When the Foundations are Destroyed What Shall we Do?

When the Foundations are Destroyed What Shall we Do?

Yesterday Katheryn Ware wrote an article that I think shows the conflict in the world of ideas. The conflict is not just about ethics, but also about the question of the existence of God. From the time of Plato it was believed that “the Good” was the foundation of all ethical principles, that there was some foundation upon which ethics could be founded, even after the enlightenment philosophers like Kant, Bentham, and many others tried to formulate some solid foundation for ethics, even if they did not believe in a theistic God they did believe that there had to be some foundation upon which we could make moral and ethical decision besides personal privy, but this has shown to be a dead end. I believe that Dr. Singer’s ideas will also go to the dust heap of history for the same reason. Dr. Singer is inconsistent in his ethics, on the grounds of a universe without a God, and a world that works on a theory of evolution that is based on Metaphysical Naturalism, framed in Carl Sagan’s oft quoted phrase, “The universe is all there has been, is, or ever will be.”
The Nietzschean critique of ethics shows that with the death of God a foundation for moral thought is groundless and only tools for the weak to reign in the strong. This clearly makes a mockery out of any attempt to create an “atheistic ethic.” Take for example Singer’s belief that we should protect animals from cruelty. I find cruelty to animals to be wrong on my theistic assumptions, but why pray tell; ought I care about manatees in Florida, or endangered lowland gorillas? If Evolutionary Naturalism is true, then I am living according to the principles set down by Natural selection. I am in a battle to survive, by having as many children as I can, and to do that I must eat, and worry about my own survival. Naturalism brings us to a completely egoistic “ethic”, which is just as random as the natural selection that has brought me into existence. For all of the mental gymnastics Dr. Singer tries to pull off he cannot escape the fact that he cannot answer the ought ness or the feeling of duty that we have toward a dying person, or even giving money to the poor. This is the crux of the matter with out a eternal transcendental foundation, or a “thou shall,” for ethical thought we should be consistent and embrace a philosophy of nihilism, and allow people to live as they please, whether that be all out indulgence or a life of self deprecation, because there is truly no “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “evil” because they are only constructs that the weak create so the strong cannot overpower them.
Singer is a weak ivory tower intellectual who wants to save the animals, but kill a mentally handicapped human being. I do not see why, on his philosophical assumptions, we should give a damn about either! I say kill them both if it furthers our ends in life. Of course you could take a pragmatic path that says that you should be ethical, because it is nice to others, and it maintains order in society, but then all you have done is placed ethics in a new God, just like a believer in theism does, which for the true nihilist is really no reason at all. When the universe is reduced down to a hopeless, cold, uncaring, irrational thing, then that is exactly what the inhabitants of it are. So with all do respect to Dr. Singer I do not think he has given me a reason to be horrified at the injustices of men toward animals.
Singer, in his attempt to rise above moral confusion replacing all traditional moral categories with his own is doing nothing other than falling into Nietzsche’s trap. Singer is a weak ivory tower intellectual who is trying to restrain the “Overman” of Nietzsche, which was the one who exerted his power over others, because he could. Nietzsche argued that humans tried to restrain the “Overman” for the sake of other weak human beings, Singer has only replaced weak humans with weak animals, which is just as absurd under the thought categories of atheism and Metaphysical naturalism.

Corporal Punishment and Micah 1

The Importance of Retributive Justice!
Is Retributive Justice wrong? I would argue that it is not, and would make the point that Genesis clearly allows for the death penalty. The death penalty is based on the bible's teachings on the Sanctitity of human life! One only has to look at the book of Genesis to have this case laid out before them in stark colors. Genesis says:

"From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative.

9:6 “Whoever sheds human blood,

by other humans

must his blood be shed;

for in God’s image

God has made humankind.”

Here in this passage the Noahic Covenant has been established. The point to make here is that the Noahic covenant was never abolished(not really a good word), like the Mosaic law. The sole reason given for the justification to take murder's life is the fact that he/she has shed the innocent blood of a person, that is created in God's image. In other words to kill a human being is to dishonor God's own image, which if anything should be punishable by death it should certainly be an affront to God's own being.



