If moral good was totally decided by man, it would be a fluid line that would change as society changes. There would be very little, if any, constants of morality. THe example given above of human sacrifices is an example of that.

 

Blessedly, we have the Bible as an absolute Word of God that gives us a firm, unchanging moral line.

 

The problem people have with it today is that it does not change and society changes, so they want their choices to be seen as okay and then label those who stick by the Bible's moral truths, as intolerants because they won't change from the Biblical view.

 

I agree with the absolute truth of Scripture defines morality.

 

However it is not totally simple and even scripture reveals some fluidity.

 

For example:

 

*In the OT, punishment for rebelling children is death.

*Punishment for some nations that are conquered by God's People (Hebrews) is death to all adults, children and even animals.

*Slavery is condoned in both the OT and NT.

*Divorce is condemned in both the OT and NT and yet in the Ezra (?) the returning Exiles are told to "put away" their foreign wives.

*The NT reminds us that we are not to kill (just as the 10 Commandments did) or even have such thoughts (See Matthew 5 ?), but in Psalm 137 the Psalmist exalts the destruction of the babies of Babylon having their heads dashed against the rock.

 

 

I would say that Scripture's moral absolutes, interpreted into action by the aid of the Holy Spirit, is our definition. But there is more Biblical ambiguity than is often let on.

 

BTW, good to hear from you again LBBC.

Historically hasn't that sort of happened though? Morals have really changed through out the years. For instance, sexual "morality" has changed even in this century. It was once moral in most parts of the world to have slaves.

 

As for the second part, read the Old Testament and then read the New. Alot of so-called morals change there too. I don't see how that argument holds any substance.

 

Morals are subjective, but basic morals are determined by the majority of the people and I would say probably always have been.

 

I agree with the absolute truth of Scripture defines morality.

 

However it is not totally simple and even scripture reveals some fluidity.

 

For example:

 

*In the OT, punishment for rebelling children is death.

*Punishment for some nations that are conquered by God's People (Hebrews) is death to all adults, children and even animals.

*Slavery is condoned in both the OT and NT.

*Divorce is condemned in both the OT and NT and yet in the Ezra (?) the returning Exiles are told to "put away" their foreign wives.

*The NT reminds us that we are not to kill (just as the 10 Commandments did) or even have such thoughts (See Matthew 5 ?), but in Psalm 137 the Psalmist exalts the destruction of the babies of Babylon having their heads dashed against the rock.

 

 

I would say that Scripture's moral absolutes, interpreted into action by the aid of the Holy Spirit, is our definition. But there is more Biblical ambiguity than is often let on.

 

BTW, good to hear from you again LBBC.

 

Didn't those changes come when the Son of God appeared?

 

I would say the Bible's view will alter again when the Son of God reappears as a much different figure than he came around 2000 years ago.

 

And since the Bible is being read by sinful, non-perfect people, we are going to screw up. Look at the "man after God's own heart." He sent a person into Bible to purposely be killed so that he could have the guy's wife. THat is a pretty messed up person.

In regards to the discrepancies between the OT and NT- Jesus came and said "go and preach to all nations." In the OT, everything that was said applied strictly to the Hebrew people. Those things were said in a different place and time.

 

However, I do have a hard time reconciling that with what 5wide said in regards to moral absolutes, which I agree and believe.

Didn't those changes come when the Son of God appeared?

 

I would say the Bible's view will alter again when the Son of God reappears as a much different figure than he came around 2000 years ago.

 

And since the Bible is being read by sinful, non-perfect people, we are going to screw up. Look at the "man after God's own heart." He sent a person into Bible to purposely be killed so that he could have the guy's wife. THat is a pretty messed up person.

 

Which is why I have alot of problems with strictly getting morals from the Bible, or them all coming from the Bible. Mainly because people pick and choose what to keep from the Old Testament and what not to keep. To me things such as slavery, or the anti-homosexual things in the bible are a reflection of the times in which they were written. I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person.

 

Like I said, the evolution of peoples morals (or how they go about with free will) determines what is socially right and wrong.

Which is why I have alot of problems with strictly getting morals from the Bible, or them all coming from the Bible. Mainly because people pick and choose what to keep from the Old Testament and what not to keep. To me things such as slavery, or the anti-homosexual things in the bible are a reflection of the times in which they were written. I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person.

 

Like I said, the evolution of peoples morals (or how they go about with free will) determines what is socially right and wrong.

For the sake of clarity, everything that God said in the OT was specifically to the Hebrew people, but everything that Jesus was to all nations.

 

But I have a hard time reconciling that with moral absolutism.

Which is why I have alot of problems with strictly getting morals from the Bible, or them all coming from the Bible. Mainly because people pick and choose what to keep from the Old Testament and what not to keep. To me things such as slavery, or the anti-homosexual things in the bible are a reflection of the times in which they were written. I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person.

 

Like I said, the evolution of peoples morals (or how they go about with free will) determines what is socially right and wrong.

 

Which would mean that there are no absolute morals? And we have seen that in the past 100 years.

 

In Germany, it became socially acceptable to try and wipe out the Jewish people. ANd so morally, that was acceptable.

 

In this country it was morally acceptable to treat blacks as property and hold them into slavery.

 

If there is NOT an absolute truth of morality as the Bible, than there are NO absolute morals and truth because man will change it as they see fit and what makes them feel good.

 

It makes us feel good to have sex with the same gender than it becomes acceptable because it is all about us as individuals and what we want and not what is an absolute truth of morality.

Like I said morals change over time. Also from place to place. They are a product of human evolution and the environment. Morals help us as individuals decide what to do with our free will.

Like I said morals change over time. Also from place to place. They are a product of human evolution and the environment. Morals help us as individuals decide what to do with our free will.

 

Not if we are talking about free will in context of the Bible. The Bible helps us decide to do what we want with our free will if we want to see Heaven.

 

When we get into trouble is when we put the wills of man into the equation.

Like I said morals change over time. Also from place to place. They are a product of human evolution and the environment. Morals help us as individuals decide what to do with our free will.

 

Your position, without clarification, is inconsistent.

 

How can you say that "I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person." This infers that owning another person is wrong. However, if morals are no more than a product of the current setting, than how can you say something is wrong? If morality is simply a function of a culture then it may be wrong in your culture, but morally fine in another.

 

You can't say that morality changes over time, yet also say that God could never condone slavery because it is wrong. That statement is a moral absolute, which you have established does not exist.

Not if we are talking about free will in context of the Bible. The Bible helps us decide to do what we want with our free will if we want to see Heaven.

 

When we get into trouble is when we put the wills of man into the equation.

 

Good point. And, that was the premise of the thread to begin with.

 

I don't mind going in a different direction with the discussion...or discussing them both. But, we should make sure we're distinguishing between the two.

Your position, without clarification, is inconsistent.

 

How can you say that "I do not believe that any God, would feel that a person has the right to own another person." This infers that owning another person is wrong. However, if morals are no more than a product of the current setting, than how can you say something is wrong? If morality is simply a function of a culture then it may be wrong in your culture, but morally fine in another.

 

You can't say that morality changes over time, yet also say that God could never condone slavery because it is wrong. That statement is a moral absolute, which you have established does not exist.

 

That's my point. Without an absolute moral standard, it's all subjective. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean I do. So, who is correct? Nobody. Both of us. All of us.

 

Societies morals will change if they're left to determine them on their own. God's laws do not. They provide an absolute.

I agree with the absolute truth of Scripture defines morality.

 

However it is not totally simple and even scripture reveals some fluidity.

 

For example:

 

*In the OT, punishment for rebelling children is death.

*Punishment for some nations that are conquered by God's People (Hebrews) is death to all adults, children and even animals.

*Slavery is condoned in both the OT and NT.

*Divorce is condemned in both the OT and NT and yet in the Ezra (?) the returning Exiles are told to "put away" their foreign wives.

*The NT reminds us that we are not to kill (just as the 10 Commandments did) or even have such thoughts (See Matthew 5 ?), but in Psalm 137 the Psalmist exalts the destruction of the babies of Babylon having their heads dashed against the rock.

 

 

I would say that Scripture's moral absolutes, interpreted into action by the aid of the Holy Spirit, is our definition. But there is more Biblical ambiguity than is often let on.

 

BTW, good to hear from you again LBBC.

 

Is there a distinction to be made between morals and punishment (or judgement)?

 

For example, children rebelling is wrong. Whether the punishment is death, a spanking or timeout, doesn't change the fact that morally it's wrong for a child to rebel.

Didn't those changes come when the Son of God appeared?

 

I would say the Bible's view will alter again when the Son of God reappears as a much different figure than he came around 2000 years ago.

 

And since the Bible is being read by sinful, non-perfect people, we are going to screw up. Look at the "man after God's own heart." He sent a person into Bible to purposely be killed so that he could have the guy's wife. THat is a pretty messed up person.

 

I agree with your response. However some of that (slavery) is also condoned in the New Testament (See Ephesians, Colossians, and indirectly Philemon).

 

I think your last paragraph is dead on. It's interesting that you mention David. I preached on the lectionary text in Samuel the last 2 Sundays (Anointing as King and the Goliath saga). I pointed out Sunday that it is when David a young man that he is described as "one after God's own heart." In his youth he trusts God because he is so young, weak and unable without God's help to accomplish things.

 

But then I believe he got to trust his own skill, leadership, ability, cunning and charisma more than God and that's when his adult world fell apart. There's quite a sermon in there for anyone.

That's my point. Without an absolute moral standard, it's all subjective. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean I do. So, who is correct? Nobody. Both of us. All of us.

 

Societies morals will change if they're left to determine them on their own. God's laws do not. They provide an absolute.

 

:ylsuper:

I agree with your response. However some of that (slavery) is also condoned in the New Testament (See Ephesians, Colossians, and indirectly Philemon).

 

I think your last paragraph is dead on. It's interesting that you mention David. I preached on the lectionary text in Samuel the last 2 Sundays (Anointing as King and the Goliath saga). I pointed out Sunday that it is when David a young man that he is described as "one after God's own heart." In his youth he trusts God because he is so young, weak and unable without God's help to accomplish things.

 

But then I believe he got to trust his own skill, leadership, ability, cunning and charisma more than God and that's when his adult world fell apart. There's quite a sermon in there for anyone.

 

I have always found it interesting that David is held up as one of the heroes of the Bible but yet he did some horrible things.

 

And I agree with your implication that when God is the decision making force in our lives, things go well.

When we replace God with our self-confidence in our abilities, things go wrong.