I agree with you BTW. I meant to post my opinion of moral relativsm in my response to you but wound up putting it in ymc's response instead.
Which exceptions? Breaking the Ten Commandments, the Greatest Commandment, or the Golden Rule are never justified. There are definitely situations where Biblical figures break those rules, sometimes for reasons with which many would agree. But it is still sinful. Relativism. There is definitely room in society and Christianity for evolving morals. That doesn't mean that there's no universal truth.
Just because someone practices something even if a bunch of someones practive something does not make it moral One could easily say those show you the lack of morality of those societies. Morality is relative from person to person and society to society However but within those societies those morals at absolute So I guess what I'm saying is there are Moral Absolutes in every culture/person/etc BUT there are no UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE MORALS Rocket River
sorry need to be more specific. I meant what you perceive to be in conformity with the Bible. and if all else, go with the ten Commandments and teachings of Jesus. No matter what choice you face, I'm sure there will be something in there that can lead you to make the proper decision. Anyway, as I said earlier, i'm fine with moral relativism as long as you're not infringing on someone else's morals directly. I don't think you can say everyone should be allowed to do what they think is right, otherwise it would be complete anarchy, but if what you do does not hurt anyone else nor impede their morals or quality of life, then you should be allowed to do that.
But what is your universal moral for? Or these are just rules set in stone without any purpose? My thinking is that moral is for a group to co-exist as well as perpetuate.
I thought most liberals were feminists by default, yet your statements in regards to the rape thing would be admantly rejected, ridiculed and scorned by most feminists.
In my example of girl raping, there is a conflict there. From the moral of the tribe, raping her is ok. However, from the moral of her alone, she might think it is not ok. What will then happen is a conflict. Whoever has the will and power will prevail. Therefore you can say that the ultimate moral (truth) are the laws of physics
I would think that being liberal and feminist is a luxury of an affluent society. Sometimes we forgot how lucky and progressed we are.
Commandment 5: You shall not murder. Yet we can find examples all throughout Leviticus that advocate murdering people for a variety of trivial laws, laws that are now outdated and no longer followed. Just one easy example.
murder is not the same as kill. murder is a kill that takes place outside the boundaries of the law, which is what the book of Leviticus is.
I believe in your reasoning for morals. But I believe that my universal morals are from God. Even so, I think the following morals could be used successfully in every culture: - Always put the welfare of others in front of one's own. - Honor your parents. - Don't murder. - Don't commit adultery. - Don't steal. - Don't lie. - Don't lust after another's spouse. - Don't long for another's property. I purposefully left off all of those that deal with our relationship with God. I readily admit that these don't cover every situation. That's where relativism has a purpose.
Murder in that text is defined the same as murder today. The "murders" that you referenced were executions. (I personally believe that when Jesus said to leave vengeance to God, he effectively said executions were wrong, but that shouldn't be considered a universal truth.)
By your logic then the "execution" of one's son because he is "rebellious" (Deu 21) is acceptable and not murder. This is egregarious practical relativism on your part - and moral relativism in the context of making a distinction between unjustifiable murder and justifiable "executions". I would further state that this is indicative of relativism with respect to the ten commandments. No doubt you are against honor killings, yet your advocation that the crimes in leviticus are acceptable due to the execution-premise makes one question the clarity of your convictions.
in the context of the ten commandments. you shall not kill unless it is within the boundaries of the Law, which is basically (more or less) the book of Leviticus. any kills that is not sanctioned according to the law is defined as a murder. I'm basically repeating what I said before.
I don't think it's acceptable any more. I'm just stating that it's not murder and not part of the universal truth that murder is wrong. I'm not capable of judging whether laws created 3000 years ago for a specific are good or bad for that culture. That law has been abolished for nearly 2000 years. I do believe that the ones that are still in effect are good rules for everyone.
