My first response to Mr. Till ended with these words: "Perhaps he is saving the best for last. We shall see." It is now clear that he wasn't! Thoughtful readers know he failed to substantiate his assertion. He kept up an effort to pull me into a discussion of irrelevant questions. However, posing such questions did not establish Till's case. As the affirmative disputant, it was not his place to pose questions. He was obligated to show that Israelite conduct in 1 Samuel 15 constituted a moral atrocity. This he failed to do. If Mr. Till had been able to sustain his affirmative, he would have been on me like ugly on an ape. Instead, we were served a large portion of subterfuge--Till style. His article shows the desperation of a defeated fighter. He lashes out wildly, but the blows have no power. Till lost the first round and knows it.
I thought we were finally going to engage the disputed issue when I read the opening paragraph of Mr. Till's second "affirmative." He clearly stated his position: "The killing of just one Amalekite woman or child or infant, solely because of her, his, or its nationality, would have constituted moral atrocity by any civilized standard of morality." Where is the unequivocal proof? Where is the objective quantitative data? He offers none! He shows us no ruined cities, no skeletal remains, no bloody weapons, nothing! He simply makes the assertion that Israel's conduct constituted a moral atrocity and hangs it on air. His statement grossly distorts reality. Not one Amalekite was killed solely because of nationality. The Amalekites were a persistently wicked people; consequently God ordered their execution.
Till's next piece of duplicity was especially juvenile. He claims he was only trying to establish the extent of Saul's massacre by citing instances where David's guerrilla forces killed hundreds of Amalekites after Saul had presumably utterly destroyed them. He says that I mistook his introduction of this material for an attempt to show discrepancies in the biblical record. Till says he was trying to show that there were a lot of Amalekites in Saul's day. Mr. Till must think his readers are idiots. No one but Mr. Till disputes that Saul killed thousands of Amalekites. There is no need to prove it to me. Mr. Till must prove the events of 1 Samuel 15 constituted a moral atrocity. He must produce objective quantitative data to substantiate his allegation.
In the first exchange, I explained the presence of Amalekites after the events of 1 Samuel 15. Saul disobeyed God in sparing the life of king Agag. Who knows what else he purposely neglected to do in executing his orders? Amalekite military units that were out of the country when Saul descended upon the nation would have escaped destruction. Diplomats on foreign assignment, and businessmen who were abroad at the time, would also have been spared. Mr. Till failed to notice these explanations because they blew his quibble apart. Furthermore, the presence of Amalekites after the events of 1 Samuel 15 does not establish Mr. Till's position. He is obligated to prove those events constituted a moral atrocity. He must produce objective sensory data that unequivocally proves his assertion in the absence of an objective standard of morality.
My refusal to chase Till's rabbits elicited this clever response: "He [Mitchell] preferred instead to chase straw men." The first alleged straw man was Till's position on abortion. He opined, "[A]s if that had anything to do with the issue of moral atrocity in the Amalekite massacre." Since Mr. Till introduced his abortion stance, I noted his glaring inconsistency. He will not allow God to punish a wicked nation but defends killing inconvenient infants. The Omniscient God cannot determine that the infants of Amalek were destined to pursue the wicked course their ancestors relentlessly followed for 450 years. Yahweh could not judge the wicked and call the innocent into his matchless presence, but it is morally upright to slaughter 25-30 million Americans by abortion. He is horrified by God's justice but supports death by dismemberment via the dilation and curettage abortion procedure. He defends covering infants with a corrosive, forcing it into their lungs and stomach, and leaving them to convulse for hours until death mercifully comes. This is the result of a salt-poisoning abortion. This man claims to have such respect for all life that he refuses to squash a bug.
Mr. Till refuses to concede that God stands ontologically on a higher plane than man, which qualifies him to justly demand actions that no man could require. Despite placing such restrictions on God, Mr. Till condones the brutal death of over 400 infants in this country every day. He is afraid the population will get so large that he will not have enough to eat.
Reeling under the weight of his glaring inconsistencies, this lame defense was offered: "I am not an advocate of abortion; I am simply anti-prolife in the sense that I cannot accept the dogmatism of those who look at the issue in the typically black or white way that Christian fundamentalists assess most moral situations." This is an incredible piece of imbecilic nonsense. One cannot be "simply anti-prolife" without being pro-abortion. Till attempts to dodge the bullet by saying it is God's fault for creating a biological order that contributes to the social necessity of abortion. This is asinine sophistry. Abortion is not a social necessity. Parents who have their children killed by abortion overwhelmingly do so because the birth would be an inconvenience or prove embarrassing. Besides, Till claims God doesn't exist and that evolution produced the biological order.
Mr. Till shows his temper when he roars in disgust at my citation of Solomon's words: "The legs of the lame are unequal" (Prov. 26:7a ). He shamelessly panders to the "victim classes," as a "politically correct" professor. Solomon's words are not derogatory to physically disabled people. It is a statement of fact. It no more demeans physically challenged people than saying, "The eyes of the nearsighted are weak" denigrates me.
