Comments on: What Does Scripture Teach About Conflicting Moral Truths? http://www.devotions.com/2009/04/what-does-scripture-teach-about-conflicting-moral-truths.html Christian Devotions for Daily Living Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:43:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Essam http://www.devotions.com/2009/04/what-does-scripture-teach-about-conflicting-moral-truths.html/comment-page-1#comment-3 Essam Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:54:37 +0000 http://www.devotions.com/dev/2009/04/what-does-scripture-teach-about-conflicting-moral-truths.html#comment-3 I find your argument sound and biblical. However, I am not sure if there are degrees of sin, there are many Christians who believe in different degrees of sin, one being more sinful the other. Sin is defined as disobedience to God's Laws. As matter of fact, we can not define or know sin if it was not for the law, Apostle Paul says in Romans. <br />I also agree with you that I am not suer if the midwives example is a good example. The Bible needs to be taken as a whole therefore, if we are to draw a conclusion, it must be in line with all other passages, since we believe that the Bible is not contradictory, or conflicts each other. For instance, paul talks about the law being hung on the cross, yet in the same book he talks about how sin can not be defined (exists) without the law of God. <br />Now, how should we understand Jesus's Commands saying let your words be Yes, NO , and any other is from Satan. IF this passage taken alone, then we must conclude that the midwives in Egypt committed a sin and God seemed to be happy with it. in the same line, Jacob stole the birth right from his brother, yet God blessed him. <br />Morally right is indeed a tough question, yet we know that God loves no matter what. Because we know that God hates sin, and not the person. God's love is endless and unconditional. I find your argument sound and biblical. However, I am not sure if there are degrees of sin, there are many Christians who believe in different degrees of sin, one being more sinful the other. Sin is defined as disobedience to God’s Laws. As matter of fact, we can not define or know sin if it was not for the law, Apostle Paul says in Romans.
I also agree with you that I am not suer if the midwives example is a good example. The Bible needs to be taken as a whole therefore, if we are to draw a conclusion, it must be in line with all other passages, since we believe that the Bible is not contradictory, or conflicts each other. For instance, paul talks about the law being hung on the cross, yet in the same book he talks about how sin can not be defined (exists) without the law of God.
Now, how should we understand Jesus’s Commands saying let your words be Yes, NO , and any other is from Satan. IF this passage taken alone, then we must conclude that the midwives in Egypt committed a sin and God seemed to be happy with it. in the same line, Jacob stole the birth right from his brother, yet God blessed him.
Morally right is indeed a tough question, yet we know that God loves no matter what. Because we know that God hates sin, and not the person. God’s love is endless and unconditional.

]]> By: Mike Blyth http://www.devotions.com/2009/04/what-does-scripture-teach-about-conflicting-moral-truths.html/comment-page-1#comment-2 Mike Blyth Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:02:53 +0000 http://www.devotions.com/dev/2009/04/what-does-scripture-teach-about-conflicting-moral-truths.html#comment-2 I agree completely that not all sins are equal, that's just nonsense. However, I think something must be missing or incomplete here. Using the example of the Egyptian midwives, ask the simple question, "What was God's will for them at the time?" <br /><br />Whether "sin" means what's morally wrong or that which opposes the will of God, it is self-contradictory to say that the midwives did the right thing by sinning. It's self-contradictory to say that God approved of what they did although it was a sin.<br /><br />It seems to me there are these possibilities:<br />* Lying was the <i>right</i> thing to do in the circumstances, hence not a sin;<br />* Lying was the <i>wrong</i> thing to do, i.e. not God's will, hence sinful, and there was a better alternative. Then God's approval was a merciful recognition that the midwive's sin was "for a good cause" and the result of limited knowledge, wisdom, or strength to do what really <i>was</i> God's will.<br /><br />To say that there are times we must sin means that, on those occasions, God wants us to sin. Again, it makes no sense.<br /><br />Rather, I think the solution must be <br />* a form of ethical absolutism ("never lie, whatever the consequences"), <br />* a ranking of moral laws, such that, for example, saving a life outweighs truth-telling, or<br />* an acceptance that maxims such as "never lie" are starting points or generalizations rather than universal absolutes. We don't seem to have a problem with this when it comes to the commandment "Do not kill," and I think lying is in the same category. <br /><br />Mike Blyth<br />Jos, Nigeria I agree completely that not all sins are equal, that’s just nonsense. However, I think something must be missing or incomplete here. Using the example of the Egyptian midwives, ask the simple question, “What was God’s will for them at the time?”

Whether “sin” means what’s morally wrong or that which opposes the will of God, it is self-contradictory to say that the midwives did the right thing by sinning. It’s self-contradictory to say that God approved of what they did although it was a sin.

It seems to me there are these possibilities:
* Lying was the right thing to do in the circumstances, hence not a sin;
* Lying was the wrong thing to do, i.e. not God’s will, hence sinful, and there was a better alternative. Then God’s approval was a merciful recognition that the midwive’s sin was “for a good cause” and the result of limited knowledge, wisdom, or strength to do what really was God’s will.

To say that there are times we must sin means that, on those occasions, God wants us to sin. Again, it makes no sense.

Rather, I think the solution must be
* a form of ethical absolutism (“never lie, whatever the consequences”),
* a ranking of moral laws, such that, for example, saving a life outweighs truth-telling, or
* an acceptance that maxims such as “never lie” are starting points or generalizations rather than universal absolutes. We don’t seem to have a problem with this when it comes to the commandment “Do not kill,” and I think lying is in the same category.

Mike Blyth
Jos, Nigeria

]]>