Modern Orthoprax
"She was crying to my wife last night 'How could God do this to me?'."
Read the Torah. It's quite clear that disease (and starvation and defeat in battle and etc.) is caused by sin. Also applies to the children of sinners (and their children). The Torah-true response.
"But the problem of evil is why many cultures (and even some strains of Judaism) found it difficult to accept the idea of one omnibenevolent God, and instead opted for a 2 god model, one evil god and one good god. This solves the problem of evil, though perhaps it violates occams razor, but that's a 'logically satisfying' tradeoff to be sure."
Even some strains of Judaism? XGH, I'm disappointed in you. Judaism may not have a 2 God model, but it certainly has a 2 Higher-Power(?) model: God and Satan. Harry will be happy to explain to you why this does not violate Occam's Razor.
Why must otherwise intelligent people design convoluted and tortured explainations when the resolution fits so perfectly the unfortunate event?
Why is it that the most objective and clear answer is the one that is immediately rejected?
It's quite clear that disease (and starvation and defeat in battle and etc.) is caused by sin. Also applies to the children of sinners (and their children).
And that feeble answer is what turns some people away from religion. Why should someone worship a god whose code of justice is to punish parents by making their child - or even grandchild - suffer horribly?
"Why should someone worship a god whose code of justice is to punish parents by making their child - or even grandchild - suffer horribly?"
Because otherwise your children or even grandchildren will suffer horribly?
The people that wrote the Torah and imagined its god in that way were not living in a post-Enlightenment era where emunah means believing that the god exists at all. To them it meant that He'd keep His promises--including the nasty ones. That's why you, living today, would not author such a Torah as they did: it would "turn some people away from religion" as those people choose instead to believe that such a god does not exist ("away from religion"). But in an era where no one really doubted that YHWH exists, and the competition is the other gods that everyone also believes exist, having YHWH promise horrors if you're not faithful to Him could be quite effective.
Actualy there were a few eminent and venerable sages who tried to reconcile God's omniscience/omnipotence,etc,etc, with free will, etc. etc.
Gersonides (RALBAG) and Avraham ben David ha-Levi (RAVAD) attempted to respond to this conundrum by limiting God's powers. Today, I suppose they would be labeled apikorsim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gersonides
"In contrast to the theology held by other Jewish thinkers, Gersonides held that God does not have complete foreknowledge of human acts. "Gersonides, bothered by the old question of how God's foreknowledge is compatible with human freedom, holds that what God knows beforehand is all the choices open to each individual. God does not know, however, which choice the individual, in his freedom, will make." (Louis Jacobs, God, Torah, Israel: Traditionalism without Fundamentalism)
Another neoclassical Jewish proponent of self-limited omniscience was Abraham ibn Daud. "Whereas the earlier Jewish philosophers extended the omniscience of God to include the free acts of man, and had argued that human freedom of decision was not affected by God's foreknowledge of its results, Ibn Daud, evidently following Alexander of Aphrodisias, excludes human action from divine foreknowledge. God, he holds, limited his omniscience even as He limited His omnipotence in regard to human acts". (Philosophies of Judaism, Julius Guttmann, JPS, 1964. P.150, 151)"
>Quantum Soup was the first cause, and then after that came 2 gods, one good and one evil,
Good boy. Welcome to the world of Kabbalah. Just insert "Ain Sof" instead of Quantum Soup, and essentially your sentence is a condensed version of the Kabbalistic theology. In the process of emanations of the Sefirohs, at some point the Satan's Merkavah (throne) developed. This is a modified version of a school of Gnosticism, where there really are two gods, and the Demiurge is identified with evil. Here the Demiurge is the good God, and Satan is relegated to the role of troublemaker.
"Quantum Soup was the first cause"
Was it Quantum Chicken Soup? Because that would explain Judaism, too.
The negative, cynical skeptic in me would like to point out that the Torah-true response to learning that a child has cancer (or any other bad news) is to immediately praise God with a "Baruch Dayan Ha'emet", as only He know what's best for us and what we deserve.
@Abe
"Why must otherwise intelligent people design convoluted and tortured explanations when the resolution fits so perfectly the unfortunate event?
Why is it that the most objective and clear answer is the one that is immediately rejected?"
Because the "most objective and clear answer" is a major downer.
"Read the Torah. It's quite clear that disease (and starvation and defeat in battle and etc.) is caused by sin. Also applies to the children of sinners "
I've always found this answer horific. Not only is someone going through a very difficult, possibly tragic episode in their life, they are being told its their fault.
"Not only is someone going through a very difficult, possibly tragic episode in their life, they are being told its their fault."
The authors of the Torah weren't the only ones to do such a thing, guilting parents "sins" for a child's devastating illness. See Leo Kanner and his refigerator mother explanation for autism.
The first question is , what do you mean doing to you? Don't you mean doing to the child? Shouldn't the question be, "why is god doing this to the child?"
And as allready said, the "answer" is baruch dayan haemet, because we don't know why. There is nothing to say but the truth, which is that we don't know (unless perhaps you do know, but that's a different issue. Like maybe she was giving her child a bath in radioactive materials?)
But I'm curious where this Satan thing is comming from. Satan is no different from Gabriel or Metatron or Uriel or Raziel or Azazel or Kushiel or the thousands of myriads of spiritual beings. And satan doesn't do things, he suggests things, and makes arguments. (which in many ways is worse than actually doing things)
Might one suggest reading Iyov?
The issue for me is this...as toddlers and into later in life we all project onto inner objects, usually parents,feelings of love and hate, because we see each of our parents as both kind and cruel. The exact vicissitudes of when this projection begins and how it twists and turns, whether the line of development is different for boys than for girls, is a subject that has been disputed by psychoanalysts and others for over a 100 years.
The net-net of all these feelings is that somehow, someway we have to reslove the ambivalence created by these feelings of love and hate,and recognize that each of our parents has both good qualities and bad. We then can integrate these objects and end up identifying with some aspects of our parents while rejecting others. Most of this ,when all goes well,happens silently without much difficulty as we grow up.
When things don't go well there is more often than not a splitting of parental images...good mother, bad mother, virgin, slut, loving kind father, angry sadistic father and on and on through many variations.
So from the perspective of getting along in life there is a big payoff in thelologies that are not dualistic or gnostic. True, if one is obssesive enough one can keep on driving the theodicy problem and try forcing a split. Bot imho our matzav is that avinu malkeinu who cares for us deeply and with whom we try to be connected is also the absent God who is silent and does not intervene, even at times when we need him most. Far better to be left with a theodicy issue than to go Iranian and end up paranoid and half crazed with good forces fighting demonic forces. The latter makes for good mythology and great movies but for nonintegrated personalities.
@Daganev
"why is god doing this to the child?
There is nothing to say but the truth, which is that we don't know."
My friend Harry would call this a cop-out.
> My friend Harry would call this a cop-out.
No. It's only a 'cop-out' when it leads away from God. When it supports God, it's a 'you can't question God' out.
Why is it that the most objective and clear answer is the one that is immediately rejected?"
Because the "most objective and clear answer" is a major downer.
If God can be somehow proven, than how does that answer any of these questions or assertions? You are still left with theodicy.
XGH-
Is this more an expression and feeling of chaos of quantum soup or more a feeling of the existence of an evil force? Is God not good becuase he is the minestrone soup of creation or is there an uncaring or even malicious side to God?
If we follow ej's humble suggestions,
do you think there is merit that your theology reflects your vision of one of your parents?
If your dog gets cancer, do you blame your sins or the dog's parents sins?
Why would we think that the reasons people get cancer are different from the reasons other mammals get cancer?
The latter makes for good mythology and great movies but for nonintegrated personalities.
XGH-
What are your favorite movies?
Do you like movies of good versus evil?
We did 80's music already, how about 80's movies?
My wife has a good friend who just found out that her two year old has cancer. She was crying to my wife last night 'How could God do this to me?'
I've been there. In my case it's a grandson. This is neither proof or disproof of God. It is an unrelated fact of life. It's just the way it is. One can ask such questions from here to eternity and NEVER find a satisfactory answer.
I don't think the mother was asking a philosophical question. I think she was crying out in anguish. The appropriate response is to be sympathetic and kind, not to engage in a philosophical discussion.
But we can do that on this blog.
I don't think God runs things like a big puppet show. I think the physical laws of the universe simply work the way they work, and sometimes good people or innocent people get bad diseases.
