Links Mentioned on the Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

• The SLED Test - Four Top Arguments [against Abortion] by Steve Wagner (PDF)

• Life Unworthy of Life by Greg Koukl

Register at str.org and sign in to listen to today's show or download any archived show for free.

Comments

[GeoffreyCharles]

Regarding the supposed immorality of the Bible:

(Instead of saying the God of the OT is immoral...) What about the atheist who says something like "the morality of the Bible, specifically the questionable parts of the OT, is primitive. It fits the historical context. So, we shouldn't be surprised at the seemingly horrendous things of the OT, b/c that's how things were back then."

My point in asking this question is that the atheist isn't necessarily saying any of it is immoral. They're not making any judgments which need to be justified by some atheistic objective moral standard. Rather, they're saying it's what we would naturally expect in the writings from those time periods.

What do you think?
Thanks,
Geoff

[Tom Price]

Geoff,

I wonder if the idea of moral development, or progression "things used to be worse back then, but they are better now" is hiding under this apparently amoral way of phrasing the question. It's clear that it is a historical observation, but the use of the word "primitive" suggests a little but more than a mere historical observation. Perhaps there is ALSO the idea that 'primitive' is morally inferior to what we have now. If that is the case, then it is not merely an amoral historical judgement, and one of the questions that we would be left with might be: how can we speak of moral progression and development without a supra-cultural moral reference point? How can we talk about being closer to something without a map, or without the stars, or a lighthouse or some kind of reference point? I think it was Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote that the removal of God would lead to the questions, "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?" (Parable of the Madman from The Gay Science)

When we look at the world from heaven's perspective, then we see a fully good God, who loves us, is willing to change us. He makes sense of why we long for moral harmony and perfection, as well as the other perfections and excellences which all have their root and foot in his nature. He also makes sense of time, and its forward thrust.

Tom

[GeoffreyCharles]

Tom,

Thanks for the response. "Primitive" could mean morally inferior. But what if they say it means "different"? They compare it to morality of that time and say that's naturally what we would expect. And that morality back then is different from morality today. So, we wouldn't expect those parts of the OT to be considered the morality of today. So, even though morality has changed over time, they don't say that it was worse then, and better now (even if they really do believe that's the case).

This point of theirs seems to try to rebut the claim that the Bible is from God, or that it's supernatural in some way. They're saying, "well, actually these parts of the bible reveal it's primitive morality, and are just what we would naturally expect from the bible."

So they're saying "the morality of the bible seems natural, so the believer can't use it to prove the supernatural nature of the bible."

What do you think?
thanks,
Geoff