The Conundrum of Moral Relevance Within and Without Religion

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

Therefore, you cannot prove it is wrong to stone lazy kids IF you hold with the philosophy of moral relativism. That's all I am saying.

as long as i can shoot you for stoning my kids, yeah.

clearly, that line of logic is self-defeating.

And you find it morally relevant to you.

The Amish don't even report to the police if someone does anything to them.

Really, the conversation is about how moral relativism is answered within and without religion. No one is able to defend moral relativism when they fall onto moral judgments. That's what I am saying. Within and without religion.

Moral relativism fails IF there are moral judgments. See, that is what I was asking. I wasn't asking whether or not you or anyone else think an action is moral or not, just that the judgments arising from your own personal views, defeats moral relativism. That's what I am pointing out.

Unfortunately, some would like to hold to moral relativism while denying it for someone else, which cannot work within the definition of moral relativism. See, that's the point I am making.

I could have used another example, let's say the Kama Sutra, let' say that if moral relativism is true, then no one should condemn the writers of the Kama Sutra if it has within it how to get girls drunk to rape them, how to seduce underage girls and how to commit adultery. That's not a Christian book, but let's see the moral justification from people on the Kama Sutra.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You seem to be unhappy that the reality of our world is that morality is NOT a constant. It isn't a smooth ride when trying to establish personal boundaries in a small world. "Every man is an island unto himself", so they say.

This is the reality of the world we live in today. There is no reference for us to turn to find the black and white answer of what is "right and wrong". Outside of some Utopian imagination, here is no example of any such authority, not even in any holy book.

You may hope and pray that there is a God watching everything with an eye for exactly what is right and wrong at any given time and situation, who will make everything right, somewhere, sometime in the heavenly future. But, there is no evidence of any such reality. Right now, all we have is a reality of heavily layered, subjective morality.

a reply to: WarminIndy

its ALWAYS morally relevant. thats the whole point. morality is heavily reliant on CULTURAL RELEVANCE.

but you dont want my opinion. not really.

ciao.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

its ALWAYS morally relevant. thats the whole point. morality is heavily reliant on CULTURAL RELEVANCE.

but you dont want my opinion. not really.

ciao.

Might I remind you of Deitrich Bonhoefer and Corrie Ten Boom?

Just because you live in a culture that dictates a moral law for the whole group does not mean you cannot by conscience go against it. But in those cases, you appeal to a higher moral source than just yourself.

I would like to know, if a conscience is guiding toward a moral purpose, does that arise from within or from a higher source?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Say someone likes being cut and bruised and they ask you to help them do it. If you choose to help them cut and bruise themselves then you are not acting immorally because you are treated them as they want to be treated.

Ahhh...heavy indeed. Not being judgemental here, but if a loved one, not terminally physically ill, but depressed asked you to assist them to suicide, could you honestly say you would assist?

I think I would selfishly try to talk them out of it. Why am I selfish. Because I love them and can still see beauty in this world (all evil aside - Jewish bankers, slavery etc). I am selfish and I also see that in another day or time and maybe/maybe not some medication may help them overcome that immediate feeling of committing suicide.

I''m not asking you whether you would be moral or immoral. Just put value judgement words aside for a minute and try to answer from the heart.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I personally couldn't do it, but I would not be against it happening if that's what they truly wanted or needed. If I was the only one present that could end their pain then I don't know... that would be a very difficult decision. It would depend on the circumstances I guess.

a reply to: windword

Laws are/should be based on community agreed upon ethics that are designed to, hopefully, promote the interests and well being of the community and to allow its individuals to love, be loved and thrive.

And yet very few laws address that.


www.lawyers.com.au...

The Difference between Common Law and Equity

Common law, defined by Oxford Dictionary, is law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent instead of statutes. Equity, on the other hand, is a branch of law, which developed alongside common law, and is focused on fairness and justice. But aside from their descriptions, there are other differences between common law and equity.

Its a no brainer that the myriad of laws in existence today only assist the very powerful and rich. They hire lobbyists to write the laws to bail them out.

Just look at the recent development in Banking where unstable banks will be bailed out by ordinary depositors (Bail-ins)

No community of ordinary voting people initiated these Laws. I agree with your "should be based on community" sentiment

peace

a reply to: WarminIndy

If the entire group agrees that murder is OK, then the entire community will never challenge or question it

But they do challenge it. And yet they still allow their children to join the coalition of the willing to go invade countries for resources or to put another dictator in power - and all the evidence of the contrived reasons for war are staring them in the face.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Ah, but here's the kicker, I can only tell you that the Bible addresses universal morality. The Bible reiterates what is known and understood.

I think you are being a touch scripturally dishonest here with this sweeping statement. Do you adhere to the levitical laws?

from Leviticus:

6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) [Which sounds like hearsay. At any rate, “they shall be held responsible.”]

7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching “the carcass” of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or you’re a worker in a pork plant, you’re in trouble here. Normal penalty.]

9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]

12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [“You will die” and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7) [“You will be unclean.]

23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 33 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 66 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.

36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, “Both of them are to be cut off from their people”

43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [No penalty given.]

So the bible "The Bible reiterates what is known and understood." WHich of the above do you adhere to?

hill-kleerup.org...

But it’s largely ignored by modern Christians because it’s felt that Jesus replaced the Law (except where He didn’t) and that Paul said a lot of it didn’t apply (except for the parts that did). And for all of that, many are still willing to cite Leviticus for things that they think are sinful, while ignoring it for things they don’t.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I can only tell you that the Bible addresses universal morality.

Very telling that you need to use the words "Tell you"

Tell me or advise me please if you have never had a loan from a financial institution. Did they not charge you interest? The OT was pretty clear on not charging interest. How do you live in society today knowing it goes against your Bibles "universal morality"?

and further we find...only a few clicks away...not very hard was it?
PS I'm "not telling you", I'm suggesting you broaden your knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org...

Morality and religion

Morality and religion is the relationship between religious views and morals. Many religions have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong. These include the Triple Jems of Jainism, Judaism's Halacha, Islam's Sharia, Catholicism's Canon Law, Buddhism's Eightfold Path, and Zoroastrianism's "good thoughts, good words, and good deeds" concept, among others.[1] These frameworks are outlined and interpreted by various sources such as holy books, oral and written traditions, and religious leaders. Many of these share tenets with secular value frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, and utilitarianism.

Religion and morality are not synonymous. Morality does not depend upon religion although this is "an almost automatic assumption."[2] According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] Morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[4]

Value judgments can vary greatly between religions, past and present. People in various religious traditions, such as Christianity, may derive ideas of right and wrong by the rules and laws set forth in their respective authoritative guides and by their religious leaders.[5] Equating morality to adherence to authoritative commands in a holy book is the Divine Command Theory.[6] Polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism generally draw from a broader canon of work.[7] There has been interest in the relationship between religion and crime and other behavior that does not adhere to contemporary laws and social norms in various countries. Studies conducted in recent years have explored these relationships, but the results have been mixed and sometimes contradictory.[8] The ability of religious faiths to provide value frameworks that are seen as useful is a debated matter. Religious commentators have asserted that a moral life cannot be led without an absolute lawgiver as a guide. Other observers assert that moral behavior does not rely on religious tenets, and secular commentators point to ethical challenges within various religions that conflict with contemporary social norms.

Double post oops

a reply to: windword

And, therein lies the hypocrisy and double standard of "Christian group think". If God does it, it's not a sin. Then we're right back where we started. There is no moral standard, as even GOD has a different set of morals for himself than the one he, supposedly, dictates to humanity.

Very well put. I like to go back to beginnings. Why put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and tell them ( I mean tempt them) not to partake. They had no morals just an edict. They knew no shame. they had no moral framework. They discovered morals or "nakedness", what it is to be human only after eating of the very thin they where told would kill them. And then there was the Tree of Life that they were to prevented from eating at all costs.

Where is the sense of fair play coming from this insecure demiurge? I meant omniscient omnipresent blah blah pretender.

a reply to: WarminIndy

And that morality and judgment arises from somewhere else other than you or me.

Morality arises from as Winword said countless years of common ideas accepted by a community as being for the preservation of the community. Judgement also arises from something simple as your parents whilst you were a child telling you "it is so" Later as you grew intellectually you saw merit in that or discarded it.

My parents cursed me by christening me under the xtianity faith. I've forgiven them because didnt know any better. Can you honestly say you agree that its anathema to eat pork in todays "clean" butchering environment?

How dare you suggest judgement arises from some lets be honest here...some bipolar petty jehovah that somehow got a makeover in the new testament. Jesus never said to throw out the laws...and yet you blindly follow Paul (Roman infiltrator/mysoginist) in his all exclusiveness of Gentile/Jew

Have a read
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yahweh = Satan. They have you worshiping evil.

a reply to: WarminIndy


You started this thread

There Are Two Types Of Christians, Which One Are You?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But if true Christianity is God-given, then it must be God-ordained, and it should be gained through knowing God in the first place and this is where my faith comes in. I believe that God is known inwardly and not through endless traditions and doctrines

Shot yourself in the foot. Dont try to backtrack. "doctrines" What is the bible, other than words codified into traditions and exegesis by "moral" humans who had their own dark nights of the souls?
Are you being intellectually honest with this new Conundrem thread.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Might I remind you of Deitrich Bonhoefer

How is that relevant. Hitler swayed the germans into acceptance of his ideas not using morality but false flag, propaganda and debatable statistics. They did countless studies on jews and aryans to "prove" the Aryan ascendancy. Dubious science or morally to me repugnant science.


en.wikipedia.org...

In his prison letters, Bonhoeffer raised tantalizing questions about the role of Christianity and the church in a "world come of age", where human beings no longer need a metaphysical God as a stop-gap to human limitations; and mused about the emergence of a "religionless Christianity", where God would be unclouded from metaphysical constructs of the previous 1900 years. Influenced by Barth's distinction between faith and religion, Bonhoeffer had a critical view of the phenomenon of religion and asserted that revelation abolished religion (which he called the "garment" of faith). Having witnessed the complete failure of the German Protestant church as an institution in the face of Nazism, he saw this challenge as an opportunity of renewal for Christianity.

I would like to know, if a conscience is guiding toward a moral purpose, does that arise from within or from a higher source?

I can honestly say both...i just dont use the Abrahamic theologies or jehovah.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Thank you. Very insightful and beautiful