We bring (or fail to bring) Godliness into this world in how we choose to respond to that.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fundamental flaw in XGH's thinking:
Cancer is not evil.
It's not good either.
It's a disease. It has no will, no higher conscious, no agenda other than growing and destroying its host organism. There's no malice, that's just what it is.
When a person gets cancer, it's a tragedy, but it's not evil.
Today's post on Hirhurim is sort of typical of the pious literature on this topic.
@Harry
"One can ask such questions from here to eternity and NEVER find a satisfactory answer."
Hmm...
> When a person gets cancer, it's a tragedy, but it's not evil.
Duh. If you had the power to cure someone's cancer, and you didn't, would that be evil?
> What are your favorite movies?
Do you like movies of good versus evil?
We did 80's music already, how about 80's movies?
I liked 'Dumb & Dumber'. That was kinda good vs evil.
> Today's post on Hirhurim is sort of typical of the pious literature on this topic.
Literature is too nice a word for that post. More like incoherent babble.
> We bring (or fail to bring) Godliness into this world in how we choose to respond to that.
Aha! The Reform/Conservative answer to Theodicy.
cf. Heschel:
Skeptic: Where was God during the Holocaust?
Heschel: That's not the question. The question is 'Where was man?'
> I've been there. In my case it's a grandson. This is neither proof or disproof of God. It is an unrelated fact of life.
I thought God was pulling the strings?
>Skeptic: Where was God during the Holocaust?
Heschel: That's not the question. The question is 'Where was man?'
I like that much better. All this talk about theodicy and theology doesn't do much for me. The question your version of Heschel asked is one that's worthwhile pursuing.
Using the analogy that ej used above with the parentsgod, I'd add that my siblings would be man in the episode played out above by XGH.
Skeptic: Where were your parents when you were going through that rough time?
Other dude: What? I haven't talked to my parents in years! They retired in Florida and have been living it up. They send me something special now and again, but why would you expect my parents to be there? My sister and brother on the other hand, were right next door and should've helped me out. We're constantly in contact with eachother. The real question is, why weren't they there for me?
Any bidders?
I thought God was pulling the strings?
Speaking strictly about the existence of God and not theological concepts about the attributes of God... God created nature. Nature takes its course.
Did you hear the recent story where doctors removed and eventually reimplanted a girl's whole digestive system to get at an abdominal tumor? As of last word she's doing fine.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...cles/
141783.php
Is this not the stuff of miracles?
No, its the stuff of technological and medical innovation, not miracles.
Wow, Abe, so astute. I could've sworn tumor resection was God's first act after killing the Egyptian firstborn.
Any bidders?
Freethinking Upstart
Maybe because they have the same parents you have.
But in truth from so far outside (the internet)nothing very intelligent or meaningful can be said.
HM: "Speaking strictly about the existence of God and not theological concepts about the attributes of God... God created nature. Nature takes its course."
You can't have it both ways. Either God is "our Father and King" taking an active role in His world and handing out rewards and punishments according to our merit (as per the the Torah and the entire raison-d'etre of the yamim norayim) or he lets "nature take its course", in which case he is an indifferent, callous SOB, unworthy of our worship (or belief in).
Good comment Anonymous.
One deserving of its own post
http://holyhyrax.blogspot.com/20...-both-
ways.html
Hey, I gotta bring the hits back up 
Some people are more comforted by the idea that "everything happens for a reason." Others find more comfort in the notion that "shit happens." The problem is when people of type A attempt to comfort the type Bs or visa-versa. I've seen it and it ain't pretty. The truth is that no matter what you personally believe, when you are the one confronting a tragedy there is no comfort, only compassion. Unfortunately, it is often hard for people to find the courage to show honest compassion when it is much easier to offer slogans of comfort.
Sorry, that last "Anonymous" was me; I was at a new computer and forgot to log myself in...
Dagenav,
"The first question is , what do you mean doing to you? Don't you mean doing to the child? Shouldn't the question be, "why is god doing this to the child?""
After reading such a stupid comment, the rest of what you wrote really doesn't matter. Are u accomplishing anything with your stupid nuances? on top of the fact that u r incorrect. U don't feel for the mother of this child? Sadly she understand better than her 2 year old what is happening to her precious.
Garnel,
"When a person gets cancer, it's a tragedy, but it's not evil."
lets see, is gun powder evil? i think not. is metal evil? i think metal is great. is a bullet evil? not necessarily either. But using a bullet to shoot an innocent person is very evil.
Cancer is only evil, if there is a god that allows for an innocent child to be hurt by it.
The whole premise for the idea that God should intervene on every possible thing that we see as injustice seems preposterous. It really boggles my mind that people can question the Hashgacha of Hashem based on such stupidity. It also boggles my mind how people can point to that same Hashgach when good things happen. To act in such a way denies cause and effect, the laws of nature that Hashem put in place to begin with. A mother can cry, a stockbroker can bemoan his empty portfolio, someone else gets cancer. But on the other side there is tons of good things happening too. Everything is intertwined. To ask why do bad things happen when they happen to you or people near you is to wish that God created people and hooked them up to an opium drip. You have got to stop thinking of Good and Bad on such simplistic pleasure/pain terms. The world obviously doesn't work that way.
Wow, why do bad things happen to good people? I'd never thought of that before. No wonder that modernity is such a crisis for religion, it comes up with new challenges that the ancients never thought of!
This is a very interesting discussion. But I can't help thinking it would benefit from some proper philosophy of religion. If the religious response is so forced and feeble, how come the atheist Keith Parsons refers to it as highly significant and worthy of critical consideration. Even amongst atheists and agnostics, there is great debate and dsagreement as to why evil in the world should count as evidence against a good G-d (see Paul Draper's response to William Rowe). If things were as simple as the skeptics on this blog are making out, how come many atheistic philosophers of religion see it as so much less clear? XGH is lovely but those who want to really explore this issue should read the article by the atheist Bruce Russel and the theist Stephen Wykstra which shows that it is much less simple than XGH is implying
Moshe,
If you had provided the links, you would have shown more good than evil.
Keith Parsons in the first edition of Philo journal. Not sure if Draper's response is online, it's discussed in Jerome Gellman's book published by Cornell. For Wykstra and Russel, google them and you should find it, it's presented as a role play
You can't have it both ways. Either God is "our Father and King" ...or he lets "nature take its course"
You're beef is with organized religion - or more specifically with Judaism. Not the exitence of a Creator. I'm begining to think that all Jewish Atheists are really just about denying Judaism and are not really Atheists at all.
XGH, I know you profess not to be interested in such issues, but what do you think of the following article about intermarriage:
http://www.aish.com/purimthemes/
...termarriage.asp
Would you seek to dissuade your children from marrying out? On what basis? Do you consider a Jew who has married out to have done something wrong ethically?
I am not sure myself how to relate to this issue absent a 'theological' perspective.
It's all very nice and easy to argue against religious propositions from the relative safety of a blog, but in the real world things are much more messy. If we accept that 'fundamentalist beliefs have been shown to be false', then how do we relate to the existence of the Jewish people and to efforts to broaden knowledge of Judaism amongst unafilliated Jews? Is the continued survival of the Jewish people something we should put effort into?
HM:
You're almost right. God is unproven and possibly unprovable. Judaism is proven...false.
> Some people are more comforted by the idea that "everything happens for a reason." Others find more comfort in the notion that "shit happens."
My view is shit happens....for a reason.
> Is this more an expression and feeling of chaos of quantum soup or more a feeling of the existence of an evil force? Is God not good becuase he is the minestrone soup of creation or is there an uncaring or even malicious side to God?
Just to be clear, I personally am not a believer in Quantum Soup. But from a rational perspective, QS is just as rational as God ..... or any other fantasy idea about the incomprehensible and entirely unknown cause of our Universe.
> I'm begining to think that all Jewish Atheists are really just about denying Judaism and are not really Atheists at all.
Not even about denying all Judaism. It's about denying Orthoox Judaism. And not even denying all Orthodox Judaism. Just the RW MO and UO sects. Not sure about those Centrist MOs.
> XGH, I know you profess not to be interested in such issues, but what do you think of the following article about intermarriage:
> Would you seek to dissuade your children from marrying out? On what basis? Do you consider a Jew who has married out to have done something wrong ethically?
My answer is written in the article itself:
"If we are committed to the Jewish faith and passionate about our Torah and mitzvah observance, then the world can understand why we won't marry their daughters. After all, it's nothing personal -- we just need to share our married lives with those who share our passion for Judaism and its stated mission, which effectively rules out anyone who's not Jewish"
I continue to be confused by XGH's reference to G-d as a fantasy idea. The distinguished atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel says that theism can be rational.
Moshe..."Thomas Nagel says that theism can be rational."
Where?
Thanks.
Hi ej, http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2...ori-
belief.html
> I continue to be confused by XGH's reference to G-d as a fantasy idea. The distinguished atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel says that theism can be rational.
What's to be confused about? All my fantasies are very rational. What's not rational about winning the lottery? Or back when I was single fantasizing about marrying Claudia Sheaffer in a sheitel. Or Ivanka Trump in a sheitel.....
Because they are highly unlikely and not produced by a cognitive process designed to produce true beliefs
"fantasies"
Mosheh, they're fantasies for a reason.
Can some of you guys chill out a bit. God, skeptics should be allowed a sense of humor too.
Moshe,
Re: your article from Nagel;
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2...ori-
belief.html
Nagel says that belief in an intervening God is as rational as believing in witchcraft.
Great point.
Read it again.
No he doesn't. He says an atheist who is unconstitutionally unable to believe in G-d will disregard it as he would disregard witchcraft. But, for the theist, it is rational. Nowhere does he say that witchcraft is rational.
"Neither belief nor disbelief in God is irrational, and the consequence is that two diametrically opposed attitudes toward the natural order are both reasonable."
"If God exists, then the capacity to see God’s will expressed in the world is one of the forms of perception he has given us, the sensus divinitatis. If God does not exist, then it is a form of illusion. As Alvin Plantinga has argued –- persuasively, in my view -- the justification for such religious belief is inseparable from its truth, just as is the case with sensory perception."
This I think, is not a great point to say the least. By saying this, Nagel made the whole discussion mute, because it has been removed from the realm of logical argumentation. Instead one can say, I feel God, which is the way he allows me to know him. And another says your feelings are faulty.
It's a dead end. In addition, I think one can rationalize anything by that process. Feeling sometjhing is inseparable from its existence. The only question is are my feelings faulty. That is something impossible to ascertain.
Moshe,
"No he doesn't. He says an atheist who is unconstitutionally unable to believe in G-d will disregard it as he would disregard witchcraft. But, for the theist, it is rational. Nowhere does he say that witchcraft is rational."
The obvious implication is that someone who is able to believe in witchcraft - and does so - is equally as rational. There is similarly no reason to a priori deny witchcraft, and if it's part of your general worldview then it's just as reasonable as believing in a mechanistic reality.
Mark, thanks for the interesting point. However, it rests on the assumption that rational argumentation can settle this question. Nagel rejects that assumption.
No Orthoprax, there is no such implication. He doesn't talk about someone who does believe in witchcraft.
Moshe,
"No Orthoprax, there is no such implication. He doesn't talk about someone who does believe in witchcraft."
Sure, not directly. But what do you think the argument would be if you did a simple translation? His essay works just as well for withccraft as it does for divine intervention.
Thanks Orthoprax, that's a nice point.
On one level, it begs the question because one doesn't sense that there are witches. It's kind of like saying that one believes in trees because one sees them and replying: well, if you saw witches you would believe in them too!
Another problem with what you say is that people don't typically experience witches as having a relationship with them so the idea of witches bringing people to believe in them wouldn't tend to fit within a witchkeit epistemology.
Another problem is that they don't tend to think that witches created them.
Another problem is that they probably heard about witches from people who admit that witches are false.
Another problem is that they don't receive much circular epistemicall significant self-support as not many people believe in witches.
Another problem is that there would seem more basis to dismiss witchcraft a priori. Theism on the other hand is taken seriously by its detractors which include agnostics and atheists who respect the position and the arguments advanced to support it, even whilst disagreeing. Indeed, Nagel writes elsewhere that he is afraid that there may be a G-d. The fact that some of the cleverest people he knows belive this, troubles him because he doesn't want it to be true.
So, ultimately, I think there is much to challenge in your interesting point
And I neglected to quote the part of Nagel which specifically negates your inference:
To claim that that is the only reasonable conclusion for anyone to draw from the empirical data, the defender of evolutionary theory would have to claim that the belief in a god who can intervene in the world, like the belief in witchcraft, is itself irrational, and that it has been refuted by science. I am sure there are atheists who believe this, even if many of them would be reluctant to say so –- for reasons of tact if not of political prudence. But I believe they are mistaken: Neither
>Mark, thanks for the interesting point. However, it rests on the assumption that rational argumentation can settle this question. Nagel rejects that assumption.
No you missed the point. The point is that his statement works just as well for anything else other than God.
"I feel that it's wrong to kill animals."
Maybe not, prove it.
"Well my feeling is inseparable from the existence of such moral reality. The only way to disprove me, is to show I'm feeling the wrong thing."
That was me.
Moshe,
"So, ultimately, I think there is much to challenge in your interesting point"
Except that people once upon a time did very much believe in witches. They sensed them, believed they had relationships with them, had circular epistemological support for a witch-based worldview.
There is nothing a priori that rules out the existence of magical powers, magical creatures or magical superbeings.
>Except that people once upon a time did very much believe in witches.
Once upon a time?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...sia/
7317378.stm
http://www.digitaljournal.com/ar.../article/
268432
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...sia/
5277198.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...sia/
5277198.stm
E,
"One of the accused said she had done nothing wrong because she was instructed by a divine power to punish the woman for being a witch."
Genius.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spa...es/
1070797.html
The Golb thesis is finally vindicated by Rachel Elior. (See XGH 3/08/09.)
^^^
Vindicated?? Hardly.
> Duh. If you had the power to cure someone's cancer, and you didn't, would that be evil?
Of course I would. But that's me, not the cancer. Do you not see the difference?
Yes. So Cancer isn't evil, God is.
Vindicated?? Hardly.
anon | 03.13.09 - 1:41 pm | #
Maybe u can say a little more...why hardly? I am talking Gelb Sr.
Reading this thread of comments again, I see that many people have views of the divine which rely on cognitive dissonance. (And REAL cognitivve dissonacne, where you believe two mutually exclusive beliefs, not this fake cognitive dissonance that all the new atheist bloggers think they understand)
The way I see it, G-d is the cause of good and is the cause of evil. The problem is, that evil is not really evil, evil is the catalyst to bring about more good. In the process of removing that which we see as Evil, we create more good, and in process of G-d creating situations where evil occurs, He allows for more good to become created as well. One can ever know why a specific bad/evil thing happened after the results can be seen. This is an obvious point from stories such as Gam-zu-latova, the story of the Jewish people, Mitzraim and Iyov. (and coutless others, and even secular movies such as P.S. I Love you)
Most people, (apparently a majority of people on this blog included) can not understand the pyschological and mental nuance to understand how X can be a good thing that we have to fight against) To most people, if X is a good thing, it is something to support. If X is a bad thing it's something to destroy. But the truth is that sometimes X is a good thing, that needs to be destroyed.
"But the truth is that sometimes X is a good thing, that needs to be destroyed"
But the truth is that frummies are masters in sophistry.
^^^
He's actually a second-rate sophist--and a first-rate dufus.
> Yes. So Cancer isn't evil, God is.
I see. This child has cancer. That's evil. God gave it to her, therefore He is evil.
You have good health. That's good. But there's nothing deeper to it than that. God doesn't give you good health. Therefore you don't have to consider God good.
Why do I even waste my time...
"But the truth is that frummies are masters in sophistry.
Alice | 03.14.09 - 6:04 pm | # "
Do you think it's important to harvest food and kill plants or not?
garnel,
"You have good health. That's good. But there's nothing deeper to it than that. God doesn't give you good health. Therefore you don't have to consider God good."
if it wouldn't be god we are talking about you would be 100% in our camp.
Imagine a doctor who out of the goodness of his heart, decides to help many people people live. But then at the same time every now and then he picks on (usually in a random fashion, many times mothers and children) certain people to cease supporting them, and even more pro-actively assists in their murder.
would u call him good or evil?
now imagine he would do it to people he has a grudge against, people that haven't respected him , or worshiped him enough. What would you call someone like this?
In my mind he would be one of the most maniacal evil pieces of trash to have roamed this planet.
Commenting by HaloScan
