"Is there such a thing as absolute truth / universal truth?"

[Garland-Green]

Answer: In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is “conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true.” Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.

One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, “whatever feels good” mentality and lifestyle, which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid.

The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.

To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, “There is no absolute truth” is this: “Are you absolutely sure of that?” If they say “yes,” they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.

Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, “There is no God” (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is “With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God.”

Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be “right” for you does not mean it is “right” for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person’s sense of right will soon clash with another’s. What happens if it is “right” for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.

From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism results in religious confusion, with no one true religion and no way of having a right relationship with God. All religions would therefore be false because they all make absolute claims regarding the afterlife. It is not uncommon today for people to believe that two diametrically opposed religions could both be equally “true,” even though both religions claim to have the only way to heaven or teach two totally opposite “truths.” People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven. People who embrace this worldview vehemently oppose evangelical Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way, and the truth, and the life” and that He is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven (John 14:6).

Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is all right to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.

The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that “…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19-22).

Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain “something” within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace in the midst of struggle, and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is really evidence that mankind is more than just a highly evolved animal. It is evidence of a higher purpose and of the existence of a personal and purposeful Creator who implanted in man the desire to know Him. And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.

Fortunately, there is such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible. Knowing absolute truth/universal truth is only possible through a personal relationship with the One who claims to be the Truth—Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the only truth, the only life and the only path to God (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth does exist points us to the truth that there is a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth and who has revealed Himself to us in order that we might know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the absolute truth.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/absolute-truth.html#ixzz2v2TgdmxS  

[Tamoketh]

Hello! I'm not sure if I'm allowed or supposed to make posts here, but I did have a few questions regarding what you posted above.

I'll preface this by saying that although I was raised Catholic, I don't know what I truly believe anymore. I am not asking these questions to incite conflict or to insult, only to gain answers.

Garland-Green

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

The issue I have with the above portion is that, in science, there are no absolute truths. Everything in science is simply the most logical explanation to a question that is in need of an answer.

Definition

"Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."

Every theory in science is one that can be disproven by a single piece of contradictory evidence or a contrary result. Even something that might be widely accepted (EX: Nothing can move faster than the speed of light) might one day be proven wrong. Knowledge gained from science and the theories it has produced have constantly been challenged and either made stronger because of supporting results or have been rejected because of conflicting evidence. I'm not saying science has all the answers, but science does not attempt to discover or solidify any absolutes.



Going past the above relating to science, how does something like Morality fall into the universal absolute or absolute truth?

If there is an universal absolute for what is considered moral or good, then what is it? Is it the belief that killing is wrong under any circumstance? How does one quantify the value of life if a decision holds the life of different people in the balance? Are believers, non-believers and sinners as valued the same as far as this morality goes?



There are many ideas and concepts within the Bible and the beliefs of the religious that I can understand and relate to... but this idea of absolutes is one that I've always had troubles with.  

[Garland-Green]

Tamoketh

Hello! I'm not sure if I'm allowed or supposed to make posts here, but I did have a few questions regarding what you posted above.

I'll preface this by saying that although I was raised Catholic, I don't know what I truly believe anymore. I am not asking these questions to incite conflict or to insult, only to gain answers.

Garland-Green

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

The issue I have with the above portion is that, in science, there are no absolute truths. Everything in science is simply the most logical explanation to a question that is in need of an answer.

Definition

"Theories typically cannot be proven, but they can become established if they are tested by several different scientific investigators. A theory can be disproven by a single contrary result."

Every theory in science is one that can be disproven by a single piece of contradictory evidence or a contrary result. Even something that might be widely accepted (EX: Nothing can move faster than the speed of light) might one day be proven wrong. Knowledge gained from science and the theories it has produced have constantly been challenged and either made stronger because of supporting results or have been rejected because of conflicting evidence. I'm not saying science has all the answers, but science does not attempt to discover or solidify any absolutes.



Going past the above relating to science, how does something like Morality fall into the universal absolute or absolute truth?

If there is an universal absolute for what is considered moral or good, then what is it? Is it the belief that killing is wrong under any circumstance? How does one quantify the value of life if a decision holds the life of different people in the balance? Are believers, non-believers and sinners as valued the same as far as this morality goes?



There are many ideas and concepts within the Bible and the beliefs of the religious that I can understand and relate to... but this idea of absolutes is one that I've always had troubles with.

Hello, and welcome to the guild Tamoketh! No every part of the guild is open to be commented on.

