We ALL Have a Universal Moral Code In Us

84 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a treath to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other exemples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

I'll present shortly my conclusion with an example:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a threat to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other examples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

 

:thumbsup:

 

God Came Down To Earth

 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23

 

To Become Forever A Human Being

 

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

 

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

 

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

 

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

 

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:18-23

 

To Give His Life To Save His Brothers And Sisters From Everlasting Hell Fire

 

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 

Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21

 

Yet It's A Sad Sad But True Fact, For Most Of Mankind

 

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

 

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14

 

Their Human Moral Law

 

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

 

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

 

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Romans 3:10-12

 

Kicks In

 

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

 

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

 

Their feet are swift to shed blood:

 

Destruction and misery are in their ways:

 

And the way of peace have they not known:

 

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:13-18

 

Now Brother I Ask, Is This Human Moral Law

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

Really Ever Filled With The Law

 

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

 

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

 

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:29-31

 

Is It Really Even Moral

 

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 1 John 5:10

 

Or Even Rational

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Is It Wise?

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

 

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

 

~

 

Believe

 

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

 

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:11-13

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a treath to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other exemples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

Survival is not an issue of morality.   In survival you do anything it takes survive even if it means committing evil.   When we start defining good with such irrational notions as survival, anything no matter how murderous or heinous can be justified as "good" and that leads to lawlessness where morality is defined by each person rather than having one objective standard that governs how we live.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

ok, another than survival then:

 

suppose there is a man and he likes killing people, just for fun.

in himself, he thinks it's good.

while we think it's bad.

 

then moral is a matter of opinion.

the man will be depicted as bad, because the majority of the other people think it's bad.

 

imagine now that the other people think the same as that man.

then that act will be good, as well as the man, because majority wins.

 

now moral is also a matter of majority.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

ok, another than survival then:

 

suppose there is a man and he likes killing people, just for fun.

in himself, he thinks it's good.

while we think it's bad.

 

then moral is a matter of opinion.

the man will be depicted as bad, because the majority of the other people think it's bad.

 

imagine now that the other people think the same as that man.

then that act will be good, as well as the man, because majority wins.

 

now moral is also a matter of majority.

A universal moral law cannot be subject to opinion.  if it is based on opinion, then it isn't universal and you have just contradicted your assertion that such a universal law exists.  

 

If morality is based on opinion, then if a person thinks killing other people for sport is morally acceptable, you are you or anyone else to say it is bad?   What right to do his victims have in to expect justice?  

 

If he thinks it is okay to kill for fun and you don't think  it's okay for him to do that, what makes him wrong and you right?   If morality is based on opinion, there is no "morality."  Morality can't be relative or based on opinion.   By nature morality must be defined by one objective moral standard.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a treath to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other exemples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

The period of Good that the Lord created was ended by choice of our greatest grandpa Adam...

What we observe since that time is the curse of God upon said creation and the rebellion of

satan in present control and influence of a cursed fallen world...

Any conclusions of the natural order of things now will be skewed and any reasoning

from a skewed perspective will naturally be influenced into what is called shadows

and darkness- explained as such by Paul

1 Cor 13:12

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face:

now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

KJV

It is in this line of reality that we use God's Word to illumine our sight in this

fallen place as to see into the darkness the true nature of things - which being

God's Person and what He is keeping forever...

example: no one gives a quarter for a penny and anyone who did would be called a

fool! No one would give a $100.00 for a loaf of bread (not yet anyway)! In all this

we have been influenced by a system of value learned from the darkness whereby we do

not thank God for the highest value 'Himself' and into the next highest value the

sustenance to continue to do so... instead we have myriad of values placed in an

order which excludes God or nearly so into what is called false life being the

practice of the worship of death! Lost is the absence of compass leading out of the

darkness into the light and true North is in fact where God Sanctuary 'IS'... the

only problem though it is outside of the universe He is presently stretching out

like a curtain and the congregation is in those born of His Spirit being fashioned

for true worship outside of the influence of error that is here in this darkness.

1 John 2:15-18

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any

man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that

is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the

pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world

passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God

abideth for ever. 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have

heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists;

whereby we know that it is the last time.

