Posted on 08/23/2006 2:37:32 PM PDT by neverdem
Our punishments came from not British law but Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus. That includes, 1st, 2nd degree etc. for murder or self defense. In the OLD days, it was REQUIRED to be familiar with the OLD TESTAMENT since our laws and punishments were based on that. That stopped around the 40's in law school as a requirement or it may have been sooner like the 20's.
I don't know where to start with the blinding historical ignorance of this writer.
The problem of evil, or theodicy, has been discussed for thousands of years. Perhaps this writer should read at least a few books on the subject before raising this ancient chestnut, for example, C. S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain," which isn't a bad introduction.
As for objectivity and subjectivity, without some concept such as the divine Logos, what makes this writer think you an escape the mind/body problem raised by Descartes? Does she think that only the material is real? Once again, her understanding of the basic philisophical issues is breathtakingly naive. Even a physicist would tell her that the solidity of the desk she is writing at is illusory. At a more basic level, it is made up of elementary particles and empty space. What the five senses tell us is often merely an illusion.
So can you explain why it's ok to eat shellfish now?
It's been discussed. but certainly not explained away.
And she's right on regarding the inconsistent way most Christians talk about the will of God - only when unexplained random evil happens is God mysterious - when something good happens people happily attribute it to God.
It should suprise no one; intellectual laziness is a halmark of the prosylitzing atheists. Atheists who are genuinely atheistic usually could care less what others believe. This woman is just another victim of a confused society.
It's one thing to say that one can't personally believe in God, or even to say that our institutions will survive without religious faith. It's another thing to say that one can't attribute the evolution of things we value in society to Christianity. Most conservatives would disagree with Heather there, whether they actually believe in God or not. She doesn't give religion the credit it deserves. Maybe it's because she can't see the forest (the moral individualism that Christianity inspired) for the trees (markets, science, law).
William F. Buckley's writing on Max Eastman comes to mind:
"Can you be a conservative and believe in God? Obviously. Can you be a conservative and not believe in God? This is an empirical essay, and so the answer is as obviously, yes. Can you be a conservative and despise God, and feel contempt for those who believe in Him? I would say no."
I'm not saying Heather despises God or feels contempt for those who believe in Him. Just that she doesn't give faith its due. It's a theoretical dispute, though. Any political movement will bring together those who believe and those who don't, and they'll have to come to some arrangement or other.
Written by someone that believes the world of flesh and matter is all that there is.
Yes, it was 1925 when the Taft Supreme Court "interpreted" the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as superseding the religious clause of the First Amendment, and subsequently outlawed official state religions. That interpretation has been used repeatedly since to prohibit prayer in public schools and religious displays on government property. Note that the First Amendment prohibited only Congress, not the states. It took a loose interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to undo what our Forefathers had wisely established. Prior to the Taft court ruling the Fourteenth amendment had not been applied to religion since ratified nearly 60 years earlier.
While I disagree with Ms. MacDonald's take-home message, she does hit at
the big-dog problem that even the best Christian apologist struggles with
in even their own lives.
I'm no theologian, but for myself, I go with C.S. Lewis' thought that for
all it's wonders, we live "in enemy territory".
Enjoy the scenery, but accept that sometimes even the best, most innocent
people will be struck down.
And occassionally read as well as contemplate the book of Job.
"And here I have to revert to the question of why very bad things happen to good people,"
Oh, I think that's dealt with rather extensively in Scripture, but for starters Chapter 3 of Genesis should work.
Slavery was nearly universal in all kinds of cultures at one time; it was neither a Christian invention, nor especially characteristic of Christian societies. In fact, Christians led the battle to end slavery in the West and in their colonies.
In fact, Christians led the battle to end slavery in the West and in their colonies
Amen to that ! Not often acknowledged.
"early Christian emperors stamped out classical religion by destroying temples and outlawing pagan rituals"
Perhaps Ms. McDonald would like to revive those quaint and charming "pagan rituals," like temple prostitution?
Novak is absolutely right that Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire despite savage and cruel persecution, before any "Emperors" became involved on its behalf. Christianity continues to spread in the third world, despite the departure of European colonialism, the decline of Christianity in the West, and persecution of the new believers by Muslims, Hindus, and others.
Ms. McDonald should also see what the Bible says about those who demand that God produce nice signs and wonders before they will believe.
""early Christian emperors stamped out classical religion by destroying temples and outlawing pagan rituals"
It wasn't "Christian emperors," true, but it was the Christian Spanish conquerors of Mexico who put an end to that cute Aztec custom of cutting the hearts out of countless living human beings. And the Jews put a stop to the infant-human sacrifice of the nice pagan inhabitants of Palestine. Today it's their spiritual descendants, Christians, who lead the fight against today's fashionable pagan infant sacrifice, called abortion. Perhaps Ms. McDonald regrets the loss of those "pagan rituals," as well?
Mac Donald's essay isn't profound theology and isn't meant to be. It is simply an all-too-rare example of an intelligent secular challenge to the often not-very- intelligent pronouncements of the religious right. While their policies are good, their God talk doesn't do much for us politically. The hard fact is that a huge percentage of influential Americans (some of whom can be converted to conservatism, including family-values or social conservatism) are agnostics or atheists. Many others, and a huge percentage of regular Americans, are religious, but, like Ms. Mac Donald, don't seriously believe that God is really in charge of our world, let alone everything that happens.
I say, let the discussion continue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.