Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thou Shalt Not Kill - Except......?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 36 (371727)
12-22-2006 8:16 PM


Is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" a moral absolute?
It seems to me that those who most ardently advocate moral absolutism (i.e. the Christian right) are also the most vociferous supporters of capital punishment.
Is this not a contradictory position?
Surely a straightforward commandment directly from the "mouth" of God is not open to interpretation or dependant on context? Surely this commandment decrees that the taking of human life in any situation at any time is just morally wrong?
If this simple command is open to interpretation in any way how can any moral absolutism be justified?
Can any moral absolutists defend this seemingly contradictory position?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 11:24 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2006 12:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 36 (371823)
12-23-2006 11:10 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 36 (371830)
12-23-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
12-22-2006 8:16 PM


on Laws and Morality.
Is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" a moral absolute?
No. It is a law. Laws are not moral, they do not contain provisions for exceptions. The speed limit is 30 MPH, not 30 MPH except when an overwhelming moral condition requires that you drive faster.
Also, the actual terminology used implied more of a sense of "do murder" as opposed to simply killing, and was restricted to being related to other humans. It implied nothing about killing animals for food, or plants for harvest.
People often confuse Law and Morality.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2006 8:16 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 36 (371840)
12-23-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
12-22-2006 8:16 PM


Thou shalt not murder
Is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" a moral absolute?
Thou shalt not kill is actually more closely translated as, "thou shalt not murder." If killing was the criteria for sin, we'd all be liable every time we stepped on an ant, ate a carrot, or accidentally killed a fly from poison monoxide coming from the fire we started to keep warm.
The reality is that killing is far different from murder. I think we all know that intuitively. If you are sleeping soundly in your home and are awakened by a masked man who kicked down the door, you have the right to defend your life, home, and property. However, if you are the masked man, you have no right to either kick down the door of someone else's home or endanger their lives. If you are killed in the course of your evil deeds, are the people held accountable? Should they be?
In the Bible, we see the terms distinguished clearly when we read about King David. David was many things-- a king, a warrior, a murderer, an adulterer, a philanderer, etc. However, when David fought the Philistines, he killed them in the course of battle. When he had Uriah killed on the battlefield, he murdered Uriah.
There are just and unjust killings.
It seems to me that those who most ardently advocate moral absolutism (i.e. the Christian right) are also the most vociferous supporters of capital punishment.
This is true in many cases. I'm in the minority on this issue, though I don't think they are wrong for holding to this view. I don't agree with the penalty, even though I understand that it is instituted by the virtue of the sanctity of life. "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." -Genesis 9:6
This belief was later expounded when the Law of Moses was instituted. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for tooth. Its a law of recompense and reciprocity, in that, whatever you do to others, so shall it be measured back to you.
It wasn't until the sermon on the mount given by Jesus did we begin to consider that the law and personal value can be reconcilable. Jesus in no way was trying to replace the law, but rather, was giving a discourse on how we should personally feel towards those who wrong us.
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
-John 8:3-11
Is this not a contradictory position?
No, because we allow for the government to fulfill its duty, which is to serve its citizens. There is nothing wrong with the Law, however, Jesus wanted us to view it in personal terms. Jesus submitted to the Law, which is why He said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He's saying, if you want to live by the Law, be prepared to live by it and to die by it because you are guilty just as she is. So, by all means, cast your stones, but don't be surprised when the stones are cast back at you.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 12-22-2006 8:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 6:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 12-24-2006 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 5 of 36 (371846)
12-23-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
I don't agree with the penalty, even though I understand that it is instituted by the virtue of the sanctity of life. "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." -Genesis 9:6
You need to back up a few chapters:
quote:
Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
When God Himself was the Judge, Jury and Executioner, guess what - no execution.
Jesus took a similar tack with the adulterous woman:
quote:
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
No man is qualified. Only God can judge.
Even if killing is justifiable under God's direct cammand - as is purported at various times in the Old Testament - you'd better be pretty @#$%ing certain that it is God's direct command.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2006 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 1:54 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 36 (371876)
12-23-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
The very fact that even this seemingly straight forward commandment is so open to interpretation suggests to me that moral absolutes just do not exist.
If the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" then this is totally dependant on what the person doing the killing considers murder. The scenarios you outline to differentiate the two would get consent amongst the vast majority but there are many less black and white examples.
Is the public executioner committing murder?
Is a soldier fighting a war committing murder when he knowingly bombs targets that will contain civilians?
Is an Islamic terrorist who thinks he is fighting a war against the depraved west in the name of Allah committing murder when he blows up trains?
None of the above consider themselves murderers whatever you or I may think. Each can undertake the task described and consider themselves morally righteaous. They may even be moral absolutists with very similar views to yourself!!!!!
Yet each COULD be considered murder depending on your own personal interpretation of what murder is.
Personally I would be inclined to suggest that each one of the above should be considered murder. But that is exactly the point. Its is my personal interpretation only.
So where is the absolute in any of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2006 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 2:46 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 36 (372018)
12-24-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ringo
12-23-2006 12:32 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
When God Himself was the Judge, Jury and Executioner, guess what - no execution.
What? First of all, God exiled Cain and accursed him to be a restless wanderer. This says nothing about his ultimate disposition, just like it doesn't about any of us. If God struck us down the instance we sinned, we'd all be dead.
Even if killing is justifiable under God's direct cammand - as is purported at various times in the Old Testament - you'd better be pretty @#$%ing certain that it is God's direct command.
I don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be shifting back and forth that God isn't the judge, but that He is. And that God doesn't want us to kill, but He does...?
Murder and killing is two different things, which is why we have distinguishing terms in the law. We have justifiable homicide, manslaughter (in three degrees), and murder (in three degrees). But maybe I'm not understanding you. If so, can you clarify?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 12-23-2006 12:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by iceage, posted 12-24-2006 2:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 12-24-2006 3:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 8 of 36 (372024)
12-24-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hyroglyphx
12-24-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
NJ writes:
Murder and killing is two different things
I think straggler has an interesting point. The difference between Murder and Killing is often a purely human distinction.
When the bibliolatrist and fundamentalist excuse the supposedly godly commanded genocide of the old testament they are invoking the same arguement that the islamist bomber does - this is not murder but sanctified killing ordained and approved by god.
The obvious and unavoidable flaw in this thinking is that they are saying that God, the omniscient creator of all, is somehow incapable of doing his own life extinguishing acts, but requires the assistance of his devout followers. Or I alternately you could argue that God wants his devout followers to experience the blessing and cleansing act of killing the infidels (including small children and the unborn).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 3:44 PM iceage has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 36 (372028)
12-24-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
12-23-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
The very fact that even this seemingly straight forward commandment is so open to interpretation suggests to me that moral absolutes just do not exist.
The law is perfectly on the matter. Its the circumstances for each individual case that are hazy. But that's really a side issue. We are infallible and we aren't going to know all the details of a certain case. We have detectives to piece as many clues together to paint the best picture we can get without having actually witnessed the event. When it says that morals are absolute, it means that they are unyielding in its application. Obviously, the next question is: Well, if there is a God and His law is final, then how is it that we can live?
Somebody has to pay the price. God then becomes the ultimate sacrifice so that the law is paid and that we can be reconciled to Him, as far as it depends on us.
If the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" then this is totally dependant on what the person doing the killing considers murder. The scenarios you outline to differentiate the two would get consent amongst the vast majority but there are many less black and white examples.
This is where relativity comes in and has skewed our views. The law is permanent and is easily recognized by anyone. But through clever manipulation people can become swayed by a relativist argument.
Is the public executioner committing murder?
My conscience would tell me that though I would be justified, there is a better way.
Is a soldier fighting a war committing murder when he knowingly bombs targets that will contain civilians?
My conscience would scream at me which is my indicator that I must not do that.
"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." -Proverbs 6:16-19
Is an Islamic terrorist who thinks he is fighting a war against the depraved west in the name of Allah committing murder when he blows up trains?
He may believe he is correct, just as a relativist may believe that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Their sincerity on the matter doesn't determine whether or not they are in the right.
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." -Romans 2:12-16
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do”this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God”through Jesus Christ our Lord!" -Romans 7:14-25
They may even be moral absolutists with very similar views to yourself!!!!!
So? Saying that you agree with moral absolutes is the intelligent decision. That doesn't mean that they follow them. I could know every word in the Bible and believe that it is true. But what's it worth if I don't follow it? What's knowing about it supposed to do, except condemn me because I'll have no excuse on the day of my judgment?
Personally I would be inclined to suggest that each one of the above should be considered murder. But that is exactly the point. Its is my personal interpretation only.
You find it morally repulsive for me to espouse moral absolutes. What is that supposed to mean to me if all morals all relative? If all morals are relative, and you know that, then what purpose is there in trying to defame my beliefs?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 6:48 PM Straggler has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 36 (372032)
12-24-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hyroglyphx
12-24-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
God exiled Cain and accursed him to be a restless wanderer.
quote:
Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
God put a mark on Cain to prevent anybody from "executing" him. That's a far cry from God condoning capital punishment, don't you think?
You seem to be shifting back and forth that God isn't the judge, but that He is. And that God doesn't want us to kill, but He does...?
Okay, I'll type verrry slowwwly....
Some people claim that the Old Testament condones capital punishment. But when God Himself was in sole command of the ship, no human justice systems in place, no stone tablets or Levitical law to muddy up the waters, He forbade anybody to kill the very first murderer in the history of the world.
That's what we call "precedent". Anything that comes after has to be understood in the context of the precedent. So, if you think God condones capital punishment later on in the Old Testament, you have to ask yourself why He didn't use it Himself when He had the chance.
In the New Testament, Jesus was presented with a case in which capital punishment was supposedly prescribed by law. He pointed out that no man is qualified to be the executioner. Now, do you suppose that men are magically qualified to be the executioner when Jesus isn't present?
I also broadened the scope of the question to cases in the Old Testament where the writers claimed that God told them to kill Canaanites, etc. I suggested that if you think God is telling you to kill somebody, you had better be pretty ***-damn, mother-****ing sure that it is God telling you and not just the Charles-Manson voices in your head. And that applies whether you think God is telling you to kill Sharon Tate or Charles Manson.
Clear, I hope?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 4:31 PM ringo has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 36 (372038)
12-24-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by iceage
12-24-2006 2:25 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
When the bibliolatrist and fundamentalist excuse the supposedly godly commanded genocide of the old testament they are invoking the same arguement that the islamist bomber does - this is not murder but sanctified killing ordained and approved by god.
There is warfare and there are acts of criminal conduct.
The obvious and unavoidable flaw in this thinking is that they are saying that God, the omniscient creator of all, is somehow incapable of doing his own life extinguishing acts, but requires the assistance of his devout followers. Or I alternately you could argue that God wants his devout followers to experience the blessing and cleansing act of killing the infidels (including small children and the unborn).
Do you not see the error in your own rationale? If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs. Indeed, you are trying to get me to sympathize with your views on relativity, all the while esteeming your own beliefs higher than that of any one else's. So let me just ask you: Is it wrong of God if He committed genocide? We'll deal with theological assertions you've made after you answer this simple question. If you say, "I personally believe that it is wrong, but right and wrong are only concepts that we devise. It isn't either right or wrong. Its only wrong for me." To which I would reply, "Well, I think its right. And since morals are relative and abstract concepts, case closed. There's nothing left to discuss."

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by iceage, posted 12-24-2006 2:25 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-24-2006 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 14 by iceage, posted 12-24-2006 4:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 16 by ReverendDG, posted 12-24-2006 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 36 (372040)
12-24-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
If killing was the criteria for sin, we'd all be liable every time we stepped on an ant, ate a carrot, or accidentally killed a fly from poison monoxide coming from the fire we started to keep warm.
Would an ancient Israelite consider it wrong to kill an ant or a fly? I don't think they were given the breathe of life from God, so I am not sure if they would enter into the thoughts of the person(s) who wrote the commandments.
Also, I think it is safe to assume that the ancient Israelites didn't know that plants were alive or we would have had a mention of this in the Noah myths.
I think it's pretty safe that the commandment is about murdering another human, a being alive by the breath of God.
If you are sleeping soundly in your home and are awakened by a masked man who kicked down the door, you have the right to defend your life, home, and property.
But if you kill the intruder you will go to jail, you do not have a free hand to beat him to death or shoot him.
are the people held accountable?
It's a fair bet that you would go to jail in the UK if you used excessive force on an intruder.
Should they be?
No. But we are a PC crazy country now where the only people discriminated against are white, employed, drug-free, non-alcoholic, married, law-abiding citizens.
There are just and unjust killings.
And God slaughtering the innocent Egyptian children was just or unjust?
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." -John 8:3-11
You don't really take that story seriously though do you?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2006 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 7:52 PM Brian has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 36 (372041)
12-24-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
12-24-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
Nem writes:
If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs.
What an absolute bunch of Nonsense. Of course there is a basis and the basis is the relative morality of the era and culture.
So let me just ask you: Is it wrong of God if He committed genocide?
Hell yes it was immoral as well as being wrong, simply because morality is not absolute.
During the time, era and culture that is portrayed in the Old Testament tales it WAS moral to commit genocide in the name of God.
