The Double-Edged Sword of Social Influence

For all the talk about individuality, individual freedom, and individual capacity, the inescapable conclusion that the observant mind reaches is that individuals are not nearly so independent as they like to believe they are. Humans are, unarguably, social creatures who are profoundly impacted by the people they associate with. While some people are more malleable than others, and one gender is more prone to be adaptable than the other, the simple truth remains, that all of us are both profoundly and directly impacted by the people that we associate with, whose ideas we, to some extent, internalize.

On the micro level, this is why there is much wisdom in choosing who one associates with. Often you will find yourself adopting similar mannerisms, verbal expressions, and interests as those you spend much time with. The morality and behaviors of those in your social groups affect your own personal values. You become more like those that you spend time with. This is true not only of those that you spend time with in person, but also of those people that you indirectly associate with by reading their writings and contemplating their opinions. In the Scripture it is written that, "He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm." (Prov. 13:20) Similarly it is written, "Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." (1 Cor. 15:33) For this reason, it is important to be vigilant and highly-aware of how the people in your life are impacting you. Apart from having positive peer pressure and people who are good role models to follow, it is extremely challenging to cultivate and maintain Godly morals and a healthy view on life. With a positive social circle, it becomes easy and natural to improve and whole-heartedly pursue personal growth. With a negative social circle, it becomes quite easy to fall into similar ways of acting and poor ways of perceiving life.

On the macro level, when considering a society as a whole, individuals do not have as much impact over their destinies as they wish. Societal values and paradigms, to a certain extent, directly impact one's own way of thinking. The views and values of a society, as conveyed through media, and perpetuated by those who buy into the prevailing paradigms, affect everyone in a society. Not only is the moral and cultural baseline established as the societal mean, but even the outliers are affected by aggregate social values. Churches are not isolated from the cultural forces at work within a society. Academic institutions are not free from the philosophical presuppositions of its faculty and students. Political institutions are not untainted by the private morality of politicians. Large corporate entities are not unaffected by the vices of those who work for them and direct their corporate actions. And so, due to the fundamentally interconnected nature of a society, the direction a nation is headed is, for the most part, a completely self-reinforcing one. Positive values and paradigms result in the continual betterment of both a society as a whole, and the many parts of a society, including individuals. Harmful values and paradigms that are broadly held set in motion a downward spiral that cannot be held back by a few lone outliers. A society stands or falls together. Individuals stand or fall based on the society that they are part of.

The power of social influence, both on the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels, is something that should never be underestimated or neglected. The interconnectedness and self-reinforcing nature of social relationships yields a powerful force that can be used for much good or can cause great evil. It is for this reason that God primarily deals with groups of people corporately, rather than with people as individuals. His covenant with the nation of Israel is one that was with the entire nation of Israel, and not simply with the individuals who comprise the nation of Israel. They stood or fell together. God either blessed the whole nation, or cursed and brought destruction upon the whole nation. In the same way, as America has rejected God, Christian morality, and righteous living, so our nation is in a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Unless there is a societal repentence and return to the foundational principles upon which America was founded, there is no hope for our nation. Where once the power of social influence was used for good, and established a nation that was obedient to God, now the power of social influence hastens our ruin.

If, as individuals, we wish to have any impact on those in our social circles and our society as a whole, we must recognize the power of social influence. We must be shrewd and circumspect in recognizing how social influence impacts us. We must establish small groups and communities that value the right things and live righteously. There must be firm consequences for those who hold wrong views or engage in wrong behaviors. Men, especially, must seek to be godly and reponsible leaders within their families and social circles. Tolerance and easy forgiveness must be eschewed, and virtue firmly pursued, else there is no hope. As philosopher Edmund Burke insightfully stated, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The beautiful counterpoint to that statement is, when good men boldly take action to pursue righteousness and exhort others to do the same, social change becomes possible. Yet, it is a task requiring much strength and perseverence. To reverse the tide requires no less than a miracle. The momentum presently carries our society at a breakneck pace towards the brink of destruction.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Morality

Previously, in my introduction to The Rational Case for Christianity, I established the criteria that we will use to determine if Christianity is a true and practically viable worldview. For it to be valid, it must be able to account for any aspect of reality or life and leave no contradictions. In the realm of morality, we are confronted with philosophical questions regarding the existence and nature of good and evil. These questions have been pondered for centuries, and are inescapably critical in considering human existence and human interactions. While morality is a fairly broad subject, it is certainly a narrower field than epistemology or metaphysics. As such, it is not especially hard to look at the basic questions and the various possible answers to each. We will examine the basic questions of morality and ascertain which answers are the most rational, logical and consistent with our experience of reality.

The first question we must ask concerning morality is whether good and evil actually exist. At this point, we will not concern ourselves with what is meant by "good" and "evil," only with whether they, by any definition, exist. There are two possible answers to this question:

1 - Good and evil do not truly exist
2 - Good and evil do truly exist

In considering the first answer, we find that such an answer, while theoretically possible, is not consistent with the human experience of the reality. Every human being, from time immemorium, has always firmly believed that certain things are reasonable courses of action and that there are also evils to be opposed, decryed or resisted. Whether expressed through conventional expressions of morality such as laws and social contracts against murder and thievery, whether expressed as mourning over natural evils, such as disasters which exact their toll on human life, or whether expressed in terms of values, all people in all times have firmly believed that certain things are good and certain things or actions are evil. Even philosophers who border on denying the existence of evil, such as Nietzsche, firmly advocate certain things as desirable and oppose certain things (in Nietzsche's case, conventional morality) as evil and restrictive. So long as it is agreed that certain actions and states of being are desirable and other actions or states of being are undesirable, there is universal human consensus that good and evil, in some form, are not non-existent.

A possible objection to this might arise from those who claim, on the basis of metaphysics, that both good and evil are illusory--they are false constructs. There are several major worldviews which might proffer such as answer. Materialism, denying the existence of all thing non-physical, would suggest that there is only an "is" and no "ought." Since the natural world is silent on matters such as murder, lying, adultery and death, it might be reasoned that good and evil don't truly exist, except as empty terms to express human approval. Pantheistic religions offer the answer that all diversity is ultimately illusory. Their conception of good and evil is well depicted by the symbol of the yin-yang, which represents the truth that ultimately good and evil are just different aspect of the the same thing, and that there is no real difference between the two. For that reason, enlightened ones in such religions seek to equally avoid both good and evil, in order to achieve zero karma. While these might seem to be pertinent objections, it yet remains that from time immemorium, even those who claim that good and evil don't exist live their lives as if they do. They still proclaim certain actions and states as desirable and others as undesirable. Clearly, those who deny the existence of good and evil are in denial of their own thoughts and feelings on the matter. As such, any worldview that denies the existence of good and evil is practically incompatible with human experience. Since these sorts of answers deny a clear and obvious aspect of reality, they are irrational.

The second answer to our question, that good and evil, in some form, do exist, is the only rational, logical answer that is consistent with the human experience of reality. As such, the next moral question we must address is, what form do good and evil take? There are two possible categories of answers to such a question:

1 - Good and evil are subjectively defined
2 - Good and evil are objectively defined

Answer number 1 is the general consensus of our day. Modern humanistic morality espouses the idea that morals are a function of social groups. According to the humanistic myths, morals emerged as groups of people began to form, and agreements were reached concerning what behaviors were socially acceptable and which were not. The social construct theory of morality essentially postulates that whatever actions are viewed as socially unacceptable by a societal majority are labeled as "wrong" or "evil," and whatever actions are socially approved and endorsed are labeled as "right" or "good." While this approach does clearly delineate and define morals, it also serves to trivialize them. If morals are subjectively defined, then they only represent the opinions of those who define them. The social construct theory takes a democratic approach to defining morality. Nietzsche would advocate a meritocratic approach to defining morality, wherein the enlightened philosophers are established as the societal lawgivers who create their own values and then impose such restrictions upon the dependent masses. There are numerous other arrangements for defining morality, but they all share the same intrinsic weakness.

With any form of subjectively morality, right and wrong become trivialized and bear no more significance than culinary preferences. I will explain. When good and evil are defined by any person or group of people, it is their moral motions that become the overriding force. Yet, what exactly is a moral motion? It is nothing more than a personal preference for certain actions, things and states of affairs and against other acctions, things and states of affairs. As such, when it is said that murder is "wrong," nothing more is meant than the person or group defining morality has a distaste for murder. If the declaration that murder is "wrong" means that murder is merely distasteful to a person or group, then it is akin to a person's or group's taste for broccoli or asparagus. If moral motions are merely personal preferences, then the declaration that stealing is evil carries equal weight to the declaration that one strongly dislikes garlic. As human experience quite easily shows, people have widely divergent tastes in food. Some people enjoy foods which others loathe. Some people have no strong feelings about any sort of dish or herb. Some people love garlic, others tolerate it and still others won't come within a mile of it. Now, if some people enjoy garlic, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a priviliege? Similarly, if there are a number of people who especially enjoy adultery or stealing, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a pleasure? This is the weakness of any form of subjective morality: unless a certain moral motion is universally held, the very definitions of good and evil are unreasonably restrictive and oppressive. Even a cursory glance at humanity will instantly reveal that no moral motion or culinary preference is universally held.

