Ya know what I'm sick of?

[Alphadux]

Opinions. Not knowing what's right and wrong. People say the Bible's not a rule book, but I wish it was. Sure, I know adultery, fornication, murder and such are wrong. But there are so many other issues that the Bible isn't clear on that Christians have always viewed differently

Martin Luther liked his beer, but then there's Christians who jump back at the very thought of alcohol. Charles Spurgeon loved to smoke cigars. True, the health risks weren't as well known back then, but it was still controversial. Some Christians listen to rock and roll, others think that it's evil. The movies is taboo to some, but to others an enjoyable form of entertainment.

I know Paul discusses the meat issue in Romans 14 which applies to other debatable subjects, but it's still hard to figure our what's right and wrong.

Conscience doesn't seem to be entirely reliable either. One man's conscience tells him one thing, another man's something else.

Ahh....

 

[Archivist]

Opinions. Not knowing what's right and wrong. People say the Bible's not a rule book, but I wish it was. Sure, I know adultery, fornication, murder and such are wrong. But there are so many other issues that the Bible isn't clear on that Christians have always viewed differently

Martin Luther liked his beer, but then there's Christians who jump back at the very thought of alcohol. Charles Spurgeon loved to smoke cigars. True, the health risks weren't as well known back then, but it was still controversial. Some Christians listen to rock and roll, others think that it's evil. The movies is taboo to some, but to others an enjoyable form of entertainment.

I know Paul discusses the meat issue in Romans 14 which applies to other debatable subjects, but it's still hard to figure our what's right and wrong.

Conscience doesn't seem to be entirely reliable either. One man's conscience tells him one thing, another man's something else.

Ahh....

That's why we call it FAITH...

 

[HuntingMan]

Want to know something funny?

*IF* everything was detailed out specifically...long lists of do's and 'dont's to follow to the letter, you can bet many would find a way to disobey them anyway.

You have freedom in Christ...dont try to weigh yourself down with rules that arent in there in one form or another.
If its important, its in there.

All those things that youre not sure of, dont get upset about them and dont always come looking to places like public forums for answers.
You'll ask 100 folks here the same question and get 99 different answers.

You know you arent supposed to kill or sleep with someone elses wife....stick to those rules that you DO know at first and then spend time talking to God about the rest.

I personally dont view drinking wine as being inherently sinful and nothing in scripture says that it is....and there you go.
So for you its sin if you do it to excess, a CLEAR precept in scripture, and not sin if you dont.

You are free in Christ...just dont let your own freedom cause another to stumble....ie, if you did drink wine, be sure its around more mature Christians who, even tho they may not partake of it themselves, wont stumble in their own walk because of it.

My guess is what you need is to spend a LOT of time in Gods word so that when youre done YOU will be able to discern for yourself what is ok and what isnt and wont have to rely on anyone elses opinions on the matter.

 

[Solidlyhere]

Yeah, Archivist got it right.

Each person decides (for himself) what importance the Bible has in his own Life.

Truly, some of the Bible has no more importance to Christians.
Animal sacrifice, for instance, is obsolete. Jesus is our "animal" sacrifice.

I try to stay away from thinking that I have all of the answers, just because I read something in the Bible.

I use the Bible as inspiration ... and a gentle guide to my actions.
Then, I use my Faith ... to attempt to live most moments in a way I think that Jesus would be happy about it.

So, Alphadux, you choose what you want. You say: "People say the Bible's not a rule book, but I wish it was." Well, POOF, the Bible IS a rule book, for you.

Peace.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Help me! I'm drowning in an ocean of doctrine! Who can save me?

 

[Shizzle]

Help me! I'm drowning in an ocean of doctrine! Who can save me?

Jesus! Jesus can save you from all this legalistic doctrine! When have any of these rules we add to the written word brought us closer to God? huh when? never, they only increased our guilt and widened the gap.

 

[JonF]

Opinions. Not knowing what's right and wrong. People say the Bible's not a rule book, but I wish it was. Sure, I know adultery, fornication, murder and such are wrong. But there are so many other issues that the Bible isn't clear on that Christians have always viewed differently

Martin Luther liked his beer, but then there's Christians who jump back at the very thought of alcohol. Charles Spurgeon loved to smoke cigars. True, the health risks weren't as well known back then, but it was still controversial. Some Christians listen to rock and roll, others think that it's evil. The movies is taboo to some, but to others an enjoyable form of entertainment.

I know Paul discusses the meat issue in Romans 14 which applies to other debatable subjects, but it's still hard to figure our what's right and wrong.

Conscience doesn't seem to be entirely reliable either. One man's conscience tells him one thing, another man's something else.

Ahh....

You are missing the fundamental purpose of the bible if you wish it was a rule book… We weren’t given the bible in order to make accurate moral judgments (although this is an important part of why we were given the bible)

 

[*Starlight*]

It seems to me that simply empathy towards other people is a good way to determine the morality of an act... and you don't need any lists of rules for that.

 

[JonF]

It seems to me that simply empathy towards other people is a good way to determine the morality of an act... and you don't need any lists of rules for that.

Empathy being the central ethical principle leads to consequentialsim, consequentalism leads to relativism, and that is the path to the dark side.

 

[*Starlight*]

Empathy being the central ethical principle leads to consequentialsim, consequentalism leads to relativism, and that is the path to the dark side.

What's consequentialism? And I honestly can't see what problems can happen with empathy as the central ethical principle... I think the world would be a better place that way.

 

[JonF]

There are two major moral theories that most people subscribe to.

Deontology: That actions are right or wrong in of them selves, regardless of what the consequences are.

Consequentialism: That actions are right or wrong based on what happens because of them, i.e. based on the consequences.

 

[*Starlight*]

ok, thanks Well, if you act with empathy towards others, then you don't do things which would harm them in any way... so acting with empathy towards everyone you meet is a good ethical principle.

 

[JonF]

Empathy is a good thing, but empathy isn’t a good fundamental moral principle.

 

[*Starlight*]

Why not? What kind of harm could be caused by using it as the central principle of morality? What I meant is that, when someone uses empathy, then they treat other people well not because they are afraid of consequences, but simply because they see it as the right thing to do.

 

[JonF]

Empathy is based on desire and compassion; the problem with this is you still need to form secondary judgments. Let me purpose the hypothetical to you:

Suppose there is a mentally insane single parent with a 6-year-old child, both of whom love each other dearly.

Do you show empathy to the child and let them live with their parent because the child loves the parent?
Do you show empathy to the child and remove the custody of the child for “it’s own good”
Do you show empathy to the parent and let them retain custody of the child?

Empathy alone can’t answer these moral questions, because empathy isn’t a good fundamental principle of ethics.

 

[*Starlight*]

I show empathy to both of them and, since they love each other, let them live together, but make sure the child has his or her needs taken care of. And maybe you're right that empathy alone isn't enough for ethics, but I think it should be the base of it.

 

[JonF]

I show empathy to both of them and, since they love each other, let them live together, but make sure the child has his or her needs taken care of. And maybe you're right that empathy alone isn't enough for ethics, but I think it should be the base of it.

But which empathy would guide your actions if you didn’t have the means to provide for both of them? I can obviously come up with situations where you have to select one empathy over the other. You need some other principle which guides empathy.

Then there are actions regardless of empathy that are morally wrong. To illustrate these we need to go to extremes, which might be uncomfortable.

What about a situation where in a culture it is considered beautiful to have the smallest feet possible. So rich girls bind their feet to the point of where they can’t walk to minimize their foot size. They are perfectly fine with this because they have servants to push, carry, and take care of them – this is something they desire. You can’t appeal to empathy here to say it’s wrong because they are fulfilling their desires, and they are “being treated well” by their cultures standards.

What about cultures where it is perfectly acceptable to sell 8 year old girls for marriage to wealthy families? The girls have accepted this as their fate since a young age; it’s to their benefit because it’s how they enter a good household in their culture. Empathy again here fails, this is what the little girl wants because she doesn’t know anything else, and in her culture this is the best possible thing that can happen to her.

 

[*Starlight*]

Well, I don't believe that morality is relative to the culture... But the idea of empathy only works if that empathy is equal towards different people... if it's not equal, then it ruins everything. Even if the little girl doesn't know that her life could be better than that, she still should be helped escape such a fate, because it's objectively true that her life could be much better. She simply isn't aware of that.

 

[JonF]

Well, I don't believe that morality is relative to the culture... But the idea of empathy only works if that empathy is equal towards different people... if it's not equal, then it ruins everything. Even if the little girl doesn't know that her life could be better than that, she still should be helped escape such a fate, because it's objectively true that her life could be much better. She simply isn't aware of that.

But empathy is compassion for other people’s desires, emotions, and feelings. It isn’t the maximization of their well-being. That is called “utilitarianism”

 

[*Starlight*]

But empathy is compassion for other people’s desires, emotions, and feelings. It isn’t the maximization of their well-being. That is called “utilitarianism”

Yes... that's also a good thing. As I said, empathy alone isn't enough, but it should be the base... utilitarianism without empathy for everyone wouldn't be good.