Fortunately, morality has changed over time and today most folk believe it is immoral to commit genocide in the name of God.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 3:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 8:07 PM jar has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 14 of 36 (372042)
12-24-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
12-24-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
nj writes:
There is warfare and there are acts of criminal conduct.
No, am talking about sanctified killing. Osoma genuinely believes he is in warfare against the ungodly.
I have a question for you.
Would you say that Osoma is wrong because he has the wrong read on God? Not necessarily wrong because his actions are opposed to some larger ethical principle.
nj writes:
If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs.
Whoa... Where am i espousing that morals are relative. Try not to suppose what I think.
nj writes:
So let me just ask you: Is it wrong of God if He committed genocide?
First clarify - God commit genocide or God commanding his subjects to commit genocide.
nj writes:
If you say, "I personally believe that it is wrong, but right and wrong are only concepts that we devise. It isn't either right or wrong. Its only wrong for me." To which I would reply, "Well, I think its right. And since morals are relative and abstract concepts, case closed. There's nothing left to discuss."
I would never say that. You seem to want to pigeon hole my views into a false perspective (strawman) because you have a pat answer.
A bibliolatrist mistakenly believes their morals or ethical views are grounded in the absolute when actually their views are relative to some writings that contain some of the worst examples of human behavior.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 3:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 8:22 PM iceage has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 36 (372044)
12-24-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
12-24-2006 3:04 PM


Re: Thou shalt not murder
God put a mark on Cain to prevent anybody from "executing" him. That's a far cry from God condoning capital punishment, don't you think?
God does condone capital punishment, as evidenced by the scriptures. However, He also condones mercy. The whole point of the gospel is that we deserve to die, but are offered reconciliation.
Some people claim that the Old Testament condones capital punishment. But when God Himself was in sole command of the ship, no human justice systems in place, no stone tablets or Levitical law to muddy up the waters, He forbade anybody to kill the very first murderer in the history of the world.
Thanks for clarifying. The Law was given to Moses, not just that he was given the opportunity to delegate in the stead of God, but it was actually given to him. That's why there is a distinction between the 613 ordinances next to the 10 commandments.
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." -Leviticus 19:18
"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"
-James 2:8-12
That's what we call "precedent". Anything that comes after has to be understood in the context of the precedent. So, if you think God condones capital punishment later on in the Old Testament, you have to ask yourself why He didn't use it Himself when He had the chance.
God doesn't want to judge a single soul. He wants obedience above all. And when we fail, which He knows we will, He would rather show mercy instead of punishment, though it is due to us. God can judge us all right now if He wanted to. He does not want to punish any one, but you have to understand the purpose of the Law. The Law is in place, 1. So we understand what He wants. 2. To break our pride in thinking that we can keep the entire law all of our lives.
What was the first sin? What is the sin that given all the scriptures and the discourses given by Jesus does He abhor most? He abhors pride. There is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses, but the New Covenant, prophesied by Moses himself, has come. And we are not under the law if we are under grace. And we know that we are following the spirit of the law if we love God with all of our heart and mind and soul. The second is like it. We shall love our neighbor as ourself. If we were to do that, would we not fulfill the obligation of the law naturally, instead of going through mechanized rituals? Indeed, this is what stumbles most orthodox Jews to this very day.
In the New Testament, Jesus was presented with a case in which capital punishment was supposedly prescribed by law. He pointed out that no man is qualified to be the executioner. Now, do you suppose that men are magically qualified to be the executioner when Jesus isn't present?
You're not understanding me. I agree with what you say, which is why I don't endorse capital punishment. However, capital punishment is not wrong because God has given that to Moses. But if we go by the law, we are accountable to it. See, Jesus is saying, "Yep. You're right. According to the Law you can stone her. Go ahead and do that in accordance to the Law. Oh, but, by the way. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical when you yourself are a sinner in need of mercy?" The message rang home and convicted their hearts because they all left one by one.
"John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." -John 1:15-17
I also broadened the scope of the question to cases in the Old Testament where the writers claimed that God told them to kill Canaanites, etc. I suggested that if you think God is telling you to kill somebody, you had better be pretty ***-damn, mother-****ing sure that it is God telling you and not just the Charles-Manson voices in your head. And that applies whether you think God is telling you to kill Sharon Tate or Charles Manson.
I agree with testing the spirits.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."
-1st John 4:1-6
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fix italics

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 12-24-2006 3:04 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 12-25-2006 12:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024