Does Christianity provide an absolute moral code?

[StaggerLee]

Assuming the existence of God, I would agree that absolute morals can exist, though only theoretically. But even inside the context of the Bible, there are subjective exceptions to virtually every admonition by God. Should we or should we not stone adulteresses? Is it ok for Jesus to work on the Sabbath? Shalt we not kill at all, or when is it ok? Should we honor our families as the Decalogue says, or dismiss them as Jesus says? Of course, I realize there are apologetic responses to each of these, but the point is that the difference in attitude between each of these apparent paradoxes is that of context. That is to say, even the ones which show Jesus or God breaking commands given to us shows that there are separate, subjective realms of morality. And, worse yet, even the attempt to interpret and harmonize these contradictions requires a subjective evaluation. All of this assuming that the Bible itself has been effectively transmitted to us.

In other words, even if there exists an objective divine morality, it seems useless, because it's utterly unknowable. Thoughts?

[Rian]

Hello, and welcome to the forum! I hope you like it here.

(The following assumes the Christian worldview to be true, for the sake of discussion of your post, so let's not get into "did Jesus even exist?" types of questions, OK?)

My thought is this - I don't see a problem with what you're saying is a problem, because I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. You're looking at it like the goal of morality is to score high on the test, so to speak, and/or to at least have the same questions on the test. However, I don't think that's the goal. I think the Bible is pretty clear that relationship is the goal. The law shows us that we "sin" (i.e., do things wrong sometimes in a way that hurts others), and this rightly divides us relationally from a perfect and holy God, just like we would naturally not want to be chummy with a pedophile. Jesus came to fix this problem because God loves us. As long as we know that we've missed at least one question on the test, then the goal of the test has been achieved. Do you see what I'm saying?

Another thing that is often overlooked when discussing this issue is that the Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, complete with leather binding and tabs to the different books. It is the story of the building of a relationship, and this is why, for example, the OT laws aren't needed today, and why this difference isn't a problem, either.

Thoughts back?

[StaggerLee]

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I think you make an interesting point by saying that "relationship" between people and God is the major theme of the Bible. Though this is a rather good point which can be backed by certain scriptural passages, I think you'd find that most Christians, even if they accept that claim, would say that the Bible has at least something to say about how we should behave. Of course, it's not as if they agree with my position about the book's utter incoherency either. Indeed, the Bible constantly admonishes and condemns certain actions. It would seem odd that we aren't to try to make sense of them. And, naturally, by this very act we run the risk of interpreting these commands incorrectly. And it's not just that I mean to point out contradictions. What I mean is that in most cases, the explanation for seeming contradictions forces human beings to determine the correct course.

So if Jesus negates the Old Teastament, it means that God's commands, both prior and subsequent, are subjective to time. And anyway, Jesus does uphold every "jot and tittle" of the Old Testament. But that's beside the point.

And when we examine something like "Thou shalt not kill," we sometimes say that the better term is "murder." This is a subjective judgement based on human translation. I've also heard that what is meant is that you should not kill your neighbor. This gets God off the hook for the wars of conquest he'll order in just a couple pages. This means his will is subjective to place.

If the law is just a way to show us that we sin, it seems a bit arbitrary that we are without much coherent explanation of what that means specifically. I think it's a leap to say that the test is passed by our recognition of this.

[humanguy]

No. Christianity does not provide an absolute moral code.

[mitchellmckain]

What the hell is an absolute moral code? Is this a set of rules that will tell us exactly the right thing to do in every circumstance with no room for interpretation? Only the willfull ignorance of a small mind and a will to keep the human race in some ignorant primitive stasis can possibly enable someone to believe in something like that. And if you think that providing such a thing is what Christianity is all about then I don't think you understand Christianity at all.

Now are there any absolutes in the moral arena at all? I certainly think so. But does Christianity provide all of those absolutes separated from all the aspects of morality which are culturally relative? No it does not. What Christianity is about is a restoration of our relationship with the creator of the universe and it is in that relationship that we eventually expect to find the moral guidance we need.

[humanguy]

Now are there any absolutes in the moral arena at all? I certainly think so.

What are they?

[mitchellmckain]

Now are there any absolutes in the moral arena at all? I certainly think so.

What are they?

I explained to Rian that I know for a fact that atheists can find reasons for morality because I was one of them. Thus all her example demonstrated was that this particular atheist whose conversation she reported to us hadn't done that kind of thinking. So the point is that your question makes me curious about which category would you be in? You see, if you can find reasons why certain things are really right or wrong regardless of what other people dictate, then that there gives you basis for seeing absolutes in the moral arena. So.... have you done the work of thinking of reasons for moral behavior, or are you like the lady in Rian's example just borrowing the morality of the very religion that you rejected?

Because if you have done the thinking yourself then you don't need me to answer your question for the sake of establishing that there are absolutes in the moral arena and all your question really intends, is to do put yourself forward as a judge of other people's decisions about what is moral.

[humanguy]

Now are there any absolutes in the moral arena at all? I certainly think so.

What are they?

I explained to Rian that I know for a fact that atheists can find reasons for morality because I was one of them. Thus all her example demonstrated was that this particular atheist whose conversation she reported to us hadn't done that kind of thinking. So the point is that your question makes me curious about which category would you be in? You see, if you can find reasons why certain things are really right or wrong regardless of what other people dictate, then that there gives you basis for seeing absolutes in moral arena right there. So.... have you done the work of thinking of reasons for moral behavior, or are you like the lady in Rian's example just borrowing the morality of the very religion that you rejected?

What are the absolutes in the moral arena?

[mitchellmckain]

Now are there any absolutes in the moral arena at all? I certainly think so.

What are they?

I explained to Rian that I know for a fact that atheists can find reasons for morality because I was one of them. Thus all her example demonstrated was that this particular atheist whose conversation she reported to us hadn't done that kind of thinking. So the point is that your question makes me curious about which category would you be in? You see, if you can find reasons why certain things are really right or wrong regardless of what other people dictate, then that there gives you basis for seeing absolutes in moral arena right there. So.... have you done the work of thinking of reasons for moral behavior, or are you like the lady in Rian's example just borrowing the morality of the very religion that you rejected?

What are the absolutes in the moral arena?

You tell me.

I do not accept the role that you seek to put me in, to dictate to you what is right or wrong, nor the role you seek for yourself as judge to decide whether or not what I think is right or wrong is acceptable.

So either tell us YOURSELF whether YOU have done some thinking about what is right and what is wrong and for what reasons to demonstrate that you are capable, which I would assume that you are, and then you will have answered your own question, OR confess that you are in fact unable to see why anything would be right or wrong for a reason.

[MESkeptic]

"Does Christianity provide an absolute moral code?"

No, of course not, and I think it's a very important question.

Theists behave as if their goal is to believe "the right way" rather than to pursue the facts. When asked for justification for what they believe, it's usually that they're afraid NOT to believe. Why? Because without Christianity, they would have no absolute moral code.

And yet Christianity provides no recognizable moral code other than that whatever the prophets say at any given moment, that's the code. For instance, murder is a violation of the ten commandments, but then the prophets say Jehovah orders genocide. Rape is a violation, but then "Jehovah" sanctions institutionalized rape when he lets/orders the Israelites take "wives" from some of the slaughtered nations.