Christian Moral Relativism…

It’s not relativism to judge occurrances several thousand years ago in a different time and place by our own standards?

My apologies. I didn’t answer your questions. In response to #1, you’ve phrased it wrong. The way you’ve got it worded, I would answer “no.” But the syntax of the statement is both incorrect and misleading. As for #2, I’d answer yes, I believe that God is not only “moral” but the source of everything we rightly call “morality.” e.g. If God commands it, it is moral.

“It’s not relativism to judge occurrances several thousand years ago in a different time and place by our own standards?” Shouldn’t God – supposedly the supreme moral being – act better than mere human beings in a different time and a different place? What difference does the period in history make to a morally perfect being? Or do you admit that the Bible reflects the actions and morality of *humans* several thousand years ago and not the actions and morality of a deity?

“Do you believe that the Bible accurately portrays God as commanding genocide?” -ATB My suggested revision of the wording: Do you believe that the Bible records the command of God to the nation of Israel to take another nation by force, including the killing of what would now be called non-combatants?” With that wording, I would answer in the affirmative.

Because I acknowledge that God is the source of morality, it is a logically impossibility for God to act immorally. If God acts, it is moral. That in some cases we do not like this says more about us that it does about God.

“it is a logically impossibility for God to act immorally.” That’s fine and all, but calling God “Good” is no longer praise then. Are you willing to give up calling God Good?

By the way, the argument form also presupposes a naturalistic view of ethics, which as a matter of course denies several metaphysical realities I could make a case for. Namely, the argument form presupposes that death is the highest type of punishment there is because of the impossibility of the afterlife. I don’t grant that.

That’s fine and all, but calling God “Good” is no longer praise then. Are you willing to give up calling God Good? -ATB If you grant that my premise is true, than the concept “good” is logically entailed in the concept of God. In those circumstances, I’d be more than happy to stop calling God good and go to calling him “godly.” They would mean the same thing. Unfortunately…

…that wouldn’t help us grasp the nature of God well at all. There are a good many concepts that would simply become “godly.” The existence of words that describe aspects of God’s exemplary nature is for our benefit, not God’s.

Just to be clear, you are saying that the command to kill every child of a tribe with a sword — is only sometimes wrong. If Hitler commands it, it’s wrong. If God commands it, it’s the actions of a supremely moral being, and praiseworthy.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I am saying is that the standard by which you make the judgement, “anytime a ‘non-combatant’ dies purposefully it is immoral” is a modern standard, quite outside the realm of the story in the Old Testament. Btw…Hitler was an atheist. Pol Pot…name a genocide in the 20th century and it can be rightly laid at the feet of atheism.

Let me cut to the chase with you here, BUM. Dancing makes me tired. I do not grant that your statement about genocide says anything important about the morality of God or people at all beyond, “Our Society does not look on this practice with favor, therefore it is immoral.” Can you prove that this statement is objectively true beyond a pack instinct? On what basis do you decide morality?

By the way, there’s a better way to make a case about genocide than the Israelites going into Canaan. If you really wanted to push this hard, why not go back to Noah? God in that story didn’t just destroy humanity (save 8 people), he also destroyed all life on earth. Why not go there rather than the story of the possession of Canaan? Would make things simpler, it would seem.

”name a genocide in the 20th century and it can be rightly laid at the feet of atheism.” Srebrenica anyone? Oh, for the record, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Isn’t the whole ”he was an atheist!” thing getting really old now?

Hitler was a Roman-Catholic in the same way I’m a German: by heritage, not by conviction. He openly wrote against the dictates of the faith and what beliefs he did have were not Christian in any orthodox sense of the word. If you want to call him a deist, that’d be alright with me, but calling him a Christian is a gargantuan stretch.

What is strange to me is that you seem to keep wanting to say that genocide is wrong… But you won’t say that genocide is wrong as a principle, or as a rule. I figured we could come to a consensus here, because I think genocide is wrong — and I’ll condemn every instance of it. “A genocide was commanded — is this moral?” Bum: “No!” Stealth: “Depends, who ordered it?”

You’ve mischaracterized my response here, and ignored the most salient point I have to make on this issue. By what basis do you “condemn every instance of genocide?” What informs that decision? Unless you have a solid base to draw this from, every statement you make about morality reduces to, “I like X better than Y, therefore X is wrong.”

The basis by which you stand in judgment of God on this issue is from your own frame of reference, and from an entirely humanistic point of view, where this life is the end of all that is and could ever be. By that basis, any kind of killing, including war itself, is immoral. But what if that is the wrong frame of reference? The wrong basis? What if there is a divine prerogative?

Further, what if the basis for morality proceeds FROM God? What if the philosophical capital by which you are attempting to value life comes from the very being you now stand judging? If God made life, it is certainly inside his prerogative to determine what is moral in relation to how those beings should behave relative to one another and what constitutes morality.

If it is true that the standard proceeds from God, than what is relative is not God’s standard, but the cultural perspective by which you stand in judgment of him and the construct which he created. In that light, the relativity resides not in the Christian, but in your critique of morality–it is God who does not change, not us.

You’re in real trouble if you want to claim that humans can’t know what’s good or not independent what God claims. How did you decide that God was good? If we’re helpless babes in the forest, you flipped a coin and followed God instead of Satan. You can’t claim that that’s a basis for knowing anything. You just randomly chose.

LMFAOROF @ StealthPudge – you’re never going to be able to morally justify g0dd’s order to slaughter an entire population of people. Of course I can see how a christian would get around this problem. g0dd ORDERED the genocide but did not kill the people himself so his hands are clean…kinda like Charles Manson in the Tate murders.

I don’t know how Biblical literalists are able to WORSHIP AND PRAISE the God portrayed in the Bible. Much of the Bible does NOT portray a good, or ethcial God. Many aspects of the Judeo-Christian God really can’t be reconciled with the Christian notion of an omnibenevolent deity without some heavy theological gymnastics being involved. I applaud you for your superior logic, A Thinking BUM

You’re in real trouble if you want to claim that humans can’t know what’s good or not independent what God claims. -ATB Where did I claim that again? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. And you still haven’t answered my question: Where did you get your morality from? What is it grounded in, these lofty precepts?

As for your assumption about me writing off logic and reason, I’ve done nothing of the kind. I simply suggest that these constructs were instated by God in order to help us see and understand the nature of the world we live in. In other words, these logical principles are from God. (And a deist would go further and say that the principles ARE god.) I’m not arguing for an unknowable reality.

As for Tak and kitten, I haven’t seen anything in your witty, smug and acidic responses that looks anything like a claim that I could address, other than saying this. I’m not uncomfortable with saying that God is alright with killing noncombatants in that time and that place. That’s your obstacle, not mine. I’ve already commented on that. As God’s command, he is as responsible as any.

Where I would differ is not in the placement of blame but in the assumption that something transpired which was blameworthy. I completely reject the concept that a military action thousands of years before now carries the same moral implications as a genocide in the modern world. If we must go somewhere and you all insist on ignoring the most important point, that might be something to address.

By the way, I wouldn’t hold other nations of the period accountable for similar behavior. I would say that the ethical behaviors of that day were substantially different not because of the nature of the activity, but because of the nature of what they deemed moral. In other words, cultures always have subjective morality. As for God, I’m ok with a God who is culturally aware.

Just because it’s accepted for whatever reason in some place or time or because some voice in someone’s head told him to do it, that doesn’t make genocide morally ok. It seems Pudge has chosen a horn of Euthyphro’s dillema & decided – a thing is moral because g0dd commands it. Scary deity you’ve got there Pudge, glad it’s not real. 😛

I always thought that “Thou shalt not kill” was pretty clear.

The concept that genocide is always wrong is a development entirely new to ethical constructs since 1900. Before that development, genocide was an accepted instrument of war. I reject the notion that because our definition of morality has changed to rule out genocide that therefore genocide is therefore always, and always has been, wrong. It is our ethic which is relative in that regard.

If we are going to judge anything by that newer, modern (or postmodern if you prefer) standard, we would likely declare every act of warfare before 1900 ethically bankrupt. While there are many that would likely feel comfortable doing that (while stroking their own ego and preferences all the while), I’m not. I’d rather discuss the implications of that idea and what informs it first.

By the way, this entire problem is capsulized in your definition of genocide. From your earlier entry, you wrote, Bum… “This is genocide. Kill all of the men and women, and even the children and infants! It isn’t implied that even the infants should be killed, it is stated boldly.” I’m not sure that annihilating a village or a settlement is the same as genocide.

Genocide would seem to me to be a systematic program for the extermination of an entire people group. I don’t think that command to destroy a group of Amalekites is the same as a systematic program for the destruction of all of Amalek, and I would likely argue from the context of the verse that this extermination is geared towards those who withheld supplies, not the entire nation.

So, you’re posing a false dilemma for the Christian. The question is more about God not adhering to the Geneva Convention or modern definitions of who “combatants” are than it is a question of genocide. Still, the argument form is clever and you might actually confuse someone into falling into your trap. Unfortunately, you’ve not proven much by that, beyond a lack of education in a person.

StealthPudge – Answer me this: In the Bible, are there any instances where an innocent person is unnecessarily murdered either directly by God or as a result of one of God’s commands?

I’d be happy to answer, An Atheist, if you could tell me what you mean by innocent. I believe in original sin, so any definition of innocence I’d write would start with the statement, “There is none righteous, no not one, who does what is right and never sins.” By that basis, at least in one sense I could say that God never kills an innocent…because there’s no such thing.

Also, the question of necessity is a murky one. Is necessity the opposite of gratuity, or something else? Are you intending to mean that it was someone who didn’t “need” to die? I’m honestly not trying to evade the question, I just want to make sure I understand before I posit an answer.

To make a good faith effort at what I “think” the question is referring to, I can think of a couple cases where the victims of severe punishments directly from God, at first glance appear to be unjust. One is the example of Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6, who was instantly struck dead by God for trying to save the Ark from falling off the cart carrying it.

Another example might be the deaths of Job’s children in Job 1. Their crime was that apparently their father had gather Satan’s attention. Interestingly, that story seems to indicate that the final decision to allow the children to die was God’s, not Satan’s. I’ve already mentioned the flood narrative. There are other examples that could be brought.

The question that remains in these instances then, is whether or not these people were innocent, and whether their deaths were necessary. I suspect that this is the place where my conception of morality would vary greatly from what a typical atheist (or non-Christian, for that matter) might suggest. To tip my hand I’d say that an appearance of injustice is not itself an injustice.

“Because I acknowledge that God is the source of morality, it is a logically impossibility for God to act immorally.” It’s interesting that literally anything that Satan does, can, or would do; if God did the EXACT SAME THING, it would not be immoral by your worldview. There is nothing that Satan could do that was evil enough, that you would turn around praise as good if it turned out that it was actually God that did the same thing. For every action, what determines if it’s moral or not in your view, is the name of the agent that committed it. Seriously, how did you determine that God was good and praiseworthy? Because He said so? Wouldn’t Satan say the exact same thing about himself? How did you determine that God was good, and Satan was evil?

No need to overcomplicated this. An innocent victim is a person who suffers and dies through no fault of his or her own and undeservedly. When a group of children are struck dead for making fun of Elisha/Elijah’s (can’t remember which one) bald head – it seems to me that the punishment is grossly out of proportion to the offense. Or, we can point to all the innocent Egyptian first born children who ‘had’ to die simply because Yahweh wished to make a point to the Pharaoh (who’s heart He had hardened anyway). The thought that you could be sitting there right now and be preparing to actually justify these clearly immoral acts as ‘somehow’ justified deeply disturbs me.

First, To An Atheist: I really do think that the entire matter turns on what you mean by innocent, and also the assumption about death being the worst of all possible ends. In my view, any human scale of innocence will fall short of what would be required to label someone as “not worthy of punishment.” Likewise, I don’t see death as a punishment. Death is neutral–God made life and takes it.

There is really very little “somehow” justification involved. The question of justification to human beings is among the least important question we could ask. A more important question, from my view, is how we could justify our knowingly wrongful acts to God. As for this being disturbing, I wholeheartedly agree. But I don’t think that my discomfort is a disqualifier for its veracity.

Next, for you, Bum. The difference between God and Satan as I would describe it is not as rigidly dualistic as you’ve suggested here. I haven’t mentioned Satan in any way here other than in response to An’s question about examples. God and Satan are not opposites. They are not equal in bearing, or nature or power. I would suggest more of a privation view of Satan’s evil activities.

