Absolute Morality...again.

An absolute morality would be one given by God, if God exists.
If it's given by the Creator God, then it is binding on all, there are no gray areas or exceptions.
If the God of the Bible exists, then absolute morality is the Ten Commandments.

You are asking for definitions that often take up whole sermon series and commentaries, and it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion because all that is being asked is what constitutes an absolute morality. The answer is that any morality given by the God who made us would be absolute. Our ability or inability to sort out the various commandments or understand them thoroughly has nothing to do with whether their demands are absolute or not. Again, they are, if they are given by God. Period.

I don't think I said it MUST come from God. I simply said that a morality that DID come from God would be absolute. Theoretically that's possible. But I don't know of such a source. I do know that if the Biblical God exists, He's definitely such a source. I don't think I said that, did I? Actually this has been argued up one side and down the other over the last few months and the general conclusion has been that there is no absolute morality. Some think that even if there is a God there isn't necessarily an absolute morality. Depends on the God. The God of the Bible is characterized in such a way that His morality is definitely absolute. Written in stone. Absolutely. I gave the Ten Commandments as an example of what an absolute morality would be if there is one. They are given by God, therefore they are absolute. (Actually, all the other commandments can be shown to be subsets or elaborations of the ten.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think this got answered in my other post but it may still need some clarificiation. You are misreading my statement. It only says that a morality given by God would be absolute. It doesn't say that a morality from another source would not be absolute.

Jesus did not say the commandments should be interpreted as relative and subjective.We don't need to understand them for them to be absolute. It could very well be that the universe is run on an absolute morality and nobody knows for sure what it is, or that it takes deep meditation to discover it. I think this in fact has been the case for many cultures who were not favored by God's revelation. Hinduism for instance has intuited the existence of an absolute morality that affects all of us and called it Karma, but it doesn't have any codified principles or precepts or commands that I know of.So the point is that their being absolute or not has nothing to do with whether we recognize or understand them or not. The law of gravity operates whether we recognize or understand it or not.

First, I've acknowledged that it is possible that there could be a God who did not give an absolute morality.The God of the Bible, however, did, so that if He exists, His morality is absolute.The reason it is absolute is that He is absolute and the moral law expresses His own mind, and He made us in His image so we reflect His own mind -- or did before the Fall. God's writing the Ten Commandments in stone has the meaning that the Law is absolute. Written in stone =absolute. It means that He made His universe to run by them, He made human nature to operate by them, so that violations of them are resistance or opposition to the natural operations of things, which has inevitable repercussions. There is no way to avoid the repercussions of the Law. It affects everyone equally and exactly. It is a universal Law. That's how God made it. When Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would go unfulfilled, He was referring to the absoluteness and precision of the Law down to minute details. Inexorability.{Edit: But of course, again, this is all true ONLY IF the God of the Bible is real and the Bible is reliable.}Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jesus was not abrogating the law of the Sabbath with the story of an animal being unable to get out of a hole in the ground. The Sabbath was always for doing good, for performing acts of mercy, for moral necessities. Work is what one does for a living, or as part of the daily routine of life, and the Sabbath is meant to be a day of rest from all that in which God Himself is to be worshiped. Worshippig God includes acts of mercy.I'm glad to see that others here agree that whether we understand it or not has nothing to do with whether there is an absolute morality. Many things we don't understand in both the physical and spiritual worlds but that doesn't make them any the less absolutely real.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it merely shows a specific application of the Law to a particular situation, nothing subjective or relative about it. Murder has many degrees because of different circumstances that don't call the absoluteness of the law into question, as the idea of subjectivity or relativity does. Robin's post after yours makes this distinction.

Whichever one made us.

I've been pondering this and I finally know what I think about it but I may not yet have the right terms for it. Yes, and whatever is decided for the circumstance is just as absolute as the law itself. That is, there is a correct interpretation or application of the law for each circumstance, in spite of the fact that it may be hard to arrive at and mistakes may be made.Subjectivity or relativity would be something else, the idea that there could conceivably be conflicting interpretations that are both valid. No. I finally figured this out. Relativity or subjectivity is the idea that you can have two or more entirely different interpretations of the law and both be valid. Yes you can make that equation. Applying the law to different circumstances doesn't involve relativity or subjectivity.

Of course.

As I said: Of course. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The problem for trying to establish an absolute morality (on any grounds other than God's own revelation anyway) is that there are different cultural standards, different personal feelings about what constitutes murder and what constitutes justice, based mostly on "us" versus "them." The "eye for an eye" law of justice in the Old Testament is understood to have been a restraint on the habit of overkill by clans in the Middle East, as they habitually exacted retribution many times the equivalent of the crime committed against them, and the law brought them down to the equivalent.

Give us a case where you think we couldn't.

Thank you for that discussion. I'm in a church that believes we should observe the Sabbath as a day and it's driven me crazy trying to sort out how that is not just bondage to the Law.