I come from a different background than you. I am living in a country that is mainly secular with no strong ties to Catholicism. I am not raised Christian. My family were not particularly interested in Christianity, and neither was I.

Let us start with what science is. Science is based on the idea that things we observe are not random, and not unrepeatable. Science is is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. For something to be more than a theory (something that makes sense logically) it has to be repeatable to confirm that it correctly represents reality.

As our abilities to interpret the evidence we have presented to us theories are either verified or discarded as untrue. The fact that we can come across things that are disproved doesn't mean that all things we are observing are just waiting for the next line of evidence to come along and prove it to be wrong. Somethings that we discover will remain true to us, because they are an accurate interpretation of reality. Those things will not be outdated, or subject to change since they are true. You could say they are absolutely true. New evidence will confirm these findings, and not disprove them because they are factual, and absolute. That the speed of light may be proven to false some time in the future doesn't mean that all things we know can be proven wrong.

Another example of absolutes is math. 2+2 will always be 4. No matter if someone claims that this is not true, it will remain 4. It is an unchanging fact.
If all the world decided it is now five, it wouldn't change the fact that it is 4.

Quote:

Everything in science is simply the most logical explanation to a question that is in need of an answer.

That is a simplification of what science is. Science is not just theories on paper, but experiments and observation. If scientific ideas that we hold were simply theories then you would be accurate in your description.

Quote:

Going past the above relating to science, how does something like Morality fall into the universal absolute or absolute truth?

Let us play with the idea that morality is subjective, and that people themselves decided what is wrong, and what is right. What person has the moral authority then to say something is wrong if another person decides it is right? A lot of things such as stealing, killing someone, raping someone has benefits to the person committing these things. Someone who believes there are no absolute moral truths is in a real conundrum as to how to instruct someone on what is right and wrong. If there are no absolutes how can we say raping someone is wrong?

Now there are several reasons why I believe there are absolute truths. I believe there is a God. I believe God is good. Since He is good, I believe He wants us to know what is good, and what is right. Since good has its origin in God it is unchanging, and so you can say that Morality will always remain the unchanging, and is absolute. (I've got quite a long list on why I believe God is real, but if you want a short version you can just visit the archaeology section of the guild, or the church history sub-forum)

Quote:

If there is an universal absolute for what is considered moral or good, then what is it? Is it the belief that killing is wrong under any circumstance? How does one quantify the value of life if a decision holds the life of different people in the balance? Are believers, non-believers and sinners as valued the same as far as this morality goes?

God. To have basis for morality, you need a moral lawgiver. To say that to decide what is moral we should do what feels good, or what we think is good can result in all kinds of interpretation of what is good. All life is valuable, because we as human beings are created in the image of our Creator. In His likeness. We are special and valuable. Ideally we should not have to be in a situation where we have to chose one life over another. I see the predicament.
That's not a question I have an answer for you on, though if you are in a position where you have to chose one life over another it may be that God placed you in that situation. An example would be an officer of the law sworn to protect the public.

Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Titus 3:1
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,

Quote:

Are believers, non-believers and sinners as valued the same as far as this morality goes?

Galatians 6:10
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them.

Everyone should do what is good.

Romans 14:12
So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.  

[Tamoketh]

Garland-Green

Let us start with what science is. Science is based on the idea that things we observe are not random, and not unrepeatable. Science is is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. For something to be more than a theory (something that makes sense logically) it has to be repeatable to confirm that it correctly represents reality.

As our abilities to interpret the evidence we have presented to us theories are either verified or discarded as untrue. The fact that we can come across things that are disproved doesn't mean that all things we are observing are just waiting for the next line of evidence to come along and prove it to be wrong. Somethings that we discover will remain true to us, because they are an accurate interpretation of reality. Those things will not be outdated, or subject to change since they are true. You could say they are absolutely true. New evidence will confirm these findings, and not disprove them because they are factual, and absolute. That the speed of light may be proven to false some time in the future doesn't mean that all things we know can be proven wrong.

Another example of absolutes is math. 2+2 will always be 4. No matter if someone claims that this is not true, it will remain 4. It is an unchanging fact.
If all the world decided it is now five, it wouldn't change the fact that it is 4.

I don't like how you keep using the word "absolute" when referring to scientific fact/theory, as neither of those are ever absolutely true. A Scientific Fact is: "Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." Absolute is a very touchy word to use in science because we can only really test, measure and experiment on what we can perceive or quantify. If technology advances and we gain the ability to see the world in a new spectrum, what we now know as "facts" might be shown to be different than what we thought.

Even your math example requires some specifics, as

Garland-Green

Let us play with the idea that morality is subjective, and that people themselves decided what is wrong, and what is right. What person has the moral authority then to say something is wrong if another person decides it is right? A lot of things such as stealing, killing someone, raping someone has benefits to the person committing these things. Someone who believes there are no absolute moral truths is in a real conundrum as to how to instruct someone on what is right and wrong. If there are no absolutes how can we say raping someone is wrong?

If morality is subjective, what person has the moral authority to say what is right and wrong? The answer is simple: no one. There is not a single person that can clearly set and define what is right and wrong for everyone, they can only do so for themselves.

Garland-Green

Now there are several reasons why I believe there are absolute truths. I believe there is a God. I believe God is good. Since He is good, I believe He wants us to know what is good, and what is right. Since good has its origin in God it is unchanging, and so you can say that Morality will always remain the unchanging, and is absolute. (I've got quite a long list on why I believe God is real, but if you want a short version you can just visit the archaeology section of the guild, or the church history sub-forum)

God. To have basis for morality, you need a moral lawgiver. To say that to decide what is moral we should do what feels good, or what we think is good can result in all kinds of interpretation of what is good. All life is valuable, because we as human beings are created in the image of our Creator. In His likeness. We are special and valuable. Ideally we should not have to be in a situation where we have to chose one life over another. I see the predicament.
That's not a question I have an answer for you on, though if you are in a position where you have to chose one life over another it may be that God placed you in that situation. An example would be an officer of the law sworn to protect the public.

Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

The problem I have with absolutes, especially involving morality, is that there are many situations that can be used as an example which absolutes don't work. A common one is the baby Hitler dilema. If you were to be back in the time where Hitler was but a child, yet had the knowledge you did today of what he would accomplish, what would you do? Would you let him live knowing that in doing so you are essentially putting millions of people to death?

Even in the bible itself, there are many referrences to God causing the deaths of people, either directly or by commanding others to do so.
"Exodus 35:2 - Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
I understand that the commandment of "Though shalt not kill" originally didn't mean "do not ever kill", but meant "do not kill unlawfully", but doesn't that seem against the "all life is sacred" message? Or if absolutes from GOD are to be kept true, shouldn't we still be doing the lawful killing of those who work on Sundays? Or those who wear clothes made of different thread?

It always troubled me how people talk about absolutes all the time, especially when talking about His word, and then seem to ignore or purposefully reject parts where their own personal morality doesn't feel comfortable with...  

[Garland-Green]

Tamoketh

Garland-Green

Let us start with what science is. Science is based on the idea that things we observe are not random, and not unrepeatable. Science is is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. For something to be more than a theory (something that makes sense logically) it has to be repeatable to confirm that it correctly represents reality.

As our abilities to interpret the evidence we have presented to us theories are either verified or discarded as untrue. The fact that we can come across things that are disproved doesn't mean that all things we are observing are just waiting for the next line of evidence to come along and prove it to be wrong. Somethings that we discover will remain true to us, because they are an accurate interpretation of reality. Those things will not be outdated, or subject to change since they are true. You could say they are absolutely true. New evidence will confirm these findings, and not disprove them because they are factual, and absolute. That the speed of light may be proven to false some time in the future doesn't mean that all things we know can be proven wrong.

Another example of absolutes is math. 2+2 will always be 4. No matter if someone claims that this is not true, it will remain 4. It is an unchanging fact.
If all the world decided it is now five, it wouldn't change the fact that it is 4.

I don't like how you keep using the word "absolute" when referring to scientific fact/theory, as neither of those are ever absolutely true. A Scientific Fact is: "Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." Absolute is a very touchy word to use in science because we can only really test, measure and experiment on what we can perceive or quantify. If technology advances and we gain the ability to see the world in a new spectrum, what we now know as "facts" might be shown to be different than what we thought.

Even your math example requires some specifics, as

Garland-Green

Let us play with the idea that morality is subjective, and that people themselves decided what is wrong, and what is right. What person has the moral authority then to say something is wrong if another person decides it is right? A lot of things such as stealing, killing someone, raping someone has benefits to the person committing these things. Someone who believes there are no absolute moral truths is in a real conundrum as to how to instruct someone on what is right and wrong. If there are no absolutes how can we say raping someone is wrong?

If morality is subjective, what person has the moral authority to say what is right and wrong? The answer is simple: no one. There is not a single person that can clearly set and define what is right and wrong for everyone, they can only do so for themselves.

