# Ravi Zacharias's thoughts on moral law



## Madsnooker (May 9, 2012)

I love the way Ravi Zacharias thinks. I think comming from an athiest family and then putting his brilliant mind to what having a moral law really means, has given him the ability to articulate the meaning of moral law better than anyone I have ever heard. I think this is precisely why he now struggles to get takers in debating moral law at places like Harvard where he regularly speaks.

This is from a daily devotional from "a slice of infinity" which is Ravi's site.


Nonsense or New Life?

 Is the Christian faith intellectual nonsense? Does God really transform us?



"If God exists and takes an interest in the affairs of human beings, his will is not inscrutable," writes Sam Harris about the 2004 tsunami in Letter to a Christian Nation. "The only thing inscrutable here is that so many otherwise rational men and women can deny the unmitigated horror of these events and think this is the height of moral wisdom."(1) In his article "God's Dupes," Harris argues, "Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music."(2) Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins similarly suggests that the idea of God is a virus, and we need to find software to eradicate it. Somehow if we can expunge the virus that led us to think this way, we will be purified and rid of this bedeviling notion of God, good, and evil.(3) Along with a few others, these  atheists call for the banishment of all religious belief. "Away with this nonsense" is their battle cry. In return, they promise a world of new hope and unlimited horizons once we have shed this delusion of God.



I have news for them, however—news to the contrary. The reality is that the emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. Furthermore, one would like to ask Dawkins: Are we morally bound to remove that virus? Somehow he himself is, of course, free from the virus and can therefore input our moral data.



In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral law giver) by introducing terms like "evolutionary ethics."  The one  who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying God exists. Now one may wonder: Why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he questions always involves the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.



In reality, our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet the truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist  only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say "no." We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument.



Of course, the world does not understand what the absoluteness of the moral law is all about. Some get caught, some don’t get caught. Yet who of us would like our hearts exposed on the front page of the newspaper today?  Have there not been days and hours when like the apostle Paul, you’ve struggled within yourself, and said, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.... What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:15, 24). Each of us knows this tension and conflict within if we are honest with ourselves.



In that spirit, we ought to take time to reflect seriously upon the question, "Has God truly wrought a miracle  in my life? Is my own heart proof of the supernatural intervention of God?" In the West where we go through seasons of new-fangled theologies, the whole question of "lordship" plagued our debates for some time as we asked, is there such a thing as a minimalist view of conversion?  "We said the prayer and that's it." Yet how can there be a minimalist view of conversion when conversion itself is a maximal work of God's grace? "Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). In a strange way we have minimized every sacred commitment and made it the lowest common denominator. What might my new birth mean to me? That is a question we seldom ask. Who was I before God's work in me, and who am I now?



The first entailment of coming to know the God of transformation is the new hungers and new pursuits that are planted within the human will. I well recall that dramatic change in my own way of thinking. There were new longings, new hopes, new  dreams, new fulfillments, but most noticeably a new will to do what was God's will. This new affection of heart—the love of God wrought in us through the Holy Spirit—expels all other old seductions and attractions. The one who knows Jesus Christ begins to see that her own misguided heart is impoverished and in need of constant submission to the will of the Lord—spiritual surrender. The hallmark of conversion is to see one's own spiritual poverty. Arrogance and conceit ought to be inimical to the life of the believer. A deep awareness of one's own new hungers and longings is a convincing witness both to God and God's grace within.







Ravi Zacharias is founder and chairman of the board of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.





(1) Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006), 48.
(2) Sam Harris, "God’s Dupes," The Los Angeles Times (March 15, 2007). Article available at http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/gods-dupes1/
(3)
 Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind," 1992 Voltaire Lecture (London: British Humanist Association, 1993), 9.







Just wondering what others thoughts are on what he says here about moral law?


----------



## stringmusic (May 9, 2012)

I haven't read your whole post yet, about to get off work, will read it in the moring. Most in here will tell you, I'm a huge Ravi fan. Thanks for posting this, hopefully it will turn into a good discussion.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2012)

Wise words from a wise man. But it is all centered around a being that has not and cannot be proved to exist.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2012)

I don't understand why some are so impressed. Theses arguments are neither new or persuasive.


----------



## Asath (May 9, 2012)

Starting from the first premise, "If God exists . . .," which is assumptive, undemonstrated, and unproven --

The balance of the argument proceeds -- largely by vilifying opposition, rather than by making a single connected point -- 

And ending with the conclusion, "A deep awareness of one's own new hungers and longings is a convincing witness both to God and God's grace within,"  
One ends up walking away with the feeling that they've just been subjected to a Fast Food advertisement, and has a sudden unreasonable hankering for a Chalupa.

Honestly -- reread the piece, and everytime you run into a 'God' reference, replace it in your mind with 'Taco Bell.'

It is downright spooky.

If this fella isn't working for Madison Avenue, he's clearly missed a nearly honest means of making a living.


----------



## Asath (May 9, 2012)

'Why do you actually need a Chalupa giver if you have a Chalupa?'

' In a nutshell, positing a Chalupa without a Chalupa giver would be equivalent to raising the question of Chalupas without a questioner.'

' So you cannot have a Chalupa unless the Chalupa ITSELF is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the Chalupa itself is valued. And that person can only be TACO BELL!.'

Hilarious.  

Nice comedic relief, dude.  Thanks.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I don't understand why some are so impressed. Theses arguments are neither new or persuasive.



Maybe you have him and his arguments all figured out, but as you know, he is the keynote speaker at some of the most intellectual universities in the world, they still got some learning to do.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> 'Why do you actually need a Chalupa giver if you have a Chalupa?'
> 
> ' In a nutshell, positing a Chalupa without a Chalupa giver would be equivalent to raising the question of Chalupas without a questioner.'
> 
> ...



A chulupa has nothing to do with personhood. 

Is this the best you and Atlas got on this argument? A remark on the impression he makes on people and a joke about replacing the word God with a taco?


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> Starting from the first premise, "If God exists . . .," which is assumptive, undemonstrated, and unproven --



....."writes Sam Harris about the 2004 tsunami in Letter to a Christian Nation"

That is not the premise of the article, it was a quote from Sam Harris' book.


----------



## Madsnooker (May 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> 'Why do you actually need a Chalupa giver if you have a Chalupa?'
> 
> ' In a nutshell, positing a Chalupa without a Chalupa giver would be equivalent to raising the question of Chalupas without a questioner.'
> 
> ...



As any of you know I don't debate here and don't post much as that is not something I feel lead to do. However, I drop in from time to time and although I don't agree with your overall stance, I have admired your ability to put your thoughts into words.

HOWEVER, this is not one of them and actually quite contrary. To use taco bell as your analogy is simply laughable in regards to moral law and the POINT Ravi is making which you have clearly missed.

As pointed out, the most brilliant minds in the world debate Ravi and Ravi is invited to speak at Havard and other schools around the world and even those that disagree with his stance on God, do not deny his brilliant mind. Although in your mind what he said was laughable, I doubt you want to debate him face to face as I'm confident he will take you to places your mind start shuting down becuase you simply can't comprehend what he is saying. If that is not the case, than maybe you just had a weak moment in your elementary response to his points about moral law and what moral law means.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 10, 2012)

Is there a such thing as ABSOLUTE moral law?  Maybe, maybe not.  

For the sake of argument, let's assume there is such a thing as an absolute moral law.  This would mean that there are certain actions that are ALWAYS, ALWAYS immoral.  My question to the Christian would be, what are these acts that are ALWAYS immoral?

Before you answer, you should probably take a hard look at the Bible and make sure that your "Absolute Moral Law-Giver" hasn't violated any of these absolute moral laws in your holy scripture.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Is there a such thing as ABSOLUTE moral law?  Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's assume there is such a thing as an absolute moral law.  This would mean that there are certain actions that are ALWAYS, ALWAYS immoral.  My question to the Christian would be, what are these acts that are ALWAYS immoral?
> 
> Before you answer, you should probably take a hard look at the Bible and make sure that your "Absolute Moral Law-Giver" hasn't violated any of these absolute moral laws in your holy scripture.



Is the Absolute moral law Giver also the Absolute moral Judge and justice Provider for that law? If for the sake of argument you will assume that, then I will answer the question. If not, and you want to play god yourself, by judging the Judge, the go right ahead, but those types of conversations usually don't go anywhere.

How about we go with the example that Ravi used in the article,"to mutilate babies for entertainment".


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe you have him and his arguments all figured out, but as you know, he is the keynote speaker at some of the most intellectual universities in the world, they still got some learning to do.



Maybe he's just the best intellectual christians can come up with?


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> As pointed out, the most brilliant minds in the world debate Ravi and Ravi is invited to speak at Havard and other schools around the world and even those that disagree with his stance on God, do not deny his brilliant mind.



Who has he debated?

Can you name a single argument he puts forward that isn't also put forward by other prominent apologists like William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza?


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is the Absolute moral law Giver also the Absolute moral Judge and justice Provider for that law?



Maybe so. But if that is the case and the judge violates his own "objective and absolute morality" that can only mean one of two things. Either the judge is himself guilty of immorality. Or... morality is subject to the whims of the judge and is neither absolute or objective.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How about we go with the example that Ravi used in the article,"to mutilate babies for entertainment".



Yes let's go with that example. Is it absolutely moral to mutilate the genitalia of infants? Is it absolutely moral to dash children against rocks? How about killing the first born of an entire nation? What about stoning disobedient children to death? Is that in keeping with objective and absolute morality?


----------



## dexrusjak (May 10, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yes let's go with that example. Is it absolutely moral to mutilate the genitalia of infants? Is it absolutely moral to dash children against rocks? How about killing the first born of an entire nation? What about stoning disobedient children to death? Is that in keeping with objective and absolute morality?



This.

