Thou shalt not kill?

Originally posted by rwingett
So we come down to the crux of the matter. Obedience to god is all that matters. The biblical moral code consists exclusively of following his command. You agree that genocide, murder, and destruction are all acceptable as long as god commands it? What if god commanded you to destroy Jericho. Would you do it? Today the city has a population of 25,000, do yo ...[text shortened]... richo? Would you support him? What if god commanded you to kill your own child? Would you do it?

I'm thankful I'm not in that kind of position as leader of God's chosen people, Israel. I'm also thankful that God hasn't commanded me to kill my own child. I can't answer whether I would or not, at least not accurately. If I were an Israelite in Joshua's position, I'd hope to have the same faith in God which he displayed in his obedience. Likewise with Abraham. Otherwise, the person I am now, displaced into the past and put into Joshua's shoes -- I don't know if I'd have the stomach for it. If a religious authority said that God had commanded him to destroy Jericho, I would find that highly questionable. The body of Christ isn't supposed to demonstrate judgment, rather to proclaim the Good News to all nations. When Jesus Christ returns He will exercise judgment. Until then we are not to condemn the world, but instead save the world through Jesus Christ. For God's chosen people, Israel, who fought in God's battle against idolatry, obedience meant something different than a Christian's obedience. God's relationship to Gentiles is through His Son, Jesus Christ, and obedience means obedience to His Son (believing the Good News).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No, the implications for us are:

(1) God hates idolatry

(2) God is holy

(3) God exercises judgment against the disobedient

Are we idolatrous? Are we disobedient? If so, we are certainly testing His patience. He is deadly serious about the heinousness of both, as the OT shows.

God declares men righteous not according to their works, but ...[text shortened]... uld be an unfair judgment to make, even though I have faith in the God of the bible.

None of this contradicts what I said about your world view.
[My post said nothing about "glee" or the emotional state of the child-killer, although you seem to endorse rejoicing over such things!]

Originally posted by SwissGambit
None of this contradicts what I said about your world view.
[My post said nothing about "glee" or the emotional state of the child-killer, although you seem to endorse rejoicing over such things!]

Having gone back and read your previous post...

We seem to be spending a lot of time criticising the Bible/God as a basis for morality. What I'm interested in now is, have you got a better source? Have you got a basis for morality that isn't subject to the whims of current fashion?

Originally posted by orfeo
Having gone back and read your previous post...

We seem to be spending a lot of time criticising the Bible/God as a basis for morality. What I'm interested in now is, have you got a better source? Have you got a basis for morality that isn't subject to the whims of current fashion?

Good question.

Originally posted by orfeo
Having gone back and read your previous post...

We seem to be spending a lot of time criticising the Bible/God as a basis for morality. What I'm interested in now is, have you got a better source? Have you got a basis for morality that isn't subject to the whims of current fashion?

They're all subject to the whims of current fashion. That is entirely the whole point. The bible claims to be a source of moral absolutism, but it simply isn't so. If there is no god then Joshua can be judged solely by the standards of the time. But if there is a god, then Joshua must be judged on an eternal, unchanging standard. And therein lies the contradiction. For there is no way to reconcile a "morality" that would endorse Jericho's slaughter with the current morality that clearly does not.

But as I implied previously, I would recommend Humanism as a far superior standard of morality.

Originally posted by rwingett
They're all subject to the whims of current fashion. That is entirely the whole point. The bible claims to be a source of moral absolutism, but it simply isn't so. If there is no god then Joshua can be judged solely by the standards of the time. But if there is a god, then Joshua must be judged on an eternal, unchanging standard. And therein lies the contra ...[text shortened]... as I implied previously, I would recommend Humanism as a far superior standard of morality.

Where does the Bible claim to be a source of moral absolutism? Where does it say that every event is reported in an accurate and unbiased manner, every reported event actually happened, and none of it is to be interpreted through the lenses of time and culture?

Originally posted by rwingett
They're all subject to the whims of current fashion. That is entirely the whole point. The bible claims to be a source of moral absolutism, but it simply isn't so. If there is no god then Joshua can be judged solely by the standards of the time. But if there is a god, then Joshua must be judged on an eternal, unchanging standard. And therein lies the contra ...[text shortened]... as I implied previously, I would recommend Humanism as a far superior standard of morality.

