Are there moral absolutes?

I need to reply more often...

Bubba

If I may say so, Enforcer, I see a mixed message: you wonder why God doesn't force us into heaven regardless of our actions, and you would rather fail than have God help you.

Well, there is what I believe, and what I think (if there is a God) what he should/would do IMHO.

Better to "rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven," huh? Milton's Satan in "Paradise Lost" expressed a very similar sentiment.

I must be clear: THIS is precisely the sort of attitude that qualifies as rebellion against God. This attitude denies man's ultimate reliance on God and insists that man doesn't need or want God. If you sincerely insist that you don't want God in your life, He won't force Himself into your life. But that has consequences.

I have been meaning to finish it, but from what I read, it is a better book than the Bible .

But the thing is we dont know when God is helping us out or when it is our own ability. If we could actually know when he is or is not helping us (He may know that we would not need help in a given situation and sit it out). It would be nice if we could not so much reject him, but instead say "I would rather try it alone." But since we cant know for sure, we dont have the option of going it alone.

And if there is not a God, then I am being compleatly honest. I am not belitteling or wrongfully praising or lying to myself.

But in terms of artifacts, the biggest piece of corroborating evidence is the fact that non-Christian historians Josephus and Tacitus refer to Jesus, His brutal execution, and the otherwise inexplicable thriving of a religious movement that asserted His ressurection.

But do those historians say anything about a resurection? Anything about walking on water...turning water into wine...etc...

I almost see the bible as one of those made for TV movies that is baised on fact, but a lot of artistic licens was put into it to make (mostly) good points.

No, but the fact remains that God probably wont resorect you. Yeah, he can, but odds are good that he wont, given that he has not in at least 2k years that we know of.

Probably? But how do you calculate the odds that God will or won't perform a miracle? Because 2000 years have passed? That matters to an eternal God?

It matters to us.

I know you said this in refrence to something else, but could we apply that same idea to my idea that morals must be justified by the person affected by an action. That exceptions are made in that case?

I'm not actually sure what you mean here: if you could go over this again, that'd be great.

Back way back when this threed was about morals, we were talking about how those people who should judge if an action is moral or not would be the ones affected by the action. You gave an example that a child being punished may not be convinced by any reasoning however correct the parrent may give. Then later you said that God may make an exception for those who cannot think for themselves. I was asking how would you argue me making a simular exception for my idea that the best judge of morals is the one affected by them, assuming they can think for themselves.

I understand that in the real world, there are lots of problem, but idealy, would you argue me making an exception like that?

You don't want proof but you do want evidence? How odd.

I should say I want evidence where the best conclusion is that God exists.

The problem is, if the Bible is true, it indicates that God MIGHT not work by proving Himself to the unbeliever: some of Jesus' Disciples followed Him BEFORE He performed miracles and made clear who He was. And it's implied that ONLY believers saw the resurrected Christ.

Ok. I want good evidence that the Bible is true then(that may be better than evidence of God since I concider faith redundant if you know something is true).

God may often work through the "still, small voice." He coaxes us back through the nudging of His Spirit.

"I only d

 

I too have a long post.


I'm not sure if we can do much of anything on our own: even if God might not be helping us in any direct sense, He gave us the abilities to help ourselves, and that TOO does count.

The only thing I'm sure of is that He won't make our decisions for us: we freely choose to submit to His will or demand our own.


"But in terms of artifacts, the biggest piece of corroborating evidence is the fact that non-Christian historians Josephus and Tacitus refer to Jesus, His brutal execution, and the otherwise inexplicable thriving of a religious movement that asserted His ressurection."

But do those historians say anything about a resurection? Anything about walking on water...turning water into wine...etc...

I almost see the bible as one of those made for TV movies that is baised on fact, but a lot of artistic licens was put into it to make (mostly) good points.

Like I said, the thriving of Christianity was otherwise inexplicable. First, here are the remarks from the two scholars:

From Josephus:

[Ananias] convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.

This confirms the existence of Jesus and may confirm 1 Corinthians 15:7, which claims James saw the risen Jesus.

Also from Josephus:

(A bit of the original passage included "interpolations," or believed additions, of early Christian copyists. Here, I present what was likely Jospehus' original words.)

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us [i.e., the Jews], had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This confirms Jesus' existence and reputation as a teacher and miracle worker. It corroborates his crucifixion and the involvement of Pilate and the Jewish leaders in His execution. It also confirms that his folowers persisted, though the Resurrection.

Tacitus:

Nero fastened the guilt [of the A.D. 64 Roman fire] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, an arrest wast first made upon all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

This confirms the claim that Jesus was the Christ (the savior from prophecy), the nature of his execution, and the resiliance of the Christian movement.

It's hard to overstate the unlikelihood of Christianity becoming a religion to begin with, much less such a compelling one. The cross was SUCH a social stigma that no one would try to build a religion around anyone who died on a cross.

Was Jesus' death a hoax? Unlikely: had Jesus not really died, Jewish leaders would have immediately debunked it. No one seriously disputes His death.

Was His Resurrection a hoax? ALSO unlikely: the ones who would have perpertrated the hoax (the Apostles) were also quite willing to die defending the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead. It seems unlikely people would KNOWINGLY die for a lie.

If Jesus actually died, and if His ressurection isn't a hoax, one must consider the unthinkable: that Jesus is Go

 

test

 

If God made me, it seems unlikely that He's unjust and I am somehow just. What seems FAR more reasonable is that He is just - through my rebellion, my sense of justice has become warped.

To change the subject, and bring in Epicurus...

How can God be a just God to allow the existence of evil in the world?

- Scarlet.

 

EnforcerSG, your comment the It is here, there is very well possible that there is no one responsible for creation, that it just occures. brings to mind a cute story I heard once. I'll try to remember it correctly...

A atheist visits a rabbi. They are friends and have had many conversations in the past about the existence of God and. The man sees a beautiful painting on the wall with the rabbi's signature on it. He asks "Rabbi, that painting...it is a masterpiece! It is so beautiful to behold! How do you do it?"

The rabbi, remembering a previous debate they had about Creation responds "Oh, that... it was nothing, really. I had my canvas on the table and accidentally spilled my paints on it, and out came this wonderful picture!"

The man says "No, that is impossible. An accident could not have created such perfection!"

The rabbi points to the beautiful view of the landscape outside his window and says "Exactly."

 

How can God be a just God to allow the existence of evil in the world?

There are two parts to that question: why God allowed evil to begin with and why God allows evil to persist.

The first part, why God allowed evil to begin with, is entailed in why God created us: He wanted truly free creatures to have a relationship with Him: He wanted sons and daughters rather than mere creatures.

(Notice the plural: sons and daughters. I believe that requires a physical universe for us to inhabit. Time and space allows us to be legitimately distinct from each other. But I digress.)

He wanted us to love Him.

To be capable of love, someone must be free to choose whether to love; otherwise we wouldn't really love God, just act like we do because we're programmed to inexorably do so.

To be truly free, we MUST have the ability to choose good over evil AND evil over good - or, in this case, loving God or rebelling against Him.

God allowed evil because allowing evil is necessary to freedom, freedom is necessary for love, and man loving God is the reason He made us.


Given that, why didn't He restore His absolute justice the moment we rebelled? Well, the penalty for rebelling against God is REALLY, REALLY bad: it's separation from God. And while I believe that separation IS a just punishment, it's also a terrible fate to behold - and God never intended us to suffer that fate.

If He restored justice this very moment, everyone condemned by their rebellion would be doomed.

So, He stays His hand. Is that unjust? Maybe, though God WILL restore justice eventually. And it may be unjust, but it's also MERCIFUL.

It's God's mercy that keeps us free within an unjust world: He is giving us ample opportunities to apologize for our rebellions and accept His free gift of restoring our relationship with Him. We each run out of chances when our eathly lives end; and the Bible teaches that all of creation will "run out of chances" when Jesus returns.

But until He pulls the trigger (and, being just, He WILL one day pull the trigger), God continues to ask if we're SURE we want this and coaxes us back to His good graces.

 

wow a lot of ppl really got into this discussion. i think yes. bottom line i say there are few, but my mind isn't ready to discuss them right now. i shall at a later date though.

 

How can God be a just God to allow the existence of evil in the world?

Oh boy. //pauses-waits for the inevitable respose//

God allowed evil because allowing evil is necessary to freedom, freedom is necessary for love, and man loving God is the reason He made us.

So it follows that evil is necessary to know love. Similarly that immorality is necessary to know true morality.

Maybe. I don't buy it. Being charitable isn't made more virtuous by the existance of murder. Again, in different words, virtues are not defined by vices.

If a world existed without murder, one in which no one could imagine taking a life, would the people in this world think any less of virtuous acts?

And does it really matter? Given the choice wouldn't a moral person sacrifice the good of moral actions to avoid the bad of immoral actions? I know I would rather not know good than know evil.

 

I was hopping that since there were only a handful of posts made, it would be a short post here...too bad...

I'm not sure if we can do much of anything on our own: even if God might not be helping us in any direct sense, He gave us the abilities to help ourselves, and that TOO does count.

The only thing I'm sure of is that He won't make our decisions for us: we freely choose to submit to His will or demand our own.

Although (IF there is a God in the literal sense) we do owe him our existence, we do not owe him our successes if he does not help us. Like I said, we thank the lawn keeper for having the field in good condition, but we don't thank him for when we make a goal.

And we could always ask the games keeper to not tend the lawn, or we can play else where. Until we die, we don?t have that choice when it comes to God (he is after all, omni-present and always whispering for us to do what he thinks is right and always loving us even when we would not want him to). Where is our freedom there?

The quotes you gave of historians. They do not (to me) prove that Jesus was resurrected. They prove that there was a Jesus that he has a large following, and was crucified, but I see no mention of his resurrection.

I would guess that Jesus was a strong spiritual teacher who probably made a lot of sense to others of the time. Others may have declared him the son of God for his wisdom. Rome didn?t like him, so they ordered him to be killed, and maybe he was, maybe someone else was nailed up there (what, according to the bible and as best as we can tell from other sources, did Christ do after the came back to life?).

Also, things like 'may' and 'most likely' don?t make things too convincing to me.

"Probably? But how do you calculate the odds that God will or won't perform a miracle? Because 2000 years have passed? That matters to an eternal God?"

It matters to us.

Why SHOULD it matter to us? Do we honestly think God is a forgetful God?

Well, if I die, it would matter a LOT if I was brought back or not.

Even assuming someone can think for himself, NO ONE (but the Almighty) has absolute knowledge of events. People can't see to the future to know whether an event has an ULTIMATE happy result. People can't see outward to know how an event affects other things. Our experience is far too limited to make us a good judge.

Even if we don?t know all the results of our action, it does not matter. We don?t have to understand all of Einstein?s laws to use one of them, we don?t have to understand everything about a microwave to use one, we don?t have to understand God completely to pray to him, we don?t need to know why killing is wrong to accept that it is, we don?t need to know all the results of our action to try to do the right thing, or to deem an action as moral.

I disagree. I think that it is possible to know enough of a situation to make the moral choice at a given time. We may not, but we can try to figure it out, and we can succeed. One of the best ways to do that is to ask a person who can think clearly 'Do you think that this action that I just did that affected you is morally wrong?' If you just shot a guy in the arm, they are going to say no. If you just taught a starving person how to fish, they will probably say yes.

Also, if a person does not truly know what is the best action, for themselves or for others, then act with good intention. And that again, should be decided on by those affected by the person acting.

And it may also be the decision of the people affected that the person did the moral thing even though it did not result in their happiness. They may say that the person tried, or that the moral decision was not the overall correct one.

But now I am slightly changing my definition of morals a bit (but figuring out what morals are is the point of this thread!).

Another thing to remember is that we always have choices (except in hypothetical situations where for effect you are limited to this or that). The best action ma

 

So it follows that evil is necessary to know love. Similarly that immorality is necessary to know true morality.

Maybe. I don't buy it. Being charitable isn't made more virtuous by the existance of murder. Again, in different words, virtues are not defined by vices.

No, evil isn't necessary: what's necessary is the possibility of evil, if that makes any sense.


Although (IF there is a God in the literal sense) we do owe him our existence, we do not owe him our successes if he does not help us. Like I said, we thank the lawn keeper for having the field in good condition, but we don't thank him for when we make a goal.

And we could always ask the games keeper to not tend the lawn, or we can play else where. Until we die, we don?t have that choice when it comes to God (he is after all, omni-present and always whispering for us to do what he thinks is right and always loving us even when we would not want him to). Where is our freedom there?

I believe that if we really, really want God to leave us alone, eventually, He will - not that's a good thing.


The quotes you gave of historians. They do not (to me) prove that Jesus was resurrected. They prove that there was a Jesus that he has a large following, and was crucified, but I see no mention of his resurrection.

I would guess that Jesus was a strong spiritual teacher who probably made a lot of sense to others of the time. Others may have declared him the son of God for his wisdom. Rome didn?t like him, so they ordered him to be killed, and maybe he was, maybe someone else was nailed up there (what, according to the bible and as best as we can tell from other sources, did Christ do after the came back to life?).

Also, things like 'may' and 'most likely' don?t make things too convincing to me.

Again, the large following after Christ's death is ITSELF unusual, given how despised the crucifix was in Roman times.

It seems that Jesus WAS the one who was crucified: the Jewish leaders knew him personally, and it seems unlikely that they would allow a "bait-and-switch."

Biblically speaking, Jesus did very few public acts after the Resurrection. He revealed Himself to His believers (including, according to 1 Corinthians 15, over 500 at one time), promised to send the Holy Spirit, gave last minute instructions about mission work, and ascended to Heaven 40 days after He first appeared.

And I'm in a bit of a quandry about "may" and "might": if I spoke about Jesus as confidently as I believe in Him, I would be called arrogant. As it is, I appear unconvincing.


"Well, I believe compelling evidence that would lead us to ABSOLUTELY know God exists would require us to know who God is. If that happened, we would TRULY understand His omnipotence and omniscience - and consequently our comparative weakness, foolishness, and reliance on Him. Our free will would be shattered by the nuclear blast of this knowledge."

So people like Moses, Noah, and Jesus... had no free will because they knew God existed?

When you speak about "compelling" evidence, I thought you were using it in its most literal sense: that we HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe. By that very definition, compelling evidence forces us to lose our free will.

(And this compelling evidence shatters HUMAN free will, just because humans are so limited. I believe that angels exist, and that fallen angels STILL believe in God: they just wrongly think themselves equal to Him.)

Moses and Noah had no such LITERALLY compelling evidence, but they had VERY good evidence that God was communicating with them. They could still occasional rebel: the Bible records that Moses DID rebel, which is why he never personally reached the Promised Land.

As for Jesus? He's a special case, being both fully man AND FULLY GOD. He faced all temptations common to man, so surely He faced the opportunity to doubt the existence of God the Father. But having the power of God, He could have tried to assert independence from the will of God the Father. It's a tricky subject, but

 

Good and evil nice literary tools, but they fall apart when reality comes into play.

 

Bubba

I believe that if we really, really want God to leave us alone, eventually, He will - not that's a good thing.

Why is it a bad thing if we don't need his help? If we can do just as well with out him, why do we need him to help us?

I just see a diffrence between rejecting God and asking God to let us try this or that action alone.

Again, the large following after Christ's death is ITSELF unusual, given how despised the crucifix was in Roman times.

It seems that Jesus WAS the one who was crucified: the Jewish leaders knew him personally, and it seems unlikely that they would allow a "bait-and-switch."

Well, given that those Jewish leaders were in charge of 'recording' the Bible, I don't see why they could not have written whatever they wanted reguardless of what actually happened.

Biblically speaking, Jesus did very few public acts after the Resurrection. He revealed Himself to His believers (including, according to 1 Corinthians 15, over 500 at one time), promised to send the Holy Spirit, gave last minute instructions about mission work, and ascended to Heaven 40 days after He first appeared.

40 days after he was resurrection?

And I'm in a bit of a quandry about "may" and "might": if I spoke about Jesus as confidently as I believe in Him, I would be called arrogant. As it is, I appear unconvincing.

Dont worry, I am worse with 'what if's' and saying what I believe.

When you speak about "compelling" evidence, I thought you were using it in its most literal sense: that we HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe. By that very definition, compelling evidence forces us to lose our free will.

No, that is not what I meant (it seems I can't say anything right, arg!). Proof I think would shatter minds, maybe even destroy free will, but evidence is not proof. Everyone needs diffrent amounts of evidence to convince themselves something is true. Although I am not sure what it would take for me, I am simply saying outright proof is not needed.

(And this compelling evidence shatters HUMAN free will, just because humans are so limited. I believe that angels exist, and that fallen angels STILL believe in God: they just wrongly think themselves equal to Him.)

My problem is that I believe that humans need not be limited. That humans can do practally anything, can understand anything that they can. I believe that we are better than ourselves, and anything else belittling ourselves. We can aspire for anything, aim for the stars and actually hit them. But I see statements like that as saying we can only go so high, and I just see any limit as too low.

Moses and Noah had no such LITERALLY compelling evidence, but they had VERY good evidence that God was communicating with them. They could still occasional rebel: the Bible records that Moses DID rebel, which is why he never personally reached the Promised Land.

I want very good evidence, enough to convince me as they were convinced.

As for Jesus? He's a special case, being both fully man AND FULLY GOD. He faced all temptations common to man, so surely He faced the opportunity to doubt the existence of God the Father. But having the power of God, He could have tried to assert independence from the will of God the Father. It's a tricky subject, but I rest knowing that Jesus too was free. (Hence, His temptations in Matthew 4.)

Well, was Jesus actually tempted (was there a part of him that wanted to make bread from stones) or was it something like trying to convince someone that gravity falls up?

I have always imagened Jesus as seeing evil as a non sequenter. Just something that would not make sense to him, something that would never be concidered. Almost like a computer program getting bad data (but only in that respect would I compair him to being a computer program).

How are those two statements contradictory? That it's too hard to prove "you can't deduce a 'you-should' statement from a 'there-is' statement"?

Yeah, you have a point.

Jedi M

 

"I believe that if we really, really want God to leave us alone, eventually, He will - not that's a good thing."

Why is it a bad thing if we don't need his help? If we can do just as well with out him, why do we need him to help us?

I just see a diffrence between rejecting God and asking God to let us try this or that action alone.

"If we don't need his help"? I don't think that's the case: I believe we absolutely need God to sustain us. Ultimately, our eternal souls wither without the warmth and the light of the Almighty.


"Again, the large following after Christ's death is ITSELF unusual, given how despised the crucifix was in Roman times.

"It seems that Jesus WAS the one who was crucified: the Jewish leaders knew him personally, and it seems unlikely that they would allow a 'bait-and-switch.'"

Well, given that those Jewish leaders were in charge of 'recording' the Bible, I don't see why they could not have written whatever they wanted reguardless of what actually happened.

The Jewish leaders were not responsible for writing the New Testament; those responsible, the early Christian church, was persecuted by both Jewish and Roman leaders.


40 days after he was resurrection?

Yep, Christians hold that Jesus came back to life three days after his execution and that He returned to Heaven 40 days after He came back to life. (See Acts 1:1-11.)


"When you speak about 'compelling' evidence, I thought you were using it in its most literal sense: that we HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe. By that very definition, compelling evidence forces us to lose our free will."

No, that is not what I meant (it seems I can't say anything right, arg!). Proof I think would shatter minds, maybe even destroy free will, but evidence is not proof. Everyone needs diffrent amounts of evidence to convince themselves something is true. Although I am not sure what it would take for me, I am simply saying outright proof is not needed.

No need to apologize.

Now that we've settled what we mean, I think I can say the following: Noah and Moses had enough evidence that God exists to believe.

What about us? Is it fair that God revealed Himself to them and not us?

WELL, while I do think God rarely reveals Himself through burning bushes and pillars of smoke and fire (see Exodus), we now have access to God in two ways Moses and Noah did not: the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Most specifically, the Bible teaches that those who become Christians receive the Holy Spirit. God Himself resides within us and confirms that we are His. It's less flashy, but a lot more intimate.


Finally:

Well, was Jesus actually tempted (was there a part of him that wanted to make bread from stones) or was it something like trying to convince someone that gravity falls up?

I have always imagened Jesus as seeing evil as a non sequenter. Just something that would not make sense to him, something that would never be concidered. Almost like a computer program getting bad data (but only in that respect would I compair him to being a computer program).

Theologically speaking, Jesus was a substitute for us: He suffered the punishment of our sins so that we would not have to. In order for Him to be an appropriate substitute, he had to be equivalent: FULLY human. Ergo, it had to be POSSIBLE for Him to sin: He had to be genuinely tested.

This isn't just the conclusion of theologians based on what the Bible says: the Bible itself confirms this idea:

Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our c

 

"If we don't need his help"? I don't think that's the case: I believe we absolutely need God to sustain us. Ultimately, our eternal souls wither without the warmth and the light of the Almighty.

Well...I don't. Like God, I don't believe in literal 'Suff Of Unending Life, and if I did, I don't think I would beleive it needs God to exist. I guess we can't really argue much past that, no real evidence one way or another.

The Jewish leaders were not responsible for writing the New Testament; those responsible, the early Christian church, was persecuted by both Jewish and Roman leaders.

My bad. Maybe the Jewish leaders did not know that the early Christians pulled a bait and switch? But does not really matter.

Now that we've settled what we mean, I think I can say the following: Noah and Moses had enough evidence that God exists to believe.

Exactly. I feel left out .

What about us? Is it fair that God revealed Himself to them and not us?

Well, I do agree that if there is a God, he may know why it is right to only appear to those who believe (if you watch Babylon 5, there was a part where 'God' appeared to everyone present, but one person there who had 'sold his soul' saw nothing).

However, that means that a non beleiver will never have a chance while living to know if there is a God.

WELL, while I do think God rarely reveals Himself through burning bushes and pillars of smoke and fire (see Exodus), we now have access to God in two ways Moses and Noah did not: the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Most specifically, the Bible teaches that those who become Christians receive the Holy Spirit. God Himself resides within us and confirms that we are His. It's less flashy, but a lot more intimate.

But the Bible has been intrepreted, translated, maybe more metaphor than history... that it is hard to get what is exactly right. And knowing the Holy Spirit would be akin to knowing God (I think).

Theologically speaking, Jesus was a substitute for us: He suffered the punishment of our sins so that we would not have to. In order for Him to be an appropriate substitute, he had to be equivalent: FULLY human. Ergo, it had to be POSSIBLE for Him to sin: He had to be genuinely tested.

But I dont want someone else to suffer from what I have done wrong or what is my responsiblity. If I am a bad person, I should suffer for it, I should learn my lessons. If the Bible is true, then I would thank Christ for what he did for me, but I would feel that I do not deserve it. I should be punished for what I have done that is wrong, and no one else.

And as for the point at hand with this part of the debate....

I have wondered. Morals are why people do actions (or one reason for them). This is wrong, this is right, so I will/will not do this or that. To a point, the action does not matter so much as the reason behind it. As such, is wanting to do something for a bad reason immoral even if you dont do it?

I have read 1984, it is a darn good book IMHO. In the book, having a thought that could modavate you do to something 'bad' was concidered illeagle (thoughtcrime). Is there anything like thoughtsin? At times, the Bible says certain thoughts are wrong (Look at a woman with lust you have sined in your heart is the only one that comes to mind, but there may be others). Is thinking a sin bad (maybe not as bad as commiting it, but still)?

I do not know the Bible's stance on this compleatly, so from God's point of view, I have no clue. My personal beleife is no, since people also think of good things to do. Because there are both in peoples minds, they ballance out (and right or wrong is determined else where). But what does the Bible say?

 

Bubba_the_Genius: p. 9, 25 p/p
I believe this is not an easy question to answer. On our own, we can't ever decide which ideas about God are correct, and what moral rules to follow.

We must ultimately hope that God helps us out - that He is a merciful and loving God willing to tell us about Himself and about the moral law.

Hold it - you don't know whose rules to follow, yet you choose God's?

Then...it's not absolute. Morality is once again subjective. And that's exactly what moral absolutes aren't: moral absolutes are supposed to be set-in-stone facts. The way I interpret the words, anyway.

I think He has. More specifically, I believe He literally became one of us - a human being named Jesus. He made clear who to love (the Father) and how to be moral: the two rules I listed are found in the Gospels. Further, I believe Jesus proved His divinity (and redeemed us from our own sinful nature) by allowing himself to be brutally executed and coming back to life.

Yes, but what makes him right?

Why can't I make up a bunch of funny rules and proclaim it moral fact/law?

I believe I've tried to explain this before, but I'll try again. First, you should love your neighbor because you love God and God loves your neighbor.

Okay, what if I don't love God? And I don't, btw.

On your other point ("if you hate yourself"), allow me to crib from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity when I say that, regardless of whether or not we "like" ourselves, we generally DO wish our own good. In fact, many of us are sorry about the condition of our own selves BECAUSE we love ourselves - and I'm not sure there's an exception to anyone actually hating themselves in this way, barring some disorder.

You say "generally". Then you take the exceptions and proclaim them a "disorder".

Disorder they may be, but do they count as an exception to your supposed "moral absolutes"?

If this is creating a mental stumbling block, think of it this way. We should love our neighbors the way God loves us AND our neighbors: unconditionally. I believe we actually love ourselves unconditionally, but this second view can help if YOU don't.

Why our neighbors, though?

How do you define "neighbors"?

And again, what makes it "moral"? How do we define "moral"? That's the big question I'm going after. Not just examples, but an overarching definition. And please give me something better than "what God says".

If you don't believe in God, I'm not sure how much help I can offer. Like God, a moral law must exist outside of the physical universe. The physical universe says how things are; the moral law dictates how things should be. The latter cannot be contained within the former.

And who says this? What makes it the truth?

And wouldn't that make morals an opinion, and thus negate the "absolute" part?

 

Ok, Bubba, time to respond to the rest of your post.

p. 9, 25 p/p
A good example: the Bible teaches that God loves us despite the fact that we (mankind) murdered His Son. We should follow God's example.

At any rate, I should love my neighbor even if he murdered my son. I should hate the unjust act of murder, but love the murderer himself. To crib from Lewis (again), I suggest we consider how we act when we do something wrong: even if we accept that we are guilty of some horrible act, we still WANT mercy. We should "hate the sin but love the sinner." In Lewis' words:


For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occured to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I was loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.


Now, we SHOULD love even those who kill our members of our own family. Whether I personally do what I ought is another question entirely, but it doesn't affect what I ought to do.

Hmmm...interesting. I don't have to much to say here, except that these moral values, regardless of who says them or how "moral" they are, don't make too much sense.

Finally, Kuna, some verses of the Bible imply that God casts sinners into Hell while others imply that man chooses to walk the broad path that leads to destruction. Regardless of the mechanism, I still believe that the punishment of Hell (separation from God) is a just consequence of sin (rebellion against God). And it is ultimately just because we are ultimately free to make that choice: we're not mindless robots who are mere links in a universal chain of cause and effect, since our souls exist outside the physical universe.

<sigh> Sometimes I wonder if we can ever discuss morals without bringing up religion.

Ok, here are two arguments against moral absolutes:

1. People who don't believe in God or any religion (like myself) don't really care for your moral "absolutes". Thus, morality becomes more like an opinion, which doesn't satisfy the "absolute" part.

Of course, this gets into facts vs. opinions, and whether there can ever be absolute truths. I doubt the existence of absolute truths as much as absolute morals, but that's another story.

2. Moral values have changed often in the past. Wouldn't that make it not absolute?

Also, which morals are absolute and which aren't? Are the two that you listed the only ones? I should hope not, considering that both of them wouldn't apply to me (since I don't believe in God).

 

Enforcer:

"The Jewish leaders were not responsible for writing the New Testament; those responsible, the early Christian church, was persecuted by both Jewish and Roman leaders."

My bad. Maybe the Jewish leaders did not know that the early Christians pulled a bait and switch? But does not really matter.

Unlikely: the New Testament makes clear that the Jewish leaders both hated AND personally knew Jesus. They would have likely made damn sure it was him on the cross.


"Theologically speaking, Jesus was a substitute for us: He suffered the punishment of our sins so that we would not have to. In order for Him to be an appropriate substitute, he had to be equivalent: FULLY human. Ergo, it had to be POSSIBLE for Him to sin: He had to be genuinely tested."

But I dont want someone else to suffer from what I have done wrong or what is my responsiblity. If I am a bad person, I should suffer for it, I should learn my lessons. If the Bible is true, then I would thank Christ for what he did for me, but I would feel that I do not deserve it. I should be punished for what I have done that is wrong, and no one else.

That's an absolutely natural and praise-worthy response. But the penalties for our rebellion is eternal separation from God, and GOD DOESN'T WANT THAT.

We should feel bad for sinning to begin with, but - understanding that we cannot bear the punishment - I believe we should accept that Another has suffered in our place, allow our relationship with God to be restored, and make every effort to demonstrate that the sacrifices that were made were not done in vain.


But now, the tricky stuff.

I have wondered. Morals are why people do actions (or one reason for them). This is wrong, this is right, so I will/will not do this or that. To a point, the action does not matter so much as the reason behind it. As such, is wanting to do something for a bad reason immoral even if you dont do it?

I have read 1984, it is a darn good book IMHO. In the book, having a thought that could modavate you do to something 'bad' was concidered illeagle (thoughtcrime). Is there anything like thoughtsin? At times, the Bible says certain thoughts are wrong (Look at a woman with lust you have sined in your heart is the only one that comes to mind, but there may be others). Is thinking a sin bad (maybe not as bad as commiting it, but still)?

I do not know the Bible's stance on this compleatly, so from God's point of view, I have no clue. My personal beleife is no, since people also think of good things to do. Because there are both in peoples minds, they ballance out (and right or wrong is determined else where). But what does the Bible say?

Okay, the Old Testament suggests that there are at least two sins of the mind: putting other gods before God Almighty, and coveting your neighbors possessions. (Exodus 20:3,17)

Jesus Himself is clear that there are at least two more sins of the mind: lust and unjust anger. (Matthew 5:20-30)

Jesus is also VERY clear on the severity of these sins. Look at Matt. 5:27-28: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The sins of the mind are just as bad as the sinful actions.

Surely, these two sins were just examples and not the only two cases: every physical sin probably has a mental counterpart. This begs two questions: at what point do you sin, and why are thoughts so important?

While the Bible is less explicit in these two questions, I believe I have reasonable answers. First, I believe you sin when you think, "I would if I could," if you think you WOULD steal, kill, lie, or commit adultery if the circumstances were right. IN OTHER WORDS, you don't sin if the idea just enters your head: you can't help what thoughts enter your mind, so that's just the temptation to sin. It BECOMES sin when you condone the thought.

Second, I believe all

 

Kuna:

"I believe this is not an easy question to answer. On our own, we can't ever decide which ideas about God are correct, and what moral rules to follow.

"We must ultimately hope that God helps us out - that He is a merciful and loving God willing to tell us about Himself and about the moral law."

Hold it - you don't know whose rules to follow, yet you choose God's?

Then...it's not absolute. Morality is once again subjective. And that's exactly what moral absolutes aren't: moral absolutes are supposed to be set-in-stone facts. The way I interpret the words, anyway.

Allow me to clarify: I don't know what rules to follow ON MY OWN, but I believe God HAS revealed the moral law to all of us, to one degree or another.

Sorry about any confusion I caused.


"I think He has. More specifically, I believe He literally became one of us - a human being named Jesus. He made clear who to love (the Father) and how to be moral: the two rules I listed are found in the Gospels. Further, I believe Jesus proved His divinity (and redeemed us from our own sinful nature) by allowing himself to be brutally executed and coming back to life."

Yes, but what makes him right?

Why can't I make up a bunch of funny rules and proclaim it moral fact/law?

I think Jesus is right for two reasons: first, His teachings ring true as the full culmination of what morality SHOULD be. Beyond that, I believe He HAS PROVEN Himself worthy by coming back from the dead (as He predicted). I believe Jesus IS God - and I believe God is right because, being omniscient, God knows all.


"I believe I've tried to explain this before, but I'll try again. First, you should love your neighbor because you love God and God loves your neighbor."

Okay, what if I don't love God? And I don't, btw.

I don't know: I don't know if there's any other, REAL justification for unconditionally loving your neighbor. In a pinch, you could assume it to be axiomatic, I suppose.


"On your other point ('if you hate yourself'), allow me to crib from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity when I say that, regardless of whether or not we 'like' ourselves, we generally DO wish our own good. In fact, many of us are sorry about the condition of our own selves BECAUSE we love ourselves - and I'm not sure there's an exception to anyone actually hating themselves in this way, barring some disorder."

You say "generally". Then you take the exceptions and proclaim them a "disorder".

Disorder they may be, but do they count as an exception to your supposed "moral absolutes"?

The moral law isn't absolute in that we all absolutely believe it: I believe it's absolute in that it applies absolutely, regardless of whether we believe it or not.


Why our neighbors, though?

How do you define "neighbors"?

In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Jesus makes clear who he means by neighbor: EVERYONE. We are to love everyone, unconditionally.


And again, what makes it "moral"? How do we define "moral"? That's the big question I'm going after. Not just examples, but an overarching definition. And please give me something better than "what God says".

The only answer I can give better than "God says so," is this: because God first loved me. Or, as Romans 5:8 put it, "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I can't think of any reason to love our fellow man unconditionally: I believe that anything lovable about man - our dignity, our freedom, our immortal souls, even our capacity to love - are all gifts from God.

I'm sorry; I can't provide a better answer.


"If you don't believe in God, I'm not sure how much help I can offer. Like God, a moral law must exist outside of the physical universe. The physical universe says how things are; the moral law dictates how things should be. The latter cannot be contained within the former."

And who says this? What makes it the truth?

And wouldn't that make morals an opinion, and thus negate the "absolute" part?

I bel

 

Bubba:
Allow me to clarify: I don't know what rules to follow ON MY OWN, but I believe God HAS revealed the moral law to all of us, to one degree or another.

Sorry about any confusion I caused.

Np.

I think Jesus is right for two reasons: first, His teachings ring true as the full culmination of what morality SHOULD be.

But again, that is only an opinion.

Beyond that, I believe He HAS PROVEN Himself worthy by coming back from the dead (as He predicted). I believe Jesus IS God - and I believe God is right because, being omniscient, God knows all.

Again, that is only your belief; an opinion. It would not apply to everyone, hence, how can it be absolute?

And what makes it absolute, or again, "moral"? If it cannot be explained with any rational or logical arguments, then I don't see how it can convince everyone. It would just be a "it just is" thing.

I don't know: I don't know if there's any other, REAL justification for unconditionally loving your neighbor. In a pinch, you could assume it to be axiomatic, I suppose.

But again, it all boils down to what is moral, and what makes something moral. More on this later.

The moral law isn't absolute in that we all absolutely believe it: I believe it's absolute in that it applies absolutely, regardless of whether we believe it or not.

Ok. But same thing: What makes it moral?

In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Jesus makes clear who he means by neighbor: EVERYONE. We are to love everyone, unconditionally.

Understood. Thanks.

The only answer I can give better than "God says so," is this: because God first loved me. Or, as Romans 5:8 put it, "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

I can't think of any reason to love our fellow man unconditionally: I believe that anything lovable about man - our dignity, our freedom, our immortal souls, even our capacity to love - are all gifts from God.

I'm sorry; I can't provide a better answer.

That's okay. But it still doesn't address the question of whether or not there are moral absolutes - or, more importantly, what is, or what makes, something moral or immoral?

I believe it's true for this reason: the physical universe can give you NOTHING but "there-is" statements. Morality is a set of "you-should" statements. Since I believe "you-should" statements cannot be derived from "there-is" statements, they must come from somewhere other than the physical universe. The alternative is contradictory.

Perhaps. I have little to say here.

Anyway, I BELIEVE that the two rules I listed are the core absolute values. There may be others, I grant, but I imagine they reduce to one of those two. If you don't believe in the God, then, yeah, you may not find the first rule all that compelling.

But there's still the second rule: love your fellow man unconditionally. It's a good place to start.

So loving your fellow man (or woman, I suppose) unconditionally is absolutely moral, huh?

What makes it moral - or is it just that it is, and there's no real reason behind it?

 

Unlikely: the New Testament makes clear that the Jewish leaders both hated AND personally knew Jesus. They would have likely made damn sure it was him on the cross.

Too bad for them it backfired.

That's an absolutely natural and praise-worthy response. But the penalties for our rebellion is eternal separation from God, and GOD DOESN'T WANT THAT.

We should feel bad for sinning to begin with, but - understanding that we cannot bear the punishment - I believe we should accept that Another has suffered in our place, allow our relationship with God to be restored, and make every effort to demonstrate that the sacrifices that were made were not done in vain.

But if I deserve it, why should I not get it?

Actually, thinking about it, I would accept Jesus's sacrifice for us. (It is the least I could do). However, the Bible may still be nothing more than a glorifed story. I don't want to blindly accept his gift especally when I don't know if any such gift has been given.

But even accepting the gift, I would still want to be able to be moral all by my self. I feel I would be weak other wise.

And what would humanity learn from someone else doing the hard work?

Okay, the Old Testament suggests that there are at least two sins of the mind: putting other gods before God Almighty, and coveting your neighbors possessions. (Exodus 20:3,17)

Jesus Himself is clear that there are at least two more sins of the mind: lust and unjust anger. (Matthew 5:20-30)

Jesus is also VERY clear on the severity of these sins. Look at Matt. 5:27-28: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The sins of the mind are just as bad as the sinful actions.

Surely, these two sins were just examples and not the only two cases: every physical sin probably has a mental counterpart. This begs two questions: at what point do you sin, and why are thoughts so important?

While the Bible is less explicit in these two questions, I believe I have reasonable answers. First, I believe you sin when you think, "I would if I could," if you think you WOULD steal, kill, lie, or commit adultery if the circumstances were right. IN OTHER WORDS, you don't sin if the idea just enters your head: you can't help what thoughts enter your mind, so that's just the temptation to sin. It BECOMES sin when you condone the thought.

Second, I believe all this matters because the MIND is the only real testing ground for obedience. There are MANY reasons not to kill, for example: it's messy, it's difficult, and it will likely result in you going to prison. But there are NO physical consequences for mental sin. In the mind, the only reason you'd have to reject the thought is if it's wrong. You are and should be judged on what you would LIKE to do if you could get away with it.

Certainly, governments can't and shouldn't try to prosecute thoughtcrime. But God can, as He knows our deepest thoughts.

These thoughts are a bit jumbeled in my head, but let me try to get them down...

God will kill but it is ok. According to your beliefes, He has a darn good reason for it, we are his. So the action of killing is not wrong (lets overlook the whole original Hebrew word for a minute). But killing without a cause would be wrong. It comes down to justification; (no wait, I should use a better word, I got hell for that word in another thread) acceptable reason in the mind as to if something is right or not.

Also, lets not look at people who cant think for themselves, such as a child, or someone moved to fanatisism like Hitler.

For the many that are left, what is moral is an action honestly (and even if there is no God, one person will know what the motaves are, the person commiting the action, the key word is honestly) motavated by a desire to be good, to make the world a better place for as many as you can, and stopping if you se

 

Again, that is only your belief; an opinion. It would not apply to everyone, hence, how can it be absolute?

And what makes it absolute, or again, "moral"? If it cannot be explained with any rational or logical arguments, then I don't see how it can convince everyone. It would just be a "it just is" thing.

I think morality IS a thing that "just is." Even if that doesn't convince everyone, it may still be absolute. The law is still the law even if you don't agree with it or even know what it is.

(That said, I DO believe most of us know what the moral law is.)


But if I deserve it, why should I not get it?

Actually, thinking about it, I would accept Jesus's sacrifice for us. (It is the least I could do). However, the Bible may still be nothing more than a glorifed story. I don't want to blindly accept his gift especally when I don't know if any such gift has been given.

But even accepting the gift, I would still want to be able to be moral all by my self. I feel I would be weak other wise.

And what would humanity learn from someone else doing the hard work?

I would recommend looking into the Bible: REALLY investigate whether it's archaelogically trustworthy, etc. If, after that, you don't find it convincing, fine. I'm not sure what the next step would be (for you or for God), but I believe God has a lot more understanding for those who can't believe the Bible despite their efforts, compared to those who blindly disbelieve.

On the question of doing the work ourselves, I believe that we are asked to serve as best we can; God may help only insofar as we need it: in REALLY trying times, in particularly troublesome areas of temptations, etc.

It's like that old poem about footsteps in the sand. God might carry us ONLY when we can't walk ourselves.

Or, to use another analogy, we may be like children just learning to write. God may guide our hand to form the right letters until we're capable of doing so ourselves.


These thoughts are a bit jumbeled in my head, but let me try to get them down...

God will kill but it is ok. According to your beliefes, He has a darn good reason for it, we are his. So the action of killing is not wrong (lets overlook the whole original Hebrew word for a minute). But killing without a cause would be wrong. It comes down to justification; (no wait, I should use a better word, I got hell for that word in another thread) acceptable reason in the mind as to if something is right or not.

Also, lets not look at people who cant think for themselves, such as a child, or someone moved to fanatisism like Hitler.

For the many that are left, what is moral is an action honestly (and even if there is no God, one person will know what the motaves are, the person commiting the action, the key word is honestly) motavated by a desire to be good, to make the world a better place for as many as you can, and stopping if you see that those actions are not creating good.

That seems about right. Glad to see you got that DESPITE my rantings.


I too will be wrapping up soon for the year. Good luck with finals, have a safe trip home, have a great Christmas.

 

I've only read the first page of the thread, and I'm jumping in late, so I hope I'm not repeating anything here.

I believe there is one moral absolute: the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. There is a version of this in every major religion in the world. Very simple, very straight and to the point.

I can't think of any situation in which this moral would not be an absolute.

About murder being acceptable in previous/current societies: For those who brought up the burning of the wife on the husband's funeral pyre, and the Aztec and Mayan sacrifices--one point was left out--these wives volunteer themselves for the pyre, and many Aztecs and Mayans volunteered themselves for human sacrifice, believing they would go to heaven if they did so. While I certainly think both practices are disgusting, I don't equate them with a modern-day cold-blooded murder.

Regarding rape: Up until a few decades ago, it was legal for a husband to rape his wife. Don't even get me started on this one--there is not enough room in this forum for me to rant.

I may cover some other topics later--right now I have to get off-line. Here's hoping this post makes sense because I've just spent the day with 90 12-year-olds who are much more eager to get out for Christmas vacation than they are to listen to what I have to say, so I'm zonked.

 

These thoughts are a bit jumbeled in my head, but let me try to get them down...

God will kill but it is ok. According to your beliefes, He has a darn good reason for it, we are his. So the action of killing is not wrong (lets overlook the whole original Hebrew word for a minute). But killing without a cause would be wrong. It comes down to justification; (no wait, I should use a better word, I got hell for that word in another thread) acceptable reason in the mind as to if something is right or not.

Also, lets not look at people who cant think for themselves, such as a child, or someone moved to fanatisism like Hitler.

For the many that are left, what is moral is an action honestly (and even if there is no God, one person will know what the motaves are, the person commiting the action, the key word is honestly) motavated by a desire to be good, to make the world a better place for as many as you can, and stopping if you see that those actions are not creating good.

That seems about right. Glad to see you got that DESPITE my rantings.

So in a nut shell, the only moral absolute is to act with honestly good intentions? Good being that which creates less harm or makes the world a better place (and in my opinion best determined by the sain minds of the people on the reciving end of the action).

So we don't need to know God to know what morals are! Being moral is a state of mind, not a set of actions encourging or forbiding certain actions. If there is a God, he may present conquences of our actions that we did not concider or could not have forseen, but that does not effect that moral absolute. Granted, there are probably some actions where there is no possible way that they can be done with good intentions, but those just happen to be always immoral.

Justification though...well, if morals is how you feel, then being moral is what is natural. It feels good when I eat a meal, so I eat. It feels good when I do a moral action. Of course there are conflicting feelings, thoughts, opinions, ect... but we have them anyway even if that was not the deffination of morals. If God makes morals, His voice next to Satin is trying to influence us (and many people probably could not tell the diffrence between their own thoughts and the whispers from higher powers).

I believe there is one moral absolute: the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. There is a version of this in every major religion in the world. Very simple, very straight and to the point.

Well...what about a surgen opporating on a person. Would he want that person to opperate on him?

No, that is a trivial argument I am using. It is a good rule, but there are cases when one person should do something more or even less than what another would want. I would gladly help someone with studying, but in general, I would rather the not help me (I am a very independant person).

But even that example is somewhat trivial. You can define your actions in several diffrent ways, such as the example of me studying... I could say that I am doing what they asked if I help them,and they would be doing what I ask if they ask me.

 

So in a nut shell, the only moral absolute is to act with honestly good intentions? Good being that which creates less harm or makes the world a better place (and in my opinion best determined by the sain minds of the people on the reciving end of the action).

So we don't need to know God to know what morals are! Being moral is a state of mind, not a set of actions encourging or forbiding certain actions. If there is a God, he may present conquences of our actions that we did not concider or could not have forseen, but that does not effect that moral absolute. Granted, there are probably some actions where there is no possible way that they can be done with good intentions, but those just happen to be always immoral.

The thing is, it MIGHT require God to reveal to us that we SHOULD help our fellow man. (After all, as I've said before, I believe moral truths cannot be derived from the physical universe.) But once we somehow realize we should love each other unconditionally, it DOES (usually) become clear what we must do to follow that rule.

I DEFINITELY agree that TRULY unforeseen consequences don't make an act immoral. We have a duty to be as well informed as possible, but you can't be blamed for suffering the truly unexpected.

And I *believe* this morality is one reason Christianity and some Eastern religions are so liberating: we don't need to worry about a detailed list of do's and do-not's.

(I think Christianity is still unique for other reasons, but that would be a severe digression.)