moral relativism

[Immanuel Can]

I read the Scriptures you recommended. I did like Paul but had difficulty with Jesus according to Matthew. I think there are not as many sins as there were formerly. Is there an equivalent passage in Mark?

I'm sorry..."not as many sins" where, and as where? I don't quite get that part of your comment.

Mark 7:1-13. You get exactly the same teaching, to exactly the same people.

I read Romans 3 and I must have misunderstood, as Romans 2 is clear to me.

Good, I'm glad.

Romans 3 is about everybody. Romans 2 is about Jewish people thinking they are better than others, simply because they had the Law of Moses. Paul's argument is essentially this: who is a worse person -- the person who doesn't know the Law, but behaves herself anyway, or the person who has the Law, and doesn't follow it? So he says that the Gentiles, who did not have the Law, are better than Jews who had it and didn't keep it.

And it makes a kind of common sense one can easily understand.

Imagine you're driving through a small village, where the speed limit is 50km/hr (or mph, if you prefer). But you get caught doing 65. The cop pulls you over.

In one scenario, you say, "Sorry, officer...I did not know the speed limit in the village was 50."

In the other, you say, "Sure I knew the speed limit was 50, officer; but who cares? I like to go 65."

Which one might be most likely to escape the ticket: the one who did not know the law, or the one who did?

In the same way, a Jew who has the Law is not, for that reason, better than a Gentile; if the doesn't obey it, she's worse. Because at least the Gentile can honestly say, "I didn't know." The Jewish person, by her own testimony as a "child of the Law," cannot excuse herself that way. She has to admit she knew what the Law required, but disobeyed it anyway.

[Sculptor]

In one scenario, you say, "Sorry, officer...I did not know the speed limit in the village was 50."

In the other, you say, "Sure I knew the speed limit was 50, officer; but who cares? I like to go 65."

Which one might be most likely to escape the ticket: the one who did not know the law, or the one who did?

SO you believe in moral relativism

[Belinda]

I read the Scriptures you recommended. I did like Paul but had difficulty with Jesus according to Matthew. I think there are not as many sins as there were formerly. Is there an equivalent passage in Mark?

I'm sorry..."not as many sins" where, and as where? I don't quite get that part of your comment.

Mark 7:1-13. You get exactly the same teaching, to exactly the same people.

I read Romans 3 and I must have misunderstood, as Romans 2 is clear to me.

Good, I'm glad.

Romans 3 is about everybody. Romans 2 is about Jewish people thinking they are better than others, simply because they had the Law of Moses. Paul's argument is essentially this: who is a worse person -- the person who doesn't know the Law, but behaves herself anyway, or the person who has the Law, and doesn't follow it? So he says that the Gentiles, who did not have the Law, are better than Jews who had it and didn't keep it.

And it makes a kind of common sense one can easily understand.

Imagine you're driving through a small village, where the speed limit is 50km/hr (or mph, if you prefer). But you get caught doing 65. The cop pulls you over.

In one scenario, you say, "Sorry, officer...I did not know the speed limit in the village was 50."

In the other, you say, "Sure I knew the speed limit was 50, officer; but who cares? I like to go 65."

Which one might be most likely to escape the ticket: the one who did not know the law, or the one who did?

In the same way, a Jew who has the Law is not, for that reason, better than a Gentile; if the doesn't obey it, she's worse. Because at least the Gentile can honestly say, "I didn't know." The Jewish person, by her own testimony as a "child of the Law," cannot excuse herself that way. She has to admit she knew what the Law required, but disobeyed it anyway.

Regarding the bit from Matthew and the equivalent from Mark, I guess it was a more violent age when they were writing and nowadays we'd not put adultery in the same category as murder. It was possibly also times and places, when Matthew and Mark were writing, that a woman and her fertility and labour was a man's property rather as his life was his property. When you compare modern mores with other times other places you can glean anthropological information about times long gone. However this does not make the spirit of the two Gospel
Thanks for the elucidation of the passage from Romans. I understand.

[Immanuel Can]

In one scenario, you say, "Sorry, officer...I did not know the speed limit in the village was 50."

In the other, you say, "Sure I knew the speed limit was 50, officer; but who cares? I like to go 65."

Which one might be most likely to escape the ticket: the one who did not know the law, or the one who did?

SO you believe in moral relativism

No. I believe both are guilty. If the cop fines them both, equally, he's only doing justice.

But I believe that knowledge of the law doesn't make one a keeper of the law. That's the point.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess it was a more violent age when they were writing and nowadays we'd not put adultery in the same category as murder.

