Age Old Debate: Right and Wrong

[wanderphilos]

Sounds like you're neglecting the possibility that someone can both know what is right and not do it. If you think this is not possible, you're going to have to say why you think so. "Because Socrates thought so," is not an answer.

Yes I admit that it is possible to 'know' that something it wrong and still do it. Usually there is a consequence for this...we know it as 'guilt'. Ofcourse guilt is the by product of 'wrong action'. So we know that there are consequences for wrong action. BUT...if the action is free of guilt ... it can only be because of ignorance, innocence, or indifference. Indifference being the most dangerous because then you are dealing with an individual who is robotic...who does an action without remorse or conscience.

 

[The Nihilist]

Everyone has access to it. 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20
This doesn't change the fact that people know what's right and wrong.
if that's what you want to believe

You must be joking. First, throwing the book of Romans at me does no good because it is not obvious that it has any authority. You must first establish Biblical authority without citing the Bible.
Moreover, Paul seems to be saying that the existence of God is obvious in the world around us. That may have worked well in ancient Rome, but that sort of "I don't understand, therefore God" methodology just doesn't fly today.
You've also misunderstood what I said. The reason I said Christians have differing opinions on right and wrong is to show that even among those who are most earnest in following what they believe are God's rules, those rules are not so clearly outlined that they always know what to do. That is to say, that even if the Bible is literally true, then it still doesn't teach us what is right and wrong all the time.
To add to that confusion, Jesus commands that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that helping others has the tendency to infantilize them, while letting them suffer through their own problems helps them grow stronger. Your opinion may be different, but if someone with your opinion tried to help someone with my opinion, it would be taken as an insult rather than an act of kindness.

 

[TricksterWolf]

This doesn't change the fact that people know what's right and wrong.

Of course it does! If people don't agree on what right and wrong are, then people are not collectively aware of a universal standard.

Trickster

 

[quatona]

I have stated this before so we will see if any understand it. Right and Wrong are subjective to the nature of the individual doing the action. Why? If God kills all the first born of Pharoah...it is right and it is good. If the Jews kill Jesus...it is right and it is good. If a person is raped...it is wrong...but to the person doing the raping...they believe they are doing the right thing.

Not necessarily.

If a person steals...it is wrong...but to the person doing the stealing...they are doing the right thing...or else they wouldn't do it...or be compelled to.

I know quite a couple of things that have done which I didn´t regard the right thing to do. I either simply didn´t think about it, or it was, at that time, the only way for me to act, due to the feeling of helplessness or frustration. Spontaneous actions, actions out of helplessness, actions because one is, at that time and feeling under pressure to act, not aware of other options.

 

[RavenPoe]

Are you serious? You really seriously think Jesus died on the cross so you could do 41 in a 40 mph zone and still go to heaven? Heaven doesn't sound like any fun at all if you have to live there with a God who is as obsessive about little stuff as you seem to think he is.
More to the point, though, I don't think all those other Christians who speed just a little bit are willing to agree with you. While it is technically true that the speed limit in a 40 mph zone is 40, it's really not practically true, because no one is going to pull you over for exceeding that a little bit. Practically, the limit is more like 50 or 55. This is the way that speed limits are generally understood and accepted by both those under the law and those who enforce the law, and I think you're going to have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Firstly - with all respect - thanx for the laugh by the wording on your first statement. That's a keeper. I guess with speeding it's a "socially acceptable wrong". We all do it, and almost never get pulled over for it. However, if an officer wants to pull me over because he's having a bad day and does't like my bumper sticker, he can use it as a reason to do so, and if he tickets me I have to pay it because by the letter of the law I was doing soething wrong.

 

[The Nihilist]

Really? Because I think a judge is usually going to throw that out and tell the officer not to waste the court's time.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Really? Because I think a judge is usually going to throw that out and tell the officer not to waste the court's time.

But Jesus won't! He's like Officer Short Shrift from the Phantom Tollbooth, I guess (from what I'm reading here). "Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty!"

Trickster

 

[RavenPoe]

I don't think a judge would throw it out.

Now make it so that you have to pay more but get less points on your license, yes. At least that's the way it works in my state. If you take a ticket to court you can talk it down to a lesser charge but then the court can set any fee it sees fit - plus court costs.

 

[Robinsegg]

But Jesus won't! He's like Officer Short Shrift from the Phantom Tollbooth, I guess (from what I'm reading here). "Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty!"

Trickster

It's not so much that Jesus is proclaiming everyone guilty (like the insane character you quote) as much as it is that we proclaim ourselves guilty with so many actions and words every day. Jesus says "You don't have to be guilty anymore. You can give that burden to me and be free of it forever. I can handle it, so I'd be happy to help you."
Jesus is the one who pleads on our behalf to God the Father (the judge) once we've accepted Christs' offer. Jesus is the only one God will listen to, because it is only through Christs' righteousness that we're elligible for Heaven.
BTW, Satan is the one saying "guilty, guilty, guilty". That's his function, the Accuser.

Rachel

 

[WilliamSC]

The objective right and wrong are verifiable through the laws of Nature. The principles of right and wrong are similar among all cultures, which shows there is a universal standard that exists outside of ideologies, and that standard is based upon the logical reasoning of the observed laws of Nature/Creation.

The use of Biblical laws (such as the ten commandments) give examples of what is logical relative to the laws of Nature/Creation. The Laws of God / Laws of Nature are the verifiable standard of what is right and wrong. God’s standard of right and wrong is not hidden in any book or religion, but rather is made open and visible to everyone on earth. It is each individual’s choice of whether to look or not.

‘Subjective’ right and wrong are the willful choices of an individual twisting his/her logic to conform to the preference of achieving negative personal physical desires (deceit, greed, selfishness, etc.).

 

[ChildOfGod15]

I have stated this before so we will see if any understand it. Right and Wrong are subjective to the nature of the individual doing the action. Why? If God kills all the first born of Pharoah...it is right and it is good. If the Jews kill Jesus...it is right and it is good. If a person is raped...it is wrong...but to the person doing the raping...they believe they are doing the right thing. If a person steals...it is wrong...but to the person doing the stealing...they are doing the right thing...or else they wouldn't do it...or be compelled to. Thus making the individual doing 'wrong' doing 'right' by way of the nature they have adopted.

Yes.

This is just like the subject of truth. To one person, the existence of God may be the truth, yet to another God is as nonexistent as fairies and unicorns. To a young child, the existence of the tooth fairy and santa clause may be the truth, but this does not make it reality. Truth is not an opinion and reality is not a perspective. In the end there is only one truth and only one reality.

This may sound utterly ridiculous, but my teacher uses examples such as this all the time : A boy can sit on the roof of a barn all day and contemplate the idea of flying. He can tell himself over and over again that he can fly if he puts his mind to it, but once he steps off the edge of the roof, he will fall - most likely breaking several bones in the process.

I will try to put this as delicately and politely as possible... :o It is my belief that the truth that has been revealed to me is this : A man can tell himself over and over again that God is nonexistent, but once he dies, if he does not believe in Jesus Christ and that He died for the sins of man in order for us to gain salvation, he will most certainly find that Hell is existent.

If you do not believe, please do not feel that I am condemning you because this was not my intent.

 

[quatona]

Yes.

This is just like the subject of truth. To one person, the existence of God may be the truth, yet to another God is as nonexistent as fairies and unicorns. To a young child, the existence of the tooth fairy and santa clause may be the truth, but this does not make it reality. Truth is not an opinion and reality is not a perspective. In the end there is only one truth and only one reality.

This may sound utterly ridiculous, but my teacher uses examples such as this all the time : A boy can sit on the roof of a barn all day and contemplate the idea of flying. He can tell himself over and over again that he can fly if he puts his mind to it, but once he steps off the edge of the roof, he will fall - most likely breaking several bones in the process.

I will try to put this as delicately and politely as possible... :o It is my belief that the truth that has been revealed to me is this : A man can tell himself over and over again that God is nonexistent, but once he dies, if he does not believe in Jesus Christ and that He died for the sins of man in order for us to gain salvation, he will most certainly find that Hell is existent.

If you do not believe, please do not feel that I am condemning you because this was not my intent.

No problem, we get those hell warnings by the dozen here.
What, however, makes your post unconvincing is that you start by talking about the differences between subjective and objective reality and truth, and then simply present your subjective reality and truth as if you had any reason (and we should, too) to consider it objective.
"It is my belief that the truth is..." and "It is my belief..." say exactly the same.

 

[The Nihilist]

Robinsegg, you missed the point. We were all making fun of the way that Christian theology seems to be so obsessed with the idea that God will send us to hell for even the smallest of infractions. This is a concept of justice that it completely untenable, and seems to accomplish little than making a neurosis out of a religion.

Now, WiliamSC, as for you, in what way can you possibly imagine that nature verifies right and wrong? This idea was pretty much finished off by Hume and Kant two hundred years ago, so you don't hear a lot about it now. Nature just is what it is; nothing in it counts as a moral judgment. I may feel bad after killing someone, but nature is certainly going to let me do it. If you think you can give a real argument for your position, though, let's hear it.

 

[Robinsegg]

Robinsegg, you missed the point. We were all making fun of the way that Christian theology seems to be so obsessed with the idea that God will send us to hell for even the smallest of infractions. This is a concept of justice that it completely untenable, and seems to accomplish little than making a neurosis out of a religion.

I had an idea that was the case. However, I wanted to make sure that anyone who might have had that idea came away with the notion that most Christians didn't believe it.

It's not that God sends us to Hell for the slightest of infractions: It has much more to do with heart issues and belief and the "sin nature" (the natural propensity of man to sin, even as an infant). The fact that we are sinful creatures means that we are separated from God. Whatever Hell is, it is definitely separation from God for all eternity (and all the goodness God created for us to enjoy). It won't be pleasant, though there is debate over the nature of Hell itself.

Why would God want to force you to be friends with Him when you don't want to be? He simply allows you to choose Him in life or choose against Him in life (including simple unbelief w/o asking for help) and then accepts that descision after death. I can't imagine why anyone who is choosing not to be friends with God is complaining that they can't be friends with God after they die.

Rachel

 

[quatona]

Why would God want to force you to be friends with Him when you don't want to be? He simply allows you to choose Him in life or choose against Him in life (including simple unbelief w/o asking for help) and then accepts that descision after death. I can't imagine why anyone who is choosing not to be friends with God is complaining that they can't be friends with God after they die.

This sounds so nice, but unfortunately it omits some important points and differences.
1. "Choose not to be friends with" sounds like we know a person and then decide we don´t want to be friends with him. What we are supposed to make is a largely uneducated choice: we just have hearsay about this god´s existence, and very contradicting hearsay about his characteristics at that.
If your god really had this strong desire to be friends with us, one would expect that he introduced himself to everyone in a way that at least gives her the evidence he requires for recognizing her existence and characteristics, and then there would be the ground for making an educated choice whether to be friends with him or not.
I must conclude that the actual point can´t be "friendship".
I´m not sure you would agree to the statement that you choose not to be friends with, say, Zeus and therefore choose to be in his absence forever. It´s more like you just don´t believe that Zeus exists, no?
2. "Friends" is the wrong word, anyways. This would not be a peer-to-peer relationship. It would be the relationship of a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing creator entity with his creatures. It would be asymetrical as can be, in that we would be completely dependent on that god. "I set up the rules, and you can follow them or not and will have to face the consequences I have determined for each case" is not the basis of friendship as I know it.

 

[wanderphilos]

This sounds so nice, but unfortunately it omits some important points and differences.
1. "Choose not to be friends with" sounds like we know a person and then decide we don´t want to be friends with him. What we are supposed to make is a largely uneducated choice: we just have hearsay about this god´s existence, and very contradicting hearsay about his characteristics at that.
If your god really had this strong desire to be friends with us, one would expect that he introduced himself to everyone in a way that at least gives her the evidence he requires for recognizing her existence and characteristics, and then there would be the ground for making an educated choice whether to be friends with him or not.
I must conclude that the actual point can´t be "friendship".
I´m not sure you would agree to the statement that you choose not to be friends with, say, Zeus and therefore choose to be in his absence forever. It´s more like you just don´t believe that Zeus exists, no?
2. "Friends" is the wrong word, anyways. This would not be a peer-to-peer relationship. It would be the relationship of a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing creator entity with his creatures. It would be asymetrical as can be, in that we would be completely dependent on that god. "I set up the rules, and you can follow them or not and will have to face the consequences I have determined for each case" is not the basis of friendship as I know it.

John 15 9-15
9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.

God wants us to be His friend. He only tells us that which we need to know to bring about happiness in our lives. You may find that you don't believe in who said it...but it is difficult for most to disagree with the morallity of what was said. Unless you can tell me you don't see anything wrong with someone stealing from you, or your wife cheating on you, or someone lying about you, or being jealous of you...et cetera...then you have to give into the wisdom of the teaching. God knows those who love Him...you probably Love God's edicts...for they are timeless...but you may not love the image of God that people display. Which is why God demanded that no image of Him be created. But it is often ignored. Q...a friend is someone who trust you...and you can trust them...if they is no trust there can be no love or friendship. God loves us enough to tell us what is necessary to stay in His love.

