So then presumably you agree that it is not an absolute condition, and can be overturned upon incorporating other factors?
It's not properly contextual to say: (psychological empathetic moral deliberation/physical circumstance) = (do what I want regardless of its psychological reasoning/physical circumstance).
They don't equate.
Let's get something straight here. The deduction of biblical ethics from the moral teachings therein is a psychological process of:
Believing that the textual (and often contradictory from the outset [God is love, God burns billions]) moralities contained within the bible are God-given, thus objective, infallible and right. There is no objective basis for that belief; it is a subjective ''I belief this regardless of evidence'' aka subjective. The next step in the process is to comprehend the moral teachings in the book in a manner which, invariably, is always coloured by personal perception, then to form ethical principles based upon those moral comprehensions. The final step it seems is to consider the fruit of this process an infallible, objective standard against which all other morality must be based, regardless of the fact that plethora of Christians have contradicting ethical beliefs, based from the same apparently infallibe and objectively moral book. That is a contradiction; a paradox of sorts.
The most worrying aspect of this kind of ethical teaching however, is that it is purely deontological in nature. It is a matter of obedience regardless of whether the command has a morally repugnant air about it.
Now, I will absolutely accept that, given the psychology of religion and the nature of faith, you follow the ethical deductions you have made with conviction, but please, stop endeavouring to assert that they are any more objective than mine.
No, but it certainly is a subjective claim, and without any actual objective basis the moral system you propose has exactly the same basis in reasoning (i.e. very little other than a deduction of what you should do based on your personal preferences - but you do seem to acknowledge that and say nobody else is required to follow your system).
As for "tell me this" - no, I can't off the top of my head. But it seems to me as though you are simply affirming the consequent here, i.e. 'this system seems to have right conclusions, therefore it is true.'
As for "tell me this" - no, I can't off the top of my head. But it seems to me as though you are simply affirming the consequent here, i.e. 'this system seems to have right conclusions, therefore it is true.'
They don't equate.
Let's get something straight here. The deduction of biblical ethics from the moral teachings therein is a psychological process of:
Believing that the textual (and often contradictory from the outset [God is love, God burns billions]) moralities contained within the bible are God-given, thus objective, infallible and right. There is no objective basis for that belief; it is a subjective ''I belief this regardless of evidence'' aka subjective. The next step in the process is to comprehend the moral teachings in the book in a manner which, invariably, is always coloured by personal perception, then to form ethical principles based upon those moral comprehensions. The final step it seems is to consider the fruit of this process an infallible, objective standard against which all other morality must be based, regardless of the fact that plethora of Christians have contradicting ethical beliefs, based from the same apparently infallibe and objectively moral book. That is a contradiction; a paradox of sorts.
The most worrying aspect of this kind of ethical teaching however, is that it is purely deontological in nature. It is a matter of obedience regardless of whether the command has a morally repugnant air about it.
Now, I will absolutely accept that, given the psychology of religion and the nature of faith, you follow the ethical deductions you have made with conviction, but please, stop endeavouring to assert that they are any more objective than mine.