Board index ‹ Morality

[Sure Breeze]

> A collective mind is not necessarily a godly mind.

I agree. So all those people were killed for reasons, that was bad. When God killed people for reasons, or he commanded others to kill them, was that also bad? Were the people responsible bad? I mean, they would testify that "God told me so". The only difference is that they're mentioned in the Bible while others aren't.

In addition, if Christian leadership endorsed it, it means Christian leadership doesn't have standing over moral judgments. Just like they were wrong then, they could be wrong now.

> Nope, I wouldn't say that at all.

So why would your religion have moral authority for any judgments since they were so wrong for so long? It's like trusting Madoff with your 401k only magnitudes worse.

> a calling to account at the judgment

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me." So, Roman government, Mao, Stalin, all bad. When Jesus says it, it's... good?

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

This is slightly incorrect. It's not that stuff of religion is unreality, it's that I cannot distinguish between the supernatural and something someone made up.

[jimwalton]

> So all those people were killed for reasons, that was bad. When God killed people for reasons, or he commanded others to kill them, was that also bad?

The difference is that Stalin, Hitler, Rome, etc., killed people out of the misguided exercise of power, bigotry, and pleasure. When God kills people it's a exercise of justice for "crimes" (sin). Any judge who ignores evil is not doing his or her job.

> I mean, they would testify that "God told me so". The only difference is that they're mentioned in the Bible while others aren't.

Several things come to mind. You'll notice in the Bible that when God commanded violence as an expression of obedience to his will, he also provided a safeguard to validate what was truly his will over against people who wanted to kill for power and claim "God told me." The safeguard was sign miracles. God validated the request with some kind of miraculous occurrence, so the event would be confirmed as the will of God and not some wacko.

Second, maybe we should discuss the Euthyphro Dilemma: whatever God commands becomes right, even if it's wrong. It implies the Divine Command Theory: something is morally good because God commands it to be so. Socrates phrased it: "Is it good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" If God commands it because it is good, then good is independent of God and God is not the basis of ethics. If it is good because God commands it, then ethics becomes arbitrary in the sense that God could command anything and it would become morally good. For instance, God could have commanded rape and rape would become ethical.

That argument, which I know you didn't posit (but I think it pertains to our conversation), fails on several points. First, the Bible never affirms that there is an independent reality of good outside of God's character, nor that anything becomes moral merely because it comes from the mouth of God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is then a false dilemma because there is at least one other alternative: God's commands are good because they reflect his perfectly good nature.

> Just like they were wrong then, they could be wrong now.

Christian leadership has to be discerning in wisdom and moral judgment just like anybody else. They make mistakes just like anybody else. There have been particular eras in Christian history where Christian leadership was abominably sinful and corrupt. There have also been eras where Christian leadership was noble and good. Unfortunately, the abominable ones make for better "TV". There may be 99 good Christian leaders for every 1 who is awful, but the one who is awful makes the newspaper.

> "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Herod the Great and his son Archelaus actually did this. The parable in Luke has a historical basis in Archelaus who actually went to a distant country (Rome) to have himself appointed king, left people in charge while he was gone, called them to account on his return, and butchered his enemies. It happened during Jesus' childhood, and people would be well acquainted with the story. Jesus is using the historical event to create a parable about his own kingdom, making the point that in his kingdom there will be a day of reckoning also. But it's a parable, not an allegory, and so the mechanism Archelaus used on his enemies is not necessarily the strategy Jesus would use on his in the end times; one way or another, though, evil and rebellion will be judged, and obedience will be rewarded.

> it's that I cannot distinguish between the supernatural and something someone made up.

I know you can't.

[J Lord]

> That source cannot be humanity deciding as it wishes related to perceived human well-being.

I think you'll find that is actually the source. This is why most moral disagreements between humans are debated within the context of human well being. People with competing moral views are generally both claiming that their view is superior with respect to human well being. The fact that there is not an easy answer to every moral question does not conflict in any way with this view.
It would make sense that morality based on human well being would lead to moral debates. Because you can actually debate which actions are better or worse with respect to human well being. People can be wrong about whether something contributes positively or negatively towards well being.
If morality were based on god then we would have no way of knowing what is moral and what is not because there is no known way to determine what god's rules are. So given that all moral debates seem linked to human well being, and there is no way to know what god wants, I conclude that what humans call morality is a concept created by humans.

