Absolute Morality

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
I've been thinking about this, and maybe someone here can clear this up for me? None of this is intended to be insulting, so please don't take it that way, it's just some random thoughts I've been having and wanted to lay it out and hopefully get it cleared up, so I understand where people who believe this stuff are coming from.

So when christians talk about absolute morality, they seem to be referring to morality laid down by god. So he is the absolute source of morality, and tells us what is moral and what is not. Sometimes the bible is used as the source of morality, sometimes it's god, but the bible is the word of god so maybe it's the same thing. I'm a bit confused right away, but let's assume that morality comes from god for the point of this discussion.

I don't understand how they actually thinks this works. The issue I have is how do we know what is actually moral and what is actually not? God tells us, right? But how does God communicate this with us? I guess it either has to be him talking to us directly or through the bible?

I mean the bible seems an obvious answer, but the bible is pretty contradictory and open to interpretation. It's virtually impossible to get 2 christians to agree on every single aspect of the bible, and everyone seems to interpret it differently, whether they are christian or not. That's part of the reason there's so many subsets of christians that all believe quite different things. So if that's the moral code, but everyone is interpreting it differently that's not very absolute is it? And the bible is not exactly clear.

Let's take something simple, like murder. 'Thou shalt not kill'. Seems pretty straightforward. But then god has no problem killing himself. But maybe it's a 'do as I say and not as I do' type thing, which is fine. So he's not a moral example for us, we don't follow his examples, we just do what he says. But several times in the bible he tells people to kill other people. Sometimes he kills people himself, but he's god so he can do whatever he wants. But sometimes he tells people to kill other people, and they do, which then must be fine - because god told them to. So it's now 'don't kill ... unless god tells you to, then it's ok'. Right, got that so far.

So if someone today is told by god that they should kill someone, then is that ok? It's ok in the bible, so does that make it ok for us today? If it was, how would we tell who has genuinely received orders to kill from god, who is using it as an excuse and who is just crazy? How do we tell who it's ok for and who it's not ok for? Well, it's not ok for anyone according to our legal systems. But apparently it IS ok to kill someone in self defence, according to those same legal systems. But I don't see that mentioned in the 10 commandments. So is self defence not ok? Or is there another part of the bible that makes it ok? I'm not sure, but I am sure about how passionate some right wing christians in the USA are about gun laws. They don't seem to see killing in self defence as immoral, but is that backed up by clear scripture or just an interpretation thing? I mean you think it would make sense to put it right in the 10 commandments, if there's exceptions to these commandments? So, as far as I can tell killing in self defence is immoral in the bible (unless god tells you to do it) but legal in most countries. But then again laws and morality are two different things. Most people agree adultery is immoral, but it's not illegal (in most countries). What IS legal, in some parts of the USA is to kill some criminals. And funnily enough the more christian states like Texas tend to be those states. But in the bible there are many examples of old laws where death (carried out by people, not god) is prescribed for things like homosexuality and children disrespecting their parents. So maybe that makes it ok, or maybe those are old laws that don't apply anymore? 'An eye for an eye' is sometimes quoted as justification. So that part overrides the 10 commandments? Does that also mean that we should rape the rapists in jail too? But I digress.

Right, so where are we now? I still am not clear what the 'absolute' moral position is on killing, something that should be quite cut and dry. The best I can figure it with my laymans understanding of the bible is that killing is ok for god to do, cause he's god, but not ok for us, unless god tells us to, even though that's not ok by law in most countries, and the 10 commandments (where we get our killing instructions) don't say anything killing in self defence or capital punishment being ok, but other parts of the bible seem to imply it's ok, if you feel those parts overrule the 10 commandments. Right.

And what about more complex things? Like slavery or video piracy? How does this christian absolute moral code apply to these things?

Ok, I'm done trying to figure it out. Can someone explain it for me please? I don't hold any of these views, but I was trying to understand where those on the other side are coming from, but I can't make head nor tail of it.

It's totally possible, in fact probable, that there's some holes in my logic and/or a misunderstanding of the bible or 2 thrown in there for good measure, so if anyone can help me clear that up I'd genuinely appreciate it.
 

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟112,984.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is indeed a complex subject, but I think you have the grasp of it quite well. I will just try to boil things down a bit according to my understanding.

When I speak of morality I am speaking of what I think God considers to be moral. And yes, that is presented to us in the Bible. I don't think we can count on personal revelation for this because other believers can't substantiate a person's personal revelation against anything objective. While there are different interpretations of different topics in the Bible, if we're reading the same sheet of music at least there's a common, objective foundation from which we can have a conversation.

As regards to killing, I don't have a good answer to God's commanding people to kill other people. One thing to remember, though, is that just because something is recorded as God doing something, it doesn't mean that we are entitled to do the same thing (were it possible). After all, His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Further, He is infinitely wise and knows the hearts of people whereas we're clearly not there.

That being said, we of course have the underlying general commandment to not commit murder. There are some qualifiers to this in the Law, though, that we need to be aware of. For instance, killing in self defense seems to be sanctioned by the Law (Exo. 22:2-3). Also, the governing authority seems to have the right to perform capital punishment (Exo. 21:14; Lev. 24:17; et al.).

Under the Law, killing someone accidentally seems to be in a different category (Deut. 19:6), which is why the cities of refuge were established.

I hope this is enough to munch on.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Great thread...

OP, everything you said is right on and the same struggles you are having every Christian has...even after we have been saved, so for a non-Christian to have them is just as natural.

I believe in the morality laid down by the Biblical text and I fully agree that even among Christians, even fundamental conservative Christians, there is room for some pretty intense debating.

It all comes back to Jesus Christ. The Bible was wrote for God's people so there must be Christ inside one's being before the Bible will make any real sense. Through Christ the Bible reveals itself.

"What would Jesus do" IS absolute morality in a nut shell. Now, what are some of the specific things?...read the Gospels and see what He did when He interacted with folks...one can't go wrong by simply mimicking Him. Everything He did was out of love for us, so if you do everything out of love first to Him, then to others around you...you will always be on the right side of morality.

Political and ethical issues that Christians and non-Christians fight about really do not do anything but take away from the limited supply of time each of us have to love and care for each other...to sacrifice all that we have including our own life (time on earth figuratively, but literal life if that is what it takes).

I believe the "thou shalt not kill" is really "thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference to me. Self defense, wars, death penalties, policing society...all are necessary actions in a evil world. Abortion, fits or rage, premeditated murder and some other criminal activities all fall under the thou shalt not murder category.

Like I said though, don't get too caught up in that kind of thing...stay focused on just helping others and Christ will help you to understand where you fit in the sinful world.

It is all about eternal life with God through Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Glas Ridire

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2010
3,151
134
.
✟4,005.00
Faith
Celtic Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So when christians talk about absolute morality, they seem to be referring to morality laid down by god. So he is the absolute source of morality, and tells us what is moral and what is not. Sometimes the bible is used as the source of morality, sometimes it's god, but the bible is the word of god so maybe it's the same thing. I'm a bit confused right away, but let's assume that morality comes from god for the point of this discussion.
Well, at risk of getting into apologetics (a different section of the board), from a Christian point of view (generally, across sects and denominations), God is regarded as the Creator of all things good. That general idea as applied to morality, points to morality being . .. whatever God defines it as. God is not obliged to "tell us the rules" (pardon the TRON reference but: God could put us on the game grid without telling us the rules) God chose, as an article of Christian faith, to reveal truths about Himself and His desires through the Bible. It doesn't help that so few people read the book in the original languages as we'll see in a paragraph or so.


I don't understand how they actually thinks this works. The issue I have is how do we know what is actually moral and what is actually not? God tells us, right? But how does God communicate this with us? I guess it either has to be him talking to us directly or through the bible?
I (believing in the framework on which neo-classical criminology is built), though not all Christians, believe in Natural Law. I believe even without the Bible human beings at their core know. As a Christian, believing God breathed life into us and in that breath . . . some element of knowledge. As a scientist (criminology/sociology), I reach for some explanation why the majority of cultures over the majority of time have had the same core "crimes", mores, folkways. . . . murder, rape, incest, theft, deceit, etc. Culture after culture, century after century, we may differ on things like food and beverage laws, tolerance of homosexuals, citizen weapon ownership, but culture after culture the "big" crimes. .. . are the same. Natural Law. People forget what tree the apple came from in the Adam and Eve story, we as humans partook of the tree of Natural Law.

I mean the bible seems an obvious answer, but the bible is pretty contradictory and open to interpretation. It's virtually impossible to get 2 christians to agree on every single aspect of the bible, and everyone seems to interpret it differently, whether they are christian or not.
This is to a large degree due to people not reading the Bible in original languages and consequently coming to different conclusions. In the original languages in historical context, it is quite clear, quite absolute, but people argue from a variety of translations overlaying "modern" perspectives and prejudices.

Let's take something simple, like murder. 'Thou shalt not kill'. Seems pretty straightforward.
You have just correctly used to different words for the taking of life. "Murder" is more in harmony with the meaning of the original language. It has to do with intent. The Bible starts early with the condemnation of Cain for premeditated murder and then relays a series of everything from being justified in killing a rapist in the act (defense of others) justified in war, justified in self defense, how to handle an accidental death. .. . etc. It is all in the OT and stops being confusing as soon as you accept that all murder is killing but not all killing is murder, a set/subset thing.
155px-Venn_A_subset_B.svg.png


But then god has no problem killing himself.
Any homicide by God is justified by His office, as God of Everything. He is Judge, no jury has a right to second guess, and there is no more efficient executioner.

But maybe it's a 'do as I say and not as I do' type thing, which is fine.
God doesn't murder, but He may kill . .. set/subset

So he's not a moral example for us, we don't follow his examples, we just do what he says.
The opposite is true. He is a moral example for us, but we are not God, we should indeed limit our killing to exclude murder just as He does. We are not in possession of the same knowledge and wisdom therefore a jury is prudent should we seek to try one of our own kind. As good at killing each other as humans are, we have yet to work out execution as justly and equitably as God.

So if someone today is told by god that they should kill someone, then is that ok?
Yes, but okay with God does not = okay with society. Joseph, thrown in a pit and then sold into slavery, Daniel thrown into a pit with lions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego thrown into what sounds like a smelting furnace, Peter crucified upsidedown, Paul flogged, jailed, multiple times, Jesus? Crucified, etc. . . . there is no Biblical implication that following the Word of God somehow grants one civil or diplomatic immunity.

And what about more complex things? Like slavery or video piracy? How does this christian absolute moral code apply to these things?
Slavery is given "humane" terms. If you read the rules about slavery in the Old Testament it obliged masters to be humane and then there is the Shmita (which would free indentured servants on the seventh year) and Jubilee (which frees slaves on the 49th year) effectively eliminating the possibility of Slavery as witnessed in Early American history as Biblical. Video piracy is just a modern form of theft, theft is still theft, not complex at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrizzlyMonKeH
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I (believing in the framework on which neo-classical criminology is built), though not all Christians, believe in Natural Law. I believe even without the Bible human beings at their core know. As a Christian, believing God breathed life into us and in that breath . . . some element of knowledge. As a scientist (criminology/sociology), I reach for some explanation why the majority of cultures over the majority of time have had the same core "crimes", mores, folkways. . . . murder, rape, incest, theft, deceit, etc. Culture after culture, century after century, we may differ on things like food and beverage laws, tolerance of homosexuals, citizen weapon ownership, but culture after culture the "big" crimes. .. . are the same. Natural Law. People forget what tree the apple came from in the Adam and Eve story, we as humans partook of the tree of Natural Law.

Pretty much I agree. Though I see it through a naturalistic lens. Morals are instinctive. They can vary from person to person in the degree to which they are expressed, and can be modified by culture. But at a basic level, they are hard-wired into our brains. Our understanding is still rudimentary, but the link is an informative article on the neurobiological basis for moral decision making. A religious believer would say that God has written a knowledge of right and wrong in our hearts. The naturalist would say that it was acquired through our evolution as social primates. But we both say morality is part of human nature.

The Neurobiology of Moral Behavior: Review and Neuropsychiatric Implications
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,555
71
✟318,580.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
"Thou Shalt not kill" is very easy to resolve, sort of!

The Bible does not say that in the original text. It says "Thou shalt not murder".

But it raises an interesing issue, if translations are so weak that they make this mistake how can we resolve a much harder problem. Just what constituted murder?

As far as I know there is no appendix to the Bible where God defined the terms. Unlike human legal documents where often a significant part is just defining the words used.
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟112,984.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Thou Shalt not kill" is very easy to resolve, sort of!

The Bible does not say that in the original text. It says "Thou shalt not murder".

But it raises an interesing issue, if translations are so weak that they make this mistake how can we resolve a much harder problem. Just what constituted murder?

As far as I know there is no appendix to the Bible where God defined the terms. Unlike human legal documents where often a significant part is just defining the words used.
Hmm. The main translations I use (NKJV, NAS, HCSB, ESV) all translate the word to be "murder". I guess here's a time that illustrates the importance of going with translations the reflect modern scholarship. (I'm obviously not a KJV-only guy.)
 
Upvote 0

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
This is indeed a complex subject, but I think you have the grasp of it quite well. I will just try to boil things down a bit according to my understanding.

When I speak of morality I am speaking of what I think God considers to be moral. And yes, that is presented to us in the Bible. I don't think we can count on personal revelation for this because other believers can't substantiate a person's personal revelation against anything objective. While there are different interpretations of different topics in the Bible, if we're reading the same sheet of music at least there's a common, objective foundation from which we can have a conversation.

As regards to killing, I don't have a good answer to God's commanding people to kill other people. One thing to remember, though, is that just because something is recorded as God doing something, it doesn't mean that we are entitled to do the same thing (were it possible). After all, His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Further, He is infinitely wise and knows the hearts of people whereas we're clearly not there.

That being said, we of course have the underlying general commandment to not commit murder. There are some qualifiers to this in the Law, though, that we need to be aware of. For instance, killing in self defense seems to be sanctioned by the Law (Exo. 22:2-3). Also, the governing authority seems to have the right to perform capital punishment (Exo. 21:14; Lev. 24:17; et al.).

Under the Law, killing someone accidentally seems to be in a different category (Deut. 19:6), which is why the cities of refuge were established.

I hope this is enough to munch on.

thanks for the reply.

the part I bolded, that still doesn't sound like absolute morality to me. It sounds like everyone gets to interpret the bible how they want and come up with whatever morality they can interpret from it. Or that different groups of people can have different conversations and come up with different morality.

If it's up to us to figure it out, then it's not absolute is it? It's going to be different for every person or every group?
 
Upvote 0

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
It all comes back to Jesus Christ. The Bible was wrote for God's people so there must be Christ inside one's being before the Bible will make any real sense. Through Christ the Bible reveals itself.

Ok, so you seem to be saying that I could never understand it properly because I don't have christ inside me, or don't accept christ in my life or however you want to phrase it. So then it's not actually the bible that's the key part in morality here, it's having Jesus inside you? And that having christ with you will allow you to see meaning in words that others can't? Does everyone who has christ inside them understand morality via the bible in the same way then, even if I can't?

"What would Jesus do" IS absolute morality in a nut shell. Now, what are some of the specific things?...read the Gospels and see what He did when He interacted with folks...one can't go wrong by simply mimicking Him. Everything He did was out of love for us, so if you do everything out of love first to Him, then to others around you...you will always be on the right side of morality.

He also said that there is only one who is good, and that is god. So he actually says he is not absolute morality himself, that god is absolute morality.

I believe the "thou shalt not kill" is really "thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference to me. Self defense, wars, death penalties, policing society...all are necessary actions in a evil world. Abortion, fits or rage, premeditated murder and some other criminal activities all fall under the thou shalt not murder category.

ok, so right away in our 'absolute morality' we don't even have agreement over a key word, or even really what those two words mean and how they are different. Do you see why I am struggling to see how this is 'absolute'?
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟112,984.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
thanks for the reply.

the part I bolded, that still doesn't sound like absolute morality to me. It sounds like everyone gets to interpret the bible how they want and come up with whatever morality they can interpret from it. Or that different groups of people can have different conversations and come up with different morality.

If it's up to us to figure it out, then it's not absolute is it? It's going to be different for every person or every group?
Just because a group of people don't agree on something doesn't mean that that "something" doesn't exist. Absolute morality exists whether any two people agree on what it is or not. And I hasten to add that for the vast majority of things (like "thou shalt not murder") you'll find very little disagreement. The keys, I think, are (a) the persons trying to understand the biblical text should be believers, and (b) they must be honestly applying proper hermeneutical principles to the text with a sincere desire to understand what it means.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Well, at risk of getting into apologetics (a different section of the board), from a Christian point of view (generally, across sects and denominations), God is regarded as the Creator of all things good. That general idea as applied to morality, points to morality being . .. whatever God defines it as. God is not obliged to "tell us the rules" (pardon the TRON reference but: God could put us on the game grid without telling us the rules) God chose, as an article of Christian faith, to reveal truths about Himself and His desires through the Bible. It doesn't help that so few people read the book in the original languages as we'll see in a paragraph or so.

Ok, am following you here, makes sense. Sci fi quotes always help with my understanding.
This is to a large degree due to people not reading the Bible in original languages and consequently coming to different conclusions. In the original languages in historical context, it is quite clear, quite absolute, but people argue from a variety of translations overlaying "modern" perspectives and prejudices.

You have just correctly used to different words for the taking of life. "Murder" is more in harmony with the meaning of the original language. It has to do with intent. The Bible starts early with the condemnation of Cain for premeditated murder and then relays a series of everything from being justified in killing a rapist in the act (defense of others) justified in war, justified in self defense, how to handle an accidental death. .. . etc. It is all in the OT and stops being confusing as soon as you accept that all murder is killing but not all killing is murder, a set/subset thing.

Ok, I already thought that all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder, but that doesn't really help with my understanding at all. If everyone is interpreting it differently because of the language problems etc, then it's not exactly absolute morality coming from the bible is it? It's subjective morality. The subjectivity depends from how each person reads and understands it. Or are you saying that there IS objective morality, and that some christians just simply get it wrong through misunderstanding the bible? So we all just interpret the rules differently, but gods rules (objective morality) are still there?

Slavery is given "humane" terms. If you read the rules about slavery in the Old Testament it obliged masters to be humane and then there is the Shmita (which would free indentured servants on the seventh year) and Jubilee (which frees slaves on the 49th year) effectively eliminating the possibility of Slavery as witnessed in Early American history as Biblical. Video piracy is just a modern form of theft, theft is still theft, not complex at all.

yes, but those slavery rules are specifically for jews enslaving other jews. Which is different. And I'm glad you used airquotes on "humane" because allowing people to beat their slaves, as long as they don't die within 2 days, doesn't fit my definition of the word humane. It is also not moral to me, so now am I at odds with the objective morality of god and/or the bible?
 
Upvote 0

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
"Thou Shalt not kill" is very easy to resolve, sort of!

The Bible does not say that in the original text. It says "Thou shalt not murder".

But it raises an interesing issue, if translations are so weak that they make this mistake how can we resolve a much harder problem. Just what constituted murder?

As far as I know there is no appendix to the Bible where God defined the terms. Unlike human legal documents where often a significant part is just defining the words used.

It depends on the translation, but yes this is part of my confusion.

doesn't exactly sound like absolute morals to me
 
Upvote 0

Jade Margery

Stranger in a strange land
Oct 29, 2008
3,018
311
✟12,415.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Everyone's morality is subjective. We are all looking for ways to justify what we feel is right and wrong. Some of us use logic to justify it, others credit their guts or feelings, and some use their interpretation of holy texts. When any person says that their morality is absolute, they are really just deluded.
 
Upvote 0

jpcedotal

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style
May 26, 2009
4,243
239
In between Deliverance and Brother, Where Art Thou
✟13,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Ok, so you seem to be saying that I could never understand it properly because I don't have christ inside me, or don't accept christ in my life or however you want to phrase it. So then it's not actually the bible that's the key part in morality here, it's having Jesus inside you? And that having christ with you will allow you to see meaning in words that others can't? Does everyone who has christ inside them understand morality via the bible in the same way then, even if I can't?

Yes, a true Christian does have the Holy Spirit that guides them in absolute morality....that doesn't mean we follow...but we know it when we don't. The entire Bible is based off of the first four words...In the beginning God...the Bible does not try to prove there is a God, it only assumes that anyone reading the Bible trying to find the truth has already settled this in his heart.

He also said that there is only one who is good, and that is god. So he actually says he is not absolute morality himself, that god is absolute morality.

Jesus IS God

ok, so right away in our 'absolute morality' we don't even have agreement over a key word, or even really what those two words mean and how they are different. Do you see why I am struggling to see how this is 'absolute'?

the difference between "kill" and "murder"? Except for the extreme liberal or one who cherry picks verses without any regard to context argue the difference between the two.
 
Upvote 0

Glas Ridire

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2010
3,151
134
.
✟4,005.00
Faith
Celtic Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ok, am following you here, makes sense. Sci fi quotes always help with my understanding.
Not Sci-fi, but another useful quote: Wrong is wrong no matter who stands for it, right is right no matter who stands against it.


Or are you saying that there IS objective morality, and that some christians just simply get it wrong through misunderstanding the bible? So we all just interpret the rules differently, but gods rules (objective morality) are still there?
Yup, the universe, from a Christian point of view is centered on God. His is the only morality that is relevant though we all, whether listening to Natural Law or reading the Bible, subjectively interpret . . .. some folks are closer to the truth than others, of course & I don't believe that status carries any label.



yes, but those slavery rules are specifically for jews enslaving other jews. Which is different. And I'm glad you used airquotes on "humane" because allowing people to beat their slaves, as long as they don't die within 2 days, doesn't fit my definition of the word humane. It is also not moral to me, so now am I at odds with the objective morality of god and/or the bible?
There are also plenty of guidelines for how they were to treat foreigners. In any case, we are talking about a different culture, in a different time. . . . I am not over-fond of slavery either, but God's tolerance for man's injustice towards ourselves shouldn't be mistaken for approval.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,555
71
✟318,580.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Hmm. The main translations I use (NKJV, NAS, HCSB, ESV) all translate the word to be "murder". I guess here's a time that illustrates the importance of going with translations the reflect modern scholarship. (I'm obviously not a KJV-only guy.)

The old King James does have one significant advantage however. In Greek (and I think the earlier languages) there were different words for the singular and plural of "you". Modern English lacks that distinction, but it still existed in the English of the original KJV. Much easier than looking up everythgin in an interlineal or the like.

BTW I've sat through a sermon where the whole thing fell apart like a house built on shifting sand just on the difference between singular and plural.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,555
71
✟318,580.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
....
"What would Jesus do" IS absolute morality in a nut shell. Now, what are some of the specific things?...read the Gospels and see what He did when He interacted with folks...one can't go wrong by simply mimicking Him. Everything He did was out of love for us, so if you do everything out of love first to Him, then to others around you...you will always be on the right side of morality.
....

First off What would Jesus do always translates to "What would my image of Jesus do"

Considering Jesus turned Water into Wine, ate and drank with sinners and never had a steady job I'm going to bet a goodly percentage of Christians have an image very different from the facts.

But aside from that you cannot do what Jesus did. You cannot turn water to wine, walk on water, cure a blind man or calm a storm. It is hubris to think you can.
 
Upvote 0

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
the difference between "kill" and "murder"? Except for the extreme liberal or one who cherry picks verses without any regard to context argue the difference between the two.

Jesus IS god, according to you and probably the church you attend. As I understand it that's not universally accepted throughout christianity.

But regardless, not sure I'm following what your saying in the rest of your post there.
 
Upvote 0

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Yup, the universe, from a Christian point of view is centered on God. His is the only morality that is relevant though we all, whether listening to Natural Law or reading the Bible, subjectively interpret . . .. some folks are closer to the truth than others, of course & I don't believe that status carries any label.


There are also plenty of guidelines for how they were to treat foreigners. In any case, we are talking about a different culture, in a different time. . . . I am not over-fond of slavery either, but God's tolerance for man's injustice towards ourselves shouldn't be mistaken for approval.

OK, so it looks as though you are saying that christian morality is subjective, and although there is objective morality out there (gods morality), but we can not know what there is for sure so it's just up to us to do our best? Don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I understand what you are saying?

This sounds similar to secular objective morality, where every situation has one true and ultimately best moral decision, whether the society of the day or the individual in that situation recognizes it or not. And it's not a 2 choice, black and white thing between moral and immoral, there may be many courses of actions that are moral, with some being more moral than others. The only difference being, of course, that you feel that objective morality is gods morality, and in the secular version the objective morality is the best moral action that can be taken, rather than gods morality. And, in any case, it is tough for us to decipher what exactly the objective moral action is in either model.

Yes, and those guidelines are immoral to me, such as the guidelines on how much you can physically beat another human being that is your property.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mathclub

Newbie
May 15, 2011
597
6
Switzerland
✟15,838.00
Faith
Atheist
First off What would Jesus do always translates to "What would my image of Jesus do"

and this is where christian morality seems subjective to me, because it is always your interpretation of what you think jesus would do, or what god would want you to do, or what the bible tells you to do. And everyone seems to have different interpretations, so it is hard to call christian morality objective, is it not?
 
Upvote 0