Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Does Absolute Morality Exist?


Skankboy

Recommended Posts

What does Jesus say when the Pharisees blame him for working on the Sabath? He gives the example of David. I wasn't redirecting, I was trying to get you to look at the said passage in context. Picking some grains for a hungray man was not work as Jesus explained but you seem to have no problem judging Jesus.

 

This was my response which I gave to another christian on forum

 

Christian don't observe one of major 10 commandments

"Thou Should Observe The Sabbath".

The sabbath day should be observed on Saturday, not Sunday[/i]

 

Check out Matthew 12 vrs - I'll paraphrase

The Pharisees said 'look it is against our Law to eat grain on the Sabbath'

Jesus answered with two examples of people breaking the Law - David and the Priests - who he said were not wrong in doing so because their reasons for doing so were right.

 

So in other words he is talking about situational ethics.

 

And he ended saying I tell you there is something here greater than the temple It is kindness i want not animal sacrifices (ie the Law) If you really knew what this means you would not condemn people who are not guilty for the son of man is the sabbath.

........

Why is this such a bad thing? Its an example of the same situation as above - there are many more important things to worry about and whether you have a sabbath on a saturday or a sunday make no difference.

 

Oh really. Then please explain if it is not important, why did the violation of this law warrant the death penalty?

 

Exo 31:15

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death

 

Anyone who does any work on the Sabbath must be put to death. The violation of this law and it's consequences are illustrated below:

 

Num 15:32-36

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

 

God required that a man who was found gathering sticks(or wood) on the Sabbath be put to death by being stoned by the whole assembly. However, let's not forget that according to mainstream Christianity Jesus is God.

 

Well now, where was Jesus when this man was executed for picking up sticks?

 

Picking up sticks on a holy day is certainly not any more serious a violation of God's law than committing any other sexual crime which warranted the death penalty/

 

So where was Jesus to step in and say the following:

"It really doesn't matter if you observe the sabbath on Sunday or Saturday. People in the future will break it, and it's gonna be ok for them. So why not for him."

 

Jesus can't use the excuse that he wasn't around at that time because he already declared to the Jews that he existed before Abraham was born:

 

John 8:58

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

The New Testament sinks further into the quagmire by declaring that Jesus not only existed before Abraham but has always been the same. In other words, Jesus is unchanging.

 

Heb 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

 

So here we have Jesus who is supposed to be God, and who has existed long before Abraham was born, letting a man be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. This same Jesus then comes around to say that it's ok for him and his followers to break the sabbath, because one of his favourite pet human(David) did so in the past.

 

This is the same Jesus who declared that the law should always be followed to the letter. This is the same Jesus(the God) who declared he was taught the law by God the Father and both these Gods are supposed to be the same God the Jews worship.

 

If Jesus has always existed, has always been the same, and is also God, then this deity is psychotic.

 

To reiteriate what I said, he issues laws that he ignores, commands people to obey these laws, rebukes them for trying to follow the laws, and practices situational ethics.

 

Could you provide any OT verses defining work?

So picking up sticks for firewood is work and harvesting crops is not?mmmmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TheListener

    23

  • crazy-tiger

    17

  • Skankboy

    10

  • Kuroikaze

    6

What does sin have to do with morality?

 

 

If an ethical code dictates moral action the breaking of that code might indicate immoral action.

 

Sin however is a lot more than breaking a moral code.

 

There is no question that Jesus broke the OT moral code.

 

He may have done it:

a) Because the code was wrong

B) It was misunderstood

c) It did not apply in that situation

 

IF any of the above are possibly true then the only conclusion is that Jesus did not believe in a knowable absolute moral code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

crazy-tiger: I am ignoring your ad hominem attacks.

Dude... if it wasn't for you flitting around the various subjects so rapidly, I wouldn't need to bring that little fact up.

 

 

Still, you ignore me... the fact that you couldn't answer any of my points shows the real reason for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion noted.

 

Is this code for "I can't think of anything to say, so I'll just stick my head in the sand and pretend I didn't read that"

 

Why don't you try actually answering questons once in a while....I mean since you know so much more than us about all things religious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion noted.

 

Is this code for "I can't think of anything to say, so I'll just stick my head in the sand and pretend I didn't read that"

 

 

No, it is more like "why bother?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion noted.

 

Is this code for "I can't think of anything to say, so I'll just stick my head in the sand and pretend I didn't read that"

 

 

No, it is more like "why bother?"

 

 

ahh so we are too stupid to understand you now...I get it....no wait I don't I'm too STUPID :Wendywhatever:

 

let me ask you one question....though I'm sure you'll ignore it as well.

 

Why did you come here? Do you make posts and just expect us to roll over and say "Well my gosh your right I'll just go back to church and start praying now"

 

Why are you so unable to deal with the fact that we question your version of the truth?

 

If you are gonna post here then be a good boy and answer our questions with more than an "opinion noted" Other wise your just wasting everyones time, and making yourself look like nothing more than a bigot and dogmatist who is unable to deal with people questioning his beliefs.

 

If you can't deal with your beliefs being questioned then you are in the wrong place, and you should go somewhere else to play....but if you are willing to have a serious and thoughtful discusion about things you need to offer more than "opinion noted"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you've done it... he gonna ignore you and whine about ad homs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you've done it... he gonna ignore you and whine about ad homs.

 

and strangly enough my life will continue without his approval ...I bet I'll even sleep well tonight :woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think he has a point.

 

I see this forum for what it is. The usual questions with some pretty stubborn people behind them sticking to each other in a mob mentality rather than having an open discussion.

 

I've been asked the same question over and over and over because people didn't like the answers. And when I pointed this out, I got attacked.

 

I got lied to with false information and told to 'shut up and take the abuse'.

 

Fair enough.

 

Not that I've been overly polite myself. I know that.

 

I don't think this website is suitable for me. I might give it a break.

 

I will pray that God don't hold these things you've said to me against you because in all fairness I came in and provoked you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not that I've been overly polite myself. I know that.

 

 

At least you recongnize that....few christians who come here manage that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think he has a point.

 

I see this forum for what it is. The usual questions with some pretty stubborn people behind them sticking to each other in a mob mentality rather than having an open discussion.

On the other hand, it might just be the ususal questions being asked because your answers don't work in the real world...
I've been asked the same question over and over and over because people didn't like the answers. And when I pointed this out, I got attacked.
What answers? All we seemed to get off of you were evasions...

 

No one attacked you because of the answers you gave... they attacked you because you just wouldn't sodding answer our questions.

I got lied to with false information and told to 'shut up and take the abuse'.

Show us where you were provided with false information.

 

Do that, or retract your accusation now.

Fair enough.

 

Not that I've been overly polite myself. I know that.

No shit... right from the start you were being condesending.
I don't think this website is suitable for me. I might give it a break.
Yeah... hang around too long and you might start thinking.

 

I can see how this isn't suitable for you...

I will pray that God don't hold these things you've said to me against you because in all fairness I came in and provoked you all.

And finish on a guilt trip...

 

 

By the way... do you believe in an Absolute Morality? I would like a proper answer before you leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see this forum for what it is. The usual questions with some pretty stubborn people behind them sticking to each other in a mob mentality rather than having an open discussion.

 

 

On the other hand, all you can give us is the same old tired answers to those questions. We all know those answers, and they weren't enough reason for us to stay the first time they won't be enought to bring us back. Also, drop by a christian forum sometime and see how much of a mob mentality they have when it comes to non-believers. On one occasion people on a christian forum upset my sister enough to make her cry....and then banned me for questioning them about it.

 

I've been asked the same question over and over and over because people didn't like the answers. And when I pointed this out, I got attacked.

 

 

 

Again I think you may have taken things more personally than intended. Yes we didn't like the answers, because we felt they did not fully answer the question. You felt attacked because we didn't accept your explanations....well what did you expect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of adultery then yes adultery is a sin. Always has been and always will be. Is this what you mean by absolute morality?

 

Was Solomon committing adultry when he married wives 2 through 699? What about when he fucked his concubines? Can I get me some of them concubines and have my way with them without committing adultry? Always is a mighty long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone!

 

I don't start topics too often, but one of our new visitors "The Listener" has asked that I open a new thread to discuss this topic.

 

One of the main arguments of christianity is the existence of an absolute morality. "This is always ok, that is always bad." But does this really exist?

 

Certainly I have my own opinions on this, but I would be interested to hear what you all (x and ex-x alike) think about this.

 

Thanking you all in advance,

 

:thanks:

 

No, there is no absolute morality...that doesn't mean that morality is relative, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of adultery then yes adultery is a sin. Always has been and always will be. Is this what you mean by absolute morality?

 

Was Solomon committing adultry when he married wives 2 through 699? What about when he fucked his concubines? Can I get me some of them concubines and have my way with them without committing adultry? Always is a mighty long time.

 

TheListener why was he not punished for his crimes?Does god has his favourites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Jesus say when the Pharisees blame him for working on the Sabath? He gives the example of David. I wasn't redirecting, I was trying to get you to look at the said passage in context. Picking some grains for a hungray man was not work as Jesus explained but you seem to have no problem judging Jesus.

 

Yes, let's look into the context that seemed to confuse those darn Pharisees so much.

 

Gathering food for themselves is not work...according to you (and jesus) at least. Let's start with the original incident:

Matthew 12

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

9And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:

10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Jesus tells those Pharisees that they are clearly wrong since the law is flexible and takes situations into account (that relativism that isn't supposed to exist in an absolute god). He does this by telling the story of David (although he tells a version that isn't quite what you'll find in the OT so either the perfect book or the "perfect" "god" is mistaken).

 

So now let's see how this law really works:

Exodus 16

22And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.

23And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

24And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.

25And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.

26Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.

27And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.

28And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

29See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

30So the people rested on the seventh day.

I guess this whole thing confused Moses as well because he says pretty clearly to those original Israelites not to "find it in the field."

 

"God later hands out the punishment for violating this law (lucky for those first violators from above):

Exodus 31

12And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

13Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

15Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

16Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Death is the proper punishment. You can read Numbers 15:32-36 to see what happened to the guy gathering the sticks (oddly enough stoning someone seems to be not considered work...go figure). As an aside I find it odd that "god" had to ever rest or be "refreshed."

 

Surely, Moses and the rest misunderstood old god and he really wanted a more relative approach to his laws since jesus, who's also "god," indicates to those silly Pharisees, right? Well, in Numbers we have daddy god, in no uncertain terms, order the man put to death for gathering sticks. He is stoned and is killed. As Moses and the priests selfishly misinterpreted the law for themselves? Nope. As GOD himself commanded them to do in compliance with his laws.

 

Jesus as a Jew, and his disciples that were Jewish, would be bound by this very law as the law is eternal and no exemptions for god-men and his pals were ever given by daddy god. The Pharisees had every right, and obligation, to stone, at the very least, the disciples who gathered the food. According to Matthew 5:17-20 jesus and pals should should be considered the least of heaven for violating and teaching this strange interpretation of the law.

 

So is that enough context for you? New covenant or not is simply irrelevant. As others have pointed out the new covenant is not the removal of the laws but the absolute, innate, knowledge and adherance to those laws by everyone. The claim also is that the new covenant occured with the whole death/resurrection thing and isn't yet in effect at the time of this story anyhow. Paul, not jesus, is the one who "eliminates" the horrible law (which is praised as extremely desirable in the OT) so who are you really "listening" to? (I'll give you one guess and it's not who you claim it is since I've very clearly shown what "he" wants you to do.)

 

mwc

 

edit: fixed some quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I have to point this out because you said earlier that bible scholars and theologins don't truely understand the bible...and then admit you don't understand it either. Now you admit that the pharisees and other people in Jesus times didn't understand it. The bible was vague so they added stuff so it would make sense.

 

 

If this is the case. If people who studie the bible for 50 years, if you, if the pharisees did not understand the bible, if all of the people who used the bible to justify all sorts of atrocites throughout history didn't understand it......

 

then what the hell use is the bible for setting an understanding of morality? :twitch:

:drink::lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been asked the same question over and over and over because people didn't like the answers. And when I pointed this out, I got attacked.

I think you are confusing "not liking" your answers w/ your answers being unintelligible. That's why I kept asking for your definition. Only w/common understandings of the questions can any type of true dialog be reached.

 

Did some of our members jump on you? Sure. This is the "lion's den" as I tried to explain to you before. People here are under no obligations to "play nice". We have an entire other forum for just such discussions.

 

I don't think this website is suitable for me. I might give it a break.

 

You are of course free to come and go as you please. We don't bar participants around here without some serious provocation on their part.

 

 

Here was the point I was trying to make w/this whole discussion:

 

If god is unchanging, his morality should be unchanging as well. As LT even pointed out, Jesus clearly didn't see the christian moral system as absolute. That, according to many, was the "sin" of the Pharasee's [sic?].

 

My belief is that morality is a social construct that varies throughout time, culture and your present personal perspective.

 

If anyone still feels like talking about his, I'd be glad to keep going, but I have a feeling that w/out our new Christian participant this one may just die out...

 

No, there is no absolute morality...that doesn't mean that morality is relative, though.

That's an interesting take on it Asimov. Could you elaborate a bit? I'd be the last to say anything is an "all or nothing" proposition but I wonder where the "middle ground" might lie in your view?

 

Thanks to all who have given their input so far.

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Asimov is referring to relativism in a sense to the extreme where moral is non-existent and it's a free-for-all situation. But the word "relative" is used in so many definitions. Anything that is non-absolute is relative, so if not absolute, then it must be relative. But relativism is often mixed up with Truth Relativism, where there's the opinion that no absolute truth exists. Which is a view the very few modern philosphers take.

 

The definition of the word "relataive" is a bit relative in itself. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But relativism is often mixed up with Truth Relativism, where there's the opinion that no absolute truth exists. Which is a view the very few modern philosphers take.

 

I can agree with that. It is ofen confusing when people apply terms intended for objective reality to concepts that only exist in the form of abstracts. Certainly, I don't think I could agree w/Plato's form (ie there's an ideal tree somewhere from which we all derive our definition of "tree"), but I would concede that there could be an ideal form of an idea (truth for instance), but again, I think you would be hard pressed to find two people w/exactly the same definition for it.

 

I've always thought our personal moralities are a blending of the social norms and our own experiences. I think it could be argued that what has been considered "moral" has changed dramatically acrossed cultures and time, so finding an overall "absolute" morality that would be ubiquitous to all of mankind is unlikely.

 

Or did I miss the point completely...? :scratch:

 

 

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is entirely subjective.

 

The reasons behind so many seperate cultures seem to have many of the same "morals" is a result of early people figuring out a means of being able to work together sucessfully. As the groups grew, so too did the morals expand.

 

Adultery? Distrust and jealousy tear people up. They kill each other over it, or they kill each other for committing it. This kind of feeling is counterproductive to a growing society, so it becomes seen as "wrong".

 

Murder? Hard to get anything done if you are having to constantly watch your own back around every other member of your species. Again, this feeling is counterproductive to growing society (or society trying to grow), and is so deemed "wrong".

 

Theft? Again....a trust issue. If you cannot trust the group you are a part of not to thieve you into poverty and starvation, you will leave the group. Again, counterproductive to growing society.

 

Those are the big three. A group who has too many of these elements running unchecked will either disband, or kill each other. Again counterproductive to our instinct to create social groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think he has a point.

 

I see this forum for what it is. The usual questions with some pretty stubborn people behind them sticking to each other in a mob mentality rather than having an open discussion.

 

I've been asked the same question over and over and over because people didn't like the answers. And when I pointed this out, I got attacked.

 

I got lied to with false information and told to 'shut up and take the abuse'.

 

Fair enough.

 

Not that I've been overly polite myself. I know that.

 

I don't think this website is suitable for me. I might give it a break.

 

I will pray that God don't hold these things you've said to me against you because in all fairness I came in and provoked you all.

 

Hey! many of us go to Christian Forums and take on multiple christians when theres usually just one of Us. So don't start using that Atheists gang up on people shit because your kind does the SAME! Also Christians like to ban us if we speak our minds like you have, So believe me we are alot more tolerant. Also there are a few christians here that we like because they have civil discussions with us, so mabey you should look back on your posts and see what you did wrong.

 

Peace,

BC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think he has a point.

 

I see this forum for what it is. The usual questions with some pretty stubborn people behind them sticking to each other in a mob mentality rather than having an open discussion.

 

I've been asked the same question over and over and over because people didn't like the answers. And when I pointed this out, I got attacked.

 

I got lied to with false information and told to 'shut up and take the abuse'.

 

Fair enough.

 

Not that I've been overly polite myself. I know that.

 

I don't think this website is suitable for me. I might give it a break.

 

I will pray that God don't hold these things you've said to me against you because in all fairness I came in and provoked you all.

 

Hey! many of us go to Christian Forums and take on multiple christians when theres usually just one of Us. So don't start using that Atheists gang up on people shit because your kind does the SAME! Also Christians like to ban us if we speak our minds like you have, So believe me we are alot more tolerant. Also there are a few christians here that we like because they have civil discussions with us, so mabey you should look back on your posts and see what you did wrong.

 

Peace,

BC

I hope you don't mind BC, but I didn't want to go back and find the post that this person made so I will just use yours, but I am addressing this person.

 

TheListener,

 

Can't you see what I have bolded above will lead to "pity turning into disgust"? No one is of greater or lesser value. When you demean yourself, you are demeaning life itself. Humility is not putting yourself below others. And when you do this, I question your intent. So please, don't beg our forgiveness, forgive yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adultery? Distrust and jealousy tear people up. They kill each other over it, or they kill each other for committing it. This kind of feeling is counterproductive to a growing society, so it becomes seen as "wrong".

 

That wouldn't make adultery wrong...it would make killing wrong, white_raven. Abhorrence to adultery is a value, and not a moral issue.

 

Murder? Hard to get anything done if you are having to constantly watch your own back around every other member of your species. Again, this feeling is counterproductive to growing society (or society trying to grow), and is so deemed "wrong".

 

In a way, this is true. One should assume that any society which freely kills it's own people will eventually become extinct, and one should assume then that through evolution, the behaviour to avoid killing members of your own species will develop, therefore it is wrong.

 

Theft? Again....a trust issue. If you cannot trust the group you are a part of not to thieve you into poverty and starvation, you will leave the group. Again, counterproductive to growing society.

 

Yes, and it seems that morality only exists within social constructs, and are natural developments of social constructs...this doesn't make any more or less valuable than an absolute moral system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.