Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
but if their is no God then their is no morality.
Exactly.Isn't this part of the problem that non believers have with the whole objective morality thing. This and the implication that morality cant exist for non believers.
Christians believe that man is made in the image of God, and by that virtue you will most likely come across some Atheists who are more 'moral' people than some Christians.0 -
Don't worry, it's a reflection of my own confusion/lack of understanding regarding objective vs. subjective morality.Fanny Cradock wrote: »No probs.
Now I'm confused
cool. the gears are starting to in the brain now.We aren't saying that morality is independent from God. In fact, we are claiming exactly the opposite - that God can not be broken down into parts. Morality is part of God's nature and God nature doesn't change.
so the objective morality is inherently tied into the existence of God? One cannot exist without the other?
And would someone go about distinguishing between an objectively morality existing vs. subjectively morality that is shared amongst across humanity?You could say that. Though I think there is a distinction to be made between a moral decision and a person making those decisions. You could also say that mathematics is subjective. In this way if Bill says that 2+2=4 it is as valid as Mary saying that 2+2=564.
If objective morality exists then it means that some things are right while other things are wrong.
It does:)Hopefully reading this will make our position a little clearer.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Lets take a look at scripture, specifically Leviticus 25...
Israelites were not to be kept as slaves. The slaves came from the nations around. And they were bought. They were not indentured servants. They were bought. Israelites were not to be treated ruthlessly, whereas presumably the bought slaves from other nations had no such protection.
Foreign slaved did not have the same rights as Israelite servants. I concede that. However, they still retained some protection and some rights. It's not a moral ideal. But that is the point. That there is a moral ideal and that we can work towards it.
Again, do you think that slavery is wrong?Oh, also, what is your take on Exodus 21
My take? I think it establishes some rudimentary laws about how to treat slaves/ servants. I can't say that I think they go far enough. But then again, I don't think it was ever intended to be the end of the story. Society changes slowly. And from exodus it took quite a while to get to Galatians 3:28.
Which makes it all the more shameful that there are now more people held in some form of slavery or servitude than at any other time in history. So a ways to go yet.0 -
So, the ideal presented by god there isn't ideal?Fanny Cradock wrote: »Foreign slaved did not have the same rights as Israelite servants. I concede that. However, they still retained some protection and some rights. It's not a moral ideal. But that is the point. That there is a moral ideal and that we can work towards it.
To me? Yes. My priority in responding was to correct a mistake on your part.Again, do you think that slavery is wrong?
Perhaps if the bible had been written to be more aware of how its interpretation could be negatively understood throughout time might have made it a better source of morality.Which makes it all the more shameful that there are now more people held in some form of slavery or servitude than at any other time in history. So a ways to go yet.0 -
I can't find anything relevant to slavery as I have raised it Philogos, and don't worry I am not going back to bibical times .
All I am asking is as follows - I presume that you believe as do that slavery is wrong immoral unethical - however we define it.
I presume that 300 years you there were men and women discussing the very issues we are discussing - the existance of an objective moral code.
I further presume that you would not permit slavery based on this objective moral code.
My question is simply why was it not forbidden 300 years ago by christians ?
And in the real world that is the crux of the matter. Now I think I know why it was permitted - because morality/ethics/whatever is not objective - it is a constantly evolving construct and is one of humanities towering achievements .
Why do you think it was permitted ?
I asked this question and never got an answer - so I ask it again.
Why were the equivalent of Fanny PDN Philologos not against slavery 300 years ago if morality is objective ?0 -
Advertisement
-
I asked this question and never got an answer - so I ask it again.
Why were the equivalent of Fanny PDN Philologos not against slavery 300 years ago if morality is objective ?
Marien, it has been pointed out to you dozens of times that the fact that people hold different views about morality has no bearing whatsoever on whether there actually is objective right and wrong. Is there some kind of mental block that you can't get that simple concept?
Oh, and btw, I strongly advise you to read up on Church History and on the history of the abolitionist movement if you really think that our equivalents weren't against slavery 300 years ago, or 1800 years ago for that matter.“A deep stain on Christian history is the African slave trade. Since Christianity was dominant in the nations that bought and sold slaves during that time, the churches must bear responsibility along with their societies for what happened. Even though slavery in some form was virtually universal in every human culture over the centuries, it was Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong. The social historian Rodney Stark writes:
“Although it has been fashionable to deny it, anti-slavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome and were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently ‘lost’ from history until recently. Finally, the abolition of New World slavery was initiated and achieved by Christian activists.”
Christians began to work for abolition not because of some general understanding of human rights, but because they saw it as violating the will of God. Older forms of indentured servanthood and the bond-service of biblical times had often been harsh, but Christian abolitionists concluded that race-based, life-long chattel slavery, established through kidnapping, could not be squared with biblical teaching in either the Old Testament or the New. Christian activists such as William Wilberforce in Great Britain, John Woolman in America, and many, many others devoted their entire lives, in the name of Christ, to ending slavery. The slave trade was so tremendously lucrative that there was enormous incentive within the church to justify it. Many church leaders defended the institution. The battle for self-correction was titanic.
When the abolitionists finally had British society poised to abolish slavery in their empire, planters in the colonies foretold that emancipation would cost investors enormous sums and the prices of commodities would skyrocket catastrophically. This did not deter the abolitionists in the House of Commons. They agreed to compensate the planters for all freed slaves, an astounding sum up to half the British government’s annual budget. The Act of Emancipation was pased in 1833, and the costs were so high to the British people that one historian called the British abolition of slavery ‘voluntary econocide.’
Rodney Stark notes how historians have been desperately trying to figure out why the abolitionists were willing to sacrifice so much to end slavery. He quote the historian Howard Temperley, who says that the history of abolition is puzzling because most historians believe all political behaviour is self-interested. Yet despite the fact that hundreds of scholars over the last fifty years have looked for ways to explain it, Temperley says, ‘no one has succeeded in showing who campaigned for the end of the slave trade…stood to gain in any tangible way…or that these measures were other than economically costly to the country‘. Slavery was abolished because it was wrong, and the Christians were the leaders in saying so. Christianity’s self-correcting apparatus, its critique of religiously supported acts of injustice, had asserted itself.”
From Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God“0 -
So, the ideal presented by god there isn't ideal?
What are you suggesting was the ideal presented by God? It seems to me that you are arguing against something I never said.To me? Yes.
What about other people? What if they decide that they very much like slavery.My priority in responding was to correct a mistake on your part.
Sorry, what correction are you referring to?Perhaps if the bible had been written to be more aware of how its interpretation could be negatively understood throughout time might have made it a better source of morality.
What standard of "better" are you using? Yours?0 -
This and the implication that morality cant exist for non believers.
I've never personally met one Christian who claimed that non-believers can't be moral. In fact, I'm quite sure that there are many non-believers who are kinder and more generous than myself. So the claim is not that the atheist living down the street is a immoral fiend. Rather, the claim is that we are all moral agents because morality has been written onto our hearts. And because of this it actually means something to talk about good and bad. If this isn't the case then any talk of good and bad, right and wrong ultimately amounts to whistling in the dark.so the objective morality is inherently tied into the existence of God? One cannot exist without the other?
Well, there are atheists out there who claim that objective morality can exist without God. Shelly Kagan would be one. Sam Harris is another. (It seems to me that Harris is really just polishing up utilitarianism by putting morality in the realm of science. But that's besides the point.) They can speak better for themselves. BTW, there is a really good (but long) critique of Sam Harris' view here.
From the perspective of Christianity, God is inseparable from morality. It just doesn't makes sense to talk about
God over here <--
and
morality over there -->
because objective morality stems from God.And would someone go about distinguishing between an objectively morality existing vs. subjectively morality that is shared amongst across humanity?
That's the million dollar question. I suppose our answer to that depends largely on our presuppositions - namely is there any possibility that objective morals could exist. I suppose this is where questions like "Is there a God?", "If so is this God the ground-source of morality?" and so forth come into play.
I quite like what Os Guinness has to say when he talks about evil. Then there is Peter Kreeft who deals with moral relativism.0 -
So really we all hold the same position - morality lies in the hearts of people. We just have different opinions as to how it got there. You think God put it there, others think it developed there as people developed. All the same, this is where it lies - not out in the cosmos but in people.Fanny Cradock wrote: »I've never personally met one Christian who claimed that non-believers can't be moral. In fact, I'm quite sure that there are many non-believers who are kinder and more generous than myself. So the claim is not that the atheist living down the street is a immoral fiend. Rather, the claim is that we are all moral agents because morality has been written onto our hearts. And because of this it actually means something to talk about good and bad. If this isn't the case then any talk of good and bad, right and wrong ultimately amounts to whistling in the dark.
From your perspective i.e. in your opinion.From the perspective of Christianity, God is inseparable from morality....because objective morality stems from God.
