Christopher Hitchens Caught Affirming Spiritual Experience as Valid

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.........................

Is he referring to J.C.?  Jiminy Cricket?

Quote

 And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.

At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word. 

So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?

(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)

So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?..................................

So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?..............

Facsimile 2:7 of the Book of Abraham is described in part as showing the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.   Modern Egyptology describes such figures as being an ithyphallic legged-bird-serpent (anguipede) called in Egyptian Neheb-K3(w), carrying a wd3t-eye and offering it to the seated figure.  

The late Morton Smith said that the anguipede has strong magical connections, and when falcon-headed can be called the 'agathos daimon, "good spirit."*  In other words, bird-headed and snake-bodied deities can be connected to the Holy Spirit.   In coffin texts actually contemporary with Abraham, one finds the Nhb-k3w (1) as a n‘w-serpent who is a bestower and taker away of powers, with authority from the Divine Council/Great Ennead of Atum, or (2) as seven uraei exalted and identified with the Bull of the Ennead/ Tribunal.**  Miriam Lichtheim, who has regularly defined k3 as "vital force, personality," sees the Nehebkau as "a divinity in serpent form who is in the retinue of Re and serves as a guardian."#  In fact only one term in Egyptian is translated "ghost," namely k3 (Edfu, IV, 266, 7; Shipwreck, 114),## and the plural k3w represent the "powers" of God in spirit form.+  We ought also compare the Hellenistic paredros daimon, "accompanying spirit" (often in Greco-Roman magical formulae), with the early Christian "Shepherd of Hermas," who is a male guardian "angel of conversion" (angelos tes metanoias), and who dictates the commandments (Mandates) to Hermas. 

*  M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 73, 185, citing Philo -- cf. "Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit," VI §39; "De Gigantibus," II §6, IV §16; "De Somnis, Liber I," XXII §§140-142; "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres," XLVIII §§230,234.

**  R.O. Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 85-88 [II, 51-54]; cf. Coffin Text 84 [II, 49]; A. W. Shorter, Journal of Egyptian Archeology, 21:41.

#  Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:34 n. 2 (on Pyramid Text Utterance 263); III:127 (from Book of the Dead 125). 

## Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 782b, 783a; Budge, Book of the Dead, p. 247, n. 1.

+  Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 86 (II, 53).

Edited April 23, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is he referring to J.C.?  Jiminy Cricket?

Facsimile 2:7 of the Book of Abraham is described in part as showing the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.   Modern Egyptology describes such figures as being an ithyphallic legged-bird-serpent (anguipede) called in Egyptian Neheb-K3(w), carrying a wd3t-eye and offering it to the seated figure.  

The late Morton Smith said that the anguipede has strong magical connections, and when falcon-headed can be called the 'agathos daimon, "good spirit."*  In other words, bird-headed and snake-bodied deities can be connected to the Holy Spirit.   In coffin texts actually contemporary with Abraham, one finds the Nhb-k3w (1) as a n‘w-serpent who is a bestower and taker away of powers, with authority from the Divine Council/Great Ennead of Atum, or (2) as seven uraei exalted and identified with the Bull of the Ennead/ Tribunal.**  Miriam Lichtheim, who has regularly defined k3 as "vital force, personality," sees the Nehebkau as "a divinity in serpent form who is in the retinue of Re and serves as a guardian."#  In fact only one term in Egyptian is translated "ghost," namely k3 (Edfu, IV, 266, 7; Shipwreck, 114),## and the plural k3w represent the "powers" of God in spirit form.+  We ought also compare the Hellenistic paredros daimon, "accompanying spirit" (often in Greco-Roman magical formulae), with the early Christian "Shepherd of Hermas," who is a male guardian "angel of conversion" (angelos tes metanoias), and who dictates the commandments (Mandates) to Hermas. 

*  M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 73, 185, citing Philo -- cf. "Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit," VI §39; "De Gigantibus," II §6, IV §16; "De Somnis, Liber I," XXII §§140-142; "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres," XLVIII §§230,234.

**  R.O. Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 85-88 [II, 51-54]; cf. Coffin Text 84 [II, 49]; A. W. Shorter, Journal of Egyptian Archeology, 21:41.

#  Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:34 n. 2 (on Pyramid Text Utterance 263); III:127 (from Book of the Dead 125). 

## Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 782b, 783a; Budge, Book of the Dead, p. 247, n. 1.

+  Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 86 (II, 53).

Thanks so much for that reply- as you know I know nothing about Egyptology and had heard about the seated figure being Min but never heard about the anguipedes.  Great info!

It's gestures are clearly being repeated by the seated figure- as long as you see those figures with the naivete Joseph must have had about the Min figure taking it at "face value" as I think we have discussed before.  And of course if that is the case, Joseph's description of the figures becomes exactly correct.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

One thing that has bothered some on the religious end of the spectrum is the conclusion that there is no difference in prosocial behavior between those groups that say they believe in God, claim to be religious, or claim to be atheists.

In short, believing in god alone does not make one a better person (in terms of doing good to others).

Shariff did not test whether or not someone feels they are a better person because they are religious or not.

Do they differentiate between types of religion?  It seems inappropriate to dump all religious doctrine in the same bag under a category of "believes in higher power".  The type of religious doctrine would seem likely to make significant difference.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.

After that I think the theists in the debate blow it and don't follow up, but stick to their pre-planned arguments and miss the opportunity right under their noses!

https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

Hitchens is a noted atheist and Positivist who believes that any statement is "nonsense" if it cannot be verified through objective evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

He is known for "Hitchens Razor" which virtually defines positivism itself

 And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.

At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word. 

So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?

(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)

So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?

Does that mean that all moral atheists are tacit theists- not because of their moral behavior but the EXPERIENCE of making moral choices seems to come from an inside "voice"?

What IS that "voice"?

Where is his evidence for the existence of such a "Being/ Daemon/ Spirit

I brought this up in another thread but I thought it deserved its own so as not to hijack the other thread- 

I admit readily that this "Other" outside ourselves can deliver wisdom and all we need for a meaningful life to us, and I use the word "revelation" to describe what I personally hear from that "voice"

I know the church likes to slice and dice this into "The Holy Ghost" and the "Light of Christ" and the "Second Comforter" (perhaps) but I find it hard to define them all that closely from experience.

I KNOW (ie am totally psychologically certain) that such a phenomenon exists and has been a benefit to my life.  I call this Other in my consciousness "God".

At some point it all gets pretty undefinable and I don't see much point in trying to slice and dice it further.

So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?

What's the  pragmatic difference?

If it is a distinction without a difference in our lives is it even a valid distinction?

Well my friend, you are picking on him now that he is dead. I'm sure he would respond in his disturbingly painful, and quaintly British way by saying that having a soul is not necessarily religious, and that man has learned a common code of decency in order for us all to advance together. In other words he would claim that it is in our own best interests to adhere to a common code of decency, because that way we all contribute to society, and all benefit as society advances in a peaceful pursuit of knowledge.... but he would say it in his painfully stuttering, blathering way. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks so much for that reply- as you know I know nothing about Egyptology and had heard about the seated figure being Min but never heard about the anguipedes.  Great info!

It's gestures are clearly being repeated by the seated figure- as long as you see those figures with the naivete Joseph must have had about the Min figure taking it at "face value" as I think we have discussed before.  And of course if that is the case, Joseph's description of the figures becomes exactly correct.

Yes, I dealt with the other half of Fac 2:7 in a recent thread:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71715-church-announces-bofa-to-be-removed-from-canon/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1209896419 .  As soon as you mentioned "daemon," above, I had to complete my thought (taken from my Book of Abraham Commentary. 1975 draft).

 

[SouthernMo]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Who is Robert Wright?  Would he share E.O. Wilson's views on sociobiology?

I haven’t heard of E.O. Wilson, let alone read anything by him. Robert Wright wrote The Moral Animal and other insightful books. 

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do they differentiate between types of religion?  It seems inappropriate to dump all religious doctrine in the same bag under a category of "believes in higher power".  The type of religious doctrine would seem likely to make significant difference.

The only subsets of data that I know he’s looked at are the differences in people who believe in a loving god, and those who believe in a more punishing god.

But, no, no break down that shows Mormons are better than Muslims or vice versa.

[Analytics]

Spiritual events happening ≠ spiritual experiences are “valid” ≠ "God" exists

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God may give inconsistent answers because every person is an individual with their own path.

I have not tried to define absolute truth.

This is not addressed to any issue in the OP

The question is, do you feel something inside of you tell you what is moral or immoral? 

Why return a wallet you find in a cab?

Do you ever feel guilt? Why? What causes that?

Sure, but all you seem to be doing is defining the something inside one as something that is coming from outside each of us and calling that god.  Fine, the little conscience in each of us is god.  But if so, as I said, that only defines god has cavalierly inconsistent.  One man's moral life is another man's life of immorality, and yet some voice in each is leading each.  And if so, as it turns out, god is only that which each human conceives of---after all anything a person thinks and feels is his conception.  

I had a missionary buddy who after his mission came home and quickly started making millions.  He had made many hundreds of millions while being accused of tons of unethical practices, setting up company after company to try and recreate his schemes while hoping to hide from the law.   Soon he was convicted and sits in prison, as far as I know, having scammed 100s of millions of dollars from people.  he was convicted, I believe, of lying to the bank while seeking loans to set up a new company.  He said, it was god directing him so he could become rich and help poor people.  His conception was god had chosen him to be a savior of sorts, while gracing him with the fanciest of things.  Great.  Whatever.  How can anyone argue otherwise?  It was God who told him so, he said so.  Just as it is god who has spoken to you and directed you.  

[Tacenda]

Now that I'm not a full believer in the LDS church, it makes me wonder if God has guided me this whole time, He could have or I'm just not noticing it, or I'm not looking. But in my life I don't feel that my wanting to do good is from God, I feel it's from myself. Especially I don't feel that the God in the Bible is fully good. That God is man made. The God that destroys women and children, or makes women less than, or wants someone to kill their son and then says it was only a test, that God is not my God. 

[USU78]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, I dealt with the other half of Fac 2:7 in a recent thread:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71715-church-announces-bofa-to-be-removed-from-canon/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1209896419 .  As soon as you mentioned "daemon," above, I had to complete my thought (taken from my Book of Abraham Commentary. 1975 draft).

Ritual gestures, I think, need to be broken down by us to their fundamentals if we are to understand them at all, whether we encounter them in temples, in hypocephali, or otherwise.  The cohen accepting the proffered grain offering in his cupped right hand both receives the grain on behalf of that G-d Who receives His due, and teaches (as there is nothing between G-d and the one receiving the blessing of grain but air and the cupped right hand) that all we give, we already received from the gracious G-d Who gives bread from Heaven freely and without stinting.

Whether the gesture in Facsimile 2:7 indicates the Great G-d is receiving His due in the ritually cupped right hand or is dispensing His fructifying blessing (He being ithyphallic) doesn't much matter:  the gesture can mean more than one thing at the same time.  As G-d's priest, the cohen stands in that place both to receive on behalf of the congregation of Israel and to dispense G-d's blessing of bread/life [AS hlaf] to G-d's grateful people.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sure, but all you seem to be doing is defining the something inside one as something that is coming from outside each of us and calling that god.  Fine, the little conscience in each of us is god.  But if so, as I said, that only defines god has cavalierly inconsistent.  One man's moral life is another man's life of immorality, and yet some voice in each is leading each.  And if so, as it turns out, god is only that which each human conceives of---after all anything a person thinks and feels is his conception.  

I had a missionary buddy who after his mission came home and quickly started making millions.  He had made many hundreds of millions while being accused of tons of unethical practices, setting up company after company to try and recreate his schemes while hoping to hide from the law.   Soon he was convicted and sits in prison, as far as I know, having scammed 100s of millions of dollars from people.  he was convicted, I believe, of lying to the bank while seeking loans to set up a new company.  He said, it was god directing him so he could become rich and help poor people.  His conception was god had chosen him to be a savior of sorts, while gracing him with the fanciest of things.  Great.  Whatever.  How can anyone argue otherwise?  It was God who told him so, he said so.  Just as it is god who has spoken to you and directed you.  

So we all get the exact same messages from God, not tailored to our needs?

That denies personal revelation?

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So we all get the exact same messages from God, not tailored to our needs?

That denies personal revelation?

Obviously we don't get the exact messages from God--we get contradiction after contradiction.  How could it deny personal revelation when each of us have some voice that supposedly is God?    

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now that I'm not a full believer in the LDS church, it makes me wonder if God has guided me this whole time, He could have or I'm just not noticing it, or I'm not looking. But in my life I don't feel that my wanting to do good is from God, I feel it's from myself. Especially I don't feel that the God in the Bible is fully good. That God is man made. The God that destroys women and children, or makes women less than, or wants someone to kill their son and then says it was only a test, that God is not my God. 

