A handful of questions regarding biblical morality arose in the past few weeks and none of them justify a post by themselves. As always, keep in mind the fundamental use of quantum moral reasoning.
Masturbation is a Western obsession; it hardly received notice in ANE writings, and even then typically as symbolism of something else. In particular, male masturbation was simply taken for granted with no particular moral approbation either way. The Bible assumes men actually need sexual release of some sort. There are provisions for doing it justly and plenty of warnings about injustice, but nobody batted an eye at any particular form of sexual satisfaction in terms of shock that it would happen. ANE societies took it for granted; they also took the consequences for granted. It’s not sinful to gain sexual release in itself; masturbation is not inherently wrong, but can be wrong within a bigger context.
A governing entity has full authority from God to take human life for a lot of reasons Westerners don’t accept. Western moral norms frequently stand in blatant rejection of God’s justice. Life itself is not precious in the Bible; sacrifice of one’s life is a different thing entirely. Volition is the defining issue, not the end of life. In the Bible, death is merely a circumstance. So, for example, within the context of what we see today, a government based on one philosophy should tolerate talk and even wide discussion of competing philosophies, but the moment someone agitates for political changes based on another philosophy, the government can punish them. If anyone takes any kind of action beyond words based on their competing philosophy, the government is quite justified in summary execution of those caught in the act. There should be no shrieking in horror at the idea; this is what governments are supposed to do. When you promote an alien political philosophy, you had better be ready for bloodshed, your own included. What you are doing is attacking the foundations of whatever passes for social stability.
On the other hand, a government refusal to protect according to published promises justifies killing government agents who try to prevent folks protecting themselves. That’s not to say it’s wise to kill them, but it fits broadly into divine justice. Hypocrisy can rise to the level of capital punishment in some cases, particularly in the case of those who hold the balance of power. Publicly admitting certain groups are favored is not a crime; prissy hypocrisy is. The West is inherently dishonest and this is the single greatest cause of offense against God’s justice. It’s one thing to observe that ANE societies typically engaged in hyperbole; that’s a literary device. It’s another thing when there is a fundamental expectation that someone will never do what they announce is public policy. If the intent is to herd people in any direction based on deception, that’s evil. Political spin is a capital crime in God’s eyes.
In the end, the summum bonum is not “objective truth” — a mythological thing that never has and never could exist. The ultimate good in God’s eyes is social stability. He does go on to define how best to achieve that, but He tends to tolerate for long periods, across multiple centuries, other ways of achieving the same thing. It may well be horribly oppressive, but if it meets certain minimum moral objectives within the broad image of social stability — primarily family stability — God won’t quickly move to end such oppression. A government that honors the sanctity of blood and covenant kinship can get away with a lot of stuff. Any government that violates that sanctity is doomed.
Particularly evil is any government or political philosophy that attempts to replace blood and covenant ties with some artificial construct, such as “community standards” and “social contract.”
What He calls you to do may vary within any given context, but if your concept of that mission is flavored by Western moral considerations, you will fail your calling.