If the god of the Bible is the absolute moral law-giver, then whatever that god commands would be moral -- including all the atrocities atlashunter mentions above.  

Here's just another example of double-standards and inconsistencies in the Bible.

God wiping out all firstborn Egyptian Children in the OT = morally good.
King Herod wiping out all infants when Jesus was born = morally reprehensible.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> This.
> 
> If the god of the Bible is the absolute moral law-giver, then whatever that god commands would be moral -- including all the atrocities atlashunter mentions above.
> 
> ...



The part in red is what you're missing. God is God, and made righteous judgements on the people of Egypt.

King Herod is a human, with no authority to make judgements of God.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Who has he debated?


He doesn't debate a lot, he does answer questions after most of his lectures from people of all backgrounds.



> Can you name a single argument he puts forward that isn't also put forward by other prominent apologists like William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza?



Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are all the same as well, theology and phylosophy have been going on a long time.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Or... morality is subject to the whims of the judge and is neither absolute or objective.






stringmusic said:


> The part in red is what you're missing. God is God, and made righteous judgements on the people of Egypt.
> 
> King Herod is a human, with no authority to make judgements of God.





Right, so "mutilating babies for entertainment" is neither absolute or objectively immoral. If God chooses to mutilate babies for entertainment, it's moral. If he instructs others (and who are you to say what he does or doesn't tell other people to do) to mutilate babies for entertainment that is perfectly moral in your view. In fact it would be positively immoral to disobey his command to mutilate babies would it not?

I think we are done here but since we're on this topic I think I'll post a separate thread concerning God's morality.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe he's just the best intellectual christians can come up with?



As oppose to Richard Dawkins?


----------



## dexrusjak (May 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The part in red is what you're missing. God is God, and made righteous judgements on the people of Egypt.
> 
> King Herod is a human, with no authority to make judgements of God.



In that case, morality is more about the WHO than the WHAT.  It doesn't matter what the action is.  If God does it or commands it, it's good.  If a human does it or commands it, it's bad.  So, if God instructs someone to bomb an abortion clinic, that's morally justifiable according to your worldview.  In fact, it's not only JUSTIFIABLE; it's also GOOD.

There's a serious problem with this line of thought.  You can't logically claim that moral absolutism exists and then in the next breath claim that a certain act is moral when "X" is true but immoral when "Y" is true.  If there is a moral ABSOLUTE, then the action in question is either ABSOLUTELY MORAL regardless of any variable, or it's ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL regardless of any variable.  WHO does the action is completely irrelevant.  If the WHO is not irrelevant, then the action is not a moral ABSOLUTE.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> He doesn't debate a lot, he does answer questions after most of his lectures from people of all backgrounds.



My question was directed at the guy who says Ravi debates with "the most brilliant minds in the world".




stringmusic said:


> Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are all the same as well, theology and phylosophy have been going on a long time.



Sure but I can also tell you the strengths and weaknesses of one compared to the other. We've heard these same arguments from other apologists. I'm just trying to understand the fascination with this particular one. What is it that is supposed to set him apart from the rest?


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> In that case, morality is more about the WHO than the WHAT.  It doesn't matter what the action is.  If God does it or commands it, it's good.  If a human does it or commands it, it's bad.  So, if God instructs someone to bomb an abortion clinic, that's morally justifiable according to your worldview.  In fact, it's not only JUSTIFIABLE; it's also GOOD.
> 
> There's a serious problem with this line of thought.  You can't logically claim that moral absolutism exists and then in the next breath claim that a certain act is moral when "X" is true but immoral whey "Y" is true.  If there is a moral ABSOLUTE, then the action in question is either ABSOLUTELY MORAL regardless of any variable, or it's ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL regardless of any variable.  WHO does the action is completely irrelevant.  If the WHO is not irrelevant, then the action is not a moral ABSOLUTE.



This is what divine command morality gets you.


----------



## Asath (May 12, 2012)

" . . . I'm confident he will take you to places your mind start shuting down becuase you simply can't comprehend what he is saying. If that is not the case, than maybe you just had a weak moment in your elementary response to his points about moral law and what moral law means."

Sir, if I may observe, the world around us is filled to capacity with 'eloquent' speakers of nonsense.  We suffer 'respected' intellectual authorities on the topic of Bigfoot.  If your area of expertise is a fiction, then nothing at all you say on the topic can be wrong.  

The first three words of this lecture, "If God exists . . .," contain the entire predicate of what is said next -- all else hinges on that thought.  But the predicate is invalid, undemonstrated, and dictated.

Buy that, and you are sold.  Question it, and you are free.

Please don't question my intellect by quoting the limits of your own.  There is no such thing as 'moral law,' so understanding it is a rather narrow pursuit, much like becoming an expert on unicorns.

Morality is, and has ever been, an evolving idea.  You will find, in your extensive reading and understanding, no doubt, in the ideas as recent as the 18th century, the routinely arranged marraiges of 13 year old girls.  You will find in the Bible itself justifications and explanations concerning slaves, and will find many of those same explanations being used  well into the 19th century.  A cursory glance around the planet you currently occupy will reveal societies that STILL cut off the hands of thieves, and condemn adulterous women (not men, you will note) to death by stoning.

I could go on, for endless paragraphs, but the point remains the same -- 'Morality' is simply a human construct that governs the behavior of individuals in the particular society into which they had the misfortune of being born.  But for a very few core constructs, basic to all survival, 'morality' has changed so often over the years and is even now so fundamentally different from society to society as to be revealed as an abstract rather than a given.

A 'Moral Law' would, by definition, be an absolute, that adheres no matter what.

Name one.


----------



## drippin' rock (May 12, 2012)

I was going to stay out of this one, but you HAD to bring up Bigfoot.  Just because you haven't seen one doesn't mean they aren't real!  I believe!


----------



## JFS (May 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How about we go with the example that Ravi used in the article,"to mutilate babies for entertainment".



Depends. Have they made fun of any bald people?


----------



## JFS (May 12, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Before you answer, you should probably take a hard look at the Bible and make sure that your "Absolute Moral Law-Giver" hasn't violated any of these absolute moral laws in your holy scripture.



It's pretty freaky what's actually in there

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Wise words from a wise man. But it is all centered around a being that has not and cannot be proved to exist.



Ravi could write a whole "true" article on how ""IF there were unicorns""....the price of gas would drop significantly because everyone could ride their flying one horned horse to work and drive the price of gasoline to pennies per gallon. He could go on and on and on, page after page explaining the benefits of using such a creature and how it would benefit our lives. Yet in the end, no matter how we would all agree that taking a unicorn to work would all save us $$$, the whole point is that no matter how much "truth" someone can interject into a totally fictitious made up scenario,,,it is still a made up scenario. Yeah, if somehow it could happen it would be a benefit, but the reality is that gas prices will be what they are because none of us are saddling up the one-horned pony and using it for transportation.

The people that use Gods name in 
("IF") factual scenarios make it seem real. That can be done with any made up character or substituted with something as ridiculous as a chalupa. As long as the majority of the scenario uses real places and things it is very easy to link it to a fictitious character to make it all seem believable. Most people fall for it especially if they need to fall for it.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But it is all centered around a being that has not and cannot be proved to exist.



Here is where your argument falls apart. Just because God has not proven His existence to you does in no way prove that He does not exist. He just doesn't exist for you.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Here is where your argument falls apart. Just because God has not proven His existence to you does in no way prove that He does not exist. He just doesn't exist for you.



well, no.
For an argument to fall apart there has to be truth to the contrary.
You can replace God with ANY other of the hundreds and thousands of made up beings or mystical creatures and "prove" them in the same manner. If that line of thought works for one then it surely has to work for all.

Gem, do you believe in all the other Gods based on the same criteria??


----------



## gemcgrew (May 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Gem, do you believe in all the other Gods based on the same criteria??



To deny that other gods exist would be foolish. Now whether that existence is just in one's imagination, is another thing.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> To deny that other gods exist would be foolish. Now whether that existence is just in one's imagination, is another thing.



I agree.....  lol


----------



## mtnwoman (May 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Here is where your argument falls apart. Just because God has not proven His existence to you does in no way prove that He does not exist. He just doesn't exist for you.


 

I agree with that....
*basically*


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> To deny that other gods exist would be foolish. Now whether that existence is just in one's imagination, is another thing.



Please elaborate further, you have me interested.


----------



## River Rambler (May 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Here is where your argument falls apart. Just because God has not proven His existence to you does in no way prove that He does not exist. He just doesn't exist for you.



He's proven His existence to me many, many times.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2012)

River Rambler said:


> He's proven His existence to me many, many times.



So have aliens to certain people.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 14, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Is there a such thing as ABSOLUTE moral law?  Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's assume there is such a thing as an absolute moral law.  This would mean that there are certain actions that are ALWAYS, ALWAYS immoral.  My question to the Christian would be, what are these acts that are ALWAYS immoral?
> 
> Before you answer, you should probably take a hard look at the Bible and make sure that your "Absolute Moral Law-Giver" hasn't violated any of these absolute moral laws in your holy scripture.



Anybody?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 15, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Anybody?



It appears from your statements that you think God is somehow subject to the laws He provided to govern His creation. God is self governing. Man is not a self governing creature. Man did not make himself.

The law is that by which God exposes and condemns our sin. The law tells us what sin is, it condemns the sinner. It can do nothing else. The law is bondage. Christ is freedom.

I may or may not have addressed your question. I may be misreading it.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 15, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> So have aliens to certain people.



I have recently encountered someone who is absolutely convinced that aliens have taken the moon away. He is not sure where they have hidden it. Apparently what we think is the moon now, is nothing more than a hologram.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It appears from your statements that you think God is somehow subject to the laws He provided to govern His creation. God is self governing. Man is not a self governing creature. Man did not make himself.
> 
> The law is that by which God exposes and condemns our sin. The law tells us what sin is, it condemns the sinner. It can do nothing else. The law is bondage. Christ is freedom.
> 
> I may or may not have addressed your question. I may be misreading it.



You're basically saying there are none.


----------



## Four (May 15, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The part in red is what you're missing. God is God, and made righteous judgements on the people of Egypt.
> 
> King Herod is a human, with no authority to make judgements of God.



That would make christian morals relative... if morality doesn't apply to god, then morals are relative to who you are.


----------



## JB0704 (May 15, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Anybody?



To any situation a Christian could bring up, there will be a counter point by somebody in here with a good mind for the hypothetical.

The best example is raping an infant.  Always immoral.  But, somebody is going to bring up the fact that in certain parts of Africa, they believe that raping virgins cures aids.  Thus, the curing of aids is "moral," making the immoral act of raping a child ok (I do not agree based on the lack of consent).

I would say depriving another human of rights, or causing harm to another individual, without consent, or fault, is always immoral.  I am sure there are hypotheticals to counter that as well.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> To any situation a Christian could bring up, there will be a counter point by somebody in here with a good mind for the hypothetical.
> 
> The best example is raping an infant.  Always immoral.  But, somebody is going to bring up the fact that in certain parts of Africa, they believe that raping virgins cures aids.  Thus, the curing of aids is "moral," making the immoral act of raping a child ok (I do not agree based on the lack of consent).
> 
> I would say depriving another human of rights, or causing harm to another individual, without consent, or fault, is always immoral.  I am sure there are hypotheticals to counter that as well.



If somebody thinks that murder is moral as long as God commands it or does it himself I see no reason why the same wouldn't apply to rape. This notion that anything goes as long as it is ok with God turns morality on its head.


----------



## JB0704 (May 15, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If somebody thinks that murder is moral as long as God commands it or does it himself I see no reason why the same wouldn't apply to rape. This notion that anything goes as long as it is ok with God turns morality on its head.



Does God command anybody today to commit murder?  The OT references y'all always debate on were very similar to modern pilots dropping bombs on houses understanding there will be collateral damage.  It was how war was done.  

I try to avoid those arguments with you guys because we all set different parameters for what "moral" is, and we also disagree as to the message being conveyed as well as the intentions of the authors. 

Murder is not moral.  That is a universal, and it is set forth as such in the OT.  Obviously, the killings also detailed in the OT were not viewed as murder.  Confusing, sure, but the universal is stated.  That being the case, nobody can commit murder in the name of God and claim it is his command to do so.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Does God command anybody today to commit murder?  The OT references y'all always debate on were very similar to modern pilots dropping bombs on houses understanding there will be collateral damage.  It was how war was done.



I suppose the answer to your question depends on how seriously one takes the bible. For people who accept it at face value the answer without a doubt is yes. Whether there is a God that instructs people in their heads to murder I don't know but it is certainly claimed.




JB0704 said:


> we all set different parameters for what "moral" is



Exactly the point isn't it?




JB0704 said:


> Murder is not moral.  That is a universal, and it is set forth as such in the OT.  Obviously, the killings also detailed in the OT were not viewed as murder.  Confusing, sure, but the universal is stated.  That being the case, nobody can commit murder in the name of God and claim it is his command to do so.



I'm surprised you would even attempt such claims.



> Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
> 
> Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
> 
> ...



And yet we unbelievers are the ones that must endure lecturing about absolute and objective morality from those who think all of the above is A-Ok?


----------



## JB0704 (May 15, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I'm surprised you would even attempt such claims.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet we unbelievers are the ones that must endure lecturing about absolute and objective morality from those who think all of the above is A-Ok?



Atlas, I honestly hope you were able to pull that from a web site and cut and paste it onto here.  I would hate to think you looked all that up individually.  

I understand what type of debate I am getting pulled into here, but here is my only attempt......

The things you listed were how the law was kept in those times.  We allow modern day policemen to shoot folks who have not committed murder.  We allow them to be judge, jury and executioner.  But we don't call them murderers. From an outsider's perspective, perhaps from a Canadian or French person, such authority could be considered barbaric.  But we view it in the context of our culture.

That is kind-of how I view the context of the OT.  It was a different time and place.  Those rules might have made a whole lot more sense ot them than they did me, and I am pretty certain they did not consider them murderers.  The death penalty was apparently used for the smallest of crimes, but it was the law at the time.

We don't live under that law anymore.  So, my point remains that a modern individual claiming to be killing folks in the name of God would have to be wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The things you listed were how the law was kept in those times.  We allow modern day policemen to shoot folks who have not committed murder.  We allow them to be judge, jury and executioner.  But we don't call them murderers. From an outsider's perspective, perhaps from a Canadian or French person, such authority could be considered barbaric.  But we view it in the context of our culture.
> 
> That is kind-of how I view the context of the OT.  It was a different time and place.  Those rules might have made a whole lot more sense ot them than they did me, and I am pretty certain they did not consider them murderers.  The death penalty was apparently used for the smallest of crimes, but it was the law at the time.



