Are you really defending Murderous Jealousy, TBG? Because that is what OT God does when He's Jealous, He Murders, often en masse. That is what we call it when someone kills their wife or husband and their lover in a Jealous Rage. We call it Murder.

Are you really defending the mass murder of Children and Infants?

Are you really defending Mass Murder, the mass kidnapping and rape of young girls?

None of these acts can be defended or described as "Just" in any way. The Moral Relativism you are employing is beyond Irony. Why condemn Andrew for Moral Relativism regarding murder when you do the same?

No, I don't think you are actually defending these acts, nor do I think you are defending God and His "Justice". Rather, I think you are really defending your Right to believe that the Bible is the Literal and Unerring Word of God, rather than a collection of the Writings of Men...Highly Fallible and often Barbaric Men.

Which is, of course, your Right. But where is your Reason gone? Your Empathy and your Compassion? What you have instead is Justification to defend Faith, and I submit that it is a Blind Faith to be Blind to such cruelties.

Can not Faith also be Reasoned as Lysander points out, and as you claim for yourself? Would not a Reasoned Faith suggest that perhaps while there are important Spiritual Truths contained in the Bible, the Barbaric Acts ascribed to God by its writers might in fact be lies to justify their Barbarity?

All sides in War often Justify their most heinous acts as God Ordained. Even Hitler did. So this sort of Justification is a common practice. And just because these justifications were written on scrolls 3000 or more years ago, is no reason to believe them today.

Would it not be more Reasoned to attribute those written Biblical justifications to the Fallible Men instead of God and conserve God's True Justice? If one truly has Faith in God and His Justice, would it not be more Reasoned to take some Biblical passages with a few grains of salt, rather than as the Unerring Word of God?

GB

Are you really defending Murderous Jealousy, TBG?

It's not murderous---murder is the unjust taking of another's life. Since life belongs to God, it is His to take as He pleases.

Why condemn Andrew for Moral Relativism regarding murder when you do the same?

God defines right and wrong: not me, not you, not Andrew. God's holiness is the standard.

Even Hitler did.

Godwin's Law.

Can not Faith also be Reasoned as Lysander points out, and as you claim for yourself? Would not a Reasoned Faith suggest that perhaps while there are important Spiritual Truths contained in the Bible, the Barbaric Acts ascribed to God by its writers might in fact be lies to justify their Barbarity?

No, because the Bible is the Word of God. You can only say this if you already reject that the Bible is the word of God.

As for reasonability: what exactly do you mean by "reason"? Faith is reasonable because without faith, there is no reason---I call the skeptics, those who have no faith, unreasonable.

None of these acts can be defended or described as "Just" in any way.

You are trying to apply your own autonomous sinful standard to God. It is only unjust if you assume that God has to answer to a standard beyond Himself and His own holiness. If God commands it, it is just because God cannot and does not command unjust acts.

TBG

Agh, Beard, haven't we been over the "take the Bible literally" thing before?

Shall I re-clarify again how Christians do (or should!) see the Word? This isn't some special trick; people naturally read any other document this way, regardless of its antiquity -- unless, perhaps, we're looking for some reason to get points for holding the document in high regard, but not have to do or believe what it says.

1. The parts that are literal should be read "literally." This includes history, lists, genealogies, chronicles, records, etc.

2. The parts that are poetry should be read as poetry, i.e., "literally" because that is how their authors (and for Christians, the ultimate Author) intended those parts to be read. Examples: Song of Solomon, Psalms, parts of the prophesies, Ecclesiastes.

3. That parts that are metaphors should be read as metaphors. Examples: Jesus likening the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed that grows. He meant it as metaphor -- no one would say the mustard seed was real.

4. The parts that are hyperbole should be read as hyperbole -- i.e., "literally" because the literal meaning, the way the author/Author meant a text to be read, is a hyperbole. Example: Jesus' warning that one must gouge out an eye or cut off an arm to enter God's kingdom. It is clear from context, and from a little study of His original audience, what He meant: the severity of cost it would be to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

And et cetera.

Tell you what, Beard: if you are willing to have someone else read and reinterpret your posts as "non-literally" as you seem to want to reinterpret Scripture, I'll leave you alone on this point.

And Andrew, I think you'll agree the conversation is going much better now, and perhaps less circular? Now we might all learn some things about each other's beliefs. (And perhaps someday you'll be able to see the humor in your post up top of the previous page: the one in which you expressed annoyance at me for my assuming you secretly believed in a moral code. Apparently, by my assuming that, I violated that secret moral code that you said was ludicrous to claim you had. ) And I hope you'll stay around the forum and enjoy your time here.