[jimwalton]

I feel as if you haven't addressed my question. If there really is such a thing as good and bad, there must be some standard by which to know the difference, and not just "my opinion". Without an objective basis, there is no realistic way to measure good and evil, and competing moral views are left to be set by the more powerful party. I agree with you that the application of morals always relates to human well-being (that's actually the point), but human well-being can't be the source of the standard.

Suppose we have a group of fighter jets flying in formation. Beauty, precision, and safety ("well-being") are the goals, but can't possibly be the source of their action. First, the jets must be in proper position—for one to act on its own could easily be fatal. Each jet must operate with enough parts functioning properly. And, obviously, they need a previously determined purpose or destination. What is the good of telling them to act for their own well-being is there's no way to steer them? What is the good of debating morals if we know that in fact our selfishness, greed, cowardice, angry, and self-conceit are going to skew the debate? Without an objective source, the debate is meaningless.

> there is no known way to determine what god's rules are.

In the Bible God reveals himself and his "rules". That is how we know what God wants.

[Never miss a meal]

> Ah, here's where you are making a large mistake. The infraction was not insult, but blasphemy.

You're making huge mental gymnastics to get here. The text says only that there were some kids making fun of that guy for being bald. You're reading into it in such a way to fit with your preconceived notions, because you cannot bear (hehe) the fact that a loving god would kill children/adolescents for name calling. The text simply does not support such a convoluted post-hoc rationalization that you make, sorry.

> To berate him is slanderous blasphemy to the name of God.

But it's funny that you think this supports your view that the punishment was moral. It does not. It is immoral to kill and hurt people because they blaspheme. Just as it is immoral to kill and hurt people for insulting you. And isn't blasphemy just a name for "insulting God"? I assume that you agree with the Muslims who make death threats to people who make funny drawings of Mohamed, right?

> this is no time for God to allow his name to be assassinated and his prophet to be vilified.

Really? Is God so impotent that the only way to make his name respected is by killing and maiming kids and teenagers? And you really want to worship such a being? Your God sounds like a terrorist, a mob boss. Tell me, would you agree if the president or any other man would kill children so that he can make himself respected? Kim Jong Un does stuff like this, is he a "good leader"?

[jimwalton]

Perhaps our wisest course would be to examine the story for what it really teaches, and with that as a foundation, continue the discussion.

It was a dark time in the spiritual situation of Israel. Ahab, one of the most godless men ever to sit on the throne of Israel, and his wife Jezebel, even to this day an archetype of evil, were dragging the country into child sacrifice, destructive religious practices, and immorality of every kind. The people were following, like sheep. God sent Elijah to confront the king and the false religion he championed (1 Ki. 17.1). Jezebel went on a killing spree, butchering prophets like beef (1 Ki. 18.4). The Lord wouldn't let go of his people and the covenant he had made with them, and commissioned Elijah to anoint a new king over Israel and recruit a partner, Elisha, to help set the nation back to rights. He sent prophet after to prophet to confront Ahab with his evil (1 Ki. 20.35-43; 22.1-28). Ahab is killed in battle (1 Ki. 22.29-38), and the country has a chance, now, to turn around and be saved from the moral and spiritual cesspool.

The successor, Ahaziah, is not much better than Ahab. He's evil to the core. Elijah confronts him too, and he dies. Any judge that ignores evil isn't much of a judge. To let anybody get away with anything they want isn't justice, it's anarchy.

Elijah is taken away, and Elisha is his successor. Within the time of a about a week, Elisha heads to Bethel, the house of God, where Abraham had met with the Lord and where Jacob had his vision of the stairway to heaven. He is minding his own business, or should I say the business of the Lord, when he is accosted by a group (unknown number; "42" is a generic term in their culture for a large group) of teens who, as members of covenant families ought to have been taught that cursing God's servants (prophets) was tantamount to cursing God, an action punishable by death. But remember, the country was depraved.

They mocked the prophet for his baldness. In those days, long hair was the mark of a true prophet. Also, the ritual cutting of hair is prohibited by the law. Now, Elisha was naturally bald, apparently, but the taunt was unmistakable: you're a fake and a fraud, and YHWH is both impotent and false. Everything about your God is illicit.