My God, as in the God of all creation, the God of the Bible, allowed his son to be sacrificed for the good of every child of God. You continue to wrap yourself in smidgins of pop psychology, today's twisted social engineering that calls evil good and good evil, and without taking a stand on what is truth. You will remain blown about by every wind of doctrine until you choose. You wander in a dense fog of confusion wanting to worship God and yet cannot let go of the ways of the world. 

Seek out of the best books and leave the utter rubbish behind and your mind will clear, your heart will be lightened and you will find peace. 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Obviously we don't get the exact messages from God--we get contradiction after contradiction.  How could it deny personal revelation when each of us have some voice that supposedly is God?    

Sorry I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now that I'm not a full believer in the LDS church, it makes me wonder if God has guided me this whole time, He could have or I'm just not noticing it, or I'm not looking. But in my life I don't feel that my wanting to do good is from God, I feel it's from myself. Especially I don't feel that the God in the Bible is fully good. That God is man made. The God that destroys women and children, or makes women less than, or wants someone to kill their son and then says it was only a test, that God is not my God. 

The Bible is not God's word.  No scripture is.  It is the communication of men who were supposedly told to write.  Even the Mormon Nephi had no idea why he was writing!

Take the good from where you find it.  Reject the rest while keeping the perspective that you (along with EVERYONE ELSE down here on earth) can't see or understand everything, and maybe your perspectives on certain recorded events in the 'scriptures' may change.

I am finally letting the crappy parts of Mormonism go.  It's great.  It's brought me more peace and closer to my maker, despite the warnings I've heard for years that there is only misery for those that let go of the 'iron rod.'

Keep going, keep asking questions about you, goodness, and god, and you'll figure out more and more.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Now that I'm not a full believer in the LDS church, it makes me wonder if God has guided me this whole time, He could have or I'm just not noticing it, or I'm not looking. But in my life I don't feel that my wanting to do good is from God, I feel it's from myself. Especially I don't feel that the God in the Bible is fully good. That God is man made. The God that destroys women and children, or makes women less than, or wants someone to kill their son and then says it was only a test, that God is not my God. 

So let me point something out here.

Is what you are saying that you are following your own voice within you?

Isn't that is exactly what you're supposed to do. ?

Why would you follow someone else who is not inside of you?

The kingdom of heaven is in your heart.

 

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So let me point something out here.

Is what you are saying that you are following your own voice within you?

Isn't that is exactly what you're supposed to do. ?

Why would you follow someone else who is not inside of you?

The kingdom of heaven is in your heart.

I will tell you in your mind and in your heart.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Ritual gestures, I think, need to be broken down by us to their fundamentals if we are to understand them at all, whether we encounter them in temples, in hypocephali, or otherwise.  The cohen accepting the proffered grain offering in his cupped right hand both receives the grain on behalf of that G-d Who receives His due, and teaches (as there is nothing between G-d and the one receiving the blessing of grain but air and the cupped right hand) that all we give, we already received from the gracious G-d Who gives bread from Heaven freely and without stinting.

Whether the gesture in Facsimile 2:7 indicates the Great G-d is receiving His due in the ritually cupped right hand or is dispensing His fructifying blessing (He being ithyphallic) doesn't much matter:  the gesture can mean more than one thing at the same time.  As G-d's priest, the cohen stands in that place both to receive on behalf of the congregation of Israel and to dispense G-d's blessing of bread/life [AS hlaf] to G-d's grateful people.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well my friend, you are picking on him now that he is dead. I'm sure he would respond in his disturbingly painful, and quaintly British way by saying that having a soul is not necessarily religious, and that man has learned a common code of decency in order for us all to advance together. In other words he would claim that it is in our own best interests to adhere to a common code of decency, because that way we all contribute to society, and all benefit as society advances in a peaceful pursuit of knowledge.... but he would say it in his painfully stuttering, blathering way. 

Good points and you know that seems to be the way it goes.

I actually have no problem with that interpretation as HIS interpretation of the "same experience" we interpret differently.

The bottom line though is that we both have that same experience.

We both experience it as something within us giving us direction.

He follows his textual explanation and we follow ours. But the experience itself seems to be virtually universal.

And each of us has to figure out what interpretation we think it's best, what works in our lives to bring us a coherent meaning in life.

But quite obviously we are right and he is wrong.

Live and let live. It's either that I guess or start another religious war.

But I would argue that he is still a religious man. It's a secular religion, but it's still a religion, a way of relating ourselves to the universe and our place in it.

Neither of us has objective proof, and ultimately both positions are faith-based

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

I guess I was just seeking clarification from you, because I saw it, the questions you posed didn't really follow from what I said.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I haven’t heard of E.O. Wilson, let alone read anything by him. Robert Wright wrote The Moral Animal and other insightful books. 

E. O. Wilson (Harvard) and his colleagues now believe 

Quote

that self-sacrifice to protect a relation’s genes does not drive evolution. In human terms, family is not so important after all; altruism emerges to protect social groups whether they are kin or not. When people compete against each other they are selfish, but when group selection becomes important, then the altruism characteristic of human societies kicks in, Wilson says. We may be the only species intelligent enough to strike a balance between individual and group-level selection, but we are far from perfect at it. The conflict between the different levels may produce the great dramas of our species: the alliances, the love affairs, and the wars.  Pamela Weintraub, "E.O. Wilson's Theory of Altruism Shakes Up Understanding of Evolution," Discover, April 28, 2011, online at   http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/03 .

 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good points and you know that seems to be the way it goes.

I actually have no problem with that interpretation as HIS interpretation of the "same experience" we interpret differently.

The bottom line though is that we both have that same experience.

We both experience it as something within us giving us direction.

He follows his textual explanation and we follow ours. But the experience itself seems to be virtually universal.

And each of us has to figure out what interpretation we think it's best, what works in our lives to bring us a coherent meaning in life.

But quite obviously we are right and he is wrong.

Live and let live. It's either that I guess or start another religious war.

But I would argue that he is still a religious man. It's a secular religion, but it's still a religion, a way of relating ourselves to the universe and our place in it.

Neither of us has objective proof, and ultimately both positions are faith-based

I think he would respond that there is objective proof or evidence. We see societies which follow common codes of decency advancing with those who comprise it being in relative happiness, while those who don't follow any common codes of learned conduct fall into states of anarchy and war. He would claim some part of us sees the sensibleness of following a path leading to the common good - I'm  pretty sure that is what he'd say. I guess you can claim that is a kind of secular religion, but there need be no God in it. It is man learning to advance by forwarding to common good. Indeed, I would say that Buddhism teaches something like this, although it could be argued that Buddha has attained a state of semi-godhood within that ideology, and some forms do recognize these spirit beings in another realm.

[flameburns623]

41 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

The Bible is not God's word.  No scripture is.  It is the communication of men who were supposedly told to write.  Even the Mormon Nephi had no idea why he was writing!

Take the good from where you find it.  Reject the rest while keeping the perspective that you (along with EVERYONE ELSE down here on earth) can't see or understand everything, and maybe your perspectives on certain recorded events in the 'scriptures' may change.

I am finally letting the crappy parts of Mormonism go.  It's great.  It's brought me more peace and closer to my maker, despite the warnings I've heard for years that there is only misery for those that let go of the 'iron rod.'

Keep going, keep asking questions about you, goodness, and god, and you'll figure out more and more.

Somehow,  this has felt appropriate twice today: 

by Yehuda Amichai

From the place where we are right
Flowers will never grow
In the spring.

The place where we are right
Is hard and trampled
Like a yard.

But doubts and loves
Dig up the world
Like a mole, a plow.
And a whisper will be heard in the place
Where the ruined
House once stood.

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My God, as in the God of all creation, the God of the Bible, allowed his son to be sacrificed for the good of every child of God. You continue to wrap yourself in smidgins of pop psychology, today's twisted social engineering that calls evil good and good evil, and without taking a stand on what is truth. You will remain blown about by every wind of doctrine until you choose. You wander in a dense fog of confusion wanting to worship God and yet cannot let go of the ways of the world. 

Seek out of the best books and leave the utter rubbish behind and your mind will clear, your heart will be lightened and you will find peace. 

I'm not speaking of Jesus, I was speaking on Abraham. That never sat well with me, nor the test Joseph Smith gave Heber when he asked for Heber's wife. This kind of behaviour isn't of God, it's man made.