KJV

My prayer for all is that your heart is built on nothing less than Jesus Blood and Righteousness...

Love, Steven

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

ok, another than survival then:

 

suppose there is a man and he likes killing people, just for fun.

in himself, he thinks it's good.

while we think it's bad.

 

then moral is a matter of opinion.

the man will be depicted as bad, because the majority of the other people think it's bad.

 

imagine now that the other people think the same as that man.

then that act will be good, as well as the man, because majority wins.

 

now moral is also a matter of majority.

A universal moral law cannot be subject to opinion.  if it is based on opinion, then it isn't universal and you have just contradicted your assertion that such a universal law exists.  

 

If morality is based on opinion, then if a person thinks killing other people for sport is morally acceptable, you are you or anyone else to say it is bad?   What right to do his victims have in to expect justice?  

 

If he thinks it is okay to kill for fun and you don't think  it's okay for him to do that, what makes him wrong and you right?   If morality is based on opinion, there is no "morality."  Morality can't be relative or based on opinion.   By nature morality must be defined by one objective moral standard.

 

 

maybe your understood me wrong. i'm saying there is no universal MORAL law. so how can i contradict myself?

and i was saying that if moral is indeed linked to opinion, then there is no universal moral law.

all you say below that is just proving my point.

 

 

If he thinks it is okay to kill for fun and you don't think  it's okay for him to do that, what makes him wrong and you right?   If morality is based on opinion, there is no "morality.

 

Edited by Schouwenaars
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I haven't found any moral system that can completely account for what is "right" and what is "wrong" and do so consistently throughout history.   To me morality is a bit like "How do you perfectly take care of your body?".   There are going to be some grey areas for sure, but we KNOW drinking bleach isn't going to be a recommendation.

 

 

* I think you can come up with a basis for "morality" especially if you're working with:  intelligent social beings [in this case humans], who hold to some core values such as:

 

Life is preferable to death

Pleasure is preferable to pain

 

*Credit to Matt Dilahunty

 

Now again, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions or any grey areas.   For instance, if I'm in extreme pain and it's terminal, perhaps I'd prefer death over life in that case.

 

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I have to wonder about what kind of internal moral code humans have.  I've had students in my class (you'll hear me talk about teaching a lot) who have eyes like a shark.  Absolutely nothing there.  They think nothing about hurting another student, or boldly lying to my face.  It makes me wonder about their world view.

There are severe warnings from God about the continual evacuation of God's truth from our implementation of being

Rom 1:26-27

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women

exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the

men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one

another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in

themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

NKJV

Ps 81:11-12

11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.

12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their

own counsels.

KJV

As society increases in the wickedness of investing themselves into that which does not last

they have no hold on the everlasting... this is no achor of being and into the abyss of ruin

and darkness of serving the lusts of that which ends...

Heb 6:18-20

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,

we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold

upon the hope set before us: 19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul,

both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest

for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

KJV

The infinite is a scary place until your attached to the Infinite Being Jesus The Christ...

Love, Steven

 

 

:thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a treath to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other exemples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

Survival is not an issue of morality.   In survival you do anything it takes survive even if it means committing evil.   When we start defining good with such irrational notions as survival, anything no matter how murderous or heinous can be justified as "good" and that leads to lawlessness where morality is defined by each person rather than having one objective standard that governs how we live.

 

So, given the opportunity, would you watch your child starve to death rather than steal to feed her?

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible.

Which Bible? Who's interpretation?

Edited by Bonky
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

OK, another than survival then:

 

suppose there is a man and he likes killing people, just for fun.

in himself, he thinks it's good.

while we think it's bad.

 

then moral is a matter of opinion.

the man will be depicted as bad, because the majority of the other people think it's bad.

 

imagine now that the other people think the same as that man.

then that act will be good, as well as the man, because majority wins.

 

now moral is also a matter of majority.

 

~

 

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible.

Which Bible? Who's interpretation?

 

~

 

Beloved, Morals

 

What if some were unfaithful?