I don't say anything because the Bible really is silent as to why Satan fell. As much as I love the fanciful descriptions in Milton or Van der Vondel's Lucifer, they are attempts to explain what Scripture does not say.

I'm with Black Glove on this one. Even some of the passages used to try to explain how Satan fall (such as in Ezekiel) seem vague on that point. Apparently God saw no need to reveal in Scripture how Satan fall; there's already too much fascination about him anyway.

But He did reveal how people fell -- and became non-innocent. That's the important point. God can deal with the Devil's origin and ultimate fate. But if it comes to talking about how sin came into the world, He already revealed whatever people need to know about that in the book of Genesis. Ergo, it makes more sense to focus on own sin (though speaking for myself, isn't it sometimes easier to blame the Devil?).

And that, by the way, is one of the things that must be acknowledged when discussing God's commands for the Israelites to kill people. God always had a reason to command such things, such as preventing His people from being mixed up with all their pagan religion. Nowadays He operates differently and the Covenant of Grace has fulfilled the Old Testament Law: no Christian would condone such activities now.

Also, where does the idea arise that the Old Testament God condoned kidnapping and raping girls? Let's be careful here, due to the forum rules, but although those passages are already difficult when discussing killing in warfare (which is different from Thou Shalt Not Murder, and I'll only repeat that once!), God-sanctioned rape was never a part of it.

(EDIT: While I was writing this, The Black Glove made the same point.)

My short answer is that anyone who turns inward, and becomes more concerned with themselves than with others, grows blind to reality and truth at an alarming rate.

I love The Great Divorce -- one of my top favorite Lewis works.

One of the most sobering parts of The Grace Divorce is the bitter woman who wants to see her son again. She tells her brother, one of the Bright Ones in this intentionally allegorical Heaven-like world, that she's willing to do anything to get to "my boy." But the woman's brother tells her that it doesn't work like that; God will not be seen or used as a means to some other end. But the woman can't stand this idea. She sees such a God as "unloving" or selfish, when in fact it is both to His benefit and to ours not just to avoid focusing on ourselves, but to value Him and glorify Him above all else. This leads to truth, and our own eternal joy.

Doc R:
Agh, Beard, we've been over the "take the Bible literally" thing before. Shall I re-clarify again how Christians do (or should!) see the Word? This isn't some special trick; people naturally read any other document this way, regardless of its antiquity -- unless, perhaps, we're looking for some reason to get points for holding the document in high regard, but not have to do or believe what it says.

This is dodging the issue Doc . I specifically chose sections that describe God's commands to demonstrate the fallacy of taking these sections as "the Literal Unerring Word of God."

And TBG is just resorting to his favourite tactic of tautological obfuscation.

GB

PS: Doc and TBG, ordering the killing of soldiers in War is not Murder, but ordering the slaughter of every civilian Man, Woman, and Child is Mass Murder. As far as the Kidnapping and Rape go, God not only condones it but commands it:

Numbers 31: 17-18:
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Now I do understand the forum has rules, but I'm only restating what the Bible says.

And TBG is just resorting to his favourite tactic of tautological obfuscation.

Where, exactly? This is what you fail to grasp: your criticism only works if I reason from your premises---which I don't. Of course my response is going to come out of my worldview. You can't expect me to meet you on a common ground that isn't there.

I specifically chose sections that describe God's commands to demonstrate the fallacy of taking these sections as "the Literal Unerring Word of God."

Where exactly does the fallacy lie? Which fallacy has been committed?

TBG

Moreover, such a nonexistent "common ground" would seem to borrow a piece of the Christian worldview (mass murder is wrong), then read it back into Scripture to prove Scripture wrong or non-literal. ... But in that case, the very piece used for the challenge (mass murder is wrong) is from the supposedly non-literal Bible, so it could be interpreted "non-literally," so just exactly what does this prove?

No one's denying that God commanded "mass murder," Beard. So far I've only read here the reminder that within the Christian worldview, God always has reasons for these things, He is just, and He is right to do them. He also has the right to continue allowing evil today, for His good purpose.

I refuse to be sidetracked into another "discussion" of epistemology and ontology. The common ground is the Objective (and Universal) Moral Standard for Murder etc.

My problem is twofold:
1) Your unacknowledged Moral Relativism.
2) Your explicit holding of God to a LESSER Moral Standard.

GB

Is that the Universal Moral Standard (UMS) they keep track of in Greenwich?

(In the dull-amused voice of Nicholas Cage as Ben Gates from National Treasure 2): "Sorry, I -- I couldn't resist."

Methinks our worldviews will keep on clashing, Beard -- yet I hope we won't -- because no one can argue that Scripture is true based on your presupposition that it's not, and one cannot move a convinced Christian away from his own presupposition that it the Bible is true.

It's one faith versus another, one appeal-to-authority versus another.

I'm not sure where this idea of "neutral ground" came from -- I do know some Christians have acted as though it exists -- and there is something to be said for God writing His law on people's consciences. But without the Word, I simply fail to see any basis for figuring out which parts are truly Universal Moral Standards (UMS) written on our consciences, and which parts are just opinions.

Again, Christians believe as axiomatic that God's Word is the most specific revelation our Creator has given us, just as you believe as axiomatic that you have the ability to think and reason, or that any words you type will be (mostly) understood by others. We're almost dealing with two different "realities" here.

Your explicit holding of God to a LESSER Moral Standard.

I am holding God to the highest possible moral standard: Himself.

The common ground is the Objective (and Universal) Moral Standard for Murder

And it is found in God's nature, not your philosophy.

Again, you are arguing from the context of your own worldview---a worldview which I do not accept. You can't expect me to accept an argument from premises which I do not believe in.

Your unacknowledged Moral Relativism.

Au contraire---God is as absolute a standard as there is. Take it up with Him and tell me what He says.

TBG

Even CS Lewis recognized the Universal Moral Standard Doc , in The Abolition of Man. Now I might certainly quibble with his proposition that such is a Premise rather than a Rational Conclusion. But I certainly don't disagree on the Principle.

All World-views have some overlap, insofar as we all share the same existential reality.

But again, this is really a sidetrack, not an answer. It doesn't really address the issues I raised:

My problem is twofold:
1) Your unacknowledged Moral Relativism.
2) Your explicit holding of God to a LESSER Moral Standard.

And I'm not asking people to reach my conclusions regarding the Bible based on my "presuppositions." I'm asking you to apply your own stated standards of Moral Absolutes to your Reasoning.

GB

PS:

Again, you are arguing from the context of your own worldview---a worldview which I do not accept. You can't expect me to accept an argument from premises which I do not believe in.

But you are also Evangelizing me . Do you expect me to "accept an argument from premises which I do not believe in?"

Even CS Lewis recognized the Universal Moral Standard Doc , in The Abolition of Man. Now I might certainly quibble with his proposition that such is a Premise rather than a Rational Conclusion. But I certainly don't disagree on the Principle.

I don't deny it---but where is its source? Who defines it? Where is its metaphysical basis? Why does it transcend time, space and culture?

I'm asking you to apply your own stated standards of Moral Absolutes to your Reasoning.

And my first principle is, as Samuel Rodigast said in a hymn, "Whate'er my God ordains is right." That's the standard: God's Holy nature.

Do you expect me to "accept an argument from premises which I do not believe in?"

Maybe the Holy Spirit will use my argument to convince you. That's His business, not mine.

TBG

You're still dodging the actual questions though . By the way my edit crossed your post . Maybe you have a response to that.

GB

You're still dodging the actual questions though

1. Moral ethics are grounded in God's holy nature, not in a Kantian categorical imperative. There is nothing more absolute than God's unchanging nature.

2. There is no higher standard than God's nature.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

TBG

perhaps someday you'll be able to see the humor in your post up top of the previous page: the one in which you expressed annoyance at me for my assuming you secretly believed in a moral code. Apparently, by my assuming that, I violated that secret moral code that you said was ludicrous to claim you had.

Not annoyance, just a fault on your part, I didn't want you to continue laboring under that delusion, as Dumbledore might say. I could see someone who does believe in this "universal moral code" or whatever you're calling it today to believe that everyone posesses it, after all the most popular person on TV has been promoting that fantasy for years (Oprah).

Now, I do not possess this concience of which you speak, but I'm not going to continue arguing that point with me - you apparently don't want to believe it and I don't really care.

TBG, I think this is where our beliefs split at the root - you only care about what the Bible does say while I am more interested in the large ammounts of what it doesn't say.

You of all people here should be able to understand my disbelief in moral rights or wrongs:

I don't deny it---but where is its source? Who defines it? Where is its metaphysical basis? Why does it transcend time, space and culture?

There is no source, no definition that man did not fabricate. It doesn't transcend all of those, at least not for all people - I don't see or feel this moral force of which you speak (read my above post to Elwin).

There is no source, no definition that man did not fabricate.

There is: it is found in the Scriptures---you don't like it, that's your problem. You don't want God telling you what's right and what's wrong.

I understand your disbelief---you're just wrong.

Now, I do not possess this concience of which you speak

That's like Helen Keller claiming she doesn't have eyes. You do have a conscience, it's just not functioning.

TBG