But there is one thing in the creation account that has always amused me. One thing God said was “not good” – i.e. “for man to be alone” So he took the DNA closest to Adams heart and made the most beautiful creature in the world – woman!!

And she with her charms has been causing man trouble ever since. Ha!

Well said.

BarryA is right.

Dave, please take a pause and re-examine.

Ah gone . . .

GEM of TKI

God is supreme Agent—unless, of course, “god” is another name for the Platonic realm of eternal verities (a view I suspect that some atheist physicists might hold). An agent chooses between good and evil. Seven times in Genesis God sees that what he has created is “good”—as it says (Gen 1:31), “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

Interesting too that it does not say that what happened on the Seventh Day was “good”. The work God did was good, the day he ceased he blessed and sanctified. God’s activity is what is judged.

So when it says that God sees that what he has done is good, this suggests that he is evaluating his work over against some objective standard. So even if God had not done good, that standard would still have existed. Even if God ordered 2 plus 2 to be 5 it would not be so. At the end of the day all theodicies are based herein: God is constrained by a transcendent standard of logic and ethics. God cannot have his cake and eat it too.

God comes to us and says (Isaiah 1:18), “Come now, and let us reason together …” How is that? Is it that we have access to the same transcendent laws of reason (limited though we are) as God has?

Faith, let us say, is conviction of two things—that God exists and that he is good—as it says (Heb 11:6), “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

As much as has been written on the transcendency of ethics (and logic and esthetics) one suspects we have only scratched the surface of this subject.

I think that, like Dave, your own ignorance of scripture is your downfall in this.

I know OT Hebrew well enough to be able to make my own translations (with a lot of work!) and the correct interpretation of the 5th rule is “do no murder”.

You completely miss the whole point of the 10 commandments.

In fact I would challenge you or Dave or any other living being to invent a better moral code than the 10.

You miss the aspect of the spirit of the law or it’s raison d’être.

There is a deep misunderstanding of law itself all through this thread on the part of relativists and other deniers of moral absolutes.

The purpose or spirit of the law is the most important thing, not the letter.

Take your view of the Sabbath; missing the spirit of that rule is where you go astray. All law must be founded in the purpose of serving and protecting the ultimate good – for it’s own sake.

As Christ said (of which you are quite obviously unaware) “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”

The spirit of that law is that men ought rest at least one day in seven. But this is not an absolute rule as Christ again stated,

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”
He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? … For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. Mat 12

And again,

He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out?
Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Mat 12:12

Quite obviously your surgeon example is exactly what Christ spoke of!

As for slavery you err again not being aware of the cultural contexts in which the verses on slaves and masters (usually better translated as employees and employers or surfs and lords) were given. For one thing in OT times it was even common for people in need to “sell themselves” as “slaves” or servants to a land owner to receive “room and board”. That’s only the beginning of the subject!

But your worst mistake is in claiming “there are manifestly no absolutes”. Really? Are you absolutely sure?

Anyone claiming there are no absolutes has not thought the issues through clearly. Worse, in my experience, they are always absolutely sure!

Relativism is inherently self-contradicting. Nothing is more obvious.
And as I keep stating, if there were no absolutes no sane discussion could ever exist. Math could not exist. 1+1 = 2 would not be reliable and no equations, either moral, logical or mathematical could carry any level of confidence.

The existence of logical absolutes is inexplicable under materialism (atheism). As there are logical absolutes, so there are moral absolutes – that is a given and intrinsically implied with logical absolutes.

You also make the mistake of pointing out differences in moral practice in different cultures as though differences annulled the whole root system!

As all who do so, you miss the demonstrable fact that throughout history all men have held to same basic principles. Do unto others, do not lie, do no murder, do not steal etc.

The differences were almost always in form not in substance. You will not find a single civilization in history wherein cowardice or child rape is considered good.
The exceptions to this were always materialist or devil worship cultures

Either Dave is actually “pulling our leg” to have some fun or he answers this way to have save his pride in not having to admit he is wrong.

Or maybe he’s playing the devil’s advocate.

It is impossible to sanely argue any point w/o the existence of logical absolutes. Same for moral arguments. There has to be a transcendent rule of Right.

But, I don’t expect you to agree (or show understanding) – since I think you just want to be argumentative.

BarryA, at this point is it worth your time/effort to keep arguing with DaveScot?

You miss a third option which in this case happens to be the correct option:

DaveScot is, of course, correct, and one of two things must therefore be true:

1. DaveScot’s subjective opinion should be preferred even if it is contrary to the opinion of every other person on the planet.

OR

2. DaveScot has appealed to a standard that transcends both his opinion and the opinion of every other person on the planet.

OR

3. DaveScot trusts his own opinion in this matter above all others, including any God or gods or any number of others in disagreement.

You see, Barry, I am in possession of the absolute truth in this. If you agree then you also know the absolute truth. If you disagree then you are wrong. It’s really just that simple.

Am I arrogant? You bet. It’s well deserved arrogance too and if you disagree well then that’s just another instance where you’re wrong.

DaveScot says that even if everyone in the world believed, “under circumstance X bayoneting babies for fun in front of their mother is a good thing,” it would still be wrong.

DaveScot is, of course, correct, and one of two things must therefore be true:

1. DaveScot’s subjective opinion should be preferred even if it is contrary to the opinion of every other person on the planet.

OR

2. DaveScot has appealed to a standard that transcends both his opinion and the opinion of every other person on the planet.

Since we can know with certainty that DaveScot’s opinion is not more valuable than the collective opinion of 6 billion other people, we must conclude that DaveScot has appealed to a transcendent moral order, the Tao. And quite properly I might add.

What does this mean? It means that when it comes to self-evident moral truth, opinion does not matter. Everyone knows the Tao exists (even if they deny it to others or even themselves).

If the soldier was tossing a puppy in the air and catching it on its bayonet for amusement, that would be gravely immoral too. It would not be as immoral as killing the baby this way. That’s why our law would rightly punish the former as “cruelty to animals” and the latter as “murder.” Both acts are wrong. Both acts are even criminal. The punishment for the former is properly less than the punishment for the latter.

re; 69

Let’s say for the sake of the argument everyone in the world except you and I believed the following proposition: “Under circumstance X bayoneting babies for fun in front of their mother is a good thing.”

Is it always wrong nevertheless?

I would always consider it to be wrong.

But then again I’d always consider pulling the wings off of flys for entertainment to be wrong too.

Your turn.