Do that to somebody, and they might say they would have preferred you to murder them.

But that's not really the point: the point is that there are multiple ways to violate the law.

[Sculptor]

In one scenario, you say, "Sorry, officer...I did not know the speed limit in the village was 50."

In the other, you say, "Sure I knew the speed limit was 50, officer; but who cares? I like to go 65."

Which one might be most likely to escape the ticket: the one who did not know the law, or the one who did?

SO you believe in moral relativism

No. I believe both are guilty. If the cop fines them both, equally, he's only doing justice.

But I believe that knowledge of the law doesn't make one a keeper of the law. That's the point.

The law and morality are two different things.
A person intentionally breaking the law is morally culpable; a person who is ignorant of the law is not.
You are a total 22crt moron

[Immanuel Can]

The law and morality are two different things.

Yep.

A person intentionally breaking the law is morally culpable...

Then you just contradicted what you said above.

What you mean is they're "legally" culpable, but not necessarily "morally." They might not be, since they are "two different things." Adultery is immoral; but it's legal. Parking on the street on Tuesdays might be illegal; but that doesn't make it immoral.

[Iwannaplato]

The law and morality are two different things.

Yep.

A person intentionally breaking the law is morally culpable...

Then you just contradicted what you said above.

What you mean is they're "legally" culpable, but not necessarily "morally." They might not be, since they are "two different things." Adultery is immoral; but it's legal. Parking on the street on Tuesdays might be illegal; but that doesn't make it immoral.

I don't think that's the best example. My suggestion is to choose something that most people think is an immoral law. Perhaps the women in Iran right now who are intentionally breaking the laws requiring hijabs. Or people who helped slaves escape to the north. Etc.

[Sculptor]

The law and morality are two different things.

Yep.

A person intentionally breaking the law is morally culpable...

Then you just contradicted what you said above.

What you mean is they're "legally" culpable, but not necessarily "morally." They might not be, since they are "two different things." Adultery is immoral; but it's legal. Parking on the street on Tuesdays might be illegal; but that doesn't make it immoral.

I really think you have a problem with basic comprehension.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think that's the best example. My suggestion is to choose something that most people think is an immoral law. Perhaps the women in Iran right now who are intentionally breaking the laws requiring hijabs. Or people who helped slaves escape to the north. Etc.

I would agree that those are immoral laws. But in the society in which they were/are imposed, they were not considered that. In fact, both were/are considered virtuous and necessary.

So if society determines what is "moral," then those things were as "moral" as any other thing...which is to say, amoral...devoid of moral status entirely...neither good nor bad, just what the society happened to favour.

A better example might be our own abortion laws. One day, when there's an accounting, we'll all be utterly ashamed of living in a society that regarded as "moral" and as a "choice" the butchery of children. However, it appears that accounting is not yet.

[Immanuel Can]

The law and morality are two different things.

Yep.

A person intentionally breaking the law is morally culpable...

Then you just contradicted what you said above.

What you mean is they're "legally" culpable, but not necessarily "morally." They might not be, since they are "two different things." Adultery is immoral; but it's legal. Parking on the street on Tuesdays might be illegal; but that doesn't make it immoral.

I really think you have a problem with basic comprehension.

Actually, I don't just "think" you do. I can see it. But I'm pretty sure it's just because you're a 'troll' anyway...just not a very successful one.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think that's the best example. My suggestion is to choose something that most people think is an immoral law. Perhaps the women in Iran right now who are intentionally breaking the laws requiring hijabs. Or people who helped slaves escape to the north. Etc.

I would agree that those are immoral laws. But in the society in which they were/are imposed, they were not considered that. In fact, both were/are considered virtuous and necessary.

Right, that's why they are good examples for most people, though not all.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think that's the best example. My suggestion is to choose something that most people think is an immoral law. Perhaps the women in Iran right now who are intentionally breaking the laws requiring hijabs. Or people who helped slaves escape to the north. Etc.

I would agree that those are immoral laws. But in the society in which they were/are imposed, they were not considered that. In fact, both were/are considered virtuous and necessary.

Right, that's why they are good examples for most people, though not all.

Why "not all"? It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

Do you think otherwise? I would be surprised if you did.

[tillingborn]

It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

If it seems obvious to you, what role does God play?

[Immanuel Can]

It seems obvious to me that slavery, infanticide, child abuse, premeditated murder, rape, etc....these are universally evil, no matter what any society says, and no matter what the perps happen to think about it, be they one or many or a whole society.

If it seems obvious to you, what role does God play?

He's the reason it's all objectively wrong.