Right and Wrong

If we want to get into a concrete example, let's talk about abortion.

Abortion is murder, in my eyes. Once that unborn person acquires a hearbeat, in my eyes, that being is alive and must be cared for as a human being. In God's eye, I imagine that there is no exception to the rule.

However, there are exceptions to the rule allowed in human society. There is the case of pregnancies caused through rape / incest where abortions are allowed. There are pregnancies where the quality of life of the human being born would have an exorbinant cost on society and on parents, where abortions are allowed. Then there are the general abortions where the mother simply doesn't want the child for whatever reason.

Some people feel that abortion is wrong in any case, that life begins at conception. Other people distinguish arguments based on medical needs, while others think that it is absoultely within the right of the parent to terminate pregnancy, at any time.

Over the decades, public opinion has changed, and my own opinion over time has changed as well.

God does have one definition, one absolutel definition between right and wrong, but even through the Bible, those definitions change. Only God truly knows what right and wrong are. But Jesus allowed for sin with forgiveness. We can do things that are wrong based on our moral relativism and still get away from it. We sometimes don't know the difference between good and bad because we don't know every single fact and effect and the net good or bad our decisions have on society. In short, because we don't know all of the facts, the only thing we have is moral relativism, because we don't know all of the facts.

The Church has indeed gotten it wrong and even still today seriously discerns how best to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For example look at the special synod being held in Rome this week all about marriage and family issues. As you know God's infinite Grace needs to be cooperated with and many times human beings fail to do so, even Popes - it's part of original sin but for Evenbob's sake let's not go there. Let me ask you this instead: If we both recognize the Church has made mistakes in the past would you accept an apology that said, "Look we were not the prophetic voice of racial and gender equality we should have been as followers of Jesus Christ but at the time it was right to be racist and sexist and now it is not, so therefore you can't really blame us." Of course you wouldn't because it is not that racism or sexism was once a virtue or a good thing it is just that our understanding of its evil has matured and developed. Again right and wrong do not change, our understanding of right and wrong does develop as does our behavior but you can't change objective moral truths.

Your example of abortion is a good one. You view it as murder of an innocent child, as do I. In the case of rape or incest is it any less murder of an innocent? It is much more difficult and obviously someone's culpability is lessened in these extreme and rare cases, but you can't make murder right just because of the circumstances surrounding it. If you killed the person who raped your loved one, people might empathize with you and to a degree even understand your actions, but you would still be convicted in court of murder. Medical necessity is another difficult case where the principal of double effect comes in to play. To save the life of a mother the developing baby might die in certain circumstances if that is what the parents choose, but it is not something that is willed but the consequence of some other action taken to save the woman. Anyway regardless the determining factor is NOT public opinion. Public opinion does not make anything right or wrong, our human history and common sense is ample testimony to the horrors caused by that way of thinking!

It does my heart good to hear you recognize that God does have one absolute definition of right and wrong. What you see throughout the Bible is God teaching us and slowly but surely revealing to us what is right and wrong. Remember a long time ago we decided we wanted to determine for ourselves what was right and wrong in the garden, moral relativism got us into this mess in the first place! God slowly begins to teach us what is right and wrong leading up to the high point of revelation - Jesus Christ. The definition of right or wrong never changed, the ten commandments are still valid its just that Jesus simplified them into two - love God and love your neighbor - this is fulfillment not change.

Lastly I think you summed it up by recognizing the forgiveness offered to us by Jesus. Sometimes people long for moral relativism because they realize we don't know all the facts. Jesus realizes that too and is all about mercy and forgiveness. Jesus is not asking from us the impossible, He is only asking for us to strive to do what is right and good. How do we know what is right and good? You won't find out from the recent poll numbers, your own subjective feelings will lead you astray, and you can't jump off a bridge just because everyone else is doing it. We need to instead go to the one and only source of those absolute definitions - God.

Quote: FrGamble

The Church has indeed gotten it wrong and even still today seriously discerns how best to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For example look at the special synod being held in Rome this week all about marriage and family issues. As you know God's infinite Grace needs to be cooperated with and many times human beings fail to do so, even Popes - it's part of original sin but for Evenbob's sake let's not go there. Let me ask you this instead: If we both recognize the Church has made mistakes in the past would you accept an apology that said, "Look we were not the prophetic voice of racial and gender equality we should have been as followers of Jesus Christ but at the time it was right to be racist and sexist and now it is not, so therefore you can't really blame us." Of course you wouldn't because it is not that racism or sexism was once a virtue or a good thing it is just that our understanding of its evil has matured and developed. Again right and wrong do not change, our understanding of right and wrong does develop as does our behavior but you can't change objective moral truths.

Your example of abortion is a good one. You view it as murder of an innocent child, as do I. In the case of rape or incest is it any less murder of an innocent? It is much more difficult and obviously someone's culpability is lessened in these extreme and rare cases, but you can't make murder right just because of the circumstances surrounding it. If you killed the person who raped your loved one, people might empathize with you and to a degree even understand your actions, but you would still be convicted in court of murder. Medical necessity is another difficult case where the principal of double effect comes in to play. To save the life of a mother the developing baby might die in certain circumstances if that is what the parents choose, but it is not something that is willed but the consequence of some other action taken to save the woman. Anyway regardless the determining factor is NOT public opinion. Public opinion does not make anything right or wrong, our human history and common sense is ample testimony to the horrors caused by that way of thinking!

It does my heart good to hear you recognize that God does have one absolute definition of right and wrong. What you see throughout the Bible is God teaching us and slowly but surely revealing to us what is right and wrong. Remember a long time ago we decided we wanted to determine for ourselves what was right and wrong in the garden, moral relativism got us into this mess in the first place! God slowly begins to teach us what is right and wrong leading up to the high point of revelation - Jesus Christ. The definition of right or wrong never changed, the ten commandments are still valid its just that Jesus simplified them into two - love God and love your neighbor - this is fulfillment not change.

Lastly I think you summed it up by recognizing the forgiveness offered to us by Jesus. Sometimes people long for moral relativism because they realize we don't know all the facts. Jesus realizes that too and is all about mercy and forgiveness. Jesus is not asking from us the impossible, He is only asking for us to strive to do what is right and good. How do we know what is right and good? You won't find out from the recent poll numbers, your own subjective feelings will lead you astray, and you can't jump off a bridge just because everyone else is doing it. We need to instead go to the one and only source of those absolute definitions - God.

That was probably one of your best posts you've written.

Quote: boymimbo

That was probably one of your best posts you've written.

It was all guessing, wishful thinking, and speculation.
Was any of it based on fact?

No, it's based on faith.

Just like I had faith that you would comment exactly this way.

That said, FrGamble's statement was made with the supposition that a fair and just God exists and that there are absolute rights and wrongs in his universe. That said, it seems clear that the existence of Jesus Christ as the Son should have occurred earlier on. It seems strange that a perfect God would wait until a certain time to put Jesus on the planet whose death and resurrection created a religion called Christianity where believers in the grace of Jesus Christ would get a ticket to heaven. There are even divisions in Christianity where biblical interpretations create many sects within the religion. From a moral absolute point of view, why wouldn't God just make it clear what right and wrong are rather than make it someone mystical and open to interpretation?

Christians will reply, "I don't know". I certainly don't.

This is why an athiest can thrive. A historian studies the existence of humanity through history "knows" of the foundations of major religions through the world. A scientist can look at the wonderful existence of the universe and attribute it to the laws of physics, and the big bang, without the requirement of a God.

This is why I don't evangelize my faith. I have faith. I think it's very important to have some spiritual meaning in your life that goes beyond your friends and family. I subscribe to that notion because I see people without any spirituality suffer or live a life without meaning and them NOT be okay with that. Church, at least my church, offers community, does good deeds, is friendly, and preaches the brand of Christianity that I believe in. Other churches to other people are exactly the same thing to them, so they go. So for me, Church is a way to gain spirituality in your life. But there are other ways, other religions, other avenues to achieve that sense of spirituality. So I guess I evangelize spirituality.

Quote: boymimbo

Just like I had faith that you would comment exactly this way.

Hah ha.
Just let EB know where the parade is, and he'll bring the rain.

Quote: boymimbo

No, it's based on faith.

If you have faith in something you
can't prove and can't see, it's based
on guesses and wishful thinking.
You can't point to something a nut
case wrote 2500 years ago, he was
using wishful thinking also.

Of course you are correct. The historical basis of 2,000 years ago is of course incomplete.

Quote: boymimbo

Of course you are correct. The historical basis of 2,000 years ago is of course incomplete.

Doesn't have to be complete or incomplete.
They were just as clueless then as we are now.
Speculation and wishful thinking.

The Bible documents Jesus' resurrection. If that story is indeed true and could be historically colloborated, I think we would be way beyong speculation and wishful thinking.