 

Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Romans 3:3 (NIV)

 

Is Never A Matter Of Majority

 

Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

 

As it is written:“So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” Romans 3:4 (NIV)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible.

Which Bible? Who's interpretation?

 

No "interpretation" needed.  The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is  wrong.   What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?"   What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No "interpretation" needed.  The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is  wrong.   What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?"   What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." 

 

 

 

 

What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right?   The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

No "interpretation" needed.  The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is  wrong.   What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?"   What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." 

 

 

 

 

What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right?   The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok?

 

I assume you are talking about slavery.  The Bible doesn't condemn slavery but it regulates it.  And unlike in other cultures, the Bible gives slaves rights and privileges that you don't find in slavery in the context of cultures that surround Israel.   Slavery was a part of ancient near eastern culture.  The Bible reflects that culture but again, regulates it.  A "slave" in the Bible isn't necessarily "property."  Unlike  other ancient near eastern cultures, the Bible doesn't dehumanize those who are slaves.   And some slavery was voluntary.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

No "interpretation" needed.  The Bible is very clear about what is right and what is  wrong.   What part of "you shall not murder" needs "interpretation?"   What part of "you shall not steal" needs "interpretation." 

 

 

 

 

What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right?   The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok?

 

I assume you are talking about slavery.  The Bible doesn't condemn slavery but it regulates it.  And unlike in other cultures, the Bible gives slaves rights and privileges that you don't find in slavery in the context of cultures that surround Israel.   Slavery was a part of ancient near eastern culture.  The Bible reflects that culture but again, regulates it.  A "slave" in the Bible isn't necessarily "property."  Unlike  other ancient near eastern cultures, the Bible doesn't dehumanize those who are slaves.   And some slavery was voluntary.

 

 

 

Well more precisely put there were more rules in place for Jewish slaves.   YHWH didn't want Jewish slave owners treating Israelite slaves "harshly".   They were allowed to own slaves for life if they weren't Israelites:

 

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”
—Exodus 21:2-6.
 
Also
 
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
 
 
So it seems to me, if I find a person being sold as a "slave" I have complete freedom to purchase them and to keep them for life.   If I provide this person a family they are also under my ownership.  You seem to use the term "property" differently than what I'm accustomed to.   The Bible actually spells that out for us pretty clear as well:
 
Exodus 21:20-21
New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
 
If you notice the verses above merely state that it's not moral for a slave owner to outright kill his slave in anger.   Beating him is/was obviously ok.  So I'm confused now as to why I'm not allowed to own people when the Bible clearly says it's ok using various guidelines.
Edited by Bonky
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post


Well more precisely put there were more rules in place for Jewish slaves.   YHWH didn't want Jewish slave owners treating Israelite slaves "harshly".   They were allowed to own slaves for life if they weren't Israelites:

 

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”
—Exodus 21:2-6.
 
Also
 
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

 
 
So it seems to me, if I find a person being sold as a "slave" I have complete freedom to purchase them and to keep them for life.   If I provide this person a family they are also under my ownership.  You seem to use the term "property" differently than what I'm accustomed to.   The Bible actually spells that out for us pretty clear as well:
 
Exodus 21:20-21
New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
 
If you notice the verses above merely state that it's not moral for a slave owner to outright kill his slave in anger.   Beating him is/was obviously ok.  So I'm confused now as to why I'm not allowed to own people when the Bible clearly says it's ok using various guidelines.

 

I am saying that that they were not dehumanized as "property"  the same as we would consider cattle or other livestock as "property."   I really don't see the rub with the Scriptures you posted.   Again, the Bible regulated slavery.  Slavery was part of the cultural reality of that part of the world and God permitted it.

 

In our day and age, and in the western world, slavery  is repugnant, but in the ancient near east it was as natural as breathing.   The Bible allows for the reality of ancient near eastern realities, but it regulates how Israel relates to those realities.    There was a moral and immoral way to handle slavery in those days.  Slavery wasn't seen as immoral in and of itself.

