toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours

[Nang]

So by saying that Abraham, Rehab, and the Egyptian midwives did not sin by lying, I am allegedly giving excuse to the devil and all liars? :squint:

Lying comes only from the devil; the father of lies.

Edited to add:

Lying and falsehood is directly linked to idolatry in the Bible. To lie, is to exhibit bondage to the mastery of the devil, and to worship him rather than Creator God.

Thus, Godly admonition against a lying spirit is directly covered in the first three commandments of the Decalogue.

 

[elohiym]

Lying comes only from the devil; the father of lies.

The devil had the Egyptian midwives lie to save the Hebrew babies, and then God rewarded the midwives for obeying the devil? :squint:

You're a lost cause, Nang. :wave2:

 

[Nang]

The devil had the Egyptian midwives lie to save the Hebrew babies, and then God rewarded the midwives for obeying the devil? :squint:

You're a lost cause, Nang. :wave2:

God never rewards creaturely lying or human service given to Satan. However, God's grace overcomes even such abominations, solely to bring glory to His Name.

 

[Nang]

The devil had the Egyptian midwives lie to save the Hebrew babies, and then God rewarded the midwives for obeying the devil? :squint:

I will add this observation, and then retire for the night . . .

According to you, God supposedly is the cause fpr the lying of the midwives (and Rahab), which is resorting to pure fatalism and hyper-determinism, which Calvinists are constantly (and wrongfully) being accused of teaching.

God does not make any person sin.

Calvinists do not teach that God causes anyone to lie or worship Satan or spread falsehoods and false witness of any kind.

You are completely ignoring and discounting human responsibility and accountability in these historical Scriptural accounts.

Calvinists do not go so far, as you are reaching. Calvinists retain the sound teaching of human accountability for responsibly serving God according to Spirit and truth, under God's moral laws.

You are saying God breaches His own holiness and eternal Law by causing men and women to commit falsehoods and lies.

Such teaching is nothing short of blasphemy of the highest kind.

Nang

 

[The Graphite]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving to Elohiym again."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Morality requires something that says we "ought" to do this or "ought not" to do that. This "oughtness" cannot be derived from something impersonal, like the impersonal machinations of the universe, for no impersonal structure can create obligation. Obligatory moral standards presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose an absolute moral personality, that is, God Almighty.

Truly objective moral values require something personal that defines what is good and what is not good and necessarily implies an accountability to one's actions. Moral accountability, if there is no God, merely implies morality become vain, since our fate is irrelevant to moral behavior.

Now the non-believer will counter that the theist believes either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good. They will then claim that the first alternative is unacceptable, since it makes what is good or evil an arbitrary distinction, and the second alternative implies that the good is independent of God. Hence, they will claim moral values cannot depend on God, but instead something outside of God.

Actually this is a false dilemma. God wills something because He is good. God’s nature determines what is good, hence the good is not independent of God, and His nature necessarily expresses itself toward us in the form of His commandments such that they are not arbitrary.

AMR

 

[Delmar]

Lying comes only from the devil; the father of lies.

Edited to add:

Lying and falsehood is directly linked to idolatry in the Bible. To lie, is to exhibit bondage to the mastery of the devil, and to worship him rather than Creator God.

Thus, Godly admonition against a lying spirit is directly covered in the first three commandments of the Decalogue.

How you can come to the conclusion that it could ever be evil, to do the right thing, is beyond me! Your veiw of God is morally bankrupt!

 

[Delmar]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving to Elohiym again."

I got him!

 

[Gurucam]

And what is the source of the construct that tells us molesting a child is absolutely wrong?

Is there any reason why this (like all other ideas of right and wrong) cannot be a human perception?

God seem more tolerant and more flexible. He will that His son subject Himself to persecution, torture and tortuous death on earth.

You ask if molesting a child is absolutely wrong?

It seems that under the natural order of this some will be sent to Hell for all eternity isn't that worse.

 

[Tico]

Society to a degree...

Though there is a degree of positive feedback for moral 'correctness'. If a society has horrible moral standards the consequences will be horrible in turn and it'll be a less stable society, to revert to a cliche look at Nazi-Germany.

Fill in the blank. You say "society to a degree". What else out there would get to decide if the consequences are desirable? "To a degree" doesn't mean completely.

You inherently know that a 48 year old man raping an 8 year old girl is wicked, but you also know that you can't leave it up to society because you get the Nazis or worse every so often.

Furthermore you pass judgment by referring to horrible moral standards and horrible consequences. How can you know if they are horrible or not if the society decided that both the morality and the consequences are perfectly fine with them?

 

[bybee]

Excellent!

Excellent!

Morality requires something that says we "ought" to do this or "ought not" to do that. This "oughtness" cannot be derived from something impersonal, like the impersonal machinations of the universe, for no impersonal structure can create obligation. Obligatory moral standards presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose an absolute moral personality, that is, God Almighty.

Truly objective moral values require something personal that defines what is good and what is not good and necessarily implies an accountability to one's actions. Moral accountability, if there is no God, merely implies morality become vain, since our fate is irrelevant to moral behavior.

Now the non-believer will counter that the theist believes either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good. They will then claim that the first alternative is unacceptable, since it makes what is good or evil an arbitrary distinction, and the second alternative implies that the good is independent of God. Hence, they will claim moral values cannot depend on God, but instead something outside of God.

Actually this is a false dilemma. God wills something because He is good. God’s nature determines what is good, hence the good is not independent of God, and His nature necessarily expresses itself toward us in the form of His commandments such that they are not arbitrary.

AMR

You have said the truth! peace, bybee

 

[Delmar]

Why would an agent of God require evil to save him?

The point of the story is that what she did was right.

Doesn't God equip the called? Doesn't He provide all our need? Isn't He perfectly capable of saving without your telling a lie? How in the world do you think that God would require you to break a commandment in His service??? :kookoo:

If a man brake in to your home to murder your child, a child that you happened to know was playing at the neighbors, it would not be a sin for you to say that you don't know where that child is. It would in fact be evil for you to tell the man your child is next door, expecting God to intervene.

 

[4string]

The point of the story is that what she did was right.If a man brake in to your home to murder your child, a child that you happened to know was playing at the neighbors, it would not be a sin for you to say that you don't know where that child is. It would in fact be evil for you to tell the man your child is next door, expecting God to intervene.

I think the more moral thing here (assuming lying to be evil that is) would be to tell the man you refuse to tell him where your son/daughter is...

My question would be what the appropriate level of force, if any, for a moral man (by Knight/nicholsmom's standards) is to stop the would be child killer?

 

[Gurucam]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post

Truly objective moral values require something personal that defines what is good and what is not good and necessarily implies an accountability to one's actions. Moral accountability, if there is no God, merely implies morality become vain, since our fate is irrelevant to moral behavior.

Response to the above by Bybee:

You have said the truth! peace, bybee

Your argument '. . . if there is no God, merely implies morality become vain . . .' seems itself vain.

It seem that it is not God that ensures that one uphold moral ideals, it is the fear of being punished by God. The law is one's schoolmaster. Also a country's judicial system operates the same way.

Indeed not everyone believe or see God as standing with a big stick watching over them.

And if so then the workings of cause and effect (like what goes around comes around) seem be just as effective in ensuring that moral ideals are upheld.

You mention faith. The promise that faith hold is enlightenment and entry into God's kingdom of heaven on earth.

And faith seem to hinge on hearing the word of God and grace of God and not upholding laws.

Upholding laws seem to be simply a devise (divinely given) for guiding and managing the unaware until they become spiritually aware (through grace of God) and onto Christ.

Indeed the law is one's schoolmaster who enforces laws and dispenses punishment for transgressors of laws. However Paul confirmed that if there was a law given that could give life, righteousness would have been by law but there is none. Not even the Ten Commandments. So now righteousness without any law is given.

Clearly then, there is no path to life (salvation and deliverance) or righteousness through laws. What then are the laws, the Ten Commandments and the love Commandments, if not replaceable by the judicial laws of the land? ​

Therefore your linking of faith to law (moral ideals) seems misplaced. Seems that faith is actually 'faith in the unseen'. And it is through hearing and reading of miracles that one's faith in and awareness of, unseen things is awaken. And therein God is discerned through His Spirit. However laws are firmly rooted in 'the seen'. The seen is the physical and God cannot be discerned or known there.

When one has faith, faith works for one. Indeed one can come under grace of God. And then how can one who is right (even a small child) come onto something that is not justly their to go through?

One must aspire to deliver based on Truth.​

 

[bybee]

Intruder

Intruder

The point of the story is that what she did was right.If a man brake in to your home to murder your child, a child that you happened to know was playing at the neighbors, it would not be a sin for you to say that you don't know where that child is. It would in fact be evil for you to tell the man your child is next door, expecting God to intervene.

If a man broke into my home, he is an unwelcome intruder. He has broken the law. I owe him nothing! His questions are irrelevant! I would call 911 if I could. I would not answer any questions that a criminal in my home posed to me. My moral obligation is to protect the vulnerable and the weak. In the face of imminent danger I would do what ever it takes to protect my children and your children too. Foundation truth, that which is evil is to be fought with every weapon and every tool within our arsenal. Sometimes fire must be fought with fire. I would not do anything which would put my immortal soul in jeopardy. Luckily, I believe myself to dwell in the Hands of a loving God. peace, bybee

 

[rab7106]

I wouldn't call it "wrong" (or "right" for that matter) - only acknowledge that the event occured and evalutate it's impact on myself: if that girl was a part of my life (related to a close friend or relative of mine), her attacker will soon find me breathing down his neck with every gun and blade I can get my hands on.

And if that girl was NOT a part of your life, you'd let the rapist live and hope that tomorrow he doesn't find YOUR daughter? But if he does, your daughter is scarred for life because you couldn't tell right from wrong?

 

[Lighthouse]

I think the deeper question is if morality is absolute apart from God?

 

[bybee]

Anarchy

Anarchy

And if that girl was NOT a part of your life, you'd let the rapist live and hope that tomorrow he doesn't find YOUR daughter? But if he does, your daughter is scarred for life because you couldn't tell right from wrong?

It would appear that "Punisher" is advocating anarchy. He will carry out his own form of justice regardless of the laws of the community. We know where this will lead. The total breakdown of the community ensues whenever vigilante justice is employed. In community, we agree that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated and are punishable by law. This not to deny that certain universal truthes may cause us to defy man-made law. peace, bybee

 

[Gurucam]

You inherently know that a 48 year old man raping an 8 year old girl is wicked, but you also know that you can't leave it up to society because you get the Nazis or worse every so often.

Let us face it, seems that there could be only two reason why that would happen.

The child was not under grace of God (i.e. not under God's protection) or the child was under grace of God and it came to her under grace of God (i.e. under the will of God).

How else?

It is either that God is in control or He is not in control.

If one is under grace, God is in control of one's life. If one is not under grace, then God is not in control and then, that bad entity is in control of one's life.

Seem that one must first seek the kingdom of God, that is one must come under grace of God first thing. And this seems to be applicable also to children.

Indeed it seems that even children must come under grace of God before they are protected by God. Until then, it seem clear that they are just as vulnerable and susceptible as adults. Until then, it seems that, they are waking on their own and God can do nothing for them.

Paul did confirm that humans can bring forth either 'children of the flesh' or 'children of God'. Clearly such a child had to have been a 'child of the flesh' and therefore outside the protection of God. However such a child should have been, under the protection of man.

One under grace of God is His child. Can you see God letting a 48 year old or any one, rape a His child, unless it is His will that that happen? God does not sleep or look the other way when it comes to His children. Therefore if such a thing happens to a child and it was not the will of God, then that child cannot be a 'child of God'. The other type of child is a 'child of the flesh'. Then that child must have been a 'child of the flesh' and therefore outside the protection of God and should have been under the protection of man.

If one bring forth 'children of the flesh' then be prepared to look after them at every turn. However if one bring forth 'children of God' then God will look after them at every turn. If one ignores Paul on marriages and fruits of marriages, in Romans: 7 verses: 1 to 6 it is at one's own peril.​

 

[4string]

Let us face it, seems that there could be only two reason why that would happen.

The child was not under grace of God (i.e. not under God's protection) or the child was under grace of God and it came to her under grace of God (i.e. under the will of God).

How else?

It is either that God is in control or He is not in control.

If one is under grace, God is in control of one's life. If one is not under grace, then God is not in control and then, that bad entity is in control of one's life.

Seem that one must first seek the kingdom of God, that is one must come under grace of God first thing. And this seems to be applicable also to children.

Indeed it seems that even child must come under grace of God before they are protected by God. Until then, it seem clear that they are just as vulnerable and susceptible as adults. Until then it seems that, they are waking on their own and God can do nothing for them.

So you're saying bad things don't happen to good people? Bad things only happen to those who aren't under God's grace?