Right and Wrong? Always?

[Corcaigh]

Why? I'm just gathering data for right now and I'm only interested in non-Christian viewpoints.

You might learn something, 'cause some of the most devout Christians won't give you a consistent viewpoint. Or even one close to basic human decency.

Just appeared on AOL News:

Tony Alamo Christian Ministries in rural Fouke, Arkansas who believes "consent is puberty".

http://news.aol.com/article/6-kids-in-custody-amid-child-porn-probe/182170

[Burgold]

Are these things always wrong?

Murder (killing with malicious intent)- not always wrong.

I can imagine a scenario where you know that if you seek out and kill someone you can save thousands of lives. Is that murder still wrong, yes, but is it the right thing to do. Yes also. I do want to hedge my bet saying that the word malicious is also somewhat nebulous to me. I might need clarification there.

Slavery- Always wrong.

Pedophilia- Always wrong.

Unless we're in a science fiction movie and we're the last two survivors of the race and we procreate now or go into extinction. Yeah, always wrong.

Beastiality- Always icky.

Again, are we talking mermaids, sylphs, and nymphs or reality. If reality... No.

Theft-not always wrong.

There can be some scenarios where stealing is okay.

Rape- always wrong.

Never excuseable even in science fiction scenarios.

Incest - always icky.

Yuck. I guess it depends on definitions. I mean how many cousins removed are okay. We're all related if we go far enough. Am I not allowed to lust after my 23rd cousin!

Deceit- not always wrong.

If it's to save a life or to spare someone needless pain... sure, why not.

Thank you.

- you're welcome.

[PokerPacker]

I don't think there really are such things as universal truths (or rights or wrongs), everything is relative.

[Burgold]

I don't think there really are such things as universal truths (or rights or wrongs), everything is relative.

Well, there's one yes vote for incest.

[PokerPacker]

Well, there's one yes vote for incest.

well... yes, actually. according to my own personal beliefs of live and let live.

[Burgold]

Oh, I just thought you meant you go after "everything relative"

You can't trust a hockey player. They're always thinking with their stick.

[Jumbo]

As an Evangelical Christian, I have a question for non-Christians, agnostics, atheists etc.

Christians please do not answer since I already know your answers.

Are these things always wrong?

Murder (killing with malicious intent)--wrong, except on weekends of if the government tells you its ok

Slavery--does this include kinky dating? if yes, then no, not wrong, but not for everyone. be safe.

Pedophilia--if this means love of bicycling, not wrong, as long as you stay out of car lanes in the city and don't wear those spandex outfits no matter what kind of shape you're in--it's just stupid..

Beastiality--pro sports athlete term, right? Like "laron is a beastiality player"? Always right if true.

Theft--usually wrong unless you have power and influence, then never wrong unless caught at slow news time.

Rape--never a joking matter, always wrong

Incest--a game the whole family can play, not sure how cheating would figure in as right or wrong though.

Deceit---see "theft", or if "marriage", not wrong, essential to extending duration past first 2 years.

Please post your answers next to the subject e.g. "Rape - Yes".

Also, please explain your reasoning.--my reasoning explained by heavy drinking and classic Christian upbringing

Thank you.

no prob

[PokerPacker]

You can't trust a hockey player. They're always thinking with their stick.

and trying to stuff the rubber between the legs.

[Corcaigh]

Are these things always wrong?

Murder (killing with malicious intent) - Meat is Murder

Slavery -

[Burgold]

Meat is murder? Be fair or at least thorough, Corcaigh. Everytime we shower we kill millions if not billions of living organisms. And we know this. We are intentionally murdering bacteria. When we take antibiotics, we are murdering. We try to kill the viruses within us. Drinking at the Redskins Tailgate there go 100's, thousands of innocent brain cells. There is barely a moment of our conscious lives where we are not malisciously murdering something.

[Kosher Ham]

I'll play Devil's Advocate...

Who and what constitutes a minor and their mental state ?

Although, I can't thing of anything attractive about a woman that is not able to drink alcohol...

...wait... who determines what that age is ?

Hmm...

[Zguy28]

I don't think there really are such things as universal truths (or rights or wrongs), everything is relative.

Do you believe that there could be a time when the Holocaust was a good or right thing?

What about discrimination based on race or gender?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Murder (killing with malicious intent): No. Not in the least. There are dozens of circumstances where killing with malicious intent is not only not Wrong, but the only reasonable and acceptable thing to do.

Slavery No. It is wrong when based solely on race, but in other circumstances (punishment for crimes, etc..) there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Pedophilia Yes. Sex with a minor child is never appropriate.

Beastiality Yes. Sex with an animal is never appropriate.

Theft No. There are many and varied situations where theft is perfectly acceptable. Especially in response to a theft against oneself.

Rape No. There are a limited number of situations and occassions where rape is acceptable. I've discussed some of them in the past.

Incest Yes. Sex within the tight bonds of family is never appropriate.

Deceit No. There are many and varied situations where deceit is perfectly acceptable. Especially in response to deceit carried out against oneself by another.

[PokerPacker]

Do you believe that there could be a time when the Holocaust was a good or right thing?

What about discrimination based on race or gender?

"The Holocaust" is a specific incident and thus is taken in context of the specific incidents surrounding it, you are already giving it its relative standpoint.

as for discrimination based on race, you are once again assigning it the relative standpoint. the basic action taking place in the example is "discrimination", the rest of it is the surrounding contextual and relative circumstances. So could discrimination be not a bad thing? I think there are probably certain specific conditions in a specific atmosphere where a certain kind of discrimination for some purpose may not be considered "wrong".

[Corcaigh]

Meat is murder? Be fair or at least thorough, Corcaigh.

Lamb/mutton is justifiable homicide.

[brandymac27]

The more that I read and educate myself, the further away from Christianity I have been moving. At this point in my life, I am moving closer to belief in Judaism over all other religions, but would consider myself agnostic at this very moment.

As an Evangelical Christian, I have a question for non-Christians, agnostics, atheists etc.

Christians please do not answer since I already know your answers.

Are these things always wrong?

*Murder (killing with malicious intent)- Yes it is wrong- if and ONLY if malicious intent is involved. On the other hand, if someone breaks in your house and you kill them to protect your family and yourself (or any case when you protect an innocent life-for example: a cop kills someone who is on a shooting rampage) then I think murder is justifiable. I am also ok w/ the death penalty- an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

*Slavery- Yes it is always wrong, Unless you are talking about an inmate in a prison or jail. Under no circumstances does any human being have the right to OWN another person and/or strip their rights away from them. No person deserves their basic human rightsbeing taken away for any reason other than the fact that they have been proven guilty of a crime and are in prison.

Pedophilia- Yes this is always wrong.

Beastiality-Yes this is always wrong, and always disgusting.

*Theft-In most cases, Yes, it is wrong, unless you are stealing for survival (like food, etc.)

Rape-Yes this is always wrong. No one has a right to force sex upon anyone under any circumstance.

Incest-Yes this is always wrong, and always disgusting.

*Deceit-In most cases it is wrong, unless you are using deceit to protect an innocent person or using it for a reason that could be morally justified.

Please post your answers next to the subject e.g. "Rape - Yes".

Also, please explain your reasoning.

Thank you.

I put an asterisk beside the things that I think a person could have a morally justifiable reason for committing.

[techboy]

I don't think he gets a free pass that easily.

Christianity has changed its position over time on many of these moral issues.

You are commiting a fundamental error, which is to conflate the truth claims of Christianity with the consensus (or lack thereof) as to what those claims are.

To make it simple, let's take it out of the realm of specifics, and do a little thought experiment. Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that God absolutely does exist (that's for you, I already know it ). Now, imagine that God has all the traditional attriubutes: infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, loving, moral, etc.

I think we can all agree also that human beings, whether God exists or not, are finite, not infinitely wise, and not always loving or moral, to say nothing of the fact that many, to be blunt, are just stupid. As George Carlin (I think) used to say, consider the average person, then consider that 50% of the populace are dumber than that.

I think it is fairly easy to see that in such a scenario, no matter how specific, detailed, or repeated any particular revelation this God gives, some or all are going to screw it up.

For one thing, it is logically impossible to convey completely infinite wisdom to a finite being.

The screw-ups could be also be innocent misunderstanding due to ignorance or lack of intellectual ability, or it could be something more malicious, like twisting and manipulation said revelation for one's own corrupt ends, like Rasputin using his spiritual authority to convince women that they had to sin with him before they could be forgiven, or Jim Jones and his cult.

Either way, it is fairly obvious that honest disagreements, schisms, misunderstandings, and outright deceptions are going to occur, and the only way God could prevent them would be to exercise a level of intervention in our world that would render all of us puppets and creation meaningless.

Quite simply, you are holding Christians to an impossible standard that cannot be found in any group (the old saying that if you ask 3 lawyers a question you'll get four different opinions hold here), and the implicit argument that God should prevent that (and because He doesn't He does not exist) doesn't fly.

[techboy]

I don't think there really are such things as universal truths (or rights or wrongs), everything is relative.

Is that universally true, or are there exceptions?

[Burgold]

That's funny, tb. There are absolutely no absolutes. Are you absolutely sure?

[Zguy28]

"The Holocaust" is a specific incident and thus is taken in context of the specific incidents surrounding it, you are already giving it its relative standpoint.

That doesn't answer the question though. If the Holocaust were to occur at any time, would there be a time when it is "right"? Or would it always be wrong?

as for discrimination based on race, you are once again assigning it the relative standpoint. the basic action taking place in the example is "discrimination", the rest of it is the surrounding contextual and relative circumstances. So could discrimination be not a bad thing? I think there are probably certain specific conditions in a specific atmosphere where a certain kind of discrimination for some purpose may not be considered "wrong".

White man from town speak with two tongues.

[Burgold]

That doesn't answer the question though. If the Holocaust were to occur at any time, would there be a time when it is "right"? Or would it always be wrong?

I can only imagine one situation where it would be remotely okay and even there I'm sketchy. If there was a plague situation in which we had a very infectious disease that was localized in one specific group, but contagious to all and you were able to quarantine these people and fence them off so that the disease would not kill millions... it might be okay to sacrifice those thousands. Even then though, to jump from quarantine to exterminate puts you in awfully ugly waters. But it's similar to the murder question. If you had to kill ten thousand people to save a billion would be the right thing to do? And is the right thing to do, right?

I think it might still be "wrong" and yet still the right thing to do. Sort of like war is sometimes.

[Zguy28]

I can only imagine one situation where it would be remotely okay and even there I'm sketchy. If there was a plague situation in which we had a very infectious disease that was localized in one specific group, but contagious to all and you were able to quarantine these people and fence them off so that the disease would not kill millions... it might be okay to sacrifice those thousands. Even then though, to jump from quarantine to exterminate puts you in awfully ugly waters. But it's similar to the murder question. If you had to kill ten thousand people to save a billion would be the right thing to do? And is the right thing to do, right?

I think it might still be "wrong" and yet still the right thing to do. Sort of like war is sometimes.

But it wouldn't be the holocaust would it?

[Burgold]

Well, if you define holocaust as genocide... you might be able to squeeze my scenario into that box, but I agree it's a tough fit.

I would say in 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the cases that genocide is never forgiveable or right. I'm just playing ethics games above.

[Henry]

Against my better judgement I'm going to enter this thread.

Quite simply, you are holding Christians to an impossible standard that cannot be found in any group (the old saying that if you ask 3 lawyers a question you'll get four different opinions hold here), and the implicit argument that God should prevent that (and because He doesn't He does not exist) doesn't fly.

This debate is of the Christians' making. Not just this thread, but the entire discussion on the absolute answers to life, the universe and God. If all people are imperfect, expecting any one of them to have a perfect understanding of God is a fundamentally flawed premise. And even if one perfect person came down from the heavens and proclaimed stuff, expecting imperfect people to interpret his words perfectly is an equally flawed premise (especially thousands of years later.)

I am not holding Christians up to an impossible standard. Christians are claiming ownership of an impossible possession: Perfect knowledge of a perfect being.

[Corcaigh]

Quite simply, you are holding Christians to an impossible standard that cannot be found in any group (the old saying that if you ask 3 lawyers a question you'll get four different opinions hold here), and the implicit argument that God should prevent that (and because He doesn't He does not exist) doesn't fly.

Put that strawman down. You're reaching here. Zguy said that Christians don't need to answer the original post because HE (and by this I mean Zguy) already knows what their answers are. Is he wrong?

My point is that there is not a consensus and given that any claims he might make of absolute truth don't fly.