Relativistic Morals

I read once that Einstein was appalled when learning that relativity was being applied to the field of moral absolutes. If anyone stumbles across this conversation please provide the link.

What do you think,

Secular world view, man decides what is right or wrong. Our society decides what is right or wrong

Christian world view, God made the rules of what is right or wrong, and all of mankind is to follow these rules.

[Silver]

6 o' 1, 1/2 doz of the other.

Man decides how to interpret the bible, etc. anyway, nonbiblicalscholars majority of us totally misinterpreting meanings and more than likely repeatedly taking things out of their time and context. May common sense and compassion rule the day ~ some day...

[Triner]

Shim,

Instead of those two options, I think there should be one for every religion & spiritual path on Earth. Giving only Secular and Christian options is too limiting, and, in a sense, arrogant thinking that those are the only two options.

The big problem I see is that I don't think there's a direct list of God's "laws" anywhere. I realize some Christians disagree with that, and that's fine. But I think the Bible is a human interpretation, as is the Talmud, the Koran, etc. We each have to find what works for us and not to judge others on their paths.

Originally Posted by Triner

Shim,

Instead of those two options, I think there should be one for every religion & spiritual path on Earth. Giving only Secular and Christian options is too limiting, and, in a sense, arrogant thinking that those are the only two options.

The big problem I see is that I don't think there's a direct list of God's "laws" anywhere. I realize some Christians disagree with that, and that's fine. But I think the Bible is a human interpretation, as is the Talmud, the Koran, etc. We each have to find what works for us and not to judge others on their paths.

Then begin one in another forum, this is the Christian forums. Perhaps, find out the similarity between them all and post it in general religion, that is, to begin with, sexual immorality is considered a sin across all the world's major religions.

So between the two posts thus far the bible is open to interpretation and any one interpretation is as plausible as another, therefore give the reasons you find each of your interpretations to be most plausible, so that we can distinguish which is most reasonable. Before quoting or putting words in another's mouth or representing the Bible, I only ask of those that they have read the Bible from cover to cover before making a comment.

Thanks,
Shim

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Shim

Then begin one in another forum, this is the Christian forums. Perhaps, find out the similarity between them all and post it in general religion, that is, to begin with, sexual immorality is considered a sin across all the world's major religions.

So between the two posts thus far the bible is open to interpretation and any one interpretation is as plausible as another, therefore give the reasons you find each of your interpretations to be most plausible, so that we can distinguish which is most reasonable. Before quoting or putting words in another's mouth or representing the Bible, I ask only those that have read the Bible (recommend the KJV 1611) from cover to cover before making a comment.

Thanks,
Shim

All CAn read the bible cover to cover and may claim it not being truthful, you're still going to have scholars or simply those who've read it they don't have to be scholars will disagree in what was meant. Isn't that so?

Originally Posted by Silvergirl

All CAn read the bible cover to cover and may claim it not being truthful, you're still going to have scholars or simply those who've read it they don't have to be scholars will disagree in what was meant. Isn't that so?

If one is to look at all the denominations, all of them acknowledge the basic key central truths to the religion of Christianity. Because one is a scholar in another field of study, and/ or an M.D. for example, I wouldn't go to them for moral questions. That is not their field of study. One can look further into the following before making comments, so that the thread does not keep repeating itself in full circles.

Biblical hermeneutics is perhaps summarized best by 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Biblical hermeneutics is the science of knowing how to properly interpret the various types of literature found in the Bible. For example, a psalm should often be interpreted differently than a prophecy. A proverb should be understood and applied differently from a law. This is the purpose of biblical hermeneutics - to help us to know how to interpret, understand, and apply the Bible.

The most important law of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Literal Bible interpretation means you understand the Bible in its normal/plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. Many make the mistake of trying to read between the lines and come up with meanings for Scriptures that are not truly in the text. Yes, of course, there are some spiritual truths behind the plain meanings of Scripture. That does not mean that every Scripture has a hidden spiritual truth, or that it should be our goal to find all such spiritual truths. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allegorizing and symbolizing Bible verses and passages that should be understood literally.

Deconstructionism is a basically a theory of textual criticism or interpretation that denies there is any single correct meaning or interpretation of a passage or text. At the heart of the deconstructionist theory of interpretation are two primary ideas. First is the idea that no passage or text can possibly convey a single reliable, consistent, and coherent message to everyone who reads or hears it. The second is that the author who wrote the text is less responsible for the piece's content than are the impersonal forces of culture such as language and their unconscious ideology. Therefore the very basic tenets of deconstructionism are contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible that absolute truth does exist and we can indeed know it (Deuteronomy 32:4; Isaiah 65:16; John 1:17-18; John 14:6; John 15:26-27; Galatians 2:5).

The deconstruction approach to interpreting the Bible comes out of postmodernism and as such it is simply another denial of the existence of absolute truth which is one of the most serious logical fallacies anyone can commit. The reason the denial of absolute truth is a logical fallacy of the greatest magnitude is because it is a self-contradictory statement. The deconstructionist or postmodern thinker who denies absolute truth cannot rationally make such a statement because to do so would be stating an absolute which is what they are saying does not exist. When someone claims that there is no such thing as absolute truth, I always want to ask them; “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say yes, then they have made a statement that is contradictory to their very premise.

[Saint Seraphim]

Hello Shim,
Einstein's theory of relativity was never meant to be applied to morality. It is an error to do so for the theory of relativity establishes absoulutes (e.g. The speed of light, etc.) That very thing which moral relativist are incompatible with, any absoulutes.
I believe God gives and gave human beings knowledge/rules of what is right and wrong. God had many Holy prophets write this knowledge down so that all of us would not forget. And just to make sure, God also gave human beings a conscience, which I would call having the rules and or knowledge of right and wrong written within, upon one's Soul/Spirit. Many in this world would like to live a life devoid of a kingdom of conscience or any type of moral absoulutes. Making up a whole philosophy to cover up the suffering they cause to others and themselves, thus, Worshipping at the altar of self. Yes, Human beings have free will to choose, so choose carefully. And there is a word used to describe those who claim to not have a conscience, the word which describes this state of being is psychopath. What good would rules of right and wrong be if human beings were the ones to decide, or make them up themselves, for that is what a moral relativist does? It is certainly not me who has given the rules of what is right and wrong, Good or evil. Nor is it me who has written these rules within a human being resulting in a conscience. So, if your conscience bothers you and you do not want it too and you wish for a world devoid of conscience, take it up with God, not me. I am as flawed as any other. Yet, the light of God shines brightly within me, piercing my darkness. That Light is God's grace through Christ. It makes me anew each and every day and washes away my sins and fills my heart with Love and gives me peace. Saint Seraphim was an Eastern Orthodox Saint who said, "Acquire the Spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you shall be saved."
Much Love and Peace to all,
Saint Seraphim

[Perspective]

Shim,
I like that you offer a different perspective & challenge my scripture awareness & debate ability.

1. How do you define God?
The scriptures seem to conflict... the old testament & new testament refer to 2 different Gods.
Although, one definition that seems to be in both - is that GOD IS LOVE.
Then... what is love?

2. How do you experience God/Love?
The kingdom of God is within us. (Luke 17:22)
So - isn't that a good place to look for at least part of our interpretation of scriptures?

"And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, & there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you." -Gen 40:8

Then Joseph proceeded to interpret their dreams. Why would he do that if interpretation belong to a God up in the sky?

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2Peter 1:20

I wonder if King James or other public/church officials had influence in this ^ scripture...
"King James wanted a [bible] version that supported the right of Kings to rule over people."
Many have been persecuted & killed for interpreting or translating scriptures. Jesus, himself was killed because of his unorthodox interpretation of scriptures.

"When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.
Let all things be done unto edifying." - 1Cor 14:26
"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; & without a parable spake he not unto them" - Matt 13:34

No 2 people interpret anything the same way. That is probably why Jesus spoke in parables - so even with many various understandings, they could relate & learn, based on their level of understanding.
Shim, At times, I've felt "edified" in discussing scriptures with you & others. We each bring our own perspective of truth - & the more perspectives, the more truthful.

Perspective are parables taught by applying what was known first and then making an application in a way that people understand? Eg., to know the meaning of the parable we must consider the background of the audience that Jesus was speaking to in the terms of either their culture or trade? Take into account this example, this was said to the disciples.

This is from KJV 1611, for those who repeatedly say that the Bible has changed over time. Lastly I won't be replying much in this thread, I would prefer to hear what others are thinking.

Matthew 13:10-17

10 And the disciples came, and sayd vnto him, Why speakest thou vnto them in parables?

11 He answered, and said vnto them, Because it is giuen vnto you to know the mysteries of the kingdome of heauen, but to them it is not giuen.

12 For whosoeuer hath, to him shall be giuen, and he shall haue more abundance: but whosoeuer hath not, from him shall be taken away, euen that hee hath.

13 Therefore speake I to then in parables: because they seeing, see not: and hearing, they heare not, neither doe they vnderstand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecie of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall heare, and shall not vnderstand: and seeing yee shall see, and shall not perceiue.

15 For this peoples heart is waxed grosse, and their eares are dull of hearing, and their eyes they haue closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and heare with their eares, and should vnderstand with their heart, and should be conuerted, and I should heale them.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your eares, for they heare.

17 For verely I say vnto you, that many Prophets, and righteous men haue desired to see those things which yee see, and haue not seene them: and to heare those things which ye heare, and haue not heard them.

[Perspective]

Originally Posted by Shim

Perspective are parables taught by applying what was known first and then making an application in a way that people understand?

Exactly. That's how we learn best too.
And we could understand scriptures more by understanding some of the vocab. they were using... ie...

"For my yoke is easy, & my burden is light." - Matt 11:30

Most people think of yoke as part of an egg.
But biblically...
"In literal sense, the word ‘Yoke’ means a bar of wood, so constructed as to unite two animals (usually oxen), enabling them to work in the fields, drawing loads, pulling instruments used for farming."