It seems that you think God should be the source of morality. And if God is unchanging then morality should be unchanging. This is what you call objective.
In your opinion.0 -
Marien, it has been pointed out to you dozens of times that the fact that people hold different views about morality has no bearing whatsoever on whether there actually is objective right and wrong. Is there some kind of mental block that you can't get that simple concept?
Oh, and btw, I strongly advise you to read up on Church History and on the history of the abolitionist movement if you really think that our equivalents weren't against slavery 300 years ago, or 1800 years ago for that matter.
And I have answered that question dozens of times Fanny and I wonder do you have a mental block to understand the simple concept that objective and subjective makes no difference to the functioning of morality.As you say yourself yourself people hold different views about morality , or in other words people have subjective views of morality -which I have been saying all allong
Furthermore I am well aware of the abolitionist movement and now that you mention it, it adds weight to my argument in that if morality( in this case slavery) is objective immutable eternal why was there a requirement for a christian movement to educate mainly other christians that slavery was wrong ?
I refer you back to PDN's post 4423 in which he outlines the method of divining objective morality, why did it not work back then on that issue ? I think we can agree that slavery would be on that list of abhorent practices in any objective system of morality, correct ?
If you say an objective morality exists irrespective of peoples ability to understand it or it even exists without the existance of people, than I say ( a) prove it (b) if by chance you do -so what ?
As we can see as soon as people believe they have found it , their interpretation makes it subjective and it is whatever you want it to be . And you end up with one man saying a cartoon drawing is wrong and another saying playing rugby on a sunday is wrong and another that certain types of food are wrong .
But each individual or group is adamant that theirs is the true path. How can that be ? I mean it is all just so subjective .
As I said to Philogos - it is no different to a concept such as beauty, different things to different cultures people and times.0 -
Advertisement
-
And I have answered that question dozens of times Fanny and I wonder do you have a mental block to understand the simple concept that objective and subjective makes no difference to the functioning of morality.As you say yourself yourself people hold different views about morality , or in other words people have subjective views of morality -which I have been saying all allong
I'm not Fanny.
We all agree that people have subjective views of morality. People have subjective views of everything. But that has no implication on whether objective morality exists.
You are simply muddying the waters by repeating that claim over and over again.
It adds no weight to your argument whatsoever.Furthermore I am well aware of the abolitionist movement and now that you mention it, it adds weight to my argument in that if morality( in this case slavery) is objective immutable eternal why was there a requirement for a christian movement to educate mainly other christians that slavery was wrong ?
Christianity began as a counter-cultural movement in which people chose to follow a crucified Messiah rather than subscribe to the powerful political and national forces of the day. When it joined hands with the poltical power of Rome (or any other government for that matter) then it began to compromise with things that were contrary to what Jesus taught (involvement in wars, greed for wealth, and justifying the practice of slavery on which Rome depended). Therefore, in such a bastardised alliance of Church & State, it always needed those who would speak out against such practices that were contrary to Christian morality. That's why Christians got slavery abolished, not just once, but many times - but those with political power kept reintroducing it (and finding so-called Christians who loved political perks so much that they would find theological justification for slavery).
No, not correct. There are times and circumstances where something that is technically slavery may not be morally wrong.I refer you back to PDN's post 4423 in which he outlines the method of divining objective morality, why did it not work back then on that issue ? I think we can agree that slavery would be on that list of abhorent practices in any objective system of morality, correct ?
Take the type of slavery that was most common in the Old Testament - indentured servitude. This was where someone who had got himself into debt faced prison. So instead he agreed to work for a wealthy landowner as an indentured servant (slave) for a certain period (maybe 4 or 7 years) without wages. In return the wealthy landowner would pay off the person's debts. This is slavery - it is often referred to as such in the Old Testament, but it seems to me to be a relatively practical and humane solution to debt for that age.
Many Irish people emigrated to America by using such a system of 'slavery' to pay for their passage across the Atlantic. It was a practical way for them to make a better life for themselves in the New World.
Or take the case of convicts in prison. Is it unreasonable to expect them to do some simple tasks of work? Yet forcing them to make their beds and clean their cells is, technically, slavery.
So, no, I don't agree that every conceivable form of slavery is always wrong in every age of history. What is wrong is to treat another human being as if they were less than human, to deny them self-respect and the worth that comes from being made in the image of God. And that was the argument of the abolitionists - that slavery as it was being practiced at the time was dehumanising, cruel and therefore sinful - or objectively wrong in a moral sense.0 -
... not out in the cosmos but in people.
I think objective morality is inextricably linked to God and that we are created in his image. Your synopsis is not an accurate reflection of what I've been saying.It seems that you think God should be the source of morality. And if God is unchanging then morality should be unchanging. This is what you call objective.
In your opinion.
I'm not sure what your point is. This is a forum - a place for discussing opinions. My contention is that if God exists, specifically the God of the Bible, then morality has it's grounding in him. Similarly, I believe that there is a thing called objective truth and also another thing called subjective truth. We might subject hold something to be subjectively true that is actually objectively false. Conversely we might hold something to be subjectively true that is actually objectively true. For example, if an ancient mariner believed it true that sailing off to the west would not result in the ship falling off the edge of the earth then he would have been correct. His subjective truth happened to be the same as the objective truth.
Anywho, I think it's time to draw a line under this particular discussion between us. We aren't making any headway.0 -
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm
A very valuable essay on slavery as it was practiced in the Old South. The "chattel" slaves in the south had much better conditions than the majority of wages slaves did the North or indeed a very vast amount of wage slaves have in the third world today.0 -
I'm not Fanny.
We all agree that people have subjective views of morality. People have subjective views of everything. But that has no implication on whether objective morality exists.
You are simply muddying the waters by repeating that claim over and over again.
It adds no weight to your argument whatsoever.
Christianity began as a counter-cultural movement in which people chose to follow a crucified Messiah rather than subscribe to the powerful political and national forces of the day. When it joined hands with the poltical power of Rome (or any other government for that matter) then it began to compromise with things that were contrary to what Jesus taught (involvement in wars, greed for wealth, and justifying the practice of slavery on which Rome depended). Therefore, in such a bastardised alliance of Church & State, it always needed those who would speak out against such practices that were contrary to Christian morality. That's why Christians got slavery abolished, not just once, but many times - but those with political power kept reintroducing it (and finding so-called Christians who loved political perks so much that they would find theological justification for slavery).
No, not correct. There are times and circumstances where something that is technically slavery may not be morally wrong.
Take the type of slavery that was most common in the Old Testament - indentured servitude. This was where someone who had got himself into debt faced prison. So instead he agreed to work for a wealthy landowner as an indentured servant (slave) for a certain period (maybe 4 or 7 years) without wages. In return the wealthy landowner would pay off the person's debts. This is slavery - it is often referred to as such in the Old Testament, but it seems to me to be a relatively practical and humane solution to debt for that age.
Many Irish people emigrated to America by using such a system of 'slavery' to pay for their passage across the Atlantic. It was a practical way for them to make a better life for themselves in the New World.
Or take the case of convicts in prison. Is it unreasonable to expect them to do some simple tasks of work? Yet forcing them to make their beds and clean their cells is, technically, slavery.
So, no, I don't agree that every conceivable form of slavery is always wrong in every age of history. What is wrong is to treat another human being as if they were less than human, to deny them self-respect and the worth that comes from being made in the image of God. And that was the argument of the abolitionists - that slavery as it was being practiced at the time was dehumanising, cruel and therefore sinful - or objectively wrong in a moral sense.
I have no problem with your definition of slavery ( for the purposes of this discussion), all my argument requires is that some forms of slavery by your definition would have been objectively morally wrong for all people and times. I presume you would agree there was such a form of slavery.
For instance kidnapping people from their homes in africa and sending them to plantations in the New World,all done in an unholy alliance between Muslims and Christians.
So how did those christians opposed to abolition (to the such an extend that they fought a great war over it , their way of life as they saw it) manage to fit that concept into an objective code of morality. Some for sure were just venial men but most were anything but.
As for muddying the waters vis-avis subjective and objectice- not so , posters are hopping back and forth constantly using subjective examples of behaviour to point to an objective code. That waters are muddy already, such is life .
I understand your position that an objective code exists irrespective of the opinions of people, and even when there are no people . Much the same way that Neptune existed in splendid isolation for eons of time before its ''discovery'' in 1846. But as I said to you before - so what ?
It is how people divine such a code is what will decide its objectivity/subjectivity as it operates on earth.
And those methods of divination are what ever each diviner says they are - and when we look at the world in operation what do we find ? Exactly that.
At this stage how many different versions of Christianity have we ? How can that be ? Even Christians can't agree .0 -
-
In short. The type of exploitation and gross mistreatment that people suffered under colonial slavery is objectively wrong. The point of linking to that thread was to show you that when we see "slavery" in the Torah law it is referring to something very different to colonial slavery.
Fanny Craddock offers a truly excellent explanation in this post. It's bang on what I think about colonial slavery.
God is unchanging. His standards remain the same. The covenant agreement under which mankind falls however differs. We're under a new covenant agreement, Israel was under a old covenant agreement with God as a nation.0 -
Actually, I'm trying to discuss whether subjective or objective morality is superior. Philologos has said that something is objective morality if god says it. So, to take the case of slavery, if that were objectively true, on what grounds would one refute it? I would say subjective morality is superior because you can have a discussion around a topic rather than the topic closer that would be the case with objective morality.
Superior on this issue would be what is true rather than what is false. That's what I'm arguing for. I'm simply saying that morality is universal, and objective. I.E it is not determined by feeling or mere opinion, it is reality. Things are good, and things are evil.
Subjective morality isn't a reality IMO because I don't see people using it in real ethical disputes. It can be a tyrants best friends. Instead of the Lord God determining what is ultimately good or ultimately evil on the basis of omniscience, you have a man doing so on the basis of his fallible intellect. I know which I trust more. God wins hands down.0 -
philologos wrote: »
God is unchanging. His standards remain the same. The covenant agreement under which mankind falls however differs. We're under a new covenant agreement, Israel was under a old covenant agreement with God as a nation.
Off-topic from the current topic, but this bit really caught my attention*.
Can we really say that God is unchanging? It's commonly known that the God of the Old Testament is somewhat more (let's say) brutal and merciless than the God of New Testament.
Far more willing to tell his followers to go and wipe out societies, throw out a nice plague and wipe out the world because he didn't like how it was turning out.
*It's been sometime since I sat down and read the Bible, but this was always the impression I got and most people I know, including Christians.0 -
You want Vulcan mind-meld? Christians are humans. Humans are fallible. Humans disagree.
Completely agree - so much for objective morality illuminating the individual.
This is exactly what I would expect , christians even with the aid of divine relevation are no more objective than anyone else which is why all the interpretations are different .0 -
philologos wrote: »In short. The type of exploitation and gross mistreatment that people suffered under colonial slavery is objectively wrong. The point of linking to that thread was to show you that when we see "slavery" in the Torah law it is referring to something very different to colonial slavery.
Fanny Craddock offers a truly excellent explanation in this post. It's bang on what I think about colonial slavery.
God is unchanging. His standards remain the same. The covenant agreement under which mankind falls however differs. We're under a new covenant agreement, Israel was under a old covenant agreement with God as a nation.
I am just asking the question about our ancestor a few hundred years ago Philogos , rather than get bogged down in ancient issues.
Why was slavery 200 years ago stillaccepted by christians and wars fought over it ?0 -
Advertisement
-
And I've answered that question. Objectively it was wrong irrespective of whoever justified it.
PDN has also pointed out that it was Christians who pioneered the abolition movement in Britain and further afield.0 -
Hi there, I was just Glancing through the prayer thread on the front page, respecting the forum rules and the obvious fact that people there may be under some distress I did not post my question there.
But I was wandering something about what Christians believe, I presume that Christians believe (along with Muslims and others) that The God is infallible, that he knows all that has and will happen and that everything that will happen is according to his plan.
If I have this wrong please say so because it forms the basis of my query.
If Christians believe the above, why do they then call upon the God to change his mind? Surely they must recognise that by helping one person the god must change his plans for many more, Imagine he changes his mind about letting a young person die. He must then change his plans for everyone the person interacts with, for the timing of every event for all those people and for all who are effected by them, the butterfly effect is enormous, the young person may get married, changing the plan for their spouse, for their children (Who were not planned to exist) for their spouses, children, friends etc.
Do Christians think the God does all this on a whim because of prayers?
The above may seem extreme, but it works on all levels from getting the parking space, (What about the person god had planned to put in there along with the people they may now interact with) To getting better grades at school, (what about the people who were going to get all the jobs that person will now take)
So this leaves me wandering, many Christians say they pray for many things big and small all the time, causing the God to change his mind and his plan all the time (surely millions if not billions of times a year)
Does this mean they think God is not infallible and does it mean that they think whatever plans he may have are unimportant enough that he should change them all just on the whim of someone who prefers to live past the original plan or who would like to park closer to the shop on a wet day. Remember the butterfly effect from each plan change could go world wide.
How do prayerful people feel about this? does it make sense to stop now?0 -
Off-topic from the current topic, but this bit really caught my attention*.
