Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[PRmerger]

This is more problematic in my opinion because what you are saying is that these people were so evil that they were beyond the help of even the most powerful being. Which would seem to negate his omnipotence. He was powerless to help them.

I don’t see Peter (or the Scriptures) saying that at all.

 

[PRmerger]

The taboo of killing other people can be found in most cultures

Yes. That is why it’s a moral absolute.

 

[Bradski]

Yes. That is why it’s a moral absolute.

Most people agree on a particular morality, therefore it must be Absolute.

I think that opens a very large can of worms.

 

[PRmerger]

Most people agree on a particular morality, therefore it must be Absolute.

I think that opens a very large can of worms.

Most people agree on a particular morality. That means that it is true for all people at all times, in all places.

That means a moral absolute.

Yes?

Can we agree on that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are saying that the killing wasn’t killing but rather separation from the pagans.

killing babies (the order to kill every soul) = separation from pagan tribes.

Originally you said “Bad things happen when you kill babies” In this statement if we keep the metaphor would indicate separating from the pagans leads to bad things.

You seem to be saying two contrary things.

Roscoe, the important message in the Old Testament can be summed up by, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.” This entails that when God speaks we do exactly what he says. (Think back to Abraham and Lot from one of my previous posts.)

The key stipulation that God made was for the Israelites to completely clean out the pagan cultures from the land before taking possession because, much like a cancer that is not completely removed, whatever part remained would come back with a vengeance. Jesus also made reference to this when he told the story of the man who cleared his house of demons but he allowed them back in and ended up in a much worse state than before

The continual narrative in the OT is that there was a chronic failure on the part of the Israelites to be holy, to separate themselves from unholy practices. As a result, they kept allowing the influence of corrupt pagan practices to contaminate their lives. That chronic failure eventually led to the exile of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians and the Southern Kingdom by the Babylonians. The prophets mostly addressed the people in exile with a continual warning for the people not to assimilate and take on pagan practices, but to be faithful to the word of God.

A strong case can be made that the reason circumcision was originally instituted was to clearly mark the Israelite men as distinct from the other cultures so it would make it more difficult for intermarriage with other cultures to occur. When the Seleucid (Greek) empire ruled the area prior to the Romans, there was a big push to Hellenize the Jews and some Jews who were favorable to the idea even attempted to have surgery to replace their foreskins so they would not “stand out” from the crowd, so to speak.

The metaphorical meaning PR was talking about is the idea that we must completely rid ourselves of sin because holding on to any aspect including the apparently harmless “little sins” or “baby sins” could wreck us spiritually. Think here of Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount: ”You have heard it said…, but I tell you…" Even the smallest, most harmless appearing “evil” thought could cause our ruin. We are to root out every evil inclination or intention from our spiritual homeland, our internal being. Paul speaks of taking every thought captive, of getting control over every aspect of our being.

The idea of same sex orientation flies in the face of this perspective, because advocates are insisting that we should not take control of every inclination, but rather that we are controlled by those inclinations. That is a concept totally foreign to Christianity (and possibly to Judaism) because from a Christian perspective we have been given grace to completely overcome and subdue our fallen nature. Those who argue that our orientations are beyond our control are making a case that we (and God) are powerless to overcome nature. It’s that old pagan influence rearing its head once more. If we begin to “let it in” as a pervasive idea, it will enslave us and make us powerless to act (bondage in Egypt.)

 

[Bradski]

Most people agree on a particular morality. That means that it is true for all people at all times, in all places. That means a moral absolute.

Yes?

Can we agree on that?

No, we can’t. On a number of levels.

Firstly, the fact that ‘most people agree on a particular morality’ obviously doesn’t make it ‘true for all people’.

Secondly, most people agreeing on something doesn’t make it true in any case.

Lastly, even everyone agreeing on something doesn’t make it true.

This entails that when God speaks we do exactly what he says.

The obvious question is: How do you know if it’s God speaking. With a follow up: If God told you to kill people, would you ‘do exactly what He says’.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Yes. This is one way it may be read.

Yes.

Yes. If one is to read the command today, that is one lesson we could distill from this story.

To be clear - you are saying one instance separation from the pagan is good (O.T.) in another (today) it’s bad. Correct?

 

[PRmerger]

No, we can’t. On a number of levels.

Firstly, the fact that ‘most people agree on a particular morality’ obviously doesn’t make it ‘true for all people’.

Ok. Then for whom is it false that murder is always wrong?

And for whom is it false that we may take any man’s woman when we so desire?

And for whom is it false that killing babies for fun is abhorrent?

 

[PRmerger]

To be clear - you are saying one instance separation from the pagan is good (O.T.) in another (today) it’s bad. Correct?

I am giving explanations for how we are to understand the stories of the OT.

 

[PRmerger]

The obvious question is: How do you know if it’s God speaking.

Through this paradigm: fides quaerens intellectum. Faith seeking understanding.

With a follow up: If God told you to kill people, would you ‘do exactly what He says’.

God wouldn’t give that command to us because His Word has been revealed in its fulfillment, Jesus, and that command is contrary to His Nature.

So that’s like saying, “If I showed you a square circle, would you believe in it?”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Roscoe, the important message in the Old Testament can be summed up by, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.” This entails that when God speaks we do exactly what he says. (Think back to Abraham and Lot from one of my previous posts.)

That’s what I said originally, obedience is the only moral imperative from Yahweh. Even if flies in the face of other “absolute” principles.

The key stipulation that God made was for the Israelites to completely clean out the pagan cultures from the land before taking possession because, much like a cancer that is not completely removed, whatever part remained would come back with a vengeance. Jesus also made reference to this when he told the story of the man who cleared his house of demons but he allowed them back in and ended up in a much worse state than before

The continual narrative in the OT is that there was a chronic failure on the part of the Israelites to be holy, to separate themselves from unholy practices. As a result, they kept allowing the influence of corrupt pagan practices to contaminate their lives. That chronic failure eventually led to the exile of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians and the Southern Kingdom by the Babylonians. The prophets mostly addressed the people in exile with a continual warning for the people not to assimilate and take on pagan practices, but to be faithful to the word of God.

If we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. How does the metaphor of killing people serve?
It was the religion not the people? It still doesn’t answer God’s impotence rather than omnipotence in solving the problem.

The metaphorical meaning PR was talking about is the idea that we must completely rid ourselves of sin because holding on to any aspect including the apparently harmless “little sins” or “baby sins” could wreck us spiritually. Think here of Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount: ”You have heard it said…, but I tell you…" Even the smallest, most harmless appearing “evil” thought could cause our ruin. We are to root out every evil inclination or intention from our spiritual homeland, our internal being. Paul speaks of taking every thought captive, of getting control over every aspect of our being.

The idea of same sex orientation flies in the face of this perspective, because advocates are insisting that we should not take control of every inclination, but rather that we are controlled by those inclinations. That is a concept totally foreign to Christianity (and possibly to Judaism) because from a Christian perspective we have been given grace to completely overcome and subdue our fallen nature. Those who argue that our orientations are beyond our control are making a case that we (and God) are powerless to overcome nature. It’s that old pagan influence rearing its head once more. If we begin to “let it in” as a pervasive idea, it will enslave us and make us powerless to act (bondage in Egypt.)

“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

“all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.”

I think it is an impossible act you describe - total annihilation of sin.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am giving explanations for how we are to understand the stories of the OT.

To make things cloudy by offering contradicting commands? Separate, Don’t separate.

 

[PRmerger]

To make things cloudy by offering contradicting commands? Separate, Don’t separate.

That’s why we have a Church, Roscoe.

You seem to keep forgetting that you are not talking with Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians who go by the Bible Alone.

This is a Catholic Forum. And while there may be Evangelicals and Fundamentalists here, most of us are Catholics.

And if you are in doubt, you can look at the Profile of the member (top right corner) to see what religion she embraces.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s what I said originally, obedience is the only moral imperative from Yahweh. Even if flies in the face of other “absolute” principles.

No.

“I am the Lord your God, and you shall worship no other Gods” is a moral imperative from Yahweh.

If we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. How does the metaphor of killing people serve?

Love them, but separate from them, until the Fulfillment of Love arrives.

It was the religion not the people? It still doesn’t answer God’s impotence rather than omnipotence in solving the problem.

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

“all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.”

Amen!

I think it is an impossible act you describe - total annihilation of sin.

Indeed. Sin will never be annihilated this side of heaven.

And it was annihilated, completely, 2000 years ago.

Wrap your mind around that one, Roscoe!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That’s why we have a Church, Roscoe.

You seem to keep forgetting that you are not talking with Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians who go by the Bible Alone.

This is a Catholic Forum. And while there may be Evangelicals and Fundamentalists here, most of us are Catholics.

And if you are in doubt, you can look at the Profile of the member (top right corner) to see what religion she embraces.

Are you saying the Church holds that contradictory positions can be held.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Most people agree on a particular morality, therefore it must be Absolute.

I think that opens a very large can of worms.

I am going to try approaching this issue of morality from another angle.

Beginning with the idea of value or valuing, clearly everyone values goods and people around them. How is the word “moral” distinct from the idea of “valuing?”

It can’t be true to say morals are merely another way of expressing the things which are valued by an individual or culture because a thief, rapist or murderer “values” things in ways that most of us would consider to be immoral.

I would argue that the one crucial difference is that “moral,” in some sense, has a kind of pre-eminence over mere value and that some kind of priority for “moral” values exists that places these above other values.

If moral merely means “valued by” someone, then it is not clear why the illicit valuing of money by a thief is not treated in the same way as the licit valuing by an honest individual.

What then makes moral valuations different from mere valuing?

To say, as you do, that moral values need not be absolute, but rather objective, means simply that there is some agreement on that value. But, even thieves agree on the value of the goods they want. It might be that because they agree on the value of things objectivity is attained, but mere objectivity does not entail moral value.

So what does?

Any thoughts?

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s what I said originally, obedience is the only moral imperative from Yahweh. Even if flies in the face of other “absolute” principles.

If we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. How does the metaphor of killing people serve?
It was the religion not the people? It still doesn’t answer God’s impotence rather than omnipotence in solving the problem.

“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

“all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.”

I think it is an impossible act you describe - total annihilation of sin.

Jews have a history of arguing with G-d. Not necessarily disobeying, but rather questioning. One Jewish interpretation of the story of Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac because G-d told him to do so, is that Abraham failed G-d’s test by immediately obeying Him without presenting a moral argument against the killing of his son. Further, he was willing to sacrifice his son without first informing his wife, Sarah. Thereafter, G-d never spoke to Abraham directly but only by means of an angel or messenger. Moses argued with G-d, begging that he be sacrificed in place of his people, and by so doing learned that G-d does not want any human sacrifice on His behalf. Obedience to G-d is important, but not without some form of questioning in an attempt to better understand, even if total understanding of the mind of G-d at a human level is not really possible.

With regard to G-d’s omnipotence, He does not exactly want to do everything for us, preferring, like a good parent, to enable His children to find ways to help themselves. It is not that He is impotent, as you state, but rather that He wants us to “repair the world” that He created with a certain lack of completeness. We thus may share in His creation. This is another Jewish interpretation.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Jews have a history of arguing with G-d. Not necessarily disobeying, but rather questioning. One Jewish interpretation of the story of Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac because G-d told him to do so, is that Abraham failed G-d’s test by immediately obeying Him without presenting a moral argument against the killing of his son. Further, he was willing to sacrifice his son without first informing his wife, Sarah. Thereafter, G-d never spoke to Abraham directly but only by means of an angel or messenger. Moses argued with G-d, begging that he be sacrificed in place of his people, and by so doing learned that G-d does not want any human sacrifice on His behalf. Obedience to G-d is important, but not without some form of questioning in an attempt to better understand, even if total understanding of the mind of G-d at a human level is not really possible.

With regard to G-d’s omnipotence, He does not exactly want to do everything for us, preferring, like a good parent, to enable His children to find ways to help themselves. It is not that He is impotent, as you state, but rather that He wants us to “repair the world” that He created with a certain lack of completeness. We thus may share in His creation. This is another Jewish interpretation.

That sounds nice but what of Saul?

24 But Samuel said:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obedience to the LORD’s command?
Obedience is better than sacrifice,
to listen, better than the fat of rams.*

23 For a sin of divination is rebellion,
and arrogance, the crime of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
the LORD in turn has rejected you as king.”

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying the Church holds that contradictory positions can be held.

No. The position of the Church is that killing babies is wrong.

Could you answer my question, Roscoe. Are you of the position, since you believe that killing babies is wrong, that legalized abortion is wrong?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No. The position of the Church is that killing babies is wrong.

Could you answer my question, Roscoe. Are you of the position, since you believe that killing babies is wrong, that legalized abortion is wrong?

If killing babies is metaphorical for separating from pagans as you said, what does this have to do with abortion?

How are we to separate from pagans and not separate from pagans?