Ok, if we eliminate God & religion out of the picture, then I guess we are saying we would only have the concept of right & wrong and not the concept of sin, correct?

The question is then, where do we get the concepts of right & wrong? Did we make them up? Is it all relative, according to societal norms or customs?

If this is true, then are there no absolutes?

I know these questions were not directed towards me; but I just gotta add my 2 cents worth.

Sonofalan asks:

Correct!

No offence intended, bit I am often surprised when I see christians suggesting that there are moral absolutes and us Atheists believe morality is relative. It seems to me that it should be the other way around because us Atheists can make absolute statements such as " killing of the innocent is wrong, rape is wrong, human sacrafice is wrong," etc. without having to defend someone elses immoral behavior. I have yet to meet a Christian who would say what Saul and Moses did during war was immoral, or that Abraham was willing to sacrafice his live son to his God was immoral, but they would gladly condem someone else for such acts.

Didache said:

Speaking only for myself (a non religious person) I would consider some of the actions of God as defined in scripture as immoral thus sin and immorality in my book are different.

Peace
Ken

:goodpost: Good discussion on this one :goodpoint:

The underlying point of this is: Is there absolute truth?

In base ten math, 1+1=2 this is an absolute fact or truth, because if you perform this math operation it will always come out to the same answer.

This is a simple little illustration to show that absolute truth (facts) do indeed exist. So with the existence of an absolute truth, the concept of absolutes should extend to other fields as well. What is the origin of an absolute truth? Regardless of whether we choose to believe in this absolute or not, does our unbelief/disbelief make it any less absolute? Can an absolute exist in a vacuum? Or does it need an originator or foundation upon which to be based? Would you have to have something greater than the absolute truth itself upon which it could be based?

Comments, Questions, Answers???

What do you think?

:goodpoint: SoA!

Many people don't believe thare are absolutes, except maybe absolute zero which is absolutely nothing. In fact some go so far as to believe that nothing really matters except what makes you happy!

To those who don't believe in God, God doesn't need you to believe in Him!

Sonofalan asks:

I think to say "an absolute truth" is a little like suggesting an answer for all the worlds problems; each problem requires a different answer, each situation has a different truth.

I don't quite understand how truth can exist in a vacume. As far as a foundation, I think something such as the Golden Rule can be a foundation for which truth can be based; but a origionator, that I don't quite understand what you mean. How can true or false have an origin?

Again you're loosing me bro; how can something be greater than truth? I don't think truth can be measured; Please explain.

Peace
Ken

Hey Ken,

Let me try this another way. If all things were relative (as some say), then there must be something to which all things are relative, but which is not relative itself. In other words, something has to be absolute before we can see that everything else is relative to it.

This is the nature of relations: they exist between two or more things. Nothing can be relative by itself, and if everything else is relative, then no relations are real. There has to be something which does not change by which we can measure the change in everything else. Even Einstein recognized this and posited "absolute Spirit" as something to which all else is related.

From this "absolute Spirit", (which I would view here as the God of the Bible) our sense of values are derived (i.e. our sense of right & wrong). Many things are universally perceived as wrong, such as cruelty to children, rape, murder without cause, etc. C. S. Lewis, in the appendix to his "Abolition of Man" notes that values do not change greatly from one culture to another, but are very similar, thus suggesting an innate source common to all men.

Even, Immanuel Kant came up with a "categorical imperative," which ought to be followed in all circumstances. He said it could be discovered by asking questions for each decision. "Would I want this action to be a universal practice for all men?" If you answer no, then don't do it. "Would you want all men to lie to you?" Then don't lie. "Would you want all men to murder?" Then don't murder. Do only those things that you would want all men to be able to do.

Martin Buber, famed Jewish existentialist, said that the most important moral principal is to treat people as persons, not things. He said that we can go through life seeing everything else as an “It” or we can recognize that some things have a similarity to ourselves and should be called “Thou.” To Buber, it is the “I-Thou” relationships that bring meaning to life and are the basis for all values. People should be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. People should be loved, not used.

It is not hard to see that both Buber and Kant agree in principle with Jesus about the single most important value. Jesus said, “However you want people to treat you, so treat them.” When asked what the most important Law of the Old Testament was, Jesus replied, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

What is Kant’s categorical imperative but a restatement of Christ’s Golden Rule? And what is the greatest commandment if not an imperative to maintain “I-Thou” relationships with all persons, especially the Ultimate Thou? On this one principle, all other ethical norms are established: the Christian ethic of love.

So love is an absolute value that is universally accepted. Even Bertrand Russell, famous for his essay 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' said, "What the world needs is Christian love or compassion." So the question comes down to -- What is the source of that love? If it be Divine, in origin, then would additional "Truth" from this same source need to be re-examined in light of this?