Garland-Green

Now there are several reasons why I believe there are absolute truths. I believe there is a God. I believe God is good. Since He is good, I believe He wants us to know what is good, and what is right. Since good has its origin in God it is unchanging, and so you can say that Morality will always remain the unchanging, and is absolute. (I've got quite a long list on why I believe God is real, but if you want a short version you can just visit the archaeology section of the guild, or the church history sub-forum)

God. To have basis for morality, you need a moral lawgiver. To say that to decide what is moral we should do what feels good, or what we think is good can result in all kinds of interpretation of what is good. All life is valuable, because we as human beings are created in the image of our Creator. In His likeness. We are special and valuable. Ideally we should not have to be in a situation where we have to chose one life over another. I see the predicament.
That's not a question I have an answer for you on, though if you are in a position where you have to chose one life over another it may be that God placed you in that situation. An example would be an officer of the law sworn to protect the public.

Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

The problem I have with absolutes, especially involving morality, is that there are many situations that can be used as an example which absolutes don't work. A common one is the baby Hitler dilema. If you were to be back in the time where Hitler was but a child, yet had the knowledge you did today of what he would accomplish, what would you do? Would you let him live knowing that in doing so you are essentially putting millions of people to death?

Even in the bible itself, there are many referrences to God causing the deaths of people, either directly or by commanding others to do so.
"Exodus 35:2 - Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
I understand that the commandment of "Though shalt not kill" originally didn't mean "do not ever kill", but meant "do not kill unlawfully", but doesn't that seem against the "all life is sacred" message? Or if absolutes from GOD are to be kept true, shouldn't we still be doing the lawful killing of those who work on Sundays? Or those who wear clothes made of different thread?

It always troubled me how people talk about absolutes all the time, especially when talking about His word, and then seem to ignore or purposefully reject parts where their own personal morality doesn't feel comfortable with...

Your heart pumps blood around your body. It is a scientific fact. It has been proven that this is true by the scientific method. No new tools will prove this to be untrue. Your body is made up by cells, no new method of science will discover this not to be true. There is such a thing as gravity. What gravity is, and how it affects us is certain. No new scientific discovery will disprove gravity. I dare venture as far as to say that. A certainty is an absolute. Science is not just one field of investigation, but affects many aspects of our lives. A lot of the things we put our trust in we do because it has been proven to work through science. If science was untrustworthy, as in we as humans are incapable with our current tools to know something for sure then a lot of the foundation which we have built our culture on dissipates. If there is no certainties, then why even investigate phenomenons, or attempt to understand the world around us. I think we disagree on a fundamental level, and that our disagreement has to do with faith. I believe that the world can be made sense of... I believe that since we can make sense of it, it comes from a rational creator who wants us to understand it. I believe there is such a thing as a conclusive answer.

Quote:

If morality is subjective, what person has the moral authority to say what is right and wrong? The answer is simple: no one. There is not a single person that can clearly set and define what is right and wrong for everyone, they can only do so for themselves.

How practical is that? How do we go about living in a world where everything goes? Why do we as humans have a sense of wanting justice? If there is no such thing as justice, no concept of it outside the human mind, then why did we come up with it? Speaking of humanity in the terms of naturalism, and evolution that would not ensure the survival of the fittest would it? It would be counterproductive in many ways to hold an idea of human value. Where did it come from?

Quote:

The problem I have with absolutes, especially involving morality, is that there are many situations that can be used as an example which absolutes don't work. A common one is the baby Hitler dilema. If you were to be back in the time where Hitler was but a child, yet had the knowledge you did today of what he would accomplish, what would you do? Would you let him live knowing that in doing so you are essentially putting millions of people to death?

This is one of those questions that has no real life application. Merely designed to create conflict in a person. You will never be in a position where you have to chose whether Hitler gets to grow up or not. Or in a position where you will have to chose one life over millions of others. How many of us are ever in such a position?

Quote:

Even in the bible itself, there are many referrences to God causing the deaths of people, either directly or by commanding others to do so.
"Exodus 35:2 - Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death."
I understand that the commandment of "Though shalt not kill" originally didn't mean "do not ever kill", but meant "do not kill unlawfully", but doesn't that seem against the "all life is sacred" message? Or if absolutes from GOD are to be kept true, shouldn't we still be doing the lawful killing of those who work on Sundays? Or those who wear clothes made of different thread?

Humans can take life, but we can't bring the dead back to life, nor can we control what happens to someone after they die. A human's killing another human is a destructive and irresponsible act, for once we kill someone, we can't undo it or control the harm that results.

