Are Morals Relative, Progressive, Objective, Absolute, Other?

[cvanwey]

1. love is the highest thing
2. i'm gonna be doing that forever

Does love represent an absolute moral? Let's test that real fast. If I don't love someone I've never met, is that immoral?

 

[Noxot]

Does love represent an absolute moral? Let's test that real fast. If I don't love someone I've never met, is that immoral?

how can you love someone that you have never met?

 

[Serving Zion]

Good question... Is murder actually truly wrong because your opinion or intuition tells you so, or because most of society agrees with you, or because it says so in an book, or because consequentialism is antithetical to moral realism?

Neither of those, IMO (because justice has to consider in any case that the one who is doing the murder might have a greater moral justification for it than the one who complains that it is immoral).

.. but you didn't answer my questions. There were three of them.

 

[Serving Zion]

Does love represent an absolute moral? Let's test that real fast. If I don't love someone I've never met, is that immoral?

It would cause immorality, but without action (or inaction) there cannot be immorality - love vs sin are the motivating factors for our behaviours.

how can you love someone that you have never met?

Love is patient, kind, does no harm, is not self-seeking, not puffed up, does not dishonour others, always trusts, hopes, perseveres. It is actually rather easy to be this way toward people we have never met (if we have not become a hater). It is in fact harder to love a person once they have developed a malicious tendency toward us by being tempted to take advantage of a loving nature. But psychopaths don't come right out that way at first, they take their time to develop relationships so as to lure and catch their prey unaware. People's natural logic of defence is to become distrustful by default to protect themselves from potential psychopaths, until they have established relationships that prove a person's trust-worthiness.

 

[bcbsr]

1. Please define morality
2. If something is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', why?

Thank you?

Whether it be the principles of right and wrong, which are absolute, or the applications or regulations derived from those principles, which are not necessarily absolute, there's a more fundamental issue to deal with. Namely are morals from God or do we make them up ourselves? If we make them up ourselves then we may be just pretending things are absolute when they are not. But if by God, then that's kind of the definition of "absolute".

 

[Inkfingers]

Well, because I have one life to live, and I choose to live it as long as possible and hope that all the 'good/pleasurable' times outweigh the 'bad/not pleasurable'. Otherwise, okay

Which you do in denial of the meaninglessness of a universe you believe in (one devoid of an absolute authority from which morals can be draw in a meaningful manner)....

why not actually demonstrate that your specific God actually, at least exists, so then I know [which] God is the real God Because, you know there is more than one claimed God whom claims absolute moral dictates, right?

Gosh look, a mocking atheist. There's something I seldom see...

Why would I bother when you cannot even live honestly with the worldview you claim to have.

 

[Kevin Snow]

But if the Bible was a man written book, just like any other claimed holy book, and not actually inspired by any God, then wouldn't you merely be appealing to the author's opinions, whom is passing these instructions off as absolute truth?

"And scripture cannot be broken" ~Yahshua, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings (John 10:35)

I believe in Yahshua that he died according to the law for our sins and rose again. Therefore I believe what he says and have come to know for myself that indeed the scripture cannot be broken. I believe also in the account of the testimony of his witnesses that they also spoke the truth.

And I've given the answer to your OP according to scripture and the understanding that comes from it. Have a good day.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have a simple task for you, if you would not mind...?

1. Please name one absolute moral value or duty.
2. Prove it

Thank you

It is plain that God has not revealed himself to you, therefore you have no moral obligations that might come from God. It is the Spirit of God that reveals moral duties to those he has revealed himself to.

That said billions of people do "the things of God", fashioning moral codes that resemble the laws of God through hard-learned experience, from which they either "accuse or excuse" each other.

 

[Ken-1122]

1. Please define morality

Morality is the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how those actions effect you and your neighbor. It starts from the position that what is helpful to you and your neighbor is good and what is harmful to you and your neighbor is bad.

2. If something is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', why?

Thank you?

If you define “absolutely” good or bad as something that can be proven good or bad, I would say morality is subjective meaning extenuating circumstances and perceptions are considered before determining if something is good or bad; thus nothing is absolutely good or bad

 

[cvanwey]

Neither of those, IMO (because justice has to consider in any case that the one who is doing the murder might have a greater moral justification for it than the one who complains that it is immoral).

.. but you didn't answer my questions. There were three of them.

'Why do you suppose they would rather wait though?' It's not about waiting... Many people appeal to their own moral standards, which greatly differ (either because they appeal to their own differing intuitions, opinions, or assertions, and/or some appeal to the teachings of their religious heritage from their claimed holy text; which all differ from one another.

'Why wouldn't they just do it because it is the moral thing to do?' Most do... But morals, and the definition of morals, differ from person to person, region to region, religion to religion, etc..

'What does it say about a person whose moral conviction depends not upon their regard for the code itself but their regard for the one who issued it?' I don't know, you tell me? Your avatar states you are Christian. What's your stance on say.... homosexuality, slavery, and women lead teaching in churches?

And to answer your comment from the quote above... All one needs to do is to demonstrate that this 'absolute objective law giver' actually exists. And then, demonstrate that this objective law maker's assertions are actually absolutely objective. Can you do that?

 

[cvanwey]

It is plain that God has not revealed himself to you, therefore you have no moral obligations that might come from God. It is the Spirit of God that reveals moral duties to those he has revealed himself to.

How do you [know] God has actually revealed himself to you? Secondly, how do you [know] all others have not actually received true revelation from their differing claimed God(s)?

Also, how do you know people whom claim "God told them to kill their children", where not actually receiving words from God?

I was a willing and open recipient and prayed for 30+ years to receive a response, and asked others to pray for me, in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23. None forthcoming... What else am I supposed to conclude?

 

[cvanwey]

"And scripture cannot be broken" ~Yahshua, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings (John 10:35)

I believe in Yahshua that he died according to the law for our sins and rose again. Therefore I believe what he says and have come to know for myself that indeed the scripture cannot be broken. I believe also in the account of the testimony of his witnesses that they also spoke the truth.

And I've given the answer to your OP according to scripture and the understanding that comes from it. Have a good day.

Believing in God/Jesus can actually have no relevancy to my question/observation....

Jesus never claimed to write the NT. Humans did, claiming they received inspiration from God. How do you know humans did not just write whatever they thought, based mostly upon repeated oral tradition, growing legendary tales, and then modify these stories to taste?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you [know] God has actually revealed himself to you? Secondly, how do you [know] all others have not actually received true revelation from their differing claimed God(s)?

Also, how do you know people whom claim "God told them to kill their children", where not actually receiving words from God?

I was a willing and open recipient and prayed for 30+ years to receive a response, and asked others to pray for me, in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23. None forthcoming... What else am I supposed to conclude?

Since these were instructions for his disciples you can conclude that you haven't been called.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Believing in God/Jesus can actually have no relevancy to my question/observation....

Jesus never claimed to write the NT. Humans did, claiming they received inspiration from God. How do you know humans did not just write whatever they thought, based mostly upon repeated oral tradition, growing legendary tales, and then modify these stories to taste?

No one here can reveal God to you. Only God can do that. God will call two groups. In this age the church, the rest of mankind in the next age; the resurrection/judgment period. But all will be called.

 

[Kevin Snow]

Believing in God/Jesus can actually have no relevancy to my question/observation....

Jesus never claimed to write the NT. Humans did, claiming they received inspiration from God. How do you know humans did not just write whatever they thought, based mostly upon repeated oral tradition, growing legendary tales, and then modify these stories to taste?

They did do this very thing! Look at this link:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Do you understand that there were many false teachings out there? Tons of different writings especially the gnostic ones, perverting the grace of God into sensuality.

But what has survived are the ones that we read and know and agree in our hearts that they write the true grace of God; as Peter spoke of here:

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it. ~1 Peter 5:12

And also John spoke in the same way saying:

Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. ~3 John 1:12

Beware of yourself lest this be true of you when Christ spoke this:

Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. ~John 3:11

And what did he warn you about? Listen here:

Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” ~Luke 8:18

Therefore it depends on you, yourself, whether you block yourself from hearing the truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Which you do in denial of the meaninglessness of a universe you believe in (one devoid of an absolute authority from which morals can be draw in a meaningful manner)....

You have yet to begin to demonstrate which God(s) is/are driving this moral foundation?

Gosh look, a mocking atheist. There's something I seldom see...

Why would I bother when you cannot even live honestly with the worldview you claim to have.

What I find dishonest is the ad hominem attack. What I also find dishonest, is simply asserting your specific being as authoritative, without justification. Many others, whom have just as much conviction in their differing absolute moral arbiter as you, assert their God just as much as yours. Why are they wrong?

Maybe instead of responding with hostility, and insinuations, provide actual evidence of your specific God? This is not 'mockery'. I'm asking for legitimate demonstration. If you choose not to provide any, Then I guess I may understand why...

 

[cvanwey]

They did do this very thing! Look at this link:

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Do you understand that there were many false teachings out there? Tons of different writings especially the gnostic ones, perverting the grace of God into sensuality.

But what has survived are the ones that we read and know and agree in our hearts that they write the true grace of God; as Peter spoke of here:

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it. ~1 Peter 5:12

And also John spoke in the same way saying:

Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. ~3 John 1:12

Beware of yourself lest this be true of you when Christ spoke this:

Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. ~John 3:11

And what did he warn you about? Listen here:

Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” ~Luke 8:18

Therefore it depends on you, yourself, whether you block yourself from hearing the truth.

So the Jew and Muslims all unanimously agree then huh? Furthermore, if Hermeneutics cannot even universalize the cannon, then what actually can?

 

[cvanwey]

No one here can reveal God to you. Only God can do that. God will call two groups. In this age the church, the rest of mankind in the next age; the resurrection/judgment period. But all will be called.

So then I guess you are saying God chooses not to reveal himself to me until postmortem, in spite of 30 years of prayer, where He promises to answer? Interesting...

 

[Kevin Snow]

So the Jew and Muslims all unanimously agree then huh? Furthermore, if Hermeneutics cannot even universalize the cannon, then what actually can?

You clearly aren't listening at all. Do you have no fear of God at all?

 

[cvanwey]

how can you love someone that you have never met?

My point is that 'love' or not to 'love' is either moral nor immoral. It is instead amoral. My point is that you made no attempt to answer my two questions.