 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I had the strange idea that this is what secular society is doing through the political process, and look, the measure of success is more not less poor. I agree that the Gospel of Jesus Christ needs to get outside the doors of the church
Then what is your teaching, if not the same as Jesus?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You need to expand your worldview. For a start, see WG's answer.Quote:
I said they had no basis for morality.
Of course I do. I've been surrounded by Christians my entire life as most Americans have. Naming 3 famous dictators doesn't do much for YOUR theory.Quote:
I don't think you have any idea what the average Christian's morality is, but famous atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tend to work against your theory.
It's the same.Quote:
Then what is your teaching, if not the same as Jesus?
WG's answer was from scripture. Atheists deny the authority of scripture.Quote:
You need to expand your worldview. For a start, see WG's answer.
Besides, if two atheists disagree on a moral issue, how do they resolve the disagreement? They will not accept WG's answer, so how will they decide? They have no transcendent standard to appeal to. That's what I mean when I say they have no moral code.
Seems to me someone needs to get some perspective. Atheism, secularism, humanism, communism leads to very poor outcomes. Jesus wasn't about advancing the human society of the day by human means, he wanted people to put their focus on what is important,What part of that tells you to advance any philosophy other than his. Christianity is about relationship, it has nothing to do with advancing secular outcomes and certainly nothing to do with advancing other beliefsQuote:
seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you
One of my favorite scriptures from Luke 2. "For this day in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord (the Messiah)."
Now who was born? A Saviour, and rather plainly for people who needed saving, for it says, "there has been born for you." There is salvation is no other place.
Yes, great message, unfortunately, today people don't think they need saving. The message of salvation has become unpopular, this is the age of grace, repentance is no longer preached, but rather we must meet people's needs before we have the right to speak to them of salvation, and allow any expression of human conduct without correction. The phrase " not that there is anything wrong with that has become common". We are having a great debate here at the moment, a real side show, because a sportsman dared to quote a scripture which enunciated a list of sins which included homosexuality. The fellow has been pillared by the press, his career destroyed, and even ministers have not stood by the word of GodQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Even many confessing Christians seem not to see the need for it.Quote:
Yes, great message, unfortunately, today people don't think they need saving.
We might be entering an age where we will be called upon to suffer for our beliefs.Quote:
a sportsman dared to quote a scripture which enunciated a list of sins which included homosexuality. The fellow has been pillared by the press, his career destroyed, and even ministers have not stood by the word of God
I don't think that age ever ended, we just have the fortune to live in a place where overt persecution isn't acceptable, but that doesn't stop people using legal means to stop the message being preached. There might be free speech, but you can't say what you think with impunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Just read this concerning atheists and morality and thought it was pretty good.
"She knew she had certain moral duties, and that those duties lay outside of herself. But these duties could only be grounded in something transcendent and personal: God. "
https://reasonsforjesus.com/popular-...-H9DSFfAxk4uww
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You continue your misreading of reality. Atheists deny the existence of a god. They certainly can appreciate parts of any religious book (scripture) that they deem praiseworthy.
Then how do you explain morality when exhibited by atheists?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And again. The question is not one of whether or not atheists do good things. The question is how to define "good" or "moral".Quote:
Then how do you explain morality when exhibited by atheists?
Thank you for that excellent description of a person who denies the authority of scripture. The key is "that they deem praiseworthy." They take the place of authorityQuote:
You continue your misreading of reality. Atheists deny the existence of a god. They certainly can appreciate parts of any religious book (scripture) that they deem praiseworthy.
So you agree that atheists do good? But you don't know why they do good? E.g., their basis for doing good. Do I have that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're welcome.Quote:
Thank you for that excellent description of a person who denies the authority of scripture. The key is "that they deem praiseworthy." They take the place of authority
Don't you do the same with scripture? You consider it to be based in authority since you deem it so? That key works both ways.
That they do "good" has never been in contention. I've said that from the beginning. The point is that they have no authority for determining what is "good" other than their own personal impressions. If two atheists disagree on what is "good", they have no superior moral authority to appeal to.Quote:
So you agree that atheists do good? But you don't know why they do good? E.g., their basis for doing good. Do I have that right?
That's a good point. It's similar to the authority a policeman has. I recognize his authority. My recognition does not give him authority, but rather acknowledges it. The same is true of the Bible. I recognize the authority it has, but my recognition does not give it authority. It simple acknowledges it.Quote:
Don't you do the same with scripture? You consider it to be based in authority since you deem it so? That key works both ways.
I think you are playing with words. All people have the capacity for good and evil. That some choose to exercise that is the human condition. Innately we know the rules but some choose not to follow them. Noone ever had to teach child to say no. I acknowledge the authority of someone greater than myself but some people are not capable of this
I'm not sure what you mean by having "the capacity" for good or evil. Paul settled the issue of the goodness of man in Romans 3. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning.
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
You don't have that authority either if you want to be frank about it. You can be motivated by the book and words of ancient man, but you cannot control the words or motivations of others, no matter how you choose to categorize them, or judge their words.Quote:
That they do "good" has never been in contention. I've said that from the beginning. The point is that they have no authority for determining what is "good" other than their own personal impressions. If two atheists disagree on what is "good", they have no superior moral authority to appeal to.
I tend to agree, each human chooses his/her own path, some are rockier than others. Some have better options and conditions than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Does that explain the dufus being foisted on us by the god loving minority?
Never suggested I could.Quote:
you cannot control the words or motivations of others, no matter how you choose to categorize them
Like you are judging (evaluating) my words?Quote:
, or judge their words.
Absolutely true.Quote:
I tend to agree, each human chooses his/her own path, some are rockier than others. Some have better options and conditions than others.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're saying that the authority does not reside in me, then you are right. If you are saying I have no higher authority to appeal to, then you are not correct. My higher authority is God's Word.Quote:
You don't have that authority either
Both atheists and Christians determine what is good by personal impressions. The atheist by an informed conscience. The Christian by books written over 2,000 years ago which, among other things, contain instructions to slay every man, woman and child in battle. Which is superior?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The authority of the policeman is based on the law of the community. The authority of the Bible has no basis except its own self-referential claims. Like you admit, you may recognize it but such recognition does not give it authority.Quote:
It's similar to the authority a policeman has. I recognize his authority. My recognition does not give him authority, but rather acknowledges it. The same is true of the Bible. I recognize the authority it has, but my recognition does not give it authority. It simple acknowledges it.
Not true. It's on the level of saying we determine what is legal based on personal impressions of the Constitution.Quote:
Both atheists and Christians determine what is good by personal impressions.
You would have to understand the circumstances of the invasion of Canaan. I don't think you do.Quote:
The Christian by books written over 2,000 years ago which, among other things, contain instructions to slay every man, woman and child in battle.
Read the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah 53 and get back with us. Check out the empty tomb and let us know what you think. Read the accounts of the life of Jesus. To suggest that the Bible has no basis for authority is simply not true.Quote:
The authority of the policeman is based on the law of the community. The authority of the Bible has no basis except its own self-referential claims. Like you admit, you may recognize it but such recognition does not give it authority.
Again you have turned politics into religion. For the record I and many others are not bound by your religious interpretations, nor are your fellow Christians. It personally doesn't matter what you believe only that you voted for and support the policies of a PROVEN liar and cheater. Doesn't matter what you quote to justify it either.
For the record, when did I say you were?Quote:
For the record I and many others are not bound by your religious interpretations, nor are your fellow Christians.
In the 2016 election, we were presented a choice between two liars/cheaters. You voted for one and I voted for the other. I'm not sure how that gives you ownership of the moral high ground.Quote:
It personally doesn't matter what you believe only that you voted for and support the policies of a PROVEN liar and cheater.
Besides, on what basis do you say that lying if immoral? Is that merely your own opinion, or do you have a higher authority to appeal to?
You do know, do you not, that the Constitution has to be interpreted? The interpretation is performed by the personal (informed) impressions of the judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You just struck a blow for the relativity of morality. And managed to insult me at the same time. A doubleheader! I thought you frowned on personal attacks. We all await your understanding of invading Canaan.Quote:
You would have to understand the circumstances of the invasion of Canaan. I don't think you do.
I don't think I will, but if you wish to make your point here re those prophecies, I'll be more than happy to read your take.Quote:
Read the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah 53 and get back with us.
I can do this from memory but you need to be more specific for me to relate what I think about the empty tomb.Quote:
Check out the empty tomb and let us know what you think.
I've read the Gospels many times. I like them. Your point?Quote:
Read the accounts of the life of Jesus.
I said its basis was self-referential. That means its claim to authority is found within itself. There is no evidence outside itself that makes the claim it derives its authority from God. None.Quote:
To suggest that the Bible has no basis for authority is simply not true.
Read my previous answer again.Quote:
I said its basis was self-referential. That means its claim to authority is found within itself. There is no evidence outside itself that makes the claim it derives its authority from God. None.
There was no personal attack. I simply said I didn't think you understood the circumstances. If you think that is a personal attack, then you must lead a sheltered life. The inhabitants of Canaan had been given 400 years to move towards God and had refused. The culture was so unspeakably wicked and depraved that nothing remained but to eliminate it, much as what happened at Sodom. You forget that God is still the judge of the whole earth. But that was not a blanket command to go out and wipe out whole cities as a matter of course.Quote:
You just struck a blow for the relativity of morality. And managed to insult me at the same time. A doubleheader! I thought you frowned on personal attacks. We all await your understanding of invading Canaan.
I didn't think you would.Quote:
I don't think I will, but if you wish to make your point here re those prophecies, I'll be more than happy to read your take.
That when you perform miracles and are raised from the dead, then I will grant authority to you. Until then, I think I'll stick with the words of the man who did perform miracles and was raised from the dead.Quote:
I've read the Gospels many times. I like them. Your point?
It is interpreted in its application, but the basis form of our government is clearly spelled out. That does not prevent corrupt men/women from injecting their own ideas into the mix, but a common sense reading of the Constitituion would reveal that. If, for instance, the SC decided that it was illegal to print newspapers, it would be easy to disprove that. The Bible is the same way. So yes, they have to be read and understood, but not on the basis of mere personal impressions. Words still have meaning.Quote:
You do know, do you not, that the Constitution has to be interpreted? The interpretation is performed by the personal (informed) impressions of the judges.
Please refresh my memory. What exactly did you write that disputed the fact that the Bible is self-referential (as I explained to you). I can find nothing, which is why I ask for your help.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your answer borders on blasphemy. To attribute to God the things that are the devil's may be the unforgivable sin. But let's bring it down to our level. The "wickedness" of Canaan, you must realize, is attested to by the Hebrew scribes - the victors. You know what they say about the victors and the vanquished when history is written, don't you? We don't have the other side (the Canaan side) of the story. Even so, the punishment was pretty drastic.Quote:
The inhabitants of Canaan had been given 400 years to move towards God and had refused. The culture was so unspeakably wicked and depraved that nothing remained but to eliminate it, much as what happened at Sodom.
I haven't forgotten that for a moment, but the god you describe is not the God I believe in. Mine doesn't go around slaughtering whole families because of wickedness. Mine preaches forgiveness. And exactly how is a child wicked?Quote:
You forget that God is still the judge of the whole earth.
Gee, that makes me feel so much better.Quote:
But that was not a blanket command to go out and wipe out whole cities as a matter of course.
I am describing the God of the Bible. If you serve a different god, then you are free to do that. I understood we were describing the God of the Bible. If you want to question the accuracy of the narrative, then I don't know why you would believe any of it.Quote:
I haven't forgotten that for a moment, but the god you describe is not the God I believe in. Mine doesn't go around slaughtering whole families because of wickedness. Mine preaches forgiveness. And exactly how is a child wicked?
As to the authority of the Bible, go back and read my previous answer and think carefully about it.
This came in later - in for a penny, in for a pound.
If you knew, why did you ask? You still have the chance to make your point.Quote:
=jlisenbe;3836763I didn't think you would.
There's much more to the Bible than the words of Jesus.Quote:
That when you perform miracles and are raised from the dead, then I will grant authority to you. Until then, I think I'll stick with the words of the man who did perform miracles and was raised from the dead.
