Of course doing the right thing can be more difficult than doing the wrong thing. There are plenty of times when doing the right thing will lead to either a real, or perceived hardship of the person doing it. For example, a lot of parents let their kids do pretty much whatever they want for fear that if they set limits and boundries and punish their kids if they they break them, then their kids will hate them.
And I’m not saying the people can’t get into heaven, but what bothers me is that apparently so few people will…
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Hehehehe…you’re probably being serious, but still, that is pretty funny 
To some extent you’re right. But there are absolutes in this world. Killing somebody for any reason other than defending your own life, or the life of another is wrong. Steeling is wrong… unless it’s the preverbial stealing a loaf of bread to feed yourself or your starving family, because that’s self preservation. Rape is allways wrong. Physical abuse is allways wrong.
But yes, there are ethics that vary…like fraud is wrong, but yet, undercover police officers who buy drugs from someone and then arrest them are using fraud against the drug dealer for the good of the community.
Rhapsody, one of the things you said in a previous post was “Jesus never discussed, homosexuality…”
Well, true, but the bible not only consists of the New Testiment, but the Old Testiment as well…
Leviticus 18
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Joel:
Leviticus also tells us not to eat pork, and to wear a hood over our heads and cry “unclean!” while we’re on our period.
Yet I know of no Christian churches that consider those activities a sin…
The “other than” is the lead in to an exception to the “Killing somebody is wrong” rule. In addition, the way I read the Old Testament it is OK, or even mandatory, to kill those whom God commands be killed (Deut 7:1-2, Deut 20:16-17).
The “unless …” is the beginning to another exception. And, of course Abraham’s descendants were given God’s permission to steal the Promised Land from those who already lived there (Gen 12:6-7).
There is even a justification for situational ethics in Bible. Matthew 12:1-5 describes situations in which it is permitted to profane the sabbath which is ordinarily inviolable, except …
Those experienced in writing laws and contracts know that it isn’t possible to make a rule that covers all possible situations, so escape clauses are added. They are the ones that constitute the exceptions to the general rule.
what about forgiveness???
i thought that featured quite a lot in god’s lil manifesto!!!
man i feel so stupid! i’ve been forgivin people for twenty years and all i had to do when someone did something out of line was torture them and set them on fire!!
maybe god runs a tab for everyone on how much he can forgive, like in baseball, three sins and you’re goin ta hell boy!
what of a man who has been horibly abused his whole life, subjected to a far from “normal” upbringing that his mind his ravaged with unhealable scars that we here could never even contemplate, what if due to the horrid nature of his upbringing and lifetime of abuse, this man becomes unbalanced and psychotic and commits many acts of murder! when he gets to the pearly gates, is he cast into an eternity of torture( to follow the torturous life that he has already led) or is god more compassionate,and more intellegent than man and recognises that we are not always responsible for who we are, and therefore sometimes what we do, and that the chaotic nature of the human brain and the actions of people can not always be seen as simple as thats right and thats wrong.
Tracer, some things, I think were abandoned because they were seen as symbolic, and no longer necessary after Jesus. For example, sacrificing a lamb to cover up sins was abandoned by Christians because of Jesus dying on the cross. And I think eating kosher was abandoned because of passages like
Matthew 15
“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.”
Basically, the old testament was mostly concerned with actions, but the new testament is concerned with what’s in your heart. So since eating and having periods has nothing to do with what kind of person you are, God isn’t concerned with that.
As for sexuality, I believe that homosexuals are born that way.
However, heterosexuals are born that way too, but who you’re allowed to have sex is, is limited to who you are married to. And as for marriage:
Matthew 19
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
So that pretty much limits marriage to men and women. So just like it’s wrong for hedrosexuals to have sex outside of marriage, so it’s wrong for homosexuals too.
Of course there’s the debate of whether sex is for procreation only, or if you can do it for recreation. But either way procreational and/or recreational sex was meant for marriage.
Now, looking at all this from a purely logical standpoint, does it seem fair that there are people who are born gay, but then not allowed to have homosexual sex? No, it doesn’t seem fair. But in most major Christian denominations, that’s the way it appears to be.
Um, tracer, I think you may be mistaken on this second one. There is no such requirement in Leviticus (or anywhere else in the Pentatuch for that matter…)
Zev Steinhardt
I can only speak from a Catholic perspective, so there are going to be Protestants that disagree with this but, only God knows who’s going to heaven and who’s not. It’s the combination of faith and works that gets you to heaven, but, what about somebody who grows up in a country that never heard of Christ? The priests I’ve known have taught that if that person tries to live a good life, then they’ll probably go to heaven because it’s not their fault that Christianity wasn’t introduced to their society. What about the mentally unbalanced? Again, if a mental defect prevents a person from acting right, and even causes them to do wrong, then it’s possible that they could go to heaven after death anyway, because they don’t have any control over their mental illness so it wouldn’t be right to punish them.
But sending someone to eternal damnation for drinking alcohol or for getting into a fight one time or sometime else trivial that seems to called a “sin” is perfectly resonable.
sound like god ain’t such a perfect being himself.
i mean if “he” sends someone to hell for refusing to believe in his existence, does that not seem like hes nothing but an egomaniac, power monger, who displays signs of containing some of the faults that make us humans so horrible. is he bitter at the fact that someone refuses to believe in him, a bit childish on his part
David Simmons
Actually, as for killing, the Ten Commandments says “Thal shalt not Murder.” Instead of “Thal shalt not kill.” But going by what you said, that killing can be justifiable for reasons other than self defense or defense of somebody else’s life…
I killed someone for profit, would that be right?
If somebody p*ssed me off, would that give me the right to kill them.
Would it be OK for me to kill someone just because I felt like it?
If I killed somebody because I disagreed with their religious beliefs would that be all right?
If I killed somebody because I disagreed with their political, or any other beliefs would that all right?
And as for steeling being OK in situations other than self preservation…
If I see that somebody has a nicer TV than I do, can I steel it from them?
If somebody’s driving a nicer car and I want it, can I steel it?
What about being at a nice restaurant and snatching the silverware? Is that OK? After all, if it’s a nice enough restaurant, they make plenty of money and so replacing the silverware would be no problem, so steeling it isn’t really that bad, right?
The thing about morals, ethics, scruples, values, etc., is that you have to use common sense. Killing for financial gain is always wrong. Steeling something simply because you want it is always wrong. They just are wrong, period.
IMHO you’ve bought into the “quilt game”. Man does have a neutral nature, which means that he is able to do good and able to do evil. The way I see the world most people do good, but slip and also sin. An occasional sin does not make you basically evil, just as doing something good does not mean you are a “good” person.
God doesn’t live under the same conditions that we do. He did not move past it, he never was part of our world. That is part of the story of Jesus according to general Christian doctrine. Jesus asked "Why do you call me good? Only my father in heaven is “good”*.
In the Jewish interpretation the serpent is not the devil. It is only after the Christians came along with their own interpretation that it was the devil. The serpent introduced us to the world of duality (the world we live in).
Kinda. God did create Adam without freewill, since Adam was man(kind). Then God saw that wouldn’t work, so he split the one and made two, which could be seen as the beginning. However, Adam and Eve were not aware of their duality and it was only after they ate of the “Tree of Knowledge” that they were able to understand “good” and “evil”, “man” and “woman”, “happiness” and “sorrow”, “perfection” and “flaw”, “ying” and “yang”. In that way God created “perfect beings”, but we can only be perfect if there is something to compare it with, therefore we must have “flaws”.
Please cite, since I’d like to see in what context the statement was made.
It came from God, but then he had several regrets about the decision. And since this subject comes up so many times, that must mean that we aren’t too sure ourselves about having freewill.
*Jesus used the word “good” because there isn’t a word for being more than the difference between “good” and “evil”
Well, for prodistants one sin is as bad as another, but for Catholics there’s venial sin and mortal sin. Dying with vinial sin doesn’t get you sent to hell. Something like drinking or getting into a fight would be concidered venial sin to Catholics.
As for your second question…some people beleive that hell isn’t fire and torture, but simply living in absence from God, so if that’s the case, then it’s perfect for people who reject God, since they don’t want to be with him anyway.
I realize that this is a bit late, but this is in response to japatlgt’s post:
In one of the later books of the Hitchhiker series, Douglas Adams presents his views on the story of the Garden of Eden. I don’t feel like digging out my copy right now, so I’ll just paraphrase Ford Prefect. While discussing God with Arthur, Ford says something to the effect, “It doesn’t matter whether they ate the apple or not. When you’re dealing with someone who enjoys putting hats on the sidewalk with bricks under them, he’s going to get you in the end no matter what you do.”
Joel, did you actually read what I posted?
Yes I did. It sounds like you’re saying that there are no moral absolutes. Am I mistaken?
What I said was that every time you cited a no-no you followed it with a “but …” and an exception. I also pointed out that in my opinion the message of the Old Testament is that God is always to be obeyed even it He tells you to kill someone. And I gave a couple of cites where God did command killing.
I also provided some cites that showed that if someone wanted to defend moral relativism, the Bible could be used to do that.
I do think there are some things that are absolutely bad. Humans are social animals so that anything that is destructive of the general social agreement is destructive, or bad, in the long run. For example, the taking upon oneself the decision to kill someone except for special conditions is destructive of social order and therefore bad. And even those “special conditions” have to be inquired into at some sort of hearing after the act.
However, many things that various religions consider “bad” are a matter of relative values. I, for example, don’t consider the standards by which the Catholic Church puts various books on a proscribed list to be absolute.
I take issue with these statements (although only mildly); in my ceramics class in my last year of school I made a beautiful pot, but sadly now, many years later, it is broken; did I create the pot in a broken state? did I even create it specifically for the purpose of being broken?