The Pope is called "a liar" by atheist for his Sept. 11 statement condemning terrorism

[Ana_v]

On this episode (and specifically, segment 5:50 -10:05 of the video) of a show called “The Atheist Experience”, Matt Dillahunty (the show host) offers a criticism directed towards the Pope and Christianity in general, because of what the Pope said within a letter to Archbishop Dolan:

The tragedy of that day is compounded by the perpetrators’ claim to be acting in God’s name. **Once again, it must be unequivocally stated that no circumstances can ever justify acts of terrorism. Every human life is precious in God’s sight and no effort should be spared in the attempt to promote throughout the world a genuine respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of individuals and peoples everywhere. **The American people are to be commended for the courage and generosity that they showed in the rescue operations and for their resilience in moving forward with hope and confidence. It is my fervent prayer that a firm commitment to justice and a global culture of solidarity will help rid the world of the grievances that so often give rise to acts of violence and will create the conditions for greater peace and prosperity, offering a brighter and more secure future.

(emphasis mine)

The bolded is what Matt targets.

Today I brought this whole thing up to a fellow Catholic, and he responded by saying ‘who gives a flying rip what the atheists say’? To which I answered, that there is a valid point to what they brought up, furthermore, they have a fairly large audience, and is it not our job to speak truth and correct error? And so then him and I discussed this a little bit more, but not thoroughly enough as I would have liked, which is why I post the issue on this thread.

Perhaps some are wondering 'what valid point are you talking about". I’m referring to an implied point made within the video: that it is inconsistent for a Christian on the one hand, to defend and revere the very Scriptures wherein violent actions are prescribed (regardless of the fact that these are in the Old Testament), and on the other hand, condemn gruesome violence like that exhibited by terrorism.

There are two ways of answering this:

1. No, it is not inconsistent (explain)
2. Yes it is inconsistent

However, if a person sides with (1), surely you can at least grant that it is seemingly inconsistent. In other words, step into the shoes of a non-Christian, and think about what would be going through your own mind.

All of that said, my own criticism to this atheist, is namely his usage of the word “terrorism”. Apparently he thinks that war in the Scriptures, and death penalties for specific acts, counts as terrorism. I don’t put it past the majority of militant atheists to never have read the Catechism (or even be unaware of it, for that matter), but the Cathecism does qualify terrorism:

Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity.

(CCC 2297)

(bold emphasis mine)

And this qualification matches precisely, corresponds precisely with that happend on Sept. 11, 2001.

My other criticism, centers around Matt’s use of the word “liar” and “lies”.

It always amazes me how uncritically people use the word “lie” and “liar”.

To say " my friend doesn’t like cheesecake" is not a lie if I believe it to be true. The statement may be a falsehood (let’s say, my friend does like cheesecake, but she has always publicly refused to eat it, acts as though she doesn’t like it, and tells people she doesn’t like it, yet secretly she does), but not a lie necessarily. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. All lies are falsehoods, not all falsehoods are lies.

For something to be a “lie”, there are two essential compononents:

1. A falsehood
2. A person who knowingly states the falsehood (that is, he/she knows that what he/she is saying, is a falsehood).

What part of “Once again, it must be unequivocally stated that no circumstances can ever justify acts of terrorism” is a lie?

The irony is that, in calling it a lie, the atheist is (unwittingly) saying that there ARE circumstances which can justify acts of terrorism.

What part of “Every human life is precious in God’s sight and no effort should be spared in the attempt to promote throughout the world a genuine respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of individuals and peoples everywhere” is a lie?

By calling it a lie, are you saying that we should NOT attempt to promote throughout the world, a genuine respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of individuals?

Or is it the part that implies God’s existence? Since the atheist does not believe in the existence of God, that therefore makes this a lie? Actuallym, for it to be a lie, the Pope would have to be an atheist posing as a theist!

Is it the part that says every human life is precious in [the Christian] God’s sight? So if God takes the very life he created, that means it wasn’t precious? Non sequitur. What bearing does taking someone’s life, have on whether that person’s life had intrinsic value?

Ok, done with my rant. Later I’ll probably copy my comments from here, onto the youtube comment thread. That may or may not be a good idea (I’ve encountered many times, some pretty vulgar online atheists).

 

[Heuchler]

Most of the killing in the Bible is rational for a vulnerable nation. The jews were a nomadic tribe that was constantly under attack and slavery. For the most part, it was fight or be enslaved. And while some of the laws were very harsh, most were created by Mose and were used to create a peaceful society. Back then you didn’t have jails to hold criminals in, you couldn’t easily make them pay fines, and you had to scare off crime. So, logically, the best way to deal with crimials and create an orderly society is to impose death penalty. So, most murder in the Bible was required if the Jewish people were going to survive and have an ordered society.

And the people on that show are very foolish to say that the Pope lied when he said that. By saying that they imply that terrorism is ok and that the Pope was lying when he said terrorism is wrong because the Bible portrayed war. That is stupid and indicative of an atheisitic approach of rummaging to find anything at all to claim against religion.

 

[Contarini]

Most of the killing in the Bible is rational for a vulnerable nation. The jews were a nomadic tribe that was constantly under attack and slavery.

That’s the kind of justification used by modern Islamic terrorists as well.

I agree that calling the Pope a “liar” was just absurd, but it’s valid to say that some of the behavior described favorably in the OT sounds a lot like the behavior of modern religious terrorists.

I suspect that the Pope doesn’t see that behavior as moral, and I wish he would say so. But perhaps I’m wrong, either in my interpretation of his Biblical views or in my opinion as to what a Pope ought to say publicly.

My approach is that the violence in the OT records the Hebrews’ cultural response to God’s mandate that they be holy and avoid idolatry. However, to understand what God really wanted we have to look at the Cross of Jesus. Again, I think the Pope probably agrees with me, but I can’t prove it.

Edwin

 

[Heuchler]

That’s the kind of justification used by modern Islamic terrorists as well.

Well actually, the terrorists claim that they are called to perform Jihad of the sword if there is no other way to convert non-believers along with a belief that America is an evil place that needs to be destroyed. They are in no way similar to the Jewish people who had to defend themselves to live.

 

[cerad2]

So, most murder in the Bible was required if the Jewish people were going to survive and have an ordered society.

Please tell me you are joking. The best plan that the most powerful being in (and out of) the universe could come up with to protect his chosen people was to have them go around killing other people?

 

[Heuchler]

Please tell me you are joking. The best plan that the most powerful being in (and out of) the universe could come up with to protect his chosen people was to have them go around killing other people?

If you have another idea of how a nation survives and is not slaughetered in the ancient world, please share it. Otherwise that is the best, non-miraculous way (because God created the laws of nature and doesn’t like to break them).

 

[RobbyS]

Most of the killing in the Bible is rational for a vulnerable nation. The jews were a nomadic tribe that was constantly under attack and slavery. For the most part, it was fight or be enslaved. And while some of the laws were very harsh, most were created by Mose and were used to create a peaceful society. Back then you didn’t have jails to hold criminals in, you couldn’t easily make them pay fines, and you had to scare off crime. So, logically, the best way to deal with crimials and create an orderly society is to impose death penalty. So, most murder in the Bible was required if the Jewish people were going to survive and have an ordered society.

And the people on that show are very foolish to say that the Pope lied when he said that. By saying that they imply that terrorism is ok and that the Pope was lying when he said terrorism is wrong because the Bible portrayed war. That is stupid and indicative of an atheisitic approach of rummaging to find anything at all to claim against religion.

The Bible reports a progressive revelation and describes the history of a people seeking to understand events in the light of their communication with a god unlike the gods of the lands about them. In danger of trivialized things, I compare the relationship between God and the Israelites as something like that of the serial-killer, hero “Dexter,” and his father. Knowing his child, Dexter’s father seeks to channel his son’s appetite for violence so that it will achieve justice. Much blood is spilled in the Bible but also much justice is achieved.

 

[Heuchler]

The Bible reports a progressive revelation and describes the history of a people seeking to understand events in the light of their communication with a god unlike the gods of the lands about them. In danger of trivialized things, I compare the relationship between God and the Israelites as something like that of the serial-killer, hero “Dexter,” and his father. Knowing his child, Dexter’s father seeks to channel his son’s appetite for violence so that it will achieve justice. Much blood is spilled in the Bible but also much justice is achieved.

I think thats a good way to put it. I think it more in terms of they have to do that to surivive but God still brought justice out of it so yes, excellent point.

 

[RobbyS]

Please tell me you are joking. The best plan that the most powerful being in (and out of) the universe could come up with to protect his chosen people was to have them go around killing other people?

He knew the nature of both his children and their enemies. They were all children of Adam and Eve, who had rebelled against His will. He had chosen among the wolves, and picked out some whom he would elevate above that state. But the nature of the others was largely unchanged. No all, of course. Many gentiles in the Bible are also touched by his grace. But if they are to survive, then they cannot be left helpless before their foes.

 

[Hokomai]

Well actually, the terrorists claim that they are called to perform Jihad of the sword if there is no other way to convert non-believers along with a belief that America is an evil place that needs to be destroyed. They are in no way similar to the Jewish people who had to defend themselves to live.

