Sunday, July 3, 2011

On Moral Absolutes

from my Facebook :


Here is the problem of absolutes, it is often used as a weapon to kill others who differed from the faithfuls throughout history, are the moral absolutes ten commandments? Where do you draw the line on one hand, every jot of the sacred text cannot be dismissed, all must be preserved and fulfilled, on the other, total transgressing laws as Jesus knew it, esp. when applied to the adulteress, he did not fulfill the Law which calls for death. What makes him to make such a seemingly mistaken call on the transgressor? He has a higher moral code, not often called for in the Sacred texts, more specifically found in the prophetic writings. But Mosaic laws cannot be dismissed, about sexual and moral conducts. No one ever followed these closely, it is not about dietary laws the St Paul struggled with, and about circumcision, it is about a moral code of conduct that must be absolutes and be kept closely which no one follows. The law does not call for forgiveness, Christ does, but his moral absolutes is not acceptable in the Jewish texts which is about an eye for an eye. So in re-interpreting the sacred texts, which is the moral absolute? Jesus, or Moses? or Saint Paul, because he strictly forbids women to have authority over man, and this moral teaching is based on his interpretation of Genesis, which calls for male dominance since God make man first. Is it purely cultural as some says, but who makes this judgment, you, me or the 21st century mores? Are women properties, or real person according the tenth commandment? They are equated to properties, and if not mistaken, in a society like that, they are properties, but can that be applied to modern society, should they be given rights to own properties, to vote, to speak in the churches? You will not find Christians to agree on this topic. So what I am trying to say, is what is the set of absolutes that we are taught since childhood, when under the examination of modern logic, found difficult or even absurd? I think moral absolutism is a bit shaky since no one can actually make a case so everyone agrees, about when to kill and when not to kill, and what motives we bring about to kill.
And the command not to kill, here you see where my problem is, with the genocide texts. Samuel commanded Saul to kill the entire village, children and animals. You revered these texts since it is the word of God. This command violates the laws of God about not to kill, but since God ordained the killing, I can understand to kill in a battle, soldiers die for things like that, but to take out innocent children and women, and animals? And for failure to follow this correctly Saul is to be replaced with another king, David, whose hands are so filled with blood that he was asked to to make a temple for God. So here is the absolute for not to kill, and life for life sort to speak, but when God says so, it is alright to side step these laws, it is not ok to kill your people, but Cananites, that is alright. It is then OK for God to kill as he sees fit, when by mistake a priest was struck down holding or touching the ark, and the fire from the earth consumed those who disagreed with Moses about his priesthood. The books of the bible is filled with blood, I am not certain you would want your innocent children to read about killings, genocides, incest, and adultery and the practice of using and degrading women as sex slaves (war spoil). I think if God tells you to kill your neighbour, or to go overseas and kill infidels or demonic muslims, where do you draw the line? Why? Can those biblical figures refuse to kill and lay down the arms? That would be Christian, but not Jewish.
As you can tell, not to kill has many situations, but it is the sacred command, we each struggle with. I think frail humans cannot and should not be the standard, perhaps absolutes resides with a God who always is w right, sometimes he shows mercy, other times he kills by tens of thousands (recent earthquakes, the Holocaust). Is this a blood thirsty deity? The duty is to relate this sacred text, with all the exceptions that I see, to relay that in a frail world, not to kill. The buddhists accepted this as their first command, refusing to eat meat because of the killing it implies. Is that Christian teaching? Or a war that kills innocent by stander by George Bush and his friends? Tens of thousands have died so far, and God has sanctioned it.

please see the link to the entire discussion

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/?page=4&sk=messages&tid=1670133123999

No comments:

Post a Comment