Objective Morality

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Objective Morality Exists and can be Supported by the Bible and the Teachings of Christianity

Scope: These forum guidelines apply to all Theology Forums.

1: Scope of Discussions: These forums are for the discussion of Christian Theology, Ethics, and History. For the purposes of the Theology forums, discussion is limited to Christian faith and practice as framed in the Nicene Creed. This includes the study of what Christian churches teach and confess, what Christians believe, and what the Bible teaches.

Discussion of non-Nicene beliefs is limited only to discussion from a Nicene point of view for purposes of evangelism.

2: Provide Citations: When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication. If quoting from a hard copy then proper citations must also be used. At a minimum the title of the book, magazine, article etc and the name of the author must be posted.

3: Focus on Topics: Discussions should be about doctrines and history, not about other members or their personal faith. Posters who include egregious personal insults and accusations in their posts have their posts edited by moderator staff, and may be issued notices and/or forum specific bans due to them, depending on the seriousness of the flame.

4: Provide Supporting Statements: Posters in Theology are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with each other. When you disagree with someone's position, you should post evidence and supporting statements for your position. This policy, sometimes referred to as "X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial.

5. Respect Differing Points of Reference: It is expected that people who post in Theology will respect people of faith, including those for whom faith and logic are not contradictions, but complements to one another. To some Christians, arguments from the Bible, from doctrine, and from tradition, are just as valid (and at times more valid) than arguments from logic, reason, science, or history. Whether you are arguing from faith or from logic or some combination thereof, you should respect the other person's point of reference.

6. Accusations of non-Christian doctrine: Stating that another member's church is not Christian is not allowed. However, stating a teaching or belief of another church is not Christian because of X, Y, and Z, is allowed.

7: "Tread Carefully" Topics: Theology posters are expected to understand that accusations of heresy, false doctrine, idolatry, anti-Christ, cult, non-Christian beliefs, antisemitism, etc., are very emotionally laden. They are not conducive to clear discussion. While they are not forbidden in the context of a discussion (with evidence, examples, and/or support), they are discouraged by themselves, as terms of insult. This rule may be referred to as the "tread carefully" rule.

8: Discussion of Historical Figures: Discussion of historical figures important to Christians of many theological backgrounds is a necessary component of theological discourse. Such figures include [but are not limited to]: the Pope, the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, various Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine), Martin Luther, John Calvin, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, etc. Such figures are not immune from criticism. However, insults and accusations against these people are not to be posted lightly, and may only be used when accompanied by citation of sources and in the "If X, then Y, because of Z" format. Statements unaccompanied by these requirements will be deemed inflammatory and dealt with appropriately.

9: Report OR Refute, Not Both: When confronted with a post which a member believes to be a violation of the rules, there are two basic options. The member can respond to the post and try to persuade the other member to correct and/or clarify the perceived slight, or they can report the post. Please refrain from both reporting a post, AND responding to it in the thread. Do one, or the other. If it is indeed a violation of the rules, chances are good that it will be edited or deleted, and any responses will either make no sense or will end up deleted in a thread cleanup. Please do not try to "eat your cake and have it, too."

10: Limit quote size: When copying and pasting quotations from other works, limit the size to 20% of the original article, or other work, while providing proper citation as noted above.

Stipulations:

1. Topic:Objective Morality Exists and can be Supported by the Bible and the Teachings of Christianity
2. Affirmative: Dysert
   Opposing: Greneknight
3. Rounds: 4
   
4. Alternating rounds starting each with Dysertbeing the first post.for a total of 10 posts.
5. Time limit between posts: 3 days maximum, there is no minimum.
6. Maximum length for each post: Unlimited
   
7. Quotes and References are allowed; Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule.
8. Special stipulations regarding posts:

• FORMAT: QUOTATIONS
  
  Direct quotations from outside sources are discouraged. Where it is deemed necessary, the quotation should be very short - no more than a short paragraph. All arguments must be made on the thread and neither party is allowed to refer the other party to arguments in other sources by merely providing a link. If he wants to use arguments in other sources, he should read the arguments and post them on this thread in his own words. The only exception is quotation from the Bible which is allowed. But if he obtains his information from an outside source he should give a link to that source but the full argument taken from that source must be laid down completely in his post.
• FORMAT: POSTS
  
  A. There is no limit to the length of each post but only points relevant to the motion of the debate may be posted.
  
  B. If at any point, one party thinks that the other party has failed to answer his questions or he has very important questions that he demands the other party to address, that party should post at the end of his post the specific questions that he feels has not been answered or are of crucial importance. The questions must be given in full and placed at the bottom of the post under the sub-heading "IMPORTANT QUESTIONS". ILLUSTRATION: It is not right to say "You have not answered my question in paragraph 3 of my second post" or "I have a very important question that must be answered and that question is about free will" (and no specifics are given to the question). Each question must be fully spelt out and all the questions sequentially numbered.
  
  C. Once the party has posted a question or a list of questions that he feels his opponent has not answered or he feels are terribly important to his case and has numbered them sequentially under the aforesaid title, it is the obligation of the opponent to answer the questions at the bottom of his post under the sub-heading "ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS". These answers should be numbered correspondingly as the questions themselves are numbered. Failure to answer these questions will be interpreted as capitulation on the part of the failed party. If he has further questions to the other side, he can list the questions in the manner as laid down in Clause 2 B above using the sub-heading "IMPORTANT QUESTIONS". This should appear immediately below his "ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS".
  
  D. In the Opponent's final rebuttal, the Opponent will not be allowed to post his questions under the category "IMPORTANT QUESTIONS" as provided for in Clause 2 B above because the proposer will have no more opportunity to respond. However, the Proposer is permitted to post questions under the category "IMPOTANT QUESTIONS" in his final rebuttal since the Opponent may respond in his own final rebuttal.

9. Starting date: May begin immediately

Link to Peanut Gallery here: Peanut Gallery - Formal Debate - Objective Morality

 

[dysert]

A)

1. God alone is morally good
   Matt. 19:17 --> So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
2. Anything not of God is not morally good
3. God does not change
   Mal. 3:6 --> For I am the LORD, I do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Therefore, since God does not change, and since He defines morality, then morality does not change and must be objective.

B)

1. The Bible was originated by God
   2 Tim. 3:16 --> All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2. God cannot lie
   Titus 1:2 --> in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,
3. God is omniscient
   1 John 3:20 --> For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

Therefore, objective morality exists and can be supported by the Bible.

 

[Greneknight]

Note: My arguments exceed 15,000 characters and will be posted in two segments but should count as a single posting. Both parties to this debate have agreed not to have any word limit for any of the postings.

THE OPPONENT’S OPENING SPEECH AND REBUTTAL PART 1

First, I want to thank Dysert for his Opening Speech. I want to begin my Opening with a prayer to Almighty God. I pray that God will help both Dysert and me work towards understanding Him better and that this debate should go towards achieving that aim. If I am wrong, I pray that God will, through Dysert, show me my error and similarly, if Dysert is wrong, God will use me as the instrument through which God’s truth shall prevail. In all things, I pray that God will cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that we may perfectly love Him and worthily magnify His holy name through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Dysert has very succinctly divided his arguments into two parts: A and B. For the purposes of my Opening Arguments, I will not take issue with Part B of his Opening, Points 1 to 3. Except for minor issues pertaining to interpretation of verses which at the moment do not appear to be significant, I agree with the thrust of what he is saying in Part B for the moment in so far as Points 1 to 3 are concerned. But I definitely oppose his conclusion in Part B that objective morality exists and can be supported by the Bible.

I also dispute his arguments in Part A and will show why he is in error and I will seek support from the Holy Bible itself.

Before I begin, I will define “objective morality” as morality which is fixed and immutable and not subject to culture, time or the person doing the deed. In other words, if something is objectively moral or immoral, it remains moral or immoral as the case may be regardless of the passage of time, the changes in culture, fashion or philosophy and it matters not who is doing the deed in question.

The proposition’s first premise is:

“God alone is morally good”.

In order to support this premise, Dysert referred to St Matthew 19:17. The rich young ruler addresses Jesus as “good teacher” and our Lord’s reply is “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Can we depend on this verse to justify Dysert’s premise that God alone is morally good?

ARGUMENT A: DYSERT’S STAND THAT ST MATT 19:17 SUPPORTS HIS PREMISE THAT GOD IS MORALLY GOOD IS WRONG AND MISTAKEN.

I submit that this verse cannot be used to support the incorrect premise that God alone is morally good. Here are the grounds for my submission:

1. The context is clearly meant to be a one-off situation. Jesus is not saying that others can’t be good. He’s just praising God’s name at that moment. I will give an analogy. Supposing I play my clarinet beautifully, which I do, , and someone says to me, “Wow, greneknight, you’re great!” and I modestly reply, as I always do , “Don’t call me great. Only God is great”, it would be terribly wrong to say that I am stating a general rule that nobody else can be great except God. This is precisely the context Jesus is speaking in that verse quoted by Dysert. But I agree that although I’m persuaded this is the position, the fact is one can look at it either way. All I wish to say is that we can’t base a whole premise on just one verse that can mean one of two things – ie Dysert’s interpretation or mine. But my other reasons below will show more clearly why it’s incorrect to say God alone is morally good. This verse cannot be used for us to reach the conclusion that God alone is morally good.

2. One point we should note is that Jesus himself is God. Jesus was the one the rich young ruler directed his “good teacher” at. Strictly speaking, Jesus is good because he is God. But Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels always refers to God the Father as simply “God”. By saying “only God is good”, Jesus is clearly directing a praise to God the Father as the Synoptic Gospels always tell us he does. Jesus is not making a dogmatic statement or pronouncing a doctrine when he says this because clearly, he is God too. In other words, what I’ve said in point 1 above is correct. This goes to show that Jesus is merely praising God in that remark of his and it cannot be used as a dogmatic statement of church doctrine. Christ is not saying “only God is good and absolutely nobody else can be called good”. Christ is not saying God ALONE is morally good.

3. Let’s us now look at the New Testament itself carefully. The Greek word that the Bible uses for “good” is αγαθου. The word is used in conjunction with countless people and is also used to describe actions of mere mortals. If you accept the Bible to be the word of God, this itself should be conclusive because the Word of God uses that same word and applies it to others. Let’s look at some examples. I’m giving examples where Jesus uses the same word αγαθου on other people which shows that his statement (the verse Dysert cited) can’t be exclusively limited to God alone:

a. St Matthew 5:45 “that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” The “good” here is αγαθου and it refers not to God but to good people. These are the words of our Lord himself.

b. St Matthew 12:35 “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.” Again, the same word is used three times. It is used by our Lord himself here and He applies it to a man, to things and to what is in the man himself. Again, the word is not used exclusively to God.

c. St Matthew 22:10 “So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.” Again, our Lord applies that same word to people who are good.

d. St Luke 6:45 “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” This is the same verse as in St Matthew 12:35. Words from our Lord himself and He applies that same word “good” to humans and things.

e. St Matthew 25:21 “His master replied, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.” Again, the human servant is referred to as “good” by our Lord in a parable He tells His disciples.

f. Even St Paul himself uses the same word for humans. There are many examples but I’ll just pick one: Romans 5:7 “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.”

I would conclude from what we have examined in various parts of Jesus’ own words that St Matt 19:17 cannot support the premise that God alone is morally good.

ARGUMENT B: DYSERT’S PREMISE THAT ANYTHING NOT FROM GOD IS NOT MORALLY GOOD IS WRONG AND MISTAKEN.

