In all this Huffling and Puffling about morality I hope people are actually taking that Bible example in context. I understand it was about Saul and the Amalekites, a bunch of people who hated the Israelites like poison and who couldn't leave them alone. Most likely they wanted to exterminate the Israelites themselves.

[. . .]

What Saul did was the silliest thing possible. He couldn't bear the King to die because he looked such a fine fellow. The King????? Oh for heavens sake! The most guilty Amalekite of them all. The stupid idiot who got them into this predicament.

No wonder God was displeased with Saul. Having had no choice the Israelites did demolish the Amalekites, so we only have the Bible references as to their existence. Please don't use anachronisms and keep your Biblical stories and examples within context, hey?

I ... wish ... I could just print this up and distribute it to, well, pretty much everyone, especially those who have expressed difficulty (sometimes genuine difficulty, and sometimes not) with the Slaughter Passages.

Brilliantly phrased, wagga! To use some Christian-speak, that really Brought Encouragement to My Heart.

Though I want to be sensitive to people who honestly wonder why God would command these things, I also believe others want to use this as a debating point and little more (though I'm not judging anyone's motivation here). But as has been repeated several times, those who believe the Bible's description of God commanding these actions also believe the same Bible when it says that God is just and perfectly good.

To further support this, it also assumes (and it is not at all a stretch for the Christian) to conclude that if sin-corrupted people now, and even non-Christians, can wage a "just war" such as World War II, wouldn't God, Who is much wiser, have even better reasons for commanding His people to take up arms, even if it means wiping out a whole tribe as many desert-dwellers often did?

(Yes, I may have broken Godwin's Law myself in mentioning World War II, yet as Bart Simpson once noted, that seems to be the only acceptable war nowadays, in addition to the Revolutionary War and the war against the Star Wars Empire.)

So when someone starts saying such-and-such a war was unjust, I have asked them to say which wars in their view are just.

More than half a century later, we can see why it was just to rain bombs on Berlin, despite the risk to women and children, who unfortunately were dragged into the conflict and violence not by the Allied Forces, but You Know Who (hint: Der Godwin). But with wars far in the past, such as the Biblical battles, or (I'm trying to be very careful here) modern wars, it's much harder to show why they were necessary. Some of them may not be. But as wagga said, it's wrong to ignore the Bible's context and be guilty of "chronological snobbery." Instead, Christians are even more sure of the justness of those wars than we are about newer wars. Why? Because the same Bible says that God is just and good. And sometimes, yes, it is sadly just and good to let people die -- or hasten their death.

Now for this little bit. Interestingly, I was just thinking this last night.

If one day you heard God speak to you (assuming one's "Sensus Divinitatus" was supposedlly working) and He commanded you to commit the acts described in those passages, would you follow those commands?

Your "specific time, specific place, specific people, specific purpose" contradicts your proposition that your version of God is always consistent, and it is an ethical (and intellectual) dodge.

No Christian believes that God, being consistent, always works in the exact same way. He has a dynamic story at play here. He is not uniformitarian. And it matters little what Kierkegaard or anyone else says (I know little about his views); if a Christian presupposes the Bible is true, then the issue is theological, not philosophical, and Scripture shows a God Who works in different ages, a divine Novelist (there's that metaphor again), revealing more of His plan across testaments in different ways.

I'm sorry, Beard, if you've run into those types of Christians. Know that if they believe they are "hearing directly from God," with an audible voice (though very often they actually claim "impressions" or something), they are disobeying Scripture. Hebrews 1: 1-2 is just one of the texts that show God has worked differently in the past, and now has given His final revelation through the Word Himself, Jesus, and the written Word.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hebrews 1: 1-2)

Christians who claim they're hearing special new revelation from God are at best deceived about how God speaks, or at worst guilty of knowingly perpetrating a heresy (yes, heresy if it's within Christianity). It starts with gnos and ends with ticism.

Here is a very short rebuttal to one new Christian book that (maybe unwittingly) advocates exactly the wrong view about listening for God's will. And some of my links are also there to a series about the Christian view on discerning God's will. However, at this point it becomes very much an "in-house" discussion. Beard, if you want to hear more about how the Bible implicitly or explicitly rejects the notion of listening for God's voice in this new-covenant age, or worse trying to get divine direction for decisions through "nudges," do ask away.

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 think we do. As TBG later said, none of us disputes that there is a standard, the Universal Moral Standard or as Lewis called it for short, the tao, but we disagree on Who or what it is that gives that standard. And as I also had written:

[W]ithout 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.

