Is the world...

[Dorothy Mae]

OK

But it would be a sin...
Jesus did cover this.
The other member was saying that Jesus did not cover all topics we could come across.
I think He did.

I agree with you. Man today is no different than in Jesus day when we speak of the inside of a man.

We don't all love our neighbor, do we??
The worldy paradigm.

I agree. (It is pretty hard to disagree on that one.)

We could start a thread on this if you'd like.
There are a few reasons actually.

Sounds good. I am with you.

All of them.
An invention could be used for the good or for the evil.
(except maybe for the wheel - LOL, but I'd have to think about it a minute!)

But those are just the outside material tools. The moral being in the man its the same. The morality that motives a man to use tools for good or evil is the same. If a man has a hammer or a stone or a drill, the moral nature of the man has not changed. That is what I meant. Even a gun can be used to provide dinner for a family or murder. The man with the hand wielding it is the same.

There's much to learn...

 

[eddif]

2 Timothy 3:1 kjv
1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Were times bad in the past? Yes.

The bad at the end seems to be worse. 4 verses to list the more severe things.

Jesus bore the sins from Adam to the last man at the end of time (his suffering was unique).
I will agree persecution began to ramp up for others.

The last days will be worse. Not because of what I think, but because of prophecy.

eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

Tired of what, exactly? Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. That should be completely uncontroversial. We first have to be saved, at which point we then become a part of the kingdom of God. Being good has never and will never save anyone.

This is what you said in post 174:
I am not saying that morality isn't an issue, I am saying it isn't the issue that determines whether one goes to heaven or not. Spiritual deadness, separation from God, is the issue. Jesus died for our sins to reconcile us to God and make us spiritually alive, not to make us good.

Morality IS THE ISSUE.
It is THE reason one goes to heaven or not.
Jesus died to forgive our sins and MAKE US GOOD.
All He taught for the entire time of His ministry is HOW WE ARE TO BEHAVE.
Do I need to post verses?

God always wanted man to be righteous. Right with God.
The Law didn't work because we didn't have the Holy Spirit to guide us -- the Spirit within us, dwelling in us.

So Jesus died as an atonement.
But this does not deny the fact that Jesus taught that we are to be moral beings.

This is the will of the Father.
That we are to BELIEVE.
Believe means to OBEY.

Each of the beatitudes describe how each Christian ought to be; they are spiritual. The first three are concerned with the state of the heart, the deep awareness of need. The fourth is where the need is fulfilled. The last three are the natural result of the first four. Each beatitude follows from the one before, so they have to be kept in sequence. Of course, there is much more to it than that.

The above may be true. I'm not going to take the time now to go thru them. It's a deep subject and I'd be willing to discuss it in a different thread.
However, it cannot be denied that each one is a teaching on ethics, they teach what God wants as opposed to what man wants or expects.

Jesus lived the Beatitudes...as must we.
It is often said that He is our example.

Not at all.

Not at all what?
You said the Law requires perfection.
No one is ever perfect.
So were the OT Jews not saved because Jesus had not sacrificed Himself yet?

If you agree with my last sentence, then what is it that you disagree with, since that is the essence of my post?

No syntax in your replies - you're not making it easy to reply!

Your last sentence is that we must know God first and then do good works.
Or maybe that good works don't save us by themselves.
Something like that.
I'd agree of course.

Does the member claim that "we are not saved if we do good works" or "we are not saved by our good works"? Those are two very different things. The latter is correct, the first doesn't really make sense.

Believe it or not - many say it's the first one.
They believe we are not required to do good works.
In fact, we are NOT to do good works, because it means we're not saved.

That kind of talk has to stop IMHO.
Anything that remotely sounds like it is beginning to become very bothersome since Jesus would have died
for no reason. Many always attained heaven if he had faith....
Jesus came to teach us how to be moral and ethical and care for others.

On the contrary:

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

This idea is repeated throughout the NT.


Yes, by believing in him and his finished work on the cross.

I don't know to what you're referring and I can't keep going back to read what I wrote...
Contrary to what?
Place what I said in your reply...

 

[GodsGrace]

That's not what I said. I said we do not know what objective morality is. So all we have is our various subjective moralities.

Thank you. So, of course, are you.

Try it, and see. And don't say: because that is what Jesus/ the Bible says... I'm looking for rational argument(s).

I dare say, just as democracy is the worst type of political system. Apart from all the others.

We all are to so decide, and we all do, anyway.

As I said, God wants us to live an ethical life, because He loves us, wants the best for us, and that is the best kind of life to live, for us, and for everyone else. Only thing is, He leaves us to work out for ourselves what that ethical life is.

There appear to be (at least) four main academically credible schools of thought among ethicists:





Needless to say, all these approaches have issues, problems and objections associated with them. My own preference, when confronted by a particularly knotty moral conundrum, is to consider it from each of these angles, and then make my decision.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think we do know what objective morality is.
It's just that at times we don't care to oblige it.

You ask me to try it and see...Try what?

Just one last thing....
Could you post one ethical issue that we cannot be sure as to it's objectivity?
I just can't think of any.

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree with you. Man today is no different than in Jesus day when we speak of the inside of a man.

I agree. (It is pretty hard to disagree on that one.)

Sounds good. I am with you.

But those are just the outside material tools. The moral being in the man its the same. The morality that motives a man to use tools for good or evil is the same. If a man has a hammer or a stone or a drill, the moral nature of the man has not changed. That is what I meant. Even a gun can be used to provide dinner for a family or murder. The man with the hand wielding it is the same.

Agreed on all.
Could we remember about the parables thread?
I have a couple of others in mind too.
If you start one, tag me in...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Agreed on all.
Could we remember about the parables thread?
I have a couple of others in mind too.
If you start one, tag me in...

Is the one with the different souls OK? How do I tag you in?

 

[2ndRateMind]

I think we do know what objective morality is.
It's just that at times we don't care to oblige it.

That's certainly true!

You ask me to try it and see...Try what?

Try justifying this or that moral contention, beyond doubt or question..

Just one last thing....
Could you post one ethical issue that we cannot be sure as to it's objectivity?
I just can't think of any.

Hmmm. Imagine you are an American President. Realistically, you can establish only one of three possible major reforms during your 4 year term. You can choose between: 1) banning the civilian ownership of all guns except hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifles. Without this measure, you know there will be more massacres, and people will die. 2) Establishing a British style NHS, in which all health care is paid for by taxation, and free at the point of need. Without this measure, you know those who cannot afford health insurance won't get health care, and people will die. 3) Investing heavily in public schools, so that all children get a decent education, and are fit for employment in an increasingly technological age. Without this measure, you know children will be attracted into gangs and drugs, and people will die.

Which should it be? And why?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

Is the one with the different souls OK? How do I tag you in?

No. I'll tag you.
Maybe later on.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's certainly true!

Try justifying this or that moral contention, beyond doubt or question..

OK. But what to pick?
Something big or something little?

Abortion, Adultery, Gambling, Badmouthing,...?

Let's try 2 ... Adultery
Why is it wrong...
It destabilizes our society.
It destroys trust.
It destroys a family unit. Whether or not they remain together.
Children are very much affected.
It shows disrespect for the married partner.
If discovered, children are burdened with shame.
It lessens the commitment and thus love for the partner.


Badmouthing...

It kills the reputation of a good person.
It likely expounds on the gossip and makes a situation even worse than it is.
It makes the madmouthed person lose friends.
It creates friction between different persons that are affected.


Atheists believe that we do need to be moral but for different reasons.
One I could remember off-hand is so that a society can prosper...and so the population would want to do what is best for that society and thus progress.

A person might think it a wonderful idea to tell a friend that her husband is having an affair.
Some might think it's the right thing to do.
But is it?
This is why I don't believe subjectivity works well.

Both of the above would be covered by what Jesus taught...
But we don't stop to consider why He taught it.
The above would be an example.

Hmmm. Imagine you are an American President. You can establish only one of three possible major reforms during your 4 year term. You can choose between: 1) banning the civilian ownership of all guns except hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifles. 2) Establishing a British style NHS, in which all health care is paid for by taxation, and free at the point of need. 3) Investing heavily in public schools, so that all children get a decent education, and are fit for employment in an increasingly technological age.

Which should it be? And why?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Number 3.

1. People kill people. Guns don't kill people.
2. Just like every other man-made solution, socialized medicine does not work well.
I give you that private medicine may not work well either...but I prefer that.
A doctor that has to earn a living will work more diligently than one that gets paid at the end of the month no matter how well he does. They get lazy too.

REALLY good schools would make better humans of our children.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible in this present political atmosphere.
But that's what I'd choose if it were possible.

 

[2ndRateMind]

1. People kill people. Guns don't kill people.
2. Just like every other man-made solution, socialized medicine does not work well.
I give you that private medicine may not work well either...but I prefer that.
A doctor that has to earn a living will work more diligently than one that gets paid at the end of the month no matter how well he does. They get lazy too.

REALLY good schools would make better humans of our children.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible in this present political atmosphere.
But that's what I'd choose if it were possible.

And would you say your choice is objectively correct? Or just what seems right to you, subjectively?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

And would you say your choice is objectively correct? Or just what seems right to you, subjectively?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually 2ndRate, you did cheat a little bit !
To speak of something being objective or subjective, we'd have to list your 3 choices and discuss each one individually.

Instead you gave me a choice.
Then we have to figure into the choice the problem of human nature.

All 3 would be wonderful were it not for human nature.
Jesus cared for children and humans in general and I'd say that would be a just choice.

Is it objective?
No.
But it is also NOT MORAL.

When Christians speak of objective choices, they mean objective moral choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would look like this:

1. Is it morally correct to allow everyone to have a gun?
2. Is it morally correct to supply medical treatment to all humans?
3. Is it morally correct to prepare our young for a future that they might make better?

 

[2ndRateMind]

Actually 2ndRate, you did cheat a little bit !
To speak of something being objective or subjective, we'd have to list your 3 choices and discuss each one individually.

I'm not sure I did cheat. I cetainly set you a tough question, but it is of the kind that might face any political leader in a democracy. And, indeed, if they are to discharge their democratic duty responsibly, the voters also.

Instead you gave me a choice.
Then we have to figure into the choice the problem of human nature.

All 3 would be wonderful were it not for human nature.
Jesus cared for children and humans in general and I'd say that would be a just choice.

Is it objective?
No.
But it is also NOT MORAL.

Justice is a deeply moral issue. If you have ever suffered an injustice, think on that, and then tell me it isn't.

When Christians speak of objective choices, they mean objective moral choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would look like this:

1. Is it morally correct to allow everyone to have a gun?
2. Is it morally correct to supply medical treatment to all humans?
3. Is it morally correct to prepare our young for a future that they might make better?

That's certainly a good start at an ethical analysis. I would continue it by considering each proposition from a deontological, utilitarian, virtue ethical and situation ethical point of view. And then weigh up the pros and cons of each choice, and make a decision.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

OK. But what to pick?

Abortion, Adultery, Gambling, Badmouthing,...?

Let's try 2 ... Adultery
Why is it wrong...
It destabilizes our society.
It destroys trust.
It destroys a family unit. Whether or not they remain together.
Children are very much affected.
It shows disrespect for the married partner.
If discovered, children are burdened with shame.
It lessens the commitment and thus love for the partner.

And why are all these points, whether true or not, actually immoralities?

And that's a question you can keep asking, however deep your explanations go. Which is why I think we do not know what objective morality is, yet, or how to prove it if we ever do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not sure I did cheat. I cetainly set you a tough question, but it is of the kind that might face any political leader in a democracy. And, indeed, if they are to discharge their democratic duty responsibly, the voters also.

Justice is a deeply moral issue. If you have ever suffered an injustice, think on that, and then tell me it isn't.

That's certainly a good start at an ethical analysis. I would continue it by considering each proposition from a deontological, utilitarian, virtue ethical and situation ethical point of view. And then weigh up the pros and cons of each choice, and make a decision.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And herein lies the tough question...for me at least.
WHO gets to decide?

What If I don't care for YOUR pros and cons?
The Lord of the Flies comes to mind.

I fear the strongest will win...and not the most just.

BTW, I fail to see what justice has to do with the 3 choices....

 

[GodsGrace]

And why are all these points, whether true or not, actually immoralities?

And that's a question you can keep asking, however deep your explanations go. Which is why I think we do not know what objective morality is, yet, or how to prove it if we ever do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

What is immorality?


immoral


morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour:
an immoral act
immoral behaviour
It's an immoral tax, because the poor will pay relatively more.


Again I ask...WHO will decide what is moral or not in a society?
This is the problem that would be faced.

 

[Aussie]

Do you think we will be bored in the New Jerusalem? If this world was without sin like it was in the beginning when God created everything and saw it was good then it would be like that of the New Jerusalem enjoying the presence of the Lord.

for_his_glory,

I don't expect to be bored in the City where "Tears will never stain the streets of that city."

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

And why are all these points, whether true or not, actually immoralities?

And that's a question you can keep asking, however deep your explanations go. Which is why I think we do not know what objective morality is, yet, or how to prove it if we ever do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

PS
I didn't say they are immoralitites.

What I meant is that when we speak of objectivity in Christianity, we mean MORAL objectivity.
Outside of Christianity, I don't know.
I don't know who would decide what is or isn't moral.
Guess you've figured out this is a big concern of mine...

 

[Aussie]

What is immorality?


immoral


morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour:
an immoral act
immoral behaviour
It's an immoral tax, because the poor will pay relatively more.


Again I ask...WHO will decide what is moral or not in a society?
This is the problem that would be faced.

wondering,

My government makes many decisions that it considers are moral. But are they right or wrong? That is determined by God's absolute standards as in the Ten Commandments. On my homepage I have an article that shows the OT moral law reflected in the commandments of the NT commandments.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

My government makes many decisions that it considers are moral. But are they right or wrong? That is determined by God's absolute standards as in the Ten Commandments. On my homepage I have an article that shows the OT moral law reflected in the commandments of the NT commandments.

Oz

I agree with you 100%, as usual.

I'm having a conversation with 2ndRateMind and what you point out is precisely my concern.
If we move away from God as our standard, WHO will set the standard?

Atheists such us Dr. Sam Harris believe that man will naturally be forced to be moral or the society would not be able to flourish.

It's my understanding that this could work for the first few generations because they would be working with the established laws set by a higher being - God.

After that the objective laws set by God would become watered down and become less and less important, leaving man to decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

What human would have the ability to do this?
I believe no one.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I dunno. I kind of have split views on personal life choices and social policy. No drugs for me but I believe in legalization. I think most abortions are probably immoral but I think abortion should be legal and readily available

Government cannot save anyone. I think at best government policies can bring more good to more people. Salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ, for anyone anywhere at any time.