Thanks for sharing that personal stuff, lqxpl. I don't take it lightly. I can see how you were able to come to such conclusions that you were able to skew your morals in a way that we can agree is not good now. But, I still think that there's a place for moral relativism, and Thinkingonpaper below expresses it best for me: "for me moral relativism is less about stating what is ‘good or evil’ and more about being open to talking about it."

Without such a way of thinking, I feel that it's more difficult to believe that what we think now as acceptable can be seen as unacceptable. It leaves us to be more set in our beliefs, which is absolutely good on one hand, but on the other hand, what history teaches us is that we are never at the pinnacle of morality. There's always something that we screw up on, and without the idea of moral relativism, it's hard to acknowledge that we've got something wrong when we're so used to thinking that what we've been doing all along is okay.

I understand that giving Love means telling the Truth -- the common analogy is that of a wise parent tending for their child. It's not always lovey-dovey, but it's certainly genuine and good-willed.

Our military is asked to do things not solely for moral reasons, but for political reasons as well. I don't allude to our recent military campaigns at all, just military campaigns in general. Do you personally think that Jesus would have no qualms about what the U.S. military, or any military does? If you're a soldier who is a Christian, then doing what the military asks you to do SHOULD provide a moral dilemma when it involves the extinguishing of another soul. I have no problems with God himself coming down and bringing violence, but that's because He is God and He knows what He's doing. We are mere humans who have no business feeling completely justified in killing another, even if we feel that the ends justify the means.

I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I think I get now that you're just being whimsical--but I think it's still a bit of an unfair answer to Polyp. If it says nothing, then why?

Sorry if I'm being annoying in advance.

My point is that moral relativists are not devoid of what we agree to be as basic morals, as many here have tried to argue, and are therefore not deserving of such derision. Moral absolutists, in my opinion are really just moral relativists as well, just with a thinner grey area. Neither reasoning I think, is deserving of the derision that is eagerly applied here. You yourself said earlier that the only true moral absolute you can think of is the Golden Rule, and yet no one is telling you that you are lacking in anything, which makes me think that moral relativism is not really the issue at all, but a veil hiding the dislike of something else.

I apologize for the sweeping generalization -- it's never the right thing to do, but I was going off of this comment, which implies as much from just one commenter: "If your parents didn't give you any guidelines of how to tell right from wrong when you were a child..." ...As if parents would be the only source of moral guidelines.

But anyway, I don't think that completely invalidates my comment above. It makes me a little hypocritical, but truth is truth regardless of whose mouth it comes out of, no?

You're right -- and two wrongs (mine + others) don't make a right. My mistake for making a judgmental statement. My sassiness stemmed from the failure of anyone to provide chaosdrew with good answers to his many genuine questions. He brings up good questions (that I share) that I don't think anyone has addressed yet in a serious manner, besides you.

Jesus would not command an army, that's for sure. The Old Testament God would, but I'd always thought that Jesus gave us a new promise of a new world to strive for, where every soul is fought for, regardless of personal consequences. Sadly, most Christians do not agree and think it is more important that they be allowed to preserve their way of life than to actually go out in the world in search of peace, not defense of their ways and their country. The idea that there are Christ-ians out there, putting another man in their sights and pulling the trigger for the sake of their country and way of life is sad.

Some commenter above said that "because it's easier" summarizes the Liberal way of thinking, but Andrew's post points out the hypocrisy of such a statement. You can't be a Christian and believe in having the strongest military in the world. You can't be a Christian and not do anything but love everyone around you. Yet clearly, that's what's going on right here.

Polyp is not refusing to cede to the idea that rape is absolutely wrong--you are just misinterpreting their idea. Polyp may think that rape is absolutely wrong, but they also acknowledge that people exist who find no moral problem with raping someone. You can find examples of this in a short search in your local newspaper, your history books, and even by talking to some less-principled meatheads at your local college fraternity (date-rape). In our perspective, they are doing wrong, but in their perspective, they are not.

Likewise, even in the Bible you will find examples of people being "made low" in what we would now consider to be a morally unacceptable situation. See Leviticus 25:44 and on, where God says to Moses, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." God's people at that time had no problem making slaves of those who were not God's people. Morals have changed, and circumstances have changed.

This should not be troubling, just eye-opening. What is now considered okay can in the future be considered reprehensible, and vice versa. It doesn't mean that the world can turn upside-down, just that we can and have interpreted moral foundations differently through different lenses.

Believe me, I understand your outrage at such comments *completely*. But in my experience, these are the sorts of comments that come from people that live in bubbles, are misinformed, and love to hear themselves talk. People who like to argue for the sake of arguing, because they really aren't open to true discussion.

When you talk to average Americans (not college kids trying to prove a point or be rebellious), I think you'll find plenty of conservatives and liberals living side by side and getting along just fine. Reasonable people who don't make such outlandish comparisons as fundamentalist Christians vs. Muslim terrorists. I happen to have many friends who are quite liberal, but love the fact that they live in America, and not Iran or Egypt. They reap the benefits that capitalism have brought them and enjoy it, but also see how it's possible that capitalism can run wild in the hands of people who have wavered in their sense of personal responsibility & decency. They're not an exception -- they're just quiet because they lack the sort of egos that people who say crazy things tend to have.

Feel free to hate the talking heads that you find in the media (and their listeners, who I think you'll find on both sides of the political spectrum simply because they aren't savvy enough to know better), but don't go thinking that they represent their entire political party.

"A Liberal is a person who believes that a Christian who non-violently states that abortion is a sin is much worse that the Muslims who stone a woman to death for being raped."

Go ahead and tell that to someone who you think is a Liberal and see if your statement is true. For someone who claims to have such a comparatively stronger moral compass, it's odd that you have to rely on such crazy statements to make yourself feel right about how awful you think Liberals are. Maybe you should go out and actually speak with "Liberals" at your workplace and see if they're as insanely immoral as you think they are.