Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absolute Morality...again.
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 46 of 300 (333389)
07-19-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-19-2006 1:12 PM


More details
Faith writes:
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.
Please tell me what Commandment # 6 means by the term "murder".
Does this commandment apply to everyone equally?
How about an unborn child?
Exodus 21
quote:
22Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
Or a resident of a conquered city...
Joshua 6:
quote:
Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
Or a slave who lingers a few days before dying
Exodus 21:
quote:
20"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Apparently, none of the above killings constitute "murder" so your definition of murder must be such that it cannot be applied to the actions described above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 48 of 300 (333391)
07-19-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-19-2006 1:12 PM


More details
Faith writes:
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.
Please tell me what Commandment # 6 means by the term "murder".
Does this commandment apply to everyone equally?
How about an unborn child?
Exodus 21
quote:
22Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
Or a resident of a conquered city...
Joshua 6:
quote:
Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
Or a slave who lingers a few days before dying
Exodus 21:
quote:
20"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Apparently, none of the above killings constitute "murder" so your definition of murder must be such that it cannot be applied to the actions described above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 3:30 PM LinearAq has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 66 of 300 (333437)
07-19-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2006 3:30 PM


Re: More details
Catholic Scientist writes:
If god set up a perfect, and absolute, definition of murder and decided it is immoral, then it would be absolutely immoral if we can define it as well or not
So, God set up a set of absolute moral boundaries for humans but decided to define those boundaries so poorly that we don't know if we exceed them or not?
Could you explain the rationality of God doing this or of your believing that He has?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 4:47 PM LinearAq has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 69 of 300 (333461)
07-19-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2006 4:47 PM


Re: More details
The absolute moral could still be there as "Thou shall not murder", we just don't have a working definition of murder, because in some cases, killing some is not wrong even though it is still killing someone, and in that case it would not be included in 'murder'. Thus the absolute moral still stands and we'd just have to argue over the definition of murder and the what if's would be is this murder, is that murder? Still, the absolute moral of not murdering would stand, it would just become reletive in what should be included in murder.
If the terms are not defined then you don't have an absolute anything (law, moral...etc). What you have is a statement which is interpreted differently depending upon the subjective definition of the terms by the reader. Admittedly, murder is not completely without definition. In fact, God himself provided some further clarity in regards to that term by exclusion, as I pointed out in my previous post. I am sure we could find more.
Killing that is not murder according to the Bible.
1. Killing an unborn child
2. Killing residents, including children, of conquered territories.
3. Killing of a slave as long as he/she suffers for longer than 2 days before expiring.
Seems rather odd that Bible believers would likely categorize all of these as murder when the Bible clearly states that they are not.
LinearAq writes:
Could you explain the rationality of God doing this or of your believing that He has?
Catholic Scientist writes:
So that we have a choice. So we aren't robots that must be good and must believe in him. For some reason, he wants us to hafta have faith.
Defining the choices distinctly does not eliminate choice...it provides for a more informed choice. Satan knew God existed and had even spoken to him directly, yet he chose to disobey. Seems to me that direct evidence of God's existence did not remove Satan's ability to choose.
Edited by LinearAq, : to address a comment that I missed in the first draft

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 5:23 PM LinearAq has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 91 of 300 (333644)
07-20-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hyroglyphx
07-20-2006 12:00 AM


Re: Absolute morality
I guess you want these questions answered. The following responses are to the questions as stated but not necessarily as intended.
1. Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously?
Yes. I am dry externally but the inside of my circulatory system is wet.
2. Can you be in India and Sweden simultaneously?
Yes, at the Swedish embassy in New Delhi.
3. Can you be telling the truth and telling a lie simultaneously?
Yes, if repeating a lie that you believe.
4. Is anyone getting younger as opposed to growing older?
Yes, midlife crisis in men is described in just such a manner.
5. Can anyone live without sustenance or oxygen?
Yes, I did it as I was typing this sentence by holding my breath and not eating anything.
What do the answers to these questions have to do with absolute morals?
What does the existance of absolutes anywhere else in the universe have to do with the question of absolute morality? Do you believe that showing there are absolutes in some things proves there are absolutes in everything? Could you step through your reasoning on this because the leap you made was difficult for me to follow.
Aside from which, why is the obvious eluding the masses? If morals aren't absolute then right and wrong don't exist because it ultimately relies on the opinions of those in power to assign for you what's right or wrong. We could even go so far as to say that even language doesn't make sense for words that convey absolute premises, such as, but not limited to, "Yes, no, right, wrong, left, right, up, down, good and evil." Those words are meaningless without them being in an absolut context.
The obvious is not always right...
1. It's obvious that the sun orbits the earth every 24 hours.
2. It's obvious that a 10-lb ball will accelerate 10 times faster than a 1-lb ball.
3. It's obvious that a rabbit chews cud.
I cannot think of a situation where yes and no are subjective except in sarcasm that is not understood by the receiver of that sarcasm. However, right, wrong, left, right, up, down, good and evil are obviously all subjective. Example: when telling someone a location you would say something like this, "The room is up from me to my left." The use of a point of reference was necessary to provide an exact location.
Example: "Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible." Actually, this sentence that states absolute judgement by the Bible is really providing a subjective opinion. It should be stated, "Homosexuality is wrong according to my interpretation of the Bible."
In order to lend more support for your belief in the necessity of absolute morals, maybe you could provide an example of a moral rule that is absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2006 12:00 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2006 12:32 PM LinearAq has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 93 of 300 (333685)
07-20-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2006 9:38 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Its not that an absolute morality cannot exist, its just we cannot use one. Which really isn't too different from it not existing, except I believe in God and think that he does have one set up.....Hmmm, maybe an absolute morality would be perfect. Then it could be something for our morality to strive towards while realizing we we never actually reach it.
While this may be comforting, I don't see how we can work toward something that we cannot quantify or understand.
Nope. I think it can strengthen your conscience. While believing in God and his absolute morality, when confronted with a day-to-day situation where I do not know what to do, morally, the old WWJD helps.
Again, a good idea to follow what we think Jesus would do in any particular situation...ie: Golden Rule, perhaps. However, a sarcastic person could say:
"WWJD? He would kick over their tables and chase them around with a whip."
or
"WWJD? He would insult the hosts views on sanitation and tell a tale of inside vs outside virtue."
Personally, I like to stick to the "Golden Rule", Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2006 9:38 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024