The Nature of Evil

[betsy]

Betsy,have you heard of Lee Strobel, Bill Wiese, and Randy Alcorn? I read Wiese's book titled "Hell". He claims he had a vision that he was sent to hell for 23 minutes. The book is very scary, but I wonder if it really happened. Betsy, I am trying very hard to understand the word of the Lord. However, if I buy a book, I am skeptical because I don't know if the author is a true Christian, or is someone who is trying to make a buck.

I am currently reading 'Heaven" by Randy Alcorn. He goes to great lengths to describe what heaven and the New Earth will be like by using scripture. It is a good buck.

I was thinking of buying Lee Strobel's books, but I'd like to know if they are worthwhile. Do you have any opinion on these?

No, I have not read any of these books. I learned of Lee Strobel while engaged in a debate here on this forum. The title of the thread is "Rejoice on This Day." It gives a list of prominent atheists who ended up converting to Christianity, and provided the link to my sources.

Lukin, for me it is heartwarming to read of those people mentioned on that thread. Some of those former atheists set out on an investigative mission to debunk the Christian Faith....only to find themselves believers.

I listen to the Pastor Charles Price of the Living Truth Canada, based in Toronto I think. It is an ecumenical ministry. He makes it seem so simple to understand the Bible....speaking in our present day language. His sermon doesn't sound like a sermon. It's more like an in-depth workshop.

His emphasis is on reading and sticking to the Bible and having a personal relationship with Christ. Inviting Christ in your heart. Letting Christ do his work through you.

My attitude and views changed dramatically.

There are different series touching on different subjects. He's on every Sunday on CTS and CTV.

The website got lots of resources....including transcripts of his series which you can access.

http://www.livingtruth.ca/Res-TRAN.asp'>http://www.livingtruth.ca/Res-TRAN.asp

I recommend you give him a try.

http://www.livingtruth.ca/

[betsy]

There are a variety of words (http://thesaurus.com/browse/evil) that could be used. The connection made to the bible is purely coincidental to the issue at hand. Consider the following analysis.

Evil as a personality disorder

Illness and disease could be defined as any defect in the structure of our bodies or our personalities that prevents us from fulfilling our potential as human beings. A good definition of such potential can be found in Abraham Maslow's description of "self-actualized" persons in his book, Motivation and Personality. He believes that the phenomenon of evil can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Of course, if evil an illness, it is not only a disease; it is the ultimate disease. The existing broad psychiatric category of "personality disorders" currently covers those psychiatric conditions in which the denial of personal responsibility is the prominent feature. By virtue of their unwillingness to tolerate the sense of personal sin and the denial of their imperfection, the evil easily fit into this broad diagnostic category. There is even within this class a subcategory entitled "narcissistic personality disorder." It might be quite appropriate to classify evil people as constituting a specific variant of the narcissistic personality disorder. Many of the evil people seen by psychiatrists are diagnosed as having "ambulatory schizophrenia." And those who are personally exposed to those who have been designated as "ambulatory schizophrenics" most often define them as evil people. Peck believed that the time is right for psychiatry to recognize a distinct new type of personality disorder to encompass those which he defined as evil.

http://samredman.com/peopleofthelie/

Oh okay. Thanks. It's just because of the introduction to this thread about Lucifer/Satan in that context.

[betsy]

I was thinking of buying Lee Strobel's books, but I'd like to know if they are worthwhile. Do you have any opinion on these?

My husband says Lee Strobel's books are good. He is a journalist and he does his books in the form of journalistic information.

Btw, have you read the book, "Who Moved The Stone?" by Frank Morrison?

I have not, but Charles Price talked about it...if I'm not mistaken, Morrison was trying to de-bunk the Resurrection (with it proven false, it would've meant the end of Christianity). He got converted instead.

Edited February 10, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

"Oh okay. Thanks. It's just because of the introduction to this thread about Lucifer/Satan in that context."

You're welcome. No it is not because of any reference to lucifer/satan. Those are again constructs of your misplaced belief system.

Speaking of Lucifer....http://www.lucifereffect.com/

Edited February 10, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

The famous fossil, Lucy, a human ancestor who lived 3.2 million years ago, was more comfortable on the ground than in the the trees, a foot bone from her kin reveals.

