Mitzva

This is not necessarilly true at all. It's not about believing you are right, but about believing that others should die for their beliefs. It doesn't take religion to incite people to kill in such a manner. All theological propositions aside...philosophical...one cannot make an ought statement into an is statement. In other words, i will have a hard time proving empiracelly any ethical statement I make. I can tell you "one ought not murder", but I cannot say it is like gravity (which is very difficult to argue against empirically). This is why belief and what-one-believes-ought-to-be-done are so intimately related. No one believes, being "honest is true" and "gravity exists" in the same way. Hence, we will always disagree [because it (belifes about what one should do) derives from belief).

Let me make sure I follow: Are you saying you can apply moral absolutes, but not all of the time? Isn't this NOT a moral absolute then. ...Maybe just a good rule of thumb? ...and also that an unfortunate situation is so because of evil? If this is the case, how do you tell the difference between well-meaning people who were ignorant to the problem. Is that evil? What exactly makes a state of affairs evil? If one continues on your thought line then a moral absolute is possible only if it can be observed all of the time. Why should that be? Again states of affairs are evil if one is unable to observe absolute moral principles all of the time (this is in relation to woman who must steal). Again, an absolute moral principle can exist and yet never be observed....that is my argument. The two are not incompatable.

I think one can argue simultaneously that there are absolute moral principles and at the same time argue that it is impossible that all people in all states of affairs, will always observe (or be able to ) them. I think the existence of evil is what allows one to argue as such. Consider the poor individual who steals to feed her family. One can reasonably argue that an absolute principle against stealing exists (say in the mind of God, unless one argues that He is subject to the same principle...which creates a further problem) and at the same time argue that she was not justified and yet she had almost no other choice due to the evil state of affairs that obtains for her. Again, her stealing is contingent on an evil state of affairs that exists prior to her activity. Consider the state of affairs where everyone with excess gives to those who lack, do not consume more than needed, etc. Even better, consider the state of affairs in which everyone observes all moral absolutes, all of the time. Then, it would seem examples like the one given (a woman is compelled to steal ) would not occur. My main point is that moral absolutes can exist, while at the same time they can be impossible to fully fulfill because of one's enviroment (one in which evil exists). Her conditions do not justify her, they only show the extent that evil affects human society and those who live in it.

Paul (Pauline theology) never uses the word save (Soter) except in relation to the final judgement. So, first, one is justified; then during the rest of one's life she is sanctified; Finally at the judgement she is saved. So it seems that in relation to Pauline theology, to be saved means an event that occurs once at the judgement. I know this does not answer the question.....just thought it was worth noting.