Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[jasoncran]

nice post

 

[Danus]

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?

I've no idea where your getting your biblical information from, but If you paid for it please ask for your money back.

 

[jasoncran]

its' the gloria steinheim edition.lol with a commentary by sanger.

 

[logical bob]

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?

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.

The LORD said to Moses, "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. Numbers 31:25-27

Not a stinging rebuke is it?

Look, you can't seriously be looking at the Torah as the inspired word of God and saying that the things we would today find unacceptable are human error and "not what God would have ideally commanded." It's not me that's projecting my own preconceptions onto the Bible here.

 

[Danus]

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.

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.

However, you brought up another great verse, so let's look at it. This is going to be a bit long because it's only fair that I give you a level playing field of understanding. So here goes.

If I where to show you the Mona Lisa, I’m sure you would agree that it is a masterpiece painting. But, If I had you view it with one eye closed and the other looking through a paper tube up close to the painting, you would only see bits and pieces of it. You probably could not recognize what you where even looking at. That’s how you indicate to me your understanding of the bible is; Bits and peaces here and there.

Bob, surly someone who is as logical as you would not ignore the facts. Let’s start with your verse in Deuteronomy 20:17-18, but allow me to complete the verses you did not paste.

“that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God.â€

Here we see God’s morality. Here we see a clearer, “big picture†definition of right and wrong from God based on what we know for FACT biblicaly. But first a question: Is the book of Deuteronomy a book of right and wrong or is it a book of law to deal with right and wrong in what God says is a fallen world? …..answer: It’s the latter.

If the world where not fallen; if man did not have the knowledge of good and evil then there would be no need for a book to deal with the nature of man as described by God from Genesis, and throughout the bible. There would be no book needed to outline for man what is necessary to deal with what is right, which has little to do with the condition of man since man is already doing wrong. (fallen world) In other words man knows wrong but hardly right.

The Bible Bob, is historical record, as well as teachings of God. The book of Deuteronomy is a little of both. But it’s designed to help direct wrong men, in a wrong world because of men, to a right and sovereign God.

With that you can not read and interpret the bible as if it where "Swiss cheese", which is what you are doing, and gain an understanding of the whole. In doing that you have developed a “Swiss cheese†understanding. You need a whole understanding. Otherwise your argument is worthless against the whole of scripture. In other words there is a ton of scripture to back up the argument of absolute morality, but only bits and pieces that would lend question to it if only those bits and pieces where viewed.

So at the point of Deuteronomy we see Israel working its way to the land promised. They have already been given 10 commandments by God, way back in Exodus. The 1st of which is to Honnor NO God before me; the real God; the only God; the sovereign God.

If that commandment is broken then anyone claiming to be Gods people are done, game over. Man at that point can just wallow in their own selves. They will never be able to be made righteous by God later to come in the form of Jesus Christ because at that point they are worthless to accept God. That does not mean that God does not love them, just means they are unable to take instruction to rise above any level that God can work with. They are already wrong. So God needs to get man to a point of obedience to follow instruction to make anything of mankind.

Now lets look at the whole verse which you quoted.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.


We know this biblically, all of man is wrong compared to the righteousness of God, and we know biblically that all man exist in a condition counter to what God would have; a condition man brought upon himself; A condition man chose because God gave him a choice, because to give that choice is true to the reality of love.

So, why destroy the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites?.......Answer to save a handful of wrong humanity so that, that handful of wrong humanity might fulfill God’s righteous promise to all of mankind.

But what about the the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites? Aren’t they worth something ? ……NO, they are more worthless than Israel. They have rejected God. They are a threat to God by their own admission. It is a condition they chose by free will…. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

It’s them who have sinned against God and have committed the most unforgivable of sins which is to reject God; to place false gods before the real God. Commandment #1

But, what about the Israelis? Do they sin? Yes they do, but they are connected to God. They recognize God and the fact that they are sinners. They have not rejected God.

It’s clear that we treat right and wrong differently as a society of mankind today and I’m sure we will continue to do so, but it is also clear that a large part of that society has also rejected God just like the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites of days gone by.

Today we are seeing relative morality more than ever and we will continue to see it to the end of time as we know it. But, that does not change the absolute right and wrong of God. Once more you have NOT pointed out any scripture that goes against God’s morality of right and wrong, or shown God to be relitive like man.

All you have done so far is shown man to be unrighteous before God, which we already know. You still have not proven God displaying relative morality in fact your verses have reinforced his absolute morality, even though your interpretation tried to show it as relative. It does not hold up to the facts about God or the facts surrounding the very scripture you cite. Why, because of a clear lack of understanding the bible and God’s nature. All you are presenting are little bits and pieces of scripture that in and of themselves may lend questions, but fail to prove anything when you look at the whole story. Those questions fad away right when you read the next line for anyone who has read the bible up to this point in Deuteronomy.

The fact is you can not find anything in the bible to show that God's morality is relevant. If your simply arguing the atheist argument I understand, but if this is how you are reading the bible then it's no wonder you have not accepted Christ. If I read the bible that way I would have problems with it also, but I encourage you to read the whole of scripture. Seriously. I am not at this point arguing with you for the sake of wining. I honestly would like you to have the hope, joy and peace that God offers.

I as a Christian are no better, or more righteous, or right then you. I have however accepted Christ as my savior. You have not by your own admission.

I started with a miniscule of faith, less than you. Why do I say that? because I was a committed atheist. I totally believed there was no God and I could care less if anyone else thought otherwise. I did not hang out in Christian forums arguing what I thought I believed.

Read the bible for all it's worth. See what else you can find that might prove God is not what he says he is.

 

[Danus]

its' the gloria steinheim edition.lol with a commentary by sanger.

Yes, I think your right. It must have been on sale in the back of MS magazine, or else they gave it away for free along with condoms, birth control pills and a list of abortion clinics at the Plan Parenthood "NOT" centers

 

[logical bob]

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.

 

[Mysteryman]

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.

Hi Bob

I have been reading this thread , and was not going to expound because of the carnal responses. And for the most part, in dealing with someone who only walks by their five senses. They ususally will ignore anything anyone says based upon the fact that spirituality and carnal thinking is like trying to mix oil and water. They just do not mix.

Whether or not if God commands that whole families be killed, or if God himself does the killing of whole families. The result is the same ! God flooded this earth during the time of Noah, and it killed animals, men, women, and children. As God didn't ask anyone to kill them for him, nonetheless, God killed them all !!

When looking or thinking about a child and the innocence of a very young child. One might ask as to why such a young child needs to die. And why would God ask someone to kill such an innocent child ? But the same question should be asked, as to why God himself would kill an innocent young child during the time of the flood of Naoh as well.

As a human being Bob, you nor I can restore life again. But God can and will. Everyone dies Bob, and there is no guarantee at what age one will die. Only God knows that. Because of the sin of Adam, all die. And there is no set age that one should or must die. But there is a purpose as to when one does die, and there are many times, we as mere humans do not fully understand the reason for a timely death or untimely death. We all die Bob, so get over it ! When God asks that they be killed, and the purpose might not be fully known , other than God telling man to kill in time of war. All rules made by man are not even worthy of any consideration ! When God says it Bob, that settles it, period !

God is love and he is life, and because of God you are here today, as well as myself. We all die one way or another. And we will all be raised from the dead. This is why you are struggling with this Bob. You are only looking at death as a final existence , or a depravity of some sort. But with God, it is not final, nor is it depravity. Eternal life verses 10 years or 90 years on this earth, can not be compared !

In his service - MM

 

[Danus]

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.

As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why. But, I'm also saying that you have not proven that God is relevant when it comes to right and wrong, and I'm also saying that the text you use for your argument does not support your argument, but in fact supports God's argument that morality (right and wrong) is absolute. 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.

You proved that mankind has changed in how mankind views morality throughout the ages, but you have not proven that God has changed his morality throughout the ages. You just don't like, or want to understand God's morality. Your willing to look at a little of it, but not all of it.

Many Christians fall into that same thinking when they give their life to Christ. They will give part of their life to Christ, but not all of it. 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. The critical difference is that Christians accept God's grace for their own failure to be righteous by accepting his gift of salvation through Christ. 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.

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? Or, maybe you are just civilized in this time, and 300 years from now there will be a Logical bob the IV, or whatever, who will be even more civilizes than his great, great grandfather who he will looks upon with other disdain for the way he lived in his time?

Either way, God never changes and either way it's man who is the relativist not God. He's the same today as he was then. He says there are no other gods before him. He lays out morality and says it's absolute. He gives us his word; his promises of Hope, Peace and Love and even warns us for our own sake not to reject him; .......yet that's what you and others do. How is that Logical?

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? Are they? No there not. never have been and never will. In keeping your pride you are open to anything, but by letting it go and accepting Christ in faith, you are bound to something else that frightens you; that you don't trust even though it's been the same throughout the ages yet your way of thinking has not. 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? No evidence at all to support that claim and nothing but evidence against such a claim.

I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God. The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites, but you are not seeing that because you don't believe in God. You don't believe because you don't want to believe. God is not forcing you to accept him; he's calling you to, but he's not forcing you to. Unlike man who has changed , God has not. You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you. By rejecting God you feel like you have solved that problem, but God has warned you that you have not.

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. 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. 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.

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. He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute. Man does not like the standard and deviate from it by nature which is by choice of man. Only man's standard is relevant, not God's and the bible, along with reality and history backs that up.

So, with that I think we are done unless you have something else.

 

[logical bob]

As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why.

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?

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.

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.

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.

What a strange statement. What atheist thinks themself righteous in the eyes of God?

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.

You can't define righteousness. That's the point of moral antirealism.

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?

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.

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?

No, I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that there are some actions I would condemn no matter what the circumstances.

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?

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.

I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God.

That doesn't appear to have stopped him commanding it on a number of occaisons.

The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites.

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.

Tell me, as modern Jews reject your faith can you be sure the Holocaust was wrong?

You don't believe because you don't want to believe.

With respect, you have no idea why I don't believe.

You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you.

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?

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.

Again, you're confusing absolutism with realism.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

It certainly is spelled out.

He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute.

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?

 

[Danus]

As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

What a strange statement. What atheist thinks themself righteous in the eyes of God?

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.

You can't define righteousness. That's the point of moral antirealism.

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?

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.

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?

No, I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that there are some actions I would condemn no matter what the circumstances.

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?

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.

I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God.

That doesn't appear to have stopped him commanding it on a number of occaisons.

The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites.

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.

Tell me, as modern Jews reject your faith can you be sure the Holocaust was wrong?

You don't believe because you don't want to believe.

With respect, you have no idea why I don't believe.

You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you.

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?

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.

Again, you're confusing absolutism with realism.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

It certainly is spelled out.

He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute.

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]

Bob I notice you like to use the phrase, "but if", a lot. "But if this, then this".

You make a statement about something you don't support or believe then use the, "but if then this", phrase leaving yourself open believe the possibility of that which you can't quite come to terms with, but also defending yourself against not believing it. I'm just speaking in general based on your post.

You don't fully believe what you think you believe. On the one hand you express moral standards, You would never kill a child, or divide up spoils of war, or obey God by leading your son up a mountain to be sacrificed because God said to do it, because such things are wrong and immoral......Then you say morality can't be maintained by any standard....??? So, where are you getting your standard of right and wrong? certainly not God because you don't believe in God, so why is it wrong to you that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, or that Moses had young boys killed. Is it because you just say it's wrong, or is it some collective club you belong to that says this is wrong? If its the club that says morality can not be maintain by any standard or even defined then you are the one who is open for anything.

Your whole argument is one big oxymoron. It never really get's off the ground does it? Why are you even arguing morality that you don't believe even exist, can be maintained or have a standard of any kind, yet you say that Christians are wrong people or that God's morality is wrong....oh and by the way you don't even believe in God.

 

[Danus]

As for me saying "it was justified" well, I am saying that it happened, and I'm also explaining why.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

What a strange statement. What atheist thinks themself righteous in the eyes of God?

[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.

You can't define righteousness. That's the point of moral antirealism.

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?

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.

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?

No, I haven't claimed that. I've claimed that there are some actions I would condemn no matter what the circumstances.

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?

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.

I'm glad to hear that you don't approve of genocide. neither do and neither does God.

That doesn't appear to have stopped him commanding it on a number of occaisons.

The real wrong in the text you cited was the rejection of God by the people killed in battle by the Israelites.

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.

Tell me, as modern Jews reject your faith can you be sure the Holocaust was wrong?

You don't believe because you don't want to believe.

With respect, you have no idea why I don't believe.

You reject God because you don't like what god has to say about you.

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?

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.

Again, you're confusing absolutism with realism.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

It certainly is spelled out.

He does not deviate from it. The standard is absolute.

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]

Bob I notice you like to use the phrase, "but if", a lot. "But if this, then this".

You make a statement about something you don't support or believe then use the, "but if then this", phrase leaving yourself open believe the possibility of that which you can't quite come to terms with, but also defending yourself against not believing it. I'm just speaking in general based on your post.

You don't fully believe what you think you believe. On the one hand you express moral standards, You would never kill a child, or divide up spoils of war, or obey God by leading your son up a mountain to be sacrificed because God said to do it, because such things are wrong and immoral......Then you say morality can't be maintained by any standard....??? So, where are you getting your standard of right and wrong? certainly not God because you don't believe in God, so why is it wrong to you that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, or that Moses had young boys killed. Is it because you just say it's wrong, or is it some collective club you belong to that says this is wrong? If its the club that says morality can not be maintain by any standard or even defined then you are the one who is open for anything.

Your whole argument is one big oxymoron. It never really get's off the ground does it? Why are you even arguing morality that you don't believe even exist, can be maintained or have a standard of any kind, yet you say that Christians are wrong people or that God's morality is wrong....oh and by the way you don't even believe in God.

Why are you here? What's your propose arguing against Christianity? Are you trying to save a bunch of misguided people from their misguided belief in a God that does not exist? ....or is it something else....Could it be your "but if, then"...statements....But if God does exist you would like to be convinced of him?

So, preach to me Bob. Let us hear your moral standards so that we might turn away from this God of ours who's standards you say are wrong. Show me what is right as opposed to that which is wrong even though right and wrong does not exist in your religion of Logic. I thought logic was that which made sense, but you have convinced me that logic does not have to make any sense at all....tell me more. .....the floor is yours.

 

[logical bob]

I checked back through my previous post and found that I used the phrase “but if†a grand total of once. I’m not sure how this gives you the material to work out that I don’t believe what I think I believe. Are we having some kind of therapy session here?

I’m afraid I must decline your invitation to preach atheism to you as that would breach the rules of the site. I come here because I enjoy discussion and I think it’s good to challenge my own ideas by engaging with people who completely disagree with me.

Basically, you’re saying that if I don’t believe in an objective moral standard I shouldn’t be able to make any moral judgements at all. That gets thrown at atheists all the time. As I said before, there are many reasons why the idea of an objective moral standard is untenable, but you have to delve into more moral philosophy than it’s easy to do on an internet forum. I’ll try to throw in three basic ideas here. They’re quite hard to explain in this format and I apologise in advance for any lack of clarity.

Firstly, you say that God defines morality, but you’ve also presented some fairly complex explanations of why God’s commands in the Bible are morally justified. Now if God really did define morality, there would be no sense in questioning whether obeying his commands is right. It would be like questioning whether what parliament decides defines the law. It would be impossible to offer a complex argument to prove that what parliament decided was law. You just say of course it is, that’s what law means.

So when you set out to explain that the destruction of the Midianites was justified to ensure the safety of the Israelites in the long term, or deserved because of their rejection of God, you’ve already conceded that God’s commands aren’t necessarily moral, that there exists a gap between God and morality that doesn’t exist between parliament and law. You’re justifying God’s commands using another standard and, whatever that standard is, it isn’t defined by God.

Secondly, we all bear responsibility for our actions. No war crimes tribunal accepts the defence that the accused was following orders. He is expected to exercise his own moral judgement. If he chooses to obey his General no matter what he doesn’t escape accountability.

In the same way, if you decide to base your choices on what you believe God’s instructions to be you still bear the responsibility for your choice. If God says to you to sacrifice your child or kill everyone in that town it still remains your decision to do it or to refuse. This is what Jean Paul Sartre meant when he said that man is condemned to be free. We cannot escape the responsibility and we don’t get the security blanket of an outside authority who will always give us the correct answer.

Thirdly, if God defined morality you actually wouldn’t be able to praise him for being good. That probably sounds stupid, so bear with me here. If God defined morality then saying “God is good†would be an absolutely trivial statement, as empty of content as saying “what parliament requires you to do is legal†or “bachelors are unmarried.†When you say “God is good,†that’s a statement of value. You mean to praise and commend God. What you’re actually doing is drawing on the standard of morality that you really use and affirming that God matches it. So again, you have some standard of morality in play here that, whatever it is, is not defined by God.

These aren’t just arguments against God defining moral values. They apply equally to any other proposed objective standard.

What I’m trying to show is that everyone, even the most devout Christian, is always using a moral standard other than that defined by God. What my own standard happens to be is of no consequence here. Many have been suggested and none are completely without their problems.

Anyway, I hope that answers your questions to some extent, or at least gives you a different way of looking at the issue. I’d be interested to hear what you think, but we’d get on better if you refrained from trying to tell me what I believe and from analysing my alleged inner discord.

 

[Danus]

Bob none of that makes much sense.

Your standard of morality suggest God is wrong yet at the same time you are saying there are no standards other than what one's standards happen to be. So .....how is God wrong to you? What measure of morality are you using to judge God?

If you want to say that you are using God's own standard to judge him....no your not. I'm justifying God's commands using his own standard. I am not however justifying man's action using those same standards. Man is judged by God using his (God's) own standards.

Your argument could be saying that no man can live up to or maintain God's standards....Is that it?

 

[jasoncran]

when we say that God is evil, we become God as we set the standard to follow.

 

[Kevin Lowery]

Truth and morality are not Irrelevant or subjective but are absolute & universal, anyone who thinks rationally & has their eyes open will be able able to see that. It angers me how idiotic people can be when it comes to truth claims & morality. People need to realize without God, morality is not possible, but if God does not exist, than all morality is, are opinions, & social taboos, not a actually real objective thing.
Apart from God & his Moral Law, there is no true standard of morality, right or wrong, but only personal opinions & social taboos.

Also, on subject but also kinda off subject, you mentioned Ray Comfort & kirk Carmon.
I support both of those guys & their ministry, and they do a decently good job at what they do,
But I sometimes cringe at that thought of them debating atheists, I've seen them debate & argue with atheists, and neither is Ray Comfort or kirk Carmon really equip with enough Apologetic knowledge to crush an Atheist debater, they are simply lacking when compared to Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Norman L. Geisler, etc. It's not because they don't have a Phd, but it simply because their arguments are not as sound or put forth as good as they should be. When Ray Comfort & kirk Carmon debate with Atheist, their arguments don't seem intellectual at all, but rather good arguments said wrong or presented very dumbed down.

 

[logical bob]

You still don't see how one can make a moral judgement without an objective standard. OK, let me ask you guys a question. Every day we all make value judgements. We know what music we like, we know what activities we find fulfilling, we know what flavour of ice cream tastes best and we argue about the best baseball player of all time. Does this mean that there is some absolute truth about music, activities, ice cream and sport? If I like vanilla and you like tutti frutti, if I like jazz and you think it's just tootling, does one of have to be absolutely, objectively wrong? I don't imagine you'd say so.

If you can make all these other value judements and understand that they're subjective, based on your own views, wishes and preferences, why not the same with the value judgement of how best to live your life? What's so special about that one that means you have to have an absolute standard?

 

[Danus]

If that's the case Bob, you just weakened your argument down to nothing. Nothing is wrong; nothing is right and you have no position to judge anyone. So, live and let live I guess. That being the case you have no case against Moses, Abraham or God.

You eat your ice cream and listen to your music and I'll Have mine.

 

[jasoncran]

well said, danus. moral relativists like to judge us for having a moral standard, yet at the same time claim there is none.
that's like telling me that when i used the ranger beads to mark 100m in land nav that i'm off when that person doesnt know what the meter is and what his pace count is!

 

[logical bob]

You're not dealing with any of the points I'm raising. You're just repeating the same thing over and over without backing it up.

Either of you: if there has to be an objective standard of morality does there also have to be an objective standard of beauty?