Comments on: What’s The Deal With “Absolute” Morality? http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/ Atheism & Religious Skepticism Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:11:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-16019 James Tracy Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:06:48 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-16019 If I have sinned and deserve some kind of punishment for that sinning, isn't it a far nobler act to accept that punishment rather than pass it off to someone who is innocent? If I have sinned and deserve some kind of punishment for that sinning, isn't it a far nobler act to accept that punishment rather than pass it off to someone who is innocent?

]]> By: Little Bit Farm http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-16010 Little Bit Farm Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:14:43 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-16010 "He seems to be saying that the thought is as bad as the action. And because in this case the thought (lust) is an intrinsic part of our nature (which God allegedly gave us!), he seems to be saying we are all bad by nature no matter what we do. If that’s true, it doesn’t matter if we get an “absolute” moral guide or not. We’re inherently immoral sinners, none of whom deserves a pardon, yet some of whom (judging from what the NT says elsewhere) may be given one anyway out of the sheer goodness of God’s heart." Loved this!!! That is EXACTLY what I, as a Christian believe, with two exceptions! Romans 5:8 - "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The first exception is that all of mankind has the opportunity to come to Christ, and receive that pardon. Only those who choose not to will not receive that pardon. John 3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. As for the second exception, God gave us physical desire. However, he did not give us lust. For lust is the desire for something that is against the laws of God. Lust, we obtained all on our own in the Garden of Eden. So, Congratulations! You understand Christianity. Now as to whether you like it, you have a choice. Little Bit Farm "He seems to be saying that the thought is as bad as the action. And because in this case the thought (lust) is an intrinsic part of our nature (which God allegedly gave us!), he seems to be saying we are all bad by nature no matter what we do. If that’s true, it doesn’t matter if we get an “absolute” moral guide or not. We’re inherently immoral sinners, none of whom deserves a pardon, yet some of whom (judging from what the NT says elsewhere) may be given one anyway out of the sheer goodness of God’s heart."

Loved this!!! That is EXACTLY what I, as a Christian believe, with two exceptions! Romans 5:8Open Link in New Window – "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The first exception is that all of mankind has the opportunity to come to Christ, and receive that pardon. Only those who choose not to will not receive that pardon. John 3Open Link in New Window:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
As for the second exception, God gave us physical desire. However, he did not give us lust. For lust is the desire for something that is against the laws of God. Lust, we obtained all on our own in the Garden of Eden.

So, Congratulations! You understand Christianity. Now as to whether you like it, you have a choice.

Little Bit Farm

]]> By: CJ Larke http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-15707 CJ Larke Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:06:25 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-15707 The theists should try some of my absolute. I am referring to the beverage. The theists should try some of my absolute. I am referring to the beverage.

]]> By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-3019 James Tracy Sun, 15 Mar 2009 03:31:45 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-3019 The traffic example isn't presented as an argument for absolute morality for the exact reason that you mentioned. That is interesting that you think of mathematics as being 'discovered'. 2+2 is defined as 4. Nobody went out into the world and discovered this fact. The traffic example isn't presented as an argument for absolute morality for the exact reason that you mentioned.

That is interesting that you think of mathematics as being 'discovered'. 2+2 is defined as 4. Nobody went out into the world and discovered this fact.

]]> By: Bartholomew Antonius http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-3014 Bartholomew Antonius Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:03:47 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-3014 First of all, your example of driving on one side of the road or another, cannot be used as an argument for Absolute Morality. Yes, I agree that society creates laws and rules and that some of these laws could have been different, however there are other truths that are absolute like mathematics. 2+2=4, that is law, it is absolute truth. The mathematicians that discovered these laws didn't invent them. They didn't sit down and say well we want two plus two to equal four therefore that is what it is going to be. No, they discovered that it was a law that wasn't made by society or the world Please visit my blog - <a href="http://thegreatfaithdebate.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://thegreatfaithdebate.blogspot.com/</a> - for more info on this topic. First of all, your example of driving on one side of the road or another, cannot be used as an argument for Absolute Morality. Yes, I agree that society creates laws and rules and that some of these laws could have been different, however there are other truths that are absolute like mathematics. 2+2=4, that is law, it is absolute truth. The mathematicians that discovered these laws didn't invent them. They didn't sit down and say well we want two plus two to equal four therefore that is what it is going to be. No, they discovered that it was a law that wasn't made by society or the world

Please visit my blog – http://thegreatfaithdebate.blogspot.com/ – for more info on this topic.

]]> By: Ian Andreas Miller http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-1625 Ian Andreas Miller Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:59:08 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-1625 "Although I’m not sure what theists mean by “absolute” morality, I assume it’s something like this: “A perfect, unchanging list of (or criteria for) right and wrong behaviors which may be used to judge the actions of all people, everywhere, at all times.” If you have a better idea of what they might mean, please let me know what it is." It seems to me that when a theist speaks of "absolute" morality, he or she is using the phrase as a harmless-sounding way of saying "the only kind of morality worth having" and "God-given morality" in order to get the atheist to accept some sort of "absolute" morality. If the atheist accepts it, then the theist can just ask "Oh yeah? Who makes the decisions?" But if the atheist does not accept it, then the theist can ask "Oh, so we just make up our own morality as we go along?" And so the theist uses implied definitions for "absolute" morality to frame the problem in such a way that the only solution is either their Deity of Choice or some other deity like it. "Although I’m not sure what theists mean by “absolute” morality, I assume it’s something like this: “A perfect, unchanging list of (or criteria for) right and wrong behaviors which may be used to judge the actions of all people, everywhere, at all times.” If you have a better idea of what they might mean, please let me know what it is."

It seems to me that when a theist speaks of "absolute" morality, he or she is using the phrase as a harmless-sounding way of saying "the only kind of morality worth having" and "God-given morality" in order to get the atheist to accept some sort of "absolute" morality. If the atheist accepts it, then the theist can just ask "Oh yeah? Who makes the decisions?" But if the atheist does not accept it, then the theist can ask "Oh, so we just make up our own morality as we go along?" And so the theist uses implied definitions for "absolute" morality to frame the problem in such a way that the only solution is either their Deity of Choice or some other deity like it.

]]> By: James Tracy http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-1621 James Tracy Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:54:23 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-1621 That is even more reason to leave "thou shalt not kill" in. The mere fact that the translation of God's commandment can be disputed makes it difficult to serve as an absolute moral code. Even if it can be agreed upon that the commandment forbids murder in particular and not killing in general, we are still left in the difficult position of determining what exactly counts as murder. The law in the United States specifies three degrees of murder and makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. The Bible is not so helpful - although in my opinion this commandment applied to fellow Jewish citizens, not people in general. As for Jesus and adultery, I don't think that AUUB is off the mark. Jesus is making the thought of committing adultery morally equivalent to actually doing it. I heartily agree with the rest of your comment. That is even more reason to leave "thou shalt not kill" in. The mere fact that the translation of God's commandment can be disputed makes it difficult to serve as an absolute moral code. Even if it can be agreed upon that the commandment forbids murder in particular and not killing in general, we are still left in the difficult position of determining what exactly counts as murder. The law in the United States specifies three degrees of murder and makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. The Bible is not so helpful – although in my opinion this commandment applied to fellow Jewish citizens, not people in general.

As for Jesus and adultery, I don't think that AUUB is off the mark. Jesus is making the thought of committing adultery morally equivalent to actually doing it.

I heartily agree with the rest of your comment.

]]> By: Wolter http://www.anatheist.net/2009/01/whats-the-deal-with-absolute-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-1620 Wolter Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:46:23 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=1123#comment-1620 You might want to take the "thou shalt not kill" part out, because the actual wording is more akin to "do not commit murder". It could be argued that it is not murder if your god orders it. Also, the whole idea in the NT is that the laws are still there, but it's god who will deal with them, so you don't have to. Of course, this is an insane policy that, if it were actually followed, would lead to anarchy. You're also off the mark with regards to thought vs action. The whole point of those episodes is to say that it is the intent more than the action itself, which brings guilt (though actions which harm others would bring guilt as well, regardless of intent, to a point). The biggest trouble brought on by biblical morality is deciding which commandments of god are to be followed and which are not. Is long hair good or bad on a man? Should women defer to their husbands even if he is in the wrong? Are homosexual acts evil? Should certain foods be avoided? Is it necessary to observe the sabbath? Is marriage sacred? Should women lead in church? Should women even be allowed to speak in church? Is slavery OK? Are mistresses (concubines) OK? You might want to take the "thou shalt not kill" part out, because the actual wording is more akin to "do not commit murder". It could be argued that it is not murder if your god orders it.

Also, the whole idea in the NT is that the laws are still there, but it's god who will deal with them, so you don't have to. Of course, this is an insane policy that, if it were actually followed, would lead to anarchy.

You're also off the mark with regards to thought vs action. The whole point of those episodes is to say that it is the intent more than the action itself, which brings guilt (though actions which harm others would bring guilt as well, regardless of intent, to a point).

The biggest trouble brought on by biblical morality is deciding which commandments of god are to be followed and which are not. Is long hair good or bad on a man? Should women defer to their husbands even if he is in the wrong? Are homosexual acts evil? Should certain foods be avoided? Is it necessary to observe the sabbath? Is marriage sacred? Should women lead in church? Should women even be allowed to speak in church? Is slavery OK? Are mistresses (concubines) OK?

]]>