Morality Is Relative

[Cre8]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evil

 

[Stinker]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evil

Moral evil can only exist if God exists. Since the writer of the link admits that moral evil exists, it follows that he believes that God exists.

As far as saying that 'morality is relative' Cre8 would also then be forced to be consistent by saying that the Nazis were behaving morally to many countries of the world when they exterminated those 6 million Jews. That it may have been seen as more wrong to them that we in the U.S.A. put down animals that never got adopted in animal shelters.

 

[Brimshack]

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group.

Can you show that this is true without producing a tautology?

That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

This is evidenc of inconsistency. It certainly is not in and of itself evidence rgarding the relative nature of morality.

Change is contant.

Looks like a bit of a non sequitor to me.

Moral evil can only exist if God exists.

I see no reason whatsoever to believe this is true.

As far as saying that 'morality is relative' Cre8 would also then be forced to be consistent by saying that the Nazis were behaving morally .

No, he would not.

 

[Jan87676]

Morality is relative.

That is why I'm going to slowly cook my cat in boiling water. In China, it is a delight to torture cats for their flesh-I shall do the same.

I interpret the Chinese view of relative morality as my view. I have been thinking of the Watu-Watu view of morality(i.e. cannibalism), so I may eat my brother.

This is my interpretation of morality.

 

[Brimshack]

How one gets from the relativity of morality to a desire to boil one's own cat is beyond me. But of course, relativism is little other than a hobgoblin to many a conservative Christian. No need to address the actual position in question when you can simply read your favorite whipping boy into the matter and flail away at it.

 

[kopilo]

Morals is individual.
Ethics is conglamerate.

There is way more then the bible to suggest that ethics is a generation thing and not limited to christians.

Eg. Attitudes towards LSD.

I honestly have no idea how conservative christians address this.. .. In respects of reading scripture and their view on society.

 

[b4uris]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

Or people improve their knowledge of an objective morality gradually.

Moral evil can only exist if God exists.

Does that mean God created evil?

How one gets from the relativity of morality to a desire to boil one's own cat is beyond me.

I think he meant something along the lines of: "If my society likes to boil cats, who are you to tell me I shouldn't?".

---------

Morality is relative, yet somehow telling others how to behave is immoral.

 

[Brimshack]

I think he meant something along the lines of: "If my society likes to boil cats, who are you to tell me I shouldn't?".

That's probably a reasonable construction of the argument (though, I can imagine a few others). But of course, that would assume both that all social preferences are arbiters of right and wrong (which is not necessarily entailed by "relativism") and that one was from a society that actually does this (which he probably isn't - just guessing). Still a pretty fishy argument.

Morality is relative, yet somehow telling others how to behave is immoral.

...Could be, depending on the principles that moral judgements are supposedly relative to. But of course, this isn't a very precise description of relatvism. If the point is that sloppy pop-relativists are inconistent, then so be it. If one is happy bashing the weakest thinkers among one's adversaries, then so be it.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Here we go again. Someone else trying to utilize the Bible against Christianity and what our morals should be.

1) Jesus fulfilled the Law. We are to obey the law of the Ten Commandments and to adhere to Christ's teachings as passed down to his apostles and their succesors.

2) We know what is moral and immoral in the eyes of the Lord. If we want to remind people, then we should. However, if one chooses to not change their ways it's on them and that's their soul they're playing with.

 

[dr.p]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

I'm sure that there were Christians in America in the days of slavery who knew it was wrong to own people. And I'm sure there were farm owners who didn't own slaves, but hired the African people to work for them. The moral that treating a human inhumanely is wrong was never relatively: it was just ignored and rejected. There's a big difference.

Remember that the Jewish nation was enslaved by the Egyptians, and were severely mistreated, but God used Moses to deliver them (see book of Exodus in the Bible).

Having someone be in subjection to you is not immoral, but not treating them like a human being is.

Hitler did the same thing to the Jewish people: he saw them as less than human, and taught his followers that that was a moral truth, when it was actually just a terrible terrible lie. Hitler deemed Jews lower in status than primates on the evolutionary chart, if I remember correctly. I believe the slave owners in America viewed African peoples much the same way.

Christians today have done the same thing to homosexuals to some degree. Not all of them do, and I highly doubt the majority does, but there are of course some horrible examples out there.

If you can prove to me that it is acceptable in any situation to treat a human being like anything less than a human being, then I'll agree that morality is relative.

As for stoning, look at the history of it. It was initially instituted because God mandated that his people (Israel) keep themselves a HOLY nation (think that's in Deutoronmy.) That's a very high standard, requiring strict adherence to the moral law set forth by God. Therefore those who transgressed the law were to be put to death.

But remember that Jesus revoked man's stoning "privileges," saying, "let he who has sinned cast the first stone" (gospel of John ch. 8,) when an adultress caught in the act was to be put to death, and talking about removing first the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

So, because there are people that interpret passages incorrectly, morality is relative? That statement requires that you prove there absolutely is not ONE correct way to interpret passages in the Bible.

 

[kopilo]

I'm sure that there were Christians in America in the days of slavery who knew it was wrong to own people. And I'm sure there were farm owners who didn't own slaves, but hired the African people to work for them. The moral that treating a human inhumanely is wrong was never relatively: it was just ignored and rejected. There's a big difference.

Remember that the Jewish nation was enslaved by the Egyptians, and were severely mistreated, but God used Moses to deliver them (see book of Exodus in the Bible).

Having someone be in subjection to you is not immoral, but not treating them like a human being is.

Hitler did the same thing to the Jewish people: he saw them as less than human, and taught his followers that that was a moral truth, when it was actually just a terrible terrible lie. Hitler deemed Jews lower in status than primates on the evolutionary chart, if I remember correctly. I believe the slave owners in America viewed African peoples much the same way.

Christians today have done the same thing to homosexuals to some degree. Not all of them do, and I highly doubt the majority does, but there are of course some horrible examples out there.

If you can prove to me that it is acceptable in any situation to treat a human being like anything less than a human being, then I'll agree that morality is relative.

As for stoning, look at the history of it. It was initially instituted because God mandated that his people (Israel) keep themselves a HOLY nation (think that's in Deutoronmy.) That's a very high standard, requiring strict adherence to the moral law set forth by God. Therefore those who transgressed the law were to be put to death.

But remember that Jesus revoked man's stoning "privileges," saying, "let he who has sinned cast the first stone" (gospel of John ch. 8,) when an adultress caught in the act was to be put to death, and talking about removing first the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's.



So, because there are people that interpret passages incorrectly, morality is relative? That statement requires that you prove there absolutely is not ONE correct way to interpret passages in the Bible.

conservative vs liberal? Many christians seem to be split on variouse topics.. There are a few verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which are said to be translated from verses with (an) ambigious greek words. Hence translation tends to change the interpertation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sav1.htm


As for there not being one correct way, I don't know, I would say the way a person interperts is relative to the person reading it, however that doesn't mean there can not be more then one correct way, let alone there being no correct way.

 

[dr.p]

conservative vs liberal? Many christians seem to be split on variouse topics.. There are a few verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which are said to be translated from verses with (an) ambigious greek words. Hence translation tends to change the interpertation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sav1.htm

As for there not being one correct way, I don't know, I would say the way a person interperts is relative to the person reading it, however that doesn't mean there can not be more then one correct way, let alone there being no correct way.

That's translational. Question is, is there a way to determine what the text actually says in the original language, so that it is accurate.

And whether generalized, or specific, all of those translations seem to say pretty much the same thing. I believe the original terms were meant to be general enough to cover the specific sexual immorality as outlined in Levitical law.

My request for proof that there is not only one correct interpretation for passages is really rhetorical. I highly doubt, with my knowledge, that I could prove there is only one correct interpretation for any one passage any more than disprove it. Although I do believe there is only one correct interpretation, and struggle to prove it at times.

 

[kopilo]

That's translational. Question is, is there a way to determine what the text actually says in the original language, so that it is accurate.

And whether generalized, or specific, all of those translations seem to say pretty much the same thing. I believe the original terms were meant to be general enough to cover the specific sexual immorality as outlined in Levitical law.

My request for proof that there is not only one correct interpretation for passages is really rhetorical. I highly doubt, with my knowledge, that I could prove there is only one correct interpretation for any one passage any more than disprove it. Although I do believe there is only one correct interpretation, and struggle to prove it at times.

Nicely stated.
Fair enough, I just find it interesting that there are different interpretations of the same text, some we may be able to say are more correct then others (based on what other verses/chapters say) but as I was trying to hint, there seems to be these lines and one massive one seems to be between conservative and liberal Christians.

However to prove who is correct seems to be an ongoing battle, (in my opinion it should be an ongoing discussion to find a middle ground on controversial topics.) and as it stands I feel there is a lot of dark patches with Christianity relating to todays society, which we have to fill, much like the words where the meaning has been lost.

 

[Brimshack]

The notion that any given text can only be interpreted one correct way is rather odd, actually. Nevermind the Bible. That's not how language itself works. Any given statement doesn't so much specify a single meaning as exclude a range of alternative meanings. Often to exclude additional meanings one must add context, but that is a potentially endless process.

To suggest that there is a single meaning over and above the actual written text would of course be to invite mysticism into the process. That might be possible, but if so, then the one meaning has nothing to do with the text itself.

Another way o putting it, is the limitations are not just a reflection of personal weakness. If it appears that the Bible cannot be reduced to a single interpretation, then there is no reason to suppose that some deus ex machina will do that for you. Even if such an interpretation is possible, it is not one which is mandated by the text itself.

 

[dr.p]

Fair enough, I just find it interesting that there are different interpretations of the same text, some we may be able to say are more correct then others (based on what other verses/chapters say) but as I was trying to hint, there seems to be these lines and one massive one seems to be between conservative and liberal Christians.
However to prove who is correct seems to be an ongoing battle, (in my opinion it should be an ongoing discussion to find a middle ground on controversial topics.) and as it stands I feel there is a lot of dark patches with Christianity relating to todays society, which we have to fill, much like the words where the meaning has been lost.

I agree, whole-heartedly. But people love their dividing points... gives them something to fight against, I guess.

I liked that religious tolerance site you used. It's got a great example of people twisting scripture deliberately (something I abhor,) on this page:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

 

[kopilo]

I agree, whole-heartedly. But people love their dividing points... gives them something to fight against, I guess.

I liked that religious tolerance site you used. It's got a great example of people twisting scripture deliberately (something I abhor,) on this page:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

'fight against' *nods*

Mmm that website has a nice variety about it, you deffinatly need to have some background on some of the topics before reading some of their articles. (To be able to critically analyse them and to use them properly).

 

[Lynden1000]

Moral evil can only exist if God exists. Since the writer of the link admits that moral evil exists, it follows that he believes that God exists.

As far as saying that 'morality is relative' Cre8 would also then be forced to be consistent by saying that the Nazis were behaving morally to many countries of the world when they exterminated those 6 million Jews. That it may have been seen as more wrong to them that we in the U.S.A. put down animals that never got adopted in animal shelters.

If it was right for the Israelites to slice through Canaanite villages, exterminating people left and right, including the babies and children, then I'm not sure why Christians would consider it wrong for the Nazis to have behaved similiarly.

If morals are absolute and objective, then it was just as wrong for the Israelites to wage genocide against the Canaanites.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evil

Most stuff isn't: ex: Lying, stealing, murder, fornication, lust, etc.......all the same in both the OT and NT. There are just constant things that are always rt. and wrong. Because if there is abs. truth, there has to be something that is abs. rt. and wrong as well. Some things did change, but for most of it, it is the same.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evilhttp://realityspoken.com/evilhttp://realityspoken.com/evil

The Bible condones it? The Bible is the Christian Book: the Old Testemant+the New but, if you'd read your Bible, you'd find that the new REPLACES the Old. So all of those things in the Old Testemant don't really count so much anymore unless you can find some relevance in the new.

My take on it? Well... It's all still there, but Jesus is the new way. What was wrong is still wrong - but Jesus is the new way of approaching it. Instead of stoning a homosexual to death, you've gotta teach him and love him. Hate the sin, not the sinner. That's Jesus - that's the Christian way.

 

[Cleany]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evil

i see what your saying and i agree.

also, idealism can be very dangerous.