The proposition’s second premise “Anything not from God is not morally good” must collapse because I have shown that the first premise is wrong. Since the first premise “God alone is morally good” is incorrect (as I have shown quite clearly), to conclude that anything not from God is not morally good must be in error. In other words, the proposition has not shown that the two premises he relies on are correct or can stand.

We are now left with the final premise from the party proposing the motion of the debate and that is: God does not change. For support, Dysert relies on Mal 3:6 which reads “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.”

ARGUMENT C: DYSERT’S PREMISE THAT MALACHI 3:6 SUPPORTS HIS STAND THAT GOD’S MORALITY IS IMMUTABLE AND UNCHANGING IS WRONG AND MISCONCEIVED.

I will show that it is wrong to interpret this verse to mean that God does not change his mind or that he does not change what he views to be morally right. In other words, I will show that the changelessness of God does not guarantee the immutability of morality.

In Mal 3:6, God is reminding the people of his steadfastness and constancy. He does not allow the people of his covenant to be destroyed. He will stand by those with whom God has a covenant. He does not change or waver in his faithfulness. This says nothing about whether God’s view of morality is changeless. When God speaks of his changelessness in the steadfastness of his love for the chosen people, we must not extrapolate and extend the changelessness to God’s moral laws. That would be bad exegesis. We must look at the context of what God is saying.

ARGUMENT D: GOD’S CHANGELESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN GOD NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND. GOD DOES CHANGE HIS MIND, AS THE BIBLE TELLS US.

I will now show that God does change His mind. God is sovereign and has the right and liberty to change his mind. The Bible does teach us that and we must read the Bible without our own prejudices to cloud the clear meaning of Scriptures.

The Bible tells us that God does sometimes change his mind. He sometimes even regrets having done something and there are occasions that God, because of his regret, vows never to do some of the things again. The following are examples given to us in the Bible:

EXAMPLE 1
In Gen 6:6 onwards, we read this: “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, ‘I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created – and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground – for I regret that I have made them.’ ” It’s very easy for us to try to gloss over this but let’s read it very carefully and prayerfully and we are sure to see that God meant what he said. God regretted having created humans. He was saddened or worse, God’s heart was deeply troubled. It’s common for some people to rubbish this verse and pretend that “regret” does not mean “regret”. That is usually what we do when we want to oppose the clear wording of Scripture because of our own prejudices and cherished beliefs. I caution you against this. Read the words again.

To underscore the fact that God indeed regretted his action of creating man, God said very clearly that he would “undo” what he had done and how does he undo it? By wiping from the face of the earth humans and animals. God regrets his creation that much that he wanted to destroy everything he had created.

I submit that this is a clear instance when God changed his mind because He regretted his action of creation. This does not conflict with biblical verses which say that God is the same today, yesterday and forever. God is the same God but that doesn’t mean that the same God can’t change his mind. Here is the flaw of our thinking and indeed we are limiting God when we say he can’t change his mind. The Bible tells us God can and God does.

EXAMPLE 2
Not long after God destroyed the whole earth with the Flood, the Bible tells us that God changed his mind yet again.

In Genesis 8:20, we read “Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Here again, God probably regrets his action of destroying the earth although the word “regret” is not used”. But God vows never to do this again and clearly, it shows a fresh change of God’s mind. In Gen 8, we read this from verse 20 onwards: “Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”

EXAMPLE 3
In 1 Sam 15, God again expressed his regret. This is what the Bible says in verses 10 and 11 “Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: ‘I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.’ Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.” The fact is God changed his mind about having appointed Saul a king.

 

[Greneknight]

OPENING SPEECH AND REBUTTAL PART 2 (CONTINUATION)

ARGUMENT E: GOD DOES CHANGE MORALITY TO SUIT DIFFERENT TIMES AND CULTURES

For the purposes of my Opening Speech, I will only pick two examples of morality which God in his sovereign will changed and adapted and in both these instances, the Bible records specifically how God changed the moral law. We must remember that God is free to do that and to say God cannot do that is to limit God’s Almighty power.

EXAMPLE 1: THE LAW ON THE SABBATH

In Num 15:32 onwards we read “While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.’ 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

The Bible tells us that the killing of the man who was gathering wood on the Sabbath was ordered by God. We have to accept that it was considered morally right to kill a man who gathers wood on the Sabbath. But let us see what our Lord Jesus has to say some 1000 years later or so (note: different time and different culture).

In St Mark 2:23 onwards, we read “One Sabbath Jesus was going through the cornfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some ears of corn. 24 The Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’”

Jesus’ reply is important. Most commentators miss the most important part. This is what our Lord says in verse 25:

“He answered, ‘Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions’.”

Many commentators miss the fact that Jesus is not saying that he didn’t break the Sabbath. He could have said, “You’re wrong, chaps! I didn’t break the Sabbath at all. What I have done is perfectly lawful”. What Jesus says is that when David was hungry he ate consecrated bread which is “lawful only for priests to eat”. And David gave some to his companions too. And in verse 27, our Lord added an important point: He said, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Jesus did not defend his actions as if he hadn’t broken the Sabbath. By giving the example of David and the consecrated bread, our Lord is saying you can in fact break the Sabbath. If the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, is it right to kill a man who broke it? Of course not. Jesus is saying that morality has changed - you no longer get killed for breaking the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man.

EXAMPLE 2: THE LAW ON ADULTERY

In Lev 20:10, God orders this “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbour – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” God is saying that it is morally right for an adulterer and an adulteress to be killed for having committed adultery. That is God’s sacred law and it is morally good at the time when it was pronounced.

Christian teachings would never advocate that it is morally good to kill an adulterer and an adulteress for their sin of adultery. That’s because morality has changed.

We see this in the pronouncement made by Jesus himself in St John 8. In that Gospel passage, a woman was taken in adultery and the people wanted to stone her and they spoke to Jesus. Jesus’ reply that the one without sin should toss the first stone is significant. In Lev 20, God did not add this condition that only those without sin should throw the stones at the adulteress. By adding this condition, Jesus is effectively saying that NOBODY may throw the stones at her because the Bible tells us that everyone has sinned and nobody can claim to be without sin. Jesus is in fact saying, “No folks! Morality has now changed and no adulterer or adulteress should be killed for the sin of adultery”.

Jesus has changed what was once considered morally good and I would conclude that it is wrong to say that there is objective morality. The Bible and Christian teachings clearly show that morality is NOT objective and can change with time.

I have many other arguments which I will put forward in the next round.

I have added below 3 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS which under the rules of this debate, the other party, namely Dysert, is obliged to answer sequentially at the bottom of his rebuttal to this my Opening Speech.

I thank you for reading my Opening Speech and I pray that our Lord will be with us as we seek to know Him better.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

1. Please give FIVE examples of acts or deeds that which you would consider to be objectively immoral and which are harmful to mankind particularly.

2. Would you consider the killing of babies and / or young children such as toddlers (eg what was done by King Herod in the slaughter of the innocents after he was told that Christ had been born) an act which is objectively immoral?

3. Would you consider the raping of young girls an act which is objectively immoral?

 

[dysert]

Greneknight’s Argument A: DYSERT’S STAND THAT ST MATT 19:17 SUPPORTS HIS PREMISE THAT GOD IS MORALLY GOOD IS WRONG AND MISTAKEN

God alone is morally good in His nature. The goodness of others is imputed to them by God (Rom. 4:22-25). God’s innate goodness is established in verses such as:
• Deut. 32:4  He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He.
• 2 Sam. 22:31  As for God, His way is perfect; the word of the LORD is proven; he is a shield to all who trust in Him.
• Psa. 92:15  To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.
• Rom. 9:14  What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
• 1 John 1:5  This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

Greneknight’s Argument B: DYSERT’S PREMISE THAT ANYTHING NOT FROM GOD IS NOT MORALLY GOOD IS WRONG AND MISTAKEN.

You have not shown my first point to be wrong, therefore, your Argument B is void since it relies solely on the supposed refutation of my first point.

Greneknight’s Argument C: DYSERT’S PREMISE THAT MALACHI 3:6 SUPPORTS HIS STAND THAT GOD’S MORALITY IS IMMUTABLE AND UNCHANGING IS WRONG AND MISCONCEIVED.

Your claim that I’m misinterpreting Mal. 3:6 is not supported, thereby making it simply your claim. The plain reading of the text is that God does not change. Absent contextual issues or supposed contradictions elsewhere in Scripture, the plain reading must stand. And there is further biblical support underlying the fact that God’s nature is immutable:
• Heb. 6:17  Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
• Heb. 13:8  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
• James 1:17  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Greneknight’s Argument D: GOD’S CHANGELESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN GOD NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND. GOD DOES CHANGE HIS MIND, AS THE BIBLE TELLS US.

Whether God changes His mind is not at issue. We are discussing God’s unchanging nature of being morally good. None of your examples demonstrate that God’s nature changed. Furthermore, God’s nature cannot change because He is perfect just as He is (Matt. 5:48). If He changed, then He was either imperfect to begin with or the change would cause Him to become imperfect.

Greneknight’s Argument E: GOD DOES CHANGE MORALITY TO SUIT DIFFERENT TIMES AND CULTURES

EXAMPLE 1: THE LAW ON THE SABBATH

In the parallel passage (Matt. 12:1-8) we see that Jesus declared the disciples “guiltless” or “innocent” (depending upon the translation). This indicates that God’s moral law didn’t change. Rather, the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law was in error.

EXAMPLE 2: THE LAW ON ADULTERY

Christian teachings would never advocate that it is morally good to kill an adulterer and an adulteress for their sin of adultery. That’s because morality has changed.

In the first place, you are not the authority on what Christian teachings would or would not advocate. That is God’s prerogative. In the second place, you’re simply asserting that “morality has changed” because of your understanding of Christian teachings. You logically can’t assert your conclusion and then claim it’s proven.

Your example from John 8:2-11 in no way supports moral relativism. First of all, it is questionable that this passage should even be included in the Bible. The book “When Critics Ask” (Geisler & Howe, 1992, pp. 414-415) gives the following reasons for the passage’s dubious trustworthiness:
• The passage does not appear in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts
• It is not found in the best manuscripts of the earliest translations of the Bible into Old Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Old Latin
• No Greek writer commented on this passage for the first 11 centuries of Christianity
• It is not cited by most of the great early church fathers
• Its style does not fit that of the rest of the Gospel of John
• It interrupts the flow of thought in John
• Many manuscripts that include it in John 7:53-8:11 have marked it with an obelus, indicating they believe it is doubtful

Even if John 8:2-11 is inspired, it still doesn’t support moral relativism. (I am again indebted to the aforementioned book for this explanation.) This was obviously a trap to see if Jesus would repudiate capital punishment for adultery. The trap was ill planned, however, and therefore invalid because of the following:
• The authority for capital punishment rested with the Roman government, not the Jews.
• The scribes and Pharisees were not acting in accordance with the law anyway. The law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people.

Greneknight's IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

What you or I consider to be immoral is irrelevant to the topic being debated. There was a time when people considered the earth to be flat. Their opinion on the matter didn’t change the objective fact that the earth is round. Similarly, the only thing that matters in regards to morality is what God says, not us.


In summary:
1. God is good and cannot do evil
2. God’s nature is morally good
3. Anything opposed to God’s nature is morally bad
4. God’s nature does not change
5. THEREFORE, since God’s nature cannot change, and since He has defined morality, this morality cannot change and must be objective

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Mod hat

Please be patient while submitted posts are reviewed. Thank you.


Eta, dysert posted his reply within the agreed upon timeframe. Therefore this debate can continue.


ETA this thread is now closed.