The other major problem with subjective morality is that it is inconsistent with the human existence. Any person who truly subscribes to subjective morality must willfully conform to the prevailing code of morality as established by the defining person or group. As such, it is unreasonable to cast any sort of moral judgment that opposes the socially-established morality or to cast a moral judgment on a group that conforms to a different code of morality. If morality is subjectively defined, then it stands that no action is objectively right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of any given action is solely subject to the localized code of ethics that governs it. This means that so long as the moral authority of a social group or nation endorses certain actions, they must be considered moral by all people at all times as morally good. If Hitler's Germany declares the Jews to be evil and endorses killing Jews, then so long as morals are subjectively defined, we in modern America have no place to declare that the Holocaust was wrong or evil. If an action is subjectively good within its own moral context, then given that fact that there is no objective moral standards, there is no room for anyone to cast a judgment of their own. To do so is akin to declaring to the garlic-lover, "Because I dislike garlic, your love for garlic is evil and reprehensible!" Such a statement is ridiculous and presumptious!

It is this very sentiment that renders subjective morality inconsistent with human existence. Each person firmly believes that certain actions and states of being are undesirable, not only for himself, but for all others. We truly feel that genocide is something which is evil and unconscionable, regardless of who endorses mass killings. We truly believe that stealing is objectively wrong, even if we claim that morals are subjectively defined. The moral motions of each person are so strong that no person will accept subjective morality, unless they themselves are in the defining group and are free to inflict their will upon others. Subjective morality declares that each person's taste in actions is equally valid (although the moral authority's opinion on the matter is a little more equal than everyone else's), and this contradicts every moral fiber of a person's being. Subjective morality declares that people's actions are of no more import than steamed brussel sprouts, while human beings strongly believe that actions are not trivial and do matter very much. It is quite clear, then, that no person truly believes in subjective morality. This answer is one that, while logical, is utterly unlivable and inconsistent with the day to day living of any human being, living or dead.

Answer number 2, by necessity, is the only answer that establishes any real basis for human morality, and it is the only one that can be consistent with human living. For good and evil to exist and have any real meaning or practical applicability, morality must be objectively defined. Morality must be something that is transcendent and universal, else it lacks any strength or usefulness of any sort. If we say that murder is evil, we must mean that it is objectively wrong for all people, at all times, in all places, else we are saying nothing at all. If we say that adultery is evil, we must mean that it is a objectively reprehensible action, regardless of one's ability to avoid getting caught, one's social status or one's present life circumstances. Morality must be objective to be a meaningful concept. If it is anything less then objective, then morality is just a semantic game, lacking any real authority or practical application. The only logical, rational conclusion that can be reached is that humans have real moral motions and feelings because good and evil exist and are objectively defined.

Given that good and evil exist, by some definition, and that good and evil must be objectively defined to be concepts of any merit or usefulness, this leads us to our third question. By what standard or standards are good and evil objectively defined?

1. Good and evil are defined by the universe itself
2. Good and evil are self-defined
3. Good and evil are defined by a transcendent, infinite, personal being

Answer number 1, while an interesting conjecture, leaves us with a poor and utterly incomplete definition of both good and evil. Some may suggest that morals can be derived from the physical universe and its attributes alone. Many people who subscribe to empirical philosophies believe that through a thorough and proper study of our physical universe and material existence humans can arrive at a solid set of moral precepts which set appropriate limits on human behavior. Contention with this point of view clearly arises in modern philosophy. Immanuel Kant clearly illustrated the problem with deriving morals from nature itself by revealing the simple truth that one can never derive an "ought" from an "is". More simply put, while observations of nature can reveal a good number of things about a given state of affairs, one can find no judgments made by nature concerning such a state. When a mouse is eaten by a quick and cunning cat, nature says no more than that the cat has eaten the mouse and that the mouse is now dead. It says nothing about whether it is good that the mouse has been eaten or whether it is good that the cat has had a satisfying supper. The universe is perfectly silent over whether lying, murder, deception, torture, stealing, fornication, or rape are desirable or undesirable actions. As such, nature is an insufficient basis for objective morality. Nature is completely silent concerning all moral issues.

Answer number 2, if true, would lead to moral standards that are incommunicable. Since communication of any sort necessitates a comminucator, good and evil as mere concepts, cannot be both self-defined and communicable. As such, while there is the hypothetical possibility that trascendent concepts of good and evil exist independently of all else (including any divine beings), such self-defined concepts would also be functionally useless, given that no beings would know the definitions of good and evil. Additionally, there is the epistemic problem of any non-infinite independent concept. For any concept or piece of knowledge to be reliable or intelligible, it is necessary for it to be explained by a infinite reference point. If good and evil exist as independent and self-defined concepts, then they do not exist within the framework of an infinite reference point, and since the concepts of morality are implicitly non-infinite themselves, there is no possible way to understand such concepts, since they are floating conceptions without any means of being explained. In my next essay on epistemology, I will explain this concept in fuller detail. As a small example of this concept, how does one know what is meant when I say "The sky is blue," unless there is a reference point which explains what is meant by the words, "the," "sky," "is," and "blue." Without the higher concept of the English language and common linguistic definitions, there is no way to determine what is meant by a certain array of colored dots on a screen or printed ink blots on a page. In a similar way, without a infinite concept to explain what is meant by good and evil, even if they are self-existent concepts, they bear no more significance or meaning that a cacophony of sounds, a jumble of letters or a smattering of random colors. This answer, while theoretically possible, would means that morality is unintelligible and incommunicable. Since such concepts are incompatible with practical living and human existence, it is clear that such an answer is a wholly unsatisfactory one, even neglecting the fact that there is an utter absence of evidence in support of it.

Answer number 3, then is the only possible answer which leaves us with a foundation upon which morals exist objectively, are intelligible, and bear real moral meaning. It is necessary not merely that good and evil truly exist, but that they have objective meaning in the light of an infinite point of reference and that they are communicable. There are a few religions that postulate the existence of a transcendent, infinite, personal being who sets the moral standards for human behavior--namely those of the Abrahamic religions. There is little need to going into much detail on the various moral differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, since our findings in the realms of metaphysics preclude Islam from being a sufficient explanation, even if it provides a satisying moral foundation (which it doesn't), and because Judaic and Christian morality are essentially identical.

Christianity, unlike any other worldview, provides a full and clear disclosure on morality. It testifies that the real God who exists has ordained certain limits on human behavior, which are not merely suggestions, but are real moral laws. It speaks to the nature of humans, who are real, free-willed moral agents, capable of both great good and horrific evils. The Bible very specifically spells out moral laws for humans, including an organizational hierarchy of which moral laws are most important and which are less important. God transparently delineates the consequences for failing to abide by His moral precepts. In the doctrine of Original Sin, a clear picture of the present moral state of mankind is painted for us: though humans were created sinless in the image of God, as a species we have chosen to violate God's real moral laws and therefore bear real moral guilt before the God who exists and who judges all human actions. Because of the fall of man, every human being is born into the world with a sinful nature, which is, a propensity to choose evil and to rejects God's ways and God's truth. Christianity also sets forth a solution to the moral dilemma of man in the propitiary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. From start to finish, Christianity explains why all people have strong moral sentiments, and testifies that morals are not merely social constructions, personal preferences or sociological averages, but are a reflection of God's divine precepts, written on the hearts of every living person and communication through the Holy Bible.

On such a basis alone is it possible to declare that certain actions are righteous and other actions are evil. Apart from the existence of the objective morality preached by Christianity, it is impossible to decry the murder of innocents, the exploitation of the weak, the evils of corruption, the injustices of tyranny or the wickedness of pride. If man's moral motions are merely random remnants of genetic mutations, then they are meaningless illusions meant to muddle our minds. If morals are relative and differ from individual to individual, then there is no adequate basis for judging human action or legislating codes of ethics. The universal human belief in desirable and undesirable states of being is not simply the product of accidental neural collisions in the synapses of our brains--instead, it is the reflection of the transcendent truth of the existence of real moral standards as created and communicated by God. Only if good and evil truly exist and are objectively defined, universal, knowable concepts does the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder," have any power or authority. If it is merely the preference of a few odd conglomerations of atoms, then it is a relative truth which doesn't actually apply to any atoms at all. But, if "Thou shalt not murder" is the moral precept of an infinite God, then it is powerful and profound.

Summary
As stated in my introductory essay, any worldview that declares to be the truth must perfectly match all the evidence of reality. The existence of the moral motions universally felt by humans is a part of reality that must be explained. The Eastern religions ultimately deny the reality of morality, because the deny the reality of human life. Denial of plain truths is irrational. Similarly, attempts to deny the existence of morals contradict everything that is known about human experience. Alternately, attempts to explain morals as relative concepts fall on their face, since they are impractical, exceptionally weak and unable to be consistently held. Consequently, the only logical, rational explanation for the moral motions universally held by human beings is that there truly exist both good and evil, as defined by an objective standard. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the only worldview that offers an objective and communicable basis for morality, as it is the only worldview that attests to an infinite-personal being that exists, is intrinsically relational, speaks truly, and has established a specific set of moral precepts which are binding and authoritative. All other worldviews either deny the validity of the human conceptions of good and evil or contradict the obvious experience of every living person. As such, the only logical, rational conclusion to reach, concerning morality, is that Christianity has the best explanation for the moral motions of humans, since it fully explains the reason for the existence of morals, the objective moral standards that exist, and man's moral dilemma, while simultaneously contradicting none of the evidence of reality.

Christianity and Moral Authority

The strength of an appeal to moral authority (as with any other appeal to authority) lies in the validity of the claims of the authority. Since a logical argument is as strong it is presuppositions, an appeal to authority is as strong as the authority is.

The moral authority of a person or organization does depend on their foundational morality. In the case of the Church or Christians, their moral authority is not intrinsic and self-derived, but is derived from God’s moral authority.

The Christian presuppositions then are:
1. The God declared by Christianity exists
2. God has communicated to humanity truly

The conclusion is:
3. All humans are morally bound to follow God’s mandates

Concerning any particular moral claim made by an individual or organization, the only real question is: “Is this person or organization correctly declaring what God has spoken?” If such an entity correctly declares God’s truth, then their appeal to moral authority is valid. If such an entity perverts, denies, confuses or misrepresents God’s position, then their appeal to authority is invalid.

Christianity itself does encourage questioning what is taught and going to the source (the Bible) rather than blindly accepting the teachings of pastors, priests and preachers. Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The principle expressed is that while whatever God says is definitely true, it is crucial to ensure that no entity is misrepresenting God’s position on a matter.

Projections of an Immoral Cynic

Today, Talleyrand posted a rather harsh response to a Catholic article on men and marriage. While I thoroughly support dismantling the pretty lies foisted upon us by various blind and agenda-driven organizations and individuals, when I read Talleyrand's response, I couldn't help but be struck by the shocking amount of logical fallcies and reactiveness in his post. While I am not a strong supporter of the Catholic church (for various reasons), I do highly value the fact that the Catholic Church has a noble vision for what marriage should be, and actively advocates it. In this particular instance, I think that the article in question is quite a reasonable one. Let's break down Talleyrand's response to it and see whether his criticisms are valid, or whether they are merely projections of a cynic.

I bring this up because of the Catholic’s church “new” (read conservative) stance it is starting to take. I headed over to read one of the blogs that supposedly represents this sea change in the catholic church and I found this article on men and marriage. (Hat tip: Butterfly Squash)

I have said it before, and I will say it again, conservatives, liberals, and feminists are no friends of men because they refuse to accept the nature of women.

It may or may not be true that conservatives, liberals, and feminists refuse to accept the nature of women. However, in this particular case, such a complaint is unrelated to the article in question, which specifically states: "It is true that women have a role in all these matters. But this article is directed to men." Given that the article in question says nothing at all about the nature of women, this critism has zero applicability to the present article.

Lets get to dissecting the article.

Among the measures of mature manhood that God Himself sets forth is faithful, stable, committed marriage. After observing, It is not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18) God says ….A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh. Thus God indicates an essential description of manhood. This is what a MAN does.

Right from the get go we have shaming language. (Code Green: Peter Pan, Code Lavender: Masculinity). They posit the convenient interpretation of scripture that to be fully a man, you must get married.

Shaming language? Perhaps my reading comprehension is sadly deficient, but nowhere in that excerpt do I see any shaming occuring. Nowhere is Charles Pope saying that marriage is the only criteria for being fully a man--hence his use of the word "among." He is sharing his vision, based on Scripture, that marriage is a good thing, and that a mature, stable, committed marriage does indicate maturity in a man.

However, the advocation of a certain course of action cannot be accurately conflated with disparaging the abdication of such a recourse. That the author advocates marriage does not mean that he is shaming those who don't choose to get married. This is a blatant misreading or misinterpretation of the author's words.

The article’s next point is:

A mature man recognizes that it is not good, not healthy, for him to remain alone and unattached.

Right back to the shaming language. I am almost embarrassed for them. They can’t move on, they can’t even come up with new tactics, just the same old, same old. (Code White: Mental health). The writer does not say how it is unhealthy for the man to do this. He makes no explanation for the health benefits for marriage at all.

The writer isn't presenting any new thoughts or ideas. Instead, he is postulating the age-old Scriptural claim that was quoted in earlier in the article. If God Himself doesn't say how it is unhealthy for a man to be alone, why complain that the writer doesn't? It is sufficient to state the true nature of things. Whether an idea is new or old has no bearing on its veracity.

He fills a very long paragraph with more shaming language: You’re a boy, not a man if you don’t get married. (Code Green . . . again).

Rather than simply take your word for it, let's quote the article itself:

But a man, if he is a man, prepares himself for marriage, or perhaps for the priesthood or religious life. He is serious and steadfast about it. This may mean finishing college and embarking on the beginnings of a career but in the end he will accept the truth that it is not good for him to remain alone and unattached. In the recent past dating was usually understood as a time wherein one searched for a spouse. Today many see it “just for fun.” Marriage is postponed indefinitely. Many young men are not serious in searching for a spouse. Instead they “play the field” and use women sexually. They avoid commitment and drift from relationship to relationship. Some “father” children and still do not accept responsibility. They are not men, they are boys. For boys play. “Boys will be boys,” after all. Sadly many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. But God is clear, a man (rather than a boy) accepts that it is not good for him to remain single and unattached and he respectfully seeks a wife.

Here, there is very specific shaming language. It is not, however, directed at those who choose to abstain from marriage, nor is it directed at those who are "serious and steadfast" in their aims towards marriage or towards a life calling that does not include marriage. It is directed at those who, "use women sexually," "avoid commitment," and "drift from relationship to relationship." It does not surprise me that Talleyrand is bothered by such a moral judgement, since his very lifestyle is exactly the one condemned by the author as boyish and irresponsible. While I much appreciate his honesty and openness about who he is and how he lives, the fact of the matter is that he is one who uses women sexually, avoids commitment and drifts from relationship to relationship. Since we do live in a world of objective morality, which is codified by God Himself, such behavior is destructive and deplorable. The author's shaming language isn't nearly strong enough. Not only is it sad that "many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior," I would say that it is digusting that men allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. Something Talleyrand wrote yesterday resonated deeply with me:

We should be as good fathers to each other. What does a good father do? He teaches his son all the skills that he can, shows him the pitfalls, and he lets his children live their lives, make their own way, make their mistakes and suffer the consequences as well as the triumphs.

If we are to be good fathers to each other, we must not only instruct one another, but also correct one another. Discipline is an inescapable component of proper fatherhood. Scripture says, "For what son is there whom a father does not chasten?" (Hebrews 12:6) If we are to be good fathers to each other, then we must exhort one another to live righteously and pursue virture. We must hold each other accountable for immoral and irresponsible behavior and admonish one another to live justly, to show mercy and to walk humbly before God.

Scripture also insightfully says, "Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8) Indeed, a litmus test of a man's character is how he receives correction. A wise man accepts correction and discipline with humility and graciousness. A fool rages against all sound judgment and hates those who offer reproof, since his pride and self-righteousness conflict with wisdom. One who does not receive correction is a fool.

Next point:

Having properly sought a wife he marries her and leaves his parents to establish a home.

Leaving aside the inherent shaming language of this statement, the paragraph encourages marriage but again it does so with shaming language. It does not go into why this is important, only that you must do it. Because God says so, is a nice way to fall back on moral authority, but since the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie, it needs to do better than that.

Shaming language inherent in this statement? I don't see any. To declare how a mature man of purpose pursues marriage says nothing about those who don't.

Regarding the idea itself, Talleyrand commits the infamous genetic fallacy by rejecting the idea of marriage because "the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie," rather than discussing the importance of marriage on its own merits. For those who accept God's truth, "Because God said so," is sufficient epistemological grounding. God's words are directly mentioned in the verse quoted in the article, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh." The author is quoting Scripture and affirming Scripture directly.

He actually commits his whole life to his wife

Bad Advice. Horrible advice. Advice that will get a man divorced in today’s day and age.

Good advice: A man makes his mission, not his woman, his priority.

To commit to something is not the same as making something the top priority. This is an equivocation fallacy. A man can commit to a woman, or a job, or a lease, or a bet, without it become the center of his world. In fact, in all these instances, it is best for a man to have a higher purpose behind his commitment. Christians are called to be committed to God above all else.

Too many men are passive husbands. Too often it is really the wife who works hardest to preserve the marriage.

O.k., the first part of this is true, but unfortunately not the way this priest believes. The second part is not true, unless you believe constant tests and undermining the man are in fact efforts to preserve the marriage. This guy is so unbelievably dense about human relationships that it makes me weep with frustration. That he is so arrogant to give men advice like this is proof that being a man of orders does not protect you from that deadly of sins: PRIDE.

It is presumption to jump too quickly to finger-pointing in either direction. While there are many women who actively destroy their relationships and marriages through constant tests and undermining, it is also true that too many men are passive husbands. To deny or fail to consider one's own sins or the sins of one's gender is also a clear manifestation of that deadly sin, pride. Not all men are passive, and not all women test and undermine. The author is stressing the importance of manly assertiveness, nothing more. These is nothing dense or arrogant about that.

This is what God says a real man does.

I challenge anyone to find where God uses the term “real man.”

In the Bible, God just uses the term "man." Implied in such a term is the reality of being masculine. The fact that the word "real" has to be appended is a sad reflection of contemporary cultural conditions.

A man doesn’t whine and say, “But what about the wife?!” He just does what he is supposed to do and does not point fingers. He accepts his own responsibility. Yes, there are men who have worked hard to preserve their marriage and the wife still walked away.

Remember this fool was advocating counseling earlier in his missive? Remember that? Think about what counseling is like with someone with the above attitude. You cannot complain, you cannot whine, you cannot point out wrongs, because that is not what a man does. He just sits and takes whatever shit sandwich is fed to him and he likes it.

When someone is making these statements, what he is really saying that as a man you need to take it like a slave.

You have no right to complain, you have no where to air your grievances in the catholic church, because “real” men don’t do this.

The author is advocating responsbility and assertive action. Whining accomplishes nothing, and is pathetic and wimpy. Nowhere is the author saying that a man shouldn't point out wrongs or hold others accountable. Before a man holds others accountable for their actions, he must first take responsibility for his own. Jumping to point fingers or remaining passive while waiting for others to change is a weak way to approach life.



In his reponse to the article, Talleyrand has constantly resorted to using fallacious arguments of numerous sorts. Much of what he protests isn't even being advocated by the author of the article. With a couple of minor exceptions, nearly all of the supposed instances of "shaming language" are nonexistent. In the one instance where the author is actually using shaming language, it is directed at precisely the sort of behavior Talleyrand regularly engages in. His defensiveness and reactionary perspective are thoroughly evident in his response, and are clearly being projected onto the author of the original article, whose intent is entirely different than Talleyrand appears to think it is.

While the author does make a few minor points that I would quibble with, his major points are all quite reasonable:
1. A stable, commited, faithful marriage is the calling of most men
2. A man should pursue his calling (either to marriage or to abstinence) in a serious and steadfast manner
3. Marriage should be pursued according to God's prescribed method, as outlined by Scripture
4. A man takes leadership in his family and manfully addresses any threats to marital unity
5. A man should take responsiblity for his own actions and live righteously, regardless of how others behave

Of course, as someone who lives in a contrary manner to all of these points, it is no surprise that Talleyrand would be driven by his emotions to attack such teaching. Talleyrand views marriage as something that is undesirable, and instead dedicates substantial energy to the hedonic pursuit of promiscuity with numerous women. He neither pursues marriage nor abstinence. He rejects God's authority and Scriptural teaching. He adopts an individualistic approach towards relationships, and is not concerned with marital unity or even with relational unity in romantic affairs at all. He does not live righteously and pursue virtue. Instead, bitterness, unbridled pessism and defensiveness surface in his attempt to dissuade others from valuing marriage, living righteously, and standing against the tide of social decay that unarguably surrounds modern men and women. His critisms of the Catholic article seem more to be a reflection of himself than a proper logical refuttal of any of the major points made. Rather than being a reasoned response, all he offers us is the projections of an immoral cynic.

The Incidence of Cuckoldry in Large Families

Earlier this week, Alkibiades posted a little blog on the probability of cuckoldry. Using a simple mathematical formula, he calculated the odds of a child being born as a result of a woman's sexual infidelity, and created a table with the statistical likelihood of a man being cuckolded, based on number of children in his family. Here is the final probability table:

1 child = 10% or 9:1 odds
2 children = 19% or 4.3:1 odds
3 children = 27% or 2.7:1 odds
4 children = 34% or 1.9:1 odds
5 children = 41% or 1.4:1 odds
6 children = 47% or 1.1: odds
7 children = 52% or 0.9:1 odds
8 children = 57% or 0.7:1 odds
9 children = 61% or 0.6:1 odds
10 children = 65% or 0.5:1 odds

Immediately after looking at his model, something struck me. For any model to be useful, it must bear some correlation to the real world. To the degree that a model correctly describes what is actually seen in the world, the model has validity. If a model makes predictions that widely diverge from what is actually seen, then the model is rejected as being unreliable. Now, from a mathematical standpoint, if one accepts that there is a 10% for a single child to be conceived by another man, given the promiscuity of modern men and women, then the rest of the table is mathematically sound. However, though the model may be mathematically sound, it's simplicity is also its downfall, since it does not align with the evidence of reality.

While I might be willing to trust the reliability of the table up through four children, I believe that there is a significant factor that changes the likelihood of cuckoldry for all families that have more than four children. My first question in looking at this table was to ask whether it matched my experience of the real world. As I have ten siblings, my mother gave birth to eleven children. If you use Alkibiades' model to determine the probability of cuckoldry with eleven children, then you will find that it would predict a 68% chance that one of my siblings was conceived due to sexual infidelity. I know for a fact that this is not the case. Now, it is certainly possible that Alkiabiades' model is correct and that my father is simply a lucky man, who happened to get lucky despite the fact that his outcome was statistically unlikely (32% chance). But, I have an alternate explanation.

My conjecture is that the sorts of women who are likely are be sexually unfaithful are also the sorts of women who are less inclined to have more than four children. The corollary to such a conjecture is that those women who choose to actually have five or more children are more likely to be sexually faithful than those who have four or fewer. I have a couple major reasons for this conjecture. Based on my anecdotal experiences, I have noticed that large families (5+ children) both tend to be more religiously devout and tend to be much more likely to homeschool than smaller families. This twofold difference leads both to a greater likelihood of sexually faithful behavior due to a wife's character and moral standards, and fewer opportunities for a wife to be unfaithful given the amount of time that is consumed in homeschooling her children. As such, these sorts of women both meet fewer potential seducers, and are less likely to commit adultery with any potential seducers they do meet.

Now, conjecture is of little value unless it actually matches the evidence of reality. As such, I have wracked my brains and spoken with several people in order to determine how many large families we knew, and what the actual incidence of cuckoldry is in such families. While it is still a relatively small data pool, I have come up with a list of 9 large families that I can confidently declare have zero incidences of cuckoldry. There is one family with 5 children, one family with 6 children, two families with 7 children, three families with 8 children, one family with 9 children and then my own family with 11 children. Now, Alkibiades' model would predict that about 5 of these 9 families should expect to have at least one incidence of cuckoldry. There is only a 0.07% chance that all 9 families will consist of legitimate children, if his model is correct. Yet, they all do consist completely of legitimate children. This fact alone calls the validity of the model into question. Similarly, though there are some large families that I do not know for contain zero illegitiate children, there are no large families that I can think of (nor has anyone I've yet asked) that actually do have one or more children as a result of sexual infidelity.

Now, my purpose in writing this is not to criticize Alkibiades' model, but instead to help refine it. In his blog post he specifically notes: "Of course these computations assume that all women have the same chance of cuckholding, but I’m sure there are good women out there." While that disclaimer would seem to be a minor footnote, I think that because of the real-world difference seen in those women who have five or more children it seems to be a fairly major oversight. As such, I would postulate that a model that better fits with reality would be a cuckold probability chart akin to this one:

1 child = 10%
2 children = 19%
3 children = 27%
4 children = 34%
5 children = 30%
6 children = 25%
7 children = 19%
8 children = 13%
9 children = 08%
10 children = 05%
11 children = 03%
12 children = 02%

Readers: Of course, to test the validity of such a model beyond my pitifully small collection of anecdotal data, more reliable data is needed. I have been searching for sociological studies on large families, and data on the actual number of large families in America, sorted by number of childen, but have been largely unsuccessful. As such, I welcome any data that you can offer, either of an official sort, or even more anecdotal data. Do you know any large families who have one or more illegitimate children? Do you know any large families that you are certain contain no illegitimate children?

A Practical Rejection of Conceptual Relativism

In a previous essay, A Practical Rejection of Material Relativism, I demonstrated that nobody actually believes in material relativism. Using simple logic and common, everyday examples, I illustrated that everyone firmly believes that their sensory experience of the world is reliable, and that each person believes that others' sensory experience of the world is identical or largely similar to their own. These premises are simply a matter of common sense and for all functional purposes nobody questions them. However, material relativism is not an especially commonly held form of modern relativism. Conceptual relativism is much more common and, in many ways, far more intellectually and practically dangerous. Generally, when people try to invoke relativism in support of their beliefs or as a tool to dismiss opposing beliefs, it is used in the realms of morality and spirituality. As such, relativism is a set of metaphysical beliefs that has a profound impact on one's worldview, one's everyday actions and one's relationship with God, human beings and the physical universe.

For the purposes of this essay, conceptual relativism is a belief that since you see things one way and I see things another way, perhaps the truth is that both views are equally correct and we are just looking at the universe in different ways. If this is true in the conceptual realm, then perhaps my view that adultery is wrong is true for me, and your view that all consensual sex is perfectly moral and acceptable is true for you. Perhaps Jesus is my Savior and the only way to heaven, but maybe for you, submission to Allah is the way to salvation. Maybe in my world, God created the entire universe 6,000 years ago, but in your world the universe evolved over billions and billions of years. If we actually live in a truly relative universe, then it is entirely possible that your beliefs, my beliefs, and the beliefs of each person are all completely true, because we would indeed be living in quite divergent worlds.

Obviously, there is a vast divergence of beliefs about everything in this world; there are wildly varying economic theories, philosophical models, religious beliefs, social norms, cultural forces, academic values, ethical judgments and so many other things! As such, how does one decide what to believe? Does it matter? If we live in a relative world, then you simply can't be wrong about anything. Since all beliefs are equally true, then it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. Obviously, we don't believe that beliefs don't matter. In fact no-one does. Though conceptual relativism has many philosophical flaws and utterly contradicts the evidence of the real world, I need not expound these multitudinous flaws for the same simple reason I advocated in my last essay:

No one actually believes in relativism!

Again, I'm not saying that a person couldn't believe in relativism, I'm just saying that no-one does. On what basis can I make such a claim? The way people act and the things they claim to believe are quite incompatible with relativism. This is especially true in the realms of morality and spirituality. If a person ever disagrees about anything, they have just illustrated that they do not believe in relativism. If a person ever seeks to use logic to prove a point, they cannot possibly be a relativist. If a person ever judges the actions of another, then they clearly believe that what is true for them is true for everyone else as well. Shortly, I will explain why logic and moral judgments refute a belief in relativism, but before that I must briefly touch on semantics to show that people fundamentally agree that concepts are communicable and intelligible.

All people perceive the world in concepts. We also communicate concepts using conceptual labels called "words." Now, sometimes what we mean by certain words is different than what others mean by the same words. For example, you may assume that car means "any moving vehicle", while I might suppose that car means "a four-wheeled vehicle seating no more than 5 people." Given our different understandings of the word "car" we could reach a misunderstanding or even have a disagreement. This is why semantics matter. In order to communicate a concept you have to ensure that your language is understood by the person you are communicating with. Once both people understand what the other person means by the word "car," all misunderstandings and conflicts are easily averted, because both parties understand the detailed concepts being expressed. The very fact that people are capable of meaningful conceptual communication suggests that people don't live in unique and conceptually different worlds. Even though you and I might mean something somewhat different by "car" or "justice" or "faith," once suitably defined we at least would understand the concept expressed by the other. This illustrates the intelligibility and communicability of concepts, as well as the conceptual continuity that exists from one person to another.

Morality is another conceptual area that quickly reveals the practical impossibilities of conceptual relativism. If morality is completely relative, then for each individual there exists a different moral code. If you believe that murder is okay, and I believe that murder is always wrong, then in a truly relative universe both of our views are equally correct and true. However, in every civilized nation in the world there is a form of law; these laws (at least technically) apply equally to all citizens. When a drug dealer is convicted for trafficking illegal substances, nobody asks him whether dealing drugs is wrong for him. Likewise, when a murderer is convicted for his crime, the justice system does not concern itself with the murderer's moral stance on murder. In a relativistic world, it is only reasonable to punish people for actions which are wrong. And, actions are only wrong if the transgressors believe them to be wrong. Therefore, proper justice would mean that only those murderers who violate their own moral code be subject to the conditions of law, and those murderers who did nothing wrong (since murder is not wrong in their world) should not be punished. Quite obviously, no-one actually believes in complete moral relativity. In fact, when any person accuses another of wrongdoing, they are implicitly stating, "The action that you just committed is intrinsically wrong, and it is equally wrong for all people."

Additionally, we also don't believe in partially relative morality. Many modern moral theorists suggest that morality is just a social construction. Namely, that whatever a society as a whole considers to be right and wrong is treated as right or wrong. However, nobody actually acts in accordance with such a theory. If the social construct theory of morality were followed, then one could only be held accountable for crimes if his own society had determined such actions were wrong. However, if stealing is a morally-acceptable behavior in Tanzania, and a Tanzanian thief steals from America, we would have no legitimate basis for imprisoning him, since he committed no wrong. Therefore, whenever a country tries a foreigner for a violation of local laws that differ from the foreigner's laws, such a country is declaring morality to be universal, at least in some sense. Likewise, if morality is a partially relative manner, then no person has any basis to morally object to the World War II Holocaust. Even though genocide may be wrong in our societies, in Germany, society had agreed that exterminating Jews was a good and necessary thing. Since we don't believe that their actions were morally right, we also don't accept the claim that each society has their own separate, but equally true, moral code.

Additionally, logic itself is incompatible with conceptual relativism. One of the most fundamental laws of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. Simply stated, if something is true, then its opposite cannot also be true. For example, if God exists, then it is not logically possible that God also does not exist. Likewise, if my car is red, it is logically impossible for it to be non-red. For this reason, logic clearly reveals that we do not live in a relativistic world. For the sake of the argument, let us suppose that you believe that coffee is the world's only beverage, but you are a relativist, so you only believe that fact concerning your own world (World A). Now, suppose that another person believes that tea is the only beverage, and that it exists as the only drink in his own world (World B) and all other worlds. If relativity is true, then both beliefs must be true, which leaves us with the following conundrum. In World B, tea is the only drink. No problem so far. However, in World A coffee is the only drink and tea is the only drink. This is logically impossible. If coffee is the only drink in World A, then it is necessarily true that no other drinks exist in World A. However, tea exists. Additionally, if tea is the only drink in World A, then it is necessarily true that no other drinks exist in World A. But, coffee exists. The Law of Non-Contradiction means only one of those premises can be true. Therefore, conceptually relativism is logically impossible. This also means that anyone who accepts or uses logic does not really believe in relativism.

Therefore, by common everyday use of words, moral judgments and the use of logic, we have clearly shown several things. First, from semantics we learn it is clear that all people believe that concepts are understandable, communicable and contiguous from one person's world to the next. Secondly, based on moral judgments, we see that people believe that at least some concepts are equally true for all people. Third, concurrence over the laws of logic illustrates that all people believe that some concepts are correct and many are incorrect. All of these practical beliefs are quite incompatible with relativism. Therefore, we can summarize these three points in the common belief that all people live in the same conceptual world, where every concept that is true is true for all people, and every concept that is false, is false for all people.

Though we have only established that people believe some concepts are equally true for all people, I believe that it can reasonably shown that is true for all categories of concepts. To establish that fully would require a very comprehensive paper, which exhaustively examines every possible category of concepts. Obviously, that is beyond the scope of this essay, but I will give a short example to illustrate what I mean. Most Christians believe that Jesus is only way to heaven, and most Muslims believe that submission to Allah is the only path to salvation. Obviously, these are exclusive claims, and followers of each religion are convinced that their conception is correct and that everyone else is either wrong, deceived or confused. Therefore, even though there is disagreement over which concept is correct, every honest person will admit that he believes that his conception is correct and that everyone who holds an opposing conception is wrong. This illustrates that (in the field of religion) every person believes that concepts are universally true or false, and that they are not different from person to person. In a similar manner, I am certain that in whatever conceptual field you examine you will find a similar mindset. Those who are convinced of a concept are also convinced that it is true for all people.

Returning to some earlier questions this essay posed: Does it matter what one believes? How does one decide what to believe? How can one determine which beliefs are accurate and which are not? Is it possible to determine which religions are correct and which are not? What is truth? These questions are quite complex and sufficiently deep enough to warrant another essay. As such, a future essay will explore various issues related to how we know what we know, and how we can determine if it is accurate.

Summary
What then has been established? From the previous essay, A Practical Rejection of Material Relativism, we established that all people trust their sensory experience of the world and that all people believe that others experience the same real world. In this essay, it is clear that all people also believe that not only do we live in the same physical world, but we also live in the same conceptual world. The fact that we live in the same conceptual world means that whatever is true for me is also true for you, since conceptual truth is absolute and constant. Where beliefs conflict or contradict one another, at least one of the of the beliefs is flawed and erroneous. This means that we all believe that, "What's true about the world for me is also true about the world for you because we live in the same real world, even if we disagree over certain concepts."

Heartless and Unreasonable

Sometimes I am truly shocked by the sort of behavior that people are allowed to get away with. Recently something happened to a friend that I consider completely heartless and unreasonable. In his own words:

So, I just got dumped by my girlfriend of two years... I'm really not sure why. I just got an email yesterday saying that 'she couldn't do this anymore' and that I'd better not be at the house when she got home. I have no idea what brought it on... we had some problems earlier on, but we hadn't really fought in like a month or two. It just seemed like she had her mind set on it not working, so she wouldn't let it... and things seemed really calm and normal between us. She left for work yesterday morning and told me she loved me as she did...

So, aside from the normal heartbreak of losing a serious lover of two years, there was also the latter part of them email. I had been living with her for over a year at this point, and since I apparently had no idea this was coming, that leaves me homeless. Like, very literally, I slept on an acquaintance's couch last night, and I have no idea where I'm going to be in a few hours from now or any following night. I lack any real close friends in Boston - she was pretty much my only one. So, it's not like I really have anywhere to turn.

So, here I am: heartbroken, friendless, and homeless.

There are two major things wrong with this. First of all, the breakup itself sounds completely ludicrous and unwarranted. As with most breakups, it was female-instigated and apparently done for typical female reasons. By typical female reasons, I mean vague, undisclosed and trivial reasons typically accompanied with words such as, "Of course, I still love you, but..." "I can't do this," "We're just not compatible," or other similar vacuous phrases that convey nothing of truth or practical pertinence. While there might be some legitmate reasons for breakups, this instance does not seem to be such a case. Even supposing that there were legitimate cause for a breakup, this one is a textbook example of an immature breakup. It was instigated by e-mail, rather than in person, which is a sure sign of cowardice. There obviously has been some pre-breakup deception and/or lying on her part, otherwise there would be clear indicators of relational issues and she wouldn't have acted as if everything was alright in the morning, when it clearly wasn't. Additionally, if she really cared about him after dating for two years, then she would be willing to have a mature conversation regarding the reasons for the breakup, rather than offering vacuous phrases and leaving him completely confused and clueless about the whole ordeal. The breakup, even supposing that it might be warranted in some small measure, was clearly instigated in a cowardly, immature and deceptive manner. That is utterly reprehensible and should be socially unacceptable.

But, as horrible as that is, that's not the worst part. While it might possibly be understandable to breakup with someone on a capricious whim, and while perhaps there may be a few unique excuses for why a relatively mature person might behave in a immature and cowardly manner, for the second part of her behavior there can be no possible excuse. When people are living together, and when one or more of them is away from their hometown and natural support network, outside of extreme violence or majorly destructive behavior, there is no humane reason to forcibly evict someone who has done nothing wrong without warning. To kick someone out with zero warning is downright cruel, heartless and ruthless. She should be ashamed of herself!

But, given the moral depravity of today's society and the lack of even common decency, I'm sure that right now some of her girlfriends are consoling her and telling her that she did the right thing. If we, as a society, view this sort of behavior as a normal part of adolescence or as a morally neutral action that is simply part of the game of "love and war," then we are complicit in her actions. Personally, I believe there are moral and social lines that should not be crossed. I see this sort of behavior as outrageous and inhumane. While modern combat dating has conditioned people to behave like horrible people in order to achieve romantic success, people of integrity and character need to stand up against the tides of cruelty and dishonesty that permeate the dating world and refuse to accept or approve of any sort of behavior that is cowardly, immature or dishonest. As Cless Alvein insightfully writes, "In truth, the single most important aspect of being a great girlfriend is being a great friend, and more important to being a great friend is being a great person. Only if people are held accountable for their actions will they choose to behave honorably. We need to set high personal and moral standards and verbally stand against such atrocious behavior.

Salvation, Love and Justice - A Discussion

A couple of months ago, we were discussing whether anything is knowable. Recently, we have been discussing the nuances of salvation. Though I often disagree with Ulcer, I have great respect for him, simply because he actually cares about the topic and offers occasionally brilliant insights. Our discussions are always scintillating and require me to critically think through various philosophical and theological issues. Here are some excerpts from our most recent discussion on salvation and my responses:

Ulcer: If "God cannot simply ignore or forgive the sinner and require no death, because that would make Him unjust," then it follows that grace and forgiveness are not intrinsically just, and since God is just, then grace and forgiveness are not godly qualities. So it follows from that, that Christ's crucifixion has nothing to do with my sins being forgiven, but rather appeasing the outrage of God as you have so succinctly explained. So if it is justice to condemn and punish, why even bother to send a sacrificial lamb to take the punishment? Why not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash your hands, and be done with it? The reason cannot be because God loves us. If love had anything to do with it, God wouldn't need to punish anyone. Consider what the apostle Paul had to say about love: "Love is not provoked, it keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Corinthians 13:5) So yes, he really could simply forgive the sinner, if the sinner was truly, sincerely, deeply remorseful.

First of all, I must say that your reply is very comprehensive and clearly represents a great deal of thought on the issue of salvation. However, it does appear that you don't fully understand the Christian position.

It seems that you view God's love and justice as mutually exclusive traits. This is not the Christian position. Rather, God is both perfectly loving AND wholly just. Because God is just, He must condemn those who break the moral law and enforce the stated penalties for a given offense. Because God is loving, He desires personal relationship with each person and desires the best for each person. Though love may keep no record of wrongs, the nature of love requires chastening not only for the sake of the relationship, but also for the sake of the chastened individual. Hebrews 12:6 points this out, "For whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." Based on that fact, let us revisit your question. Why does God not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash His hands, and be done with it? Because God's relentless love for each person leads Him to desire relational restoration, absolution from moral guilt and righteous living for each individual.

There are a couple of things wrong with the appeasement philosophy of Christianity, besides the love problem. First of all, you deserve credit for the creative answer you gave to explain how the sacrifice of the one can pay for the many. It does make sense that is if you believe in God in the first place. There's still a problem though: Is Jesus in Hell right now? Will he be in Hell for eternity? If the punishment for my transgressions is eternal torture (or separation from God), then it doesn't matter how much Christ suffered on the cross or how pure and holy he was. You cannot outsize eternity. If it is a one-for-one trade, then only way Christ can redeem us for our sins is to be in Hell for eternity.

Now you are changing the punishment. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture. As I stated before, death includes both the physical component and the spiritual separation. Death is not an eternal state, it is a temporal occurence which may last for a very short time, or an eternity. In the case of the unrepentant sinner, he is dead now (being spiritually separated from God), and he will remain dead eternally, supposing no change of heart. In Christ's case, He experienced a spiritual separation from God the Father while He was on the cross, dying physically. In Jesus' case, the death was a very short occurence, for death had no lasting claim on Him. He was physically dead for 3 days, and spiritually dead for no longer than that. In a like manner, for Christians who believe in Jesus Christ, death is powerless to hold them. Therefore Paul writes, "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:54-57)

Still another problem is this: Even though I may have been absolved of my sins, I am still a sinner - one who sins - and I have a hard time believing that the God who was about to throw me into a pool of lava for stealing a candy bar won't eventually get irked at my mere presence again. Eternity is a very long time to go without another blood sacrifice. This is similar to the situation that a woman in an abusive marriage would be in. If her husband strikes her in a fit of rage, should she believe that he won't ever do it again? Now if God loved me unconditionally, I don't think I'd have much cause for worry, but we've already established, according to your explanation of Christianity, that my reconciliation with God has nothing to do with love and forgiveness.

Again, you have artificially divided God's loving nature from His just nature. God loves you even when you do sin or steal a candy bar. Even if He, to fulfill justice, throws you into hell, it is never because that is what He most wants to do. God, for some uncomprehensible reason, loves us in spite of the fact that we are sinners. The only reason He sends someone to hell is because of two things. First, justice demands it. Secondly, the sinner has willfully rejected God's love and His sacrifice and insisted on separation from God. Because God is just and because He respects the free choice of each person, God will send a person to hell who meets those two conditions.

You are quite right to say that reconciliation has nothing to do with love and forgiveness. Reconciliation is a legal concept, related to true moral guilt. Love and forgiveness are relational attitudes. However, because of God's love and desire for a joyous, personal relationship with each person, He is not indifferent to a person's choice. Because of His love, God desires that all people would choose absolution and reconciliation.

You have failed to make a good case for salvation through Christ. Now let me try.

When you offend someone (sin), you severe your relationship with them. Think of love as a cord that connects you to someone; it is the dynamic between you and I. Unselfishness, or giving consideration to the opposite end of that dynamic, keeps that connection strong and healthy. Selfish acts, from the subtle (refusing to help you with something) to the overt (physically attacking you), cuts that cord. This is something that you do, yourself. Its not that the other person - the opposing end of the dynamic - has stopped loving you, its that you have stopped loving them.

In most cases, anyone who truly is sorry, and feels the full gravitas of the unlove that they have committed against someone else, will not want to be forgiven! If someone arrives at a thorough understanding for what they've done to someone, and comes to have respect for social connection, they will want what's coming to them! But you don't have to give it to them. Instead of condemning them, you can redeem them through loving them again. You can mend the severed cord, just because. And why not? Which is better: the severed cord or the mended one? (Consider Matthew 8:5-8)

It is not possible to forgive someone who isn't sorry for what they've done (and, by the way, you also deserve credit for correctly stating that the sacrifice of Jesus must be accepted in order to work. Obviously, it doesn't matter how much you love someone; if they don't love you back, you don't have a relationship with them). However, if the offender is truly, deeply remorseful, the loving thing to do is to forgive the offense for the sake of love itself, and nothing else, no matter what. Love is awesome enough by itself to be the only thing ever needed for sins to be forgiven. Love is the meaning of life. Love is the whole reason why we exist. Why do you think God created us? He created us so that there could be a dynamic between Him and us, because it is only by that dynamic that love can exist. No one can love themselves; that's not what love is. Loving is not being obsessed with oneself; it is being obsessed with everything that surrounds you.

Indeed it can be said that Jesus Christ suffered horribly on the cross of crucifixion so that sins can be forgiven, but how, or in what way, does this get sins forgiven? Does blood and death get sins forgiven? Let’s look to John 15:13 – Jesus says “A greater love hath no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” So, God had to prove to himself (as well as us) that he really did love us enough to forgive us for anything by becoming flesh and demonstrating his commitment to that love in the greatest way that love can be expressed: self-sacrifice.
And that, Theoconfidor, is how you make the case for salvation through the sacrifice of Christ; because love - not blood and death - is what gets sins forgiven.

If salvation were merely the restoration of relationship between God and man, your case would be powerful and compelling. However, salvation involves not just one, but two things:

1 - Absolution from real moral guilt stemming from a person's choice to sin
2 - Restoration of the broken relationship between God and a person

Therefore, no case for salvation is complete unless it includes both legal absolution to satify God's justice and relational restoration. Love, blood and death are all necessary for sins to be forgiven. That is the Christian position. It may not be appealing to the modern person, but it is the truth.

Do you know what the irony is this time? I am an atheist. I do not believe in a sentient, personal creator. I believe that morality is relative. I don't believe that there is any ultimate meaning to life (which is OK because life doesn't need meaning) aside from simply enjoying it. I do believe it is very likely that a historical figure named Yeshu existed, but he was no more divine than you or I. You are the devout Christian, here. You are the one who would, presumably, claim to have a personal relationship with God. And yet, even I can make a better case for Christianity than you can. Why do you suppose this is?

If you truly do make a better case for Christianity, then why do you not believe it? I find it hard to consider a case that is unconvincing a very good one.

Violence and Christianity

The Bible is not opposed to violence. Christianity is not opposed to killing. Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find a place where all killing is considered immoral. Instead, Christianity is opposed to certain kinds of violence and killing. This is a vital distinction that our generation has conveniently forgotten. Our modern American moral stance on violence, which used to be based on Christian morality, has strayed vastly from the actual teachings of the Bible. Where the Bible is quite clear about what sorts of violence are reasonable and righteous and which sorts are wicked and cruel, modern squeamishness has taken those biblical moral rules and twisted them into something very different. Allow me to illuminate this point with some illustrations.

"Thou shalt not murder," taken directly from the 10 commandments is indeed a valid precept that serves as a pivotal part of Christian morality. When understood in context of the rest of the Judaic code, it's importance and applicability makes sense. However, when it is stripped from its original context, that simple phrase morphs into a new moral standard. Modern people have taken the mandate not to murder and altered it to the point that the modern commandment is: "Killing is inherently wrong." For this reason many Americans strongly oppose the death penalty.

In fact, we have gone far beyond that as we expanded and added our own contemporary interpretations to that law. As America has grown into an increasingly feminized nation, we have become increasingly opposed to violence of all sorts. Not only is killing wrong and immoral, but now even spanking your own child is considered child abuse and is punishable by incarceration and state-sanctioned removal of your parental rights. Yelling or giving your spouse an angry look is now considered domestic violence. There are increasingly strong supporters of weapon control laws, which reflects the modern sentiment of many that even carrying an instrument of violence is nearly immoral. This excessive opposition to violence is quite opposed to Christian morality.

Most generic opposition to violence reflects a very effeminate view of the world. Though women are born with a natural distaste for violence and a predisposition against it, men do not naturally have a distaste for violence. In the masculine view of the world, violence is either considered simply a fact of life, glorified as an exhibition of manly prowess, or even enjoyed for it's own sake. Men are born with a fighting instinct. Boys need almost no external impetus to play games and use their imaginations in various violent fashions. From the time they are 2 or 3 years old, boys are already picking up sticks and pretending that they are guns or swords. Nor it is just an adolescent phase that men eventually grow out of. At 22 years old, I quite enjoy violence, for it's own sake. It's enjoyable to watch, which is why all of my favorite movies have pivotal, climactic fights and battles. Men love movies like The Matrix, Equilibrium, Fight Club, Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator and Braveheart. All of those movies would be quite dry and dull without the raw masculinity that they exhibit through the brutality of the fight scenes. Likewise, all of my favorite board games, card games and video games have copious amounts of violence. Given the choice between playing Pandemic, a board game where you must cure diseases that threaten the world's population, and Risk, a game of world domination where the only way to win is by exterminating the other players, nine times out of ten my brothers and I will choose to play Risk.

In fact, many of my close friends and male acquaintances have a similar disposition towards violence. My roommate loves excessive brutality. He has a collection of various medieval swords and typically carries around one or two dangerous pocket knives. Another friend of mine bought a .45-magnum handgun just a couple of months ago. An acquaintance of mine who lives in Seattle is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter who competes in public tournaments. Two guys I grew up with have served in the Marines for several years, one of whom just returned from active duty in Iraq two weeks ago. Yet another friend of mine has been taking jujitsu classes at a local community college. Two brothers I know from my church have a collection of guns and savage, improvised melee weapons. Men naturally accept violence.

If there is a masculine objection to violence it is generally either a moral objection to specific uses of violent force, or else simply an opposition to the harmful consequences of violence. In the latter case, it is not that men are opposed to violence itself, but only to the natural consequences and effects of such violence. Death or injury to oneself or a loved one is something quite undesirable. Robert E. Lee, general of the Confederate army during the American Civil War said, “It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.”

Contrarily, violence is seen as naturally repulsive from a feminine perspective. When I was growing up, my mother always told me, "Don't practice what you wouldn't do in real life." The context of this typically was in regards to some boyish play-violence that I was involved in. As I reached adolescence, frequently various computer games were banned from our house simply because they were violent in nature. Command & Conquer was banned because mom didn't like the screams of the dying soldiers. Descent, which didn't even have living creatures, was banned simply because the game involved weapons and destruction. Eventually, all first-person shooter video games were banned in our household until the age of 18. My dad never had a strong stance towards violence, and wasn't the primary rulemaker in the family. All of the anti-violence rules in our household were enacted and enforced by my mother.

Therefore, though it is reasonable for women to be opposed to all sorts of violence, it is not reasonable or natural for men to have a blanket opposition to violence, nor for a society to be completely opposed to all sorts of violence. As our nation has become increasingly feminized, and as men are systematically emasculated either through subversive cultural indoctrination or by forced subjection, America's opposition to violence increases. This is not a reasoned, rational, philosophical objection to violence, but instead is simply a gut-level reaction to violence that has no grounding in reality, and certainly no foundation in Christian morality. Those who suggest that violence itself is universally wrong or immoral are making a faulty appeal to emotion, rather than any sort of rational, logical claim.

Now that is it seen that the general modern American stance on violence is nothing more than a vague and baseless appeal to emotion, I would like to examine the Biblical stance on morality, so that we can reach a reasonable, rational stance on morality and come to a fuller understanding of the nature of God. In such a critical examination, I would first like to point out that the Christian moral stance on violence is not a simple and easy-to-understand one, but instead is highly nuanced. The same God who declares, "You shall not murder," (Ex. 20:13) also says, "The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death" (Num 35:19). God commands the Israelites not to murder, but He also commands them to put certain people to death. The biblical stance on violence is that some sorts of killing and violence are just and righteous, while other kinds of violence are unjust and wicked.

Not only does God command certain instances of violence while forbidding certain kinds of violence, but also, God Himself is a violent God. Throughout the pages of Scripture there are countless references to God directly killing people. Genesis 6:17 is quite a brutal passage where God says, "And behold, I myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." Yet, never is the violence of God purposeless and random. His violence is very intentionally, very specifically based on one condition. In the above passage, why did God send floodwaters to kill 99.99% of the earth's population? Genesis 6:5 yields the answer, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." God's violence is always done in response to the evil actions of a person or group of people.

Likewise, when God commands killing, it also follows the same criteria. Evildoers who violate God's clear moral code are to be put to death, so that the community will be purged of evil. For example, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God... You must purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 13:5) Concerning a rebellious son who will not obey but instead is living wickedly, "Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." (Deut. 21:21) There are countless more lists of moral offenses for which the Jews were commanded to put violators to death. Similarly, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the inhabits of the promised land, He was quite clear that the Israelites were both not to emulate the deeds of the nations and also that all the false gods of the nations should be destroyed. Exodus 23:24 is a prime example of this mandate, "You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars." The inhabitants of Canaan were not just killed so that the Israelites could have their land--they were slaughtered because of their wickedness and idolatry. Those whom God kills and who God commands His people to kill are those who act wickedly and transgress against the God's clear moral decrees.

Similarly, non-lethal violence that the Bible advocates is always directed in response to evil behavior and is used for the sake of correction and instruction in righteousness. Proverbs 19:18 says, "Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction." Proverbs 20:30 says, "Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, as do stripes the inner depths of the heart." Hebrews 12:11 attests to the goal of chastening, "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Jesus Himself, in one of my favorite scenes in the gospels, fashions a whip for Himself and violently drives merchants and lenders out of the temple, overthrowing the tables and pouring money all over the ground (John 2:13-17). Jesus' violence wasn't just a symptom of an anger control problem. He intentionally threw people out of the temple to remind them that God's house is holy and must be treated with reverence and to shame them for their disrepect.

Of course, this is not the whole story of Christianity's stance on violence. While the Bible is extremely pro-violence when it comes to violence used for justice, correction and slaying evildoers, it is also adamantly against many kinds of violence. At some point in the future, I will write another article considering nonviolence and Christianity and looking at what sorts of violence God opposes. As Ecclesiastes insightfully states, "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven... a time to kill and a time to heal... a time of war and a time of peace." (Ecc. 3:1, 3:3, 3:8) While many people either strongly oppose or strongly support violence, Christian beautifully unites opposites by expressing strong support for some kinds of violence and strong opposition to other types of violence. For this reason there are numerous examples of both stoical nonviolence and fierce bloodshed in Christianity. Medieval monks and priests would never lift a finger to physically harm another soul, while the crusaders soaked the earth with the blood of the Saracens. As G.K. Chesteron memorably writes, "It is true that the church told some men to fight and others not to fight; and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not fight were like statues." Similarly, God Himself is both the glorious giver of life, and a fearsome, unrelenting bringer of death. Christianity has a stance on violence that is comprehensive and consistent, yet highly nuanced.

Sadly, in modern society's twisting of Christian morality and our wholesale rejection of masculinity we have become a nation that allows our consciences to be driven not by a godly desire for righteousness, but by the capricious whims of our emotions. Not only have we sought to label all violence as intrinsically evil, we have also rejected the fiercely masculine God of the Bible, simply because He doesn't line up with our distorted view of morality. Nor is the modern church exempt from this charge of distorted thinking. John Eldredge, in The Way of the Wild Heart, alludes to this fact, "I don't fully understand the modern church's amnesia-plus-aversion regarding one of the most central qualities of God understood for centuries before us... Our God is a warrior, mighty and terrible in battle, and He leads armies." Exodus 15:3 declares, "The Lord is a warrior." It is time to return to a proper understanding of the appropriate place and purpose for violence, rather than using emotion as a basis for a wholesale rejection of all violence.

In summary, we see that the God of the Bible is a fiercely violent God. His killing is not whimsical and random; it is always directed towards evildoers. God has no qualms about brutally exterminating those whose hearts and deeds are characterized by wickedness. Likewise, the violence that God commands is always directed towards the elimination of evil, for the sake of preserving and encouraging righteousness. Our modern moral indignation is quite misplaced, for we oppose violence more than we oppose evil. We take violence too seriously, while taking justice too lightly, evil too lightly and righteousness too lightly. We are a nation that has begun to believe that nothing is worth fighting for, that nothing is worth killing for. Christianity stands firmly opposed to those stance. John Eldredge attests on this fact, "Our God is a Warrior because there are certain things in life worth fighting for, must be fought for. He makes man a Warrior in his own image, because he intends for man to join him in that battle." In the same vein, British philosopher Edmund Burke says, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Christianity is a violent religion that adamantly believes that righteousness is worth fighting for and that evildoers are worthy of death. The God of the Bible is a fierce and vicious God--and there's nothing wrong with that!

A Malevolent God?

Last week I posted a blog with several quotes by well-known agnostics and atheists. It was a half-serious, half-humorous reply to those who live irreligious lifestyles and encourage others to do the same. One of my commenters insightfully wrote:

I would be curious to know your fuller answer to Mr. Dawkin's quote about the God of the Old Testament. This seems to be one of the hardest questions for Christians to answer, and perhaps the one most commonly asked by the skeptic of the Christian God. How could a loving, creator God destroy his creation? Or suggest, nay command, "his people" to slaughter whole nations?

This is a legitimate and important question to consider. What sort of God is the God of the Bible? Modern popular Christianity seems to present a smiley-face version of God who is ultra-loving and compassionate. Yet, the Old Testament seems to present a clear depiction of God as anything but a "nice" deity. In fact, there are some people who are strongly opposed to the God of the Old Testament because of the things He says and how He acts towards people. As Christians, it is crucial to know who God is, what He is like and whether He is really a good God or not. Is the God of the Bible a benevolent being, or is He malevolent, cruel, vicious and unreasonable? In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, writes:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Within that quote, we have a list of accusations that would take volumes of scholarly dissertations to properly reference and debate. His statement, quite frankly, is dynamite. It calls the whole of God's character into question. In considering how to address Dawkins' characterization of God, we first must see if his accusation is actually scriptural. Although his word-choice is deliberately provocative and excessively negative, to a certain degree He does accurately describe the God of the Bible.

-God is a jealous God.
-God does concern Himself even with seemingly trivial matters.
-God does kill people and order the killing of people.
-God does execute vengeance.
-God does establish inflexible rules and require people to abide by them.
-God does hold His own glory and majesty in high regard.
-God does differentiate between people and treat people differently based on their race and gender.

And clearly there are a few parts of Dawkins' statement that are not true:

-God is not unjust. Justice is one of His defining traits and He always renders to each person according to their deeds.
-God is not unforgiving. A desire for man's repentance and reconciliation is interwoven into all of His actions.
-God is not misogynistic, since He does not categorically hate women.
-God is not a bully. Any actions that may be regarded as cruel are always directed towards specific people for specific reasons.

Now that we have briefly examined the validity of Dawkins' claim, let us take a closer look at what Dawkins' is really saying, beneath all the provocative words. Ultimately, Dawkins is saying that the God of the Old Testament is unpleasant because He is self-centered, immoral, violent and unreasonable. Even supposing that Dawkins is correct, why does that matter? Even if God is unpleasant, does that have any bearing on whether God actually exists, or whether Christianity is true? None, whatsoever. Hitler and Napolean were certainly self-centered, immoral, violent and unreasonable men, but no one is denying their existence because of that. Therefore, if his statement is meant to be an argument against the existence of God or the veracity of Christianity, it lacks any merit.

What then is Dawkins trying to claim? Is he saying that supposing God really exists, that He is not a good God worthy of worship or obedience? This seems to be a more reasonable understanding of Dawkins' stance. By appealing to our moral sensibilities as modern, enlightened people, he is attempting to defame God's character by arguing that the Christian God (if He exists), is quite a horrific and evil sort of god. And what is his basis for such a claim? It is a moral claim, yet the moral basis for it is unspecified.

If he is arguing against violence, unreasonability and self-centeredness simply because of his own personal opinions, then he is making a faulty appeal to authority. Just because Richard Dawkins thinks something is immoral doesn't make it so.

If he is arguing against God's character based on the social construct theory of morality, then he is making a faulty appeal to popularity. The social construct theory of morality is inadequate as a foundation for criticism because it a relativistic standard that differs from people group to people group and therefore has no authority to critique any action outside of its own social sphere. Additionally, the social construct theory of morality cannot serve as a grounded foundation for morality because it uses a circular basis for claiming authority. For example, a community may say, "Whatever a majority says is right is okay and whatever a majority declares as wrong is prohibited." But then when asked, "Why do we have to follow the rules of the majority?" The only answer that can be given is, "Because the majority has agreed that you must abide by the rules established by the majority." Obviously, such a moral foundation wouldn't even support a house of cards, much less any argument of substance.

If he is arguing that self-centeredness and violence are intrinsically wrong, then he is attempting to use Christian morality as a basis for his argument. There are several problems with this approach. First of all, if he successfully uses Christian morality as a basis for arguing that God is immoral, then God would be disqualified from establishing any sort of universal rules for morality, which then renders Christian morality an insufficient basis for arguing that God is immoral. So, even if Dawkins' argument succeeds on such a basis, it still fails.

Secondly, if Dawkins' is attempting to use Christian morality as the basis of his critique, then his approach is flawed because his arguments against God's benevolence aren't actually grounded in Christian morality, but are grounded in a gross modern twisting of Christian morality. In fact, it is for this very reason that Dawkins' statement seems as powerful and convincing as it does. Because of our modern perspective of reality, we have taken some aspects of Christian morality and abrogated them while altering other aspects of Christian morality to match our enlightened, contemporary view of the world. Does Christian morality really condemn violence? Does Christianity oppose self-motivated behavior and glory-seeking? Does Christianity oppose absolute and inflexible moral rules? I think not! In a couple of future blogs I plan to address these three specific moral stances in more detail.

Though there are a few points of Dawkins' quote that I find are unsupported by Scripture, and though his wording is intentionally and unfairly negative, to a certain extent I agree with his characterization of God. Quite frankly, the God of the Bible is jealous. He is vindictive and does retain the right to execute vengeance. God does hold a position of authority and He demands that all people respect His position of authority and obey Him unswervingly. God does recognize that men and women are fundamentally different, and He does treat people differently based on gender. He does directly and indirectly bring death and destruction to nations who oppose Him and His people. God clearly declares that homosexuality is an evil perversion of nature that is punishable by death. Because of this, I can see what Richard Dawkins is trying to say. However, Dawkins fails to establish a reasonable criteria that would demonstrate any of God's actions as being truly evil or malevolent. Maybe God is violent. So what? Maybe God does treat different people and different groups of people differently. So what? Maybe God is radically self-centered and concerned with His glory. So what? Since Dawkins has failed to establish a baseline for his criticism, he is expressing nothing more than a personal opinion. Therefore, whenever I read his quote, this is what it says to me: "My personal opinion is that the God of the Old Testament is self-centered, violent, murderous, unjust and unfair." So what? Everyone has their own opinion. Dawkins' opinion just happens to be partially incorrect and completely devoid of moral potency.

What is wrong with being violent? What is wrong with seeking glory? What is wrong with jealousy? What is wrong with establishing clear and inflexible rules? As far as I can, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these. In fact, all of these seem to coincide quite nicely with the image of a president or a king. If there is any sort of claim that God is evil or malevolent, the claim is more a reflection of our own personal and cultural biases than it is a meritorious accusation against the God of the Bible.