Does Christianity dull your sense of right and wrong?

[Bravus]

Seems like a logical complement to the other thread.

[Woody]

Bravus - U R naughty.

Look what you education has done to U.

<smile> <smile>

[Igakusei]

Clearly, it can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

And that's going on *right now*

Quote:

In Uganda, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, if enacted, would broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18 years of age]. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that support LGBT rights.

The private member's bill was submitted by MP David Bahati in Uganda on 14 October 2009.[1] Homosexuality is currently illegal in Uganda—as it is in many sub-Saharan African countries—punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years. The proposed legislation in Uganda, however, has been noted by several news agencies to be inspired by American evangelical Christians.

[Bravus]

This is something I had in mind when I asked the question: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

Quote:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

Whichever way you slice it, those are the words of someone with a badly broken moral compass.

(his Freudian slip in writing 'Israeli' rather than 'Israelite' aside...)

[John317]

The proposed legislation in Uganda, however, has been noted by several news agencies to be inspired by American evangelical Christians.

What's the evidence of this? I'm sure some evangelical do favor the legislation, but that is no proof that the legislation is inpsired by American Christians, as if Africans are incapable of coming up with the idea on their own.

[John317]

What do you think of the article's argument, Bravus? And what are your thoughts of the God of the Bible?

Do the following paragraph help at all?

Quote:

The utter destruction of the people of Jericho was but a fulfillment of the commands previously given through Moses concerning the inhabitants of Canaan: “Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them.”. . . To many these commands seem to be contrary to the spirit of love and mercy enjoined in other portions of the Bible, but they were in truth the dictates of infinite wisdom and goodness. . . . The Canaanites had abandoned themselves to the foulest and most debasing heathenism, and it was necessary that the land should be cleared of what would so surely prevent the fulfillment of God’s gracious purposes.—Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 488-492. {CTr 134.6}

If you knew that keeping those Canaanites alive would prevent the fulfillment of God's purposes in the first coming of Christ, would you favor their elimination?

I think the important thing for us to see is that we can trust God to have made the right decision. If God determined to have them destroyed just as the Bible says he did-- which is what i believe-- then can we simply leave it in His hands?

[Bravus]

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

From 5 to 8 March 2009, a workshop took place in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, that featured three American evangelical Christians: Scott Lively, an author who has written several books opposing homosexuality; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-professed former gay man who conducts sessions to heal homosexuality; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, an organisation devoted to promoting "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ".[10] The theme of the conference, according to The New York Times, was the "gay agenda": "how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how 'the gay movement is an evil institution' whose goal is 'to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity' ".[3] An Anglican priest from Zambia named Kapya Kaoma was in attendance, and reported on the conference. Ugandan Stephen Langa organised it, and was supported by Lively, who asserted in his workshops that homosexuality was akin to child molestation and bestiality, and causes higher rates of divorce and HIV transmission. Lively's emphasis was on the cohesion of the African family, that he said was being threatened by homosexuals looking to recruit youth into their ranks. According to Kaoma, during the conference, one of the thousands of Ugandans in attendance announced, "[The parliament] feels it is necessary to draft a new law that deals comprehensively with the issue of homosexuality and...takes into account the international gay agenda... Right now there is a proposal that a new law be drafted."[11]

[Bravus]

What do you think of the article's argument, Bravus? And what are your thoughts of the God of the Bible?

Do the following paragraph help at all?

Quote:

The utter destruction of the people of Jericho was but a fulfillment of the commands previously given through Moses concerning the inhabitants of Canaan: “Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them.”. . . To many these commands seem to be contrary to the spirit of love and mercy enjoined in other portions of the Bible, but they were in truth the dictates of infinite wisdom and goodness. . . . The Canaanites had abandoned themselves to the foulest and most debasing heathenism, and it was necessary that the land should be cleared of what would so surely prevent the fulfillment of God’s gracious purposes.—Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 488-492. {CTr 134.6}

If you knew that keeping those Canaanites alive would prevent the fulfillment of God's purposes in the first coming of Christ, would you favor their elimination?

I think the important thing for us to see is that we can trust God to have made the right decision. If God determined to have them destroyed just as the Bible says he did-- which is what i believe-- then can we simply leave it in His hands?

I don't know the full context of the EGW quote, but the 'purposes' she speaks of are more likely to be the taking over of Caanan by the Israelites than the first advent... although I guess an argument could be made that it was scene-setting for that event.

Try taking God out of the picture for a moment: a people come to a country not their own, but flowing with milk and honey, and slaughter all the men, women, children, babies and animals, keeping alive only the young virgins who were forced into 'marriage' with the invaders.

It's genocide, pure and simple. William Lane Craig's argument is that God ordering it makes it all OK, indeed virtuous... even if those poor delicate soldiers were traumatised by running their swords through pregnant women and such.

It's morally wrong. It's a long argument, but it shouldn't be.

There are multiple possibilities (unless you're in thrall to Ellen White, who nails it down tight): maybe the massacres never happened (there's an increasing body of evidence suggesting that's the case) and are just vicious tribal myths, maybe they did happen but humans ordered them and ascribed it to God.

If God truly did order them, then his morality is lower than ours, not higher, and he is not worthy of worship. Rationalise as you will, but that's the truth: a God whose morality is inferior to humanistic morality is no God at all. Infinite knowledge doesn't change that, either.

[Bravus]

A little more on Scott Lively (from the Wikipedia page about him):

Quote:

Along with Kevin E. Abrams, he co-authored the book The Pink Swastika, which states in the preface that "homosexuals [are] the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities."[3] Several academic historians have questioned the book's claims and selective use of research.[4][5][6][7][8]

[John317]

I think these paragraphs explain a lot about the question of the destruction of the wicked, including the Canaanites:

Quote:

The men who promptly and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God. In his infinite mercy, the Lord had long spared those idolatrous nations, giving them evidence upon evidence that he, the mighty Jehovah, was the God whom they should serve. He had commanded Moses not to make war upon Moab or Midian, for their cup of iniquity was not yet full. Additional evidence was to be given; clear and distinct light from the throne of God itself was to shine upon them. {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 2}

When the king of Moab had called Balaam to pronounce a curse upon Israel, and thus accomplish their destruction, the goodness and mercy of God was strikingly displayed. That corrupt and hypocritical gain-seeker, whose heart longed to curse God's people for reward, was constrained to pronounce upon them the richest and most sublime blessings. The Moabites themselves could see that it was the power of God which controlled the avaricious prophet, and compelled him in the most exalted strains of inspiration to proclaim Israel God's chosen, and his almighty power her protection. Here the last ray of light shone upon a stiff-necked people who had set their wills in defiance to the will of God. When, at the suggestion of Balaam, the snare was laid for Israel, which resulted in the destruction of many thousands, then it was that the Midianites filled up the measure of their iniquities. Then their day of probation ended, the door of mercy was to them closed, and the mandate went forth from Him who can create and can destroy, "Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles." {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 3}

.... Men do not understand what they are doing, when they permit themselves even for a moment, to doubt the wisdom and benevolence of God,--to regard as a species of cruelty the judgments visited upon the stubborn and rebellious. Few realize the malignity of sin. It is a deadly leprosy, contaminating all who are brought in contact with it. If men persist in showing contempt for divine authority, God, who created them, and whose property they are, has a perfect right to take from them the blessings which they have abused. God's name and authority as ruler in the universe must be maintained. When idolatry is rearing its proud head, when blasphemy and rebellion are strengthening, then God reproves the sins of the nations, and the manifestations of divine anger which they had provoked come upon the transgressors of his law. The Most High delivers his word of doom, and chooses the instruments to perform his will. These messengers of God are required to faithfully perform the work appointed them, however repugnant it may be to their natural feelings. Sacred history records no instance in which these men were reproved for too great thoroughness and severity; but God has many times reproved his servants for lack of faithfulness in executing his judgments. In all this, God would teach us the lesson that in the future Judgment retribution will surely be visited upon "every soul of man that doeth evil," "according to the deeds done in the body." {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 6}

[Bravus]

Oh yeah, I don't doubt that there are plenty of imprecations to be piled on the head of those who ask these questions.

What you need to ask yourself is "Why are imprecations necessary?"

I believe it's because the questions are real, and there are no good answers, so it's necessary to resort to threats.

[John317]

On God's destruction of the Canaanites:

Continued

Quote:

God's method of dealing with sin is not in harmony with the views cherished by a large class who occupy a prominent position among the professed followers of Christ. Many of these men cherish sin, and laud the benevolence and long-suffering of God, and dwell upon the loving character of Jesus,--all mercy, all tenderness,--while they pass over the threatenings of God's wrath against sin and sinners, and our Saviour's scathing denunciations of hypocrisy and self-deception. It is those who have not a keen sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin that are ready to question the justice of God in punishing with such severity the sins of the Amalekites, Canaanites, and Midianites. Those who love sin are unable to comprehend God's dealings with his subjects. {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 7}

.... Balaam, having yielded himself to the control of covetousness, and hardened his heart by persistent rebellion, had joined his fortunes with the Midianites, and he perished in the general slaughter. He had felt a presentiment that his own end was near when he exclaimed, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his." The fate of Balaam is similar to that of Judas, and their characters bear a marked resemblance to each other. Both had received great light and enjoyed special privileges; but a single cherished sin, like gangrene, poisoned the entire character, and drove them to perdition. {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 11}

While the victorious Israelites completely destroyed the armies of Midian, they spared all the women and children, and brought them into the camp as captives. When Moses ascertained this, he became alarmed and indignant, and thus reproved the officers of the host: "Behold they caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord." There had been a lack of thoroughness in executing the commands of God. The war against Midian had been a just retribution upon a guilty people, of whom the women had been the principal criminals. Had these idolatrous, licentious women been preserved as captives, their presence would have constantly endangered the morals of Israel. The sympathy which would spare these transgressors was contrary to the will of God. {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 12}

There is a sympathy for sin and sinners that is dangerous to the prosperity of the church at the present day. You must have charity is the cry. But that sentiment that would excuse wrong and shield the guilty, is not the charity of the Bible. The friendship of the wicked is more dangerous than their enmity; for none can prevail against the servants of the living God, except by tempting them to disobedience. {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 13}

The offensive character of sin can be estimated only in the light of the cross. When men urge that God is too merciful to punish the transgressors of his law, let them look to Calvary; let them realize that it was because Christ took upon himself the guilt of the disobedient, and suffered in the sinners stead, that the sword of justice was awakened against the Son of God. It was to save us from shame and everlasting contempt that he endured the scorn and mockery which the world heaped upon him. It was our sins that caused the Saviour of the world such intense agony, pouring darkness into his soul, and extorting from his pale lips the anguished cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 14}

He was numbered among the transgressors, he made his soul an offering for sin, that in his righteousness the believing, repenting sinner might stand justified before God. {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 15}

After all this, if man refuses to respond to the great sacrifice which has been made to ennoble and to save him, if he obstinately chooses the path of sin, will the great Judge of all the earth excuse the willful transgression of his holy law? Surely, everything that is noble and generous in our natures must respond to such love as Jesus manifested in suffering for our sake. It was an unexampled humiliation for him to take upon himself the nature of fallen man, and sacrifice his life for a race of rebels; and the manner of his death makes that humiliation more apparent. He "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 16}

.... God is merciful and compassionate, but he is also just. Let the cross of Calvary forever settle this matter. As surely as Christ, the guiltless, suffered for the guilty, so surely will the wrath of God fall upon the heads of those who persist in their transgression of his law.

-

[John317]

Of course they are real questions, but there are good answers, although even good answers don't satisfy everyone. There are many people who see nothing satisfactory in the Bible answers to anything, but that doesn't mean the Bible doesn't have good answers.

The only way people will see good answers in the Bible is through prayer, humility and a willingness to be led and taught by the Holy Spirit. Because the real answer to this question has to do with seeing sin and evil the way God sees it.

[John317]

The real question is, What is right and wrong? Is it possible to have a right sense of right and wrong apart from the Holy Spirit? And does the Holy Spirit ever lead anyone contrary to the God's self-revelation in the Bible?

The prophet Habakkuk had some questions for God having to do with why God allowed evil:

Habakkuk 1:2-4

O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,

and you will not hear?

Or cry to you "Violence!"

and you will not save?

[3] Why do you make me see iniquity,

and why do you idly look at wrong?

Destruction and violence are before me;

strife and contention arise.

[4] So the law is paralyzed,

and justice never goes forth.

For the wicked surround the righteous;

so justice goes forth perverted.

[Bravus]

Allowing evil and perpetrating evil are two different issues.

[Bravus]

For what it's worth, I *don't* reject God, I reject the notion that He directly commanded these atrocities. That has certain implications for my understanding of the Bible, but if God did indeed command these things I would be forced to reject Him entirely - as someone with whom spending eternity would be indistinguishable from hell.

[Bravus]

This is exactly the point of the question: it seems to me that someone who can easily rationalise away these events and believe that God ordered them and that's just hunky-dory has a dulled sense of right and wrong.

The murder of innocents is wrong, no matter who does it. It's a really simple, basic moral principle that pretty much any human society can arrive at.

[John317]

For what it's worth, I *don't* reject God, ... but if God did indeed command these things I would be forced to reject Him entirely - as someone with whom spending eternity would be indistinguishable from hell.

But your position would mean that you are right and the Bible and Ellen White are wrong. Yet you know absolutely nothing about what happened. You are merely going by your feelings, which are not a good way of knowing what is right and wrong. Such feelings often lead people wrong. They lead them to feel that homosexual practices are not sinful, a decision that is clearly wrong, and not reliable.

I believe the Bible and Ellen White's writings show that God is worthy of our trust in relationship to what occurred at the Flood, at Sodom and in ancient Palestine.

[John317]

So, what is your answer?

[Bravus]

Yes. That is the case. It's a hard-fought and hard-won position to be in.

It's more than 'feelings', though, it's all of my mind and reason, informed by all I've read and all I know.

I'm with Galileo on this one: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

We can agree to disagree, and treat each other with some degree of mutual respect: even if I believe your position is morally repugnant and you believe mine is fatally heretical.

It'll all come out in the wash... and in the mean time, I continue to believe in a God of love. Yes, love can be tough, but the God portrayed in Numbers 31 is that father who claims to love his child as he rapes her. That is not a God I can worship: but fortunately I am not forced to.

[Bravus]

Your saying that the only God available is the God portrayed in all parts of the Bible does not make it so. I can understand your claim that that is the only logically consistent position, but do not accept it.

There is another path: discerning the real God who is partly revealed and partly hidden by all human attempts to portray him.

[ClubV12]

"God is merciful and compassionate, but he is also just. Let the cross of Calvary forever settle this matter."

That's a powerful and enlightening quote, thanks for that.

[skyblue888]

Okay, What happened at the cross? Did the Father in His wrath directly smite His Son?

[Flyboy]

Good question skyblue888. Intriguing to think about, but I think Biblical evidence suggests not.

Addressing the thread title, I don't think that Christianity dulls our sense of right and wrong, but I do think that it creates a loyalty, just like any club, which, once solidified, makes it very difficult to consider new approaches or that the club guidelines may not be exactly correct. No man is perfect thus no church created by man is perfect.

I've been critical in other posts, but don't get me wrong, I love my church. And that's the very reason why I try to get others to consider hard questions. I want my church to thrive, but I want it to do so under sustainable conditions. Refusing to change is sometimes brave and courageous, but sometimes it's just stubborn and stupid.

Of the things I'd choose to be critical of, a dulling of our sense of right and wrong would not be one of them. The law is written on our hearts, the Bible only reinforces and reminds us of what is already there. It is something else that dulls us. Age, experience, etc, as discussed in this thread's big brother.

[ClubV12]

Justice and mercy, meet at the foot of the cross. This is a subject we will study for eternity. The wonder, the mystery, the sacrafice and all that it entailed.

For now, simple man that I am, I see that Gods law is absolute, it demands justice and there is no alternative. That justice was satisfied in the sacrafice of God's Son for those who would accept it. Therein lays the mercy! I see that the law is SO important that while "we" can escape it through His sacrafice, He Himself could not. There was no alternative but for Him to die. He begged His Father to let the cup pass, if possible. Surely there MUST be some other way to satisfy God's law? In fact His (the Son's) law as well. There was no other way, the law is unchangeable. To the point where God Himself (Jesus) had to die a cruel death to establish that fact. Our merciful saviour.

There is no other way for those who reject the sacrafice, they will individually face the consequences of their own choice. In the end, they cannot point to anybody else, there are no excuses, they will stand alone. Justice will be served. I have no doubt that some mercy will STILL be applied in that "strange thing" that God must do. But it must and will be done to secure everlasting happiness for all of heaven. There is no other way.

Studying THIS one subject, above all others, is the most important study we can ever undertake. It should be a constant theme, encompassing every thing we do, like breathing.

All our doctrinal points will eventually fade away, but the cross will remain for ever and ever as our primary study.