Thread 24702730

Christian ethics often appeals to two sources for moral truth: natural law (truths accessible through reason and observing the created order) and special revelation (truths revealed directly in Scripture).

How should a conflict between these two be resolved? For example, when Old Testament commands (e.g., the injunction to annihilate the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7) appear to directly violate a rationally derived natural law principle against killing non-combatants, which source takes precedence? On what theological grounds is this hierarchy justified?

>>24702730 (OP)
>For example, when Old Testament commands
yes anon, then that whole New Testament thing happened.

>>24702730 (OP)
God has the right to give and take life (Job 1:21).

>>24702730 (OP)
In that specific case I have heard it argued that God, creator of life, has the right to take it away, and therefore the right to temporarily authorize the Hebrews to act as His instrument.

Same principle with Abraham killing his son, apparently an even more flagrant violation of natural law, but if God asks you to do it, then you can, and in fact ought to do it.

>>24704210
>Same principle with Abraham killing his son, apparently an even more flagrant violation of natural law, but if God asks you to do it, then you can, and in fact ought to do it.
Fuck that and fuck him

>>24704220
>>24704210
Nuance here is that Abraham just assumed that Isaac could and would be resurrected by God.

there is more than one scholastics

>>24704210

>It is okay for atheist zionists to bomb churches full of Christian children because of a verse from the Scripture which they do not even follow

>By the way, building a temple for these zionists will bring back Jesus Christ even though the Gospel explicitly teaches that no man knows the day or the hour