God, however, has greater abilities and knowledge than we do, including control over life and death. If God kills someone, he is able to bring them back to life or to place them in any sort of afterlife he chooses. God's use of death is comparable to someone burning a fire in a fireplace: it can be controlled, lit or extinguished at will, and used for a purpose. In contrast, humans' use of death is like setting fire to a dry field: the fire rages out of control, and consequently is dangerous and destructive.

Furthermore, what is death? Many believe that death is the end of both one's body and one's mind/personality/soul. If so, death is a destructive act for both humans and God. Yet if Christianity is true, one's soul is not destroyed, but continues to exist in an afterlife. In this case, death is not destruction, but rather a transfer from life on earth to an afterlife of eternal joy or just punishment. Ultimately as someone with that kind of power God is entitled to decide on matters of life and death.

Are we Christians inconsistent when we don't advocate stoning of homosexuals, disobedient Children and those that work on the Sabbath?

The reason we don't is that the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is that first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9).

Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult, and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde were constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah--to therefore prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to "be at peace with one another," (Mark 9:50) and "with all men." (Rom. 12:18.). Rom. 14:19 says, "pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." After all, "God has called us to peace." (1 Cor. 7:15).  

[Tamoketh]

Garland-Green

Your heart pumps blood around your body. It is a scientific fact. It has been proven that this is true by the scientific method. No new tools will prove this to be untrue. Your body is made up by cells, no new method of science will discover this not to be true. There is such a thing as gravity. What gravity is, and how it affects us is certain. No new scientific discovery will disprove gravity. I dare venture as far as to say that. A certainty is an absolute. Science is not just one field of investigation, but affects many aspects of our lives. A lot of the things we put our trust in we do because it has been proven to work through science. If science was untrustworthy, as in we as humans are incapable with our current tools to know something for sure then a lot of the foundation which we have built our culture on dissipates. If there is no certainties, then why even investigate phenomenons, or attempt to understand the world around us. I think we disagree on a fundamental level, and that our disagreement has to do with faith. I believe that the world can be made sense of... I believe that since we can make sense of it, it comes from a rational creator who wants us to understand it. I believe there is such a thing as a conclusive answer.

I agree that the heart pumps blood through the body, that the body is made up of various cells and that there is such a thing as gravity. What I'm trying to say is that although the effects of gravity itself might never change, our understanding of it might. We know what gravity is and how it affects us, but do we know exactly how black holes affect gravity? Or if antimatter affects gravity and how? I'm not trying to say that we'll be discovering floating rocks that defy gravity anytime soon, but what I'm saying is that science never tries to claim something as absolutely true. It keeps an open mind and a watchful eye for any new discoveries that might expand our understanding of the existence around us. Discovering new evidence about how the universe as we know it was created or discovering new particles that were previously unknown... those are big discoveries that have the possiblity of putting major established theories and facts into question, and that's barely scratching the surface on what there is left to discover in this amazing life. Before really learning about them, creatures such as the Angler Fish or the Mantis Shrimp seem like aliens when talking about what they can do. However they exist in our world, and thinking of the other possible creatures we've yet to discover that can do things most might not think as possible simply leaves wonder in the mind.

Garland-Green

How practical is that? How do we go about living in a world where everything goes? Why do we as humans have a sense of wanting justice? If there is no such thing as justice, no concept of it outside the human mind, then why did we come up with it? Speaking of humanity in the terms of naturalism, and evolution that would not ensure the survival of the fittest would it? It would be counterproductive in many ways to hold an idea of human value. Where did it come from?

Thought and behavior is not always practical or rational, that has been proven many times over. Something does not have to be absolute or ordained for it to be thought of and put into practice. It's logical that a single human out in the wild is much more vulnerable and weak than a group of 10 humans, for example. That group of 10 humans will need to at least have 1 male and 1 female to survive and propogate, most likely prefering to at least have a few of each. For the sake of this example, let's go with an even 5 males and 5 females, paired together with single partners. Whether it is truly needed or not, most likely one of the pairs will become the leaders of the group. Various tasks will be split among the members to be able to handle everything the group needs. Would it make sense for the group to go and kill, for no reason, others of the group? Without needing to take about morality or absolutes, it makes no logistical sense to do so. It would reduce the numbers in the group, hinder their abilites to hunt and put more work on the others. How about if the person is causing trouble in the group, say they got injured and are hindering the others, or they become lazy and don't pull their weight. Their problems become the group's problems. If not handled somehow, they will eventually bring the rest of the group down. Killing them isn't the direct answer and most likely they would simply be expelled from the group. Sure, they might still be able to survive on their own, but even if they can't the group has to think of the good of the many over the good of the few.

