Disagree. Holiness is something based on an absolute truth.
Example: If a man had the opinion that he could rape women and call these holy actions he would be wrong.
Holy is a spiritual term. It means "sacred" or "set apart." In the Old Testament holy vessels were certain things used only in worship - they were set apart for a sacred purpose. In the same way, a holy person is one who sets him self apart by righteousness. His good acts are sacred because they are done out of love for God.
2007-03-15 15:24:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The key word in the question is the word HOLINESS. Therefore I have to ask what HOLINESS is.
HOLINESS is the state of being holy. What is holy, then?
HOLY means:
1. exalted or worthy of complete devotion.
2. Divine, Example: “For the Lord our God is holy” Psalms 99:9
3. Devoted entirely to a deity. Example: Holy temple.
4. Having divine quality. Example: Holy scripture.
5. Used as an intensive. Example: This is a holy mess. He was a holy terror when he drank. And sometimes used as a milk oath. Example: Holy smoke.
In view of the above, the word holy does not necessarily have to have religious connotation. To further explain, notice:
1. Exalted or worthy of complete devotion: This is personal as it is based on the individual whether he sees qualities in the subject that are worthy of complete devotion.
2. Divine: Personal again, otherwise there will be no atheism.
3. Having divine qualities: personal and argumentative as it is based on what we think that makes a subject divine.
4. Same as above.
5. Used as an intensive: Divine is just a word. It may be discerned from other words by certain attributes, but it is still a word that may fall right or wrong.
Therefore and in conclusion, an action being judged as holey or unholy, its holiness is a matter of the individuals’ opinions.
2007-03-16 18:12:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Aadel 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that, in the statement, "holiness" isn't supposed to have religious overtones but is more about moral worth in general (depending on the era and region of the world in which the statement was written). Or at least it's vague about the definition.
If we take it to simply mean "moral worth", then the question is about ethical relativism and whether it is a plausible/true theory (which it's not).
This is very different from interpreting "holiness" as being tied to the existence of God (or a god), since then the statement becomes a question about God's existence...which is a far more complicated issue than ethical relativism.
Now, if the statement really is about holiness (that which is pleasing to God), then the answer is easy: no, it is clearly not a matter of individual opinion, because the Bible (or whatever religious reference text) is the source of truth for questions about holiness. Because that's too easy, I take it that the interrogator/author did not have that interpretation in mind.
2007-03-15 15:34:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by no_good_names_left_17 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Like every damn philosophical question in the world, it depends on a) how you define the word/phrase in question, and b) what point of view you assume.
In this case, let's assume holiness is an elevated level on a person's "morality chart," or some such dribble; which also answers the question of point of view: the individual's.
I personally, believe this statement is true. Just because Pat Robertson believes it is holy to donate money to his wife's shopping habit ... I mean church fund, doesn't make it so. And if society were to largely agree, I'd call society idiots who deserve to see their money draped across the holy breasts of Mrs. Robertson.
The question is problematic though. The issue of rape brought up earlier is a good example. There are freaks out there who rape women and children (and men too I suppose) because the voices in their heads (sometimes "holy") tell them too.
The answer to this is that man collective must make a distinction between what is rational and what is irrational thought. When man overwhelmingly judges actions with yeas and nays, the result is a collective understanding of rational and irrational thought. Rape falls, obviously, in the overwhelming nay vote.
That said, the true essence of this answer is free will. We should not feel beholden to society to believe/think anything. But there is a difference between belief and action.
2007-03-15 15:42:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Crash Jones 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
nicely, it is between the questions the place i actually examine each and all the previous solutions first, and you have have been given some stable ones already. i could trust what (so some distance) looks the minority -- inclusive of the incontrovertible fact that as quickly as you throw out the belief of "suitable", "suffering" logically must be tossed almost immediately thereafter. for this reason, if one theory concerns, the two ought to. first of all, as till now stated, preserve the "suffering" -- this could be perplexing to do FIRST, inspite of the indisputable fact that, exceedingly in terms of m/w rights. Then, rather of assigning blame, concentration on the effective and are available to a decision / be certain who's right as adverse to who's erroneous. same theory, distinctive attitude. wish i've got added surely to three already high quality solutions. Have an incredible nighttime!
2016-10-01 00:04:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by schiraldi 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I disagree. There are some acts that are holy, whether individuals think they are or not. While Protagoras evidently said that man is the measure of all things (relativism), Plato countered that God is the measure of all things because God is perfect and can thus provide a perfect standard of righteousness for humans.
2007-03-15 16:19:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by sokrates 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are no such things as holy or unholy, good or bad etc.
These are simply excuses given to justify an action.
There are always two options available for one in a given situation........To act or To not act.
Each of the options has possible consequences and the same are compared before taking a decision. Sometimes one is surprised with unforeseen consequences after choosing and executing an option.
As such it is only the individual who is responsible for his actions and it's consequences and the action has nothing to do with holiness or unholiness but only with the individual's choice of option in the given situation.
Needless to say, whatever situation one finds himself in at this moment, is the result of the millions of decisions one has taken / choices one has made throughout his life and he / she / it is the only one responsible for the same.
Hope this helps!
2007-03-16 06:27:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sharad 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would agree.....holiness, as a concept, is very subjective. For an action to be percieved as "holy", it must first be holy to the person performing the action. Though that person might think it holy, the person viewing it might not.
2007-03-15 15:24:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by aidan402 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
disagree... The holiness of an action is entirely determined by divine intervention
2007-03-15 15:36:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
What is meant by holiness? This it is a wrong choice of words. People do not determine that which is actually "holy" although they try to set the premise for holiness it can only be left to the almighty.
2007-03-15 15:21:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