The Religious Wars (it's curious that God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins)

New York TImes ^ | 11/26/2009 | Nicholas Kristoff

[SeekAndFind]

Just a few years ago, it seemed curious that an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They all published best-selling books excoriating religion and practically inviting lightning bolts.

Traditionally, religious wars were fought with swords and sieges; today, they often are fought with books. And in literary circles, these battles have usually been fought at the extremes.

Fundamentalists fired volleys of Left Behind novels, in which Jesus returns to Earth to battle the Anti-Christ (whose day job was secretary general of the United Nations). Meanwhile, devout atheists built mocking Web sites like www.whydoesGodhateamputees.com. That site notes that although believers periodically credit prayer with curing cancer, God never seems to regrow lost limbs. It demands an end to divine discrimination against amputees.

This year is different, with a crop of books that are less combative and more thoughtful. One of these is “The Evolution of God,” by Robert Wright, who explores how religions have changed — improved — over the millennia. He notes that God, as perceived by humans, has mellowed from the capricious warlord sometimes depicted in the Old Testament who periodically orders genocides.

(In 1 Samuel 15:3, the Lord orders a mass slaughter of the Amalekite tribe: “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child.” These days, that would earn God an indictment before the International Criminal Court.)

Mr. Wright also argues that monotheism emerged only gradually among Israelites, and that the God familiar to us may have resulted from a merger of a creator god, El, and a warrior god, Yahweh.

[right way right]

I wear glasses.
GOD MUST HATE ME!(sarc)

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[Lucky Dog]

From Descartes’ assertion (Cogito ero Sum), I conclude, like Descartes, that since I exist, that which I unambiguously observe through my senses also exists. One of the first axioms of logic is that “nothing comes from nothing,” or stated otherwise, there is a cause for all observed phenomena. Therefore, logically, since there is an observation of “existence,” it has a cause.

This bit of logic disallows, atheism and agnosticism. Consequently, the only remaining arguments possible are Theism and Deism. However, let me reinforce the point with some additional support:

Most people today think of Thomas Aquinas' writings when discussing traditional arguments for God's existence, embodied in his famous Five Ways, which argue:

• from motion to an Unmoved Mover
• from effects to a First Cause
• from contingent being to a Necessary Being
• from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfect Being
• from design in nature to a Designer of nature.

Philosophers recognize many arguments for the existence of God with varying degrees of seriousness. The major categories include:
• Moral (axiological) arguments
• Teleogical arguments—that is, design arguments
• Ontological arguments—the most controversial, lately revamped by Plantinga and others
• Cosmological arguments—from a first cause
• Historical arguments—for example, argument from miracles
• Arguments from religious experience
• Practical arguments—for example, Pascal's wager
If you accept that God, in deed, does exist, the only remaining argument is concerning the nature of God.

[Jeb21]

This ignoramus columnist has NO IDEA what Amalek is. Amalek were the ancient Nazis. They would murder Jews for the sake of murdering Jews, and then run away so they wouldn’t get caught, and then murder Jews again. They were the purest evil on the planet.

[LiteKeeper]

NOTE TO MR WRIGHT: you are wrong. The first religion was monotheistic. Only as man sought to go his own way did he stray from worship of the One True God...it really began in the Garden, but there was always a remnant, i.e., Noah and his family; Abraham and his family, etc.

[Lee N. Field]

Just a few years ago, it seemed curious that an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn’t smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. They all published best-selling books excoriating religion and practically inviting lightning bolts.

"He that sits in heaven
laughs them to scorn."

Fundamentalists fired volleys of Left Behind novels

Interesting mental image, a cannon loaded with a 5" diameter clot of Left Behind books, in front of a few pounds of black powder...

the Lord orders a mass slaughter of the Amalekite tribe:

"Intrusion Ethics" -- an intrusion of the age to come into the present era. Flee from the wrath to come, 'cause you ain't seen nothin' yet....

[Thommas]

[Why wouldn't].. an omniscient, omnipotent God .. smite tormentors like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris[?]

Because He's being so entertained by their actions! Why should an omnipotent God step into the picture to merely cease the corporeal machinations of those who think they are His equal in logic and persuasion? Why smite the ant that, breaking away from the farm, declares in a strident voice that it knows better than you?

It's much more fun to watch as reality and old age crush the atheists and drive them into lamenting and foaming at the mouth. Besides, there is always the chance that truth of Divinity and an afterlife will breach the defense of their mortal illogic and grant them salvation.

[Marie2]

Interesting questions that this post brings up.

I speculate that the reason(s) for Dawkins’ continued existence may be that God uses such mockers to separate out His people. If we can be weakened or destroyed by Dawkins’ bilge, we are not His. We leave the church, etc., stop claiming to be Christians - which strengthens the church.

Another speculation of mine is that it is because of God’s longsuffering. The Bible says He takes no joy in the death of the wicked. It is a demonstration of His mercy to allow Dawkins the air he breathes each moment. It is a wonder, really.

I mean, He could prevent every faithless soul from even being conceived. But He didn’t, and He doesn’t.

As someone who was not converted until age 21, I am grateful for His longsuffering.

About the amputees - it may disturb my “faith healer” brethren - but God didn’t promise to regrow the limbs of amputees. Great miracles were done by Jesus, and by His apostles by divine decree. They were so commissioned, and there is far too much written testimony, even by non-Christians, to have these miraculous healings reasonably denied by historians. I certainly believe that the dead were raised, the blind made to see, lepers healed. . . and that God can do that, anytime He wants to.

However, the purpose of these spectacular healings was to testify to the truth of Jesus being the Messiah, and of his Apostles being the real deal. It wasn’t an ongoing thing, and was never promised to be such.

If people are told that God does miracles through a certain “healer” - and no “healer” has ever regrown a stump - I can’t blame them for questioning the whole package. I rather wince at these claims.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Amalek were the ancient Nazis. They would murder Jews for the sake of murdering Jews, and then run away so they wouldn’t get caught, and then murder Jews again. They were the purest evil on the planet.

The infants and nursing children too?

[Nosterrex]

I would not look to the NYT for my theological education. I doubt that anyone at the NYT knows anything about religion, much less Christianity. God's ways are not our ways, and God's thoughts are not our thoughts. When someone wonders why God does not do something or why He does something, what they are really saying is that if I were God, I would do a better job. God works in His own time and in his own way. That is what it means to live by faith. God hides himself in this world. Who is not to say that such things as HIV, H1N1, or WW2 are acts of God? It is sufficient simply to know that God is working in history whether you see Him or not.

[RichInOC]

God enjoys a good joke. And there can be few better than Dr. Dawkins naming his latest defense of evolution after the world-famous marketing slogan of America’s best-known-ever merchant of humbuggery.

[RussP]

I am always a bit perplexed by these athiests who seem to think that God should be held to the same standards as man — as if he were a democratically elected leader or something. If God decided that “genocide” was appropriate at some point in time, I trust that He was justified — the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. If men try to commit genocide, that is another matter altogether.

[RussP]

Which slogan is that?

[chesley]

Oh, God will smite them alright. If not in this world, then the next.

[VOA]

“
The Religious Wars (it’s curious that God wouldn’t smite tormentors
like Richard Dawkins)
“

My naive and uneducated thought is that maybe The Creator of The
Universe allows Richard Dawkins to talk, and talk, and talk.
So that folks have a fair choice between his point of view and that
of other folks that advocate differing points-of-view on human origins.

If The Creator believes in Free Will interacting with a free
“Market Place of Ideas”...this scenario shouldn’t be that shocking.

[VOA]

“
The Religious Wars (it’s curious that God wouldn’t smite tormentors
like Richard Dawkins)
“

My naive and uneducated thought is that maybe The Creator of The
Universe allows Richard Dawkins to talk, and talk, and talk.
So that folks have a fair choice between his point of view and that
of other folks that advocate differing points-of-view on human origins.

If The Creator believes in Free Will interacting with a free
“Market Place of Ideas”...this scenario shouldn’t be that shocking.

[RichInOC]

“The Greatest Show On Earth”.

[RobbyS]

Pretty simplistic. The embedded axiom is the notion that men have invented God. He rejects the idea of “revelation,” which is that God has informed men. The Bible provides us with an account of a progressive revelation.

[Bellflower]

I am sure that many of these people are far more tormented than they will let on, suffering delusions, self hatred, depression, and a myriad of other conditions that happen to people as they harden themselves and fight the futile fight against Almighty God.

[time4good]

I have always believed, based on the WHOLE picture of God the Bible portrays, immutable facts that a. He is Perfect in His Love, Judgements and Mercy and b. as Jesus talked about, the temporal values of things don’t compare to the eternal values. I.e., if God commanded a purging of a people, including infants and nursing, God knows that the infants and nursing young are little souls that yet don’t fully understand (read Age of Accountability) and thus His pefect judgement as to what is in each person’s heart (as in Romans 1), lets the children be declared innocent and thus eternally with Him when their lives are taken. The adults or even young adults know enough to reject or accept God. Their lives are taken and their judgements pronounced. Once you keep in mind the rules (i.e., God’s immutable attributes (perfect Love, Mercy, Judgement of accountability), it helps make things more understandable from a ‘Spiritual’ standpoint - not just a human relations standpoint (i.e. how could He have a child killed? - well, He could because it will be with Him momentarily.)