 

If the Bible were written in 21st century America it would reflect our modern realities and regulate aspects of our culture as well.   What we should not do is impose our western modern sensitivities on the Bible which is an eastern book written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I am saying that that they were not dehumanized as "property"  the same as we would consider cattle or other livestock as "property."   I really don't see the rub with the Scriptures you posted.   Again, the Bible regulated slavery.  Slavery was part of the cultural reality of that part of the world and God permitted it.

 

 

In our day and age, and in the western world, slavery  is repugnant, but in the ancient near east it was as natural as breathing.   The Bible allows for the reality of ancient near eastern realities, but it regulates how Israel relates to those realities.    There was a moral and immoral way to handle slavery in those days.  Slavery wasn't seen as immoral in and of itself.

 

If the Bible were written in 21st century America it would reflect our modern realities and regulate aspects of our culture as well.   What we should not do is impose our western modern sensitivities on the Bible which is an eastern book written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm.

 

 

 

Okay but keep in mind it was you that suggested that we could use this collection of books that were "written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm".   This doesn't seem to be a very well grounded clear understanding of morality.  We forbid slavery in Western society because we know [from human experience] that the ownership of one human over other humans often leads to abuse.  

 

If we allow ourselves to view other humans as "property" what usually follows isn't good.  So as we can see with this one issue we already have reason to be concerned that the Bible is going to be a handy book to guide us through good moral behavior.   We haven't even bothered to establish how we would know that the Bible is moral in any way shape or form other than to just declare it so.

 

Right now our society [in the US] is struggling with whether it's ok to allow people to smoke marijuana.  It was unthinkable to allow it before but now peoples' views are changing.  We wrestle with "how much freedom is too much freedom".  It's not an easy thing to figure out sometimes.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Okay but keep in mind it was you that suggested that we could use this collection of books that were "written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm".   This doesn't seem to be a very well grounded clear understanding of morality.  We forbid slavery in Western society because we know [from human experience] that the ownership of one human over other humans often leads to abuse.  

 

Yes but you raised the issue of slavery and try to use that as an example of of why we have a problem with presenting morality as defined by someone we call God. So the problem lies in the fact that in our modern cultural paradigm, slavery is immoral.    But you need to come to grips with the fact that in the age in which the Bible was written and in the part of the world the Bible was written slavery wasn't immoral in and of itself.  There was a right way and a wrong way to deal with slaves.   The morality is seen in how God regulates that cultural reality.  

 

We often try to impose what slavery looked like in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries on to the biblical paradigm as if the horror stories that came out of the slavery experience in the US defines all slavery even the regulated form that the Bible presents.

 

If we allow ourselves to view other humans as "property" what usually follows isn't good.  So as we can see with this one issue we already have reason to be concerned that the Bible is going to be a handy book to guide us through good moral behavior.   We haven't even bothered to establish how we would know that the Bible is moral in any way shape or form other than to just declare it so.

 

There is a difference and I have already pointed it out and you have evidently chosen to ignore it. Namely that the Bible doesn't use "property" in a way that means to dehumanize them and that is borne out in all of the regulations God places on the Israelites as to how they are to treat their slaves.  In other nations, slaves were dehumanized, were treated with cruelty and in inhumane ways.   God forbids that and while he allows the Israelites to make slaves of conquered people, they are not to be treated like cattle.  

 

If the Bible permitted the cruel and inhumane treatment of captured slave, then we would have a reason to question the morality of the Bible.  But the fact that the Bible gives many regulations that gives the slaves more rights and protections than they would have gotten from any other nation in that time period speaks to the Bible as a trustworthy source of morality.  

 

More to the point, the Bible doesn't actually advocate slavery. There is no command to go out and conquer to gain slaves.  God doesn't have a "thou shalt have slaves" anywhere in the Bible. 

 

Right now our society [in the US] is struggling with whether it's ok to allow people to smoke marijuana.  It was unthinkable to allow it before but now peoples' views are changing.  We wrestle with "how much freedom is too much freedom".  It's not an easy thing to figure out sometimes.

 

Not sure what that has to do with slavery.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Yes but you raised the issue of slavery and try to use that as an example of of why we have a problem with presenting morality as defined by someone we call God. So the problem lies in the fact that in our modern cultural paradigm, slavery is immoral.

