Thanks for this great question. I have been wanting to understand more about the concept of morality, and it is not clear to me that Christians have an absolute moral code, either. For example, we say not to kill or covet–except in war. There’s a book by James KA Smith, a conservative Christian prof at Calvin, called “Who’s Afraid of Relativism?” That I would like to read.
From the blurb:
Many Christians view relativism as the antithesis of absolute truth and take it to be the antithesis of the gospel. Smith argues that this reaction is a symptom of a deeper theological problem: an inability to honor the contingency and dependence of our creaturehood. Appreciating our created finitude as the condition under which we know (and were made to know) should compel us to appreciate the contingency of our knowledge without sliding into arbitrariness. Saying “It depends” is not the equivalent of saying “It’s not true” or “I don’t know.” It is simply to recognize the conditions of our knowledge as finite, created, social beings. Pragmatism, says Smith, helps us recover a fundamental Christian appreciation of the contingency of creaturehood.
I think that perhaps, we are not so different as we suppose from others with a different God (or lack thereof) belief.
I have a lot more to read… but it sort of makes sense to me. I have no formal philosophical training, though, I should admit …
I appreciate your kind notes.
I would be interested in what your thoughts are. Thanks
First, thank you for your kind words and willingness to have an honest discussion with someone who may not think exactly as you do. That is a rarity these days. I always like to say that no human being has the corner on truth. I think the scriptures do, but it is obvious that not even Christians agree on everything in them. We should all be open to learning new things. Personally, I try my best to compare new ideas with the scriptures, my standard of truth. If thy line up, good, I’ll accept that new thing. If not, I don’t. Of course that depends on my understanding of the scriptures which is hardly perfect. They say one day (namely, when Jesus comes again) I will, but that day has not arrived. Until then I do the best I can.
We all come into this world knowing nothing, holding no opinions on anything. We begin with a blank slate. Slowly but surely we learn things about life and develop a worldview. I think a vital question to ask is, what is the source of the things we learn?
If someone is born and raised in a cannibalistic society they will think there is nothing at all wrong with eating other humans. Others, most in fact, are taught from a young age that it is not good to eat people and that is what they end up believing. I think James Smith would say both are OK. It would just depend on which society one is born into. That would be my understanding when relativism is considered.
The only moral code Christians in this day and age, the time AFTER Jesus died and rose, is love. All the so-called absolute moral code of the OT was eclipsed by Jesus.
Rom 13:8,
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Gal 5:14,
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Using the scriptures as the source of truth (as opposed to cannibal society for example), it appears clear that love is the key. Personally I wouldn’t fell very loved if someone was putting me in a pot of boiling water. Not sure anybody would like that!
Jesus demonstrated love. In short, love is giving someone whatever they need when they least deserve it. Jesus gave his life for people that were committing all sorts of atrocities to their fellow human beings. He even forgave the ones who put the nails through his hands and feet! That’s love.
If we take relativism as our standard of behavior, then sometimes it could be OK to eat other people. Of course the one getting eaten may not think it’s so OK. It would be relative to who is eating and who is getting eaten. I think that would be the conclusion Smith would reach.
The scriptures would say, no, it’s never OK to eat someone else. The eater would hardly be acting in love towards the one he is eating. I mean, how does getting eaten benefit someone?
What about a circumstance where a group was starving, and one of them chose to kill himself so that the others could survive? I specifically suggest “kill himself” so that the others would not feel that blame as well. But in that case, how could it be wrong to eat someone who had chosen to die to save you? Wouldn’t refusing to eat be rejecting that selfless person’s love?
Hm, well, I think you’d be surprised. Smith is actually very Reformed and very conservative. I think you’d enjoy reading his book.
If you read Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind,” he observes that across the board, we all tend to judge by that level of doing good to others. This for non religious and religious alike. So, we’d find that non Christians believe that it’s good not to eat others, too. If you’ve read “Peace Child,” they wouldn’t eat friends, either; and the eating woudl be in specific areas, like war. So, I"m not sure that we would make sure eating is so much worse than killing someone else. I’m not specifically aware of any rule in the Bible about eating someone (Regarding eating–with the Donner party, eating someone else might be necessary.). The rule is common to all of us, to love others as ourselves. We run the risk of a strawman if we say others don’t have the same rules we do.
So, you’d find the typical nontheist also judging by the golden rule. That’s inborn to all of us; so I think that we really make a strawman when we try to figure out relativity in terms of morals (Jesus was re stating a rule that is found in pre Christian civilizations all over the world).
For example, in the OT, we read that we’re not supposed to covet (steal) or kill (murder)–unless we’re in a war. It seems that there are circumstances in which things are appropriate.
I think you’d enjoy reading more of Smith and Haidt (who is a nonreligious Jew. I have a lot to learn).
Thanks.
Just one minor inconvenience with this fact. In this life, in this universe, we cannot ever know the absolute truth. We can get glimpses, we can get personal, subjective interactions with God, (and, rrobs, yes I have had personal things happen that I am 100% certain were from God, some of which were interpretations from scripture, but some were from many other sources), but Paul told us with no room for interpretation that we would not know things perfectly here. A side comment from the way God constructed the universe: We can’t know everything perfectly by observation; Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, James points out that knowledge isn’t what saves us; the devils know more than we ever will, and it doesn’t save them! Also, think about what Jesus says about the last judgement (Matthew 24): He doesn’t send people to Hell because they didn’t believe in the truth, and He doesn’t let people into Hedaven because they do believe in the truth. Theen there is the issue of what the bible means to me today. First, do I really have the right words as originally written? Then do I have a correct translation? Then do I understand what the original author intended to say to his original audience? And then, what does it mean to me today, in a totally different cultural, scientific, political, and religious environment? Note in this regard that the bible itself says, without question, that some things that God gave explicit instruction to do at one time and place do not apply in another time and place. And, by logic, that means it is not always true that what God tells some people to do He is telling all people to do. A major point here is to focus on the right questions. And one that is not determinable, and doesn’t really matter, is the question of what is absolutely true, and what is not. A relevant scriptural account is the exchange Jesus had with His disciples about the man born blind. They asked who had sinned - looking for what are sometimes called “efficient causes”: those things that explain how things happen. Jesus answered with a “final cause”: Something that explained why the blind man was there: He said, in effect, this blind man is here, someone with a need, and I can help him, so I will; in that process of someone helping someone in need, God’s grace is being shown in this world. It does seem to me that this interpretation of that event provides at least a partial explanation of why God permitted sickness, evil, and troubles of every sort to occur in this universe: So that we would have someone to help. Again, if we are only looking for absolute truth, we are chasing an ideal that we will not be able to attain in this universe, and we are trying to answer the wrong question.
People can have objective, as in factual, experiences that point directly to God, that constitute “interactions with God.” In some, the facts are externally observable and verifiable by others. In others, the facts, still objective and not subjective, as in merely felt or just opinions, are internal to the individual.
A good example of the latter is Phil Yancey’s experience. It was objective with communicable facts and related previously here. Examples of the former are relatively plentiful, more than several here:
All of that is true. However it only means we may not know the truth or we may know it but only to some degree. It does not preclude the existence of truth which stands on its on own, regardless of whether or not anybody knows it or believes it. That is what I averred in my post.
I do believe that with modern scholarship the obstacles you mentioned to getting at that truth, can be largely mitigated. But, as you said, there will be obstacles in the way. Also, we mustn’t forget the words Jesus spoke to his disciples shortly before ascending to his Father.
John 16:13,
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The man born blind: I don’t see Jesus saying that the man was born blind just so that Jesus could show God’s grace. It’s not like God made that man blind so that He could later show His mercy and power to heal. That would be cruel, something God is decidedly not. There is actually no reason given for why the man was born blind. However, since he was born blind, Jesus was able to cure him which was part of the work he was sent to do.
As you probably know, there was no punctuation or verses in the original text, so any punctuation and the verses in the modern Bibles are man’s interpretation. I’ve take the liberty of offering a different punctuation and verse division, ones that do not disparage God by saying He made someone blind which is what I understand many to believe.
John 9:3-4,
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.
4 But that the works of God should be made manifest in him, (comma, not a period) I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
The man was blind and Jesus gave no reason, no “efficient cause,” for his blindness other than it was not because of his or his parents sin. But, since there is this blind man standing before him, he would heal him, fulfilling the work he was sent to accomplish.
