PaladInChrist

You seemed to have missed my point.

That the law itself is not the way to righteousness.

wildernesse

I don't *know* much about it, but this is where that dreaded word comes in. . .faith. I believe that the laws that meet the "love your neighbor" standard are inspired.

It doesn't really bother me all that much that I don't have certainity. It's a big world with a heck of a lot of conflicting opinions and beliefs about everything--there's a slim chance that I've gotten hold of absolute truth (if such a thing exists). But, I do believe that there is a God who cares for humanity and this world, and that it sent someone to tell us how best to live so that we are able to live life fully.

And I guess we are just going to have to disagree that Western culture was different than Middle Eastern culture 2500 years ago in regards to love of children.

--tibac

PaladInChrist

Like I said... YOU know better than God, hence YOU do what YOU want to do, because YOU say so.

wildernesse

Technically, I would say that God doesn't have a sense of morals at all--in that morals are a human invention to regulate social life.

So, it is possible that God's "actions" can be moral, amoral, or immoral, depending on the morals we're using to judge the "actions". If God has a standard, I wouldn't call it a moral standard.

--tibac

christ-on-a-stick

Further to ex-xian's post, I'll ask PaladInChrist something I asked spurly before he vanished...

Do you believe in "moral absolutes" set by God that are unchanging through time, cultural shifts, etc.? (Yay or nay).

Do you believe that many of the OT "laws" were not "moral laws" but "ceremonial" and subject to change? (Yay or nay).

If "yay" to both of those, I would ask this: What objective criteria are you using to determine which is which? There is nothing in the Bible that spells that out.

If "nay" to either... please explain. Use an extra sheet of paper if necessary.

Mageth

I agree with wildernesse at least in part on that. God, in my opinion, would be amoral, if she existed.

Mageth

That the law itself is not the way to righteousness.

Then why waste a couple of millenia on the Law? Why let people suffer under the Law for so long? Why not just get to the "way to righteousness" to begin with? Why not just put a line in Genesis that says "The Law is not the way to Righteousness. Here, I'll kill my Son and save you that way?"

Besides that, your assertion seems to be contradicted in several places in the bible. Here's just one example from Psalm 19:

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

braces_for_impact

Another non answer I notice. Even if we are "Viewing this through our cultural lens" this does not excuse the behavior. It's still wrong. When women are stoned or scarred and mistreated today in the Middle East, are we supposed to turn a blind eye because we're simply "viewing it through our own cultural lens"?

Of course not. I would like a yes or no answer please. How come when a question like this is asked we can never get a yes or no? We always get a dodge? Could it be because inherently you know it's wrong? Could it be because you would appear as a viscious monster if you said yes? Why can't you apply those same standards to your deity?

I don't think it's a loaded question, I think it's fair.

PaladInChrist

The wind is the same whether you are walking into or away from it.

(Another "non-answer" to make you think)

seebs

I would say "yes" to the first one, but the second turns out to have a hidden assumption in it, which I believe to be false.

I believe that many of the "ceremonial" laws were laws which were *instances* of general moral laws.

To give a contextual example: It is not right or wrong for me to say that someone's puns are awful. If I am referring to my friend Dave, whom I love dearly, and who takes a certain justifiable pride in his awful puns, saying that his puns are awful is a friendly and companionable thing. If I am referring to someone I don't know very well, who is experimenting with being funny, but not very good at it yet, saying that his puns are awful may be a cruel thing.

I think many of the ceremonial laws were, *in that context*, good ways to follow underlying and unchanging moral laws, but they were not themselves those laws.

To give another example, if there were an underlying and unchanging moral law that it was good to follow civil law, then it would be immoral to smoke pot in America, but moral to do so in Holland; not because the underlying law changes, but because it has referents which change.

There is, rather.

"Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Upon these two commandments rest all the Law and the prophets."