How does one decide right vs wrong?

[Kelvin]

<font color=blue>It wasn't until I got away from some Christians that I discovered Christ. </font color=blue>

Sounds like we've had similiar experiences.

<font color=blue>Hope this ain't threadjacking - I just wanted to respond to you from my heart. </font color=blue>

I don't know who this comment was aimed at, but if it is me (the originator of this post), I welcome your comments. In my opinion, it fits in well.

Kelvin

 

[BigDave]

Someone once told me that you should only talk religion, money, or politics with only your closest and most trusted friends, and hope they remain so after they know the real truth of what's going on in your head. Since we are all friends, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Consider this possibly misquoted statement: All religions are true, else none are.

My interpretation is that if you agree with the positive or the negative then you a prime candidate for thinking in absolutes. If you agree with the positive, then the Christians, Jewish, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, and even Satanist, are all correct. If you agree with the negative portion of the statement, then there is no room for a supreme being. There is no room for the unkown: logic, equations, you ackowledge only what you see.

I propose that if you are in either of these groups, then you think in absolutes, and absolute ethics might be a part of your life. If you are part of the large majority of the world who doesn't agree with the statement above, then I propose that you may not think in absolutes. That's not to say you don't believe strongly in your beliefs, there's been plenty of wars over people's beliefs. I'm not trying to discard anyone's beliefs, they all are founded on some fundamental truths.

Where do I stand? I believe the statement is true, BOTH the positive and negative aspects. Notice, I didn't give that option above, it's too hard to explain. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif Do I believe in absolutes; Absolutely, and many things in between. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[Kelvin]

<font color=blue>Isn't this right and wrong/ethics/absolutes thread really just a politely shielded way of argueing about whether god exists or not? </font color=blue>

Yes. And no.

Since I knew before-hand that there would be some non-believers that would be contributing to this thread (very actively, I might add), I really wanted to get a perspective of how those that didn't look to God for guidance differentiated right from wrong.

It would be almost impossible to discuss this topic without embedded discussions on whether or not God exists. Only if this thread is still active during the Second Coming of Christ will the "Does God exist or not" question come to an end.

Kelvin

 

[Kelvin]

<font color=blue>I believe that god is us and we are god. </font color=blue>

I think that most Christians will politely refuse to call themselves a god, which would be offensive to their God.

<font color=blue>Both points of view incorporate goodness, decency and nobility. Both are beautiful. Both work.</font color=blue>

I believe that Christians prefer statements like "God is in me" or "Jesus is in my heart", which means that they incorporate goodness, decency and nobility into their lives (or at least should...some don't).

Kelvin

 

[Kelvin]

<font color=blue>Someone once told me that you should only talk religion, money, or politics with only your closest and most trusted friends</font color=blue>

I've heard that one a few times, as well. And I used to abide by it until someone pointed out that Satan was most likely the one that started the saying...

Kelvin

 

[karmakanic]

<font color=blue>Fortunately, mankind has more "good" apples than "bad" ones.</font color=blue>

That's my conclusion also Kelvin. But I don't believe we need a supreme being or a book proscribing some absolute rules of conduct to make us "more good apples than bad apples". It's in our nature. In fact, it's in spite of absolute beliefs that we're good, not because of it. You have to admit, the belief in an absolute rightness has motivated some pretty horrific actions by men against other men, some very recently.

If you say the "evil doers" absolute beliefs were wrong, but your's are right, well,,, that won't wash, since your particular view is a minority when you consider the whole of mankind.

As I said earlier, if you're going to turn over the hard decisions we all face as men to some absolute set of rules, then you have to be very careful who's going to be the messengers. Personally, I rather decide for myself. And if I'm inheritly good, then I'm capable of making that decision.

Dave

 

[WVBill]

You are all much more eloquent and learned than I am so please address these questions:

If an omnipotent and omnicient, creator-of-all god exists, and that god established what is right, and by default what is wrong then how could something created by this god violate those "rules"?

If you answer is: "God's creation is imperfect.", then please answer this: Why did god create something imperfect?

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>If you feel that they don't exist (which I suspect will be your stand, but I don't know), then I don't see much point is discussing the items that should be on the list. Rather, we can discuss issues like "What basis do you use to decide that rape, murder, adultry, homosexuality, stealing, lying, etc. are wrong, IF they are?"</font color=blue> <font color=red>The bible shouldn't even have to enter that particular discussion.</font color=red>

Now we're getting down to the way the subject should be discussed. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif After all there is only one, yup, just one, no other, that's it, uno, absolute in the Bible. And it ain't any of the crimes against humanity that you've mentioned. The only absolute crime against nature in the Bible is to deny God his due. God the father always got his skirt all in a knot and used it as a weapon when denied his kudos. Jesus the son didn't handle rejection much better.

 

[Egon]

""Why did god create something imperfect? ""

So he had some place to put all the excess hair he had on hand. Us'n with bald pates he figured passed inspection.

Egon

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>I'd like to hear you take on whether absolutes exist or not. </font color=blue>

Since you asked/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif.................

I don't believe in absolutes absolutely.

In fact if you want to really get your blood pressure up I'll escalate the subject a degree or two and say that I don't believe in evil like our President does.

Since I don't have a god to lean on for guidance about what I should and should not do I have had to shore up my moral code by using logic.

Logic has told me that my barometer for good versus bad might be best gauged by the consideration of this question. Is there a predator and is there a victim?

<font color=blue>"What basis do you use to decide that rape, murder, adultry, homosexuality, stealing, lying, etc. are wrong, IF they are?" </font color=blue>

Rape? not a good thing, there is a victim and there is a predator, definately in the wrong category.

Murder? again, a wrong because there's definately a victim and a predator.

Adultery? the same can be said, victims and predators.

Homosexuality? not so easy here. It's just the sex that offends people. If there is no victim and no predator then my criteria says it's just a relationship, different and not one I'd choose but then I have bud's who seem to be perfectly happy with women that I wouldn't touch with yours much less mine. And my attitude towards my bud's choice has to be the same as the one I have towards the homosexual's choice, not mine thank God.

Stealing? easy, victim and predator, not a good thing.

Lying? the quandry I have on lying is that so much of the time the victim is the one doing it while the predator is the same person. So lying to hurt someone or take advantage I'd have to put in the wrong category using the predator victim criteria. Of course embellishment or just outright story telling for personal gain has to go into the category we'd put having cosmetic surgery or getting tattoos. Foolishness????/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Of course my system isn't perfect. It's just simple. If there's a victim then chances are there's a wrong.

Things like prostitution are difficult to judge. If we have two equal predators then how do we gauge the wrong in the interaction?

Of course my system does take some crimes and eliminate the grey area. Predation on children is obviously a no no and the predator victim rationale clears the age thing real quick. If one party is obviously taking advantage of the other because of maturity then there's a crime.

I hope this helps you out Kelvin with understanding how a person without a god can be a good moral person.