The Most Dangerous Idea in All Christendom 

During the Vietnam war the american army committed a war crime known as the My Lai massacre over 300 people were murdered and only one man was charged for the crime; William Calley. originally given a life sentence it was commuted to 3 years house arrest by then president Nixon. despite the severity of the crimes Calley gained a lot of international support for his actions. Some calling his previous sentence too harsh, others claimed he was a scapegoat for his superiors, but most Americans disagreed with the trial entirely. Nixon was inundated with phone calls to pardon Calley to the point he turned to Henry Kissanger and muttered "Most people don't give a shit whether he killed them or not." That sentence has always stuck with me, mostly because of how much it sums up American nationalist idealisation. The biggest question being thrown around today is "Who is my friend and who is my enemy?" or "Whose side are you on?" Christian nationalist want a Christian Zeitgeist that they know and feel strong dwelling within. Now whether or not this has any Orthodoxic consistency to Nicene Christianity well... Nixon said it best: "Most people don't give a shit"

Excellent explication of why immoral biblical texts need to be rejected.

Why is it so hard for apologists to just accept just because someone said God told them to do it doesn't always make it so, even if it was a Patriarch or prophet? Even if you accept that a prophet does speak for God some times doesn't mean they speak for Him all the time. Even Prophets and Patriarchs are humans full of sin and will make mistakes, even grave mistakes. Yes, that makes it messy for us readers to not accept everything at face value, but we do that now for our modern times. Can't we also apply it to those who lived thousands of years ago?

Thank you for talking about this difficult but tremendously important issue. It is hard to believe that i used to accept the same line of thinking as some of the people you're talking about. It looks like protestants have the cognitive dissonance built into our religion because we were taught to read the Bible literally and then try to reconcile these horrible passages with the character of God

Professor Rauser, hopefully this isn't the wrong place. I tried to reach out to you via the message request form and email listed on your blog. Neither seem to work. Is there a means of contacting you?

Hi Randal, Thank you for your insights. They are truly thought-provoking and show a compassion of spirit that is often lacking in today’s world. Thank you. I found what you said around 12:20 interesting. If I understood correctly, in essence, you were saying that the most dangerous idea in Christendom is: just because God has commanded a behavior to be acceptable, it is good, and if you oppose it, then it's Satan’s lie. Although I agree with you, and I believe that this idea is used to justify many roots of hatred toward others, rather than Gods will, I find myself drawn back to an instance where Jesus Himself appears to respond from the same foundational idea-Matthew 17:21-23. If you have time, I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Warm regards,

I'm an atheist and on the other side of the apologists that you're dealing with... and thus with a perspective that sees why you're so tentative. I see you dealing with popular apologetics culture and making observations that one part leave me thinking "oh good, some Christians do notice" and one part leave me thinking "what took you so long" or "what makes you think this is at all new." What you're dealing with is a version of Christianity that cannot look upon itself and see the bad guy. That means that, when they've called all the actions of God good and the book says God gave the go-ahead to a torturous use of both direct trauma, sexual assault, and spiritual abuse, they can't say "oh, that's bad." On the atheist side of things, I fully recognize that this is a cultural context at a time and, as such, something we must transcend. And I am well aware that there are Christians who find no problem agreeing with that. But you're dealing with people who are fully committed to a side and even to a culture war. Apologetics is about winning a fight in a way and they are eager to win. As a result, a result of an ideology that demands that they are the (maybe vicarious) owners of morality, that which their side does cannot be transcended. It becomes a moral imperative not to transcend. This by the people who claim that morality can only be had their way and any goodness in society is from their influence.

So let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying that the most dangerous idea is that moral relativism is ok as long as someone claims God commanded it? The argument against it being that it goes against the very nature of God as revealed in the Bible?

The next move in this argument is usually that those who do not believe in God or who do not accept everything in the Bible without question have no basis for any moral judgements at all. Bob Dylan reflects this dark view of moral intuitions in a song from his overtly Christian era, and I still do not know if he himself endorses this as sound teaching or not: Preacher was a talkin’, there’s a sermon he gave He said every man’s conscience is vile and depraved You cannot depend on it to be your guide When it’s you who must keep it satisfied It ain’t easy to swallow, it sticks in the throat She gave her heart to the man In the long black coat

How is "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" in "fundamental contradiction" that we should be skeptical about our own moral intuitions? It's like a Christianity where we are not even sinners anymore.

I don't think that individual Rojan, understands his argumentation. 1. Let's get it straight. Adam and Eve may have listened to Satan (the serpent is not directly named as Satan in that story), but they gained knowledge via the tree that this god character planted. In fact, this god character was disturbed because Adam and Eve were becoming like it. Look it up. Adam and Eve were one step away from becoming gods. The next step was eating from the tree of life and gaining immortality and thus, I guess, godhood according to primitives. 2. And with the evolution of morality through the ages, one could easily argue that the bible is an untrustworthy source because it was tainted by men writing and thus, the Bible was influenced, in part, by Satan. That's how I would argue it using Rohan's words against him. All I have to do is say "So you like genocide?" and pick atrocity after atrocity as I smear Christianity. After all, modern people were raised in a kinder world. It's why we spend so much on our pets. We have expanded our way to be loving and kind to creatures that aren't even part of our species. 3. One could furthermore argue that our own interpretation of that text was tainted by Satan. There is no secret handshake or mark that distinguishes a true Christian from a "never a real Christian" or worse.. me. the atheist. Nothing they say or do can remove the suspicion that they are inspired by Satan. after all, Rohan said what he said. So why should I believe Christian A over Christian B over atheist me? They're liars just like Satan. (personally, I think they're suffering a delusion. Ape brains haven't evolved yet.) This is not the win that Rohan thinks it is.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Is it pineapple on pizza? just joking. That issue is actually complicated.