Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
happyjoy said:So God didn't outlaw polygamy, in fact God set out rules to make it better. God allowed slavery. God said that a way for a man to get a wife is to rape her, so he can own her. Is that the morality you want us to live by. Is that the eternal morality you say we lack?
You're right of course. Moses wasn't following God's instructions when he ordered everyone to be killed except for female virgins.Danus said:As for the kids; God did not say Kill the boys and non-virgin women, Moses did. Your mixing absolute right and wrong and God's morality with what people of the bible did, and saying it's God's morality. Where does that come from?
I thought you where not reading "preconceived" notions into this? This is clearly preconceived when the evidence says clearly that God did not rebuke Moses for it.logical bob said:You're right of course. Moses wasn't following God's instructions when he ordered everyone to be killed except for female virgins.
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Deuteronomy 20:17-18
He was being comparitively lenient by sparing the Midianite virgins.
If Moses was wrong to order the massacre then surely God would have pointed out so grave a failing, and indeed Numbers 31 does contain God's words to Moses.
jasoncran said:its' the gloria steinheim edition.lol with a commentary by sanger.
logical bob said:Danus, I appreciate the time and effort you must have put into that lengthy response. When it comes down to it, though, you're still saying that it was justified to completely exterminate whole communities of people because... And I'm afraid you lose me at the because. Quite frankly I don't give a tuppeny toss what comes after the because; there can be no justification at all, ever, for genocide. Period. Simple as.
Have as much theology and understanding of "the whole of scripture" as you want. You're an apologist for genocide and as such you should be ashamed of yourself. Some actions are not open to civilised people and cannot be justified by any cause, any consideration of the greater good, however much the murderers "regret" the "unfortunate" need or say it isn't what they would ideally have chosen.
It's splitting hairs at this point to argue about whether this represents absolute or relative morality, because what it represents is evil. If you insist it represents absolute morality, however, and if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then you have to accept that one day he may command you to do something similar. This brings me back to my earlier question. Are you ready to massacre children for your God? That's what it comes down to. It's not an abstract theological question.
Thanks Bob; I guess. I have plenty of time and it's not an effort for me as much as it might be for you since I already have an understanding of Christianity as well as that of atheist and agnostics. I'm hoping that you might someday share what I have found.logical bob said:Danus, I appreciate the time and effort you must have put into that lengthy response. When it comes down to it, though, you're still saying that it was justified to completely exterminate whole communities of people because... And I'm afraid you lose me at the because. Quite frankly I don't give a tuppeny toss what comes after the because; there can be no justification at all, ever, for genocide. Period. Simple as.
Have as much theology and understanding of "the whole of scripture" as you want. You're an apologist for genocide and as such you should be ashamed of yourself. Some actions are not open to civilised people and cannot be justified by any cause, any consideration of the greater good, however much the murderers "regret" the "unfortunate" need or say it isn't what they would ideally have chosen.
It's splitting hairs at this point to argue about whether this represents absolute or relative morality, because what it represents is evil. If you insist it represents absolute morality, however, and if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then you have to accept that one day he may command you to do something similar. This brings me back to my earlier question. Are you ready to massacre children for your God? That's what it comes down to. It's not an abstract theological question.
If you accept Deuteronomy at its word, you're saying that it was commanded by the God you say is the source of absolute moral value. If that's not justification, what is?Danus said:As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why.
As I said a few posts ago, it makes me a moral antirealist, not a relativist. No form of moral realism is tenable, whether it involves God or not, because of the Euthyphro dilemma, the is/ought distinction, the open question argument, the need to explain the motivational force of ethics - basically because of 2,500 years of moral philosophy.You just disagree on what is right and wrong because you make up your own sense of right and wrong rejecting that any such thing could come from God.That makes you a relativist when it comes to morality, not God.
What a strange statement. What atheist thinks themself righteous in the eyes of God?Christians and Atheist do share something in common. Neither of us are wholly righteous in the eyes of God, but we both like to think we are.
You can't define righteousness. That's the point of moral antirealism.Atheist have a much harder time because they have to build various constructs in an attempt to define what righteous means. Trouble is they fail all the time. Always have and always will.
When I say civilised, I'm aware that I'm using it as a subjective, value-laden term. Of course the morality of Ancient Rome was very different to what we have today. The thing is, I don't judge the Romans for the various things they did that would be repellent by today's standard. That would be silly. But then nobody's saying that the Romans were following some absolute standard which still applies now. You are claiming that the moral standards applicable in the Torah haven't changed. If that's true then we're entitled to consider them from a modern perspective.The Romans thought they where a civilized society. The Nazi's thought it. Communist Russia thought it. China thinks it. You seem to indicate that you are a member of civilized society. I'm sure you would not connect yourself to any of the societies mentioned, but if you are civilized what makes you any more civilized than all the people before you?
