Is Christianity morally absolute?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:38 pm

I have posted this to the philosophy forum and not the right and wrong forum because the latter seems to me to involve debates about whether or not a thing is right or wrong. This particular topic is one of labels and distinctions.

Is Christianity morally absolute? I understand absolute morals to mean that right and wrong is something constant and universally applicable. What I find questionable is whether that distinction can be applied when in the Old Testament and New Testament two separate sets of rules for right and wrong exist, and some laws are no longer applicable. Apart from this, the OT did not bind Gentiles to the same laws as the Jews before the coming of Christ, just as Christians are no longer bound by Jewish laws after the coming of Christ and the formation of the "new covenant".

What is more is that, even those bound by certain rules at a certain time could have those rules bent or broken if ordered to do such a thing by God. An example of this that goes both against conventional morality and God's written law is the stoning of disobedient children. I do not have the verse name and numbers, but, since this wasn't contested in the thread where it got brought up, I supposed that it was true. Other examples abound of killing justified by circumstances.

These seem to be examples of both relative morality and situational ethics. If a thing is right for one group but not for another, then it is relative. If a thing is right at one period of time and wrong at another, even if some One comes to "fulfill the law" my understanding is that it is situational.

I wish to know;

Is Christian morality absolute?

Does absolutism rule out situational ethics?

It may be that I have a misunderstanding about what is absolute here, the laws - which is the common definition - or the actual source of the laws, God with his authority.

gauthier · Post by **gauthier** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:10 am

i think this is sort of an "original intent" question. i feel inclined to say that christianity is morally absolute. this might be difficult to accept in certain scenarios. for example, if i am living in nazi germany and happen to be harboring jews in my attic, what do i tell the gestapo when they come to search my house? the bible commands that i not lie, but is giving jews over to the nazis so that they may enslave or execute them morally justifiable? i am not a christian, but i would be interested to hear what a christian would do such a case.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 10:34 pm

gauthier wrote:i think this is sort of an "original intent" question. i feel inclined to say that christianity is morally absolute.

But why? It seems to be merely because the source of the laws cannot be contradicted, and that they are applied until the source deems that they no longer suited to the situation. Thus one might say they are both situational and absolute.

this might be difficult to accept in certain scenarios. for example, if i am living in nazi germany and happen to be harboring jews in my attic, what do i tell the gestapo when they come to search my house? the bible commands that i not lie, but is giving jews over to the nazis so that they may enslave or execute them morally justifiable? i am not a christian, but i would be interested to hear what a christian would do such a case.

Yes, absolute laws are inflexible, and I believe most do not live by them- or cannot live by them. Very few people, in reality, "turn the other cheek".

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:19 pm

Gauthier Writes:

if i am living in nazi germany and happen to be harboring jews in my attic, what do i tell the gestapo when they come to search my house? the bible commands that i not lie, but is giving jews over to the nazis so that they may enslave or execute them morally justifiable? i am not a christian, but i would be interested to hear what a christian would do such a case.

I will not offend those who consider themselves Christian by calling myself Christian. I am a Christian in the Thomas Jefferson sense, for whatever that is worth.
My Zen-Buddhist Christian teachings tell me that I should remain silent, therefore not lying, and not betraying my friends. My silence may well cause me to suffer what my friends might have. I would hope that I would have the strength to live my convictions. I have on a small scale (very small).

Corvus writes:

I wish to know;

Is Christian morality absolute?

Does absolutism rule out situational ethics?

From my experience each Christian claims morality to be absolute, but in the end they each decide what the absolutes are. This of course begs the question.
“Thou shall not kill” seems simple enough until you compare notes. There must be two dozen “exceptions to the rule”. Within an adult Sunday School class of fundamentalists I have heard husband and wife disagree about what is meant by “kill” or “murder”. Very few “Christians” consider death caused by a “just war” to be murder. The OT not only condones killing, it requires it for very minor offences.
I have never been able to arrive at any conclusion except “Absolute morality is relative”. I believe I can defend this position.
I fear you were not looking for my opinion but I may get the discussion going.

Fallen Short · Post by **Fallen Short** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:42 pm

"I do not have the verse name and numbers, but, since this wasn't contested in the thread where it got brought up, I supposed that it was true. Other examples abound of killing justified by circumstances."

There is nothing circumstantial about a death sentence being right when generally it would be wrong. You are probably thinking of the commandment, "You shall not kill." The hebrew word translated into kill in english is Ratsach. This word according to Strongs Hebrew lexicon numbered 7523 for those who have them, means to kill a human, to murder, slay, committ manslaughter; destroy, crush, be crushed. The intention wasn't to communicate an immorality of taking life neccesarily but rather the unjust taking of life is absolutely wrong. The just taking of life is absolutely right. Thus taking a rebellious childs life would not fall under this commandment as it would not have been thought of as unjust or more aptly thought, murder.

Ahhh, now the long loved "If the gestapo came to my door and asked me if I had Jews in my basement, what would be the right thing to do?" Everyone gets confused between what we believe is right and what we would actually do. In application, I garauntee, I am going to tell them no if I do have them. However, I am a deontologist. I believe lying is always wrong all the time. I believe the moraly correct thing in this case would still to tell them yes. That's just not what I would do.

"...I should remain silent, therefore not lying, and not betraying my friends."

DAFT! Where were YOU when my philos. teacher was asking me this same question? That is a really good responce. He may not believe you but he would see how this is a moraly superior responce. You get a gold star.

"“Absolute morality is relative” This is self-defeating and thus logically incoherent. The relativity you ascribe to is based on an absolute statement
and built from your experience of people. People can disagree on what absolute truth is without effecting what absolute truth is. The requirments for truth to be absolute is for truth to always be right. What is not required
for this is for even a single person to know it. Absolute truth is not hinged upon any acknowledgment of the truth.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:40 pm

So there is an absolute Truth, but it is not knowable?
That is to say, many people think they know it, but are mistaken?

Fallen Short · Post by **Fallen Short** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:01 pm

This is too much fun. BehereNow, you have come up into a branch topic perhaps ought to be brought up as to the philosophical position of skepticism. That's one of my favorite topics because no matter how I have thought it through, so far, I am atleast a partial skeptic.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:18 am

Fallen Short wrote:"I do not have the verse name and numbers, but, since this wasn't contested in the thread where it got brought up, I supposed that it was true. Other examples abound of killing justified by circumstances."

There is nothing circumstantial about a death sentence being right when generally it would be wrong. You are probably thinking of the commandment, "You shall not kill." The hebrew word translated into kill in english is Ratsach. This word according to Strongs Hebrew lexicon numbered 7523 for those who have them, means to kill a human, to murder, slay, committ manslaughter; destroy, crush, be crushed. The intention wasn't to communicate an immorality of taking life neccesarily but rather the unjust taking of life is absolutely wrong. The just taking of life is absolutely right. Thus taking a rebellious childs life would not fall under this commandment as it would not have been thought of as unjust or more aptly thought, murder.

I have always understood that thou shalt not kill is properly translated as thou shalt not murder. I mentioned the example because, to modern morality, to take the life of a children is considered murder because they have not reached the level of maturity necessary to be accountable for their own actions. Some Christians even believe that children get an instant ticket to heaven if killed, because of an age of accountability. But even if we are to take this completely out of the equation, this still leaves the question - if at one time it is a sin to do one thing, like eat pork or be cleanshaven, and at another time it is not, then the law is contingent on situations. There are still two covenants - two testaments - which can't both be binding at the same time. Either the Jews are sent to hell for denying the messiah and Christians rejoice and go to heaven, or Jews are the chosen people, and Christians will go to hell for worshipping a prophet as a son of God.

Ahhh, now the long loved "If the gestapo came to my door and asked me if I had Jews in my basement, what would be the right thing to do?" Everyone gets confused between what we believe is right and what we would actually do. In application, I garauntee, I am going to tell them no if I do have them. However, I am a deontologist. I believe lying is always wrong all the time. I believe the moraly correct thing in this case would still to tell them yes. That's just not what I would do.

If the morally correct thing to do is to tell them "yes", then for what reason would you tell them "no"? I don't understand this, perhaps because I believe morality to be abstract laws developed for the benefit of humans, and not god.

"“Absolute morality is relative” This is self-defeating and thus logically incoherent. The relativity you ascribe to is based on an absolute statement
and built from your experience of people.

Your conclusion does not follow. What is it about claiming morality is relative that prevents someone from making absolute statements? Your answer is the stock response to "everything is relative" or "truth is relative" where it does make sense, but when we are talking about a specific thing like morality, it does not apply.

People can disagree on what absolute truth is without effecting what absolute truth is. The requirments for truth to be absolute is for truth to always be right. What is not required
for this is for even a single person to know it. Absolute truth is not hinged upon any acknowledgment of the truth.

But we are not discussing absolute truth, we are discussing absolute morality, which, though related, is a different topic. We have some indication of what is right and wrong through what is revealed to us in the bible.

Edits: Finetuning.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:19 am

Skeptic?
I believe in Absolute Morals. I just believe they are relative.
Is that a skeptical belief?

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:23 am

Beherenow wrote:I believe in Absolute Morals. I just believe they are relative.

Would you please explain how absolute morals can be relative.