Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Expressing your religious views and trying to convert people are different things. I don't mind somebody talking about their religion, but keep it to yourself.
"There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground. Let the beauty we love be what we do." -Rumi
That's not a very smart relative moralist that you quoted there.
When asked if there is no such thing as right and wrong, the correct response would be: "No, as I just stated, you choose what is right for you. I will choose what is right for me. There is no universal right and no universal wrong. For me, abortion is not wrong. For you, well, that is up to you."
Also that morals depend on the time or society. If you are born on a cannibalistic tribe where a newborn child is eaten every month, the morals of that particular society say that it's ok to do such a thing there and then.
Also that morals depend on the time or society. If you are born on a cannibalistic tribe where a newborn child is eaten every month, the morals of that particular society say that it's ok to do such a thing there and then.
Yes, and if eating newborns is one of the common values among their society, then it is likely that members of that society would say that it is morally correct for people everywhere to eat a newborn each month.
I have heard that morals are relative to time and society, as societies change so their morals change as well...well is this the same thing as saying morals change?
Morals are set things which do not change over time...however, as people as a whole (society) change, and our enlightenment canges, maybe we are just coming closer to seeing the moral compass which is set, unfortunately sometimes the society changes for the worse and the general enlightenment of the society gets worse, thus societies fall prey to moral decline.
When is it ever right to kill innocent people? Would finding a society which sacrificed innocent children make that moral absolute change?
When is it ever right to kill innocent people? Would finding a society which sacrificed innocent children make that moral absolute change?
I don't think so...
This rigid view is exactly what I was talking when I said that the newborn-eating society would presume that all people bear the responsibility to consume newborns.
Yes, and if eating newborns is one of the common values among their society, then it is likely that members of that society would say that it is morally correct for people everywhere to eat a newborn each month.
Exactly and this phenomenon is found absolutely everywhere, it was ok for women to be seen as inferior 50 years ago, racism was acceptable 100 years ago, it was ok to discriminate jews in germany back in the 30'w and people would probably give you bad looks if you didn't own slaves a thousand years ago.
How can anyone assert absolute morals when our morality keeps changing and changing?
Exactly and this phenomenon is found absolutely everywhere, it was ok for women to be seen as inferior 50 years ago, racism was acceptable 100 years ago, it was ok to discriminate jews in germany back in the 30'w and people would probably give you bad looks if you didn't own slaves a thousand years ago.
How can anyone assert absolute morals when our morality keeps changing and changing?
Is it the morailty changing or the people changing?
I would assert it is the people changing.
There is a big difference.
People change all the time, for the better or worse. If morailty changes, then you could see a time in the distant future when we might think it was OK to kill anyone who wasn't worthy to society.
Further, if morality changes, then how can we as a society uphold any law, since the morality of a person is up to that person or persons whom they consort, their microcosm of society.
Exactly and this phenomenon is found absolutely everywhere, it was ok for women to be seen as inferior 50 years ago, racism was acceptable 100 years ago, it was ok to discriminate jews in germany back in the 30'w and people would probably give you bad looks if you didn't own slaves a thousand years ago.
How can anyone assert absolute morals when our morality keeps changing and changing?
It wasn't ok for women to be seen as inferior, to be racist, or to discriminate jews in Germany.
Morality does not change.. rather what becomes an acceptable form of immorality seems to change with the times.
Speaking from a Christian viewpoint: A person who is truly following God's moral law (coupled with the Holy Spirit's direction) is going to act basically the same, whether in 40 AD, 1000 AD, or 2008 AD.. no matter what part of the world he lives in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
