Samson a Terrorist?

A recent caller to Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show asked if it was ever okay to commit suicide in order to kill your enemies.  He then went on to draw comparisons between Samson and the 9/11 hijackers.  Such an argument can deliver much rhetorical force.  Indeed there are several similarities between Samson and the hijackers.  First, they both prayed before the onset of their actions.  Both took actions knowing that their deaths were certain.  Both killed around 3,000 people with their actions.  Yet Samson is viewed as a hero while the hijackers are viewed as villains.  What gives?  Is this a case of a double standard?

The weakness of the above line of reasoning is common.  In fact, many make the same mistake when comparing the religions of the world.  They assume that if a few things, people, or systems have some commonality then they are basically the same.  All too often, however, a vast gulf of differences divides the things, people, or systems being compared in spite of the similarities.  It is the differences that count.

In the case of Samson, his nation was at open war with the Philistines.  He was a prisoner of that war.  He was already tortured (in the real sense—not how we use that word today) by having his eyes burned out.  The men and women who were killed were his captors and his open enemies.  Samson’s actions were therefore justified.  In fact, they would fall in line with Code of Conduct used by men and women of the armed forces today.

On the other hand, the hijackers were not at open war with America.  They were not captives but free men.  They had not be tortured or wronged.  The men and women they murdered were innocent civilians.  There can be no justification for their actions.

Do not be deceived by a few similarities.  It is the differences that count!

Post Script:  One must be careful while reading the Bible not to turn a descriptive passage into a prescriptive passage.  Whether it is ultimately right to pray for God's help during a "suicide mission" isn't answered by the account of Samson in the book of Judges.  This account simply describes what happened.

"Good" Nontheists?

A new advertising campaign by the Coalition of Reason (CoR) began recently in Little Rock.   These ads are a part of a nationwide campaign that has used the same and similar ads on buses and billboards across America.  The Little Rock ad asks, “Are you good without God? Millions are.”  The statement seems simple enough on the first read, but clarity is needed.  What is meant by the phrase “without God”?  It is possible that CoR uses this phrase to convey “without a belief in God who does actually exist”.  It is doubtful, however, that this interpretation is correct.  “Without the existence of God” is more likely what is intended.  If that is the case, then further questions need to be asked.  What does CoR mean by “good”?  Who gets to decide what is “good” and what is “bad”?  Their website (accessed on 12 October 2011) states that the ad campaign’s purpose is simply to make those of a nontheist* persuasion aware that there are others of like mind in their area.  If this was truly the only purpose for the campaign, one must ask why they do not simply use another version of their ads that states “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.”  The use of the Little Rock version indicates that CoR is also attempting to make a statement to the general public.  CoR’s ad is making the claim that nontheists abide by a recognized standard of ethics.  In order for this to mean anything worth saying, this recognized standard must be substantive, not merely a changeable standard of preference.