For example, once upon a time more people thought it was okay to take the whole "wives submit to your husbands" thing too far, if they even thought it through that well, and often allow abuse to go unchallenged. Was that a UMS or not? And if not, why not? How could one tell, and especially when some people believed in chauvinism right alongside other good moral views such as Thou Shalt Not Steal?

Even non-Christians believe in a conscience. In fact, they seem to think it's all right to reject the Biblical basis for morality, so long as they themselves hold to moral standards. That's great, and no informed Christian will be so stupid as to say "atheists have no morals." Instead a wise Christian will ask, "upon what do you base your morals?"

And by the way, for Andrew: as Beard has also reiterated, even some agnostics and atheists believe in a human "conscience" or inner source of making moral choices. So you are still not building a very convincing case that you're really thinking as "independently" as you think you are. It seems more like a thought process of "Christians say this, so I'll reflexively say that" -- basing short-lived beliefs not on pro-activism but reactivism.

I'm not saying you're the only one doing this. After all, I've seen and corresponded with many Christians who seem to behave the same way: going all-out with reactions against the Bad Guys and Antis instead of basing their learning on the great pro: Christ, the Gospel, and delighting in Him.

But again, even some atheists agree with the "conscience" idea (though with differences from Scripture, of course). You've seem to overreact there.

So here's my question: can you name some Christian beliefs you do agree with? Any atheist could: the "love thy neighbor" part, for example. Even if they throw out the Bible's main message, they're at least "moral."

That's my problem with some religions, you end up with followers like Puddleglum in The Silver Chair, who would be willing to deny reality because fantasy has a magic man in the clouds who makes them feel warmer and fluffier inside.

Now you're dissing our beloved Marshwiggle too. Apologize for that!

Didn't you read the part in which I offered that Puddleglum had already snapped out of the Witch's enchantment before he made his speech? Puddleglum already knew he was making a pure rhetorical argument, as I said, telling off the Witch and being a Narnia patriot even if it turned out the worst-case scenario was a fact and she was right. But he knew there was a true sun, Overworld, grass, Aslan and everything. He knew it for a fact, because as he said earlier, he had been there and seen them.

Anyhow, do you really want to take the Green Witch's side?

More reactionaryism? Please, help me bust this myth I'm having that you're just like those two critics who blasted Toy Story 3 just because they like being token contrarians and stirring things up?

As I've said before, you are free to do as you will, I'm not the one to say you can't, and go ahead and give your point of veiw.

Whew, that's good to hear. I was beginning to worry there.

But seriously, that's yet another moral judgment: that freedom to believe and do as one wills and present viewpoints is a good thing. What if I said this wasn't true, and tried to enslave everyone? What would make it "right" to oppose my grab for power? "Food for thought"? Consider chewing on that, and on the below morsels:

Ok, what's wrong with "wasting" one's life, since "waste" carries moral connotations with it[?]

The same is true of this accidental moral judgment:

Your points assume that the other option would lead to stagnation or failure - they could, but not always will.

But what's wrong with "stagnation"? What's wrong with "failure"? Who defines what these mean? You? But you've claimed how others spend their lives is none of your business. And as yourself have said, in the end none of it matters anyway.

So yet again, your actions belie what you claim you believe: just more cognitive dissonance. Someday you may be able to laugh at yourself and be a lot more fun to be around (though again, I'm glad you're here now!)

The one that elevates you, or the one that demotes you? The one that let's you do whatever, or the one that quite possibly wastes your life?

You need to read Desiring God, Andrew. (And I hope you will, though you've so far dodged my book recommendations without even a polite decline. What? Shall you not only fail to have any intellectual curiosity about the idea that "you've missed real Christianity," but fail to admit your refusal to check into whether this assertion is true?)

Jesus never suggested people try to avoid becoming great, or obtained a reward. Instead, He appealed to their sense of wanting glory -- but He said things like (paraphrasing), "If you want to be first, you must become last," and "He who would become great must be a servant."

It is not Christianity that results in a wasted life (unless, as Paul said, it's all false). If God is there, and active, and the greatest joy a person can find, and bursting with infinitude and love to the point where not sharing Himself above all else would be a crime against His own nature, then the fulfilled life is one that submits to Him and His ways in every way, and wants to become like Him. That's the true message of Scripture: not self-denial for its own sake, but literally, for God's sake.