Carol Ward of the University of Missouri and colleagues report in Friday's edition of the journal Science that ancient hominins of the species Australopithecus afarensis, including Lucy, had feet similar to modern humans.

Audio

Researcher Carol Ward talks to Quirks & Quarks Saturday, Feb. 12 at noon on CBC Radio One.

Lucy, a partial fossil skeleton found in Ethiopia in 1974, was the first of her species ever discovered. Her other bones showed she was able to stand upright. But no foot bones were found with her skeleton, so researchers have puzzled over whether she walked like modern people or was a blend of ground-and tree-dweller.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/02/10/science-lucy-upright-fossil.html#ixzz1DbSRetbf

[wyly]

The famous fossil, Lucy, a human ancestor who lived 3.2 million years ago, was more comfortable on the ground than in the the trees, a foot bone from her kin reveals.

Carol Ward of the University of Missouri and colleagues report in Friday's edition of the journal Science that ancient hominins of the species Australopithecus afarensis, including Lucy, had feet similar to modern humans.

Audio

Researcher Carol Ward talks to Quirks & Quarks Saturday, Feb. 12 at noon on CBC Radio One.

Lucy, a partial fossil skeleton found in Ethiopia in 1974, was the first of her species ever discovered. Her other bones showed she was able to stand upright. But no foot bones were found with her skeleton, so researchers have puzzled over whether she walked like modern people or was a blend of ground-and tree-dweller.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/02/10/science-lucy-upright-fossil.html#ixzz1DbSRetbf

I never knew there was any doubt, the location of the foramen magnum says hominid, the pelvis says hominid and both scream upright....this new discovery is just more confirmation...

[betsy]

Betsy, one can't deny that many people have a deep longing for some answers. What has that got to do with how true some of those answers are?

I can relate to him. I felt a void. I was restless. Something was missing.

His testimony answered the uncertainty I've mentioned to Jonsa. An atheist who's been raised as an atheist all his life, by family that's hostile to religion at that....could also feel the same way I do, who's been born and raised a Christian.

You may have seen where I posted this before:

"Show them a light and they'll follow it anywhere!"---Firesign Theater

No matter how desperately you want to see that light doesn't mean it may not be a false one.

It may be false light to you....but obviously for this man, it's not. He found what he's been longing for all these years. He spoke of his longings being filled by Christ.

If he says it was Christ who filled that "longing,"....and even still speaks about it publicly years after it happened, then why is it so hard to accept ...or why is it so hard to just leave it at that....that what he is saying is true?

He was the one who had the longing. He was the one who was feeling it.

Obviously, he is the one who can decide if he is satisfied or not. He's the one who can say if the longing's finally filled. He's the one who can say if he's found his answer.

He is, after all, talking about himself.

Edited February 11, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

It may be false light to you....but obviously for this man, it's not.

Truth is not relative. Either something is rationally true or not, regardless of how you "feel" about it.

[maple_leafs182]

I am not so sure I agree with you. I would like to use the example of the pedophile and the exploitation of children in such circumstances. In my view such conduct is clearly evil in nature.

That isn't evil, you may find it to be morally wrong but it is not evil.

First you have to look at what conditions led to the pedophile becoming a pedophile to better understand him, maybe he was sexually abused as a child. There are reasons why he became a pedophile, there isn't some evil force behind it.

For the record, I am not condoning that behavior.

[eyeball]

Many of the evil people seen by psychiatrists are diagnosed as having "ambulatory schizophrenia."

The word evil has no place in medicine or healthcare.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/omd.asp?q=evil

If anything it's evil to brand the mentally ill as being evil.

[betsy]

no it's natural human nature we'd have the same basic morals regardless there has been no major changes in human behaviour......religion only codified basic social laws that were already present before religion...regardless where you go in the world the same basic social laws exist in some form in every culture regardless of the religion...

Human nature. All have the same instinct to know what is right and wrong. Regardless of religion.

That statement somehow seem to support...or runs along the same vein...with the Christian interpretation/belief that we've all been "hardwired" by God to somehow know the difference between right and wrong....regardless whether one's been introduced to religion or not.

Edited February 11, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Jack, you are a very knowledgeable Christian. I know this is a vague question, but how are Christians properly supposed to relate to the Old Testament?

I would also like to add....

Another important and beautiful connection between The Old and The New is the Tree of Life (which means immortality).

