DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Big Bang and creation of the universe
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 651 - 675 of 810, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/10/2006 03:04:42 PM · #651
Originally posted by milo655321:

If I saw an Amorite boy tomorrow, would it be moral for me to kill him?


I'll squish this and Shannon's slavery comment in this reply. The The answer to your question is, "not likely". An easy analogy which could explain my answer is that we condone (as a society) the killing of a murderer on death row, but don't condone the killing of that same murderer by the victim's loved one hours after the crime has been committed. Christian Ethics and Morals can be just as situational as any other ethical system.

I won't fall into the trap of saying God's actions are Right in some circumstances and wrong in others because that means God is being held accountable to some separate system of ethical measure. No separate system exists.

Shannon, we condone slavery in our own society. It's called Wal-Mart. The slavery of biblical days can be thought of much closer to indentured servitude rather than the chattel slavery of our country's infancy.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 15:06:32.
08/10/2006 03:10:54 PM · #652
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll squish this and Shannon's slavery comment in this reply. The answer to your question is, "not likely". An easy analogy which could explain my answer is that we condone (as a society) the killing of a murderer on death row, but don't condone the killing of that same murderer by the victim's loved one hours after the crime has been committed. Christian Ethics and Morals can be just as situational as any other ethical system.


But the killing of the Amorites was a commandment given by God which, by definition, is right and moral. You seem to be suggesting that we pick and choose which of God̢۪s commandments are right and moral. That morality is determined by society.
08/10/2006 03:18:39 PM · #653
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The slavery of biblical days can be thought of much closer to indentured servitude rather than the chattel slavery of our country's infancy.


In addition to what Milo said, I think you'd find that biblical slavery was AT BEST that same thing practiced in early America. Regardless, I doubt you'd find too many people these days who think indentured servitude is moral.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 15:19:38.
08/10/2006 03:42:36 PM · #654
Originally posted by milo655321:

But the killing of the Amorites was a commandment given by God which, by definition, is right and moral. You seem to be suggesting that we pick and choose which of God̢۪s commandments are right and moral. That morality is determined by society.


Killing the Amorites was moral at that time and place. God never said, always kill Amorites. I don't pick and choose, but I do realize that not all of God's commands pertain to each and every situation.
08/10/2006 03:43:47 PM · #655
Originally posted by scalvert:

In addition to what Milo said, I think you'd find that biblical slavery was AT BEST that same thing practiced in early America. Regardless, I doubt you'd find too many people these days who think indentured servitude is moral.


I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to show me some evidence. I don't believe your assertion that indentured servitude and chattel slavery are equal. I believe they are different and that between the two the first is more reasonable.

From your wikipedia..."Indentured servitude is not identical with involuntary servitude and slavery."

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 15:45:47.
08/10/2006 03:44:37 PM · #656
How are God's words being passed down now and who is in charge of deciphering it? In other words has God ask that anybody else be killed recently?
08/10/2006 03:47:20 PM · #657
Originally posted by yanko:

How are God's words being passed down now and who is in charge of deciphering it? In other words has God ask that anybody else be killed recently?


I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson is on the list somewhere...
08/10/2006 03:48:33 PM · #658
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Killing the Amorites was moral at that time and place. God never said, always kill Amorites. I don't pick and choose, but I do realize that not all of God's commands pertain to each and every situation.

So God̢۪s right and moral commands are situational and not universal. If all morality is defined by God, tomorrow God could say that stealing is right and moral and it would become right and moral. Correct?
08/10/2006 03:51:28 PM · #659
Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Killing the Amorites was moral at that time and place. God never said, always kill Amorites. I don't pick and choose, but I do realize that not all of God's commands pertain to each and every situation.

So God̢۪s right and moral commands are situational and not universal. If all morality is defined by God, tomorrow God could say that stealing is right and moral and it would become right and moral. Correct?


Yes and no. Some principles are universal, others are not. All are likely complicated. We could likely use different principles to describe "kill the Amorites".

Another benefit is God does not change, although I suppose he could. So while he COULD say stealing is OK tomorrow, he is not likely to do so by his own words.
08/10/2006 04:13:42 PM · #660
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

....God does not change, although I suppose he could. So while he COULD say stealing is OK tomorrow, he is not likely to do so by his own words.


So then killing Amorite children today should be fine.
08/10/2006 04:14:23 PM · #661
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"Indentured servitude is not identical with involuntary servitude and slavery."


I wasn't equating different forms of slavery. I was suggesting that even the milder indentured servitude would be considered immoral nowadays. While I could probably find references to the treatment of early slaves, I'm not sure it even matters- the point is that outright ownership of people is considered morally wrong by modern Western societies.
08/10/2006 04:14:46 PM · #662
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes and no. Some principles are universal, others are not. All are likely complicated. We could likely use different principles to describe "kill the Amorites".

I disagree. If, in fact, morality is defined by God who can change the definition of morality then there are no universal principles of morality as morality is totally dependant upon God. If God commands that certain types of killings are moral, as he has, then certain types of killings are moral as part of God̢۪s nature.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Another benefit is God does not change, although I suppose he could. So while he COULD say stealing is OK tomorrow, he is not likely to do so by his own words.

