How can Christians lecture us on moral relativity?

Question

I just read an answer from a Christian that contained this admonition:

"morals are not relative missy! Murder is wrong..not matter what era you are talking about! Naturally, murder is wrong by virtue of the Judeo/christian morality...
What you need to realize is that morality is not relative, it is not periodic, and being moral is almost completely impossible to do!"

Now how can any Christian say such a hypocritical thing, when you can quote law after law from the Bible that they do not follow, and their answer will always be to invoke some form of moral relativity?

Examples: Pork and shellfish are an abomination to God, women must offer sacrifices each month to atone for menstruation, Slavery is fine, just don't beat your slaves so hard that that they die within three days, don't wear clothes of blended fabric, Do not work on Saturday, and many others.

Mahalga: I have a NIV and a KJV, and they both say the same basic thing. Can you name the version that doesn't have these laws?

Cathy: Laws that apply to one people and not to another is just another type of moral relativity.

Evolver: Nowhere in the OT does it say, "These laws are just religious ritual laws, and these are for all people of all times." Also, your answer does not deal with Slavery being condoned. Is it wrong now? If so, why was it right then?

Huffy: I agree with your answer, but saying, "The OT no longer applies" is a perfect example of moral relativity.

Thank you T D, for giving us a perfect example of moral relativity. "Those laws were for then, then something changed, and now we are under different laws."

Brother Michael: That is PRECISELY what moral relativity is.

In response to:
"God placed in the hearts and minds of humans that overarching moral code. You will not find any laws in the Mosaic law that supersedes or contradicts this moral code."
My moral intuition tells me that slavery is wrong. Mosaic law tells me that I may beat my slave, so long as he or she does not die from the beating within three days.

delseydebothom says: "Now, as for your complaints about Christians not following the liturgical laws which were under the jurisdiction of the Levitical priests which no longer exist...well that's the answer. There are no more Levites, there is no more tabernacle."

Conditions changed, so the moral code changed. That's moral relativity. Thank you. How many more examples do we have waiting out there?

delsey debothom also wrote: "As for slavery, can you tell me what is in se immoral about having a contract with someone that spells out that you will provide them room and board in exchange for labor for a fixed period of time?"
Yes, the fact that they have no say in the agreement and can not cancel it, and may never have agreed to it in the first place. Research the OT for examples of conditions in which God instructed the Israelites to take slaves. And it is just unbelievable to me that you would defend slavery to support your Bible.

Answer 1

I love your question. There is no relativity in morals. Morality is absolute. Does the scripture not say "if you break the least of these you are guilty of all"? Right on, Brother (or, not-Brother)

Slavery on the other hand is totally misunderstood. I would that they had come up with another word for what we had here in the U.S. a few hundred years ago, because it bore no similarity to scripturally sanctioned slavery. For more information, if you have any interest in the subject, obtain a copy of "Reconsidering Yahweh's Laws of Marriage and Slavery" H.O.Y. Publishing, Abilene, TX

Answer 2

As a Mormon we don't use the term moral relativity. However, we recognize that not all laws are eternal laws. It was OK for the Hebrews to kill all the inhabitants of the promised land even though they just received a commandment that Thou shalt not kill. The Lord commanded the killing by a higher law. We now can serve in the military and are not responsible for the killing we are told to do by those in authority over us (they may not have it so good). The 10 commandments were the second commandments given to the Hebrews as Moses destroyed the first when he came back to the golden calf. The Law of Moses is a preparatory law because they were not ready for the higher law. The lessor law was not done away but was fulfilled by Christ at Gethsemane. I'm not sure Christians should be lecturing you on anything but if there is a God, it would be important imformation for you to have and if their is a true Church of Jusus Christ out there somewhere, set up by the power and authority of God, It would only be neighborly to pass that information on to you which we do at the cost of sending out over 50,000 missionaries every year. Take the time to talk to one or maybe you know a member. You may know the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost. And no more lectures.

Answer 3

The Mosaic law was for a certain people, at a certain time, in a certain place. This is true even today, there are laws, say in Finland, that are not laws in America. This not moral relativism. There is an overarching moral code established by God. The ten commandments are that moral code, but that code existed long before Moses. When Cain murdered Abel, did he claim that he didn't know it was wrong? No, he knew it was wrong, why? God placed in the hearts and minds of humans that overarching moral code. You will not find any laws in the Mosaic law that supersedes or contradicts this moral code.

Answer 4

Because the bible isn't a yes/no work. The Christian catechetical system is largely designed off of the New Testament, and generally references only those Old Testament laws that Jesus explicitly backs, such as the ten commandments.

Ritual laws clearly meant only as a stricture upon Jews are not "moral laws," even in modern Judaism. They are religious laws. A Jew may not eat shellfish, because he is a Jew, and and shellfish are ritually unclean for a Jew. Jewish ritual laws are well described in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus and the Talmud.

Murder, on the other hand, is forbidden to everyone, because it is a moral wrong. And an absolute one at that. It isn't wrong simply because there is a religious stricture against it. And it isn't wrong simply because it is in the Bible. It is wrong because the evil of murder is inherent to the act. This is what we're trying to tell you - murder is wrong by its very nature, not just because changing standards just happened to make murder "out of fashion" at some point.

