All cultures have morality, from the Darwinian-driven slaughter camps to the Huitzilopochtli driven human sacrificial alters of the Aztecs.

The question is which model is most beneficial to society.

That’s actually a pretty interesting point that I hadn’t thought of. Nice one…

Yeah, now you see why I don’t comment very much I’m evidently incapable of functioning without a spell checker

“”"Dawkins and I are making tentative decisions. Most theists are not- you have only to look at comments made by Matt, The Daily Way, or Ben on here to see that.”"”

It never ceases to entertain me how atheists (in general) always put on an air of objectivity – as exemplified by the “we’re willing to wait for a better answer from science” line. All good scientists are willing to wait for a better answer from science to a logical extent – but to hold out beyond all possible reason is just nonsense. I.e. still holding out on the origin of biocomplexity – it is about as bad as “oh, we still think relativity is crap, because we’re waiting for a better answer from science.” There comes a point when it isn’t a matter of objectively waiting for a better answer – it’s nothing more than a subjective rejection of reality.

Theists too, of course, often are guilty of using ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that appears “unexplainable by science” to defend the existence/handiwork of God. This is entirely absurd – the explanability of phenomena is where the support for a logical Deity actually lies.

Nathan,

“”"Finally, Bill’s assertion that Hitler and Stalin had “no moral basis” doesn’t prove all that much to me. I may have misunderstood him, but I believe Dawkins actually agreed that these men had no moral basis, but Bill did little, if anything, to show that moralitly must come from religion. There are plenty of examples of men with the utmost moral foundation, yet still commit horrible crimes. I don’t really buy that one.”"”

1st) it’s spelled “morality” not “moralitly” (sorry, had to point that out).

Morality does have to come from religion. The point here is that it can come from a “common” theism (Islam, Christianity), or a less common theism (like the homo-theism that George calls Atheism). In any case, it is based on a subjective faith – in the case of Islam, based on the Koran, in the case of Christianity, based on the Bible, and in the case of most Atheists, the Origin of Species.

Many people seem to make the error of assuming that “morality” corresponds to some generally Christian-like basis of behavioral restrictions. All cultures have morality, from the Darwinian-driven slaughter camps to the Huitzilopochtli driven human sacrificial alters of the Aztecs.

The question is which model is most beneficial to society.

-Matthew

There are 3 kinds of law in the OT:
- the ceremonial law
- the moral law
- the social law

The ceremonial law is the system of sacrifices, fulfilled by Christ, no longer to be practiced. (sacrificing animals, etc)

The social law was given specifically to govern ancient Israel. Thus they apply to us as examples of God’s standards, not as direct commands.

The moral law still in force today as it was then.

So, the homosexual thing is in the social law. The moral law part is that homosexuality is wrong. That means we don’t stone homosexuals, we condemn homosexuality. We offer grace to sinners.

Would it be easy for a young Christian, not having read the entire Bible (much less drawn the 7 theological conclusions you have), to justify, quite easily, the killing of a homosexual?

It would also be equally easy to read a handful of scriptures about grace and come to the conclusion that sin doesn’t matter. Both conclusions would be wrong whether the person is a young Christian or not.

I think it’s also obvious that anyone using scripture to justify killing a homosexual is standing on very thin ice. This person didn’t arrive at this conclusion because of scripture. This person (or people) came to their conclusion because they READ INTO the Bible what they wanted it to say, or they are being taught a false teaching and have never bothered to check it out themselves (this is the impression I get from the Westboro Baptist church stuff that I have seen).

No you wouldn’t. Because of number 7. Jesus’ atonement at the cross takes the punishment for sin and puts it squarely on His shoulders. The right to judge and punish isn’t ours.

What about those who act not to punish, but because they believe it is the only way to spread their gospel, or to prevent what they perceive as egregious sin?

Anyone who kills gays, bombs abortion clinics, etc is in clear violation of what the Bible teaches and is NOT a Christian in a Biblical sense.

yet given the complexity of your 7 theological assumptions, isn’t more accurate to say that they are not necessarily in clear violation of scripture, but more like a difficultly discernable scriptural principle based on the your particular theological conclusions? (again, devil’s advocate)

For instance, each and every member of the westboro baptist church probably hold to your 7 assumptions, yet have not come to the same conclusions as you have.

Would it be easy for a young Christian, not having read the entire Bible (much less drawn the 7 theological conclusions you have), to justify, quite easily, the killing of a homosexual?

1. God is creator, therefore, has certain rights over his creation
2. His good purpose for the universe is that it, and everyone in it, would reflect him
3. The moral law in the Bible is a reflection of his own character, and we are commanded to be like him by obeying it. This is not changed from the Old Testament to the New.
4. To break the law (to sin) is, therefore, a violation of our fundamental purpose in being created, and God is not outside his goodness to punish as he deems fit.
5. As creator, one of God’s rights is to set penalties for breaking his law. This should not surprise us: if my car does not work, I will ultimately get rid of it. This is my right as owner of the car, and is not a violation for me to think that way. Therefore, God is righteous and good to punish us for sin.
6. We have all broken God’s law. Therefore, it would be “fair” and “good” of God for him to destroy us all. The fact that he has not done so is proof of God’s mercy.
7. The Gospel means that God has provided a way to cross this divide, to give us access to God.

All these laws you mention can be rightly understood within this overall matrix.

Your response will likely be, “So then I would be just before God to go stone a homosexual?”

No you wouldn’t. Because of number 7. Jesus’ atonement at the cross takes the punishment for sin and puts it squarely on His shoulders. The right to judge and punish isn’t ours.

This ultimately leads to another, more complicated theological paradox: God’s imminence (closeness, intimacy) and His transcendence (holiness, otherness, unfathomability); as well as His Providence (control over everything) and man’s free will. Theologians have been locking horns over those two ideas for a long time.

the God that we serve actually commanded that people kill homosexuals.

Exodus 33:19 “…and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.”

There is how you answer that. An OT answer to an OT question.

NT verification needed???

Romans 9:15 “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”