literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

Many religions speak critically regarding that morality which they
regard to be "relative," feeling that they have an "absolute"
morality which has been divinely revealed as God's will.

Here is one explanation of the meaning of relative morality.

http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/gcsere/coursework/gobbets/gobbet64.html

What does morality mean and can you explain absolute and relative?

Morality is defined in the dictionary as "Moral principles or rules,
moral conduct"

Absolute morality is a fixed set of rules that always apply e.g. -
'Killing someone is always wrong' or 'You should never lie'

Relative Morality is when the circumstances help decide if something
is right or wrong. For example 'Helping to kill someone if they ask
you to is OK' or 'Telling a lie to protect someone is OK'

A good example if relative morality is the justice system where there
is a range of punishments for the same crime depending on why the
crime took place, so a person stealing food to live would be punished
less than a person stealing for greed.

Note*

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/gobbet

Definition of Gobbet
Gob´bet

n.
1.
A mouthful; a lump; a small piece.

[He] had broken the stocks to small gobbets.

- Wyclif.

Origin: Prov. E. Job, gob, a small piece of wood, v, to stab, strike;
cf. E. Gob, gobbet; perh. Influenced by E. Chop to cut off, to mince.

http://www.herewestand.org/HereWeStandBook/1A1.html

Relative morality is but an excuse for self-centeredness. When
relative morality could be used as an excuse to do evil things,
people happily use this excuse; when relative morality is to a
person's disadvantage, he suddenly declares that morality is absolute.

Sitaram comments:

I am reminded of the morsel or sop (gobbet) which Christ gives to
Judas at the Last Supper (or Mystical Supper).

And, speaking of gobbets, morsels and crumbs, it is the widow who
feeds upon the crumbs from Christ's table and is pronounced faithful.

Matthew 15: 26-28

He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it
to the dogs." 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the
crumbs that fall from their master's table." 28Then Jesus answered
her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish."

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5484/spy/p15a_csj.htm

In the Old Testament, in book of Judges or Joshua, it speaks of some
kings who were cruel, and cut off the thumbs of their enemy kings,
but then they were conquered themselves, and their conquerors cut off
their thumbs and forced them to crawl beneath the banquet tables and
eat the crumbs

Book of Judges, Ch. 1 verse 1-7

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sitaram/message/1229

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sitaram/message/1501

Historically, so-called "absolute" morality, divinely revealed in
Scripture, has been used as an excuse to justify evil acts. Various
Biblical passages were cited to justify slavery.

(beginning of excerpt):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery
was based on the "curse of Ham" which appears in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) in Genesis 9:25-27. "Cursed be Canaan! The
lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed
be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
Christians at the time believed that Canaan had settled in Africa and
that his descendents had become black.

Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry,
the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) does not record his opinion
of it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the
various books of the Bible. It was accepted as a natural part of life
by almost all Christians until the 19th century CE.

Anabaptists started to criticize slavery in the late 17th century.
They were joined by Quakers and Mennonites. It was only when John
Wesley (1703-1791), founder of the Methodist movement, became
concerned about slavery that the small protest became a mass movement
for the abolition of slavery.

http://2thinkforums.org/anyboard/archive/16219.html

The first appearance of slavery in the Bible is the wonderful
prediction of the patriarch Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of
servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of
Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and
he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his
servant." (Gen. 9: 25.) The heartless irreverence which Ham, the
father of Canaan, displayed toward his eminent parent, whose piety
had just saved him from the deluge, presented the immediate occasion
for this remarkable prophecy; but the actual fulfillment was reserved
for his posterity, after they had lost the knowledge of God, and
become utterly polluted by the abominations of heathen idolatry. The
Almighty, foreseeing this total degradation of the race, ordained
them to servitude or slavery under the descendants of Shem and
Japheth, doubtless because he judged it to be their fittest
condition. And all history proves how accurately the prediction has
been accomplished, even to the present day.

