Are there moral absolutes, or does everything just boil down to opinion?

Michael Z said:
Jesus gave us some pretty good guidelines for living.
Click to expand...
Yes, along with many other moral leaders. It would be nice if those who pay lip service really followed their guidance. (They often don't.)

Also, realistically, those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a country that has freedom of religion, and also freedom from religion cannot just use religion as the basis for everything they do. They also have to follow the laws of the country they are in.
 
Speaking of moral absolutes, the other day somebody mentioned what while most sins such as murder, stealing and lying are only mentioned once in the 10 Commandments, adultery is mentioned twice. You shall not commit adultery and you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife (and husband in these days). Interesting.
 

Last edited:
PeppermintPatty said:
That Lord of the Flies novel we had to read as a kid , I found very haunting. When I think about it I wonder why such a book would be on a young child’s education curriculum.

Then there was ‘The Diary of Anne Frank.’ That book I can somewhat understand being on the curriculum but it was super depressing.

Anyway, I guess I’m getting off track.
Click to expand...
Pepper said:
I want to point out there are book bannings on the books above. Some of the excuses for it are the very ones you mention: haunting, depressing, etc. I do not approve of book banning based on some children's reactions to subject such as these. Nor are you suggesting that, not saying you are, just pointing it out.
Click to expand...
I read both those books when I was a school-boy, and, tho a child, I completely understood that The Lord of the Flies was a novel about how easily a youthful, impressionable society can become fascist, and that The Diary of Anne Frank was based around the diary of a bright, happy young girl whose life was interrupted by atrocities perpetrated by a fascist society.

So, it's interesting you've mentioned those 2 books in particular.
 
Murrmurr said:
I read both those books when I was a school-boy, and, tho a child, I completely understood that The Lord of the Flies was a novel about how easily a youthful, impressionable society can become fascist, and that The Diary of Anne Frank was based around the diary of a bright, happy young girl whose life was interrupted by atrocities perpetrated by a fascist society.

So, it's interesting you've mentioned those 2 books in particular.
Click to expand...
You clearly were a more mature , intellectual child than I and probably a more mature intellectual adult also lol
 
PeppermintPatty said:
You clearly were a more mature , intellectual child than I and probably a more mature intellectual adult also lol
Click to expand...
Credit to my teachers.

Back in the day, when you finished your assigned reading, the teacher would stand in front of the class and ask everyone what they got out of it, and then we'd have an hour-long open discussion about it.

The open discussion was especially good for the kids who didn't actually do the reading. Sometimes that included me. These teachers were so good that I think I read books I didn't actually read. 😉
 
Murrmurr said:
I read both those books when I was a school-boy, and, tho a child, I completely understood that The Lord of the Flies was a novel about how easily a youthful, impressionable society can become fascist, and that The Diary of Anne Frank was based around the diary of a bright, happy young girl whose life was interrupted by atrocities perpetrated by a fascist society.

So, it's interesting you've mentioned those 2 books in particular.
Click to expand...
Didn't we all read them? Newsflash: Florida bans Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet in high school; only excerpts will be allowed. Sex. That's the culprit!
 
Pepper said:
Didn't we all read them? Newsflash: Florida bans Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet in high school; only excerpts will be allowed. Sex. That's the culprit!
Click to expand...
The same high schools where students can grab as many condoms as they'll need from a fishbowl on the receptionist's desk, and watch demonstrations on how to put them on a banana that has a couple of small walnuts attached to one end of it?

Those high schools?
 
God I'm still having problems with the subject title wot is it again?? oh yes absolute moral rules is that close enough?? - depends which evolutionary story you follow - kingdom of the apes or the garden of eden and henceforth - I can't imagine apes having moral codes I understand the are commonly able and willing to murder in either their own tribe or other tribes - did darwin ever say we had evolved from apes ?? - I doubt it - he was quite religious really.

I must admit I have not read any recent anthropological studies - so is there anything in that range of readings that would indicate that somewhere along the evolutionary track of homo sapiens did not have moral codes and therefore developed along the way or they were there all along OR perhaps started with of course the 'garden of eden' story or perhaps Abraham??> - gets murky doesn't it?
 
bobcat48 said:
I guess king David had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That's gonna keep a guy pretty busy. :p
Click to expand...
I doubt if David was alive when the Ten Commandments were wrote. Lots of begats between Moses and David. Besides David should have known better as should have Bathsheba.
Pepper said:
Didn't we all read them? Newsflash: Florida bans Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet in high school; only excerpts will be allowed. Sex. That's the culprit!
Click to expand...
This confuses me. So the kids can read Romeo and Juliet in elementary and middle school but not in high school. That seems strange.
 
The ethos of society establish accepted behaviors and what constitutes right and wrong. Thus, it depends on where in the world one resides as to what is considered absolute morals. There are some areas of this globe where the behavior of certain peoples are utterly revolting to others, yet, to that group, it's fine. I have concluded there are no absolute morals.
 
Murrmurr said:
The same high schools where students can grab as many condoms as they'll need from a fishbowl on the receptionist's desk, and watch demonstrations on how to put them on a banana that has a couple of small walnuts attached to one end of it?

Those high schools?
Click to expand...
This is Flawrida we're talking about!
 
What Jesus provided in His teachings was a New Way. In fact, Christianity was referred to as "The Way" in the book of Acts.
Love your enemy, do your good works in secret for God's glory not your own glory, maintain purity in your marriage not only in action but in thought, comfort the downcast. This was, as stated in Romans, "the law will be written on your heart". The Fruits of the Spirit described in Galatians 5. According to Jesus, we needed to be the New Creation spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5:17, Born Again. Morality was to be self-imposed and we were to seek peace. This was God's answer to our sinful nature.

In the Old Testament, however, man lived under the Law and by the old sinful nature. As sinners, they lived with and understood death for in Romans 6:23 it states "For the wages of sin is death". All of the killing described in the Old Testament is troubling to me as well, but it was generally aimed at pagan groups that were committing terrible acts such as child sacrifice. Death was so common. But in the modern era, we see plenty of death as well like senseless shootings and mass murder of many innocent millions by Stalin, Hitler, and others.

I am thankful that God came to earth as a man Jesus and brought a better remedy for sin.
 
The OP crafted one of the most overly broad thread subjects ever with endless exceptions (Intentionally? :) ), then used narrow cherry picked arguments to support a narrow intent of what he was really trying to communicate but didn't want to state so. And of course, members immediately took that bait responding in 99 different other ways he didn't intend but maybe expected, resulting in a non-sense, useless free for all.

Remember at my college Logic Course class how the black leather jacketed professor began the course asking for a short homework written answer to "Is Killing Wrong?" and then subsequently the next day murdered all but 2 of us in the full classroom mostly because so many think in black and white terms, especially if it involves their emotions.
 
bobcat said:
As for amending the constitution, it can happen, but you have to have a 2/3 majority, which we haven't seen in some time. Most of the time voting is down party lines, with the exception of a few that have backbone
Click to expand...

Or the other Article 5 procedure is when 2/3 of the States demand a convention, etc.
 
bobcat said:
Yeah, I guess it's a bit scary when you think about it. The fate of what is moral and just, ultimately lies in the hands of 9 people on the Supreme Court. Even then, they are often divided on what they think, and sometimes it comes down to one person who casts the vote that decides for 300 million in the U.S., and it is simply based on that person's subjective view of life.
Click to expand...
True, but if the SC rules something does not violate the Constitution, a State is free to say it violates thiers.
 
bobcat said:
Yeah, I guess it's a bit scary when you think about it. The fate of what is moral and just, ultimately lies in the hands of 9 people on the Supreme Court. Even then, they are often divided on what they think, and sometimes it comes down to one person who casts the vote that decides for 300 million in the U.S., and it is simply based on that person's subjective view of life.
Click to expand...
The fate of what is moral and just does not lie in the hands of those 9 members of the Supreme Court. What is moral and just is usually determined by the 10 commandments, which is the basis for our Constitutional law. It is incumbent upon the Court's members to apply that law. Anyone deciding for himself what is moral and just is ok in everyday life, but, society at large cannot determine this without the guidelines of our Constitution.
 
Lewkat said:
The fate of what is moral and just does not lie in the hands of those 9 members of the Supreme Court. What is moral and just is usually determined by the 10 commandments, which is the basis for our Constitutional law. It is incumbent upon the Court's members to apply that law. Anyone deciding for himself what is moral and just is ok in everyday life, but, society at large cannot determine this without the guidelines of our Constitution.
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree. The ten commandments are hardly the basis of our constitutional law. Only two are reflected in law (Killing and stealing). The rest aren't illegal. So your statement is incorrect.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
 
Lewkat said:
The fate of what is moral and just does not lie in the hands of those 9 members of the Supreme Court. What is moral and just is usually determined by the 10 commandments, which is the basis for our Constitutional law. It is incumbent upon the Court's members to apply that law. Anyone deciding for himself what is moral and just is ok in everyday life, but, society at large cannot determine this without the guidelines of our Constitution.
Click to expand...

This is a dangerous road, imo. The Constitution has to be followed by all, but not everyone is Christian. This may seem subtle, but I'm not so sure it is. I think of say, the belief in Islam that no images of the God are allowed. When an office is fire bombed, someone is killed, or someone is attacked on stage for defiling their God, I admit I get a little angry. It's all dogma with no common sense. Our freedoms are worth more than that.

At the same time, this rule/law exists in their faith, and that's all the justification they need. I'm uncomfortable with laws being in place just because it's part of religious doctrine. The Constitution is a fine document, but it shouldn't need Christian faith to hold it up.

That said, of course, the commandments are clearly well thought out and valid in intent.
 
Last edited:
oldaunt said:
Three, actually. "False witness" can get you prison time. That aside, I have always tried to keep the last 6, and more people should.
Click to expand...
True, but only under oath or in certain conditions (Libel and slander). Other than that, people do it all the time with no repercussions. Just sayin'
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top