Is there a distinction to be made between morals and punishment (or judgement)?

 

For example, children rebelling is wrong. Whether the punishment is death, a spanking or timeout, doesn't change the fact that morally it's wrong for a child to rebel.

 

I think that's a good point to make however, I think the killing of a child would be morally wrong (particularly on the pretense of that child insulting or rebelling against parental authority. Some parents need to be rebelled against.). I don't think there is anyway to justify any of the butcheries I mentioned above - punishment or otherwise. In light of the fullest revelation of God (IMO as a Christian), Jesus, I don't see how those acts I described are validated in any way. (At least not validated and remain consistent)

 

I wasn't attempting to change the morality evaluation of the acts listed but pointing out that the punishment/consequences were hardly moral either.

 

 

LBBC was right IMO that the coming of Christ gives us the ultimate revelation and is the one through whom we all must then interpret the Scripture.

I think that's a good point to make however, I think the killing of a child would be morally wrong (particularly on the pretense of that child insulting or rebelling against parental authority. Some parents need to be rebelled against.). I don't think there is anyway to justify any of the butcheries I mentioned above - punishment or otherwise. In light of the fullest revelation of God (IMO as a Christian), Jesus, I don't see how those acts I described are validated in any way. (At least not validated and remain consistent)

 

I wasn't attempting to change the morality evaluation of the acts listed but pointing out that the punishment/consequences were hardly moral either.

 

 

LBBC was right IMO that the coming of Christ gives us the ultimate revelation and is the one through whom we all must then interpret the Scripture.

 

I agree. I was just pointing out that you could establish certain things as acceptable or unacceptable just based on the fact that they were punishable offenses (regardless of the punishment).

 

We learn in the New Testament that the wages of sin is death...so, by God's law, any and all sin is punishable by death. Some people can choose to view the Old Testament punishments as harsh, but an alternate view would be to view the numerous punishments for sin that didn't/don't involve death as wonderful examples of God's mercy.

 

Of course, this only applies if you view God as the absolute authority and the Bible as His divinely inspired word.

 

Of course, this only applies if you view God as the absolute authority and the Bible as His divinely inspired word.

 

There will come a day that all will and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.

Your position, without clarification, is inconsistent.

 

How can you say that "I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person." This infers that owning another person is wrong. However, if morals are no more than a product of the current setting, than how can you say something is wrong? If morality is simply a function of a culture then it may be wrong in your culture, but morally fine in another.

 

You can't say that morality changes over time, yet also say that God could never condone slavery because it is wrong. That statement is a moral absolute, which you have established does not exist.

 

1. Forgive me, but as an African American I do not think that my feelings on slavery will ever change or I will ever feel that it was right.

 

2. Pretty much you are making my case in a round about way. Basically, what I'm saying is that maybe free will is nothing more than nature. We live our lives by a book that clearly contradicts itself. Taking the Bible word for word can be dangerous, IMO. I'm not anti-christian or anything, but how can we really determine what is right and wrong? Clearly many things in the Bible are out-dated, such as slavery or murdering children, but we still hold onto it like it is completely right.

 

Free-will, the will to do right or wrong, a choice. My question was simply how do we know what is right and wrong? The Bible really doesn't give a clear picture, possibly because so many books were taken out but who knows? Also, these scriptures were written down by men, who is to say that they didn't change them or add to them?

 

That's my point. Without an absolute moral standard, it's all subjective. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean I do. So, who is correct? Nobody. Both of us. All of us.

 

Societies morals will change if they're left to determine them on their own. God's laws do not. They provide an absolute.

 

Really? From the Bible? I believe that God's true laws do not change, but if you simply look at the Bible, and only the Bible that isn't correct.

 

Is there a distinction to be made between morals and punishment (or judgement)?

 

For example, children rebelling is wrong. Whether the punishment is death, a spanking or timeout, doesn't change the fact that morally it's wrong for a child to rebel.

 

:thumb: I agree but... I think this is what most people were getting to:

 

I agree. I was just pointing out that you could establish certain things as acceptable or unacceptable just based on the fact that they were punishable offenses (regardless of the punishment).

 

We learn in the New Testament that the wages of sin is death...so, by God's law, any and all sin is punishable by death. Some people can choose to view the Old Testament punishments as harsh, but an alternate view would be to view the numerous punishments for sin that didn't/don't involve death as wonderful examples of God's mercy.

 

Of course, this only applies if you view God as the absolute authority and the Bible as His divinely inspired word.

1. Forgive me, but as an African American I do not think that my feelings on slavery will ever change or I will ever feel that it was right.

 

2. Pretty much you are making my case in a round about way. Basically, what I'm saying is that maybe free will is nothing more than nature. We live our lives by a book that clearly contradicts itself. Taking the Bible word for word can be dangerous, IMO. I'm not anti-christian or anything, but how can we really determine what is right and wrong? Clearly many things in the Bible are out-dated, such as slavery or murdering children, but we still hold onto it like it is completely right.

 

Free-will, the will to do right or wrong, a choice. My question was simply how do we know what is right and wrong? The Bible really doesn't give a clear picture, possibly because so many books were taken out but who knows? Also, these scriptures were written down by men, who is to say that they didn't change them or add to them?

 

 

 

Really? From the Bible? I believe that God's true laws do not change, but if you simply look at the Bible, and only the Bible that isn't correct.

 

 

 

:thumb: I agree but... I think this is what most people were getting to:

 

I think I understand your personal point on slavery but as a culture as a whole, wasn't it African Americans that were involved in the actual capturing of the slaves in Africa and then sending them this way?

 

I disagree that the Bible clearly contradicts itself. Please start another thread with your examples that it clearly contradicts itself.

 

I feel the Bible gives a very clear picture. When it gets confusing is when man puts our societal tint on things.

1. Forgive me, but as an African American I do not think that my feelings on slavery will ever change or I will ever feel that it was right.

 

2. Pretty much you are making my case in a round about way. Basically, what I'm saying is that maybe free will is nothing more than nature. We live our lives by a book that clearly contradicts itself. Taking the Bible word for word can be dangerous, IMO. I'm not anti-christian or anything, but how can we really determine what is right and wrong? Clearly many things in the Bible are out-dated, such as slavery or murdering children, but we still hold onto it like it is completely right.

I did not bring race into this, and I'm not sure why you did. However, I can only imagine how you feel about slavery, and I agree- I do not know a God that would hold forced servitude, especially in the conditions in which it has been carried out historically, to be ethical.

 

I am only commenting on the inconsistency of your position. I agree that slavery is wrong. However, if you believe that morality evolves with humans, then you can't say that slavery was wrong in another era- because, morality is relative to the culture (as you claim) and you are not a product of that culture.

 

What I'm saying is that the statement, " I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person" because it is inherently wrong is a statement that implies a moral absolute.

I did not bring race into this, and I'm not sure why you did. However, I can only imagine how you feel about slavery, and I agree- I do not know a God that would hold forced servitude, especially in the conditions in which it has been carried out historically, to be ethical.

 

I am only commenting on the inconsistency of your position. I agree that slavery is wrong. However, if you believe that morality evolves with humans, then you can't say that slavery was wrong in another era- because, morality is relative to the culture (as you claim) and you are not a product of that culture.

 

What I'm saying is that the statement, " I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person" because it is inherently wrong is a statement that implies a moral absolute.

 

I'm sorry for the way that came out. I didn't mean it like that. I was saying that I have a natural bias towards slavery, which I think is understandable.

 

I think you are missing my position. What you are saying is my postion. For instance, I feel that slavery was wrong because of things that have went on in the past. We, as a society came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. It wasn't wrong during biblical times obviously.

 

As for the God's morals thing, I think you are missing my point. We do not know God's intentions obviously. Through the years, society (people) decided slavery was wrong, and we really don't know if God has a policy for or against it. Does that mean that it was sinful to have slaves during biblical times? Thou shall not kill, but was killing okay if it fit the crime?

 

To bring the Bible into free-will is kind of hard, IMO. How do we know how to really follow Jesus? How do we truely know right from wrong?

I'm sorry for the way that came out. I didn't mean it like that. I was saying that I have a natural bias towards slavery, which I think is understandable.

 

I think you are missing my position. What you are saying is my postion. For instance, I feel that slavery was wrong because of things that have went on in the past. We, as a society came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. It wasn't wrong during biblical times obviously.

 

As for the God's morals thing, I think you are missing my point. We do not know God's intentions obviously. Through the years, society (people) decided slavery was wrong, and we really don't know if God has a policy for or against it. Does that mean that it was sinful to have slaves during biblical times? Thou shall not kill, but was killing okay if it fit the crime?

 

To bring the Bible into free-will is kind of hard, IMO. How do we know how to really follow Jesus? How do we truely know right from wrong?

 

The commandment is actually, "You shall not murder."

 

There is a distinction between murder and killing someone as a punishment.

The commandment is actually, "You shall not murder."

There is a distinction between murder and killing someone as a punishment.

 

How is that any different?

 

It's all a contradiction.

How is that any different?

 

It's all a contradiction.

 

OK.

How is that any different?

 

It's all a contradiction.

 

Murdering is for no reason.

Killing as you used it is the reaction/consequences/punishment for the person who has committed an horrid act.

Murdering is for no reason.

Killing as you used it is the reaction/consequences/punishment for the person who has committed an horrid act.

 

So do you see the death penalty or abortion as murder?

So do you see the death penalty or abortion as murder?

I see all acts of abortion and nearly all acts of the death penalty as murder.

So do you see the death penalty or abortion as murder?

 

No on death penalty. It is a result of the action of the person.

MAJOR YES on abortion.

 

Murdering is for no reason except you want the person dead whether through killing someone or aborting the baby's life.

BTW, LN I feel bad to have thread-jacked. Assuming all of your inquiries have not been answered, is there any more specifics you were wondering about to get us back on track?