I could have been more vigilant in getting the right message across. I make mistakes sometimes, and I definitely made one here. Again, I'm sorry to anyone I offended.

Friend, it's not the first time anyone has wrongfully caused offense here! (I know I've had quite a few blunders of my own, and certainly not limited to the forum discussion.) Thanks for being such a great sport, and for (despite yourself) following a moral code and respecting others.

TBG, our discussion is getting really pointless - I make my statements based on the belief that god is impersonal and unloving, you make yours based on the belief that he is both of those and more. This is the only statement you made that I can really answer without continuing this eternal trek around some debationary circle:

Ok, what's wrong with "wasting" one's life, since "waste" carries moral connotations with it.

It is not wrong, I just don't like to see people do it when they have potential, but of course in the end it doesn't matter. And it has no such connotations.

Even Andrew has that sense even though he doesn't quite realize it

Wrong

Instead a wise Christian will ask, "upon what do you base your morals?" And by the way, even some agnostics and atheists believe in a human "conscience" or inner source of making moral choices, Andrew. So you are still not building a very convincing case that you're really thinking as "independently" as you think you are.

There is no basis for morality, which is why morality doesn't exist in the real world. Obviously some people believe in that, as you know I like citing Oprah for this - she has held for years the belief that we all possess what she refers to as the "spiritual side," that tells us what is right and wrong. All I know is, I never had that. Thinking independantly is not the goal - following the truth is.

So here's my question: can you name some Christian beliefs you do agree with? Any atheist could: the "love thy neighbor" part, for example. Even if they throw out the Bible's main message, they're at least "moral."

Well, as I just said, there is no basis of morality, and so it is illogical to follow them. I personally try to follow the pagan tenet of "do what you will, but harm none," not because it is logical, not because you should, but because it fits into the world I would enjoy living in. In fact the only reason we have laws and such is because not all people follow that premise.

But seriously, that's yet another moral judgment: that freedom to believe and do as one wills and present viewpoints is a good thing.

No, that's a personal standpoint. You killed your own argument by demonstrating that you could take an opposite view and make it equally right. This also applies to what you said here:

But what's wrong with "stagnation"? What's wrong with "failure"? Who defines what these mean? You? But you've claimed how others spend their lives is none of your business. And in the end it doesn't matter.

You need to read Desiring God, Andrew. (And I hope you will, though you've so far dodged my book recommendations without even a polite decline. What? Shall you not only fail to have any intellectual curiosity about the idea that "you've missed real Christianity," but fail to admit your refusal to check into whether this assertion is true?)

If I can remember I'll be sure to look for it next time I'm at the library.

Also, your assumption that I don't know what Christianity believes itself to be is a little bit off - I know exactly what you think your beliefs are, but I do not base my statements around that, rather around what I have found it to truly be.

I just don't like to see people do it when they have potential

Okay, I'm curious: potential for what?

Sorry to double post, my edit button won't work right now

Elwin, I think you often confuse morality with a few other things: opinions, facts, points of view and decisions.

Opinion - I have an opinion red wine tastes better than white whine, so when I say "drinking white wine is disgusting," I am not saying you are morally wrong for drinking it, I am applying my personal tastes onto you.

Facts - It is right that the sky is blue. Not morally right, but actually right.

Points of View - We should strive to do our best. I'm not saying it is wrong to do less than your best, but from my point of view you shouldn;t do that. But that doesn't mean it is immoral to do less that your best.

Decisions - I decided to follow nihilism. It is neither morally right or wrong to follow either, so I am not making either claim by following this in my life.

Well Doc, I certainly don't judge your motivations . I know you speak from the heart.

But yes, I DO wonder how a "Just" and "Good" God could command such things. And I do wonder how Just and Good people can justify those things . It is not a mere debate tactic for me.

I disagree profoundly that one can dismiss criticism of Modern Christian Apologetics (i.e. Justifications) by claiming that those were "ancient" commands. The context remains clear despite claims to the contrary. As long as some folk continue to insist that every word of the Bible is the Infallible Word of God, such claims are dubious at best.

GB

PS: RE: Just Wars! You forgot to mention the War of the Ring.

Okay, I'm curious: potential for what?

I don't think you're going to like my answer as it wants to remove god from the equation, but doing the most you can for your goals. If your goal is to serve god, fair enough. But I've seen people just in my own life waste their talents, lives, and what they wanted to have and could have had if they had only followed what they wanted rather than "what god told them to do."

