Moral Relativism

[ddarko]

The definition I used is here.

We can, and almost always do, make moral choices without having to determine the nature of our existence and how we know that we know what we know that we know . We seem to use a process analogous to Rom 2:15, a combination of emotion and rational thought.

My argument is this: If we take a contentious moral issue such as the homosexual act or artificial contraception and look at how it is debated, for example here on CAF, no one takes a blind bit of notice about the chapter and verse wheeled out by the other side. Debaters will also try for absolutes from tradition on one side and science on the other. Again, none of it changes hearts and minds. It turns out that no one can point to a truth written on everyone’s hearts. We all have principles to live by but in the real world moral absolutes seem at best superfluous to the way we make personal moral decisions, and at worse can be dangerous if we put our own beliefs (in science, philosophy or religion) before the welfare of our fellow man.

Alright Innocente, you didn’t answer ANY of my questions to you or address my argument.

Do you, or do you not agree that there are something in this world that you consider like the Principle of Contradiction, the Empirical method, that Other Minds and Persons exists as TRUE objectively? Now that is from human experience. You might have misunderstood the term “human experience” as observation. That is incorrect.

My argument is that Morality is such a truth that is from human experience. Now what is your counter argument?

As for truths written in all our hearts, you are again talking about objectivity in the Normative sense. That is not what is meant by objective morality. What objective morality means is that regardless of whether it was written in your heart or not, whether the entire population believes it or not, some actions are MORAL and others are IMMORAL. You do not seem to have understood this according to what you have written above.

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

Ephesians 5:21 states “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians (NAB) 5)

If both are to be subordinate, how can one be superior.

and 22 states

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.

and 23 and 24 state

23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. 24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

The wives’ position is clear.

 

[Sonny69]

How is this a causal relationship? Can you demonstrate the “why” of “has to be a moral character” ?

If the effect is creation and the creation contains a creature which is capable of love, then the cause had to also have that same character in order to created such an effect.

 

[Sonny69]

A person who was forced to integrate during segregation. Their conscience might have told them that integration was “bad” or dangerous but because of the law they were forced to act morally.

I’m sure this happens when ever there is a change in society. Woman’s rights, minority rights, etc. Sometimes our consciences have to catch up with morality.

The error is to put the morality onto the persons conscience; it is the law that would be considered immoral and the moral person was abiding by the law. It is interesting because the question of relative morality verses objective morality is a guise to attack the moral lawgiver in the Bible. If morality is relative, then there cannot be a moral lawgiver and thus to each his own.

One can go to any society and missionaries have done so and in every culture it is immoral to steal from anoher or to murder or to have anothers wife; why is this so universal? It gives evidence that there is a moral lawgiver just as God in Scripture has said in Romans 1 and 2.

 

[jonfawkes]

If the effect is creation and the creation contains a creature which is capable of love, then the cause had to also have that same character in order to created such an effect.

So is it your belief that God must be also amoral because he created plants and animals?

Is God also evil, since we are capable of evil?

 

[jonfawkes]

The error is to put the morality onto the persons conscience; it is the law that would be considered immoral and the moral person was abiding by the law. It is interesting because the question of relative morality verses objective morality is a guise to attack the moral lawgiver in the Bible. If morality is relative, then there cannot be a moral lawgiver and thus to each his own.

One can go to any society and missionaries have done so and in every culture it is immoral to steal from anoher or to murder or to have anothers wife; why is this so universal? It gives evidence that there is a moral lawgiver just as God in Scripture has said in Romans 1 and 2.

I was responding to the premise

absolute principle that a moral person must obey his conscience at all times

I am putting forth the concept that the conscience can be mistaken. So percieved morality may in fact not be moral. I agree that the law was immoral but it was enacted as a vehicle of the conscience of the law makers, therefore considered moral at the time of enactment.

The universality of certain moral constructs can also gives credence to the similarity of human societies based in biology.

Saying the creator uses the human being’s nature to allow morality develop relative to the society and time that they are living is no more an attack on the creator as saying dietary restrictions vary throughout cultures. They are “true” for the time and people that enact them. It doesn’t make them universally applicable or universally “good”.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how it’s different. You admit your husband is superior and so you submit. Seems in line with the Koran.

I did not say my husband is superior to me, in the sense that you mean. And in the way the Koran means, (as I interpret it, of course.)

I admit he is superior to me in the way that Scripture means. That is, there is submission if we are both “under the same mission”.

 

[PRmerger]

I already said I don’t believe the whole of scripture is inspired by God, so trying to debate me on absolutes from scripture might just be … circular.

And what criteria do you use to determine what’s inspired in Scripture and what’s not?

This is getting so interesting indeed!

Is it just a feeling you get when you read it?

So is this* theopneustos,* in your opinion: “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.”-Malachi 1:11. And how do you know?

What about this: “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” -1 Peter 3:21. And how do you know?

Can you give us a list of things that are in Scripture that are not theopneustos and what criteria the Spirit gave you for this discernment?

 

[jonfawkes]

I did not say my husband is superior to me, in the sense that you mean. And in the way the Koran means, (as I interpret it, of course.)

I admit he is superior to me in the way that Scripture means. That is, there is submission if we are both “under the same mission”.

That isn’t out of line with the Koran. You submit to your Husband in the affairs of support. The Koran doesn’t say that the man is on a different mission. Just that He is more suited to look after things. Which is the role your husband plays according to your account. I don’t see the conflict.

 

[PRmerger]

That isn’t out of line with the Koran. You submit to your Husband in the affairs of support. The Koran doesn’t say that the man is on a different mission. Just that He is more suited to look after things. Which is the role your husband plays according to your account. I don’t see the conflict.

The Koran says that the man is superior to the woman. And the Islamic culture affirms this, yes?

The Sacred Scriptures profess this:

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.

For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

This revelation affirms that both have inherent dignity, and the Christian culture affirms this as well.

 

[PRmerger]

As I already said several times, I’ve not read much of it.

Did I ever ask you if you’ve read it?

 

[PRmerger]

I already said I don’t believe the whole of scripture is inspired by God …

This is quite good! I’m definitely going to start a thread on this, here.

But I’ll leave it here for all to review, and join the other discussion if you care to.

It leads me to this question: each and every time you’ve quoted Scripture, inocente, (and esp. the many times you’ve professed, “Jesus is Lord!” here), are we to presume that those Scripture verses are theopneustos, in your opinion, or are you quoting them but not really proposing that they’re inspired revelation?

And how are we to know if you consider them theopneustos?

And, if you could please share this hidden knowledge (gnosis) with us as to how you know it’s not inspired, so we can know as well.

Agreed, and for me one of the most profound lines in scripture is tucked away at the end of John:

When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” – John 21:21 NIV

We each make up our own mind - the Baptist creed is rather minimal, being little more than the terse “Jesus is Lord”.

In Romans 2:14-15 Paul says, in an aside, that we each work things out for ourselves using the law written on our hearts. The law is compassion, Jesus majors on compassion not on rule-books. We have this built-in process for determining what is good, our thoughts sometimes accusing us and at other times defending us. We are not isolated in this process, we draw on each other and on Christ (and the Bible in total, not by picking at verses out of context). We try to come to agreement, but we are allowed and indeed required not to blindly follow the herd (shades of Rom 14 – “everything that does not come from faith is sin”). God then judges us not with a tick list but on how well we form and use our conscience.

I know some theologians read Rom 2:14-15 very differently and construct a towering edifice of moral absolutes on top of it, but I then ask why did God give us a conscience and why does Jesus go out of His way to not give us a rule-book, e.g. in Luke 10:25-37

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” – Luke 10:27 NIV.

The wording of the fourth commandment is subtle. Instead of saying “the Sabbath day is holy” it says “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Brother,

The church (I dare not capitalize it here) is all of us that belong to the Lord.

1 John 1:8-10 – I confess my sins directly without a mediator in Christ. It’s hard for either of us to understand each other on this.

1 John 5:16-17 – I’m not sure what the point is, could you explain? I read it in the context of the chapter and preceding verses “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.” – 5:13-15 NIV

1 John 5:20-23 - This may cause you more apoplexy (I heard you shouting!). My belief is that no one but God has the power to forgive sins. The disciples are empowered to proclaim forgiveness or non-forgiveness. If I’m found wanting here or elsewhere then I trust in being judged fairly - isn’t that something we share?

Matthew 16:19 – see Bible Commentator for various opinions, some of which may invoke more red. Personally, nothing has ever jumped off the page here, with or without any commentaries.

There’s a verse about Peter that I dwell on often in trying to balance my ego - ‘When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”’ - John 21:21 NIV. Is Peter showing concern for John, or worrying that he may have to suffer his burden alone, or just wanting to know what the future has in store? Whatever, ‘Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”’

 

[jonfawkes]

The Koran says that the man is superior to the woman. And the Islamic culture affirms this, yes?

The Sacred Scriptures profess this:

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.

For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

This revelation affirms that both have inherent dignity, and the Christian culture affirms this as well.

What Christian culture? You live in the states. When Europe was more theocratic, woman’s roles mirrored Islam’s more closely. Your equality has more to do with government than religion.

Both Religious texts come from similar middle eastern cultures. Both desert tribe cultures.

 

[PRmerger]

What Christian culture? You live in the states. When Europe was more theocratic, woman’s roles mirrored Islam’s more closely. Your equality has more to do with government than religion.

Both Religious texts come from similar middle eastern cultures. Both desert tribe cultures.

I suggest you read this book:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[jonfawkes]

I suggest you read this book:

I suggest that you thank the Enlightenment for your equality.

 

[larkin31]

Moral relativism lives!

 

[PRmerger]

I suggest that you thank the Enlightenment for your equality.

Read the book. Then we’ll discuss!

Incidentally, I have no arguments that the Enlightenment contributed to “equality”.

But it was first affirmed by the Jews, and later fulfilled by Christians, who influenced the Enlightenment.

 

[jonfawkes]

Read the book. Then we’ll discuss!

Incidentally, I have no arguments that the Enlightenment contributed to “equality”.

But it was first affirmed by the Jews, and later fulfilled by Christians, who influenced the Enlightenment.

The two texts were written within 800 miles of each other. Roughly the distance from NYC to Atlanta. The culture that sprouted Christianity an Islam are closer than the US/Europe and the Middle East currently.

 

[PRmerger]

The two texts were written within 800 miles of each other. Roughly the distance from NYC to Atlanta. The culture that sprouted Christianity an Islam are closer than the US/Europe and the Middle East currently.

Proximity means, what exactly?

Incidentally, how many years separated the writings?

 

[jonfawkes]

Proximity means, what exactly?

Incidentally, how many years separated the writings?

Cultures are similar with in proximity, between 500-600 years depending on what dates you use.