Board index ‹ Morality

[Sure Breeze]

> Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, and the KKK

They weren't mistakes at the time and you're talking about No True Christian now. I do not care one bit if you, in 2014, consider them mistakes or atrocities. The fact is, back then, Christians - including top tier Christian philosophers, Popes, and various people who lived by the Bible, created justifications for such slaughter. "God told me so", therefore it's not murder. Heck, it's immoral to disobey. To ignore the bloody past of your religion is to once again desecrate the memory of too many victims in your "holy cause" of ever loving religion, under the watchful eye of your ever loving, merciful God.

> We all recognize those were horrific mistakes.

Why wouldn't you say that your religion has zero authority on any moral judgment considering the past crimes of your religion? Luke 19:27 might be one. However, I'm under the impression that the OT is also part of Christianity. Same God, after all and Christians often tell me God doesn't change.

> There are forces of nature that are unbreakable. Physics, chemistry, biology. You know what I'm talking about.

I know what you're talking about but you're not seeing my point: some things, perhaps all things, have exceptions and rules could be bent, if not broken. I don't believe it's a good comparison to use reality and our sciences to the unverified beliefs about God.

[jimwalton]

> They weren't mistakes at the time and you're talking about No True Christian now. I do not care one bit if you, in 2014, consider them mistakes or atrocities. The fact is, back then, Christians - including top tier Christian philosophers, Popes, and various people who lived by the Bible, created justifications for such slaughter. "God told me so", therefore it's not murder. Heck, it's immoral to disobey. To ignore the bloody past of your religion is to once again desecrate the memory of too many victims in your "holy cause" of ever loving religion, under the watchful eye of your ever loving, merciful God.

The Roman government of 2000 years ago slaughtered people by the tens of thousands in the Coliseum and by crucifying them on the roadsides. Justifications were created for such slaughters that were endorsed by the top tiers. And what of Mao Zedung's cultural revolution? Josef Stalin's purging of Russia? All justified and endorsed by the powers that be, but that neither makes them right, or makes it illegitimate that we look back and such atrocities with horror that they ever could have happened. A collective mind is not necessarily a godly mind. You've heard of the principle of Groupthink, I'm sure. Just because popes, and Christian philosophers endorsed it doesn't mean it was right. "God told me so" can be used by a lot of fakers to do what they want. Their lies and hypocrisy don't make it right.

> To ignore the bloody past of your religion

I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm repulsed, nauseated, and ashamed of it. It was wrong, misguided, immoral, ungodly, and non-Scriptural. Just because it was done and even leaders bought into it doesn't mean I have to put my stamp of approval on it.

> Why wouldn't you say that your religion has zero authority on any moral judgment considering the past crimes of your religion?

Nope, I wouldn't say that at all.

> Luke 19:27 might be one.

I don't understand your reference to LK. 19.27. It's a parable where Jesus is using what seems to be a real-live situation (Herod Archelaus's coming to power) to explain that the kingdom of God was not going to appear around the corner. The points of the parable are (1) long delay) and (2) the need to vigilance and proper human conduct in the meantime, and (3) a calling to account at the judgment.

> I'm under the impression that the OT is also part of Christianity. Same God, after all and Christians often tell me God doesn't change.

Right, and right.

> I don't believe it's a good comparison to use reality and our sciences to the unverified beliefs about God.

This belies your a priori conclusion that the stuff of science is reality and that the stuff of religion is unreality.

[J Lord]

> Human beings, though we cannot disobey certain laws of nature, such as gravity, have a free will and therefore can choose to disobey other "laws" of nature—the laws of truth, love, justice, etc.

As far as anyone can tell, the laws of nature also govern the working of the human brain. So it makes no sense to me for someone to claim that we have free will to disobey laws of nature. All of the decisions made by human brains appear to be governed by the laws of nature.

[jimwalton]

As you read my post, you'll notice that I discriminated between various "laws" of nature, some of which we have no choice but to follow (as I mentioned, gravity, heredity, chemistry). There is another set of laws that we are free to disobey. I called them "laws of nature" because people thought that every knew it by nature and didn't need to be taught such things, that we all have a sense of right and wrong and generally agree on what those are. No culture admires cowardice in battle, selfishness is not admired anywhere, and across cultures we agree that we can't just go our whole lives having sex at random with whomever where and when we wish. Nations make treaties because we all believe that it right to abide by binding agreements. These are what I was calling that law of nature. Despite that there have been great efforts to show that such things are the mere outworking of evolutionary biology, no such thing has ever been proven, and the Bible teaches, in contrast, that our moral sense comes from the character of God, of which we are each and as a human race, made in his image.

[J Lord]

> Morality comes from the character and nature of God.

It seems more likely to me that morality is related to human well-being. I say this because there is no known way to determine any facts about the character and nature of god, but there are many ways to judge whether an action positively or negatively impacts human well-being. And whenever someone claims that something is moral or immoral because of some attribute of god, it can always be better explained with reference to human well-being.

[jimwalton]

The problem with using human well-being as a standard lies in the conundrum of "whose well-being"? Mine? Yours? The community? The country? My interest group? Any reference to "human well-being" is immediately plagued with competing interests and depleting resources, and it basically turns into a way to say, "MY well-being."

If there really is such a thing as good and evil, then there must be some kind of standard on which they are based. There must be what one would call a moral law to define them from human being to human being, or from culture to culture or era to era. Otherwise, we are in a swamp of "I define it according to how I want to define human well-being."

In essence, if there is such a thing as morality, then there must be a standard on which it is based. If there is a standard, then there is a moral law by which to measure good and evil. And if a moral law exists, then that moral law has a source. That source cannot be humanity deciding as it wishes related to perceived human well-being.

[Never miss a meal]

> There are certain situations where humans consider it moral to take a life without their consent, situations where the crime warrants capital punishment. Such occasions would be Adolf Hitler's officers, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, and others.

Well I do not believe that the examples you stated warranted capital punishment. I am against capital punishment, regardless of the crime of the accused, as I believe capital punishment is immoral. However I do agree that there are certain situations where it is moral to take a life without their consent, and that is self defense.

> What we can accurately say is that a rather large "gang" (group) of smart-aleck adolescents decided to mock the new prophet as a way of berating God. Recognizing the blasphemy, he calls on God to teach them a lesson about the sacredness of his name. Two bears come out of the woods and tear into the group, scattering them in every direction

The problem with that is that it is still immoral to react in such a way because of an insult. No matter that they were children or teens, bringing bears to rip them apart for the "crime" of making fun at you IS morally bankrupt. I would say that any person who acted in such a way should be locked up in prison for a very long time.

> No doubt some are injured, and some possibly badly (it doesn't specify much except that some were mauled), but it doesn't say any died.

It doesn't have to. Imagine this: accross the street from your house there are some kids, including your son, who like to hang out and sometimes make fun of passing people. Suddenly, there's a bald Christian guy passing by, with a Bible in his hand and 2 big dogs on a leash. The kids start calling him names, such as "hey baldie, what's up", or "hey, yo' mama is fat", or even "yo, what's with the Bible". Now the bald guy says to the dogs "sick'em boys" and releases their leash. The dogs jump on the kids and start ripping them apart. At this moment, will you call the cops or will you thank God for bringing justice Should the cops arrest the bald guy? Do you expect the judge to decide that the kids deserved their punishment and as such release the guy? Remember, one of the kids is your son. Will you say "son, I am glad you received what you deserved"?

[jimwalton]

> I am against capital punishment

In my opinion, any society that outlaws the death penalty doesn't send a message of reverence for life, but one of moral confusion. When we outlaw the death penalty, we tell the murderer that no matter what you may do to innocent people, whether they are babies, children, old folks, or whoever, your most treasured possession—your life—is secure. You can take theirs, and take as many as you want, but yours is secure. We won't let anyone take it from you. We'll guarantee that in advance. Any society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death. That's my opinion.

> because of an insult.

Ah, here's where you are making a large mistake. The infraction was not insult, but blasphemy. Their taunt was a disavowed of Elisha's prophetic office and calling. In this case, where there is a wicked king and a corrupt priesthood, the prophet Elisha stands as God's ambassador to the country and the world. To berate him is slanderous blasphemy to the name of God. This is no mere jeering or (poor baby) hurtful name-calling.

And they would certainly have understood it this way. In the ancient Near East, ravaging wild beasts were often been as punishment sent from the gods. This incident would be a message the community would understand, that God was to be honored, not execrated.

In an era where the throne was immoral, the priesthood fraudulent, the prophets false, and the judiciary bribable, and on top of that the prophet Elijah has just been taken away, this is no time for God to allow his name to be assassinated and his prophet to be vilified.

[NEver miss a meal]

> I know that sounds like a bunch of philosophical gobblety-gook, but it's not.

Well if you want us not to chalk it up as gobblety-gook, can you provide evidence to support this?

> any more than it's immoral for a policeman to shoot a perpetrator of evil in the act or for a judge to execute a war criminal for atrocities

Because our laws are very explicit, and we try as much as possible when making laws to make them as explicit as possible so that they cannot be misunderstood. God's laws are really generic, thus are very bad.

> It is therefore immoral to murder, but not always immoral to take a life.

Theoretically, I agree with this, but you are contradicting what you said earlier: "God is life, and therefore murder (taking life) is wrong..." You previously equated "murder" with "taking life", and claimed that it is always wrong, and now you say that it is "not always immoral to take a life".

> Because God in his perfection is able to judge all people accurately and without bias

The problem with this is that for our judges and policemen that you previously mentioned, it is only just to execute a criminal because we as a society have decided it is right, and the judge acts in accordance to our society's will. God however does not act according to what we define as just. And it can't be without bias when you define morality as that which conforms to his nature—it IS biased towards God's nature.

[jimwalton]

> can you provide evidence to support this?

The context of the question was "If God dictates morality," in the "Debate a Christian" subreddit. I assumed I was safe in presuming that the OP wants to know what the Bible teaches about such things. Hence, the support of the statement is that's what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God is author, source, and sustainer of all life. Obviously there's nothing in biology that gives his conclusion, since the study of God is outside of the scope of biological inquiry.

> God's laws are really generic

There are 613 laws in the Torah. A lot are specific, and a lot are general to be able to be interpreted and applied through different cultures and different eras. We have generic categories of homicide (murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide), each of which must be defined and delineated with further explicitness, and even then there are homicides that cross categories and don't fit neatly into the boxes we've created, so we have to be discerning to be able to deal with those situations justly.

> You previously equated "murder" with "taking life", and claimed that it is always wrong, and now you say that it is "not always immoral to take a life".

The "taking life" in parentheses was an unnecessary explanation of murder, as if you needed it, which you didn't. What my point is is that since God is life, life is sacred and therefore moral, and it is the unjust taking of that life that is desecrating and immoral. There are justifiable reasons for taking a life, but to murder is not one of them.

> God however does not act according to what we define as just.

???? This needs some explanation. God DEFINES justice.