We're back to the Bible claiming to be a source of moral absolutism? I thought we'd established that the 'absolute' is a requirement to obey God. Joshua obeyed God. Judged on that standard, Joshua did just fine.

As for Humanism being superior, I personally don't think much of some of the Humanists around here who seem to think that the appropriate thing to do if I grow old and show signs of losing my independence is to kill myself - so long as I die 'with dignity'. Forbid it that I might actually have to RELY on other people.

I don't know if that's part of your personal morality, but I think that particular view of the world sucks royally.

Originally posted by orfeo
Having gone back and read your previous post...

We seem to be spending a lot of time criticising the Bible/God as a basis for morality. What I'm interested in now is, have you got a better source? Have you got a basis for morality that isn't subject to the whims of current fashion?

As rwingett has pointed out, almost any moral code would be preferable to that of the Bible (read literally).

A moral code as simple as "Killing people is like, bad, and stuff" is far superior to the Bible's.

It's funny how murder laws remain on the books of so many nations despite "whims of current fashion". It's like people understand that certain acts are objectively wrong. In other words, we don't need an outside source. We (the collective) are capable of working most things out on our own. We do not always arrive at the correct ethical stance on every issue, but this is the best we can do, given our limitations.

You hold your God up as some kind of absolute moral standard, but that does not free you from "trendy" morals, because you read the Bible with your own imperfect eye. In other words, we all arrive at a moral code by working it out on our own, but not all of us will admit it.

Edit: Added a bit of clarification - I do believe there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
As rwingett has pointed out, almost [b]any moral code would be preferable to that of the Bible (read literally).

A moral code as simple as "Killing people is like, bad, and stuff" is far superior to the Bible's.

It's funny how murder laws remain on the books of so many nations despite "whims of current fashion". It's like people understand that ...[text shortened]... arrive at a moral code by working it out on our own, but not all of us will admit it.[/b]

Do you understand what 'murder' is? By definition, it is unlawful killing. The mere existence of a murder law simply means that not all killing is lawful. So you're arguing in circles.

Societies DON'T agree on which killings are lawful and which are not. There are significant parts of the world where it is considered acceptable for a family to kill their own daughter for 'dishonouring' them. The official legal system has generally been changed in recent years to label this as unlawful, but culturally and historically it was not murder. Why didn't these people work out this was wrong?

Re your last paragraph: I am well aware that I read the Bible through my 21st Century lens. As I've hinted elsewhere, I think absolutism is dangerous, including when practised my fellow Christians. There is a fundamental difference between (1) believing there is such a thing as absolute truth and (2) claiming to know absolute truth. I subscribe to (1), but not to (2).

Originally posted by SwissGambit
As rwingett has pointed out, almost [b]any moral code would be preferable to that of the Bible (read literally).

A moral code as simple as "Killing people is like, bad, and stuff" is far superior to the Bible's.

It's funny how murder laws remain on the books of so many nations despite "whims of current fashion". It's like people understand that it of clarification - I do believe there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.[/b]

I do believe there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.

'Objective' as in, having a reality whether we believe in it or not? That's not secular humanism. Secular humanism rejects the idea that we live in a moral universe; man is the measure of all things and what we decide is right is right, and what we decide is wrong is wrong; assigning right and wrong is pretty much arbitrarily dictated by 'the collective'. If you believe there is such a thing as 'right and wrong' outside of what society arbitrarily dictates, then you are talking about God's law as revealed through God's word, which is eternal.

You hold your God up as some kind of absolute moral standard, but that does not free you from "trendy" morals, because you read the Bible with your own imperfect eye. In other words, we all arrive at a moral code by working it out on our own, but not all of us will admit it.

Not so, there is no 'moral code' to speak of in the bible. There is only God's command and our obedience to it:

“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments"" (Matthew 22:36-40).

"Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them" (John 14:21).

"Notice how God is both kind and severe. He is severe toward those who disobeyed, but kind to you if you continue to trust in his kindness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off" (Romans 11:22).

Originally posted by orfeo
Do you understand what 'murder' is? By definition, it is [b]unlawful killing. The mere existence of a murder law simply means that not all killing is lawful. So you're arguing in circles.

Societies DON'T agree on which killings are lawful and which are not. There are significant parts of the world where it is considered acceptable for a family to kil ...[text shortened]... lute truth and (2) claiming to know absolute truth. I subscribe to (1), but not to (2).[/b]

Yes, I know what 'murder' means. Murder laws usually forbid the majority of killing within their jurisdiction. In other words, if you're going to kill someone, you need a very good reason.

I agree that we don't always make morally correct laws. It is sad that some societies sanction things like honor killings. But, in your example, they did eventually ban them. It's pitiful that it takes us so long to get there, but at least we are capable of it.

Given your last paragraph, I am not sure why you fear trends in morality. If you admit that we don't know absolute truth, then shouldn't we continually reexamine our thinking and get as close to the truth as possible?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I do believe there is such a thing as objective right and wrong.

'Objective' as in, having a reality whether we believe in it or not? That's not secular humanism. Secular humanism rejects the idea that we live in a moral universe; man is the measure of all things and what we decide is right is right, and what we decide is wrong is wrong; assi ...[text shortened]... indness. But if you stop trusting, you also will be cut off" (Romans 11:22).[/b]

I am not a secular humanist (at least, in the way you define it; I have not looked it up).

The quote from Jesus that you have listed is a moral code. Why do you think it is not? What do you think Jesus meant when he claimed that it is the basis for the 'entire law'?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I am not a secular humanist (at least, in the way you define it; I have not looked it up).

The quote from Jesus that you have listed [b]is a moral code. Why do you think it is not? What do you think Jesus meant when he claimed that it is the basis for the 'entire law'?[/b]

I mean to say there is not a 'moral code' which we arbitrarily derive from the bible. God's commands are explicit, and they require obedience. A 'moral code', as you've described, is something we 'work out on our own.' But we (believers) don't decide what is right for ourselves using the bible as a mere reference; we go directly to the bible to find God's will, and we either obey what we find there or not. Again, obedience is the key. The 'moral codes' arrived at arbitrarily by godless people are, as a rule, vain. It doesn't matter how righteous they are in their own eyes, God only honors faith in Himself and obedience to His laws.

EDIT: We are justified by faith, not by works. I am stressing God's laws because regardless of whether we are justified by faith or not, we are still meant to obey them.

Originally posted by orfeo

As for Humanism being superior, I personally don't think much of some of the Humanists around here who seem to think that the appropriate thing to do if I grow old and show signs of losing my independence is to kill myself - so long as I die 'with dignity'. Forbid it that I might actually have to RELY on other people.

And which Humanists are these? I certainly haven't heard anybody in these forums advocating this view.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
'Objective' as in, having a reality whether we believe in it or not? That's not secular humanism. Secular humanism rejects the idea that we live in a moral universe; man is the measure of all things and what we decide is right is right, and what we decide is wrong is wrong; assigning right and wrong is pretty much arbitrarily dictated by 'the collectiv ...[text shortened]... ou are talking about God's law as revealed through God's word, which is eternal.

"Secular Humanism" does not refer to any particular ethical theory. If anything, the term merely applies to a range of secular ethical theories that, generally, take the foundation for morality to be rooted in human well-being. That is, the principles (if any) that the secular humanist endorses will be justified to the extent that they conduce to human well-being. This is compatible with any number of foundational views about the nature of human well-being. One could be a secular humanist and think that what is good for humans is satisfy whatever interests they happen to have. Such a view would lead to a sort of Utilitarianism, I suppose. But one could also be a secular humanist and think that what is good for human beings is to flourish in accord with their nature as rational and deeply social beings. Such a view could lead easily to an Aristotelian virtue-ethical account. One could be a secular humanist and think that nothing is valuable independently of being valued by the good or virtuous will. This would lead to a sort of neo-Kantian view of morality, especially if the good will is taken to be nothing other than a perfectly rational will. The point of all this is that secular humanism is simply not committed to the claim that rightness and wrongness are arbitrarily dictated by the collective. According to most types of secular humanistic ethical theories, morality is objective in that it is based on objective facts about our nature. According to some types of secular humanistic ethical theories, morality is objective in that constraints on our actions are derived from objective facts about practical rationality (i.e., what we can consistently will ourselves to do). In general, I find it exceedingly strange that theists like you feel competent to simply declaim about secular ethics without ever having taken a class or read a book on the subject. This absurd caricature of secular ethics that folks like you continue to advance is tiring. If you would only take a moment to acquaint yourself with the variety of secular ethical theories out there, you'd find that the spectre of moral relativism is just that.