In fact, there’s really very little need to bring Satan into a discussion on my view on morality at all. In the example I made from Job regarding his children, God admits that he was the one responsible for the death of Job’s children. He does say it was at Satan’s behest, but that doesn’t simplify the matter–it only makes it murkier in one sense. But it does emphasize the sovereignty of God.

In other words, in the case of the death of Job’s children, God was responsible, not Satan. It says as much. The children’s crime in this case is non-existent. The passage mentions specifically that Job was careful to offer the correct sacrifices beyond the call of duty to make sure that kids were covered, “just in case.” Their sole crime was being Job’s offspring.

This is one of the most egregious examples of the supposed issue at hand here. But it is also at that point that whole issue becomes clearest. Death is not in the world because of God’s vindictiveness or evil or bloodthirsty nature, but because of the result of human agency: The world as it was changed at the Fall, in my view, rendering the broken world we now see, where death exists at all.

It might be broken down thusly: 1. A world was created from the will and effort of a being (God) who made a world entirely consistent with his own nature–whereby everything contained in this world that was good or praiseworthy was a direct result of the creative work of God. Death doesn’t exist in this realm. 2. God created (at least) one being capable of choosing to violate that creation.

3. These free agents had the opportunity to adhere to the standard given, in which case everything would remain, or violate the standard given (there was originally only one), in which case death would result. 4. Those agents chose the option by which death resulted. 5. The nature of the world changed as a result of this choice, and death became rampant in the world.

6. As physical and spiritual descendents of the beings who made this choice (no matter how long ago it was), we are subject to the same consequence because of both the changes in the world and because the original choice to transgress the standard was made by our family. (e.g. There is no such thing as a “truly” innocent person)

A couple of by the ways. I still haven’t heard where the basis for a “non-relativistic” morality might be found. Also. In regards to your thought experiment about God acting like Satan and vice versa: You’ve mixed up the origination point. The reason God is God is because of the way he acts, not because of what he declares to be moral. In other words, morality proceeds from God.

It is not created by Him. It IS him. For God to act like Satan would be like saying that A=B. Satan, for his part, acts as a free agent to confound and twist the definition of who God is and how he operates in order to obscure people from seeing God as He is, and, by extension what morality is. This is the basis for all of his evil. “Accuser” is how this then functions.

I would also like to suggest a change in tack in this discussion. I’m quite sure I haven’t answered your critiques about God and morality through this interaction. However, I do think I’ve at least a possibly plausible case, even though some may find it insufficient or repugnant. What we have NOT heard, to this point is a suggestion of an ethic that would replace this from an atheist view.

I would very much like to see an exposition of the atheist ethic in this regard, including a point by point exposition of the ways the morality of God as expressed in the Bible (no one need assume God actually exists to make a critique of this kind) fails to live up to this superior atheistic or secular ethic. A couple of requests, though.

1. I would like to know where this ethic is grounded that it might fairly be called “objective” and fairly drawn from sources which do not posit the existence of (a) deity(ies). In other words, constructing an alternative ethic ought to come from a tradition which does not posit divinity so that it may be fairly called “athiestic” or “secular.”

2. If this ethic is to suggest some kind of “transgression” (or, to put it alternately, “people ought not _______”) I would like to hear where this definition of transgression would come from, and how it might be suggested that such a definition could be reached objectively without invoking personal preference. (so that it may be fairly called objective).

3. If a word involving comparison to a standard is invoked (“it is BETTER to do X than Y,” or “this is the HIGHEST moral imperative.”), I would like to know how the word is being used and where the standard being invoked comes from, again so that it is clearly distinct from personal preference.

To restate and clarify, I have no ill intent for making this request. It seems to me that we might debate tangential points about my view of Christian ethics until we are blue in the face for a good long time without anyone every actually getting a complete sense for what another alterative might be. Having points by which we could say, “These are the differences between the views” might help.

Having outlined a/the secular/atheistic view, there would then be a basis to say that the morality expressed in the Old Testament (as I have presented it in pieces here) was qualitatively different than the morality of the author without debating or splitting hairs: we might then just say, “The two views are different in this respect,” and discuss why we thought one was better than another.

Going through the notes again, I saw Lincoln’s short note about “You shall not kill.” That’s actually an interesting point. The command in the decalogue is better rendered, “You shall not murder,” that a total prohibition from killing. I don’t think that killing someone in a battle or two people groups fighting is equivalent to murder taking place.

“the assumption about death being the worst of all possible ends.” I am note assuming that death is the worst of all possible ends, only that it is in many cases, undesirable. You seem to disagree, citing that death is neutral. If that is the case, then you should not ever be concerned about innocent (by innocent I do not mean sinless or morally perfect) people dying. Such a view, in my opinion, is not one that easily promotes life. That’s part of what I find disturbing.

As for the veracity, that’s almost laughable. You simply define God as good and move on – without any justification for making such a move. God could be described as a complete monster – jealous, vengeful, angry, murderous, etc – which He is – and this in your view is “good” by mere definition. If that is the definition of good, then I submit that the word ceases to become useful and that we mustadmit that we are incapable of making such judgments. God could command that “thou shalt not murder” and that “thou shalt not commit adultery” in one sentence and then order the men and children of an entire nation murdered and their women raped in the next – and both the commandments and the actions in your view would be equally good. Thankfully, I completely reject that view.

Actually, I’m fine with inter-racial marriages.

I apologize for the delay, I was gone for the weekend. An: If you’re willing to stipulate that our definition of innocent is not equivalent to morally perfect, than the discussion could continue. I would say that life IS valuable, because life is given from God and it is the means by which we encounter the world God created. To say that death is neutral is not necessarily to devalue life.

As for just blindly asserting that God is good, that’s not what I’ve done. I’m starting from my origination point, which I believe was created by God (for both reasons of faith and reasons of logic). If God exists, we can then discuss how we might know Him. I have not blindly asserted anything, my labeling of God as good is because of the world that obtains.

In other words, in this world (which I believe can logically attributed to God’s creative activity), certain principles obtain. We can know God through these principles in the same way that we can learn about an artist through their artifices. Because of the way this world was (and is) I call God good. But the world is good because God made it, thus the good I see proceeds from God.

There is nothing about that progression that is illogical or difficult to prove, if my propositions are true. You may disagree with the propositions, but that’s not what you’ve taken issue with here–you’re caricaturing my view as a “just thus” which is repeatedly what I’ve attempted (apparently unsuccessfully) to respond to.

That’s because you are unsuccessful. You start with God as creator. Okay, let’s run with that. Then you assert that the world is good and therefore God is good. How do you make this initial judgment that the world is good? On what basis is the world good? Then you say that God is good because the world is good and, finally, good is whatever God does. So essentially God is good because God is good,or good is God or something like that. But if good is defined by God then you had no basis for judging the world good in the first place. For all practical purposes you might as well be simply defining God as good. So my objections still stand. God could command seemingly terrible acts and this, according to you, must be good. God could issue inconsistent or contrary commands, like do not commit adultery but rape the women of nation X, and both are necessarily good. So you see, it’s not just death. There’s rape, slavery, and the denigration of women, to name just a few. This is a disgusting system of morals if I ever saw one. As rational human beings, we are much better than reducing ourselves to defending heinous acts committed by gods in ancient stories.

The basis you’re using to make those judgments about the nature about humanity and the value of life are from the very system you’re criticizing. As for being circular. It is not. There are many things in this world which are good. Even you must admit this, or having life wouldn’t be preferable to death. By what basis are they called good?

Again, I offer up the challenge. Where does this idea of better come from our a totally naturalistic viewpoint? Where does the word “better” get grounded in this “less disgusting” view of ethics? I’ve heard lots of allegations.

It is logically impossible for God to command what you’ve suggested, in the same way that yellow does not equal blue or black. I also find it fascinating that rather than taking an atheistic view now, the diatribe tends towards anger towards a god that purportedly doesn’t exist, with a tagline about a supposedly ancient and cruel God.

The real problem in the debate appears to be what we mean by God. The god you’re suggesting is a lot more like a human than a transcendent being. I could argue for a deistic God of logical principles who would also be the same things I’ve already tried to say about God, and morality would spring from them the exact same way. Likewise, that God would be good, and for the same reason.

As for my argument that creation demonstrates that God is good, are you arguing that the world is terrible and therefore God can’t be good? Where would the basis for labeling it evil come from? Wouldn’t that be the same basis, e.g. “I don’t like the world, therefore it’s evil.” “Because the world is evil, God, if he exists, must be evil.” How is that objective?

“The basis you’re using to make those judgments about the nature about humanity and the value of life are from the very system you’re criticizing.” You’ll need to clarify this because I am not sure what you mean here. Here’s the problem the way I see it: First you make a value judgment – you judge that the world is good and then proceed to define good as synonymous with God. But thenon what basis are you judging that the world is good in the first place? Regardless of the merits or demerits of my own naturalistic system of ethics, what you seem to be proposing is clearly bad. Aside from the issue of how we can even know what God actually says/commands, it essentially removes from us the ability to make moral judgments, because now good is defined as whatever God says and does. If God commands genocide in the Bible that’s fine. But then on what basis do we judge Hitler bad for commanding genocide? Because God didn’t order it? How do we know? This is a recipe for disaster.

“It is logically impossible for God to command what you’ve suggested, in the same way that yellow does not equal blue or black.” Logically impossible to command what? My suggestions come from the Bible! God issues a command against adultery in Exodus, but later gives the okay for Israel’s army to rape women after they have killed the men and children. And you have forced yourself into a position where both the command against adultery and the command to rape women (surely some of these invaders were married?) are both equally good! Yes, I will say that that’s disgusting. “I also find it fascinating that rather than taking an atheistic view now, the diatribe tends towards anger towards a god that purportedly doesn’t exist, with a tagline about a supposedly ancient and cruel God.” My diatribe is not against a supposedly ancient and cruel god that I believe does not exist. My problem is with people who defend this supposedly ancient and cruel god today and then (as some do) argue that they have the moral high ground (or at least question how I am the one who could possibly have a basis for morality).

“The real problem in the debate appears to be what we mean by God. The god you’re suggesting is a lot more like a human than a transcendent being.” I am not suggesting this god. This god, which I agree is a lot more like a human, is the same god that is described in the Jewish scriptures or the Old Testament – which Christians generally concede are divinely inspired and an accurate portrayal ofthe so-called Christian God. Given your apparent defense of the anthropomorphic tribal deity Yahweh in these notes, I presume that you must feel the same way. The fact of the matter is, a deistic god of logical principles is not the God of the Bible. If you want to become a deist, then we can change the discussion.

“As for my argument that creation demonstrates that God is good, are you arguing that the world is terrible and therefore God can’t be good?” The world isn’t terrible, but it isn’t all-good, either. I generally like the world. But I recognize that it is not a perfect or necessarily good ‘creation’. There is much that is troubling about it and none of that his difficult to see or understand.

Quickly, An. I do not say that because morality proceeds from God that people are somehow not responsible for the decisions they make. In fact, the entire nature of “divine command” ethics is that God elucidates exactly which activities are moral and which are not in the Scriptures. People ARE morally responsible, because the standards have been imparted to them.

As for the “moral high ground,” I sure hope that’s not the way I’m coming off. All I’m trying to argue is that the system is logically consistent and one of a good many possible options. I believe the strength of the system is that it is more objective than various systems suggested by humans for their own benefit. It can fairly be called objective because the standard wasn’t created by people.

That of course, leads to questions about where the conception or concept of God came from and whether or not God was a construct created by humanity. If we grant (and I typically would not) that God WAS a construct made by humans, that still doesn’t make it less objective than a system which everyone would acknowledge is created by people for people.

As for the “borrowed capital” argument I made above, I mean exactly that. The view of humanity that lead to the point where people are made in God’s image and intrinsically valuable springs from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Slavery, masogyny and all the other crimes laid at the feet of modern Christianity are done, to one extent wrongly, because the legacy Christianity left was to make…

…the modern developments in “the intrinsic value of life” possible. And that is something I can prove very easily from a variety of sources, some of them atheistic. Ironically, these same atheistic ethics often turn back on the source of these lofty precepts they’ve inherited by criticizing the means by which they came. That is the point I was attempting to make.

Hopefully your promised entry will more adequately address the points that I raised here in these notes.