Resolved: The Bible does NOT present an acceptable moral standard

If we consider the FULL Bible we see that "Thou shalt not kill" is rather qualified.Consider the case of Numbers 25:7-8. Consider that both the ending of Numbers 25:8 and 25:11-13 indicate that God strongly approved of this killing.Consider also that which follows in Mumbers 31.Is this the sort of thing you find morally acceptable ?

Well the Ten Commandments don't "mention us" explicitly. But you still seem to hold that they apply. And the "bits that mention us" are not the full Bible either.
I pointed out Phineas' actions because they bear on the question of what the "Thou shalt not kill" means - this is clearly legitimate unless you either hold that the Ten Commandments do not "mention us" and do not apply (although you yourself held up "Thou shalt not kill" as an example of a moral teaching) or unless you hold that we cannot look at the "full Bible" to throw light on what the Commandments mean.According to Numbers 25 Phineas' actions were approved of by God and therefore we can reasonably conclude that they were not forbidden by "Thou shalt not kill".

Well I'm not just referring to an *event* am I ? The important fact is that this event is not only NOT held to be morally wrong, it is held to be morally good, and deserving of being rewarded - AND that this view is directly attributed to God himself who commends Phineas for the killing. (And I will just add that according to Numbers the Israelites were living in the Midianite's lands at that time).Clearly the full Bible teaches us that "Thou shalt not kill" has exceptions - including this event. And if you find that unacceptable then you are saying that "Thou shalt not kill" as it is meant in the Bible is not so great after all.

Mike, YOU introduced that commandment to the discussion.According to the verses I referenced, God Himself approved of the killing and rewarded the killer. Call it an "exception" if you must but at least recognise that according to the Bible it is God who made that exception and who strongly approved of it. Every time you say that I am just arguing from an event in the OT you ignore that and misrepresent my point.Have I considered the "whole teaching" ? well since the teaching we are talking about is an OT teaching any modification in the NT is irrelevant, and if the verse you refer to does NOT modify the teaching then the answer is of course that I have considered the whole teaching - anything that says that Phineas' action is wrong must contradict the verses which state that God found Phineas' actiosn to be good and worthy of reward. And that leaves us with no consistent teaching.

I never said that it got rid of the Commandments. What I am saying is that the Commandments are not as good as they appear - when you consider the "full Bible". Numbers quite definitely teaches that the double killing performed by Phineas was good, and therefore it is reasonable to suppose that it is permitted by the Ten Commandments. So "Thou shalt not kill" does not rule out at least some killings that we would find to be morally wrong.

Mike, I'm not "eager to avoid" anything. I raised one single point - that when you consider the "full Bible" it is less obvious that "thou shalt not kill" is a good rule because it is interpreted as permitting killings which we would hold to be wrong and this interpretation is attributed to God Himself.Now up to this point I have NOT claimed that the event in Numbers has any relevance to our behaviour. I have *explicitly* restricted it to illuminating the actual limits of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Do I really have to produce post after post to correct your misrepresentations of what I said ?