Absloute morality vs relative morality

[scomman]

I love the debate that this topic has started. Yes there is a contiunity in the Bible between the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament the law was gven so that people would recognize what sin is. After learning what sin is we were given the remedy to that sin in the person of Jesus who fulfilled the law. Plato once wrote that if there was ever a truly good man the world would kill him and that is what happened as such I pattern my life after that of Christ and His teachings.

 

As for communion I belong to a church that doesn't practice communion the same way as other churches. We believe that the Lord's supper is a meal eaten together in memory of what he has done.

[BubbaBear]

Folks, I PROMISE, this is one subject I will not touch. :^o

[littlebillie]

BubbaBear is smarter than I am... there are no 'winners' in an argument (excuse me, discussion)like this.

 

If one person ever shows another person that their absolute faith is wrong or misdirected, IN ANY WAY, both come away poorer - both lose.

 

Let's just say for me, I BELIEVE that God's morality is the absolute, but that He Himself inspires an evolution of moral standards as we and our world become more complex.

 

We are grown beyond a literal eye for an eye - no its an money and anger management classes for an eye.

 

As we have grown, so have God's expectations of us.

 

So - perspective.

 

 

Now I shut up! :-)

 

 

[evmori]

I feel communion is a celebration more than a ritual. A celebration of the life Jesus gave so we may live.

 

Rooster7,

I too was raised Catholic and spent 5 years in Catholic grade school. I left the religion because I didn't feel the teachings were biblical. I have always felt the Catholic built "walls" around the word of God.

 

My understanding of the tearing of the temple curtain was the common man now had an open door to God becuse of Jesus sacrifice on the cross.

 

I don't feel the Bible evolved. Much of what happens in the New Testament was foretold in the Old Testament.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer]

Let's just say for me, I BELIEVE that God's morality is the absolute, but that He Himself inspires an evolution of moral standards as we and our world become more complex. OK, I may buy that. Just one question though... who's He updating when He's ready to evolve our moral standards? How do you know it's you and Rooster that are God's instrument, not me? (I don't suppose you can claim it is because you are so righteous or religious.)

 

And how in the world do we know when an evolution of moral standards is taking places? And how will we know if it is because God is inspiring the change or because heathens are just trying to make the world more liberal and politically correct?

 

Gosh, on second thought, your idea that morality is evolving by the hand of God because man is becoming more complex raises more questions than answers.

[littlebillie]

"And how in the world do we know when an evolution of moral standards is taking places?"

 

Well we have Martin Luther and Gandhi and Meher Baba; we have papal infallibility and the word that comes from Rome (Galileo was finally exonerated!). We have Jewish scholars constantly looking at science and the ancient writings and helping the two to work together (they never called Galileo wrong to begin with). And the Mormon church is VERY new as these things go. Unitarians too embrace a "new path" in that context, and Sufis expect change and build its place into their core system. And I like to think that some Power quietly inspires at least some of these different entities in the right direction!

 

How does moral evolution happen? It seems to be happening all the time...

[tjhammer]

littlebille, it seems like you and I are in nearly complete agreement on moral evolution (if not the exact way that it happens). I wonder why you and I still disagree then on whether homosexuality is immoral? My own position on that questions seems to be supported by a significant minority of mainstream religions (parts of the Methodist, Episcopalian, Unitarians, etc)... do you accept that God is "evolving" man's morality on this issue right now?

[littlebillie]

tjhammer, you ask a fair question in a courteous way - my appreciation for that. complex, multifaceted issue, so I'll probably leave out a lot...

 

but, Ok. Where to begin...?

 

 

1) Let's just put aside any of the translation arguments. Until more scrolls or 'glyphics or whatever get found and translated, I figure that's pretty moot. But let's just say that WAY back when the order of business was to go forth and multiply and enlarge the numbers of the group, there may have been a reason to spend less time supporting a gay population than today, when there's just too many of us humans on this poor old rock. So if dietary laws can change as food prep learns to beat trichinosis, and the mixing of fabrics is done not to cheat anyone but for developing new features, well - the tribes have gotten as big as they need to be, so maybe it's time to revisit this whole 'populate the planet' thing.

 

2) In nature, there are plenty of models of childless members of the flock, tribe, pack, whatever, providing assistance in raising the youth of these different species. Well, today, there are children who need homes that just ain't getting them - the straight yuppie couple wants (understandably, I'm not faulting them) a young bouncy happy baby right out of the oven, and a lot of those couples get those picks of the litter. And a lot of other kids, just because they're older, maybe never get a traditional home. Add crack and AIDS and God knows what-all to the mix, blend in numerous local and regional wars adding to the orphan population, well - you see where I'm going with this. Better a stable gay home than no home at all IN MY OPINION. I know a lot of folks disagree disagree with this, but recent studies suggest that it really doesn't matter of the parents are gay OR straight, a kid's gonna be what a kid's gonna be. There is a parenting and care opportunity here that can be - must be - filled.

 

3) Animal studies suggest that overpopulation and stress leads to an increase in the incidence of homosexuality - now that's GOT to make you think!

 

4) When you take certain people and tell them that they are evil, immoral and reprehensible, and tell them they are not worthy of belonging to this group or that church or to perform this kind of community service - well, we all know human nature and expectations. I think that if you allow some kind of acknowledged union among gays and lesbians - even if you don't want to call it marriage - you will see a large part of the that community "marrying" and settling down. Add to the chance to marry the liability of divorce - community property, etc. J and I think you'll see an even bigger change. Again, we no longer need to increase our numbers. And even if you're vehemently anti-gay, you can look at it this way - letting 'em get married gets them 'off the street' - I don't look at it this way myself, but it seems like perspective for those who do.

 

 

5) The GLBT community pays taxes like the rest of us - that at least means they're paying the same membership dues as anyone else, and should enjoy the same privileges in the club. Leaving any morality, religious, or sociological aspect out of it, the tax and services issue needs to played on a totally level field.

 

6) As far as Scouts go, I really HATE the idea that we have sought and received protection under the same umbrella that has been used to defend and allow racists and bigots.

 

7) As Americans, we've always extended our hands to others - let's NOT start giving the back of our hands to some of our own. And since we're all crewmembers on Lifeboat Earth, every oar in the water counts!

 

 

A couple of side points.

 

I think anyone who says there's a single reason for homosexuality is wrong. I believe that some are born gay, some become gay because of early childhood and how they were raised, and some choose to become gay - and if there are meaningful combinations of those, those combinations are certainly happening, too. I don't think God gives any of His children a trait or feature with the intent that the rest of us should treat them meanly, abuse them, revile them we need a new paradigm for how straight and gay interact.

 

Now, let me add this - pedophiles of either persuasion are monsters. And frankly, I don't cut gay America any extra slack on this. AND - since our population is SO big, and since this kind of evil doesn't seem redeemable to me, I say we should consider the death penalty for any kind of abuse of this nature. IF there is any possibility of a genetic component to this behavior, I want it out of the breeding stock! (another issue, I know - and kind of ugly, admittedly) That SM in the news recently - wasn't he married with kids?

 

 

Ok, this is the broad overview. We're all in this together, and there's a place for each of us in the Grand Design - there's no reason so shut out anyone anymore. And for those who are NOT religious, I think there's even LESS cause to condemn ANYone a priori.

 

 

Whew. Ok, I DO go on, don't I?!

 

 

[scomman]

Nice answer back to the point Yes there is a absolute morality. The morality we all rely on can be traced back to the 10 Commandments in one form or another they have formed the basis for all LAWS.

Now for morality eveolving it just doesn't happen. I f we state morality evolves we go to the point of relative morality which is what I was decrying when I started this topic. YOu are taking morality and fitting it to your standards insted of fitting your standards to morality. My point is that there is an absolute standard of conduct that we have to live up to. A standard we are responsible to share with others

[evmori]

relative morality = political correctness.

 

Neither are any good. If morality is realitive then it is possible anything can be moral. Pedophilia could be moral in relative morality!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Actually the first codified laws was the Hammurabi Code, a Babylonian King, thats where the expression "an eye for an eys and a tooth for a tooth comes from"

[NJCubScouter]

"Absolute morality" is just another way of saying "Whatever I and the people like me believe and do is right and moral, and the rest of you people are therefore immoral." This type of thinking ignores the fact that somewhere in the world, maybe just around the corner, and in various times in the past, there are those who follow (or have followed) an even "higher" moral code. To them, YOU (meaning you "moral absolutists" are the sinner. If you take a drink of alcohol now and then, even in moderation and never to excess, you are a sinner in the eyes of some. If you fail to follow all 600+ commandments in the books of Exodus and Leviticus, you are a sinner not only to the ancient Israelites, but to the ultra-Orthodox Jews of today, who follow ALL of the commandments except for those whose exercise would violate the law of wherever they are living.

 

Now, along comes Rooster and says that the commandments that Christians do NOT follow were wiped away by Jesus Christ and are not moral laws, but rituals. Nice try. Those who still follow these laws today would not recognize the distinction you are trying to draw. From the discussion here, it seems like this wiping-away is not even stated by Jesus anywhere, but was stated by his followers. What actually happened, in the late Roman Empire and early middle ages, is that Christians replaced many of the Jewish laws and traditions with their own rituals and traditions in order to distinguish themselves and their new religion from Judaism. Many of these Christian traditions had their roots in Roman and pagan rituals, because the Christians were trying to win over the local populations.

 

The point is, you are picking and choosing which moral principles to follow, and calling the ones you don't follow something other than moral principles.

 

As I have said before, Ask not for whom the bell of moral relativism tolls, it tolls for thee. And me, but at least I acknowledge the truth.

 

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[BubbaBear]

Hey Ed...that's a good point.

 

Did you know that there is an organization known as (I think) Tne National Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that is petitioning Congress to pass legislation allowing adult men to have consentual sex with boys?

 

[scomman]

I have to say this NJCUBSCOUTER I actually am agreeing with you on your post. That is scary.

 

Isnt NAMBLA the organization that has targeted John Walsh of America's Most Wanted because he vehmently opposes them every chance he gets?

 

 

[littlebillie]

relative morality may be like thinking it's ok to take advantage of a tax loophole, or take a questionable deduction. some otherwise stringently honest folks see paying taxes as outside the bounds of ethical behavior.

 

the white lie IS a lie - absolute morality would have us tell our wives, yes, honey, that DOES make you look fat. relative morality says, that would SO hurt her feelings and to no especially good end... should we nevertheless tell that absolute truth?

 

and was the theft of a 'legally' owned slave immoral? To some it was, and to others, not. We may say we have a different perspective and can declare what the absolute morality of the issue was from our present-day vantage point - but what will another couple of centuries bring to the perception of our own current beliefs? Double the current population and we may see a Papal pronouncement advocating birth control.

 

kneejerk declarations that PC is flatline drivel are just as ridiculous as absolute PC-ism. there are some PC positions that ordinary folks can buy into without striving to be PC. A LOT of very religious people are against the death penalty not for purposes of PC, but for deeply held religious beliefs.

 

just some observations.