DBT

Killing is killing is killing.
Everybody who has ever killed has justified it in some way.

Yahzi

How about The Golden Rule? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

That's all the morality I need. Surely you agree that it is a fundamental component of virtually every moral system or code espoused: everyone from Buddha to Jesus has said it.

So here's the question: is your God bound by the Golden Rule? Or is he above that law?

If you say he is bound by it, then he is not above the law, and your post was false.

If you say he is not bound, then he is not moral.

jdlongmire

Actually, Christ said it best...

Mark 12
29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'
31 "The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The so called "Golden Rule" morality is peer based. The Prime commandment sets God above peer relationships. God is God. He is not Bubba down the street. His character is Love and Justice, revealed in Christ. We are the sheep, he is the shepherd. He the Potter, we the clay. Your acceptance of His morality does not affect Him. He is morality and his Law is written in the hearts of those who love Him, who display His Law by the fruit of the Spirit. He is bound only by Himself. God kills because we disobey the Prime commandment, as well as subsequent ones. God loves enough to give us life eternal with Him and displays His morality in Christ's actions as Redeemer and Friend.

Matthew 5

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

blt to go

But apparently there are certain "rules" under which even God is bound, and even he cannot kill until those "rules" are violated. Hence he is NOT completely sovereign. See
this post (Reference should be 2 Sam 24:1-15) where I make mention of these instances.

Look particularily at David's census (2 Sam 24) God gets angry at the Jews first.

But apparently he cannot simply KILL them all. There is a constraint here that a sin must first be committed, that allows God to exact punishment. Please note, if this was simply a matter of Israel sinning, god could have immediately started killing. Done it before, does it after.

So in order to justify the killing, God incites David to Sin!!! (Or, if you want to see the contradictory passage, God "allows" Satan to incite David to Sin. Six of one, half dozen of the other)

The POINT is clear, and the point is made. God wants to kill, but is not sovereign enough to simply kill. Some "rule" which we don't know, there is some limitation, that requires a sin first.

Problem for God? Nope. He may be limited by this rule, but he sure knows enough about sin as to how to incite someone to commit the sin.

Note (yet again) God then is free to kill. But he doesn't kill the person sinning! No, under your neat little theory of "sovereignty" god is perfectly justified in killing 100,000-200,000 other people for David's sin.

Why, jdlongmire, if god was sovereign, and god was angry, must he go through this charade of inciting David to sin?

(Note, the same principle may be applied to Pharaoh's "sin")

Nope. God is not sovereign. There are rules even he is bound by. He is just lucky enough to be powerful enough to know how to get around them.

blt to go

So. God killed David's 7-day old son because it disobeyed the Prime commandment, ("Love God.") Funny, even god says that he killed David's son because David was boning the neighbor.

Or, are you saying that in God's justice system, it is o.k. to kill one person (7-day old baby) for another person's (David's) disobedience of the Prime commandment?

crazyfingers

Actually, I believe that a combination Plato " "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." and Buddism "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18 say it best.

Golden Rule

Yahzi

Peer, as in moral agents: the GR covers all humans, from rich to poor, from strong to weak, and even extends to animals. The "peer" requirement is not being human, it is being a moral agent. God is a moral agent, and furthermore, God is our moral peer, accoring to page 3 of the Bible.

So you concede that God is not moral.

First you outline morality, and then you exempt God. This brings up two questions:

1) why should we care about, let alone worship, a being who is not moral?

2) why does God deserve this special exemption?

The answer to both questions is: power. God is exempt because he holds all the power, and we care about him because he is powerful enough to make us care. Your religion is revealed as groveling fear.

Of course, it gets even worse: where is this power God claims to wield? Why, God cannot stand against iron chariots. And atheists like me are practically immune to lightening bolts. Your God's power is wholly imaginary, an old fairy tale, a fraud perputated by priests. God can't get anybody in this world, so you make up a whole 'nother world for God to get even in.

You grovel before power that isn't even real. You are a slave with chains of your own making. I would feel sorry for you, but you're too much of a danger to me. Even tigers have to be put down when they stop being responsible, because they become a danger (responsible tigers don't eat people: only desparate, starving, sick ones do, but afterwards, they do it all the time).

After outlining morality, and our status as moral agents, you reduce us to property again.

I've got an iron chariot - two, actually, and a Glock 9mm - so frankly, I'm not overly concerned with affecting him. He can't touch me. In fact, he's scared of me - that's why he's hiding. He knows that if he reveals himself, the atheists will come after him and kick his ass.

God loves us; that's why he kills us for daring to think we are more than just property.

People who are at a certain stage of moral development simply cannot understand the higher stages. That's just the way it works. I realize you cannot comprehend the idea of universal rights, let alone social contract, or even peer approval: to you, all that exists is punishement and reward, fear and favor, property that is valued and property that is not: but trust me, you are lucky to live in a society that does understand.

jdlongmire

>>>no...peer as in peer:

[b]Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Pronunciation: pēr

n. 1. One of the same rank, quality, endowments, character, etc.; an equal; a match; a mate.


>>>no, I concede that God is not my peer. He is God.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Mo`ral´i`ty

n. 1. The relation of conformity or nonconformity to the moral standard or rule; quality of an intention, a character, an action, a principle, or a sentiment, when tried by the standard of right.