Mr. Till really warms up when he says, "... only a fool would issue a blanket condemnation of abortion...." This is a blatant violation of his agreement to maintain civility in our exchanges. In polite society one does not refer to another as a fool. Mr. Till could not establish his case. He was incapable of handling the material I presented. If I am a fool, he is less than a fool. Solomon was right; the legs of the lame are unequal!
Another alleged straw man was Mr. Till's epistemological posture. He believes knowledge is restricted to what is gained through personal sensory experience. That posture cuts him off from any evidence resulting from testimony. He has no literary historical past. I noted his brazen lack of consistency in this regard. He readily appeals to history when it appears to support his cause. However, when an opponent appeals to history, Till hides behind his false epistemology insisting on quantitative data as unequivocal proof.
I must plead guilty to chasing a straw man. His name is Farrell Till of Canton, Illinois. He makes bold assertions he cannot consistently sustain within his own philosophical construct. He had two opportunities and abysmally failed in both attempts.
Mr. Till attempted to put a Band-Aid on the hemorrhage caused by his "objectivist philosophy." He wanted me to tell him one thing I have learned that did not come through one or more of my senses. It is not his place to ask questions as the affirmative disputant. His responsibility is to produce objective evidence that proves Israel's conduct constituted a moral atrocity. He must do this in the absence of an objective standard of morality. However, I will humor him. First, I have never said that you can learn in the absences of using the five senses. However, knowledge is not restricted to sensory data. Information coming through the senses and processed by the mind can result in knowledge that transcends sensory experience. I know that I have a conscience that causes guilt when I violate it and happiness when I behave properly. In his debate with Mac Deaver, Mr. Till said he also has a conscience. I assure you he has never tasted it. He has never touched it, heard it, smelled it, or seen it, but he knows he has one. Indeed he does, but knowing that is inconsistent with his epistemological posture. Consider another example. If I watch someone eat a hamburger and immediately get up and walk across the street, I know that the hamburger is across the street!
Mr. Till complains that my only defense of the events in 1 Samuel 15 rests on the fact that "the Omniscient God looked down the corridors of time and saw that the babes of Amalek were destined to become vicious beasts like their ancestors." He then writes, "Didn't I predict that he would resort to this?' Till seems to think simply stating matters he is unable to answer negates their force. However, my statement is more than enough to sink his ship.
Till says I retreated to an "ignominious" position fraught with insurmountable problems. First, he says, "God is both omniscient and omnipotent, but he was unable to solve a problem except by resorting to the massacre of babies." Mr. Till assumes God is unable to judge the situation fairly and punish the wicked. He assumes the giver of life has no right to terminate life. He assumes the Creator has no right to call innocent Amalekites into the protection of paradise. Mr. Till is obligated, given his epistemology, to produce objective sensory evidence that unequivocally proves this.
Second, Till says Israel should have adopted the Amalekite children to prevent their following an evil path. He says provision was even made for this in the law (Dt. 21:10-14 ). According to Till no divine laws would have been violated. As usual he is wrong. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 makes provision for a Jewish soldier to marry a captive woman. It says nothing about adopting foreign children. Further, a divine order would have been broken had this approach been taken. The order to execute the Amalekites did not allow for adoption. Saul ultimately lost the kingdom because he failed to carry out God's instructions. Mr. Till is obligated to show that Israelite conduct in 1 Samuel 15 constituted a moral atrocity. He must present objective quantitative data in the absence of any objective moral standard that logically sustains his assertion.
Third, Till says I assume without proof that the Amalekites were vicious. He says passages showing them to be bushwhackers, cutthroats, and murderers are insufficient. Their ambushing the Jews in an unprovoked attack is insufficient for Mr. Till. He asks why God would punish the Amalekites for something their ancestors did 450 years earlier. In typical Till fashion, he abuses the context of Numbers 13-14 , refusing to acknowledge the Amalekites had over four centuries to repent but instead had continued to be an unrelenting threat to God's people. He is obligated to unequivocally prove the Amalekites were not vile savages worthy of death. Let him produce quantitative data proving they were enlightened "free-thinkers" who would not even step on a bug.
Four, Till says it is problematic for God to use an imperfect nation to punish another imperfect nation. He is obligated to prove it constitutes a moral atrocity, citing objective sensory evidence in the absence of an objective moral standard. He assures readers that he is a great Bible scholar. If that were true, he would be familiar with the prophetic literature. He would know whining Jews lodged this same objection when they were taken captive by Assyria and Babylon. God's response was, "I'm not through yet, they shall be punished." He would know God did punish Assyria and Babylon.
Five, Till says the massacre of the Amalekites violated Yahweh's own edict that said iniquity would be borne by the one who committed it, not his descendants (Ezek. 18:20 ; Dt. 24:16 ). It did not. No Amalekite bore the iniquity of even one sin committed by an ancestor. They bore the result of their ancestors' rebellion but not the guilt. That happens every time car-jackers kill an innocent driver. The victims bear no guilt for the crimes committed against them, but they obviously bear the consequences. This is the price humanity pays for the ability to choose between good and evil. Till also denies that God stands ontologically on a higher plane than man, which authorizes him to require what no man could. He is obligated to unequivocally prove this with objective data in the absence of an objective standard of morality.
Though I am not affirming anything in this discussion, Mr. Till cites problems with an affirmation I did not make. You have noticed that he has not produced one tiny particle of objective quantitative data that unequivocally proves his position. As the affirmative disputant, it is his responsibility to establish his case in a manner consistent with his philosophical position.
The first problem he sees with the affirmative I did not make is that it assumes the existence of the "Omniscient God." He avers that my rebuttal can never stand until I prove God. He says "all arguments for the existence of God (ontological, teleological, cosmological, etc.) are illogical and have been answered hundreds of times." We are not debating the existence of God, and I am not in the affirmative. Mr. Till assumes God does not exist, and his affirmative can never stand until he disproves God's existence with objective quantitative evidence. He is unable to do this. He can't even prove a moral atrocity occurred in 1 Samuel 15 . The ontological, teleological, cosmological arguments for the existence of God are not illogical, and none of them has ever been successfully refuted.
Second, Till says the affirmative I never made assumes the "Omniscient God" is morally good. He says there is no logical reason to conclude that God is good. He is wrong. The existence of Good implies God's existence. Man did not create it. Man would never articulate principles restraining his impulses as God did. The gods man creates for himself are worse than he is. Things do not improve when man deifies himself. Till assumes God is not morally good. This must be proved unequivocally by objective data.
Third, Till says the affirmative I did not make assumes the "Omniscient God" has revealed absolute morality to mankind. He says there is no logical necessity for an omniscient God to reveal absolute morality. God is sovereign and does what is consistent with his nature. Mr. Till assumes God has not revealed absolute morality to man. Given his epistemological stance, he is now obligated to prove it, citing objective evidence logically compelling the conclusion. Trying to project the negative disputant into the affirmative does not establish his case. Only empirical evidence will do that.
Fourth, Till says the affirmative I did not make assumes Yahweh of the Hebrews is the "Omniscient God," and that it would not logically follow from any proof that an Omniscient God does really exist. He further asserts that "many biblical statements about Yahweh could be cited to prove that if an omniscient god does indeed exist, Yahweh could not be that god." Mr. Till assumes Yahweh of the Hebrews is not the "Omniscient God," and that it does not logically follow from any proof an omniscient God does really exist. No objective evidence supporting his assertion was produced. Till says many passages in Scripture prove Yahweh could not be the "Omniscient God." Where are the passages? Besides, Mr. till is bound by his epistemological stance to produce sensory data unequivocally proving his assertion.
Five, Till says the affirmative I did not make assumes Yahweh actually did order the massacre of the Amalekites. He assumes Yahweh did not actually order the massacre of the Amalekites. He is obligated to produce objective measurable evidence unequivocally proving his assertion. Mr. Till did not appreciate my illustration of what I could do to him with impunity if there were no objective moral standard. He assures us the "free-thinking" crowd he runs with would never think of such conduct. He told the people in Portland, Texas, he will not even step on a bug. Chairman Mao was a "freethinking" objectivist, so was Joseph Stalin, and they murdered millions. Till refuses to step on bugs but supports the daily killing of 4,000 infants through abortion. His quibble is irrelevant. The point is that there would be no intellectual basis to charge me with any crime if I chose to severely beat Mr. Till in a world without an objective standard of morality.
As ridiculous as he thinks my position on the Amalekite massacre is, my belief that it is impossible to have a moral atrocity in the absence of an objective moral standard against which to measure thoughts, words, and deeds is even more ridiculous to him. He says the Bible concedes man's ability to make correct moral decisions without divine revelation. Romans 2:14 is cited as support for his assertion. Till is wrong. Romans 2:14 does not substantiate his position. The first three chapters of Romans are devoted to a discussion of man's universal need for salvation. In chapter one, Paul shows that the Gentiles are guilty before God. In chapter two, he shows that the Jews are guilty too. In chapter three, he shows that everyone is guilty. Consequently, everyone is in need of salvation. Any interpretation of the passage must be consistent with the context.
Paul is not saying the Gentiles made "correct moral decisions" without an objective moral standard. The law the Gentiles did not have was Moses' Law. Nevertheless, because they were created in God's image, they had a sense of oughtness. Further, they were subject to God's moral law that became operative in the Garden and continues until Judgment. It reflects the same moral verities as Moses' Law.
When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, they became aware of good and evil. With that knowledge came the responsibility to choose the good. This knowledge was passed from generation to generation. To the extent that early societies reflect proper moral choices, they evidence compliance with God's initial moral law. To the extent they reflect improper choices, they evidence rebellion.
Mr. Till has huffed and puffed; he has romped and stomped; he has howled and hollered; but he has not produced one microbe of objective evidence to sustain his affirmative. Truly, it is one thing to preach theory and quite another to practice it.
(Lindell Mitchell's address is printed after his letter on
page 15.)
