Your “man who got religion” had a mental defect, and assuming that when he was talking to the priest, he actually told the priest that he caused such afflictions, so had the priest. If he did _not_ tell the priest that he deliberately caused the afflictions, then he can add liar to the rest of his sins.

The element in your story that allows MT to compare the evil done by “man who got religion” to God is the idea of predestination - the idea that God not only knows of each and every detail on earth, but _causes_ each and every detail on earth. I agree that sometimes it’s difficult to separate “allowing to happen” from “causing to happen”, but unless you belong to those who believe “insh’allah”, then you believe that you still have the power to influence what you do and to some extent, what happens to you.

Besides - the idea of predestination is inconsistent with morality - if God determines each and every action that occurs in the world, then there is no free will. With no free will, there can be no sin. If there is no sin, then there is no immorality, and there can be no morality. Morality requires free will.

The world is a place fraught with danger - we all prosper at the expense of something else. The lion kills the antelope - lion and his pride get a meal, antelope gets a death sentence. Is that evil? that assumes that death is evil. Is death evil? Is pain evil? we don’t like it, but is it evil? I’m not genius enough to solve the problem of evil in the world, but to me there’s “bad” and “evil”. “Bad” is a physical something that causes pain or death. “Evil” is a term for moral “bad”. The two should not be synonymous, but we usually use them that way.

This a feature of Calvinism and other churches like Joel’s.

For thousands of years prior to Judaism and even after it, there was a clear distinction between the Numinous (The Spirit behind this world, or The Almighty and Unknowable God) and the Moral Law. All cultures acknowledged that there is a Moral Law, a series of “rights” and “wrongs”, but it had nothing to do with the Numinous. The two were separate, that is, the existence of God and the gods did not compel one into moral actions.

Even the ancient Romans had statues to this unknowable God.

The revolution in human consciousness occurred with Moses when the Numinous was wedded to the Moral Law. Indeed, the Numinous was the AUTHOR of the Moral Law and he will make Mankind accountable to his actions.

The was an “oh boy” moment for the ancients because the Numinous is the one commanding Men to do the Moral Law and this places certain obligations on him. Furthermore, because it is the Numinous that created the Moral Law, implicit in this is that God’s claim on humanity is total.

Indeed, Bookworm, for the past few decades, it has been the endeavor of many to decouple the Numinous from the Moral Law. We see this disconnect everywhere we turn. One can be pious in proclaiming moral values and a return to the Christian roots of our country in the morning and get into drunken bacchanalia at night at the local bar. One can extol the virtues of caring for the environment and fly all over the country polluting to do it.

In modern lingo, we call this double standards, or hypocrisy, but what it really boils down to it decoupling morality with God.

If you don’t follow God’s explicitly stated rules, he will trounce you, big time.

I believe this is one of the primary differences between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism tends to be inclined toward very stringent rules. For instance, the Sanhedrim which has been recently seated in Jerusalem, have to be absolutely pure and must have never set one foot on the ground.

Christianity does not believe this. Christianity believes in the perfect law, which is “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

The other primary difference is where the Hebrews believe that God is unknowable and they are still waiting for the Messiah.

Christians believe that God is knowable through the Son, who is Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Christians believe that the Messiah has already come and will come again.

We do as he desires because it is good for us, not because he’ll fall into a screaming fit on some heavenly floor.

Christians do as he desires not only because it is good for us, but it is the only way of returning to our rightful home in Heaven with Him.

In the Liberal Left view, if you are rich, then it must be because you took that wealth from someone else, an ancient concept if there ever was (hardly “progressive”, in other words). It is amazing to me how Adam Smith’s ideas demand justification even today, given the huge amount of wealth that capitalism has created for everyone.

Like I said - conflicting ideas which cause much confusion even within our own individual outlook on life…

“There is still a tendency to think that wealthy people are morally good _because_ they are wealthy, and that poor people are somehow immoral _because_ they are poor.”

Where do people think like this? Most places that I have been it’s the other way around, as in…”if people are wealthy, they must have taken “it” from some more deserving people”.

“Then when you couple that with the idea of Christianity that the possession of wealth is immoral” - Huh?

“…it should be given to the poor - and that it’s more difficult for a rich person to get to heaven than a poor person”…well, this I can agree with: when people are rich, they often don’t feel that they need to be good. Evidence Table Exhibit #1 - the entertainment industry.

Which has some interesting logical follow-ons…a) it is _one_ explanation for the bad things that happen to people (though not the bad things that happen to good people) and b) it has the unwarranted result of assigning moral blame to anyone who has bad things happen to them. Hence, we have the gospels in which Jesus is asked (about the deaf and dumb man) “what have his parents done that he should be so afflicted?” Even though, in the old testament, we have poor Job - who cries out to God “what have I done!!” and the response is that God is testing his faith….

There is still a tendency to think that wealthy people are morally good _because_ they are wealthy, and that poor people are somehow immoral _because_ they are poor.
Then when you couple that with the idea of Christianity that the possession of wealth is immoral - it should be given to the poor - and that it’s more difficult for a rich person to get to heaven than a poor person…among other concepts… you can end up with a _very_ confused outlook on life!!

This had a profound effect on their thinking and actions. No matter what, they were always under the eye of their God , where in other religions one could go out of sight.