The Tree of Life was mentioned in Genesis 2:9 and in Revelation 22:14...in the beginning and in the end.... thus it can be seen from a Christian point of view that of Paradise Lost (Genesis), and Paradise Regained (Revelation).

It is also important to take note that The Old Testament was actually for the Jews (take into consideration the customs of the time), which are the Chosen People of God. The laws and strict stipulations given by God to the Jews were such because they were supposed to be a holy people...a "nation of priests," supposed to spread news of God to the outside world. The Old Testament shows that through generations, the Jews went on in a continuous cycle of defiance, punishment by God, repentance and forgiveness by God.

Edited February 11, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Truth is not relative. Either something is rationally true or not, regardless of how you "feel" about it.

So, sticking within the context that pertains to that particular atheist man Bill and I were talking about....how does your statement relate to what we're discussing? Can you expand what you mean by that.

Edited February 11, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

That isn't evil, you may find it to be morally wrong but it is not evil.

First you have to look at what conditions led to the pedophile becoming a pedophile to better understand him, maybe he was sexually abused as a child. There are reasons why he became a pedophile, there isn't some evil force behind it.

For the record, I am not condoning that behavior.

I used the pedophile as an example to emphasize the point I am attempting to make. You will appreciate that I don't buy into the answers offered through Christian dogma and while a person's upbringing may provide a more complete picture in mitigation of the behaviour manifested the conduct, per se, is clearly wrong. You appear to accept this when you indicate you don't condone such behaviour.

Why is it that the Catholic Church has, within its ranks, so many individual priests who have violated young children apparently with the tacit acceptance of the Church hierarchy? How is it that this entity located at the Vatican uses its considerable financial resources to thwart the claims of victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by its employees?

Edited February 11, 2011 by pinko

[maple_leafs182]

I used the pedophile as an example to emphasize the point I am attempting to make. You will appreciate that I don't buy into the answers offered through Christian dogma and while a person's upbringing may provide a more complete picture in mitigation of the behaviour manifested the conduct, per se, is clearly wrong. You appear to accept this when you indicate you don't condone such behaviour.

I think condone was a poor choice of a word, I do not encourage such behavior.

Why is it that the Catholic Church has, within its ranks, so many individual priests who have violated young children apparently with the tacit acceptance of the Church hierarchy? How is it that this entity located at the Vatican uses its considerable financial resources to thwart the claims of victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by its employees?

The church wants to remain profitable, it cant afford the bad publicity.

[pinko]

"I think condone was a poor choice of a word, I do not encourage such behavior."

I see that as a play on words on your part.

[maple_leafs182]

I guess I do not understand the point you were trying to make.

[Timothy17]

On the "Nature" of Evil.

Please understand the error in the thread title. It is a classical heresy, of Gnostic origin, to imagine that nature is or can be "evil" or that even "evil" has a "nature." Evil is anti-nature. Saying evil has a nature is like saying darkness has a light. Darkness is the absence of light ; likewise, imagining evil to have a "nature" would make it something akin to heat, which increases or decreases measurably. Evil does not "increase" properly speaking, evil is more akin to "cold" or "coldness," which - like light to darkness - is the absence of itself. Objectively speaking, there is no such "thing" as cold or darkness, because it is the absence of something. Evil is, therefore, the absence or loss of good.

Nature is a Good.

Consider Genesis, in which God gives his approval of everything he had made, declaring it was "good," even "very good." Evil is a defect or, even more accurately, a perversion of nature, which ultimately goes against nature, and hence evil begets death, which is not "natural." "The wages of sin are death," in the words of the Apostle.

What Evil Is : Perversion of Free-Will

To understand evil, we must first grasp God's gift of free-will. God gave certain of His creatures, the human and angelic, free-will. He did not create mindless zombies, but out of His own, overflowing, life-giving love, made us in His image (free-will being a part of this, a kind of sovereignty and self-determination) as well as likeness (pure "goodness"), which we consequently lost in the Fall. The gift of free-will means we can authentically love God ; that is, we can love with a genuine and authentic love, free from coercion of any kind. The consequence for going against goodness, for breaking or losing Faith, was the loss of His likeness ("God is faithful, He is not as a man who changes his mind.") ; nonetheless, we retained something of His "image" in our free-will, which would now, consequently after the Fall, be subjected to the constant hazards steming from the disorder and perversion evil "causes."