Thank you. You are proving my point. "Common sense", informed conscience is required - not simply a claim to authority. That's how Kings operated in the world the USA left behind.Quote:
a common sense reading of the Constitituion would reveal that. If, for instance, the SC decided that it was illegal to print newspapers, it would be easy to disprove that.
At root, there is nothing else but "mere" personal impressions. That's how everything starts when examining any proposition. Cogito, ergo sum.Quote:
The Bible is the same way. So yes, they have to be read and understood, but not on the basis of mere personal impressions.
Sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you. Your difficulty with the meaning of words is well-known. Well, I think I just insulted you, but truth may be a defense.Quote:
Words still have meaning.
So men in states that make laws that go against the Constitution would be wrong?
Actually, we were discussing the Bible's claim to authority. You brought up the Canaan business and the Bible God slaughtering everybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Well, we apparently do since I don't believe in a god as monstrous as yours.Quote:
If you serve a different god,
That's called a non-sequitur. Much of the Bible is accurate but not always in a literal sense. There are members here who have studied the Bible in a scholarly way, and they may be able to give you some guidance.Quote:
If you want to question the accuracy of the narrative, then I don't know why you would believe any of it.
I've responded twice now to this, and you have yet to explain your meaning. Don't say I didn't give you a chance.Quote:
As to the authority of the Bible, go back and read my previous answer and think carefully about it.
That is the root of our disagreement. Words have meaning and convey meaning. Conscience is not the deciding factor so much as the words. As it says in Matthew, "And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any."Quote:
"Common sense", informed conscience is required - not simply a claim to authority.
Being truthful is the key, and for that to happen there must be an objective standard of truth that resides above the conscience and thoughts of mere men like you and me.
And this my third time to suggest you read carefully my first answer. I have given you a chance as well.Quote:
I've responded twice now to this, and you have yet to explain your meaning. Don't say I didn't give you a chance.
Unsurprisingly, I do not agree. The text of Joshua is very plain and I know of no one who seriously suggests it is metaphorical. Now you don't like the outcome, and I see that, but if you set aside a text because it displeases you, then you make yourself out to be the judge and not God. I much prefer God show me what displeases Him since it is His opinion that really matters .Quote:
That's called a non-sequitur. Much of the Bible is accurate but not always in a literal sense.
First of all, don't you think it is sexist of you to limit law-making to men? (<:Quote:
So men in states that make laws that go against the Constitution would be wrong?
Would it be legally wrong? Yes, so long as you bear in mind that the Constitution sets plain limits on the power of the fed government. Would it be morally wrong? Depends, but then I am the only one on this thread that seems to have a moral standard that is above the opinions of men, so that might not be a fair observation for you to respond to.
Added note: Lest he sharply rebuke me, I must note that Clete, I believe, regards the Bible as authoritative.
Your a card, with or without humor, arrogance, loony fonts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Someone has to cheer up this thread!! Still plan on buying you that cup of coffee one of these days.Quote:
Your a card, with or without humor, arrogance, loony fonts.
Quote:
Athos: Much of the Bible is accurate but not always in a literal sense.
Is. 55:12 -- The mountains and hills will burst into song, and the trees of the field will clap their hands!Quote:
JL: Unsurprisingly, I do not agree.
I did not agree that my reference was a non-sequitur. You must be more careful about your partial quotes. Also, I have explained in previous posts that I understand that some parts of the Bible are metaphors, analogies, or idioms. Is your memory fading???
Oh, silly me! You do it, so I figured anyone else can too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'll let it slide this time, but it must not happen again. (symbol for humor)Quote:
Oh, silly me! You do it, so I figured anyone else can too.
Oh, yeah. I'm supposed to be a submissive woman. I keep forgetting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You see? Your memory is fading! Thank goodness I'm here to remind you of these things. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.Quote:
Oh, yeah. I'm supposed to be a submissive woman. I keep forgetting.
When the Lord is silent, refer to what he has previously said.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
God is never silent, humans just may not be listening. Perhaps we are saying the same thing basically Clete? For sure there doesn't seem to be any evidence the dufus listens to God, or have I missed something here?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:24 AM. |