No, I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that there are some actions I would condemn no matter what the circumstances.You call yourself a civilized member of a civilized society who makes up their own rules of morality as they go, and have changed those rules over and over throughout the ages, and will continue to do so and those rules you claim are absolute?
I don't trust the ever changing morality of mankind. And I don't believe in God (or that the events of the Torah really happened for that matter), but if I did, and if he was as portrayed in the Bible, then I would say his actions were evil.How is it that you could trust an ever changing morality of mankind and call that being civilized yet reject an unchanged God who has clearly spelled out what is truly right and wrong, and further say that this God is relevant?
That doesn't appear to have stopped him commanding it on a number of occaisons.I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God.
Yes, and it apparently justified their total extermination. And remember, we're not just talking death in battle. The old, the children and the ill people whose massacre God commanded weren't combatants.The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites.
With respect, you have no idea why I don't believe.You don't believe because you don't want to believe.
Another puzzling statement. As I don't believe God exists, I don't believe he has anything to say about me. What is there for me to dislike?You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you.
Again, you're confusing absolutism with realism.I'm afraid at this point you have only concluded that mankind is relevant. That mankind makes up his own rules. Why you are calling those rules absolute I've no idea, but you admitted they are not by pointing out how they have changed, or been viewed over the years.
I have attempted to point out that the rules God requires peple to live by have been different in different times and places. This is simple Old/New Covenant stuff.You have attempted to point out that God is the same as man in that regard, but your attempt failed because you have not shown it to be a fact at all.
Slavery is clearly permitted in the Torah, murder positively commanded and rape set out as a crime against the men who own the victim, not against the victim herself. Raping an unmarried girl carries less punishment than that decreed for a married woman raped at knifepoint who doesn't scream.You are indecating that God is for slavery and rape and murder yet there is nothing in the bible that says that, and all the text you used for it did just the opposite.
It certainly is spelled out.God has a standard of right and wrong. It does not include murder, rape, poligomy, slavery and all other such things as right. It's clearly spelled out in the bible.
Does that mean that today I would be morally OK if I got my rebellious and stubborn son stoned to death by all the men who live in my town?He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute.
What a strange statement. What atheist thinks themself righteous in the eyes of God?logical bob said:If you accept Deuteronomy at its word, you're saying that it was commanded by the God you say is the source of absolute moral value. If that's not justification, what is?Danus said:As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why.
As I said a few posts ago, it makes me a moral antirealist, not a relativist. No form of moral realism is tenable, whether it involves God or not, because of the Euthyphro dilemma, the is/ought distinction, the open question argument, the need to explain the motivational force of ethics - basically because of 2,500 years of moral philosophy.You just disagree on what is right and wrong because you make up your own sense of right and wrong rejecting that any such thing could come from God.That makes you a relativist when it comes to morality, not God.
[quote:2dxcsnbq]Christians and Atheist do share something in common. Neither of us are wholly righteous in the eyes of God, but we both like to think we are.
You can't define righteousness. That's the point of moral antirealism.Atheist have a much harder time because they have to build various constructs in an attempt to define what righteous means. Trouble is they fail all the time. Always have and always will.
When I say civilised, I'm aware that I'm using it as a subjective, value-laden term. Of course the morality of Ancient Rome was very different to what we have today. The thing is, I don't judge the Romans for the various things they did that would be repellent by today's standard. That would be silly. But then nobody's saying that the Romans were following some absolute standard which still applies now. You are claiming that the moral standards applicable in the Torah haven't changed. If that's true then we're entitled to consider them from a modern perspective.The Romans thought they where a civilized society. The Nazi's thought it. Communist Russia thought it. China thinks it. You seem to indicate that you are a member of civilized society. I'm sure you would not connect yourself to any of the societies mentioned, but if you are civilized what makes you any more civilized than all the people before you?
No, I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that there are some actions I would condemn no matter what the circumstances.You call yourself a civilized member of a civilized society who makes up their own rules of morality as they go, and have changed those rules over and over throughout the ages, and will continue to do so and those rules you claim are absolute?
I don't trust the ever changing morality of mankind. And I don't believe in God (or that the events of the Torah really happened for that matter), but if I did, and if he was as portrayed in the Bible, then I would say his actions were evil.How is it that you could trust an ever changing morality of mankind and call that being civilized yet reject an unchanged God who has clearly spelled out what is truly right and wrong, and further say that this God is relevant?
That doesn't appear to have stopped him commanding it on a number of occaisons.I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God.
Yes, and it apparently justified their total extermination. And remember, we're not just talking death in battle. The old, the children and the ill people whose massacre God commanded weren't combatants.The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites.
With respect, you have no idea why I don't believe.You don't believe because you don't want to believe.
Another puzzling statement. As I don't believe God exists, I don't believe he has anything to say about me. What is there for me to dislike?You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you.
Again, you're confusing absolutism with realism.I'm afraid at this point you have only concluded that mankind is relevant. That mankind makes up his own rules. Why you are calling those rules absolute I've no idea, but you admitted they are not by pointing out how they have changed, or been viewed over the years.
