THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES!

[Soma-Sight]

There are no moral absolutes.....

LYING

If a Nazi came to your house and was looking for the Jews in your basement and you said you had none and LIED about it.....

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

KILLING

If you came upon a grown man violently hurting/raping a 9 year child and you kill him.....

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

STEALING

If your wife and 2 year old child are starving to death and you have an opportunity to steal bread from the local rich dude and do it.....

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

ADULTERY

If you are a married woman in a Russian prison camp (WW 2 and TRUE STORY) and the only way out of the camp is to be PREGNANT; and happen to find a soldier willing to have 'relations' with you because it is the only way to be pregnant and see your husband and kids again and do it.......

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

SUICIDE

If you step on a land mine and blow yourself to bits and the only thing you can do is..... well NOTHING and are on a ventilator and ask to be taken off because it is so painful......

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES





Can yall think of more examples???? :wink:

 

[Vic C.]

Can yall think of more examples????

LOL, I can't even AGREE with most of them.

Who said all this???

 

[Lewis]

Hmmmmmm, it's from brother Soma, I should have known.

 

[Vic C.]

Hmmmmmm, it's from brother Soma, I should have known.

Yeah, he likes to keep us on our toes. As long as he doesn't "ask" for the whole "boot". :


:wink:

 

[moniker]

Your examples are simply showing where one thing which is (arguably) absolutely wrong can be weighted as less wrong than something else which is also (arguably) absolutely wrong, only with a worse comparable outcome. Blah blah, blah, Kantianism, blah, underlying aspects of human nature and rights which are thusly inherent to all of humanity, that earlier thread which touched on this a good deal more, etc. This is one of the weaker arguments against moral absolutism out there. I'm surprised you didn't go for the 'product of our environment' approach. It's a good deal more difficult to refute.

Also: Moral relativism is not meant to be an actual philosophy, or worldview; it is a tool to help view the world and gain a better appreciation/understanding of events. Focus it on the middle east and you can come to appreciate the reasoning behind various horrible acts and then learn to understand the causes of it. You can still condemn it all you want as immoral actions, but now you can try and curb the cause which would eliminate the effect.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Also: Moral relativism is not meant to be an actual philosophy, or worldview; it is a tool to help view the world and gain a better appreciation/understanding of events.

Actually this has little to do with a pro-relativism argument. It is an argument for SITUATIONAL ETHICS.

But I am curious if you guys believe in moral absolutes and if so WHAT ARE THEY?

The TEN COMMANDMENTS? Because I have just demonstrated that rules can be broken and it can be JUSTIFIED. (Unless your a non-consequetialist Kantian which is pussilaminous at best and intellectual suicide at worst) :o

How can we define and judge what is "Absolute" about any ethical dilema?

How can we already know what is right or wrong without not taking into account each individual case for what it is?

Of course child moloesting and rape seem to "never" be right but why is this?

What is the standard? :-?

 

[prophecy4]

There are no moral absolutes.....

KILLING

If you came upon a grown man violently hurting/raping a 9 year child and you kill him.....

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

STEALING

If your wife and 2 year old child are starving to death and you have an opportunity to steal bread from the local rich dude and do it.....

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

ADULTERY

If you are a married woman in a Russian prison camp (WW 2 and TRUE STORY) and the only way out of the camp is to be PREGNANT; and happen to find a soldier willing to have 'relations' with you because it is the only way to be pregnant and see your husband and kids again and do it.......

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

SUICIDE

If you step on a land mine and blow yourself to bits and the only thing you can do is..... well NOTHING and are on a ventilator and ask to be taken off because it is so painful......

You are JUSTIFIED!

NO MORAL ABSOLUTES

I disagree with these. The penalty for rape in the Bible (OT) is death, so in essence, you would be carrying out God's law. Also, there are other ways to handle the situation without killing the person. We have these people that some of us call police.

Although stealing is forbidin in the Bible, (i'm paraphrasing here) it says not to come down on a man if he steals to feed himself, but if he is caught, he has to repay 7 fold.

Your adultry scenario is all wrong because nothing is God's law says you are guaranteed your freedom (trust me, I know). That woman doesn't have to get pregnant. She wants to see her kids and husband, but so do a lot of other people in prison.

Let me pose this question. If the only way out was to murder a child, would she be justified still?

People have their own opinions on suicide. I believe you go to hell if you do it. But to be 100% realistic, the Bible doesn't cover the subject, so any opinion on this matter is all speculation. The OT Saul killed himself. Did he go to heaven or hell?

 

[Drew]

Your examples are simply showing where one thing which is (arguably) absolutely wrong can be weighted as less wrong than something else which is also (arguably) absolutely wrong, only with a worse comparable outcome.

I agree wholeheartedly with Moniker here and consider the above to be a slam-dunk against the assertion that the OP is a case against moral absolutes (no offense to you personally, Soma-Sight).

 

[Soma-Sight]

I disagree with these. The penalty for rape in the Bible (OT) is death, so in essence, you would be carrying out God's law. Also, there are other ways to handle the situation without killing the person. We have these people that some of us call police.

Although stealing is forbidin in the Bible, (i'm paraphrasing here) it says not to come down on a man if he steals to feed himself, but if he is caught, he has to repay 7 fold.

Your adultry scenario is all wrong because nothing is God's law says you are guaranteed your freedom (trust me, I know). That woman doesn't have to get pregnant. She wants to see her kids and husband, but so do a lot of other people in prison.

Let me pose this question. If the only way out was to murder a child, would she be justified still?

People have their own opinions on suicide. I believe you go to hell if you do it. But to be 100% realistic, the Bible doesn't cover the subject, so any opinion on this matter is all speculation. The OT Saul killed himself. Did he go to heaven or hell?

Even God's Word demonstrates the lack of moral absolutes!

If you have to pay 7 fold for stealing it implies that God is ok with it as long as you pay a penalty! It does not say to absolutely never steal!

I might add that if you personally were in any one of the above situations it would look a lot different then it does on paper!

Of course the crucifixtion is the most startling example of all!

Not only does God the Father kill his own Son thorugh mans hands.... His only Son committs SUICIDE!!!!

AT ANY MOMENT JESUS COULD HAVE CALLED DOWN A LEGION OF ANGELS TO RESCUE HIM..... HE ALLOWED HIS DEATH TO HAPPEN ACTIVELY WHICH IS NOTHING MORE.... NOTHING LESS....

THAN SUICIDE!

 

[prophecy4]

Being in the situation doesn't change whether it is right or wrong.

God didn't kill His son. Just because God knew Jesus would be killed, doesn't mean he did it. Just because Jesus didn't stop it doesn't make it suicide.

If a person on death row kills all the officers that are trying to take him to the electric chair, is that murder? Is that justified? Is it suicide if a person chooses not to fight back when someone is trying to kill them?

God never says He's ok with stealing, but He is acknowledging that people do steal and what the penalty should be.

Just to give you an insight as to my mind frame. I stole some money using the internet because I lost my job and had no way to pay bills or eat. Is this justified? In my opinion, NO it's not. Now I have to pay restitution and might go to prison. Is this just? I think the restitution is, but not the jail time, because I would lose my job and not be able to pay restitution and the cycle would start again.

Rights and wrongs are not based on the stituation you are in, they are concrete. For example, you could lie to save the Jews from the Nazis or you could tell the truth and still save the Jews from the Nazis. People always have options, they just tend to choose the easist one and not necessarily the one that is right.

 

[Drew]

I am not sure whether what I am about to write constitutes a retraction of my earlier post in this thread.

In any event, I believe that Jesus may have indeed been preaching "situation ethics" when he taught as follows in Matthew 12:

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated breadâ€â€which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7f you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

I think that Jesus is basically saying that the world we live in is so complex that it is simply not possible to "codify morality". In a very real sense, each situation is unique and the decision about what to do cannot be arrived at through the application of rules. Instead, I think that Jesus is teaching that love is the over-riding principle that should inform our decisions. And sometimes the most loving action goes against the "rules", even ones that come from God (what I mean here is, for example, that it can indeed be loving to steal in some very unusual circumstances, despite the prohibition against stealing from the 10 commandments). In defence of my position that Jesus make "love" primary over "rules", I offer the following from Matthew 22:

"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

 

[Poke]

That reminds me of the joke where a man asks a women if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She lets her greed get the best of her and she says, "yes." He then says, "Now that we've established what kind of woman you are, how about for five dollars?"

 

[Gary]

SomaSight shows little insight

SomaSight claims there are no moral absolutes. I disagree.

He confuses "moral absolutes" with the duty to follow that "moral absolute".

In other words, a moral law can be absolute yet not obeyed. If you understand "graded absolutism" at all (and it is Biblical), you will understand that the overriding duty to keep the higher law makes it unnecessary to follow the demands of the lesser command.

:D

 

[Solo]

Re: SomaSight shows little insight

SomaSight claims there are no moral absolutes. I disagree.

He confuses "moral absolutes" with the duty to follow that "moral absolute".

In other words, a moral law can be absolute yet not obeyed. If you understand "graded absolutism" at all (and it is Biblical), you will understand that the overriding duty to keep the higher law makes it unnecessary to follow the demands of the lesser command.

:D

Perfectly stated!

 

[John the Baptist]

God is Just, which means judgement. But to understand 'anything' about law, one needs some 'Spiritual brain/power' on 1 John 5:16-17. And the thread's start, seems to be lacking this in its threads context.

---John

 

[Gary]

SomaSight shows no insight!

.....Of course the crucifixtion is the most startling example of all!

Not only does God the Father kill his own Son thorugh mans hands.... His only Son committs SUICIDE!!!!

AT ANY MOMENT JESUS COULD HAVE CALLED DOWN A LEGION OF ANGELS TO RESCUE HIM..... HE ALLOWED HIS DEATH TO HAPPEN ACTIVELY WHICH IS NOTHING MORE.... NOTHING LESS....

THAN SUICIDE!

Your own "situationism" leads you to the wrong conclusions.

Let me step you through this so that you might start to understand the significance of the cross.

On the cross, the just was punished for the unjust. Read that again slowly. Then see what the Bible says about the cross: 1 Peter 3:18 and 2 Corinthians 5:21

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

There is no moral justification for this, unless there are higher and lower moral codes ("graded absolutism"). In this way, mercy can take precedence over justice.

• The one (Christ) can suffer for the many that they may be saved. Romans 5:6-18

But if mercy and love are not higher moral values than justice, then what God did to Christ, when it pleased Him to "bruise" His son (Isaiah 53:5), was a great injustice. But God cannot be unjust. Therefore, the cross makes sense only if the demands of justice are subordinated to the desires of mercy!

(Taken from: "Christian Ethics. Options and Issues." by Norman Geisler (p. 131)

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Death through Adam, Life through Christ

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

 

[Vic C.]

Gary, sorry I missed his "ramblings" the first time. :o

Soma, can the theatrics please and take a break or one will be issued to you. I'm not kidding. I find your comment hostile and very offensive.

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Active promotion of sinful behavior will not be permitted. This includes promotion of homosexual behavior. Individual restrictions may apply on a Forum to Forum basis. Please check the announcements and stickeys at the top of each Forum.

 

[John the Baptist]

Quote: "But if mercy and love are not higher moral values than justice, then what God did to Christ, when it pleased Him to "bruise" His son (Isaiah 53:5), was a great injustice. But God cannot be unjust. Therefore, the cross makes sense only if the demands of justice are subordinated to the desires of mercy!"
______

(my high/light above)
I 'myself' see it as being equal. I would like a verse that says the above, to be posted?? Both are recorded as being Everlasting Gospel & Everlasting Covenant. Revelation 14:6 & Hebrews 13:20. Also the Covenant is said to be the 'EPISTLE' (letter) of Christ in 2 Corinthians 3:3 Compare the K.J. on Isa. 42:21 There is NO Moral way to do away with, or degrade the Epistle Testimony of Christ and maintain Christianity. See Revelation 12:17

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the 'remnant' of her seed, [No. 1} which [keep the commandments of God] and [No. 2] and [have the testimony of Jesus Christ.]" Again: Isa. 42:21 (my emphasis)

If the Moral Eternal law could have been ditched, then Christ would have died in vain. It could not be done, and that is why it took the Christ/God's (no created angel) death.
---John

 

[unred typo]

Soma-Sight wrote: But I am curious if you guys believe in moral absolutes and if so WHAT ARE THEY?

Drew wrote:I think that Jesus is basically saying that the world we live in is so complex that it is simply not possible to "codify morality". In a very real sense, each situation is unique and the decision about what to do cannot be arrived at through the application of rules. Instead, I think that Jesus is teaching that love is the over-riding principle that should inform our decisions. And sometimes the most loving action goes against the "rules", even ones that come from God (what I mean here is, for example, that it can indeed be loving to steal in some very unusual circumstances, despite the prohibition against stealing from the 10 commandments). In defence of my position that Jesus make "love" primary over "rules", I offer the following from Matthew 22:

My 2 cents: is it possible that the moral absolute is love?

 

[Drew]

My 2 cents: is it possible that the moral absolute is love?

I think you are right - I think that this is exactly what Jesus teaches in the Matthew 12 and Matthew 22 texts.