Two points to be made here. The first is that it is a bit disturbing that someone could read those verses and think to themselves "Well in that context this was moral. It was moral to stone disobedient children or stone a bride who was found to not be a virgin. It was moral back then to commit genocide at God's command.".

Secondly, am I properly understanding your objection to be that these commandments were moral at one place and time but not in this place and time?




JB0704 said:


> We don't live under that law anymore.  So, my point remains that a modern individual claiming to be killing folks in the name of God would have to be wrong.



I'm glad you believe that. I'm glad that you reject Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17. I'd say the world is a better place to the extent that you and others do. However for those that take those scriptures seriously it is hard to argue that scripture is not on their side.

And whether Christians believe it still applies or not is beside the point. If we accept that the OT commandments to kill were moral for that time but wouldn't be moral now then the argument for absolute morality is surrendered and morality is only what God says is moral at a particular place and time. If on the other hand we accept that murder is absolutely immoral at all places and times then you have your absolute morality but God not only fails to be the source of it, he is an egregious violator of it.

I'll ask again, what about Ravi Zacharias and his arguments are we supposed to be so impressed with? And who are these "most brilliant minds in the world" that he has debated with? As far as I can tell William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza both have greater debate experience.


----------



## JB0704 (May 15, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Two points to be made here. The first is that it is a bit disturbing that someone could read those verses and think to themselves "Well in that context this was moral. It was moral to stone disobedient children or stone a bride who was found to not be a virgin. It was moral back then to commit genocide at God's command."..



I don't think it is moral to eat mayonaise on french fries, but I hear the French get a kick out of it.

You and I may agree that it is immoral to imprison a man for growing a recreational plant in his own yard, and then using it in the privacy of his own home, but we both support the government which does this with our tax dollars.  Are we immoral?  Our tax dollars pay for the prisons which hold these people captive for nothing more than enjoying a natural home remedy to many things, boredom in particular.



atlashunter said:


> Secondly, am I properly understanding your objection to be that these commandments were moral at one place and time but not in this place and time?



No.  I view the Bible as two parts. Jesus did not participate when confronted with some of these laws.  I view the 2nd part as the "rulebook" and the 1st part as the history, along with some pretty good wisdom (Proverbs, etc.).  But the moral laws are derived from the part after grace, not under law.  

The law was not to state morality, it was to keep order in a theocratic society.  Grace says "You are forgiven, put down the stones."



atlashunter said:


> I'm glad you believe that. I'm glad that you reject Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17.



Some would say the resurection was the fulfillment of the law, and the beginning of grace.....like I said man, different times, different applications.



atlashunter said:


> I'd say the world is a better place to the extent that you and others do. However for those that take those scriptures seriously it is hard to argue that scripture is not on their side.



Fortunately, I accept the NT as well.  I am no longer under the law.  And if we were, we would still have the example of Jesus in John 8.....the woman was not stoned, and the people's hypocracy was exposed as a bunch of righteous non-sense.



atlashunter said:


> If we accept that the OT commandments to kill were moral for that time but wouldn't be moral now then the argument for absolute morality is surrendered and morality is only what God says is moral at a particular place and time. If on the other hand we accept that murder is absolutely immoral at all places and times then you have your absolute morality but God not only fails to be the source of it, he is an egregious violator of it.



If we claim that carrying out those orders constitute murder.  Cruise on down to the PF, and you will find a whole bunch of folks who still might find such actions, such as being gay, are worthy of a good stoning.  Not that I agree with them, but it gives an idea as to what the mindset may have been of a people who lived under a theocracy.



atlashunter said:


> I'll ask again, what about Ravi Zacharias and his arguments are we supposed to be so impressed with?



I don't think you should be impressed at all.  I might be, but I accept the most basic premise.

Would you be more likely believe in God if it were not for religion?


----------



## Asath (May 15, 2012)

“We allow modern day policemen to shoot folks who have not committed murder. We allow them to be judge, jury and executioner.”

Um?  Not sure where you live, but there isn’t a place in the United States where that is ALLOWED.  Sure, a fella trying to do a darned nasty job in the face of modern politics --  and with a desire to go home to his wife and children at the end of the day -- is likely to be realistic, and might shoot first if he is frightened, threatened, and unsure of the intentions of those he/she must, by the nature of the job, confront.  That means that it happens – it doesn’t mean it is ALLOWED.  

“That is kind-of how I view the context of the OT. It was a different time and place. Those rules might have made a whole lot more sense ot them than they did me, and I am pretty certain they did not consider them murderers.”

Okay.  I’ll almost buy your thought – that for YOU, the OT is a cautionary guide to ancient Laws.  But I think you are missing the point entirely, either optimistically, or naively, or deliberately --  But look around.

Modern day Islamic law is based literally on the OT.  And you might notice that the OT is conveniently packaged into your handy KJV as the Preface to the NT, and is labeled equally as an inseparable part of the Holy Book.