I have attempted to point out that the rules God requires peple to live by have been different in different times and places. This is simple Old/New Covenant stuff.You have attempted to point out that God is the same as man in that regard, but your attempt failed because you have not shown it to be a fact at all.
Slavery is clearly permitted in the Torah, murder positively commanded and rape set out as a crime against the men who own the victim, not against the victim herself. Raping an unmarried girl carries less punishment than that decreed for a married woman raped at knifepoint who doesn't scream.You are indecating that God is for slavery and rape and murder yet there is nothing in the bible that says that, and all the text you used for it did just the opposite.
It certainly is spelled out.God has a standard of right and wrong. It does not include murder, rape, poligomy, slavery and all other such things as right. It's clearly spelled out in the bible.
Does that mean that today I would be morally OK if I got my rebellious and stubborn son stoned to death by all the men who live in my town?[/quote:2dxcsnbq]He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute.
You can't define righteousness. That's the point of moral antirealism.Danus said:What a strange statement. What atheist thinks themself righteous in the eyes of God?logical bob said:If you accept Deuteronomy at its word, you're saying that it was commanded by the God you say is the source of absolute moral value. If that's not justification, what is?Danus said:As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why.
As I said a few posts ago, it makes me a moral antirealist, not a relativist. No form of moral realism is tenable, whether it involves God or not, because of the Euthyphro dilemma, the is/ought distinction, the open question argument, the need to explain the motivational force of ethics - basically because of 2,500 years of moral philosophy.You just disagree on what is right and wrong because you make up your own sense of right and wrong rejecting that any such thing could come from God.That makes you a relativist when it comes to morality, not God.
[quote:6hmyvai7]Christians and Atheist do share something in common. Neither of us are wholly righteous in the eyes of God, but we both like to think we are.
[quote:6hmyvai7]Atheist have a much harder time because they have to build various constructs in an attempt to define what righteous means. Trouble is they fail all the time. Always have and always will.
When I say civilised, I'm aware that I'm using it as a subjective, value-laden term. Of course the morality of Ancient Rome was very different to what we have today. The thing is, I don't judge the Romans for the various things they did that would be repellent by today's standard. That would be silly. But then nobody's saying that the Romans were following some absolute standard which still applies now. You are claiming that the moral standards applicable in the Torah haven't changed. If that's true then we're entitled to consider them from a modern perspective.The Romans thought they where a civilized society. The Nazi's thought it. Communist Russia thought it. China thinks it. You seem to indicate that you are a member of civilized society. I'm sure you would not connect yourself to any of the societies mentioned, but if you are civilized what makes you any more civilized than all the people before you?
No, I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that there are some actions I would condemn no matter what the circumstances.You call yourself a civilized member of a civilized society who makes up their own rules of morality as they go, and have changed those rules over and over throughout the ages, and will continue to do so and those rules you claim are absolute?
I don't trust the ever changing morality of mankind. And I don't believe in God (or that the events of the Torah really happened for that matter), but if I did, and if he was as portrayed in the Bible, then I would say his actions were evil.How is it that you could trust an ever changing morality of mankind and call that being civilized yet reject an unchanged God who has clearly spelled out what is truly right and wrong, and further say that this God is relevant?
That doesn't appear to have stopped him commanding it on a number of occaisons.I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God.
Yes, and it apparently justified their total extermination. And remember, we're not just talking death in battle. The old, the children and the ill people whose massacre God commanded weren't combatants.The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites.
With respect, you have no idea why I don't believe.You don't believe because you don't want to believe.
Another puzzling statement. As I don't believe God exists, I don't believe he has anything to say about me. What is there for me to dislike?You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you.
Again, you're confusing absolutism with realism.I'm afraid at this point you have only concluded that mankind is relevant. That mankind makes up his own rules. Why you are calling those rules absolute I've no idea, but you admitted they are not by pointing out how they have changed, or been viewed over the years.
I have attempted to point out that the rules God requires peple to live by have been different in different times and places. This is simple Old/New Covenant stuff.You have attempted to point out that God is the same as man in that regard, but your attempt failed because you have not shown it to be a fact at all.
Slavery is clearly permitted in the Torah, murder positively commanded and rape set out as a crime against the men who own the victim, not against the victim herself. Raping an unmarried girl carries less punishment than that decreed for a married woman raped at knifepoint who doesn't scream.You are indecating that God is for slavery and rape and murder yet there is nothing in the bible that says that, and all the text you used for it did just the opposite.
It certainly is spelled out.God has a standard of right and wrong. It does not include murder, rape, poligomy, slavery and all other such things as right. It's clearly spelled out in the bible.
Does that mean that today I would be morally OK if I got my rebellious and stubborn son stoned to death by all the men who live in my town?[/quote:6hmyvai7][/quote:6hmyvai7]He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute.