Skepticbud challenges Christians on biblical "absolute" morality

[skepticbud]

It's real easy.

I claim that ALL moral beliefs are relative, because every moral precept I have ever heard of or read, had an exception which was known to occur in real life.

Therefore I have a question for any and all Christians who are bold enough to dare into this trouble-spot:

What moral command in the bible, which comes from god, is a moral absolute?

You can recite many if you wish, but the debate will be more focused if you pick just one. Privately email each other if you want, I guarantee you that every command of god you can possibly find in the bible, has an exception that is known to occur in real life, wherein god thinks it is allowable to disobey it.

give it your best shot!

let me guess...."thou shalt not committ adultery", has no divinely allowed exceptions, eh?

[DBoone]

Matt 22:

[35] And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him.
[36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

[skepticbud]

Yesterday @ 07:19 PM post located here
DBoone:

Matt 22:

[35] And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him.
[36] "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
[40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

There are exceptions to loving god will all your heart, mind, soul and strength.

Consider an old man with alzheimer's disease. If he forgets god, or through senility grows less and less aware of god, does god just send him to hell because of this failure to love god with his whole heart and mind and soul? probably not.

Consider a 13 year old girl that has just been gang-raped and strangled but escaped alive, and has since retreated into deep depression, fearing everybody and requiring psychiatric services to begin the mental healing process.

Does god really expect her to love him with all her heart and mind, in spite of the clear crippling handicapp her mind is currently experiencing? Probably not.

So you have two exceptions to "love god with your whole heart and mind". God doesn't require this of people who are incapable of doing it, and if you say a gang-raped 13 year old girl is still capable of loving god with all her heart mind, soul and strength, you really need to go get gang-raped.

And for any formerly gang-raped readers who will insist their ordeal only brought them closer to god, how about other little girls that don't have your exact mind-set, or schooling, or the same parents or influences as you? And is it really foolish to suppose a little girl who is gang-raped just might not have the ability to see god's higher purpose while her body is being violated?

As for love your neighbor as yourself, god told the israelites to never seek the peace or welfare of an Ammonite or Moabite in Deuteronomy 23:6.

Can you can still "love" a person when you seek neither their peace nor their welfare?

yeah, "I don't care if you starve, have a place to live, or have clothes to wear, or if you are being hunted by gangs, but by golly, i sure love ya."

Not a chance. You lose.

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 12:57 AM post located here
skepticbud:

Not a chance. You lose.

I'm afraid anyone who challenges you will arrive at this conclusion...from your relative perspective, that is.



Honestly though, do you really expect anyone to change your mind about this, or to actually, in your opinion, solve the challenge?

~Matt

[apologetics]

I'd love to see how skepticbud would respond to his house being broken into and all his possessions stolen. Would he call the police to report this "wrong" or would he simply sit by and realize that the burglar must have been a moral relativist like himself?

Moral relativism is defensible.....until the wrong is committed to you!

Although the answer to the first post should have been example enough as to the futility of this argument with Bud, I'll give it a whack (since I cannot WAIT to see his response to this). Now, I will preface this by acknowledging (and I'm sure that this is what Bud will use as the fire escape to salvage what he has already claimed as complete victory) that this is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but it is an obvious off-shoot of fornication and a definite violation of the command to love your neighbor....

RAPE? What is the exception that makes this act moral?

This should prove illuminating as to the activity that occurs within the dark recesses of Bud's brain.......

[apologetics]

Just after writing the above post, I came upon an entire thread started by Bud about God's approval of rape!




The most ironic thing about this is that a moral relavist is attempting to point to something that is apparently morally wrong! If ALL moral beliefs are morally relative, then Bud, how can rape be any different?

Am I the only one to catch the irony?

I simply can't wait to see Bud's response to this one!

[skepticbud]

Today @ 06:20 AM post located here
apologetics:

I'd love to see how skepticbud would respond to his house being broken into and all his possessions stolen. Would he call the police to report this "wrong" or would he simply sit by and realize that the burglar must have been a moral relativist like himself?

