• Kevin

Flood Morality Debate: More Than One Lens?

Updated: Jun 27


In Part 2 of the Flood Morality Debate, KD admitted that he did not have an ultimate authority or ultimate standard of judgment. This is despite the fact that he was trying to judge God as being immoral for His Judgment against humanity during the Global Flood of Genesis. KD was using his own standard of judgment, which is merely an opinion. God’s Word has much to say about standards of judgment, including these relatively well-known versus of scripture:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. –Matthew 7:1-5 (ESV)

One thing these verses reveal to us is that we tend to use a certain “measure” of judgment. Is there a correct measure of judgment? Yes. For example, Jesus says the following:

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. –John 7:24 (ESV)

People who are often hostile to Christianity love to quote Matthew 7:1 out of context (“Judge not…”) and say that we are never to judge. John 7:24 makes very clear that we can make judgments, but we must judge with "right judgment." So who defines “right judgment”? The God who is Perfect and Just:

The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is He. –Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV)

In the next part of the debate, KD says that he is “…willing to explore what judgment might look like through more than one lens.” I challenge him on this point. See below for Part 3 of 4 of the Flood Morality Debate.

KD:

KH,

// if you admit that you do not have an ultimate authority or ultimate standard, then how can you “judge” right and wrong? In other words, how can you charge God with immorality?//

There are various theories of truth as there are various theories of morality. And I'm willing to explore what judgment might look like through more than one lens. However, I would bet that you judged infanticide and genocide as wrong before you ever tasted of a Read. Am I wrong?

//The “process” you describe sounds like the philosophy of empiricism. This is the philosophy that we can only know what is testable. However, the philosophy of empiricism is self-refuting: how does one empirically verify the philosophy of empiricism? Moreover, nobody is truly 100% empirical in practice, because we all start with basic “conclusions” or presuppositions, especially regarding our views of right and wrong.//

I'm committed to a multiaxial process, not the one axis approach to x.

Kevin:

“There are various theories of truth as there are various theories of morality. And I'm willing to explore what judgment might look like through more than one lens. However, I would bet that you judged infanticide and genocide as wrong before you ever tasted of a Read. Am I wrong?“

Your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you view the biblical lens as a “wrong” lens, and therefore, there must be some other “correct” lens. By what ultimate standard would you judge one lens or another to be right or wrong? Also, are you willing to consider the biblical lens?

Yes, I did judge infanticide and genocide as wrong before becoming a born-again Christian. Since humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), it makes sense that we would exhibit some attributes of God such as justice and morality. Even if we do not trust the God of the Bible, we still “know” God’s invisible qualities (Romans 1:18-20). However, without trusting God’s Word, we easily go astray from God’s ways (Isaiah 53:6). For example, there are many people who have no problem with infanticide in various forms, especially in the form of abortion.

“I'm committed to a multiaxial process, not the one axis approach to x.”

By being committed to a “process,” aren’t you concluding that your process is correct? In other words, by being committed to a “process,” aren’t you also committed to a “conclusion”?

Have a good night. I may not get to see any replies until tomorrow night.

One might wonder, by what ultimate standard of judgment do we judge that God's Word is the ultimate standard of judgment? Well, only the ultimate standard itself can judge that the ultimate standard is correct. That is why it is the ultimate standard. For example, we read the following in scripture:

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by Himself --Hebrews 6:13 (ESV)

In Part 4 of 4 of the Flood Morality Debate, KD and I discuss the “process versus conclusion” concept a little more. I will share that in my next post.

#Justice #Morality #GlobalFlood

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ"
--2 Corinthians 10:5
"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
--1 Peter 3:15

© Kevin Hadsall 2018

  • Grey Facebook Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon