Syndicate
User login
Navigation
Argument for the Moral Law
I’ve written quite a bit heretofore about modern science and naturalism’s failures to either recognize or admit to the implications of the modern scientific support for various arguments for God—specifically the cosmological and teleological arguments for God. With the implications of modern science, it is a good time to be a Christian apologist and/or philosopher.
But I’d like to change gears for a moment and move on to another strong argument for God, that of the Moral Law. There are a couple of ways to frame the argument. Either one can say that all laws point to their lawgiver and thus the moral law points to the Moral Lawgiver. Or, you could say that all prescriptions point to their prescriber. The Moral Law is a prescription of moral standards and not a description of how we actually behave, thus there must be One that prescribed the standard.
We must first ask if there is an objective moral law, and I propose that it should be self-evident to anyone honestly surveying our world and its inhabitants. This is a critical question, since it would be hard to refute the necessity of a Lawgiver if the law is established as true, especially a law that describes an ideal instead of describing how we actually act. Nature doesn’t deal in ideals. Nature is the realm of what is, not what ought to be.
So, it has been my experience that most who seek to refute the argument to Moral Law seek to disprove it on the second proposition, by proving that there is no moral law. Apologists such as C.S. Lewis, Frank Turek and Norm Geisler have written extensively on the subject, building convincing cases in favor of the Moral Law. C.S. Lewis, in particular, wrote quite convincingly in favor of the Moral Law, primarily I suppose because the realization of the Moral Law and its implications was a very great factor in his becoming a Christian.
I believe that to deny the existence of absolute values, of absolute right and wrong, and an absolute moral code, is an untenable position. Our daily reactions prohibit us from honestly making such statements. We all recognize injustices and expect a certain measure of moral and ethical treatment. In other words, we can’t deny the moral law if we wish to be treated under its care. And everyone does. Even the person who doesn’t admit that rape is an absolute evil would bristle at the thought of a loved one being raped. I have actually conversed with individuals who deny absolute right and absolute wrong, yet at other times complain about unfair treatments, such as being passed over for promotion.
You can’t have it both ways. Either there is an absolute standard upon which justice is defined, or there is no basis for justice and injustice. Either you admit to the greater ideal of an absolute measuring stick, or any act done to you and your loved ones is permissible. Just one admission of an absolute evil, and the entire argument of denial fails.
This leads us to the fact that a denial of absolute Moral Law is a forfeiture of your right to become politically active or voice dissent of any kind. That’s right. If you believe in no absolute moral standard (thus by extension no standard upon which to frame justice) then you have absolutely no just cause to proclaim any cause as right or any mistreatment as wrong. PETA wouldn’t have the right to call animal cruelty wrong. No one would have a right to protest abortion, since there is nothing wrong with killing. Neither would they have the right to support it, since there is no basis for personal human rights. Remember? There is no standard, therefore nothing can be judged.
Another interesting double-speak I often hear is the militant-atheist who denies absolute moral law because of its implications pointing to God. He later uses evil in the world as proof against God’s existence. Argument (A) is that there is no moral law. Argument (B) is a use of the Moral Law to indict God. Notice the contradiction there? He doesn’t realize that evil’s existence is a proof for God. If you admit objective evil, then you admit the Moral Law. If you admit the Moral Law, you admit the implications that it must have been given, since it transcends us.
I believe it fairly obvious that if you compare what people say and how they live (or sometimes even what they say to what they say) their true beliefs emerge. Watch the lives of anyone who denies the Moral Law. I can pretty much guarantee you that they don’t live like they believe their denials. Deep down they recognize the Moral Law, even if they don’t want to admit that they’re obligated to the One who gave it.
Be blessed…
custom-pager custom-pager-1 custom-pager-blog
Technorati Tags:
Social Law vs Moral Law
I deny absolute values, absolute right and wrong. I do believe in justice and ethical rules, but this is mainly on a social level. It's obvious that society couldn't survive without rules of behavior to provide a consistency to our relationships. We've refined our rules over many, many generations, but they have never been universally constant. Just because I strive to maintain and improve our societal rules doesn't mean that I MUST accept the existence of an absolute moral law. Man's rules were created by man to provide structure and consistency to our interrelations. I see no objective evidence of any moral law. Can you show me?
Why must I forfeit my role in society simply because I disagree about the source of society's rules? That doesn't make sense to me. Your position strikes me as a bit undemocratic. If our rules are based on absolute moral law, then why have procedures for modifying our rules? If the moral law is so obvious, why are there so many interpretations and changing opinions about their application?
Wow... More than a few inconsistencies, dogg...
Does an absolute law have to be universally applied to be an absolute law? If I misfigure that 2+2=5, then are the laws of mathematics relative? You seem to be confusing application of the law to the law itself.
You say that right and wrong were created by man to "provide a consistency to our relationships". So, an equal and just as appropriate alternative would have been the development of a society based on unmitigated and consistent violence, rape, murder, baby-torture, pedophelia, etc?
You say that you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, yet you "strive to maintain and improve our societal rules". Improve? That is an odd word to use for someone who just denied right and wrong. How can you improve on something that can not possibly be "less right" than what you are seeking to make it? Your very idea of improvement is smuggling the Moral Law into your argument.
And by implying the improvement, combined with your implication that society dictates right and wrong, then right and wrong depends on the society. I hate to bring in the cliched "Hitler" argument, but it's appropriate here. That would mean that Nazi Germany was "right" in their formation of their law. Moreso, Hitler's final solution would have been "right" if it hadn't have been curtailed by Allied forces. In other words, who decides what the "improvement" is? Hitler felt like he was improving society. Who will you choose to select as the "improver" in this relativistic society you have created? And based on what?
Your reality means that Afghanestan was right in their treatment of women. That Muslim extremists are right to kill infidels. And yes, that the Catholic Spanish Inquisition was right to torture and murder. They are and were all socially-created norms of right and wrong. They are and were a desired improvement.
You say that you don't believe in absolute right and wrong. They are relative. So, if you and your wife were Jews in 1940s Germany, there could have been nothing "wrong" with your torture and murder? I want an honest answer on this one. You say that right and wrong are relative. There could therefore have been no injustice in your treatment. In that society, it was an improvement.
You say that there is no right or wrong, yet you say that my view is undemocratic. By this, are you implying that a better, more appropriate attitude would be a more democratic outlook? Are you implying that my undemocratic outlook is wrong, or at the very least, less right than your democratic alternative? Are you implying that my ideal would infringe on your basic, self-evident human rights? Is it unjust?
You claim that man's rules were created by man. I agree wholeheartedly. But based on what? On what basis did man choose that murder is unacceptable? It was obviously not the concept of "survival of the fittest". On what basis did man decide that courage is a virtue and cowardice a vice? It was obviously not a natural response to the "fight-or-flight" instinct. On what basis did man decide that rape is wrong? It was obviously not due to man's animal instinct to spread his seed as much as possible.
Your outlook seems a web of inconsistencies. I never claimed that you MUST accept the existence of the absolute moral law, but that acceptance is the only way you'll escape the inconsistencies.
Due to your post, I see no objective evidence that you do not believe in a transcendent moral law.
Be blessed, bro...
Where are the inconsistencies?
I had a feeling my reply would push milk out your nostrils. Let's see if I can settle this down a bit...
You use the words "right" and "wrong" as absolute properties. What I'm saying is that in this context, those words are subjective judgements. I'll repeat my question: can you show me objective evidence of an absolute moral law?
My statement about "improving" society refers to my subjective view. My ultimate judgement is based on maximizing individual freedoms and opportunities. "Improvement" in my eyes means more equality, more efficiency, more happiness. There's nothing absolute about those ideas, though. Someone else might define societal improvement as larger population, more economic productivity, or greater participation in religious ceremonies. That's all fine, as long as you don't mistake your version of improvement with a universal absolute.
You provide some extreme examples of rape, violence, murder, etc. I certainly don't think those are good for a society, but I also don't claim there's any obvious transcendent law that prohibits them. I could envision a society where, let's say, rape would be acceptable. Imagine a tribe where all the women absolutely deplore having sex and never agree to do it. That tribe would become extinct without rape. That society might come to accept rape as a normal part of life.
That's an extreme, almost silly example, but you get the point. Our society has decided that murder is OK under certain circumstances (self defense, death penalty, war). Are these exceptions a violation of your absolute moral law? Why or why not?
In fact, as you pointed out, there have been societies that accepted some of those things as OK. Obviously, for the individual Jews in Nazi Germany, the final solution was a very bad thing. For most civilized people, just the thought is deplorable. However, where is the evidence that it was absolutely wrong? What information did the Nazis miss or ignore that should have told them their actions were wrong?
Just because I say moral laws are relative doesn't mean that must accept that Nazis or terrorists are "right". Sure, they thought they were improving. I would say they were not, but that's my subjective judgement. It would be rather arrogant (not to mention lazy) of me to tell someone that they are wrong simply because of some mysterious universal moral law. It would be more effective to show them that their actions have highly negative consequences for society, and hope that they will share my judgement.
Man's laws are based on past experience. We have learned that murder causes many negative effects to society. Courage is obviously useful to society, at the expense of personal safety. Rape, like murder, has numerous negative consequences. If something is detrimental, we judge it as bad or "wrong" but these judgements can change. If they are absolute, what tells us which are right and which are wrong?
Where are the inconsistencies in my position? You seem to think that if I don't accept absolute moral law, then the only alternative is to accept that any behavior is OK. Why can't we just have subjective judgements based on past experience? There will always be disagreements, but I can change my personal judgements in light of new experiences or situations. If you claim your judgements are absolute, then disagreements are often settled by bloodshed.
It's interesting to note that the deplorable examples you gave all involve folks that claimed to be acting on absolute law. The Nazis thought their race was absolutely superior. Muslim extremists believe they are acting on god's behalf, as did the Inquisitors.
If eveyone agrees that there is an absolute moral law (as you demand we must if we are to be consistent), then how do we figure out what that absolute moral law is? How are you going to settle the inevitable disagreements?
Everywhere
First, I didn't think there was anything to "settle down". I apologize if my pointed questions came across as anything more than pointed.
Now... You are sidestepping the issue. The core issue here is that your most basic way of thinking uses the moral law intuitively, but you refuse to either recognize or admit it. Even in arguing against it, in arguing for relativism, you are relying on the moral law to explain your rationale. This, in itself, is your objective evidence for the existence of the moral law. Your use of it as a core aspect of your rationale proves it as a first principle that should need no more evidence.
For instance, you define right and wrong as societal, but in defending your stance, you use words such as "negative" and "detrimental". Those are words of judgment, but you refuse that by which they are judged. With no overriding principle of "good", or "bad", "right" or "wrong", not even these judgments can be made. For instance, murder is seen as "detrimental" to society.
Why? Is it "bad" for society to end? How do we decide that continuing civilization is the greater good or that rape is the lesser evil? What are they using to base their judgment upon, that the continuation of progeny is a good enough cause to accept rape?
You are again confusing ethics with morality. You are confusing the application of morality with morality itself. The extreme theoretical rape society you used as an example is using the moral law to make these judgment calls. They are placing the greater good of society's continuation above the personal good of the individual. Whether this is right or wrong is an ethical question, not a question to the existence of the moral law that it wishes to implement. The fact that it is an ethical question at all is proof of the moral law. If there were no law to abide, then the question would not arise. Just rape them. Just let society end. Who cares? There is no good or bad inherent in either option.
It is the same with whatever societal example you wish to use. Your examples of accepted "murder" are even better examples. Self defense is accepted because we all know inherently that human life is worthy of protection. The moral law tells us that innocent human life should be preserved. The death penalty is based upon the concept of justice, as defined by the moral law. They are based on the concepts that innocence is better than guilt, that human life has value, and that wrong should be righted.
(Note: They are not based on personal survival or instinct. Who cares if there are no babies born? I'm alive. There'll be more food for me. More women for me. More personal pleasures. Is it the instinct to reproduce? Then where did courage come from? What value is there for me to die for a society that will do me no good after my death? How will I add my DNA to the gene-pool if I am dead? What drives me to override "fight-or-flight" for the good of others? Why should I care about justice concerning others? Why judge what someone did to another? The survival of the fittest should be the rule, no?)
The democracy that you wish to further (by the way, I agree with you) is founded on the moral law.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Frankly, I am a bit aghast that you would on one hand defend democracy, and then on the other hand downplay the actions of Nazism to "highly negative consequences for society", and "hope that they will share my judgement". You're painted into the corner of accepting nothing as wrong. Still further, this same corner disallows you from telling anyone that they are wrong.
Your reality can't legitimately tell anyone to refrain from anything, because their idea of "right" is just as valid as yours. Of even more importance, you have no way whatsoever to convince the Nazi hinchmen that their actions are, indeed, a "highly negative consequence for society". They are just as "right" to kill you for your brazenness as you are to value your right to disagree. All you can do is hope. And as you hope, as they blinfold you and shove a cigarette in your mouth, the moral law will ring true in your final thoughts. You will admit it more vehemently then than you deny it now. You will know that their actions are far more than a "negative consequence"; they are wrong.
No. Even Hitler knew the moral law that he was breaking. That is why he tried to dehumanize the Jews. That's why he went to such lengths to justify his actions, to make excuses for breaking the moral law. That's why he tried to hide his actions. That's why he tried to make it an ethical issue instead of a moral one. That's why he chose to end his own life as opposed to being judged against the moral law that he had broken.
Interesting side note... His master plan used Darwinism to justify his breaking of this moral law. Mein Kampf pp239-242. After quoting Darwin's laws, he showed the Jews as the weaker race, and that which is holding humanity back. Then he says:
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
He was not using the absolute moral law to base his actions on, he was using your worldview of naturalism. He used the inherent, self-evident moral law in making judgments between the greater good and the lesser evil. He obviously applied it wrong ethically. He was undeniably wrong, and his actions were undeniably evil. It is unfortunate that you can not, in any good conscience, admit this.
P.S. I would like to affirm that not a drop of milk passed my nostrils during the forming of this post. Any antagonism is only "apparent", and is merely a failure of the medium by which we converse. :oD
Take care, dogg...
Where?
My most basic thinking uses the moral law intuitively? Just because I make personal judgements about good and bad, that equals a universal moral law? Is it the moral law that tells me that chocolate ice cream tastes good, even though my mother says it tastes bad to her?
What you are saying is that "good" and "bad" can't exist without a universal standard to judge them by. I say that the standards aren't universal, they're subjective. Please explain why my opinion about something's worth relies on a judgement system outside of me.
When I say something is detrimental to society, that simply means it tends to work against the structure of society. It unravels the structure of society, or makes it less efficient. Whether that is "bad" or "good" depends upon the society in question and the observer.
For example, I judge murder to be bad because it removes productive people from society, causes everyone to expend energy to defend themselves against murderers, and tends to escalate due to revenge killings. Now, Charles Manson might judge murder to be good for his little society, because it was part of a ritual that brought him power and control over others. Ancient cultures routinely murdered because they thought sacrifices would please their god.
We do not know inherently that human life is worth protection. We have an instinct that tells us OUR life is worth protecting. Our instinct probably also tells us that our family is worth protecting. Instinct and/or reason tells us that our friends are worth protecting (my friend helps me live, therefore it's harder for me to live if he's gone). If we inherently know that all human life is worth protecting, why is warfare so widespread? Why don't we do more to feed the hungry in Africa?
Back to the rape society, I don't see it as neccessarily an ethical question. The question isn't based on any moral law, it's based on practicality. Maybe the men don't want to rape because the women scratch and hit them. They want to procreate because their instincts tell them to. Where's the moral or ethical question? They've just decided that it's worth a few scrapes and bruises to get their jollies.
You insist on bringing evolution back into this, so I'll oblige. Let me just say that social evolution is very speculative because there is very little evidence to go on, in contrast to the mountains of evidence for biological evolution. Anyway, courage and self-sacrifice could indeed be instinctive. Humans being social creatures, there are selection pressures beyond just the individual's survival. The success of the individual is directly tied to the survival of the group.
Let's say you have two tribes, each facing a similar crisis. Any one member of the tribe can solve the crisis, but it puts him/her at great personal risk. The tribe without a "courageous" member doesn't solve the crisis and gets wiped out. The tribe that has someone step up to save the group survives. Even though the individual may die, his genes are carried on by his relatives in the tribe. Do you see how a certain amount of selfless instinct might actually be perpetuated?
Hitler didn't dehumanize the Jews because of some moral law, he did it because that was the only way to convince people to carry out his plans. Their view of society told them that murder was wrong, so if he could make them believe Jews weren't human, then killing them wasn't murder.
It may surprise you to learn that Hitler also used "divine right" to justify his actions:
Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe.
...
What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.
Hitler was not motivated by naturalism. He simply perverted science and religion to justify his ends. His true motivations may never be known. I can, in good conscience, admit that his actions were evil. However, that's my personal judgement of evil, which is undeniably different from yours, even if we happen to agree on this point.
I understand that your religion requires belief of a moral law and ultimate judgement, and I have no problem with that. Without the moral law, your worldview falls apart. However, you've failed to convince me that this moral law is self-evident. You'll have to do more than claim that my personal judgements of positive and negative are proof of this law. You also haven't shown where my views are inconsistent. Your moral law lies in the realm of faith. It may or may not exist, but you can't prove it either way.
