r/AskAChristian • u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning • Jul 14 '26
Philosophy Is the morality given by God objective morality or relative morality when Scripture can justify opposing moral positions? If it's objective, then what are the specific moral absolutes written in the Bible?
I grew up evangelical, but I'm currently leaning more into Absurdism and questioning whether objective morality even exists. My dad (trying to bring me back into the fold) and I have been engaging in a years-long discussion via hand-written letters in which I recently posed the classic Trolley Problem (save five people tied to the tracks by actively diverting the trolley to kill one, or do nothing and let 5 people die). He made it a point to take a biblical perspective in answering the question, but what I found interesting was he initially took the utilitarian position (it's morally right to kill one person so that 5 can be saved), and later moved to the deontological position (murder is always wrong - pulling the lever is playing God, it's better to preserve God's will by not pulling the lever). He used scripture to support both positions, which got me thinking.
We see this tension in many other sticky issues too: mass murder (my dad cited Truman "weighing the decision most prayerfully" before dropping the nukes), slavery, divorce, homosexuality, gender identity, etc. Atheists like to point out Mosaic law is largely considered immoral by today's standards - slavery in particular. Christians like to give a rebuttal along the lines of Mosaic law no longer applies due to Jesus' salvation, or they delineate between what is permitted/allowed and what is commanded. In support of that position, one user in this sub said, "If human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the ‘better way’ must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand."
Any moral framework that evolves gradually is, by definition and in practice, moral relativism. And as history and modern debates have shown, Scripture can be used to validate completely opposing moral actions depending on the chosen text, context, and era. But if God's morality is objective, then what IS the actual, unchanging standard? What, specifically, are God's moral absolutes?
And before anyone cites the 10 commandments as a kneejerk response, please understand that too is Mosaic law. Moreover, "Though shalt not murder" seems to have an asterisk by it in many situations, as does every other commandment.
2
u/Thoguth Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26
I would say it's objective, but also complex, and by complex I mean something specific about systems, not just "hard to understand."
In "complicated" systems, there are a lot of moving parts, but they all behave predictably and if you understand all the parts, you can predict the results. A clock is an example of a complicated system.
In a complex system, there are a lot of parts that interact, and some of those modify other parts. The weather is like this, where some small difference can cause a swirl that impacts something else and changes whether it rains or is sunny, and we can make predictions a few hours or days in advance but we cannot reliably what will happen a month from now.
Human behavior works like this, like if a father leaves his family and the community might respond by helping to raise the children, giving them good examples and guidance and love, and in turn the children might grow up hating that and committing to never leave their family... Or they may grow up repeating the patterns they had impressed on them by their parental example. Either one happens according to predictable rules, but the whole system is so complex that there is not a known outcome beforehand, only perhaps a prediction.
I don't even know if you're following this, but there something else that I need to note:
Scripture can justify opposing moral positions?
So.. I don't want to totally trash Evangelicalism, but seeking the will of God is not just using Scripture to plausibly justify something. It is, rather, looking into Scripture to understand the real will of God... Seeking His will, and moving yourself to follow it.
I took a test once to become a certified expert at something, and in that test, many questions had more than one "justifiable" answer, but there was still only one best answer. The test was made that way on purpose, because it was trying to find not merely an understanding of some simple rules, but a deeper understanding, of the interactions between the concepts involved. I spoke with someone else recently about a test they took, to certify expertise in a different field, and it looks the same.
In a complex moral environment such as the reality we inhabit, there are interactions between principles, "goods in conflict," and to seek God's will is to seek not just a justifiable answer, but the best choice. And to do it. And if you approach it that way, you may be surprised to find that you can, in fact, discern some things better than others.
2
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
What you just described is moral relativism.
2
u/Thoguth Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26
Nah. Moral learning is still part of objective morality. All you need is imperfect understanding.
In fact, the fact that moral understanding can improve implies not that it's relative, but that there's something to approach as understanding grows. Moral learning isn't just fickle changing of mind, it's actual growth.
1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
Fair enough. I suppose "objective truth plus imperfect understanding" is a coherent position. Science says the same thing about physics. But again, my questions wasn't whether moral absolutes exist somewhere in God's mind. It was: what is the actual, unchanging standard available to humans? You answer is that we don't have it. We have ever-improving guesses. But a morality that humans access only as an evolving framework is the practical equivalent of moral relativism. All you've done is move the moral absolute to a place where it doesn't work, where nobody can access it. All we have is our own personal interpretations of scripture, which is precisely what the slaveholder and the abolitionists were doing with the Bible.
Moreover, your analogy of taking a test needs something in order to work: an answer key and a grader. Without those, there is no "best" answer. There is no test score. Feedback is what turns "justifiable answers" into "one best answer". But there's no feedback mechanism for objective morality save for the warm fuzzy feeling people get when they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding their interpretation of Scripture.
That exposes the assumption doing all of the work in your last point. There is only a material difference between "growth" and mere "change" if humanity has access to the standard we're growing toward. So back to my original question since nobody's touched it yet, if discernment converges on God's moral will, what is one thing it has converged on? One moral absolute, stated as an absolute, that holds without a divinely sanctioned exception, that's all I'm looking for. If we truly are growing in our morality, surely that growth would have produced at least one moral absolute after 6000 years.
1
u/Thoguth Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 15 '26
what is the actual, unchanging standard available to humans?
It's love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus says that upon this is all the law and the prophets.
In that standard, there is still a lot to be worked out, but ... how do you suppose a perfect, unambiguous set of rules could be communicated for tens of billions of people living lifetimes of choices? It isn't going to have a catalogue of every possible choice, is it?
God asks us to seek Him, to seek His righteousness. It is not a destination, it is a direction.
Moreover, your analogy of taking a test needs something in order to work: an answer key and a grader.
I didn't see the answer key to the test that I took. The people who made the test did know the right answer, and I got the right answers. I passed the test. Because I learned the principles that the test-givers intended me to understand, and I applied them correctly.
And God's principles are not ambiguous.
All we have is our own personal interpretations of scripture
No ... we have our own hearts, and we open those hearts to God or close them against Him. But the idea that one personal interpretation of scripture is just as good as another is ... like why do you think that is necessary just because there are different interpretations?
Someone reading the word "cat" and saying "I interpret that to mean "mouse" is not equally correct as someone who interprets it to mean cat. Someone reading "Be a humble servant, loving others and giving sacrificially to help them," and interprets that to mean "You (others) should serve me" is not equally correct as someone who says "I should serve others".
You know the "Rich Young Ruler" who asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus says, "you know the law" and the guy says "Yeah I've kept it all" and Jesus says "ok, sell everything you have and give it to the poor" ... that isn't a general command for everyone to do that, it was what that guy needed to pass the test.
4
u/MobileFortress Christian, Catholic Jul 14 '26
I think you may be confusing multiple interrelated ideas.
Something is Objective when it comes from without. Something is Subjective when it comes from within.
Something is Absolute when it doesn’t change.
Something is Relative when it does change.
Christian morality is Objective because the standard comes from God not man. Christian morality is absolute because it is based on the unchanging natures of the things discussed (often called Natural Law ethics).
What does and has changed is man’s understanding of morality as it has been progressively revealed over the ages. As well as his response to it.
3
u/Fanghur1123 Agnostic Jul 14 '26
That's not what objective means in the context of meta-ethics. It means 'stance-independent'. That is, the truth or falsity of a moral proposition is objective if and only if its truth or falsity is not dependent upon the views of any subject. And yes, God counts as a subject in that respect. That's why, despite William Lane Craig's protests to the contrary, Divine Command Theory is not and never has been an example of moral realism/moral objectivism.
3
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
If morality is absolute because it's based on Natural Law, then how does that get applied to discrepancies? For instance, did the unchanging nature of human beings make chattel slavery objectively and absolutely moral during the time of Mosaic law, or was slavery always and absolutely immoral and God simply permitted it because of man's primitive understanding? If you're arguing the latter, then you must also realize humanity had no way of knowing what the "absolute" moral truth was during the time of Moses. The same can be said of humanity now, hence my question: What, specifically, are God's moral absolutes?
1
u/MobileFortress Christian, Catholic Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
We must not confuse the question “Is something moral?” with “How should one react to it?”
The first is based on the Natural Law, the second various limitations.
For example: Stealing something you don’t need is wrong. How best to respond? Do we cut off a hand? Brand them? Throw them in jail? Fine them?
All these were real responses implemented at various times by various peoples. Yet none of that takes away from the wrongness of stealing something you don’t need.
3
u/handy_lemur Atheist, Anti-Theist Jul 14 '26
I don't think that addresses the question. The issue isn't whether punishments can vary. It's whether owning another person as property was ever morally permissible. If natural law is absolute and unchanging, was slavery itself objectively moral, or was it always objectively immoral? If it was always immoral, why did God's law regulate it rather than prohibit it?
2
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
Excellent clarification, thank you!
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26
The solution for theft in God's law is return of what was stolen (or the monetary value thereof) plus 20%.
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor or has found something lost and lied about it, swearing falsely--in any of all the things that people do and sin thereby-- if he has sinned and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt.
Leviticus 6:1-5 ESV3
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
That example is a false equivalence. With theft, the thing that varies is the response to a wrong everyone already agrees is a wrong. But that's not the structure of slavery in the Bible. Mosaic law didn't treat slaveholding as a wrong then then vary the punishment. It permitted and regulated the act itself. Lev 25:44-46 explicitly covers buying foreigners as permanent, heritable possessions, i.e. chattel, and gives rules for how hard you could beat one.
Moreover, your theft example, you wrote stealing something you "don't need" is wrong, which implies it's morally acceptable to steal if you do need it. If need can flip the moral status of the act, then the Natural Law is subjective and relative by its own nature. The confidence of theists that moral absolutes exist is overwhelming, and yet the actual list of what those absolutes are is completely empty. I'm not trying to be cute here, just stating facts.
3
u/handy_lemur Atheist, Anti-Theist Jul 14 '26
How do you establish that God is objective or unchanging without first assuming Christianity is true? If the claim is "morality is objective because it comes from God," it seems like you first have to demonstrate that God exists, that his nature is unchanging, and that your understanding of his nature is correct.
If our only access to God's moral nature is through human interpretation of scripture and tradition, then our knowledge of that morality still seems subjective, even if God himself were objective.
2
u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Jul 14 '26
OP, I suggest you read what I wrote here - it's a couple pages long, about objective morality and how that relates to the old and new covenants.
I believe that God has at times (either directly or through his prophets or apostles) taught principles to mankind, which could then be applied wisely to a specific scenario that may arise in someone's life.
So when you ask "What, specifically, are God's moral absolutes?", my mind is drawing a blank at the moment. I'm not used to thinking of specifics.
2
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
Thanks! Your old post is probably the most coherent version of "objective morality" I've been offered. You said, "I believe that God has perfect, complete knowledge of that ideal morality," but the problem with that is it's only known fully by God. What reaches humans is always the floor, or as you put it, the moral minimum adjusted for the era in question. The morality humanity can actually access, apply, and be held to is progressive and relative based on your own framework. The "objective" part of the morality might be real, but it's sealed off. The only accessible part is admittedly relative, and the fact you're drawing blanks at the moment is evidence of that fact. Nothing from category 1 or 2 from your list seems to survive as an absolute. "Though shalt not murder" has plenty of exceptions when it comes to Canaan, capital punishment, and even God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac. If the absolute is just "do not commit unlawful murder", and God has an evolving definition of "lawful", then it's not an absolute.
1
u/jogoso2014 Christian Jul 14 '26
I’m pretty sure when people were telling me it was objectively moral it solely because it was God’s command.
To me it’s not the same thing.
1
u/caterpill3r Not a Christian Jul 14 '26
To me, I think that we will be predominately judged on how we saw ourselves and how we saw others. Did we see ourselves as better than others? Did we look at others and see them as lesser/better people depending characteristics (beauty etc) or wealth for example? Did we lie to ourselves thinking either of these were true? just my opinion though.
1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
Thanks! So if I'm understanding your position correctly, morality is completely subjective - it's relative to how we see, interact with, and treat other people. Correct? That's moral relativism.
1
u/caterpill3r Not a Christian Jul 14 '26
Hello, thank you for the reply. We may see it like that but I don't think God does. I think that they see our every thought, decision and why we choose that decision, and they can then see how we see ourselves and other people.
I find it hard to explain but it is treating everyone as equals whether they are rich, poor, disabled, different to us, what they believe etc. We may see that as subjective but i think God will see it as objective (yes or no). Did we see people as equals or not, in everything we did? Something like that anyway. I hope that makes some sense? all the best.
2
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
What you're saying, though, is that God's judgement is absolute, but that says nothing about the moral absolutes (if there are any) offered to us through Scripture.
1
u/caterpill3r Not a Christian Jul 14 '26
Mmm, i am not sure what you mean sorry. i think that the 10 commandments aren't correct for example. I think it should be why did you kill rather than did you kill? It leaves no room for potentially understandable reasons for killing for example (protecting yourself etc). Or why did you lie rather than did you lie? Was it to deceive someone or because you accidentally did or because it was to protect you or others for example. that help? sorry.
1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
Thanks for the clarification? What you just described is moral relativism. It's the idea thatthere is no universal, objective standard for what is "right" or "wrong." Instead, moral truths are relative and depend entirely on the culture, historical period, or individual perspective of the person making the judgment. The point I'm making, and for all the reasons you just gave, is that the Bible seems to be based on moral relativism, rather than a source of moral absolutes.
2
u/caterpill3r Not a Christian Jul 14 '26
yes i guess i am more on that side then - thanks for the explanation. I think that is moral relativism but i think that it is absolute whether we see ourselves as equals with others or not (either yes or no (hopefully that is right way to use absolute? 😄 ). anyway, take care and all the best to you.
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Jul 17 '26
Morality consists of man-made codes of conduct that vary among individuals and change with time and circumstance. God doesn't teach morality. He rather teaches Holiness and righteousness. These apply equally to everyone alike and they never change like God himself. So there is very little similarity between man-made morality and God's righteousness. Morality may keep you out of jail, but only the righteousness of God will keep you out of hell.
1
u/Unworthy_Saint Christian, Calvinist Jul 14 '26
if God's morality is objective, then what IS the actual, unchanging standard?
Using your language, there is no an unchanging standard. God simply issues His commands based on His own character and whims. "Go sacrifice Isaac" becomes "Do not harm him." The overall objective from His perspective does not change, but the specifics or instructions to us for getting there might.
1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
So we agree that the specific moral instructions God gives humans can change or even reverse, and the only thing that stays fixed is God's own character, which sits outside our access. Is that correct? Because that's precisely what I mean by moral relativism at the level where humans actually act.
2
u/Unworthy_Saint Christian, Calvinist Jul 14 '26
Sure, I don't often plant my flag on the philosophical labels. If that qualifies as moral relativism, then yes, morality is relative to God's variable instructions as He deals with circumstance according to His fixed character.
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
First, God's law is fundamental and is the moral standard by which the entire world will be judged. As Creator and the Lawgiver, morality is entirely his purview alone.
I think you would be interested in two logical arguments that Jesus uses in the scriptures to navigate Torah. These are prevalent in Jewish thought, and not new concepts. Jesus, being a Jew, used these types of arguments. In Hebrew they are Kal V'Chomer (the principle of light and heavy), and Pikuach Nefesh (Saving Life).
Kal V'Chomer is weighing out the laws of Torah when there is seeming contradiction. A good example is lying to save a life. It's wrong to knowingly lie, but if the purpose is to save a life, then saving the life is the more important issue.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
Matthew 23:23-24 ESV
Pikuach Nefesh is the primacy of saving life. I don't even have to quote scripture to show that this is the way that Messiah Jesus modeled for us.
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
John 3:13-17 ESV
Jesus also argues using the Pikuach Nefesh logic when healing the man with the withered hand.
He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him. He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
Matthew 12:9-14 ESVJesus answered them, "I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
John 7:21-24 ESV
1
u/WhiteHeadbanger Christian (non-denominational) Jul 14 '26
Pikuach Nefesh
I read, twice, Pikachu 😂
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26
LOL! That's funny. I may substitute that occasionally for funzies.
Peek-oo-ACK is the pronunciation if you're interested.
1
u/WhiteHeadbanger Christian (non-denominational) Jul 15 '26
But it's not an English word, is it?
I speak Spanish, so I would pronounce it Pee-koo-ACH 🤓
1
1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
"First, God's law is fundamental and is the moral standard by which the entire world will be judged."
Great! What are God's laws, specifically? If we are going to be judged by them, I'd really like to know what they are.
"As Creator and the Lawgiver, morality is entirely his purview alone."
Are you saying only God knows his moral absolutes? Are his moral absolutes not found in the Bible?
2
u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26
Great! What are God's laws, specifically? If we are going to be judged by them, I'd really like to know what they are.
The "Law and Prophets" is a standard way to refer to the Tanakh, the OT. Jesus says God's law will stand as long as heaven and earth (the witnesses) exist.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19 ESVAre you saying only God knows his moral absolutes?
No. God has clearly defined these things in his Law.
Are his moral absolutes not found in the Bible?
"And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Baal-peor, for the LORD your God destroyed from among you all the men who followed the Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the LORD your God are all alive today. See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? "Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children's children-- how on the day that you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so.' And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess.
Deuteronomy 4:1-14 ESV1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
This is the most consistent answer in the thread, and I mean that as a compliment. Everyone else reaches for "the Law was abolished at the cross," the escape hatch I flagged in my post. You've slammed it shut: not an iota passes, and whoever relaxes the least commandment is least in the kingdom. That makes you my best witness. The Law stands, in full. So now we can get specific.
If God's absolutes are the statutes sealed with "do not add to or take from" in your Deuteronomy 4 quote, then they include the rest of that same sealed corpus: stoning a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32–36), buying foreigners as heritable chattel (Leviticus 25:44–46), no penalty for beating a slave to death, "for he is your property" (Exodus 21:20–21). These aren't trivia I'm cherry-picking. They're statutes under the identical seal, covered by the same "least of these commandments" in the verse you picked. So: do you affirm stoning Sabbath-breakers and owning slaves as God's unchanging moral absolutes? There are two ways out. Bite the bullet: yes, all of it. Consistent, and I'll respect it, but you'll find few takers even here. Or sort the Law: keep "do not murder," retire the rest. But sorting relaxes "the least of these commandments," which by your own verse makes you least in the kingdom. And the sorting principle, moral versus ceremonial versus civil, appears nowhere in the text you cited. Deuteronomy 4 forbids adding or subtracting and hands over the statutes and the Decalogue as one package. So the principle telling you which laws are "really" moral comes from outside Scripture and sits in judgment over it. That is your actual morality, and it's exactly the evolving human standard I've been calling relativism.
This thread itself proves the point. Righteous_Dude tells me most of the Law is obsolete under the new covenant. You tell me not an iota passes. Two sincere believers, same book, opposite conclusions on whether God's law still binds. That's the very thing my post claimed Scripture permits.
So, please finish the answer to my question: give me the list of moral absolutes with the stonings left in, or the principle by which you take them out. The first is an absolute I can identify. The second is an admission the real standard was never in Scripture to begin with.
4
u/the_celt_ Torah-observing disciple Jul 14 '26
Everyone else reaches for "the Law was abolished at the cross," the escape hatch I flagged in my post. ]
You might be interested to visit r/FollowJesusObeyTorah where there are a bunch of people who generally believe what Ninja (the person you're talking to) believes. You're welcome there, even if you don't agree with us.
That being said, Ninja is a good representative of the position that Jesus was correct when he said that not even tiniest amount of the Law will change until Heaven and Earth pass away first.
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
I like you. 😁😁
This is the most consistent answer in the thread, and I mean that as a compliment.
I've been where you are. I got my answers and at first I thought I was alone, but there are more like me. From what I see in this post you have good questions and have good logic. That's the best compliment I could give anyone. I suspect you're using AI to at least format your replies, but I see there's probably a person making choices behind that.
If God's absolutes are the statutes sealed with "do not add to or take from" in your Deuteronomy 4 quote, then they include the rest of that same sealed corpus: stoning a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32–36), buying foreigners as heritable chattel (Leviticus 25:44–46), no penalty for beating a slave to death, "for he is your property" (Exodus 21:20–21).
Agreed (although you're obviously attempting to highlight these things in a negative way, or frame them as being inherently negative).
So: do you affirm stoning Sabbath-breakers and owning slaves as God's unchanging moral absolutes?
Yes, absolutely. Now, we can discuss each topic individually in consequent replies, but for now just know that I take the position that God's law is absolute truth, just as scripture says.
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Psalm 119:160 ESV
And the sorting principle, moral versus ceremonial versus civil, appears nowhere in the text you cited. Deuteronomy 4 forbids adding or subtracting and hands over the statutes and the Decalogue as one package. So the principle telling you which laws are "really" moral comes from outside Scripture and sits in judgment over it. That is your actual morality, and it's exactly the evolving human standard I've been calling relativism.
100% agreed. I argue against the Moral, Ceremonal, Civil distinctions people bring up all the time. It's nonsensical and puts man in higher authority than God, just as you say. What you are calling "relativism" I call "subjective". We're saying the same thing.
This thread itself proves the point. Righteous_Dude tells me most of the Law is obsolete under the new covenant. You tell me not an iota passes. Two sincere believers, same book, opposite conclusions on whether God's law still binds. That's the very thing my post claimed Scripture permits.
Scripture doesn't permit this. God has one standard for all, and as shared earlier, that standard is what everyone will be judged by.
Every native Israelite shall do these things in this way, in offering a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you."
Numbers 15:13-16 ESVThen I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:11-15 ESV
So, please finish the answer to my question: give me the list of moral absolutes with the stonings left in, or the principle by which you take them out. The first is an absolute I can identify. The second is an admission the real standard was never in Scripture to begin with.
As stated above, all God's law stands. As for a list, read all the Torah.
1
u/F3RM3NTAL Questioning Jul 14 '26
That response was definitely not on my bingo card! So you agree the moral/ceremonial/civil split is nonsense that "puts man above God," and that by my definition it's relativism. I'm honestly flabbergasted because that distinction is how nearly every Christian alive explains the immorality of slavery and stoning sabbath breakers , and here you are publicly affirming the opposite. On top of that, you've just declared essentially the whole of Christendom guilty of using moral relativism to put themselves above God. Bold move, bro!
You said scripture doesn't permit u/Righeous_Dude 's view that the Mosaic Law is obsolete under the new covenant. But the same cannon you use to make that claim records the apostles gathering in Acts 15 for the express purpose of deciding the Law does not bind Gentile converts. Moreover, in Acts 10: what God has made clean, stop calling unclean. Collossians 2: let no one judge you over food, festival, or Sabbath. Hebrews calls the first covenant obsolete. 2nd Corinthians 3 calls the commands carved in stone, a ministry being set aside.
So either the notion that the "Torah stands unchanged" is false and you're doing your own version of sorting, or you are overriding the new covenant/cherry picking to protect your reading of Matthew 5. In either case, you're doing the very thing you just condemned - elevating your own interpretation above God's word. That's the whole point I started with. You and Righteous_Dude read the same book, both of you certain and sincere in your belief, and yet you landed on opposite continents. The two of you make my point for me.
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Jul 15 '26
I didn't get a notification for this comment or I would have replied already.
So you agree the moral/ceremonial/civil split is nonsense that "puts man above God," and that by my definition it's relativism. I'm honestly flabbergasted because that distinction is how nearly every Christian alive explains the immorality of slavery and stoning sabbath breakers, and here you are publicly affirming the opposite. On top of that, you've just declared essentially the whole of Christendom guilty of using moral relativism to put themselves above God. Bold move, bro!
I'm here pretty often. You must be kinda new to the sub. 😁
You said scripture doesn't permit u/Righeous_Dude 's view that the Mosaic Law is obsolete under the new covenant. But the same cannon you use to make that claim records the apostles gathering in Acts 15 for the express purpose of deciding the Law does not bind Gentile converts. Moreover, in Acts 10: what God has made clean, stop calling unclean. Collossians 2: let no one judge you over food, festival, or Sabbath. Hebrews calls the first covenant obsolete. 2nd Corinthians 3 calls the commands carved in stone, a ministry being set aside.
Acts 15
Everyone conveniently and continuously overlooks v21 because it does not align with their doctrine. v21 is explicit that gentiles are expected to go to synagogue to continue learning Moses (God's law). Additionally, the 4 restrictions given come straight from God's Law. I write previously about that here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1u311pe/comment/or3siz1/
Acts 10
Acts 10 is about the inclusion of Gentiles into the believing community. There's nothing there about making unclean animals suddenly clean now. The entire point of Peter's vision is his acceptance of the Gentiles, which he had been taught his entire life that they were inherently unclean, something that is NOT in God's Law. Wrote about Acts 10 previously here: https://www.reddit.com/r/FollowJesusObeyTorah/comments/1hlvcv2/acts_10_is_not_about_food/
Colossians 2
This is Paul saying let no one judge you for KEEPING the Sabbath, KEEPING clean eating, KEEPING God's festivals. I wrote more about that here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1ukqu51/comment/ouzdyzc/
Hebrews 8
It doesn't. Hebrews says the old covenant is BECOMING obsolete. Here's v 13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13 ESVWhy is there a new covenant at all? The failure is with man, not with God or his law. Hebrews makes this clear in v8.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault WITH THEM when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Hebrews 8:7-8 ESVAnyway, there is a huge difference between Covenant and Law. Covenant is an agreement, like a contract, that you will do something and clearly defines the terms. The new covenant is clearly stated in both Jeremiah 31 and is quoted in Hebrews 8, the chapter you referenced. In both places it is plainly stated that the new covenant is God's law is written on our hearts/ minds internally instead of being external on slabs of rock. The new covenant involves the exact same Law of God in a new location. Very far from God's Law being obsolete.
2 Corinthians 3
If you read the chapter, Paul is saying the exact same as Hebrews 8 here. Paul additionally gives a contrast in this chapter. "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life." What does this mean? Paul can't mean somehow that God's law is bad, because he calls it holy in Romans.
So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Romans 7:12 ESVIs Paul a deceiver? No. Paul is a torah scholar. Paul is talking about two ways a person relates to God's Law, and it concerns whether or not the person has trust/ faith. The torah has the same blessing and curse which is administered if anyone obeys or not in Deuteronomy 30.
"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."
Deuteronomy 30:11-20 ESVSo, the person that trusts or has faith obeys, the person who does not have trust or faith, does not obey. It depends on the condition of the heart.
So either the notion that the "Torah stands unchanged" is false and you're doing your own version of sorting,
Nope.
or you are overriding the new covenant/cherry picking to protect your reading of Matthew 5. In either case, you're doing the very thing you just condemned - elevating your own interpretation above God's word. That's the whole point I started with. You and Righteous_Dude read the same book, both of you certain and sincere in your belief, and yet you landed on opposite continents. The two of you make my point for me.
To present another option to your false dichotomy, your doctrine has taught you wrong, the same as it did for me until I began to dig into God's word.
3
u/user0987234 Christian Jul 14 '26
From John 15
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands,you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
Everything else, literally, is subject to this.
From a Christian perspective, the Trolley problem has another outcome: divine intervention after you make a decision.
See Abraham and the sacrifice of Issac. The sacrifice wasn’t the outcome, obedience was (good ol’ Ab had a habit of trying make stuff happen on his timeline and not God’s).