Absloute morality vs relative morality

[scomman]

I was taught as a child and teach that there is such a thing as absolute morality. This is the morality taught by our forefathers and by the faith they had. I am ashamed to hear schools and society preaching relative morality. That is there is no absolute morality anymore. This sickens me is this not the reason gor the rising crime rate or lack of respect for parents.

[evmori]

scomman,

I hear ya! "If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's OK" What a bunch of hogwash! Morality isn't always popular and isn't always supposed to be.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[littlebillie]

It is not easy living by an absolute morality.

 

Leviticus 19

 

"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you

shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of

cloth made of two kinds of stuff."

 

...nor shall those among you speaking of absolute morality wear that which is called cotton blend, nor shalt thou abide perma-press, or woolens which are not purely wool. :-) nor shall farmers mix the nitrogen fixing seed with that which craveth nitrogen, keeping the crops separate. Whew!

 

And frankly, folks, 19 is some of the easier stuff in there. The skin inspections are killer, and of course plenty of people can provide sound arguments as to why the old dietary laws can be abandoned. As far as for avoiding a woman when she is unclean, my place of employment and my home make no accomodation for this kind of observance.

 

So my hat is off to all of you who even attempt to live by the full commandment and law... it is a difficult and challenging thing to do in 21st century America, and your courage, dedication and reverence are to be deeply respected.

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

Are you a Christian? If you're not, then perhaps you will not understand what I am about to say. If you are, then you should already know what I am about say. As a Christian, Christ's sacrifice on the cross did many things for us. First and foremost, he provided a way for us to be redeemed (purified us of our sinspast, present, and future). Second, because this redemption is for all time, we no longer require Priests or ceremonial rituals to purify and make us holy before God the Father. He symbolically tore the curtain, which blocked our access to the Most Holy Place. The ritualistic/ceremonial laws of the Old Testament (such as the ones you quoted) are no longer applicable. Moralistic laws (i.e., right and wrongthe laws that guide our behavior as we interact with God and others) are eternal. At least, this is the Christian perspective. Bottom Line: You're examples are not moralistic absolutesthey are ritualistic/ceremonial laws, of which, Christ made obsolete. God's moral laws are eternal, of which, Christ provides redemption for those who seek Him.

 

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Mark 15:37-39

[sctmom]

Rooster,

Can you point me to the parts of the New Testament that say that the ritual laws are no longer valid?

 

Also, how do we tell the ritual laws from the moral laws? For example the law of not wearing clothing made from two sources. That doesn't sound like a ritual to me. Sacrificing animals is a ritual and I know Jesus said that was not necessary.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster,

 

When you say

 

"Second, because this redemption is for all time, we no longer require Priests or ceremonial rituals to purify and make us holy before God the Father"

 

Do you mean the priests of the old testaments or all priests/ministers/clergy ?

 

And while this is New Testament, while at the Last Supper Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", was he not encouraging celebration of what Catholics call mass? The re-enactment of the Last Supper?

 

Was he not calling on us to perform at least this ritual?

 

Please help me understand your position on this topic

[littlebillie]

"The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom"

 

another interpretation of this is as the symbolic of the rending of clothing to signify mourning, only on a grander scale. far less latitude is taken in making this interpretation.

 

regardless, I take it that based in the Old and New Testament, some belive that morality DOES evolve? or...?

[Rooster7]

Sctmom,

 

"Can you point me to the parts of the New Testament that say that the ritual laws are no longer valid?"

 

Please read my response to OGE. I think you'll find that it answers your questions as well.

 

Also, how do we tell the ritual laws from the moral laws?

 

Again, see below. However, I believe this is rather simple to determine. Ceremonial and ritualistic laws are those Mosaic laws that enabled God's people to be acceptable in God's presence, such as what one eats and wears. It also included sacrifices and offerings. Jesus' sacrifice made all these ceremonies and rituals unnecessary.

 

OGE,

 

Do you mean the priests of the old testaments or all priests/ministers/clergy ?

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I left the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has some doctrinal issues that I find inconsistent with bible teaching. Nevertheless, I still believe Catholics are my brothers in Christ. See my other post in the thread entitled - A better question.

 

Now, to answer your questions, rather than me telling you what I think the bible says; lets try this instead. Please read Hebrews, chapters 7, 8, and 9. I encourage you to read them, pray for God to speak to you, and mediate on these chapters. I'm convinced that you'll discover what I did. 1) The laws of the old covenant are no longer applicable. 2) These same laws established the Priesthood, which is now obsolete.

 

I am not suggesting that Priests are bad. I am saying - the Catholic Church purports the Priesthood as a necessary intermediary between God and His people. I believe this premise to be contradictory to bible teaching. Jesus was and is the last Priest. His sacrifice made the old covenant obsolete (including the Priesthood).

 

And while this is New Testament, while at the Last Supper Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", was he not encouraging celebration of what Catholics call mass? The re-enactment of the Last Supper? Was he not calling on us to perform at least this ritual? Please help me understand your position on this topic.

 

I don't see communion as a ritual. It is a living memorial of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross made me presentable before God, not the act of communion.

 

littlebillie,

 

another interpretation of this is as the symbolic of the rending of clothing to signify mourning, only on a grander scale. far less latitude is taken in making this interpretation.

 

If you come to that conclusion after reading chapters 7, 8, and 9 in Hebrews, I would be amazed.

[littlebillie]

So morality as defined by the Bible has changed from Old to New Testament? Is this your point? Followers of Islam believe that the Koran is the next installment in the series. Is that the next step in moral evolution?

 

And if not, will there be one?

[sctmom]

Rooster,

Thank you for your information.

I think most people still would define communion as a "ritual", the difference being that you see it as a way of praising Jesus while at some think (or thought) it was a way to get God to like them. I take it that the word "ritual" to you indicates something done because of habit and without meaning.

 

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

So morality as defined by the Bible has changed from Old to New Testament? Is this your point?

 

Reread my post from Thursday, June 27, 2002: 9:37:43 AM. That is obviously not what I am saying.

 

sctmom,

 

I think most people still would define communion as a "ritual", the difference being that you see it as a way of praising Jesus while at some think (or thought) it was a way to get God to like them. I take it that the word "ritual" to you indicates something done because of habit and without meaning.

 

I see it as a bit more than "a way of praising Jesus". Communion has elements of the supernatural that I cannot aptly explain. A Christian scholar could explain what I'm trying to say more intelligently. I'm not so equipped. See 1 Corinthians.

 

No. "Ritual" does not necessarily mean it is done without thought. In fact, I'm sure the Hebrews in the Old Testament took their rituals very seriously and did them with much thought and prayer. If Christians are participating in communion in the manner you described (because of habit and/or without much thought), they are making a serious mistake.

 

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Corinthians 11:26-29

 

[sctmom]

Rooster,

Protestants take the communion differently than Catholics, as I'm sure you know. In Baptist and Methodist churches anyone can take communion. I believe also in Presbyterian. I was grown before I knew that Catholics had rules about it, such as actually understanding what it meant! As a child I heard the words being said but didn't really understand why we were drinking grape juice from little cups and eating little wafers (oyster crackers usually).

 

A friend of mine was raised Catholic. She said at her father's funeral they priest offered communion to the family, since none had been to confession in years they refused it. Even though she is not a "practicing" Catholic she felt it wrong to do that. She is amazed at my childhood experiences with grape juice and oyster crackers.

 

 

[Rooster7]

sctmom,

 

While I was raised a Catholic, I have been attending Protestant churches for over 10 years. I am a deacon and an elder in the Presbyterian Church. Recently, I have been attending a Methodist church on a regular basis. In the past, I've attended Baptist services as well. Trust me, Protestants take communion very seriously too. The bible verses that I quoted are not meant for Catholics only. Maybe it's a regional thing, but every church I ever attended emphasized that one ought to know and understand what communion is about before partaking in the ceremony. As for Catholics denying a person communion based on the fact that the person did not go to confession recently, that's a church teaching that I disagree with, primarily because I don't believe in the Catholic Priesthood. Any believer can confess his sins directly to God and be forgiven.

 

[littlebillie]

Rooster7, it still seems like you're saying morality HAS evolved. And once you start talking about symbolism - and the concordant interpretation thereof - why then, a mortal mind is wide open to misstep amd meandeing!

 

I've read too many reasons why pork is now clean - and just as many why it remains unclean - to be convinced by anything short of divine revelation in ANY human interpretation. There are post-Mosaics that still abstain from pork, after all. So who's right?

 

I recognize your faith, so I assume you know the problems and pitfalls of blind faith. And indeed, faith can be misled, as you know.

 

From Aramaic, to Latin, to English, not once, but severally, with issues such as homosexuality open to huge debate based on the interpretation of a few very key words. Man with man, or man with male temple prostitute? We've all seen the translation arguments, and I'm guessing it's been replayed here more than enough.

 

Again - human translation and human transcription have ultimately given us a document that can allow nearly anyone to justify too many things - dietary laws or no, the whole slavery thing that's gone thru the mill here lately, divorce...

 

I repsect your faith, but please respect that others need a different kind of evidence to even begin to consider walking thru that door...

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster,

 

I read Hebrews 7, 8, and 9 and didn't get the message that priests were no longer needed. I looked back over the accounts of the Last Supper and the Ascension and saw charges from Jesus to the Apostles to go forth and teach all nations, to go and do what Jesus had done. I believe the priesthood was not abolished by Hebrews 7, 8, and 9.

 

But lets say it did. You were raised Catholic, when did you accept that those passages rendered priests an anachronism? Did you make the discovery yourself or did some one point it out to you.

 

Lastly, I may be so mired in my own education that I cant get past it, but without clergy, who will pass on Christianity to future generations? Who will make study of the lives and times and be able to explan the context of the bible, I am not sure that is a task lay people can be expected to bear.

 

Respectfully

OldGreyEagle(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)