Don't wanna make polemics or something but

[Kev-La]

People may have different opinions, but does that mean that they are all right?

In my opinion, no it does not.

If I believe that I will be given something, I can be either right or wrong and others may have opinions on whether or not I will get that same thing, but only one person can be correct.

For me, the "right", "wrong" and "correct" in the above statement are decided upon by a person or persons, who may themselves be called "right", "wrong" or "correct" by another person or persons. Which person or group is fundamentally right, wrong or correct? I do not know, and believe in the philosophical principle that no-one can be sure, though they might think they are.

Is every opinion valid?

I reckon so, yes.

Is every opinion right?

I work on the assumption that no opinion is right (if that's "right" meaning "right in the eyes of God" or "an ultimate, universal truth" or similar).

[Kev-La]

I personally find this the most interesting, Kev-La, you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?

To be precise, I believe I have no way of determining whether or not there are any absolute rights and wrongs, and so, in everyday life, I assume there are not any absolute rights and wrongs. However, if I am called upon to judge as to what I myself agree with or disagree with (eg. whether it would be right or wrong for me to do something), that is another matter.
In general, this kind of philosophical standpoint can seem to have little practical impact. However, I feel the importance of my own such standpoint every time I see an argument between people  boiling down to "You're wrong!", "No, you're wrong!", "NO! You're wrong!", "NO, I'M NOT! You're the one who is wrong!!!" etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[legolas3333]

...you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?

Such as? I don't think there is anything absolute in this world. It all pretty much depends on a given situation and perception of the given situation. While killing another person might be wrong in so many situations, it may be right in many others. "For the greater good" people like to say. You can now try to counter me with the fact that probably every "villain" that ever existed did bad things for the greater good and from their perception they did. You can't know if your perception of things is right or wrong until all is done and then it's too late.

From what I understand, you're saying that in any given moment, it is nigh impossible to make a claim that something is right or wrong, and in most cases I would agree, but in the future I would be able to say with certainty that Hitler's genocide of the jews was evil, and I would be correct in my claim?

I personally find this the most interesting, Kev-La, you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?

To be precise, I believe I have no way of determining whether or not there are any absolute rights and wrongs, and so, in everyday life, I assume there are not any absolute rights and wrongs. However, if I am called upon to judge as to what I myself agree with or disagree with (eg. whether it would be right or wrong for me to do something), that is another matter.
In general, this kind of philosophical standpoint can seem to have little practical impact. However, I feel the importance of my own such standpoint every time I see an argument between people  boiling down to "You're wrong!", "No, you're wrong!", "NO! You're wrong!", "NO, I'M NOT! You're the one who is wrong!!!" etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Ok I would agree that we live in the gray in our everyday lives, but I would still believe that there are absolute standards, for example would you agree that in all cases stealing is wrong? What about rape? Premeditated murder? I would hope that you would consider all of those wrong.



I'm not trying to argue with either of you per-se, I am just curious about your guys' worldviews.

[FM]

Ok I would agree that we live in the gray in our everyday lives, but I would still believe that there are absolute standards, for example would you agree that in all cases stealing is wrong? What about rape? Premeditated murder? I would hope that you would consider all of those wrong.

I'm not trying to argue with either of you per-se, I am just curious about your guys' worldviews.

Well, it's a culture thing, really. I can't EVER see rape as not-wrong, but some cultures do (it IS ok to force you chosen wife to have sex with you in some arab cultures, for instance), and even the women in such cultures do not think it's wrong. So yeah, I need their help in this one. However, both other ones I can see. I'd probably have taken a shot at Hitler, for instance, had I had the chance. And as for stealing, I have actually seen people stealing back in my school days, and I more than once "stole back" the item and put it back. Yes, it wasn't wrong, but it was still stealing by its very own definition, since I didn't have the authority to do that, and I did that in secrecy, without alerting the burglar, so I WAS "stealing" from him.

[FM]

...you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?

Such as? I don't think there is anything absolute in this world. It all pretty much depends on a given situation and perception of the given situation. While killing another person might be wrong in so many situations, it may be right in many others. "For the greater good" people like to say. You can now try to counter me with the fact that probably every "villain" that ever existed did bad things for the greater good and from their perception they did. You can't know if your perception of things is right or wrong until all is done and then it's too late.

From what I understand, you're saying that in any given moment, it is nigh impossible to make a claim that something is right or wrong, and in most cases I would agree, but in the future I would be able to say with certainty that Hitler's genocide of the jews was evil, and I would be correct in my claim?

History is written by the winning side. Hitle lost, but I'm pretty such you can find north-americans that STILL believe indian tribes were dire and they HAD to "defend themselves", thus killing them, back in the era of the gold rush. They "won", so it only stands to reason that the facts depict THEIR view of it. Had Hitler won, those affected by him would consider him evil, but the rest probably wouldn't until, say, 15-20 years ago? Which is when the world as a whole decided to grow a universal conscience about human rights? Yeah, probably so. My grandfather was a general back in the 60's, when Brasil was under a military-coup-installed-government, and he still thinks they did a great job and were, in fact, the best thing that ever happened to Brasil, despite the fact that the great majority of people disagree (specially AFTER they were removed from government, or "lost").

[hrcho]

From what I understand, you're saying that in any given moment, it is nigh impossible to make a claim that something is right or wrong, and in most cases I would agree, but in the future I would be able to say with certainty that Hitler's genocide of the jews was evil, and I would be correct in my claim?

Pretty much, yes. You can in any given situation say that something is right or wrong, but that is right/wrong from your perspective. For something to be absolutely right/wrong, it must be the right/wrong thing to do in absolutely any situation that can possibly happen. So while there may be such a thing, I think it's pretty impossible to imagine every possible situation and thus pretty impossible to declare something absolutely right/wrong.
 
I too really can't think of a situation where rape would be the "right thing to do", but as Felipe said, both stealing and murder can be that right thing, again depending on the situation.

Were a person starving and stealing food being the only thing to keep him/her from dying, I'd say that's the right thing so long as he/she doesn't steal from someone equally starving.

[Kev-La]

For me, the only way for 'good' or 'evil' to exist as anything other than as labels we humans attach to things on the basis of whether or not we personally like them, would be for there to be a Supreme Being, such as Allah, God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the universe as well as the ultimate ethical code by which all of us in it are Judged by He/She/It.
I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, Allah or any other Supreme Being, and so I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in 'good' or 'evil' existing as anything other than labels we humans attach to things on the basis of whether or not we personally like them.
I don't like what I label as rape. I don't like what I label as tyranny. I don't like what I label as racism. If I found the label useful, I suppose I might label these things as 'evil'. But I don't find the label useful. And I would never label anything as 'Evil' with a capital 'E'.
I, like everyone, have opinions. And I, like all true agnostics, function on the basis that my opinions are not proveably more or less than my opinions.

[sickofpalantirs]

I know this is already kind of old news here, but I can't resist throwing my 2 in. 

The way I see it, there are exactly two options when it comes to Christianity.

Here's your problem right here.  You are someone unable to comprehend that people could approach a complicated religion based around a huge book with numerous translations from only 2 sides.  I mean, haven't you heard of Catholics and Protestants?  That is 2 right there.  And what about Anglicans, Episcopalians, evangelicals, baptist etc. etc. etc.  YOu've essentially got one massive either-or fallacy all over this entire post. 

After showing why I don't really need to go over the rest of your post, I still will, because hey, I can 

Option 1: Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life. Curse homosexuality as being immoral and an affront to God, deny women the right to have opinions (Timothy 2:11, among others), keep obedient slaves (several of Paul's epistles), and paint sticks and force sheep to look at them before copulating if we want to beat science and have striped ewes (late Genesis 30).

I wonder if you have actually read the bible, or just scene snippets from cynical articles by cardboard atheists about why all Christians are bigoted ignorant pricks. 

They are several types of commandments in the Bible, you've got your laws good for all time ( Ten Commandments basically) the law for the people of Israel, which mostly is no longer required For Christians (see the second half of acts 10 as an example)  Gate Troll can correct me on this if I am wrong, but the way I see it is We are basically supposed to follow the commandments in the New Testament, but we have freedom to view them in a cultural fashion.

or:
Option 2: We can understand that the Bible is a fantastic moral guideline for society; however, as instructions are historically bound to a different time period and culture, some of the stories may not apply to modern life except when viewed as a historical case. The overarching themes of loving one's neighbor and living like Jesus are fantastic themes, but you don't have to be a circumcised Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.

Yeah this is pretty much what most Christians do actually, I mean we take Jesus' commandments as more than overarching themes, and Jesus is our Lord and Savior, not just a Ghandhi like figure to emulate, but this is actually decently close.  I'm mildly surprised.

And because I'm in a debating mood I'll throw out my opinion on homosexuality and premarital sex.

I would have to say I think both are wrong, but I think homosexuality is more wrong in that it is a affliction that has come about because of sin.  I don't know what the answer is to it, but I do think that homosexual marriage should probably be allowed in the US, as unfortunately the government has gotten involved in marriage in the first place.

as for the second one, again I think its generally a poor idea, especially with all the predatory males out there who will manipulate women just to sleep with them,  but I think in the cases of cohabitation, if two people want to be married, and act as though they are married but do not want to actually get a marriage license, I think I'm ok with that.

[hrcho]

I think homosexuality is more wrong in that it is a affliction that has come about because of sin.

I, unlike many people who declare themselves as Christians, have read The Bible. More than once, actually. In my reading, I found exactly zero sentences or passages in which God condemns homosexuality. So, I'm asking you, where from do you take your stand that homosexuality comes from sin and thus is in itself a sin?

[ket_the_jet]

Here's your problem right here.  You are someone unable to comprehend that people could approach a complicated religion based around a huge book with numerous translations from only 2 sides.

No, I think that is the problem. A whole lot of people make something that is obvious and simple and they complicate it themselves. Did God create Catholicism? Protestantism? If you want to beat around the bush you can say that he did through man but the point is that #$&*@! people invented those things. For what it is worth, I consider myself quite versed in your Bible and many other religious texts from various religions. The Qur'an, the Torah, the Apocryphal Bible, the Book of Mormon...to name a few of the "Western" religions of Middle Eastern decent (sorry if we have Muslim members on the boards who resent that, but I'm not going to draw in Asian religion to this conversation) all draw upon the same group of principles for the most part. I think, sickofpalantirs, that you attempting to complicate a message of universal understanding and living in a "Christ-like" fashion, is exactly what the founders of religious sects have done.

I mean why, with the exception that humans are an imperfect and ghastly creature anyways, could a group of men take the same book and come up with around forty specific sects of Christianity? It's the same book right (for the most part).

After showing why I don't really need to go over the rest of your post, I still will, because hey, I can

I think you showed why John Lennon said, "Jesus was alright; it was his disciples who were bland and ordinary." Is it okay to dish two slights at the same time? Can I say, "Why don't you grab a robe, you Pharisee?"

I wonder if you have actually read the bible, or just scene snippets from cynical articles by cardboard atheists about why all Christians are bigoted ignorant pricks.

As it happens, I don't think Christians are any more bigoted and ignorant than most other religions. If anything, atheism to me is funny. If you choose not to believe in God, big "who cares?" to that, in my opinion.

Yeah this is pretty much what most Christians do actually, I mean we take Jesus' commandments as more than overarching themes, and Jesus is our Lord and Savior, not just a Ghandhi like figure to emulate, but this is actually decently close.  I'm mildly surprised.

My point with option two is that Christianity picks and chooses the commandments that are convenient. I don't know of a Catholic church that says that women aren't allowed to speak in the church; however, according to your New Testament directives that is "godly." From a convenience standpoint, I don't even know how saying homosexuality is wrong works. Romans 1:26-27 refers to homosexuality as, and I roughly translate, "shameful lust." But the Bible also refers to almost all unmarried sex in the same manner.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 absolves homosexuality, among a great list of other "sins," saying that sinners were "justified" in the eyes of God thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Looking at a person in lust is a sin just as carrying out the act. So I does homosexuality fall into "archaic Israeli law that doesn't fit into modern times" or "sin absolved by God through the blood of Jesus Christ?"

As for 'God killing children for calling Elijah bald', I believe they were yelling 'Old Baldhead'! at him and trying to stone him, and they were not children, but youths.

Can you cite the translation that says the "youths" were trying to stone him? On record, KJV refers to them as "little children" and the Douay-Rheims Bible refers to them as "young boys." The end result of God sending two female bears to kill 42 of them remains the same.

Not sure about your last example, I will have to research that one.

Judges 19 tells the story in pretty shocking detail.

I don't know what the answer is to it, but I do think that homosexual marriage should probably be allowed in the US, as unfortunately the government has gotten involved in marriage in the first place.

As long as separation of church and state exists (which is a joke in the US anyways), it should be allowed. That case is closed.
-wtk

[ket_the_jet]

I think I inadvertently answered hrcho's question as well.
-wtk

[Gil-Estel]

There are at least 3 parts in the bible that deal with sex with someone of the same gender.
- Lev. 18:22
- Lev. 20:13
- Rom. 1:27
There is some debate about these verses, since they all deal with pure sexuality. But I like to point out that the title of the part in Romans is: all are guilty. So that is something that should be underlined. In Christianity all are guilty, not 'just' the homosexuals.
Guilty means that things are not going the way God intended them. And since we are debating right or wrong here, Christians choose to adapt to God's moral, so they will follow that. But...there is a but. We should be concerned with our own life's first. We should not judge others, we should not forget that 1 sin is not worse than another.

It is hard to point out a small part of Christianity, and bypassing the whole of Christianity. For instance, Hrcho, you raised questions about free will. That has all to do with opinions about homosexuality, about morals, and about sin as well. What is sin? Sin is that things are not going according to God's plan. He started with men with a clear plan. There should be a relation between him and people. The free will was about life with God, with all the consequences, and life without him, also with all the consequences.

That is in basics christian faith. But then again, it is not logic's, it is faith. .....

[sickofpalantirs]

No, I think that is the problem. A whole lot of people make something that is obvious and simple and they complicate it themselves. Did God create Catholicism? Protestantism? If you want to beat around the bush you can say that he did through man but the point is that #$&*@! people invented those things. For what it is worth, I consider myself quite versed in your Bible and many other religious texts from various religions. The Qur'an, the Torah, the Apocryphal Bible, the Book of Mormon...to name a few of the "Western" religions of Middle Eastern decent (sorry if we have Muslim members on the boards who resent that, but I'm not going to draw in Asian religion to this conversation) all draw upon the same group of principles for the most part. I think, sickofpalantirs, that you attempting to complicate a message of universal understanding and living in a "Christ-like" fashion, is exactly what the founders of religious sects have done.

Of course the Torah draws on the Bible, it's in the bible.  Actually Gate troll pretty much covered this last page I'll quote

#1: Keep outdated Israelite law in direct violation of what Jesus said, and twist the Bible in strange ways,
 
or,

#2: Acknowledge that its all outdated anyway, and simple enjoy the nice generic morals to be found in some of the stories.

these are the options you think are ok to give to Christians. 

I mean why, with the exception that humans are an imperfect and ghastly creature anyways, could a group of men take the same book and come up with around forty specific sects of Christianity? It's the same book right (for the most part).[/quote]

After showing why I don't really need to go over the rest of your post, I still will, because hey, I can

I think you showed why John Lennon said, "Jesus was alright; it was his disciples who were bland and ordinary." Is it okay to dish two slights at the same time? Can I say, "Why don't you grab a robe, you Pharisee?"

Sure.  Doesn't mean it will mean anything though.  Your attempted insult (If that was what is was) has gone over my tired head

My point with option two is that Christianity picks and chooses the commandments that are convenient. I don't know of a Catholic church that says that women aren't allowed to speak in the church; however, according to your New Testament directives that is "godly." From a convenience standpoint, I don't even know how saying homosexuality is wrong works. Romans 1:26-27 refers to homosexuality as, and I roughly translate, "shameful lust." But the Bible also refers to almost all unmarried sex in the same manner.

we don't pick and choose, we carefully look at the cultural impetus at the time, as well as other verses for context.  The second part of your argument is that since the bible declares all shameful lusts, not just homosexual ones to be wrong, than homosexual ones are right.  That doesn't work.  I agree that all shameful lusts are wrong. Including homosexual ones.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 absolves homosexuality, among a great list of other "sins," saying that sinners were "justified" in the eyes of God thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Looking at a person in lust is a sin just as carrying out the act. So I does homosexuality fall into "archaic Israeli law that doesn't fit into modern times" or "sin absolved by God through the blood of Jesus Christ?"

Were justified being the imperative word.  1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "

were, as in did do this sin before they became Christians and were justified and stopped sinning.

As for 'God killing children for calling Elijah bald', I believe they were yelling 'Old Baldhead'! at him and trying to stone him, and they were not children, but youths.

Can you cite the translation that says the "youths" were trying to stone him? On record, KJV refers to them as "little children" and the Douay-Rheims Bible refers to them as "young boys." The end result of God sending two female bears to kill 42 of them remains the same.[/quote]
If you do research into the language, you would discover that a better translation would be young men.  For what its worth. 

Judges 19 tells the story in pretty shocking detail.

And you do realize that Israel went to war over the whole affair and pretty much wiped out the offending tribe?  They definitely took hospitality seriously 

I don't know what the answer is to it, but I do think that homosexual marriage should probably be allowed in the US, as unfortunately the government has gotten involved in marriage in the first place.

As long as separation of church and state exists (which is a joke in the US anyways), it should be allowed. That case is closed.
-wtk
[/quote]
Agreed.  Which is pretty much what I said.  I was just expressing a wish that the government didn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place.

[hrcho]

I asked a wrong question. True, there are mentions of homosexuality, but nothing that cannot be discarded by the simplest of logic.

Book of Leviticus. True, there is the mention of sex with same gender (of male with male, mind you, it doesn't prohibit women sleeping with women), but I discarded that part of the Bible for one good reason: pretty much everything else in that book is discarded by not just me, but even the Church and all the other Christians. Just read the book of Leviticus and it will be easy to understand why. So to take just the parts that are good for the argument now is hypocrisy at its highest unless you abide by all the things mentioned in that same book.

Epistle to Romans as Epistle to Corinthians are both epistles by Paul. Paul is a man and not God or son of a God, so those words are not from God. Those are words from a 1st century male, written in patriarchy and to cultures he found loathsome as a Jew (he wrote to Romans and Greeks who were pretty much hedonists). Not to mention that Paul also said that women are not allowed to speak in church or that he approves of slavery, so to accept just parts of his epistles which are good for argument is, again, hypocrisy (which, I believe, is considered a sin).

[legolas3333]

I totally agree with Gil, as a Christian myself, I would see my sin of lying as no more or no less than another man committing murder, there is a great passage in matthew 7 that says

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I am inclined against homosexuality but I can't condemn them because I am a sinner myself.

Hrcho, I can tell you that your questions on free will are quite common, many people have a hard time understanding why a good God would condemn us. You ask, "How can a god be good if (God) dooms you from the start and makes you fight to be saved." the answer is because we have free will, and God gave us free will because He wanted people who could truly love him in return, if He had kept our free will from us, He would have been left with robots, instead, He gave us free will so that we can truly love Him. Let me give an example, my parents love me, but it makes it so much better because I know that they don't have to love me but choose to anyway, that is what God was after, the kind of love that can only be expressed by someone who has a choice.

That said, I agree with gil's last line, Christianity is not something that can be explained logically, it requires a leap of faith.