Is God a moral relativist?

[blackjacked]

If this is a true picture of your thought process, then no wonder you are confused. I do apologize, because when I started i though you were merely being obstinate, but it appears you really don't know.. I want to point out that the reason you are having so much trouble is: Everything you have presented is subjective, you have shown no signs of any type of a standards in which to work from. It seems you just go with what sounds right. This would indicate that you are expecting me to simply take your word that you have complete knowledge (in this case) of God, and His morality. In essence You have become the standard in which all things (Including God's own morality) is measured.

When i gave you the definition of Moral it was to establish a foundation in which to work from. (Outside of what I personally believe to be true) You have yet to establish such a foundation from a dictionary, The bible or any other credible reference material.. (Even though you listed or alluded to several you didn't actually quote anything..) Basically you have taken what reads well and dressed it in a formal way.. Does this some how give what you say any more weight in your estimation? Then why are you waisting time when I specifically asked for reference material?

Just Show Me as I have Shown you where your definitions, and assumption that God morality is relative, is based. Please do waist any more of your time or mine highlighting, dressing or presenting an empty argument. You made the assertion that your facts were based in the bible, and in abunch of names that were dropped... So now it is time to show me where these "truths" have been recorded. With such a list or credible references, it should not be hard to compile a rather lengthy list. So I ask that we start in groups of threes...

Otherwise know that "Because you says so," doesn't mean God's morality is relative in anyway you have described or represented it. Nor does it mean you get to rewrite the dictionary because you do not agree with a definition.

Forget it. I'm interesting in discussing issues with only those capable of reason and who have an earnest desire to actually discuss.

My previous post was an attempt to clarify your position so that I may better understand it. You are unwilling to do so, so be it. But like I said, I'm just not interested in discussing issues with such type of people.

You don't want to help nor discuss. We get it. You can stop trolling now.

 

[blackjacked]

Based on this definition we may infer that all Bible-Believing Christians (TM) who do not execute practitioners of homosexuality are moral relativists. Correct?

That is what it seems. But I certainly do not believe it to be true. Thus the cause for this discussion. Somewhere, there is a mistake or something that is missing. I previously sought to clarify some issues/terms with another member, but he was more interested in personal attacks (conduct unbecoming of a true representative of Christ btw) than he was tackling difficult issues.

 

[blackjacked]

God sets forth moral absolutes. They are found n the Gospel According to Matthew, at 7:12 and 22:34-40. He makes clear His point in verses near the above and their parallels in the other gospels.

A moral absolute then would also be to execute homosexuals. Right? After all, He did command Israel to do so...and He could not tell Israel to do that which is immoral, therefore it must have been moral. And if it is absolute, it is unchanging, moral for all. Therefore, it is applicably moral for Christians to execute homosexuals.

Again, I don't believe it, but I'm addressing the issue from that of a skeptic.

The idea that the entire Bible is "the word of God", that it is to be read in a largely literalistic fashion, that the Law falls neatly into three divisions of dietary, ceremonial/ritual, and moral, with the first two voided but the third still binding -- these are human doctrines. That the English words 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality'. with their modern connotations, adequately translate the Hebrew and Greek terms they are used to translate -- this is arrant eisegesis on the part of conservative evagelicals, to justify disobediencce to the commands God Himself called most important.

I understand, but I don't see the relevance to the issue of it being moral or immoral to execute homosexuals...and if now immoral...how then we do not have the perfect example of relative morality.

Should the Original Poster here be put to death for his sins? I should hope there would be a unanimous "no" from all CF members. But by God's own command, he should be judged as he judges others.

Yes, under God's standards, we all deserve to die for our sins. But this doesn't address the issue of God ordering man to execute homosexuals, and now it not being applicable (or even immoral to do so).

God's moral absolutes call for compassion, mercy, and love.

Like when He ordered man to execute homosexuals?

Man's moral absolutes from cherrypicking Bible verses to enforce and ones to ignore, not so much.

Again, I see no relevance here. I agree cherrypicking is not wise. The problem is ensuring consistency. If it was moral then, yet not moral now...we have an example of relative morality. If was moral then, and moral now, then we have an example of Christians being immoral (by not executing homosexuals - disobeying God's command).

 

[Stinker2]

Leviticus is not addressing homosexuality. It is not addressing immoral family behavior. We interpret that this is what it is referring to because we do not study it any deeper that just surface glance, and very conservative preachers taught us this way for years. Leviticus is referring to the extremely immoral pagan worship of the nations that the Israelites were going to invade. It tells us that the pre-Exodus Israelites had not committed the acts that those nations had. So because those nations decided to worship like they did, God was going to destroy them.

God took steps to ensure that the Israelites would not be influenced by the pagans by instituting severe punishments for copying those pagan worship acts. Were the punishments immoral? This is where we insert ourselves into God's position. Can any one of us agree on what the punishment would or should be (if any) for someone who rejected God's invitation during the course of their life on earth? One minute of extreme heat? Two minutes? How about five minutes being surrounded by the animals or insects or reptiles, they feared the most? There probably would be no agreement on what the punishment should or even would be.

 

[Jase]

Can't get my head around this one.

It's a given that God is unchanging on the position of homosexuality. It's immoral, it's a sin (homosexual behavior).

Um how is this a given? Because you believe the butchered English Bible says it is in 5 very vague passages? Hardly.

 

[Jase]

OK, so you disagree w/ the previous poster and you believe God is a relativist. Consequently, truth must be relative as well. While I appreciate the position, it is not the traditional Christian teaching of morality and truth. There are numerous problems with relativism (that are perhaps outside the scope of this thread).

My goal in this thread is to either have the understanding offered in the op overturned, or to validate the idea that God is indeed, a relativist.

Whether you consider it "traditional" or not, relativism exists. God used to applaud polygamy and slavery. Neither of which are moral today.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Can't get my head around this one.

It's a given that God is unchanging on the position of homosexuality. It's immoral, it's a sin (homosexual behavior).

But what to do about it or the proper response or act itself in response, changes.

For example, in Leviticus God commands Israel to execute homosexuals. These laws are specific to Israel of course. But it is a moral law containing a moral value. It is moral for Israel to execute homosexuals, and immoral to not execute homosexuals (since this would be counter to God's commandment and apparent values).

Now as Christians we are told that much of the OT Law does not necessarily apply. Specifically in this instance Christians ought not to execute homosexuals (simply for engaging in homosexual behavior). But this seems inconsistent with the moral value attached to the act of executing homosexuals.

If it was moral for Israel at the time to execute homosexuals, but not moral for others at other times to do so then the moral value has changed and we have God being a relativist.

But God is unchanging, and is an absolutist. It seems contradictory. If this moral value to execute homosexuals is absolute, then Christians are being immoral, sinful even by not executing homosexuals.

For the record I do not believe it is moral to execute someone for engaging in homosexual behavior. I'm just struggling with getting my head around this seeming contradiction.

Is the death penalty in affect?

As Christians you may very well. But Yeshua tells us differently in Matthew 5:17-20. Paul follows suit in Acts 24:14. That needs to be considered first.

 

[ittarter]

That is what it seems. But I certainly do not believe it to be true. Thus the cause for this discussion. Somewhere, there is a mistake or something that is missing. I previously sought to clarify some issues/terms with another member, but he was more interested in personal attacks (conduct unbecoming of a true representative of Christ btw) than he was tackling difficult issues.

We might suppose, then, that there are different kinds of moral relativists -- some who believe that cultural expressions of absolute values are relative, and some who believe that the values themselves are equally relative.

Typically in the objective/subjective debate (at least on CF) we are speaking of the latter, not the former. The former is almost universally assumed. For example, in some cultures greetings are expressed with a kiss; in others, a kiss would be perceived as offensive. Yet the value is the same.

On the other hand, in the case of the former, the values themselves are recognized as social constructions (a belief which objectivists immediately criticize for apparently making all values equally arbitrary and hence meaningless, which is a logical error on their part). Christians who do not execute homosexual practitioners are not moral relativists in this sense.

 

[blackjacked]

Leviticus is not addressing homosexuality. It is not addressing immoral family behavior. We interpret that this is what it is referring to because we do not study it any deeper that just surface glance, and very conservative preachers taught us this way for years. Leviticus is referring to the extremely immoral pagan worship of the nations that the Israelites were going to invade. It tells us that the pre-Exodus Israelites had not committed the acts that those nations had. So because those nations decided to worship like they did, God was going to destroy them.

God took steps to ensure that the Israelites would not be influenced by the pagans by instituting severe punishments for copying those pagan worship acts. Were the punishments immoral? This is where we insert ourselves into God's position. Can any one of us agree on what the punishment would or should be (if any) for someone who rejected God's invitation during the course of their life on earth? One minute of extreme heat? Two minutes? How about five minutes being surrounded by the animals or insects or reptiles, they feared the most? There probably would be no agreement on what the punishment should or even would be.

I appreciate the insight on the background of Lev...but it doesn't really address the issue. The issue is not whether or not God is justified or moral in commanding the execution of homosexuals. The issue is the inconsistency of either God, or Christians.

If it was moral then, and not today...then God is inconsistent...and we have a prime example of God being a moral relativist (which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching).

If it was moral then, and moral today to execute homosexuals, then Christians are being sinful and immoral (and teaching a false doctrine) for not pushing for every homosexual on the planet to be executed.

 

[blackjacked]

Um how is this a given? Because you believe the butchered English Bible says it is in 5 very vague passages? Hardly.

Seems pretty clear to me. I have found nowhere in scripture that God "applauds" homosexual behavior. In every instance it is mentioned, it is condemned. You disagree with scripture however it would seem (or appear to be arguing that all English translations are incorrect...and by extension, nearly every Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholar of Biblical Studies and Theology as well). So what do you base such a bold assertion on ?

Whether you consider it "traditional" or not, relativism exists. God used to applaud polygamy and slavery. Neither of which are moral today.

Where has God ever "applauded" either? The recording/acknowledging of, is not the same as "applauding".

 

[blackjacked]

Is the death penalty in affect?

As Christians you may very well. But Yeshua tells us differently in Matthew 5:17-20. Paul follows suit in Acts 24:14. That needs to be considered first.

Of what relevance do those verses have on this topic exactly?

 

[blackjacked]

We might suppose, then, that there are different kinds of moral relativists -- some who believe that cultural expressions of absolute values are relative, and some who believe that the values themselves are equally relative.

Typically in the objective/subjective debate (at least on CF) we are speaking of the latter, not the former. The former is almost universally assumed. For example, in some cultures greetings are expressed with a kiss; in others, a kiss would be perceived as offensive. Yet the value is the same.

On the other hand, in the case of the former, the values themselves are recognized as social constructions (a belief which objectivists immediately criticize for apparently making all values equally arbitrary and hence meaningless, which is a logical error on their part). Christians who do not execute homosexual practitioners are not moral relativists in this sense.

But the value of executing homosexuals has a moral value, correct? We aren't talking about the moral value of a kiss, which is really an extension of "how to greet someone" (which in turn, greeting someone is something that "ought to be done" in nearly every culture).

Instead, we are talking about the taking of a life of an individual. The execution of someone for their behavior. You seem to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) attempting to draw a parallel between executing (as an extension of a moral value or societal more) and that of kissing someone you have met. If that is the case, then what is executing the homosexual an extension of (if kissing someone is an action that is merely an extension of how to greet someone)?

 

[daniel777]

Can't get my head around this one.

It's a given that God is unchanging on the position of homosexuality. It's immoral, it's a sin (homosexual behavior).

But what to do about it or the proper response or act itself in response, changes.

For example, in Leviticus God commands Israel to execute homosexuals. These laws are specific to Israel of course. But it is a moral law containing a moral value. It is moral for Israel to execute homosexuals, and immoral to not execute homosexuals (since this would be counter to God's commandment and apparent values).

Now as Christians we are told that much of the OT Law does not necessarily apply. Specifically in this instance Christians ought not to execute homosexuals (simply for engaging in homosexual behavior). But this seems inconsistent with the moral value attached to the act of executing homosexuals.

If it was moral for Israel at the time to execute homosexuals, but not moral for others at other times to do so then the moral value has changed and we have God being a relativist.

But God is unchanging, and is an absolutist. It seems contradictory. If this moral value to execute homosexuals is absolute, then Christians are being immoral, sinful even by not executing homosexuals.

For the record I do not believe it is moral to execute someone for engaging in homosexual behavior. I'm just struggling with getting my head around this seeming contradiction.

try looking at it a little differently. laws change based on the law (principle) behind them and changing circumstances. try looking at it as the difference between a law and the law.
a law: the speed limit is x. don't go over x miles per hour.
the law: there is a speed limit. don't go over the speed limit.

Christ looks at the heart; get beyond the laws and look at the law, or the principle at the heart of it all.

 

[Jase]

Seems pretty clear to me. I have found nowhere in scripture that God "applauds" homosexual behavior. In every instance it is mentioned, it is condemned. You disagree with scripture however it would seem (or appear to be arguing that all English translations are incorrect...and by extension, nearly every Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholar of Biblical Studies and Theology as well). So what do you base such a bold assertion on ?

God never mentioned homosexuality, because the concept of sexual orientation wasn't invented until 1893. The word homosexual was invented in 1900. Everyone in the Bible was assumed to be heterosexual. The 3 cases of same-sex behavior among heterosexuals that are condemned are rape, pagan sex rituals, and pederasty. None of which are considered "homosexuality".

We also know for a fact that the Bible has been altered in the modern English translations. The two most obvious issues that have been altered have been in regard to witches and homosexuals. Bible publishing is big business, and almost entirely financed by conservative denominations. They cater to the views of their denominations in order to increase Bible sales and not "rock the boat" so to speak. It is, however, a well known fact that the Bible has been altered. In fact, King James himself commanded the translators to alter the Bible to make sure it fit with Church of England beliefs.

Where has God ever "applauded" either? The recording/acknowledging of, is not the same as "applauding".

God has stated in the Bible that he gave multiple wives to people, and would surely have given them more. He also gave instructions on how to treat one's slaves.

 

[ittarter]

But the value of executing homosexuals has a moral value, correct? We aren't talking about the moral value of a kiss, which is really an extension of "how to greet someone" (which in turn, greeting someone is something that "ought to be done" in nearly every culture).

Yes, I'm saying the principle of the matter is the same. Morality means "what ought to be done," thereby relating to human custom and tradition. All traditions invoke a certain meaning -- execution, one meaning (see below), a greeting, another.

Instead, we are talking about the taking of a life of an individual. The execution of someone for their behavior. You seem to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) attempting to draw a parallel between executing (as an extension of a moral value or societal more) and that of kissing someone you have met. If that is the case, then what is executing the homosexual an extension of (if kissing someone is an action that is merely an extension of how to greet someone)?

Restitution of evil? Justice? Equity? Safeguarding society? There are numerous possible answers, and frankly I'm not sure which one to run with.

Is there something wrong with the parallel between greeting customs and punishment (?) customs which you could identify?

 

[manchambo]

Jesus did not say that the stoning executions were inappropriate.

He merely said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

This is not a contradiction; it is an addition.

Are you saying that, if there happened to be someone around who had never sinned, Jesus would have been perfectly happy with them going ahead with the stoning?

 

[blackjacked]

try looking at it a little differently. laws change based on the law (principle) behind them and changing circumstances. try looking at it as the difference between a law and the law.
a law: the speed limit is x. don't go over x miles per hour.
the law: there is a speed limit. don't go over the speed limit.

Christ looks at the heart; get beyond the laws and look at the law, or the principle at the heart of it all.

Well, I understand that it changed.

But here's the thing...if it was moral to execute then...but then it changed, and it became immoral to do so...then does this not argue for relative morality (something that is traditionally contrary to Christian theology)?

 

[blackjacked]

God never mentioned homosexuality, because the concept of sexual orientation wasn't invented until 1893. The word homosexual was invented in 1900. Everyone in the Bible was assumed to be heterosexual. The 3 cases of same-sex behavior among heterosexuals that are condemned are rape, pagan sex rituals, and pederasty. None of which are considered "homosexuality".

A couple problems with this.

1) God doesn't "mention" the words trinity, atheism, monotheism, incarnation, or divinity either...yet the concepts are taught in scripture.

If it is the case that concepts cannot be taught or described due to a language term technicality, then all sorts of Christian doctrine can be thrown out (some of which is provided above). That a term is not specifically stated in the Bible, is not sufficient to argue that it is not discussed. See below.

2) Leviticus 20:13
`If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

There are other verses like it. When a man lies with another man...as he would a woman...what is it exactly you think is being referred to here? Or are you suggesting that Leviticus should be thrown out as a non-canon book?

3) Last, but most importantly...arsenokoites. The word used by Paul to describe homosexuals. A brilliantly and well thought out study with a plethora of source material on the subject can be found here: //apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Malakosandarsenokoites.htm

 

[blackjacked]

Yes, I'm saying the principle of the matter is the same. Morality means "what ought to be done," thereby relating to human custom and tradition. All traditions invoke a certain meaning -- execution, one meaning (see below), a greeting, another.

Restitution of evil? Justice? Equity? Safeguarding society? There are numerous possible answers, and frankly I'm not sure which one to run with.

Is there something wrong with the parallel between greeting customs and punishment (?) customs which you could identify?

Well sure. God commanded (and thus gave the moral value of) execution, and man created the social more of greeting others. It's one thing for man's values to change...man is fallible, and we move from false beliefs to true beliefs as we understand more about the universe, ourselves, and God. But God's moral system is supposed to be unchanging, unwavering, absolute, not relative to circumstance. Yet, it would seem we have an example of that occurring here.

 

[praropuch]

try looking at it a little differently. laws change based on the law (principle) behind them and changing circumstances. try looking at it as the difference between a law and the law.
a law: the speed limit is x. don't go over x miles per hour.
the law: there is a speed limit. don't go over the speed limit.

Christ looks at the heart; get beyond the laws and look at the law, or the principle at the heart of it all.

Absolutely not.