The 6th commandment to not murder has a narrow meaning that physically murdering someone is sin while it also has a broader meaning that hate in a persons heart is sin. This then can be applied to other modern moral issues such as abortion and birth control. Again proper hermeneutics and exegesis of the Bible is required.
My bold.
I hope I'm not derailing here, but this brought me up short. How can the 6th Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) be "applied to other modern moral issues" such as birth control?
Birth control?
By taking what the Bible defines as life in order to apply it to the commandment. Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 22:10–11, and Luke 1:41–43 all imply the unborn is a human being. Modern science is able to show us when an embryo is a new life. At fertilization, a new genetic code is created, thus resulting in a new life being born at conception.
Next we look at how different types of contraceptives work and evaluate whether they prevent fertilization or is it an abortifacient. For example, barrier methods, vasectomy, and tubal ligation all prevent fertilization and would not be considered violating the 6th commandment. Intrauterine devices kill a fertilized egg so would be sinful. Oral contraceptives are trickier and would require research, prayerful discernment, and consultation with a doctor to fully understand how the contraceptive is designed to work.
You've undercut your own argument, in the part I bolded.
By your own admission, there may be people who do not believe in your definition of absolute authority by god. Using your example of the stolen car, how can you apply your definition to someone who does not have the same belief as you? For someone with different beliefs to be judged wrong by all, everyone would have to agree with your beliefs.
Again by your own admission, you don't have that, so your conclusion must be that you cannot force the assumption and consequences of your belief in a god with absolute moral authority on someone who does not hold that belief.
More simply put, your logic is faulty. You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions.
That is exactly my point, it is faulty logic to conclude a person or society can operate on moral relativity My argument is everyone does agree that stealing a car is wrong, which presupposes an absolute moral authority. Are you arguing there is not a moral standard?
No, everyone does not agree with your example, and even if everyone internally agreed on one thing, it would not presuppose an external absolute single moral authority in the form of your god.
But the main point is still this: "You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions."
You can't argue for the truth of a thing simply because you assume it is true. If others don't assume it's true (that's your 'whether you believe it or not' part), you simply stating it is true does not make it so.
You've undercut your own argument, in the part I bolded.
By your own admission, there may be people who do not believe in your definition of absolute authority by god. Using your example of the stolen car, how can you apply your definition to someone who does not have the same belief as you? For someone with different beliefs to be judged wrong by all, everyone would have to agree with your beliefs.
Again by your own admission, you don't have that, so your conclusion must be that you cannot force the assumption and consequences of your belief in a god with absolute moral authority on someone who does not hold that belief.
More simply put, your logic is faulty. You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions.
That is exactly my point, it is faulty logic to conclude a person or society can operate on moral relativity My argument is everyone does agree that stealing a car is wrong, which presupposes an absolute moral authority. Are you arguing there is not a moral standard?
I think you are conflating moral relativism with constructed systems of morality. The fact that a community of individuals can construct a moral system that includes broad, general agreement presupposes exactly nothing. We can agree on all sorts of things without divine revelation.
Even your car example is flawed. I can construct endless scenarios involving thefts of automobiles where we would agree that stealing a car is the moral thing to do. With some thought, I could keep doing that until any group of Christians would split down the middle on the issue of whether stealing a car would be moral.
What you describe as exegis is nothing more than laying one of a near infinite subjective interpretations on the text. And regardless of which combination of selective interpretations you choose, it will always be possible to construct a scenario where your subjective interpretation results in an immoral result. What I’m describing is an inherent property of language. If you try to create a set of rules that always lead to the moral result, you will have to make more and more Ed exceptions to the point that your rule set is a giant mass of “it depends.”
Objective morality is a story people tell themselves want they want to force their subjective systems of morality on others.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
No, everyone does not agree with your example, and even if everyone internally agreed on one thing, it would not presuppose an external absolute single moral authority in the form of your god.
But the main point is still this: "You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions."
You can't argue for the truth of a thing simply because you assume it is true. If others don't assume it's true (that's your 'whether you believe it or not' part), you simply stating it is true does not make it so.
You still haven't answered my question about the existence of moral standards. Let's start with something basic. Do you believe rape is objectively wrong? If yes, then you agree there is a moral absolute. If there is a moral absolute, what is that absolute based on? If you don't believe in moral absolute then you are moral relativist in which there is no debate on moral issues because morals don't exist.
I think you are conflating moral relativism with constructed systems of morality. The fact that a community of individuals can construct a moral system that includes broad, general agreement presupposes exactly nothing. We can agree on all sorts of things without divine revelation.
So what happens when that community of individuals constructs a new set of moral values? We fall into relativism again. Objective moral truths must presuppose an unchanging absolute moral authority.
I think you are conflating moral relativism with constructed systems of morality. The fact that a community of individuals can construct a moral system that includes broad, general agreement presupposes exactly nothing. We can agree on all sorts of things without divine revelation.
So what happens when that community of individuals constructs a new set of moral values? We fall into relativism again. Objective moral truths must presuppose an unchanging absolute moral authority.
Respectfully, I think you’re missing the point. As you are using the terms, your objective moral truth is an illusion. The moral system you perceive as objective always was relative. It was always constructed within the community. There is broad agreement on very general statements, but the more specific the factual context, the less agreement there is. Unless you cherry pick an extreme scenario.
Thou shall not kill. Is it moral to execute a murderer? Is there universal agreement among Christians on that question?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Thanks pgm1985. I do want to ask if seeing things through a Christian lens is the proper way to see things. Growing up I went to Sunday School, early morning Seminary for a few years, and took classes at the church's Institute of Religion which was right across the street from the community college and University I attended. As I looked back, it seems to me they cherry-picked verses to support their so-called version of the truth. Now that I'm older I can see that you really need to understand the culture and time and what the preceding and post chapters were about to understand the scripture(s) being quoted.
I like to read different Bible sections from Bibles translated at different times by different people, or compare the scriptures being said and if they saying something different. Today I'm reading a new version of the Bible. The Complete Jewish Bible translated by David H. Stern. At the beginning he writes:
“An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and the B ’rit Hadashah (New Testament)”
He further writes:
“Why is this Bible different from all other Bibles? Because it is the only English version of the Bible fully Jewish in style and presentation that includes both the Tanakh (‘Old Testement’) and B’rit Hadasha (new Covenant, ‘New Testament’) Even its title, the Complete Jewish Bible, challenges both Jews and Christians to see that the whole Bible is Jewish, the B’rit Hadashah as well as the Tanakh. Jews are challenged by the implication that without it the Tanakh is an incomplete Bible. Christians are challenged with the fact that they are joined to the Jewish people through faith in the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus) – so that because Christianity can be right understood only from a Jewish perspective, anti-semitism is condemned absolutely and forever. In short, the Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish unity of the Bible. Also, for the first time the information needed for the synagogue reading for the Torah and the Prophets in completely integrated with similar use of the B’rit Hadasha.”
You are correct that some churches do cherry pick verses to prove a point. This is known as eisegesis, the interpretation of biblical text by reading one's ideas into it, and it is wrong. In order to understand the truth in Scripture, you must properly exegete Scripture in order to read out of' the text what the original author or authors meant to convey.
I'm a bit confused by your statement about the Jewish Messiah. The Jewish people have rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Orthodox Christians fully understand Jesus came from Jewish descent and the Old Testament is written by the Jewish people, though still inspired by God. Christians have not contested they are joined to the Jewish people. A large number of early Christians were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Messiah. That is why they began to be referred as Christians, to separate them from the unbelieving Jews who expected an earthly messiah. The New Testament is full of references to Old Testament including references made by Jesus. It is not under debate that the complete canon is the New and the Old Testament together. What is Jewish style and presentation that would make this translation different from other translations?
Thanks pgm1985. I'm sure you understand that not only were a number of early Christian Jews but it's highly likely only Jews were the early Christians. Even Samaritans had Jewish lineage. Per the Gospel writers the discussion at the Jacob's well shows Jesus's concern for them and that he was sent to them.
I would also caution Christians of trying to force a square peg in a round hole like they do in the Book of Isaiah chapters 5-10. I ask - is it about Jesus the Messiah? or is it about two kings, one of the northern tribes, one of a neighboring country who will conspire to attack Judah. But Isaiah says a child will be born, a child in the 8th century bc who will eventually choose only goodness and when that happens those two kings will be dead, so don't worry about. Christians believe Jesus was perfect, he never sinned and never did anything wrong, so it's not likely Isaiah was writing about Jesus in those chapters. That's my take at this point.
Dan McClellan, who left Mormon church employment to bring his thoughts to people via social media is an interesting person to watch. I watch him on YouTube. I remember hearing him a while back saying that nothing in the Old Testament is about Jesus Christ. He likely believes in Jesus Christ as the Messiah in other personal ways but not via the Old Testament. I believe his pitch is data over dogma.
No, everyone does not agree with your example, and even if everyone internally agreed on one thing, it would not presuppose an external absolute single moral authority in the form of your god.
But the main point is still this: "You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions."
You can't argue for the truth of a thing simply because you assume it is true. If others don't assume it's true (that's your 'whether you believe it or not' part), you simply stating it is true does not make it so.
You still haven't answered my question about the existence of moral standards. Let's start with something basic. Do you believe rape is objectively wrong? If yes, then you agree there is a moral absolute. If there is a moral absolute, what is that absolute based on? If you don't believe in moral absolute then you are moral relativist in which there is no debate on moral issues because morals don't exist.
I wasn't posting about that, I was making the point that "you are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions."
Also, "you can't argue for the truth of a thing simply because you assume it is true. If others don't assume it's true (that's your 'whether you believe it or not' part), you simply stating it is true does not make it so."
That's what I am interested in discussing-the statement of your beliefs as starting assumptions as though everyone agrees with them. They don't, so all of your conclusions after that are insufficient. I know physics guy as well as many others have been making the same point, that your assumption that your beliefs are true is not a sufficient starting point. Without that, there is no basis for an argument. I have yet to see you respond to any of those arguments other than to re-state that your beliefs should hold for everyone, which is not a sufficient basis for a discussion on morality. If you have a response to any of those type of comments, I would be interested.
I hope I'm not derailing here, but this brought me up short. How can the 6th Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) be "applied to other modern moral issues" such as birth control?
Birth control?
By taking what the Bible defines as life in order to apply it to the commandment. Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 22:10–11, and Luke 1:41–43 all imply the unborn is a human being. Modern science is able to show us when an embryo is a new life. At fertilization, a new genetic code is created, thus resulting in a new life being born at conception.
Next we look at how different types of contraceptives work and evaluate whether they prevent fertilization or is it an abortifacient. For example, barrier methods, vasectomy, and tubal ligation all prevent fertilization and would not be considered violating the 6th commandment. Intrauterine devices kill a fertilized egg so would be sinful. Oral contraceptives are trickier and would require research, prayerful discernment, and consultation with a doctor to fully understand how the contraceptive is designed to work.
There’s your false consciousness at work. The passages themselves do not “imply” any thing. You are inferring conclusions based on the text. That makes your conclusion subjective, not objective. The second you interpret the text, you forfeit any claim to “objective” morality.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
You've undercut your own argument, in the part I bolded.
By your own admission, there may be people who do not believe in your definition of absolute authority by god. Using your example of the stolen car, how can you apply your definition to someone who does not have the same belief as you? For someone with different beliefs to be judged wrong by all, everyone would have to agree with your beliefs.
Again by your own admission, you don't have that, so your conclusion must be that you cannot force the assumption and consequences of your belief in a god with absolute moral authority on someone who does not hold that belief.
More simply put, your logic is faulty. You are assuming your conclusion in your starting assumptions, but that does NOT prove your conclusion, especially for those who disagree with your starting assumptions.
That is exactly my point, it is faulty logic to conclude a person or society can operate on moral relativity My argument is everyone does agree that stealing a car is wrong, which presupposes an absolute moral authority. Are you arguing there is not a moral standard?
pgm1985, everybody speaking here agrees there is a moral standard. There are disagreements as to how specifically we know that . Most of us think that people in the context of government come together to form the best understanding available.Laws are made by valid human government.I think the fact that we are created in the image of God gives us the ability to make those judgments. Yes sin causes humans to fudge rules, fake them and sometimes disregard them still we have the sense God gave us to search after those. The scriptures and the Holy Spirit encourage and drive us toward truthfulness and away from the fakes.
I do not think anybody here thinks you are the moral authority and when you stand on the Bible people see your limited understanding putting itself first. I certainly do not trust you with that much authority.
