What’s the difference between Right and Wrong?

[IsaacNewton]

For many morality is a moving ambiguous target. One day they espouse cheating on your wife is wrong as is sex with prostitutes. The next day they say it's perfectly fine. These people are not moral but they likely will be the ones that claim they are the most moral.

Funny that.

Jesus openly ran around town partying with sinners and prostitutes and keeping company with all sorts of bad characters. The pharisees called him an immoral glutton and a drunk leading people astray and was most likely insane.

The Pharisees ran around town celebrated as highly respected and dedicated orthodox moral authorities. Jesus called them perverse actors and lying frauds peddling death and were most likely deliberately evil.

How could Jesus have been right calling them imposters when they obsessively conformed to the literal letter of the moral law?

How could the Pharisees have been wrong to accuse Jesus of being a sinner?

How could Jesus have claimed to always do exactly what God commands without conforming to the literal letter of the law apparently doing whatever he pleased?


Solve that riddle and you will discover the key to eternal life.

You're funny and sooo predictable. Jesus H you actually think you're going to tell other adults 'Solve that riddle and you will discover the key to eternal life.' Believe in magic Percy, but keep it in your own skull. Stop already, thank you for making the point by ignoring the point.

 

[hobelim]

For many morality is a moving ambiguous target. One day they espouse cheating on your wife is wrong as is sex with prostitutes. The next day they say it's perfectly fine. These people are not moral but they likely will be the ones that claim they are the most moral.

Funny that.

Jesus openly ran around town partying with sinners and prostitutes and keeping company with all sorts of bad characters. The pharisees called him an immoral glutton and a drunk leading people astray and was most likely insane.

The Pharisees ran around town celebrated as highly respected and dedicated orthodox moral authorities. Jesus called them perverse actors and lying frauds peddling death and were most likely deliberately evil.

How could Jesus have been right calling them imposters when they obsessively conformed to the literal letter of the moral law?

How could the Pharisees have been wrong to accuse Jesus of being a sinner?

How could Jesus have claimed to always do exactly what God commands without conforming to the literal letter of the law apparently doing whatever he pleased?


Solve that riddle and you will discover the key to eternal life.

You're funny and sooo predictable. Jesus H you actually think you're going to tell other adults 'Solve that riddle and you will discover the key to eternal life.' Believe in magic Percy, but keep it in your own skull. Stop already, thank you for making the point by ignoring the point.

Its not about magic sparkie. You questioned the relative nature of morality.

Comprehending where right and wrong and judgment lie is the answer . And it is exactly like a riddle.

Lies move around as things change but the truth never changes whatever is going on..

Without comprehension of the truth, you cannot know what eternal life even is.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This is one of those things where people will probably see things differently.

For me what you're calling morality and moral understand are pretty much the same thing.

What is human nature? If you look around the world, and you see differences in how things work, you'll see that perhaps there isn't that much that could be defined as human nature.

We're biological beings and as such a lot of what we do is automatic, we believe we are free to do as we choose, but really we're not.

It's why religion took off, it's about taking control from something we actually don't have control over. We need to believe we have such control.

But that biology can be shaped. We've learned to shape ourselves into something more than the sum of our parts. Morality comes more from that, than from our biological selves.

Though the thought process for the whole thing might take a long time as this is a complex topic and I've not thought about it that much.

To answer the human nature question as I see it, I'll copy an edited version of a post I wrote specifically on this topic. I agree that there is an automatic and willful aspect to human nautre:

"To attribute specific qualities [like good, evil, selfish, caring] to human nature is to stop the investigation short of its object. The particular expressions of human nature are not human nature itself; and conditions are a major factor to consider when evaluating both personal and social behaviors.

Human nature can be defined by two broad characteristics: free will, and adaptability.

Man’s adaptability is rooted in his evolved intellectual and creative prowess. These left-brained and right-brained modalities, when working in unison, allow him to devise novel, effective solutions. But adaptability, like all extant phenomena, exists as a polarity. The dark side of adaptability is programmability – a vulnerability to manipulation.

So where does this leave free will? By the above commentary, one would be left suspecting that free will does not exist at all. However, the expression of free will resides in the ability to decide where to place one’s attention.

Attention has been described as “spiritual (or mental) currency”. We “pay” attention to get something in return. What we get depends on where we spend it, and how much we pay. As described in my thread How emotion affects our political views , the thoughts we focus upon will determine our emotional state, and our emotional state will influence our actions.

It behooves us to be as prudent and frugal with attention as we are with our material resources. More so, in fact, as the expression of our human nature (given a particular set of conditions) will be a reflection of this expenditure."