So I'm still struggling to find out what you believe. Is owning another person as property, in and of itself...immoral? Our modern culture seems to have declared it so. Would you be ok with ownership of other human beings so long as they aren't killed or severely abused?  

 

But you need to come to grips with the fact that in the age in which the Bible was written and in the part of the world the Bible was written slavery wasn't immoral in and of itself.  There was a right way and a wrong way to deal with slaves.   The morality is seen in how God regulates that cultural reality.

Ok so you've just admitted that the Bible takes a stance on things in the time it was written. So how in the world can we declare it the moral guideline for life in 2014?? I'm not sure if you're seeing this but your defense of the bible as a moral guide in 2014 isn't going very far.

 

We often try to impose what slavery looked like in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries on to the biblical paradigm as if the horror stories that came out of the slavery experience in the US defines all slavery even the regulated form that the Bible presents.

I never ever mentioned slavery in America. I quoted Bible verses and I'm referring to slavery in the Bible. Modern American culture has decided that ownership of humans is immoral end of story. You seem to disagree with that. I also note that I don't think you're willing to concede that the Bible even mentions the word "property". I was always told you're not supposed to change or misrepresent what's clearly written in scripture.

 

There is a difference and I have already pointed it out and you have evidently chosen to ignore it. Namely that the Bible doesn't use "property" in a way that means to dehumanize them and that is borne out in all of the regulations God places on the Israelites as to how they are to treat their slaves.

Actually the word "property" absolutely shows up in the translation I gave. Other translations say things like "for he is his money"...the concept is the same. God had special rules for hebrew slaves, he had OTHER rules for non-hebrews. Are you able to admit this? The bible allows for a hebrew to inherit slaves from their parents, do you deny this? I gave the scripture that supports what I'm saying here.

 

In other nations, slaves were dehumanized, were treated with cruelty and in inhumane ways.   God forbids that and while he allows the Israelites to make slaves of conquered people, they are not to be treated like cattle.

Are you sure about that?

Exodus 21:6

then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

 

Also the Israelites took virgin women captive and handed them over to the soldiers and priests. Is it ok to do this kind of thing in a time of war? If you aren't aware of this event, take a look at Numbers chapter 31.

 

If the Bible permitted the cruel and inhumane treatment of captured slave, then we would have a reason to question the morality of the Bible.  But the fact that the Bible gives many regulations that gives the slaves more rights and protections than they would have gotten from any other nation in that time period speaks to the Bible as a trustworthy source of morality.

If you declare the Bible a source of ultimate morality because the ancient hebrews were slightly more moral [which hasn't been demonstrated mind you] than other nations nearby that is as poor an argument as I've ever seen. To be declared a source of morality I would think the ancient hebrews would have to surpass the morality we have today!

 

 

More to the point, the Bible doesn't actually advocate slavery. There is no command to go out and conquer to gain slaves.  God doesn't have a "thou shalt have slaves" anywhere in the Bible.

It doesn't need to. The very minute that you regulate something, you've told people that it's ok to do it. Sure there might be rules around it, but ultimately you approve of the behavior.

 

Not sure what that has to do with slavery.

I just was making conversation.

I think people want to be able to throw a holy book at the problem of morality and they think it's a clean easy solution. When we scratch beneath the surface we find all kinds of problems with that.

Edited by Bonky
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a treath to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other exemples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

Survival is not an issue of morality.   In survival you do anything it takes survive even if it means committing evil.   When we start defining good with such irrational notions as survival, anything no matter how murderous or heinous can be justified as "good" and that leads to lawlessness where morality is defined by each person rather than having one objective standard that governs how we live.

So, given the opportunity, would you watch your child starve to death rather than steal to feed her?

The temptations in the wilderness pass to our understanding the end game in your question:

It was Lucifer that said to the Lord make these stones bread and it was the Lord that taught

us it was not the bread of first birth that was priority... it is the Word of God the true

manna from Heaven that men place in priority number one position here and now!

Love, Steven

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So I'm still struggling to find out what you believe. Is owning another person as property, in and of itself...immoral? Our modern culture seems to have declared it so. Would you be ok with ownership of other human beings so long as they aren't killed or severely abused?

 

In our culture today slavery is deemed immoral.   The Bible doesn't make a moral stand on slavery one way or the other.  I would not own a person today.  So I can believe slavery is immoral and I am not at odds with the Bible at all in that.  

 

Ok so you've just admitted that the Bible takes a stance on things in the time it was written.

 

What is said, had you read a little more carefully is that in the culture in which the Bible was written slavery wasn't viewed as immoral.   The Bible does not condemn or advocate slavery

 

So how in the world can we declare it the moral guideline for life in 2014?? I'm not sure if you're seeing this but your defense of the bible as a moral guide in 2014 isn't going very far.

 

The Bible makes a moral issue out of how slaves were to be treated.    You really haven't shown that the Bible is immoral in any of this. 

 

I never ever mentioned slavery in America.

 

Not directly, but you seemed to allude to it in post #26

 

I quoted Bible verses and I'm referring to slavery in the Bible. Modern American culture has decided that ownership of humans is immoral end of story. You seem to disagree with that.

 

I neither said or implied such.  I agree that modern American culture has decided that it is immoral.  What I said is that you can't impose that on the Bible which was borne out of a culture that didn't view it the way we do, today. 

 

 

I also note that I don't think you're willing to concede that the Bible even mentions the word "property". I was always told you're not supposed to change or misrepresent what's clearly written in scripture.

 

Actually the word "property" absolutely shows up in the translation I gave. Other translations say things like "for he is his money"...the concept is the same. God had special rules for hebrew slaves, he had OTHER rules for non-hebrews. Are you able to admit this? The bible allows for a hebrew to inherit slaves from their parents, do you deny this? I gave the scripture that supports what I'm saying here.

 

Go back and actually read what I said.  I said that it doesn't use the word property in an attempt dehumanize the slaves.  Slaves were owned but they were not sub-humans and the Israelites were instructed in the Bible not to treat them in that manner.   I did not say that the word "property" doesn't appear in the text.  I am saying that the way it is being used to make it appear that the Israelites viewed their slaves as property and not human beings is wrong and that we should not take it that way. 

 

 

shiloh357, on 11 Jun 2014 - 3:32 PM, said:snapback.png

In other nations, slaves were dehumanized, were treated with cruelty and in inhumane ways.   God forbids that and while he allows the Israelites to make slaves of conquered people, they are not to be treated like cattle.

Are you sure about that?

Exodus 21:6

then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

 

Also the Israelites took virgin women captive and handed them over to the soldiers and priests. Is it ok to do this kind of thing in a time of war? If you aren't aware of this event, take a look at Numbers chapter 31.

 

 

In Exodus 21:6  (funny how you omitted the full description of what was actually going on)   That was referring to the tradition of the indentured servant, where a slave loves his master and chooses to be a slave for life.  The awl in the ear lobe was not an act of cruelty.  It was the piercing of the ear which would then be fitted with an earring denoting whose slave he was.   It was not an inhumane act.

 

I don't see the problem in Numbers 31.  The virgin women were taken as wives and or servants to the soldiers and the priests. 

 

If you declare the Bible a source of ultimate morality because the ancient hebrews were slightly more moral [which hasn't been demonstrated mind you] than other nations nearby that is as poor an argument as I've ever seen.

 

Well it's a good thing I never made the arguement, isn't it?

 

 

To be declared a source of morality I would think the ancient hebrews would have to surpass the morality we have today!

 

If someone was dumb enough to make that argument, you would be right.  Perhaps you shouldn't waste your time  trying refute arguments I never raised.

 

Shiloh357, on 11 Jun 2014 - 3:32 PM, said:snapback.png

More to the point, the Bible doesn't actually advocate slavery. There is no command to go out and conquer to gain slaves.  God doesn't have a "thou shalt have slaves" anywhere in the Bible.

It doesn't need to. The very minute that you regulate something, you've told people that it's ok to do it. Sure there might be rules around it, but ultimately you approve of the behavior.

