On the matters of faiths, beliefs, sciences and worldviews.

Will you look at that, Ray is giving us another one of his fascinatingly flawed analogies to dissect:

When I was about 8 years old I thought nothing of throwing a stone the full length of our street, just to see how far it would go. My problem was that I didn’t understand that sometimes actions can have serious consequences.

One day I was in a tree-filled empty lot, three doors along from our house. For some reason I threw a stone into the trees. Suddenly I heard the sound of glass breaking, and high-tailed it out of there like a rabbit that had just seen a hungry fox.

A few minutes later, the fox was at our back door. Then I heard my mom call my name, and then ask, “Did you just throw a stone through Mr. Prescott’s window?” I stepped out of my room and said that I had. I can’t remember anything else about the incident, except that my mom has said a number of times how proud she was that I had done the right thing by telling the truth.

When it comes to the issue of sin, we don’t understand that there are deadly serious consequences. We lie, steal, lust, covet, and blaspheme without too much thought. It’s no big deal. But every time we do so, we smash the window of God’s Law and that Law demands retribution. Now He’s waiting for us to do the right thing and ‘fess up. If we refuse to come out in the open we will pay for it ourselves, and there will be Hell to pay.

Ok, so the first three paragraphs are pretty straight-forward. I guess it took a while before Ray grew up to be the kook he is today. The last paragraph, however, is ripe for the picking. First of all, let’s take the issue of consequences. Ray is right to point out that actions have consequences, but speaking of people’s actions in a society, that’s not always true. Ray speaks (as usual) of laws and justice, but neglects to mention that there is such a thing as a “victimless crime”, an action that does not have a reaction towards another person. Drugs, for example, are often said to be a victimless crime, because it doesn’t actually hurt or affect anyone other than yourself. Thankfully, in most societies, the Biblical sins aren’t actually literally illegal, but if they were, most of them would also fit the description of a victimless crime. When I lust after another person, that hurts a grand total of no one. It is an act that doesn’t even have a reaction to any meaningful degree. It might lead me to take another action, such as approaching the person I’m lusting after, but that’s another act altogether. The act of lusting is a victimless crime.

Apparently, according to Ray, God is like some “universal judge” that will sentence all of us for the crimes we commit, supposedly, against him. Not mentioning the fact that this means the judge (who would have to remain impartial in order to be just) is also the victim, this means that not only is God the highest court of justice available (meaning no chance for appeal if you believe you’ve had an unfair trial), but he is also immune against prosecution from anyone else. In essence, God doesn’t have to follow his own laws.

How can all this possibly be called justice? Oh, silly me. You know what? Read the last paragraph again: “But every time we do so, we smash the window of God’s Law and that Law demands retribution.” Here I was talking about justice, when all God wants is revenge and retribution. Would we want judges in our society that cared more about retribution than about justice? If not, why would we ever accept a god that does exactly that?