Check out some similar questions!

jlisenbe · Nov 15, 2018, 04:11 PM

The idea that Revelation was written about 65 A.D. is, I think, a minority view. The more common date for that book is in the last decade of the first century. Nero died in 68 A.D. so if the later date is correct, then the Nero connection won't work. At any rate, saying that Revelation was "written in code" is kind of far-fetched. None of the other NT authors wrote in code, and they were under constant pressure from the Romans. Not to say that's it is impossible, but it just would not seem likely. For sure you would think the early church fathers would have mentioned it.

Wondergirl · Nov 15, 2018, 04:38 PM

Revelation almost didn't make the cut into the canon partly because of what I said.

jlisenbe · Nov 15, 2018, 04:46 PM

And where have you found that?

Wondergirl · Nov 15, 2018, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And where have you found that?

Because millennialists had traditionally used Revelation as the main source of their teachings, "the Church was slow to accept Revelation as scripture." ₁Origen, an early Christian theologian, used the term antilegomena to describe those books -- including Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation -- whose inclusion in the official canon of the Bible was actively disputed. In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement, Revelation was only reluctantly included. "To this day, Orthodox churches do not use Revelation for scripture readings during worship."
The biblical book of Revelation: acceptance and dispute

"As a source, the book of Revelation is something of an outlier for a book of the Bible that got accepted into the canonical New Testament of most branches of Christianity: it is the only explicitly eschatological work in the New Testament, its date of composition is generally taken to be far later than the other books, its content is dramatic, and its author is not certain."
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...most-christian

jlisenbe · Nov 15, 2018, 05:04 PM

In the fourth century CE, when the canon of the Bible was assembled from among the approximately 50 gospels and hundreds of epistles then in use by the Christian movement,

Lost me there. That is a highly speculative statement. There were a large number of gospels and epistles in existence, but the vast majority were not accepted by the church and very few survive to this day.

talaniman · Nov 15, 2018, 07:57 PM

Jesus said to give Caesar his due? Then stop complaining when you are taxed so the poor, old, and children are taken care of.

jlisenbe · Nov 16, 2018, 08:42 AM

Jesus said to give Caesar his due? Then stop complaining when you are taxed so the poor, old, and children are taken care of.

Why do you accept what Jesus said there, but not what Jesus said concerning judgement?

talaniman · Nov 16, 2018, 10:39 AM

I neither accept or reject either premise, but the former is more logical, and fits my own moral compass, is my answer. The later calls into question the language and circumstances that surrond what is/was said, and at this time admittedly is beyond my own sensibility. Apologies if my flaws in understanding undermines your complete faith in these matters. I have a problem accepting the words of ancient man completely, though I do not question yours.

jlisenbe · Nov 16, 2018, 01:24 PM

fits my own moral compass,

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

Wondergirl · Nov 16, 2018, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

God gave us free will. Apparently, everyone uses it.

jlisenbe · Nov 16, 2018, 01:44 PM

Apparently, everyone uses it.

Free will versus individual moral compass... not the same thing.

Wondergirl · Nov 16, 2018, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Free will versus individual moral compass... not the same thing.

Please define each and tell how they are different.

jlisenbe · Nov 16, 2018, 02:02 PM

Free will means I get to make my own decisions, such as how to spend my money as opposed to the tyranny of the feds taking my money to spend on charity. (Sorry... couldn't help but add that last part.)

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

A person can exercise his/her free will in doing an action which that person might admit is actually morally wrong, so the two cannot be the same.

Wondergirl · Nov 16, 2018, 02:31 PM

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

This is also called free will. Questions? Ask Cain.

jlisenbe · Nov 16, 2018, 03:47 PM

Jesus had free will, but even He did not operate on His own moral compass during His time on earth. Neither did Paul, Peter, John, James, Priscilla, Aquila, etc. Come on. They are plainly not the same thing.

Ask Cain? I think he would tell you that he operated his own free will to follow his own moral compass, and that is where he failed. Abraham, on the other hand, learned not to.

For that matter, I have my own free will, but I choose to submit my will to God's moral compass, as you also profess to do. I exercise my free will to follow someone else's moral compass, and not mine, so they are plainly not the same thing.

talaniman · Nov 16, 2018, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Does everyone get to do that, which is to follow his/her own moral compass?

YES!

Free will means I get to make my own decisions, such as how to spend my money as opposed to the tyranny of the feds taking my money to spend on charity. (Sorry... couldn't help but add that last part.)

I don't characterize nor consider our government as a tyranny, though I disagree with some things they do, but I support it with taxes and voting of my own free will, guided by a moral compass both learned and taught within the boundaries of good behavior which I would hope every one would follow for the common good.

An individual moral compass means everyone is his/her own moral master. There is no external point of moral reference. So I might kill some innocent person, but in my mind I have done nothing wrong since I met my own moral code.

While this may be true killing is against the law in most cases and does it matter what's in your mind when it comes to others? If your moral compass sends you over the line of good behavior, then you deal with the laws of the land in the court of law. That's how it should work and everybody knows that.

A person can exercise his/her free will in doing an action which that person might admit is actually morally wrong, so the two cannot be the same.

Eyes and ears are not the same but they work together, though you can live without one or the other, as without a moral compass free will can land you in big trouble as can a free will without a moral compass. It's a moot circular argument to point out the difference.

You can always choose to do right, or wrong depend on where your moral compass is, unless somebody locks you up and you can do neither.

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Jesus had free will, but even He did not operate on His own moral compass during His time on earth. Neither did Paul, Peter, John, James, Priscilla, Aquila, etc. Come on. They are plainly not the same thing.

Ask Cain? I think he would tell you that he operated his own free will to follow his own moral compass, and that is where he failed. Abraham, on the other hand, learned not to.

For that matter, I have my own free will, but I choose to submit my will to God's moral compass, as you also profess to do. I exercise my free will to follow someone else's moral compass, and not mine, so they are plainly not the same thing.

I disagree, they all chose the path they took and there is NO evidence otherwise. Now talking of the individual actions and the COLLECTIVE actions may not be the same.

jlisenbe · Nov 16, 2018, 07:03 PM

If your moral compass sends you over the line of good behavior,

Who are you to tell someone their moral compass is not producing "good behavior"? It's good to them, so why would you feel free to inflict your own, personal moral code on someone else? If you are, then they really aren't free to have their own moral code. You said they are, but now you suggest they are, but only so long as it produces what is, to you, "good behavior".

"..as without a moral compass free will can land you in big trouble as can a free will without a moral compass.."

You are saying the same thing twice!! It makes no sense at all. You admit they are different and then say it's a circular argument. That is not what a circular argument is.

I disagree, they all chose the path they took and there is NO evidence otherwise. Now talking of the individual actions and the COLLECTIVE actions may not be the same.

You have no idea of what I was saying. Of course they chose the path they took, but the path was given to them by God. It was His moral compass that they freely chose, though they could have persisted with their own. Not everyone does that, so plainly and obviously they are not the same thing.

talaniman · Nov 17, 2018, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Who are you to tell someone their moral compass is not producing "good behavior"? It's good to them, so why would you feel free to inflict your own, personal moral code on someone else? If you are, then they really aren't free to have their own moral code. You said they are, but now you suggest they are, but only so long as it produces what is, to you, "good behavior".

I inflict nothing on anyone, but the LAW does, not me, so I gather it's okay to inflict YOUR moral code on someone else through laws that restrict their freedoms according to YOUR moral code.

You are saying the same thing twice!! It makes no sense at all. You admit they are different and then say it's a circular argument. That is not what a circular argument is.

A moral compass is but the guide to get you to the path your free will takes you... within confines of the laws of good behavior. Granted laws change as conditions and attitudes change, and history is that those changes come with more freedoms for those that didn't have it before. What makes your argument circular is your constant insistence that expressing ones position is a restriction on another's freedom when it is NOT.

You have no idea of what I was saying. Of course they chose the path they took, but the path was given to them by God. It was His moral compass that they freely chose, though they could have persisted with their own. Not everyone does that, so plainly and obviously they are not the same thing.

By now you should have gotten the point that I really don't care about what ancient man did or why but remain fascinated by the fact that they did it. Martyrdom is always a fascinating thing that has moved humans throughout existence to this day across many cultures, tribes, and societies.

jlisenbe · Nov 17, 2018, 03:14 PM

I inflict nothing on anyone, but the LAW does, not me, so I gather it's okay to inflict YOUR moral code on someone else through laws that restrict their freedoms according to YOUR moral code.

Correct, which means that you are not free to have your own moral code. It is a limited arrangement.

within confines of the laws of good behavior. Granted laws change as conditions and attitudes change, and history is that those changes come with more freedoms for those that didn't have it before. What makes your argument circular is your constant insistence that expressing ones position is a restriction on another's freedom when it is NOT.

1. You still don't understand what a circular argument is.
2. I have never said that merely expressing your position is a restriction on another's freedom, but when you IMPOSE your position on others, which happens all the time with law, or with an employer, or within families or organizations, then you do restrict the freedoms of others.

A moral compass is but the guide to get you to the path your free will takes you

Thereby demonstrating they are not the same thing. The moral compass advises and guides, but the free will makes decisions.

talaniman · Nov 18, 2018, 10:18 AM

If you don't like the laws which set the boundaries of good behavior, and protect you from the behavior of others then change them through the lawful process afforded to you. That seems to supersede any of the moral compass and free will arguments you have and who cares if the debate is circular or not? The difference between MC and FW one and the same to me and that's all that matters... TO ME!

That doesn't mean you're wrong, just have a different view which I have no problem accepting.