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 ?

Paul, did you miss what I said about people concentrating on events in the bible rather than what concerns them?Quote: "Could someone SHOW me how the bible does not meet an acceptable moral standard if we concentrate on the parts mentioning us?"

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".

How old you are berberry ? I was under the impression you were still in your teens/pre-teens but when you mentioned you read LOTR decades ago, I assume you're older then , no ?

Yes, you are right, I was only saying that the Ten Commandments are moral. How can a saying like Thou shalt not kill not be moral?
Is such a thing relevant to a human moral perspective? - I think so!Infact, in Acts they tell the gentiles to only observe a few Jewish laws and ofcourse Jesus's teachings apply to his followers. Infact my only point about the Commandments is that they are moral, and if you were a sojourner or stranger in the land of Israel then you would have to obey the law - that is what is said in leviticusNow what do you see what's happening here? I'm starting to include books - a few of them, and they add up and make a full moral wisdom. Now I will us Galatians. Even if we are to follow the Commandments despite us being Gentile, the fruit of the spirit fulfills the law, working no ill to it's neighbour. Including christs teachings to gentiles also then we can see the moral logic involved.An event in Numbers in which an atonement of Israel took place seems to bare no relevance to what pertains to US. It does however fit what I said earlier nicely - judging G-d and throwing the book away because of events that happened, not teachings.

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.

I still think the Commandment is sound.For me, the fact that the story seems to have what you would call exceptions makes the events all the more real to me. Infact, if it was all fake then it would be seemingly perfect to an unbeliever, yet to an unbeliever it is not perfect. You see, if it was fake then surely you would alter the story, it seems to agree well with the reality of life.You are talking about the Commandment to the Jews and putting an event under that Commandment. However, G-d has also said , again when you take the full bible into consideration, that he that even gets angry with his brother is in danger of the Commandment. So, for you to say that there are exceptions to the rule is for me a half-truth. Yes, if a kiddy is getting hurt like Sidelined suggested, I could see the sense in that. BUT, saying G-d makes exceptions because of an event in the OT is not solely acceptable because Christ said things like:" In the past it was an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, but now I say turn the other cheek " -(similar words)
He also says he who is without sin can cast the first stone. Infact, he makes it impossible to justify violence, have you considered the full teaching Paul?

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.

Well it depends on how you esteem the Commandments, if you think this one event gats rid of the Commandment, that's up to you. I however, do not look to events in the OT that do not seem to be teachings.Okay Paul, I admitt when I read the text it seems to be a unsettling thing. Thrusting a spear through the woman is not my idea of a correct and good thing. I have to be honest, other things concern me aswell, like a woman being burned in Leviticus. If it wasn't for the Father Christ spoke of and christ's teachings, I would not be a believer.But atleast realise that I am not a Jew and therefore I take heed of the New Testament as a teaching mostly.

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.

Maybe if I was touting that the one teaching was the only thing to adhere to I would agree, but I am not. I am saying if we take a full bible teaching (including christ's) - which you are eager to avoid, then we can see that it is a moral teaching, if you consider the new Commandments of Christ which ARE IN THE FULL BIBLE, you cannot justify violence, therefore you are picking the bad parts and trying to attach those events to the teaching. Remember the yellow words I highlighted? Those teachings which pertain TO US> Does God say to go out and do a similar act to that one in numbers - as a teaching to us? - NO HE DOESN'T, he says Thou shalt not kill, there is a crucial difference between a teaching to us and an event with the ancient Hebrews.

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 ?

So, it is of your opinion that the old testament is essentially totally obsolute upon the arrival and teachings of Christ?

Where did you get that impression, Zealot? Do I write like a pre-teen?I'm 43. You?

For my part, I think this commandment is a sound moral teaching, so long as it's not taken as a moral absolute. Clearly there are times when killing would be appropriate, such as in self defense or defense of an innocent. Consider the situation faced by Lot, who acted the supreme coward. I'd kill, or die trying to kill, in order to prevent a rape. How could doing so be immoral?Mike, you seem to be saying that if one views this commandment in light of all other scripture one would come away with a correct view of the moral behind it. I'm not so sure of that, since the examples the bible gives of killing are almost always either cowardly or senseless. The story of Phinehas is but one example. God's order to slaughter the Amalekites, including women and children, even suckling infants, is another. Such genocide, ordered by God himself, seems to me to obviate the commandment.One might say that God brought a new covenant in the person of Jesus and that thus the examples of senseless killing in the OT should be ignored. I'd gladly ignore them, but the NT - and even Jesus himself - tell us that we are to revere the OT and follow its laws. Besides, it seems crazy to believe that, if God is perfect, his old covenant could have been flawed. Why was a new covenant necessary if the old one was perfect? So I'm still wondering how it is that all of the books of the OT and NT "come together" and present a perfect morality.