</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Adultery, by your definition, is "morally relative." So I'll simply agree and tell you that Myrta did nothing wrong, all WS's have done nothing wrong, and all BS's better get off the pot and flush the garbage they've been dumping because when things are simply excused, because, after all, it's all "relative," </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">FH:

What the FWWs did is wrong. The act of extramarital coitus relative to the situation was clearly unacceptable as it caused harm to the parties involved. Nothing positive came out of that action.

I think you are confusing the term moral relativity with the concept of making an excuse to justify an act that is clearly harmful.

Let me make this real simple:

In many societies the act of killing another human is unacceptable and hence people go to jail for the act of murder. By the same token killing another human in self defense is not considered murder and is acceptable.


The act is the same: KILLING A HUMAN

The situation is different: SELF DEFENSE IS NOT THE SAME AS PREMEDITATED KILLING.

SO morality is always relative.


Would you steal a bottle of baby milk formula (assuming you have no other means) to save the life of your dying starving baby? Or would you simply let the baby die of starvation and not steal a can of milk? What would you do?

I have noticed that there are a rather large number of atheists/agnostics/humanists on this board, especially considering the propensity of some of the Christians on this board to proclaim that it is a "Christian" board. Most if not all of the non-believers were BS's, and they seem from their posts to have a very strong moral compass.

It seems to me that if a person can not distinguish right from wrong unless they have an instruction manual (aka Bible), they have not reached a high level of moral development. If you, foreverhers, suddenly developed amnesia and no longer remembered anything about Christianity, would you suddenly think it was ok to murder your enemies or even steal my car? I would hope not - if you did, it would indicate significant frontal lobe brain damage.

WEAVER SAID...

If there were ever a white guy sitting on my shoulder reminding me of the golden rule, it would surely be WAT.

WEAVER IF THERE EVER WAS A WHITE GUY SITTING ON YOUR SHOULDER YOU'D BE SQUISHED.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />


I'm sorry sorry sorry sorry
so sorry...

but I COULD NOT resist that....
sorry...
sorry


sorry

ARK <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Nellie2 - Very nice to see that you couldn't resist bashing Christians. Your own Standards are showing, aren't they? It's "okay" to bash any Christians, but heaven help the poor fool that says anything negative about anyone or any other lifestyle.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It seems to me that if a person can not distinguish right from wrong unless they have an instruction manual (aka Bible), they have not reached a high level of moral development. If you, foreverhers, suddenly developed amnesia and no longer remembered anything about Christianity, would you suddenly think it was ok to murder your enemies or even steal my car? I would hope not - if you did, it would indicate significant frontal lobe brain damage. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Nellie2, it is quite obvious that one of two things is glaringly evident: 1) You didn't bother to read the thread and simply saw an oppportunity to publish a negative comment about Christianity, or 2) you enjoy attacking someone else and chose to do so just for the personal satisfaction that it gives you. Either way, your comments are misinformed and self-serving, but certainly not helpful.

Just to set the record straight, since you can't seem to read the thread, a moral sense of "Right and Wrong" is part of all of us. But we also have to CHOOSE what "set of moral standards" we will live by. It matters little to me what the source of those "higher" moral standards happens to be, so long as someone chooses them and applies them to their lives.

My point is simple, I am a Christian. I choose those standards as are revealed in Scripture. I do so for two primary reasons. 1)I fail to see where following them would result in harm against others, and 2)they are commands from MY God to ME as He IS my Lord and Savior - He has the right to command and I have no right but to obey.

For those who do NOT have Christ as their Lord and Savior, the questions remain, as they have throughout history; What set of moral "codes" will be embraced and what will be the "authority" of those codes so that they "must" be obeyed. "Morality" for the moment, "relative" morality, "sin" doesn't exist so what's the need for forgiveness? Ooooops, "your" chosen "morality" feels hurt, therefore someone else's "morality" must be wrong. By WHOSE standard is such a thought "accurate?" Who, or what, gives YOUR view of morality it's "authority?" What makes the offenders view of THEIR morality any less valid than your own chosen set of standards? If it IS all relative, all of the time, then it stands to reason that THEIR set of morals allows for adultery, etc. and it is NOT immoral to them. If YOU think it's immoral (using your own personal set of moral standards), that's YOUR problem, but it cannot be "imposed" on anyone else whose set of relative standards are different from yours.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I guess, in the sense that Shakespeare's statement "There is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so" is a statement that good and bad are viewed relative 2 our humanity. Would it be good or bad if the Earth were destroyed 2 make room for that Hyperspace Bypass in Hitchhiker's Guide? Definitely a "bad" if you're an Earthling. Maybe not if you're not. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2Long - only if Xaphod Beeblebrox said it was...lol!

With regard to Shakespeare's comment, that is typical "humanistic" reasoning. The "denial" of the existance of "good and bad," "good and evil." That leaves it up to the "eye of the beholder" based upon how they FEEL about how something impacts them. There is no "objective" standard, it's all subjective. Obviously, if there is no God who IS sovereign and who does have the right to determine what is "good" and what is "evil" for everyone, then everyone is left to pick and choose as they see fit. So OUR chosen "morality" has no bearing on "right or wrong" for anyone else. It is, since we band together in societies, SOCIETY alone that determines what is moral or immoral for that given society without regard to humanity in total. And Societal "norms" change. Along with that change comes changing "moral values." What you once thought was "morally right" becomes "outdated, defunct, and you are derided for holding such 'old fashioned' moral viewpoints" because "Society" is so much more enlightended.

That's exactly why "honor killings," especially of girls in Islamic nations is seen as "normal" and the "right" of the fathers, yet here in America we see the same action as MURDER and reprehensible. It's why radical Islamists think it's "okay" to strap explosives to children and send them off to kill and maim as many innocent people as they can. It's why the radical Islamists think it's "okay" to slaughter anyone who THEY think is an infidel. It's why they think cutting the heads off of people is "okay." After all, it's THEIR moral compass (standard) and it's therefore okay. The list goes on with this notion of "moral relativism."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I feel like continuing to live my life by the Golden Rule.

WAT
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">WAT - There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing the "Golden Rule" as your "moral compass." I wonder where it had it's basis?

But if someone thinks that doing a "Jeffrey Dahmer" on someone is how they themselves would "...have someone do unto you(them)," does that make them morally "okay" and the rest of us simply "judgmental?"

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Let me make this real simple:

In many societies the act of killing another human is unacceptable and hence people go to jail for the act of murder. By the same token killing another human in self defense is not considered murder and is acceptable.


The act is the same: KILLING A HUMAN

The situation is different: SELF DEFENSE IS NOT THE SAME AS PREMEDITATED KILLING.

SO morality is always relative.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No Stan-ley, it's NOT "always relative." What is relative is the way that humans can try to twist things to "prove" their point. The biblical commandment that you are referring to says "Thou shalt not kill" and you interpret that with the above quotation. However, if you took the time to investigate the word that was translated from the original writing to "kill," the proper meaning attached to that original word is "premeditated murder" (which is one aspect of the general term "kill.")

It is also one of the reasons that they had, in Old Testament times, what were referred to as "Cities of Refuge," in the event of an accident that took the life of someone. It is also why the American judicial system has varying "degrees" of killing, most of which are based upon a "moral code" that is applicable to all and not "relative" whereby each individual can "pick and choose" their moral standards for themselves.

If you want the ultimate in premediated murder, then look no further than the crucifixion of Christ. It was NO accident.

But the "source" for morality, for "right and wrong" is God, in my humble opinion. It is NOT the changing and biased whims of selfish man and it is not "society" that changes at whim to suit the desires of people.

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: ForeverHers ]</small>

WEAVER IF THERE EVER WAS A WHITE GUY SITTING ON YOUR SHOULDER YOU'D BE SQUISHED.... [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

Okay, "little thumbsize guy dressed in white"

of course if it really were WAT, he would be wearing a speedo in a lovely shade of pink, no doubt! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

If it were FH, he would have a white collar and a bible in his hands. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

The point is we are all so different with different beliefs and that is what makes this board so wonderful. Our differences should be honored and respected. Inside we are all pretty much the same, searching for love and our truth, Trying along the way to lighten anothers load.

Some very different guys with the same hopes for love and happiness for all.

What is to argue?...really

First of all I did read the entire thread, and I was not "bashing" Christians. I said nothing critical of Christians or any other religious group, and had you read my post carefully that would have been obvious. I merely commented that a mature person has an internalized moral compass that would be there with or without their religion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If YOU think it's immoral (using your own personal set of moral standards), that's YOUR problem, but it cannot be "imposed" on anyone else whose set of relative standards are different from yours.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, you certainly can not impose your brand of morality on anyone that is not Christian, because your "authority" means nothing to the rest of the world. That is precisely why it is essential to have a humanistically or culturally based internalized moral code, one that you can expect others whom you run across to share. The golden rule is not right simply because it happened to have been adopted, at least in theory, by one particular religious group - similar "rules" are stated in numerous religions. It is right because it is right, and if actually implemented it allows civilization to florish. Moral codes "must" be obeyed because it is the right thing to do, not because I fear burning in hell if I don't.