The morality of an action is founded in the freedom of that principle, by virtue of which it is in the agent's power, having all things ready and requisite to the performance of an action, either to perform or not perform it.
- South.

2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the accepted standard of right.

3. The doctrines or rules of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.

The end of morality is to procure the affections to obey reason, and not to invade it.
- Bacon.

The system of morality to be gathered out of . . . ancient sages falls very short of that delivered in the gospel.
- Swift.

4. The practice of the moral duties; rectitude of life; conformity to the standard of right; virtue; as, we often admire the politeness of men whose morality we question.

5. A kind of allegorical play, so termed because it consisted of discourses in praise of morality between actors representing such characters as Charity, Faith, Death, Vice, etc. Such plays were occasionally exhibited as late as the reign of Henry VIII.

6. Intent; meaning; moral.
Taketh the morality thereof, good men.

>>>The Being in question defines morality and is the standard of right for men. God writes the Law on our hearts, reveals the standard initially in the OT with the Law, then in the NT by the life of Christ.

>>>Why did we deserve redemption instead of immediate Death when Man disobeyed? God is Love. God is Just. God is Sovereign. Over ALL Creation.

>>>My religion is revealed in Christ as ultimate love. We love Him because He first loved us.

9 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11 "These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

>>>You would have me dismiss God's power over 1 verse in the Bible?

19 Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

Besides, exegetical interpretation would show that the Lord was with them and thus approved of the first part of the verse and not in the second part...

That certainly sounds like the rationale any good Atheist could make for genocide...

>>>Property...everybody is governed by somebody/something...whether it is the state, spouse, natural law, etc...

...hmm, you sound very moral...

***sigh*** - could you show me support for that opinion in the Bible? NASB, please...

...of course you are blessed to be living in a society built on Judeo/Christian morality...and your superior morality espouses putting me down with your gun...a position I would never take (no murder) and do not even own a gun...

blt to go

Hmmm. Since I was ignored, perhaps I best reiterate.

No, jdlongmire, god is NOT the standard. There are higher rules and higher concepts that even god must (apparently) adhere to.

He must adhere to logic. Or CAN he create a rock he can't lift?
He apparently is limited by some sort of justice system whereby a person must commit an active sin in order for him to exert retribution. (David's census.)

See, that census hangs about your neck like a mill stone.

If, under your hypothesis

1) God made it (humans); God can destroy it.
2) God is justified in killing all humans with sin
3) God institutes original sin in Adam
Then God is justified in killing anyone anytime anywhere.

BUT in that darn census, god is angry, wants to punish Israel and can't.

He is constrained by some rule that requires him to make some one sin before he can act.

What's up with Exodus? Why couldn't God just have the Jew run away in the Plague of darkness, and then kill pharaoh's army at the Red Sea? Why (again) the elaborate charade, making sure to cause a death in every single Egyptian household?

The common aplogetic is "so that the world would know that he is god." Whoop de fricking do. If that is true, why do we have no record of the economic chaos the ten plagues would have created, no record of exodus, no record of nothing? For letting the world "know he is god" at BEST, all he left was some pyramid for WILLOWevcTREE to show that by measuring inches we can determine something was supposed to happen in 1979.

Ignore it all you want. Even stating that god is "justice, truth and love" recognizes there are greater concepts than god (namely "justice, truth and love") by which he is bound, and therefore he CANNOT, IS NOT, and WOULD NOT be a "standard."

jdlongmire

not ignoring...only so much time in a day...

..besides, I'm busy watching "I Love the 80's"...


blt - go read this, please

and this...

...I am reading this...

By publishing among the nations the number of his people, he thought to appear the more formidable, and doubted not that, if he should have any war, he should overpower his enemies with the multitude of his forces, trusting in God only. God judges not of sin as we do. What appears to us harmless, or at least but a small offence, may be a great sin in the eye of God, who sees men’s principles, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But his judgment, we are sure, is according to truth. 2. The spring from which it is here said to arise is yet more strange, v. 1. It is not strange that the anger of the Lord should be kindled against Israel. There was cause enough for it. They were unthankful for the blessings of David’s government, and strangely drawn in to take part with Absalom first and afterwards with Sheba. We have reason to think that their peace and plenty made them secure and sensual, and that God was therefore displeased with them. But that, in this displeasure, he should move David to number the people is very strange. We are sure that God is not the author of sin; he tempts no man: we are told (1 Chr. 21:1) that Satan provoked David to number Israel. Satan, as an enemy, suggested it for a sin, as he put it into the heart of Judas to betray Christ. God, as righteous Judge, permitted it, with a design, from this sin of David, to take an occasion to punish Israel for other sins, for which he might justly have punished them without this. But, as before he brought a famine upon them for the sin of Saul, so now a pestilence for the sin of David, that princes may from these instances learn, when the judgments of God are abroad, to suspect that their sins are the ground of the controversy, and may therefore repent and reform themselves, which should have a great influence upon national repentance and reformation, and that people may learn to pray for those in authority, that God would keep them from sin, because, if they sin, the kingdom smarts.

...and this...