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

[Kevin Snow]

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” ~1 Corinthians 8:4

Do you read the bible? Either believe in him and walk with him or forsake him. Why do you go on limping between two different opinions? Make it count. If you seek him, he will be found by you. The reason you haven't found him is that you are not seeking him but rather seeking to justify yourself. (and for 30 years!, this is why I listed that scripture that the heart is deceitful above all things)

But what does scripture say? "Let God be true though every one were a liar." Who is true in this situation? Is God true? Or are you the liar?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Okay, how is this not circular? A Hindu can do the exact same thing you are doing....

let's say I came up with arguments that convinced you the God of scripture is the one true God, what exactly would that accomplish? you would still be the judge over God in that you wouldn't be bowing the knee to Christ but simply coming to the conclusion that this works for you personally. you present evidence to a judge. why would I ever dishonor the LORD by giving any creature the of power of judgement over him? it is we who are to be judged!

I simply preach Christ and Him crucified and those who have an ear, let them hear.

 

[cvanwey]

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” ~1 Corinthians 8:4

Do you read the bible? Either believe in him and walk with him or forsake him. Why do you go on limping between two different opinions? Make it count. If you seek him, he will be found by you. The reason you haven't found him is that you are not seeking him but rather seeking to justify yourself. (and for 30 years!, this is why I listed that scripture that the heart is deceitful above all things)

But what does scripture say? "Let God be true though every one were a liar." Who is true in this situation? Is God true? Or are you the liar?

I don't think you are reading my responses. I prayed for 30+ years, and cited many verses (for proof). Which is, using the Bible to demonstrate proof of the Bible, exactly the same as you are doing now. So why do you ignore the verses I give you, but yet, want me to adhere to the ones YOU send me?.?..?

 

[cvanwey]

let's say I came up with arguments that convinced you the God of scripture is the one true God, what exactly would that accomplish? you would still be the judge over God in that you wouldn't be bowing the knee to Christ but simply coming to the conclusion that this works for you personally. you present evidence to a judge. why would I ever dishonor the LORD by giving any creature the of power of judgement over him? it is we who are to be judged!

I simply preach Christ and Him crucified and those who have an ear, let them hear.

It would actually solve a lot. I would not be on this forum asking for proof of which moral absolute law giver is the actual one providing such laws.

 

[cvanwey]

Attention to all that have responded, or may respond later... I think it may be possible some could be misinterpreting my responses. I'm not trying to play 'gotcha'. I'm not looking for kicks over the weekend. I'm not actually looking to argue...

I've wrestled with this topic for quite some time. And I honestly fully get the theist position quite a lot. However, until someone is able to demonstrate WHICH moral authority exists, and that all others don't, (i.e.) as much as humans have 'knowledge' to say... evidence that the earth is spherical.... Then it really becomes one asserted opinion, verses the next.

When I read the Bible, much of it appears shamelessly human added and human opinionated (i.e.) homosexuality, women inequality, slavery, witches, etc, etc, etc.... It appears to present a time capsule of limited knowledge of it's day. Sorry, this is not written as mockery, but honesty. This is just my honest 'subjective' assessment.

So if someone has an honest answer, as to demonstrate WHICH moral authority is the actual one, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm going to receive the same answers and methods, as I do from Muslims, as to why their specific moral code is 'correct' and 'better'...

Peace

 

[bcbsr]

So Confusious' golden rule is absolute?

Just another guy stating what is generally understood. Not surprising since we were all made by the same Creator.

Why is murder objectively wrong? And when exactly is murder not killing?

I think you're feigning ignorance. Justice systems throughout the world recognize the distinction and all are against murder. Are you the exception, the only person in the world who doesn't recognize murder as bad?

Even though the only claimed actual eyewitness is Sal/Paul, and the rest is hearsay, oral tradition, and growing legendary tales?

You might want to read the Bible before criticizing it.

The gospel of Luke chapter 1:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

2Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Neither was written by Paul. These are just samples.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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...

The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I should fear a claimed 'all loving' being? I would assume if this being is all loving and perfect love, then I would assume that asking to speak with such, for 30+ years, might yield an actual response? If God wants nothing more than to have a relationship with me, and I request a relationship for 30 years, and only find the conversation one-sided, what else am I supposed to conclude?

That God has chosen not to communicate with you. Thousands write personal letters to presidents only to have them ignored. Does this mean their president doesn't exist? It is common for Christians to assume that the answer to their prayers is "no" if such isn't answered in a reasonable time frame. God does answer all prayers, but in his time frame and in his way.

 

[Anguspure]

Providing the Kalam Cosmological argument does not get one to Yahweh regardless.

There are a number of arguments and the KCA supplies just one.

No other concept of god or indentification of a god comes close to meeting the requirements of the philosophers God as does the absolute identification given by the "I AM".

Quoting verses from the Bible to prove that the Bible is true is no better/worse than a Hindu quoting verses from the Bhagavata to prove the Bhagavata.

I am showing that the God of Abraham (of the Bible) is the philosophers God.

YHWH means "HE IS" which comes from His identification of Himself as the "I AM" when Moses asked "Who shall I say sent me?"

"I AM" is the philosophical absolute of the lesser concept: "I think therefore I am".
God simply says "I AM" without qualification. God therefore is most simply "The One Who Exists".

This appraisal is completely in keeping with the Uncaused cause of the Philosopher.

If you can show me a passage from the Bhagavata (or any other source) that identifies a Being that meets this criteria then I would suggest that we may be dealing with the same Person, certainly the concept of God as encountered by Abraham, Moses and the Apostles is not unique to these people.

But they were the only ones to have encountered God in a manner that allowed Him to be brought forward and revealed as He Is in the books of the Bible.

I would like a sufficient answer, which does not attempt to prove loose deism (Kalam) or circular reasoning (Bible), as to which God's moral dictates are the correct ones?

As for the creator of an art work, the base value for all things lies with the creator of the piece.

Given that God, by definition, created things to exist generally and created a special class of things in humanity, then the basic value that God places on things becomes apparent.

This is the value for basic natural morality based upon the objective value of a created thing.

Given that this same Person, in Christ Jesus, laid down His life for each one of us, then we can see an ultimate value in that each one of us is considered as more valuable than His own life, more valuable than the universe itself.

This is the morality that can only be based in Christ Jesus (for no other person or god has done what He has done) and based upon the value that He has placed upon people.

So the correct moral dictates, given the values appraised, could at the base form be expressed as "Do no harm" (to a created thing), and at the highest form could be expressed as "(Agape) Love every person you encounter".

 

[Inkfingers]

Dude! I get what you are saying... Why do you insist on repeating the same thing?

I repeat it because you are obviously not getting it (which is made obvious by ignoring what I am saying and repeatedly asking for explanations that you will ignore).

Let me restate it clearer...

Which moral arbiter is providing it? Much of the globe claims a differing moral arbiter. Who is right, and how might one derive a sound conclusion w/o being overtly fallacious? I have yet to find a way!

That is because you are yourself living in denial (of claiming to doubt the existence of an absolute authority but still living as if there is one and that life has meaning).

 

[cvanwey]

I repeat it because you are obviously not getting it (which is made obvious by ignoring what I am saying and repeatedly asking for explanations that you will ignore).



That is because you are yourself living in denial (of claiming to doubt the existence of an absolute authority but still living as if there is one and that life has meaning).

Again, WHICH moral authority? There are many claimed moral authorities, with differing views on the exact same points?

 

[Inkfingers]

Again, WHICH moral authority? There are many claimed moral authorities, with differing views on the exact same points?

Again, if I told you, you would not believe me because you already act as though it is true but deny it in words.

 

[cvanwey]

Again, if I told you, you would not believe me because you already act as though it is true but deny it in words.

Okay, I thought this was a forum of idea exchange. But apparently, you do not want to provide your best evidence for THE moral authority. Okay

Thanks anyways

 

[cvanwey]

That God has chosen not to communicate with you. Thousands write personal letters to presidents only to have them ignored. Does this mean their president doesn't exist? It is common for Christians to assume that the answer to their prayers is "no" if such isn't answered in a reasonable time frame. God does answer all prayers, but in his time frame and in his way.

People write letters to people they 'know' exist. They do not write letters to people they think may not exist. Even when a child writes a letter to "Santa", it's because the child thinks "Santa" exists. But if the child, in adult form, continued to write letters to "Santa", after they no longer think "Santa" existed, that would be odd.

If God does not answer the prayer while you are alive, (like 'please heal my cancer', 'please restore my amputated limb', etc..) then it's safe to say He did not answer your prayer. I don't think cancer or an amputated limb matters much postmortem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Thank you?

Relative. Morals are opinions...not facts.

 

[cvanwey]

Just another guy stating what is generally understood. Not surprising since we were all made by the same Creator.

I don't think Confucious followed Judeo-Christian principles. It's highly unlikely his views of absolute morality directly fall in line with all of the Bible.

Are you honestly saying that someone cannot think murder is wrong, in their 'subjective' opinion? If this were true, then why do many think homosexuality is not immoral?

I think you're feigning ignorance. Justice systems throughout the world recognize the distinction and all are against murder. Are you the exception, the only person in the world who doesn't recognize murder as bad?

You are correct that most, if not all, religions are against murder. However, it's the many other moral dictates which differ.

So which one is actually correct, if any? And how might one find that out?

You might want to read the Bible before criticizing it.

Oh I have. So please do not test me on all the verses which demonstrate inequality to women for no other reason than they were born with the wrong set of genitalia, or how homosexuality is an abomination, etc, etc, etc... Even some re-enforced in the NT.

It all appears to fall in line with human opinion, and does not appear to be coming from a divine origin.

In a nutshell, I'm not denying a God. However, I have severe doubt the Bible demonstrates any divinity, based upon what I've read.

 

[Noxot]

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.

divine love is a love that is the same thing as goodness. goodness is the absolute of morality. freedom of the spirit is also an absolute. nothing works as intended unless there is freedom. there is no point to God in being good if you did not freely choose and become it.

so the bible can be a crazy mess due to the process and interaction of God with man. and some theories such as blindly accepting commandments prove themselves to be inferior moral systems. therefore the bible then becomes the tree of knowledge of good and evil where man must sort out everything for himself in his innocent seeking of God.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Morality is an imperfect survival mechanism for groups. EG. the general rule, "don't kill people".

It helps establish and maintain economic order e.g. "don't steal".

These rules are culturally plastic, they can be given different "weightings" in different settings.

I think this is an objective fact, or as close as we limited creatures can get to the objective truth. So its a theory, but likewise is gravity a theory....

The rules though, like "don't steal". They are commands. You cant , in logic, call a command true literally.

"Good" and "evil" tend to be used in terms of "this fits, or doesn't fit with my moral opinion" or "I approve, or disapprove of this".

So, analysis can get pretty complicated.

The terms "objective" and "subjective" are usually ill defined, or there is little consensus on definitions or what they actually imply, and often belong to confused ideologically motivated debates rather than clear thinking.

I think that we have moral instincts, in terms of there being developmental phases we generally go through, like in Kohlbergs thesis. stages of moral development | Definition & Framework


Rather than actual innate ideas like "stealing is wrong" we have capacities to think and reason morally, and a certain liking for adhering to group values etc as we grow up. This is because, I think, the "biological assumption" is: I was born therefore society's rules are to a degree benign. This is like what I read about butterflies, all else being equal, "weird looking" wing patterns tend to be avoided in mate choices. So its like stabilising selection - where the norm is copied - acting on group values as grow into full adulthood... i.e. stick with the winning thesis (adaptive behavioural pattern).

Just like:

 

[DogmaHunter]

Morality is discerning and categorising behaviour into that which deserves penalty and that which deserves reward. Ethics is the study of the theories by which people attempt to do so.



For something to be absolutely wrong it would have to refer to an absolute authority. Without such an absolute authority, any and all attempts at morality are just the presentation of personal bias.

Serious question.

When one requires an authority to dictate morality, is one really being moral?

Because in my book, that's just obedience. And it also smells a bit like psychopathy. Well, a lot, actually.

Consider this scenario, maybe that helps...

A man works at a bank. His job is counting money and making packages of 10.000 dollars.
After 10 years of working there, he has never taken a single penny to put in his pocket while he handles hundreds of thousands with his bare hands every single day.

You ask him why never stole anything.
Potential answer one "because [insert perceived authority] says stealing is bad", while in potential answer two he goes on to lay out a well reasoned argument as to why stealing is bad, how it's not his money to take, how he also has money in the bank and that he also wants to be able to trust the people handling his money, etc.

In which of these scenario's would you say he is acting with the most morals? One or two?

imo, in scenario one the dude isn't being moral at all. He's just being obedient to his perceived authority - wheter that authority is the god he happens to believe in, his superior, the bank CEO, his wife, his mother,...

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you yourself doubt the existence of such an absolute authority it means (by definition) that your own 'morals' are resting only upon your relativistic desires and feelings.

Or upon an understanding of the world, which informs us of the consequences of our actions, as well as the society we are a part of.

Sure, you can call it subjective... But only insofar as the base assumptions go. In this case, those assumptions would be along the lines of "well being is preferable to suffering".

Once you assume that living in a society that can maximise well being of all its citizens while minimizing unecessary suffering is preferable to the opposite, then what follows in terms of moral judgement isn't exactly arbitrary.....

With that in mind, mere evidence based rational reasoning leads to concluding that for example slavery is not okay. It's not some arbitrary subjective opinion like prefering apple pie over vanilla ice cream.