There isn’t a Consumer Warning Label contained in between the two parts of the Holy Book – saying something like, “Okay, now that we got THAT part over with (whew!) – here’s the NEW and IMPROVED Version!”   It is presented as a whole, and if one contends that the whole of the Book is the WORD OF GOD then one must take it all, not just part.  One cannot simultaneously contend that opponents take only selected portions to poke at while also taking only selected portions to ‘BELIEVE,’ and abandoning the rest.  (By doing so, you are joining the opposition.  Welcome to the club.)  

If you are a ‘Believer,’ then your Holy Book is all of a piece, not a convenient repository of some few pieces, but not others.  ( All of a piece?  A piece of what? one might quite fairly ask . . . ).  It is either Holy, as a whole, or it is not.  There is no middle ground here for Believers  -- if one rejects even a single word or phrase or verse as odd, immoral, atrocious, improvable, outdated, no longer valid in modern times, or simply so strange as to revile civilized interpretation, then the ENTIRE WORK is in question.

And once you’ve made the personal decision that even one single part of that Book is just plain silly – THEN what?  Do you persist in making your Own Religion out of the few salvageable parts of the Holy Book, in effect becoming a Church of Oneself?  Can someone honestly say, ‘I Believe THIS part of it, but not THAT part of it, so I’m still an ardent and subscribing Believer’?  Honestly?

By doing so, one actually then creates an entirely new Belief system, with an audience and congregation of one.  If the ‘meanings’ and content and interpretations of context and ‘moral lessons’ and all the rest are only to be considered in terms of a personal acceptance or rejection of them, term by term, and Verse by Verse, then one doesn’t have a ‘religion’ other than the one that is thus immediately invented, using the Holy Book as sort of a ‘GOD FOR DUMMIES’ set of broad guidelines.  

The WORD OF GOD cannot be open to interpretation – one either takes it, as written by GOD, if one ‘believes’ such a thing – or one assigns the role of GOD to themselves, and decides, on their own authority, which of those WORDS apply to them.

See the problem here?


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> You and I may agree that it is immoral to imprison a man for growing a recreational plant in his own yard, and then using it in the privacy of his own home, but we both support the government which does this with our tax dollars.  Are we immoral?  Our tax dollars pay for the prisons which hold these people captive for nothing more than enjoying a natural home remedy to many things, boredom in particular.



You assume too much about my views toward government but I'm not sure I get your point. Are we now in agreement that it is and always has been immoral to murder a man for his homosexuality? What exactly is your point? That despite your disagreement with the God of the bible you still generally support him?




JB0704 said:


> No.  I view the Bible as two parts. Jesus did not participate when confronted with some of these laws.  I view the 2nd part as the "rulebook" and the 1st part as the history, along with some pretty good wisdom (Proverbs, etc.).  But the moral laws are derived from the part after grace, not under law.



Again that is your view. I don't know how the accounts of Jesus view that the law was still in full force could have been any more explicit. He is quoted as saying he did not come to abolish the law, that not one dot of it would change until heaven and earth passed away. In fact he even held a more restrictive view of the law than was commonly understood.




JB0704 said:


> The law was not to state morality, it was to keep order in a theocratic society.  Grace says "You are forgiven, put down the stones."



Yet we can and do pass moral judgments on the laws governing theocratic societies. That is the heart of this discussion. Does forgiveness have any bearing on the morality of killing homosexuals? Is it moral to kill them if they aren't forgiven but immoral if they are?




JB0704 said:


> Some would say the resurection was the fulfillment of the law, and the beginning of grace.....like I said man, different times, different applications.



That is one interpretation. It's interesting isn't it that Christians who say such things will still quote the same chapter of Matthew in which Jesus says looking with lustful eyes on a woman is committing adultery in one's heart as if this elaboration of OT law still applies yet they will disregard the earlier verses in the same chapter.




JB0704 said:


> Fortunately, I accept the NT as well.  I am no longer under the law.  And if we were, we would still have the example of Jesus in John 8.....the woman was not stoned, and the people's hypocracy was exposed as a bunch of righteous non-sense.



The scriptures I pointed to concerning Jesus' view of the law are NT.

Matthew 5
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There is strong reason to believe the passage in John was not original to the text but a later addition. It doesn't appear in the earliest known manuscripts and doesn't show up until around the 4th century.

All of this is really beside the point though for reasons I've already given. Whether you think it applies to you or not, it applied back then and you have to decide for yourself whether those commands and acts were moral or immoral in absolute terms if you are a moral absolutist. If you aren't a moral absolutist then you're not in agreement with Ravi's argument that forms the basis of this thread.




JB0704 said:


> If we claim that carrying out those orders constitute murder.  Cruise on down to the PF, and you will find a whole bunch of folks who still might find such actions, such as being gay, are worthy of a good stoning.  Not that I agree with them, but it gives an idea as to what the mindset may have been of a people who lived under a theocracy.



Wasn't that long ago you could find people who viewed slavery as moral on biblical grounds too. It is true that maybe Bronze Age tribes took no issue with this: "Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban.  Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and..." The relevant question isn't how they viewed the morality of engaging in this sort of behavior but how you view it. Was it wrong back then? Is it wrong now? Unless your answer is that it was moral then and would be moral today, you're at odds with the argument Ravi is making. And anyone who thinks that such behavior was and still is absolutely and objectively moral has no business lecturing the rest of us on morality.


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> You assume too much about my views toward government but I'm not sure I get your point. Are we now in agreement that it is and always has been immoral to murder a man for his homosexuality? What exactly is your point?



I had assumed that because you are a libertarian, you would be against most of the current drug laws.

Moral and legal are often two different things.  The question is not whether or not it is immoral for the executioner to carry out the punishment, because he is subject to the law.

Whether or not the law is immoral is the question, and honestly, I woukd be against such laws today.  But, it was that way then, pre-grace.  I am not going to say a Biblical law was immoral, just because........

All I know is where we are today.  Taken as a whole, the Bible does not tell me to kill anybody.  It establishes murder as immoral.  Everything you cite would not be considered murder at the time because of the law.  I am not going to argue the law.  My view is that Jesus fulfilled the law, and that we are no longer under it.

The woman at the well was "living in sin," which is to say she was a fornicator.  Jesus asked her for a drink.  He did not stone her.  John 8 is just one example of Jesus demonstrating Grace over law.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I had assumed that because you are a libertarian, you would be against most of the current drug laws.



That is accurate. To say that I support such a government is not. Tax dollars are taken by force and show no more support toward the thieves than extortion money paid to the mafia would show.




JB0704 said:


> Whether or not the law is immoral is the question, and honestly, I woukd be against such laws today.  But, it was that way then, pre-grace.  I am not going to say a Biblical law was immoral, just because........



Whether people are willing to say it or not I think most people deep down know that these laws were immoral. If they didn't then there would be no reason to try to explain away the clear teachings of Jesus that they were not rescinded but would remain in full force.




JB0704 said:


> All I know is where we are today.  Taken as a whole, the Bible does not tell me to kill anybody.  It establishes murder as immoral.  Everything you cite would not be considered murder at the time because of the law.  I am not going to argue the law.  My view is that Jesus fulfilled the law, and that we are no longer under it.



Well under it or not, as you said the question of the morality of those laws remain. This is much the same as someone who says they will not speak of the morality of slavery laws that existed in early America because those laws are no longer on the books. It doesn't answer the question it only dodges it.

This statement, "Everything you cite would not be considered murder at the time because of the law." really stands out. Tens of millions have been legally murdered. Whether it was considered murder or not under that law is irrelevant to the moral question. We can judge for ourselves the morality of such laws and such acts. So here we are back at divine command theory. Acts aren't assessed on their merits based on some objective and absolute moral standard but based on whether or not they came from the big guy. If God tells us to commit murder it ceases to be murder and becomes a moral act. Believe it if you can but check the moral brow beating at the door if you do.




JB0704 said:


> The woman at the well was "living in sin," which is to say she was a fornicator.  Jesus asked her for a drink.  He did not stone her.  John 8 is just one example of Jesus demonstrating Grace over law.



It is very likely that this story was a much later addition to the book of John so it's historical reliability is even more questionable than the book of John itself is. And it hardly amounts to a rescinding of the law on Jesus part. Notice he never says the law no longer applies. If it were accurate and understood to be him saying the law is rescinded (something he didn't say) it would stand in conflict with all three of the other gospels.


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> It is very likely that this story was a much later addition to the book of John so it's historical reliability is even more questionable than the book of John itself is. And it hardly amounts to a rescinding of the law on Jesus part. Notice he never says the law no longer applies. If it were accurate and understood to be him saying the law is rescinded (something he didn't say) it would stand in conflict with all three of the other gospels.



The woman at the well is a different story than John 8.  It is found in John 4.  I like it also because it shows Jesus being willing to interact with a person who is openly "living in sin."  Much like the adulterous woman, Jesus does not condemn this lady.  He addresses her, and demonstrates grace, not law, with her.

Later in the NT it is made relatively clear that we are no longer under the law.  You are more of a Bible scholar than I am, so I am certain you know more about this than I do.

As to the rest, I think I will leave it where it is.  Not really willing to get into a cross-fire between both sides.  So, yes, I am openly admitting that I am dodging here


----------



## Four (May 16, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Tax dollars are taken by force and show no more support toward the thieves than extortion money paid to the mafia would show.



You're awesome (no sarcasm)


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The woman at the well is a different story than John 8.  It is found in John 4.  I like it also because it shows Jesus being willing to interact with a person who is openly "living in sin."  Much like the adulterous woman, Jesus does not condemn this lady.  He addresses her, and demonstrates grace, not law, with her.



Sorry, I thought we were still talking about the same story. Should have paid closer attention.


----------

