|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
You cannot use Jesus words as standard of measure unless we understand that they are the words of Jesus. Either you accept Jesus Words and the OT record both as reliable accounts or you have no case at all to discern. You can't say you believe in Jesus moral standard if you don't even believe in Jesus or His words.
If you believe in neither testament than what is your moral standard that we are going to use to judge? The words we have are not the words of Jesus. What we have is the words of Authors writing under the names of Mark, Luke, Matthew, Pauls' letters, etc....and the words quite obviously say what they say and mean what they mean. One more time; God is love. - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' 1 John 4:7-8; Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. Now, once again - these are not my words, they are not my definitions. It has nothing to do with me. Nor are these the words of Jesus. The words are written decades after the death of Jesus the charismatic Rabbi upon whom the legend was built. He is love, but He is also jealous, and He is also just. You make the choice to live in the law or out of it. You are indeed correct about God being a “jealous” God. This is good. God is “vigilant in protecting his possession” and vigilant in protecting the one He loves..... He will not lose them out of His hand. Yep, being jealous is a good thing. But, if one does not understand language or understand the context of how words are used they cannot grasp meaning. Oprah Winfrey has this same problem many years ago..... read a single verse, did not understand the verse nor the context, became confused .....lost in the darkness.
Last edited by TF49; 07/11/19.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
The Book of LIFe has already been written and filled with the names that shall appear.
hence the fate of the saved and unsaved are pre-ordained / already decided.
Yet the likes of JagX and TF49 continue attempts to offer hope and save people from a fate in a burning hell.
Maybe they will explain What special deal or arrangement they have with God that will force his hand
to [edit] add to the contents of the Book of Life..?
I have requested jAg tell the CF on what page # his name appears, apparently he has not seen his name listed
nor can he provide any supportive evidence. So, He knew you before you were born and what you would choose. Pretty smart, huh? He knew what Cain would do. Those who wrote our laws loved people too and wanted civil society. Some choose to kill. Their being hung does not mean the lawmen hate them. