found the truth, my questions have been more than adequately answered and so a Muslim, a secularist or a Mormon trying to convert me, whether or not they cared about my character and struggles would interest me. Any way, if you believe that huge things like heaven and hell are at stake, you can understand why Deborah has the urgency she does.
I'm sorry you had a poor church experience. It happens a lot and it's to their shame. I know you're not going to be won over in an instant but if I can help at all, let me know.
In case you or anyone else is interested, here are my nitpicks -
* Some of the statements on science were slightly missing the point, although I loved the fact that when they saw great things they recognised their mutual creator.
* Alcohol. Jesus told his disciples, and us to drink wine for communion, not to mention other uses. I really don't buy the whine when 'tis red argument for a number of reasons.
* Disengagement issues (already touched upon, documentary may not have been representative)
* Emotional range issues - I'd have liked to see more joy, fun and singing. However, I'm pretty sure this was a result of selective documentary making.
* Specific evangelistic techniques related to the way of the master/tracts. They're a good start but could be more flexible depending on situation.
But I don't want any of this to take away from the main point, which I hope Steve will appreciate. If heaven and hell are real, as Christians believe, we blinking well ought to be doing something about it. Aren't we hypocrites. I also respected the care and consistent living that was obviously present in the family life.
Steve, I think sometimes Christians need to actually be a bit different from those surrounding them so it's actually clear that the hugely different worldviews actually mean something.
I found the whole programme pitiable and truly appalling. What Deborah's parents have done to her is, simply, child abuse. If Deborah is lucky, she may meet and fall in love with someone who can open her mind a little when she is older, but I fear the chances are slim - she only has five years before she stops 'belonging' to her father and is 'given away' to a suitable man. From her mother having her womb opened (repeatedly!) by god to her father's deluded ramblings, I kept on thinking 'the social services urgently need to be sent in here'. I may be wrong, but it struck me that her older brother was gay. If this is the case, what multiple hells await him from his 'loving family' and their hardline attitudes to such a condition. The parents, despite their attempts to appear nice and reasonable, are bad, narrow people and what they have done is tragic and terrible.
Hi Paul (you don't know me, I was just quite touched by the programme and was curious about other people's impressions). Thanks for your thoughtful comments which show a much more rounded view than I inferred from your original post.
The question whether you can be simultaneously loving and unengaged with someone is a fascinating one. To my way of thinking, if someone is trying to preach without being personally interested in their audience, they are not acting out of love; perhaps they're keeping at bay some internal conflict. But I understand the way of thinking that says that telling people about heaven and hell is itself a loving act. However I don't think it always is, and to preach about hell without love should perhaps seem worse to Christians than saying nothing - you close people's ears to what you want them to hear.
I only started to relate to other people as 'real' when I stopped being a Christian, sadly enough. I know that's not true for everyone, but for me being a Christian was a 'bad fit', and I find that now my life is more joyful, productive, and compassionate. For what it's worth, I don't believe in heaven and hell any more. I know to you this will be a matter of sadness but for me it has revolutionised my life. I believe now that this life is all I have and I have a sense of wanting to make the most of it that I never had before - wanting to live productively and kindly, not waste my time on pointless things, to work well, and develop relationships as deeply as I can.... So for me, to hear Deborah say her life is just a little blip before eternity is terribly sad.
David - just what about her upbringing do you think is child abuse? Whatever you think of her upbringing, I'm not sure that it can legitimately compared to child abuse proper. She's a well spoken, practical girl who has convictions. Contrast her with the teenagers at the bus stop she meets. She may have strange views and an unusual apperance but she's a much stronger character...
On the giving away thing - I don't know them, but interpreting for them as someone who shares some culture with them, she's not talking about forced/arranged marriage. She's simply talking of submitting to her Father's authority rather than any others, until she's married. She'll fall in love with a man who will ask her Father's permission to marry, unless he's totally inappropriate (which is unlikely, given Deborah's character) he'll agree, they'll marry and have 15 kids of their own ;)
On the opening the womb thing - again, Christians who believe their Bibles believe that children are a blessing rather than a curse. Hence being happy to look after 11.
From your perspective, what was deluded ramble that her Father said? I can think of a few possibilities but they might just be Christian jargon that could do with some translation...
Yes, her brother did come across as camp. But then again, they're all pretty atypical, so it's pretty hard to judge. This documentary reminded me in a few ways of Louis Theroux meeting the God Hates Fags church in America. But this family is very different in character and beliefs to them and I wouldn't rush to a conclusion on the matter.
You say that the parents are narrow, but the way you're talking about the family sounds pretty narrow... is there any ethical principle/moral you think they're breaking?
Steve - I only asked if I knew you 'cause most people who come on here I know some way or another.
There's some truth in what you say, there - it's notoriously hard to judge motives and where people's hearts, particularly on the basis of a documentary. But the species of Christian you describe certainly exists.
I agree that the 'blip before eternity' thing is sad too, but for a different reason - I'd say that her life is the beginning of eternity. As I said, joyful productivity is in order - I think that what she's doing is great and I'd love to find out what she's doing for a living 15 years from now. She might not get a PhD in Natural Sciences, but she's the kind of person who will grab life by the horns. Even if it seems from the documentary that anything not 'spiritual' is unimportant to her.
I'm not going to try in the space of a comment to persaude you that heaven and hell are real (although if you keep coming back we might get round to that!) Obviously you feel like your new worldview fits you, and I think mine fits me. I can see how only believing in 'this life' would make someone want to make the most out of it, and from your posts, positive relationships seem to figure pretty highly in that. Does it bother you, though that those relationships and anything else you achieve ultimately, objectively speaking, will have no meaning? You know, just one tiny human in the course of a meaningless universe... (I'm assuming things about your beliefs here, correct me if I'm wrong)
That thought depresses me - 'if I'm lucky, my life will be fulfilling, for any reason, but there was never any purpose in my existence'. Whereas I believe in a universe where actions have consequences, creation has a meaning, that saving souls lasts forever, as does inventing cancer-killing drugs, supercomputers and writing great symphonies (all of which will be enjoyed millions of years from now).
If it weren't for objective reasons (eg. jesus' life death and resurrection) and I had to judge those two worldviews pragmatically (ie. which would make me more productive and fulfilled) - I'd still go for Christianity... I'd just get depressed otherwise.
Just my scattered thoughts...
Paul - you ask if there was any ethical principle/moral I thought Deborah's parents were breaking. Indoctrinating children into such a distorted and unrealistic view of the world is immoral. Her parents fear the outside world, that is plain to see. If their faith was strong enough, they would not fear what the 'real world' has to offer, but home education and rarely going anywhere? - come on - these are maladjusted adults whose advice to anyone of any age should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. They fear the outside world because it would erode the fundamentalist control they have over their children. This is about power, control and domination and it's unhealthy. Child abuse is the physical, psychological or sexual maltreament of children. Deborah alone has had such a warped upbringing already that the psychological scars inflicted on her by her parents (who, of course, are just ordinary loving parents) may never heal.
The worst aspect of Christian fundamentalism, apart from its division of the whole world into "sheep" and "goats", is it's appalling attitude towards the sciences.
Even if you have doubts about the theory of evolution as it currently stands, the geological and cosmological evidence for an ancient earth and universe is beyond dispute. One thing I have noticed about young-earth creationists is that they have no ability to distinguish between different scientific disciplines - if you don't believe in a young earth you must be an atheistic evolutionist. To them, only evolutionists believe in a long earth history.
Someone, sometime will need to bring this to Deborah's attention. The people she listens to, like Hovind and Ham, are frauds, who tell lies about science repeatedly and expect their listeners to accept their outrageous ideas, which have no shred of evidence to support them. There is plenty of evidence for the big bang!
David - there's lots of points made in your paragraph... I'll break it down and give my thoughts...
"Indoctrinating children into such a distorted and unrealistic view of the world is immoral. Her parents fear the outside world, that is plain to see."
Indoctrinating is just a negative word for teaching, used about people whose worldview you doesn't like. The kids at the bus stop and the partyers at university had no less been indoctrinated into their own culture(s). So it does boil down to what you say - 'a distorted and unrealistic view of the world'. Now, as a Christian, I have to say that any understanding of the universe which gives no thought to its creator is a distorted and unrealistic view. So it really boils down to the question of who's right. I don't hold to every facet of their understanding, as far as the documentary goes, but someone who thinks everything, including existence itself can happen by chance... seems a good deal pottier than some slightly hermitic Christians.
You said: "If their faith was strong enough, they would not fear what the 'real world' has to offer, but home education and rarely going anywhere?"
We don't really find out from the show what the Dad does for a living and the Mum has 9/10 kids to look after, so we don't really know whether they're deliberately hiding away from people. They certainly hide their kids from the outside world for most of the time, which is a shame. But Deborah seems to me a stronger personality than any of the 'ordinary' people she meets on the show. I do agree that there seems to be a fear or distrust of the world as a whole, which I disagree with, although it's just a documentary and the BBC like to make Christians look as nutcasey as possible... Home education - surely preferable if done well to state schools in this country?
"They fear the outside world because it would erode the fundamentalist control they have over their children."
I'm struggling very hard to see the parents as tyrants, mad with power... I suspect they'd simply laugh if they read this.
"This is about power, control and domination and it's unhealthy.
Judging motives is exceptionally difficult. It's even harder based on 1 hour of documentary based on 100+ hours of filming, with maybe 2/3 minutes of the parents themselves featured.
"Deborah alone has had such a warped upbringing already that the psychological scars inflicted on her by her parents (who, of course, are just ordinary loving parents) may never heal."
Is it really all that warped? Sure it's very different nowadays but - growing up on a remote farm, learning from the Bible with your Mum, Dad and 10 siblings - we could easily be talking about thousands upon thousands of families between, say, 1600 and 1900 in the UK. You can call it regression, but these are the kind of people who lived when Britain became great. Psychological mistreatment? Not convinced.
Anonymous - I share many of your concerns there. Biblically speaking, 6 24-hour day, young earth creationism is the most straightforward way to take the text, although old earth alternatives are feasible, as is a theistic evolution, with certain important caveats.
Personally, I favour the 6 day, 24 hour version, merely because I think the Bible is exceptionally reliable, and science has as enormous an ability for self-deception as any religion (eg. global cooling alarmists in mid 20th century, followed by global warming alarmists who are now being shown wrong). I also believe it simply to annoy people, but that's naughty of me.
Thanks for reminding me of the Big-bang stuff. My view is that the big bang is exceptional proof of a creating God, so I don't know whether they were dissing big bang as a whole, or just the idea that a big bang can produce something out of nothing. As a believer in the Big Bang theory (with the understanding that God did it), it did make me cringe occasionally. Although they were absolutely right to point out God's creation as they drove to the uni.
One final word on Answers in Genesis guys - I'm not trained beyond A-level in Scientific disciplines so I'm not in a position to judge. However, your garden variety Ken Ham disciple does seem to know a lot more about the issues involved than the garden variety 'science defender'.
Hi,
Matthew Drapper here, older brother of Deborah from the program. I wanted to say thanks, Paul, for your approach to reviewing this program, and for your understanding that, yes, out of 100 hours filming, they chose to show only the hour of clips they decided upon.
The documentary was edited to appear bleak, whereas in truth the house and family are full of life and enthusiasm.
I've not had a chance to read all the comments, but as for Deborah not engaging with the people she was meeting -- this was her first time meeting all of them, the entire situation was uncomfortable thanks to the hovering cameras, and the documentary does only show the 'Hell' related scenes, and none of Deborah chatting, laughing and acting like a normal young girl.
Thank you again for your understanding and, as a family, we greatly appreciate all the feedback we've been finding!
God bless,
Matthew
"Does it bother you, though that those relationships and anything else you achieve ultimately, objectively speaking, will have no meaning?" I find it interesting that you assume that without God, things have 'no meaning'. I used to say this as a Christian, but now I'm not sure what I thought it meant.
I think this is essentially a question about death - if death is the end, what is the point of things? It's a question that it would be easy to speculate prompted the religious impulse, to take away from us this fear of nothingness, but I'm not going to suggest that in a dogmatic fashion. I do believe that when I die, that's the end, and frankly that is a very scary thing to contemplate - how is it possible that this vibrant, feelingful being could cease to exist? It is almost impossible to contemplate. Perhaps the idea of nothingness is even worse than the idea of hell. But coming to accept this reality (as I see it) has wonderful benefits - the engagement with life I already mentioned. Maybe this isn't how it works for everyone, but that's my experience.
So to answer your question directly, my experience of life and love and relationships and creativity seems to me exceptionally meaningful, partly because I know I will not always have it. I cherish those things. Why are they less meaningful if death is the end? Quite apart from their meaning to me, their meaning will outlive me in the lives of others who I have influenced for good (I hope) or ill. It is very bitter-sweet, but for me the knowledge of death being the end actually makes life more meaningful. But it's a different kind of meaning, obviously.
Hi Matthew. I take on board what you say about editing. It seemed to me the film was quite compassionate in its tone, not trying to mock but to understand, but it's good to have your perspective on the elements of bias.
I also want to make it clear that I'm not trying to 'knock' Deborah by talking about the lack of engagement I perceived - in effect, I'm talking about my own experience of when I was a Christian. I really warmed to you and Deborah and, while I accept it wasn't a completely accurate portrayal of your family, I think this shows the producer was basically trying to make a truthful programme. One thing made me very curious though - the absence of any reference to church (which I presume you're all involved in). If there's one thing that struck me as manipulative in the editing, this would be it, trying to suggest you're more isolated than you presumably are.
One more thing, Paul. You didn't address whether preaching to people you don't know without showing any real interest in them as people might actually damage the cause you want to promote. I have no doubt Deborah believes passionately in what she is doing, but I question whether this is a productive way of furthering your beliefs.
Matthew and Steve - thanks for your comments. Great to hear that your family is full of life and enthusiasm (as I suspected it would be). If you come back and do read anything where you feel I've misrepresented you, please let me know.
Steve - if you saw a kid walking into a road in front of a car I'm sure you'd want to do something that addressed the child's most urgent need first. I think these guys see evangelism in much the same way. None of us know when we'll die and so urgency is important. Maybe that's taken to an extreme here, but it's at least understandable and loving (whether or not true engagement happens).
The problem, I think, really comes when people go in with the message, and then leave immediately if there's no response. So if I met a stranger in a pub, forced the conversation towards telling them the gospel, they said they weren't interested and I left - that would show I'm not really interested in the person, and they're only a project. Surely I should finish my pint with this bloke, talking about whatever else... Christians can often be like this (myself included) so I think your point is true, but I think there's a greater problem at the moment and that's that Christians don't practice what they believe (about eternal things), because I think there'd be a lot more urgency in their lives.
As someone who was brought up very similarly to Deborah (one of 7 children , part of a fundamentalist church...or cult, also in Dorset) I can see huge problems for her as she grows up and does eventually go out into the 'real world'. I still have my faith, but no thanks to the fundi church I went to - I left at 15 of my own accord, went very much 'off the rails' by most people's definitions, and found my way back later on to become part of an amazing charismatic church full of very normal people who anyone, christian or non-christian, could relate to.
David Simmonds, I partially agree with you. The scars left on myself and my siblings as a result of an upbringing very very similar to Deborah's (in fact, hers is a bit more free!) were deep and still weigh on us today. Such indoctrination of children from birth ensures that they can't think for themselves on how they feel about things until they are adults and have left home and got away from their parents- and then they spend the rest of their lives trying to get away from that and work out what is ok and what isn't. The 'the bible says don't drink' was completely wrong and someone needs to set Deborah straight - I was brought up with the same beliefs - the Bible says you can drink but don't get drunk. Everything in moderation and all that. Deborah needs to read the whole of her bible to get straight on everything before she preaches it.
In terms of evangelism, Deborah is very committed and one can't help but admire her convictions, BUT she is missing a huge part of the christian message - GRACE. People don't need to be beaten with the message in the way she is doing it. In order to truly 'convert' people, there needs to be 3 elements
(a) GOD decides - He chooses US, not vice versa. So don't barge in there in your own strength.
(b) The bible says be in the world but not of it i.e. do normal stuff but don't sin in the process - her brother Matthew seems to be coping with that i.e clubs, parties etc. Matt will get further simply by appearing more normal... no, that doesn't mean let go of who you are, but being self-righteous to the point of saying 'I read my bible when I wake up' or 'let's give thanks for this KFC' in a room full of students...no one in their right mind wants to be like that. No one looks at that lifestyle and finds it attractive. It is SO self-righteous. Remember, Jesus wasn't a fan of the pharisees?? And what were they all about...rules, rules, rules. Deborah, God doesn't have a big stick in the sky to beat you with, that isn't who He is. Sure, he's a judge, but more importantly he LOVES us and wants to share his GRACE with us. Grace is so much more attractive then hell and damnation. It's the same message, but maybe the 'grace' slant would work better for your conversion evenings.
(c) You have to build relationships. If some dude came up to me and ranted the gospel, even as a christian, I'd probably have to give him a slap. That isn't CARING! It's brow-beating! If Deborah really wants to save people, she needs to get into the real world and make friends with real people, because real people need God .... she can't just wander up to bus shelters and tell them they're 'lying theiving blasphemers' ...it might be true, but they're not going to see it like that. There is a much better way of evangelising, I promise you.
Elizabeth
Ben/Elizabeth...
On the indoctrination issue - as I said, it's really just a word we use when someone's educated in a way we don't like. So I'm going to call it education instead. The only thing you point out is the alcohol issue which I entirely agree with you on, but that's not really the hugest thing. There are plenty of Christians out there who believe the same.
In terms of homeschooling and not seeing much of the outside world - well, again, I think that a little more cultural exposure would be valuable, for the purposes of training in thought. But Deborah seems to have been educated pretty well in general, loves to learn (unlike the vast majority of young people who are taught to hate learning by poor schooling).
I'd be very reluctant to judge her evangelism method as we only saw what the documentary makers wanted us to see. We need to be gracious with other Christians and not assume the worst...
Amen to God choosing us. You'll have no quarrels with me there.
In the world but not of it - true, although perhaps not at 13. Remember that the non-Christian world is a hostile place. Would you send a young child as a missionary to Africa? No, because they need to be trained. I don't mean that kids shouldn't know who the Beckhams are or never see non-Christians their own age, but there are ditches either side of the road and we need to avoid them.
There's nothing wrong with saying you read your Bible when you wake up, and it's positively right to give thanks for food. Exactly how you do that with non-Christians around is a matter of judgment, but it's not like she's saying you're not a Christian unless you do those things.
You're talking a bit like Deborah's breaking your rules for Christian witness (which aren't specifically written in the Bible), which would make you the one with the Pharisee-likeness. Not calling you a pharisee but remember, by the standard you judge others will you be judged.
Anyway, a friend of mine was the subject of a similar documentary to this and based on the documentary, most people would have thought her a complete religious nutter but I know otherwise. So be we have to be careful when watching that kind of programme. Look at Matthew Drapper's (her brother) comments above in terms of genuine engagement and care for the people she's talking to.
Paul - It's Elizabeth, it's just insisting on using my husband's name as that's what my computer recognizes.
Firstly, my post was rushed as I was on my way out so I didn't get to complete / tweak it.
Secondly, this is my final post and I'm just doing it to set my comments out clearly as I don't think my rushed review was particularly good.
The alcohol issue isn't the hugest thing, I agree Paul, but it is something she repeated several times to different people which is why I think it would be helpful if her parents (as her educators) would help her to understand that the bible doesn't teach 'do not drink' as if it is a commandment - simply because the people she evangelises too are often teenagers in bus shelters who ARE drinking. It's a small issue, yes, but I do think it's important not to misquote the bible when trying to evangelise - I think that's a fairly reasonable point to make.
The homeschooling concerns me per se - there are some schools local to them that encourage the values they are adhering to, whilst raising their children with other children. I know this because I live in Dorset as do they and have friends who send their kids to these schools which concentrate on developing the child rather than rushing them through the state system. On another note I was brought up in a home without a television, and let me tell you, whilst I barely watch it now as an adult, I got so much grief growing up because of it and I used to feel such shame not knowing who was who - alright, so Victoria Beckham isn't exactly someone I class as important to know about, but children / teenagers are cruel and I think it could damage Deborah to be so sheltered. Half an hour a day or just watching clips of the news might help her. The reaction she got to not knowing who the Beatles was, is just one example - I feel for Deborah. I have been exactly where she is and it was horrible! Not knowing who anyone was and being laughed at because of it - she can only be sheltered for so long from the outside world and it is exactly this which upsets me. Television, let's face it, isn't great and I don't actually have one at the moment as we use iplayer, but it does help to know what is going on in the world. Perhaps even a radio would help her. Otherwise her entry into the real world when she does go to uni - and as a bright girl I hope her parents would encourage this - will be like an episode of Doctor Who. I don't want her to be hurt like that - all 7 of us in my family have been there and it is traumatic and puts a wedge between the child and the parents.
I absolutely don't have an issue with Deborah herself. I think she's a very bright, intelligent girl with strong convictions. I complete admire her single-minded dedication to the gospel too. But she doesn't seem to me a happy girl. Ok, so perhaps that's editing by the BBC, but she was terribly serious and I didn't see much joy from her in sharing the message - it's a great message right? You can go to heaven for eternity! Jesus can change your life! I'll thank you not to insinuate pharisaical tendencies on my part - that is deeply offensive. I wasn't trying to say HOW she should be sharing the gospel - rather that she might get further if she concentrates on all the great things as opposed to all the terrible things. I was brought up with ONLY the negatives i.e. if you don't do what this great big legalistic god says, to the letter, you will go to hell. Unless, Paul, you have been a 'member' of a church & family (closed to all outsiders), born into it and controlled by it, you cannot possibly understand the dreadful harm it causes. Fact. But I take Matthew's point, I think (or hope) some editing from the BBC omitted the joy she expresses.
The Dad was also saying the only the King James was ok as a translation...for goodness' sake, if you're going to be that legalistic, learn ancient greek and get the thorough translation from scratch. I'm sure even the King James has got bits 'slightly' wrong. God can speak to anyone through any verse at any time. Heaven forbid He only wants me to read the King James. What happens if I don't?! That is legalism, through and through.
As for 'in the world but not of it', that does apply to 13 year olds too. I don't know if you've been to a secondary school recently, but today's 13 year olds do what today's 18 year olds do a lot of the time. Bar not being admitted to nightclubs or pubs, a lot of them smoke, drink & have sex ... just look at our teen pregnancy rate in Britain. I fully understand Deborah's parents wish to protect her from this and all the peer pressure - I worry about sending my children to today's secondary and first schools myself - but you can't wrap your kids in cotton wool and learning to face the challenges in a Godly way is part of being a christian.
Anyway, I truly wish Deborah, Matthew, and all of the Drapper family the very best and I truly hope that we with strong concerns can all be proved wrong and that they will turn out some well-adjusted children who integrate into the outside world, when they leave home, easily and fruitfully. My concerns are as someone who has been where she is and suffered a great deal because of it. I am sure with a big brother like Matthew watching out for her and hopefully educating her in ways her parents cannot through his time at university, Deborah will be fine.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth - I agree with most of the points in that comment so let's just talk legalism.
KJV-onlyism and tee-totalism are a shame and do perhaps show legalistic tendencies, but we all do in certain ways at certain times. I think these guys honestly believe those things and I don't want to trip them up over it. Paul's answer in Romans 14 to the same kind of people wasn't to call them pharisees or legalists but to try not to cause them to stumble.
I haven't been brought up in an environment like yours or Deborah's but I do know that being raised in state schools, even good ones (by national standards) can really mess someone up too.
When I look at great created things, I ought to marvel at God's greatness but instead I see merely a volcanic rock formation or erosion caused by a river. When I hear a dominant chord followed by the tonic I think "perfect cadence" not the harmony of a perfect creator. When I see that "e^(i* pi) +1 = 0" I think 'marvellous maths' not 'marvellous creator' and so on.
A good Christian education should produce Christian men and women who live and breath the Bible's worldview and are trained to think God's thoughts after him. I'd rather miss out on some peer socialising (for a time) than deal with the mess that the state offers. Assuming you're right that there's a good Christian school there, maybe they don't have the funds to send 11 children through it?
I know a number of people who have exclusive brethren backgrounds and are dealing with related issues to this day. So I don't want to play down anything you've been through whatsoever.
Possibly the most tragic thing is that she's not (or hadn't) heard of the Beatles... let's hope that she grows in understanding of the culture of the people she witnesses to so she really understand where people are.
Thanks for commenting.
All I saw was a young girl who seems almost immobilized by fear of going to hell. She seems consumed with it. She considers herself the property of her father and believes dinosaurs cavorted in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and she is certainly never going to be taught that her body and mine are hers and she has the right to choices--and this is healthy how?
that should be her body and mind, not mine. --apologies
Immobilised? She seems to be doing a lot more with her life than most girls her age, whether you disagree with her or not...
You've basically swallowed the line that the documentary makers spun on her and her family. You're welcome to do so, but it might be good to consider these things.
Yes, she is doing many thing. I didn't suggest she wasn't. Perhaps immobilized wasn't the best word choice. The impression I got watching this program was that her sole motivation for her every action is out of fear of eternal damnation.
A child living in fear is wrong, regardless of the "motivation." As parents, is it not our prime responsibility to provide an environment a child feels safe in?
I did take into consideration this was an hour snapshot of this young woman's life and likely slanted by the film maker's vision. I still see a young woman living every moment terrified of burning in hell for all eternity.
Paul - 'She seems to be doing a lot more with her life than most girls of her age'? What an arrogant, immature statement! Are you in touch with a sufficient number of thirteen year old girls to be able to back up something like that? I have a thirteen year old daughter and if I found her in tears, beating herself up about damnation, sin and eternal hellfire, I'd think 'WHAT HAVE I DONE!' and probably consider getting her to a cognitive psychologist ASAP. Statements like that make you sound rather unwordly, Paul. Of course, Deborah's dad obviously thinks what he's done is OK. He is an ignorant man. He's produced an unlikeable, unhappy, ignorant child with the general knowledge of a six year old who may never be properly socialised. Maybe he thinks she's not suffering quite enough yet. Perhaps some accident or disability? God would love that. All the excuses about this film from what was edited out/slanted by the film maker's vision to the fact of Deborah's age etc etc can not disguise the impression the film gives - a pair of ignorant misfits (mum and dad, in case you were wondering) who have quite ruthlessly controlled Deborah's religious INDOCTRINATION (I know how you dislike that word, Paul)by keeping her isolated and ignorant about the world around her. These are selfish, self-centred people, from mum's world overpopulation ignoring baby-spewing (when's the next one due?) to dad's flabby gut. They do what they want regardless of the consequences to anyone else, even their own children. I can't help but note that whenever anyone criticises this family, your reply is, basically 'Well, on some minor, unimportant points, I agree with you, but basically they are a marvellous family and Deborah is great'. It seems you can't stop yourself from defending them from adverse comments. Religion does a great many bad things and on this occasion, yours has blinded you to what a child could spot. Something is very wrong here and if this is what religion does to simple-minded folk like the Drappers, then it needs to be eradicated sooner rather than later. I found your comment about many families living like this between 1600 and 1900 rather telling - the 'good old days' when people knew their place and blindly worshippied this ridiculous, invisible supernatural being and were 'blessed' with as many children as they felt like having. I wait for the day when Matthew allows himself to dance to 'I Kissed A Girl' without guilt! 'Anonymous' (above) gets it right when he/she says 'A child living in fear is wrong'. Religion, unfortunately, relies on that fear to keep itself going. It always has. Please, though, feel free to defend the Drappers against this latest slight against their ludicrous ideas and lifestyle!
You're welcome to see things differently to me. There were a lot of things that people in the "good old days" got right, and lots they got wrong. But it's historically blinkered to say that what these guys are doing is child abuse.
I think that Christians have a lot to learn (and a lot *not* to learn) from the Drappers as portrayed in the documentary. But I'm also aware that these are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I have no wish to criticise them from a point of ignorance, which everyone bar Matthew from these comments is in.
What your comments show is the antithesis between Christianity and secularism. That's one of the main things I want to flag up from this documentary. If Christians practised what they preach then the opposition between secularism and Christianity would be a lot more obvious. I don't think the Drappers have got it all worked out, but Christians (who are my main audience on this blog) need to be challenged by this family, and be ready for criticism.
Like Anonymous said, the only reason she was preaching this stuff was because of her own fear of going to hell. Can somebody please explain to me how she and her family can believe this makes them good people? All it means is that THEY ARE SELFISH and are only looking out for themselves.
I'm not religious but I treat other people with kindness and respect because I know I'm a good human being. It comes from within. I don't need to follow a set of rules to tell me to act this way. People that do are cold and emotionless. I don't care how the program was edited. She may have acted like a normal 13 year old for the majority of the filming, but Deborah’s views were clear as day. She, like here family act the way they act because they are scared of what could happen to them in the afterlife, and as far as I’m concerned, that makes them bad people, and if there is a God, surely he wouldn't side with people so selfish.
I genuinely found it disturbing when she started crying when she was talking about Jesus at the end. They were the ramblings of someone who has been brainwashed since day one, and it was like the words coming out of her dad’s mouth. I can't find words to describe how wrong it is for anyone, let alone someone that young to be so closed minded.
I see her brother Matthew has posted on this thread. If you read this, I hope you take my advice when I say- you really need to intervene and have words with your sister. She needs to be given the opportunity to develop her own ideas about the world, otherwise the person she could have been will never exist, and you will be left with a clone of your father as a younger sister.
"Steve - if you saw a kid walking into a road in front of a car I'm sure you'd want to do something that addressed the child's most urgent need first."
Sorry for the late reply - I've been away for the weekend. I find this comment difficult to put in the context of a loving God. Is God really so capricious that the eternal destiny of someone's soul hinges on whether a Christian happens to be at the roadside after an accident?
Looking back on my time as a Christian, I think the question of hell is one which is not considered deeply enough by most Christians. Firstly, the concept itself is not clearly defined in the Bible, and most passages about it either come from parables or from Revelation, both problematic for literal interpretation.
A stock question against Christianity - 'how can a loving God send people to hell?' As a Christian I had all the answers about God and sin not mixing, only perfection being acceptable to God, how Jesus means we don't have to go there.... But think seriously about the concept of eternal conscious punishment for a minute (which I'm not convinced is even a Biblical concept but which seems a common view in evangelical circles and is clearly Deborah's family's view). How can you possibly square this with a loving God? If people's slightest disobedience renders them utterly unacceptable to him (and why? Why do God and sin not mix?) then why should they be punished eternally? They didn't ask to be created, the world doesn't have a great big sign in the sky - "Love me or suffer for ever". Many people just don't know if Christianity is true or if Islam might hold the answers or Buddhism or scores of other possibilities (many of which proclaim themselves the only way to God, of course). The idea that a loving God would make people suffer for ever rather than just destroy them is impossible to justify, it seems to me; even a torturer kills their victims eventually or lets them go.
Someone holds a gun to your head and says - 'Do what I say or you will suffer for ever'. What do you think of that person? Would you call them loving? In effect, that is what Deborah is telling people God is like. Sorry, this is becoming a rant. It's partly because I'm a bit incredulous and ashamed that I didn't see this while I was a Christian. I know this is an enormous subject. Sorry if it seems to be hijacking the conversation....
nmhgold - where do you get the support for your first statement? "...she was preaching this stuff was because of her own fear of going to hell" - I thought it was out of compassion for others, hoping they wouldn't...
All people act according to their own desires and what they think will fulfill them. It's utterly unavoidable. The question is, is what makes you happy the same thing as what makes God happy?
The purpose of an open mind is the same as an open mouth - to close it on something solid. If her mind is closed it's because she thinks she's found something solid. Nothing wrong with that, it's just whether she's right or not.
The crying bit was sad... I'm not sure what to make of that.
Steve - You raise some important and good questions. I'm trying to answer this quickly (since it's my birthday) and therefore my answer will probably sound the same to you as what other people have told you before. It's lacking nuance and empathy but here's what it all boils down to.
Does God have the right to do what he wants with his universe? If yes, then who's anyone to complain? If no, why not?
Now I'd answer yes to the above question, and then you get into questions on whether God is a tyrant or not (he isn't) and whether a loving God could create a universe knowing that all this bad stuff would happen and that he'd punish people in hell forever. But if we want to discuss those issues we need to come at them from the right frame of mind: this is God's world and it is his right to do what he wants with it.
As I say, we can get into the finer points if you'd like, so if you'd like to, let me know if you agree with this:
If there is a God who made, rules and governs the universe, it is his right to do with it what he likes.
I'm tempted to ramble for several thousand words on these questions but it's not the time...
Paul - happy belated birthday! Sorry I forgot your present. You said to nmhgold - where do you get the support for your first statement? "...she was preaching this stuff was because of her own fear of going to hell" - I thought it was out of compassion for others, hoping they wouldn't...
I have to say his view is close to my own, and explains why I was asking you about whether preaching for reasons other than love is helpful to your cause. Her crying at the end seemed to me to show someone with very low self-worth (OK, she's a normal teenager in this respect). And if you hate yourself, it's very difficult to even be aware of the fact that other people exist - you're just obsessed with your own feelings. Speculation, of course, as regards Deborah.
Do I agree with, "If there is a God who made, rules and governs the universe, it is his right to do with it what he likes." I'd like to ask you a question back: if I and my wife have a child, is it our right to do with it what we like? I find your question a bit troubling, but it's a good one, a complex one. One implication of answering 'yes' to it seems to be that humans have no intrinsic worth to God. If we did, how could he throw us on the scrap-heap?
The analogy with our own children is clearly not exact. And yet, in a real sense, we 'create' our children from nothing through having sex, and we create them because (hopefully!) we want to relate to them and nurture them. So does God create us with a similar hope, but in the knoweldge that he can punish us eternally if it doesn't work out how he wants? There are plenty of parents in the world that behave in something like this manner, and if we're lucky the kids get removed from the family before real harm is done. So if we answer 'yes' to your question, doesn't it mean humans have no inherent dignity in God's eyes? In that case, why should we think of God as loving? If God created us, does not God have some responsibility towards caring for us which would constrain his 'rights'? If not, why not? Again, we didn't ask to be created, and yet you seem to be suggesting we would deserve eternal punishment if we don't believe in God. To me, these 2 parts of Christian theology co-exist very uneasily - God created man in his own image and God loves us, and yet we are 'worms' before him that he can throw into the fiery pit without compunction. Can these really be reconciled satisfactorily?
Let me put it another way. I could accept that God is able to do whatever he wants with us but that because of his love, he finds himself constrained in the ways he will act towards us. Or else I could accept God is amoral and might destroy or punish us without appeal. But to accept that he both loves us and is willing to punish us eternally.... Can you honestly square these two things in your mind?
Paul: There was no compassion for others. It was obvious she believed that she had to spread this message, and try and prevent other people from going to hell, in order to save herself. She believed others would go to hell if they didn't behave as she did, and this demonstrates her own obsession with avoiding hell.
When she was asked “what if hell doesn’t exist” she said “then I’ll just go to my grave, but if it does exist you’ll be in hell for eternity”. Her obsession with judgement and spending eternity in “hell and fire” was obvious, and she was blatantly scared of it. When her father was asked what he was training them for he said “eternity”. Even her brother said he wished she would concentrate more on the positive aspects of Christianity than constantly worrying about hell. I realize that your Christian and will argue against this, but for people with neutral minds, this was glaringly obvious. She passed on her views almost like a lecture, saying what she thought she had to like a script. She seemed uncaring (emotionally), unsympathetic with other "fate". She said what she believed she had to say as part of her deal with god.
If people are told something enough times from an early age they will believe. If you don't give children the chance to develop their minds themselves they will never truly exist as individuals. This pattern of brainwashing happens in all faiths. Muslim extremists do what they do because they believe it is Allah's wish. They have been brainwashed like Deborah. You may think this is an extreme comparison, but it just demonstrates how fear of punishment can effect actions and faith. Although the end result is more extreme, the pattern of behaviour is the same. And before you write back claiming that I am comparing her to a terrorist I WASN'T- I am simply demonstrating how people from different faiths are under the same ridiculous illusion, and how it manifests itself in their behaviour. How otherwise intelligent human beings can't see this is beyond me.
Also I’d like to point out how ridiculously judgemental her and the rest of her family are. They live on a huge farm and obviously aren’t short of money. They don’t know what a struggle life can be, yet they constantly judge other people acting like everyone is born on a level playing field. It’s ludicrous.
Steve - no problem about the birthday present. With the child-parent analogy, as you say it's not exact. God created the world (according to Christian theology) "ex nihilo" - out of nothing. Although parents have a part to play in the creation of their children, again it is God who is giving the baby life and so ultimately, the baby is God's too (not the parents).
You say at the end: "I could accept that God is able to do whatever he wants with us but that because of his love, he finds himself constrained in the ways he will act towards us" - this is pretty much the same as how I'd put it. Let me have a stab:
"God, having created the universe, and constantly upholding it, owns everything, and it is his right to do with it whatever he likes. But because God is Father, Son and Spirit, a community of love, and therefore has certain characteristics, his choice of what happens in the world, and how we respond to it is always consistent with his character, which is not one of a tyrant child, knocking over toy soldiers on the basis of a whim. What God does, he has reasons for, (which we can get into) and those reasons are grounded in his good character.
I'll say a few words on the dignity of mankind and call it a comment.
God, as we see in Genesis 2 creates man and woman in his image and gives them the task of filling the earth. They are given authority (under God) to look after the world and be responsible for its upkeep.
As you know, in Genesis 3, it all goes wrong as the man fails to do the gardening properly (allowing snakes to wander round deceiving Eve), and man takes part in the deception by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that had been forbidden him, for a time (note - this is not the tree of knowledge, but the knowledge of good and evil - and had Adam faithfully kept the garden and obeyed God then they would have been allowed to eat the fruit of that tree too).
So, God judges Adam and Eve, and because they were reposnsible for the whole of creation, creation itself gets judged too, with thorns, thistles and brambles, cancer, heart disease and death.
Now Jesus (God the Son) was sent to undo all of this, by always obeying God and being a new representative for a new humanity- and all one has to do is believe in him to become part of this new humanity (the universal church).
OK - so that's roughly where I'm coming from ... so what is the status of man? Worm or image of God?
Well, both in different senses. Morally, we all do wrong, and don't live up to God's perfection (which he created us in). We are therefore undeserving of any kindness he shows us, which is why lots of old puritans called themselves worms. Poetic language. And yet, God, by his rights could destroy us all in a flash and justice would be done- he obviously hasn't though. Why this mercy (to all people)?
Because he has bigger plans, plans for a new humanity under the authority of Jesus. At the end of time, the human race will be greater still than it had ever been before the fall. God will have achieved more due to the suffering and evils of this world than would have happened without them.
I really need to stop rambling and give you a chance to respond, and if you like we can go deeper into all that...
Anonymous - "It was obvious she believed that she had to spread this message, and try and prevent other people from going to hell, in order to save herself." - Ok, well it wasn't obvious to me. Possibly true but not obvious, though the documentary makers probably wanted you to think that (placing the crying where they did, as a sort of conclusion).
"When she was asked “what if hell doesn’t exist” she said “then I’ll just go to my grave, but if it does exist you’ll be in hell for eternity”." - this is just Paschal's wager, used for centuries.
"for people with neutral minds, this was glaringly obvious" - I don't believe minds can be neutral.
She passed on her views almost like a lecture, saying what she thought she had to like a script. She seemed uncaring (emotionally), unsympathetic with other "fate". - It did seem like that, and above I've bemoaned the seeming lack of engagement. Some of this probably does come down to the pressure of the cameras but probably not all. The technique she used is a well known one called "The way of the master" (Google it). I think although it can be helpful, it's pretty inflexible amd your criticism of it is fair.
If people are told something enough times from an early age they will believe. - agreed. But it cuts both ways. If people are told that there may or may not be a God, or he is not mentioned, or that there is no God, then that's what they'll believe. Brainwashing happens in secularism too.
"You may think this is an extreme comparison, but it just demonstrates how fear of punishment can effect actions and faith." - absolutely, they can and it may be that Deborah has been taught (deliberately or accidentally) to fear more than might be healthy. But then again, there are things that ought to be feared - dragons, evil witches, (yes, fictional ones, but as you're reading the books/watching films they're meant to be scary) aggressive men with guns, war, etc. God's judgment of hell should be feared. Now Deborah, as a believer should no longer be fearful of it, as she is chosen in Christ and sure of salvation. Maybe she needs to remember this, maybe she already does - i don't know.
"They don’t know what a struggle life can be, yet they constantly judge other people acting like everyone is born on a level playing field." - I don't know how rich they are, but they do seem to be pretty well off. But I also don't know how generous they are with their money and I definitely don't know if they judge other people.
I mean, yes, they tell them that they're blasphemous, idolatrous, theiving liars... but they'd instantly say the same about themselves - it's not hypocrisy.
The only place I see you getting that from is the Father's comments about the state school system and you may have a point there. I share his views that the state schooling system is a bad place to give your kids over to, but I don't want to judge anyone who does. Many good friends, Christian and non-Christians have put their children into those schools (or gone through them) and they've come out just fine, and I have no intent to judge them.
"Morally, we all do wrong, and don't live up to God's perfection (which he created us in). We are therefore undeserving of any kindness he shows us".
To me this is a non-sequitor. If children disobey their parents, that doesn't that make them 'undeserving of any kindness'; such an idea is abhorrent. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children even when their children are being vile. Why is it different with God? Do you not see the point I'm trying to make, that there seems to be a profound inconsistency here? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right, and Jesus provides a way for people to be saved from eternal punishment. Nevertheless, God will still send many, perhaps most, people to eternal punishment - how can such an action come from a loving God? If you don't struggle with this, I wonder if you have really taken in what it means. Think about it once philosophically rather than theologically, imagining you've never heard Christian doctrine before.
I don't normally find myself affected enough by a television program to seek out
somewhere to "have my say" so to speak, however; this program struck a chord and I
find myself disturbed enough to make the effort.
My first concern is with anyone who takes the Bible literally, especially for a young
woman. These are writings from a time when women had no rights, were considered
chattel. How can any responsible parent consider this appropriate? It seems rather
like teaching science from a textbook written when the earth was thought to be flat.
Seems out of touch with reality.
My second concern is the whole literal thing in general. These are writings that have
been translated from ancient languages to modern language. As with most
translations from one language to another, things are often lost. There is not always a
word, say in English to accurately represent the true meaning of a Japanese word.
How many translations has the Bible been through to get to today's modern English
version? How many times has the meaning of something been "interpreted" to make
these translations? Doesn't that negate this entire literalism?
Sorry for the strange formatting in my comment above. I have no idea why it posted like that?
If people are told something enough times from an early age they will believe.
" - agreed. But it cuts both ways. If people are told that there may or may not be a God, or he is not mentioned, or that there is no God, then that's what they'll believe. Brainwashing happens in secularism too."
That's rubbish. I have never known a parent; whether they are religious or not to constantly tell their children that god doesn't exist. They don't sit around the dinner table and at every opportunity say "remember children, there is no God". When I was a kid I went to a school where we said priers in assembly and I joined in because that’s what kids do. My mother or father never once told me that God doesn't exist. It's something I questioned myself. I still don't know whether there is a god or there isn't, but I have the intelligence to question it rather than following a set of rules like a sheep because I have been given the freedom to question it. This is something that Deborah hasn't been given. Her faith is less relevant than a person who has found God themselves, because she is like a robot that has been programmed to speak and act a certain way. In fact I don't respect any religious person who views are based purely on a forced religious upbringing. They are just robots devoid of spirituality.
I have a particular problem with the bit where you say "or he is not mentioned". Not mentioning God cannot be classed as brainwashing someone. The process of brainwashing relies on threats i.e. you will go to hell.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on my post about this and whether we had the same concerns about family life.
Paul--You make many references to the film-maker's slant on this documentary. Given it's about an underage child, did her parents not have some kind of say in the final cut? I can't imagine them giving their approval if they felt it was an inaccurate portrayal of their daughter.
Steve - You're totally right that question is a big struggle - that many people will go to/are in hell. The whole point of me talking about whose universe we are living in is to make sure we approach it from the right angle.
No one is being denied their rights. No one is getting worse than they deserve. Some are getting better than what they deserve. Until we realise that this is God's world, that God is God and not just an extra big human, this won't make any sense.
That's where the parent-child relationship analogy breaks down. The Bible does indeed use it, but as an analogy, not with one-to-one correspondence.
Once we've got it in place that we are the guilty ones and that it is God's right to do with us as he pleases... then we can explore questions like "Why did God not choose to graciously save everyone". God is not obliged to respond to this question, as if he could possibly be in the wrong on it.
Given those points, a Christian should look to their Bible, and the closest thing to an answer that I see is in Romans 9...
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath[those tho are not being saved] prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy[those who are being saved], which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
It seems that one reason God chose for some to go to hell was to make it clear for all to see exactly what Jesus had achieved for those he saves.
Any supposed injustice in this is miniscule compared to the injustice Jesus himself endured, as a completely innocent man, crucified for the world's sins.
Teri - thanks for commenting.
On your first concern - can you show me where the Bible itself says that women are in any way inferior? It does indeed teach different roles within marriage but nowhere are women inferior. In fact, compared to the cultures at the times the Bible was written, it is remarkably pro-female.
On the interpretation question - you're totally right that one language doesn't exactly correspond to another. Every word has nuances that even the best dictionaries can't describe, let alone a word in another language.
However, you'll be glad to know that modern English translations (like the English Standard Version (ESV), New International Version (NIV) and many others are based on the earliest known copies of the original texts in the original languages.
You might find this website helpful if you want to learn more about translation and original source documents.
Finally, on the parents having a say in the edit - I'm not an expert in documentary making but however much oversight they did have, I doubt it would have been beyond vetoing the inclusion of a particular scene.
nmhgold - "They don't sit around the dinner table and at every opportunity say "remember children, there is no God" - sure, but around the dinner table, because of who God is, he ought to be thanked for the food. To not say grace is to ignore him and pretend he's not there. This teaches as powerfully as spoken words themselves.
"I have the intelligence to question it rather than following a set of rules like a sheep because I have been given the freedom to question it." - have you read her blog (look above). She reads evolutionist textbooks as well as creationist ones? This is not parrot learning...
I have a particular problem with the bit where you say "or he is not mentioned". Not mentioning God cannot be classed as brainwashing someone. The process of brainwashing relies on threats i.e. you will go to hell.
Did I use the world brainwashing? I don't recall doing so but maybe I did. Look at the wikipedia article on brainwashing... that seems something different altogether from what Deborah has had. Come back to me on that...
Star - I followed your profile to your blog and saw your post...
Although I agree with what you say about brainwashing and looking miserable, I don't think those are actually happening with Deborah. I think this is education, maybe very different to most people's but it is nevertheless (she reads evolutionist textbooks after all) and not the same thing as brainwashing. And although there were shots of her looking miserable... as I've noted above... this is 1 hour out of at least 100 that were filmed. She could be bouncing off the walls the other 99 and we might never see it. I'm not giong to pass judgment on that.
I agree that she might enjoy, and benefit from some more socialisation. Remember though, that her brother's housemates were keen to see her again; so she can't have been that miserable and dull...
You said she's only been taught religion as truth, not an idea - well, same with evolution, global warming, the laws of gravity and a million other things that we believe... I don't think that teaching something is true, rather than an idea is a problem - unless it's simply not true. So if you want to pursue this point then we don't really need to argue about their approach, but whether God exists or not.
Paul, I don't think you are really taking in what I'm asking. You are writing from the point of view of 'knowing the answers'. I'm asking you to imagine you don't know the answers. How then could you square a loving God who sends people to eternal punishment? It seems you keep avoiding the question, unless you're leading up to it. You are telling me Biblical doctrine - God is loving, there is a heaven and hell - without looking at it from outside. How can these things make sense together? How can inflicting unlimited suffering on us be an act of love? I know you believe, I'm not asking you to reject that, simply to imagine things from my point of view. I know the Christian point of view very well as I was a committed Christian for many years.
"No one is being denied their rights. No one is getting worse than they deserve." I've got 2 questions: do you think that we all deserve to suffer eternally?
And do you think that having created us self-conscious beings, God has any responsibilities towards us?
I have to agree with Teri - the bible is a primitive book written when women were, at best, second class citizens. All religions today still follow this premise, despite strenuous denials from their representatives. I notice that Ruth Drapper (occupation : mother) is advertising The Drapper Home School on the net. Turn your child into Deborah! Maybe this is why they agreed to the doc (and how much money did they get?). As females are 2nd class citizens in all religions, maybe dad didn't have any qualms about prostituting Deborah for some hard cash!
http://www.enterpriseweek.org.uk/organisations/drapper_home_school
Paul: nmhgold - "They don't sit around the dinner table and at every opportunity say "remember children, there is no God" - sure, but around the dinner table, because of who God is, he ought to be thanked for the food. To not say grace is to ignore him and pretend he's not there. This teaches as powerfully as spoken words themselves.
This shows what I was talking about - not thinking outside of your beliefs. We accept that as a Christian you think God should be thanked at meals, but your reasoning here assumes that other people know God is there and are ignoring him. I don't pretend God isn't around. I don't know but I think he isn't. So your argument suggests a lack of ability to think yourself into a non-believers shoes, apart from surely being factually wrong - something which receives constant reinforcement (like saying grace) will have a much stronger presence in a child's mind that a simple absence of information. In the latter case what is the message that is being reinforced? There is no God? There might not be a God? There is a God but we don't like talking about it? There is no clear message in this situation so it's a false equation you're making. The correct equation is surely the one that nmhgold makes: the reinforcement of an atheistic belief rather than a Christian one.
Paul--thanks for the response.
I don't believe I said the Bible referred to women as inferior. I said it was written at a time when women had no rights. Those are two rather different statements.
I don't profess any great knowledge of the Bible but I'm relatively certain there are quite a few references to the "place of women", so to speak. That doesn't necessarily mean inferior, but it does limit the choices for women who would subscribe to a literalist view. Now, if adult women are making the choice to be a literalist Christian, I have no concerns as hopefully, they're making this decision from an adult place and perspective.
I do have concerns about a 13 year old who is not being educated that she has the right to choices for her mind, body, and soul.
It's one thing for parents, as adults, to embrace a theology, set of life rules, etc and to share that as a possible choice with their children. I also think it is our responsibility as parents to teach our children they have many, many, choices and to encourage them to explore different avenues so they will learn to make informed decisions in all aspects of their lives.
I'm not so sure the Bible, taken literally, encourages that kind of thinking in young women.
Paul - you say 'I think this is education. Maybe very different to most people's, but it is nevertheless'. As a former teacher, I think I can safely say that what Drapper snr is doing is not education. Real education allows pupils to question what they are being taught and maybe even disagree with it. To see things demonstrated and proven. Certainly not to mindlessly parrot what the teacher has said. This would not be the case when being taught (indoctrinated) about primitive religious beliefs such as those that the Drappers hold.
Matthew's mother's pride about the home schooling getting one of her children to university and that you didn't need state schooling was questionable, also. Is chef training really a university subject these days? Or was it a former poly where the qualifications needed are not so specific. I can't imagine attempting to study physics or Japanese, say, at a university when my background in it was taken from the bible and Christian learning programs. And even if Mr Drapper was the most talented teacher in the world, he would still have to understand things like genetics/maths/english comprehension in order to be able to explain them properly to others. I once taught biology in a comprehensive and by that time I'd studied it in school for seven years and university for three. I was therefore in a position to answer most questions flung at me by the pupils and to explain to them things they didn't understand. I doubt whether I could have had time to attain that expertise in all the other subjects. Even two other subjects would stretch most people's effectiveness as a teacher. Perhaps Drapper feels that most subjects aren't really that important if they don't meet his ends.
Steve - You might be right that I don't know what you're asking. I can only try to answer your questions from the viewpoint of the Bible, and I'll go a bit further in that in a moment. Do you mean "How could a non-believer be expected to change their mind and believe in a supposedly loving God, who nevertheless sends people to hell?"
If so, I'd have to respond by positively laying out why the Christian viewpoint makes sense of the world and where non-Christian positions don't. I've already been doing the former - as for the latter, I can do that any time you want, just let me know. But I deny that there is neutral ground from which man can , in an unhindered way, reason their way to or from God. That's because using reason and logic is to assume God's existence before you've started. If you want me to go into this just ask.
So, back from my perspective - how can hell and a God of love both be real? How can inflicting unlimited suffering be an act of love? Well, judging someone and inflicting unlimited suffering on them in hell is not an act of love. It is an act of judgment, or justice. These same people had been created, lived lives on earth where they rejected God's gift of life, food, drink, relationships- his love, and he judges them. They deserved instant hell the moment they rejected him, so God is still in credit (humanly speaking)...
God is loving but he's not a fluffy ball of love that bounces everywhere in the universe with no shape to it. He has other characteristics, such as justice. Everyone's happy these days to believe "God is love" which, of course, is Biblical. That's taken for granted, and it shouldn't necessarily be. We are rebels, and God being loving towards us should be a surprise, not a given.
"do you think that we all deserve to suffer eternally?" - yes, absolutely. Me triply so. You seem a nice guy and if you saw into my motives and secret thoughts 24/7 you would be appalled. God is perfect morally, has given us abundance goodness to enjoy on earth and if we spurn such a great God and reject him (as we all do, bar Jesus) we deserve hell.
"do you think that having created us self-conscious beings, God has any responsibilities towards us?" - He has no responsibilities outside himself- all morals, all true ethics are bound up in God's character himself. He isn't a slave to any law outside of himself.
So he is completely reponsible towards his creation, but not because he is abiding to any law outside of himself that could ever judge him.
On the comments to nmhgold - but all men are aware of God's existence but they suppress it (Romans 1). You can say that's not true, but I'm going with the Bible on that one. You can only appeal to experience to deny it (empirical data), I would appeal to revelation combined with my own experience. In the end the argument will come down to which fundamental presuppositions we believe in.
Not saying grace at the dinner table is an atheistic practice. It trains children to be atheists. Unless I'm mistaken, atheists don't have any special ritual at the dinner table that children have to learn. Atheism is unthankfulness towards God as a complete worldview. They say it's because he doesn't exist (agnostics would say because it's not clear that he does). But either way, they act on the assumptions that he doesn't.
David Simmons - I agree that culture was, in many ways, backwards from where we are today when the Bible was written. Would you like to show me where in the Bible women were treated as such?
Read Deborah's blog and tell me if you still think she's a parrot. She is looking forward to reading Darwin's Origin of the Species. She's 13. She is intelligent and not at all parrotish.
On homeschooling and lack of qualifications - I agree, cuisine ought not to be a university subject. I think it's wise for homeschoolers to take the same qualifications as other children and results show that they do significantly better in them. I can dig up the details if you want.
If their home education was merely reading the Answers in Genesis website or constantly shallow and trite, she would be ill-prepared for university. But any homeschooling that I believe in, and Deborah seems to be engaging in, would involve reading original source material. How many A-level, A-grade Biology students going to uni in September will have read The Origin of the Species? My betting is that 95% of them will have learnt everything they know second-hand.
I agree homeschooling has a weakness in that the teachers cannot be experts in every field themselves, unless they're polymaths, which not many of them are (understatement). That's why solid Christian schooling is better from my perspective. However, homeschooling can be more affordable, and with internet tuition, grouping together with other like-minded people (with different areas of knowledge), good curriculum and source materials, a good deal of that disadvantage can be undone.
Teri - "I don't believe I said the Bible referred to women as inferior. I said it was written at a time when women had no rights. Those are two rather different statements." - they are, I'm sorry if I misrepresented you.
You make some fair points, and Christianity has made many mistakes over time (and still is) with regard to women. I would vigorously deny that the Bible makes women second-class citizens, but in many times and places, Christians certainly have. I'm only interested in defending the Biblical view of women and those in line with it, or as close to being in line as they can. Looking at Deborah's blog, I think her writing speaks for itself that she is not one to merely believe what she's been told with no questioning, but there certainly are girls who have been brought up like that.
Biblical womanhood's a huge thing and if you're really interested, the council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has a ton of resources on their site that I'd generally agree with. bear in mind, the site is written for Christians.
In the book of Proverbs, wisdom and folly (foolishness) are described as two women, and the last chapter (chapter 31) contains a long description of a wise wife, from the Biblical perspective. Click here to read it.
The Bible teaches that a wise woman should be all of those things (obviously, if not married, one or two bits will look slightly different). She teaches, she laughs, she's wise, she's productive, she's brave, she's generous, she's entrepreneurial, she's strong, and so on. Surely she's not the kind of woman who never thinks for herself and is any kind of pushover.
You see these kind of women all through the Bible from Rebecca to Jael, Mary (mother), Mary (and Martha, Lydia, Priscilla to mention just a few. The women were the first to experience Jesus' resurrection (a fact which the writers of the gospels wouldn't have been inclined to make up).
In summary, the Bible, and the Christian who follows it thinks highly of women. Are the Drappers in that category? I suspect so, from reading Deborah's blog... she has many of the characteristics of the Proverbs 31 woman for a start.
-------------------------
A 1249 word comment... if only I'd worked this hard at university.
Paul, what I was hoping for here was a mutual examination of each others views on these subjects. It is starting to look like you don't want to examine your views, but simply repeat them. Take Romans 1 for example. You don't want to examine the concept that perhaps it might not be fair for God to judge people so harshly given the confusion of life. From a non-Christian perspective, those Romans verses are a pretty convenient 'get-out' because the whole judgement scenario doesn't work nearly so well if you accept that God's existence is not clear to everyone (which seems to me an unavoidable conclusion if you don't have to believe the Romans passage). Forget for a moment about Romans: do you really imagine that every non-believer on the planet deep down is thinking "I know God is there but I can't admit it"? I consider myself as being very honest with myself, unafraid of facing difficult questions, and I can tell you that as far as I can tell, there is no such conviction in me. You might argue it is there even deeper than I'm aware of; maybe. But then why should I be judged for something outside of my awareness? There is something monstrous about this, the need to paint the whole of humanity as depraved. I know you believe that is the truth but it just isn't how I experience the world. I find most people are actually basically kind if they are understood and cared for. It is partly this disconnect between the reality I see and the unbending dogma people take from the Bible that I find troubling.
If you don't want to think philosophically about these questions and only want to tell me what the Bible says, I guess there's not much more to say. I already know very well what the Bible says, and I'm curious how you rationalise the 'inconsistencies' (as they seem to me) that I'm pointing out. If you don't want to think in this way, fine. I appreciate the time you've taken to talk this far.
If you do want to talk beyond simply telling me Biblical doctrine, I've got 2 more comments on your last post.
#1: "These same people had been created, lived lives on earth where they rejected God's gift of life, food, drink, relationships- his love, and he judges them. They deserved instant hell the moment they rejected him, so God is still in credit (humanly speaking)..." The simple question is - why? Why is telling a white lie deserving of immediate and eternal suffering? I wouldn't condemn even Hitler and Stalin to eternal suffering if I had the power. It appears a completely disproportionate punishment. Do you really not see a philosophical problem with a 'loving' God doing this when he could simply destroy people?
#2 "Not saying grace at the dinner table is an atheistic practice. It trains children to be atheists." My parents were both church-goers, my dad an elder. We didn't say grace because they were both private about their faith. You seem to see everything in black and white. Moreover, you assume everyone defines themselves against your norms. I find this strange - not saying grace can have all kinds of meanings as I already explained and yet you want it to mean only one thing. Why is that even important? It's a bit like Deborah being adamant the Bible says you shouldn't drink.
One more point - you say God is not only love but also justice. When God sends someone to eternal judgement is this in harmony with his love for that person or in conflict with it?
Good questions Steve - My point so far is that there have been no inconsistencies that you've pointed out. There's as much inconsistency in a loving God punishing as a circle being green - you've not shown there to be any inconsistency - you've said you don't feel like it's fair, but that doesn't really matter. It is fair. Tell me exactly what these inconsistencies are...
#1 - "Why is telling a white lie deserving of immediate and eternal suffering?" - There is no such thing as a white lie. There's good lying (No, Mr. Gestapo, there are no Jews in my house) and there's bad lying. No harmless lies. Every act of defying God and his law is treason. All sin is an expression of pretending that you're the boss of the universe not God. Let's talk about rebellion against a completely perfect, gracious Father-creator, not little white lies (they may seem so to us, but who'd trust our judgment on these things - we're rebels too!)
#2 - "We didn't say grace because they were both private about their faith" - The Christian can be as private as Jesus' crucifixion - that is to say 'not'. That's not to say that a Christian always gets things right, but they were being inconsistent. Christians who could keep their faith private would never have been thrown before lions.
Your extra point - great question:
"When God sends someone to eternal judgement is this in harmony with his love for that person or in conflict with it?" - well, God is not a confused mass of conflicting emotions so it cannot be in conflict with it.
Let's talk about the crucifixion - which in layman's terms is Jesus experiencing hell. Now was that in conflict with the Father's love for his Son or in harmony with it? Well, what Jesus went through was as horrendous as any other human will ever face (God doesn't stay distant and throw hell around). The Father cut off his love for his Son for a time, for a greater purpose - that Jesus might be resurrected and be lifted up, receive the nations as his inheritance and be crowned King of all.
Now that's not God's plan for every individual in hell. But there is a greater plan involved which is the most perfect expression of love possible. And that plan involves showing wrath to some who deserve it to show to all the glories of his Son, Jesus. (See Romans 9 discussion).
Love itself is not always a good thing. One can love sin. Some people love destroying things, hurting people, raping people. It would be wrong of God to love something that isn't worthy of love. The question should not be how can God really love those who go to hell, but how come he doesn't send us all there? How can the unlovely be made lovely?
You are starting from the point of view that everything in the Bible is true and working back from that. But I don't believe that, so there is no way for us to have a meaningful discussion if that's how you insist on talking. Case in point - "God is not a confused mass of conflicting emotions so it cannot be in conflict with it." You start from the assumption there is no contradiction. You don't see the inconsistency because you can't or won't consider whether your theological framework contradicts itself. But to be clear, you're saying that God punishing someone eternally is a loving act (consistent with love). Think about that.
It sounds like you're also saying that God doesn't love the people he condemns to hell - "It would be wrong of God to love something that isn't worthy of love." That he doesn't love the hellbound would seem to be an inescapable conclusion given their treatment. And yet he might easily have sent you there. He chose to love you but he might as easily have chosen to send you to hell. And you feel safe with such a God? To say he sends some to hell to show the glories of his son is, again, monstrous. If he can choose who he saves, why not everyone? If he sends some to hell to 'make a point' isn't this the act of a monster? Wouldn't the greater glory be to save all? A hostage-taker releases 5 hostages and kills 10; the 5 say how very loving he is. Do you agree?
"The question should not be how can God really love those who go to hell, but how come he doesn't send us all there?" I wonder if you want that to be the question because it takes the attention off God and onto us - it focuses on our inadequacies and draws a veil over the difficulty in adequately answering the first question. But OK - let's look at the second.
Why is God so furious about every act of rebellion? You rejected the family analogy but without properly explaining why. Parents (should) accept rebellion as a natural part of growth. Why is it different with God? Why does rejecting him mean we deserve to suffer eternally? The Bible says God hates sin. But why does he? Your starting point is that we all deserve to go to hell. To make this work you have to assume we are all complicit - we know God is there, knowingly reject him, deserve the consequences. Quite apart from disagreeing with the premise we all know God is there, I also don't understand why hell should be the outcome of rebellion. Humans are capable of wonderful good and bad. It seems Christianity only focuses on the bad and attributes the good we do to God. This just doesn't reflect the world I see around me. And for what it's worth, my life embodies the Christian values of love and service much more now than it ever did when I was a Christian.
I wonder if you see this conversation as a means for you to teach me. I would rather it was a mutual exploration. And I will readily admit there's a bit of me that would like you to turn around and say 'Wow, you're right, how come I didn't see that before?' But I am also genuinely interested in how you hold these things together in your mind, beyond the bare bones of doctrine. I'm fascinated by the mind and the way we rationalise things to understand the world.
"You are starting from the point of view that everything in the Bible is true and working back from that. But I don't believe that, so there is no way for us to have a meaningful discussion if that's how you insist on talking."
What we're seeing in this conversation is 2 things - you saying how Christian doctrine seems to contradict itself, or be ugly, based on your worldview system, and me saying "nah-uh" based on my worldview system. You haven't shown how my worldview is inconsistent with itself, and I haven't got to the point of doing that with you yet. I am considering whether my theological worldview contradicts itself and you have yet to show me a way in which it does. You've shown how the Biblical worldview contradicts your worldview, which we shouldn't be surprised about.
"you're saying that God punishing someone eternally is a loving act (consistent with love)." - no, I'm saying that God punishing someone eternally is consistent with that same God being loving.
"That he doesn't love the hellbound would seem to be an inescapable conclusion given their treatment." - no, that he doesn't love those in hell is the logical conclusion. That's because hell is where God's love is withdrawn from them. He consistently loved them while they were alive, gave them good things, which they spurned, and gave them the chance to follow Christ and be saved, which they also spurned. In hell he withdraws those privileges.
"He chose to love you but he might as easily have chosen to send you to hell. And you feel safe with such a God? " - what could be more certain than a God who has chosen me? Much better than a God who leaves me alone to be indecisive.
To say he sends some to hell to show the glories of his son is, again, monstrous. - from your worldview, yes. From my worldview (which says that Christ's glory is of supreme importance, as the one through whom the universe itself was made), it's glorious.
If he can choose who he saves, why not everyone? If he sends some to hell to 'make a point' isn't this the act of a monster? Wouldn't the greater glory be to save all? A hostage-taker releases 5 hostages and kills 10; the 5 say how very loving he is. Do you agree? - Many more will be saved than go to hell, so let's put it the other way round. The problem is that God is nothing like a hostage taker. He rightfully owns every one of us.
Remember, I'm defending my worldview here, against supposed inconsistencies you bring up. I'm not, at this point trying to give you reasons why you should believe as I do, other than by showing my worldview *is* consistent. We can talk about how yours is inconsistent sometime soon.
"You rejected the family analogy but without properly explaining why. Parents (should) accept rebellion as a natural part of growth. Why is it different with God?" According to what system of morals should children rebel against their parents and their parents let them get away with it? Not the Bible's, children are to honour and obey their parents...
Why does rejecting him mean we deserve to suffer eternally? - God is infinitely good and perfect - he must be, since good and perfection are defined by him (yes, circular reasoning, it's unavoidable, ask me if you want to know why). The slightest rebellion against an infinitely good God shows that we left to ourselves are infinitely bad and deserve infinite punishment.
The Bible says God hates sin. But why does he? - He created us to be perfect and perfectly rule the world under his authority and instead we make ourselves Gods and try to keep the world under our authority, thus destroying the world, piece by piece.
"Humans are capable of wonderful good and bad. It seems Christianity only focuses on the bad and attributes the good we do to God. This just doesn't reflect the world I see around me. And for what it's worth, my life embodies the Christian values of love and service much more now than it ever did when I was a Christian." - OK, and this shows very clearly the antithesis between our worldviews. We're looking at pretty much the same facts, we probably have fairly similar experiences yet I see the world completely differently.
Now, you say that your life embodies Christian values of love and service more than when you were a Christian. Well, yes and no. I don't doubt that you do good things, so yes, but God is after our heart in such matters. Christians are to obey God from the heart, serving others 'as to the Lord'. You may well do externally the right things but unless you're doing them with the motive of serving God, you're not fully emodying those values at all.
Now the Bible talks about non-believers keeping the law better than believers which should shame Christians. You are probably one of them, and as such are a reminder to me to live a life of love and service. Thanks.
I am curious what motivates you to continue living such a life though - for sure, sometimes (even a lot of the time) serving others pays off, through either a good buzzy feeling (like when I did some washing up earlier) or through a 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine' kind of way. Those are both ethics argued by philosophers over hundreds of years. Tell me if you agree with those or if they're wrong in your opinion. But assuming that those things come into play when you're doing something good, what about when there seems no downside? You know, fiddling tax forms or telling white lies - what motivates you (or should) to avoid such things? I grant that you are a moral person - but why?
I wonder if you see this conversation as a means for you to teach me. I would rather it was a mutual exploration. And I will readily admit there's a bit of me that would like you to turn around and say 'Wow, you're right, how come I didn't see that before?' But I am also genuinely interested in how you hold these things together in your mind, beyond the bare bones of doctrine. I'm fascinated by the mind and the way we rationalise things to understand the world. - I'm sorry that it's come across that way and I've certainly at times had the wrong attitude in answering your questions, please forgive me for that. What I am interested in doing is defending the consistency of my worldview, and exploring the consistency of yours - but I want to emphasise that I will find things ugly that you find beautiful, and vice versa. You will find my vision of God monstrous where I find it glorious. I can understand that, and don't expect you to suddenly turn round and say that I'm right, and you've changed your mind about it all.
Finally, on a personal note - it's taken a while for me to come to these beliefs, and to find them beautiful. My first reaction, even as a Christian, to exploring what the Bible teaches on these big, big questions was, to be honest, one of fright. It was a case of "The Bible teaches it, so I should believe it, but God doesn't look so great any more." I think all people who share my views go through the same thing. But over time, I started seeing things differently and I started being convinced that I had beauty and ugliness mixed up, and started finding God (as I now knew him) to be glorious, not awful. These things tend to take much longer than simple belief changes.
Paul--thank you again for your comment.
I'm going to refrain from responding to your response about women and the Bible as I fully admit I don't have enough knowledge of Biblical writings to agree/refute your responses. Thank you for the links to other resources. I'll take a look at them on my days off.
I have been to Deborah's blog and find myself less disturbed by the documentary since. While I still have significant reservations about how she is being raised, I was relieved to see photos of her smiling and playing and appearing a far more normal teen than in the documentary.
I do have other queries, questions, comments on religion, the Bible, etc. As this post is on the topic of Deborah and the documentary about her, I'm not sure if it would be the appropriate location to post them.
For the record, I should probably clarify my current belief system as a point of reference. I don't subscribe to belief in a "traditional," God but I do believe there is something that connects us, something bigger than ourselves. I have no problem with the concept of faith but many, many problems with the concepts of organized religions.
Again, thank you for your articulate and thoughtful responses and if this is the place to post my (many) other questions about the topic of religion in general, let me know!
Have a fabulous day!
Well it's fascinating - it's clear to me I am showing inconsistencies and it's clear to you I'm not.
Here's how I understand your beliefs:
1. God decides who goes to heaven and hell.
2. He is capable of saving all (tell me if you disagree) but has decided instead to send some to eternal punishment.
So my question is, is it more beautiful to you that some burn eternally in hell than if God saved all men? If God can save all but doesn't, the suffering of the damned is in this sense unnecessary, even if you want to say it is deserved. Saying we have no right to question God doesn't help with the moral problem of a loving God seemingly punishing people unnecessarily. Your analogy with human parenting is a strange one to me. I don't argue that punishment is an inevitable part of love. However a parent who punished a child unceasingly could never be called loving. I'd always thought as a Christian that 'God is love' from 1 John was considered to be one of the great insights into God's nature; not 'God is loving' but 'God is love'. Wouldn't that mean that God is unable to act except in accordance with love (accepting your point that love can be expressed in many different ways)? And yet you say that God no longer loves those in hell.
"The slightest rebellion against an infinitely good God shows that we left to ourselves are infinitely bad and deserve infinite punishment". I absolutely do not understand the logic here. What does it mean to be infinitely bad? We all do some good and some bad. Why is that deserving of 'infinite punishment'? The 'total depravity' of humankind as Calvin (I think) described it is simply not reflected in the people we see around us, not even this guy Fritzl in the news now - he changed his plea to guilty when he saw his daughter's testimony because for the 1st time he understood what he had done to her. You can argue that in God's eyes we are 'totally depraved' but in that case it's important to acknowledge that this is a belief founded on faith, and not on observation of the world. For all the bad we do to each other, there is also much good.
What motivates me not to fiddle my taxes? Funny you should mention that, I was thinking about it recently because I have a lot of opportunity to do it being self-employed. I looked at a receipt for a meal which I had eaten not on official business. To include it in my accounts would have been undetectable but I didn't put it in because to do so would damage my sense of dignity and self-worth. I did once knowingly submit a few receipts of not significant value that I shouldn't have after the Revenue screwed me in an inspection, using what seemed to me an unreasonable interpretation of their rules. It was my (rather pointless) way of trying to get back at them. Then I thought to myself, "I'm above this, I don't need to get dragged down to this level." And I never did it again. Deborah would say that makes me a 'tax cheat' but what would that mean? If I drove a truck a couple of times would that make me a 'truck-driver'? If you want to describe someone honestly, you have to balance all of their actions, not only the bad ones. So I consider myself basically honest in the way I do my taxes because I have made probably 1000 or more decisions honestly and 5 or 6 dishonestly. I'm not proud of the dishonest decisions but I have learned from them. It appears you are saying that the only decisions of any significance to God are the dishonest ones. Am I right?
Paul - A Level grade students going to university would probably not have read The Origin of Species as that would come under advanced biology. Students are still busy with the nuts and bolts of biology (or zoology or botany) at that stage and would not have time for a long read like this. It's the same reason they would not have read Animals Without Backbones by Buschbaum (Parts 1 & 2) before entering a university biology course. As for receiving second hand ideas - big scientific ideas (and geographical ideas and world history etc etc)have to be broken down and explained according to the level of education by someone, for the same reason that there would be no time to read source books for everything - that's just common sense. I can't imagine what source books Deborah must be reading for her biological sciences.
Here's a few 'women's place in the bible' pieces, chosen at random. I'm sure they can all be spun to show that they're really early feminist tracts.
"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.
“…women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission...” 1 Corinthians 14:34
“Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord.” Colossians 3:18
I had to laugh at the idea that not saying grace is an atheist practice. People put food on the table themselves, from working to earn money to buy food, or, perhaps, growing it themselves. The last thing anyone needs to do is to thank an invisible supernatural being for it. Just because you believe a 'thing' like god needs thanks, doesn't mean that anyone else need bother. It's not an 'act' in any sense - it's just not bothering to do something inessential.
So are you done discussing then or have you been busy?
To bring you up to date on all this, I thought I had posted a long message and it seems that I hadn't and I've been unusually busy for a bit, plus, I have an aversion to rewriting something I've already written. So apologies for the slowness and I had no intention of stopping commenting.
Teri - thanks a lot for coming and commenting.
Steve - thanks again for getting in touch privately and I'm sorry for the delay.
Here's how I understand your beliefs:
What you say is accurate, although it's obviously not all I believe.
So my question is, is it more beautiful to you that some burn eternally in hell than if God saved all men? If God can save all but doesn't, the suffering of the damned is in this sense unnecessary, even if you want to say it is deserved.
Good question and a tough one. First, I want us to get some perspective. A belief of mine (Christians call it postmillennialism) is that when the results come in on judgment day (when every nation will be converted), there will be many many more people saved than in hell. Obviously, your point still stands, but it's worth knowing that I don't believe that God chooses to love some miniscule proportion of all people and have the rest burn in hell forever.
Naturally, I struggle with this issue. Surely anyone with a heart would. If you're asking me experientally whether I find this beautiful, then it would be a sometimes, sometimes not answer. Philosophically and theologically speaking I do find it beautiful - but that's because I fundamentally trust God to know what is beautiful and what is not. My struggle is to bring my emotions into line with the Bible.
I've only found one suggestion in the Bible of why God would do such a thing, which I've already quoted from Romans 9:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
(Romans 9:22-23)
The way I see it, the existence of those suffering just judgment shows more clearly the greatness of what Jesus Christ did on the cross for those trust and follow him. It's like a piece of art, music or film - the ugly bits, by contrast show the beauty of the good bits much more clearly.
Saying we have no right to question God doesn't help with the moral problem of a loving God seemingly punishing people unnecessarily. - I think it does actually. Morality itself is defined by God and He is acting completely in accord with what those people deserve.
It is entirely necessary for God to punish evil - here's why:
1. God is love (a loving community of Father, Son and Spirit)
2. The continued presence of evil and hatred in such a community would wreck it.
3. Either evil must be punished, or God can no longer be love.
For the saved, God took that punishment on himself, as Jesus on the tree. For those who reject this salvation, they take what they deserve for themselves.
...a parent who punished a child unceasingly could never be called loving.
I think it was you who initially made the child-parent analogy, so from a Christian perspective I need to qualify it. I don't think the Bible ever talks of non-Christians being children of God (by analogy or any other way). I may be wrong, but at the very least, the vast majority of child-parent -> human/God references in the Bible are about Christians. One benefit of being a Christian is adoption into God's family (Ephesians 1:5, Galatians 4:5)
I'd always thought as a Christian that 'God is love' from 1 John was considered to be one of the great insights into God's nature; not 'God is loving' but 'God is love'. Wouldn't that mean that God is unable to act except in accordance with love (accepting your point that love can be expressed in many different ways)?
God is love is a huge truth and I've made reference to it above. But, like any other truth in the Bible, it is one truth of many which need to be qualified by one another. 'God is love' isn't the controlling theme of scripture, where every other text in the Bible has to be bulldozed in order to 'fit in' (like some Christians do). It has to be read in context.
Yes it does mean that God is unable to act except in accordance with love, but we need to see exactly what we mean by that. God the Father loves the Son. Mankind rebelled. The Father sends the Son to become a man (Jesus) who suffered agony in order to save sinners. The Father punished the Son for things he never did. Surely if there's a problem with incompatibility with love on God's part, then it's here! People in hell may not be receiving love but at least they got what they deserved. Jesus faced the anger of the Father that he didn't deserve at all.
All I've done is say that the problem is bigger than you argued. My view is that if we can understand the bigger problem of the fairness of the cross, then the problem of hell is an insignificant one. Do you think the cross was incompatible with 'God is love'?
"The slightest rebellion against an infinitely good God shows that we left to ourselves are infinitely bad and deserve infinite punishment". I absolutely do not understand the logic here. What does it mean to be infinitely bad? We all do some good and some bad. Why is that deserving of 'infinite punishment'?
OK - I'll try to put it better. God is morally perfect (moral perfection is defined by reference to him). To even consider rebelling against such a perfect God shows how utterly wicked we've become.
You can argue that in God's eyes we are 'totally depraved' but in that case it's important to acknowledge that this is a belief founded on faith, and not on observation of the world. For all the bad we do to each other, there is also much good.
I agree with Calvin et al on total depravity but it's not what many people think. I don't know how you understand it but here's a common misconception of it: "Every human is as depraved as they could be - totally". But we'd argue that some non-Christians, by God's restraining hand are more wicked than others. I'm not going to tell you that as a non-Christian you are as depraved as Hitler. I don't for a second believe that you are.
Roughly speaking, here's how I understand total depravity - every good deed, done by people since the fall has been tainted by their rebellion against God. So a man buying flowers for his wife does a good thing. But as well as his good motives (I want to show my love for my wife) there are always selfish, rebellious motives involved ("I want her to forget all of the bad things I've done", or "she'll be more likely to let me do X if she's in a good mood with me"). This rebellion is an expression of the man's ultimate rebellion against God.
On the tax-issue and motivations. First I want to say that I agree with that criticism of 'The Way of the Master' (the evangelism method used by Deborah). I think it's a useful method for some people, and has a lot of good to it, but I don't think it's all that convincing in that area.
Your reason for being honest with your taxes to avoid damaging your "sense of dignity and self-worth". So, from your worldview and perspective - what are you worth? Is there anything dignified about you? If I were to suddenly convert to atheism/agnosticism I think I'd feel pretty worthless - matter in motion. Sure I could create some kind of meaning for myself about leaving a legacy, improving the world etc. But a) it would be a game, a charade, since there is no ultimate meaning and b) I would look at the job I'm currently doing and despair. Going at current speed and direction, I don't think I'd leave an impressive legacy in this world. Any thoughts?
David Simmons - apologies for not getting back sooner, if you're still there...
As things stand in UK state schools, I have no problem with what you say about teaching Biology. But I think that schools could be a lot better than they are. Here's a list of first term reading at a Christian University - http://davidpfield.blogspot.com/2006/10/extremist-training-camp.html - the kind of schools students at New St Andrew's come from train them very well and by university they're ready for that kind of study (they read classics of literature and science in other terms, not just the mostly Christian stuff you see there).
On the quotes on women in the Bible - I have no intention to spin them as early feminist tracts, particularly as much of feminism as been senseless evil. Anyway, a) I doubt those quotes came out of random ;) and b) I don't see where they say that women are less important or of inferior status to men. The Bible tells citizens to submit to the authorities over them (Kings, parliament, taxmen) - does that mean that the Bible thinks taxmen are superior to window cleaners?
I had to laugh at the idea that not saying grace is an atheist practice.
So do you know any atheists who do say grace? Surely sitting down for a meal, not saying grace and eating is exactly the practice of the majority of atheists. You're welcome to make your assertions that God needn't be thanked for food (which make complete sense from an atheist perspective). But that simply further underlines that there is no neutral ground on this practice. If a Christian family brings up children saying grace, they are being trained to be Christians. If an atheist family doesn't say grace, their child is unlikely to suddenly thank God before a meal. If an atheist family started thanking God for their food it would be an extremely confusing scenario, just as a Christian family not saying grace would be inconsistent with their beliefs.
There's nothing in the Bible that insists on Christians saying grace before every meal. But we are to do all things with thankfulness to God in our hearts and saying grace is the natural expression of it.
Hi Paul, and thanks for redoing your whole answer. I also appreciate that you don't duck the difficult questions. It takes courage to admit that you think people suffering in hell could be seen as a thing of beauty.
I keep coming back to the same question - why can a perfect God not tolerate sin? Why would it 'destroy the community'? It doesn't destroy families (not good ones) - in fact it strengthens them, showing that there is unconditional acceptance or at least something approaching it. There is almost a mantra is Christianity - 'God cannot tolerate sin' that is repeated so often that it is unquestionable. But if you stop to think about it seriously, it is actually rather perplexing. To me at least....
You're right to zero in on the question of the cross. To me it is unnecessary. Probably the reality is, no matter how much we discuss this, it's going to come down to this basic question of 'what is man like?' Is he 'totally depraved' or not? I take on board your explanation of the term, which I remember now hearing before. Is it really justified? 'Greater love has no man that he lay down his life for his fellow man.' Is the act of a non-Christian woman who jumps in front of a gunman to save her husband 'depraved' in this sense? I absolutely would agree that our motives are very complex, but to me that is part of the fascination of being human - and when I accept as an inescapable fact that I am selfish, jealous, greedy, and allow myself to experience these qualities without judging them as bad, then paradoxically they become much less powerful influences on my behaviour.
As for meaning in life, it's an important question, and probably difficult to imagine when the meaning Christianity gives your life is so overwhelming and overarching (I know what that is like, remember). I think it's helpful to differentiate between "the meaning of life" and "meaning in life". You have a strong sense of the former, an external framework that puts everything into a clear perspective. This also provides you with the latter. Now I only have the latter, which comes from a combination of many things - a love of friends and family, satisfying occupation, a love of nature, a fascination with how we make sense of ourselves, the simple experience of my body, and many other things. The paradox is, it was only after I stopped being a Christian that I truly started to experience how amazing all these things are. So actually, I'm not really very interested any more in whether there is a 'meaning of life': life already feels meaningful. And if there is nothing after death (as I believe), that will not change my experience that life felt meaningful. At the very least, I can say this - there is meaning in contributing to the happiness of those around me. It might not last, but it's still worthwhile.
Steve - your comments generally make sense for someone who doesn't believe in creation (at least as the Bible teaches it). Since Adam and Eve, along with all the human race were designed to be morally perfect, never rebellious and to correctly image God.
From this perspective any single blemish is a big fall from what we're meant to be, and so God not tolerating sin is the only obvious response.
From your perspective though, it seems that (what the Christian would call) sin is a fact of life. You don't see God's holiness as enormous, glorious and important reality as I do, and you don't see sin as as much of a mess as I do.
I think that those worldview differences account for our different perspectives on 'God not tolerating sin' and 'total depravity'.
"when I accept as an inescapable fact that I am selfish, jealous, greedy, and allow myself to experience these qualities without judging them as bad, then paradoxically they become much less powerful influences on my behaviour"
That's a really interesting statement. For me there's three different ways of thinking about sin, all of which I do from time to time.
1) I dwell on sin constantly. This is not healthy, and like you've found, I suppose, it often leads to me doing them more.
2) I forget all about them or excuse them. When I do this, I kid myself for a while that things are getting better, whereas I'm actually deceiving myself until I wake up and see the fruit of my actions.
3) I remember that I'm sinful but instead of dwellling on these things I look at the greatness of Jesus, and what he did on the cross. It's when I'm here that I find the real power to battle sin.
Anyway, enough about me. You say that you don't judge those emotions/actions as bad, but then what do you judge as bad? Is there any place for right and wrong in your worldview?
If I understand correctly (from your previous answers), your motive for doing what's right (as you perceive it) is a sense of dignity and self-worth. Your self-worth/dignity are subjective realities -- things that you feel and that make it feel like there's meaning in life.
I don't want to oversimplify this but does that make your motivation for choosing to do something 'moral' over something 'immoral' basically boil down to "because it feels good? What would you say to someone for whom it 'feels good' to steal or abuse their wife?
"From this perspective any single blemish is a big fall from what we're meant to be, and so God not tolerating sin is the only obvious response."
This doesn't necessarily follow, especially not to the point of eternal punishment. Again, I think you're finding it difficult to think outside of your Biblical paradigm. You probably think I'm finding it difficult to think outside of mine. Maybe, but I do know the Biblical paradigm very well, and when I was a Christian I never heard anybody properly address the question I'm putting here. Saying God cannot tolerate sin, which is essentially what you keep repeating, begs the question: why?
As for responding to one's own sin, the Buddhist concept of detachment directly relates to what I wrote (not that I'm Buddhist; I just find some of the ideas helpful). The theory is not to reject or cling on to any experience but observe it; rejecting and clinging on are essentially the same thing, and by simply observing you start to free yourself from these unhelpful patterns. For me, this approach brought much more empirical results than my life as a Christian. It could also be simply that I'm older and more mature, or that I'm happily married, or a combination of factors.
Questions of good and bad are very interesting. If you're trying to say there's no way to define an airtight morality without God, then I'd agree with you. Behaving badly means different things in different contexts: the standards one sets for oneself and breaks (New Years resolutions), actions that adversely affect others, actions which break the law. All of this is a bit of a mish-mash. The law is in some ways ridiculous in questions of detail, but as a whole expresses the desire of people not to be harmed. It adapts to the changing concept of what constitutes unacceptable harm, as with the decriminalisation of homosexuality some decades ago. In answer to your last question, there are 2 responses: one is to say I'd try and explore why the guy did these actions and to get him to see the harm he does to others and himself by his actions. He may well not care. The second is to put him on trial. So society tries to impose limits of behaviour for people who are 'immoral'. If his actions are not illegal, such as serial adultery, then there is nothing more to say. I consider them bad, he doesn't. He will quite possibly find in time that they have pretty bad consequences for him. It's important to realise these can be complex questions and that moral sense changes over time, even for Christians. The debate over the abolition of slavery found Christians very strongly defending both positions. Likewise the role of women in church today. Likewise divorce, which used to be grounds for excommunication.
So what do I judge as bad? Very hard to answer precisely, but essentially it is tied up in the idea of needlessly harming others or myself.
We doo seem to be going round in circles here.
"Saying God cannot tolerate sin, which is essentially what you keep repeating, begs the question: why?"
God having created the worlds, intended humans to act in certain ways towards him, their creator and the creation. They rebelled. That's what sin is. Rebellion against God. It seems to me you're asking "why does God not like being rebelled against?" which to me is a question that answers itself...
I've no burning points to make about the Buddhist/mindfulness/detachment stuff.
The problem with non-objective morals, is that eventually, "might is right". Powerful groups have run various countries and establishments over time and have generally stuck to the principles you've said - only they have limited exactly what a person is. For example, in Nazi Germany, Jews were thought of as subhuman. In the slave trade, black people were thought of as subhuman. In the modern day, human foetuses are considered subhuman, particularly ones who are developing Down's syndrome. Subjective morality is just that - subjective and only works as long as the people choosing the laws are 'moral'. Do you have any reason to say that the atrocities of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany were morally wrong?
You rightly point the finger at Christians who've often been as subjective about these things as anyone else. I believe that objective morality can come from an objective God who alone determines what is right. The task of ethics, as far as I'm concerned (and I believe the Bible, and God is concerned) is the task of finding out what pleases God in the way we live our lives as individuals and societies.
You've sent an extra comment saying that if I'm going to be this slow responding you're less interested in keeping going with the conversation. Fair enough, and I have been slow. We do seem to be hitting dead ends now. You're welcome to respond if you want, but feel no pressure to. It's been good having you on the blog to comment.
"It seems to me you're asking "why does God not like being rebelled against?" which to me is a question that answers itself..."
But it doesn't answer itself at all: human parents cope with being rebelled against all the time. You've told me it's different with God but not explained why. For example, one could suggest that because God is perfect, and because he made us, he can perfectly understand our rebellion and not take it personally; and as you've already acknowledged it's possible to imagine he could save everyone. I'm not asking you to agree with this, just to show that the Christian theological construction around hell and God's attitude to sin is in no way a logical necessity. This is probably the point we stick on. The reason I keep bringing it up is that you seem to be saying it is a logical necessity. It's only a logical necesity if God hates sin so much that it has to be 'cast into hell' in which case we're dealing with tautology.
"I believe that objective morality can come from an objective God who alone determines what is right."
There are 2 problems with this. Firstly, whose scriptures do you follow? Why not follow the Koran's morality? You believe passionately that you have found the truth; so do many Muslims. So there is no way of calling such morality objective - it is an act of faith. In itself that's fine, but if we're looking for a shared morality in a pluralistic society, then saying "My holy book is the right one" will never be an adequate answer. The base values have to be ones that most of society buys into.
Secondly, even if we ignore what I just wrote, the Bible is not clear on many matters. The problem is not Christians being subjective. Let's go back to slavery again. Christians used to same Bible to argue strongly on both sides. So the Bible's morality is not objective - it can change according to the society which reads it. You could argue that there is a 'true answer' to these questions, God's perspective. But then how do you know you have it, if different cultures take different answers from the same book? You can never be sure that future generations won't understand the Bible's morality differently (in fact, if history is an indicator, you can be pretty sure that they will understand some questions differently). Then how can you be sure you are right in your moral views?
"Do you have any reason to say that the atrocities of Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany were morally wrong?"
Of course, my instinctive answer is 'yes', but that yes is related to an amorphous shared sense of morality in society. Everyone, virtually without exception, believes that killing innocent people is wrong (an attitude not always present in the Old Testament, as you'll know: bashing babies heads against rocks and the like). Does the fact that a tiny minority disagrees make the majority opinion meaningless? No, not unless you want to crawl into a corner and deny life itself. In all kinds of areas in life we get by without certainty. We marry despite not knowing 100% our partner won't leave us or cheat on us, for example. So, to return to your question, if you want to push me to say on what absolute basis Stalin was immoral, I can't give you one. But I'd suggest that 'absolute ethics' are a luxury that we don't need, perhaps even a luxury we are better without because the more certainty people have about their views, the more violence they can be willing to inflict as a consequence of them (witch trials, for example). There are certain basic principles which can lay some kind of foundation for ethics: do not harm others needlessly, freedom of speech, movement and action where it doesn't harm another, property rights, etc. It isn't perfect, and it's open to challenge and change. But isn't that exactly what has happened with Biblical morality in the case of slavery?
The cobble together nature of public ethics of course isn't entirely satisfactory, but what is the alternative? Take the gay marriage debate in the US - public policy has been strongly influenced by Christians talking about 'protecting marriage' without explaining why it would be damaged if gays could marry or join in civil unions. Should people who don't follow your faith have your views imposed on their lives? And of course, the majority of US citizens oppose gay marriage, making it all the more complicated. What would your solution to this question be?
Me:"It seems to me you're asking "why does God not like being rebelled against?" which to me is a question that answers itself..."
You:"But it doesn't answer itself at all: human parents cope with being rebelled against all the time."
Are you saying that human parents enjoy being rebelled against?
I'm not asking you to agree with this, just to show that the Christian theological construction around hell and God's attitude to sin is in no way a logical necessity.
It is a logical necessity, in that because of the nature and characteristics of the only true God - that is that he's just - sin must be appropriately punished. Now you could imagine a God who doesn't think it's necessary to punish sin, and we could discuss the existence and logical consistency of that God. But when I use the term 'God' I mean Yahweh, the trinity - Father Son and Spirit. If that God exists (which is the only kind of God I'm willing to defend), then it *is* logically necessary that sin is punished.
Firstly, whose scriptures do you follow? Why not follow the Koran's morality?
Because God didn't reveal the Koran, but He did reveal the Bible. I will argue that one til the cows come home. Same with any other religious book.
"There is no way of calling such morality objective" - well it's objective because it's the morality God who rules the universe. Objectively speaking, the world and everything in it will be judged by his standards.
You're absolutely right - I don't come to the Bible objectively, as I'm a subject. It is an act of faith to believe it, but I can consistently say "The holocaust was wrong" because it was wrong by objective standards. If I could only say "the holocaust was wrong because I think that we should love one another", then Hitler could reasonably say "Who cares what you think?".
"If we're looking for a shared morality in a pluralistic society, then saying "My holy book is the right one" will never be an adequate answer. The base values have to be ones that most of society buys into."
I agree entirely. Which is why I look forward to the day when the whole world follows Christ and we will follow a system of objective morals. Until then, we'll see all kinds of wrongs called rights by various secular, subjective moralities.
Secondly, even if we ignore what I just wrote, the Bible is not clear on many matters. The problem is not Christians being subjective. Let's go back to slavery again. Christians used to same Bible to argue strongly on both sides... You could argue that there is a 'true answer' to these questions, God's perspective. But then how do you know you have it, if different cultures take different answers from the same book?
Well, there are some things the Bible is exceptionally clear on (e.g. Yahweh saved Israel out of Egypt, Jesus is God the Father's Son). Anyone who denies that the Bible teaches those things is simply not paying attention to the words right there on the page.
There are other issues that aren't so clear to us these days from the Bible. e.g. "Should we baptise babies?". In such matters we can give it our best shot at understanding the Bible's teaching, based on the authorial intent, the cultural context and so forth, and come up with our best shot at answering them. In those things, we have to take our position based on what we can tell the Bible says but have humility and readiness to change if the arguments take us in the other direction.
But let's face it, such things in terms of public law and order are the odd bits out. And we'd have plenty of time to work things out - instead of the constant political positioning and arguments we have now, we'd be studying and finding out how God wants us to govern our societies.
Everyone, virtually without exception, believes that killing innocent people is wrong (an attitude not always present in the Old Testament, as you'll know: bashing babies heads against rocks and the like).
I think a careful reading of Psalm 137 might come to a different answer on its meaning.
So, to return to your question, if you want to push me to say on what absolute basis Stalin was immoral, I can't give you one." - In fact, based on an "amorphous shared sense of morality" in Germany at the time of Hitler, Jews were subhuman and it was morally good to kill them. And if the "amorphous shared sense of morality" was that people called Steve should be fed to the dogs, then tough luck I suppose.
You may think that we can get by without an objective morality, but I don't think the countless babies needlessly aborted would agree with you. Nor would any of the other countless people whose voices were never heard because they were viewed as objects to be ignored or discarded at will.
"The cobble together nature of public ethics of course isn't entirely satisfactory, but what is the alternative?
Biblical theocracy with Jesus as king. And if this was consistently followed, I honestly think that everyone, including gays, Muslims and atheists would be better off.
Take the gay marriage debate in the US - public policy has been strongly influenced by Christians talking about 'protecting marriage' without explaining why it would be damaged if gays could marry or join in civil unions.
These issues are complex. There are issues of ethics around procreation, the role of family, the definition of marriage, civil rights and so on that are much too complex for me to fully understand/discuss. We'll go into this if you want but my answer to the below may give you a taste.
Should people who don't follow your faith have your views imposed on their lives? And of course, the majority of US citizens oppose gay marriage, making it all the more complicated. What would your solution to this question be?"
Civil morality is always an imposition of values. It's always do this, or go to prison. The question really is what the values are.
Many Christians believe in a Christianised authoritarian socialism - basically, New Labour with a sprinkle of God and a bit less of an anti-Christianity streak. I would argue, from the Bible with them that they are completely wrong.
The closest secular political theory to a consistent Biblical view is libertarianism (which I'm happy to argue for if you want). In short, the Bible's view is that government is for defending citizens against a) foreign evildoers and b) domestic evildoers. So there would actually be relatively little of the Christian views being imposed on anyone, contra current secularism where all kinds of people (for example) are required to do all kinds of things that they may not believe in.
But, don't get me wrong - the bible says murder is wrong, and I'd be willing to impose that belief on a man who murders his wife, or Joseph Fritzl. I'm sure you would be willing to impose similar beliefs of yours too, the question is where we start and end. I have an objective guide, the Bible, to these issues; secularism can go as far as it deems appropriate.
On the consensual thing- you're right that there are extra issues involved when it comes to paedophilia and the like. Paedophilia, disturbingly can be consensual, however (I know age of consent means that legally it isn't, but a 13 year old can foolishly yet knowingly consent using the ordinary sense of the term).
What about incest? Say, Mother and Son, both over 18, Dad's dead, and it's all consensual? From a Christian perspective it's wrong because God says so... what would you say?
I realise it's a bit unfair to ask the last question without answering it myself.
To me, it's a question where a basic ethical tenet is in conflict with public opinion. Why deny one set of couples what another is given, when all are consenting adults (hence the paedophilia and bestiality arguments being bogus)? For me, a basic issue of fairness would always trump public opinion but I recognise that depends on one's understanding of 'fair' in any given context. So to my view, it is not self-evident how to legislate in a case like this - it's a value judgement which different people might make differently. But that's the point of democracy - if you don't like the laws, you can vote for politicians whose views you support. If you can't get those people elected, it's because they don't have popular support and so in the end the system keeps some kind of balance where lawmaking doesn't get too far from the popular sense of morality. It's a pragmatic approach. Obviously, when tyrannical leaders take over, then the system can go wildly out of balance, as with Stalin and Hitler.
On the last comment (don't have time to go into the longer post just now), wasn't incest how the human race got started, according to the Bible? How did the human race progress from only 2 invididuals without it? I actually don't see a problem with it except for the obvious danger of recessive genes coming out in the children. Again, my basic first question is, what is the harm being done to others? There is also a second question - what is the harm being done to themselves? But this level of harm needs to be pretty high for legislation, I think, and I don't think that's the case here. But children... that makes it complicated.
Yes, Cain married his sister and so on. Recessive genes would have been less of a problem then, and laws against incest didn't come in until the Mosaiv Covenant.
Oh, I misread mother and son and imagined siblings. I do recoil at that thought. But I don't know on what basis I would say it is immoral. What about you, if you're not using the authority of the Bible to back it up?
Good question - as you can tell, my first place to go would be the Bible, but if I had to defend no-incest from non-Biblical grounds I'd say that it'd cause social problems due to the mixed up relationships in the family and from there to the rest of society. As Tom Lehrer said about Oedipus "His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother".
I don't think it's wise to use the dodgy gene reason alone, since then we have to ask whether we allow people with severe genetic disabilities to reproduce. It is very hard to say where the line is without an appeal to objective morality.
So a moral act suddenly became immoral? On what basis?
Incest was necessary for a while if there were originally just one man and one woman, and for a time the genetic issue would have been less of a problem.
There are more reasons why it was introduced into the Mosaic law but it's more that in the early days that rule was suspended, rather than it coming out of nowhere with the Israelites in the desert.
But the book you say gives a clear, objective morality has what appears to be a blatant moral contradiction here, and your rationalisation of it doesn't have any backing in the Bible, as far as I'm aware.
A clear objective morality doesn't have to be atemporal/immutable. That's the same reason as I don't think it's wrong for a Christian to eat shellfish or pork. The original context and typological meaning of the laws have to be taken into account if we're to structure a modern-day society around the Bible.
"Good question - as you can tell, my first place to go would be the Bible". And what in the Bible would you say justifies your view?
"A clear objective morality doesn't have to be atemporal/immutable". It seems you're suggesting that morality is something we should be content to have no understanding of, because in the incest case, you seem quite comfortable with the same act being moral one day and immoral the next with no explanation. Should we just blindly follow the rules in the Bible without trying to understand what they mean? That is the thinking which led people to say slavery was fine - 'look, it's in the Bible'.
On the previous post:
"Now you could imagine a God who doesn't think it's necessary to punish sin". There is punishment and punishment. Parents punish children to some end, not as an end in itself; this is the fundamental difference. One could imagine the catholic idea of limbo as sufficient punishment after which everyone goes to heaven. Or else simply that God shows us how we lived, and how we treated others. That would be significant punishment in itself. I could suggest that this second punishment would purge us of rebellion - we could no longer hide from God. Are the positions I outlined logically inconsistent?
"If I could only say "the holocaust was wrong because I think that we should love one another", then Hitler could reasonably say "Who cares what you think?"."
The direct answer to Hitler would be 'virtually all of society', but that's by the by. Why is it important that I can make a cast-iron case to Hitler? He wouldn't listen to you either. The fact remains, there is enough of a sense of shared values in society that it is possible to make a semi-cohesive system of ethics out of them. It is not completely meaningless, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
"You may think that we can get by without an objective morality, but I don't think the countless babies needlessly aborted would agree with you. Nor would any of the other countless people whose voices were never heard because they were viewed as objects to be ignored or discarded at will."
And yet, some of the most terrible cases of treating people as objects have come from Christians. The crusades, witch burnings etc. Power naturally corrupts and the God-given certainty that you are right is an extremely dangerous thing to add into the mix. Out of curiosity, in the state you imagine, is homosexual practise legal? Civil unions or gay marriage?
"Biblical theocracy with Jesus as king." But what does this mean? Who runs it? I'm interested you talk about the Bible as an 'objective guide' in this context. If you were in this theocratic government, is that what you would tell a non-believer who disagreed with your laws?
Finally, how do you understand Psalm 137?
"Should we just blindly follow the rules in the Bible without trying to understand what they mean? That is the thinking which led people to say slavery was fine - 'look, it's in the Bible'."
Well, virtually the next thing I said was "The original context and typological meaning of the laws have to be taken into account if we're to structure a modern-day society around the Bible." Many laws in the Old Testament were particularly to provide shadows and types of Jesus (eg. the sacrificial system, clean/unclean laws, dietary regulations). The new testament makes this abundantly clear and gives us the principles for understanding and applying old testament law. So trying to understand what the laws of the Bible mean is exactly what I was arguing for.
Are the positions I outlined logically inconsistent? I agreed that all those options would involve punishment, but I don't think that those punishments fit the crime. Humans have committed high treason, worshiping other Gods (eg. themselves, money. sex). I don't think most of the punishments you mentioned would be correctly proportional to the crime.
The limbo-punishment idea also falls into that problem, but is particularly interesting. Official Catholic teaching is that there are three types of people a) the hellbound who have no faith in Christ, b) ordinary Christians who have been saved but go through the cleansing punishment of purgatory and c) saints who are already perfect and skip purgatory.
So it's not quite the same as the idea you put up there. However, the problem is, being punished doesn't provide a person with merit before God.
We were created in a state of grace - it was undeserved favour that we should be created at all. Having fallen from that grace, no amount of punishing can bring us up to that level. Even if high treason against God was justly punishable by a mere 5 years of hell, where would the person stand after that? Not in the privileged state they were created in, but in a kind of neutral state where they've merely got what they deserve. Jesus cross is needed, not only to take sinners' punishment but to restore that favour, many times over.
Onto morality...
With regard to Hitler, the problem was that most people in his country didn't think he was wrong - at least not wrong enough to stop him (and they did vote for him). You're quite right, lower down to say that Christians have done much the same in various ways, as have most other religious/idealist followers, from Muslims to Communists to Hindus.
The problem is, I can judge those Christians to be in the wrong, and more importantly, God will, and justice will be done. But with no God, all the bad guys who were never stopped in their lifetimes end up in exactly the same state as anyone else. No ultimate justice. Just atoms floating around. In fact, from your worldview even discussing these issues is pointless. Because even though we think we're having a sort of debate, we're just organic processes trying to promote our species survival... aren't we?
On Biblical theocracy...
Who runs it? That's a very good question and the primary one that I haven't yet found a Biblical imperative on. I think that the Bible would be fine with a monarchy though wisdom may well have us set up something more like a democratic republic. I do think that the division of church and state as institutions, is a good thing. That's not a contradiction, as the state would be governed by Christians who sought to rule under Jesus' authority. The point is that Jesus Christ's church was never intended to wield political power as an institution.
"If you were in this theocratic government, is that what you would tell a non-believer who disagreed with your laws?" - the possibility of this happening in my country in time for this to happen are low, to my mind, hence me having to think about this one. My first reaction at the moment, would be "Jesus Christ has risen and is King over all things - including this country, as we, the people of the United Kingdom have recognised. We, the leaders have been elected to govern this country as Biblically and fairly as we can. If your disagreement is that we shouldn't have Jesus as our King, you are free to vote against me next time, and to continue appealing to me and other politicians. If you think we've got a particular ruling wrong then your best chance would be to appeal and argue on Biblical grounds with me, for that would be most persuasive." That's a very rough go at it. There definitely should be more Christian thinking in this area.
Here's one possible Christian understanding of Psalm 137. It'll likely seem far-fetched to you, as it does to many Christians. But I think that's partly because we don't recognise the huge differences in culture between then and now that affect the way they wrote.
"I agreed that all those options would involve punishment, but I don't think that those punishments fit the crime." Then your reasoning is tautological - God sends people to hell because sin is so bad that God has to send people to hell. It's a question of faith, not reason. As I've already said, this way of understanding man as irredeemably wicked just doesn't correspond to what I see around me, and it also makes God appear morally inferior to human parents. Do you think it's time to get off this particular merry-go-round?
Regarding incest, the point I was making is that you seem incurious that an act which was apparently once moral suddenly became immoral without explanation. If the Bible is your moral arbiter, shouldn't that at least set you asking questions of it? Your explanation of the rule being suspended simply isn't Biblical (correct me if I'm wrong), yet you use it to assume there is no contradiction. Your basic attitude in this particular question seems to be, "God said it, I believe it", hence my remark about blind obedience. Similarly with Psalm 137: you're right, I find that explanation extremely far-fetched, not least because the apologist replaces 'rocks' with 'rock', a very useful sleight of hand. It is miles from the plain meaning of the text, but because the plain meaning of the text says something morally abhorrent, you refuse to accept its meaning. The connection between these two issues is a need to keep the Bible perfect, no matter how much you have to massage the meaning of the text.
"But with no God, all the bad guys who were never stopped in their lifetimes end up in exactly the same state as anyone else. No ultimate justice." According to my beliefs, this is exactly right. Surely you realise this doesn't lend support to your beliefs: just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true.
"In fact, from your worldview even discussing these issues is pointless. Because even though we think we're having a sort of debate, we're just organic processes trying to promote our species survival... aren't we?"
I find this a fascinating denial of our experience of reality. Are you saying that before you became a Christian you feared you had no personality or thoughts, and were just 'organic processes'? Why should the absence of some grand cosmic meaning destroy our experience of ourselves?
"With regard to Hitler, the problem was that most people in his country didn't think he was wrong - at least not wrong enough to stop him". Do you think if he had run on a platform of "I promise to kill millions of Jews", he would have been elected? Surely once it became clear that many were being murdered, people feared for their own lives if they resisted.
On theocracy, again, how would you imagine laws around homosexuality working, specifically whether the act itself and gay marriage would be legal? And am I right in thinking that you imagine it a democratically elected government which is voted in and could also be voted out?
Steve - since I'm being so slow to get round to these I'm going to call quits on comments on this post - I'll give my answers to these points and then you can have the last word, if you want.
Then your reasoning is tautological - God sends people to hell because sin is so bad that God has to send people to hell. It's a question of faith, not reason.I've given other reasons (such as the offense being infinitely great because of the greatness of the one offended). But, you're right, ultimately my reasoning is circular. As is yours and everyone elses. When you get down to fundamental worldview assumptions, there's no way of consistently avoiding circular reasoning.
eg. Empiricism - "I believe something because I observe it" - if someone asks "how do you know that's the right thing to believe" the only consistent reply is "because I observe it". Rationalism "I believe it because it's rational" - why do you believe that statement Mr. Descartes? "Because it's rational".
"As I've already said, this way of understanding man as irredeemably wicked just doesn't correspond to what I see around me, and it also makes God appear morally inferior to human parents."1. Man is not irredeemable. (Jesus is our redeemer)
2. I evidently observe the world differently to you, as I do see great depths of wickedness.
3. You don't believe in an absolute morality, so to say God appears less moral than human parents is meaningless. Whereas because true morality is based on the objective, really-going-to-happen justice of God, I can say Hitler, Fritzl and every single abusive husband is wrong. All you can coherently say is that they did/do things that you/society doesn't prefer. To which Hitler replies, "Big whoop. I've been voted in, democratically by the majority of the country, therefore it is morally right to gas countless Jews and morally wrong not to."
If the Bible is your moral arbiter, shouldn't that at least set you asking questions of it?I do - but I don't look beyond the Bible for my answers. I believe the Bible is consistent in its message and provides a coherent worldview with space for laughter, reasoning, debate and love. I have yet to find any other way of explaining the things around us that does the same.
Your explanation of the rule being suspended simply isn't Biblical (correct me if I'm wrong) - the Bible isn't intended as an encyclopaedia. It has a specific purpose, to point humans to Jesus Christ the ultimate revelation of God, and in doing so shows us how to respond.
The truth is, if the Bible did explicitly say what was going on with incest in the primeval era, what help would that be to us here and now, or in heaven praising God? Apart from providing neat answers for the comments section of a blog, not an awful lot.
Having said that, the Bible does say a lot about how God was working through various times in history, and by 'good and necessary consequence' we can infer what I did- that incest was entirely permissible at that point in time, but for a number of reasons, including the genetic issue (which wouldn't have occurred had we not fallen) is no longer acceptable in God's eyes.
On Psalm 137 - you talk about sleight of hand but there is none. The Hebrew word is singular, and to translate it as "rocks" is just wrong. Since the author wrote "the rock" - the obvious question is 'which rock?'. And the obvious plain answer is Christ the rock in the wilderness out of which streams of water flowed (which the New Testament tells us was a pre-incarnate apperance of Christ).
So the "plain meaning" of the text is actually way removed from the typical, western modern understanding of it due to a) bad translation and b) the fact that people don't read the Bible in the same way as the people it was originally written for.
But going beyond that particular text there are lots of things that by modern standards are morally abhorrent.
You'll notice that where the Bible is clear on these things I've not ducked and dived and instead believed them. But there is a hermeneutical principle to the Bible - you interpret the obscure in light of the plane.
Now look at that last clause:
"you interpret the obscure in light of the plane".
I've deliberately used the wrong spelling of the final word, but because you know the context of what I'm writing and to suddenly talk about aircraft would be a very odd jump to make - you instantly knew what I actually meant.
It's a stupid example and the Bible writers always have much better reasons than that for the apparent contradictions, or problems in the Bible. But if the Bible teaches point X a hundred times, and point Y, which seems to contradict point X once -- well, you'd look very long and hard at Y to make sure you understood it properly before throwing out the Bible as unreliable. And when this is done, sometimes scholars will realise that the earliest/best Greek manuscripts don't have that passage, or that there's some other reason why the author did something different.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. "
(Proverbs 26:4-5)
Two verses - right next to each other in the Bible, seem to flatly contradict one another. Unless you think that the author was completely braindead then you'll understand one in the light of the other. The point the author makes is that there are two dangers when interacting with fools and you need wisdom to choose the right action.
"Surely you realise this doesn't lend support to your beliefs: just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true."Yes you're right. Just because I wish the England Cricket team were the best in the world doesn't make it true. However, people like Dawkins insist that atheism is a beautiful, liberating, glorious worldview, and I say it's a depressing, ugly tyrannical one with no justice.
"I find this a fascinating denial of our experience of reality. Are you saying that before you became a Christian you feared you had no personality or thoughts, and were just 'organic processes'? Why should the absence of some grand cosmic meaning destroy our experience of ourselves?"Say we asked a third person, reading our discussion "who's winning the debate?". According to a naturalistic, materialistic worldview -- no one is, and to even ask the question is absurd. No one can be winning, because there are just two organisms self-propogating, doing exactly what they have to do given their genetic composition and material force them to do.
For sure, we can experience stuff along the way, but to say that actual reasoning and argument is happening, we need to believe in things like the laws of logic--which cannot be explained with a materialist worldview (there's a long but illuminating debate here).
You're welcome to experience life and believe in such things as rationality if you so wish. But according to your own worldview those things are mere make believe.
Do you think if he had run on a platform of "I promise to kill millions of Jews", he would have been elected? Surely once it became clear that many were being murdered, people feared for their own lives if they resisted.O.K. good point. For a lot of the Nazi regime, surely the general view was against what was happening to the Jews. I don't have the details. However...
1. Hitler had already made his views on Jews very clear in Mein Kampf. It's not as if he jumped out once elected and shouted "surprise!"
2. There are countless other examples where the majority of people have agreed with something that we now think of as utterly dispicable eg. The inferiority of people based on their skin colour (which was a vast majority position until not too long ago) and things like the slave trade that went along with it. A prime example is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. They were the majority position, therefore they were right, for that time, place, and society, according to subjective standards of morality. I say they were wrong, even in their days.
Theocracy...
On theocracy, again, how would you imagine laws around homosexuality working, specifically whether the act itself and gay marriage would be legal? And am I right in thinking that you imagine it a democratically elected government which is voted in and could also be voted out?As I say, I'm not sure what form the state itself would take (monarchy/republic/democracy etc.). But whatever it was, the reality is that if enough people are against it and willing to stand up to it, no constitutional power can resist. It's messy, nasty business but that's always a possibility. In the US and UK at the moment, historic freedoms written into constitutions and legal frameworks are being done away with, effectively illegally. But that's not going to stop those in charge or the electorate from voting such people in.
Assuming I'd go for a democracy, ideally speaking, then yes, the people could elect an anti-Christian parliament and tear apart any allegiance to the Christian God.
On homosexuality in such a society - there's a range of opinions within circles who I agree with on the other points above.
I think that the laws governing Israel are the best place to start. However, many of the laws had to do with typology and symbolism specific to the Israelites, as the race from whom Christ would come. The Israelite people were not just a nation but also a religion.
So it says to put to death practising homosexuals - but at least This particular crime seems to be a religious issue, rather than a principles of justice issue (in the OT) and so I think the main thrust of it would be taken on as the church's responsibility rather than the state's. And by that I mean that anhy members of the church who were practising unrepentant homosexuals would be ex-communicated (which in church terms is being put to death - not by the physical sword).
How can you tell which issues carry over to the state and which to the church from the OT?
Well, Biblical justice involves two things. Say someone was caught stealing his neighbour's sheep.
1. Restoration - the sheep would be returned to the rightful owner.
2. Not only that, but what the thief attempted to deprive his neighbour of- he would be deprived of that instead- he would fall into the pit that he dug for his enemy. So he would forfeit one of his own sheep, which would be given to the initial victim. Similarly if you lied and accused someone of a murder you know they didn't do (for which the punishment is death) - you would bear that punishment instead.
That's how civil justice happens throughout the OT laws. But there are lots of laws where one of those elements is missing - in the case of putting to death homosexuals where's the restoration? Who's the offended party? This should make us realise that the offended party in these things is God, and in a modern nation with seperation of church and state - it's obvious that the task falls to the church.
Gay marriage - I don't think that a Christian state would acknowledge the existence of such a thing. However, if two men wished to live together, share all of one another's possessions and have the same legal bindings with one another that married people have, that would be allowed. The state wouldn't unfairly judge between married people, single people, brothers and sisters who lived together or two male lovers who lived together.
Just over 2000 words for a final comment. Consider this my "Das Politik". Thanks for commenting, and there are always other posts to argue with me on, but I'm done on this one.
A lot of what you say is fair enough. Our views inevitably come down to our assumptions.
On the Bible, the point I was making is that you start with your assumptions about the infallibility of the Bible and understand the text in accordance with them. For example, imagine Psalm 137 was not in the Bible and was just a poem written at the same time. Would you imagine the rock was Christ? Clearly not (surely) - there is a far more obvious meaning: the wish for revenge. Your interpretation is governed by what you believe the Bible can and cannot be saying, and this doesn't seem to me a sensible way of going about understanding the meaning of any text.
"You're welcome to experience life and believe in such things as rationality if you so wish. But according to your own worldview those things are mere make believe."
At the level you are talking about - are our perceptions real? - your own worldview also becomes invalid. How do you know that the words you think you read in the Bible are the ones actually in it? The 'objective meaning' you take from the Bible is dependent not only on faith that the Bible is the word of God, but also on faith that you perceive it truly. You can't say 'The Bible shows that there is order in the world' because its circular logic again: the Bible might not say that at all if your perceptions are faulty. If you take the trueness of your perceptions on faith, you should allow me to take it on faith also. Either we are both justified in thinking logically about the universe or neither of us is.
Well thanks for taking the time to talk about this stuff. I guess it shows how in the end people know what they believe and how difficult it is to move outside of those preconceptions.
All the best,
Steve
p.s. Loved webcameron
I've published my own comment on the programme at http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=705
Tim.
Post a Comment