Actually, everything is not morally relative to me. I do not believe that everything is ok. I personally have a system of morals. There are certain immoralities that everyone can agree on such as murder, rape, and theft. The interesting thing about these particular immoralities is that they affect others and society in a VERY direct and negative manner. For those other actions, that do not directly harm anyone, that are also of a moral debate, how can we know with any real certainty what is and is not moral?
I will go out on a limb and assume your moral compass is the Word of God, the Bible. This is great. As moral compasses go there is none better. However, you nor any other Christian can prove the existance of God in any real objective manner, and if there is no God, then the Bible is nothing much more than babarian fairy tales and myth. Almost every Christian I know does not believe or have faith in a vaccum, but can recount numerous subjective experiences that, at least in their minds, give them their own individual proof. However, these experiences are subjective and also prove nothing in the objective.
I believe there is a real objective truth. There has to be. It is nature of truth that there is only one truth. However, since this particular truth cannot be determined in any accepted objective manner, then we also cannot have a totally objective morality either.
So, here is where the dichotomy comes in. We can all agree on those moral questions that have a direct affect on society and people both negatively and directly. However, for those actions of a moral nature that do not harm or affect society negatively, we should leave those decisions to a person's own conscience because we have no real way to prove one way or the other that they are right or wrong in their actions. Call it moral relativism if you must, but it is liberty at its finest. If this is troubling to you, you can ask God why he gave us free-choice and the natural rights of life, liberty, and property in the first place.
Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&l-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
Date: 1534
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE
synonym see MAIM
- mu·ti·la·tion /"myü-t&l-'A-sh&n/ noun
- mu·ti·la·tor /'myü-t&l-"A-t&r/ noun
I will go out on a limb and assume your moral compass is the Word of God, the Bible. This is great. As moral compasses go there is none better. However, you nor any other Christian can prove the existance of God in any real objective manner, and if there is no God, then the Bible is nothing much more than babarian fairy tales and myth. Almost every Christian I know does not believe or have faith in a vaccum, but can recount numerous subjective experiences that, at least in their minds, give them their own individual proof... these experiences are subjective and also prove nothing in the objective.
Whether or not I'm Catholic has little to do with the argument, in my opinion. I had no intention of trying to prove the existance of God to you because I am well aware that there is nothing physical I could offer that you would accept. I will say [since you brought it up] that not everything in this world can be viewed in materialistic terms. God reveals himself through what is known as an "illumination of conscience," whereby you see yourself as God sees you.
Regardless, it is crazy to mutilate yourself by sticking a metal spike through your tongue to achieve sexual pleasure.