What the Early Christians Taught About Evil

The classical Christian philosophers always understood of evil a potential defect originating from, but necessary for, authentic free will. God cannot, however, be evil or contain any evil, for that is the absolute contradiction, denial, and anti-thesis of Himself.

Consider that even the words "free" and "will" confess that they needs have some sort of independent, self-determining capacity, lest it not properly be styled "free" and consequently unable to "will" anything. In us creatures, we have such a capacity. Notice, however, that in the height of even human love, we foresake our own free-will, and sacrifice it, as it were, and hand it over to another. In traditional marriage, the man and the woman gift to one another all that they are, and return it. The greatest act of love we can make is to deny ourselves our own free-will for the sake of another.

The Revolt in Heaven

Christians know that man, though created after the angels, was placed or destined to be above the angels in the celestial court. God Himself would (the angels knew perfectly) condescend to take upon Himself our nature, and owing to this man would be elevated, as it were, in celestial status, and by consequence be above the angels, even served by them. This love of God for His creature, man, is the source of the angelic corruption, possibly because it created a scandal that tempted the first revolt. It is believed that, out of pride, Lucifer was determined to "justify" his angelic nature's superiority to man. This is, of course, self-righteousness. It was as if Lucifer was saying, No, no ! Look upon the goodness you have given me, and take this upon yourself ! We angels will not suffer you to condescend down to the things of man ! Contrast this to what the Lord said to Peter, after Peter tried to persuade Him not to take up His Cross,

[21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter:

Go behind me, Satan

, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

The devil chose his stratagem in the garden so as to maximize the damage done. By poisoning, as it were, mankind, all of creation, which was bound up in and to him, would also suffer, and so the entirety of creation would "groan," as the Apostle says, "for the revelation of the sons of God."

The Consequences of Evil

...Are depravity, madness, irrationality, disorder, confusion, chaos, et. al. I said earlier we could understand evil, but I speak most humanly. We call things crazy, insane, mad, etc., because they are beyond understanding, owing to their being irrational, contradictory, etc. Evil is like this. It cannot, properly speaking, be understood, as if it somehow made sense. It is, ultimately, utter depravity. It causes these things because it is contrary to nature, which is good. Evil and vice deprive, destroy, and take away from good. Evil is, at its core, "nothingness," for as the Creed confesses, we were, originally, made out of nothing by God. Without God, we would return to nothing. Ultimately, there is nothing in or of us that is not in some way bound or dependent upon God. The horrors of hell, for the Christian, is depicted as pain and suffering for all eternity, such is the dread imagined by the loss of any communion with our God, Who is all-love, all-goodness ; however, theologically speaking, Hell is the complete absence of God, and hence we can "taste" a little bit of what hell is like here on Earth, owing to the consequences of evil ; nonetheless, not even this compares to the complete absence of God, of goodness in life.

About the Devil.

Lucifer, which name is from Latin, and means Light-Bearer, as we know from the Scriptures he is wont to masquerade as an angel of light, to boldly lie and offer to men the abyss of darkness, though calling it light, is more commonly known as the devil, though there be many devils. He is depraved - it is important to understand this. In his folly, he may have known full-well that by his revolt and rebellion God would actually facilitate our salvation, our elevation ; nonetheless, what he did was irrevocably evil and unforgiveable. He cannot claim ignorance. He cannot claim temptation, as man can, he cannot claim duress or fear or any thing else we men must suffer owing to his (the devil's) treason. The angels have the beatific vision before them always. They share in the very mind of God. Having rebelled, they loose this, and retain only their essential nature as angels. Lucifer, therefore, no longer knows the mind of God, and hence why Lucifer had no idea that by betraying Jesus in Judas he was actually facilitating the very thing he wanted to prevent ; namely, man's justification. Realizing he was tricked, as it were, he went even more mad ; that is, became even more depraved, and knowing that his time must soon end, he sought and does still seek the utter destruction of man and souls, knowing how dear these are to God, but also knowing this is pure vanity ; nonetheless, what God has done is irreversible, and hence the prophecy at the beginning of Scriptures after the Fall, "you shall strike her heel, but she shall crush your head." This is why Judas hung himself. He so despaired of what he had done he chose not to carry on living with the guilt he had acquired for himself ; nonetheless, his sin is even worse by this fact, for he denied God's love and forgiveness. Even Judas could and would have been forgiven by his Master, Jesus Christ. He was possessed, according to Scriptures, the moment he assented in mind to do as the devil would do. Judas' own depravity in mind ; namely, condescending to betray the Son of God and Saviour of Mankind, our Great King, was so perverse and heinous that every devil and demon on earth found an abode in him, not surprisingly, we find him despairing and hanging from a tree. Notice the parallel pictures : Jesus hung from a Cross, made of wood from the tree, and Judas, who betrayed Him, hung also from a tree. There was a law that said anyone who hung from a tree was cursed. Jesus hung from the Cross that the curse would be brought upon Himself, though he be innocent ; Judas, to condemn himself by that curse, such was his hatred of his own self, such was the ultimate consequence of his own depravity. Judas made himself his own judge. God, in Christ, took upon Himself our sorrows, our burdens, our punishments, and bore them for us. His loving goodness is such that He takes away our sins from us. He gifts to us salvation, though we by no means earned it, and we are left to choose to either accept this gift, and have life, or else reject it, and choose death : we can suffer the life-giving Wood of the Cross, which is of a dead tree, or we can hang ourselves from a living tree.

Disclaimer : This is all quite difficult, and I ask the reader to take the general picture drawn and not obsess on any particular points, for I fully admit that there may be errors, owing to my limited understanding ; nonetheless, I submit all I shall write to the teachings of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, and to all learned men of good-will everywhere.

Pax,

Tim

Edited February 13, 2011 by Timothy17

[pinko]

"to all learned men of good-will everywhere"

feminists may object to such a gender reference.

[Jonsa]

Disclaimer : This is all quite difficult, and I ask the reader to take the general picture drawn and not obsess on any particular points, for I fully admit that there may be errors, owing to my limited understanding ; nonetheless, I submit all I shall write to the teachings of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, and to all learned men of good-will everywhere.

Pax,

Tim

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I won't get into detail, but I still have trouble with circular logic and the source of what you state as fact. The knowing of God's will and intention and even his condesension. If I understand you correctly God didn't create evil - then who did?

Regardless, I respect your right to your belief, even if I can't agree.

[betsy]

If I understand you correctly God didn't create evil - then who did?

Quite timely and right on cue, Charles Price started a 6-part series called KNOWING GOD. This transcript excerpt from part 1 Existence of God....which started yesterday, incidentally talked about Creation.

This might somehow help with this discussion.

The fourth argument is the moral argument and this is argument that comes from

our awareness of right and wrong and the existence of a conscience that we

have. It’s sometimes called the anthropological argument. Now, there are

various forms of this argument but basically the most simple aspect of this

argument is the fact that we have an innate sense of right and wrong. Children

have an innate sense of what is just and what is fair. Children know what is fair -

you don’t have to teach them - they know every quickly as they grow up. There

is this moral consciousness.

Paul actually spoke about this and used this in Romans 2:14 when he said there,

“When Gentiles, who do not have the law” (which of course God had given

to the Jews through Moses) “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do

by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even

though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of

the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,

and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”

Now says Paul, here’s a marvellous thing: Gentiles who have never had the law

of God, the Ten Commandments and the revelation the Jewish people live by,

actually believe the same things about what’s good and what’s bad, what’s right

and what’s wrong. People have this innate sense of right and wrong. We may

be spiritually dead, we may be separated from God, but the fingerprints of God’s

moral character are in our conscience. And incidentally, this also reveals

something that God is not just a passive, impersonal power but that there is a

moral dimension, an ethical dimension, a right and a wrong dimension, a good

and a bad dimension to God. And that’s why you will find that most movies that

you watch, most novels that you read, the good wins over evil, because if it

doesn’t we are offended by that, because the natural heart of people wants good

to win.

