We ALL Have a Universal Moral Code In Us

[Bonky]

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 June 11, 2014 by Bonky

[enoob57]

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

[Guest shiloh357]

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:

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:

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.

[Bonky]

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!".

[Bonky]

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

[Guest shiloh357]

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?

 

Slavery is immoral in OUR culture and our century.   it wasn't immoral when the Bible was being penned.  Slavery in fact, was many times, a vocation or a means of paying a debt.  If you owed a debt and could not pay it off, you could offer yourself as a slave to the debtor until the debt is paid.   Slavery was far more complex that you apparently understand.  There is no way to make slavery "immoral."   The Bible doesn't say slavery is immoral.  It passes no judgment on it.   It condemns the mistreatment of slaves.

 

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?!

 

Go back to that post and read what I said.  I said that it is  immoral to US in our day and in our culture.  I didn't say it is immoral.   I said that the Bible makes no claims one way or the other as to whether owning slaves is immoral.  It even mentions slaves in the New Testament as well.  There are instructions to the masters as to how they are to treat their slaves and there are instructions to slaves as to how they are to treat their masters.

 

In fact, one of Paul's epistles is written to Philemon, a Christian and a slave owner at the church in Colosse.  In the letter Paul is returning a slave to Philemon.  Evidently the slave, Onesimus, became a Christian and Paul asks Philemon to receive him as a brother in the Lord.   Nowhere did Paul castigate him for owning slaves.

 

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.

 

The Bible allows it.  The Bible isn't commanding them to do it.  Slavery isn't condemned as immoral or moral.  Slavery was an amoral issue.  It was neither wrong or right to own a slave.   It was part of the cultural convention of the time period, whether you like it or not. 

 

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".

 

No, morality doesn't change.  What people think is moral or immoral changes.   In the Bible, slavery wasn't right or wrong.  It was just part of how things were done.  I am not saying that slavery was moral in the Bible, but immoral today.  I am saying that the Bible doesn't condemn or advocate for slavery.  So while in our culture, slavery is wrong, we need to just come to grips that different cultures in different time periods didn't see 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.

 

Yes, to you owning people is just wrong.  But slavery was part of the fabric of society.   Slaves were actually important to ancient societies.  Even in ancient Rome, the city of Rome itself nearly 40% of the population were slaves.  Slaves performed all kinds of trades and crafts.  They were a necessary part of the economic well-being of countries in the ancient near east. 

 

To our culture and way of life, slavery is repugnant.  But you just need to come to grips that there was a time when people didn't think like we think today.

 

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

 

That's not how it worked.  The slave volunteered to do that.  You asked the master to do make you his slave for life.  He didn't require it of you.

 

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?

 

Well, in war, as was described in Numbers 31, that was actually pretty merciful treatment given the fact that had the situation been reversed, the Israelite women would have been raped, and/or sacrificed to pagan gods as thank offerings to their gods for the victory.   God didn't permit that kind of behavior of the Israelites.

 

Not only that, but in the Bible, men are instructed to treat women far better than women were treated in pagan cultures.  In the Bible's instructions, women have far better standing than they did in pagan cultures where women are sub human, even today.

 

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"?

 

God is against divorce, but He made concessions for it.  He allows divorce due to marital unfaithfulness, but divorce is never in His perfect will for marriages.  

 

Slavery in the Bible isn't declared "immoral" so it's not the case that God is trying regulate something he said is immoral.  He is regulating a cultural reality of that time period.

 

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!".

 

No, what I am saying is that a parent may not want their teen staying out late with other teens, but they realize that it is part of being a teenager to stay out, so they tell their teen to call and let them know periodically where they are and what they're doing, and who they are with.  They tell them to come home no later than a certain time or whatever.  They regulate their teen's behavior even though they, as parents, are not necessarily thrilled with the situation, particularly if the teen is say, only 16 or 17.

[Guest shiloh357]

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

It comes from a God who is all about a perfect system of justice.

[Bonky]

It comes from a God who is all about a perfect system of justice.

Okay.

I think I understand your position a bit better. I definitely don't see how the bible shows us anything better than what we've been able to establish on our own. I am used to the argument that theistic morality transcendes culture and time.

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

It comes from a God who is all about a perfect system of justice.

Okay.

I think I understand your position a bit better. I definitely don't see how the bible shows us anything better than what we've been able to establish on our own. I am used to the argument that theistic morality transcendes culture and time.

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

 

actually what we have comes from the Bible.  We didn't establish anything on our own.

 

Look at the morality of many cultures and nations that don't have the Bible.  There really is no way you can look at the human race and claim that we have ever established a good system of morality.  Humans by nature are immoral and rotten to the core.

[Schouwenaars]

 

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.

 

 

Lev.19:19 :  “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

 

can you explain to me why it is a sin to grow 2 kinds of seeds on a field and why i cannot wear my tshirt at the moment?

i don't really see the sinning in this.