Sonofalan said:

Really! I don't know of anyone who holds that position but I will take your word for it

So if I understand you correctly you are saying for example; if morality is relative, each person’s perception of morality which varies from person to person is absolute. Okay! I can go along with that. (if I am misunderstanding you please explain) thus far we agree.

Personally I believe feelings and emotions are the source of that love. I am sure you will disagree.

If the source of love were divine, it would be a good idea to examine this source further but I don't believe this source is divine. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one huh?

Peace
Ken

Hey Ken,

In talking with many different people from time to time, I've met some who say to me, "What's right for you, may not be right for me and vice-versa" This is definately an example of a person holding to the view that all values are relative.

Ken said,

Almost, but if "each person’s perception of morality which varies from person to person is absolute" then this is not an absolute. If it varies from person to person, then it can not be absolute.

When we say that something is relative (a value, a moral or standard of some sort), then there has to be some value, moral or standard that is absolute by which we judge the other as relative in comparision to. Which would show that absolutes do indeed exist. It is the origin of these absolutes, which we should explore, since (in my view) they are not self-existant, nor self originating, otherwise we would be bordering on a definition of God (the Self-existant One).

For me, Ken, I can't say that love is self originating, it is not self-existant. I see that it is far deeper as to it's root source, than simply human origin or creation.

More times than we want to admit, our perceptions, our choices form our current living environment (reality) until the reality of death spoils our party and we are forced to deal with the very real possibilities we refused to acknowlege in life.

Later, :gathering:

Sonofalan said:

Okay, just to clear things up; a relative value is defined as a value that is influenced by it’s environment. An absolute value is the opposite; it stands on its own and isn’t influenced that way. If I hold true to my convictions no matter who objects to them, that value is absolute. The only way it would become relative is if I were to change my values and convictions because others object to them. So I disagree; just because values may vary from person to person doesn’t mean for each of those people their value isn’t absolute.

I guess your Christian convictions would lead you to see things that way but I disagree. I believe feelings and emotions are the root source of love, hate, jealousy, fear, and all the other emotions humans’ experience.

Peace
Ken

Hi Ken,

you said:

Ok, I can see the point you are making here. But since I don't see absolute values originating from the human (i.e. finite) realm, I would have to say that I hold to a different view. From my vantage point, I see the origin of absolute values only having their root in God alone and then flowing out from there we innately incorporate them into our psychological makeup being creations of God, as I believe all human beings are.

Sonofalas said:

What about the "absolute values" that YOU might object to? Many of these values involve racism, sexism, and various other forms of hatred. Hitler's values included killing all the Jews off the face of the earth; are you sure you wanna claim all these values that imperfect humans have all came from your God?

Peace
Ken

Hey Ken,

I've been down this road before and NOTHING evil is originated by God. In other words, God is not the originator of evil, regardless of what arguments are put forward.

Enjoy!

So you agree; not all "absolute values" origionate from your God?

Ken

Hey Ken,

Not sure how you are defining (or including in) "absolute values", but I'm sure you'll give me something that will go contrary to the nature of God and want to say that it has to originate from God, therefore X is true or false...

So what are you lumping in "absolute values"?

I am defining an absolute value as a value that a person has that does not change from time to time. A relative value is subject to such change. Also just for the record; I am the one who is claiming these absolute values does not origionate from your God

Peace
Ken

Hi Ken,

You mentioned:

Well I'll have to say again, "I don't see absolute values originating from the human (i.e. finite) realm" So we will have to disagree on this point.

You said:

This is where our views differ, I do not see these as absolute values. What is racism in one generation or century is not or is different in another generation or century, same goes for sexism and the like..... In my view, hatred is not a value, but a result from us as human beings rebelling against a loving God and aligning ourselves with the alternative -- Satan, the father of all hate & evil.

Sonofalan said:

If you look up "values" in the dictionary; you will see that values can be positive or negetive; hatred is a value. For you as a Christian to believe all good values come from your God and all bad values come from your Devil doesn't surprise me. I guess this is another one where we can just agree to disagree.

Peace
Ken

Ken,

I would have to agree with you on your last post, because nothing evil originates from God the Father.

Have a great day!

I have thought about absolutes and how absolutes play out in the universe as we know it. I am certain that there are absolutes that exist abundantly in the universe around us. For example: gravity. Gravity is the same today as it was 12 billion years ago and is expected to be the same for all time to come. Gravity is also the same here in our solar system as it is through all the far and strange reaches of the universe. In addition to gravity there is the language of mathematics. Not only is mathematics itself absolute but through mathematics we are able to quantify the absoluteness of much of the universe. In other words we can model gravity through the absoluteness of mathematics.

The question is not if there are absolutes but rather what are the absolutes and how are such things identified and quantified and modeled. In addition is a concept of considering the divine as absolute. I hope as we proceed through this process we can establish some rhetorical rules of logic as a means to establish absoluteness. Let me begin with an example.

Suppose as an absolute we say that G-d is the source of good and Satan is the source of evil. If good and evil each have single sources then using rhetorical logic there are something that must be for such sources of good and evil to be absolute. For example:
1. Satan cannot have been created by G-d. If G-d was the source or creator of Satan then rhetorical logic tells us that Satan is not the source of evil because he is not in reality a source but has source from somewhere else; that somewhere else being G-d. Therefore, G-d is the source of Satan and the source of evil. But if Satan is the source of evil then as that source he could not have been created.
2. Likewise if man has an evil nature that source cannot be G-d and thus G-d cannot be the single creator of all that is man. That is – unless G-d is the source of evil or there is in man something that was not created by G-d.
3. If G-d is the only source of good then rhetorical logic implies that no one can accomplish good without being connected to that single source of good. We cannot say that compassion towards others is good unless the sole source of compassion towards others comes from direct connection to G-d. This implies that our connection to G-d is inseparably connected to our abilities to channel his goodness. So that a person that is compassionate must have a connection with G-d. In fact it would imply that the greater the compassion the greater the connection and the less the compassion the less the connection.
4. The same is implied of Satan and those that support evil. There must be a direct connection between that person of evil designs and Satan.

If in our definition of G-d we violate the absolute principles of rhetorical logic then the only logical conclusion is that such a definition of a G-d of absolution cannot be accurate or even exist. On the other hand if our understanding of G-d complies with the principles of rhetorical logic then it is both possible and logical that such a G-d could exist.

The Traveler

Traveler; you've made some excellent points my friend! Excellent points

Peace
Ken

Greetings Traveler,

You stated,

Let me offer an alternate view, because I both agree & disagree with your first sentence. It is true God did not create Satan. But He did create the "anointed cherub" of Ezekiel 28:14, 15, who was otherwise known as Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12).

After God had finished all His creative work, He declared it good (Genesis 1:25). And since the angels, cherubs, serephims and other created beings fall under the classification of "created", God even declared that Lucifer at the start was good.

We see from Isaiah 14:12-15, Lucifier openly rebells against God and tries to usurp God's position & place, which in turn brings the judgement of God upon himself and he "becomes" Satan. He was NOT created as Satan from the moment of his creation, therefore God is not the originator of evil.

Thanks for answering. I find this interesting. I was banned from a Christian fellowship forum (I believe it was called Crosswalk or something like that) for stating that the scripture in Ezekiel was concerning Satan and used symbolically in reference to a king as a Satan type. I was told that I could not hold that interpretation and still be a Christian according to traditional Christianity. Thought you would like to know that.

Again rhetorical logic leaves us with questions of if G-d did not know that the Satan as he had created him would rebel; as if G-d could not foresee, know or be 100% sure of such a thing. The point I am trying to make is that if G-d creates, as most attempt to define creation that Satan would only have been as G-d knew Satan would be and was created by him to be. In other words G-d is in control and indeed the source of both Satan and the works he was created to do. The point that I am trying to make is that there are in the essence of what is Satan (as well as in all of mankind) that which G-d did not create. The argument that we are as G-d created us is not a correct interpretation of creation or what we are to understand of Genesis. There must be something of G-d's creations that was not created by him that is capable of evil - or else that evil must have come from G-d because there could not have been any other source first source of that evil.

As a side note (not to distract from this thread) but if one reads the Old Testament from the original Hebrew and accepts Lucifer as the Anointed (Messiah) Cherub in Ezekiel then Jesus (as specified in the New Testament) and Lucifer are actually brothers. When I pointed this out (as explained to me by a Jewish Rabbi - I was told that no Christian understands the scripture in Ezekiel to reference Lucifer or Satan.)

The Traveler

Hello Traveler,

Sorry to hear that some other forum banned you from participating in the discussion. But if you were putting forth the Mormon doctrine of Christ and Lucifier being "spirit" brothers, I could see how that could happen on some forums. Now I am not trying to disrespect your Mormon doctrinal belief here but nothing could be further from the truth! I have studied this doctrine and no where in any Biblical doctrine, any Apostolic teaching, or Early Church Father writings is this doctrine put forth, held or taught.

Does this mean that you have the ability to read the OT in Hebrew? If so, you indeed are the scholar and I tip my hat to you, because Hebrew is a language that requires very diligent study and much continued practice to stay current and to become proficient. If not, are you pulling from the research of someone else in this assessment?

