Evidence for God from Science

TWO KINDS OF MORALITIES, MARXIST VERSUS THEOLOGICAL

I am reading interesting comments about communist morality, in a book devoted to Judaism, published in 1975. The authors are two rabbis, D. Prager and J. Telushkin. A Christian theologian would probably make similar observations.

Marxists and theologians, they write, "are both motivated by the desire to perfect the world and establish a utopia on earth. ... Both promote all-encompassing worldviews. But they diametrically oppose one another in almost every other way." The authors remind us that communists rejected "all morality derived from nonhuman [i.e. God] and nonclass concepts," as stated in 1920 by Lenin. ... "Marxist morality sanctions any act so long as that act was committed in the interest of [economic and political] class struggle." Nothing that Stalin, and Mao did was immoral, according to such ideology.

Theologians, on the other hand, hold "that morality transcends economic, national, and individual interests." God's commandments are objective rather than subjective. Evil human acts are condemned, no matter what economic or political gains are derived from them. That is the essential difference. Greed in human nature, they emphasize, "may have helped create capitalism, but capitalism did not create greed in human nature."

Theologians also deplore social injustice. But they reject brutal proletarian revolutions because "the roots of evil and injustice lie not in economics or society but in man himself." This has to do with the concept of freedom. "For Marxism, which conceives of the world in materialist terms, bondage is defined solely as servitude to external sources such as slave owners, capitalist bosses, or other forms of material inequality. Freedom is liberation from such servitude." People, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels, must get rid of economic chains binding them. Then they will automatically cease to be evil.

Theologians, on the other hand, see two kinds of liberation, from external and from internal bonds. "Once liberation from external servitude takes place, one must then liberate oneself from internal domination, the domination of one's life by passions, needs, irrationality and wants." The conflict between theologians and Marxists "is not economic, it is moral." Proletarian dictatorship was practiced in several countries; the results show that "when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as crual as their predecessors."

Philosophical differences about morality, among different kinds of theologians, are minimal, as far as I know. But attempts to impose morality are not very successful. Why is it so? What can be done to improve the situation, to bring our reality a little closer to "utopia" dreams?

Ludwik

The issue isn't morality because everyone ( baring the rare execptions like sociopaths or psychopaths) has a sense of right and wrong, a sense of "not fair, a sense of "what you are doing to me is not correct".
The issue is and always has been when one group/person wants to do A and sees no harm in doing A and the other group/person disagrees.
Shades of morality of you will.

Definitely sounds like Prager to me! I knew he was a practicing Jew. I did not know he was a rabbi. He has a talk show I listen to on a very regular basis. I agree with a lot of his politics, but I like him in particular because he approaches political issues from a distinctly moral perspective--not in an Alan Hunt "nor right vs. left but right vs. wrong" kind of way. There's a place for that. I mean he is, at bottom, a moralist. He has a deeply rooted philosophical and theological understanding of morality, and his analysis of leftism tends to be what you are getting in that book. He has two hours during the week I especially love: the happiness hour and the ultimate issues hour. He also has a male/female hour I highly recommend.

Anyway, just Google Dennis Prager. He's on every weekday from 12:00-3:00pm EST. You can get his show for free on the internet.

I'm reminded of Dostoevksi here. It's been several years, but I seem to remember some rather scorching words that were obvious indictments of Marx and Nietsche in Crime and Punishment. More to the point, though -- one of my takeaways from The Brothers Karamazov was that this is a fallen place filled with fallen creatures, and it would be folly to insist on perfect justice in this world (before Christ's return); indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

As much as I like Prager, I don't think I'd agree with his assertion that theologians are "motivated by the desire to perfect the world and establish a utopia on earth." Perhaps this is true of theologians of some religions. With regard to Christian theologians, though, I tend to think if earthly utopian dreamers only among liberal theologians (e.g. liberation theology); among more conservative theologians, although there is a push to serve those least among us, there seems to be an acknowledgment that man has a sinful nature and cannot create paradise on earth.

Jac, did you happen to catch Prager's interview with Robert P. George a couple of weeks ago? Or perhaps you read George's recent interview with National Review? I'm pretty sure George is a Thomist, so I'm curious as to what you might have thought. Sorry to hijack the thread...

...as stated in 1920 by Lenin. ... "Marxist morality sanctions any act so long as that act was committed in the interest of [economic and political] class struggle." Nothing that Stalin, and Mao did was immoral, according to such ideology...

Notice the stupidity involved in attaining a Marxist utopia = Nothing that Marxist do is immoral in the attainment - yet - when does the class struggle ever really end? How can it?

"For Marxism, which conceives of the world in materialist terms, bondage is defined solely as servitude to external sources such as slave owners, capitalist bosses, or other forms of material inequality. Freedom is liberation from such servitude." People, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels, must get rid of economic chains binding them. Then they will automatically cease to be evil.

Again, this is impossible because of the class struggle Marxism creates...

Proverbs 16:27-30 from the NKJV: An ungodly man digs up evil, And it is on his lips like a burning fire 28 A perverse man sows strife, And a whisperer separates the best of friends. 29 A violent man entices his neighbor, And leads him in a way that is not good. 30 He winks his eye to devise perverse things; He purses his lips and brings about evil.

The conflict between theologians and Marxists "is not economic, it is moral." Proletarian dictatorship was practiced in several countries; the results show that "when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as cruel as their predecessors."

You proved my point -When does the class struggle ever really end? How can it?

Forsake Marxism...

There is no social justice in it, nor can than ever be. It seeks to exploit people to remain in total power. It is all about power - not social justice - using that term gives moral incentive for attaining usage of tyrannical central power of a few over many....

Lord Acton in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
-
-
-

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

tawny wrote:

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

You are 11 posts in here on the message boards, but let me tell you....you have by far proven to me you are the smartest person in the shortest amount of posts since I've been regularly been posting here roughly 2-3 years ago.

tawny wrote:

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

That is a bit of a tricky slope because the skeptic will answer with:
Then God permitted the death of all those other people? why?

PaulSacramento wrote: That is a bit of a tricky slope because the skeptic will answer with:
Then God permitted the death of all those other people? why?

Its not a tricky slope.

The Christian should answer that as follows:

"The existence of death and suffering is surely undeniable, but in what sense does that fact contradict the existence of God or his his holiness? You might one day have children fully knowing that your child will suffer and eventually physically die. Does such a fact prove anything about your questionable existence or morality? "

The answer is a firm amd clear NO, it does not. By logic and by evidence.

PaulSacramento wrote:

tawny wrote:

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

That is a bit of a tricky slope because the skeptic will answer with:
Then God permitted the death of all those other people? why?

Yes, that is a natural question for someone without faith. If there is a God, why does He let ANYTHING bad happen? When I think of this, I think of being a parent and how sometimes I allow my kids to experience the consequences of their actions and other times I don't, but I would NEVER stand by and let them get hit by a car, or let somebody hurt them. So, why does God seemingly do this? I do not know the answer. For me, I am a Christian, so I have faith that God IS in control, that is He is working all things together for my good and my children's good. Someone without faith would not be able to believe that.

Yes, that is a natural question for someone without faith. If there is a God, why does He let ANYTHING bad happen? When I think of this, I think of being a parent and how sometimes I allow my kids to experience the consequences of their actions and other times I don't, but I would NEVER stand by and let them get hit by a car, or let somebody hurt them. So, why does God seemingly do this? I do not know the answer. For me, I am a Christian, so I have faith that God IS in control, that is He is working all things together for my good and my children's good. Someone without faith would not be able to believe that.

Because we are his children and he is letting us understand we make life miserable by ruling our own lives. And for God to be just, we have to go through all types of self rule to prove to ourselves we are incapable of good life for ourselves and others without God. But loving as He is, he gives us freedom from the perversion of humanity by satan if we accept his covenant through Jesus Christ if we but bend a knee and accept direction from our maker.

There are two main types of morality, personalized morality and socialized morality. Personalized morality is the one that the individual will set for himself, and is basically between the person and God, based on the Ten Commandments. Socialized morality is established by society and refers to certain actions taken by the group which are frowned upon by God, including opression of others.

tawny wrote:

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

Perhaps God just is, and the concept of good and evil is strictly a human concept?

stuartcr wrote:

tawny wrote:

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

Perhaps God just is, and the concept of good and evil is strictly a human concept?

Why, if it is a human Concetta, would it exist at all then?

PaulSacramento wrote:

stuartcr wrote:

tawny wrote:

The Protector wrote: indeed, that we spend so much time wringing our hands asking why there is evil if God exists, when the truly baffling question is why there is good if He does not.

I am no theologian, but just from a simple Christian's point of view, this is what I tell people when we discuss evil. If there were no God, there would be no good, so the existence of good tells me that God exists. For instance, when some human goes bonkers and kills a bunch of people, I wholeheartedly agree that it is awful, but then I wonder, why doesn't this happen all the time? There must be something, someone, preventing it. It makes perfect sense to me, but most people can't seem to grasp this.

Perhaps God just is, and the concept of good and evil is strictly a human concept?

Why, if it is a human Concetta, would it exist at all then?

I was all excited that I was going to learn a new word today. Then I googled "Concetta", and found no definition. Is it a Canadian idiom?