Replies

I do not know what or how God sees. I am using observation of peoples, because that is all I have to observe the moral behavior of people. I never said people should act in any specific way, I said that people do behave as if morality is relative, with which you have agreed a number of times. If people always act as if morality is relative, than it seems that this is the way people are. As I said, as long as we have freewill, we will have moral relativity. I believe, as an example, the commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill'...is it ok to kill in self-defense? in abortion? in capital punishment? in a war? in order to take over a neighboring countries resources? in the heat of passion? in a criminal act? in a religious fervor?...the list goes on, and the morality is always relative to the situation, and this is only 1 commandment. Many have gone to war, not wanting to kill, but they did...why is that?

Yes, many people do behave as if morals are relative - people act out their beliefs. The world is mostly moral realtivists. So? That doesn't prove morality is relative, that only proves most people are behaving as if morals were relative.

The commandment accurately says, "thou shalt not murder" Capital punishment is not murder - it's justice. Abortion is murder because the unborn have committed no crime. Some wars are just wars if they are against an aggressive evil enetity (Nazis, Saddam, etc.), some aren't just. Self defense is certainly just - I have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill my wife or me. It's rather simple isn't it? Murder is always wrong, but not all killing is murder. All human acts must be measured against a universal moral standard, otherwise, there is no way to judge them. My question for you remains: Are all acts morally neutral or is there a right and wrong standard to judge actions by?

With reference to the commandments, depending upon your interpretation, it's either kill or murder, it's relative to your beliefs. No act is morally neutral, the act is relative. What is immoral to one, is not necessarilty immoral to another. This is not to say immoral acts are inexcusable, all people must be held responsible to what, at the time and place, is considered immoral/illegal according to society...which, by the way is relative. If you lived in ancient Britain, it would have been perfectly acceptable to raid a neighboring tribe, steal their cattle and women and murder the men...it would not have been acceptable to do that within your own tribe. Were these acts of theft and murder based on moral absolutes, or relatives? Morals mean very little unless tied to actions...something about roads paved with good intentions or the like.