The Catechism of the Catholic church explains why the decalogue is important, and what harm is caused by breaking these laws. The chapter on murder goes into great detail for instance.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html

Answer 5

The point, I think is this: an action is either right or wrong. We can be mistaken as to whether a particular action is right or wrong, but that doesn't decide morality.

Now, as for your complaints about Christians not following the liturgical laws which were under the jurisdiction of the Levitical priests which no longer exist...well that's the answer. There are no more Levites, there is no more tabernacle.

As for slavery, can you tell me what is in se immoral about having a contract with someone that spells out that you will provide them room and board in exchange for labor for a fixed period of time?

As for beating them, of course you aren't to charge someone with murder if they simply beat someone. It is true that there is no punishment commanded for this sin in particular, but just because the he is not punished under the Torah by what laws are laid out in it, does not mean that he should not be punished. Further, it does not mean that the crime is approved of.

Relating this to the verses above (vs 18-19), it probably means that the master does not have to pay the slave for the loss of his time, since it's the master's silver that's been lost, not the slave's (vs 21). He would however, be bound to make sure the slave can stand within a few days.

As an addition, I'm sure God would have been pleased had the Israelites imposed on their own a punishment for the master (such as equivalent beatings). In fact, they might have. I'll have to ask some of the Jews on here.

Menstruation is a separate issue, which I'm still in the midst or researching.

Working on the Sabbath day is something Catholics like myself are forbidden to do, unless there is some grave necessity requiring it.

The other issues are ones I'm still researching.

*edit*

I'm not defending slavery just to support my Bible. Abuses notwithstanding, I believe that many ancient labor systems which would today be classified as "slavery" were in fact in perfectly just. I'm defending the principle for the principle's sake. Now, if you're talking about slaves taken from other nations in battle, we do that today; we just call them POW's. The modern custom is to release them after the war is over, but that wasn't so at the time. They did, after all, win their service either by legitimate victory or by their opponent's surrender. This was an arrangement understood and implicitly agreed upon by both sides in any given Bronze-age conflict, and the Israelites' enemies would have done the same to them. The Israelites had signed no treaty agreeing not to do this.

Answer 6

I think the vast majority of Christians say that the mitzvot in the Torah don't apply to them (and as a Jew, I agree.) However, there are also some "laws" and principles in their "New Testament" that many Christians don't seem to follow.

Then again, there are also many Jews who don't follow all the applicable laws in the Torah either . . .

Edit:
Lol . . . I can't disagree with that! But then I never did understand the obsession some have with "moral relativity." Everyone, in the end, is a moral relativist, and I don't think that that's always a bad thing. Hey, I'm a law student. Talk about moral relativism . . .

Answer 7

You have a very good point. That is because the religious people you mentioned are poor examples of Christian. God created the reproduction process. God hates abortions. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses we do not allow abortions and those who do perform abortions are punished severely for it. Yes women have rights, but God's View on things should be more important. Is there a reason you are Atheist maybe I can help answer your questions? I know there are a lot of problems in the world today. There is a lot of hypocrisy in churches today. There is so much wrong going on. I would love to be able to help convince you that God exists. Anyways, I do not agree with abortions. We now have a magazine article all about abortions and what God's view on this matter is. I hope that you and other women read this Awake magazine it's very helpful and good. Take Care and Best Wishes

Answer 8

If murder is unchristian. Then missionaries should stop supporting murderers for religious sake in north-east India. Many were once threatened for life if they do not convert to christianity in this part of the world as per some media reports.

Christians have murdered that law with their own hands. As much as Romans and Jews did that when Christ was put on the cross.

Morality as such as is time bound and local to the area of implementation. It never will be universal.

Answer 9

Moral relativism is not the same as recognizing moral differences and distinctions. Relativism is the idea that there are no absolute laws under the command of God. The ultimate end of relativistic thinking is situation ethics, by which one can justify any evil, however egregious, as "love," including dehydrating a brain-damaged woman who has become an annoying drain on one's finances. Such thinking undermines any system of ethics, not just Christianity.

Even absolute laws can have exceptions. For example, we are not to kill--except in self-defense or in just war. The exceptions are part of the absolute laws.

The laws of Judaism included laws of justice and laws of piety. Laws of justice, like don't murder, steal, or commit perjury, are absolute laws. Laws of piety are essentially precepts for the faithful, sacrifices that demonstrate allegiance to a community. Jesus showed that these laws are not commands of God, e.g., by teaching that Sabbath is made for man, and that God declares all foods clean.

Answer 10

There are two categories of Bible laws...
* Moral laws
* Civil laws

Moral laws dealt with ethical and holiness matters with respect to maintaining loving and honorable relationships with God, and with people.

Moral Laws are forever.


General Examples of Civil Laws
matters of day-to-day community life, such as...
* property rights
* sanitation
* civil disputes

Whereas Moral Laws are forever, Civil Laws were designed to meet needs in a SPECIFIC historical/cultural environment.

Background of the Civil Laws
The Old Testament's Civil Laws were given by God...

* to a specific group of people
* to meet a specific set of circumstances
* at a specific period of time