I understand that your religion requires a nonbelief in moral
law and ultimate judgment, an I have a real problem with that. Out of love, I'd much rather see you accept the truth and not be judged, :o)
My most basic thinking uses the moral law intuitively? Just because I make personal judgements about good and bad, that equals a universal moral law? Is it the moral law that tells me that chocolate ice cream tastes good, even though my mother says it tastes bad to her?
Yes. It does use the Moral Law. A primary fundamental of your and everyone else’s thought process is the differentiation between “good” and “bad”. You proved this with the presupposition that society’s preservation is a “good” thing. You proved this with the proposition that rape may be acceptable to further humanity. You make the distinction that existence is “better” than nonexistence, that democracy is “better” than Nazism. That your personal rights are “better” protected.
You equivocate with the ice cream example. You make no distinction between personal tastes and moral values. If you don’t know the difference, then you need psychiatric care. To test yourself, note your personal reaction to the following statements:
“I love ice cream.”
“I love using babies as firewood.”
If you fail to see a distinction, please tell me; it will be useless to continue this discussion. :o)
What you are saying is that "good" and "bad" can't exist without a universal standard to judge them by. I say that the standards aren't universal, they're subjective. Please explain why my opinion about something's worth relies on a judgement system outside of me.
Actually, your opinion on the subject is worthless, since you can’t defend your right to have it, nor can you claim that it has any objective value whatsoever. But my adherence to the absolute standard of right and wrong knows that your opinion is wrong, and that the right thing for me to do is explain again. :o)
First, it is not about your opinion. It is about truth. Your opinion that 2+2=5 does not do away with the truth that 2+2=4. Likewise, your misinterpretation of the moral law does not invalidate it. It is based on an external constant by which you can make judgment. Without this constant, there literally is no right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral.
For example, you and I each draw a flower that is sitting on the table. We each will reference the original flower to see which of us came closer to capturing it. Without the original flower, there is no way to see who was right or wrong. There is no way to make a judgment between the two renditions, to see whose is better or worse. It’s the same with the moral law. You can not make any judgment about more or less “right” than you could if I had drawn a poodle and called it a flower.
That’s why you can not in good conscience say that Hitler was wrong. You have taken away any reference by which to judge his actions. All you can say is that he disagreed with you. That’s it. His opinion has just as much truth and weight attached to it as yours does without that external source to judge it by. That’s why you are living a life of inconsistencies. You verbally deny these inconsistencies, but denials are fruitless when the fruit is in the pudding, so to speak. Again, here is the root of your inconsistencies. You innately live by the law of morality, but your biases prevent you from verbally admitting it.
So, as bad as you want to, you can’t call Hitler wrong, or his actions evil. You try to:
I can, in good conscience, admit that his actions were evil.
Because the very fiber of your being recognizes it as judged against the moral law. But your biases recognize the implications and just can’t let you do it. So, you follow the above statement with:
. However, that's my personal judgement of evil, which is undeniably different from yours, even if we happen to agree on this point.
Which is the same as when you said:
Is it the moral law that tells me that chocolate ice cream tastes good, even though my mother says it tastes bad to her?
You inherently recognize the moral law, thus MUST call Hitler evil. But you refuse to admit the Moral Law, thus profess him and his actions as no different than tastes in ice cream. Now do you see the inconsistencies? Now do you recognize the contradictions? Let me know. Again, if not, we can forego the discussion and await my next blog—probably on miracles.
The moral law is self-evident. It is written on our hearts as conscience, just as Romans 2 tells us. It is absolute. It is the external, transcendent constant by which we can judge between alternatives. Thus, it is the foundation of justice, the scales by which we weigh actions, thoughts, beliefs, etc… It is a foundation of humanity’s very core; else the inability to tell right from wrong would not be medically labeled a defect.
As to your other societal points, they are minor details that have been covered already. They are confusing description with prescription, application to interpretation, ethics for morals. I would be happy to go over each in more detail if you truly wish, but I must first ask that you deal with the above points.
The heart of the discussion hinges on your sanity. :o) Until that is established, we won’t get very far.
1. Is there a difference between ice cream and burning babies?
2. Which of your personalities would you like to vote as your
spokesperson, the one that:
a. Says that Hitler was evil, or:
b. Says that his actions were the equivalent of ice
cream preferences?
We’ll start with those two and work our way up. Perhaps once you understand the implications of your viewpoint and recognize the contradictions in your argument, you’ll accept what is plain, what is self-evident, that which you prove by your very thought process.
Your closing point couldn’t be more wrong. The Moral Law is not accepted by faith. As a matter of fact, it takes active suppression to deny it. To deny it is equivalent to closing your eyes and asking for evidence for the Sun.
God bless you, my brutha…
Disclaimer One: I in no way feel that you are insane. It was a literary agent to highlight your equivocation and the contradictions in your position.
Disclaimer Two: No babies were burned in the formation of this reply.
Disclaimer Three: My next blog really will be on Miracles. Probably…
Update: I didn't want to forget to reposnd to this:
Why don't we do more to feed the hungry in Africa?
That is a very interesting question. First, please tell me why we do break your natural law and feed any of them? You listed several bad things like war and such that disprove the moral law. Thank you for proving the moral law in judging them as "bad". You listed a lack of "good". Thank you for defining "good", a virtue that we should all live up to.
e-dogg said...
We've refined our rules over many, many generations, but they have never been universally constant.
The law of God has nver been refined. It was established and it exists in tact today. But instead, they have been added to in order to deal with the new evils man has devised in an atempt to by pass those laws. For instance, God said that murder was a sin and punishable by death. But man has challenged that law with accidental death, self defense, etc... Then man, instead of standing to the absolute law, chose to allow variances and added to the law new laws to deal with these variances.
e-doog seems confused
e-dogg said: My statement about "improving" society refers to my subjective view. My ultimate judgement is based on maximizing individual freedoms and opportunities. "Improvement" in my eyes means more equality, more efficiency, more happiness. There's nothing absolute about those ideas
This is exactly why man has failed God. Man seeks to satisfy his own desires rather than God's desires. This is why the world is in the mess it is today. Trying to please man results in stepping away from the absolute law of God.
e-dogg said: I'll repeat my question: can you show me objective evidence of an absolute moral law?
That's easy, thou shalt not kill. That law is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. It was established by God.
e-dogg said: Our society has decided that murder is OK under certain circumstances (self defense, death penalty, war). Are these exceptions a violation of your absolute moral law? Why or why not?
This statment suggest that you do believe in an absolute law. If society has deemed a wrong less wrong, then there must have been an absolute from which it was lessened. You are absolutely correct. By this man has admitted that Gods law is perfect and absolute. Man is not able to obey the absolute law, so he establishes laws which are relative to it that allows him to miss the intended target but hit a lesser target.
Yes, these exceptions are a violation of, not mine, but the absolute moral law of God. Why? Because God's absolute law is perfect. There are no exceptions or deviations permitted.
But thankfully, I don't have to worry about the absolute law. That law was fulfilled for me by Christ.
I'm only confused by your statements
"Thou shalt not kill" is not objective evidence of anything. Someone wrote it down, then reasonable people discovered that it's a bit simplistic for the real world. Even your god doesn't subscribe to his own "perfect" law, since there are many instances of him commanding men to kill. I'm still waiting for some evidence of the absolute.
But thankfully, I don't have to worry about the absolute law. That law was fulfilled for me by Christ.
How convenient. Was that get-out-of-jail-free card just for you and your fellow believers, or everyone? I don't worry about any absolute law either, but that's because it's never been show to me.
Simplistic for the real world?
Oh, how far from the truth you are. This law is perfect and far more encompassing than you allow yourself to see. Even hatred is included as stated in the following passages.
Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
e-dogg said: "Even your god doesn't subscribe to his own 'perfect' law, since there are many instances of him commanding men to kill."
Again your ignorance is displayed. God uses death as punishment for sin. It is His right to pass judgement upon His people, to chasten them and to use them for examples which others should take notice. Yes, He did use men to bring judgement upon those who disobeyed, but this was not sin. God is not bound by the rules and commandments He imposes upon His people. He is a just God and is incapable of sin. You must allow yourself to discover why you are wrong in your views concerning this, and then you will find peace and glory in it, instead of hatred and resentment.
e-dogg said: "How convenient. Was that get-out-of-jail-free card just for you and your fellow believers, or everyone?"
Neither is correct. It was not just for me, not just for believers, not for everyone. It was for those chosen of God according to His own predeterminate counsel. If it were for believers, then it would earned and not by grace. If it was for everyone, then none would face eternal damnation, and that would be contrary to the teaching of scripture. You may very well be included in this grace.