right and wrong in the bible

[Guzmán]

hi there. Well, as far as i know (which isnt too far) apparently the bible mentions that some things are 'right' and some things are 'wrong', to put it in pretty childish terms. You know sin, the commandments, etc. My question is, does it also mention why some things are right and some are wrong? Eg. why is it wrong to steal, commit adultery, kill, etc. Im pretty sure it does, however ive never heard anyone mention it so if perhaps someone here could enlighten me I'd appreciate it since im too lazy to read it on my own.

If your answer is: "Well, do you really need someone to tell you why it is wrong to do all those things?" then i guess mine would be: well if it was that obvious then what do you need the bible for?

P.S.: I am an atheist and i also believe that any moral code is relative and there is no absolute right and wrong, only society to decide through democracy whats best for itself, i just wanna hear some other side of the argument...

P.S.2: sorry for the crappy grammar, its one in the morning and im pretty beat up.

[cuppajoe_9]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but Jesus does talk occasionally about how in certain situations it is ok to ignore the commandments:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

-Matthew 12:1-6

Ha! Jesus sure showed those uppity pharisees a thing or two! (Translation: God would rather have you work on the Sabbath than starve.)

I don't think very many reasons are given. When they are, they usually just go back to 'God said so':

And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

-Leviticus 19:12-18

Yeah, we get it God, you're the Lord.

Edit: I am by no means an authority on this, so you would be wise to wait until somebody who knows what they are talking about comes along before you take this as absolute fact.

[amanda_isabel]

i can't really give any exact quotes, but yes, the bible does explain why such action is right and wrong, in paragraphs, in jesus' parables. reasons are everywhere in thr bible, and most of them can be found in memory verses... you might want to try to look up those memory veres in children's books and stuff, guzman.

[billyjack]

i think the "why's" of the bible look like this at the nitty gritty level: if your instinct says do it, then don't do it and vice-versa (kind of like the categorical imperative). reason for this is that going against instinct is a good way to die (find yourself in heaven) a lot quicker than if you followed your instincts. so the "why" behind "right" is getting to go to a magical paradise. and the "why" behind "wrong" is then you'll have to stay in hell longer--hell being earth.

[Redzeppelin]

My question is, does it also mention why some things are right and some are wrong? Eg. why is it wrong to steal, commit adultery, kill, etc. Im pretty sure it does, however ive never heard anyone mention it so if perhaps someone here could enlighten me I'd appreciate it since im too lazy to read it on my own.

Interesting. Question: if I posted in the Hamlet forum "I'd like to know the main themes of Hamlet but I'm too lazy to read it on my own," what kind of responses do you think I'd get? Just a question.

In terms of the other comments here: God is the establisher of Right and Wrong. Contrary to the misguided idea that Right and Wrong are arbitrary concepts that God has decided upon, the reality is that Right/Wrong (Good/Evil) are products of things as they relate to the character of God (because the Bible establishes that God has a personality). As such, things that are in accordance with the character of God (love, justice, compassion, mercy, selflessness, sacrifice, charity, hope, forgiveness, kindness, etc) are good; those things at odds with the character of God (selfishness, manipulation, jealousy, lust, pride, arrogance, hatred, envy, theft, etc) are bad. If doing what God calls "bad" seems to be "natural" (which is often an argument I hear here), that is because human nature is inherently sinful - it is drawn to the "fleshly" things of life because it's "lower" nature (i.e. the "fleshly" or "carnal" nature) is (due to Adam & Eve's sin) at odds with our spiritual nature (the part of us that knows when we do wrong - even if we claim to not believe in God). Most things that the Bible calls "sin" (or bad) do something destructive - either to the person internally in terms of his soul/heart/emotions, or to his relationships with others. That's the short answer.

[billyjack]

Interesting. Question: if I posted in the Hamlet forum "I'd like to know the main themes of Hamlet but I'm too lazy to read it on my own," what kind of responses do you think I'd get? Just a question.

As such, things that are in accordance with the character of God (love, justice, compassion, mercy, selflessness, sacrifice, charity, hope, forgiveness, kindness, etc) are good; those things at odds with the character of God (selfishness, manipulation, jealousy, lust, pride, arrogance, hatred, envy, theft, etc) are bad.

If doing what God calls "bad" seems to be "natural" (which is often an argument I hear here), that is because human nature is inherently sinful - it is drawn to the "fleshly" things of life because it's "lower" nature (i.e. the "fleshly" or "carnal" nature) is (due to Adam & Eve's sin) at odds with our spiritual nature (the part of us that knows when we do wrong - even if we claim to not believe in God). Most things that the Bible calls "sin" (or bad) do something destructive - either to the person internally in terms of his soul/heart/emotions, or to his relationships with others. That's the short answer.

1) i've said this to you before. "good and jesus" is god's right hand. "sin and the devil" are his left. my guess is that he loves each hand as much as the other, and needs each as much as the other. if it was the way you say it, god should cut off his left hand and be done with it. he's all poweful, so he ought to be able to do this. . .but he doesn't: he needs his left as much as he needs his right (the yin needs the yang). you can't mold the world like an artist molds clay with just one hand, you need both.

2) what you call fleshy and bad and lower nature is the instinct to live. what you call spirit and higher nature is "the will to cruelty turned back upon ourselves--" (N)--ie..the will to death or nothingness.

why would god create life and then choose it to wish for death? i think he'd choose life to be lived, not in some distant palace in the sky, but right here, right now, on earth.

[cuppajoe_9]

Question: if I posted in the Hamlet forum "I'd like to know the main themes of Hamlet but I'm too lazy to read it on my own," what kind of responses do you think I'd get? Just a question.

Hamlet is about 100 pages. The Bible is about 70 books.

[Redzeppelin]

1) i've said this to you before. "good and jesus" is god's right hand. "sin and the devil" are his left. my guess is that he loves each hand as much as the other, and needs each as much as the other. if it was the way you say it, god should cut off his left hand and be done with it. he's all poweful, so he ought to be able to do this. . .but he doesn't: he needs his left as much as he needs his right (the yin needs the yang). you can't mold the world like an artist molds clay with just one hand, you need both.

God does not "need" the Devil and did not create him. Your idea is either gnostic or manichean (can't remember which) and not part of Christian theology. If God allows evil to exist for the time being, then He has a good reason to do so (whether we in our limited perspectives understand His reasoning or not).

2) what you call fleshy and bad and lower nature is the instinct to live. what you call spirit and higher nature is "the will to cruelty turned back upon ourselves--" (N)--ie..the will to death or nothingness.

No - you have swirled together our selfish human nature (which is based on conscious choices we make) with instinctual behavior (which is not necessarily under our control). I speak of those things which we have power over via our freewill and ability to choose. What I call our "spiritual nature" is the part of us that still longs to be with God and serve Him.

why would god create life and then choose it to wish for death? i think he'd choose life to be lived, not in some distant palace in the sky, but right here, right now, on earth.

Who wishes for death? I don't understand what you mean here.

[Redzeppelin]

Hamlet is about 100 pages. The Bible is about 70 books.

I'm well aware of that. I just made an observation.

[billyjack]

God does not "need" the Devil and did not create him. Your idea is either gnostic or manichean (can't remember which) and not part of Christian theology. If God allows evil to exist for the time being, then He has a good reason to do so (whether we in our limited perspectives understand His reasoning or not).



No - you have swirled together our selfish human nature (which is based on conscious choices we make) with instinctual behavior (which is not necessarily under our control). I speak of those things which we have power over via our freewill and ability to choose. What I call our "spiritual nature" is the part of us that still longs to be with God and serve Him.



Who wishes for death? I don't understand what you mean here.

1) he has a good reason to do so? that's an unacceptable answer. why wouldnt jerry's girlfriend on Seinfeld tell him why she wouldnt try a slice of pie? because she had good reason to do so? that's not a good eneogh reason. jerry saw this as crazy. i agree.

2 & 3) free will? to quote someone who writes better than I --N--, "the concept of "sin" invented along with the torture instrament that belongs with it, the concept of "free will," in order to confuse the instincts, to make mistrust of
the instincts second nature."

the part of you that is poetically called a "spiritual nature" that longs to be with god and serve him? does being with god mean dying and being with him? if so, then you are longing for death? why?

but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you mean you want to be with god in a figurative sense--act morally, be selfless, church, offerings, going against instinctive drives, ect... so "spiritual nature" is anti-nature. its the part of you that is going against the way of things, against reality. in the sense that morality is the counterconcept of life. reason being, morality accords to the "beyond" in order to devaluate the only world there is, this one. so this "spiritual nature" is your drive to become a spirit, become deader quicker. from an evolutionary standpoint, this trait might not be successful in the broad scheme of survival

[Redzeppelin]

1) he has a good reason to do so? that's an unacceptable answer. why wouldnt jerry's girlfriend on Seinfeld tell him why she wouldnt try a slice of pie? because she had good reason to do so? that's not a good eneogh reason. jerry saw this as crazy. i agree.

Equating a sitcom plot with the creator of the universe is absurd. If you can't comprehend the idea of a Being capable of creating the reality that you attribute to other factors, just admit it - but don't bother with silly comparisons. Any being capable of creating everything that IS is certainly allowed to have his reasons that you and I may not get.

2 & 3) free will? to quote someone who writes better than I --N--, "the concept of "sin" invented along with the torture instrament that belongs with it, the concept of "free will," in order to confuse the instincts, to make mistrust of
the instincts second nature."

Sin is not a "concept" - it is a reality at the root of humanity's problems. Whoever your writer is, you flatter him to say he (she?) writes better than you: I found him/her just as confusing and difficult to follow as I do some of your statements.

the part of you that is poetically called a "spiritual nature" that longs to be with god and serve him? does being with god mean dying and being with him? if so, then you are longing for death? why?

No - I happen to like being alive. To long for death would be to disrespect the gift of life that God has bestowed upon me.

but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you mean you want to be with god in a figurative sense--act morally, be selfless, church, offerings, going against instinctive drives, ect... so "spiritual nature" is anti-nature. its the part of you that is going against the way of things, against reality. in the sense that morality is the counterconcept of life. reason being, morality accords to the "beyond" in order to devaluate the only world there is, this one. so this "spiritual nature" is your drive to become a spirit, become deader quicker. from an evolutionary standpoint, this trait might not be successful in the broad scheme of survival

You make many statements based on presuppositions that you have not adequately clarified for people outside of your head to follow. You have not made clear in the least how morality is "against" life in any coherent manner; nor have you explained satisfactorily how morality "devalues" the world. You cannot keep throwing out these statements without making clear why you make such distinctions if you expect anybody to understand you. Or are you being vague on purpose?

[billyjack]

Equating a sitcom plot with the creator of the universe is absurd. If you can't comprehend the idea of a Being capable of creating the reality that you attribute to other factors, just admit it - but don't bother with silly comparisons. Any being capable of creating everything that IS is certainly allowed to have his reasons that you and I may not get.



Sin is not a "concept" - it is a reality at the root of humanity's problems. Whoever your writer is, you flatter him to say he (she?) writes better than you: I found him/her just as confusing and difficult to follow as I do some of your statements.



No - I happen to like being alive. To long for death would be to disrespect the gift of life that God has bestowed upon me.



You make many statements based on presuppositions that you have not adequately clarified for people outside of your head to follow. You have not made clear in the least how morality is "against" life in any coherent manner; nor have you explained satisfactorily how morality "devalues" the world. You cannot keep throwing out these statements without making clear why you make such distinctions if you expect anybody to understand you. Or are you being vague on purpose?

1) what's wrong with analogizing sitcoms or fictions to comprehend fictions?

2) the writer was nietzche. i thought "N" meant nietzche, sorry i'm new. you flatter me to compare me with him. however, i don't think its a matter of my vagueness that entangles my words. i'm not a good writer, this is true, i'm more of a reader. but i think my words are entangling because they describe it how it is, whereas yours describe it how it should be. either i'm all messed up or most of the world is.

3) yet you talk of heaven. "speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth." (thoreau)

4) living is to be content with life. to take a spinozian view on life: "to look at existence and see perfection." your morality leaves people always wanting to change, to be better--which is basically saying, "how things are right now isnt right." this is calling existence imperfect. i refuse to do this. for me, that isnt living.

[Robert Jordan]

One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.
Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

[Redzeppelin]

1) what's wrong with analogizing sitcoms or fictions to comprehend fictions?

Because your analogizing on a certain degree of ignorance (because you don't know the Bible/God is fiction) so therefore, those of us who know better see your analogy as false.

2) the writer was nietzche. i thought "N" meant nietzche, sorry i'm new. you flatter me to compare me with him. however, i don't think its a matter of my vagueness that entangles my words. i'm not a good writer, this is true, i'm more of a reader. but i think my words are entangling because they describe it how it is, whereas yours describe it how it should be. either i'm all messed up or most of the world is.

Perhaps - but it is possible to take complex topics and ravel them out in a comprehensible way - take a look at a high school physics textbook.

3) yet you talk of heaven. "speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth." (thoreau)

This earth is a creation of God, and as such, is of great value and not to be despised; however, it is also in a highly degraded, compromised state due to the ravages of sin; as such, it will eventually be "overhauled" and made new; as well, the scriptures warned us of becoming too attached to the world because of its inherently deceptive nature - a nature that can have dire effects on the spirtual being.

4) living is to be content with life. to take a spinozian view on life: "to look at existence and see perfection." your morality leaves people always wanting to change, to be better--which is basically saying, "how things are right now isnt right." this is calling existence imperfect. i refuse to do this. for me, that isnt living.

Contentment with life is taught by the scriptures - but the writer of Ecclesiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but God that can provide true contentment. The unhappy lives of mega-rich, mega-famous, mega-powerful celebrities seems to bear this truth out clearly. Existence is imperfect - if you believe in God - because the presence of sin has negatively affected reality at all levels - personal, social, natural. What "isn't living" is following ourselves into the black hole of our own intellect and our own desires. That way madness lies.

[billyjack]

Because your analogizing on a certain degree of ignorance (because you don't know the Bible/God is fiction) so therefore, those of us who know better see your analogy as false.


This earth is a creation of God, and as such, is of great value and not to be despised; however, it is also in a highly degraded, compromised state due to the ravages of sin; as such, it will eventually be "overhauled" and made new; as well, the scriptures warned us of becoming too attached to the world because of its inherently deceptive nature - a nature that can have dire effects on the spirtual being.



Contentment with life is taught by the scriptures - but the writer of Ecclesiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but God that can provide true contentment. The unhappy lives of mega-rich, mega-famous, mega-powerful celebrities seems to bear this truth out clearly. Existence is imperfect - if you believe in God - because the presence of sin has negatively affected reality at all levels - personal, social, natural. What "isn't living" is following ourselves into the black hole of our own intellect and our own desires. That way madness lies.

1) the definition of non-fiction:giving facts, information etc, ie not stories, novels, plays, poetry. i mistrust language, but as far as i can see this means the bible is not non-fiction.

2) "the earth is a creation of god, (you say). but because of sin it has become ravaged and put into a state in need of overhaul"(to paraphrase). so where did sin come from. something must exist outside the creation of god? what? who?

3)this contenment argument uses an appeal to unreliable authority as its backbone, "the writer of Ecclisiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but god that can provide contentment." premises have to have their facts based in reality, otherwise the premise is untrue and the argument unsound. of course truth only exist in logic, and logic isnt reality, so never mind that.

what i stuggle to understand is this. god created the world, but not sin. so who made sin--the devil? who made him? i asked it earlier in this post as well. i've more to say, but i'll wait.