Blake


9:01 PM - add eprops - add comments - email it


micah 1
Thoughts on Micah
My comments are in brackets [].

1 The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
2 Hear, O peoples, all of you,
listen, O earth and all who are in it,
that the Sovereign LORD may witness against you,
the Lord from his holy temple.

[ It is easily noticed that in this passage Micah is using the prophetic Divine Law suit form of speech. Notice here as in the book of Deuternonomy that God calls the people to "hear" and then he calls on the whole earth to listen so that the Lord may bring a witness against this people. If Deuteronomy is read carefully it is in the form of a Suzerean law suit. The biblical form calls upon the earth, the stars, etc. as witnesses if the people fall into apostasy. Essentially, Micah is identifying the community of Israel as covenant breakers.]

Judgment Against Samaria and Jerusalem

3 Look! The LORD is coming from his dwelling place;
he comes down and treads the high places of the earth.
4 The mountains melt beneath him
and the valleys split apart,
like wax before the fire,
like water rushing down a slope.

[The metaphorical language in this passage serves to magnify the Lord's power and glory. As N.T. Wright and many other writers note this language is not meant to be taken in a literal fashion, but it is meant to be taken in a "concrete" fashion. Meaning that it is a symbolic way of describing real events. In this case the events are an invading army coming to punish or "plow" the people of God for their sins.]

5 All this is because of Jacob's transgression,
because of the sins of the house of Israel.
What is Jacob's transgression?
Is it not Samaria?
What is Judah's high place?
Is it not Jerusalem?
[This passage is astonishing in its denunciation upon the Jerusalem cult, and the cult in Samaria. Why is the Lord bringing judgment upon the people? Because of their violation of the covenant. Did not God lay down the blessings and cursings of violating his covenant in the book of Deuteronomy? In the Old Testament the "high places" where were people would go worship pagan fertility gods like Asherah and Baal. What is astonishing is that God says that he will punish Israel for Samaria, which is understandable because Samaria was set up as a opposite place of worship outside of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. But for Micah to call out the Jerusalem establishment, where God was said to dwell in His Temple was about as revolutionary as anything imaginable ot the ancient mind. God calls his own dwelling place, a high place that needs to be broken down. This should make us remember in our own churches, that we can put something else above God, and not even realize it. The Israelites problem was the worship of other gods, but the problem with the modern world is not so much "other gods" in the explicit sesne, but in the more insidius implicit sense. Our idols may take the form of our abstract concepts and philosophies, that we feel so certain about. One thing is certain though a God who is infinite, must be beyond our thought at least to a degree. The moment we think we have him pinned down is the moment we should start rethinking things. ]

6 "Therefore I will make Samaria a heap of rubble,
a place for planting vineyards.
I will pour her stones into the valley
and lay bare her foundations.

7 All her idols will be broken to pieces;
all her temple gifts will be burned with fire;
I will destroy all her images.
Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes,
as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used."
[I am not sure if Jerusalem should be implicated in verses 6 and 7 since Jerusalem is not mentioned, only Samaria. Then again maybe Samaria is an archetype for Micah of universal false worship. If this is the case then God is lashing out at both Jerualem and Samaria for it idolotry. The reference to destroying the city and making it a heap of rubble where vineyards grow, is pointing to the fact that when God brings his destruction in history it will be absolutely traumatic, and final. In classic Old and New Testament form, God speaks of himself with jealousy calling Israel a prostitute who has sold her self out to the other nations. How many times in our own lives as the "New Israel" subject to whoring ourselves out to other gods! And the multiple ways in which we can do this is enough to make your head spin. Just think about it we can do this in our relationships, with our church, with famous preachers, with ideas, with work, anything that is conceivable can become an idol that God detests.]

I will finish the rest of chapter 1 when I have time.
Blake