We come next to the proof that slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in
the case of Abraham, whose three hundred and eighteen bond-servants,
born in his own house, (Gen. 14: 14,) are mentioned along with those
who were bought with his money, as proper subjects for circumcision.
(Gen. 17:12[?]) His wife Sarah had also an Egyptian slave, named
Hagar, who fled from her severity. And "the angel of the Lord"
commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and submit herself.
(Gen. 16: 9.) If the philanthropists of our age, who profess to
believe the Bible, had been willing to take the counsel of that angel
for their guide, it would have preserved the peace and welfare of the
Union.

The third proof that slavery was authorized by the Almighty occurs in
the last of the Ten Commandments, delivered from Mount Sinai, and
universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians as THE MORAL
LAW: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maidservant, nor
his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exod.
20: 17.) Here it is evident that the principle of property -- "any
thing that is thy neighbor's" -- runs through the whole. ... I am
equally aware that the wives of our day may take umbrage at the law
which places them in the same sentence with the slave, and even with
the house and the cattle. But the truth is none the less certain. The
husband has a real property in the wife, because she is bound, for
life, to serve and to obey him. The wife has a real property in her
husband, because he is bound, for life, to cherish and maintain her.
The character of property is doubtless modified by its design. But
whatever, whether person or thing, the law appropriates to an
individual, becomes of necessity his property.

The fourth proof, however, is yet more express, as it is derived from
the direct rule established by the wisdom of God for his chosen
people, Israel, on the very point in question, viz.: "If thou buy a
Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve [new page] and in the
seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by
himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his
wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and
she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall
be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." (Exod. 21: 2-4.)
Here we see that the separation of husband and wife is positively
directed by the divine command, in order to secure the property of
the master in his bond-maid and her offspring.

(end of excerpt)

Sitaram continues:

Of course, if Noah had not become drunk in the first place, he would
not have been lying around with his nakedness exposed to pose a
temptation for his children.

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/b/bellini/giovanni/1510-
/211noah.html

(beginning of excerpt):

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/religion/jews/noah.htm

The part about Noah getting drunk is another example of the fights
between nomads and farmers: wine is something only farmers have, so
mainly farmers drink it. You have to be settled somewhere to grow
grapes for wine, and it takes years between when you plant the
grapevines and when they yield any decent grapes. So nomads tend to
think of wine as an evil farmer's thing, which gets decent people in
trouble.

(end of excerpt)

How curious that the nomadic Arab Muslims forbid alcohol, and yet the
consumption of alcohol is a sacramental requirement in Judaism and
Christianity.

For several years, I have worked in an office with a lovely young
married woman from Colombia. She is a devout Jehovah's Witness. I
shall call her Helen, though that is not her real name.

One day, I commented to Helen that, although morality dictates that
we must never look upon one another romantically, yet there is, in
theory, one circumstance under which it would be our duty to have
sexual relations. She was quite shocked and asked me to explain.
I explained that it is theoretically possible that some plague or
catastrophe might strike the entire human race and leave only her and
me as the last two survivors on earth. Were that to actually
happen, then it would be a moral imperative for us to attempt to have
offspring, as the only hope to continue the human race. The very
first commandment or mitzvah of Genesis in the Old Testament is "be
fruitful and multiply." This unusual hypothetical example shows the
inherent problems in the concept of relative and absolute morality.
In a world with a huge population, Helen and I are forbidden to have
sexual relations. When the future of the human race is at stake, we
are commanded to have sexual relations. Of course, other moral issues
arise in our hypothetical scenario with regard to incest. Should
Helen and I succeed in having a son and a daughter, then, is it a
moral imperative for brother and sister to mate and produce
offspring, or for parents to mate with their children?

Suppose through some strange sequence of events it were to happen
that the future of the human races depended upon the results of stem
cell research. What would then be the correct moral choice?

Jesus seems to point out a relative morality in the parable of the
poor widow who donates her only coin to the Temple. A donation of
one million dollars sounds like a great act of charity. If all you
possess in the world is one million dollars, and you give it to the
poor, why then you have followed Christ's advice to give all that you
have to the poor, renounce worldly things, take up your cross, and
follow Him. But if your total assets amount to eleven billion
dollars (and a billion is a thousand million) why then your donation
of one million is small indeed in comparison with your total wealth.,
since you are giving away 1/11,000th of your wealth, or 0.0000909.
The generosity of such a donation is equivalent to someone who had
one million dollars donating $90.00.

Jesus also seems to hint at a form of relative morality when he
points out that even wicked people give good things to their own
children. If you are kind and generous to your children, then you
are doing only that which is required of you, but if you extend that
same kindness and generosity to your enemies, or those who hate you,
then you are saintly. Hence, it is not your action in and of itself
which has moral value, but only the relative context in which your
action takes place.

Under the laws of many countries, one is allowed to use lethal force
to defend one's own life. If there are only two survivors of a
shipwreck, struggling in the ocean, and there is only one small piece
of wood, floating in the water, capable of supporting only one
person, then, in a desperate struggle for life, the two survivors
struggle over the piece of wood, and one punches the other, causing
him to drown. In these special extreme circumstances, the law rules
that it is not murder, but the lawful use of lethal force to preserve
ones own life.

Jesus points out that it is necessary that such a one as Judas come
into the world to betray him so that prophecy may be fulfilled, but
woe unto Judas.

(beginning of excerpt):

Jesus Christ was betrayed by Judas Iscariot for 30 pieces of silver,
as it had been prophesied in Zechariah 11:12. It was necessary for
this to happen, but woe unto Judas Iscariot through whom it took
place. This is mentioned in all 3 Gospels.

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man
by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if
he had not been born." (Matt. 26:24, see also Mark 14:21 and Luke
22:22)

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/knoch/TheProblemOfEvil/evil01
8.htm

The Scriptures show the utter helplessness of Judas. How could he
flee from his fate? Not only were the powers of evil against him, but
the powers of good were just as determined to make him play his part.
God Himself had determined the role he should have, and Christ, the
only Savior, must act in accord with the divine decree. I beg my
readers not to evade the issue. Let them put themselves in Judas'
place. What can a mortal do when Satan and Christ and God all force
him to commit a deed so awful in his own eyes that it drives him to
desperation and death?

(end of excerpt)

Sitaram continues:

It is interesting that, when Jesus asks the disciples, "Whom do men
say that I am, and whom do YOU say that I am?"

(beginning of excerpt):

http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/doc12.htm

Mark 8:27-38 (KJV)
And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea
Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them,
Whom do men say that I am? 28 And they answered, John the Baptist:
but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. 29 And he saith
unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith
unto him, Thou art the Christ.

(end of excerpt)

It appears that Jesus is asking ALL of the disciples this question.
Is Judas present in this scene? Yet only Peter gives answer. Does
Peter answer for ALL the disciples. Silence means consent. The rest
of the apostles remain silent, so we may presume that they agree with
Peter as their spokesperson. Does this mean that Judas confesses
Christ as God and savior? If forgiveness and salvation is promised
to all those who confess Christ as God, and if there is nothing one
can do to loose their salvation, then is Judas saved by his faith in
Christ?

Why is it sufficient for Peter alone to answer for all the others?
It is an Eastern Orthodox notion that a Bishop's purity of faith is
salvific for the congregation of his flock, but that the heretical
beliefs of a false Bishop can result in his flock loosing their
salvation.

At the end of the Book of Job, God speaks to Job and says, "Tell your
friends that I am angry with them because they spoke of me
incorrectly." Since the friends of Job are present, why must Job
TELL them what God says? Can they not hear for themselves? Or is it
the case that only Job hears? The words of Job's friends are verses
in the Book of Job, which are verses in the Bible. Yet, God says that
they speak of God incorrectly. Is God saying that there is error in
the Bible?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs002/glossmr.html

orthopraxy (Greek, "correct action/activity")
In contrast to orthodoxy (right belief), the emphasis in this term
concerns conduct, both ethical and liturgical. Historically, Judaism
and Islam have tended to emphasize orthopraxy relatively more than
orthodoxy, while classical Christianity tended to shift the balance
in the other direction.

The Protestant doctrine of salvation by "Faith Alone" takes the
extreme position, in some denominations, that it is solely the
Orthodoxy of ones confession of Christ as God and savior which
guarantees someone the "eternal security of salvation" which no
praxis or deed, however wrong, can undo or negate.

Get your own free IRC Chat room