I'm not advocating moral relativism any more than you would be in suggesting that it would be fine to lie to Nazi officials about the Jews hiding in your home.

Interesting you should say this. I recall reading a book by Corrie Ten Boom in which her sister, who would not lie, told the Nazi police that she was indeed hiding Jews under her table, but when the Nazis looked they could not see them.

I don't think you're going to like my answer as it wants to remove god from the equation, but doing the most you can for your goals. If your goal is to serve god, fair enough. But I've seen people just in my own life waste their talents, lives, and what they wanted to have and could have had if they had only followed what they wanted rather than "what god told them to do."

Fair enough. You're right in that I don't like that you want to remove God from the equation, but I expected you to do that, so I'm not surprised.

And you probably realize that your concept of this potential is just that: your concept. You may think others are wasting their lives, their talents, and what they want and could have, by serving God. At the same time, though, it seems that you realize that you don't have any right to be the judge of whether their lives are actually fulfilling whatever potential they are to fulfill. Their lives may rub you the wrong way, but it's not like they want you to be their judge, so...

What can I say? Maybe you could ask those people if they are content with their situation. I mean, if they aren't, they might not have so much of an objection with doing what you want them to do, right? And if they are content, then, as you said, fair enough, right?

Oh, and while you're at it, find some folks who live their lives according to your concept of potential and ask if they're content with their lives. You know, see if your concept of potential holds up well.

By the way, just because our primary goal is to follow God doesn't mean we waste our inner talents, nor does it mean we can't pursue our own personal goals and desires. Sure, my goal is to serve God, but how I am serving God right now does put a lot of my talents to use, and it's not like I can't pursue personal goals such as getting married, being able to serve the people around me, or becoming a Pokemon master.

What can I say? You've pretty much covered it. I think I could accept that if I subscribed to Hedonism, but since I don't I would still have to say that all the happiness in the world is still a waste if your god is not real. But that's enough of that I think.

Anyone got a new topic?

Sorry to double post, once again my edit button is being uncooperative.

But I had a question that may prove interesting to discuss: when, if ever, should legalism end and situation take over?

(Gives a mock frown of disapproval) Eh, we'll let it slide this once, Andrew. What's happening with the edit button that it won't work?

I'm not sure what you mean by the question: especially the "situation" part. And while I define "legalism" from a Biblical standpoint, surely you have an entirely different (and purely subjective, cough, cough) definition for yourself, in this great (yet very new) religion called "Andrew-ism." (I say this not to slam you, but to remind you that in that sense we are all in the same boat, each believing his/her own "religion" is the right one.)

Also, I presume that whatever you mean, you're assuming that this "legalism" or "situation" has a meaning, and thus a reason to discuss it.

Not sure, I was clicking it and nothing happened

Before we get started, I hope we're clear that my standpoints are neither religious nor purely mine. It's just the way things are - the way I see it

Anyways, by legalism I mean strictly keeping to the rules, by situations I mean letting individual situations decide the consequences. I am reminded of a quote by Abraham Lincoln, "I have often found that mercy bears greater fruits than strict justice."

So basically what I'm asking is, do you feel it's right to use your set rulebooks or code, in your case the Bible, to decide a situation without fail, or should different situations demand different consequences.

My personal views? Situations vary. Let's take the legalistic religion of Islam - if you steal a loaf of bread or a diamond, they're going to cut your hand off. No chance for reprieve. I'm sure this has led to much less theft in their countries, and probably also much more one-handed people running around.

Not sure what the edit button problem is about, though I know NarniaWeb can have "hiccups" from time to time. Are you on dialup, perhaps, resulting in delays?

I hope we're clear that my standpoints are neither religious nor purely mine. It's just the way things are - the way I see it

Everyone here believes the way he sees things is the way things are. The posturing gets a little old, as I've said before. And you keep repeating this stuff, as if merely repetition will convince someone that

the way I see things = the way things are ≠ any kind of religion.

Or maybe it's yourself you're trying to persuade by this repetition?

Just admit being as much a part of this game as anyone.

However, it does sound like you're asking for a Christian's judgment, based on Scripture, of things, and thus expect to receive an answer (or several answers) different from the way you'd decide things (though in your view I'm not sure anything would matter).

In some cases Scripture does make specific rules, which glorify God, against or supporting a certain behavior: such as against sleeping with your girlfriend, and supporting husbands loving their wives. To follow such guidelines is not "legalism," in the sense of rigidly keeping to a code of conduct just because it's Right. Instead, Christians do this (and continue growing to the point of doing these better) because they want to love God, to experience more of Himself, and to become more like Him.

As for other situations, things can get more difficult. What about a situation in which a Christian is serving in the military and must make a decision balancing an overall-good military goal, and the preservation of a human life? That's where things can get tricky.

So how about a specific example to which we might apply Biblically bases "situation ethics," Andrew? Can you think of something in your life, or the life of a Christian you know, that seemed tricky to decide what to do, even assuming the Bible were true and its principles the correct way to glorify God and do the right thing and thus honor and love Him?

If so, I believe that would bring even more fascinating discussion indeed.

Didn't we just finish this debate? I thought you wanted a "new" topic Andrew.

GB

Elwin, I think you have misunderstood what I'm saying. What I'm asking is, do you think the rules should take presidence over the actual situation, or vice versa? Not necessarily biblica rules or any other rules - just in general. Nor am I, at present, trying to convince anyone of anything, I was just clarifying your statement.

For a good example, look at any ruler in history. Our own law system seems to be situationally based (in the USA), but the laws that allow that have created a web of rules that can be manuevered about and taken advantage of by anyone who knows how. Oppositely, Vlad Dracula was known to impale anyone who did, well, anything he didn't like, but especially theft and adultery - it didn't matter if you were a man, woman or child. So what I'm asking is, should we strictly keep to a definite rulebook, or make different decisions based on the situation?

TBG and Doc R both made replies that seemed to be responses to the following post, that I do not think are applicable in the least (at least not in the way you think they do).

ME:
Consider it this way (particularly those of you that believe God actually commanded those acts ): If one day you heard God speak to you (assuming one's "Sensus Divinitatus" was supposedlly working) and He commanded you to commit the acts described in those passages, would you follow those commands? I doubt anyone posting on this forum would.

Rather, I think we would all question whether that Sensus Divinitatus was actually working. Some of us might believe Satan was trying to trick us, check into the nearest Church and pray for Guidance. Others (like me and a few others here ) would probably think we were losing our marbles and check ourselves into the nearest Psychiatric Ward.

And if it REALLY was God telling us to commit those acts, would we be wrong to refuse? I don't think so.

Doc R:
I'm sorry, Beard, if you've run into those types of Christians. Know that if they believe they are "hearing directly from God," with an audible voice (though very often they actually claim "impressions" or something), they are disobeying Scripture. Hebrews 1: 1-2 is just one of the texts that show God has worked differently in the past, and now has given His final revelation through the Word Himself, Jesus, and the written Word.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hebrews 1: 1-2)

Christians who claim they're hearing special new revelation from God are at best deceived about how God speaks, or at worst guilty of knowingly perpetrating a heresy (yes, heresy if it's within Christianity). It starts with gnos and ends with ticism.

TBG:
Seriously, though, I know from Scripture that revelation is closed until Christ returns: there is a categorical imperative in place until the last judgment.

Again, both of those responses are really attempts to dodge the issues I raised.

But regardless, they open up another avenue of inquiry: What does Revelation being closed have to do with God literally talking to people? One is not equivalent to the other.

And in any case, there is at least one passage that indicates post-Biblical communication between God and Mankind can occur:

1 Corinthians 14

1 Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

On the face of it this seems to contradict this:

Revelation 22: 18-19:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

But maybe not. 1 Corinthian seems to suggest that communication with God and Prophecy are a continuing process, whereas Revelation seems to be a clear admonition against altering the book of Revelation itself. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.

In other words: Prophecy may continue as long as it does not directly contradict Biblical teachings.

But the REAL issue for me, is whether or not God communicating to people actually necessarily counts as Prophecy or Revelation. I don't think so.

God commanding a person to carry out an act, is wholly distinct from God giving a person specific information about events; past, present, or future. And as far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't say that God abandoned communicating directly with people (that would be awfully Deist of Him ).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hebrews 1: 1-2)

In fact the above quote you posted Doc, indicates that instead of using Prophets as representatives, God will communicate DIRECTLY with people through Christ, thus eliminating the middle-man.

Taken in conjunction with the other quotes, this suggests that Prophecy will also be communicated directly to people by God through Christ. It is not mutually exclusive to 1 Corinthians and Revelation either.

So my point regarding obeying a direct command of God stands, not only in the narrow context of the hypothetical ethical dilemma I proposed, but--for the True Believer--a very REAL potential ethical dilemma.

Peace and Long Life

GB