What is the right path

[BelieveWhatJesusSaid]

Is not the right path the path which causes the least pain to others, and causes the most happiness to others? If so, should that not be a law, if it is so important? Is it not already a law, God's law, to love one another as yourself? Is the field of ethics still trying to figure out the definition of the word Holy?

thanks in advance

 

[David Gould]

Is not the right path the path which causes the least pain to others, and causes the most happiness to others? If so, should that not be a law, if it is so important? Is it not already a law, God's law, to love one another as yourself? Is the field of ethics still trying to figure out the definition of the word Holy?

thanks in advance

Exactly how would you put that incredible generalisation into law?

'Least pain' and 'most happiness' are subjective things. In other words, what causes me the 'least pain' and the 'most happiness' may be different from what causes you the same.

Me sitting here working (or avoiding work, as the case may be) is not the action that is going to generate the most happiness and least pain in the world. But how, precisely, do I determine what particular action will? And do I measure that pain and pleasure it causes now, or tommorrow, or in 10 year's time?

It can certainly be a principle from which we can try to derive laws, but it cannot be a law in itself.

 

[BelieveWhatJesusSaid]

Isn't it less of a generalization and more of a template?

 

[David Gould]

Isn't it less of a generalization and more of a template?

I think it is a general principle that needs to be turned into laws for specific instances. That may be considered a template, yes.

I also think that it is not an easy template to fit a law into. After all, if I tax you, I make you very unhappy. But that taxation goes to build a road, which makes other people very slightly happy.

 

[Emmy]

Dear BelieveWhatJesusSaid, you described the right path, for those who want to follow Jesus, it is the right path for us. Many, many Christian men and women, who are on this path, could, and would testify that it is the right path, but sadly " the world is not ready yet, to believe this. Perhaps in time, the right path will be will be chosen, because to love selflessly, will become beyond dispute, or undisputably, the surest path to life abundantly. I say this humbly and kindly, BelieveWhatJesusSaid. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[elman]

Exactly how would you put that incredible generalisation into law?

'Least pain' and 'most happiness' are subjective things. In other words, what causes me the 'least pain' and the 'most happiness' may be different from what causes you the same.

Me sitting here working (or avoiding work, as the case may be) is not the action that is going to generate the most happiness and least pain in the world. But how, precisely, do I determine what particular action will? And do I measure that pain and pleasure it causes now, or tommorrow, or in 10 year's time?

It can certainly be a principle from which we can try to derive laws, but it cannot be a law in itself.

Love your neighbor presuposes you use wisdom. No wisdom, no love.

 

[BelieveWhatJesusSaid]

> I also think that it is not an easy template to fit a law into.

if its easy, was it worth it?

 

[David Gould]

Love your neighbor presuposes you use wisdom. No wisdom, no love.

I think that some of the issues are not solvable. In other words, we can never gather enough information to know whether decision X will cause more happiness than decision Y. We just have to do the best we can, and in many cases that will mean not following this principle but using others, such as: 'As long as you are not harming anyone, what you do is legal.' This ignores the issue of whether what someone is doing is making themselves or others happy.

 

[David Gould]

> I also think that it is not an easy template to fit a law into.

if its easy, was it worth it?

Worth what? I would much rather have guidelines that we can actually apply than ideals that we cannot. This is not to say that 'love they neighbour as yourself' cannot be applied in some circumstances. But in some circumstances, it is too difficult.

 

[mikenet2006]

I dont believe there would ever, ever, be a such thing as a wright or wrong decision in the eyes of any god, period. Especially when you consider the supposed consequence of the quote on quote "sinfull lifestyle choices"

Thats why I dont believe in the christian way anymore. Or in any religion based on the bible. Its guidelines suggest a god of judgement and wrath for certian lifestyles and life choices.

Ill leave that idea for the nearsighted to get confused over.

Are there good and bad choices that can lead to happiness or sadness?? Absolutly.

As a result of this should there be guidelines and even punishment for bad lifestyle choices?? Id think so, as long as the punishment is within reason.

Are there right and wrong choices that could ever make you unworthy of gods love and eternal protection?

Absolutly not, Never, and in no way can anything we do here be that sinfull.

I could be wrong but you know what? If I am, and my day of judgement comes, as I stand before god I could very well be the first to interupt him only to tell him that id rather not share eternity with a monster that ditched over half of his own human creation for mistakes made while they were mortal.

Perhaps you dont see god as an actuall conscienceness
at all. Thats cool, but there is still no hell, or special treatment as a result of the way we live here. I wish there were more who understood this but unfortuanaly there arent many.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Is not the right path the path which causes the least pain to others, and causes the most happiness to others? If so, should that not be a law, if it is so important? Is it not already a law, God's law, to love one another as yourself? Is the field of ethics still trying to figure out the definition of the word Holy?

thanks in advance

"BelieveWhatJesusSaid" - Shouldn't that be "UnderstandWhatJesusSaid" before you jump into believing?

The problem that you have addressed is only that people have accepted many different understandings of what is being said to do. I'm a little curious as to what your definiton of "Holy" is.

Can you define it without using any other word that is equally misunderstood?

I could propose a defintion, but how would you know that mine is the same as the one intended by the scriptural authors?

Without an attempt to truly understand BEFORE you accept belief, then there is no escape from the eternal dilima of conflict.

 

[BelieveWhatJesusSaid]

i also have another related thread i'd like your opinions on here if you dont mind.
http://www.christianforums.com/t312...made-a-world-would-you-allow-evil-or-not.html

 

[dlamberth]

Is not the right path the path which causes the least pain to others, and causes the most happiness to others? If so, should that not be a law, if it is so important? Is it not already a law, God's law, to love one another as yourself? Is the field of ethics still trying to figure out the definition of the word Holy?

thanks in advance

These are things of the heart. You can not put the heart under any law.

.

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

i also have another related thread i'd like your opinions on here if you dont mind.
http://www.christianforums.com/t3121137-moved-from-outreach-if-you-made-a-world-would-you-allow-evil-or-not.html

I refuse to read anything on the General Apologetics section til I have 100 posts.

And to whoever moved it please in the future write "This thread has been moved to General Apologetics where both Christians and Non-Christians with over 100 posts can debate this question." I'm not bitter but there it is. Thanks.

(only 59 more to go!)

 

[quatona]

Is not the right path the path which causes the least pain to others, and causes the most happiness to others?

Sounds good, but pretty unspecific, if you ask me. In particular it doesn´t seem to solve the problems
1. that our reality is neither monocausal nor monoeffective
2. that the overall amount of happiness or pain an action causes is - for several reason - not predictable
3. that in most every case adding to someone´s happiness adds to someone else´s pain.

If so, should that not be a law, if it is so important?

Due to being unspecific, highly interpretable and actually adressing merely intentions (which cannot objectively be discerned except by the person itself), it would be a pretty unuseful law.
Maybe it would be a good idea for a preambulum - these are often unspecific appeals to good will.

Is it not already a law, God's law, to love one another as yourself?

I don´t believe in gods, so this question is not for me.

Is the field of ethics still trying to figure out the definition of the word Holy?

It´s not like words have always existed and it´s our job to figure out their meaning. We define the meaning of words. They are our tools. When using words we try to verbalize concepts. Unfortunately the concepts that any two persons use the same term for are never exactly congruent. I personally don´t hold any concept that I would need the term "holy" for. If for you it represents a concept, it might be a good idea to explain what it means to you.

thanks in advance

You´re welcome.