"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

03/16/07
Comments (42)

Ligonier Conference (IV)

Friday’s second session featured John Piper and he spoken on “The Challenge of Relativism.” This is a topic that interests me a lot and is a topic that I have read into quite a bit. Piper’s take on it was definitely unique and I enjoyed it a great deal. Desiring God, in a clear bid to steal my thunder, has already posted the audio but if your speakers are broken or you have sore ears, perhaps these notes will still prove useful.

Piper began by asking “How is the bad thing called relativism different from good ways of thinking relatively?” We’ll learn about the bad by contrasting it with the good. We can think about certain things in a relative way without necessary being false. A person may be tall or short in relation to others so a person’s height is relative to a standard of measurement. This is a good and indispensable way of thinking. We have to be able to think this way. We need to asking meaningful statements in these situations to ensure that we properly understand context. The reason we don’t call this way of thinking relativism is that people on both sides have a concrete, objective standard in their mind and if they made that clear we could agree or disagree on the basis of a shared standard. This is not relativism but is a good way to think.

For it to be relativism we have to say one or more of four things

1. There is no external or objective standard of truth
2. The standard may be out there but you can’t know it
3. It is out there but you can’t know what it means
4. It is out there and we can know what it means, but I just don’t care

So here is a clear statement: “Sexual relations between two males is wrong.” Two people may disagree and not be relativists because they may share the same external, objective standard: God’s will expressed in an inerrant Bible. Relativism comes into play when there is no objective, external standard affirmed for right and wrong that is valid for everyone. So this statement is then only dependent on your standard of measurement. We cannot expect others to yield and submit to your preferred standard of measurement of what is true and false and good and bad and right and wrong.

Relativism is the view that no one standard of true and false, right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly exists that is valid for everybody. But what does this imply about truth? Relativists may infer from a lack of standard valid for everybody that there is no such thing as truth—that this is an unhelpful category. More often, though, they speak of your truth and my truth. If your ideas conform to your standard of measurement, you’re speaking truth and the same is true of me. We can both be true even if these truths contradicts. Statements and convictions that flow from them are not based on any standard of measurement shared by everybody but rather ones that are based on preferences or shared community values.

Piper turned to Matthew 21:21-27 where we see Jesus dealing with classical pragmatic relativists. They are de facto relativists. Most people are like this, not thinking through the philosophy of relativism but just acting in a way consistent with it. The Pharisees constructed a new truth here, insisting that they did not know the truth to answer Jesus. This is not full-blown relativism, but the seed of relativism. This is how the depraved mind works. The adulterous mind or heart becomes the servant to defend an ungodly choice. We don’t want to be shamed and don’t want to be harmed. Wants are governing what we say to be true. This is universal among humans until they have a renewed mind. The elders used their minds not to speak truth but to fabricate it and save their skins. So what is at stake for these guys? Truth? No! They are not even posing the answer “what would be a true answer” but “what works?” This is very relevant to our day.

What has become of the mind and its handmaid language? The mind has become nimble in its slavery to our passions. The adulterous heart is nimble in finding things to prostitute after. Language has been prostituted to use itself as the covering of duplicity. What a tragedy. The gift of language is used to create a truth to get out of a problematic situation. Jesus abominates the prostituting of gifts of human mind and human language. The claim that there is no standard for measuring good and bad, true and false is rooted in the cravings of the human heart not to want to be constrained by any external authority or standard. Rather, it wants to enjoy the exaltation of the self. We want to exalt self and therefore we’ll create a philosophy to create what we want.

Therefore, relativism is bad and we should avoid it. We should bring our children up so they do not believe these and help college students to move away from it. We need to articulate as well as we can the evil and destructive effects of this way of thinking. And here are seven evil effects of embracing relativism. You usually can’t argue people out of relativism but you can show them where it leads.

1. Relativism commits treason against God for it is a revolt against the objective reality of God. The sheer existence of God creates the possibility of truth. God is the ultimate and final standard of all claims of truth. What God wills, says and does is the objective standard for everybody. It is a pervasive revolt against God because it denies the very concept of divine law. It is a worse revolt than looking in God’s face and refusing to submit to His law because this is more devious. It says to men “There is no such thing as law.” This is a subtle way of denying that God exists.