 

[Robinsegg]

This sounds so nice, but unfortunately it omits some important points and differences.
1. "Choose not to be friends with" sounds like we know a person and then decide we don´t want to be friends with him. What we are supposed to make is a largely uneducated choice: we just have hearsay about this god´s existence, and very contradicting hearsay about his characteristics at that.
If your god really had this strong desire to be friends with us, one would expect that he introduced himself to everyone in a way that at least gives her the evidence he requires for recognizing her existence and characteristics, and then there would be the ground for making an educated choice whether to be friends with him or not.
I must conclude that the actual point can´t be "friendship".

God wants a relationship with us. He reveals Himself to us, if we ask Him, but doesn't push us or force us to ask or to accept Him. His desire was strong enough that He sent His Son to die an horrible death for us (and live 33 years of life on this earth, too).

I´m not sure you would agree to the statement that you choose not to be friends with, say, Zeus and therefore choose to be in his absence forever. It´s more like you just don´t believe that Zeus exists, no?

Actually, I believe there probably was someone named Zeus. It may have been some kind of early king about whom stories were greatly embellished, or it may have been a demon come to confuse the Greeks. Either way, a Zeus would have existed. I do choose not to be friends with him (esp. if he's a demon).

2. "Friends" is the wrong word, anyways. This would not be a peer-to-peer relationship. It would be the relationship of a hypothetical all-powerful, all-knowing creator entity with his creatures. It would be asymetrical as can be, in that we would be completely dependent on that god. "I set up the rules, and you can follow them or not and will have to face the consequences I have determined for each case" is not the basis of friendship as I know it.

Have you never been friends with a boss at work, a teacher at school, or someone with similar authority over you? I have (I spent most of my time in school with teachers, who were my best friends). While it may have been somewhat assymetrical in nature, those relationships were friendships, nonetheless.
God wants to be our friend, our daddy, and much, much more. I could go through many of these things . . . but to make an exhaustive list would take too much space.

Rachel

 

[quatona]

God wants a relationship with us. He reveals Himself to us, if we ask Him, but doesn't push us or force us to ask or to accept Him. His desire was strong enough that He sent His Son to die an horrible death for us (and live 33 years of life on this earth, too).

Same here, too. I invite god to be my friend, too. I don´t push him or force him to ask or accept me. With the difference that -should he exist - he knows where to find me, and knows everything about me, anyways. He is my creator, after all.

Have you never been friends with a boss at work, a teacher at school, or someone with similar authority over you? I have (I spent most of my time in school with teachers, who were my best friends). While it may have been somewhat assymetrical in nature, those relationships were friendships, nonetheless.

Yes, I have such relationships. Yet, these people are not my creators, but have to deal with the same conditions they have created. Plus, my friendship with them has nothing to do with our professional relationship. They don´t make their friendship depending on my attitude while at work. Independent, seperate things.

God wants to be our friend, our daddy, and much, much more. I could go through many of these things . . . but to make an exhaustive list would take too much space.

If he desires it so much, I would recommend him to provide the most basic requirement: Making himself known to me. Everything else are second, third and fourth steps.

 

[quatona]

God wants us to be His friend.

See my previous post to Rachel.

He only tells us that which we need to know to bring about happiness in our lives. You may find that you don't believe in who said it...but it is difficult for most to disagree with the morallity of what was said.

Those things your god agrees with me upon are basically common sense.

Unless you can tell me you don't see anything wrong with someone stealing from you, or your wife cheating on you, or someone lying about you, or being jealous of you...

I don´t see anything wrong with it. I don´t like these things, that´s all.

...then you have to give into the wisdom of the teaching.

Now, what are we talking about: Being friends with someone or giving into the wisdom of someone?

God knows those who love Him...you probably Love God's edicts...for they are timeless...but you may not love the image of God that people display.

Then there seems to be no problem. All I perceive are human claims about their god ideas, and I don´t believe them.
If I indeed love god´s edicts - as you assume - then everything is fine and dandy between god and me.

Which is why God demanded that no image of Him be created. But it is often ignored. Q...a friend is someone who trust you...and you can trust them...if they is no trust there can be no love or friendship. God loves us enough to tell us what is necessary to stay in His love.

And I tell him what is necessary to even only entertain some sort of relationship and develop trust and all that: Making himself known to me. If he indeed wants to be my friend (and not just play some absurd hide and seek with me) this ought to be understandable. He knows me too, after all.

 

[RavenPoe]

You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

I do not call my friends one who demands I follow their commands in order to remain friends. In a human I would call them a control freak.