What Is Morality, and is it Absolute?

JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Yes, and yes.

Morality is the idea that some things are "right, good," and other things are "wrong, bad."

Morality is absolute, because it is based in God's righteous character.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
I believe there are a few necessities/formalities necessary in preliminary:

If you believe God always acts 'properly,' what do you mean by that? In the thread "Our Moral God" the problem is in definition and eye-of-the-beholder understanding of any given 'moral' idea. Some for instance, believe it is 'immoral' for God to send anybody to hell. There are all kinds of assumptions that need to be unpacked and addressed: Does it have to mean God is immoral? (Nope, has to be proved/connected - for one instance).

Definitions: If Morality is: "Proper behavior" then 'no.' It is not absolute. It cannot be. If it is 'proper' to belch in Japan and 'rude' in America, obviously then, it'd not be true. You'd have to qualify such with something at least like "Absolute moral" because 'moral' itself does not intimate/necessitate 'absolute.'

You can argue 'til you are blue in the face that God has to be 'moral' but if morality itself isn't absolute (appears initially and under scrutiny that it is not) then you cannot argue 1) that one being is or isn't (Japanese vs American by proof) nor 2) that it is anything but an expression of a certain value that 'doesn't have to be shared' to be considered 'moral.'

In a nutshell 1) Morality is not and probably cannot be demonstrably absolute thus 2) Imposition of morality likewise cannot be a tangible litmus for anybody in particular except as circumstance portrays. A need for qualification like 'absolute moral' must be stated in order to push this thread forward.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thus suggestion for thread:

1)An 'absolute' moral is by definition 'absolute.'
2) God as a perfect Being would only and ever exibit 'proper behavior' as the expression of a perfect character. Such 'might' portray as immoral to one who does not possess perfection, but 'morality' in this case is the expression. When Scripture says God will 'bring evil upon' those who disobey, it may confuse those who do not realize 'morality' is not absolute but in the sense that God will 'act properly' toward all things, regardless of how such might look to a people who do not possess absolute perfection nor morality.
 
Bradley D

Bradley D

Well-known member
Love God and Love Neighbor. Love/Agape 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a.

"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth.." (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a).
 
S

soulquestion

New member
Lon said:
I believe there are a few necessities/formalities necessary in preliminary:

If you believe God always acts 'properly,' what do you mean by that? In the thread "Our Moral God" the problem is in definition and eye-of-the-beholder understanding of any given 'moral' idea. Some for instance, believe it is 'immoral' for God to send anybody to hell. There are all kinds of assumptions that need to be unpacked and addressed: Does it have to mean God is immoral? (Nope, has to be proved/connected - for one instance).

Definitions: If Morality is: "Proper behavior" then 'no.' It is not absolute. It cannot be. If it is 'proper' to belch in Japan and 'rude' in America, obviously then, it'd not be true. You'd have to qualify such with something at least like "Absolute moral" because 'moral' itself does not intimate/necessitate 'absolute.'

You can argue 'til you are blue in the face that God has to be 'moral' but if morality itself isn't absolute (appears initially and under scrutiny that it is not) then you cannot argue 1) that one being is or isn't (Japanese vs American by proof) nor 2) that it is anything but an expression of a certain value that 'doesn't have to be shared' to be considered 'moral.'

In a nutshell 1) Morality is not and probably cannot be demonstrably absolute thus 2) Imposition of morality likewise cannot be a tangible litmus for anybody in particular except as circumstance portrays. A need for qualification like 'absolute moral' must be stated in order to push this thread forward.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thus suggestion for thread:

1)An 'absolute' moral is by definition 'absolute.'
2) God as a perfect Being would only and ever exibit 'proper behavior' as the expression of a perfect character. Such 'might' portray as immoral to one who does not possess perfection, but 'morality' in this case is the expression. When Scripture says God will 'bring evil upon' those who disobey, it may confuse those who do not realize 'morality' is not absolute but in the sense that God will 'act properly' toward all things, regardless of how such might look to a people who do not possess absolute perfection nor morality.
Click to expand...
Consider that God creates laws -- like the applied laws that cause order and function in the universe and on Earth. God also created laws for spiritual entities. These laws (such as accountability, honesty, humility, loyalty, the Golden Rule, obedience to God's laws and guidance, etc.) are as fixed as the laws of physics, electromagnetism, etc. Whenever we break a law of either material nature or spiritual nature we incur the reactions of having broken an impartial fixed law. God goes on loving us. Couldn't love us more. But if we break a law that brings order and function to material nature or spiritual nature we suffer the inevitable reaction to law breaking -- including a stint in Hell, if that is what results. However, our soul is immortal, so we always have opportunities to return to living by the laws of spiritual nature and enjoying the benefits of living by these fixed laws. We are God's little children and we sometimes take ourselves out of harmony with God's fixed laws. But we have endless opportunities to return to law keeping. This view presumes reincarnation, which is another subject that the Bible both affirms and denies, depending on who is writing and/or editing which book.
 
way 2 go

way 2 go

Well-known member
soulquestion said:
This view presumes reincarnation, which is another subject that the Bible both affirms
Click to expand...
no reincarnation
(Hebrews 9:27) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment,

Jesus is not 1 of many ways , Jesus is the only way
(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me

not a stint in hell but permanent separation
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
 
S

soulquestion

New member
Hello and thank you for responding. Actually, those who wrote the Bible say both that we live only once and that we reincarnate. Psalm 90:3-5 says God brings us to dust and in the morning we grow like grass. Psalm 110 predicts that the promised Messiah would be a descendant of King David and would be Melchizedek reincarnated. Isaiah 25:8 says awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust, for your dew (condensation) is light. Daniel wrote that many who sleep in the dust will awake -- either to a good life or to condemnation (Daniel 12:2). Jesus repeated this prediction and said that those in graves would hear his voice and come again. Those who did good would reincarnate to life and those who did evil would reincarnate to damnation (using the word anastasis, which means the coming back to life of the dead) (John 5:28-29). Malachi predicted that Elijah would come to Earth again before the "day of the Lord" (Malachi 4:5-6). An angel told Zacharias that his wife would bear a son with the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:11-19). Jesus led his disciples to see that John the Baptist was Elijah who had been foretold by Malachi (Matthew 11:7-15, 17:10-13). Jesus' story about workers hired at different times of the day but all paid the same was about reincarnation (Matthew 20:1-16). However often we come to Earth to learn the spiritual lessons we need to learn here the reward (eternal life with God and the end of our reincarnation cycle) is the same. Some learn their lessons after only a few lives. Some return in many lives. No matter how often we come or how long we stay the ultimate reward is the same. Paul expressed belief in reincarnation in Acts 23:6-8 and 24:14-16. Reincarnation was taught by St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, both of whom predated Constantine, who had the gospels harmonized in the fourth century. So you bring up a good point way 2 go, and it is one that is still debated among Christians. Thank you, again, for replying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top