• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Situation Ethics

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.

Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11). Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief. We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.

Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.

Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11). Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief. We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.

Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.

The Bible itself endorses situational ethics, in numerous places, so from my view Bible belief and situational ethics are not mutually exclusive. Your example of when it's appropriate to kill is a classic one.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
The Bible itself endorses situational ethics, in numerous places, so from my view Bible belief and situational ethics are not mutually exclusive. Your example of when it's appropriate to kill is a classic one.

I don't think it's possible to have workable and efficient moral and ethical systems without some considerations for situational ethics and consequentialism.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Is murder moral? Is premeditating the taking of a human life always immoral? Is killing of the enemy in time of war moral? Is killing someone who is killing a room full of people moral? Is refusing to kill someone who will kill 50 people unless you take action moral?

Christians, for example, have interpreted the commandment differently as in murder or killing. Some assert that killing is always wrong and refuse to serve in the military. Others take the commandment as only referring to murder thus believing that killing can sometimes be justified depending on the situation which to me smacks of situational ethics.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The OP presents an interesting take on the nature of situation ethics, but not one I am familiar with except in the context of misrepresentations of the concept. No matter. This is RF. Who would be such a party-pooper as to insist that if you are going to criticize situation ethics, you at least first make a reasonable effort to understand what it is that you are criticizing? By all means, carry on! :D
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
The Bible itself endorses situational ethics, in numerous places, so from my view Bible belief and situational ethics are not mutually exclusive. Your example of when it's appropriate to kill is a classic one.
Indeed. There's a Spirit in the Law as well as the Letter. One example I can think of is 2 Chronicles 29:34. In that example. the Levites helped the priests so that they could skin all the burnt offerings but they had a good understanding of the Law and were actually showing love to their neighbour. Many times when we go in the direction of situation ethics we get it wrong, as was the case with King Saul but Yahweh has made allowances in the past because He is gracious. Also I can think of Leviticus 10:16-20 from the top of my head.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Indeed. There's a Spirit in the Law as well as the Letter. One example I can think of is 2 Chronicles 29:34. In that example. the Levites helped the priests so that they could skin all the burnt offerings but they had a good understanding of the Law and were actually showing love to their neighbour. Many times when we go in the direction of situation ethics we get it wrong, as was the case with King Saul but Yahweh has made allowances in the past because He is gracious. Also I can think of Leviticus 10:16-20 from the top of my head.

If our morality is too rigid, we also get it wrong, though, wouldn't you agree? This was the whole point Jesus tried to make about the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Or in Hosea, "For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.

Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11). Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief. We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.

Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.
The thing about Jewish ethics is that it has been around for a very very long time and has had a chance for its best and brightest to reason through all of this long ago.

The Rabbis tell us that the preservation of life should always take priority over keeping the law in all situations except three: idolatry, adultery, and murder. This is the very Jewish principal of Pikuach Nefesh, saving a life, is primary over other laws.

It is based on Leviticus 18:5: “You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live.” Our great sages have told us to not it says, "of which man shall live, " not "of which man shall die."

So yes, we are to steal food in order to save the starving. We are to lie in order to protect the fleeing innocent. Jewish doctors work in hospitals on the Shabbat.

I think your comment that this somehow makes us less true to our religion simply because we are not keeping our laws against theft or shabbat. Rather it is a deeper, richer morality that is being employed.

I do understand how some people use excuses to act wrongly, and try to pass it off as situational ethics. But honestly, you do agree that this is not the same thing, right? Right.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...
Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill...
I don't know how you got to the idea that situation ethics would allow the killing of an innocent person.

Situation ethics, as I understand it, is very simple. We should allow conscience (moral intuition) to guide us because that's the way conscience works...case-by-case. Each moral situation is a unique moral problem.

The Bible's commandment on killing has been interpreted by most Christians as a general rule allowing for exceptions: As a general rule, you should not kill. This offers no guidance whatsoever when it's needed in a specific situation because the situation might be an exception to the rule.

The commandment has been interpreted by a minority of Christians as an absolute rule: You should never kill under any circumstances. While this interpretation offers guidance in specific situations, it's terrible advice because if all the good people on the planet followed it, and didn't defend themselves when under attack, the bad people would rule this planet.

