Certainly “morality is a social agreed-upon standard,” but one of my points was that it does not occur in isolation, but usually contains transcendent laws or cultural adaptions, as well as departures from such.
However, my statement that the basic *moral* laws of the Bible are universal applicable is indeed true, meaning they can be directly applied, while your rejection of that premise is based upon societal rejection of such, not due to a lack of compatibility. All cultures can honor parents, forbid murder, etc.
“We don’t stone adulterers.” True, and where there are no stones this would not be exactly feasible. But when i refer to basic moral laws i am referring mainly to the proscriptions against practices, not necessarily the same penalties, as would be expected under a theocracy where people have assented to a covenant of all these laws, as Israel did, and the exact means of punishment was provided.
In addition, capital punishment for adultery and certain other things, in the context of other laws for a society which agrees to this high standard and the training that enables it - and makes them more accountable - is not barbaric, but in the long term is beneficial. As is the accompanying requirement of 2 or 3 eyewitnesses for conviction, with false witnesses receiving the penalty their false testimony incurred upon the innocent. The risk of AIDS itself does work as a deterrent factor, among the wise.
“The Ten Commandments are basic human tenets that were seen as harmful for the society.”
“Harmful?” Are you serious?
“In other words, morality is a current practical relative application of the universal principles. Nothing absolute about them.”
My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws, and to universal principles underlying others, whether accepted or not.
I guess we go to this discussion due to my statement that “’do unto others” itself depends upon an underlying morality, and what seems fitting to one is rejected by another.” My point being that those who invoke the golden rule as the standard to live by are ignoring the larger context of morality which is necessary. And apart from an agreed-upon objective authority which basically defines such then men can and will easily justify various conflicting ideas of what is moral or immoral. As i wrote in post #73,
Using the golden rule by itself, some would forbid punishment of criminals, as they would not want that done to them. Many parents give their children anything they want, as they want their own lusts to be fulfilled, and thus slowly harm their kids. And while souls can argue about what is beneficial, the moral reasoning of some can easily allowed them to justify what is self-serving and deleterious, and reject what is overall most beneficial.
“the rest of the universal moral laws are found in most if not all cultures.”
Not all, but rather than every person only doing what seems right according to his understanding, which one poster contends for, i was pointing out the need for an objective standard. And my contention is that the Bible, in its totality and being understood in the light of its progressive revelation, the New interpreting the Old, and other interpretive aspects, is the supreme transcendent objective authority, providing beneficial morality, applicable to all, directly or by adaptation. Thanks be to God.
This is true and I do agree...good post once again Daniel. Thank you.
They are applicable only if a society exists, and then only by convention. Why is stealing inherently wrong? Because it is perceived as harmful for the society by the society.
[kosta: The Ten Commandments are basic human tenets that were seen as harmful for the society.”]
“Harmful?” Are you serious?
My mistake. I wanted to say the Commandments prohibit those things the society sees as harmful. Something got lost in my sentence and I didn't notice it. Thank you for catching this omission.
My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws
Noting is immutable about any standards. The Hawaiian culture permitted, and even required, incest from its royal family. the story of Lots daughters practicing incest is biblical and therefore must be morally acceptable. Right?
Most societies, including biblical Israel, practiced polygamy. If it is biblically acceptable, why is it is immoral among Bible-believers?
If racial segregation was morally acceptable 50 years ago, why is it now immoral? If homosexuals were considered felons in England until 1960's, how come they are not today?