I personally feel that depriving others of their property for reasons other than life and death situations are wrong, because I grew up in that kind of society. Things haven't changed much, so the police, who enforce the law, happen to agree, so I can count on them to help me obey my own personal subjective belief that says robbers should go to jail. You entertain the delusion that because my morals and the robber's morals are equally relative, I have no right to assert my personal beliefs and seek a redress when they are violated. That doesn't follow logically. I can say the robber is wrong because I am in the safety of millions of people in my state who agree with me. Doesn't matter if robbery isn't absolutely wrong; if you wanna rob, you better not do it in our state.

Moral relativism is defensible.....until the wrong is committed to you!

No, it's also defensible in that instance. When i've got the entire state legislature behind me in my opinion that robbery is wrong, it really doesn't matter at that point if it's absolutely wrong or not.

Let's make it even harder on me. Suppose I live on a planet where the law says you must steal at least once a day, and I am arrested for refusing to steal. Now the law on that planet was enacted by 10 million people in unanimous vote. Does it matter any more whether my refusal to steal was absolutely wrong? Does it matter whether my choice to refrain from stealing was absolutely right or wrong? nope. I trespassed a law, I go to jail.
You dont' like the law, find yourself 10,000,001 people to support you and you'll repeal the old law and replace it with whichever one you wish. It's called "by the people for the people" and the only way to control large masses of people is majority vote.

Although the answer to the first post should have been example enough as to the futility of this argument with Bud, I'll give it a whack (since I cannot WAIT to see his response to this). Now, I will preface this by acknowledging (and I'm sure that this is what Bud will use as the fire escape to salvage what he has already claimed as complete victory) that this is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but it is an obvious off-shoot of fornication and a definite violation of the command to love your neighbor....

wellll, I DID ask for one from the bible since Christians find that source of morals to be the last word in all moral arguments, but but but well alrighty then.....

RAPE? What is the exception that makes this act moral?

When a crazy takes you hostage, locks you up in a basement with a woman and says he will kill both your families if you don't rape her AHHHHh!

But seriously (and don't think your quiet perfect little state-side life must mean my above scenario has never happened), let me remind you first that i said REAL LIFE will always contain an exception to any moral you can think of.

Therefore what REAL LIFE circumstance, constitutes an exception to the moral "do not rape?"

10. "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,
11. and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself,
12. then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails.
13. "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife." (Deuteronomy 21:10-13, NASB)

The only people in the world who see the woman's voluntary consent being an implied condition of the marriage are those who are under the delusion that a kidnapped woman would ever desire to and thus consent to marriage with a man from the mob that had just killed off her family and kidnapped her, and forced her to listen to religious cries of victory among her captors who serve a god she doesn't know.

Numbers 31 is an example of exactly all that.

It is justifiable to rape a woman when you are an ancient Israelite who just kidnapped her and killed her family because your leader said "god told us to go kill them!"

The only way you get the woman's consent being a condition of the marriage (so that it's not rape) is by failing to notice how utterly shocked and disgusted she would be with the exact men who wish to marry her, because they just kidnapped her and killed her family off.

It gets worse. if Deuteronomy 21 actually specifically stated anywhere that her consent was indeed a condition to the marriage, that STILL wouldn't mean rape hadn't occured, because in this case, a woman who has just been through the most devastating mindless hell one can imagine, now consents to be married to one of the mob that just brutalized her whole life and changed it forever? Does that sound like true "consent" to you?
Can anybody say "mentally unstable"?

This should prove illuminating as to the activity that occurs within the dark recesses of Bud's brain....... [/QUOTE]

It might be dark there, but it's daylight compared to the disgusting acts of bloodthirsty sadism your typical ancient mediterainian god supposedly commanded.

And if you never heard those biblical stories before, and then you found them in an archaeological dig at an ancient Assyrian site, you would agree with me that those ancient people were disgusting superstutious and gullible to the extreme.

But no, it's "in the bible" so it MUST be true, eh?

[skepticbud]

Today @ 06:33 AM post located here
apologetics:

The most ironic thing about this is that a moral relavist is attempting to point to something that is apparently morally wrong! If ALL moral beliefs are morally relative, then Bud, how can rape be any different?

No problem! I personally believe rape is relatively wrong, because there is no provable solid foundation of moral precepts to which i can compare rape and thus declare it absolutely wrong.

you cannot call something absolutely wrong without an absolute standard; meaning, a PROVEN absolute standard.

[Solly]

Scepticbud: I claim that ALL moral beliefs are relative, because every moral precept I have ever heard of or read, had an exception which was known to occur in real life.

Response 1: There are exceptions to loving god will all your heart, mind, soul and strength.
Consider an old man with alzheimer's disease. If he forgets god, or through senility grows less and less aware of god, does god just send him to hell because of this failure to love god with his whole heart and mind and soul? probably not. etc.

This does not disprove the fact that there are moral absolutes, nor that the example provided by DBoone is not a moral absolute; it just points out that someone has a problem living it out at a certain time. You misunderstand Christianity if you think someone goes to hell on the basis of the examples you have given. For the Christian, God's mercy is shown in forgiving their sins, because we are not perfect. For the nonChristian, they were going there anyway; but the moral absolutes are still there, and God will judge all siners on the basis of those absolutes, which are based on his own righteous judgment.

Response 2: When I've got the entire state legislature behind me in my opinion that robbery is wrong, it really doesn't matter at that point if it's absolutely wrong or not.
Let's make it even harder on me. Suppose I live on a planet where the law says you must steal at least once a day, and I am arrested for refusing to steal. Now the law on that planet was enacted by 10 million people in unanimous vote. Does it matter any more whether my refusal to steal was absolutely wrong? Does it matter whether my choice to refrain from stealing was absolutely right or wrong? nope. I trespassed a law, I go to jail.
You dont' like the law, find yourself 10,000,001 people to support you and you'll repeal the old law and replace it with whichever one you wish. It's called "by the people for the people" and the only way to control large masses of people is majority vote.

In the relative context of the society in which you live, or your "thought experiment" person, said laws are absolute. But that does not make them right absolutely. Why not? Because many appeal to a higher notion of "right and wrong", "good and evil". For the Christian that is God. For the Objectivist that is Human Nature, for the Liberal Humanist, human rights. Without it, you merely have "good and bad" not "good and evil". If "democratic whim" is the only basis upon which laws and morals are decided, then you have no defence as and when the fundie Christians/Islamists take over your society and decree death for all sceptics.

I think people like Saddam, Stalin, Mao etc controlled large masses of people without "democratic whim", and promulgated standards of absolutivity quite ably. But that did not make them right. Would you have opposed them, or gone along with the prevailing norms? Would you have spied on your family, or worked underground for liberation?

Of course, there is no ultimate human argument against your Will to Power view, any more than there is against Solipsism. You must wait for Judgment Day for that.

---
Edit: and while I think about it, it was the "majority" opinion of Adam and Eve and the Serpent, vs God, that got us into this mess in the first place. Bad old God for not going with the relative majority flow!!

[skepticbud]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here
Solly:

This does not disprove the fact that there are moral absolutes, nor that the example provided by DBoone is not a moral absolute; it just points out that someone has a problem living it out at a certain time.

But "Absolute Moral" means "no justificaton for disobeying this rule at any time in any circumstance"

So do you think there is ever justification for refusing to love god?

If so, then logically you don't think that moral is absolute.

If not, then you must deal with my example about old people who must face the inflexible absolute god of all absolute morals, who doesn't approve of any disobedience to any of his absolute morals at any time. It doesn't matter whether he sends them to hell or heaven. The point is, the absolute moral that guy gave me cannot be absolute, because it is absurd to think that god would not make exceptions for old people that are slowly losing their abilities to think. So there ARE exceptions to loving god with all your heart. It's ok if you don't, and you are an old person who is losing your mind.

If "democratic whim" is the only basis upon which laws and morals are decided, then you have no defence as and when the fundie Christians/Islamists take over your society and decree death for all sceptics.

That's exactly right. So I get involved in legislative activities.

I think people like Saddam, Stalin, Mao etc controlled large masses of people without "democratic whim", and promulgated standards of absolutivity quite ably. But that did not make them right. Would you have opposed them, or gone along with the prevailing norms? Would you have spied on your family, or worked underground for liberation?

Because I was born and raised in America, I carry with me the standard american opinion that sadaam is trash. I suppose if I had been born and raised in Iraq, I would possibly think differently.

Of course, there is no ultimate human argument against your Will to Power view, any more than there is against Solipsism. You must wait for Judgment Day for that.

Your theory of judgement day doesnt' qualify as serious material in this debate, because it is not falsifiable; i.e., there is no evidence that would convince that the day of judgement will never arrive. If you are exhumed and reanimated in the year 8,941 AD and you discover judgement day hasn't happened yet, that's ok, god's word is sure, no matter how convincing worldly proofs look, right?

[Solly]

Today @ 11:49 AM post located here
skepticbud:
But "Absolute Moral" means "no justificaton for disobeying this rule at any time in any circumstance"

So do you think there is ever justification for refusing to love god?

No, there is no justification.

If not, then you must deal with my example about old people who must face the inflexible absolute god of all absolute morals, who doesn't approve of any disobedience to any of his absolute morals at any time.

I don't actually have to accept your portrayal of my God, and the views you derive from said portrayal. That is the Sophists trick, of which you are a clever exponent.
However, since IMHO the end game of your argument is only argument and not growth in human knowledge and understanding, then I don't have to follow that line of reasoning, no matter how much you may claim I am avoiding the issue.

It doesn't matter whether he sends them to hell or heaven. The point is, the absolute moral that guy gave me cannot be absolute, because it is absurd to think that god would not make exceptions for old people that are slowly losing their abilities to think. So there ARE exceptions to loving god with all your heart. It's ok if you don't, and you are an old person who is losing your mind.

Again, your idea of "absurdity" in this issue does not in itself make a case for or against. I am sure you would brush aside any comment I made about the "absurdity" of your own position.
Re your example: Either said old person is already a Christian, and therefore justified from all sin, and righteous in God's sight in Christ, who does love God with all, etc. Or he was not a Christian up to the point of his illness, and therefore the point is moot about his continued state of mind.

So I get involved in legislative activities.

You dont' like the law, find yourself 10,000,001 people to support you and you'll repeal the old law and replace it with whichever one you wish. It's called "by the people for the people" and the only way to control large masses of people is majority vote.

Why? Who are you to go against the majority opinion? Who are you to question the will of the people? Either your 10,000,000 people already exist, or they don't. But it seems to me, it is not for you to seek to change the majority opinion, since their view is absolute in the context of the society you live in, as you have already admitted. If, therefore, theft is legal, then you must abide by it. To oppose that law is therefore illegal in itself.

Because I was born and raised in America, I carry with me the standard american opinion that sadaam is trash. I suppose if I had been born and raised in Iraq, I would possibly think differently.

So you just go with the flow, surely not, not Scepticbud the unchained free thinker?
However, on the basis of my last para, If you are not in America now is it not your duty to seek the majority opinion, and accept that, since majority democracy is the only way of controlling masses of people (and is that an absolute opinion, or only a majority one?)

Your theory of judgement day doesnt' qualify as serious material in this debate, because it is not falsifiable; i.e., there is no evidence that would convince that the day of judgement will never arrive. If you are exhumed and reanimated in the year 8,941 AD and you discover judgement day hasn't happened yet, that's ok, god's word is sure, no matter how convincing worldly proofs look, right?

Right. You are a quick learner at times. There is hope for you yet.

[Socrates]

Skepticbutt can't have it both ways -- argue against objective morality, then spout that some allegedly outrageous thing in the Bible is objective evidence against it! If morality is only subjective opinion, then SB's whinges against Scripture are only his subjective dislikes, and have no more value than his dislike for poached eggs, say.

Also, the Bible teaches graded absolutism, i.e. a heirarchy of absolute morals. The heirarchy is duty to God > duty to one's fellow humans > duty to property. Obeying a higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.

[Evangel]

::sits back and watches skeptic bud rationalize::

open minded...

[Jin-Roh]

It's been said that Moral Relativists can't actually have meaningful conversations about Morality.

I guess I'll watch this to see if its true.

[apologetics]

I personally feel that depriving others of their property for reasons other than life and death situations are wrong, because I grew up in that kind of society. Things haven't changed much, so the police, who enforce the law, happen to agree, so I can count on them to help me obey my own personal subjective belief that says robbers should go to jail. You entertain the delusion that because my morals and the robber's morals are equally relative, I have no right to assert my personal beliefs and seek a redress when they are violated. That doesn't follow logically. I can say the robber is wrong because I am in the safety of millions of people in my state who agree with me. Doesn't matter if robbery isn't absolutely wrong; if you wanna rob, you better not do it in our state.

Two things Bud,

1. You are hiding behind the legal aspects of morality. “It is wrong because there is a law that says it is wrong.” One needs to ask oneself…..WHY the law was ever enacted in the first place! What is the basis for why people decided to punish those who steal or rape or kill? If there is no standard upon which morality is based then, you are absolutely right, it is all subjective and open to interpretation, no law withstanding!
2. If a “society” can legislate its own morality, then why couldn't we accept Hitler or Stalin? Those societies seemed to accept the conditions under which they found themselves operating. The Germans gave up their neighbors willingly even thought they knew what was to happen to them. Is there a bigger view of “society” if one country legislates something that is unacceptable? What if one country, with a democratic vote of its people, decided to systematically exterminate all homosexuals? Or teachers? Would it be OK for them and NOT OK for the rest of the world or would the world need to step in and take care of it? Think carefully here, Bud, because if you state that is OK for them to kill, then you have given the OK to indescrimate murder......HOWEVER....if you state that the world needs to step in, you are falling back on an ASSUMED moral standard, because we don't have a democratic vote of the people of the world stating that murder is wrong to fall back on, and you would be imposing your morals on a society that does not want them. I'm anxiously awaiting your answer!

You entertain the delusion that because my morals and the robber's morals are equally relative, I have no right to assert my personal beliefs and seek a redress when they are violated. That doesn't follow logically.

How is this? You have a “right” to assert your personal beliefs and seek redress when they are violated? What about his personal belief that he wants your stuff and is willing to take it by force if necessary? He probably feels that the law against burglary is unjust because it violates what he believes are his “rights.” Of course this doesn't follow logically when you begin with a fallacious premise, as you have.

When a crazy takes you hostage, locks you up in a basement with a woman and says he will kill both your families if you don't rape her AHHHHh!

Excuse me, but this is an asinine example! There is always the option of NOT raping her and placing “rights” above yours. Who could rationalize this result? What if you raped her and he still killed both of you? Then your actions did not do anything but satiate the sadistic desires of the hostage taker. What kind of man would do this? You proposed the scenario, so do I have to ask?

What exactly is going on here in this example? By raping her you would simply be attempting to save your own butt! You would have failed to realize that this woman was in the same situation you were in (i.e. being kidnapped by a crazy hostage taker) and then subjecting her to further psychological torment by committing an act that anyone with any semblance of moral decency (absolute or relative) would have a hard time justifying to their conscience. Committing this act would not be an example of moral exception, it would be an example of moral cowardice!

It is justifiable to rape a woman when you are an ancient Israelite who just kidnapped her and killed her family because your leader said "god told us to go kill them!"

JPH directed you to an article in which he has already destroyed your premise here! I read through your initial post, why did you feel it necessary to give me a recap of your argument? It has been addressed and dismissed as SO many other biblical “contradictions” claimed by skeptics…….

No problem! I personally believe rape is relatively wrong, because there is no provable solid foundation of moral precepts to which i can compare rape and thus declare it absolutely wrong.

If you say that rape is relatively wrong then there are examples in which it can be defended. As I stated above, the ONE example you were able to provide is not such an instance, it is actually simple cowardice. Try harder Bud!

Why don't you just ask a woman who has been raped Bud and have you tell you IN GRAPHIC DETAIL not only how she felt as it was occurring, but the lasting emotional effects on her life and then look at her and tell her “there is no provable solid foundation of moral precepts to which I can compare rape ant thus declare it absolutely wrong.” Good grief! It is shocking that anyone would think this, much less put it in print!

you cannot call something absolutely wrong without an absolute standard; meaning, a PROVEN absolute standard.

We've come full circle, Bud! Where is the “PROVEN” absolute standard that theft is wrong? The legislature was simply in error and the burglar who took your stuff can claim the EXACT thing you did above! It is so interesting how relativists rationalize their absurd beliefs.