2. Relativism cultivates duplicity. Everyone knows that believing relativism to be true is contradictory and that nobody tries to live relativism consistently. Both philosophically and practically it cultivates duplicity. It is morally corrupting. The processes of thinking commits a relativist to principles that are not relative. It is shot through with self-contradictions and when this is done knowingly it is immoral.

3. Relativism conceals doctrinal defection. One of the most tragic effects is its effect on language. In a culture where truth is prized, language has a great and noble task. But where relativism rules, language becomes power broking. The role of language is no longer a humble servant carrying precious truth but takes on a power of its own, creating its own reality, no longer serving to display truth, it now simply defends preferences. This gives rise to every manner of spin. Language is now used to manipulate or create reality. The utilitarian use of language is a direct effect of relativism. It leads to vague speech that deliberately misleads people.

4. Relativism cloaks greed with flattery. Paul knew that he could use language to give people what they want and become rich or famous by doing this. Flattery is the use of language to help people feel good about themselves to get something from themselves. It is buttering people up and this is what language is for in the relativist milieu. Language becomes a means of greed by becoming flattery.

5. Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility. If you believe there are objective standards to which everyone must submit is that you will be called arrogant while relativism is portrayed as the humble position. Relativism is presented as being clothed in humility. But this is not humility. When Truth goes, so does humility. If there is universal truth out there, universally valid for all men, then we must submit to it. All over the country relativism is being sold as humility but the truth is that relativism is created to protect arrogance.

6. Relativism enslaves people. If we cultivate an atmosphere in which there is no truth we will create the kind of Christianity that will simply colonize slaves. People are not free from sin in the fog of relativism but rather remain in their chains. Anything that helps people not love objective truth is murderous and enslaving.

7. Relativism leads to brutal totalitarianism. The formula is simple. When relativism holds sway in society, over time more and more people do what is right in their own eyes. When enough people do what is right in their own eyes, we call it anarchy. There are only two solutions to anarchy: revival of absolute values or a dictator.

This list could go on. At this point Piper returned to Jesus and the Pharisees and their grappling for truth and their eventual fabrication of a truth of their own making. That is colossal bondage to the love of self, to the love of personal comforts, so that you are enslaved to use your mind to destroy what is true. The solution is this: if you will believe in Jesus Christ who takes away shame and guilt and to protect from any harm that matters in this life, you will be the freest of all people.

I think what made this speech unique was simply Piper’s wrestling with the problems inherent in relativism and the dangers in it. I’ve read a lot on the subject but haven’t read much that would go this far and present it in this way. This is a great starting point for an examination of relativism and I commend it to you.

Ligonier Conference (IV)

Comments (42) »


1. Anne
March 16, 2007
6:47 PM

What a marvelous condensation of Piper’s talk! Actually, the way you phrase some things have clarified those points for me.

Thanks so much!


2. kathleen
March 16, 2007
8:05 PM

Murder is wrong — except when God commits murder, as in the murder of the first-born Egyptian children. Murder is wrong — except when Old Testament Hebrew tribes massacred the women, men, and children of other tribes, such as the Canaanites.

Is that not moral relativism?


3. chris
March 16, 2007
8:22 PM

Kathleen, You’ve already started off on the wrong foot. Men and God are in two different categories. God is God and man is not. God is the author of life and man is not. God is the judge and man is not etc. If you accuse God of murder my question is what authority (standard) are you appealing to? If God is guilty of murder then who will prosecute him?


4. kathleen
March 16, 2007
8:39 PM

I think you’ve proven my point. You’re arguing that murder is morally wrong EXCEPT when committed by a certain party.

And even if you exempted God from the laws of morality, you haven’t addressed the issue of the Hebrews who are obviously not God. So you’re further relativizing murder by saying it’s acceptable — not just when committed by God — but it’s ALSO acceptable when committed by some humans.

Again, is that not moral relativism?


5. Brett
March 16, 2007
9:41 PM

kathleen, On what basis would you argue that murder is wrong?


6. Tim Challies
March 16, 2007
10:12 PM

Kathleen and others - This could be a great discussion. Please be sure to keep it nice and keep it respectful because I think this could be very useful and profitable if we can all keep level heads!


7. chris
March 16, 2007
10:45 PM

Kathleen, Thank you for interacting with us on this subject. I believe it is safe for me to say that on behalf of all of us who do hold the Bible as the Word of God that your inquiries are welcome. You said, “I think you’ve proven my point. You’re arguing that murder is morally wrong EXCEPT when committed by a certain party.”

Honestly, you are a bit ahead of me. I am not even at admitting whether an act is or is not murder. I was first trying to arrive at your “reference point” for murder. In other words, Do you believeGod murders? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?


8. lance
March 16, 2007
10:53 PM

excuse me all but I have a question re: this most interesting discussion.

are we saying that murder is morally (assuming we could agree on what is moral and who gets to decide) wrong because all living beings (or for the sake of our discussion human) have an inherent right to life?


9. chris
March 16, 2007
11:07 PM

Lance, I was trying to draw out from Kathleen how she arrived at her judgment that murder is wrong regardless of the party who commits it. I was trying to get her to tell us what reference point (standard of measure) she used to arrive at the conclusion that murder is immoral. I think that if she answers that (makes reference to standard) then she is not really answering from a relativistic (the full meaning of relativism) position since relativism, by definition, has no true standard. I am just trying to get a fix on where she is coming from.


10. James
March 17, 2007
2:31 AM

Chris:

It appears that Kathleen (based on comment #4) is appealing to “the laws of morality.”

The next question is who or what authority defined these “laws of morality”?


11. Kathleen
March 17, 2007
4:07 AM

Chris writes: I am not even at admitting whether an act is or is not murder. I was first trying to arrive at your “reference point” for murder. In other words, Do you believeGod murders? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I arrived at that conclusion from several passages including this one in Exodus: “And at midnight the Lord killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed.”
I would regard the killing of children in their beds as murder — mass murder, to be more precise. Would you regard it differently?

If not, would it not be an exercise in moral relativism to claim that murder is wrong while simultaneously claiming that this instance of murder is acceptable?


12. Tim Challies
March 17, 2007
6:32 AM

Food for thought: if God truly is sovereign, than He is ultimately responsible for the death of every person, no matter when and how that person dies. Is he not?


13. Alive2Christ
March 17, 2007
9:39 AM

Is not murder a judgement that another should die? Does man have this right to judge unto death? No. So, it IS evil for him to take this sovereign power into his own hands. But, when God brings calamity and judgement unto sinful mankind, he has the perfect authority to do so. And…it is not evil. God is exercising His sovereign right to judge His creation.


14. abe
March 17, 2007
2:19 PM

The pharoah murdered the hebrew children which he had no right to and God killed the firstborn in return. Is this murder or a just sentence? God commands the israelites to destroy the cannanites because of their abominations not because He was partial to the israelites. The same rule applied to Sodom and Gommorah. Is God unjust to command us to obey him and if we dont, mete out punishment? People as always dont want to obey and when God does punish they are ready to cry unfair rather that repent. God kills but he doesnt murder. (To kill i wud define as taking a life but murder as killing without just cause.) He is just. Sometimes it may seem unjust but then who are we to question Him and ask Him what have you done. He knows more than you and I and does everything justly and perfectly. If God is just how then can he murder? He cannot. The premise that God murders and hence behaves unjustly indicates some deficiency in ones understanding of who God really is. Most likely is used as an excuse for running away from Him rather that submitting to His will.


15. kathleen
March 17, 2007
3:47 PM

Abe writes: The pharoah murdered the hebrew children which he had no right to and God killed the firstborn in return. Is this murder or a just sentence?

So, you’re saying that killing the children of your enemy is acceptable, correct?
In other words, murder is wrong except in revenge-killings where you can murder other people’s children, correct?

How is that not moral relativism?


16. Stelios
March 17, 2007
6:32 PM

Kathleen

If a police force who shoot and kill several gunmen, that were murdering people in a mall or school (even after repeated warnings to surrender), have the police committed an act of murder or justice?

If we consider the level of wickedness and brutality that the Egyptians, Amalikites and Canaanites Brought upon their own people as well as those surounding their nations and then understand that God infact showed mercy to them by delaying judgement repeatedly (400 hundred years in the case of the amalikites/Canaanites) We see that as a result of that mercy many escaped and were saved, only the truely wicked died. An example of this is the book of Jonah. Because of Gods merciful patience the ninevites were able to be saved.

So was God’s command one of murder or justice?

PS God himself felt the horrors of a murderous death.


17. Van Edwards
March 17, 2007
6:51 PM

Kathleen, why did you pick those two sentences out of Abe’s post to question and ignore the rest of what he said as well as those above? Did you not read what Tim wrote?
“if God truly is sovereign, than He is ultimately responsible for the death of every person, no matter when and how that person dies. Is he not?”

Or alive2Christ? “But, when God brings calamity and judgement unto sinful mankind, he has the perfect authority to do so. And…it is not evil. God is exercising His sovereign right to judge His creation.”

I think these are very important points that you’ve overlooked. You cannot compare man with God. If God is Creator and Author of a humanity that rebeled against Him, how is He unjust for judging or disposing of man in any way He sees fit? Is God unjust for destroying some and saving some if all are worthy of nothing but punishment?
The truth is we are ALL enemies of God and we ALL deserve death. If you’ve ever done anything wrong - and its a safe bet you have - then you are also under God’s judgment. No one is a “good person”; not even relatively when compared to God. If Christ claims to take the punishment and guilt of our sin so that we might have eternal life (Jn 3:36), that’s a claim that needs to be considered long and hard. Not even a thorough knowledge of the Bible is enough to be acceptable before God. But what you do with Jesus has eternal consequences.


18. abe
March 17, 2007
7:48 PM

Kathleen, would you kill someone as an act of self defence? (Does self defense come under revenge-killing?) would you kill someone to protect someone you love? What about the soldiers who kill others just to protect you and your loved ones? What about those who killed the nazis? Are all these unjustified acts of murder? Hope you can see that there are cases where taking a life is justifiable. I wudnt believe you if you said that you wud never kill someone.

God specifically tells us that it was because of their abominations and not because of any partiality to anyone that he orders the israelites to kill them. this is to root out wickedness and prevent it from spreading. In all these cases God did give them time to repent and when they didnt punishment followed. Remember God is the Judge. He gives life and takes it away, as and when he wishes according to his will. It is his prerogative both the means as well as the ends. He didnt ask our permission when he made us and he doesnt ask us when and how to take us away.

“So, you’re saying that killing the children of your enemy is acceptable, correct”- only if God commands it which in this case He did. Murder is always wrong but taking a life isnt always considered murder.


19. Kathleen
March 17, 2007
11:35 PM

Stelios writes: If a police force who shoot and kill several gunmen, that were murdering people in a mall or school (even after repeated warnings to surrender), have the police committed an act of murder or justice?

Since the topic is moral relativism, are you suggesting that police shooting rampaging gunmen is the same as killing children while they sleep? If so, perhaps you can explain how you find the two examples comparable. If not, what is the purpose of comparing police action to child murder?

Abe writes: Would you kill someone as an act of self defence? (Does self defense come under revenge-killing?) would you kill someone to protect someone you love?

Some of those acts might be defensible (without additional details it’s virtually impossible to tell), but — again — what does this have to do with the Exodus passage about God killing the Egyptian children? Was God killing the children in self-defense? Did God feel threatened by the children?

If you’re claiming that murder is wrong except if you murder someone because you feel threatened — isn’t that any example of moral relativism?


20. James
March 18, 2007
12:16 AM

Kathleen wrote: If you’re claiming that murder is wrong except if you murder someone because you feel threatened — isn’t that any example of moral relativism?

The question is then becomes what is murder and by who’s standard are you defining murder?

I know you’ve already stated “laws of morality” but who or what defined these laws and what was the standard used?


21. James Martin
March 18, 2007
8:27 AM

Kathleen,

Stelios and Abe (in my opinion) gave bad illustrations to make the point they were trying to make. God killed (yes, the God of the Bible is a KILLER) to punish the choices of a man – the Pharaoh. But God is not a murderer.

The definition of a murderer is “[The] crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law (Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005) This is how I try to understand it.

When God killed those children, it was within his “law” in his dealings with the Pharaoh. Were those children innocent bystanders? A Humanist would say yes, a Bible believer most likely would say no, using a line of logic like “God foreknew that those children would be evil” or something like that.

My opinion is this: God is God and he can do what he wants with what he creates. He can create something for destruction or for glory. Do I understand that?… NO I DO NOT. But I am not God and I will not stand in judgment of God.

Kathleen, I think you make a good point. When God killed all those small children, it seems to look like he was making up his rules as he goes along in his dealings with good and evil. But God is perfect and his ways are perfect, even though from my pea brain it looks like his ways are not so perfect. “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Romans 3:4)

For many people it is easy to point fingers at God. They forget that the problem is not with God, but with us. Jesus did not die for the sins of God.


22. Peter Martin
March 18, 2007
8:46 AM

Murder is wrong because it is taking something that is not yours.

Everything in the universe belongs to God, including life. Therefore, God is sovereign and free to do as He wills with His creation. The reason that we are not free in this way is because creation is not ours.

When a man murders a child, he is taking something that is God’s, and this is therefore wrong. With his own hands he is subverting an express purpose of God’s possession. This is the basis of the wrongness of murder.

Therefore men may be guilty of murder, but God cannot.

Remember we are looking at the same facts from different worldviews.

Peter


23. James Martin
March 18, 2007
9:00 AM

Peter Martin,

Yes, yet the discussion could lead to this line of thought.

Humans are eternal beings (with eternal feelings of pain and pleasure)… unlike dogs and cats. So God creates an eternal living human, for the sole purpose of damming them in eternal punishment of hell fire? I am not saying he gets pleasure out of this. Yet, scripture seems to imply that he wills this.

I don’t understand how God can do this. I do not judge God or say he is wrong. I simply have no human understanding of how Jesus (who called the children to himself) does this.


24. Ann Addison
March 18, 2007
6:49 PM

The distinction made above between killing and murder is essential. Another thing to consider is that there is no such thing as an innocent man, woman or child. We are all guilty of sin and deserve death. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23) When God kills, there is never an instance of injustice. While it is unpleasant to think about God killing a child, a child may be relatively innocent, but not innocent in the eyes of God.


25. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 18, 2007
7:30 PM

I do not judge God or say he is wrong. I simply have no human understanding of how Jesus (who called the children to himself) does this.

Our first duty is not to understand…but to believe what God has said (and done).


26. James Martin
March 18, 2007
7:31 PM

Yes, but my understanding of the age of accountability throws a curve at me. Romans 7:9 tells me there was a time when Paul was not under the law. That (I think) had to be when he was a child. I don’t know how my reformed-infant-baptizers deal with this one, but my Baptistic convictions urge me to think of children as not yet under the wrath of God.

Can my reformed-infant-baptizing friends help me with this question?… Do the dead infants lost adults go to hell?


27. James Martin
March 18, 2007
7:34 PM

OOPS… It should read “Do the dead infants of lost adults, go to hell?”


28. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 18, 2007
8:18 PM

The only people who go to hell are the ones who have not been justified by faith in Christ…they are the ones to whom the righteousness of Christ has NOT been accounted.


29. kathleen
March 19, 2007
12:37 AM

Anne writes: While it is unpleasant to think about God killing a child, a child may be relatively innocent, but not innocent in the eyes of God.

The idea of relative innocence is certainly interesting in a thread about moral relativism. But let me see if I understand what you’re saying.
You’re saying that God kills children because they are not innocent in his eyes, correct? But if this is true, why would God single out the first-born Egyptian children for slaughter, but leave other children (second-borns, non-Egyptians) alive? Wouldn’t that be an example of moral relativism – killing selected children and infants for their lack of innocence, but leaving others to live?

James wrote: When God killed those children, it was within his “law” in his dealings with the Pharaoh.

I’m not sure which of God’s laws you’re referring to here that would allow the killing of children in a particular country because of the transgressions of the country’s ruler. Or perhaps you’re saying that the slaughter of children is acceptable when God himself does the slaughtering, because God’s law for himself accepts any and all actions he takes, even violence against children and infants.
If that is indeed your argument, I’m not sure why you would balk at describing the killings of sleeping children as “murder”. It certainly fits the definition of murder: deliberate, premeditated, not in self-defense, etc. If you define “God’s law” as allowing any and all actions he undertakes, murder would be acceptable for God to commit, as would torture and rape.

To put a point on it: you wrote “God is God and he can do what he wants with what he creates”. If he can do what he wants, then he can certainly commit murder and the designation of “murderer” would be accurate and nothing to balk at. Let me know if I’ve understood you correctly.


30. chris
March 19, 2007
12:41 AM

Kathleen writes: I arrived at that conclusion [God murders] from several passages including this one in Exodus: “And at midnight the Lord killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed.”

Ok, so then you are interpreting the passage as murder. You read it, understand and believe it. You believe God killed children. Why then do you not read, understand and believe the same scriptures when they say that God is Holy and there is no evil in Him? Why believe this one and not others? It seems that you are subjecting God and His word to your mental faculties and judging him accordingly. How is this not folly?


31. James Martin
March 19, 2007
4:15 AM

Hi Kathleen,

Not all the first-born died. God’s point was that if anyone obeyed what he said, they would be saved from the angel of death. The point of the story is that if anyone obeys God, they shall be saved. IT was true then, it is still true today.

I see “relative innocence” related to “moral relativism.” God did not kill innocent first-born children. I would say they were guilty of sin in this context – the sin of others… (That brings me to the question of the age of accountability.)

Oppose this to when Herod had all the male children under the age of two killed. THIS is known as the slaughter of innocents.

When God did it, it was just. When Herod did it, it was unjust.

Kathleen says “If he can do what he wants…” Whatever God does, he does within his holiness and pure character. This is where I agree that I am not called to understand everything but to believe what God says about himself.

However, my believing does not make it true. There are plenty of facts that support the Bible to be a reliable book to put my faith in.


32. Ann Addison
March 19, 2007
7:36 AM

Kathleen,

I am saying that all of mankind including children standing before the judgment seat of God are guilty. They may have differing amounts of guilt relative to each other, but relative to God and His standards, the verdict is death. So, anytime God allows or causes death, it is just. The better question would be, why did God not kill… fill in the blank. He allows us, the guilty to live because of His merciful grace. Grace, by definition is a gift. Grace cannot be demanded. If you demand grace for all of the children to be spared, what you ask for can no longer be called grace.

So, 1. All people, men, women and children are guilty before God and deserve death

  1. If God withholds judgment for a little while, it is by His merciful grace

  2. God does not owe grace to anyone at any time

  3. So, while the children may have not been culpable for an immediate crime, they (with us all) were sitting among the condemned awaiting the sentence of death to be carried out

  4. Death in this world, does not necessarily equate to the judgment of eternal damnation. Unless Christ returns first, those who are covered by the righteousness of Christ, will suffer the judgment of death in this world, but will not taste death in the world to come.

By the way, I would recommend listening to the audio of Piper that Tim links to in his post so you can hear his distinction between relative contrasts such as “he is tall” (compared to what) and moral relativism. Above I am contrasting quantities of sin, but not justifying sin by the contrast, but rather the opposite.

I would also like to recommend to you my short post titled, “A Maternity Ward or an Oncology Unit?” The two Piper sermons I link to there are excellent. My blog is http://mousenaround.wordpress.com/


33. Ann Addison
March 19, 2007
5:47 PM

I just read a great post on GospelDrivenLife titled “The Injustice of God?” http://mrlauterbach.typepad.com/gospeldrivenlife/2007/03/theinjusticeo.html

It is a very interesting contrast to the subject of this thread, and well worth reading. I especially recommend it to you, Kathleen.


34. kathleen
March 19, 2007
10:06 PM

Chris writes: Ok, so then you are interpreting the passage as murder. You read it, understand and believe it. You believe God killed children. Why then do you not read, understand and believe the same scriptures when they say that God is Holy and there is no evil in Him?

I’m not following your logic. You’re asserting that every possible action taken by God is necessarily holy and not evil, correct? If that is the case, then all acts by God, including murder, would fall under this umbrella. Thus, you would have no reason to balk at the word ‘murder’.
To put it another way: if you regard God’s slaughter of sleeping children as holy and not evil, then accurately describing this slaughter as murder would not cause it to lose any of its holiness or goodness. Murder (as well as mass murder and child murder) when done by God would be just as holy and good as slaughter or killing, would it not?

It seems that you are subjecting God and His word to your mental faculties and judging him accordingly. How is this not folly?

I’m doing the same thing you and we all are — using my mental faculties to understand a particular Biblical passage. If you’re aware of a way to read and comprehend the written word without using mental faculties, let’s hear it.


35. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 20, 2007
12:28 AM

The Creator/Sustainer/Giver of life has the power, authority, and right to take life back whenever He chooses, by whatever means He chooses. And you can call it whatever you want to call it (murder, slaughter, killing…it makes no difference, whether it be of young or old, infant or toddler, grown or mature)…whenever God ends a life (by whatever means), it is holy, just and right, and always according to His good will and for His glory.

Who are you who answers back to God?

Where were you when God…(go read Job to finish this question).


36. Bob
March 20, 2007
2:47 PM

Why do we view children as innocent and less deserving of death than middle-aged adults or seniors? In doing so, don’t we expose our disbelief in original sin? Don’t we also expose a belief that we can be justified by our actions (if a child is innocent because they have never hated someone, then we can also be made innocent by not hating others, etc)?

Wasn’t death the result of the fall and extended to all of humanity? Can we find evidence that if we are “good enough” or even innocent (by a very high social standard of innocence) that we will escape death and pain? No, we all experience the results of the fall. Some experience death earlier than others. To think that this is injustice by God is to fail to understand the relative value of our lives here on earth when compared to eternal life with Him. It is also to understand that we are justified by works, rather than on the finished work of Jesus, which we accept by grace through faith.


37. Kathleen
March 20, 2007
10:46 PM

Brian writes: And you can call it whatever you want to call it (murder, slaughter, killing…it makes no difference, whether it be of young or old, infant or toddler, grown or mature)…whenever God ends a life (by whatever means), it is holy, just and right, and always according to His good will and for His glory.

Let me make sure I understand you.
You’re saying that all acts committed by God are morally equivalent, correct? Murdering an infant in its crib is just as holy, just and right as, say, allowing a serial rapist to die in prison. When God slaughters children, it is the same as hugging or protecting them, because all of God’s acts are morally equivalent.
This is what you’re saying, correct?


38. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 20, 2007
11:16 PM

Whenever God ends a life (by whatever means), it is holy, just and right, and always according to His good will and for His glory.


39. kathleen
March 21, 2007
1:39 AM

Brian writes: Whenever God ends a life (by whatever means), it is holy, just and right, and always according to His good will and for His glory.

If your assertion is true, then the following must be true: - All God’s acts are morally equivalent.
- It is as holy, just and right for God to commit murder as it is for God to prevent murder. - There is no moral difference between God killing an infant and God protecting an infant from being killed — they are morally equivalent.

These are necessary conclusions from your premise. To dispute the conclusions is to dispute the premise.


40. Wylie
March 21, 2007
8:24 AM

Kathleen,

Come on. You seem to be playing word games.

“It is as holy, just and right for God to commit murder as it is for God to prevent murder.”

Murder is a word with moral weight. If you replaced “murder” with “kill” then we all could agree. But murder is to more than kill, it is to unjustly kill. Therefore you seem to be wanting us to say that God who is “holy, just and right” can do something that is unjust. He can’t, everything he does is just.


41. Wylie
March 21, 2007
8:26 AM

So to clarify (in case I need to)

If God does kill someone it CANNOT be murder i.e. unjust killing, because he has the right to end a life when he please.


42. abe
March 21, 2007
1:05 PM

When God kills (i assume you refer to the killing of the first born), there are only 2 parties involved, God and the person. Because it is God who gave that life in the first place and he is just, when he decides to take it away by whatever means, He is just. (Sometimes he may use other people also to work out his will. These people can be wicked or they may just be following Gods orders. Either way, God is just and if he has used wicked people, then they eventually get punished for their wicked deed as well.) When God prevents a person from being killed it involves 3 individuals, God, the person who is about to be killed and the person who is to commit the act of MURDER(it is now murder because it arises out of some malicious intent and goes against His will). God prevents the act and therefore proves himself to be just. So we really have two different scenarios each involving different number of people. And if God does allow the person to be murdered is he unjust? No, because it isnt He who murders but allows it to happen. And because he allows it to happen is he unjust? No, because each of us have the freedom to do whatever we please, either we follow his law or dont but in the bigger picture, justice always catches up. It may seem unjust now but justice will be done eventually. That is how God determined it in his infinite wisom which we in our “wisdom”, if we are willing to act foolish, have the freedom to question. The main problem i see here is Kathleens insistence to view all acts of taking a life as murder. She starts with because God “murdered” the natural conclusion should be God of the bible cant be God of the universe. But we start with because He is holy, just and pure and is the God of the universe, though Him killing an infant may seem to be unjust to us, it cant be because it would contradict who He really is. He is just in all that he does, else He wouldnt be God.