Originally posted by JS357
You are welcome to be back here, at least by me.
For your kindly sake, I will give some limited reply to most of these questions.
You really think the 10 commandments refer to moral absolutes?
Yes. I am leaning that way. For the purposes of this thread they are the best examples I can think of.
i know that a particular nation was selected to receive them though. So its a difficult concept for me to discuss now.
The rest of your comment i found offensive in tone and will not dignify with a reply.
Do you mean to say that a believer who has secured his or her "salvation" through faith alone, can have that "salvation" rescinded if they use the name "Jesus Christ" like a curse word?
When i was a backslider I was involved in many dirty things. But within I still winched at jokes about the crucifixion of Jesus and did not like to hear His name taken as a two part curse word. i didn't know why. But the smothered divine life within me must have been grieved to hear.
I am not one who believes that God has only one way to discipline a person - no salvation.
3.) Deep Thought
When you use the term "moral absolute" what do you mean? What is it about one moral proposition that makes it "absolute" which is lacking in some other "non-absolute" proposition?
At this time, this question requires me to do more study. And at reading it I wondered if I got off to a bad start in the very title of the thread.
There is a situation here that I need to study more. On one hand it is clear that God selected a people to have a specific national theocratic relationship with God. No other people on earth had exactly this kind of relationship with God.
I need to study much more the giving of the Law of Moses to them and the culpability of all other peoples to that which was designated to Israel. i can talk about it. But I don't think I can exhaustively explain the related matters.
Paul speaks of the Law to Israel and he speaks of the law written on the hearts of all created men. I think these laws must somehow be as final in moral obligation as we can imagine.
If it is not clear with something like keeping the Sabbath, it is clear to me with the last of the ten commandments - "You shall not covet."
. To want jealously, enviously, exposes something about humans not being satisfied enough with God Himself.
The first commandment is about replacing God in priority with something else as an idol. The last of the ten is about coveting, a feeling, about jealousy against other people for something.
I wanted to talk about the exposure of how miserably and universally all humans fail at these assumed "absolute" obligations from the ultimate Governor to whom man is obligated. But instead of talking about our failure and God's remedy and salvation I can see that I am going to be forced to talk about the concept of Moral Absolutes.
I think this was my own fault. I probably would have been better to just call the thread the Breaking of the Law of God.
I've seen the phrase "moral absolute" used in a number of threads recently, but I'm yet to find a satisfactory explanation of what is meant by the term. Does it mean universally and straightforwardly applicable. If so I think that there is a problem. Consider the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill.". It is easy to invent scenarios where killing someone is the lesser of two evils, for example a hostage taker who the police have good reason to believe is about to kill one of his hostages. So the commandment is not absolute in that sense, yet you seem to be claiming that it is. So I wonder what you mean when you say "moral absolute".
This has been discussed by many. "Do no murder" some say is a better translation.
I am not ready to examine this exhaustively.
On one hand the commandments contained these directives to Israel.
On the other hand the law contained various offerings like the sin offering, the peace offering, the trespass offering, the meal offering.
It seems built into the law given to Moses in the subordinate ones after the ten leading ones, there was provision for violation or difficult cases of judgment (for the priests). There is a divine expectation that atoning sacrifices will be needed because some statutes will be impossible to keep.
My interest was more on the breaking of these laws. What is more on the minds of most of the questioners is for me to defend how in the world these commandments could be considered universal absolute morality.
I'll never get to the breaking of them because I'll so occupied with the philosophical arguments of what Absolute could mean in all this. So I need to get clear myself.
As one who came to Jesus one night in simplicity, I knew that I needed forgiveness for what I had done. And I was relieved to touch divine forgiveness in Jesus Christ.
On that happy night though, there were was no team of philosophers or theologians for that matter, educating me as to what Absolute Morality meant. Practicality only required that I need forgiveness. And I FOUND IT.
So some of you guys, say like Lemon Jello, I am not prepared to debate on Absolute Morality at this time. But i knew by the conviction of the Holy Spirit on that night that I had gone my OWN way, and the result had been many bad things to myself and others.
" We all like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way, And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." (Isaiah 53:6)
All this probably does not address your concern fully.
As avalanchethecat points out, a number of the ten commandments have nothing to do with morality. At best one can say that it is good to obey God, but even then I wouldn't call that a moral question. Although I recognise that the word 'moral' has a wide range of meaning, I think it is being used beyond reasonable scope here.
Further, why restrict the discussion to the ten commandments? Why not all the commandments? Many Christians will say that most of them were for the Jews alone to follow and most would even say that many of them are immoral if followed today (although they dream up excuses as to why they were acceptable for the Jews).
Certainly for many of the rules listed BREAKING them would be the morally correct thing to do.
I'm working on reading comprehension. No comment at the moment.