And even when there are evil movements in the world, they have been justified

by their followers in the belief that they are good – like Hitler in the 1930’s where

the whole nation of Germany, pretty well, rallied behind him because Germany

after the defeat of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which

stripped Germany of all its assets, which took away from her all her foreign

territories, that gave back areas that she had occupied – there were parts of

Czechoslovakia, Poland and so on – gave these back, that denied them the

freedom to build up armed forces and especially in the Rhineland which was a

buffer between Germany and France and Belgium and Luxembourg. And when

this agreement was made and was signed forcibly by the Germans because they

were told if they didn’t, World War I would re-start. It so humiliated the nation,

there was such an anger burning under the surface that when the Weimar

Republic fell in 1933, Hitler came to power with the objective of re-occupying the

Rhineland, which he did in 1936 and then taking back Czechoslovakia and

Poland, which precipitated the World War II. But for the German people, the

argument was: this is restoring our dignity in giving us back our rights. So the

belief was this was good thing even though the tactics and the ultimate campaign

to annihilate the Jewish race in Europe was evil.

The same with Al-Queda; those who support it believe that western influence is

bad for the world, especially for the Islamic world. And the presence of infidels in

Islamic territory as they would see it, need to be driven out. Even evil has to be

justified as something good. No movement exists that says, “we are going to do

something evil”, period.

They say, “We are going to do something good”, even though it may be evil, as in those two cases for instance.

And so this argument says that this sense of the need for good is an evidence,

that we’re not just a fluke, an accident; we are a creation of a God who has a

moral dimension to Him.

http://www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/KNG/KNG_1.pdf

Edited February 14, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

"Children know what is fair -

you don’t have to teach them - they know every quickly as they grow up. There

is this moral consciousness."

Do you have any empirical evidence for such a proposition?

[Shwa]

On the "Nature" of Evil.

Please understand the error in the thread title. It is a classical heresy, of Gnostic origin, to imagine that nature is or can be "evil" or that even "evil" has a "nature." Evil is anti-nature. Saying evil has a nature is like saying darkness has a light. Darkness is the absence of light ; likewise, imagining evil to have a "nature" would make it something akin to heat, which increases or decreases measurably. Evil does not "increase" properly speaking, evil is more akin to "cold" or "coldness," which - like light to darkness - is the absence of itself. Objectively speaking, there is no such "thing" as cold or darkness, because it is the absence of something. Evil is, therefore, the absence or loss of good.

Then it follows that God did create the condition - "good" - for which evil can manifest itself. Therefore, either God made evil as a logical corollary of good; or that the "good" God made was seriously flawed.

[Jonsa]

Quite timely and right on cue, Charles Price started a 6-part series called KNOWING GOD. This transcript excerpt from part 1 Existence of God....which started yesterday, incidentally talked about Creation.

This might somehow help with this discussion.

http://www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/KNG/KNG_1.pdf

Sorry, but the argument that because non-believers believe in similar laws or "do by nature" that which is required by god's laws as proof of god's existence is self referential nonsense.

To argue that banning murder, theft, rape, and other property crimes are laws divinely created is just plain sad. But, Paul didn't have the benefit of sociology, anthropology, psychology, biology nor history to develop such a devine thesis, to him human behaviour must have been a perplexing mystery solved only by God.

The code of Hammurabi was created some 350 years before moses received the 10 commandments. So, if Paul was right, God sat around for a few thousand years (a nod to the young earthers) waiting for somebody to discover him but in the meantime he gave the pagans a natural set of behaviours and attitudes that some smarty pants codified into "law", meaning that God's law was "revealed" long before Moses went up the mountain and long before anyone knew God existed. chicken meet egg.

[wyly]

Sorry, but the argument that because non-believers believe in similar laws or "do by nature" that which is required by god's laws as proof of god's existence is self referential nonsense.

To argue that banning murder, theft, rape, and other property crimes are laws divinely created is just plain sad. But, Paul didn't have the benefit of sociology, anthropology, psychology, biology nor history to develop such a devine thesis, to him human behaviour must have been a perplexing mystery solved only by God.

The code of Hammurabi was created some 350 years before moses received the 10 commandments. So, if Paul was right, God sat around for a few thousand years (a nod to the young earthers) waiting for somebody to discover him but in the meantime he gave the pagans a natural set of behaviours and attitudes that some smarty pants codified into "law", meaning that God's law was "revealed" long before Moses went up the mountain and long before anyone knew God existed. chicken meet egg.

and you could examine the ancient eygptians laws and confucian teachings and find the same basic principles for social behaviour...christianity has no claim to basic social behaviour found in all societies...

one of my favourite life moments was seeing and touching the Hammurabi code in the Louvre, I had no idea that's where it was kept but I recognized as soon as I walked in the room...being a history buff a very cool moment for me...