Whether adultery is universally wrong or not is irrelevant - if some culture elsewhere thinks it is ok, that is not my business, but in our culture when you marry you normally promise to be faithful (whether or not you have a Christian ceremony) and therefore it is wrong to break that promise, or to conspire with someone else to cause that promise to be broken.

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Nellie2 ]</small>

ForeverHers,
I don't know that I have ever responded to you about anything before. But I wanted to let you know that your posts are one's that I specifically seek out when I am working through my own issues.

I appreciate the perspective you bring to the table and hope that you decide to stick around!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:


Let me make this real simple:

In many societies the act of killing another human is unacceptable and hence people go to jail for the act of murder. By the same token killing another human in self defense is not considered murder and is acceptable.


The act is the same: KILLING A HUMAN

The situation is different: SELF DEFENSE IS NOT THE SAME AS PREMEDITATED KILLING.

SO morality is always relative.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, that example does not demonstrate the validity of moral relativity at all. It doesn't work because murder and killing in self defense are not morally equivalent acts. Killing in self defense is not murder. Murder is unjustified killing and self defense is justified killing.

One act is wrong and one act is right. The morals didn't change, the motivation changed the complexion of the act, which effected the moral.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Stanley, that example does not demonstrate the validity of moral relativity at all. It doesn't work because murder and killing in self-defense are not morally equivalent acts. Killing in self-defense is not murder. Murder is unjustified killing and self defense is justified killing.
One act is wrong and one act is right. The morals didn't change; the motivation changed the complexion of the act, which effected the moral.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ML:

mur·der

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


Melody:

I think we are talking about the same thing. As stated above murder implies bad intent and it is immoral.

However, in a vacuum the word kill has no intrinsic morality. The morality can only be determined if we know the circumstance. Therefore, the morality is always relative to a specific situation. If the situation was the intent to do harm then it is immoral and can be called murder. By definition murder is always immoral because the evil intent to harm is implied in the word.

If someone is killed you don’t really know the morality unless you can associate the killing to a specific situation. Therefore, all morality is relative.

I think many confused the term moral relativity with those who simply make excuses to justify immorality.

When someone says there is no right or wrong they are simply saying that an action in the vacuum cannot be categorized unless we know the circumstances.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>

If someone is killed you don’t really know the morality unless you can associate the killing to a specific situation. Therefore, all morality is relative.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stanley, but what does that have to do with the morality of murder? Just because the cause of death is not known initially does not mean that murder is not wrong. That morality never changes. Discovery - or lack thereof - does not change the immoral nature of murder. Murder is wrong no matter if it is discovered or not. That is not a relative moral, it is static.

You are now talking about an issue of classification, not one of whether murder is right or wrong. Murder is wrong, no matter what, that moral does not ever change.

Stanley, morals can only be relative if you agree that sometimes murder is ok and sometimes it is not. That is the definition of moral relativism. I don't think that is what you are saying though.

Situations are changing, ie: relative, but the moral is not. There is not a situation where murder *IS* moral. Morals are static and non changing, situations are not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> [QUOTE]If the situation was the intent to do harm then it is immoral and can be called murder. By definition murder is always immoral because the evil intent to harm is implied in the word.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree. If murder is "always wrong" then it cannot be relative.

Hi WAT,

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ForeverHers:
Obedience to God's commands? NOPE. Not needed, it's all relative. Do what you feel like doing.

Salvation through Christ? NOPE. Not needed since sin is "relative" and no absolutes apply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct and correct. I'm glad we finally agree.

I feel like continuing to live my life by the Golden Rule.

WAT"

Isn’t the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?”

Are you going for the irony, or did you know those are the words of Christ? Luke 6:31: "Do to others what you would want them to do to you.”

God bless,

Rose

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I agree. If murder is "always wrong" then it cannot be relative.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

That was cute!


Killing relative to premeditation to cause irreversible and final harmis wrong.

How about killing by itself with no attached circumstance? Is that wrong or right?

Actions have no intrinsic moral value!

For example----- sex is sex------ it is not right or wrong unlkess we attached specific situation to it.

I challenge you to mention one action where morality is absolute and not relative to a situation. If you do--- you win the argument and I will buy you a bottle of Coca-Cola.

BTW, murder is an example of moral relativity.

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
[QB] </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I agree. If murder is "always wrong" then it cannot be relative.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody:

That was cute!


Killing relative to premeditation to cause irreversible and final harmis wrong.

How about killing by itself with no attached circumstance? Is that wrong or right?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But killing is not immoral, MURDER is immoral. Killing in self defense is justified and would not be murder.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actions have no intrinsic moral value!

For example----- sex is sex------ it is not right or wrong unlkess we attached specific situation to it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't murder an "action?" Isn't adultery an action?' What is ALWAYS immoral is adultery. What is always immoral is murder.

Again, it is not the moral that is relative, the moral is always the same. Marital sex is not immoral, but adultery is immoral - those morals are NOT relative.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I challenge you to mention one action where morality is absolute and not relative to a situation. If you do--- you win the argument and I will buy you a bottle of Coca-Cola.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stan, that makes no sense. Because *ALL* morality is relative to a "situation." Sex *IS* an action. You are confusing actions with morals. The concept of SEX is not immoral on it's own. However, sex conducted outside of marriage IS immoral. THAT moral does not change. See what I mean? the concept of adultery is immoral.

Moral relativism means that you believe that murder is sometimes RIGHT according to your own standard shifting standard of morality. I don't think that is what you really believe, though.

FH:

2 take the most pessimistic (2 many) extreme stance in reply 2 your statement:

"Obviously, if there is no God who IS sovereign and who does have the right to determine what is "good" and what is "evil" for everyone, then everyone is left to pick and choose as they see fit."

There *IS* no sovereign god, so it's not an issue of whether she has or doesn't have a right 2 define good or evil for anyone. ...and now, before the Christians out there crucify me for that statement, I'll reiterate that it is an extreme stance, not necessarily the one I subscribe 2.

But this doesn't just "leave" us 2 pick and choose what these terms mean "as we see fit", because that is an equal and opposite extreme reaction 2 being "left" without the sovereign god. No, we're not "left" 2 decide what these terms mean for us, we are RESPONSIBLE 2 find out what they mean and live accordingly. And I find responsibility 2 be liberating.

I still believe that is what is meant by the concept of Free Will. A metaphorical example, perhaps: When I was an undergrad, taking calculus, a fellow Christian friend (I was a Christian at the time) said 2 me, when I expressed some doubt about a concept "Why do you need 2 have it derived from the beginning like that? It's like calculus - why do you need 2 rehash all the proofs (like how trig substitution works) when someone's (he meant the gospel) done all the ground work for you?" But I've always had 2 understand every scientific 2l I've used in my college and professional career.

My point: Don't just do or believe something because someone or some book told you you should, or for fear of eternal damnation. Do or believe them because you've proven 2 yourself that they are "right" for you - or that they're "expedient" in your objective of reaching heaven.

But by that, I'm not suggesting that we each need 2 experience or even inflict the horrors we hear or read about (like infidelity) on others in order 2 become knowledgable or wise about them - we don't. Speaking of infidelity, in particular, I think we can learn enough about that from this board or through counseling and coaching, as a reasonable substi2te risking hurting others in our quest for a thorough understanding - 2 determine what's right or wrong for each of us.

Thomas was my favorite disciple.

"Magi blind with visions lights
Net death in dread of life.
Their children kneel in Jesus till
They learn the price of nails
Whilst all around our mother Earth
Waits balanced on the scales"

-King Crimson "In the Wake of Poseidon"

-ol' 2long

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>

BTW, murder is an example of moral relativity. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How do you reconcile these 2 quotes, Stanley? Here is what you wrote earlier:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">By definition murder is always immoral because the evil intent to harm is implied in the word. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If murder is always immoral then it can't be a "relative" moral.

how the heck did I do that?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

Mel:

"Moral relativism means that you believe that murder is sometimes RIGHT according to your own standard shifting standard of morality. I don't think that is what you really believe, though"

I thought you guys already got this straightened out. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Murder isn't ever morally right. The term itself is derived from a judgment regarding killing under specific circumstances.

Sometimes killing is moral (self defense). Always, murder is immoral (because it is killing with malice).

What a grody thought!

-ol' 2long

Thanks 2Long! That is what I have been trying to tell him! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Melody:

Maybe I don’t make myself clear or you are playing games with me.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
mor·al adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The above definition of what is moral or not moral clearly states that it involves the judgment of an action.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
ac·tion n.

The state or process of acting or doing: The medical team went into action.
Something done or accomplished; a deed. See Usage Note at act.
Organized activity to accomplish an objective: a problem requiring drastic action.
Behavior or conduct. Often used in the plural.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The word murder describes much more than a simple action. The word implies a killing (action) with the intent to cause irreversible final harm. The latter makes the kind of killing immoral.

What I am saying is that the same action under different circumstances is assigned different morality.

Obviously, the same applies to SF.
The point is that when we think in terms of absolutes at all times we are putting ourselves in a box and cannot move when we have to.

BTW, we can take this further.

If you do not want to use the above definitions we can use yours and I could always find instances were murder or adultery may seem acceptable.

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>