|
|
Post by Wilshire on Nov 14, 2003 20:28:40 GMT -5
well i disagree...in right and wrong, for most things, there is a black...and a white...a right and a wrong...and the grey...well it doesnt exist...its rationalization...false rationalization... very true. our conscience will tell us right and wrong. it can be malformed however, and almost everyone's is to some extent. thinking there is not absolute right and wrong is people rationalizing falsely that "whatever someone does, not matter how bad, is ok, b/c it can be 'right' for them". that doesn't work, not everything, and especially not right and wrong, is relative. one of the famous but faulty arguments used by people is that "there are no absolutes". Well in saying that they just made an absolute statement. See the contradiction. Yes there is right, and there is wrong. Some things are more wrong than others, but there is nothing that is neither. NO gray area. What can there be besides right and wrong, they are complete opposites so how can something be both. |
|
Clump
X-Treme Gulp
Stop Buggering Me
Posts: 437
|
Post by Clump on Nov 15, 2003 0:27:22 GMT -5
Grey area doesn't necessarily mean neither, it means that it could be either depending on the situation. Besides, say that I go out and walk my dog. Am I doing right or wrong by solely doing that action? I feel that I am not doing either. That or a little bit of each. My dog and I would be getting excercise, but I could also be making her hips and joints worse than they already are. There is a definate grey area, but actions that could be good or bad in a certain context could be grey in another. I though that I already said that though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilshire on Nov 15, 2003 9:58:36 GMT -5
I don't think walking a dog is wrong. It is right (or good) in that you are getting exercise, the dog is getting exercise. Her hips and joints are meant to be used in such a way and that is not wrong at all. It could be bad, however, if you walked your dog while you negelected a duty or obligation.
There is wrong, and there is right. Depending on the situation, as you said, there could be something right about it, and something wrong about it. But the things that are right and wrong are two different things, ONE thing can not be both or neither, and it can't be in a "grey area". There are rightand wrong aspects of a situation, but those aspects are separately right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSilentDemon on Nov 17, 2003 22:17:17 GMT -5
in the words of donnie darko: you can just lump life into two catagories its just not that simple.
and the thing about how God says for people not to kill other people is incorrect. despite many stories in the bible (OT) of people under Gods will taking over Canaan which was inhabitated by a different people than the hebrews and killing its inhabitants. the OT also says that in Numbers Chapter 35 versus 16 through 29 they all speak of how manslaughter is dealt with. in these passages God says that any man who strikes down another man willfully will be put to death immediantly. and man who accidentally kills another man will not be put to death but will live in asylum (safety, not nut house) untill the anointed high priest dies. it goes on to say that if the man commiting the homocide leaves asylum then the avenger can rightly kill that man. after all this in verse 29 God says "These shall be the norms for you and all your descendants, wherever you live, for rendering judgement."
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSilentDemon on Nov 17, 2003 22:19:53 GMT -5
another instance of God allowing killing of people Numbers 31: 2 - 12. talks about God telling moses to arm the men for revenge against the Madianites.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 0:19:28 GMT -5
hence my saying, unless God tells me to, since then i would not be insane...but, i think ultimately God made us not to kill, but it is a cost of sin...
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilshire on Nov 18, 2003 20:20:58 GMT -5
Thou shalt not kill was part of the Old Testament. That is not to say that we must still follow them today. But Jesus established a new covenant. The Church today forbids killing unless it is absolutely necessary for the life of another to be saved. So yes killing is wrong, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary sometimes. It can be a necessary evil, but still not "right".
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSilentDemon on Nov 18, 2003 20:40:44 GMT -5
there are loopholes in every law. and yes when Jesus came along there was a new covenant hence the NEW TESTAMENT. just like there is a loophole for killing, in the case of self defense, there are also loopholes for other things one instance being war. there is a list of "just war principles" that must be followed in order for a war to allowed in the eyes of God. one is like don't enter a war unless it is positive that your side will win, another is something along the lines of casualities of your troups and the casualty of enemy troups have to be at a ratio in your favor. there are various others. so there are grey areas these are just a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 21:54:27 GMT -5
where are these war laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 18, 2003 21:58:43 GMT -5
theyre not laws. theyre requirements, put forth by a church of some sort (i think catholic but im not positive) and supported by most christian denominations to my knowledge, for a war to be deemed "just." i dont put much stock in it, but a lot of people adhere to it. but it is by no means a set of laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 22:02:01 GMT -5
umm...i dont think i would agree with many of them at all...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 18, 2003 22:11:06 GMT -5
well the summation was kinda sketchy. i dont know them exactly either, but one is "the casualties in the war must be equal to or less than any resulting deaths from not going to war (ie US entering WWII saved more lives then the action took)
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 22:19:24 GMT -5
then why were they so hesitant...
(post 1000)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark617 on Nov 18, 2003 22:25:03 GMT -5
nice job, and u didnt have to edit ur post count either.....anyways im not sure if the "just war principle" was "invented" yet. and i dont think the government abids by it anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by William on Nov 18, 2003 22:28:08 GMT -5
edit my post count?
|
|