As far as why God permits sickness, He has no choice. He made the world a perfect place and handed it to Adam for safe keeping. God relinquished His authority over the world, giving to Adam. He told Adam what must be done to keep it perfect. He also gave Adam free will to follow His instructions or not. Adam made the wrong choice and sickness became a reality. God, being a just god, could not simply take the reins back from Adam. God was forced to see His prize creation, mankind, suffer from sickness and all the other niceties Adam introduced into the world by his free will action. The only thing God “allowed” was for man to be in charge. That is why He needed the man Jesus Christ to make things right again. A man got us into trouble and it had to be a man that got us out of that trouble. All part of God’s righteous judgment.
That is pretty much what Jesus did. He gave his life so others could live. I’d be loathe to call Jesus wrong for offering himself or to call those who accepted him wrong.
In general, regardless of the situation, there is a loving way to handle it, one that benefits the receiver of that love, though costing the lover something of him/herself. The act of love requires the one who loves to give something of himself for the benefit of others.
This is one interpretation of what happened. Does this description presume that God intended for humans to live forever in the Garden of Eden? Do you presume that God did not know what was going to happen? I believe that God knows what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen in this, His created universe, because God exists outside of the space and time of this creation. I also do not believe that God has permitted any human, or any other being, or any combination of the above, to subvert His purposes for creating this universe, and us in it.
I think you are partly right, but not totally. I see the scriptures as saying that ultimately God will bring about His plan of redemption and the reestablishment of Eden on this earth. That will absolutely happen. But the question becomes, how exactly will He do it? The answer to that question depends largely on the choice people make. God will not run roughshod over man, making him do whatever is necessary to bring about ultimate victory. Instead, He works WITH mankind, trying to convince (not coerce) them to do the right thing. He was successful in convincing Jesus to live a perfect life and to sacrifice himself for us sinners.
Jesus, like all men, had free will, so God really didn’t know if Jesus would obey to the end until Jesus said, “it is finished” and gave up the ghost. I can imagine the angst God had when Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane, was suggesting there might be a better way to redeem mankind, one that didn’t involve his excruciating torture and death. I can imagine God sighing a huge sigh of relief when Jesus finally said, “Not my will, but thine be done.” That was a close call for sure, one that almost negated everything Jesus had done up to that point. God was sitting on the edge of His throne, hoping that Jesus would follow through to the end. There were sure plenty of opportunities for Jesus to have given up and go his own way. I’m thinking of how tempting it must have been for Jesus to accept the devil’s offer of all the kingdoms of the world. I’ll bet that was another tense moment for God, waiting to see how Jesus would respond. Again, He must have wiped a lot of sweat off His brow when Jesus successfully resisted the urge to give in to Satan’s offer. What an exciting story when read as I believe God intended it to be read!
Now God certainly has an idea of what any given person may do in a given situation, but He does not know for sure. I know my son would choose pudding over peas any day of the week, but he could still surprise me and choose the peas one of these days.
Jer 26:13,
Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.
God didn’t know if they would amend their ways or not. Otherwise why would He have brought it up. Why would He tell them to do something if He already knew what they would do? I also see God here as holding back His plan of action until He know what they’d do. He had an idea in mind, but it was subject to change if Israel amended their ways. He had to wait and see what they’d do before making His final decision.
Deut 30:19,
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Again, why would God tell them to choose life over death if He already knew what they would choose?
God, through His angel agent, told Abram, “Now I know…” Prior to Abram raising the knife above Isaac’s chest, God didn’t know for sure if he’d follow through with His command of not.
Why would God have given Adam instructions regarding the tree of good and evil if He knew ahead of time what Adam would do? It would seem as though God was being quite disingenuous in making Adam think he had a choice when he really didn’t.
I agree with you that God’s perfect knows perfectly what has happened and what is going on in the present. He can correctly ascertain all the thoughts and actions of people at any given moment (which man can not even begin to do), but the future is partially open. Again, He knows the final act (new heaven and new earth), but He’s not sure of how it will come. That depends on what people do. The fact that God can work with such fickle creatures to arrive at the goal speaks volumes to the genius and limitless resourcefulness of God. That makes Him a far greater god than one who merely pulls the strings of all His created puppets.
Excellent points and well thought out. Yes, it is true that most people, non Christians included, believe in the golden rule. But there is a huge caveat here, namely, do all people have the capacity to truly love, to follow that golden rule?
I think the NT, Romans 1 for example, makes it clear what resides within the unsaved man and it’s not a pretty picture. There is certainly no mention of them having a capacity to truly love. Sure, they do good works, many more even than some Christians, but the fact is they do not have the love of God residing within so they can hardly love the way God originally intended when He made Adam and Eve.
Rom 5:5,
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
In Acts, Peter was clear in saying that repentance, i.e., getting born again, is necessary to receive that holy spirit which is the only source of true love.
What you are saying here, and throughout your discussion, is totally dependent on an unstated assumption, that time is something that is absolute, that goes on both in this universe and wherever else exists in any way, shape, or form.
What modern physics demonstrates very thoroughly is that time and space as we experience them in this universe are inextricably interwoven with the matter and energy in this created universe. That is, time and space are dimensions of the created universe.
One interesting sidelight is the fact of relativity of simultaneity. That is, two events, separated in space, that appear to be simultaneous in one frame of reference will not be simultaneous in a different frame of reference, moving relative to the first frame. In one different frame, event A might preceed event B, and in another frame, event B might be first. The important point for this discussion is that time, as we experience it, in this universe, is a dimension of the universe, not something that is absolute, or independent of the matter and energy in this universe.
So, if as I believe, God created this universe, as an integral component of that creation, He created the spatial and temporal dimensions of this universe, along with all the laws of physics that define how this universe operates. And it appears from scientific observation that He created these laws to be consistent over time; we can repeat experiments, including intentional modifications, and get results that are consistent, time after time. So much so that, when we find discrepancies, rather than presume the laws of physics changed, we look for ways to modify and improve what we feel are the best descriptions that we have of what those laws are.
Now, If God created the time that we experience, then God must exist outside of that form of time.
What does this mean? One statement from the bible is the statement that Jesus made, “Before Abraham was, I am.” On the surface, the simple and straightforward interpretation of the words is exactly what I have been saying about time in this universe. I am sure that Jesus, as the Son of God, who was there with the Father when the worlds were made, and nothing was made without Him, exists outside of the time (and space) of this created universe. Jesus said that He was existing before Abraham at the same time as He was existing with the Jews while He walked on earth. That is, Jesus (and also both other persons of God) is outside of time (for sure outside the time as we experience it in this universe).
What this means to me is that, from God’s viewpoint, He looks at everything that was created - all the matter and energy, throughout its extent in space and time. And from that perspective, He knows (in an historical sense) everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen.
Here is where your understanding of time and mine lead to a very different understanding of what is going on in this universe. I agree completely that God does not make us jump like puppets on strings, that we really do have free will, to make choices, and those choices do have real consequences. The difference is that I know that God knew, “before” creating this universe (if “before” really means anything in His home) exactly what everyone had ever done.
Another aspect of this universe that is only known through modern physics is that the matter and energy of the universe is comprised of an enormous number of extremely tiny particles. The universe is constructed in a way that we cannot ever know the exact state of any one of those particles (exactly where it is, the sum total of all the forces that are being exerted on it, and the speed and direction in which it is moving). Yet the law of large numbers allows us to predict with near certainty how large groups of particles that are combined into objects that we can detect with our natural senses will behave.
I believe that God uses a similar approach to ensure that the decisions of billions of people end up leading to the overall result of how He wants this world to go. I also believe, both from personal experience and from many statements from other people that He does intervene in the lives of us on this earth, almost always in small, personal ways.
I believe God knew what they would do, and used His prophet to push them in the right direction. But God still let them make the choice. Why tell them? Because He knew they needed that one more push, and this was something important to God’s purposes on this earth. and maybe also because God knew that documenting the push He gave to His people in that way would give a good and useful push to others of us who would eventually read about it.
To give them just another push to choose the right thing. To remind them what God wanted them to do. And to let them know that they did have free will. God knowing what we will choose doesn’t make God any more responsible for our choices than we are responsible for the choices historical figures made, just because we know what they did choose. I do trust God’s judgement when He decides that some people need some extra warnings sometimes.
Why would God allow Satan into the Garden of Eden if He really wanted all humans to live forever in the Garden? Do you believe in a God who is not in control of the universe He created? I believe in a God who knew exactly what He was doing, and even more importantly than the “what”, I believe God knew exactly why He created this universe this way, and let it run the way it has run, and actually did (and still does) intervene when He knew it was appropriate, for the purposes for which He created this universe.
I believe He is sure exactly how it will come about. That is why He can promise me that “All things work together for good for those who love God.”
I agree completely with this, just have a bit of a twist on what I think God knows about what we will do, not just reacting to what we do. Again, I believe that God knows from an historical perspective what we will do, not from a controlling perspective. God advises us to do some things, but doesn’t force us do anything.
Bottom line: I have come to believe that modern physics does help us understand how God can give us true free will, the ability to make choices that do have real consequences in this world, and yet, because He knows what all those choices have been, He can fit together everyone’s choices so that His purposes for putting us into this world, rather than creating us in Heaven, can be attained.
And, to relate to the starting point, I am certain that His purposes for creating us in this world could not be satisfied if there were not both good and evil in this world.
Thanks. I’m not sure what this is in relationship to the absolute morality and relative morality question?
If you want to leave that for now, that’s fine.
I like the reminder that God is like a parent–rejoicing when we learn to do right, and become more like his Son. As with Emeth in “The Last Battle,” I think He knows our hearts, even if we don’t know the rules right. He’s not a gnostic God, thank goodness!
Thanks, Brother.
There is an important thing to keep in mind regarding the scriptures, namely that they were not written last year in New York of LA. They were written to a people who had no way, nor interest for that matter, of knowing what science knows today. God did not explain gravity to them. He didn’t even explain that the earth is a globe. Everyone in that time and place understood the world to be a flat disc surrounded by waters or chaos. God had no need to change that for Israel. It was irrelevent to the purpose for which God spoke and wrote to them.
The Ancient Near Eastern man or woman had no interest whatsoever in “space-time.” They were more interested in how to please the gods so as to ensure stability in society. That didn’t come to their world until the Greeks were the genesis of the idea that everything that happens in nature is explainable by physical laws, physics.
Of course all of that is good. We even advanced to the point of making Tang because of the space program. Yeah us! What the Greeks, did though, was begin the process of taking people’s mind off the truth that all those laws were because of God, a spirit. Everything now is physics, while largely ignoring the spiritual.
Any modern day science that is read into the scriptures are just that, a reading into the scriptures something that is simply not there. The Bible is a religious book, not a science book. As a religious book, it explained exactly what man needed to do to live a righteous life, which, as I said above, is where their interest laid.
As I understand it, the ancient writers of the Old Testament had a very different concept of Satan than we do, having been influenced by extra-biblical texts and stories over the years. And, it is not clear that the serpent in the garden was Satan from the text in Genesis. Anyway, with its warts and limitations, Wikipedia says “ Satan ,[a] also known as the Devil ,[b] and sometimes also called Lucifer in Christianity, is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood. In Judaism, Satan is seen as an agent subservient to God, typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara , or “evil inclination.”
So, while your post really was not about the nature of Satan specifically, I wonder if the serpent or Satan in the garden can be thought of as evil, The evil that occurred was the product of Adam and Eve’s rebellion and disobedience, not the serpent’s actions, despite what Adam said.
I think it is true that that OT concept of Satan is different than our own modern Western view. For sure, our modern Western view is not the standard for truth. The scriptures ought to fill that role.
I think that if anybody wants to get an accurate view of Satan, it is necessary to see what Jesus and the writers of the NT (Paul, Luke, James, John etc) said. They are the ones that revealed his true nature, and it appears that none of them had anything good to say about him.
Satan is an agent of God (as per Wiki)? Isn’t that akin to saying George Washington was an agent of King George III? An agent represents the interest of the one who sent them. I hardly see either George Washington as representing the interests of King George, nor Satan acting in the interest of God.
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for [the LORD seeth] not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
1 Kgs 8:39,
Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, [even] thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)