So please explain the justification for the genocide of every man, woman, and child in Jericho after its defeat, and distinguish that morally from 9/11.

 

[cerad2]

If you have another idea of how a nation survives and is not slaughetered in the ancient world, please share it. Otherwise that is the best, non-miraculous way (because God created the laws of nature and doesn’t like to break them).

I don’t claim to be the lord god and master of the universe. But surely a bit of diplomacy, a few magic tricks like Moses used and perhaps a burning bush or two would have sufficed?

 

[Petergee]

So please explain the justification for the genocide of every man, woman, and child in Jericho after its defeat, and distinguish that morally from 9/11.

Standard practice in war at that time and often even up until our own day. (And if it wasn’t for Judaeo-Christianity, you wouldn’t even see anything wrong with it.) God taught Israel step by step, He chose not to reveal His whole truth at once, but over generations and centuries, man coming to comprehend it gradually according to man’s natural way of learning gradually as a community . In this case God’s command modified man’s usual behaviour towards a captured city by demanding that certain people be spared and that the Israelites must not loot anything.

 

[Petergee]

I don’t claim to be the lord god and master of the universe. But surely a bit of diplomacy, a few magic tricks like Moses used and perhaps a burning bush or two would have sufficed?

You reckon? It took numerous “magic tricks” including the death of every first-born Egyptian for the Israelites to be even freed from slavery. And then Pharoah changed his mind as soon as they were out of sight.

Putting aside the fact that you as a man can’t judge the morality of what God does, how do yopu figure that drowning thousands of Egyptians in the Red Sea is moral but putting thousands (more likely hundreds) of Jerichoites to the sword, so that the Israelites can get a homeland, is immoral.

 

[Heuchler]

I don’t claim to be the lord god and master of the universe. But surely a bit of diplomacy, a few magic tricks like Moses used and perhaps a burning bush or two would have sufficed?

Well, when God tried that one out, He had to end up sending plagues which ended in the killing of every firstborn. It’s in Exodus, and it shows that the ancient world didn’t listen well to what God was saying.

Now the genocide at Jericho comes from Joshua 6. Now correct me if I’m wrong but no one gave the order to kill them all. All it says is that the soldiers went in and killed them all. No command from God nothing of that sort. And do you really expect the Jewish people to take prisoners? They didn’t have slaves or camps to throw the people in. There was no use for them. Fear would have taken up the Jewish officials that an uprising would occur if they just left them. The safest way back then if you aren’t going to enslave people is to wipe them out. So, this came from the standpoint of the society that needed to either kill them all or enslave them. As we can see the Jews didn’t enslave people.

 

[Heuchler]

You reckon? It took numerous “magic tricks” including the death of every first-born Egyptian for the Israelites to be even freed from slavery. And then Pharoah changed his mind as soon as they were out of sight.

Putting aside the fact that you as a man can’t judge the morality of what God does, how do yopu figure that drowning thousands of Egyptians in the Red Sea is moral but putting thousands (more likely hundreds) of Jerichoites to the sword, so that the Israelites can get a homeland, is immoral.

Sorry didn’t mean to practically copy you. I guess I started writing my response before you submitted yours so sorry.

 

[Contarini]

Well actually, the terrorists claim that they are called to perform Jihad of the sword if there is no other way to convert non-believers along with a belief that America is an evil place that needs to be destroyed.

Perhaps you can give me a better statement of the motivations of Islamic terrorists than this one?

They are in no way similar to the Jewish people who had to defend themselves to live.

The book of Joshua simply doesn’t bear this out. Perhaps you could make this argument with regard to the wars against Sihon and Og. But even then, none of that explains the command to kill the women and children, which was not standard ancient practice and which was not conceivably necessary in order to survive. Survival would, to put it bluntly, be assisted by enslaving rather than massacring the non-combatant members of the enemy population. The command to slaughter was a religious command, not a survival one, and goes beyond anything I have heard advocated by the most radical Islamist.

There is a line of argument that claims that this was standard hyperbole used in ancient accounts of warfare. I’m dubious about this because of the explicit distinction made a couple of times between the normal practice of enslaving women and children and the divine mandate to kill them.

I am happy to believe that the historical reality was less bloody than a face-value reading of the text would indicate, and even (though this is a bit more of a stretch) that the original human authors intended to speak hyperbolically, and were simply indicating that the war in question was a war to wipe out God’s enemies rather than a war to extend one’s power or gain loot.

