Number 96 : April 1999 |
Markà Theo (25th February 1999) : On a discussion note, here is one that often bugs me. You wrote (C95/9):
"Finally, can God logically commit murder ? After all, he provides the laws and the justifications for any homicides ?"
Says who ? Every time I see the phrase "it is God's will" I ask, says who? How do they know ? What qualification does any mere mortal have for justifiably claiming to enunciate God's will ? This is nothing to do with any argument about whether there is or is not a God, it is entirely about how is it, with people like Idi Amin Dada and David Icke around, anybody else should be taken seriously ?
I am entirely comfortable with the idea of a bishop or an archbishop or even the Pope considering some weighty matter and kneeling for hours on end in prayer for an answer. They have many many years of experience and a deep understanding of the theological issues and so when they come to a conclusion and say "this is how it must be" or "this is what I believe", or whatever, that's fine by me, I'm an ignoramus by their standards. But as soon as they say "God has spoken to me," they should be laughed out of church. I mean, they might very well be telling the truth, but then so might Idi and David, in which case only an idiot would own up to it.
The laws and justifications for any aspect of human conduct are up to us to define as best we are able. We cannot blame God for bad laws any more than we can credit him for the good ones. Just don't ask who told me that.
So my answer to your question is that God can do what he likes.
Umm, maybe. Of course, I don't actually know if he has his mum standing over him making him do the things he does, but then I suppose he wouldn't be the supreme being ....
Theo à Mark (28th February 1999) : I agree with you that a degree of reticence is sensible in enunciating the will of God. However, I was raising a purely logical point. If there is a God, and he has the attributes normally accorded him, are there certain things that it is not sensible to ascribe to him ? Murder would be one of them, in my view, as it would either imply a court higher than the Divine one to judge his actions or would imply that God had failed to live up to one of his own laws. Either option would imply a contradiction, given the divine attributes. As I said, this is a purely logical issue, and no entity might answer to the name "God", or at least not with the attributes usually predicated. This leaves the discussion rather academic for many people.
Of course, when we come down to particular cases - for instance that "such and such a killing was an act of God" - we're on much shakier ground. As you suggest, who's to know who was responsible ? This gets particularly dangerous when ascribing non-natural killings as due to God (eg. if Salman Rushdie were to perish as a result of the Fatwa). The notion of divine slayings can cover over all sorts of human abominations and natural evil. Take the Biblical examples probably alluded to. Describing the near-complete destruction of humanity in the Flood as divine "murder" is just silly. Either it wasn't due to God (or never happened) or it wasn't murder (but was righteous judgement, or some such). The near-extermination of the Canaanites by the Israelites is a more serious issue in that murders, as distinct from righteous judgmental killings, are at least logically possible (some would say likely). In this case, as distinct from that of the Flood, we have alternative moral agents to God easily identifiable, ie. the Israelites.
Mark à Theo (1st March 1999) : I was also offering the comments as a logical point. If you told me 'X' and I thought you were a nice bloke or a credible source (as I do) then I might believe what you say. Or I might just humour you, or I might take issue with you. However, in any normal situation there is the possibility of proving or disproving 'X' so there is some point in it. In the case of 'God told me', where do you start ? If someone cites God as the source, are they any more credible than someone who says the pixies told him, or a man at the pub told him, or what ?
So the whole debate about whether God can commit murder or whatever is pointless - he can hardly take the witness stand.
And if he did, what would his oath be? "I swear by almighty me that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me me."
More interesting would be which book he chose to swear on ! That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Theo à Mark (2nd March 1999) : I think we’re probably in agreement now, so I won’t pursue the debate further !