Comments on: Right and wrong

By: Jean

Jean — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:36:57 +0000

My post of 9 July was a real conversation-stopper, yes????

By: Jean

Jean — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:11:21 +0000

Jesus showed that following Biblical “law” was not always “right” in God’s eyes, e.g. so-called honoring of sabbath. Bible-based christians, as Judah refers to, seem to forget that Jesus actually established LOVE as moral perfection. And love means seeing the beauty of others, not their sins, just as God does for me! Somebody has to “pay the price” for this reconciliation of judgment and love and it is the one who loves! That is why Jesus tells us to take up our cross and to lay down our lives! I think christians who think they “have a right to point out Biblical truth and to judge (or alert to God’s judgment of)” are confused in thinking their “code” is God’s truth just as the Pharisees were confused about their code of conduct being God’s eternal truth. Loving, always focusing on right relationship with others and God, is the supreme moral truth. Madpriest, gay people can be just as good at loving as are straight people. God is glorified by committed, loving gay people just as He is glorified by loving, committed relationships of straight people . Love is the moral pinnacle.

By: Judah

Judah — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:37:19 +0000

A Bible-based response is that Christians do have a right to point out Biblical truth and to judge (or alert to God’s judgement of) those within the Church who call themselves Christian, but as Christians we have no business judging and condemning people outside (1 Corinthians 5:12) which is something reserved for God alone.
Therefore we ought to tolerate those outside the Church, although we shouldn’t stop trying to light up the truth to such people.
Our main concern should be with Christ’s two commandments to love God and others over that of moral perfection, and criticising (or condemning) anyone and everyone who does wrong shows a lack of one’s fulfilling these commandments.
If we as Christians criticise and condemn, then Scripture seems quite clear we can expect the same from God.

By: angeli cara

angeli cara — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:46:31 +0000

my basis for determining right and wrong are:
1. values in which i was raised (many of them chucked)
2. bible
3. church
4. me and God

consensus becomes a numbers game in the summation of all the above. although in the endgame no. 4 takes precedence over all, influenced by previous three.

By: Nefertiki

Nefertiki — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:40:23 +0000

Cathryn: You have given some good examples of behavior, all of which is “wrong” or anti-social, but only some of it is definitively criminal. Some of it is in a gray zone and society is still having trouble deciding how to deal with it, such as racism. In those cases we’d have to learn the context of the act etc. While drinking milk straight out of the bottle may cause people to treat one like a criminal, only playing loud music after 11 PM (in most parts of the U.S.) gives you the right to call the police, and rest assured they will arrive promptly to deal with the evil-doers.

Some behavior must be regulated by the conscience and good manners of individuals. While It would be nice to be able to call the police for every irritating act of others, but we can’t criminalize everything that is annoying. Some people, mostly the young I think, like to respond defiantly to requests to stop their annoying behavior in public with “it’s a free country and I can do what I want!” But democracy entails self-restraint.

By: Cathryn

Cathryn — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:11:53 +0000

I once discussed right and wrong with a youth group. I asked them to think of a variety of wrong deeds which I would then ask them to put in order of “wrongness”. They came up with murder, racism, torture, fraud and two-timing your girlfriend, whilst I was thinking along the lines of drinking milk straight out of the bottle and playing loud music. We can choose to avoid murder and torture etc. as the obvious wrong deeds, but is drinking milk straight from the bottle wrong? I am undecided.

By: MadPriest

MadPriest — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:55:14 +0000

Nefertiki
Life is complex. Most of the decisions we make in life could lead to somebody being hurt. We usually have to choose the lesser of two evils. As we live in a world that is not fully the kingdom of God it is very difficult not to sin. My definition does not offer an escape from this it merely gives us a more rational framework to base our decisions on than “you can’t do that because it says you can’t in some old book;” (but I’m not saying that that old book can’t give us clues as to how to make our moral decisions).

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:17:46 +0000

I find myself in sympathy with a Quaker position on this and many other issues. I no longer believe in ordination. Having many splendid vicars (many of my best friends are ordained) I don’t understand any more. If I drew pictures to explain how I felt I too would be confused. I have taken refuge in the emerging church where Jesus positively hands out pencils to the undeserving. “Come to me all who all who are heavy leaden”. Mercy for many, justice for few.

By: Nefertiki

Nefertiki — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:32:03 +0000

MadPriest, I am probably misinterpreting something you wrote and please let me know if I have. “Something is wrong if it hurts somebody or there is a very good chance it might hurt somebody” bothered me a bit. People are often deterred from reporting a crime because they don’t want to hurt the perpetrator. But how is it wrong if they do? Even though they might love that person and suffer by reporting them?

Then again, people have a right to live the life they feel they were born to live, even if that hurts a parent, spouse, or adult child. Should a son or daughter join the military because it’s a family tradition and their family will be miserable if they don’t, when their passion is creating art? That’s the sort of thing I mean, not deserting a family to be a beachcomber in the South Seas, etc. (Does it count if that person paints better than Gauguin?) I do enjoy your comments and your wit. Dave has given us a tough nut to crack, but I think you have to crack a few nuts to make nut bread.

By: Nefertiki

Nefertiki — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:13:35 +0000

First all, over here we would probably say “walk a mile in his/her moccasins” rather than shoes. Then I’d admit that for the most part I see a difference in judging those matters which would normally not be handled in a court of law by a real judge. So in matters not touching illegality my guide would be “judge not that you be not judged” or something referring to a “higher court.” But I fear that I do judge, mostly in private. In cases of breaking the laws of the land I am pretty strict about obeying the law. I am not opposed to the death penalty in a few cases, mainly for economic reasons.

But differences in opinion as to religious, criminal, or civil law must be discussed in the appropriate venue — “change it don’t break it.” And definitely not broken in secret because they are “dumb or out-dated and will be changed some day” in the Vatican or Parliament or Congress or whatever authority you recognize, as some people have admitted they do.

Gosh, Dave, as an undisputed life-brightener you do keep challenging people to illuminate dimly lit areas for themselves. Turning us all into theologians in a way. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. It’s been said that relativism is the curse of our age and someone has to try to figure stuff out. (unless you belong to a sect or religion that has all the answers and you are willing to obey implicitly.) So, with a little help from a Friend and Guide, why not you, and she, and I …