Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”
There's your moral standard. It doesn't mean everybody would comply or accept it.

Vic2Ree:
In North Korea, the ultimate authority is worshipped.

In Iran, homosexuals are put to death.

In Saudi Arabia, apostasy is a capital offense.

In Kyrgyzstan, if a man kidnaps and rapes a woman, he can force her to marry her and refusal results in a woman considered to be unmarriable. Many victims commit suicide as their chance of happiness has been ripped away from them.

These are egregious human rights violations, things that the civilized world rightfully condemns. Yet, every, single, one, of these terrible laws existed in ancient Israel. Dictated directly by God.

But God is good....if he commanded these things, there must have been some context or another in which it was good? But can anyone name a context outside of Christianity in which these actions are justified?

Nonchristian societies that engage in these very immoral actions are rightfully seen as immoral.

But not God's people.

A standard is defined as "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example.", God cannot be a general model if replicating his actions are immoral when humanity does it.

By the very definition of a standard, God isn't one.

XxSabrinaxX
Martinez39
MJBOLT

It's odd that you address your question to Christians and then use 4 examples from Islam. You probably know that Christians neither agree with nor endorse Islamic teaching and practice. Then you proceed to say that "Yet, every, single, one, of these terrible laws existed in ancient Israel." This is what is worthy of discussion. The question is, I guess, do you want to talk about God as the standard of morality, or proper understandings of authority, homosexuality, apostasy, and capital punishment? They are very different conversations.

Vic2Ree:
But God is good....if he commanded these things, there must have been some context or another in which it was good?

Here's another piece of misunderstanding. The Old Testament is not legislation. "Legislation" is OUR worldview on law, but it was not the ancient worldview. This is yet another conversation. Therefore your conclusion "By the very definition of a standard, God isn't one" is mistaken.

So which piece do you want to discuss? General (perhaps objective) morality, authority, homosexuality, apostasy, legislation, capital punishment, or God's morality?

We humans, a vast majority of us are more moral than the books,gods and the prophets we hold sacred...

NnennaG6:

It's odd that you address your question to Christians and then use 4 examples from Islam. You probably know that Christians neither agree with nor endorse Islamic teaching and practice. Then you proceed to say that "Yet, every, single, one, of these terrible laws existed in ancient Israel." This is what is worthy of discussion. The question is, I guess, do you want to talk about God as the standard of morality, or proper understandings of authority, homosexuality, apostasy, and capital punishment? They are very different conversations.


Here's another piece of misunderstanding. The Old Testament is not legislation. "Legislation" is OUR worldview on law, but it was not the ancient worldview. This is yet another conversation. Therefore your conclusion "By the very definition of a standard, God isn't one" is mistaken.

So which piece do you want to discuss? General (perhaps objective) morality, authority, homosexuality, apostasy, legislation, capital punishment, or God's morality?

Not OP, but I think the point is that in present-day Kyrgyzstan a woman can be forced to marry her rapist, something that you and I and everyone reading this can agree is disgusting and vile. And yet the same thing was a requirement of the Old Testament law, i.e., things that Israel was told to do if they wanted to be blessed by God.

TheArranger:

Not OP, but I think the point is that in present-day Kyrgyzstan a woman can be forced to marry her rapist, something that you and I and everyone reading this can agree is disgusting and vile. And yet the same thing was a requirement of the Old Testament law, i.e., things that Israel was told to do if they wanted to be blessed by God.

Thanks for your comment, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of the biblical text. I'd love to discuss it with you.

Deuteronomy 22.28-29. First of all, the Torah is not legislation. It is a covenant agreement the point of which was to establish a reputation for YHWH as the patron of order. It addressed how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's concept of order in the relatively unique context of a vassal relationship with a deity. In other words, Deuteronomy 22.28-29 is neither legislation nor a command. We'll dispense with that misunderstanding first.

Second, this was written to protect the woman. As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price, a kind of economic security for her future, would have been in jeopardy. Her wellbeing is the underlying theme. The passages suggest two courses of action:

1. If the father and daughter both agree to it, the rapist must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.

2. The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment that would be given for a bride, even though the rapist doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement she is still treated as a virgin.

You say the woman is "forced to marry her rapist." But a plain reading of the text shows that it is the man who is being pronounced guilty, and the man who is being forced to marry. Remember, they didn't marry for romance, but largely as a financial arrangement. So what's going on in Deut. 22:28-29 is that when the man rapes the woman, he will be required to take over that woman's upkeep for the rest of her life, with no possibility of divorce. This is not forced on the woman. it is forced on the man. It is his punishment. The entirely to the financial burden fell on the rapist. Of course, people fell in love with each other, and sometimes that could become the basis for an arranged marriage, but love and the feelings of individuals were not fundamental to the system. Marriage and the dowry was to provide financial security for the wife.

We can talk more, as you wish.

NnennaG6:

Thanks for your comment, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of the biblical text.

Or maybe you have got it completely wrong? There are countless different ways that the bible could be interpreted. How have you determined that your particular interpretation is correct?

You say the woman is "forced to marry her rapist." But a plain reading of the text shows that it is the man who is being pronounced guilty, and the man who is being forced to marry.

Yes a man can be 'forced' to marry a woman he raped. Do you seriously not see any issue with that?

The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement she is still treated as a virgin.

Where the heck does it say the girl has to agree to the arrangement? Where the heck does it say she will be treated as a virgin if she doesn't?

Oh and calling a rapist a seducer is utterly appalling.

Vic2Ree:
In North Korea, the ultimate authority is worshipped.

In Iran, homosexuals are put to death.

In Saudi Arabia, apostasy is a capital offense.

In Kyrgyzstan, if a man kidnaps and rapes a woman, he can force her to marry her and refusal results in a woman considered to be unmarriable. Many victims commit suicide as their chance of happiness has been ripped away from them.

These are egregious human rights violations, things that the civilized world rightfully condemns. Yet, every, single, one, of these terrible laws existed in ancient Israel. Dictated directly by God.

But God is good....if he commanded these things, there must have been some context or another in which it was good? But can anyone name a context outside of Christianity in which these actions are justified?

Nonchristian societies that engage in these very immoral actions are rightfully seen as immoral.

But not God's people.

A standard is defined as "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example.", God cannot be a general model if replicating his actions are immoral when humanity does it.

By the very definition of a standard, God isn't one.

XxSabrinaxX
Martinez39
MJBOLT

First, I'm a Christian, that is, a person who believes in Jesus Christ - God become Man to die for all human sins and save us from the Lake of Fire. And I believe completely in the Bible. This is for perspective, so that you know where my answers are coming from.

To begin with, the problem with conversations like this is that words are abused. The term "God" has a meaning, for example, but your use of it has rendered the term to essentially be nonsense.

God, by definition, is the source of all moral definitions. This is what makes Him the true moral standard. Only He decides what is right and wrong. That is what it means to be God in this specific issue of morality. In other words, there is no possibility of determining right and wrong or judging what is right and what is wrong without reference to an absolute source of such definitions. If you disagree with this, then there really is nothing further to talk about.

If you do agree, on the other hand, then the question is who is the true God and how He defines right and wrong so that we can judge ourselves and others by His standard. Otherwise, it is completely meaningless to talk about right and wrong.

Now, the only sense in which Christians have any kind of case to answer is when we read in the Old Testament that people are killed for certain bad behavior, but in the New, there is no mandate placed upon believers to kill anybody for bad behavior, and other similar questions. Your question is not along those lines. Rather, what you have written up is really a bit of a confusion.

God is not a human being or any kind of creature, so that anyone can accuse Him of hypocrisy, for example. That is nonsense. If God commands that adulterers should be stoned to death, but human beings essentially forgive such people because of so-called human rights, it is not sane to claim that human beings are better than God. The reason is that the human rights that human beings recognize must have an origin that requires explanation. That they are intuitive only indicates that they are part of human nature. The question then is: is human nature self-existing or does it have a source?

If it has a source, then the human rights we recognize proceed from that source. That source can cancel those rights under certain conditions. So, for example, a murderer can have their right to life revoked by that source.

For Christians, that source is God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God created human beings with a conscience from which our conceptions of human rights and responsibilities derive. It is Him Who decides for us what is right and what is wrong.

If therefore God says that a human being forfeits their right to life by apostasy and seeking to seduce other believers into apostasy with them, then it is exactly right to kill an apostate. If He says that no believer should take it upon themselves to kill an apostate, then it would be wrong to kill one.

That really is the calculus of Faith.

TheArranger:

Not OP, but I think the point is that in present-day Kyrgyzstan a woman can be forced to marry her rapist, something that you and I and everyone reading this can agree is disgusting and vile. And yet the same thing was a requirement of the Old Testament law, i.e., things that Israel was told to do if they wanted to be blessed by God.

You are quite wrong. There is no such requirement in the Bible.

NnennaG6:

Thanks for your comment, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of the biblical text. I'd love to discuss it with you.

Deuteronomy 22.28-29. First of all, the Torah is not legislation. It is a covenant agreement the point of which was to establish a reputation for YHWH as the patron of order. It addressed how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's concept of order in the relatively unique context of a vassal relationship with a deity. In other words, Deuteronomy 22.28-29 is neither legislation nor a command. We'll dispense with that misunderstanding first.

Second, this was written to protect the woman. As it would have been more difficult for a woman to find a husband had she been sexually involved with another before marriage, her bride-price, a kind of economic security for her future, would have been in jeopardy. Her wellbeing is the underlying theme. The passages suggest two courses of action:

1. If the father and daughter both agree to it, the rapist must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.

2. The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment that would be given for a bride, even though the rapist doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement she is still treated as a virgin.

You say the woman is "forced to marry her rapist." But a plain reading of the text shows that it is the man who is being pronounced guilty, and the man who is being forced to marry. Remember, they didn't marry for romance, but largely as a financial arrangement. So what's going on in Deut. 22:28-29 is that when the man rapes the woman, he will be required to take over that woman's upkeep for the rest of her life, with no possibility of divorce. This is not forced on the woman. it is forced on the man. It is his punishment. The entirely to the financial burden fell on the rapist. Of course, people fell in love with each other, and sometimes that could become the basis for an arranged marriage, but love and the feelings of individuals were not fundamental to the system. Marriage and the dowry was to provide financial security for the wife.

We can talk more, as you wish.

Very good response, Nnenna.

I will just correct one thing:

There were two laws here:

1. If the man raped an unbetrothed virgin, then he had absolutely no choice but to marry her and be a responsible husband to her as long as both of them lived (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

2. If the man seduced her, so that it was consensual, then he still had no choice but to marry her unless her father rejects him, in which case he is responsible to pay the dowry anyway to protect her from any future trouble with a new husband (Exodus 22:16-17).

TheArranger:

Or maybe you have got it completely wrong? There are countless different ways that the bible could be interpreted. How have you determined that your particular interpretation is correct?

No, if you've studied the text (if you actually have), you'll see this is the way it is interpreted. Have you done any work on
researching the text? Your comments make me think you haven't; you've possibly just read it superficially.

TheArranger:
Yes a man can be 'forced' to
marry a woman he raped. Do you seriously not see any issue with that?

Their worldview was very different from our own. In our day, this is not a suitable arrangement, but this was not written to us. In their world, this was very affirming and protective of women. They would look at this as a tremendous boon, not the "wtf?" way we look at it.
In their world, a victimized woman didn't think the way we do about marrying her rapist (cf. 2 Sam. 13.1-20). Since the primary way women achieved financial and social security was through marriage, a rape victim would often end up impoverished. This law was perceived as providing protection and security for an innocent victim, and was welcomed. It's not the way we think, but that's beside the point. It's for their world, not ours.

TheArranger:
Who decides whether the woman should marry the man who raped her?

The father and the daughter would. There's more about these things in Exodus 22.16-17, which is a backdrop to this scenario. The father and daughter, in cooperation with the wisdom of a judge, would decide how best to handle it.

Ihedinobi3:

Very good response, Nnenna.

I will just correct one thing:

There were two laws here:

1. If the man raped an unbetrothed virgin, then he had absolutely no choice but to marry her and be a responsible husband to her as long as both of them lived (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

2. If the man seduced her, so that it was consensual, then he still had no choice but to marry her unless her father rejects him, in which case he is responsible to pay the dowry anyway to protect her from any future trouble with a new husband (Exodus 22:16-17).

Appreciate the help as always, sir

NnennaG6:

Appreciate the help as always, sir

Sure. Very happy to help, for what it is worth.

In the book of Genesis when man was created, God instructed him not to eat of a particular tree but he's permitted to eat from the rest in the garden. God didn't command man or force him - God only instructed him.

Man is a free moral agent, totally responsible for his choice of actions. God his instructed us to follow his laid down rules if we truly love him; but like Adam and Eve, people deliberately choose to do otherwise. So when you see immorality, crime, lawlessness...etc just know that it's man's independent choice to follow that path.

But the truth is whatever path we chose to follow, our book of records will be opened the day we breath our last here on Earth. So don't blame God for the injustice in the world today, it's man's choice. and God's judgement awaits them just like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ihedinobi3:

Very good response, Nnenna.

I will just correct one thing:

There were two laws here:

1. If the man raped an unbetrothed virgin, then he had absolutely no choice but to marry her and be a responsible husband to her as long as both of them lived (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

2. If the man seduced her, so that it was consensual, then he still had no choice but to marry her unless her father rejects him, in which case he is responsible to pay the dowry anyway to protect her from any future trouble with a new husband (Exodus 22:16-17).

Except if she didn't shout out she was to be killed by stoning yeah?

Deuteronomy 22:23-29 King James Version (KJV)
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

LordReed:


Except if she didn't shout out she was to be killed by stoning yeah?

Deuteronomy 22:23-29 King James Version (KJV)
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

From a previous conversation...

'there are four different situations here:

i. Man rapes unbetrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

ii. Man seduces unbetrothed virgin (Exodus 22:16-17)

iii. Man rapes betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

iv. Man seduces betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

In (iii) and (iv), the man is killed because this is really adultery. In (iv), the woman is killed too because she consented despite being betrothed to another man. That is adultery.

In (i) and (ii), the woman is a free agent, so the rules are different. If it is rape, as in (i), the man is forced to marry her because he has insulted the woman and made it hard for her to find a husband (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21). If she were to marry someone else, she would be risking her life because the evidence of her virginity would be lacking on the marriage night. Note also that he cannot divorce her anymore. This law was made to protect women and guarantee marriage for them if anyone violated them. Compare 2 Samuel 13:1-22, especially verse 16. Then, as now, virginity was a great pride for the woman.

If it is seduction, as in (ii), the man must pay her dowry, also to make clear that another man has already had her. Because there was mutual consent here, the woman may not be compensated with an actual marriage: it is up to her father to decide whether to accept the seducer as his son-in-law or not. But the dowry is paid for her protection still, and the seducer has no choice but to marry her, if her father consents to the marriage. Any other man who marries her would know that she was taken by another man before him. So, he would be getting into the marriage fully aware of her past history, and therefore unable to do her any further harm because of it (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21 again).'

- https://www.nairaland.com/5120945/did-bible-really-say-woman#77339304

Feel free to read the entire conversation at the thread.

How can objective morality work with God when there are different God in religions and cultures with their morality?

Can someone tell me how?

Ihedinobi3:

From a previous conversation...

'there are four different situations here:

i. Man rapes unbetrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

ii. Man seduces unbetrothed virgin (Exodus 22:16-17)

iii. Man rapes betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

iv. Man seduces betrothed virgin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

In (iii) and (iv), the man is killed because this is really adultery. In (iv), the woman is killed too because she consented despite being betrothed to another man. That is adultery.

In (i) and (ii), the woman is a free agent, so the rules are different. If it is rape, as in (i), the man is forced to marry her because he has insulted the woman and made it hard for her to find a husband (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21). If she were to marry someone else, she would be risking her life because the evidence of her virginity would be lacking on the marriage night. Note also that he cannot divorce her anymore. This law was made to protect women and guarantee marriage for them if anyone violated them. Compare 2 Samuel 13:1-22, especially verse 16. Then, as now, virginity was a great pride for the woman.

If it is seduction, as in (ii), the man must pay her dowry, also to make clear that another man has already had her. Because there was mutual consent here, the woman may not be compensated with an actual marriage: it is up to her father to decide whether to accept the seducer as his son-in-law or not. But the dowry is paid for her protection still, and the seducer has no choice but to marry her, if her father consents to the marriage. Any other man who marries her would know that she was taken by another man before him. So, he would be getting into the marriage fully aware of her past history, and therefore unable to do her any further harm because of it (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21 again).'

- https://www.nairaland.com/5120945/did-bible-really-say-woman#77339304

Feel free to read the entire conversation at the thread.

So what are saying is all this was moral because the god said so? Even stoning to kill? So the god the ultimate arbiter then changed it's mind? Why?

LordReed:


So what are saying is all this was moral because the god said so? Even stoning to kill? So the god the ultimate arbiter then changed it's mind? Why?

When good people do bad things, that's religion.

Ihedinobi3:

First, I'm a Christian, that is, a person who believes in Jesus Christ - God become Man to die for all human sins and save us from the Lake of Fire. And I believe completely in the Bible. This is for perspective, so that you know where my answers are coming from.

To begin with, the problem with conversations like this is that words are abused. The term "God" has a meaning, for example, but your use of it has rendered the term to essentially be nonsense.

God, by definition, is the source of all moral definitions. This is what makes Him the true moral standard. Only He decides what is right and wrong. That is what it means to be God in this specific issue of morality. In other words, there is no possibility of determining right and wrong or judging what is right and what is wrong without reference to an absolute source of such definitions. If you disagree with this, then there really is nothing further to talk about.

If you do agree, on the other hand, then the question is who is the true God and how He defines right and wrong so that we can judge ourselves and others by His standard. Otherwise, it is completely meaningless to talk about right and wrong.

Now, the only sense in which Christians have any kind of case to answer is when we read in the Old Testament that people are killed for certain bad behavior, but in the New, there is no mandate placed upon believers to kill anybody for bad behavior, and other similar questions. Your question is not along those lines. Rather, what you have written up is really a bit of a confusion.

God is not a human being or any kind of creature, so that anyone can accuse Him of hypocrisy, for example. That is nonsense. If God commands that adulterers should be stoned to death, but human beings essentially forgive such people because of so-called human rights, it is not sane to claim that human beings are better than God. The reason is that the human rights that human beings recognize must have an origin that requires explanation. That they are intuitive only indicates that they are part of human nature. The question then is: is human nature self-existing or does it have a source?

If it has a source, then the human rights we recognize proceed from that source. That source can cancel those rights under certain conditions. So, for example, a murderer can have their right to life revoked by that source.

For Christians, that source is God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God created human beings with a conscience from which our conceptions of human rights and responsibilities derive. It is Him Who decides for us what is right and what is wrong.

If therefore God says that a human being forfeits their right to life by apostasy and seeking to seduce other believers into apostasy with them, then it is exactly right to kill an apostate. If He says that no believer should take it upon themselves to kill an apostate, then it would be wrong to kill one.

That really is the calculus of Faith.

Sir, I sent you an email. I need your opinion on something which I think don't belong here or in public.

Ihedinobi3:

First, I'm a Christian, that is, a person who believes in Jesus Christ - God become Man to die for all human sins and save us from the Lake of Fire. And I believe completely in the Bible. This is for perspective, so that you know where my answers are coming from.

To begin with, the problem with conversations like this is that words are abused. The term "God" has a meaning, for example, but your use of it has rendered the term to essentially be nonsense.

God, by definition, is the source of all moral definitions. This is what makes Him the true moral standard. Only He decides what is right and wrong. That is what it means to be God in this specific issue of morality. In other words, there is no possibility of determining right and wrong or judging what is right and what is wrong without reference to an absolute source of such definitions. If you disagree with this, then there really is nothing further to talk about.

If you do agree, on the other hand, then the question is who is the true God and how He defines right and wrong so that we can judge ourselves and others by His standard. Otherwise, it is completely meaningless to talk about right and wrong.

That definition of God exists in no dictionary or scripture.

God can never be the source of human morality.

A dog can never understand the morality of a human being. A dog and a man are different species with differences in intelligence.

This is the same for God and human beings. There is no perfect moral system on earth because human beings are not perfect. They are fallible and subject to bias. How then can we understand Gods morality?

God is an alien. A non-human powerful entity that humans cannot comprehend. If we cannot comprehend him and understand perfection, how can our morals be gotten from him?

You cannot understand God but somehow, you understand his morals? His perfect morals?


Even the bible argues that Gods ways are mysterious. How then is he a moral authority when we do not understand him. Part of being moral is being knowledgeable about actions. If we do not understand Gods actions, how do we then create a standard of morality around Godliness?

IIF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND GOD, HOW THEN CAN YOU CLAIM THAT GOD IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR MORALITY, WHEN IT WOULD LOGICALLY SHOW THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND GODS MORALITY?