If God is perfect, then how could he change? If God is perfect, then how are his commands not part of that perfect nature? Killing male children Amorites is moral as part of God̢۪s perfect nature. If tomorrow God commands you to steal, stealing is moral as part of God̢۪s perfect nature. If it is no longer moral for Israelites to kill Amorites, God is guilty of the exact moral relativism which you previously criticized in atheism.
08/10/2006 04:17:56 PM · #663
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

....God does not change, although I suppose he could. So while he COULD say stealing is OK tomorrow, he is not likely to do so by his own words.


So then killing Amorite children today should be fine.


Twisting my words. I'm not quite sure how you guys can't see that we have situations where things apply and situations for when they don't. Don't we, as parents, deal with telling our kids that an action is ok in some circumstances and not in others?

Let me take a different slant. Because God is God, it is ok for him to kill Amorites. He made them after all. Does the Creator not have dominion over his Creation? That does not mean that it is OK for us to kill Amorites. We do not hold such a position of power.
08/10/2006 04:21:05 PM · #664
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"Indentured servitude is not identical with involuntary servitude and slavery."


I wasn't equating different forms of slavery. I was suggesting that even the milder indentured servitude would be considered immoral nowadays. While I could probably find references to the treatment of early slaves, I'm not sure it even matters- the point is that outright ownership of people is considered morally wrong by modern Western societies.


You do not understand indentured servitude. Nobody is owned. A contract is entered where people work in return for non-monetary benefits (room, board, etc). It is theoretically voluntary (although people may have no other choice but to enter into such a contract). The Jews even had a regular year (Jubilee) where slaves' contracts were cancelled and they were freed of their obligation. A "bond servent" was someone who willing chose to serve even after their obligation was fulfilled. These terms make no sense in chattel slavery where the person is owned in the same way a car is owned. Indentured servitude is far from considered morally wrong by Western Soceities. We have sophisticated forms of it all around us.
08/10/2006 04:27:04 PM · #665
Originally posted by milo655321:


I disagree. If, in fact, morality is defined by God who can change the definition of morality then there are no universal principles of morality as morality is totally dependant upon God. If God commands that certain types of killings are moral, as he has, then certain types of killings are moral as part of God̢۪s nature.



There is no universal principles of morality outside God. Period.
08/10/2006 04:31:11 PM · #666
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Killing the Amorites was moral at that time and place.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

God does not change


I'm twisting nothing. In one breath you suggest God says it's OK to do something at one time and place, but not at others. Then you follow that with God doesn't change. Dude, pick one.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Because God is God, it is ok for him to kill Amorites. That does not mean that it is OK for us to kill Amorites.


I thought he told the Isrealites to do it. This wasn't a remote smiting from above.
08/10/2006 04:39:10 PM · #667
Shannon, I can pick both. Do you think society is two-faced when it condones capital punishment but does not condone vigilante revenge?
08/10/2006 04:39:52 PM · #668
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody is owned.


"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
08/10/2006 04:44:12 PM · #669
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is no universal principles of morality outside God. Period.

Then God̢۪s morality, and therefore all morality, is relative and subject to the whims of a changing God.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 16:44:44.
08/10/2006 04:44:40 PM · #670
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Shannon, I can pick both. Do you think society is two-faced when it condones capital punishment but does not condone vigilante revenge?


You can, but it's kinda hard to back up one claim with 'it was OK then, but not OK now,' and then claim the definitions of OK never change.

I would view capital punishment as a matter of practicality. It's immoral for people to kill other people, but perhaps equally immoral not to eliminate a known killer to protect others or deter future killers. Two-faced? Maybe so.

Message edited by author 2006-08-10 16:45:36.
08/10/2006 04:51:02 PM · #671
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Nobody is owned.


"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)


The word is more often translated as "money" or "silver". Your chattel interpretation seems contradictory. Why would you be punished for killing your own property? It seems to me like they are saying that if the servent dies and it's not really known if it was caused by the beating or not the man shouldn't be punished because he's already being punished enough by losing whatever obligation the servent owed him. I don't know, it is an interesting passage, but one that needs to be read in the larger context. Single verses are pulled from the Bible to say a whole lot of things...
08/10/2006 04:59:06 PM · #672
Looks to me like you can beat a slave all you want as long as you don't kill him because he belongs to you. If you DO kill him, then you should be punished (which runs counter to the idea that you've already been punished for losing income).

BTW- I don't know about you, but this isn't making me very productive at work today. :-/
08/10/2006 05:00:51 PM · #673
Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is no universal principles of morality outside God. Period.

Then God̢۪s morality, and therefore all morality, is relative and subject to the whims of a changing God.


It would be true if God were changing.

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."
James 1:17

""I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."
Malachi 3:6

"Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath."
Hebrews 6:17

I could go on, but I think this shows Christians believe God is unchanging.
08/10/2006 05:01:49 PM · #674
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Single verses are pulled from the Bible to say a whole lot of things...

Like the existence of God?

If the Bible is the literal and perfect Truth as given directly by God to the prophets (to the bards, to the scribes, to the translators into Greek, to the translators into Latin, to the translators into English) then every part of it must also be perfect, for the presence of an imperfect part necessarily renders the whole imperfect.

If different passages seem to "prove" opposite and contradictory positions, does not that inconsistency cause just the slightest suspicion that the whole book may be somewhat less than "perfect?"
08/10/2006 05:02:01 PM · #675
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could go on, but I think this shows Christians believe God is unchanging.


Then it's still moral for Israelites to kill male child Amorites.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 08:37:48 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 08:37:48 AM EDT.