Conscience (moral intuition) allows that killing is OK in self-defense if it is absolutely necessary in a specific situation. Thus, it is aligned well with the survival of our species.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.
By "law" are you referring to some set of written, deontological rules we're required to observe, or some set of consequentialist principles we should consider in evaluating an action?
Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11).
This is a question of Divine Command vs Consequentialist ethics. Should one blindly follow Divine Command even when the consequences will be negative, or should one consider first the likely consequences of an action?
Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.
I question your use of the term morally fluid. I agree that religious legalists are morally inflexible, but is legalism definitive of religion? Is it irreligious to adhere to principles rather than the letter of the law? Is evil to be judged by its fruits, or by it's deviation from written law?
Law and principles are different things.
We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief.
When push came to shove, I'd expect atheists -- with strong, internalized principles of right and wrong, to be more likely to do 'the right thing', when that thing is based on consequences rather than an ability to justify a harmful outcome by appeal to some religious passage.

Atheists tend to have internalized morals; they've had to think about them. Theists, since they have a prepackaged, external set of written rules, have no need to develop strong or internalized morals. They have an external crutch to lean on, in the form of their rule book. Even a robot could be programmed to follow a set of rules, but I'd expect a robot, like the religious people you speak of, to be inflexible, unprincipled and unconcerned with the consequences of its actions.

The Bible's full of examples of 'righteous' people doing unspeakably evil things. Especially in the Old Testament, war, killing, slavery, &c seem to be sanctioned and 'legal'.
Moreover, the biblical principles underlying right and wrong seem pretty fluid and contradictory.
We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.
I suspect the 'majority' of people are nominally religious enough to have avoided developing strong, internalized principles, and are wont to go along with whatever values they grew up with or are currently being promoted as good or proper. War, racism, nationalism, xenophobia, the military-- all have been accepted; even lauded, by the unprincipled masses.
Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.
Exactly -- blind, legalistic obedience regardless of consequences. This is what you advocate?

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.
I think you're mixing law with principle. One is a command, the other, an abstraction. Both are to be found in the Bible.


The people you're calling spiritual or religious aren't acting on principle, they're acting on law. They're authoritarian followers, not moral agents.
Apparently they aspire to be robots.

It's the atheists and situational ethicists who are the moral agents, who actually make independent moral choices.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.

Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11). Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief. We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.

Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.

Well, if you're talking about christians who are spiritual and not religious, to some degree you have a point. If it's just spiritual people who don't want to be religious, the bible is irrelevant. Also, any religion that tends to make people different than they are at a disadvantage is not a moral religion in my opinion.

I think many christian spiritual and not religious people just don't like "rituals/traditions/politics" as so they relate. They don't like the word. Spiritual people, if they were more mystic, would not need the bible to be a foundation of their faith because they would feel god talks to them directly without the need of scripture confirmation.

Anyone can be moral without god. Morality isn't a religious concept. It's one's internal sense of right and wrong shaped by the environment, laws, upbringing, and/or religion and community in which one lives. So, any religious who don't believe in god(s) will still have still have morals-they just wouldn't be biblical (or quranic or Dhamic or...).

Another way to see it is in order to fulfill a goal, you need more than motivation, intent, and emotion but the actual action, repetition (if so be), and some form of structure. So, yes. I agree. If someone really believes in god, they would have some form of religious practice or law according to scripture.

The only thing I disagree with is those who are spiritual and not religious aren't following the bible because they choose to define their religious actions in a manner not associated with a said religious tradition.

I'm sure there are many. Religion works for some but not for others; but, that doesn't mean they're not following scripture.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.

Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11). Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief. We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.

Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.

Well, I assume you are being specific to the Christian deity here. Christians practice situational morality all the time. They point to "thou shall not kill" and then join the military and off to kill they go. "Turn the other cheek" doesn't get so much notice.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Well, I assume you are being specific to the Christian deity here. Christians practice situational morality all the time. They point to "thou shall not kill" and then join the military and off to kill they go. "Turn the other cheek" doesn't get so much notice.
Milton, if all the good people on the planet turned the other cheek as you suggest, Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and their oppressive successors would be currently quarreling over the remaining scraps of undefeated nations.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I made the comment last week that I was concerned about a rising number of religious people abandoning religion and calling themselves ‘spiritual’. As one person erroneously said, being spiritual doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in spirits but rather believe in living a life which isn’t carnal. Meditation, prayer, contemplation, mindfulness etc. I would include study and law-keeping in the definition but it seems many people who call themselves spiritual do not believe in these things, even though Romans 7:14 clearly states ‘the law is spiritual’, thus if we are to achieve true spirituality we have to be law-keepers.

