It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the entire group agrees that murder is OK, then the entire community will never challenge or question it
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.
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.]
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.
I can only tell you that the Bible addresses universal morality.
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. 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." 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." 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."
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. Equating morality to adherence to authoritative commands in a holy book is the Divine Command Theory. Polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism generally draw from a broader canon of work. 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. 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.
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.
And that morality and judgment arises from somewhere else other than you or me.
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
Might I remind you of Deitrich Bonhoefer
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?