When it comes to morality, Christians says it is objective and absolute.
When we talk about an objective morality, it means as Ravi Zacarias have said, "that there must be a Law Giver - and this Law Giver is God." Too simple?
Let's put it this way...
According to Norman Geisler an absolute moral obligation is:
* an objective (not subjective) moral duty—a duty for all persons.
* an eternal (not temporal) obligation—a duty at all times.
* a universal (not local) obligation—a duty for all places.
An absolute moral duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics p 118)
This mean morality is NOT RELATIVE.
So far, so good.
Now, let's go to one of the sources of Christian ethics - The Ten Commandments. In the 10 Commandments, there are two particular commandments I would like to point at: Thou shall not lie and Thou shall not steal. You break one of the commandments, you sin to God. And, since MORALITY IN NOT RELATIVE according to Christian belief, then whatever reason, the commandment is binding. There are no gray area, no excuses. There is no room for situational ethics.
According to one Filipino tele-evangelist, You break one, just one of the commandments - you sin. Then quoting Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
Now...
Let's talk about lying first.
So, you shall not lie - the commandment is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - no gray areas, NOT RELATIVE MORALS yet...
We read the story of the Hebrew midwives. If you are not familiar with it, you can get your Bible and read Exodus 1:15-21. It was very obvious that the Hebrew midwives lied to the Pharaoh. And they were rewarded for lying? I thought morality is NOT RELATIVE? Why will this god bless these two liars? Because they lie to save Moses?
But I thought morality is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - No "if" or "but?"
There is also the story of Rahad lying to those who were searching for Joshua’s spies (Joshua 2:3-4). And was even justified (James 2:25)?
Wait? I thought God's morality is universal, objective, eternal and absolute? From the looks of it, lying becomes justifiable if done in the service of God. That makes lying relative (the evilness of lying depends on where, when or to whom you used it.)
And how about stealing?
According to Exodus 12:35-36, The Israelite, following Moses and God’s instructions, steal jewels and clothing from the Egyptians. Same with Ezekiel 39:10 and Nahum 2:9 So if God commanded you to steal, stealing becomes OK? That's make stealing relative.
Here's another good example:
Jesus ordered his goons to take a colt and an ass. That is in Matthew 21:1-4 ( Now how did Jesus able to ride both colt and ass in the same time is really a miracle but…) the issue here is why Jesus didn't tell his disciples to ask the permission of the owner of the ass and the colt? Getting something without permission is tantamount to stealing.
God attorneys in this group keep on posting their belief that MORALITY IS NOT RELATIVE yet their own bible is dripping with relativism. It seems that when it comes to biblical morality, good and bad depends on what the LORD wants. If god wants you to kill his enemies, then killing becomes good. If you will lie so god can do away with it, then lying becomes morally upright. If god wants you to plunder his enemies, then stealing becomes justifiable.
It seems contrary to god's self-proclaimed attorneys belief, in biblical morality, morality is based on what god commands you to do and ethics has no meaning.
When we talk about an objective morality, it means as Ravi Zacarias have said, "that there must be a Law Giver - and this Law Giver is God." Too simple?
Let's put it this way...
According to Norman Geisler an absolute moral obligation is:
* an objective (not subjective) moral duty—a duty for all persons.
* an eternal (not temporal) obligation—a duty at all times.
* a universal (not local) obligation—a duty for all places.
An absolute moral duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics p 118)
This mean morality is NOT RELATIVE.
So far, so good.
Now, let's go to one of the sources of Christian ethics - The Ten Commandments. In the 10 Commandments, there are two particular commandments I would like to point at: Thou shall not lie and Thou shall not steal. You break one of the commandments, you sin to God. And, since MORALITY IN NOT RELATIVE according to Christian belief, then whatever reason, the commandment is binding. There are no gray area, no excuses. There is no room for situational ethics.
According to one Filipino tele-evangelist, You break one, just one of the commandments - you sin. Then quoting Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love"
Now...
Let's talk about lying first.
So, you shall not lie - the commandment is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - no gray areas, NOT RELATIVE MORALS yet...
We read the story of the Hebrew midwives. If you are not familiar with it, you can get your Bible and read Exodus 1:15-21. It was very obvious that the Hebrew midwives lied to the Pharaoh. And they were rewarded for lying? I thought morality is NOT RELATIVE? Why will this god bless these two liars? Because they lie to save Moses?
But I thought morality is universal, objective, eternal and absolute - No "if" or "but?"
There is also the story of Rahad lying to those who were searching for Joshua’s spies (Joshua 2:3-4). And was even justified (James 2:25)?
Wait? I thought God's morality is universal, objective, eternal and absolute? From the looks of it, lying becomes justifiable if done in the service of God. That makes lying relative (the evilness of lying depends on where, when or to whom you used it.)
And how about stealing?
According to Exodus 12:35-36, The Israelite, following Moses and God’s instructions, steal jewels and clothing from the Egyptians. Same with Ezekiel 39:10 and Nahum 2:9 So if God commanded you to steal, stealing becomes OK? That's make stealing relative.
Here's another good example:
Jesus ordered his goons to take a colt and an ass. That is in Matthew 21:1-4 ( Now how did Jesus able to ride both colt and ass in the same time is really a miracle but…) the issue here is why Jesus didn't tell his disciples to ask the permission of the owner of the ass and the colt? Getting something without permission is tantamount to stealing.
God attorneys in this group keep on posting their belief that MORALITY IS NOT RELATIVE yet their own bible is dripping with relativism. It seems that when it comes to biblical morality, good and bad depends on what the LORD wants. If god wants you to kill his enemies, then killing becomes good. If you will lie so god can do away with it, then lying becomes morally upright. If god wants you to plunder his enemies, then stealing becomes justifiable.
It seems contrary to god's self-proclaimed attorneys belief, in biblical morality, morality is based on what god commands you to do and ethics has no meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment