Evidence for God from Science

In other words, is the bible morally perfect and infallible?

The bible is a collection of books.
DO you mean does the bible TEACH what is morally perfect and infallible?

Yes, are the teachings of the Bible morally perfect and infallible?

MAGSolo wrote:Yes, are the teachings of the Bible morally perfect and infallible?

Within their proper context, yes.
The teachings in the bible they deal DIRECTLY with how we OUGHT to be, yes.
The causal teachings that deal with how the Hebrews (Israel) needed to be, that is a different matter.
The bible is a progressive revelation of God's will for US, written FOR is but NOT TO Us (people of the 21st century).
Some of the teachings are timeless ( those that were meant to be such) and some were direct at a specific people during a specific time.

So are you saying that morals are not absolute?

MAGSolo wrote:So are you saying that morals are not absolute?

where did you get this idea?

He said that there are teachings that deal directly with how we ought to be and teaching that dealt with how the Hebrews needed to be. He said that some teachings are timeless and some teachings were directed at a specific people during a specific period of time. That sounds like different morals for different groups which sounds like he is saying that morals are not absolute.

MAGSolo wrote:So are you saying that morals are not absolute?

I would think that the direct teachings of morals such as "love they neighbor as thy self" and (perhaps more importantly), love they enemy and pray for him, as absolutes, yes.
I do not think that causal teachings direct at Israel on how to treat certain people in specific circumstances would be absolute, no.

I think that God teaching an absolute moral like love and NOT providing for how to deal with those that do NOT share the same morals would be, well, unthoughtful of Him, no?
Sort of like teaching a child to be respectful of life but not teaching them they they should protect themselves if their life is in danger.

Okay so morals are not absolute then?

MAGSolo wrote:Okay so morals are not absolute then?

The ones that aren't absolute, no.
Not all morals are created equally right?

MAGSolo wrote:He said that there are teachings that deal directly with how we ought to be and teaching that dealt with how the Hebrews needed to be. He said that some teachings are timeless and some teachings were directed at a specific people during a specific period of time. That sounds like different morals for different groups which sounds like he is saying that morals are not absolute.

morals are always absolute in the context that they are given. "different morals for different groups" is not what is happening, there is just a different application given differing circumstances.

what is your definition of absolute?

Murder is absolutely wrong ( murder being unjustified killing).
Killing can, under the correct circumstances, be "right".

Echoside wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:He said that there are teachings that deal directly with how we ought to be and teaching that dealt with how the Hebrews needed to be. He said that some teachings are timeless and some teachings were directed at a specific people during a specific period of time. That sounds like different morals for different groups which sounds like he is saying that morals are not absolute.

morals are always absolute in the context that they are given. "different morals for different groups" is not what is happening, there is just a different application given differing circumstances.

what is your definition of absolute?

I define absolute as complete or unchanging, perfect in definition. What it is today is what it was 1000 years in the past and what it will be 1000 years in the future. For example the constituents of water are absolute. Water was made of H20 a billion years ago and it will be made of h20 a billion years from now. Likewise absolute morality would men that what is right or wrong a billion years ago would still be right and wrong a billion years in the future.

MAGSolo wrote: I define absolute as complete or unchanging, perfect in definition. What it is today is what it was 1000 years in the past and what it will be 1000 years in the future. For example the constituents of water are absolute. Water was made of H20 a billion years ago and it will be made of h20 a billion years from now.

Let's look at a different question, that's more applicable to my thoughts on -most- questions of morality.

What is the boiling point of water?

Without bringing in any assumptions about the question, it's unanswerable. We do not know, for example, the atmospheric pressure at the water's location. If I modified my question to : What is the boiling point of water at standard atmospheric pressure? There is now an "objective" answer of 100 degrees Celsius. The boiling point of water might change if I increased my elevation 2 miles, but the answer to the question is absolute. Water will not suddenly start to boil at 0 degrees Celsius given the same conditions.

Now let's look at the question, Is it wrong to kill? Same as above, the question is unanswerable. It doesn't even make sense, the act of killing is not inherently wrong, it is the conditions around it that make it correct or incorrect. Now if I ask "under the conditions of the early Hebrews in the OT was the killing commanded by God wrong" we have something to go on. Most Christians would say no. And that is an objective answer to a specific question. It is not possible that those same circumstances are reproduced and the act is NOT justified.

MAGSolo wrote: Likewise absolute morality would men that what is right or wrong a billion years ago would still be right and wrong a billion years in the future.

If the exact conditions of biblical times one billion years in the future were reproduced, they would still be justified. There will only ever be ONE objective answer to all questions of morality. Most of them just don't make any sense to answer, given statements like "is stealing wrong?". All cases of stealing that are the same have an absolute answer. And if they are not the same then to criticize them for not being uniform is senseless.