The Violation of the Moral Absolutes

I am going to assume that the best example of moral absolute in terms of requirements and obligations are embodied in the commandments that God ordained at Mt. Sinai to Moses.

My desire is to talk with someone/s more about the BREAKING of those moral absolutes. If some argue that the ten commandments are not moral absolutes I guess I would say they are about as absolute as any obligations to man as I can think of. Either way, it is the BREAKING of the law of God that seems to occupy the book of Exodus.

The reason I am more concerned with the BREAKING of these absolute obligations from God to man, is because many of the arguments I see of a philosophical nature seem to me to be about the impracticality of making absolute moral obligations.

The tone I get from many is "You know we cannot keep any absolute moral responsibilities. It is impractical. It cannot be accomplished. So there are no moral absolutes."

I think I see this kind of complaint raised. And it has merit. And it seems to be a point of the Bible that we BROKE these moral absolutes.

I am going to begin to examine the biblical record of these things in roughly Exodus 31 and 32.

Do you think in the Bible God gave the law to Moses for the people to keep or for the people to break?

If God gave the law to the Jews through Moses to keep then obviously, they failed.

If God gave the law to the Jews to break then He gave them something to educate them and expose them to something He knew, but they did not.

This is tricky. On one hand it seems that God absolutely gave the ten commandments and all the subordinate commandments for Israel to keep, to be a testimony to the whole world. But Paul in the New Testament says the nature of this law of God was to be a school instructor like a tutor leading men to something called Grace.

I believe it is more accurate to understand that God gave the law through Moses that it might be broken for the exposure and revelation of the extent to which man was damaged in his departure from God in His original creation of Adam and Eve.

Man rebels and joins God's opposition party. Man thinks that the problem of his being alienated from his Creator is not too serious. Well, he will just decide to do what God wants then.

God says in essence, "Okay, here's My law, My absolute moral obligations of you. Keep this. " The rest is history. Rather the rest is His story in the Bible.

Originally posted by sonship
I am going to assume that the best example of moral absolute in terms of requirements and obligations are embodied in the commandments that God ordained at Mt. Sinai to Moses.

My desire is to talk with someone/s more about the [b] BREAKING of those moral absolutes. If some argue that the ten commandments are not moral absolutes I guess I wo ...[text shortened]... oing to begin to examine the biblical record of these things in roughly Exodus 31 and 32.[/b]

You really think the 10 commandments refer to moral absolutes? Even the first four which seem like a bunch of crap to anyone who's not religious?

These people had just witnessed the supernatural deliverance from the world's foremost imperial government, Egypt. These people had witnessed the ten plagues and the astounding parting of the Red Sea. They knew that the God who had called them to be His peculiar was real. They had no excuse for not knowing God was real.

With this backround the first commandment is thus:

" I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the slave house; You shall have no other gods before [or beside] Me. " (Exo. 20:2,3)

It will not be long before they fail and make a golden calf.

It is true that God selected a nation to reveal these commandments to. And in a certain regard they were not here specifically charged to all the nations. They are charged to a representative nation for a testimony.

Then there is the taking of God's name in vain. This is to frivolously or jokingly or with a cursing intention to use the name of God is offensive to the holiness of God. He said that He would not hold them guiltless for taking His name in vain.

They may have thought there was no harm to curse with God's name of include His name in loose, disrespectful low talking. But they would find themselves not guiltless as they foolishly presumed.

" You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain, for Jehovah will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain." (Exo. 20:7)

God is holy. He is distinct from all other things in existence. He says He will be regarded as holy. Profaning even the word "God" should cause our conscience to winch. And using the name "Jesus Christ" like a curse word cannot result in innocence on the day of judgment - "I will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain."

That is a modern application.

Originally posted by sonship
God is holy. He is distinct from all other things in existence. He says He will be regarded as holy. Profaning even the word "God" should cause our conscience to winch. And using the name [b]"Jesus Christ" like a curse word cannot result in innocence on the day of judgment - "I will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain." [/b]

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?

Originally posted by sonship
I am going to assume that the best example of moral absolute in terms of requirements and obligations are embodied in the commandments that God ordained at Mt. Sinai to Moses.

My desire is to talk with someone/s more about the [b] BREAKING of those moral absolutes. If some argue that the ten commandments are not moral absolutes I guess I wo ...[text shortened]... oing to begin to examine the biblical record of these things in roughly Exodus 31 and 32.[/b]

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?

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".

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.

Originally posted by sonship
I am going to assume that the best example of moral absolute in terms of requirements and obligations are embodied in the commandments that God ordained at Mt. Sinai to Moses.

My desire is to talk with someone/s more about the [b] BREAKING of those moral absolutes. If some argue that the ten commandments are not moral absolutes I guess I wo ...[text shortened]... oing to begin to examine the biblical record of these things in roughly Exodus 31 and 32.[/b]

"I am going to assume that the best example of moral absolute in terms of requirements and obligations are embodied in the commandments that God ordained at Mt. Sinai to Moses."

What do you mean by "assume"? Do you mean accept for the sake of discussion?

What do they have in common, that sets them apart as best examples?

If they are examples, does that mean there are other moral absolutes that they exemplify? Could you point them out? Do not those other moral absolutes share whatever it is that makes the best examples best? Are there moral absolutes that lack whatever it is that makes the best ones best?

This idea of mine is abandoned.
The title was wrong and the OP was ill-formed.

Thankyou for your contributions. (grumble, grumble).

sonship out.

Originally posted by sonship
This idea of mine is abandoned.
The title was wrong and the OP was ill-formed.

Thankyou for your contributions. (grumble, grumble).

sonship out.

You are welcome to be back here, at least by me.

Originally posted by sonship
This idea of mine is abandoned.
The title was wrong and the OP was ill-formed.

Thankyou for your contributions. (grumble, grumble).

sonship out.

Good on you for being honest. This sort of thing happens to everyone at times. Don't worry about it.

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.

1.) avalanche

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.

2.) FMF

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?

No.
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.

4.) twhitehead

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.

Originally posted by sonship
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.

So you believe that people who have been "saved", who have passed on from this life and attained "salvation" in the afterlife, can still be punished or disciplined for things?

The reason I ask is because you said this:

"...using the name "Jesus Christ" like a curse word cannot result in innocence on the day of judgment - 'I will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain.' "

Originally posted by sonship
This idea of mine is abandoned.
The title was wrong and the OP was ill-formed.

Thankyou for your contributions. (grumble, grumble).

sonship out.

Interesting that your post was ill-formed and the title was wrong, yet someone thumbs upped all your posts in this thread and thumbs downed all others. Its either you have a lot of brainless sycophant followers out there or you did it yourself via another account. I think I can guess who does that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Rajk999

I do a lot of "interesting" things I hear.

I don't pay much attention to graphic faces or thumbs up or down. rightly or wrongly. I am old fashion.

These things too often just go unnoticed by me. I hone in on written words. As I write this sentence I honestly do not know how many "up thumbs" or "down thumbs" have been indicated.

Sometimes I get a message or somehow get notified that these kinds of flags have been made.

As for your other frequent insults I recall Paul's word to Timothy -

" If anyone teaches different things and does not consent to healthy words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teaching which is according to godliness,

He is blinded with pride, understanding nothing, but is diseased with questionings and contentions of words, out of which come envy, strife, slanders, evil suspicions ... " (1 Tim. 6:4,5)

You seem to have opted for insulting your way through discussions often about teachings you cannot justify from the Scripture. If your arguments were sufficiently well substantiated you would not have to fall back on charging people with "brown nosing" or being "sycophants" or any of you other salacious frustrated attacks.