Christianity Morality and OT laws

[Paradoxum]

Your understanding of God is seriously flawed.

Well there is no God to understand, so that probably adds to the confusion.

The reason I have not answered your question is because you apparently can't tell the difference between the definition of "kill" and "murder". You use flawed logic to accuse God of murder and then ask me to defend that. I reject the premise of your question, so I will continue to ignore it.

I'm pretty sure previously I asked if you were okay with killing someone for picking up sticks. That doesn't have the premise of murder you object to.

So I'll ask... is it okay to kill someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

So, you should really learn what the difference is between "kill" and "murder". So far, we've talked about killing Jews and unborn babies. But we can also talk about killing chickens, killing child rapists, killing flies, killing mass murderers, etc. Killing is done lawfully for lots of reasons. Many people kill chickens, cows, and other animals for food or population control. Also, people may kill another person in self defense or during war. Some people kill others on accident. So what we've got to do first is define what is the morally wrong type of the word "kill". And the morally wrong type of "kill" is "murder". Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." I think it's interesting that you understand that what is acceptable by the law is not always what is morally right. I would agree with that.

You seem to disprove your understanding of murder here. You agree that something legal can be wrong, so I assume you'd also agree that something illegal can be moral. Something being unlawful has nothing to do with something being murder (Murder is a moral, not legal sense).

The most important point is that you can't define murder just by using a dictionary. If murder means unjust killing, then you must explain why a certain type of killing is unjust. Personally, the only bit of your definition I think I agree with is the 'premeditated killing' bit.

Sure, we should define murder, but I was sort of hoping you would agree that killing someone for picking up stick on a particular day of the week is definitely and obviously wrong. If you don't accept that then, in my opinion, you have HUGE conscience problems going on.

I suppose my simple definition of murder would be: The killing of a being which doesn't want to be killed, with the exception of self-defence and the defence of others.

Of course that is a basic definition and would need more explanation.

This comment is in reference to my suggestion that there is a similarity between the holocaust and "abortion on demand". Did you know that Hitler was an evolutionist?

Did you know Hitler drank water?

Here's a quote from a website concerning the holocaust:
"Due to his Nazi ideology, which was founded in fascism and anti-Semitism, Hitler saw the Jews as less than human. He believed them to be an internal enemy of Germany and a racial issue that needed to be resolved in order to create his Master Race. This was part of the Nazi belief that Aryans were the superior race and that they should perform a cleansing based on race, religion, sex, gender, and other elements to get rid of those who were an impediment to the Nazi goals in society."

Did you see the phrase "less than human"? This is what many people say when asked about why they aborted a baby. They say that "it wasn't a person".

I agree that the fetus isn't a person... just like I assume you don't think non-human animals, plants, and rocks aren't persons. I assume you don't think saying plants aren't persons makes someone like Hitler, so you can't claim the same of me and fetus'.

I wouldn't say the fetus is 'less than human', because I don't think humans are better than anything else... there is nothing less than human.

Usually their justification for that statement is that the baby hasn't been born yet. In one popular type of abortion, the baby is totally grown and the baby is brought completely out of the womb, except for the head, and the surgeon takes scissors into the back of the neck and scrambles the brains until the baby dies. Also, it's strange that they consider a baby who is born at nine months is a person, and a baby who is born 2 months early is also a person. But, if the baby doesn't get born and it's 7 months along, it's NOT a real person. So the similarity again is how they view the victim. Hitler considered the Jews "less than a person", so doesn't it sound awful now to say that an unborn baby is "less than a person"?

I never say an unborn baby is less than a person. I also don't think coming out the womb magically makes a being a person. So I think killing infants is morally acceptable.

Fetus' and infants are morally the same as cows, etc. They, like cows, don't want to live (have self-conciousness), so it's okay to kill them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't agree that stoning people to death for picking up sticks was ever moral.

The man was gathering firewood to 'kindle' a fire, which was forbidden on the Sabbath. He was in outright rebellion of the law, and had to be punished.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you make of this?

Can't Have It Both Ways - YouTube

Para,

I make of it that Aliens are amoral creatures?

But seriously, in short, the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. This is how God planned it. Even the Apostles understood this.

Peace

 

[Strathos]

Actually Hitler had Darwin's books on evolution banned. I heard somewhere that he believed in a twisted version of evolution where what he called "lesser races" evolved from other animals but the "superior Aryan race" was divinely created. Or something. He had a lot of weird ideas.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe men of war will want to worship a God of war, and men of peace will want to worship a God of peace.

I believe many of the men of the Old Testament such as Moses, Joshua, Saul, and others who made up such laws mentioned in the video and who committed many of the atrocities of the Old Testament were men of war, so when it came to creating a God for themselves they created a God of war.

I believe Jesus was a God of peace; and the Christians of today are people of peace. That is why when they quote the bible they usually mention Jesus, what he said and did, and they attempt to use his life as an example of how to live their lives.

The problem is when today's "men of peace" feel a need to justify the actions of the God of war of the Old Testament and such actions goes against everything society knows is right.

Ken

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe men of war will want to worship a God of war, and men of peace will want to worship a God of peace.

I believe many of the men of the Old Testament such as Moses, Joshua, Saul, and others who made up such laws mentioned in the video and who committed many of the atrocities of the Old Testament were men of war, so when it came to creating a God for themselves they created a God of war.

I believe Jesus was a God of peace; and the Christians of today are people of peace. That is why when they quote the bible they usually mention Jesus, what he said and did, and they attempt to use his life as an example of how to live their lives.

The problem is when today's "men of peace" feel a need to justify the actions of the God of war of the Old Testament and such actions goes against everything society knows is right.

Ken

Ken,

One only has to read the Gospel of Matthew to see that Jesus is just as judgmental regarding sin as His Father is...let alone seeing what lies in the rest of the New Testament.

In the book of Revelation, in relation to Jesus' title as Son of Man, blood is symbolically specified as "up to the horses bridle, " something that seems to indicate that Jesus isn't too pleased at that point either.

With all of that said, none of what I've just stated above is anything I would like to 'test out.'

Peace

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken,

One only has to read the Gospel of Matthew to see that Jesus is just as judgmental regarding sin as His Father is...let alone seeing what lies in the rest of the New Testament.

I’m not talking about judgmental, I’m talking about cruel. Stoning disobedient children, (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)rape, genocide, (Numbers 31:17-18) etc. there is a lot of that going on in the Old Testament and it is difficult to defend by modern Christians who (along with everyone else) frown upon such activity

Ken

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m not talking about judgmental, I’m talking about cruel. Stoning disobedient children, (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)rape, genocide, (Numbers 31:17-18) etc. there is a lot of that going on in the Old Testament and it is difficult to defend by modern Christians who (along with everyone else) frown upon such activity

Ken

No, its the same. God's judgement often means that if we sin and refuse to adhere to His will, He will step out of the way and allow others to have their way with us. This principle applied to the Canaanite nations, and it applied likewise to Israel itself. As far as the Canaanite nations are concerned, they forfeited their 'lease' on the land. This same principle also applied to Israel during the Babylonian invasion and also during the destruction of the second temple and diaspora.

God always means business when sin is figured into the equation, especially in our rejection of His Son. We just don't like it. We think we have some thing called human rights written in the fabric of the universe, regardless of our level of faithfulness to God. We don't.

 

[Danny777]

I suppose my simple definition of murder would be: The killing of a being which doesn't want to be killed, with the exception of self-defence and the defence of others.

I never say an unborn baby is less than a person. I also don't think coming out the womb magically makes a being a person. So I think killing infants is morally acceptable.

Fetus' and infants are morally the same as cows, etc. They, like cows, don't want to live (have self-conciousness), so it's okay to kill them.

Up to what age would you consider a child to be an "infant". Just interested to see up to what age you think it's OK to kill them?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, its the same. God's judgement often means that if we sin and refuse to adhere to His will, He will step out of the way and allow others to have their way with us.

Who are these "other people"? Are they people who sin as well or are they perfect people who never sin?

This principle applied to the Canaanite nations, and it applied likewise to Israel itself. As far as the Canaanite nations are concerned, they forfeited their 'lease' on the land. This same principle also applied to Israel during the Babylonian invasion and also during the destruction of the second temple and diaspora.

So you believes such behavior like the genocide and rape committed against the Midinites and Amalekites is justified during war?

 

[Paradoxum]

Para,

I make of it that Aliens are amoral creatures?

Why would you say that?

But seriously, in short, the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. This is how God planned it. Even the Apostles understood this.

Peace

The point of this thread would be that Christians who say the above can't then accuse other people of having a relative morality, and say that is bad.

Up to what age would you consider a child to be an "infant". Just interested to see up to what age you think it's OK to kill them?

Well I think technically a human is an infant for 30 days after birth. But my understanding of the right to life is that it's requires self-consciousness... so when a child becomes self-conscious. If I say what age that is you'll probably think I'm a bad person... around 18 months. The law probably shouldn't allow it for 18 months though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Who are these "other people"? Are they people who sin as well or are they perfect people who never sin?


So you believes such behavior like the genocide and rape committed against the Midinites and Amalekites is justified during war?

Those were bloody times. God allowed atrocities both ways. Israel was the sword of God's righteous anger against these nations, and in turn used these nations to brutally punish Israel.

 

[Cearbhall]

If I called you a [bless and do not curse] for posting that, would that be right or wrong? I think it would be wrong, do you agree?

Wrong, but not objectively.

 

[Ken-1122]

Those were bloody times. God allowed atrocities both ways. Israel was the sword of God's righteous anger against these nations, and in turn used these nations to brutally punish Israel.

So is genocide and rape excused as long as it is committed during "bloody times"?

My point is, when men who choose to worship a God of peace attempt to justify the actios of men who choose to worship a God of war, these are the problems you run in to.

Ken

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Paradoxum

Why would you say that?

Para, the alien comment was meant as a stab at humor. Not that it was overly humorous, mind you. The point of it being that aliens don't care whether you are a moral human being or an immoral human being, you are food either way.

The point of this thread would be that Christians who say the above can't then accuse other people of having a relative morality, and say that is bad.

Well, Para, I'm not understanding how a transition between an Old to a New Covenant is relative. My understanding of "moral/ethical relativism" is, as Landau specifies (2010, p. 277):

Morality is a "human construct"--we make it up, and like the law, or like standards of taste, there is no uniquely correct set of rules to follow. (pp. 277-278)

​

So, since the New Covenant was already specified and built into the Old Covenant, creating a caveat and 'legal disclaimer' as to what God was to do in what we call 'Salvation History,' then we are still dealing with an absolute designation of God's will; it isn't a human construct, but rather one given to morally finite man by an Omniscient God who, at the same time, also happens to be the Creator of the human species, and thus knows the legal needs of His morally finite creation. In other words, like an engine tune up for an automobile, the two Covenants weren't just arbitrarily given without knowledge of the bigger picture of how human nature is to operate.

Does this make sense? If not, tell me.

Peace

References

Landau, R.S. (2010). The Fundamentals of Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ken

Who are these "other people"? Are they people who sin as well or are they perfect people who never sin?

These "other people" are other, sinful people. For instance, in the case of the Canaanites, Israel was the other 'sinful' people. The Canaanites were specifically removed from the land because of the type and intensity of their sins, not because they were the only sinners. The upshot for Israel is that these same principles applied to them as well; case in point, Israel and Judah became depraved and God also moved them "out" by way of the Assyrians and Babylonians.

So you believes such behavior like the genocide and rape committed against the Midinites and Amalekites is justified during war?

I don't like it, but if a nation becomes intensely perverse on a wide scale, then they will become vulnerable to the mishaps of war; in fact, God will orchestrate their downfall, and it will be an ugly process. God isn't to be trifled with (specifically under the Old Testament Law).

In some ways, its not much different than our sins against nature. If we keep 'sinning' against the planet with our 'superior knowledge,' we'll keep getting Hurricane Katrina and Sandy, and whatever else. Our sins against God will likewise have spiritual and actual ramifications.

We just think that stinks.

Peace

 

[Danny777]

Well I think technically a human is an infant for 30 days after birth. But my understanding of the right to life is that it's requires self-consciousness... so when a child becomes self-conscious. If I say what age that is you'll probably think I'm a bad person... around 18 months. The law probably shouldn't allow it for 18 months though.

OK, so your saying that it should be OK to kill a child/infant up to the age of 18 months if the parents want to?

Just because a child can't express self-consciousness does not mean they are not self conscious. My 6 month old baby cannot tell me she wants to live and neither could my older children when they were 18 months old, but they did all they could to demonstrate they desired to live (ie eat whenever possible etc).

I can't deny that I am bewildered by your suggestion that it should be OK to kill them if we wish.

If a physically/mentally disabled person cannot communicate a desire to live, should it be OK to kill them as well?

 

[Chesterton]

Wrong, but not objectively.

What would you say of a person who thought it was right?

 

[Mr Clean]

There is no such thing as universal morality or objective morality. Morality is a concept, and like all concepts it is subject to the whims of the individual or group that defines what is contained within it. Just like nothing is inherently good or evil or pretty or funny, morality is just a title given to a particular group of actions and thoughts.

 

[Gadarene]

Well, Para, I'm not understanding how a transition between an Old to a New Covenant is relative. My understanding of "moral/ethical relativism" is, as Landau specifies (2010, p. 277):

Morality is a "human construct"--we make it up, and like the law, or like standards of taste, there is no uniquely correct set of rules to follow. (pp. 277-278)

​

So, since the New Covenant was already specified and built into the Old Covenant, creating a caveat and 'legal disclaimer' as to what God was to do in what we call 'Salvation History,' then we are still dealing with an absolute designation of God's will; it isn't a human construct, but rather one given to morally finite man by an Omniscient God who, at the same time, also happens to be the Creator of the human species, and thus knows the legal needs of His morally finite creation. In other words, like an engine tune up for an automobile, the two Covenants weren't just arbitrarily given without knowledge of the bigger picture of how human nature is to operate.

Does this make sense? If not, tell me.

I.e. God's prescribed morality changed as necessary depending on the cultural context.

In other words, relativism - but excused away with some theologico-wibble.