Even looking at animals that work in social groups like Wolves and Lions, you'll almost never see one killing another for no reason. Even with a valid reason for the pack/pride, it's not something that is done a lot. Why? Is it because they have an absolute set of moral laws that dictate that killing others for no reason is wrong? No, it's because it's logical that killing members of a small and tight knit group that depends on each other for survival is going to have serious negative effects on the group overall. Although we're a lot more numerous and advanced then we used to be, the same applied and still generally applies for humans. You don't need a God to be able to have a set of moral values or to understand that killing people for no reason does more harm then good. Even without that morality, the general population thinks it's a good idea not to go killing each other without a good reason (government and armies excluded from this, because they apparently always are), which is why people have established laws against them.

Garland-Green

This is one of those questions that has no real life application. Merely designed to create conflict in a person. You will never be in a position where you have to chose whether Hitler gets to grow up or not. Or in a position where you will have to chose one life over millions of others. How many of us are ever in such a position?

This situation is simply one taken to extremes to test the limits of a person. A simpler one: a woman is pregnant, but there are complications. If the delivery is done normally, both the mother and baby might not make it. Something can be done to save one or the other, but not both. This is one that does happen and one that some people have to face. Whether or not every single individual will face the supposed problem is not relevant to the purpose of the question. The answer given might not even be the true answer as well, as I know many that might say in the Hitler example that they would kill him without hesitation... yet, if they were ever to be put in that situation, they would not be able to. In the moment, humans react much differently than we do given time and thought. If I sit and think about it now, I know that if I start to lose control of my vehicle for driving off the shoulder that I need to not accelerate and to very slowly correct myself. Otherwise, I can run the risk of overcorrecting and possibly flipping the vehicle or losing control. I know this given time and thought, but might not do this if the above situation ever happens where I have mere moments to go through the same process. In that same mannor of thinking, questions like the one for Hitler or the Mother/Child question are not to know what a person would truly do, as you can only ever know that in the moment itself. They are more to try and make people think about the situations and see how they feel and how they reason with themselves about the decisions they would make. Given time, someone not only has to think of the actions itself but also the consequences that follow. Where a decision made in the heat of the moment reveals someone's true nature and is not something that can be easily guessed.

Garland-Green

Humans can take life, but we can't bring the dead back to life, nor can we control what happens to someone after they die. A human's killing another human is a destructive and irresponsible act, for once we kill someone, we can't undo it or control the harm that results.

God, however, has greater abilities and knowledge than we do, including control over life and death. If God kills someone, he is able to bring them back to life or to place them in any sort of afterlife he chooses. God's use of death is comparable to someone burning a fire in a fireplace: it can be controlled, lit or extinguished at will, and used for a purpose. In contrast, humans' use of death is like setting fire to a dry field: the fire rages out of control, and consequently is dangerous and destructive.

What about humans taking life either in the name of God or from an order from God? If the Bible reads to kill someone for being a homosexual, are humans responsible for carrying out that kill? What about other sins? If God says to kill someone that works on the sabbath, should humans also carry out the killing of those who break one of the other 10 commandments?

I just find that if there are absolutes, then humans should avoid the contradictions and do the work of the Word. If God is the source of absolute good or absolute truth, then shouldn't His Word be followed completely? I can support the discoveries of science while still believing in a Creator, maybe even given the power of said Creator to make things at any point in time as He may please, but much like anything else Humans corrupt and confuse most of what they touch, and most of the humans that practice Christianity and many other religions seem to only apply the teachings when it is convinient to them, which would not be the cause with true universal morality or absolutes.

Garland-Green

Furthermore, what is death? Many believe that death is the end of both one's body and one's mind/personality/soul. If so, death is a destructive act for both humans and God. Yet if Christianity is true, one's soul is not destroyed, but continues to exist in an afterlife. In this case, death is not destruction, but rather a transfer from life on earth to an afterlife of eternal joy or just punishment. Ultimately as someone with that kind of power God is entitled to decide on matters of life and death.

Are we Christians inconsistent when we don't advocate stoning of homosexuals, disobedient Children and those that work on the Sabbath?

The reason we don't is that the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is that first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9).

Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult, and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde were constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah--to therefore prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

I honestly did not know of the passages where the Old Testament was to be completely replaced by the New Testament. I wonder if such a thing would ever happen again in more recent times...