 

 

That isn't true.  Regulating behavior isn't approving of it.  If God approved of slavery, there would be ne need to regulate it, in the first place.   God permits it under certain conditions,  meaning that absent those conditions, it isn't something He approves of. 

 

Parents allow their children to do things they don't necessarily approve of, but with certain stipulations and limitations.  It's not a stamp of approval at all.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In our culture today slavery is deemed immoral.   The Bible doesn't make a moral stand on slavery one way or the other.  I would not own a person today.  So I can believe slavery is immoral and I am not at odds with the Bible at all in that.

We'll come back to this in a minute...

 

What is said, had you read a little more carefully is that in the culture in which the Bible was written slavery wasn't viewed as immoral.   The Bible does not condemn or advocate slavery

But if slavery IS immoral, then how COULD it be viewed as acceptable by people who were following the guidance of the most moral being in existence?

 

The Bible makes a moral issue out of how slaves were to be treated.    You really haven't shown that the Bible is immoral in any of this.

You just sunk your own ship. Up top you declared slavery as immoral and stated the bible doesn't take a stand one way or the other. How can you establish guidelines on slavery AND have no position on it?! Can you regulate gambling AND not have a position on whether it's immoral or not??

The Bible clearly states the Israelites are allowed to buy slaves from the nations around them....sounds like the bible does take a stance as to whether it's ok or not. I don't think you're willing to admit that.

 

I neither said or implied such.  I agree that modern American culture has decided that it is immoral.  What I said is that you can't impose that on the Bible which was borne out of a culture that didn't view it the way we do, today.

 

Ok but you said the Bible was "the perfect basis for morality"....and now you're telling me "your mileage may vary"?? If morality changes over time then the Bible is only going to cover the time that the writers were writing it and nothing else. Otherwise we'll have folks cherry picking and saying "well that was back then it doesn't apply today".

Go back and actually read what I said.  I said that it doesn't use the word property in an attempt dehumanize the slaves.  Slaves were owned but they were not sub-humans and the Israelites were instructed in the Bible not to treat them in that manner.   I did not say that the word "property" doesn't appear in the text.  I am saying that the way it is being used to make it appear that the Israelites viewed their slaves as property and not human beings is wrong and that we should not take it that way.

You see I'm not even necessarily talking about abuse. Do you think it's moral to OWN another human being?? We view personal freedom differently then what people did 2000 years ago. This is something new to our race, that's why we don't approve of slavery anymore. Notice we don't say "you can own a slave so long as you treat them well." We don't allow it at all because we no longer approve of the idea of someone being someone elses property. "God" didn't seem to realize that value way back then.

 

 

In Exodus 21:6  (funny how you omitted the full description of what was actually going on)   That was referring to the tradition of the indentured servant, where a slave loves his master and chooses to be a slave for life.  The awl in the ear lobe was not an act of cruelty.  It was the piercing of the ear which would then be fitted with an earring denoting whose slave he was.   It was not an inhumane act.

Well how would you react if your employer asked you to get marked as property of the company by piercing your body??

I don't see the problem in Numbers 31.  The virgin women were taken as wives and or servants to the soldiers and the priests.

Now you can't be serious. You can't tell me that taking women against their will and shoving them into the hands of a soldier as a wife or servant is moral. You don't value personal freedom? As soldiers in the middle east should we take women if we feel like it?

 

That isn't true.  Regulating behavior isn't approving of it.  If God approved of slavery, there would be ne need to regulate it, in the first place.   God permits it under certain conditions,  meaning that absent those conditions, it isn't something He approves of.

If God was truly against slavery he, by definition, wouldn't be able to regulate it. How do you regulate something that is immoral to being with. God was able to say Don't Murder and Don't Steal. He wasn't able to assert his authority and say "Don't have slaves"?

 

Parents allow their children to do things they don't necessarily approve of, but with certain stipulations and limitations.  It's not a stamp of approval at all.

Well I'm sure if you found out your neighbor was allowing their child to drink liquor you'd be understanding if they said "hey, I told them only 3 shots and then it's time for bed!".

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh, as a side note, how do we know the Bible is the perfect source of morality?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites