|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/17/2008 7:36:03 PM
|
|
|
danas_mom
Posts: 637
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
yes, but to me that is not "morality", that is cultural or etiquette....
I think it's the word 'etiquette' that's throwing me off, to me that implies something that is accepted as being "the right way to do something" but is not punishable if you do not follow it. 'Etiquette' and 'good manners' mean the same thing to me.
Unless you're maybe thinking of 'ethics' instead of 'etiquette'? Because I can see that argument - that morals are absolutes but ethics are subjectional, and laws of the land would fall under ethics rather than morals.
_____________________________
I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing. ~ 2 Samuel 24:24
Avatar pic is Keith Wheeler.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/17/2008 8:29:35 PM
|
|
|
peculiar_lady2
Posts: 12200
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: Between Hither and Yon
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: danas_mom
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
yes, but to me that is not "morality", that is cultural or etiquette....
I think it's the word 'etiquette' that's throwing me off, to me that implies something that is accepted as being "the right way to do something" but is not punishable if you do not follow it. 'Etiquette' and 'good manners' mean the same thing to me.
Unless you're maybe thinking of 'ethics' instead of 'etiquette'? Because I can see that argument - that morals are absolutes but ethics are subjectional, and laws of the land would fall under ethics rather than morals.
cultural can define right and wrong, etiquette is more for the right side of that....but in essence they are still both on the same plane. For instance, in some cultures it is etiquette to not drink with your meal...while in other cultures if you refuse a drink with your meal it is considered rude. Those are instances of cultural differences, just on the level of "perceived" right or wrong...what that culture perceives to be right or wrong for that situation. Ethics is something totally different...and when you start talking about ethics you can not define them without the definitive moral issues being set in stone...because otherwise you get into "situational ethics". Ethics, like morality, are not changeable.
< Message edited by peculiar_lady2 -- 5/17/2008 8:36:54 PM >
_____________________________
Proud Army Wife
Mom to Jake, Hannah, Emma, Jackson, and Justice
"The purpose of all war is peace."
-Saint Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/17/2008 8:51:58 PM
|
|
|
uponeagleswings
Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Out here in the desert
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
CULTURE, yes...but true definitive MORALITY, I don't see it that way. The Bible defines the rights and wrongs...and it goes beyond all cultural and time boundaries and still holds true to those moral truths.
What about societies (past and present) that are not Bible-believing? Where do they get their absolute morals?
_____________________________
Stacy Mitzvah "God gives us gifts in all sorts of packages- who are we to argue with how He chooses to wrap His gifts?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/17/2008 9:13:35 PM
|
|
|
magdaleine
Posts: 4237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are some things that are ALWAYS wrong, but some things can also be right/wrong depending on things (not those that are absolute).
That's what I was trying to say too.
quote:
It seems like you may be defining a moral by a concept of sin alone. Mine is just right and wrong, whether it's set or dependent on cultural morality.
I agree again. I think the disagreements we have here are because of differing understandings of the word "moral." Many Christians have differing ideas of what is right and wrong and differing interpretations of what the Bible says is right and wrong.
quote:
However, take that argument over to something more concrete, like the first commandment "Do not worship any other god's"...there you have an absolute. By defining it to being an absolute then you can determine that it is sinful to break that one.
We would all agree that that first commandment is an absolute. But we may not all agree on how it is defined. For instance, is God talking only about three-dimensional representations of what others defined as their god? Or is he talking more broadly so that we could include money, or relationships or our jobs? So the absolutes are there but there will be disagreement about what they look like. Certainly God knows but we may not.
I checked dictionary.com for the definition of morals. If we use their definition, then it would include cultural mores and not only biblical commands. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals
_____________________________
Maggie
Magdaleine's Alabaster Atrium
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/17/2008 10:33:14 PM
|
|
|
peculiar_lady2
Posts: 12200
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: Between Hither and Yon
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: uponeagleswings
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
CULTURE, yes...but true definitive MORALITY, I don't see it that way. The Bible defines the rights and wrongs...and it goes beyond all cultural and time boundaries and still holds true to those moral truths.
What about societies (past and present) that are not Bible-believing? Where do they get their absolute morals?
they don't...they have ethics, but not morality. Ethics are absolutes too...and can be viewed as being morality, but true morality apart from God can't exist because god IS the moral compass. Take away that guide and you no longer have morality.
quote:
We would all agree that that first commandment is an absolute. But we may not all agree on how it is defined.
that's the thing...we don't have to define it because God is the ultimate one that defines morality, not us. That's why it's morality and not cultural diversity...because that absolute is God and He never changes.
_____________________________
Proud Army Wife
Mom to Jake, Hannah, Emma, Jackson, and Justice
"The purpose of all war is peace."
-Saint Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/17/2008 10:45:28 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2352
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
quote:
We would all agree that that first commandment is an absolute. But we may not all agree on how it is defined.
that's the thing...we don't have to define it because God is the ultimate one that defines morality, not us. That's why it's morality and not cultural diversity...because that absolute is God and He never changes.
She gave examples though.
Christians would agree about a whole lot more than what we do if everything were explicit in the Bible. Think about hESCR (stem cell research), abortion, etc. Someone has to determine what is true, and sometimes the Bible either leaves something unaddressed or it is ambiguous. Then people try to make verses say what they want to prove they're right. So who defines it? We can pray, but we'll probably get different answers. I believe there is a right for everyone, even by God, and that His standard is not set in some issues for all of humanity (He may tell one person something is okay for them but not okay for another-- so the absolute moral for an individual, even by God, can be different than that for another individual).
Everyone wants to think there's a definite right and wrong, esp. about those issues. Like Maggie said, some things God knows, but we do not. That doesn't mean there isn't a moral absolute right about some things that never ever change; it just means He knows and we don't.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/18/2008 5:22:59 PM
|
|
|
bride48
Posts: 4603
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Near Boston
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
quote:
We would all agree that that first commandment is an absolute. But we may not all agree on how it is defined.
that's the thing...we don't have to define it because God is the ultimate one that defines morality, not us. That's why it's morality and not cultural diversity...because that absolute is God and He never changes.
She gave examples though.
Christians would agree about a whole lot more than what we do if everything were explicit in the Bible. Think about hESCR (stem cell research), abortion, etc. Someone has to determine what is true, and sometimes the Bible either leaves something unaddressed or it is ambiguous. Then people try to make verses say what they want to prove they're right. So who defines it? We can pray, but we'll probably get different answers. I believe there is a right for everyone, even by God, and that His standard is not set in some issues for all of humanity (He may tell one person something is okay for them but not okay for another-- so the absolute moral for an individual, even by God, can be different than that for another individual).
Everyone wants to think there's a definite right and wrong, esp. about those issues. Like Maggie said, some things God knows, but we do not. That doesn't mean there isn't a moral absolute right about some things that never ever change; it just means He knows and we don't.
I hope I misunderstood you in regard to abortion. I very much hope you don't think Scripture is ambiguous about that issue! Please assure me that I misread you.
_____________________________
Joyfully,
DebbieLynne
See what the Lord is teaching me about suffering at Joyfully Christian Lady's Museum
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/18/2008 6:18:36 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2352
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
I do not believe that personhood begins at conception. I'm saying Scripture is unclear about that, unless one wants to take verses and twist them to try to make them say what they believe. Nowhere in the Bible does it say when personhood begins.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/18/2008 7:14:23 PM
|
|
|
magdaleine
Posts: 4237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
There are many dearly held beliefs that have origin in Scripture that is open to interpretation. For instance, the only place in the Bible that says a man should have only one wife is found only in the qualifications for pastor and deacon. Nowhere does the Bible say that slavery is wrong. Personally, I'm glad that polygamy and slavery are illegal in North America but there is nothing in Scripture to prove they're wrong. There are many, many other beliefs, rules, etc. that we hold firmly where the Bible does not come right out and distinctly say that this is right or that is wrong.
We need to be able to distinguish between what is inviolable and what is open to interpretation. The reason we have so much animosity and division between and amongst Christians is because we've taken beliefs that result from our particular interpretations and then declare that they are inviolable when they're not. There would be so much more harmony amongst the various denominations if we could agree on the basic essentials of Christianity and acknowledge that the rest are open to interpretation. God knew what he was doing when he made some things in the Bible ambiguous and not completely clear. It makes no sense to us but he obviously has a reason.
_____________________________
Maggie
Magdaleine's Alabaster Atrium
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 1:43:02 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2352
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
I find that many times people have been taught something as a Biblical fact, when it is not. I know I've both said and heard that in ethics courses, but it's because it's true. Even today, I see some Christians who believe things that came straight from St. Augustine (they don't know that), but not from the Bible... but they think it came from the Blble.
It's fine to have an opinion; it's fine to think you're opinion is the right one... but the truth is that it might not be. I can believe the same Bible as you and be a Christian, but not believe the same way that you do (just like I don't believe that personhood begins at conception). People can find verses to try to prove they are right and another person is wrong, but the problem is that trying to get "hints" goes both ways. For example, one person can find a hint that life begins before or at conception, but those who believe otherwise can also find verses to hint that life does not begin at conception. There are other issues that work like that though.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 12:31:18 PM
|
|
|
isaacsmom
Posts: 1622
Joined: 12/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say when personhood begins
What is "personhood"?
eta: I know there is already a one-stop thread for abortion. I'm just curious what this means.
< Message edited by isaacsmom -- 5/19/2008 1:03:13 PM >
_____________________________
<<< Pretty wildflowers my hubby picked for me
*~*~*Rachel*~*~*
My Space
pirtlefarm.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 1:22:26 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2352
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
When an embryo is a person (usually putting aside biology, unless that's the person's belief). People do have different definitions of that though; for instance, some would say personhood is the point at which someone can meet certain criteria. Some criteria... that I just know off the top of my head are brain function, breathing/during birth (I think that's the traditional Jewish belief), blood, or just a later date in pregnancy...or things like self-awareness, ability to reason, etc. So I suppose it's the basic idea of when something with biological life becomes a human life.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 2:13:01 PM
|
|
|
isaacsmom
Posts: 1622
Joined: 12/2/2005
Status: offline
|
OK, I see. This is what makes me think of personhood:
quote:
Jeremiah 1:4-10
4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." 6 Then
< Message edited by isaacsmom -- 5/19/2008 2:19:12 PM >
_____________________________
<<< Pretty wildflowers my hubby picked for me
*~*~*Rachel*~*~*
My Space
pirtlefarm.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 2:22:20 PM
|
|
|
peculiar_lady2
Posts: 12200
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: Between Hither and Yon
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: isaacsmom
OK, I see. This is what makes me think of personhood:
quote:
Jeremiah 1:4-10
4 Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." 6 Then
that's my thinking too Rachel...however some people lean more on "The life of the flesh is in the blood"...and since the blood isn't actually there until about two weeks after implantation, then they don't consider it life until then. Others lean more on the breath (like solo said above)...and babies don't actually breathe in air until they are born. There are any number of beliefs...and I have heard even more then just these listed. However, I still don't think that has anything to do with morality...when talking about morality you are talking about something that is right or wrong in God's eyes...God being the judge of those things, not our human eyes. I still think most of the examples that have been brought up do not fit into the true category of a "moral" issue
< Message edited by peculiar_lady2 -- 5/19/2008 2:28:31 PM >
_____________________________
Proud Army Wife
Mom to Jake, Hannah, Emma, Jackson, and Justice
"The purpose of all war is peace."
-Saint Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 2:51:34 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2352
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
Yes, that's the verse I see used-- either that or Psalms. But part of the problem is that the Bible doesn't say when personhood begins, even there. No time is given (disregarding the fact that He was talking only to Jeremiah, but some apply it to everyone). But if someone wants to take that part of the verse and make it true of everyone, are we all also consecrated to be prophets unto the nations-- and do all the other things He said of Jeremiah go for all humans? It's one part of one verse out of one chapter; He said plenty of other things of and to Jeremiah. We can't apply all of those to the entire human population...or maybe so; it depends on who you talk to. 
The reasoning isn't good enough for every Christian to believe that "proves" when personhood begins. The Bible just doesn't say when it happens.
It does show that God has foreknowledge (and consecrated Jeremiah, etc). People already know God knows all-- He does know who will be born before they are formed in the womb, and knows them and has maybe consecrated them to do something specific; what people can't figure out from the Bible is the point at which biology is a person. Most Christians I know who don't hold to the conception=personhood logic do in fact believe that verse in Jeremiah (as do I) and all the rest of the Bible, including Psalms.
What happens is that the verse isn't interpreted the same way by every Christian. 
But also, if we're looking for hints like Jeremiah and Psalms, there are hints to say that personhood does not begin at or before conception-- or even later than that.
I didn't know there were so may different Christian opinions about it until I had to do some research on it for ethics presentations years ago. I don't believe that life begins at conception, but some Christians don't believe that a newborn is a person either.  And they say that got their opinion from Biblical hints.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
"Sometimes I Wonder Why" (Blog entry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/19/2008 3:45:46 PM
|
|
|
isaacsmom
Posts: 1622
Joined: 12/2/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But if someone wants to take that part of the verse and make it true of everyone, are we all also consecrated to be prophets unto the nations-- and do all the other things He said of Jeremiah go for all humans? It's one part of one verse out of one chapter; He said plenty of other things of and to Jeremiah. We can't apply all of those to the entire human population...or maybe so; it depends on who you talk to.
OK . . . so if that's the case . . . would you think then that all the letters Paul wrote in the NT addressed to specific churches in regards to Christian living and obligation would only apply to them specifically and not to Christians today? Or when Paul says:
quote:
12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
Would you then think that only applies to Timothy? Is it not applicable to us today? How would that be different from the passage in Jeremiah?
_____________________________
<<< Pretty wildflowers my hubby picked for me
*~*~*Rachel*~*~*
My Space
pirtlefarm.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/20/2008 5:23:44 AM
|
|
|
ThursdaysChild
Posts: 371
Joined: 1/18/2006
From: The Arabian Gulf
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2
quote:
However, cultural differences are not morally wrong. For instance, the Pygme tribe in Africa....their "cultural norm" is that the men breastfeed. It isn't wrong for men to breastfeed (after all they are mammals and their bodies are made with mammary glands and will produce milk if stimulated to do so)...however according to our "western society" it is against the cultural norm and it looked at in some places as being "wrong". It however is not a "moral absolute" like killing is...it is simply s cultural difference.
The men breastfeed?! 
Interesting discussion, ladies. I agree with Sarah and Maggie...I think it's that definition thing.
A case in point. It's a sin for a man and woman to live together outside of marriage. I have a friend who lives with her boyfriend. They've lived together for years and have no plans to marry but seem to be in it for the long haul. I don't judge her and I don't say anything. Why? First, she doesn't ask me. Second, she's not a Christian. Therefore can I really say it's wrong for her to do so? Other than the fact that it's illegal in this country, they're not hurting each other. They don't follow Christ (don't even believe in God) so why would they worry about living according to God's standards? Now, if they became Christians and wanted to continue "living in sin", then I'd have something to say about it. Gently, I'd hope.
_____________________________
Live your life in such a way that every morning when your feet hit the floor...Satan shudders and says..."Oh No...she's AWAKE!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/20/2008 10:16:26 AM
|
|
|
magdaleine
Posts: 4237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
In Canada it is legal to live together without marriage. After one year of that each person of that couple have the same rights as if they were married including equal division of property if/when they break up.
As for "living in sin," we can't expect non-Christians to do what we, as Christians, can only do by the grace and assistance of God. What they do is still sin but their point of need is not to be corrected about their sin so much as to be brought to Christ. Once they've accepted Jesus into their lives and made him Lord and Saviour, then the Holy Spirit will both convict them and enable them to relinquish their sin.
ETA: Hmmm. Maybe when you said "illegal here" you were meaning Kuwait and not the US?
< Message edited by magdaleine -- 5/20/2008 10:23:09 AM >
_____________________________
Maggie
Magdaleine's Alabaster Atrium
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/21/2008 2:47:20 AM
|
|
|
ThursdaysChild
Posts: 371
Joined: 1/18/2006
From: The Arabian Gulf
Status: offline
|
Yep, Maggie, I meant Kuwait. It's a very conservative Muslim society (even though they do allow freedom of religion-to a point).
I agree with you. My friend is still sinning by living with her boyfriend outside of marriage. It's a sin, it's morally wrong, but if she's not saved, then what's that in comparison. It's a drop in the bucket compared to her sin of rejecting God.
We also need to remember that many of our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian principals. The United States, U.K., most of Europe, based their laws upon Scripture. So even people who aren't Christian still base their decisions upon Biblical principal, even if they don't realize it. They can still have a very strong sense of right and wrong, based upon what they've been taught as right for law-abiding citizens to do, that come to them from the Scriptures by way of the law of the land. So non-Christians can have morals (by Sarah's definition) but without God as a compass, they're going to be easy to fool into believing other things are moral as well. (Was that as clear as mud?)
_____________________________
Live your life in such a way that every morning when your feet hit the floor...Satan shudders and says..."Oh No...she's AWAKE!"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/21/2008 9:01:26 AM
|
|
|
magdaleine
Posts: 4237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
It made perfect sense. Thanks! And I agree.
_____________________________
Maggie
Magdaleine's Alabaster Atrium
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Kicka, part 3 - 5/22/2008 11:44:55 PM
|
|
|
TwinCityGirl
Posts: 876
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Do any of you think about retirement | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
). But I wonder if I'll still feel the same way when I get there. Hmmm!