Can we really say that God is unchanging? It's commonly known that the God of the Old Testament is somewhat more (let's say) brutal and merciless than the God of New Testament.
Far more willing to tell his followers to go and wipe out societies, throw out a nice plague and wipe out the world because he didn't like how it was turning out.
*It's been sometime since I sat down and read the Bible, but this was always the impression I got and most people I know, including Christians.
Yes He dose seem to have a bit of a inferiority complex going on if you read it as a biography of God but the bible isn't a biography, it an account of a relationship. It changes and grows and the books reflect that, not God changing.
No one said they were, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that their might exist an objective morality anymore than if all Christians agreed would prove their was one.Originally Posted by marienbad
christians even with the aid of divine relevation are no more objective than anyone else0 -
yellowfish wrote: »I presume that Christians believe (along with Muslims and others) that The God is infallible, that he knows all that has and will happen and that everything that will happen is according to his plan.
If I have this wrong please say so because it forms the basis of my query.
Yes, you have it wrong. A minority subsection within Christianity (Calvinism) believes something like that, but most Christians don't.
Lots of stuff happens that is contrary to God's will.0 -
Off-topic from the current topic, but this bit really caught my attention*.
Can we really say that God is unchanging? It's commonly known that the God of the Old Testament is somewhat more (let's say) brutal and merciless than the God of New Testament.
Far more willing to tell his followers to go and wipe out societies, throw out a nice plague and wipe out the world because he didn't like how it was turning out.
*It's been sometime since I sat down and read the Bible, but this was always the impression I got and most people I know, including Christians.
God is the same. The New Testament speaks of the exact same God as the Old does. The New Testament goes to great lengths to show us this, in the Gospels and in the writings of the Apostles.
God's standards remain. What is different is the covenant agreement. God in the Old Testament has a covenant agreement with the State of Israel, God in the New Testament has a covenant agreement with all mankind.0 -
Yes, you have it wrong. A minority subsection within Christianity (Calvinism) believes something like that, but most Christians don't.
Lots of stuff happens that is contrary to God's will.
Ok, (I am talking about what people believe, obviously I do not believe in a god)
I thought Christians believed everything happened according to gods plan, but if they believe that Ilness, time of death, parking etc are not things he plans then I can see why they would pray for for intervention.
Edit, thankyou for putting me right by the way.0 -
It's important to note as well. We can learn many many things about God's character in the Old Testament. If God is truly unchanging, then what we learn in the Old Testament about God points to the same God in the New Testament. If we see God's judgement in the Old Testament, we should regard this as a sign that God will ultimately judge mankind at the end of time. If we see God's mercy in the Old Testament (God rescuing Israel out of Egypt, Israelites worshipping a golden calf but God sparing His wrath from them), we can be confident that God will be abundantly demonstrate His mercy in the New Testament.
This is in His nature. If I'm to quote from Exodus:Exodus 34:6-7 wrote:The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”)
A lot of people have an idea of God's love, but this is how God's love is demonstrated. Yes through mercy and forgiveness, but also through a profound anger at sin. Despite what people like might to think of God, a just, holy and loving God couldn't be but profoundly angry at sin because He knows how damaging it is to us.
People also bring up things like food and dietary laws. These have been fulfilled through Christ, but we can still look back at that Old Covenant. We can ask why did God command dietary laws, and laws concerning dress for example? - Simply put, it was because God wanted His people Israel to be distinct from other nations.
That's a good point of application. How does the New Testament say that Christians should be distinct? Peter tells us one way:1 Peter 1:22-23 wrote:Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
God's standards remain the same. The covenant agreement that God has with Israel, is different to that of the Christian church - the body of Christ.
There are clear parallels between the Old and New Testament. The Old Covenant points to a greater covenant fulfilled in Jesus - The New Covenant. We see the exact same God in both.0 -
philologos wrote: »And I've answered that question. Objectively it was wrong irrespective of whoever justified it.
PDN has also pointed out that it was Christians who pioneered the abolition movement in Britain and further afield.
No you hav'nt philogos, why were christians defending slavery as recently as 200 years ago if morality is objective and unchanging ?
Indulge me by answering this specific question.
I have no argument on the great work done by Christians in the abolitionist movement , aided it must be said by economics. But that is for another thread - interesting though.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »Disagreements among Christians is a result a sin; its not a "natural" part of the Church at all.
Nonsense. The holiest of men will sometimes come to different interpretations.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement