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

[Phil 1:21]

Again, you made no attempt to answer (any) of my reply.... But I will still answer yours anyways. I will start with one small example...


Demonstrate prayer being answered, which would not include any known possible natural based answer. (i.e.)


To our knowledge, amputees cannot grow back limbs. People claim God cures illnesses, and the like... However, some of these cures could also be from medical intervention, natural processes, etc... (all natural). Meaning, one does not know if it was from prayer, treatment, natural healing processes, other...?


Now, if someone's limb grew back, this would be cause for investigation. There exists no medical demonstration of a human limb growing back. If the limb grew back, this might demonstrate two points, in favor of theism...


1) God may have answered the prayer

2) The specific God prayed to exists, because the limb returned after prayer


Now would this convert me on the spot. Not necessarily. I admit I'm a skeptic. But it would sure peak my interest. And since there are many verses in the Bible, which state ALL prayer is answered, I find it interesting many will say prayer is answered at God's pace. And yet, the person will still die with the prayed for attribute unattended. Meaning, the amputated limb being restored postmortem would be nonsense.


*****************


Okay, now circling back to YOU. Why are YOU so certain YOUR specific absolute moral agent, is the correct absolute moral agent, while someone in India, whom adhere's to a differing set of moral absolute values is incorrect?

See, now we're making progress.

Unfortunately, your benchmark is contingent upon some incorrect assumptions. Such as...

1. That God does not work through “natural” means. Scripture is full of examples of such.

Demonstrate prayer being answered, which would not include any known possible natural based answer.

2. An answer of “no” from God does not constitute an answer. God is not a genie or a vending machine.

And since there are many verses in the Bible, which state ALL prayer is answered, I find it interesting many will say prayer is answered at God's pace. And yet, the person will still die with the prayed for attribute unattended.

Now would this convert me on the spot. Not necessarily.

Of course it wouldn’t. Jesus healed the lame, blind, leprous, and even the dead right in front of people and some of them still did not believe.

But I believe you were asked to state what you would find acceptable proof. And despite your long post about amputees regrowing limbs, you admitted it would still not be sufficient.

So then, we’re still waiting…

 

[cvanwey]

See, now we're making progress.

Unfortunately, your benchmark is contingent upon some incorrect assumptions. Such as...

1. That God does not work through “natural” means. Scripture is full of examples of such.



2. An answer of “no” from God does not constitute an answer. God is not a genie or a vending machine.

What might this state about intercessory or petitionary prayer in general? People ask to heal themselves, family, and others all the time.

Of course it wouldn’t. Jesus healed the lame, blind, leprous, and even the dead right in front of people and some of them still did not believe.

Do the same today, in front of a peer reviewed and controlled environment and I bet the conclusions would differ, at least for me.... Furthermore, your expressed accounts written are recorded from oral tradition, and not from any eyewitness testimony. So quite frankly, I have no trust the events event took place to begin with.

But I believe you were asked to state what you would find acceptable proof. And despite your long post about amputees regrowing limbs, you admitted it would still not be sufficient.

So then, we’re still waiting…

Well, as you would state, I think we may start to be getting somewhere I stated it would not turn me in the spot, but it would sure raise much pause. If further investigation demonstrated no such natural conclusion, then I would have no other choice but to conclude theism, or admit to appeal to the argument from ignorance.

Again, I'm being honest with myself... This is what my brain requires. I have no clue what anyone else requires.

So now, in staying in context with the initial post... If morals are absolute, this means a very specific absolute provider exists. And since many differing absolute moral providers are claimed, I feel a good gauge would be answered prayer, to explore the validity to this very specific God.

I may be wrong, but you asked for 'my' evidence

 

[Phil 1:21]

Do the same today, in front of a peer reviewed and controlled environment and I bet the conclusions would differ, at least for me....

And you expect anyone here to provide that for you?

So then, still waiting for you to state what you would accept as proof (let's keep the progress going)...

 

[cvanwey]

And you expect anyone here to provide that for you?

So then, still waiting for you to state what you would accept as proof (let's keep the progress going)...

Other posters will see what you are doing... Which is, not addressing my actual points in the slightest, and shifting the burden of proof (i.e.) not actually attempting to demonstrating how your asserted specific moral authority exists.

Prayer is my evidence. Demonstrate it works, if it doesn't, then please explain
Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, and why they do NOT seem to include any/all petitionary/intercessory prayer?

I asked you why your specific moral authority exists, and not others. You want no part of it, and cry goal post shifting, and display 'creative' imojis.

Thnx

 

[Phil 1:21]

Prayer is my evidence. Demonstrate it works

See post #121.

Still waiting..,

 

[cvanwey]

I don't entirely agree with this. When I walked into my office this morning, I sat in my chair because I believed it would hold me up. I didn't know whether or not it would hold me up, but I chose to believe, based upon historical evidence that it would. And so I sat. But I made the choice to believe that it would hold me up, even if it was subconscious.

Likewise, my wife has told me that she is making dinner and that it should be ready when I get home. I have a choice. I can either choose to believe her and come home hungry. Or I can choose to believe that she's not going to, and stop and grab something on the way home.

You make a lot more choices during your day about what to believe and what not to believe than I think you may realize. And those choices are probably all based upon historical evidence and personal experience.

Using your analogy alone, then I "choose" not to currently believe, because the evidence for the Bible appears lacking. But please understand my position. If I'm intellectually honest in my assumptions, based upon my perceived historical evidence, I can only assess/conclude a conclusion. You may grab food on the way home, because your wife told you sarcastically she was making dinner, or maybe you got food because you did not like her cooking, or maybe she is not very reliable. Yes, one weighs the preponderance of the presented evidence against the claim. We all make choices. However, you are asserting that Jesus is the axiomatic conclusion, and I say prove it (rhetorical request in light of your prior response).

There are lots of strong arguments for Christianity, and the moral argument is one. The problem here though is that you're really beating a dead horse. You've read the arguments, and you've chosen to reject them.

Personally, I look at creation and it seems more reasonable to me that God exists than not existing. I look at history, and see a common moral belief throughout it which to me is evidence of a universal moral law. The variances in moral beliefs, I find adequately accounted for through Scriptures teaching on sin and its implications. You don't find these arguments convincing, and that's your prerogative.

But at the end of the day, whatever you believe is going to be based upon faith.

Though I get your rationale for organization and order, "I" don't get there with the Bible. As I've stated elsewhere, it's one thing to argue for a great entity, but it's an entirely NEW thing to argue that the Bible demonstrates the answer.

So circling back to the OP, the Bible is really the only 'evidence' we have for Yahweh. So to me, there exists no current demonstration to justify that the assertion of Yahweh being the moral authority.

Respond, don't respond, or whatever... I appreciate your responses, and acknowledge sincerity in your responses.

I guess, for me, it's more about to demonstrate that Jesus is the answer, versus any other claimed moral authority. Because, once someone answers the OP, stating morals are 'absolute', they are appealing to a very specific moral God. Hence, the seeming change in subject. However, I see this as very huge 'all-encompassing' topic, including many sub-catagories.

THNX!

 

[cvanwey]

See post #121.

Still waiting..,

No, I'm done with [you]. Please bother elsewhere. You have no interest in providing reasons for your assertions. You are more concerned with stroking your ego and shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Phil 1:21]

No, I'm done with [you]. Please bother elsewhere. You have no interest in providing reasons for your assertions. You are more concerned with stroking your ego and shifting the burden of proof.

If you won’t tell us what you would accept as proof, how can anyone attempt to provide it. Let’s keep the progress going.

 

[cvanwey]

If you won’t tell us what you would accept as proof, how can anyone attempt to provide it. Let’s keep the progress going.

I answered multiple times. Either you cannot read, don't accept my earnest answer, are not reading my responses, or other. Quite frankly, it is of little concern to me moving forward. So please rinse/repeat your responses elsewhere.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I answered multiple times. Either you cannot read, don't accept my earnest answer, are not reading my responses, or other. Quite frankly, it is of little concern to me moving forward. So please rinse/repeat your responses elsewhere.

Well, technically speaking you said you wanted Jesus to regrow a severed limb under strict scientific scrutiny (no one here can provide that). And you wanted proof of God answering prayers, but in your own way, not in the way in which God answers prayers. So what you’ve done is purposely set the bar at an unattainable level. Which indicates you’re not really looking for proof, just arguments.

But I’m confident given enough grace you’ll come around...provided it’s God’s will. Let’s keep moving forward.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, technically speaking you said you wanted Jesus to regrow a severed limb under strict scientific scrutiny (no one here can provide that). And you wanted proof of God answering prayers, but in your own way, not in the way in which God answers prayers. So what you’ve done is purposely set the bar at an unattainable level. Which indicates you’re not really looking for proof, just arguments.

But I’m confident given enough grace you’ll come around...provided it’s God’s will. Let’s keep moving forward.

Thank you for at least responding this time. However, your answer appears either dishonest or disingenuous. You have deliberately scrambled my observations.

My observation is that not one amputee has regrown a severed limb, from prayer. If any/some/all limbs grew back (during their lifetime), absent of ANY medical explanation, this would be a compelling argument (maybe not the be-all-end-all), but a great start for me. And in light of Biblical scripture, one might assume such events would happen on occasion (i.e.) Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23.

People claim answered prayer all the time. However, it appears convenient that all claims to answered prayer seem to also encompass the plausibility or possibly of resulting from natural circumstances in one way or another. Where-as, an amputee would have no explanation, and may only either conclude completely undiscovered natural reasons, an argument from ignorance, or the God they specifically prayed to actually answered. And quite honestly, if the sciences or medical establishment had no explanation, as they claim limbs do NOT grow back, I would have no choice but to re-evaluate my current belief structure.

If one chooses to test the veracity of the Bible, then one may observe something distinguishable outside the Bible itself. If one is to observe a restored limb, again, this may conclude that God answered this specific petitionary request.

You may critique MY method for 'evidence'. However, I'm being honest!

If you choose not to demonstrate why YOU think your very specific moral agent is the true absolute moral agent, fine.

Just remember, when you assert an absolute, it is your burden of proof, not the one whom states they may not believe you. And then further press them for their absolute standard of evidence, and when they actually provide it, then state it's not good enough for you to provide yours. If you don't want to respond, just state you care not to provide it. I already knew you would severely critique my needed evidence for proof. But I'm not here to exercise my ego. I'm here for answer from intelligent people, and have received many over the past few weeks, since I've joined.

I gladly state and acknowledge that if an absolute agent does exist, I would like to know which one. Appealing to the Bible is the claim; just as a 66 chapter history book, written by differing 40 authors, is the claim. If you wish to test the claim(s), demonstration needs to be performed outside the claim, while not appealing to other parts of the same book. I feel prayer is a great place to start.

So I hope this fulfills/suffices, to your satisfaction. If not, sorry.

Your move.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Thank you for at least responding this time. However, your answer appears either dishonest or disingenuous. You have deliberately scrambled my observations.

My observation is that not one amputee has regrown a severed limb, from prayer. If any/some/all limbs grew back (during their lifetime), absent of ANY medical explanation, this would be a compelling argument (maybe not the be-all-end-all), but a great start for me. And in light of Biblical scripture, one might assume such events would happen on occasion (i.e.) Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23.

People claim answered prayer all the time. However, it appears convenient that all claims to answered prayer seem to also encompass the plausibility or possibly of resulting from natural circumstances in one way or another. Where-as, an amputee would have no explanation, and may only either conclude completely undiscovered natural reasons, an argument from ignorance, or the God they specifically prayed to actually answered. And quite honestly, if the sciences or medical establishment had no explanation, as they claim limbs do NOT grow back, I would have no choice but to re-evaluate my current belief structure.

If one chooses to test the veracity of the Bible, then one may observe something distinguishable outside the Bible itself. If one is to observe a restored limb, again, this may conclude that God answered this specific petitionary request.

You may critique MY method for 'evidence'. However, I'm being honest!

If you choose not to demonstrate why YOU think your very specific moral agent is the true absolute moral agent, fine.

Just remember, when you assert an absolute, it is your burden of proof, not the one whom states they may not believe you. And then further press them for their absolute standard of evidence, and when they actually provide it, then state it's not good enough for you to provide yours. If you don't want to respond, just state you care not to provide it. I already knew you would severely critique my needed evidence for proof. But I'm not here to exercise my ego. I'm here for answer from intelligent people, and have received many over the past few weeks, since I've joined.

I gladly state and acknowledge that if an absolute agent does exist, I would like to know which one. Appealing to the Bible is the claim; just as a 66 chapter history book, written by differing 40 authors, is the claim. If you wish to test the claim(s), demonstration needs to be performed outside the claim, while not appealing to other parts of the same book. I feel prayer is a great place to start.

So I hope this fulfills/suffices, to your satisfaction. If not, sorry.

Your move.

Thank you for reinforcing my summary of your unrealistic position. I appreciate the confirmation. I am still confident that you can move beyond this. Let’s keep trying.

 

[cvanwey]

Thank you for reinforcing my summary of your unrealistic position. I appreciate the confirmation. I am still confident that you can move beyond this. Let’s keep trying.

hmmmm. seriously

 

[Phil 1:21]

hmmmm. seriously

Yes, we should keep trying. If God could save Saul, no one is a lost cause.

 

[SPF]

Using your analogy alone, then I "choose" not to currently believe, because the evidence for the Bible appears lacking. But please understand my position. If I'm intellectually honest in my assumptions, based upon my perceived historical evidence, I can only assess/conclude a conclusion. You may grab food on the way home, because your wife told you sarcastically she was making dinner, or maybe you got food because you did not like her cooking, or maybe she is not very reliable. Yes, one weighs the preponderance of the presented evidence against the claim. We all make choices. However, you are asserting that Jesus is the axiomatic conclusion, and I say prove it (rhetorical request in light of your prior response).



Though I get your rationale for organization and order, "I" don't get there with the Bible. As I've stated elsewhere, it's one thing to argue for a great entity, but it's an entirely NEW thing to argue that the Bible demonstrates the answer.

So circling back to the OP, the Bible is really the only 'evidence' we have for Yahweh. So to me, there exists no current demonstration to justify that the assertion of Yahweh being the moral authority.

Respond, don't respond, or whatever... I appreciate your responses, and acknowledge sincerity in your responses.

I guess, for me, it's more about to demonstrate that Jesus is the answer, versus any other claimed moral authority. Because, once someone answers the OP, stating morals are 'absolute', they are appealing to a very specific moral God. Hence, the seeming change in subject. However, I see this as very huge 'all-encompassing' topic, including many sub-catagories.

THNX!

Have you read any of Lee Strobel's books? I would imagine Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, and Case for Faith would answer a lot of your questions.

For me, the very first question that needs to be answered is, Does God exist? The answer to that fundamental question shapes our entire worldview.

And like I said, I find it to be more reasonable that God exists as opposed to the universe being eternal and unguided, having come into existence from nothing. So from there, the next series of questions center on wondering why God created the universe, do I have a role in the universe, and is it possible for me to come to any knowledge of God?

And obviously, I think Scripture provides these answers. I think the Biblical worldview makes sense, and I can see its consistency in the world and even through other religions.

For example, consider Islam. When Muhammad first had his vision, he thought it was a demon. His then wife convinced him that it was in fact an angel. The descriptions of what Muhammad went through when he wrote the Qur'an line up almost perfectly with what I would consider demon possession.

I see Islam as a great testimony to the validity of Christianity.

But most importantly, and this I think is where you and I differ the most - I believe what Scripture says regarding humanity, my sinful nature, and need of forgiveness. And until you actually believe that, of course Scripture will always be nonsense to you.

 

[Serving Zion]

Hi OP, I am sorry that I haven't been able to respond to your last post to me, as I did not receive a notification of your reply, and then when I did come to check on the status of the thread, it had accrued several pages and I have not been able to assign time to catch up with it. But I have just now encountered an example that made me realise there is more to morality than The Golden Rule alone (indeed, love appears to be more complex than what The Golden Rule defines in isolation), and I am compelled to report it while my finding is fresh:

You could not be more correct!

The situation I just encountered was this:

1. I was walking on the sidewalk, a little hurriedly but not obnoxiously, a car came to turn into the drive that I was set to walk across, and she began to cross the path of traffic coming in the opposite direction.

2. There were cars parked on both sides of the road, so there was no room for cars to go around her if she had stopped in her lane, and she (I speculate appeared to have not seen me on the footpath until she had already began to cross the opposite lane.

3. I saw her crossing the lane as I approached the drive way and I paused to give her the right of way (traffic law states that pedestrians have the right of way in that case).

4. She was already in the line of opposing traffic, and two cars were approaching.

5. She motioned for me to cross, so I allowed her to have her way, so that I would cross without causing a fuss (it is a result of my experience to not engage in a battle of ego that is to be the most courteous of all - I sighed in my spirit as I did so, that she would be able to see it).

6. As a result of her courtesy, the car coming from the opposite direction slowed down and passed her on the opposite side of the road, looking at me as if to accuse me of not giving her concession to cross my path on account of the circumstances.

I was, of course, innocent of the blame of the driver that chose to swerve, but it forced me to consider a number of things as I continued walking down the street:

1. Why did I decide to concede to her;
2. Why did she offer me the right of way;
3. Why is it that we both offered the right of way, but only one of us was morally right to do so;
4. I already knew that the law's prescription was not morally right given the circumstances (it was an emergency - she had not seen me before making the maneuver although I had already seen her);
5. In this case, seeing as we both were acting to apply morality (do unto the other as you would have them do to you), yet we couldn't both be right, what is the greater operation of moral law?
6. Why did I ultimately decide that it was better to cross without fuss, than to insist that she should proceed?
7. Was the driver of the oncoming vehicle entitled to the anger he directed at me, and why did I feel innocent while he thought of me as guilty - further, why do I think he was wrong to be angry?

The answer was really interesting: that The Golden Rule is not the entirety of moral code, but what was lacking was an agreement as to what is ultimately righteous. I should explain how I have arrived at this observation:

1. The essence of each of our courtesy was exactly that: we would rather give another person the preferential treatment.
2. It was never a matter of traffic law (this is what I sensed in her spirit by the expression in her motion to me) - although traffic law might have formed the fundamental nature of her habit, or it might be a reflection on a fundamental concept.
3. She has thought a car should give way to a pedestrian.
4. I saw the dangerous environment, that it was busy and built-up, and if I were to walk on the footpath, she would be forced to halt her vehicle, potentially in the way of oncoming traffic.
5. The driver of the oncoming car had seen that the car was blocking his path, and looking to the reason for it, saw that I was walking in her path. He had judged me as being self-centred because if it were him, he would have offered to let her go (and he had not seen that I did in fact make that offer).
6. I have been in the same situation before and have insisted, but the driver again had insisted to me, and had resulted in the honking of the horn of the oncoming traffic.
7. I recognised that this person's desire to show courtesy was great enough, and that she had not yet seen the oncoming traffic as impending upon her, that she was likely to insist. So to minimise potential disruption, I simply conceded to her courtesy.

This is all very interesting - the righteousness in my calculation, was to spare her from the discomfort of having found herself the subject of a honking horn, yet as a result, the man's anger has come upon me - an innocent party doing my best to diffuse a dangerous situation. What's most interesting to observe in this, is not only that the man's anger is inappropriate (he was approaching within 50 metres of a give-way intersection on a busy road), but the driving factor of the lady's courtesy was a fear of wrath! She had offered me the courtesy fundamentally because she feared that if she were to cut in front of me, then she would be the subject of my accusation "what a rude lady" - and that is not who she is at heart.

Isn't it interesting to see this - that she had naturally expected me to be justified and likely to exercise wrath toward her for having crossed the footpath in my way - while the man of the oncoming car did exactly that to her! .. yet it wasn't in my heart at any time, and when I offered her the courtesy it was because I saw a legitimate danger in her maneuver and that I was in a position to assist her safe passage.

Now what's interesting, is because that driver did not stop to discuss the matter with me, to understand why I thought it justified to cross in her path and to apparently cause danger, he has not understood my reasoning so as to find why I believed it was the best solution. He has gone forward with that judgemental mind to me based upon a false belief (he had not seen her decline my offer to let her pass), now he will be thinking that people of my stereotype (whatever that might be in his view) are self-centred and can't even give two seconds to avoid a potential accident - needless to say, he actually was fully capable of waiting for her to clear the lane, but instead, in his rage and impatience, took to pass on the opposite side of the road in order to emphasise the wrath of his blameful heart. Of course, this reflects an anger in his spirit that was brought in from another place

Yes, indeed, it is the lack of love that drives immoral behaviour - but the law of morality, we can see, is more to do with a knowledge of righteousness - it is possible for courtesy to be a self-gratifying thing, and it is possible for it to be an act of service - righteousness is the finding of that exact motivation.

At that time, you walked in the way of this world, in conformity to the ruler of the spirit who is now operating in the sons of disobedience. We too all lived among them in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind. By nature we were children of wrath, just like the others.
Ephesians 2:3

Now seeing as I have become a victim of that man's contempt, not as the result of my sin but as the result of this lady's mistake and caused by some other person further up the road who had placed that hateful spirit in him, wisdom also becomes a different topic again - neither morality nor righteousness is sufficient in itself to do justice - but if I had the wisdom at that time that I do now, I might not have chosen to spare her distress, in order that the man might have not chosen to blame the innocent.

 

[Dirk1540]

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

If you totally throw all religions & gods out the window, I logically can’t get passed the reactionary argument. The argument that states that it doesn’t matter what anyone SAYS about morals or moral authorities, that all CLAIMS are totally worthless.

Rather, the way to truly judge a person’s moral beliefs are to view their REACTIONS when something is done to them. Ok fine there have been Sparta like societies that champion theft from a weak neighbor, or unwarranted physical assault. And rest assured those people will tell you that they find this behavior morally acceptable.

However, let’s see what their REACTIONS reveal to us about their opinions on assault as we are beating their bloody faces in!! Let’s see what a person’s moral REACTION reveals to us about theft when they walk into their freshly robbed homes. Let’s see if the person who verbally approves of murder reacts in a similar approval type fashion as you hack them to pieces.

I definitely believe that every person’s true measuring rod of morality has squat to do with what they say, or even what their society trained them to say or think. I believe their true morality belief system is revealed in how they react to each deed that is done to them.

Now the whole thing about ‘A society training you’ adds a caveat. I also believe that this reactionary rule, at least in some bizarre/extreme cases, must be applied to a person’s default personality, it could be inaccurate after they have fallen off the deep end. In other words, there are people for example who have sustained so much mental reprogramming that they actually enjoy being beaten or abused. Well we would have to take these people back to a time before those mental reprogrammings, back to a time when they were in their default/normal senses (in order to properly apply the reactionary morality belief test).