Not really sure how this could be possible since Ezekiel 28:15 states "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you" Yet, in Colossians 1:16, referring to Christ it states, "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." and again in Hebrews 1, the Son is affirmed & declared to be God, Co-Eternal with the Father. Clearly there is a distinction between the created (Lucifer) and the Creator (Christ), to where a "spirit' brother association really has no merit, especially when trying to infer a coequality of the two. If you wish to continue this subject I can split off (copy) this part to a new topic.

Now you also said:

Again, I will have to disagree and take the other side of this one. Jesus indeed did create the angelic host (Col. 1:16), but did not force Lucifer to rebell and therefore become the creator of evil, simply because Lucifer chose to exercise his free will. That is like saying when Smith & Wesson created the handgun, every murder, every robbery, every crime commited with a handgun is directly linked and charged against them, because they created it.

Also we learn from James 1:13, "...God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone." This goes against the very nature of God and trying to assign the creation of evil to God, even through foreknowledge violates that very nature.

Thank you for your kind considerations, Son of Aslan:

I would like to make it clear that I am not a religious scholar. By profession I am an engineer. As far as ancient Hebrew is concerned, I am not proficient but I have learned (self taught) to read some Hebrew. When I purchase material that is translated from ancient script I favor the work that provides a copy of the ancient text, the translation and the commentary. In addition I have a couple of friends that help me from time to time with Hebrew. One is Jewish which helps to avoid certain kinds of “Christian” bias. The other is Arabic and Islamic that offers a different slant to things as well. The only reason that I am telling you this is that although I am dependent somewhat of opinions, I have means to check out and get feed back from experts of more than one biased point of view.

In general when attempting communication words have meaning but even when communicating in the same time and place and in the same language there is ambiguity. For example if I say “Everybody calls me The Traveler”. The words express both an intent and extent of idea in our communication. Plus there can also be insinuations or common use of phrases which can have impact on meaning. It is quite unlikely that the literal meaning of “Everybody” actually applies in this case. Everybody may refer to certain people that know me quite well. It is possible that there are people who have met me that have no idea at all of “The Traveler” and yet the statement would be “true” or correct.

In scripture the notion of Cherub is rather interesting and is usually referenced in two’s in ancient scripture. The term “Cherub” is a Greek translation of a Hebrew term of which the exact meaning is not certain in our modern time. For example there is nothing in scripture or ancient text to imply that a Cherub is an “angel” type but that is the accepted unverified meaning. If we understand Satan (ie Lucifer) to be one of the Anointed Cherub that cover we are presented with a rather interesting puzzle. There is only one place in scripture that describe covering Cherubim and there the reverence are to two of them that are opposing brothers (meaning brothers in conflict). Satan is identified as one – the other is given by a number of symbols. Every one of those symbols points directly to Jesus and titles, symbols and claims made in the New Testament concerning Jesus and no other possibility.

I am not saying that this has to be – just that if one uses ancient scripture as authority then it is a possibility that ought to be considered and not dismissed based on prejudicial notion based on modern interpretation by scholars distant from ancient concepts. This plea may get me ostracized by some individuals, societies and groups but does not such a lack of consideration say more about them and their Christian status – in light of the concept and idea of the “Golden rule” as taught by Jesus Christ?

Back to the concept at hand. Your point is that a creator of a gun is not responsible for what a gun does. There is an error in this argument. The problem is that a gun has no means or ability to act for itself. It can only be acted upon. It is how it is acted upon that determines how it is used. In other words something that was not involved in the creation must determine the use of the gun to as either good or evil.

It is LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) logic and doctrine that “All Things” that pertain to the empirical universe that we physical humans can sense with our five senses and extensions of those senses is created through Jesus Christ. There are however, non-empirical elements of man (and Satan) that cannot be experienced through our five senses and can only be “spiritually” discerned. Not only does rhetorical logic demand such understanding (as has been already argued) but if one references the ancient scriptures such notions are possible, though not popular in our modern interpretations of what we now think of as religion based on scholarly interpretation of scripture.

The very fact that it is claimed that man has the ability to choose independent of G-d’s will demands that we must recognize that there must be an element of man that does not have G-d or G-d’s creation as a source. If G-d is not the source of it then we cannot say that G-d is the creator of it. If G-d is not the creator of what-ever “that” is then me must conclude that there is something outside of the empirical definition of man that G-d does not create. Therefore, there is something missing from the understanding that G-d created “All Things”. A misunderstanding that can come from either ambiguity of word meaning or ambiguity introduced through translation and interpretation of ancient scripture. Rhetorical logic dictates and demands a source other than G-d in order that man has an independent ability contrary to G-d’s will.

Let me take this one step farther in rhetorical logic. If G-d created all things that exist then rhetorical logic tells us that either G-d does not exist or he is a created thing – created by himself; according to definition of all things.

The Traveler