Elisha turned and rebuked their blasphemy, calling down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Was YHWH real? Was Elisha his true prophet? Did YHWH take any actions to preserve his people, keep them on the right path, and judge rebels? Would God do nothing to maintain the right, and just watch the country go down the toilet?

You'll notice that Elisha doesn't specify the curse. He rebukes them for their blasphemy. God is the one who takes the action. For all we know, all Elisha said is, "May God curse you for your blasphemy," and then to his surprise and that of the teens, 2 bears attack them.

Now, let's look at that attack a little closer. First of all, you know how bears attack. You've seen it on youtube. They're not fast like leopards. Let's be realistic—if two bears attack 10 kids, the 10 kids are going to run in 10 different directions; 42 kids are going to run in 42 different directions. Two bears are only going to get two kids. The rest are going to be GONE with the wind. And it doesn't say any of them are killed. So it's impractical to assume that all of them were mauled. The boys would run for their lives. But the effect would be the same: the Lord will not allow his name to be blasphemed without impunity. Now, I may have also already said that ravaging wild beasts were often seen as punishment sent from God. The point is clearly made even if only two boys are injured.

Now let's talk about blasphemy a little bit:

1. If God is not real, blasphemy is merely insulting the God I have manufactured in my mind, and you have offended me. But if God is real, blasphemy is profaning the creator and sustainer of the universe—whole different offense.

2. Blasphemy is not just "insulting God," but it's cursing him and assuming to oneself his rights. It's not just an act of grave offense, but of deep evil.

3. In the Bible, as opposed to Islam, people don't judge others for the "crime" of blasphemy; God does. Humans are not to go around killing other people for blasphemy. God is the one who defends the honor of his own name. It doesn't make god impotent any more than it made your parents or teachers into terrorists when they demanded that your respect their authority. Authority, respect, and honor all have their place, especially when the person deserves it.

[Sure Breeze]

> When God kills people it's a exercise of justice for "crimes" (sin).

Do tell me the crimes of first borns in Egypt and how that's justice when the Pharoah was the one directly responsible. A "just" God would change Pharoah's heart or, at least, kill his first born. The citizens of Egypt had no choice in the matter. This is just one example, I didn't even mention wholesale extermination of vast majority of not only our species but every living thing on the planet during Noah's time. Face it, your real answer here is that God has unlimited power to do anything to us in the same way Hitler or Stalin had unlimited power to do anything to people under their command. You just praise God, not Hitler or Stalin.

> so the event would be confirmed as the will of God

Are you sure that every one of these had a miracle? I'm too tired to look it up myself right now. What about a coincidence? It rained during a dry spell. Quickly, kill someone and say God told you to do it. The real answer here is that it's in the Bible as opposed to actually been proven to have been the will of God.

> anything becomes moral merely because it comes from the mouth of God

Actually this IS what happens. When God commands armies to kill the neighbors and take virgin women for themselves, this is an explicit "this is moral because God, immoral otherwise".

> There may be 99 good Christian leaders for every 1 who is awful, but the one who is awful makes the newspaper.

Do you truly believe this to be the ratio of Catholic Popes? That only 1% of them were awful? I generally agree with you, though I don't believe any of them were good, they were all gray, some more white (good) or black (evil) than others. Considering they're all supposed to be white, it's a major problem of authority.

> The parable in Luke

The what now? Isn't this actually what Jesus said to do?

> I know you can't.

You're implying that you can. How can you, other than saying you have faith.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the conversation. Let's start with some talk about Egypt (I wish we could actually converse rather than write; it would be so much more efficient). Pharaoh enslaved not just the Israelites (Ex. 1.11), but other foreign populations as well, so we have to question his moral sense. Secondly, he commanded the Israelites to kill all their male babies (Ex. 1.16). Justice? Third, Moses came to him with signs from God and a message from God. Pharaoh didn't change his heart (Ex. 5.2, 6-9; 7.13, etc.). God TRIED to change Pharaoh's heart by gentle means. Didn't work. Pharaoh dug in his heels even harder (Ex. 7.22-23; 8.19, et al.).

The other thing you need to know about the situation is that Pharaoh was regarded as the god of all life and death in Egypt. To kill his own son, as one directly responsible, was meaningless; to kill every firstborn in the land was a statement of the falseness of Egyptian religions, to cripple the Pharaoh's religious authority in the land (Ex. 7.5), and to give a sign of who the true God truly was. It was necessary for the message. Not only that, but the people of Egypt were complicit in all this rebellion against God. The message and the judgment were for them, too.

> Noah's flood

I am firmly convinced through Biblical evidence (as well as scientific) that the flood was not global was immensely regional. We can talk about that further if you wish.

> "so the event would be confirmed as the will of God" — Are you sure that every one of these had a miracle?

Yeah, that's the way it worked. "It rained during a dry spell. Quickly, kill someone and say God told you to do it"— this is clearly NOT the way it worked. You can't just make up stuff and make that your "evidence" and the substance of your case.

> When God commands armies to kill the neighbors and take virgin women for themselves

The taking of virgin women for themselves that you are referring to Numbers 31. I'm glad I have the privilege to let you know you are severely distorting what the text says and changing the meaning of it. (I'm assuming you got your information off of an Internet link, as many do, but don't really know much about the situation. Not an insult, just an observation from MANY conversations about Num. 31.) "Taking the women for themselves" was an act of marriage, not of rape. The text says NOTHING about rape. The text says NOTHING implying sexual pleasure. AS a matter of fact, Deut. 21.10-14 says it was against the law for a Gentile female POW to be used as a sex object. These virgins were for marriage, not sexual abuse. You're so quick to judge God as immoral, but I bet you haven't even studied the texts you're using as your foundation.

> Do you truly believe this to be the ratio of Catholic Popes?

I have no clue. I'm not the judge, and I don't know enough about Catholic history. I'm talking about Christian leaders through the millennia, not just popes.

> Isn't this actually what Jesus said to do?

Are you saying that Jesus said to take and kill and dismember people? Ha, that's funny. Absolutely not. Yeesh. This is a parable about the end times, after the apocalypse, at the final judgment. Egads, Jesus isn't telling people to do this. You're making some very rash and wrong interpretations of the Bible.

See, it's stuff like this that makes me think so many people are judging the Bible and God on false data, wrong impressions, distorted interpretations, and bad readings. No wonder people think God is a monster—they don't seem to take the time to find out what the Bible is really teaching. I'm glad you're giving me at least a little chance to explain. You're blaspheming God on made-up meanings.

[J Lord]

> If there really is such a thing as good and bad, there must be some standard by which to know the difference, and not just "my opinion".

You would know the difference by trying to determine how something impacts human well being. If you agree with this I don't see the problem you have. If we pretend that god told us to determine good and bad based on human well being it wouldn't make any difference at all to the situation.

> In the Bible God reveals himself and his "rules". That is how we know what God wants.

But there is no reasonable basis for thinking that the bible contains any information about a god. And even if there was a good reason to believe it did give us any information about god, the actions and rules of god in the bible are often immoral. So adopting the bible would force us to abandon any moral reasoning and act contrary to human well being, which wouldn't make any sense.

[jimwalton]

> You would know the difference by trying to determine how something impacts human well being.

You're talking about impact (effect), and I'm talking about source (cause). You're right that we can see the difference in impact, but that's not where we get the definition. Morality can't be "that which contributes to human well-being", or else a guy like Hitler can slaughter 6 million Jews and say, "Hey, I just made the world a better place!" "Well-being" is too easily a contrivance of opinion is there is no reference point from which morality stems.

> But there is no reasonable basis for thinking that the bible contains any information about a god

Oddly enough, I'm guessing you were actually serious when you made this statement. Ironically, I would say in the context of this conversation, the whole point of the Bible is to reveal God. That's what it is: the revelation of God through his covenant with humanity.

> the actions and rules of god in the bible are often immoral

This is spurious, unsupported, and illegitimate. I guess we have a lot to talk about. I'm quite aware that thousands of people use the Internet to skim information about God and the Bible, and form half-baked opinions based on false information, distortions, and downright reckless interpretations (the Skeptics Annotated Bible is one risible example), and conclude without foundation that God is immoral. I've had enough conversations with you to expect better. Let's talk, shall we?