In fact, if one takes a Christocentric, “progressive revelation” view (I prefer the former term to the latter, because I believe that “progress” is focused on Christ and is not simply built into history), the Biblical injunctions about war become a basis for pacifism. We are called to wage “holy war” and holy war only, and the only holy war we are called to wage is nonviolent. What we are not called to do is to sanction the pragmatically bloody wars of the state.

I recognize that we could argue this point, and I don’t put it forward to start a debate about war, but to point out to non-believers that there are multiple ways to read the OT in this regard.

Edwin

 

[cerad2]

Well, when God tried that one out, He had to end up sending plagues which ended in the killing of every firstborn. It’s in Exodus, and it shows that the ancient world didn’t listen well to what God was saying.

Now the genocide at Jericho comes from Joshua 6. Now correct me if I’m wrong but no one gave the order to kill them all. All it says is that the soldiers went in and killed them all. No command from God nothing of that sort. And do you really expect the Jewish people to take prisoners? They didn’t have slaves or camps to throw the people in. There was no use for them. Fear would have taken up the Jewish officials that an uprising would occur if they just left them. The safest way back then if you aren’t going to enslave people is to wipe them out. So, this came from the standpoint of the society that needed to either kill them all or enslave them. As we can see the Jews didn’t enslave people.

This is one reason why true believers are scary. God couldn’t put together a competent marketing team and thus had to kill all the firstborns to get his message out. And this is considered to be good thing.

Why conquer Jericho in the first place? The Israelites had been wandering about for 40 years. Couldn’t they have wandered to someplace uninhabited?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Perhaps you could call in to the Atheist Experience to debate this with them. They made it clear during the first call in the show you mentioned that they want more theistic callers.

All of that said, my own criticism to this atheist, is namely his usage of the word “terrorism”. Apparently he thinks that war in the Scriptures, and death penalties for specific acts, counts as terrorism. I don’t put it past the majority of militant atheists to never have read the Catechism (or even be unaware of it, for that matter), but the Cathecism does qualify terrorism:

Terrorism

There are a number of ways to define ‘terrorism,’ but the the 911 attacks were arguably not indiscriminate. The 911 attacks were aimed discriminately at a certain nation (with the small % of Muslim victims in the WTC, planes, and pentagon being considered co- martyrs). It may not have been have been much more discriminate than that, but that seems to be no more indiscriminate than Yahweh ordering the Israelites to kill all living thing, including men, women, and children, in some cities in the Old Testament.

My other criticism, centers around Matt’s use of the word “liar” and “lies”.

. . .]

For something to be a “lie”, there are two essential compononents:

1. A falsehood
2. A person who knowingly states the falsehood (that is, he/she knows that what he/she is saying, is a falsehood).

What part of “Once again, it must be unequivocally stated that no circumstances can ever justify acts of terrorism” is a lie?

That was not what Matt called a lie.

Matt said:

Contrary to the Pope’s lies, terrorism is justifiable by many dogmatic religions which rely on the authority of ancient scriptures and petty gods.

I believe that the lie that Matt is referring to is the message that ‘terrorism’ is not justified in any circumstance according to the Bible and other holy books.

By calling it a lie, are you saying that we should NOT attempt to promote throughout the world, a genuine respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of individuals?

No. In calling it a lie, I think he is saying that the Bible does not promote a genuine respect for the inalienable rights and dignity of individuals, and even mentions the god having lack of respect for those things.

 

[manualman]

The vast majority of us here posting are doing so from a nice heated and/or air conditioned office in the western world where we take a truly impressive level of civilization for granted wherever humans can be found.

It does not necessarily translate so easily to the ancient world. I see no reason to disbelieve that God is big enough to discern that each and every person in a particular culture has a lifetime trajectory that lead to eternal damnation. Therefore, where is the crime in HIM ordering the execution of said entire people?

The danger is in supposing that these OT accounts amount to precedent for continuing to behave that way based on HUMAN judgement of someone’s fatal sinfulness. But the redemption of man has made a real change in humanity that has spread across the world since then. Jesus himself has countermanded that sort of approach (presumably precisely because His Incarnation changed the world itself).

It is not murder for God to kill or to order killing. We have to remember that God has this little problem: He thinks he’s GOD! God would only have ever given such a command if there was no hope of repentence. And only God could know that. That isn’t just a NT notion, btw. It’s a theme that recurs in the OT.

 

[Elixir]

Modern terrorism cannot possibly be equated to war in the ancient world. It’s an absurd reach.

Now, if he wishes to just say that he rejects the Bible because he sees God as cruel then fine, let him plainly state that.

Essentially his point is that religion = ignorant brutality. There’s no amount of argumentation about the nature of God or religion is going to change his mind.