Morality

[Mermaid]

                                                                                                                                                    But genocide is okay in the bible when god commands it.

Right.

[leo]

So ISIS  are the heroes and saints. They are doing the will of Alah killing all this people and using women as sex slaves. The bible says the same shit in the book of Exodus. So Alah and Yahveh are okay with believers killing rival tribes.

[Mr.Obvious]

This is a great question, its cool to see that there are some people who use logic to come up with these rebuttals.  Here's my answer:  God's law never actually changed.  Most scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.  This would indicate the reason to why Jesus had to come into the world.  However, I am sure your more interested in the laws about slavery, and stoning non-virgin women as seen in the OT.  One possible answer is that God never condoned slavery, but simply 'allowed' these behaviors because they were so hard-driven into the culture of the people of that specific time.   Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

Quick question before I continue.

Do you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

[Solomon Zorn]

Most scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.

"Most Scholars," is most unlikely. Certainly not most Jewish scholars.

As a longtime student of the Bible, I would say that there is no "point" to the Old Testament other than to fear God and obey his anointed ones. You have a preconceived notion about the Old Testament, that is colored by the New Testament, and your need to Justify your opinion that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy.

Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

This is the worst example of biblical scholarship I have ever seen. You can't just disassemble and reassemble the thing to make it say something it doesn't. Divorce and the hardness of our hearts has to do with a reasonable precept, that some of us can't abide a mate for life because we are too "hard of heart." Slavery doesn't even fit the same dynamic for you to make that comparison, let alone is there any justification for this transposing of the phrases. And since you brought it up, how does that apply to stoning non-virgin women?

Which branch of the Christian-nut-tree did you fall off of that allows such an unsustainable exegesis to stand?

[JohnnyB1993]

Quick question before I continue.

Do you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

Yes

[JohnnyB1993]

This is the worst example of biblical scholarship I have ever seen. You can't just disassemble and reassemble the thing to make it say something it doesn't. Divorce and the hardness of our hearts has to do with a reasonable precept, that some of us can't abide a mate for life because we are too "hard of heart." Slavery doesn't even fit the same dynamic for you to make that comparison, let alone is there any justification for this transposing of the phrases. And since you brought it up, how does that apply to stoning non-virgin women?

Which branch of the Christian-nut-tree did you fall off of that allows such an unsustainable exegesis to stand?

The same concept would apply to stoning non-virgin women, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to stone a non-virgin woman; but from the beginning it has not been this way".  I am not simply disassembling and reassembling lines in the Bible.  There is some logic behind what I am getting at.  Consider the hypothetical question, 'what if someone came to Jesus and asked him about slavery in the OT?'.  I am confident that Jesus' response to them would be similar in his response to those who asked about divorce in Matthew 19.  Consider the similarity between the two concepts of divorce and slavery.   In Matthew 19 Jesus is pretty much telling the Pharisees that it is God's will that no marriage end in divorce.  So then the Pharisees brought up the law of Moses in the OT.  The law stated that you can divorce your wife as long as you had a certificate for divorce.  Was Jesus trying to teach them something that contradicted God's will?  Jesus did not think so, as he replied that it was because of man's hardness of heart that God allowed them to divorce their wives all those years ago.  Can the same idea be applied to slavery?  If so this would mean that Old Testament laws allowing slavery or treating women in certain ways would not be perfect representations of God’s will â€" the way God would really like it. These were concessions on God’s part because of mankind's hardness of heart. 

[JohnnyB1993]

Morality is just a means of control, be it self-control when applied to yourself, or law when applied to each other. It stems from an evolved sensibility about how to behave, primarily toward other people. It is partly inherited, and partly learned. Thus some people have a better understanding than others of what is "right and wrong."  It is not a set of absolute one-size-fits all rules. The universe doesn't care who helps the elderly or who burns a pilot to death. Only other people care about that. Fortunately the majority of us have evolved a similar enough moral compass, that we can live together in relative peace. But when someone comes along, proclaiming the proper moral absolutes for us all, they have to rely on authority for their definitions. So they turn to the Holy Scriptures for their authority. The problem is that the Holy Scriptures are nothing more than the words of flawed men, with all there fears, misunderstandings, and personal opinions about good and bad. These men wanted to control the behavior of others, and so claimed the authority of God. But there is nothing absolute in morality.

Wrong. I would not agree, because my evolved sensibility tells me the Holocaust is not right. Not because God said so. And your hypothetical world will never be, because most others have evolved along similar paths, and have come to similar conclusions about the Holocaust.

I have also added your comment about my hypothetical Nazi world into the quotation.   I quote you, "There is nothing absolute in morality".  Fair enough, morality is subjective, not objective.  However, in my hypothetical world I have stated that it is a world in which EVERYONE believes the that Holocaust was morally good.  I will take it one step further.  Lets say in this world, that EVERYONE had evolved along similar paths into believing that the Holocaust was morally good.  Everyone with their evolved sensibilities have allowed them to come to the conclusion that the Holocaust was good.  However, do you think this hypothetical world is still morally wrong?  If you do, then your thinking implies that absolute morality does exist.   

[SGOS]

Apologetics is nothing but twisting and sidestepping.  It's as transparent as the political spin of any politician.  Is this taught in seminaries as something which should be held in high regard?  It's actually quite a shameful endeavor, in my opinion.

[Solomon Zorn]

The same concept would apply to stoning non-virgin women, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to stone a non-virgin woman; but from the beginning it has not been this way".  I am not simply disassembling and reassembling lines in the Bible.

And yet you just did it again. No passage in the bible makes such a statement. God didn't "permit" stoning, he commanded it.

There is some logic behind what I am getting at. 

No, there is not. There is only rationalizing. You have a preconceived notion that the Old Testament agrees with the New Testament, and you're using the worst apologetics I've ever seen, to try and make it fit.

Consider the hypothetical question, 'what if someone came to Jesus and asked him about slavery in the OT?'.  I am confident that Jesus' response to them would be similar in his response to those who asked about divorce in Matthew 19.

You are confident? How does that matter?

Consider the similarity between the two concepts of divorce and slavery.

Divorce is a release from a vow. Slavery is forced labor. There is no similarity.

Face it Johnny, the Old Testament God was a capricious asshole.

[Solomon Zorn]

I have also added your comment about my hypothetical Nazi world into the quotation.   I quote you, "There is nothing absolute in morality".  Fair enough, morality is subjective, not objective.  However, in my hypothetical world I have stated that it is a world in which EVERYONE believes the that Holocaust was morally good...do you think this hypothetical world is still morally wrong?  If you do, then your thinking implies that absolute morality does exist.

No, it implies that I still see it from my own sensibility, and not from their hypothetical one. They might see it as right, but the universe doesn't care.

You are asking if morality is objective or subjective, but you seem to be asking "Is objective morality objective or subjective?"

[undercoverbrother]

I didn't join This forum to debate Christianity. For crying out loud! The damn icon for the board is someone throwing away a cross.

We are a mission field for Jesus, folks. That is why we are being tormented before the fullness of time.

[JohnnyB1993]

No, it implies that I still see it from my own sensibility, and not from their hypothetical one. They might see it as right, but the universe doesn't care.

You are asking if morality is objective or subjective, but you seem to be asking "Is objective morality objective or subjective?"

I see.  So from your own sensibility, the hypothetical Nazi world is wrong (personally in your mind).  But you are not saying that the hypothetical world is objectively wrong.  It just is what it is.  Yes, no, maybe?

[JohnnyB1993]

No, there is not. There is only rationalizing. You have a preconceived notion that the Old Testament agrees with the New Testament, and you're using the worst apologetics I've ever seen, to try and make it fit.
You are confident? How does that matter?
Divorce is a release from a vow. Slavery is forced labor. There is no similarity.

Face it Johnny, the Old Testament God was a capricious asshole.

I should do a better job at explaining myself.  When I said 'consider the similarity between divorce and slavery' I did not mean that the words by definition are similar.   If I did, then there may be no hope for me haha.  What I meant was that the teaching Jesus has for divorce can be used to explain what his teaching on slavery may have been.  Its certainly not clear-cut, but I have no reason to think that the rationale is that far-fetched.  Jesus said-  Do not divorce   but the OT law said - You can divorce.  Is there a huge contradiction going on?  I do not think so, and I'll explain why.  Jesus answered the Pharisees in saying that God allowed divorce to occur due to people's hardness of heart.  Now did people in the OT really have hardened hearts?  Maybe some did, but what I think Jesus may be getting at is that the culture in OT times was quite different to ours today.  In fact, the culture of ancient people may have been so different that if God directly decreed 'You can never divorce' then the ruling may have been too radical for anyone to want to follow.  So God permitted divorce for the time being by allowing people to give a certificate of the divorce they wanted to do.  As this is how Jesus answered for this particular OT law, I simply do not think it is crazy to say that the same argument may go for slavery and other seemingly cruel OT laws.  These rulings were concessionary and not a perfect showing of God's true will. 

[Solomon Zorn]

I see.  So from your own sensibility, the hypothetical Nazi world is wrong (personally in your mind).  But you are not saying that the hypothetical world is objectively wrong.  It just is what it is.  Yes, no, maybe?

No. The hypothetical world is all in your mind. It isn't objectively anything. Luckily we live in a world where most of us can walk down the street without fear, because the vast majority have similar enough morals that we don't harm each other. I think my position is clear. Don't try to twist it to say that I don't see anything wrong with the holocaust.

I think your argument has to proceed to the next phase, or I for one will lose interest.

[JohnnyB1993]

No. The hypothetical world is all in your mind. It isn't objectively anything. Luckily we live in a world where most of us can walk down the street without fear, because the vast majority have similar enough morals that we don't harm each other. I think my position is clear. Don't try to twist it to say that I don't see anything wrong with the holocaust.

I think your argument has to proceed to the next phase, or I for one will lose interest.

Ok, I am sorry, I am absolutely not trying to say that you 'do not see anything wrong with the holocaust'.  But just to say that the hypothetical world 'is all in your mind' misses the point I am trying to argue.   I say, imagine a world where everyone evolved into thinking that killing a certain group of people was morally right.  So eventually, people go through time in this hypothetical world and then the Holocaust happens.  Everyone would think it is right.  If this world truly did exist, I believe you have said that the Holocaust event would still be immoral.  How can that be though?  You said that morals come through our evolved sensibilities. The world we live in is where the majority of people of evolved to believe that the Holocaust was bad.  But what about a world where everyone evolves into believing that the Holocaust was right?  Is such an event still right or wrong?