You think that Abraham thought that God was going to murder?
Because that's not what he said.
Stop thinking like a modern person. How would the rest of the ancient world have perceived God's actions? How God's actions have affected His reputation?
What Is Morality, and is it Absolute?
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
You think that Abraham thought that God was going to murder?
Because that's not what he said.
Stop thinking like a modern person. How would the rest of the ancient world have perceived God's actions? How God's actions have affected His reputation?
Derf
Well-known member
Murder could also be defined as an unjust killing of a human. Abraham questioned whether that would have been right for God to do. @Right Divider said it was blasphemy to question whether God could murder, so it seems like Abraham is guilty of RD's blasphemy charge. I don't understand why your other questions, because they don't address the point where the conversation was.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No, I was accusing you of that in the post that I quoted.
Abraham never accuses God of murder. That seems to be an idea that you've invented in your mind.
Abraham attempted to "save the righteous" in Sodom. The problem is that there are none righteous, as demonstrated by scripture.
Rom 3:10-18 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (3:11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (3:12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (3:13) Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: (3:14) Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: (3:15) Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: (3:16) Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: (3:17) And the way of peace have they not known: (3:18) There is no fear of God before their eyes.
God, being the author of Life, has the right to take life at His will. That is NOT murder. Everyone, save the Lord Jesus Christ, deserves to die.
Derf
Well-known member
Oh, you're right. I thought it was still @Nick M. Sorry to both of you for the mistake.
No, he didn't accuse God of murder, but he questioned whether God would be just killing the righteous with the wicked.
Hardly, since you refer to it below.
You believe that babies in the womb deserve to die??
But even if babies deserve to die, as you are now on record as saying, God's answer to Abraham was not, "there is none righteous, no not one," but His answer was that He would grant Abraham's request not to destroy the righteous with the wicked, either by not destroying the city if 10 righteous were found, or by taking the righteous out of the city, as happened, to save them from destruction.
When it comes to what God does or does not do, there can be no such thing as an unwarranted action.
God is a NECESSARY being, Derf!
God is NECESSARILY just.
He is NECESSARILY righteous in all ways.
An unwarranted action of God is literally a contradiction. It cannot happen.
That does not mean that whatever God does is righteous merely because God does it. Rather, God's necessary righteousness means that His nature is such that He will never act contrary to what is right.
As for God taking someone from this physical life to the after life...
God is our Creator. We only have life to begin with because He gives it to us. It is His life and He has the ABSOLUTE right to do with that life as He sees fit. Not only that, but the end of one's physical life is not the end of their existence. God can deal with people on an individual basis in due time. In any case, there can be no such thing as God murdering someone. That is a contradiction.
As for the inhabitants of Sodom, every breath any of them took was a mercy. Indeed, that is true of not just the citizens of Sodom, but of Abraham himself and of you and of me and every other member of Adam's race that draws breath.
Further, Abraham's argument in the passage you're referring to presupposes that God's character is righteous and that God's conduct will necessarily conform to that character.
Lastly, you really do need to check your attitude! You need to remember that you will one day give an account for every idle word you speak and to give that fact some long hard thinking time before you show up talking about God murdering people. Blasphemy is a real thing and it is no joke, Derf!
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
That was Abraham's issue. Abraham made many mistakes in judgement throughout his life (... we all do).
I believe that God has the right to reclaim any life that He has created. God cannot be a murderer.
Does the Bible record God as finding ten righteous men in the city? (Hint: nope)
Was the city destroyed? (Hint: yes).
God did Lot a favor and forcibly removed him, his wife, and his two daughters (sans husbands) from the city before its destruction.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
So Abraham thought God could possibly be taking a life unrighteously. Thanks for validating my position, and showing that, you've grouped me, the most despicable person on TOL, with Abraham.
But your argument was that they deserve it. Deserved death is by definition not murder, so that would support your position, but it is also a position you don't usually advocate--that innocents are deserving of death. If I remember correctly, Bob's argument for why God can take an innocent human life was that He wasn't really killing them, but moving them from one plane of existence to another. All that tells me is that Bob didn't believe that humans ever die, which seems to be an anti-biblical position. And it would justify abortion and murder, since we would merely be moving the humans to a different plane of existence. I could be wrong...maybe that was Dominic Enyart.
Do you have a point to make here, one that might be related to my post?
Right Divider
Body part
I doubt that that is was what Abraham actually thought. He was probably just looking out for his nephew (i.e., bargaining).
You are a retarded moron.
My argument is that everyone deserves death. You seem to think that there is some chance of a baby living a sinless life. Only one ever did that and that was our Lord Jesus Christ.
There are no innocents in the ultimate sense. When the Bible talks about a righteous man... it is speaking in relative terms with other men.
Physical death is not the end of a person, so that's a fairly reasonable argument.
You keep trying to blur issues. It's the only way that you can convince yourself that you have a point.
Only God has the RIGHT to do such a thing... you despicable moron.
You're wrong about tons of things... so that would not be a surprise.
Yes, but you're unable to understand much... so I won't bother to continue with it.
Derf
Well-known member
Wow, Clete, you might be legitimately showing yourself to be losing any semblance of logical thought.
Ok, but how does that negate Abraham's question?
An extremely weird way to describe death, by the way. Why would such a description be necessary, do you think? Isn't it because you feel that it would be immoral for God to kill some humans in some circumstances?
So this gets us back to the thread question, answering it in the negative—that morals are not absolute, since they don't apply to God in the same way as to man.
of course. That's why we are using it in the discussion. But God's answer was not your answer. He treated it as a valid question from Abraham, not thinking that Abraham might be the most despicable person around at the time.
Are you saying that if we question God's righteousness, like Abraham did, we are guilty of blasphemy?
Again, that's not what Abraham was challenging God on.
And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 18:23-25&version=NKJV
Notice what Abraham actually said.
"Far be it from You!"
He wasn't accusing God of being capable of murder. He was appealing to God's character as the righteous Judge of all the earth.
Don't you think it might be important to know the context of a passage, including the way the ancients perceived things, when examining scripture?
Or do you think we should simply impose our modern assumptions onto an ancient text?
Ancient societies were largely organized around honor, shame, and reputation, rather than the modern tendency to frame every moral question in terms of abstract philosophical categories.
Abraham, as a follower of God, was concerned with what it would mean for God's name and reputation if He destroyed the righteous alongside the wicked, treating both alike.
Such an act would appear to contradict the justice of the very God Abraham worshiped.
That's why Abraham appeals to God's identity as "the Judge of all the earth."
He wasn't proposing that God might be a murderer. He was appealing to God's righteousness as the very reason God would not act unjustly.
And there's a rather significant difference between questioning whether God will act consistently with His righteous character and asserting that God is capable of acting contrary to it.
You're treating those as though they're the same proposition. They aren't.
I guess you don't know what murder is. The very short answer is an immoral killing. Shedding innocent blood for our purposes. Nobody on the planet is innocent before God. Our righteousness is imputed.
Derf
Well-known member
I'll accept that definition, but it requires understanding of what "moral" means, which is the topic of the thread.
But if "our" is applied to God, then it ceases to be murder, even if it is innocent blood? Why do you think this?
Then it would be impossible for us to shed innocent blood for our purposes or any other purposes.
But do you really think there is no such thing as innocent blood? Even babies in the womb?
I think you are the third person who has now said that we inherit the guilt of Adam, despite several conversations where it was considered immoral for God to punish a child for his father's sin.
You are stunningly stupid. Why anyone bothers to "debate" you at length is a mystery I cannot fathom. You do nothing but rationalize and assume things not in evidence and argue against thing that have not been said, (nor even implied for that matter).
I started to say, "You can't be serious!", but I know that you are serious!
How can that be possible?!
soulquestion
New member
This post is in response to Right Divider's response to excerpts from "What They Don't Tell You About Paul, a critique"
The Imputation of Sin and Abraham's Faith. My contention is that before God created free will souls He created laws to govern those souls (the laws of spiritual nature) just as He crated laws for materiality before creating the material universe. So, yes, there was penalty for breaking the eternal laws even before a written law. Every civilization in the Ancient Middle East had a code of laws, oral long before they were written. Most of the Sinaitic covenant included laws already standard in that place and time in other religions. The biggest differences were to worship only the One God and the seventh day Sabbath of complete rest for citizens and slaves.
Your comment re the Human Heart and Romans just shows you have a different interpretation. You are entitled to yours, I’m entitled to mine.
Blood Atonement in the Teaching of Jesus. I’ve explained before how Jesus death and resurrection ransoms us from sin – by showing us how to live in complete submission to God in order to be ransomed. You are entitled to your interpretation, I’m entitled to mine.
Free Gift Versus the Judgment Seat. Those who justify Paul usually have a personal sin they want to continue doing. Again, you are entitled to your interpretation, I’m entitled to mine.
Nations, Branches, and Human Response in Romans 9–11. Of course, I disagree that Romans 11 deals with groups and not individuals. This also is your interpretation. You are entitled to your interpretation, I’m entitled to mine.
I have given scriptural evidence for what I believe. You read the same scriptures differently than I do. So what? Just because we see different messages in the same scriptures doesn’t make either of us less of a Christian or child of God. Just accept that not everyone in the world believes the way you do.
The Imputation of Sin and Abraham's Faith. My contention is that before God created free will souls He created laws to govern those souls (the laws of spiritual nature) just as He crated laws for materiality before creating the material universe. So, yes, there was penalty for breaking the eternal laws even before a written law. Every civilization in the Ancient Middle East had a code of laws, oral long before they were written. Most of the Sinaitic covenant included laws already standard in that place and time in other religions. The biggest differences were to worship only the One God and the seventh day Sabbath of complete rest for citizens and slaves.
Your comment re the Human Heart and Romans just shows you have a different interpretation. You are entitled to yours, I’m entitled to mine.
Blood Atonement in the Teaching of Jesus. I’ve explained before how Jesus death and resurrection ransoms us from sin – by showing us how to live in complete submission to God in order to be ransomed. You are entitled to your interpretation, I’m entitled to mine.
Free Gift Versus the Judgment Seat. Those who justify Paul usually have a personal sin they want to continue doing. Again, you are entitled to your interpretation, I’m entitled to mine.
Nations, Branches, and Human Response in Romans 9–11. Of course, I disagree that Romans 11 deals with groups and not individuals. This also is your interpretation. You are entitled to your interpretation, I’m entitled to mine.
I have given scriptural evidence for what I believe. You read the same scriptures differently than I do. So what? Just because we see different messages in the same scriptures doesn’t make either of us less of a Christian or child of God. Just accept that not everyone in the world believes the way you do.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
@soulquestion As long as you keep claiming that all opinions have equal weight, I will keep telling you that you are full of baloney.
This is a DEBATE and discussion forum. Simply quoting scripture followed by your opinion is not adequate. You must make an ARGUMENT using logic and sound reason.
The fact that you disagree with a FUNDAMENTAL of the Christian faith, the deity of Christ, means that you are, THEREFORE, not a Christian. Cry if you like... it's just a fact.
P.S. Since you don't actually QUOTE what I said, I cannot address your post point by point. Please learn to use the QUOTE feature.
This is a DEBATE and discussion forum. Simply quoting scripture followed by your opinion is not adequate. You must make an ARGUMENT using logic and sound reason.
The fact that you disagree with a FUNDAMENTAL of the Christian faith, the deity of Christ, means that you are, THEREFORE, not a Christian. Cry if you like... it's just a fact.
P.S. Since you don't actually QUOTE what I said, I cannot address your post point by point. Please learn to use the QUOTE feature.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Yes. And that means that there is a code of morality Abraham was applying to God. It means that if God took the lives of the "righteous" along with the wicked, it would be immoral in Abraham's view. Whether Abraham was correct about that assertion is not provided in the passage, but God agreed to Abraham's terms.
I'm not sure what abstract philosophical categories you disapprove of here, so I don't see the point of your argument.
In which case you would say that there is no absolute moral standard that applies to God, but merely a perception that He needs to keep in mind.
Though not really unjust, but merely perceived to be unjust by the local population?
I don't see any difference, especially based on your "perception of immorality" assertion above. If an act is totally righteous for God, why would He care if someone thought it wasn't? Remember before you answer that Abraham used the argument successfully with God. And remember that Abraham did not include the reputation with the locals in his verbalization of the challenge. So the cultural issue of the other inhabitants of the land is a conjecture on your part.
I think you're having a hard time staying with one argument long enough to see the full picture before switching to a second argument.
I'll recap.
1. You don't believe there is any moral restriction on God not to destroy the righteous along with the wicked.
2. God cares enough about what people think of Him that He's willing to abide by moral restrictions for the sake of His reputation.
So your answer to your thread question, after some consideration, is that morality is NOT absolute, because it doesn't apply to God, but He's willing to "play along" so that it looks like morality is absolute.
Right Divider
Body part
To anyone here on TOL:
How would morality apply to the perfect Creator God?
morality /mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-/
P.S.
How would morality apply to the perfect Creator God?
morality /mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-/
noun
- The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
"questioned the morality of my actions." - A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
"religious morality; Christian morality." - Virtuous conduct.
"commended his morality."
P.S.
Deut 32:3-4 (AKJV/PCE)
(32:3) Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. (32:4) [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.