Anyway, it got me thinking about situation ethics. The idea that depending on the situation you are in will dictate how we go about that situation and convey what ethics you should or should not adhere to. If the preservation of your life depends on taking the life of another for example, perhaps an innocent person, then would you do it, despite the sixth commandment telling us not to kill. Or what about stealing some food because without that food you may starve to death? I’m sure most people would do this in our modern day society because people do not have faith whereas the scriptures show a life where one is to love the Word more than their own lives (Revelation 12:11). Such morally fluid people in my eyes are not truly religious. They shouldn’t delude themselves by thinking that they are. Religious people should follow certain principles, even to the point of death because they have a conviction that following those principles will please the Father and bring us in to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

We’ve had a thread recently here on Religious Forums which suggests that atheists can be just as moral as religious people. We all know the story of the Good Samaritan of Luke 10, where a priest and a Levite, supposedly religious people, did not help that man attacked by robbers. However, when push comes to shove, how many atheists would abandon their loose moral code they have formulated and look after no.1 in their own eyes – themselves. To strong religious people, no. 1 is the Almighty, so we would naturally have a higher standard of living than those who do not have belief. We all should be true to ourselves and question why we do what we do. But situation ethics is what I find is going to dictate the actions of the majority of people on this earth leading to the Beast System. I don’t want to make this post about end time prophesy though, and I tend to avoid talking about it since it is to the most part a violation of Forum rules. However, we learn from the Maccabees they were those who died, sometimes whole families, because they refused to eat one bite of pork. Many were tortured. To digress somewhat, even the Roman Catholic Church tortured people in the most inhumane ways to get them to renounce their faith in the Bible.

Situation ethics might even be the characteristic of some religious people. It’s a shame because the Word of Yahweh says ‘thus says Yahweh’ i.e. Isaiah 30:15.

The first definition which I have seen for the word ‘moral’ on the internet is: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.” Can people who call themselves spiritual and do not adhere to the same principles in every situation be considered moral, or the same with atheists and even religious people. To go back to the example of the Good Samaritan, we as religious people are commanded to love our neighbour (Leviticus 19:18) so we should be helping out whenever we see a need as a matter of Law. Others don't have this obligation. Please discuss.
I don't really see an ethical system in what you say you follow.

A list of rules <> an ethical system. Ethical systems are based on values; the best decision - or the range of allowable decisions - in a given situation will depend on the specifics of that situation.

IOW, all ethics are situational. If a code of conduct isn't situational, then it's not a system of ethics.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
situational morality graphic
t_250.jpg

Reminds me of the portion where Paul states "show me your faith with your words and I will show you with my deeds.
anybody can say anything....doing it is another matter apparently.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
If all the good people turned the other cheek, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would find themselves crying in the wilderness.

a9b01a82a2bcc5b039d4233dc368898f.jpg
Great idea, and it didn't work out so well in the vietnam era, [sadly]
people still have the ideologies, they got em bad. might be terminal, but we hope they all pull through and get better from their raging barbarism. [terrible dis-ease]
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
If all the good people turned the other cheek, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would find themselves crying in the wilderness.
You're living in a fantasy world. In the real world, the good people outnumber the bad, but leaders bent on aggression can tell people:

Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!
Our race is superior to theirs!
Our tribe is superior to theirs!

...and put together a huge following of aggressors that feels entitled to draw first blood in a war to prove their superiority and their God-given right to dominate lesser humans.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're living in a fantasy world. In the real world, the good people outnumber the bad, but leaders bent on aggression can tell people:

Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!
Our race is superior to theirs!
Our tribe is superior to theirs!

...and put together a huge following of aggressors that feels entitled to draw first blood in a war to prove their superiority and their God-given right to dominate lesser humans.
But good people have an independent, internalized moral code. They're principled and wont to question authority.

Being good people, I suspect they'd answer something like:
Blessed are the meek; blessed are the merciful; blessed are the Peacemakers.
Whosoever shall smite the on the right cheek, turn to him the other, also.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you.

Neither American nor Iraqi; neither Christian nor Muslim. All men are One. (bit of a paraphrase, here ;))

The leadership of a "Christian Nation" could hardly counter an argument like that .... could they?
 
Top