# Is the Bible a complete moral guide?



## pnome (Jul 19, 2009)

Just a simple question.   Do you think the bible is a relevant and complete moral guide for the people of today?   Please provide you reasoning.





As you can guess my answer is no.   

While the bible does provide some good, relevant moral lessons in some parts of the text and while it most likely served as a good moral guide for people living in antiquity, it is not complete for the morals of today.  The moral zeitgeist has moved on.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 19, 2009)

A Catholic priest once told me "take what you need, leave the rest."
That has a very deep meaning for me.

I think that at no time has man fully understood how each other thinks.  We probably never will.  Everything written becomes a step in a journey.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 19, 2009)

It is a total Moral guide as far as what "Moral" Means to God.


----------



## redneckcamo (Jul 19, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> It is a total Moral guide as far as what "Moral" Means to God.



that is an answer worth repeating


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2009)

I am glad you brought this up. I am interested to see this unfold. 

Yes the Bible is an absolute set of moral standards that, if followed, would make the world a better place. Jesus' two great commands are infallible to, I think, everyone on the planet. Right is right, no matter when you ask me. 

Now, supporting Dawkins' assumptions, relativism would have me morally supportive of human sacrifices if I lived with the Aztecs. Homosexuality will soon be fine. Or, perhaps, in another 300 years, child molestation will be morally acceptable. Why? Once 51% of the population endorses it, it is culturally valid and therefore, moral. 


And, to turn the question around...Where is the Bible morally "Deficient" for today?


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 19, 2009)

And, to turn the question around...Where is the Bible morally "Deficient" for today? 

Only to those who are morally deficient and disobedient, evil doers, lovers of their own selves, lustful, haters of God and mankind.

Wait doesn't the Bible say that will be the last generation ? I guess we are there already, IMO


----------



## pnome (Jul 19, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> And, to turn the question around...Where is the Bible morally "Deficient" for today?




Slavery is the first thing that comes to mind.


----------



## farmasis (Jul 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Slavery is the first thing that comes to mind.


 

Slavery in the Bible usually was the result of people selling themselves because of  debt or through means of those captured in war. The Bible does not condone slavery, but does give guidelines to how a slave should be treated.

Slavery as we often think of (the capture of innocent people who were sold off to others against their will) was not accepted.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2009)

Well, I do know there is the "Do unto others" part of Christianity. I also know Paul urged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus as a brother. And I also know many Christians were at the fore-front of the anti-slavery movement because they saw the trade and treatment of slaves as antiquated and evil.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Jul 19, 2009)

I believe it is still a good moral guide even today because while the world and technology has changed, we have not. The same sins that were around back then are still here today. No new sins have been invented, only new ways to commit them.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2009)

Also, where does an atheist or agnostic get his/her morals?


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 19, 2009)

Good question


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 19, 2009)

lowjack said:


> it is a total moral guide as far as what "moral" means to god.


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## earl (Jul 19, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Slavery in the Bible usually was the result of people selling themselves because of  debt or through means of those captured in war. The Bible does not condone slavery, but does give guidelines to how a slave should be treated.
> 
> Slavery as we often think of (the capture of innocent people who were sold off to others against their will) was not accepted.





By giving guide lines ,the bible endorses slavery. Just like if I were to tell a woman were the closest abortion clinic was , I would be guilty of endorsing abortion.
 Selling yourself into bondage or making prisoners of war slaves is highly illegal in the US.
 Slavery is slavery whether it is self inflicted,imprisonment of an innocent, or any other method. 
  Whitewashing doesn't help.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 19, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Also, where does an atheist or agnostic get his/her morals?



Usually from their surrounding human community.  That includes parential influence, teacher's influence, public law and policy and society.


----------



## pnome (Jul 19, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Also, where does an atheist or agnostic get his/her morals?



Essentially, from the same place you do.  The same place the authors of the bible got theirs.

Read this thread starting on post #53.  http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=3680422

If you have any questions, start another thread.  I'll respond.


----------



## pnome (Jul 19, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Slavery in the Bible usually was the result of people selling themselves because of  debt or through means of *those captured in war*. The Bible does not condone slavery, but does give guidelines to how a slave should be treated.
> 
> *Slavery as we often think of (the capture of innocent people who were sold off to others against their will) was not accepted*.



Those two statement seem to contradict.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Usually from their surrounding human community.  That includes parential influence, teacher's influence, public law and policy and society.



A reasonable response. On an individual scale, not that crazy, on the scale of society, very scary. 

What happens when your parents abuse/neglect/molest you, your teacher is lazy, the government is controlled by fanatics and society says "if it feels good, do it?"
Honestly, is there a problem here? Maybe, but maybe not for the atheist. 

I realize thats far-fetched, even for America, but it begs the question. Why does "because everyone says so," or "everyone else is doing it" make it right? 

To be fair, I believe its ok that just because God says so, its right. Thats because I believe my God created us in His image and has a set of standards for his people.


----------



## leadoff (Jul 19, 2009)

How does morality change?  I think the question here is this, "Are we changing morality to fit our own 'modern' standards?"  If this be the reason, then we are skewing the lines to validate our sinful desires.  We are selfish beings and, when given the opportunity, will change the rules to fit our own lusts and desires.  I believe the Bible is God's written word and outlines the standard by which we should live.  Yes, the anecdotes and stories are ancient; however, the truths within are eternal.


----------



## pnome (Jul 19, 2009)

Gatorb said:


> Are there things that Jesus taught as moral guidelines, commandments, and or teachings that you would say- "that would NOT make our culture a better place?"



Not really.  I tend to agree with just about all of the teachings of Jesus.  Obviously not the whole "Son of God" part though.

I know some of you are going to jump on this, but I think an argument could be made that Jesus was maybe a little bit communist:


> *Matthew 19:24 (New King James Version)*
> 
> <sup id="en-NKJV-23781" class="versenum" value="24">24</sup> And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”



Something inherently wrong with being wealthy? I think people should strive to be successful.  With success can come great wealth, there's nothing wrong with that.  Yet here, Jesus is  indicating that being wealthy is a serious barrier to entry into heaven.


----------



## lilburnjoe (Jul 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Just a simple question.   Do you think the bible is a relevant and complete moral guide for the people of today?   Please provide you reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My GOD is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. GOD is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.


----------



## leadoff (Jul 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Something inherently wrong with being wealthy? I think people should strive to be successful.  With success can come great wealth, there's nothing wrong with that.  Yet here, Jesus is  indicating that being wealthy is a serious barrier to entry into heaven.



Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  Not saying being wealthy is wrong.  Putting one's wealth and the love of money ahead of God is wrong.

Look at the context of what you quoted, specifically the preceding verses...Matthew 19:16 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"  Matthew 19:21 "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

The man was unwilling to sacrifice his wealth.


----------



## pnome (Jul 19, 2009)

leadoff said:


> Thou shalt have no other gods before me.




This gives me a thought, don't you think the first commandment speaks to a jealousy problem with God?  Last I checked jealousy wasn't a good moral.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 19, 2009)

Wow, nothing like a little mis-interpretation of Bible verse. I can take one passage in the Bible and prove anything. But, take it in context. And consider Proverbs "the love of money is the root of all evil." It is not bad to be wealthy. It is not bad to be poor. God sends rain on the just and the unjust. 
In any situation one must put God first. The man in Mathew 19 put his posessions ahead of what Jesus commanded. Do we all need to sell our possessions? No, we need to do what the Holy Spirit leads us to do-in this man's case, I refer to Elijah-obedience is better than sacrifice. Just do what God tells you to do.


----------



## leadoff (Jul 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> This gives me a thought, don't you think the first commandment speaks to a jealousy problem with God?  Last I checked jealousy wasn't a good moral.



Jealousy or desire for His creation to recognize Him and fellowship with Him?


----------



## leadoff (Jul 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> This gives me a thought, don't you think the first commandment speaks to a jealousy problem with God? Last I checked jealousy wasn't a good moral.



I'm assuming you're referring to Exodus 20:5. "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

According to the original Hebrew text, the use of 
"jealous" in this context is closely related to the adjective "angry."  Nothing wrong with that, right?

Moreover, the Hebrew word for "jealous" _qanna_, is derived from the Hebrew _qana_, which is translated as "zealous."  So.....the text you are referring to actually states that our God is a "zealous" God, one who seeks a fervent partisanship with His creation.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2009)

The Bible was not inspired by God so that we could have a complete moral guide.
The Bible (old and new Testaments) contain the history of God's relationship with Israel; and it contains the Good News of Jesus Christ.(the way to God thru Jesus Christ).
You can be moral and not have salvation.
Morality isn't the issue.     Salvation is the issue.


----------



## Israel (Jul 20, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The Bible was not inspired by God so that we could have a complete moral guide.
> The Bible (old and new Testaments) contain the history of God's relationship with Israel; and it contains the Good News of Jesus Christ.(the way to God thru Jesus Christ).
> You can be moral and not have salvation.
> Morality isn't the issue.     Salvation is the issue.



Amen brother.
The indwelling Holy Spirit...which the world cannot receive is our guide...
God never wanted us to have to live up to a moral code, but to be moved by the very life he imparts through faith in his son, the messiah.
There is a vast divide between "trying" to be good...which is impossible...
And abiding in Christ.
One man will or may tend to believe he has done the best he could.
Another will proclaim the name of him who does all things well.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The Bible was not inspired by God so that we could have a complete moral guide.
> The Bible (old and new Testaments) contain the history of God's relationship with Israel; and it contains the Good News of Jesus Christ.(the way to God thru Jesus Christ).
> You can be moral and not have salvation.
> Morality isn't the issue.     Salvation is the issue.




Interesting.

I want to kind of stay on topic, so let me ask you this.

If it were legal to do so, would you own a slave?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> The moral zeitgeist has moved on.



I hadn't heard that term till I clicked on your link pnome.

I got to this line and realized it wasn't worth putting much stock in.  



> The Moral Zeitgeist is a term used to describe the progress of modern human morality. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I hadn't heard that term till I clicked on your link pnome.
> 
> I got to this line and realized it wasn't worth putting much stock in.




Yes, ignore the message because you don't like the messenger.  Always a sound practice.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Essentially, from the same place you do.  The same place the authors of the bible got theirs.
> 
> Read this thread starting on post #53.  http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=3680422
> 
> If you have any questions, start another thread.  I'll respond.



Man!  That was a good one!!!  Maybe it ought to get resurrected.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I want to kind of stay on topic, so let me ask you this.
> 
> If it were legal to do so, would you own a slave?



don't we have slaves now? 

I mean...they're not called slaves as that is not a politically correct term, but isn't that what employees are?

Oh...and to the original question,

Yes...it is a complete guide for living a godly life.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yes, ignore the message because you don't like the messenger.  Always a sound practice.



Ignore the messenger because he's a lunatic....yes.

It's got nothing to do with whether I like him or not.  He's not even logical in most of his comments.  I tend to ignore those who have proven themselves not worth listening to.

I don't ignore you buddy.  Shouldn't that say something?


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ignore the messenger because he's a lunatic....yes.
> 
> It's got nothing to do with whether I like him or not.  He's not even logical in most of his comments.  I tend to ignore those who have proven themselves not worth listening to.
> 
> I don't ignore you buddy.  Shouldn't that say something?



Interesting.   

Well, I'll tell you this much, I agree with Dawkins when it comes to the concept of the 'moral zeitgeist'.   

I agree with him on a great number of other points as well.  The only thing that stands out as a disagreement is his stance on abortion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 20, 2009)

and we get to the question of whether there are moral absolutes....

"evolving" morality makes absolutely no logical sense IMO.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> and we get to the question of whether there are moral absolutes....
> 
> "evolving" morality makes absolutely no logical sense IMO.




I believe it does, looking at it worldwide and taking a historical comparison.
We no longer accept human sacrifice, letting a king/ruler have first copulation with a bride or require certain pagan rituals to be performed at the request of a king or leader.
We do not rape and pillage and enslave those who are defeated in battle, for the most part.
And countries needing aid tend to get support even at the extreme risk of our resources and military personnel.

I'd say those are improvements.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> We do not rape and pillage and enslave those who are defeated in battle, for the most part.



We don't?  What is Obama doing to our own country now that he defeated McCain?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

He's trying to legislate an economy, similar to historical attempts at legislating morality.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 20, 2009)

Perhaps what God views as "moral" has never changed....and perhaps the "improvements" you see are humans realizing the errors they've made in the past that have pulled them away from that?

Perhaps we're dealing with two entirely different concepts.  Yes, now that I think about it....held morals of civilizations evolve over time.  What IS moral, however, does not IMO.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Perhaps what God views as "moral" has never changed....and perhaps the "improvements" you see are humans realizing the errors they've made in the past that have pulled them away from that?
> 
> Perhaps we're dealing with two entirely different concepts.  Yes, now that I think about it....held morals of civilizations evolve over time.  What IS moral, however, does not IMO.



Interesting thought and I think I'd agree.

However, look at the Code of Hammurabi.  Very similar in many ways to the law that we have today.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Yes, now that I think about it....held morals of civilizations evolve over time.  What IS moral, however, does not IMO.



Close.  But not quite.

The level of information human civilization has changes over time.   Our survival instinct does not.


----------



## wholenotem (Jul 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ignore the messenger because he's a lunatic....yes.
> It's got nothing to do with whether I like him or not.  He's not even logical in most of his comments.  I tend to ignore those who have proven themselves not worth listening to.
> 
> I don't ignore you buddy.  Shouldn't that say something?



Wether truth was spoken or not, let's ease up on the name calling. I almost went into withdrawls. When they shut this forum down.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 20, 2009)

????????????????????????????????????


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

wholenotem said:


> Wether truth was spoken or not, let's ease up on the name calling. I almost went into withdrawls. When they shut this forum down.



I am pretty sure he is referring to Richard Dawkins and not me. 

Though, I will agree that simple ad hominem is not the best way to argue against him.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

The Bible has to be viewed as a code of a civilization just like the religious works of Egyptian, Hindu, Buddhist and other Oriental and Occidental cultures.  They are historical references to the beliefs of their people.


----------



## elfiii (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Something inherently wrong with being wealthy? I think people should strive to be successful.  With success can come great wealth, there's nothing wrong with that.  Yet here, Jesus is  indicating that being wealthy is a serious barrier to entry into heaven.



P, the original premise of your thread was "Is the Bible a complete and relevant moral guide today?". You can't pose that question and then come back and lift individual passages from the Bible as proof it is or isn't a complete relevant moral guide. To do so deconstructs the interrogatory stated in your original question. The "whole" is neither proved nor disproved by quoting a small piece of the "whole" that on apperance conflicts with the "whole".

In the passage you quoted from Matthew, you suggest both "communism" and material wealth being a bar from entry into Heaven. Neither is the case. Literally what the passage means is material wealth alone will not get you through the Pearly Gates.  Neither God nor Christ teach that wealth alone is a bad thing. On balance They both taught wealth can be a good thing, depending on what you do with it and your motivations, but I digress.

In answer to your central question, yes the Bible is indeed a complete and relevant guide to morality today. God lays down his law and it is eternal. There is no "zeitgeist" because humans haven't changed since the Garden of Eden and are still motivated by the same challenges of good and evil. God hasn't changed either, nor has His Law.

As others have suggested, the "zeitgeist" gambit is merely a ruse by humans to get around what is fundamentally right and wrong. Those things never change, regardless of the time period.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Some argue that the moral zeitgeist is even more stringent than any of the current and historical religious codes.

The example of enslavery keeps popping up, and although accepted at various times of history, and under various religious belief systems, the moral zeitgeist has shown a constant questioning of it in relation to basic human freedoms and survival.

Now it is widely understood as unacceptable.

Almost any of the holy works found reflect the codes of the society in their date and time.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

elfiii said:


> P, the original premise of your thread was "Is the Bible a complete and relevant moral guide today?". You can't pose that question and then come back and lift individual passages from the Bible as proof it is or isn't a complete relevant moral guide. To do so deconstructs the interrogatory stated in your original question. The "whole" is neither proved nor disproved by quoting a small piece of the "whole" that on apperance conflicts with the "whole".
> 
> In the passage you quoted from Matthew, you suggest both "communism" and material wealth being a bar from entry into Heaven. Neither is the case. Literally what the passage means is material wealth alone will not get you through the Pearly Gates.  Neither God nor Christ teach that wealth alone is a bad thing. On balance They both taught wealth can be a good thing, depending on what you do with it and your motivations, but I digress.
> 
> ...




Ok, I'll take your word for it about Matthew and rich people having a harder time getting into heaven than poor people.

However, I will stand by my contention that, because the bible does not condemn slavery, it is not a complete moral guide.   

Slavery is immoral now, but was not back then.  In fact, it's been accepted for the vast majority of human history.  But now, nearly the world over, slavery is looked upon as immoral.  Why?  I submit this is the moral zeitgeist in motion.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> However, I will stand by my contention that, because the bible does not condemn slavery, it is not a complete moral guide.



Really, I think you're taking this slavery thing a bit too far.

Is having a slave an immoral thing?  If you treat them correctly, what is wrong with it?  Isn't that what a nanny is?  Or a maid?  Only they get paid in $$ rather than food and lodging?


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Really, I think you're taking this slavery thing a bit too far.
> 
> Is having a slave an immoral thing?  If you treat them correctly, what is wrong with it?  Isn't that what a nanny is?  Or a maid?  Only they get paid in $$ rather than food and lodging?





We're not talking employment.  We're talking about servititude by force.  Ownership of another person.

The equal standing of women in culture has improved significantly since the times of the Bible as well.
There's another juicy tidbit for discussion.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Is having a slave an immoral thing?



It is to me.  The only way to treat a slave well, is to release them.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> It is to me.  The only way to treat a slave well, is to release them.



What if they don't want to leave?  Kinda like a kid when they turn 18

Seriously though...aren't there plenty of stories of slaves who lived better under slavery than after it was abolished?


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> What if they don't want to leave?  Kinda like a kid when they turn 18
> 
> Seriously though...aren't there plenty of stories of slaves who lived better under slavery than after it was abolished?






 Let's make the question a little closer to home.  Can you make a situation where your wife or kids would be better off as slaves ,than as free , while being realistic ?  Should we turn crack babies into slaves ?
  I sincerely hope that you are practicing the fine art of chain yanking.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 20, 2009)

Who here thinks he is really free ?


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Who here thinks he is really free ?



I see the point you are trying to make, but that doesn't excuse actual slavery.


----------



## FishingAddict (Jul 20, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Slavery in the Bible usually was the result of people selling themselves because of  debt or through means of those captured in war. The Bible does not condone slavery, but does give guidelines to how a slave should be treated.
> 
> Slavery as we often think of (the capture of innocent people who were sold off to others against their will) was not accepted.



Some of it is alot like we have now. If you owe the banks, you work for the banks.  Your daily actions revolve around paying them back.


----------



## Free Willie (Jul 20, 2009)

If everything that Christ taught was in the Bible, then maybe if COULD be the complete moral law. However, Scripture tell us that Jesus taught more than what is in the Bible. 

I like your question and I am going to read up in the Cathechism and the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch and see if there is any reference to slavery in there. I haven't noticed but I haven't really been looking very hard for the answer to your question.

I think your question DOES shed light on how some Christians err in how much importance they put in the Bible.


----------



## Free Willie (Jul 20, 2009)

OK...not really a complete answer to slavery but this is the Church's Social Doctrine:



III. THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 

2419 "Christian revelation . . . promotes deeper understanding of the laws of social living."199 The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom. 

2420 The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it."200 In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships. 

2421 The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership. The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church's teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active.201 

2422 The Church's social teaching comprises a body of doctrine, which is articulated as the Church interprets events in the course of history, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in the light of the whole of what has been revealed by Jesus Christ.202 This teaching can be more easily accepted by men of good will, the more the faithful let themselves be guided by it. 

2423 The Church's social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action: 

Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.203 

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204 

A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206 

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended. 

IV. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God's plan for man.209 

2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another.210 Hence work is a duty: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."211 Work honors the Creator's gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work212 in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.213 Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ. 

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214 

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community. 

2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215 

2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate. 

2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217 

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment. 

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220 

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages. 

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good. 

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority. 

Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.223


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Who here thinks he is really free ?





I am ! I am free to make my own decisions as long as I am also willing to take the consequences. Slavery in no way ,shape , or form allows this.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> I see the point you are trying to make, but that doesn't excuse actual slavery.


Don't pay your taxes to Cesar and see how quickly you are jailed and lose, house car and boat.
I paid 46% in income Taxes last year and not voluntarily.
Am I Free Really ?


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

FishingAddict said:


> Some of it is alot like we have now. If you owe the banks, you work for the banks.  Your daily actions revolve around paying them back.



No . You do have the option to not pay the bank. And if you can afford the right lawyers you can get away with it.


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Don't pay your taxes to Cesar and see how quickly you are jailed and lose, house car and boat.
> I paid 46% in income Taxes last year and not voluntarily.
> Am I Free Really ?



You just need a better tax man.


----------



## Lowjack (Jul 20, 2009)

earl said:


> You just need a better tax man.



Yeah right ! you need to open your eyes, you are all slaves of the sistem, called "passive enslavement", by making the workers think they are free and that they can buy what they want , a slave will work harder thus producing more for the masters.Something which didn't work with a whip, where slaves ran away or were abused to death.
See how much of your salary goes into paying someone else and that will give you your net gain.
See how much you have saved in your life time and that will tell you if you were slave or not.
Just make a list of to whom you pay taxes , on what items and how much, you soon will discover who your master is.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> OK...not really a complete answer to slavery but this is the Church's Social Doctrine:



Looks like a complete answer to me.  I don't see how anyone could fit slavery in there.


Very interesting post.  Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 20, 2009)

Ok, after some minor thought and reflection.

If the "zeitgeist" is ever evolving to exclude primitive institutions like slavery, why are there countries that are lagging behind (read diamond mining, 3rd world, etc...)

Why is there still poor treatment of women-who, by the way, jumped ahead by leaps and bounds in thanks to Christianity-in many countries?

Why are there those in this society who continue to kill even though the zeitgeist has moved on? (read Nazi Germany) Seems Hitler was very clever about getting the zeitgeist to change quickly so that killing of millions of Jews was acceptable, and morally right. This took place 30,000 years after Dawkins posits humans have been moving along in our evolution of moral zeitgest. So, why are there these glaring DE-evolutions of the zeitgeist and why are they so prevalent? 

I suspect that humans have always been the same. They will always be the same.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ok, after some minor thought and reflection.
> 
> If the "zeitgeist" is ever evolving to exclude primitive institutions like slavery, why are there countries that are lagging behind (read diamond mining, 3rd world, etc...)
> 
> ...




Education and the access to it.  That has made the difference in advancement of multiple facets of culture.

The Nazi analogy is a little off, in that what was conducted by them was very much in secret to start, and there really never was a change in the zeitgeist of the culture towards accepting such actions by a very few who held the ability to do such.
Upon revelation, the world was shocked.  And sickened.


----------



## earl (Jul 20, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Yeah right ! you need to open your eyes, you are all slaves of the sistem, called "passive enslavement", by making the workers think they are free and that they can buy what they want , a slave will work harder thus producing more for the masters.Something which didn't work with a whip, where slaves ran away or were abused to death.
> See how much of your salary goes into paying someone else and that will give you your net gain.
> See how much you have saved in your life time and that will tell you if you were slave or not.
> Just make a list of to whom you pay taxes , on what items and how much, you soon will discover who your master is.





When I see my wife ,my sons and their families I know how rich I am. My account in dollar and cents can be negative ,and mostly is , but I am a man rich beyond words.  I am a free man . 
  The ''sistem'' is worked by people every day .  The poor work it their way and the rich work it theirs. Do a little research and see how much tax the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich actually pay .


----------



## CAL (Jul 20, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> It is a total Moral guide as far as what "Moral" Means to God.



What else is important once one has pleased God?


----------



## post450 (Jul 20, 2009)

earl said:


> Let's make the question a little closer to home.  Can you make a situation where your wife or kids would be better off as slaves ,than as free , while being realistic ?  Should we turn crack babies into slaves ?
> I sincerely hope that you are practicing the fine art of chain yanking.



Can you imagine a scenario where most slaves who might have been freed, if so commanded by the New Testament as part of the conversion to a believer, would be have been better off? 

I do seriously doubt that most slaves could have survived sudden "freedom". It was not like a freed slave could turn to the government and get a years ration of food and necessities, let alone find government subsidized housing. It took months to grow food and not mention the problem of finding a place suitable for growing it. What were they to survive on in the interim? What about protection from those owners who were not Christians (assuming all Christians were required to free slaves) who were likely to capture them and force them right back into slavery, likely under worse conditions?  Uniting to fight for liberty is one thing, but these slaves could have ran away and starved to death just the same, both of which would have changed life very little. Most chose not to do so.

I am not saying slavery is acceptable in any circumstance, but freedom and change were just not as simple as you portray it due to factors outside of religion.

I am not a Richard Dawkins fan and I may not completely understand the concept of moral zeitgeist, but I think ultimately, the abolishment of slavery was much more attributable to the industrial revolution than moral zeitgeist. Not a pretty thought, but the human race is flawed. Look at how long it has taken our country to begin to give African Americans the rights and dignity they deserve as human beings. If it was simply the morally correct thing to do, why didn't it happen in 1864 instead of 1964? Why did they have to fight for equality? Freedom and equality are quite obviously two different things. If was was a slave owner and freed my slave, but still felt I was superior to him in God's eyes would that suffice as morally acceptable? 

It might if the Bible had simply condemned slavery, but the Bible goes further and condemns us for being a respecter of persons. Is that not a much less offense than slavery? I do not know how slave owners in the United States read and interpreted the same scriptures we read today or justified their actions, but according to the Bible, Christ led by a loving example. Just because a majority  accepts an idea does not make it morally correct by Biblical standards. 

I believe the Bible is a complete moral guide for our daily lives as believers (individual).  If you truly follow the teachings of Christ, you could never condone slavery or abortion, but both have been allowed by our government and society at different times. Why would either one be any fault of the Bible which openly condemns the mis-treatment of others on a much lesser scale than slavery?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I want to kind of stay on topic, so let me ask you this.
> 
> If it were legal to do so, would you own a slave?




No.  I wouldn't own a slave.
Morality doesn't have a lot to do with law.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> No.  I wouldn't own a slave.
> Morality doesn't have a lot to do with law.




Would say then that you have a moral against owning slaves?

If so, where did this moral come from?  Can you account for it?

I would argue you have this moral in spite of your religion, and not because of it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2009)

I'm sorry but my take on morality must be different that everyone elses.
To me, morality has to do with social norm's.  Not with pleasing God.  This country is filled with morality laws.  In New York City, morality laws say there can be nudie bars on certain streets but not near residential zones and churches.  In Panama City Beach, morality laws say no pubic hair can be showing.

In my mind, morality has to do with ethics, and way people treat each other.

Bible standards go far beyond all that.
Morality say's you cannot murder someone.
But the Bible says hating someone is as bad a murder.

I don't consider morality a biblical issue.
Godliness is a biblical issue.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> *Would say then that you have a moral against owning slaves?*
> 
> If so, where did this moral come from?  Can you account for it?
> 
> I would argue you have this moral in spite of your religion, and not because of it.



About the best way I can answer that question is with this...  "I wouldn't own a slave today because I've come to know Jesus Christ.  And I'm certain that Jesus would never own a slave.


----------



## PWalls (Jul 20, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> I think your question DOES shed light on how some Christians err in how much importance they put in the Bible.



The Bible is the MOST IMPORTANT reference a Christian has at their disposal after heartfelt prayer. To rely on man or tradition or others ahead of the Bible or to put those on the same level as the Bible is fallacy.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> About the best way I can answer that question is with this...  "I wouldn't own a slave today because I've come to know Jesus Christ.  And I'm certain that Jesus would never own a slave.



I think you're probably right that Jesus would not own a slave.  My point is that he never says it's wrong to do so.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think you're probably right that Jesus would not own a slave. My point is that he never says it's wrong to do so.


 

So if you had someone that owed you something let's say a hunting rifle that they borrowed and then somehow messed up... but don't have the money to pay for it or get you another one... but is willing to do some work for you to pay off that debt... Wouldn't this person be considered a slave till the debt was paid?

DB BB


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Indentured servititude or slavery.
There's a big difference.


----------



## Free Willie (Jul 20, 2009)

PWalls said:


> The Bible is the MOST IMPORTANT reference a Christian has at their disposal after heartfelt prayer. To rely on man or tradition or others ahead of the Bible or to put those on the same level as the Bible is fallacy.



That is only your opinion and cannot be proven. As a matter of fact, the Bible you fully rely on tells you NOT to rely on it totally. It tells you to hold fast to tradition. Failure to do so has resulted in the many headed hydra that is the protestant belief system.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Indentured servititude or slavery.
> There's a big difference.


 
They are still a "Type of Slave" to you until the debt is paid off....

DB BB


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So if you had someone that owed you something let's say a hunting rifle that they borrowed and then somehow messed up... but don't have the money to pay for it or get you another one... but is willing to do some work for you to pay off that debt... Wouldn't this person be considered a slave till the debt was paid?
> 
> DB BB



No. Bartering does not equal slavery.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> They are still a "Type of Slave" to you until the debt is paid off....
> 
> DB BB




No.  They are a contract worker.


----------



## post450 (Jul 20, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> That is only your opinion and cannot be proven. As a matter of fact, the Bible you fully rely on tells you NOT to rely on it totally. It tells you to hold fast to tradition. Failure to do so has resulted in the many headed hydra that is the protestant belief system.



My Bible doesn't say that. You must have it confused with some new fangled version.  

The Protestant system may have many heads, but it only has one body, and that is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> No. Bartering does not equal slavery.


 
It is not a barter... it is a debt that has to be paid...

Bartering is an arrangement made before anything is exchanged...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No. They are a contract worker.


 
Back in Biblical times they were considered Slaves until their debt was paid off...

DB BB


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

That's clearly an exchange of labor instead of money.
It would be pre-arrainged as to how many hours/days/weeks equated the amount of money owed, and what work is to be completed.

But we digress from the OP's question........


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's clearly an exchange of labor instead of money.
> It would be pre-arrainged as to how many hours/days/weeks equated the amount of money owed, and what work is to be completed.
> 
> But we digress from the OP's question........


 
How can something be arranged after the fact of destroying someone elses property, when there was nothing setup in the first place....

and yes we digress, but it was something brought up by the OP, in his on thread..

DB BB


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think you're probably right that Jesus would not own a slave.  *My point is that he never says it's wrong to do so*.



That's not the way Christian issues are decided or developed.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 20, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> That is only your opinion and cannot be proven. As a matter of fact, the Bible you fully rely on tells you NOT to rely on it totally. It tells you to hold fast to tradition. Failure to do so has resulted in the many headed hydra that is the *protestant belief system*.




"BIBLE belief system".


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> How can something be arranged after the fact of destroying someone elses property, when there was nothing setup in the first place....



Pretty sure it happens all the time.  Rather than going through the accepted formal legal measures of the society the two parties work out an arrangement, or a verbal contract to exchange work in lieu of money.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Pretty sure it happens all the time. Rather than going through the accepted formal legal measures of the society the two parties work out an arrangement, or a verbal contract to exchange work in lieu of money.


 
I am sure it does to... but the person that owes the debt is a slave to the person he owes...

DB BB


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

A slave is a chattel, or is considered property of the owner.
I'd think someone working off a debt is no where near the real definition of a slave.  

I'd like to think I am a slave to my mortgage company, but that was my decision which I can change at any time.
Thankfully, I'm not truly shackled, chained and locked in a run down quarters on the backside of a baron's estate.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> A slave is a chattel, or is considered property of the owner.
> I'd think someone working off a debt is no where near the real definition of a slave.
> 
> I'd like to think I am a slave to my mortgage company, but that was my decision which I can change at any time.
> Thankfully, I'm not truly shackled, chained and locked in a run down quarters on the backside of a baron's estate.


 


Just wait... Obama hasn't been in office long enough... we all  might be slaves before it is over...


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 20, 2009)

DB BB, there is a major debt to be paid, for sure.


----------



## pnome (Jul 20, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Just wait... Obama hasn't been in office long enough... we all  might be slaves before it is over...




That's a good point though.  Slaves all get free health care too.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 21, 2009)

Wow.  So the original question about the Bible containing, or not containing, a complete ‘moral guide,’ devolves quickly into a debate over the definition of slavery . . . and some would actually argue that any and all debts of obligation are equivalent to slavery?  How much easier it would have been to avoid slavery, then, by failing to fill out that MasterCard application . . . 

Be serious.  If one can actually equate the incurring of debt to actual slavery, as has been practiced historically and is practiced to this day, then the educational system has failed completely.  As a bluff and a distraction from the question at hand, this digression has served those who wish to avoid the question quite well, but there is no parallel that can reasonably be drawn between the assumption of voluntary obligations and the forcible imposition of human ownership.  It is disingenuous, insulting, and anti-intellectual to even attempt to suggest otherwise.

Suppose we get back to the idea at hand, eh?  

Lowjack states: “It is a total Moral guide as far as what "Moral" Means to God.”    Um?  And we know what “Moral” means to God on account of what?  

Huntinfool states, in another odd digression: “The Moral Zeitgeist is a term used to describe the progress of modern human morality. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins,”  I’m not sure where that quote was derived, since it was unattributed, but actually, the term ‘zeitgeist’ is a noun, from the German, meaning the spirit of the time, and the word predates Dawkins by hundreds of years.  So, no, even though one wishes to vilify a certain enemy, and cast stones, it seems that the villain is not the one you point to and wish to blame.  The odd habit of ignoring the thought because you do not like the speaker of that thought has a resonance here . . . but at least try to get your references straight before you burn an enemy at the stake and draw conclusions based only on your opinion of an individual man, eh?  Isn’t that exactly what you say ought not be done?  

Then states, only by his own assertion: “Ignore the messenger because he's a lunatic....yes.”  But, you did not ignore that ‘lunatic,’ did you?  You took him to heart, and mounted a defense, however feeble . . .  And, again, offered a conclusion based on no evidence other than your own Word.  Consistent, at least, but unsupported.

And it needs to be done, so let us take on this one:  “As others have suggested, the "zeitgeist" gambit is merely a ruse by humans to get around what is fundamentally right and wrong. Those things never change, regardless of the time period.”    Sir.  Respectfully, I read and understand your point – one cannot cherry-pick points out of context.  But if we take the entirety of the Book, in context, and read it as a whole, there are undeniable problems and conflicts in the morality displayed.  

I could put up about fifteen pages here to prove that, and I will if necessary, but the thought at hand is that few can assert with any hope of finding an audience that the stories were other than topical, timely, allegorical, and unusually thoughtful for the time.  But for some few central concepts that are shared by all peoples and all religions and all tribal cultures throughout history (‘what is fundamentally right and wrong’), there is nothing that actually distinguishes the conflicting teachings and contradictory lessons from anything one could have equally learned at my grandmother’s knee.

As a ‘Complete’ morality, it is difficult to accept on many levels.


----------



## Dawgy_Daddy (Jul 21, 2009)

I think everyone needs to check the labels and see where their clothing is made. If it doesnt say "Made In America" chances are you are supporting slavery.  How many frequent The GAP?


----------



## Israel (Jul 21, 2009)

What a red herring.
How can folks be so disingenuous and then believe they can judge the morality of anything?
God desires truth in the inward parts before you set out to lay snares for one another.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 21, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Wow. So the original question about the Bible containing, or not containing, a complete ‘moral guide,’ devolves quickly into a debate over the definition of slavery . . . and some would actually argue that any and all debts of obligation are equivalent to slavery? How much easier it would have been to avoid slavery, then, by failing to fill out that MasterCard application . . .
> 
> Be serious. If one can actually equate the incurring of debt to actual slavery, as has been practiced historically and is practiced to this day, then the educational system has failed completely. As a bluff and a distraction from the question at hand, this digression has served those who wish to avoid the question quite well, but there is no parallel that can reasonably be drawn between the assumption of voluntary obligations and the forcible imposition of human ownership. It is disingenuous, insulting, and anti-intellectual to even attempt to suggest otherwise.


 

You are a Slave to anything that rules your life.... ie TV, Money, Debt, Hunting, Fishing.... sometimes that is voluntary... sometimes it is not.

Today's whole financial system is based on debt... the only way anyone can be anywhere close to free is to not have any debt...

this is a paraphrase... Hamilton called American's lazy and unwilling to work and the only way to gaurantee American's would work is to have them owe...

The educational system has really failed when people can't seem to realize that there are all types of slavery...

DB BB


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 21, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You are a Slave to anything that rules your life.... ie TV, Money, Debt, Hunting, Fishing.... sometimes that is voluntary... sometimes it is not.
> 
> Today's whole financial system is based on debt... the only way anyone can be anywhere close to free is to not have any debt...
> 
> ...



While I agree to an extent, I think slavery is much worse than being a debtor. Owing a bank is one thing, getting your arm chopped off because you refuse to mine diamonds is another...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 21, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> While I agree to an extent, I think slavery is much worse than being a debtor. Owing a bank is one thing, getting your arm chopped off because you refuse to mine diamonds is another...


 
I am not talking about the conditions in which a slave is treated... I talking about being a slave to anyone or anything...

I wonder what happened back in Biblical times when someone didn't pay off their debt?

DB BB


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 21, 2009)

Sir, if your dedication to your Book is such that you would attempt to rationalize the clear endorsement of slavery by the making of weak and very badly strained parallels, then truly your belief is a strong one. 

Morally, however, you seem to have put yourself in a bit of a box by that turn of excuse-making.  The question on the table is that of morality.  Do you say that you endorse and agree with every part of the moral teachings of the Bible, taken as a whole work, without question?


----------



## Israel (Jul 22, 2009)

I see several slaves here, and God treats you wonderfully well. 
He gives you rain for your crops, children and wives to delight your hearts, and work to put your hands to.
Now, if he does all this for the those who are slaves to his enemy, you may want to reconsider a stance that would demean him when you scorn his invitation to labor in his fields.
Besides, he calls us friends.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jul 22, 2009)

Israel said:


> I see several slaves here, and God treats you wonderfully well.
> He gives you rain for your crops, children and wives to delight your hearts, and work to put your hands to.
> Now, if he does all this for the those who are slaves to his enemy, you may want to reconsider a stance that would demean him when you scorn his invitation to labor in his fields.
> Besides, he calls us friends.





27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 

   28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 

   29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 

   30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 22, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Do you say that you endorse and agree with every part of the moral teachings of the Bible, taken as a whole work, without question?


 
YES! I thought that was made perfectly clear ealier in this discussion....

DB BB


----------



## Madman (Jul 22, 2009)

I do not agree with your presupposition that the Bible is not the definitive moral code because you have no basis of belief except your opinion, but since you believe it is not, what book do you believe is the definitive moral code.


----------



## tell sackett (Jul 22, 2009)

Israel said:


> I see several slaves here, and God treats you wonderfully well.
> He gives you rain for your crops, children and wives to delight your hearts, and work to put your hands to.
> Now, if he does all this for the those who are slaves to his enemy, you may want to reconsider a stance that would demean him when you scorn his invitation to labor in his fields.
> Besides, he calls us friends.


Very good post


----------



## elfiii (Jul 22, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> And it needs to be done, so let us take on this one:  “As others have suggested, the "zeitgeist" gambit is merely a ruse by humans to get around what is fundamentally right and wrong. Those things never change, regardless of the time period.”    Sir.  Respectfully, I read and understand your point – one cannot cherry-pick points out of context.  But if we take the entirety of the Book, in context, and read it as a whole, there are undeniable problems and conflicts in the morality displayed.
> 
> I could put up about fifteen pages here to prove that, and I will if necessary, but the thought at hand is that few can assert with any hope of finding an audience that the stories were other than topical, timely, allegorical, and unusually thoughtful for the time.  But for some few central concepts that are shared by all peoples and all religions and all tribal cultures throughout history (‘what is fundamentally right and wrong’), there is nothing that actually distinguishes the conflicting teachings and contradictory lessons from anything one could have equally learned at my grandmother’s knee.
> 
> As a ‘Complete’ morality, it is difficult to accept on many levels.



I could also do the same were I inclined for the sake of argument to do so.

In essence your posit merely advances the "cherry picking" argument by way of "quantity" as opposed to the usage of one or two scriptural passages. Again, doing so deconstructs both the question and the Bible taken as a whole.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, God is perfect, we are humans and thus imperfect, we do little more than attempt to understand His meaning. I am certain when it is our individual "turn", we will all be surprised at how many things we got wrong once we are with Him and he reveals all to us.

In spite of arguments to the contrary, I still accept the Bible as a complete moral guide, my lack of full understanding of it notwithstanding. I think I have a pretty clear idea of the direction God desires we point our lives in. Going that direction without deviating is another problem altogether and addressing that problem occupies more of my time than trying to rationalize those few passages of scripture that don't seem to "square" with the rest of His holy word. Figuring those things out isn't my job and I know I am incapable of it to begin with.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jul 22, 2009)

pnome said:


> Just a simple question.   Do you think the bible is a relevant and complete moral guide for the people of today?   Please provide you reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well... The answer is Yes. And if you read Deuteronomy and the teachings of Moses on the 10 commandments then you could see it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jul 22, 2009)

Israel said:


> What a red herring.
> How can folks be so disingenuous and then believe they can judge the morality of anything?
> God desires truth in the inward parts before you set out to lay snares for one another.



Yeah right....


----------



## PWalls (Jul 22, 2009)

elfiii said:


> In spite of arguments to the contrary, I still accept the Bible as a complete moral guide, my lack of full understanding of it notwithstanding. I think I have a pretty clear idea of the direction God desires we point our lives in. Going that direction without deviating is another problem altogether and addressing that problem occupies more of my time than trying to rationalize those few passages of scripture that don't seem to "square" with the rest of His holy word. Figuring those things out isn't my job and I know I am incapable of it to begin with.



Good post.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 23, 2009)

Double Barrel BB states: “You are a Slave to anything that rules your life.... ie TV, Money, Debt, Hunting, Fishing.... sometimes that is voluntary... sometimes it is not.”   Sir, if you truly feel that any of the things you observed, from television to fishing, can actually rule your life, and can enslaved you involuntarily, then it is genuinely time to take a vacation and stare into the Sun . . .  Slavery is involuntary.  That is one of the core definitions of the word.  Television, Debt, and Hunting would be things that are, um, choices?  

Elfiii states: “Since the Bible is the Word of God, God is perfect, we are humans and thus imperfect, we do little more than attempt to understand His meaning.”  Taken as a statement of personal belief, without a shred of evidence other than that belief, then what is presented is a valid representation of a viewpoint.  Fair enough.  But what does it mean, exactly, aside from dissembling, to take the Bible ‘as a whole’?  

If one reads the entire Book, from Genesis to Revelation, in a single sitting, it seems to have so little narrative consistency, so little internal structure, so many erratic and unrelated digressions, and so many outright contradictions that the whole is in no fashion either connected or complementary.  As just an example, start at Genesis 6:6, where it seems like God is having second thoughts . . .   But . . . hey . . . wait a minute . . . how can God have failed to anticipate that his creation might be less than he had in mind?    “Darn it.  Missed again.  (Heavy Sigh)  Guess I’ll kill them all, and try it again . . .”   This is not encouraging, for those who might want to see God as infallible.  Clearly God didn’t have that high of an opinion of Himself, nor of His creation, here in the Beginning.  But then, looking around, if I was responsible for this mess, I’d be having a bit of Creator’s Remorse myself . . .   

Then just a bit later, in Leviticus 21:16 through 21:24, God says out loud that he doesn’t want handicapped people, or even ugly ones, in His House.  Now, taken as a whole, if the Book is entirely the Word of God, then all of the words need to be used to modify and enlighten all of the others.  One cannot edit out and ignore things like that, since they are also God’s Words.  As a moral guide, there seems to be quite a bit of creative interpretation that needs to be applied, and one cannot, if one is a true believer, dare to interpret the Divine.  Nor, as you say, hope to understand.

So, if one cannot understand, and one cannot interpret, and one cannot resolve the conflicts, then, um, what exactly does the ‘whole’ say other than anything one wishes it to say?  And wouldn’t the act of projecting your own meanings be a pretense that is in and of itself counterfeit and in direct contradiction of the assertion that these are God’s own words, and not your own?


----------



## Big7 (Jul 24, 2009)

No it is not.

And.... Yes, I'll give my explination when I get back on a computer that I can actually run.

Those that know me already know what I'm going to say anyway.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 24, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Double Barrel BB states: “You are a Slave to anything that rules your life.... ie TV, Money, Debt, Hunting, Fishing.... sometimes that is voluntary... sometimes it is not.” Sir, if you truly feel that any of the things you observed, from television to fishing, can actually rule your life, and can enslaved you involuntarily, then it is genuinely time to take a vacation and stare into the Sun . . . Slavery is involuntary. That is one of the core definitions of the word. Television, Debt, and Hunting would be things that are, um, choices?


 
You know it would be easier to read your posts if you would use the quote feature...

The problem is, I see slavery that is both voluntary and involuntary... When you give yourself to do something, just because you choose to do it, doesn't mean you are not a slave to it... Most people don't realize what they are really a slave to in this world and what they are not...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 24, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You know it would be easier to read your posts if you would use the quote feature...





I've been saying that for WEEKS!!!!

Somehow, he says that typing it out makes it more accurate or less inclined to be manipulated?  I'm not sure DBBB.  I think he just can't find the button.  I've even been so nice as to post a picture of it several times.


----------



## Madman (Jul 24, 2009)

Christianity is the only worldview that allows for morality.
The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things.  All things belong to God and thus God has the right to make the rules.  So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.

But if the Bible were not true, if human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of chemical processes, then why should we hold to any universal moral behavior?

Yes, as the Creator God gave His special revelation to the world in the form of the Bible it is not only the complete moral guide, it is the only one that can logically be argued.


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 26, 2009)

Madman states: “Christianity is the only worldview that allows for morality.”

Demonstrably False.  There exist to this day aboriginal cultures on Earth that not only do not read the Bible but don’t even have a word in their language that can translate to ‘God,’  let alone ‘Christ.’  Yet they have developed and adhere to very strict internal moral codes that govern which types of behavior are acceptable and which are punishable.  Morality can easily be demonstrated to be a human construct, born out of the necessities of co-existence on a level other than the purely animal.

Then states: ”The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things. All things belong to God and thus God has the right to make the rules. So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.” 

Agreed.  But it only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.  The problem here is that the biblical creation worldview is not even a singular view among the Christian sects, and not only is not shared as a whole and fully agreed view by the Christians themselves, but is also wholly rejected or not even known at all by the vast majority of humans.  The majority of all humans on the planet, who do not share the biblical creation view, or have never even heard of it, share another common trait – they are pretty sure that they exist.  Now, I realize that in the strict fundamentalist view all of the poor, unenlightened majority of the world consists simplyEdited by Diogenes of lesser, sheep-like creatures who are in need only of your own guiding hand to set them straight, but a quick look around might reveal that their IQ’s are pretty much the same as yours.  A bit more looking around might reveal that not only don’t they agree, but they often don’t agree quite violently.  One might think, right there . . .    

Then states: “But if the Bible were not true, if human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of chemical processes, then why should we hold to any universal moral behavior?”     Um?   The Saudis will still cut the hand off of a thief.  Women in some cultures are still prohibited from showing their faces in public, and may legally be killed by both husband and family under the slightest suspicion of adultery.  In India fathers are currently (this very day) forcing their unmarried daughters to plow the fields in a state of total undress, under the belief that such a practice will appease the rain Gods and cause the drought to end . . . . so – um?  Which ‘universal moral behavior’ do you refer to?  There isn’t any.    

And finally states: “Yes, as the Creator God gave His special revelation to the world in the form of the Bible it is not only the complete moral guide, it is the only one that can logically be argued.”   Logic, one might notice, is the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.  If God gave his special revelation to the world, as you say, then he somehow forgot to tell almost all of His world about that.  If one is God-like, perfect, infallible, all powerful, and wishes one’s creation to be provided with a complete moral guide, would it not stand to reason (and logic) that all of one’s beloved humans might be provided with that handbook?  Doesn’t it seem like a pretty illogical argument that only a few of you guys were blessed with this Divine Guide to Eternity?  Asserting something like that would be to assert that God the Creator consciously and deliberately condemned nearly all of the humans he went to so much trouble to create.  Where is the logic in that?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 26, 2009)

The bible is the most widely circulated document in print...


----------



## Madman (Jul 27, 2009)

It is always good in a discussion such as this to find common ground.  Diognenes wrote: “Agreed. But it only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.”  That was precisely the point; morality only makes sense in a Biblical world view.  As to the implication that various Christian denominations have different moral codes, that is demonstrably false, the Christian faith follows the Bible as the moral code in this life, love God, love your neighbor.

Back to my point that morality only makes sense in a Biblical world view.  Without the God of the Bible there is no standard for morality, as the creator of everything he is the only one with the authority to say what is moral.  Any other benchmark is arbitrary and therefore illogical.  

I missed your point about the Saudis and the Indians, we are discussing the Christian Bible not the Koran or the Hindu text, but thank you for the attempt at misdirection.

As to the availability of the Bible, it is available to vast majority of the world unfortunately many of “you guys” have made the conscience choice to deny the very God that created you, just as He stated that you would. (2 Peter 2:1)  Even without the Bible, knowledge of God is seen in His creation but once again many of "you guys" have chosen to follow your own heart and not seek His.

You have thrown darts using 6 rambling paragraphs but repeatedly avoided the topic.  Without the Christian Bible and therefore Christian worldview there is no arbiter of morality therefore any attempt at defining morality is arbitrary at best.  

Um.. an arbitrary standard, where is the logic in that?


----------



## Madman (Jul 28, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The Bible was not inspired by God so that we could have a complete moral guide.
> The Bible (old and new Testaments) contain the history of God's relationship with Israel; and it contains the Good News of Jesus Christ.(the way to God thru Jesus Christ).
> You can be moral and not have salvation.
> Morality isn't the issue.     Salvation is the issue.



RT please expound on this statement.


----------



## Madman (Jul 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted by Ronnie T
> The Bible was not inspired by God so that we could have a complete moral guide.



Is that Biblical or an opinion?


----------



## Diogenes (Jul 28, 2009)

Madman revises:  “That was precisely the point; morality only makes sense in a Biblical world view.”    No, no, no . . . sir, you revise . . . Your statement was this one – “So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.”  Morality, as a construct, and an “absolute moral code,” are worlds apart.  So allow me to reconstruct – you mean, perhaps, to say, consistent with your original assertion, that,” (An absolute moral code) only makes sense in a Biblical world view.”   Would that be a fair synopsis?  

Then builds on the redirection – A. ” Back to my point that morality only makes sense in a Biblical world view.”  This statement is demonstrably false.  Morality only makes sense as a set of codified social standards.
B. “Without the God of the Bible there is no standard for morality, as the creator of everything he is the only one with the authority to say what is moral.”  This statement is also demonstrably false, going back to, and even before Hammurabi’s Code in the 18th century BC, where standards of moral behavior and punishments for violations of same were codified and written as law, enforceable by the Earthly rulers.  And C. “Any other benchmark is arbitrary and therefore illogical.”   Well, here we might agree . . . I’ll be the last to argue that the laws as written and enforced throughout this Planet, or even this Country, are all that logical, and are in many places and at many times arbitrary and whimsical – but don’t all three of your points, taken as a connected statement, tend to negate each other?

If there were an ‘absolute moral code,’  shared by all, then what need would there be for any authority whatsoever?  If this were truly the case, there would never have been a need for armies, police forces, and indeed governments to have arisen.  While I might share the yearning for such an idyllic state of God-provided and absolute earthly bliss, it looks pretty obvious that God did not provide for that in His plan.  And if he did not provide such a plan of ‘absolute moral codes’ for all of humanity, so that all might be provided with that code, then one must conclude that He planned the wars, crimes, perversions, outrages, slaughters, prisons, corruptions, frauds, vices, iniquities, and evils that have resulted from the failure to let most of his people in on the secret . . .   Surely that position is difficult to defend . . . 

Then states, more than slightly sarcastically – “I missed your point about the Saudis and the Indians, we are discussing the Christian Bible not the Koran or the Hindu text, but thank you for the attempt at misdirection.”   Sir, of course you missed the point – but you did not, actually – you merely avoid it.  Your point was that God provided an absolute moral code.  My rebuttal was that the vast majority of the planet didn’t seem to be clued in by that God, and tend to display moral behavior which is not at all in line with your assertion that such things are ‘Absolute.’  Explain this.  Either morality is an ‘absolute code’ or it is not, and if most do not know that code, then how is it ‘absolute’?

Then rambles off –“As to the availability of the Bible, it is available to vast majority of the world unfortunately many of “you guys” have made the conscience choice to deny the very God that created you . . . “   and then on into a bible quotation . . . Again, sir, this is demonstrably false.  The Bible has never, from the earliest writings, been available to or even known to exist by the vast majority of the humans on this Earth, and a bit of looking about might reveal that even today, with literacy rates leaping skywards due to the efforts only of concerned individuals, the majority of the humans on this planet are still unable to read.  In any language.

And finishes with an introspective evaluation – “You have thrown darts using 6 rambling paragraphs but repeatedly avoided the topic.”   Sir.  Have I avoided the topic?  I have avoided fawning agreement, to say true, but the topic is a simple one, where the answers seem to be much more complex . . .   You seem to miss the point that ‘Biblical’ is an opinion, not an established fact for all of humanity . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 28, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Then rambles off –“As to the availability of the Bible, it is available to vast majority of the world unfortunately many of “you guys” have made the conscience choice to deny the very God that created you . . . “   and then on into a bible quotation . . . Again, sir, this is demonstrably false.  The Bible has never, from the earliest writings, been available to or even known to exist by the vast majority of the humans on this Earth, and a bit of looking about might reveal that even today, with literacy rates leaping skywards due to the efforts only of concerned individuals, the majority of the humans on this planet are still unable to read.  In any language.



Well, not to pick, but..."Globally, 82 percent of the world's population is reported as literate: 87 percent of men and 77 percent of all women."

http://www.nifl.gov/archive/international/intro.html

Most put the estimated bibles around the world in the 600 million range, with roughly 450 complete translations worldwide...

That being said, where do you get your information?


----------



## Madman (Jul 29, 2009)

Diogenes writes:





> Demonstrably False. There exist to this day aboriginal cultures on Earth that not only do not read the Bible but don’t even have a word in their language that can translate to ‘God,’ let alone ‘Christ.’ Yet they have developed and adhere to very strict internal moral codes that govern which types of behavior are acceptable and which are punishable.



I’ve never claimed that non-believers or “aboriginal cultures” have no moral code, I’ve never claimed that they are bad people, but the fact that they attempt to be moral shows that they too, know in their heart of hearts the biblical God.  
They have an arbitrary moral code, there also exist today people groups that believe it is moral to kill and eat their enemies so they also have an arbitrary moral code are they both correct?  

 Then continues: 





> Morality can easily be demonstrated to be a human construct, born out of the necessities of co-existence on a level other than the purely animal.


Morality is only logical in a Christian universe.  In a biblical worldview there is a universal standard for behavior because there is a God who is sovereign over all creation.  Moreover God has “hard-wired” his law into our minds because He knew we would need it.  So the Christian worldview can explain why (1) there is an absolute moral code, and why (2) what you claim to be a “human construct” is actually part of the “creation of humans”.  The non-believer world view cannot explain either of these and therefore must “steal” morality from the Christian worldview.  (And isn’t it wrong to steal?)

P.S. I apologize for what you saw as sarcastic.  I never intend to be sarcastic, perhaps cynical  but never sarcastic.


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

So Madman,

If it were legal, would you own a slave?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> So Madman,
> 
> If it were legal, would you own a slave?



Ya just have to take us back there, dont ya? 

I suppose all Bible-reading Christians would love to own slaves, since slavery is mentioned in the Bible. 

For the sake of argument, why don't we bring up something new?


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ya just have to take us back there, dont ya?
> 
> I suppose all Bible-reading Christians would love to own slaves, since slavery is mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> For the sake of argument, why don't we bring up something new?



That's what this thread is about though.  

I'm trying to see if Madman has a moral against owning a slave.  If so, he didn't get that moral from the bible.  It came from somewhere else.


----------



## Madman (Jul 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> So Madman,
> 
> If it were legal, would you own a slave?



Does the Bible say we should own slaves or does it describe slavery as a condition of fallen man?


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

Madman said:


> Does the Bible say we should own slaves or does it describe slavery as a condition of fallen man?




No idea.  There is nothing in the bible that says it's wrong to own a slave.  There are instances in the OT where slaves are taken by the Israelites on orders from God.  Paul instructs Christians on how best to treat slaves and on how slaves should behave.

If you have a moral against owning a slave, it didn't come from the bible.


----------



## Madman (Jul 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> No idea.  There is nothing in the bible that says it's wrong to own a slave.  There are instances in the OT where slaves are taken by the Israelites on orders from God.  Paul instructs Christians on how best to treat slaves and on how slaves should behave.





> No idea.



So you are arguing from a position of ignorance on the subject?



> There are instances in the OT where slaves are taken by the Israelites on orders from God.



Please provide chapter and verse.



> If you have a moral against owning a slave, it didn't come from the bible.



Yes it did.  #2 Treat your neighbor as yourself.


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

Madman said:


> So you are arguing from a position of ignorance on the subject?



You're avoiding the question.  Do you have a moral against owning another person as property?




Madman said:


> Please provide chapter and verse.



Kill all the men, and take the women and children as slaves:


> *Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-5438" class="versenum" value="10">10</sup>When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
> ...





> *Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-3514" class="versenum" value="44">44</sup>Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
> ...





> *Exodus 21:2-6 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-2080" class="versenum" value="2">2</sup>If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
> ...





> *Exodus 21:7-11 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-2085" class="versenum" value="7">7</sup>And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
> ...


This one is particularly pleasant:


> *Numbers 31:15-18 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-4680" class="versenum" value="15">15</sup>And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
> ...





> Yes it did.  #2 Treat your neighbor as yourself.


You are "interpreting" that.  Slaves are not your neighbors, they are your property.


----------



## Madman (Jul 29, 2009)

> 14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;




You can take them home or let them die.

Please study on the practices of the near and far east 4000 years ago then get back into the discussion.

Your morals come from viewing the world through 2000 years of Christianity thank the God that you try to deny that you were born in the west.

When you decide to study the scriptures and not "proof text" we can continue.  I do not allow "proof texting" from Christians so I certainly am not going down that rabbit hole with you.

Your only answer to my original response is redirection, it is good to know you have no counter to my original argument.


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

Madman said:


> Your only answer to my original response is redirection, it is good to know you have no counter to my original argument.




I'm sorry.  Which post are you referring to?  I will be sure to address it.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Jul 29, 2009)

earl said:


> By giving guide lines ,the bible endorses slavery. Just like if I were to tell a woman were the closest abortion clinic was , I would be guilty of endorsing abortion.
> Selling yourself into bondage or making prisoners of war slaves is highly illegal in the US.
> Slavery is slavery whether it is self inflicted,imprisonment of an innocent, or any other method.
> Whitewashing doesn't help.



God tells us that we can not understand His ways (while we're on earth) but we should accept His ways, as a Christian. If He decides He needs to bring a 2 year child to Heaven...  so be it, even if it is my child.... 

"even if He slay me... I will trust in thee..."

slavery 2000 years ago was not like the slavery from the 1850's.... If God approves of slavery... so do i. who am i, or who are you to tell God that He cannot approve of anything, whether slavery or whatever...


----------



## BeenHuntn (Jul 29, 2009)

pnome said:


> Not really.  I tend to agree with just about all of the teachings of Jesus.  Obviously not the whole "Son of God" part though.
> 
> I know some of you are going to jump on this, but I think an argument could be made that Jesus was maybe a little bit communist:
> 
> ...



if you were spiritual you would understand that Jesus is saying here that the "rich" have a hard time going to heaven because of their pride, love of life, love of this evil world, etc.... not because they have wealth. the poor man is humble and that is what God is looking for... God does not typically save the prideful and arrogant. 

if a person gets down on their knees and confesses their sins and their wicked ways... God promises to save them... a rich man usually relies on his riches to get him where he wants to go in the world...

Scripture interprets Scripture... so if you would study Scripture you would realize that people that are rich rely on their wealth instead of God...  you cannot love God and mammon...  you either have faith in God or in riches...


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

Madman said:


> You can take them home or let them die.



Oh I dunno, maybe not killing their entire families would have helped?  Nice young virgins, too valuable a commodity to simply slaughter. 



> Please study on the practices of the near and far east 4000 years ago then get back into the discussion.


If you are trying to suggest that other cultures have condoned slavery, you'll get no argument here.  In fact, it was people who were Christians that were the first to see slavery as wrong.  But they didn't acquire that moral from reading the bible.  They acquired that moral belief, _in spite of_ their religion, not because of it.



> Your morals come from viewing the world through 2000 years of Christianity thank the God that you try to deny that you were born in the west.


I certainly do not have a PHD in history, but I do seem to recall that for the vast majority of that 2000 years, Christianity wasn't exactly what I would consider "good."  In fact, when Christianity was in the position to enforce it's moral code, we call that time "The Dark Ages"



> When you decide to study the scriptures and not "proof text" we can continue.  I do not allow "proof texting" from Christians so I certainly am not going down that rabbit hole with you.


You asked for chapter and verse, that is what I provided.  Do you feel the need to "interpret" those verses?  To provide "context"? Do they go against your morals?  I'll bet that they do, and that you'll rationalize it somehow, in an effort to reconcile the primitive barbarity of the old testament with the more informed morals of the zeitgeist of today.  But you'll never be able to get away from the fact that your sacred holy book says your God ordered the slaughter of countless innocent children and the enslavement of young, innocent little girls.


I'll leave you with this quote:


> <!--mstheme-->[FONT=arial,helvetica]"_[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts._" Jefferson Davis, President of the _Confederate States of America._[/FONT]


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> if you were spiritual you would understand that Jesus is saying here that the "rich" have a hard time going to heaven because of their pride, love of life, love of this evil world, etc.... not because they have wealth. the poor man is humble and that is what God is looking for... God does not typically save the prideful and arrogant.
> 
> if a person gets down on their knees and confesses their sins and their wicked ways... God promises to save them... a rich man usually relies on his riches to get him where he wants to go in the world...
> 
> Scripture interprets Scripture... so if you would study Scripture you would realize that people that are rich rely on their wealth instead of God...  you cannot love God and mammon...  you either have faith in God or in riches...



I've already conceded this point. I agree with you.  Jesus was not biased against wealthy people just for the sake of their wealth.   

Elfii set me straight on that.


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome,

Do you want to hitch your wagon to a quote by Jefferson Davis?  He is mere man, hitch your wagon to the Word of God and truly study it.

You confuse what the Bible records and what the Bible approves.  The Bible records Satan's lies and David's adultery, but it does not approve of them.  

We see God giving instruction to kill the enemies of Israel but nowhere are there any accounts of cruel and tortuous executions that He commanded.   The idea that God would command Israel to kill the Amalekites and destroy everything that belongs to them seems foreign to you, as a non-believer you believe that infants are somehow innocent, but from the Scriptures we see that no one is without sin, there are no innocents.  Study the Amalekites, they were a utterly and totally depraved, their mission was to destroy Israel.  This only shows that God’s character is absolutely holy and that He must punish sin and rebellion.  He is a righteous judge, but remember, if anyone wants to escape He will let them. 

Non-believers have some negative connotation about dying(if I was a non-believer I would too) but you forget that God takes the life of every human being, it is called death.   The only question is when and how, which believers leave up to Him.

God created life and therefore He has the right to take it, if you have the ability to create life then you have the right to take it but you don’t and therefore you can’t.  (revisit the questions you had about another god offering salvation #22 in the "If" thread) You assume what is wrong for people to do is wrong for God to do.

You apparently have a problem with the killing of children.  But you need to understand the Amalekites.  In their evil and depraved culture there was no hope for the children, in fact the death of the children was an act of mercy.  According to the Bible a child who dies before the age of accountability goes to heaven (Isaiah 7:16) so if they continued to live in that terrible society beyond the age of accountability they would have become corrupted and be lost forever. 

I would continue to put forth arguments but I believe they would fall upon deaf ears, as I believe this argument has.  My question to you is what would make you believe?  What would make you stop “kicking against the goads” and begin listening to the Holy Spirit who is most assuredly tugging at you?


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> You apparently have a problem with the killing of children.



That I do.  A BIG Problem with it.  I find it a little bit frightening that you do not.  



> My question to you is what would make you believe?  What would make you stop “kicking against the goads” and begin listening to the Holy Spirit who is most assuredly tugging at you?



John 20:25


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> That I do.  A BIG Problem with it.  I find it a little bit frightening that you do not.



So my response made no sense to you and you choose not to respond?



> John 20:25



Sorry to hear that, because you will be able to do that one day but it will be too late.

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> That I do.  A BIG Problem with it.  I find it a little bit frightening that you do not.



What in your worldview makes it "wrong" to kill children?

Your morals are at best arbitrary since you have no foundation to base them on. Whereas the Christian does. In an evolutionary worldview we are but chemical reactions and therefore have no obligation to treat each other in any particular way.  You have co-oped "thou shalt not kill" from the Judeo/Christian worldview.

And that is stealing.  In my worldview that is wrong.


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> So my response made no sense to you and you choose not to respond?



Well, I understand it makes sense to you.  But that is only because your morals have been warped by your religious beliefs.  

I say murdering innocent children is always wrong, you seem to think it's acceptable so long as your God orders it.

Tell me though, how do you authenticate that order?


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> What in your worldview makes it "wrong" to kill children?
> 
> Your morals are at best arbitrary since you have no foundation to base them on. Whereas the Christian does. In an evolutionary worldview we are but chemical reactions and therefore have no obligation to treat each other in any particular way.  You have co-oped "thou shalt not kill" from the Judeo/Christian worldview.
> 
> And that is stealing.  In my worldview that is wrong.



This seems a common theme here.  Atheists have no moral compass!  If that's true, then why don't I kill children?  

Let's say I knew I could get away with it.  The police would never find out.  I STILL wouldn't kill a child.  Why?  I won't be punished in this life, and I won't be punished after I die.

The answer is empathy.

Trust me, I have a moral compass.  One that does not change poles at the whims of some deity of dubious existence.


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> This seems a common theme here.  Atheists have no moral compass!  If that's true, then why don't I kill children?



I never said you have no moral compass.  I said you take it from the Christian worldview.  It is proof that God has "hardwired" His creation because He knew we would need it.




> The answer is empathy.



That is pretty arbitrary.  Who do you have empathy for the man who steals from another to feed his children or the man whose property was stolen and is therefore not able to feed his children?  Barack Hussein Obama wants judges on the court who are empathetic.  That is scary to me.

Atheism is illogical, my God is a God of order not the atheist's god of chaos.



> One that does not change poles at the whims of some deity of dubious existence



The fact is you have no choice but to "change poles" you have no foundation except personal feelings on which to base your morals.  You more than likley have situational morals.  If you look at His creation you will see it is not dubious at all.


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> I never said you have no moral compass.  I said you take it from the Christian worldview.  It is proof that God has "hardwired" His creation because He knew we would need it.



Do Buddhists have morals then?  They do not see things through a Christian worldview, yet they certainly have morals against murdering innocent children.

Where do their morals come from?






> That is pretty arbitrary.  Who do you have empathy for the man who steals from another to feed his children or the man whose property was stolen and is therefore not able to feed his children?  Barack Hussein Obama wants judges on the court who are empathetic.  That is scary to me.



No fan of Obama here.  I would side with the man whose property was stolen.   How about you?



> Atheism is illogical, my God is a God of order not the atheist's god of chaos.



Illogical? 

You use the exact same logic I do every day.  You've just been brainwashed to disregard it when dealing with God.  Here, I'll use one of my favorite examples to illustrate my point.

Let's say that I assert that I have an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage at home.  Do you believe me?  Are you even agnostic about it?  It _could be_ true.  You can't prove me wrong.  Why not just take me at my word?

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur




> The fact is you have no choice but to "change poles" you have no foundation except personal feelings on which to base your morals.  You more than likley have situational morals.  If you look at His creation you will see it is not dubious at all.



My morals are not situational.  The information I have on which to make my moral decisions is.  The "right" choice, is ALWAYS the choice that I deem, with the information I have at the time, will better the chances of survival for myself, or those with whom I empathize.  The same is true with you, even if you do not realize it.  Marinate on that for a minute.  See if you can come up with a moral you have that does not fit.

Try to think of "good" things.  All of those things are things that better your chances of survival, or the survival of those with whom you empathize.


----------



## earl (Jul 30, 2009)

And it could be that humans are ''hardwired '' with morals from the start. No harder to believe and it would account for those who have never heard of God ,yet are still moral. Those with no morals, they simply have a glitch in their ''hardwire''. It makes as mush sense as the old ''mothering instinct.''and ''survival instinct''.
WOW ,another breakthrough on the SF.


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> They do not see things through a Christian worldview, yet they certainly have morals against murdering innocent children.



I am still looking for this command God gives us to kill children.  There are recorded instances in the Bibel where God gave specific instruction to the Israelites for a specific purpose.  I layed out the foundation for the passagesyou referenced, however you choose not  do the research so please refer me to the verses where God commands us to kill children.





> Where do their morals come from?



As i said before, God hardwired His creation for morals. (This is getting tiring)



> No fan of Obama here.  I would side with the man whose property was stolen.   How about you?



I stand on the side of God who says "thou shalt not steal".




> You use the exact same logic I do every day.




Which you steal from a Christian worldview. (See above)




> My morals are not situational.  The information I have on which to make my moral decisions is.  The "right" choice, is ALWAYS the choice that I deem , with the information I have at the time, will better the chances of survival for myself, or those with whom I empathize.



That remark is almost the definition of situational morals.  

*The decision you make with the information you have.*  So it must fit your morals for that situatuation.



> The same is true with you, even if you do not realize it.



Demonstrably untrue.  My morals come from the Bible.



> Marinate on that for a minute.



Thanks for the sarcasim.  I do not intend to make you angry.



> See if you can come up with a moral you have that does not fit.



There are several but that is not the focus.




> Try to think of "good" things.  All of those things are things that better your chances of survival,



Like sex with a woman I am not married to, which God forbids.  That would appear to be a good thing and it would certainly fit the image of procreation for survival, but in reality it is terrible in the physical, emotional, psycological and spiritual damage it does.


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> Like sex with a woman I am not married to, which God forbids.  That would appear to be a good thing and it would certainly fit the image of procreation for survival, but in reality it is terrible in the physical, emotional, psycological and spiritual damage it does.



Good example!

Do you empathize with your wife?  I'm going to assume the answer is "Yes"

So, by not cheating on her, you provide her with a stable husband, which improves her chances of survival and the survival of your children.  It's your survival instinct, not your God.  

This "hardwire" you call God, is the hardwire of your survival instinct.


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

earl said:


> And it could be that humans are ''hardwired '' with morals from the start. No harder to believe and it would account for those who have never heard of God ,yet are still moral. Those with no morals, they simply have a glitch in their ''hardwire''. It makes as mush sense as the old ''mothering instinct.''and ''survival instinct''.
> WOW ,another breakthrough on the SF.



What worldview can give an account of where that "hardwire" comes from other than the Judeo/Christian worldview?  If we are nothing more than chemical reactions which came about by chance why should we care for others?  Why not hurt people if it improves our chances for survival in this "dog-eat-dog" world?


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> Good example!
> 
> Do you empathize with your wife?  I'm going to assume the answer is "Yes"
> 
> ...




You make several illogical assumptions.  You do not know if I am empathetic at all.  And the example I used could have been for and primarily was directed to unmarried people.

In a survival mentality, evolutionary worldview there is no need for marriage, you would breed with whom ever you could.

Marriage, something else "stolen" from a Biblical worldview.

Thanks


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> Why not hurt people if it improves our chances for survival in this "dog-eat-dog" world?



Another great example.  Because cooperation increases the survival prospects for everyone involved.

Imagine you are stranded on a deserted isle with 10 other people.  What would be the best way to effect your survival?  Would it be to go it alone?  Every man for himself?  Or would it be better for your survival if you teamed up?

Teamwork!


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> In a survival mentality, evolutionary worldview there is no need for marriage, you would breed with whom ever you could.




You are quite wrong.  Humans take about 10 years or so to develop into self sustaining individuals.  A stable and nurturing environment to raise children during this time is a immense bonus to survival for your offspring.


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> You are quite wrong.  Humans take about 10 years or so to develop into self sustaining individuals.  A stable and nurturing environment to raise children during this time is a immense bonus to survival for your offspring.



You show no proof of your assertion.  We see only one "parent" caring for the young in many species.

Some cultures do not practice dual parenting today.
Males impregnate as many women as they can and move on.


----------



## Madman (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> Another great example.  Because cooperation increases the survival prospects for everyone involved.
> 
> Imagine you are stranded on a deserted isle with 10 other people.  What would be the best way to effect your survival?  Would it be to go it alone?  Every man for himself?  Or would it be better for your survival if you teamed up?
> 
> Teamwork!



If there were limited resources as on a desert island fewer people would maximize longevity.


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> You show no proof of your assertion.  We see only one "parent" caring for the young in many species.



We're talking about humans.  There are other species out there that do share our 2 parent system.  Mostly this has to do with how often offspring are produced and in what numbers and how long both the rearing and gestation periods are.  Different species have evolved different strategies for offspring.  Some involved parent nurturing, some don't.  Humans do.



> Some cultures do not practice dual parenting today.
> Males impregnate as many women as they can and move on.



I've never heard of such a culture.  Are those cultures successful?  In a relative sense?  I doubt it.  The most successful human cultures have clear family units.  The number of "wives" might change with the male to female ratio, but that family unit is there and enforced by cultural morals to better effect the survival of the "herd."


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 30, 2009)

pnome said:


> We're talking about humans.  There are other species out there that do share our 2 parent system.  Mostly this has to do with how often offspring are produced and in what numbers and how long both the rearing and gestation periods are.  Different species have evolved different strategies for offspring.  Some involved parent nurturing, some don't.  Humans do.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of such a culture.  Are those cultures successful?  In a relative sense?  I doubt it.  The most successful human cultures have clear family units.  The number of "wives" might change with the male to female ratio, but that family unit is there and enforced by cultural morals to better effect the survival of the "herd."



Well, we do have a sort of a single parent culture for the most part in america, lately.


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

Madman said:


> If there were limited resources as on a desert island fewer people would maximize longevity.




OK, put yourself in that situation.  How would you, as a Christian, best effect your survival?  How would your morals direct you?


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Well, we do have a sort of a single parent culture for the most part in america, lately.




True, but do you think that is a "good" thing?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 30, 2009)

I am just saying, we are surviving. Throwing that out there...


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I am just saying, we are surviving. Throwing that out there...



Yes, but do you think that is the best way to survive?  I don't and I don't need an old book to tell me that.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 30, 2009)

Ok, so by that definition and without the "old book", gay marriage isn't the best way to survive either?


----------



## pnome (Jul 30, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ok, so by that definition and without the "old book", gay marriage isn't the best way to survive either?



You're catching on!


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> OK, put yourself in that situation.  How would you, as a Christian, best effect your survival?  How would your morals direct you?



I am not interested in "earthly" survival.  That does not fit into a Christian worldview.

The morals that you claim to have, because of empathy, which has been shown to be arbitrary, have been co-oped from a Christian worldview.  Your worldview has no logical basis for morals at all.

Regards


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> I am not interested in "earthly" survival.  That does not fit into a Christian worldview.
> 
> The morals that you claim to have, because of empathy, which has been shown to be arbitrary, have been co-oped from a Christian worldview.  Your worldview has no logical basis for morals at all.
> 
> Regards



Some would say a belief or a worldview shaped around faith in the unknown is not logical.

Everyone is concerned with earthly survival.  Some just spend a lot of time thinking about an unknown and speculative eternal future.
That's OK for some.  Not OK for others.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> I am not interested in "earthly" survival.  That does not fit into a Christian worldview.



What is heaven if it is not the ultimate survival?  It is a construct of your survival instinct.  



> The morals that you claim to have, because of empathy, which has been shown to be arbitrary, have been co-oped from a Christian worldview.  Your worldview has no logical basis for morals at all.
> 
> Regards



Have you read anything I've posted?  They are not arbitrary at all. 

What is arbitrary is the information I have at the time to make my moral decision.  The same is true of you.   

I'll give you an example:

Thou shalt not commit adultery.  You accept that as a biblical commandment given from your God, correct?

Let's say you meet a woman, you like her, she likes you.  After a while you decide to get married.   You're a good Christian so you wait until the wedding night to consummate.  Fine moral decisions all.

Later, you find out that she is still married to someone else.

Your information was incomplete.  Had you known that information ahead of time, your moral decision might have been different.  Your moral didn't change, but the information you had did.

Do you see my point?


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> I've never heard of such a culture.  Are those cultures successful?  In a relative sense?  I doubt it.  The most successful human cultures have clear family units.



You are talking about survival not success, and there is a big difference. Please do not change the debate.  The "welfare" culture which has the mentality of hoping from bed to bed is extremely successful in terms of population and survival they are arguably the most successful in terms of procreation and there is no family unit that rears those children, they roam the streets preying on everyone else.

Malachi 2:15  

15 But did He not make them one, 
      Having a remnant of the Spirit? 
      And why one? 
      He seeks godly offspring. 
      Therefore take heed to your spirit, 
      And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

Your assertions have no basis or foundation, you use terms like "I doubt it".

The Christian worldview has a basis and standard for what we believe, yours does not.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> You are talking about survival not success, and there is a big difference.



No, I'm talking about morals.  The success of a culture has a great deal to do with their morals.  If they have good morals (i.e. one that do indeed help them to survive best) they will be successful.  

Certainly, I have been raised with Christian morals and I agree with just about all of them on an objective basis.  However, the people who wrote those morals down in the Bible, got those morals, not from some burning bush, but from their survival instinct.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> Just a simple question.   Do you think the bible is a relevant and *complete moral guide* for the people of today?   Please provide you reasoning.



I'm sorry that I'm late to this party.  If this hasn't been addressed elsewhere, could you please give me your definition of a complete moral guide.  I would imagine this would involve your definitions separately of complete, moral, and guide in addition to who the three work together in the context of the question.

Thanks


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> I'm sorry that I'm late to this party.  If this hasn't been addressed elsewhere, could you please give me your definition of a complete moral guide.  I would imagine this would involve your definitions separately of complete, moral, and guide in addition to who the three work together in the context of the question.
> 
> Thanks



Complete as in there are no morals that someone would have that are not to be found in biblical lessons.   

Moral:


> Moral \Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner,  custom, habit, way of life, conduct.]
> 
> 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those  intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue  and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such  intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to  the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings  in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so  far as they are properly subject to rules.



Guide:


> To regulate and manage; to direct; to order; to  superintend the training or education of; to instruct and  influence intellectually or morally; to train.




My central argument is that because a moral against slavery is not biblical, the bible, as a moral guide, is not complete.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

So, who's deciding what is moral and what is not as it pertains to your question?  I mean, the Bible lays out somewhat of a moral code.  Are you asking if that code matches yours, some general "morality" of consensus, or if the code is consistent with itself?

Also, do you think something can be complete without being comprehensive?


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Some would say a belief or a worldview shaped around faith in the unknown is not logical.
> 
> Everyone is concerned with earthly survival.  Some just spend a lot of time thinking about an unknown and speculative eternal future.
> That's OK.



Not everyone is concerned with earthly survival, I am not therefore you have made a false assumption.  Most people may be concerned but not everyone.  

I have put forth the argument for a reasonable faith, that that is grounded in the Christian worldview, the agnostic worldview, which includes evolution, is based on a blind faith in the unknown, because it is speculation at best.

If you look at pnomes argument which comes from an evolutionary worldview there is no single standard on which to base anything.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> Not everyone is concerned with earthly survival, I am not therefore you have made a false assumption.  Most people may be concerned but not everyone.
> 
> I have put forth the argument for a reasonable faith, that that is grounded in the Christian worldview, the agnostic worldview, which includes evolution, is based on a blind faith in the unknown, because it is speculation at best.
> 
> If you look at pnomes argument which comes from an evolutionary worldview there is no single standard on which to base anything.



Yes there is.  Survival.

You say you are not concerned about "earthly" survival.  Earthly doesn't matter.  You ARE concerned about survival.  It drives your faith because you want to survive.  Either on this Earth, or somewhere else, you want to survive.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> So, who's deciding what is moral and what is not as it pertains to your question?  I mean, the Bible lays out somewhat of a moral code.  Are you asking if that code matches yours, some general "morality" of consensus, or if the code is consistent with itself?





We decide.  And we use our survival instincts to make that decision.



> Also, do you think something can be complete without being comprehensive?



As it pertains to my question, there is no difference between the two.  I could have worded it "Is the Bible a comprehensive moral guide?"  The answer would be the same.


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> No, I'm talking about morals.  The success of a culture has a great deal to do with their morals.  If they have good morals (i.e. one that do indeed help them to survive best) they will be successful.




So you must now change your argument.  You claimed that the "success" or "survival" of a culture is dependant upon its morals.  I have given you the example of a culture, the welfare culture, that has been very successful in its survival yet does not follow a lifestyle that you agree to be moral.  Which would be a husband and wife together rearing their children.  



> Certainly, I have been raised with Christian morals and I agree with just about all of them on an objective basis.



This is where you got your morals, from the very family structure that God ordained in the beginning, which I have given you documentation of.  Yet you choose to spit in His face and give credit to some unknown and quit speculative idea, evolution.



> However, the people who wrote those morals down in the Bible, got those morals, not from some burning bush, but from their survival instinct.



Where is you proof of this statement?  Your "survival instinct" argument comes from nothing more that a presuppostion of no god.  In nature the "survival instinct" is seen in what Charles Templeton wrote in his book _Farewell to God _.  "The grim and inescapable reality is that all life is predicated on death.  Every carnivorous creature must kill and devour other creatures."  That is the evolutionist worldview.  It amounts to no more than kill or be killed.  There is no place for morals it is pure survival.  In the human race we can see why a non-believer has no problem with abortion or euthanasia, it is merely survival of the fittest. 

The Christian worldview of "morals" comes from a book, The Holy Bible, and a hardwiring in our makeup, that has been given to God's humans, in part, as a method of living this life.  How is best to behave towards on another in a manner appropriate of being created in the image of God.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> So you must now change your argument.  You claimed that the "success" or "survival" of a culture is dependant upon its morals.  I have given you the example of a culture, the welfare culture, that has been very successful in its survival yet does not follow a lifestyle that you agree to be moral.  Which would be a husband and wife together rearing their children.



Who do you think is surviving better?  A person on welfare, or someone who works hard at his career?   You can survive on welfare, but you don't survive better than someone who works hard and makes good decisions, on balance.  So, a good work ethic moral is better for survival than being lazy and living off government handouts.





> This is where you got your morals, from the very family structure that God ordained in the beginning, which I have given you documentation of.  Yet you choose to spit in His face and give credit to some unknown and quit speculative idea, evolution.



But it's not where I got ALL of my morals.  Where did my moral against owning a slave come from?





> Where is you proof of this statement?  Your "survival instinct" argument comes from nothing more that a presuppostion of no god.  In nature the "survival instinct" is seen in what Charles Templeton wrote in his book _Farewell to God _.  "The grim and inescapable reality is that all life is predicated on death.  Every carnivorous creature must kill and devour other creatures."  That is the evolutionist worldview.  It amounts to no more than kill or be killed.  There is no place for morals it is pure survival.  In the human race we can see why a non-believer has no problem with abortion or euthanasia, it is merely survival of the fittest.



What I am saying is that your morals are a product of your survival instinct.  They are not mutually exclusive, they are intertwined.  

I am a non-believer, yet I am pro-life and against euthanasia.  How can that be?   (hint: empathy)



> The Christian worldview of "morals" comes from a book, The Holy Bible, and a hardwiring in our makeup, that has been given to God's humans, in part, as a method of living this life.  How is best to behave towards on another in a manner appropriate of being created in the image of God.



The hardwire is your survival instinct.  The morals in that book came from the survival instincts of the men who wrote it.  

Let's look at the 10 Commandments:



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*
> 1) I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 
> 2 )Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
> ...



The first four are purely religious in nature.  You follow these four if you want "unearthly" survival.

The rest are simply good rules for a small band of humans wishing to survive in primitive conditions by working together.  Nothing more.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome, don't forget those who follow the Christian belief system believe that God physically wrote those commandments.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> 1. We decide.  And we use our survival instincts to make that decision.
> 
> 2. As it pertains to my question, there is no difference between the two.  I could have worded it "Is the Bible a comprehensive moral guide?"  The answer would be the same.



1. Be "we" don't agree.  The way the question is worded, "moral" sounds like an absolute term.  As you've defined it though, it's not absolute.  I find it hard to answer your question until I understand who's understanding of morality we are using.  

2. So, if we agree that it's immoral to view kiddie porn on a computer, is the Bible incomplete because it doesn't make a direct prohibition of that practice?


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> pnome, don't forget those who follow the Christian belief system believe that God physically wrote those commandments.



I know that is what they believe.  

This is a good time to break out the Euthyphro dilemma:

_Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?_


Care to answer that Madman?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> pnome, don't forget those who follow the Christian belief system believe that God physically wrote those commandments.



Christians (at least those who have a Biblical understanding of the Scripture) believe that "*All* Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 31, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Christians (at least those who have a Biblical understanding of the Scripture) believe that "*All* Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."



Of that I am aware.
I was just interjecting the reminder that the belief system supports and teaches those commandments were actually laid down by the hand of a deity.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. Be "we" don't agree.  The way the question is worded, "moral" sounds like an absolute term.  As you've defined it though, it's not absolute.  I find it hard to answer your question until I understand who's understanding of morality we are using.



It is absolute.  In any moral choice there is a choice that will best enhance the survival prospects for either you or those with whom you empathize.   



> 2. So, if we agree that it's immoral to view kiddie porn on a computer, is the Bible incomplete because it doesn't make a direct prohibition of that practice?



We agree, but the bible does make a prohibition that applies to pornography as a whole:



> * Matthew 5:28 					 						ESV  				*
> 
> But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> 1. It is absolute.  In any moral choice there is a choice that will best enhance the survival prospects for either you or those with whom you empathize.
> 
> 2. We agree, but the bible does make a prohibition that applies to pornography as a whole:



1. The theory may be absolute, but the actions would not be.  Regardless, I think you've answered my question.  We're using YOUR definition of morality that is clearly based on a philosophical naturalist worldview.  To that end, my answer is no, the Bible is not a complete guide to philosophical naturalistic morals for people now or ever.

2. No, that's a prohibition against lust, not pornography.  It speaks to one aspect of the draw of porn, but does not speak to much of the rest.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. The theory may be absolute, but the actions would not be.  Regardless, I think you've answered my question.  We're using YOUR definition of morality that is clearly based on a philosophical naturalist worldview.  To that end, my answer is no, the Bible is not a complete guide to philosophical naturalistic morals for people now or ever.
> 
> 2. No, that's a prohibition against lust, not pornography.  It speaks to one aspect of the draw of porn, but does not speak to much of the rest.



Ok, well then where do you suppose your moral against viewing child porn comes from?  Why is that immoral to you?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok, well then where do you suppose your moral against viewing child porn comes from?  Why is that immoral to you?



You're ignoring the most applicable part of my post.

Never the less, I don't adhere to your equivocation of the terms complete and comprehensive.


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

Now you qualify survival as "quality of life"

You have NO LOGICAL reasoning, from a non-believer worldview, for any morals, everything is purly subjuective and arbitrary.  

Suffice it to say, your morals have been stolen from a Christian worldview.


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> Now you qualify survival as "quality of life"
> 
> You have NO LOGICAL reasoning, from a non-believer worldview, for any morals, everything is purly subjuective and arbitrary.
> 
> Suffice it to say, your morals have been stolen from a Christian worldview.




There was the existance of human morals well before the writings of the Old Testament.  They are handed down and refined/changed throughout history.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> Now you qualify survival as "quality of life"



Let me rephrase to be less confusing.

Who has a better chance of survival for themselves and their offspring, the welfare recipient or the hard worker?


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> You're ignoring the most applicable part of my post.
> 
> Never the less, I don't adhere to your equivocation of the terms complete and comprehensive.




Ok, that's understandable.

But maybe you could respond to my argument about slavery.

Do you have a moral against owning a slave?  If so, where does that moral come from?  The Bible?  The bible allows slavery.  It gives instructions about how slaves should be treated and how slaves should act.  It clearly endorses the practice.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 31, 2009)

> Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
> 1. Be "we" don't agree. The way the question is worded, "moral" sounds like an absolute term. As you've defined it though, it's not absolute. I find it hard to answer your question until I understand who's understanding of morality we are using.





> pnome's response:
> It is absolute. In any moral choice there is a choice that will best enhance the survival prospects for either you or those with whom you empathize.




pnome, such a decision can not be absolute because it fully discounts the side in opposition.

If the decision is to steal for the purpose of avoiding starvation, either for yourself or for those with whom you empathize, then you would say that the act of stealing is moral. But, what of those from whom you stole? Would they regard your actions as moral? Having been the victim of burglary, I can assure you that they would not.

Along way from absolute if it does not work equally for all, don't you think?

You will need to go back to your drawing board and try again.

I could save you the time, but until you accept that the actions of all mankind are immoral apart from these two simple rules, you will not "get it".


And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 
26 And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. 
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? 
30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 
31 And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 
32 And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 
34 and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on [them] oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 
35 And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. 
36 Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? 
37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Peace, my lost friend.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> It gives instructions about how slaves should be treated and how slaves should act.  It clearly endorses the practice.



There are places in the Scripture where instructions are given, yet a practice is not endorsed as the "will" of God.  For instance, Israel demanded a king despite God's warning that they should have only him.  Ultimately, in order to teach them (and ultimately grow them), he gave them what they desired and they were able to see that God's prior expressed desire was better.

That's how I view the texts on slavery.  I don't think it is God's "ideal", but something that the people dealt with.  It was widely practiced in the culture and God weighed in on how it should be handled if it was going to take place.

I just don't see that as a "clear" endorsement.


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> There was the existance of human morals well before the writings of the Old Testament.  They are handed down and refined/changed throughout history.



The still came from a Judeo/Christian worldview.

God has been seen and known since the creation of man.

Genesis 15:6
Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.


----------



## Madman (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> Let me rephrase to be less confusing.
> 
> Who has a better chance of survival for themselves and their offspring, the welfare recipient or the hard worker?



Today with Barack Hussein Obama II in the white house, the welfare recipient.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

gtparts said:


> pnome, such a decision can not be absolute because it fully discounts the side in opposition.
> 
> If the decision is to steal for the purpose of avoiding starvation, either for yourself or for those with whom you empathize, then you would say that the act of stealing is moral. But, what of those from whom you stole? Would they regard your actions as moral? Having been the victim of burglary, I can assure you that they would not.
> 
> Along way from absolute if it does not work equally for all, don't you think?




The decision to steal is not a good moral choice.  Somewhere in your hypothetical is the correct choice, but it is not to steal.  The correct choice would be to offer something in exchange for the food.  The correct moral choice would enhance the survival prospects for all involved.

Facing starvation what would the Christian do?  I'll bet that your answer is the one that will best enhance the prospects of survival for all involved.  Provided you empathize with the hypothetical victim of course.  

Let me put this hypothetical to you:  You find yourself in Afghanistan and you are starving.  You happen across a farm owned and operated by Osama Bin Laden.  The food he has there is meant to feed his terrorist fighters.  Do you steal some of the food to feed yourself?

Peace, my lost friend.


----------



## pnome (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> Today with Barack Hussein Obama II in the white house, the welfare recipient.




Maybe, but that still isn't a "good" thing.

Now, humor me and answer the Euthyphro dilemma:

_Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?


_


----------



## WTM45 (Jul 31, 2009)

Madman said:


> The still came from a Judeo/Christian worldview.
> 
> God has been seen and known since the creation of man.
> 
> ...




That only applies to those who believe solely in the Judeao/Christian account of creation and human history as documented in the Bible and Jewish holy writings.

Those writings came from oral traditions.  Other even older human societies had completely different traditions and history. 
Each held codes and ethics.  They are not purely of a Judeao/Christian origin.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 31, 2009)

pnome said:


> The decision to steal is not a good moral choice.  Somewhere in your hypothetical is the correct choice, but it is not to steal.  The correct choice would be to offer something in exchange for the food.  The correct moral choice would enhance the survival prospects for all involved.
> 
> Facing starvation what would the Christian do?  I'll bet that your answer is the one that will best enhance the prospects of survival for all involved.  Provided you empathize with the hypothetical victim of course.
> 
> ...



Since you asked, I would rely on prayer to my Father in heaven. He is my source for everything, and that is no hypothetical answer. It is the way I live. He knows my needs and has never failed to provide them.

Let's simplify your scenario.

You find yourself in Afghanistan and you are starving. There is no one.....absolutely nobody and no food.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Jul 31, 2009)

Big7 said:


> No it is not.
> 
> And.... Yes, I'll give my explination when I get back on a computer that I can actually run.
> 
> Those that know me already know what I'm going to say anyway.



WOW!  the awesome perfect amzing incredible holy infallible Creator of all things... spent 1500 years writing His Holy infallible perfect book that even He said was perfect and it can save people from satan and helllll.

but, we should not believe Him... we should believe men (mostly of which are pedophiles, sodomites and fornicators...) when they say God made mistakes with His Bible, or "forgot" to put things in that were necessary for us...  such as the catholic sacraments...

that is amazing!!! i thank God every day that He has removed the scales from my eyes so that i can now see and have ears to hear. man cannot take anything God created and make it better.... lets see if the pope can make the earth better, or make the sun better, how about the universe...  how about a simple grain of dirt. no man on earth can duplicate the most simple of God's creations...

yet these (un) holy "fathers" think they can come up with all of these man made traditions hundreds of years after Jesus... and these traditions are equal to or have higher authority than the Bible in authority...

men create lies, filth, error, doctrines of demons, trouble, and everything opposed to the Scriptures... yet these same pedophile, homo men can give sacraments that are better than the infallible Bible....

all i can say is.... unbelievable.  satan can deceive like nobody else...


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 1, 2009)

Madman desperately argues:  “Your only answer to my original response is redirection, it is good to know you have no counter to my original argument.”   Sir, you must be kidding.  Your original argument has been countered convincingly and repeatedly, using your own source of all Truth, Wisdom, and Morality as the basis of that counter-argument, and also using the reality of the world as it currently exists as quite pointed examples.  If you join with the Democrats in defining disagreement as a ‘redirection’ that is somehow off-topic, then your mind is made up.  Good enough.  But if you are so very sure, then why bother?  Could it be that you realize that morality predates Christianity?

Ironically, all forms of Christian Protestantism sprung historically from a rejection of the original Christian Church of Roman Catholicism.  Remember the Reformation?  When the various sects started to multiply, and religious variety became a standing phenomenon, it came to light in the conflicts between the various sects that individual judgment had come to have preponderant significance.  Suddenly Christianity lost a central focus, which may never have been valid, and in the spirit of market-driven competition one was able to choose just which spiritual access-provider met the needs you had as an individual.  Shaker, Puritan, Quaker, Mennonite, Baptist, Episcopalian, Congregational, Lutheran, Methodist . . . Pick a flavor, any flavor . . .   So what does this sort of schism argue other than individual choice?

It argues the voluntariness of belief as an essential, core element.  The simple fact that one can choose a belief system argues against all belief systems.  Even the quality of one’s belief, and the distinctions placed on that quality reveal ipso facto that the belief is voluntary, and the zeal of each sect to ‘convert’ others places primacy on the relation of the ‘belief’ to the voluntary and individual nature of same.  The simple proliferation of sects, even within Christianity, tends to bust the entire thing wide open – and the widespread and competing thoughts of dozens of other voluntary belief systems tends to put a period on the end of the sentence.

You are entitled to your own belief, but keep in mind that even your own ‘religion’ is so fragmented and individualistic that there isn’t even a central agreement on any of your ‘core’ principles.  Surely an ‘absolute morality’ handed down by an infallible and perfect God might have met with a bit more respect by the believers, huh?

Capper:  Madman states (ASTOUNDINGLY!): “What in your worldview makes it "wrong" to kill children?”      Sir?      WHAT????

And finally: “Suffice it to say, your morals have been stolen from a Christian worldview.”  Sir, all of history, from about 100 B.C. begs to argue from a platform of demonstrated truth.  Your beliefs are simply that – beliefs.  Not facts.  Not truths that you can demonstrate and defend intellectually.  The truth, though you will reject it automatically, is that the ‘Christian worldview’ evolved out of a slow distillation of increases in population density, the resulting conflicts, compromises between competing cultures thrown together by egomaniacal empire-builders, and absolute necessity, among a host of other factors.  

The bottom line is that the ‘Christian worldview’ is little more than a watered-down miasma borne of too many compromises aimed solely at keeping the ruling elite of the moment from being overrun by the unwashed masses they sought to oppress and enslave for the sole purpose of seeking and maintaining power.  That, sir, is the history of Christianity (and indeed of all religions and all governments) in a nutshell.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Madman desperately argues:  “Your only answer to my original response is redirection, it is good to know you have no counter to my original argument.”   Sir, you must be kidding.  Your original argument has been countered convincingly and repeatedly, using your own source of all Truth, Wisdom, and Morality as the basis of that counter-argument, and also using the reality of the world as it currently exists as quite pointed examples.  If you join with the Democrats in defining disagreement as a ‘redirection’ that is somehow off-topic, then your mind is made up.  Good enough.  But if you are so very sure, then why bother?  Could it be that you realize that morality predates Christianity?
> 
> Ironically, all forms of Christian Protestantism sprung historically from a rejection of the original Christian Church of Roman Catholicism.  Remember the Reformation?  When the various sects started to multiply, and religious variety became a standing phenomenon, it came to light in the conflicts between the various sects that individual judgment had come to have preponderant significance.  Suddenly Christianity lost a central focus, which may never have been valid, and in the spirit of market-driven competition one was able to choose just which spiritual access-provider met the needs you had as an individual.  Shaker, Puritan, Quaker, Mennonite, Baptist, Episcopalian, Congregational, Lutheran, Methodist . . . Pick a flavor, any flavor . . .   So what does this sort of schism argue other than individual choice?
> 
> ...



Well said Diogenes.
I am, however, not taking your part "against" Madman, but for the Christ.
Your appraisal of disunity and even recognition of the baser motives that men have employed to keep others "in line" while using that noble name is the truth.
But, Jesus is not any of that.
Jesus is more than simply against religion...he is above it.

Your correct vexation as noted below is appropriate:

_You are entitled to your own belief, but keep in mind that even your own ‘religion’ is so fragmented and individualistic that there isn’t even a central agreement on any of your ‘core’ principles.  Surely an ‘absolute morality’ handed down by an infallible and perfect God might have met with a bit more respect by the believers, huh?_

In one sense every man must deal with the snares of religion...man's attempts to control, by his own actions and "correct thinking", the invitation to himself of life's advantage. But Jesus tells us something else.
Do not attempt to control God, for it is both unwise and futile, but instead present yourself to him for his use.
Now, Jesus even goes further to make sure we understand that a proper attitude in this...even after being "perfectly" submitted and used is this: I have only done what is required of me.

The man who is of the opinion he is doing a "good" thing in believing in God, following Jesus and being a christian...and is not unwilling to let others know this is his opinion of himself...is no different than the man who takes pride that the sun has come up this morning...

If any man can see the truth of any matter, and by any means remain "true" to what he sees...he will either end up congratulating himself for his imagined fidelity or be grateful to the one who has opened his eyes. Jesus undercuts the first and gives grace to the latter.

God is not looking for marionettes...acting in accord with his reality is indeed, the only way for us to be free of all the strings (we have by complicity) accepted to get along in this world.
The man who is not free to die for what he believes...really isn't free at all. And also doesn't believe anything that is more eternal than this passing bit of vapor.
Martyrdom for a cause, likewise, does not in itself testify of anything worthy.
Remaining free...free to "live or die" according to the will of the one who holds life, who is life, is all that matters.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You find yourself in Afghanistan and you are starving. There is no one.....absolutely nobody and no food.



Atheism offers no false comfort.

I would like to think, that if I had the means, I would end my own suffering.   Don't know if I could though.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

Israel said:


> Do not attempt to control God, for it is both unwise and futile, but instead present yourself to him for his use.



And if he wishes to use you to do something terrible?


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

God does not ask us to do terrible things.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> ...a bunch of stuff about how Catholic priests are pedophiles...


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

RoosterTodd said:


> God does not ask us to do terrible things.



Are you sure you believe in the God of Abraham?


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> Are you sure you believe in the God of Abraham?



Positive. God's never asked me to do terrible things.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 1, 2009)

RoosterTodd said:


> God does not ask us to do terrible things.



Todd, that has not been the historical record.  The Crusades and Manifest Destiny are but two examples that used the very same explination.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Todd, that has not been the historical record.  The Crusades and Manifest Destiny are but two examples that used the very same explination.



There have been plenty of terrible things done in the name of God, but that doesn't mean that God ordered them to be done. Over time, man has used whatever was convenient to achieve his goals. Sadly, saying "God told me to", has been used also.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

RoosterTodd said:


> Positive. God's never asked me to do terrible things.




The God of _Abraham_?


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

I'll expand a little further using your two examples. The crusades started because the Byzantine Empire was losing parts of it's Empire to Islamic expansion. They requested help from the only thing powerful enough to rally Europe to their aid, the Roman Catholic Church. 
Manifest destiny has been used several times in American history to justify our expansion. It could be argued that it's even used today.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> The God of _Abraham_?



Yep, that's the one alright!

But, to get back on subject; Yes, taken as a whole, the Bible is still an excellent moral guide. As I said earlier, the same sins that were around 2000 years ago are still with us today. No new sins have been invented, only new ways to commit them.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

RoosterTodd said:


> Yep, that's the one alright!
> 
> But, to get back on subject; Yes, taken as a whole, the Bible is still an excellent moral guide. As I said earlier, the same sins that were around 2000 years ago are still with us today. No new sins have been invented, only new ways to commit them.



I think you missed my point.  I would consider murdering my son a terrible thing.  This is what God asked Abraham to do.  

Do you consider it a sin to own another person as property?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think you missed my point.  I would consider murdering my son a terrible thing.  This is what God asked Abraham to do.
> 
> Do you consider it a sin to own another person as property?



There are far better examples than that (but I'll not do your homework for you...)...God provided a substitute and Abraham didn't kill Isaac and God knew he wouldn't.  

I've addressed the slavery issue, but you didn't respond.


----------



## gtparts (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> Atheism offers no false comfort.
> 
> I would like to think, that if I had the means, I would end my own suffering.   Don't know if I could though.



Are you sure that it does not? 

It offers anathema rather than eternal judgment for your transgressions.

Imagine, if you will, a real option between (1) an end to your existence.... no sentience (I don't think, therefore ,I am not, nor is anything else)..... 


and (2) an eternal existence with only two mutually exclusive realities based on the single question of your individual response to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

(2A)Eternal punishment (separation from God) if you reject Him or (2B) eternal peace and joy in the superlative, with Jesus if you accept Him.

Now, logically, outcome (1) is to be preferred over outcome (2A).

But, for the life of me, I can not see outcome (1) being the logical choice over outcome (2B).
Now, Pascal's Wager would seem to have some validity, if, in the absolute remotest possibility God might exist. Since the existence of God can not be dis-proven, one would logically have to concede that God might exist.  

I have arrived at this conclusion:
 The atheists and agnostics on this forum and elsewhere are trying to convince themselves that outcome (1) is the singular outcome, yet are continually tormented by the possibility that they are wrong in their thinking. 

The Christian, on the other hand, if wrong in his faith, has outcome (1) as the consequence of his death; if right, he has eternity with God.

But, logic alone will not cause one to choose Christ. It may only direct him/her to pursue inquiry. Unless and until the subject sees his/her rebellion against God for the sin that it is and cries out to God for mercy and grace, there will never be the assurance that believers have. 

I know in whom I have believed and am utterly convinced that what has been revealed to me through the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and in the lives of countless thousands of Christians (and evidenced in my own life) is the absolute Truth.....that the resurrected Jesus is the Son of God, God incarnate, and the only way to God, the Father.

Are you really content with outcome (1)?

What I have learned for myself is that outcome (1) is the self-serving choice of those who won't bow to the God of all creation.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think you missed my point.  I would consider murdering my son a terrible thing.  This is what God asked Abraham to do.
> 
> Do you consider it a sin to own another person as property?



No, I got your point. Did God allow Abraham to kill Isaac?
While slave treatment was outlined in the Old Testament, Paul encouraged slave owners to free their slaves in the New Testament. Some have argued that God made concessions to the early Jews for things like slavery and divorce. I don't know why.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> There are far better examples than that (but I'll not do your homework for you...)...God provided a substitute and Abraham didn't kill Isaac and God knew he wouldn't.
> 
> I've addressed the slavery issue, but you didn't respond.



Thanks JL

I agree completely. I think your post on slavery was right on.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> There are places in the Scripture where instructions are given, yet a practice is not endorsed as the "will" of God.  For instance, Israel demanded a king despite God's warning that they should have only him.  Ultimately, in order to teach them (and ultimately grow them), he gave them what they desired and they were able to see that God's prior expressed desire was better.
> 
> That's how I view the texts on slavery.  I don't think it is God's "ideal", but something that the people dealt with.  It was widely practiced in the culture and God weighed in on how it should be handled if it was going to take place.
> 
> I just don't see that as a "clear" endorsement.



Sorry I missed this.

You may think it is not a clear endorsement, but many others of your faith have:



> "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
> 
> "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
> 
> "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina



Now, you may argue that these people were not true Christians but they read the same bible you have.  

Why the "clear" prohibitions against things as minor as working on the sabbath, but nothing against slavery?  It seems a glaring omission if it is not favored by God.

The truth of the matter is that our morals have evolved since the bible was written, and for the better.


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> There are far better examples than that (but I'll not do your homework for you...)...God provided a substitute and Abraham didn't kill Isaac and God knew he wouldn't.



We know that with hindsight.  But Abraham did not know that when he was ordered to do it.  God ordered him to do something terrible.  

The bible records many instances where God ordered his followers to do all sorts of terrible things.   

RoosterTodd's suggestion that God does not order such things is not supported by scripture.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Are you sure that it does not?
> 
> It offers anathema rather than eternal judgment for your transgressions.
> 
> ...




If there turns out to be a deity, wouldn't he/she know a human was only choosing to "believe" or "follow" in order to save themselves?  Insincerity, in other words. 

Atheists and Agnostics are under no turmoil.  They refuse to be worried over things that have no proof of existance or can be accepted logically (without faith).


----------



## pnome (Aug 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Are you sure that it does not?



I'm sure.



gtparts said:


> Imagine, if you will, a real option between (1) an end to your existence.... no sentience (I don't think, therefore ,I am not, nor is anything else).....
> 
> 
> and (2) an eternal existence with only two mutually exclusive realities based on the single question of your individual response to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
> ...



Ok, let's assume this is a "real" choice between these options.  It isn't much of a choice though is it?  No sane person would EVER choose option 1 or 2A.  

One of the issues with Pascal's Wager is that your choice is not as simple as it may first appear:

Option 3: Worship some other god who will reward you after death.

Option 3 has exactly the same chance of being "real" as does your option 2B.




> I have arrived at this conclusion:
> The atheists and agnostics on this forum and elsewhere are trying to convince themselves that outcome (1) is the singular outcome, yet are continually tormented by the possibility that they are wrong in their thinking.


You are partially right.  I hope that I am wrong.  I hope that after I die there is an afterlife.  Now, I certainly also hope the Christians are wrong about God rewarding only faith.  But I would be very happy if after we die the good people are rewarded and the bad people punished, but I think it's just wishful thinking and there is no reason to believe it.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> RoosterTodd's suggestion that God does not order such things is not supported by scripture.



I hate to throw the Old Testament card, but I have to in this case. I know ya'll hate that but, that is the difference. 

There were times that the Jews were facing complete 
extermination at the hands of the the other people in the middle east. God protected his chosen people and war was the result. God did what was necessary to insure that those who worshiped him carried on. 

My answer was in the context of today. God does not ask me or others to do terrible things. The Bible does not instruct me to do terrible things. It is still a good moral guide in this day and age. I hope (but doubt) this clears things up.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> 1. You may think it is not a clear endorsement, but many others of your faith have:
> 
> 2. Now, you may argue that these people were not true Christians but they read the same bible you have.
> 
> ...



1. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean that both our opinions are equally valid.  I think you could agree with me that the men listed had a vested interest in slavery remaining legal and socially accepted.  Just like anyone else, those types of circumstances can certainly cloud one's judgement. 

The real issue is authorial intent.  Me and Dr. Furman can interpret until the cows come home (I've actually written a paper on why I think he was wrong), but the real issue is what God intended.  It's true that this can't be known beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the entirety of Scripture persuades me that my interpretation is closer to what the author intended.

2. I would argue nothing of the sort.  It is easy to be deceived.  There are times in my life when I've selfishly twisted Scripture to support my desires in the past.  It's easy to be drawn in.  I wouldn't call them false Christians...I would call them mistaken.

3. There are several reasons why a prohibition could be missing.  Remember my example of the king?  Perhaps God was teaching his people something.  Perhaps there were children of God who found themselves as slaves and they needed to know how they should act.  Perhaps the financial ramifications of a total abolition would've made ALL parties worse off.  Who knows?  I do know that the lack of a clear prohibition is not to be equated with a clear endorsement.

4. I thought about remarking with some snarky shot at post-modernism, but I think there is truth to what you've said (of course I would argue that while some things have been for the better, others have been for the worse).  What we (as humans) consider moral has changed.  That, however, does not mean that there are no absolute morals.  Biblically faithful morality has not changed in my view.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> We know that with hindsight.  But Abraham did not know that when he was ordered to do it.  God ordered him to do something terrible.
> 
> The bible records many instances where God ordered his followers to do all sorts of terrible things.
> 
> RoosterTodd's suggestion that God does not order such things is not supported by scripture.



I realize this does little to change the substance of the debate here, but I thought I would educate a little.

Abraham was willing to kill his son because he was faithful enough to know God could raise him up from the dead to fulfill his promise to him.

Hebrews 11

17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 

   18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 

   19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. 


What faith!! And greatly rewarded as well!!


----------



## Madman (Aug 3, 2009)

> Your original argument has been countered convincingly and repeatedly...Diogenes



Really?  What was my original argument and what was the convincing counter?  I missed it.  All I have read is subjective, irrational, remarks that have no basis for belief.   Please be kind enough to educate me.




> original Christian Church of Roman Catholicism...Diogenes



Back to history class with you.  Roman Catholicism was not the original Christian church.  It is difficult to focus on the discussion when your history is so erroneous.



> So what does this sort of schism argue other than individual choice?...Diogenes



Free will.  Yes we agree, but that does not make it correct or moral.



> It argues the voluntariness of belief as an essential, core element.



It argues that as sinful men we choose to pursue what we desire not what God requires.



> You are entitled to your own belief,



Thank you, as are you.  We agree on free will.



> there isn’t even a central agreement on any of your ‘core’ principles.



Please teach me.  What are the "core principles" of Christianity?



> “What in your worldview makes it "wrong" to kill children?”



The Holy Bible.  What in your worldview makes it wrong to kill children?



> Your beliefs are simply that – beliefs.



Yes, based on the Bible which has been shown to be reliable on so many fronts, including but not limited to logic, and history.  Yours belief are simply beliefs based on fallible man and "evolutionary science" that has to be changed every time a new discovery is made.



> The truth, ...is that the ‘Christian worldview’ evolved out of a slow distillation of increases in population density, ... Diogenes



Can that be proven as FACT or is it merely another rant that you have assembled in an attempt to appear to be knowledgeable on ALL issues? Please be honest in your answer remember your evolutionary worldview, which reduces you to nothing more that chemical reactions requires that of you and logically if these chemical process all work the same way every time, as we see do in the laboratory, then you and EVERYONE else has no choice.  You are slaves to chemistry and must tell the truth.

P.S.  Please return to your history books on the  "Reformation".  It was no more a reformation than the civil war was a true civil war.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 3, 2009)

Israel:  I must say that I continue to enjoy your posts, if only because they are so enigmatic.  Appreciating your perspectives, and somehow connecting them to the thought at hand is a challenge, and often that is the entire point behind causing folks to think.  

That said, you seem to have a bit of an internal disconnect here, which is uncharacteristic – You say, “Do not attempt to control God, for it is both unwise and futile, but instead present yourself to him for his use.”   But then subsequently say, “God is not looking for marionettes...acting in accord with his reality is indeed, the only way for us to be free of all the strings (we have by complicity) accepted to get along in this world.”   

I don’t understand.  If I present myself for the unquestioning use of an invisible power, then how can I ever be free of the ‘strings’ of that use?  And how can I ever know for sure that I am not being used by other men who purport to speak for a God they cannot, as men, hope to be other than ‘marionettes’ for on this plane?  Who can transcend that – serving the unknown without question -- while freeing oneself from the ‘strings’ that tie one to it?  Does that not seem internally contradictory?  One cannot both serve and be free.

Gtparts states: “Now, logically, outcome (1) is to be preferred over outcome (2A).”   Which, if the framing of the question were, in fact, the only choices available, might have some validity, but in terms of actual logic it is the presentation of false choices, asking only, in effect, which would one rather do – die in a fire or by a firing squad? But it seems you know the choices were false – “Now, Pascal's Wager would seem to have some validity, if, in the absolute remotest possibility God might exist. Since the existence of God can not be dis-proven, one would logically have to concede that God might exist.”   

Sir, we speak here of the Bible as a complete moral guide.  Pascal’s Wager has no validity logically, or even in this context.  The argument itself, as a bit of logical slight of hand serving the credulous, has little to do with Christianity, and could just as readily be used by practitioners of Islam and any other belief system to prove that their beliefs must be right simply because one cannot prove that they are wrong.  An argument that something ‘might’ be is no argument at all that the thing actually is.  This is an argument from gambling, and from fear.  Governments operate on the same principle – people naturally seek protection when they feel threatened – death is threatening – governments cannot protect you from that – therefore – God.  Not so easy.  

To morality, and the Biblical basis of it, studies on crime rates and prison populations show that non-believers are severely underrepresented in prisons.  In Japan, one of the most crime-free countries in the world, only a small minority of the population believes in any God whatsoever.  

Some smart fella (Steven Weinberg was his name), once said that “ With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion.”

(Madman asks, “Please be kind enough to educate me.”  Sir, we have all been trying, but then you go on to observe, undefended by any actual evidence, that, “the Bible which has been shown to be reliable on so many fronts, including but not limited to logic, and history . . . “ is all that you will consider.   Then go on further to consider any questions of your own lack of independent thought to be a ‘rant.’  Frankly, sir, a discussion of the moral certainty of a book that endorses and encourages a huge number of practices that even you, personally, reject as valid in your everyday life requires a rather more open mind than you seem to display.  Your beliefs are your own, and you are welcome to them, but in this discussion you need to defend them a bit better . . . My history is well read and valid, and your challenges are actually rants, without a shred of supporting argument.)


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 3, 2009)

"In Japan, one of the most crime-free countries in the world, only a small minority of the population believes in any God whatsoever."

Just for info here, but roughly 85% of the population of Japan believes in either Shinto or Buddhist religions.

Shintoism 83.9%, Buddhism 71.4%, Christianity 2%, other 7.8%
note: total adherents exceeds 100% because many people belong to both Shintoism and Buddhism (2005)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html#People 


While the religions cited are different, it is in stark contrast to your next quote:
“ With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion.”


----------



## Madman (Aug 5, 2009)

> In Japan, one of the most crime-free countries in the world, *only a small minority *of the population believes in any God whatsoever. ...Diogenes





> Just for info here, but roughly 85% of the population of Japan believes in either Shinto or Buddhist religions.
> 
> *Shintoism 83.9%,* Buddhism 71.4%, Christianity 2%, other 7.8%....ddd-Shooter





> *My history is well read and valid*,....Diogenes




You may be well read however "to read" does not mean "to comprehend" and your math skills are severly lacking,    ...................Sir.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 5, 2009)

They do not follow one deity, per say.  Referring to "God" as a singular deity as in an Abrahamic God is no way representative of those two religious belief systems.
They are polytheistic belief systems, with many gods representing many different facets of belief.


----------



## Madman (Aug 5, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> They do not follow one deity, per say.  Referring to "God" as a singular deity as in an Abrahamic God is no way representative of those two religious belief systems.
> They are polytheistic belief systems, with many gods representing many different facets of belief.



True, but was this posted as a statement of fact or meant as a rebuttal to an argument?


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 5, 2009)

Purely a statement of fact.


----------



## Madman (Aug 5, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Purely a statement of fact.



Thanks


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 6, 2009)

As stated.  Neither Shinto nor Buddhism posit a 'God,' but rather a spritual plane, which in the context of this discussion of the Bible as a complete guide to morality cannot be drawn as a parallel.  Nice to see that the nit-pickers and fact-checkers are on the job though -- it keeps me on my toes . . .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 6, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> As stated.  Neither Shinto nor Buddhism posit a 'God,' but rather a spritual plane, which in the context of this discussion of the Bible as a complete guide to morality cannot be drawn as a parallel.  Nice to see that the nit-pickers and fact-checkers are on the job though -- it keeps me on my toes . . .



I agree. And what is a debate without lots of nit-picking and ....facts. Even if they have nothing to do with the OP.


----------



## Madman (Aug 6, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> As stated.  Neither Shinto nor Buddhism posit a 'God,' but rather a spritual plane, which in the context of this discussion of the Bible as a complete guide to morality cannot be drawn as a parallel.  Nice to see that the nit-pickers and fact-checkers are on the job though -- it keeps me on my toes . . .



Sir, you said nothing about a spiritual plane, you have been quoted below.  You have lost whatever credibility you had in your pitiable attempt at resurrecting your argument. 

I thought only liberals ignored the facts but from your "nit-pickers and fact checkers" remark it appears to apply to you as well. 



> "In Japan, one of the most crime-free countries in the world, only a small minority of the population believes in any God whatsoever."...Diogenes



As anyone can read Shintos believe in many gods.

Shintoismis the indigenous religion of Japan, based on the worship of spirits known as kami.
"Shinto" means "way of the gods" ("kami no michi"), and it is a "cosmic religion", that finds in the beauty and symmetry of nature manifestations of the gods.
The main deity is Goddess Amaterasu, a sun goddess of fertility, reputed to be the founder of the ruler dynasty in Japan, so the Emperor is divine.

http://www.religion-cults.com/Eastern/Shintoism/shinto.htm

One cannot follow the "way of the gods" if one does not believe in gods.  Your defense is demonstrably false.

P.S.  ddd-shooter, You are very gracious.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 6, 2009)

But, the premise of the original post is that the Bible, which originated from one deity, who is considered the only deity, and is considered the creator of everything, is a complete moral guide.

It would stand to reason its comparison would have to be made with another religious belief system that follows a single deity belief.

Those religious belief systems that have many different deities do not really compare at all.  They do not put such a value on one deity as Christianity does.  Their holy writings do hold many different moral teachings.  Interesting thing is, how so many of them are shared even though thousands of miles and hundreds of years seperate them.


----------



## Madman (Aug 6, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But, the premise of the original post is that the Bible, which originated from one deity, who is considered the only deity, and is considered the creator of everything, is a complete moral guide.
> 
> It would stand to reason its comparison would have to be made with another religious belief system that follows a single deity belief.
> 
> Those religious belief systems that have many different deities do not really compare at all.  They do not put such a value on one deity as Christianity does.  Their holy writings do hold many different moral teachings.  Interesting thing is, how so many of them are shared even though thousands of miles and hundreds of years seperate them.



Then why was Shintoism used to defend a point?  If that be the case Islam would have been the most logical religion to use.  However, the contender choose to use Shintoism which does believe in gods.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 6, 2009)

Madman said:


> Then why was Shintoism used to defend a point?  If that be the case Islam would have been the most logical religion to use.  However, the contender choose to use Shintoism which does believe in gods.



That, I can not answer.  Diogenes would have to clarify that.
If he was using the term"God" as a reference to an Abrahamic deity, he would be correct.  I'm simply noting the use of a capital letter "G" versus a smaller case "g" here.

I do see obvious differences in religious belief systems definitions of "god."  Abrahamic style sole deities are much different in definition than polytheistic deities.

I'm only trying to get us back to the OP's subject.  As I said, I find it rather interesting the many shared morals found in various holy writings.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That, I can not answer.  Diogenes would have to clarify that.
> If he was using the term"God" as a reference to an Abrahamic deity, he would be correct.  I'm simply noting the use of a capital letter "G" versus a smaller case "g" here.
> 
> I do see obvious differences in religious belief systems definitions of "god."  Abrahamic style sole deities are much different in definition than polytheistic deities.
> ...




Agreed.  To get back to the original OP requires no discussion of any "god."  In a logical argument it does not require the introduction of "god" at all.  If any thing it would require the discussions of books.  Perhaps someone would argue that "Green eggs and ham" is a complete moral guide.

Some had put forth the argument that the Bible is the complete moral guide and the reasoning behind that belief.  The other side has merely stated "no its not, because other beliefs have similar beliefs in several of the same areas."

That is not a logical argument and you have read my arguments for that.  What part of human morality does the Christian Bible not address?  

The OP nowhere stated that you had to agree with the teachings of the Bible did it?  

If you followed the teachings of Jesus Christ what social moral code would you break?


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 7, 2009)

Madman said:


> Agreed.  To get back to the original OP requires no discussion of any "god."  In a logical argument it does not require the introduction of "god" at all.  If any thing it would require the discussions of books.  Perhaps someone would argue that "Green eggs and ham" is a complete moral guide.
> 
> Some had put forth the argument that the Bible is the complete moral guide and the reasoning behind that belief.  The other side has merely stated "no its not, because other beliefs have similar beliefs in several of the same areas."
> 
> ...




How can we avoid the discussion of "God" or of a deity when the very basis of defense for the Bible is that is is "inspired" from that one and only deity?

Whether a person agrees with the words of Bible, or agrees with the teachings of Jesus, the basic premise of why the Bible is considered by most Christians a complete moral guide is simply due to its supposed origin.

It seems you are inferring living morally requires the Bible.  I will contend that many following the teachings of Jesus have lived very moral lives.  So have some who have never laid eyes on a Bible as well.
But then again, none of us can solve problems with supernatural powers either.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> How can we avoid the discussion of "God" or of a deity when the very basis of defense for the Bible is that is is "inspired" from that one and only deity?



That is the Christian argument.  I misunderstood, I thought this forum was open to all interested in spiritual discussions.
If you do not believe that it is please put forth the argument for that belief, just as pnome has.



> Whether a person agrees with the words of Bible, or agrees with the teachings of Jesus, the basic premise of why the Bible is considered by most Christians a complete moral guide is simply due to its supposed origin.



If you read my argument it was not due to "supposed" origins it is from logic.  The original OP supposes a moral base line, the idea that there are true morals, nowhere in his rebuttal do I remember any statements that morals are relative.  The Bible asserts that the God of Abramham is the creator of the universe and therefore the arbiter of truth, good, morals, etc.



> I tend to agree with just about all of the teachings of Jesus. ...pnome



I don't recall seeing anywhere that he agreed with just about all the teachings of Muhammad.  Even on pnome's list of moral teachings it appears the Bible is on top.  He had revealed that he grew up Christian, maybe those morals came from Christian teaching and not survival instincts.




> It seems you are inferring living morally requires the Bible.  I will contend that many following the teachings of Jesus have lived very moral lives.  So have some who have never laid eyes on a Bible as well.
> But then again, none of us can solve problems with supernatural powers either



If you would read the entire thread you would see that is not so.  My argument has been that without the God of the Bible no one can truely define morality and that what the civilized world views as moral is due to those teachings.

There are non-christians that lead moral lives, but what does that prove, other than the fact that they have co-oped that lifestyle from the Bible and/or the God of the Bible.

Perhaps it would more interesting if you would put forth an argument for your views of the Bible and morality.

But that would make you vulnerable wouldn't it?


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 7, 2009)

Madman said:


> My argument has been that without the God of the Bible no one can truely define morality and that what the civilized world views as moral is due to those teachings.




That's the whole nutshell of your argument.  It biases your view so as to make any open discussion of the subject with you moot.
Since you do not accept any human morality as coming from anything other than the God of Abraham, it's virtually impossible to discuss this further.

Please save the innuendo, save the aggression, save the defensive posturing.  I'm not here to dispute your premise.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 8, 2009)

Madman:   While I’m sure that your knee-jerk insults and sudden insights are well meant,  statements such as “You have lost whatever credibility you had in your pitiable attempt at resurrecting your argument. 

I thought only liberals ignored the facts but from your "nit-pickers and fact checkers" remark it appears to apply to you as well,”  seem a bit more pointed than is really called for in this context.

Your rapid and obviously shallow research leads to this: "Shinto" means "way of the gods" ("kami no michi"), and it is a "cosmic religion", that finds in the beauty and symmetry of nature manifestations of the gods.
The main deity is Goddess Amaterasu, a sun goddess of fertility, reputed to be the founder of the ruler dynasty in Japan, so the Emperor is divine.”    Um?   So, did you read that statement as you were hastily pasting it?  

“So the Emperor is divine.”    A man.    The vast majority of the Japanese, in every poll and study ever conducted, identify themselves as not believing in ‘God.’  A ‘cosmic religion’ that finds identifications with spirits within the natural plane is little more than a collected group of quaint superstitions not really different than ‘believing’ in your horoscope.  There is no identification of an all-powerful, all-knowing ‘God’ which provides all moral laws and principals out of nothingness, and must be obeyed unquestioningly, or else . . .  So, again I thank the nit-picking, though it applies to nothing whatsoever inside this discussion, and would ask that you leave the rancor, accusation, and ‘gotcha’ nonsense at the door.    And by the way, if not understanding a single word that you, yourself typed leads to the conclusion that, “(My) defense is demonstrably false,”  then you seem not to have read more than the single sentence, and wish to condemn the entire thought on that basis.   Not only is your analysis and critique of the single sentence purely out of context and erroneous, but focuses on minutia at the expense of the argument at hand.

But you seem all too willing to reject any thoughts other than this one, “My argument has been that without the God of the Bible no one can truely define morality and that what the civilized world views as moral is due to those teachings.”   And that, sir, is simply not so.  Even though you attempted to derail on a point that you misunderstand, even Shinto, and the minor gods they find in the view of the harmony of nature, does not recognize nor believe nor worship the “God of the Bible.”   And if, as you argue, without that, “no one can truely define morality,” then how is it that the society of Shinto is demonstrably more moral than the societies of Christians?  And how do you explain the fact that human morality had been codified into enforceable laws of acceptable conduct thousands of years ago by societies as diverse as the Mayans, Babylonians, Chinese, Persians, Mesopotamians, and on and on, ad nauseum, few if any of whom had ever even heard of the Bible (since it didn’t yet exist), and none of whom could therefore have known of the God of the Bible and the ‘teachings’ therein?   

I’m afraid that you have it rather backwards, sir.  The ‘teachings’ of the Bible were the product of a collection of the existing moral codes of humans.  The Bible did not write human morality.  Human morality wrote the Bible.


----------



## Madman (Aug 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's the whole nutshell of your argument. It biases your view so as to make any open discussion of the subject with you moot.




And the non-believer is biased by his belief that there is no god.  Everyone argues with presuppositions.



> Please save the innuendo, save the aggression, save the defensive posturing. I'm not here to dispute your premise.



No innuendos, and certainly no aggression, I have no need to be defensive and therefore am not.  That is one problem these posts, no inflection can be seen.  It was merely an observation.  I sincerely apologize for offending you.


----------



## South Man (Aug 10, 2009)

BeenHuntn said:


> if you were spiritual you would understand
> Point well said. The Bible is clear in that the carnal mind cannot receive the things of God. The Spirit of God provides enlightenment to those seeking it. However, if one is determined within himself to attempt to prove inaccuracies in the Word he would not be the first. The carnal mind it is not subject to the law of God and cannot understand the things of God. One of the problems I see is that someone is trying to understand things from a predetermined point of view that the Bible is outdated and irrelevant for today which is far from correct.  Spirtual matters are hard to understand when one is not spiritual minded or seeking help from God to understand them.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 10, 2009)

"then how is it that the society of Shinto is demonstrably more moral than the societies of Christians?" 
Is that really the case? Does less crime=more moral? 
Or is it perhaps the cultural attitude that the nail that sticks out gets hammered down? 


"Human morality wrote the Bible."
If that is the case, why was it so hard for those who wrote the Bible(Israelites) to follow their own (already existing) morals?
Seems to me if I believe I should paint on wednesdays and someone takes that belief and makes it a law, I would have no trouble following it.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 10, 2009)

Madman said:


> And the non-believer is biased by his belief that there is no god.  Everyone argues with presuppositions.
> 
> 
> 
> No innuendos, and certainly no aggression, I have no need to be defensive and therefore am not.  That is one problem these posts, no inflection can be seen.  It was merely an observation.  I sincerely apologize for offending you.



No apology necessary at all.  I am not offended in the least.
We are just reading into the posts quite deeply.  A good sign of a good debate and discussion!

Diogenes, you stated your points quite well.  And, it stimulates thought successfully.


----------



## Madman (Aug 10, 2009)

> human morality had been codified into enforceable laws of acceptable conduct thousands of years ago by societies as diverse as the Mayans, Babylonians...Diogenes



I apologize, I did not realize that morality was defined in this argument as any codified behavior, which it must be since you use the Mayans as an example of a moral culture.

Uuummmm... Human sacrifice = moral society.   
Maybe in a pagen worldview but not in a Christian World view.  

Maybe the Babylonians fit the moral code of the Bible. No I seem to remember accounts of one of their kings throwing people into a furnace.  (Notice I used throw / thrown correctly this time)


I agree with WTM 45, you do state your points quite well, even if they are condesending.  

10 points - for presentation, 
2 points - for supporting documentation and use of facts.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 10, 2009)

Interesting point, Madman!
I propose that human sacrifice has been accepted and even required at times as form of religious worship.  Therefore, without religion's requirement, the morals would have been even better.
Agree?


----------



## Madman (Aug 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Interesting point, Madman!
> I propose that human sacrifice has been accepted and even required at times as form of religious worship.  Therefore, without religion's requirement, the morals would have been even better.
> Agree?



In some religions but not Judaism and not in Christianity. (Same God)

Great point as to why I get my morals from the Holy Bible and not from man.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 10, 2009)

Madman said:


> In some religions but not Judaism and not in Christianity. (Same God)
> 
> Great point as to why I get my morals from the Holy Bible and not from man.



Madman, the OT reveals some sacrificial requirements.
The NT reveals a big one.


----------



## Madman (Aug 10, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Madman, the OT reveals some sacrificial requirements.
> The NT reveals a big one.



Yes, the wages of sin is death, yet I see no human sacrifice in the old OT.

As for the NT, God offered Himself as the atonement, the only sacrifice that was final.

Hence the big question: Peter, who do you say that I am?

That is one everyone will have to answer one day, those who have accepted the atoning blood of Jesus the Christ will be saved.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 12, 2009)

I apologize ahead of time to the serious thinkers here, but this one is difficult to pass up . . . georgiabuckie states, “The carnal mind it is not subject to the law of God and cannot understand the things of God.”   Wow.    That one almost needs a doctoral dissertation by itself, but let us try it on by parts – ‘Carnal,’ in my dictionary, means ‘pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites;’      Okay.    But wouldn’t the dictate to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ rather play into those carnal instincts?  And wouldn’t, then, those ‘carnal’ mindsets actually be fulfilling the orders from above?   I mean, geez, which is it?

God gives us a carnal mind, and orders us to use it in his own Book, and then you come along and contradict that, and say that if you do as you are told then you cannot understand the things God told us to do?   Explain this to us – we promise to pay rapt attention.  (Hint:  If ‘carnal’ equals “not subject to the law of God,”  then not only would none of us be here, but not a single one of us would be, by the extension of that thought, subject to the law of God.)   Rough bit of territory to argue, sir, but I’m sure you have more than a single declaratory statement to back up that thought, and I anticipate that you will acquit yourself admirably in the defense of same.

Ddd-shooter:  Crime, by the nature of the concept, is the violation of the codified morality of a given society.  A problem that your thought notes quite pointedly is that some crimes are considered universal by all societies, regardless of belief systems, and some fall into areas of debate within different cultures.  Fair enough, and an enlightened observation.  But it seems to me that the attitude you express, that if, “someone takes that belief and makes it a law, I would have no trouble following it,”  is problematic.  The Islamics wish to make their beliefs into your laws as well.   Would following those laws, once legislated, cause you no trouble?

As for this one:  Madman states: “I did not realize that morality was defined in this argument as any codified behavior . . . “   then goes on to allege, “Human sacrifice = moral society.  Maybe in a pagen worldview but not in a Christian World view,”  well, that one is going to require an entire post unto itself . . .


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 12, 2009)

. . . . That post would be this one . . .  Um?  Madman?   Once again you cherry-pick one small thing out of an entire thought, and choose to hang your hat on that niggling point, and once again you seem to shoot less at me than at your own feet.  But hey, what good is a debate if not for controversy, eh?  

So let us take this – ““I did not realize that morality was defined in this argument as any codified behavior . . .”  

Um?   What?  Please read your own statements.  Your argument is that the Bible defines morality.  Defining morality creates a set of rules, and you have repeatedly alleged that all of those rules are contained entirely within the Bible.  Creating a set of rules for human behavior is known as codifying that behavior.  So at what point do you separate the morality of the Bible from the rules governing the behavior of an individual?  Is there a disconnect somewhere, where the Bible you advocate for does not codify morality by establishing rules that must be followed?   And if there is a disconnect between the morality of the Bible and the morality of men, then where, precisely, do you draw that line?

Then, picking nits again on only one bit of a whole thought, this resulted – “Human sacrifice = moral society. Maybe in a pagen worldview but not in a Christian World view.”    

Charitably, I’m going to guess that your intention is to play Devil’s advocate with that bit, and that you cannot possibly be serious from any actually educated view of Christianity.

Sir – the ‘Christian’ world-view is quite simple:  ‘God,’ the unknown, unseen, all-powerful, all-knowing deity had his Son born into the flesh of a human by way of an actual birth from the womb of an actual female here on this earth.  Is that an accurate description of things so far?

That ‘God’ who some believe was capable of doing such a thing to an already married Virgin, is said by your stories to have sent that flesh and blood human manifestation of his will onto this planet for only one reason – to sacrifice him.  

Human sacrifice.  That is the entire basis of your belief system.  

So much so, in fact, that the central symbolic Sacred Icon of your belief is the image of that death on the Cross.  So . . . 

Can you allege that human sacrifice is only valid in a ‘pagen’ (sic) worldview, when you also claim that it was a human sacrifice that is the basis of the ‘morality’ you hold?   Explain this to us.

How can a human sacrifice have been what ‘Saved’ you, while you condemn the idea of human sacrifice as pagan?  Think, eh?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

I was picking some nits and I found a lunker...

Christ was fully man (thus, the human sacrifice part is certainly part of the story).

Christ was fully God (a BIG important "rest" of the story).

So, those who are choosing to throw rhetorical grenades could just as easily state that the faith is based on Diety sacrifice.

Alas, the "point" of this particular grenade is to equate Christianity with ancient, primitive, religions that sacrificed virgins to volcanoes and such.

boom goes the dynamite


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Alas, the "point" of this particular grenade is to equate Christianity with ancient, primitive, religions that sacrificed virgins to volcanoes and such.
> 
> boom goes the dynamite



*Judges 11:29-40 (New King James Version)*

*Jephthah’s Vow and Victory*


 <sup id="en-NKJV-6859" class="versenum" value="29">29</sup> Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced _toward_ the people of Ammon. <sup id="en-NKJV-6860" class="versenum" value="30">30</sup> And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, <sup id="en-NKJV-6861" class="versenum" value="31">31</sup> then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will *offer it up as a burnt offering*.” 
 <sup id="en-NKJV-6862" class="versenum" value="32">32</sup> So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. <sup id="en-NKJV-6863" class="versenum" value="33">33</sup> And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,<sup class="footnote" value="[a]">[a]</sup> with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.*Jephthah’s Daughter*


 <sup id="en-NKJV-6864" class="versenum" value="34">34</sup> When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she _was his_ only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. <sup id="en-NKJV-6865" class="versenum" value="35">35</sup> And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.” 
 <sup id="en-NKJV-6866" class="versenum" value="36">36</sup> So she said to him, “My father, _if_ you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.” <sup id="en-NKJV-6867" class="versenum" value="37">37</sup> Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.” 
 <sup id="en-NKJV-6868" class="versenum" value="38">38</sup> So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away _for_ two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. <sup id="en-NKJV-6869" class="versenum" value="39">39</sup> And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, *and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed.* She knew no man. 
And it became a custom in Israel <sup id="en-NKJV-6870" class="versenum" value="40">40</sup> _that_ the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.


BOOM


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 12, 2009)

The sound of a satchel charge...........


----------



## earl (Aug 12, 2009)

Pnome, you know that's out of context. LOL


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> BOOM



Unless you can show that Christianity (check out the first part of the previous word) is based upon the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, I think that one was a dud.

I will concede that it is a foreshadowing event of the ultimate sacrifice to come (as was the sacrifice of the animals in the OT).

That said, the attempted false analogy is still false because the volcano gets a virgin on a regular basis.

Thus, dio's rhetorical grenade is still a dud.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Unless you can show that Christianity (check out the first part of the previous word) is based upon the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, I think that one was a dud.
> 
> I will concede that it is a foreshadowing event of the ultimate sacrifice to come (as was the sacrifice of the animals in the OT).
> 
> ...




The whole idea of offering a human life in exchange for the intervention of a deity is quite ironic to most people.
The idea of a deity offering a part of its life (whatever form or shape) for a human is ironic as well.

Any religion that demands human sacrifice should be approached with extreme caution.  Infatuation with death and the unknown is a powerful driving force for many.

It is very interesting how some people can be so dedicated to a religious belief system that they can not look outside of it at all.  They do not see the shared commonalities, speculations and rituals.  It is remarkable.

But, I do stand for the right for people to believe as they wish, as long as it is not me or mine that is in line for the taking, or any forced compliance.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> 1. The whole idea of offering a human life in exchange for the intervention of a deity is quite ironic to most people.
> The idea of a deity offering a part of its life (whatever form or shape) for a human is ironic as well.
> 
> 2. Any religion that demands human sacrifice should be approached with extreme caution.  Infatuation with death and the unknown is a powerful driving force for many.
> ...



1. Could you explain that a little further.  I think I understand what you're talking about, but I don't want to make assumptions.  Why do YOU find these things ironic?

2. What do you mean that death is a powerful driving force for many?

3. I think you're jumping to conclusions.  You assume that dedication results in an inability to see beyond a certain belief system.  I think you'd be hard press to prove that assumption.  I'm all about discussing similarities, but let's make sure they are true similarities and not an attempt at persuasion via fallacious argumentation.  Closely examining arguments doesn't mean that someone is unwilling to examine similarities.


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> That said, the attempted false analogy is still false because the volcano gets a virgin on a regular basis.



Christians worship the God of the Old Testament.  The same God whom the poor daughter of Jephthah was sacrificed to.  

Of note is also the reason she was sacrificed.  So that Jephthah could thank the LORD for his help in committing genocide against the people of Ammon.

Genocide and human sacrifice.  Your religion, not mine.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> Christians worship the God of the Old Testament.  The same God whom the poor daughter of Jephthah was sacrificed to.



Sure do.  Does he still require human sacrifice (physical)?  No.  So, whatever red herring you want to run off on is fine with me, but the statement that Christianity is based on human sacrifice is an attempt at a text-book fallacious argument.  Further, it shows a profound ignorance of the Christian faith.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> 1. Could you explain that a little further.  I think I understand what you're talking about, but I don't want to make assumptions.  Why do YOU find these things ironic?
> 
> 2. What do you mean that death is a powerful driving force for many?
> 
> 3. I think you're jumping to conclusions.  You assume that dedication results in an inability to see beyond a certain belief system.  I think you'd be hard press to prove that assumption.  I'm all about discussing similarities, but let's make sure they are true similarities and not an attempt at persuasion via fallacious argumentation.  Closely examining arguments doesn't mean that someone is unwilling to examine similarities.




1.  "Ironic" is wording it quite lightly.  I will not say exactly what I think out of respect for others and their beliefs.  It would be taken as an insult, and that's not my intention. 

2.  The fear of death and the unknown will make people follow,believe and actually do some really strange things in an attempt for self preservation. 


3.  No "jumping to conclusions" here.  Years of study and research brought me to that point.  And it's easy to prove.  Nearly every upper level religious belief system authority would agree, few have the honest ability to look outside of their predisposition and exposure (read born-into) to a religious belief system.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Sure do.  Does he still require human sacrifice (physical)?  No.  So, whatever red herring you want to run off on is fine with me, but the statement that Christianity is based on human sacrifice is an attempt at a text-book fallacious argument.  Further, it shows a profound ignorance of the Christian faith.



I think people understand quite well.  The God of Abraham changed his mind, or he decided to change tactics.
Thankfully.
I'd bet the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite wished it would have happened a little sooner.


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Sure do.  Does he still require human sacrifice (physical)?  No.  So, whatever red herring you want to run off on is fine with me, but the statement that Christianity is based on human sacrifice is an attempt at a text-book fallacious argument.  Further, it shows a profound ignorance of the Christian faith.



Does he still require you to worship him and only him?  Interesting that you pick and choose which parts of the old testament still apply.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> 1.  "Ironic" is wording it quite lightly.  I will not say exactly what I think out of respect for others and their beliefs.  It would be taken as an insult, and that's not my intention.
> 
> 2.  The fear of death and the unknown will make people follow,believe and actually do some really strange things in an attempt for self preservation.
> 
> ...



1. Go for it, I won't be insulted.  My understanding of irony makes your statement curious.  

2. Again, you're assuming motives with regard to Christianity.  That's fine and it may be true in some cases, but it's a statement that you can't objectively make about such a huge group of people...especially when the church teaching is so well documented on the subject.  Sure, fear of death is used by some, but it's hardly the majority.

3. Okay, if it's easy to prove, go for it.  Oh, and we're talking about proof, not conjecture.  Bloviation is a wonderful pass-time, but it shouldn't be mistaken for PROOF.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> Does he still require you to worship him and only him?  Interesting that you pick and choose which parts of the old testament still apply.



Absolutely.

How is it interesting that a vow that an individual made to God (he was not commanded to do it) that he followed through with doesn't apply to me or to Christians as a whole?

That doesn't seem interesting at all to me.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> How is it interesting that a vow that an individual made to God (he was not commanded to do it) that he followed through with doesn't apply to me or to Christians as a whole?
> 
> That doesn't seem interesting at all to me.



If it is the same deity you worship, it is a deity that accepted such an action.  Would that deity not condemn such an action today?  I know, the New Covenant.


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> How is it interesting that a vow that an individual made to God (he was not commanded to do it) that he followed through with doesn't apply to me or to Christians as a whole?
> 
> That doesn't seem interesting at all to me.



So, you are saying that because God did not command it, it doesn't apply as a moral lesson for you today.

How about this one? 


> _"Suppose you hear in one of the towns  the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led  their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In  such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and  can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack  that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the  livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and  burn it*.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD  your God.*  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.   Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD  will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion  on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your  ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and *keep  all the commands I am giving you today*, doing what is pleasing to him." _  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)



Does this apply to Christians today?


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Bloviation is a wonderful pass-time, but it shouldn't be mistaken for PROOF.



I'll not waste your time then.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> So, you are saying that because God did not command it, it doesn't apply as a moral lesson for you today.
> 
> 
> Does this apply to Christians today?



Is there no difference between a lesson and a commandment?  You guys are making this too easy.

I currently do not live in the theocracy of Israel (which is an ancient country and shouldn't be mistaken with modern day Israel which was, as WTM says, under the Old Covenant), so I am not under any obligation to plunder anyone.

All the same, I can certainly see some lessons to be learned from the account.  Chiefly of which is that it is a serious thing to deceive others.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 12, 2009)

"But it seems to me that the attitude you express, that if, “someone takes that belief and makes it a law, I would have no trouble following it,” is problematic. The Islamics wish to make their beliefs into your laws as well. Would following those laws, once legislated, cause you no trouble?"
You said human morality wrote the Bible. Those who wrote the Bible apparently used their own set of morals. My point was, if I use MY morals as law, I would have no problem following them, as I already believe and act as such.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 12, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> The whole idea of offering a human life in exchange for the intervention of a deity is quite ironic to most people.
> The idea of a deity offering a part of its life (whatever form or shape) for a human is ironic as well.
> 
> Any religion that demands human sacrifice should be approached with extreme caution.  Infatuation with death and the unknown is a powerful driving force for many.
> ...



I would like to hear the irony as well. 
Maybe those of us who follow our belief system have looked outside this belief, and found others severely lacking. Could that be the case, or all we all lumped so easily as ignorant folks who cannot see anything else?


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> I currently do not live in the theocracy of Israel (which is an ancient country and shouldn't be mistaken with modern day Israel which was, as WTM says, under the Old Covenant), so I am not under any obligation to plunder anyone.



Then you are not under any obligation to worship only the God of Abraham.  Or follow any of the 10 Commandments for that matter.  You can even be pro-gay marriage.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> Then you are not under any obligation to worship only the God of Abraham.



Wrong.  Context is king and you've got no grasp of it.

There is a difference in the command you listed previously and the 10 Commandments.

Surely you can figure it out (and that's not even considering the New Covenant which would negate everything you proposed, even if your over-simplification of OT treatment was valid...which it's not).


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Context




Not much can be provided in the way of context that would get me to approve of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Do you approve or disapprove of the actions of Jephthah the Gileadite?  Did he do the "right" thing?  Was he "good" in your eyes?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> Not much can be provided in the way of context that would get me to approve of Jephthah the Gileadite.



You don't have to agree to understand what took place.  Are you looking for understanding or a cheap rhetorical quip to be used on those yucky Christians?

Riddle me that and I'll think on what I think (which is not what ultimately matters) about the question you posed to me in the second part of your post.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> Do you approve or disapprove of the actions of Jephthah the Gileadite?  Did he do the "right" thing?  Was he "good" in your eyes?



Okay, I'm done thinkin'.  Not sure what your motives are, but it doesn't really matter.

There are a few things that should be brought to light here.

1. God hates human sacrifice (particularly burnt offering).  "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Jeremiah 32:35

2. Description does not equal prescription.  Show me, in the Scripture you sighted where God told Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter...further, tell me where God even passively encouraged Jephthah to make any sort of vow to him.  Lastly, tell me where God says he approves of what Jephthah did.  TIA

3. Did you catch that what they weep for is that Jephthah's daughter was a virgin?  In those days, one could be committed to Temple service.  Some scholars believe this is what happened.  I'm not compelled that this is what necessarily happened, but it is a possibility.


So, absent of God's judgment that this act was right, I'm comfortable concluding, in light of the Scripture I posted earlier as well as the totality of Scripture, that Jephthah was foolish and wrong to make the vow that he made.


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Okay, I'm done thinkin'.  Not sure what your motives are, but it doesn't really matter.
> 
> There are a few things that should be brought to light here.
> 
> 1. God hates human sacrifice (particularly burnt offering).  "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Jeremiah 32:35



God hates human sacrifices for _other_ gods.  Understandable in light of the first commandment.



> 2. Description does not equal prescription.  Show me, in the Scripture you sighted where God told Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter...further, tell me where God even passively encouraged Jephthah to make any sort of vow to him.  Lastly, tell me where God says he approves of what Jephthah did.  TIA



I can't.  It's not in there.  Though, as I have pointed out, there are other places in the OT where God has ordered 'burnt offerings' of humans for himself.



> 3. Did you catch that what they weep for is that Jephthah's daughter was a virgin?  In those days, one could be committed to Temple service.  Some scholars believe this is what happened.  I'm not compelled that this is what necessarily happened, but it is a possibility.



It would take a great deal of 'context' and 'interpretation' to convince me of that.




> So, absent of God's judgment that this act was right, I'm comfortable concluding, in light of the Scripture I posted earlier as well as the totality of Scripture, that Jephthah was foolish and wrong to make the vow that he made.



A sober judgment.  But it's clear from the text that God approved of the vow that was made.  So, if he approved of the vow, he must have approved of the action.

Also, if God had indeed ordered it, would you feel differently?  If somewhere in the verse it said "and God commanded him to fulfill his vow" would you then approve?  Would that make it "good"?


----------



## earl (Aug 12, 2009)

Once again the ambiguity of the bible has allowed it to fit whatever meaning one wants to apply to it.
Sounds like it was written in such a manner so that it's followers could use a verse to defend or attack as only they feel like at the time. Next week we will have some one else use the same verse for a different purpose and explain by telling us you have to be saved ,filled with the holy ghost,read it in context, or even put our hand on the radio,and then and only then will we be capable of understanding.

And then we have this gem...
''Sure, fear of death is used by some, but it's hardly the majority.''

 Are you serious ???? I have yet to see a christian who wont tell you real quick that you are going to burn. If that isn't using fear , I don't know what is.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

pnome said:


> But it's clear from the text that God approved of the vow that was made.  So, if he approved of the vow, he must have approved of the action.



How do you come to that conclusion?  I see nothing in the text that indicates that God approved of it.  I've asked you to show me otherwise...take your time.

Oh, and what are you talking about with regard to burnt human offerings commanded by God?  I'm just wondering.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 12, 2009)

earl said:


> Are you serious ???? I have yet to see a christian who wont tell you real quick that you are going to burn. If that isn't using fear , I don't know what is.



Yep.  If you're comfortable using your experience with Christians to characterize the whole of Christendom, then we likely don't have much to talk about.


----------



## earl (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Yep.  If you're comfortable using your experience with Christians to characterize the whole of Christendom, then we likely don't have much to talk about.





Likewise I'm sure.


----------



## pnome (Aug 12, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> How do you come to that conclusion?  I see nothing in the text that indicates that God approved of it.  I've asked you to show me otherwise...take your time.



Ok so, why was the vow made?

To get the the LORD to help him...


> <sup id="en-NKJV-6860" class="versenum" value="30">30</sup> And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, <sup id="en-NKJV-6861" class="versenum" value="31">31</sup> then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will *offer it up as a burnt offering*.”



And the LORD does...


> 32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, *and the LORD delivered them into his hands.* <sup id="en-NKJV-6863" class="versenum" value="33">33</sup>






> Oh, and what are you talking about with regard to burnt human offerings commanded by God?  I'm just wondering.





> _"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it*.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD  your God.* That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and *keep  all the commands I am giving you today*, doing what is pleasing to him." _  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)





> *Joshua 7:15 (King James Version)*
> 
> 
> <sup id="en-KJV-5992" class="versenum" value="15">15</sup>And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be *burnt with fire*, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.



I don't point these things out in an effort to demonize Christians.  I point them out to make a point about how these kinds of things would not be acceptable to Christians in the world of today.  Which really is the whole point of this thread.   To try to explain that good morals do not come from ancient texts.  They come from ourselves.

I wonder sometimes why Christians don't abandon the Old Testament.  Jesus' command to "Do unto others..." accounts for all of the last 6 of the 10 Commandments.  It is a commandment to _empathize_.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 13, 2009)

pnome said:


> 1. Ok so, why was the vow made?
> 
> To get the the LORD to help him...
> 
> ...



1. Sure, that's why he made the vow (unknowing that his daughter would be what he had to give up), but that doesn't mean that the vow was the reason he was victorious or why the Lord helped him.

Ultimately, the vow was made because Jephthah was foolish.

2. I agree that this type of behavior is not acceptable.  I see no evidence in the text that God approved of this behavior back then.  I'm not saying that our relationship with God hasn't changed since the OT, of course it has!  That's the beauty of the OT, it lays the groundwork for a right understanding of the grace we experience in Christ.

3. Christians don't abandon the OT because Christ said he didn't come into the world to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it.  What, exactly, that means is sometimes difficult to get a hold of, but it means AT LEAST that we should read the OT in a way that points to Christ.  I can understand how those who don't believe look at the two testaments almost like two totally different works...they're not.  They are one and Christians are to consult the WHOLE counsel of Scripture.


Anyway, my week is about to speed up.  I didn't mean to insinuate that you were trying to run-down or demonize Christians.  I also didn't mean to insult earl (I meant that we wouldn't have much to talk about regarding this subject).

All in all, I love these threads (though I know some folks hate them).  As a Christian, it is edifying to dig and scratch and search for answers to difficult questions.  So, I thank you for that.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 13, 2009)

Johnnylightnin states:  “Does he still require human sacrifice (physical)? No. So, whatever red herring you want to run off on is fine with me, but the statement that Christianity is based on human sacrifice is an attempt at a text-book fallacious argument. Further, it shows a profound ignorance of the Christian faith.”  Well, sir, as sidesteps go, that is certainly one of the poorest – How will you convince us that God does not “still” require human sacrifices?   You say ‘No,” but so far we have only your word for that . . . and I further challenge you to define the “textbook” fallacy in the argument that God sent his only begotten Son, as a flesh and blood human, for the sole purpose of being sacrificed.  The argument that the man was only part-man is unsatisfying, and if it was Deity-sacrifice then why bother with all the dramatics?  The entire basis of the suffering, set as an example of God’s sacrifice for your sins, is that it was human suffering.  If not human, then why empathize and build a religion around it?  One can certainly torture minor gods, as was always done in mythology, but one can hardly kill them.  And pay attention – death was first – ‘resurrection’ second.    


Then: (!) –“Bloviation is a wonderful pass-time, but it shouldn't be mistaken for PROOF.”   Wow.  Proof?  Is not ‘belief’ based entirely on conjecture?  Can belief hold up to any standard of ‘Proof?’  And if so, then provide the proof.  You make a classic mistake – you assert a proposition you hold as self-evident, then demand proof to the contrary.  I view your assertions as charitably as possible, and express reasonable doubts as to the validity of same – thus, in any context, the burden of ‘proof’ is on the prosecution (the one making the assertion).  Do not, then, fall back on the smug and simplistic insistence that you must be proven wrong, and so must be right -- prove that your own declarations are correct, or examine them fully.  (By the way, ‘bloviation’ is understood in context, sort of, but the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, says that there is no such word . . . ).  So, I say that making up words, making up stories to believe in, making up contexts that change situationally, continually squirming as the seas change, and then pretending to stand fast to a whole and coherent ‘morality’ appears to any observer as nonsense cut out of whole cloth.    


Ddd-shooter – “My point was, if I use MY morals as law, I would have no problem following them, as I already believe and act as such. “   No sir.  Your thought reacted against the idea that human morality predated the Bible, and the entirety of the thought, though enigmatic and difficult to follow, was this – “If that is the case, why was it so hard for those who wrote the Bible(Israelites) to follow their own (already existing) morals?
Seems to me if I believe I should paint on wednesdays and someone takes that belief and makes it a law, I would have no trouble following it.”  

Now, there is a whole thread to be had in your contention that the Israelites wrote the Bible, though the thought seems to show some progress in the idea that the book was written by humans.  And there is another whole thread in your contention that the Israelites found it hard to follow their own writings, and I wish you a bit of luck in trying to demonstrate the Israelites as somehow less moral than the Christians.  But to the point – you did not say anything about YOUR morals as law.  You said, in the abstract, that if “someone” takes “that belief” and makes it into law you would have no trouble following.  That is rather different than your sudden revision, that you would only follow your own morals, and the new statement presents a rather drastic distinction. 

Johnnylighnin,  again, states:  – “Description does not equal prescription.”   Sir, this is entirely weaseling and disingenuous.  Either the Book is entirely the Word of a perfect God, from start to finish, or it is not.  You are not given the option of choosing which parts you like and which parts you disagree with, or wish to interpret.  If it is the True Word, then that is that.  If it is not, then that is similarly that.  There is no room in the middle to choose only the bits you want to believe, reject other bits, interpret some others, and apply some parts literally and others allegorically.  That is wholly dishonest, and marks a politician who can spin rather than a ‘believer.’

Choose, and stand.  Do not squirm around.  Does this Book define all of morality for all of humanity, as written, as it stands, or does it not?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

Ok, we seem to be having a communication break down. Your point was that human morality-and therefore humans-wrote the Bible. My contention was (I guess I failed to make it) that if those humans(Israelites) took their existing morals and codified them into the Bible, why did they have problems following basic beliefs and behaviors they already believed to be true?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 14, 2009)

Did they?  And are you sure that they are the ones who wrote your Bible?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

Nothing like answering a question with a question. I indulged your presuppositions to engage and further debate, so this has gone way out there for me. 

Yes, the Israelites had a time following the Bible, yes they wrote what God told them to. IMO


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 14, 2009)

“Yes, the Israelites had a time following the Bible, yes they wrote what God told them to. IMO”   

No.  You stated that they had a hard time following those precepts that you hold to be Biblical, but you offered no defense of that thought, so I asked, Did they?  Which, “basic beliefs and behaviors they already believed to be true,” did they have a hard time adhering to?  Would you offer that it was a licentious and immoral society?  

And if they, “had a time following the Bible,” then how could they have written, “what God told them to,” contemporaneously?  Either they were a society ruled and inspired to write those works, by God, doing what they were told, or they were a society who had a hard time adhering to those dictates.  Which is it?  A whole group of people, the ‘Israelites,’ cannot have both written down God’s words, told only to them,  and ignored them at the same time.  Remember that God, back then, had no problems so far as the stories go with wiping out whole cities and huge bits of His creation at the slightest sign of disobedience . . . 

So what changed?  Morality, given by a God who wiped out his own Creation at random, out of pure fits of pique, or our own evolution into a rather broader view?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 14, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> 1. Well, sir, as sidesteps go, that is certainly one of the poorest – How will you convince us that God does not “still” require human sacrifices?   You say ‘No,” but so far we have only your word for that . . . and I further challenge you to define the “textbook” fallacy in the argument that God sent his only begotten Son, as a flesh and blood human, for the sole purpose of being sacrificed.  The argument that the man was only part-man is unsatisfying, and if it was Deity-sacrifice then why bother with all the dramatics?  The entire basis of the suffering, set as an example of God’s sacrifice for your sins, is that it was human suffering.  If not human, then why empathize and build a religion around it?  One can certainly torture minor gods, as was always done in mythology, but one can hardly kill them.  And pay attention – death was first – ‘resurrection’ second.
> You don't have only my word.  The only text that ever insinuates God calls for a human sacrifice is one given directly to the Theocracy of Israel.  And, even that command, was about sacrificing plunder in which humans were included.  Being that there is no more theocratic nation of Israel, you'll have to show me where human sacrifice is commanded.
> 
> You can be unsatisfied all you like.  Your attempt is, as it has been, to equate Christianity to other primitive religions that are looked upon as foolishness.  This time, the attempt comes by making a false analogy (which is the textbook fallacy you committed).  Yes, the sacrifice was human, he was also fully God.  Orthodoxy dictates that both are essential.  It's not merely a human sacrifice.
> ...


 
replies in red


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 14, 2009)

JL states....."I would not have requested proof had WTM not said that proof was easy.  He offered the proof and I just reminded him what proof was."


Statistics have supported for years the premise that the greatest majority of the world will and do follow the religious belief system of their parents.  Or in other words, what they were born into.

Current studies are showing a minor trend change towards indecision.  But the majority is clearly supportive of my statement.

JL, Believers, like yourself and many others here, are not the typical average religious belief system follower.  You show a great interest and knowledge gained through years of study and research.  That type of thinking is in the vast minority of people in world religious belief systems.

That's what makes the discussion and debate so interesting.  


Sorry to bloviate.........


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> JL states....."I would not have requested proof had WTM not said that proof was easy.  He offered the proof and I just reminded him what proof was."
> 
> 
> Statistics have supported for years the premise that the greatest majority of the world will and do follow the religious belief system of their parents.  Or in other words, what they were born into.
> ...



You're equivocating.  You spoke of motives, you sight figures (I would like to see the links) that can't account for motives.

You're left assuming that people stay in the religion they're born into because of an inability to look outside of the religion into which they are born.

You're coming to an unjustified conclusion.

You've proved nothing, you've given us your interpretation of data.


----------



## earl (Aug 14, 2009)

''You've proved nothing, you've given us your interpretation of data.''

 Dang ,next thing you know some body will give us their interpretation of what the bible says.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> JL, Believers, like yourself and many others here, are not the typical average religious belief system follower.  You show a great interest and knowledge gained through years of study and research.



I certainly appreciate that.  I could make a case that a Christian who truly follows the Bible is not one who follows just because that's how they were raised.  The Bible calls us to give an account for the faith that we have.  You can't give an account if your only reason for believing is that your parents did or that you were born in Georgia.  Once I got to college, my parents' faith wouldn't float me anymore.

Anyway, that's probably another topic all together.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 14, 2009)

earl said:


> Dang ,next thing you know some body will give us their interpretation of what the bible says.



ZING!

The Bible is not just data, but it was still funny.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 14, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> You're equivocating.  You spoke of motives, you sight figures (I would like to see the links) that can't account for motives.
> 
> You're left assuming that people stay in the religion they're born into because of an inability to look outside of the religion into which they are born.
> 
> ...



I'm not assuming, nor have I stated any "inability" on the part of anyone.
My conclusion  is supported by data, and was part of the textbook curriculum in my undergraduate world religion studies.

You do not have to agree.  I'm not selling anything.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It is very interesting how some people can be so dedicated to a religious belief system that they can not look outside of it at all.  They do not see the shared commonalities, speculations and rituals.  It is remarkable.





johnnylightnin said:


> 3. I think you're jumping to conclusions.  You assume that dedication results in an inability to see beyond a certain belief system.  I think you'd be hard press to prove that assumption.





WTM45 said:


> 3.  No "jumping to conclusions" here.  Years of study and research brought me to that point.  And it's easy to prove.  Nearly every upper level religious belief system authority would agree, few have the honest ability to look outside of their predisposition and exposure (read born-into) to a religious belief system.





johnnylightnin said:


> 3. Okay, if it's easy to prove, go for it.  Oh, and we're talking about proof, not conjecture.  Bloviation is a wonderful pass-time, but it shouldn't be mistaken for PROOF.





WTM45 said:


> Statistics have supported for years the premise that the greatest majority of the world will and do follow the religious belief system of their parents.  Or in other words, what they were born into.
> 
> Current studies are showing a minor trend change towards indecision.  But the majority is clearly supportive of my statement.





johnnylightnin said:


> You're left assuming that people stay in the religion they're born into because of an inability to look outside of the religion into which they are born.





WTM45 said:


> I'm not assuming, nor have I stated any "inability" on the part of anyone.
> My conclusion  is supported by data, and was part of the textbook curriculum in my undergraduate world religion studies.
> 
> You do not have to agree.  I'm not selling anything.



Just to be clear on what we're talking about.  You've not proved anything.  What is supported by your data is that few adopt a religion other than what they grew up in.  You sighted earlier that this was due to an inability to look outside their current context.  I asked you to prove it, which you claimed was easy.

You have supported one thing with data and then interpreted the data how you choose.  I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem when that is referred to as proof.  It simply is not.

For the record, in large part, I can see some truth in your interpretation.  I, however, think the net is cast too wide when we try to describe entire groups in one way or another.  Numbers are what they are.  I think we take what we think are logical steps based on what numbers say and we can, at times, look past what is actually going on.

A great example is the explosive growth of the Christian faith in China recently.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 14, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> You have supported one thing with data and then interpreted the data how you choose.  I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem when that is referred to as proof.  It simply is not.



It's a widely accepted interpretation of statistical data, not just my own individual interpretation.  Macro style.
I know that statistics can be whatever someone wants them to be.  I'm not shaping anything.
But I do accept it as a proof just as many of my teachers/professors have.
Believe what you wish.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 14, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> But I do accept it as a proof just as many of my teachers/professors have.
> Believe what you wish.



Proof stands alone.  It is not to be accepted or believed.

It appears as though we have a disagreement about the   meaning of theword proof.


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 14, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> Proof stands alone.  It is not to be accepted or believed.




Huh?

I'm quite confident we must have a difference in interpretation of the concept of proof.

But it is plenty fine for that to be.  We just might have difficulty understanding each other.  That's all.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 14, 2009)

WTM, what do you say to those who were early converts, and those who practice Christianity in persecution? Or was your statement addressed at Americans, and perhaps the "bible belt?"


----------



## WTM45 (Aug 14, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> WTM, what do you say to those who were early converts, and those who practice Christianity in persecution? Or was your statement addressed at Americans, and perhaps the "bible belt?"



My statements are not specific to any one religious belief system.  It is all encompassing.
The majority of world inhabitants who follow ANY religious belief system do so because that is the system they were exposed to from birth.

Looking at the original question, I don't know if anything can be truly  considered "complete."
I'm sure a lot of religious texts can be considered "good enough" by many.  The Holy Bible included.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 16, 2009)

Johnnylighntin states: “Yes, the sacrifice was human, he was also fully God. Orthodoxy dictates that both are essential. It's not merely a human sacrifice.”  Sir, with all due respect, ‘orthodoxy’ needs to do a bit of self-examination.   There is not a single manner of explanation that might establish that anything at all can be ‘fully’ one thing, but also another.  The ‘Orthodoxy’ ridicules itself by the simple contention.  You might as easily state that you are ‘fully’ a man, but also a woman at the same time – it is ridiculous.  

Great pains were taken to create, in the story, a flesh and blood human ‘Son’ of God, born of a human female, so that the man could be sacrificed.   Again – human sacrifice as the basis of belief.   Do you have no questions of your own?  Can one be fully God and fully human?  And if both, impossibly, then what was the point?  God sacrificed god?  Not much of a sacrifice there, wouldn’t you think, since the outcome was pre-ordained?

And if the God/Human didn’t actually die, as was planned all along, then, again, what was the point of the drama?  If Jesus was God all along, and not human, and did not die, then who exactly do you believe died for your sins, if nobody did?  Fella can’t have died for your sins, and then have somehow lived through it to be the Living Christ--  I mean, that messes up the entire narrative . . . The entire tale rests on the sacrifice of a flesh and blood embodiment of the deity, then negates itself immediately by, in effect, saying –“Hah!  Only Kidding with ya!” – by adding the odd idea of the Resurrection.  You can’t have both.  Either the fella died to Save you, or he was just jerking your chain, and knew all along that he was God, and couldn’t really die anyway . . . 

Then offers: “In your haste, you have ignored that the Bible contains both descriptions and prescriptions. There is no textual evidence that what Jephthah did was prescribed to others.”   Sir, I have no haste.  I have stated repeatedly here that I have studied all versions of the Bible available to me, and all versions I could find of the sacred texts of competing and contradictory religions, and I find all of them to be fanciful, riddled with contradictions and nonsense, and unsupported by any empirical truth, fact, or even simple common sense.  The mistake of challenging thoughts only on the basis of ‘textual evidence’ weighs upon only those who see only a single text as all the evidence they need to consider, and it is easily demonstrated, as mentioned by many above, that your text is not the only one available . . .  So your argument of ‘textual evidence’ is, to a thinking person, no different, really, than if I claimed that all of Truth was contained within the “Alice in Wonderland’ book, and stood stubbornly against any arguments that the strict text of that Book didn’t support . . . Silly, huh?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 17, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Johnnylighntin states: “Yes, the sacrifice was human, he was also fully God. Orthodoxy dictates that both are essential. It's not merely a human sacrifice.”  Sir, with all due respect, ‘orthodoxy’ needs to do a bit of self-examination.   There is not a single manner of explanation that might establish that anything at all can be ‘fully’ one thing, but also another.  The ‘Orthodoxy’ ridicules itself by the simple contention.  You might as easily state that you are ‘fully’ a man, but also a woman at the same time – it is ridiculous.



There's a lot there, so I'll address each item as I have time...starting with the easiest.

I am a father.  I am a son.  I am a brother.  I am an uncle.  I am all of these things.  

There are plenty of instances of things being fully one thing and fully something else.

My favorite is an author writing himself into one of his books.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 18, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Great pains were taken to create, in the story, a flesh and blood human ‘Son’ of God, born of a human female, so that the man could be sacrificed.   Again – human sacrifice as the basis of belief.   Do you have no questions of your own?  Can one be fully God and fully human?  And if both, impossibly, then what was the point?  God sacrificed god?  Not much of a sacrifice there, wouldn’t you think, since the outcome was pre-ordained?



I don't contend that Christ was not human.  In your own post you've highlighted why this human was different than the virgins sacrificed to volcanoes...or any other human for that matter.  He was THE son of God and the child of a human mother.  Both parts absolutely necessary.

Yes, the outcome was pre-ordained, just like everything else in our reality.  That, however, doesn't mean that there wasn't sacrifice in the process.  Christ had to be God for the sacrifice to count for something.  If an ordinary human could've paid the price that Christ paid, I expect one would have (by his will or by the will of those around him).  The fact is, only the son of God could pay the debt of all humanity.  

How do you conclude that an act that will result in a definite outcome is somehow less of a sacrifice?


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 18, 2009)

Johnnylightnin:  “I am a father. I am a son. I am a brother. I am an uncle. I am all of these things.  There are plenty of instances of things being fully one thing and fully something else.”   

No sir.   All of those things are parts of the whole that is you – you are not ‘fully’ any of them.  You would not say that you are only one of those things, since your life and your definition includes many parts and many roles, many thoughts and many skills, and often those roles and thoughts compete, creating conflicts and doubts and complications involving difficult choices.  We all share that problem.  But the statement was more stark than one of playing many roles in a complex life – you contend that a man was also not a man.   A statement of that sort requires a bit more defense than saying that you can be a hunter and an animal lover at the same time . . .

Then: “Yes, the outcome was pre-ordained, just like everything else in our reality. That, however, doesn't mean that there wasn't sacrifice in the process. Christ had to be God for the sacrifice to count for something.”

But.  My point would be that if the outcome were prearranged, then why bother with all the drama?  ‘Orthodoxy’ says that a flesh and blood ‘Son’ of God, born of a human into this reality, suffered mercilessly and was sacrificed to “pay the debt of all humanity.”  But if he was God all along, and didn’t really die, then nobody at all was ‘sacrificed,’ so the entire debacle was one giant set-piece orchestrated from above.  (And the, ”just like everything else in our reality,” part I’ll save for another day, since I’m pretty sure that my words here won’t count as preordained . . . ).

Presumably God could have just done what some folks seem to think they have attained, and just forgiven everybody all of their ‘sins’ in his infinite mercy, so long as they pay proper fealty from here on out, and without going to all that trouble . . .  If Christ were God, then the whole stage show was a farce, since a God cannot be sacrificed.  And if that God is a man, but not a man, Resurrected, and lives on, then don’t you feel just a bit hoodwinked by a clever trick?  Doesn’t it bug you a little to be asked to devote yourself to a ‘sacrifice’ that was not actually made?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 19, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> No sir.   All of those things are parts of the whole that is you – you are not ‘fully’ any of them.  You would not say that you are only one of those things, since your life and your definition includes many parts and many roles, many thoughts and many skills, and often those roles and thoughts compete, creating conflicts and doubts and complications involving difficult choices.  We all share that problem.  But the statement was more stark than one of playing many roles in a complex life – you contend that a man was also not a man.



That's a semantic game.  Am I incompletely a father because I'm also those other things?  Am I less of a son because I'm also an uncle?  Neither is Christ less of a man because he's also God, or vice versa.  You've set God and man up as if they are logical opposites.  I did not claim that a man was a man and also not a man.  The claim is that Christ was a man and God.

Unique, yes.  A violation of the law of non-contradiction, no.


----------



## Israel (Aug 19, 2009)

johnnylightnin said:


> That's a semantic game.  Am I incompletely a father because I'm also those other things?  Am I less of a son because I'm also an uncle?  Neither is Christ less of a man because he's also God, or vice versa.  You've set God and man up as if they are logical opposites.  I did not claim that a man was a man and also not a man.  The claim is that Christ was a man and God.
> 
> Unique, yes.  A violation of the law of non-contradiction, no.



Jesus is to God...the "normal" man.
God likes normal...but his definition...not some other.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 19, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> But if he was God all along, and didn’t really die, then nobody at all was ‘sacrificed,’ so the entire debacle was one giant set-piece orchestrated from above.



Again, he was God and man.  He did really die.

He had to die to satisfy the justice of God.  If God just said, okay, nevermind, nobody has to pay for the sin of humanity, he wouldn't be just.  If he wasn't just, he wouldn't be God.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 20, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> 1. Sir, I have no haste.  I have stated repeatedly here that I have studied all versions of the Bible available to me, and all versions I could find of the sacred texts of competing and contradictory religions, and I find all of them to be fanciful, riddled with contradictions and nonsense, and unsupported by any empirical truth, fact, or even simple common sense.
> 
> 2. The mistake of challenging thoughts only on the basis of ‘textual evidence’ weighs upon only those who see only a single text as all the evidence they need to consider, and it is easily demonstrated, as mentioned by many above, that your text is not the only one available . . .  So your argument of ‘textual evidence’ is, to a thinking person, no different, really, than if I claimed that all of Truth was contained within the “Alice in Wonderland’ book, and stood stubbornly against any arguments that the strict text of that Book didn’t support . . . Silly, huh?



1. That's an awful lot of study.  Quantity doesn't equal quality however.  Look back at your stacks and stacks of religious text and you'll find that most contain prescriptive passages and descriptive passages.  To try and paint that as some sort of cop-out is a little silly.

2.  I need to meet this thinker of yours.  He (or she) and I have a lot to talk about.  In a discussion about whether or not the Bible is a complete moral guide, looking for textual evidence IN THE BIBLE is absolutely appropriate.  Further, in discussions of a story that is found ONLY in the Bible, textual evidence concerning that story is essential.  Beyond that, you get into suppositions and your ample presuppositions (which have been on display) begin to influence your judgment.  The Alice in Wonderland analogy is cute, but it is a false analogy with regard to the topic at hand.  And, as usual, the false analogy is used to set up a strawman with a glass jaw.


----------



## Diogenes (Aug 20, 2009)

Johnnylightnin:  “The claim is that Christ was a man and God.  Unique, yes. A violation of the law of non-contradiction, no.”

Sir, I beg to differ.  You contend that a being existed that was at once mortal and immortal.  Does this not strain definitions and even simple credulity?  Could this being have also been at once male and female?  Black and White?  Animal, vegetable, and also mineral?  Visible and invisible at the same time?  Solid, Liquid and Gaseous simultaneously?  You seem to say that mortal and immortal are not opposing thoughts, and offer no contradiction when combined . . . I would offer that such a contention is indefensible.

Then: “He had to die to satisfy the justice of God. If God just said, okay, nevermind, nobody has to pay for the sin of humanity, he wouldn't be just. If he wasn't just, he wouldn't be God.”  Um?   WHAT?

What sort of ‘Justice’ do you have in mind here, exactly?   The story is that the Divine Invisible Being wandered down here and impregnated a married Virgin with His only ‘begotten’ Son, which is sort of strange behavior by a God when you think about it.  Then had him killed off.  That is ‘Just’?  Setting up your own Son like that?  Kinda glad I don’t live in your neighborhood . . . And what exactly was the ‘sin of humanity’ that needed to be paid off in such a gruesome manner?  And, further, if that ‘sin of humanity’ has been paid, then what is the problem now?  Everyone on the planet ought to free and clear, but many seem to contend that they are not, and are still sinners who must now be ‘redeemed’ by believers.  I mean, if the ‘sin of humanity’ has already been taken care of, in your view, and all and every was ‘Created’ by this Invisible Being, then all and every has already had their account paid in full.  Are you saying that the fella had his fingers crossed behind his back, and hoodwinked us yet again?

And also:  “. . . in discussions of a story that is found ONLY in the Bible, textual evidence concerning that story is essential.”   Um, no.  There is ample evidence that nearly every story is based on a previous one, and what is essential in the analysis of any story is using something other than that story itself as evidence of the truth of same.  According to the Burger King commercials, all else is false.  One needs a bit of outside perspective to make intelligent judgments, so relying only on the Bible to verify the truth of the Bible is no more valid that relying on Alice in Wonderland to verify the truth of the story contained therein.  

And finally: “ . . . but it is a false analogy with regard to the topic at hand. And, as usual, the false analogy is used to set up a strawman with a glass jaw.”   Actually, a logical ‘strawman’ argument is one in which a person sets up a false characterization of another’s words and deliberately misinterprets them in order to have something to attack.  Nice try though . . .  the analogy is perfectly valid, and argues that a single book or a single story cannot be used as proof of itself.  The topic at hand argues that morality is singular, and stems solely from a single source, but uses only that one source in attempting to demonstrate the truth of that contention.  Unfortunately, the contention is patently and demonstrably false, as are the defenses of same . . .  

(By the way, my jaw is thus far untouched . . . )


----------



## johnnylightnin (Aug 21, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> You seem to say that mortal and immortal are not opposing thoughts, and offer no contradiction when combined . . . I would offer that such a contention is indefensible.



Sure it is indefensible if you're a monist.  I'm not.  The flesh died, the essence of the God/man did not.

It would take several thousand dissertations to fully discuss the ramifications of the incarnation.  You don't buy it, I get that.  The POINT is that your characterization of Christianity as one based on human sacrifice is only half true.  Christianity is based on the sacrifice of one unique God/man.  

What does a half-truth get you?

Oh, and the glass-jawed strawman is the one you're trying to knock out...as such, it'd make sense that you're jaw is fine.

More on the rest at a later time.


----------

