ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Slogan/motto:
Try to be civil in the face of incivility. This is a test.
Reputation:
December 21st, 2011, 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
In a sense we do, it's called ethics. Morals are absolute and unchanging but ethics tend to be situation dependent.
For instance, substance abuse and addiction are wrong. Keeping one's self pure is mentioned many times in the bible. So you may be in need of a job and when you get one you find out that one or more coworkers are substance dependant. You may feel the need to offer that person some advice, explain to them their error or maybe even invite them to church with you. However, proper ethic codes state that you shouldn't bring your private life to work. So you can't actually address this at the workplace.
Another example is being a defense attorney. Yea that person is probably guilty of murder but it's still your job to defend them.
My dear friend, I have thought about this supposed dilemma for years. And I believe that as each situation differs so too must our ethical application of our unchanging morals be applied. The goal is to resolve conflict/disparities by our words and deeds based on our unchanging moral underpinnings. So long as our ethical behavior does not betray our morality we remain on solid ground.
An entire culture can be built around the "virtue" of deception, and I'm supposed to believe some kind of objective morality exists in some nebulous cloud hovering over all of humanity?
Vaya con Dios.
Dieu est l'amour.
Allah bidabbir.
“In many ways the evidence of our faith is found in our ability to control our tongue (or our keyboard)."
-Adam Hamilton, Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White
Obviously its immoral. Obviously the kind of "love" the pedophile has for an 8 year old isn't the kind of love I am talking about; and indeed there are different kinds of love.
While Spitfire addressed this already (and impressively so), the behavior that a pedophile has for a child isn't "obviously immoral" in his subjective mind as well as the well financed/politically backed movement that represents him.
I'm not playing devils advocate here; I'll playing "what goes on outside of the internet blog is reality".
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
My dear friend, I have thought about this supposed dilemma for years. And I believe that as each situation differs so too must our ethical application of our unchanging morals be applied. The goal is to resolve conflict/disparities by our words and deeds based on our unchanging moral underpinnings. So long as our ethical behavior does not betray our morality we remain on solid ground.
"Our morality"? How about saying if it doesn't betray God's basis for moral behavior then we can remain on solid ground?
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
An entire culture can be built around the "virtue" of deception, and I'm supposed to believe some kind of objective morality exists in some nebulous cloud hovering over all of humanity?
Morality, like many other issues, can be approached both objectively and subjectively. An action can either be objectively labeled "moral" or "immoral" (or "amoral") when one understands what it means for something to be moral/immoral. It can also be subjectively approached by making private value calls and asking your culture if its ok to do something or not. Yet the existence of subjectivity does not do away with the existence of objectivity.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
In a godless universe (if such did exist), humans are simply super-intelligent animals. I think we would take on the "preservation of self" persona, and whatever helps the individual out is morally okay. (Note that some people do that anyways in our world.)
While Spitfire addressed this already (and impressively so),
Where does she argue for your position? I see her response to me, but it seems in favor of absolute, objective morality.
Quote:
the behavior that a pedophile has for a child isn't "obviously immoral" in his subjective mind as well as the well financed/politically backed movement that represents him.
Like I said in an above post, the existence of subjective views of morality does not do away with the objective reality. Morality is quite simple for those willing to ask "what is it?"
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Linear Mode
