OUR FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments, by Greg Koukl

[JonLanceBarker]

yes, there is that.
we all know you meant lying, Jack Calvin...it's ok.

[casaba]

Just on the subject of the 'logicians' not showing up for discussion: When the issue of lying "to protect Jews from the Nazis" during WWII is presented as a "moral dilemma", I can see why most reasonable people stay away.

[Glenn P]

I'm not a logician? I feel slighted....

[Trout]

[JonLanceBarker]

Just on the subject of the 'logicians' not showing up for discussion: When the issue of lying "to protect Jews from the Nazis" during WWII is presented as a "moral dilemma", I can see why most reasonable people stay away.

when you say "logicians," are you referring to Minnie and Whizzer?



and frankly, i'm not sure what you're trying to say. is it that moral dilemmas aren't fit conversation material for their lot?

[Kelp]

and frankly, i'm not sure what you're trying to say. is it that moral dilemmas aren't fit conversation material for their lot?

I believe what he's saying is that the whole way that morality is discussed in philosophical contexts is silly and foolish and that any reasonable person does not participate.

[JonLanceBarker]

I believe what he's saying is that the whole way that morality is discussed in philosophical contexts is silly and foolish and that any reasonable person does not participate.

now why would he say that?

[casaba]

now why would he say that?

The time that Christians, particularly those of a Conservative flavor, spend deciding how absolute an absolute god can be, is astounding. I actually agree with Koukl's point that absolute morals do not exist; unfortunately, I don't know if he agrees with it. Call me a relativist (as if that were a bad word), but is seems intuitively obvious that claiming "Lying is bad" as an absolute is anything but ridiculous. I guess Koukl simply chose the most obvious example to say this same thing. My problem the Nazi reference was simply in calling it a moral dilemma; a dilemma for me is something that requires thought before coming to a solution. The case he presented requires no thought; any dilemma would arise from the thought of self preservation, which I suspect would--and should--come well before any 'guilt' of having told a lie.

[Glenn P]

I think Koukl should have spoken of moral duties as being "qualified," rather than denying that they are "absolute." Denying that they are absolute can lead some (like casaba) to make the error of thinking that this means they are not objective, and that relativism (yes, it is a bad thing) is the way to go.

[casaba]

I think Koukl should have spoken of moral duties as being "qualified," rather than denying that they are "absolute." Denying that they are absolute can lead some (like casaba) to make the error of thinking that this means they are not objective, and that relativism (yes, it is a bad thing) is the way to go.
emphasis added

Thank you for your absolute opinion. Duly noted.

[Glenn P]

Well I hope it is noted. It's important tor realise here that "qualified" does not mean the same as "non-absolute." In fact that's an objective fact. Also objectively true is that had Koukl argued this way, there would be no room for the claim that his comments lead tor relativism.

Those things are facts. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not he would have been correct.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well I hope it is noted. It's important tor realise here that "qualified" does not mean the same as "non-absolute." In fact that's an objective fact. Also objectively true is that had Koukl argued this way, there would be no room for the claim that his comments lead tor relativism.

Those things are facts. What is a matter of opinion is whether or not he would have been correct.

In his Relativism book, Koukl does argue in that way.

[The Pixie]

The question is, does the circumstance change in a morally relevant way when God is the subject in view? To kind of clarify that, I could ask a question: What is your most prized possession? Say it's a mountain bike. Okay, if you owned your mountain bike is it okay if you disassemble it and spread it around? If it's yours it would be okay. I can do what I want with my own things. But what if someone else did that to your bike? Well, that would be wrong because someone else doesn't have the liberty to do that with something that is not their own. Yet, you being the owner of that thing do have the liberty to do whatever you want with what is yours.

I think my most prized possessions are my children. Is it okay for me to disassemble them and spread them around? I think not. I suggest it is different when you are considering intelligent beings; you do not have the liberty to do whatever the heck you want to another living thing, whether you own it or not. Indeed, I personally find the idea of owning another intelligent being to be morally wong.

[Kelp]

I think my most prized possessions are my children.


I personally find the idea of owning another intelligent being to be morally wong.

Greetings,

How is there not a contradictionn between those two statements?

[The King]

Does God Have to Obey the Ten Commandments? by Gregory Koukl
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually a misquote. The commandment isn't against killing; it's against murder. Just as in English, the Hebrew language has two different words; and the word murder is what is described in the commandment, not killing. It should be fairly evident to people that God is not proscribing all killing because part of the very Mosaic law that God gave capitol [sic] punishment as an appropriate punishment for quite a number of crimes. You can't say, I forbid you to kill, and by the way, kill. That would be an obvious contradiction, and that is obviously not what God has in mind. No, the prohibition is against murder, which is an inappropriate kind of killing.

"Thou shalt not kill" is not a "misquote."

The Hebrew text says lo tirtsach, which can refer either to killing (mere homicide) or murder (a form of culpable homicide). While there are other words for "kill" and "murder" in Hebrew, the term ratsach can refer to either. What is determinative for the meaning of the term ratsach is the context, but there is nothing inherent in the term that restricts it to culpable homicide. In fact, Deut 4:42 refers to somebody who unintentionally kills (yirtsach) another person, using the same Hebrew word. You cannot have an unintentional "murder" by definition. So the term ratsach is clearly not itself restricted to culpable homicide.

The King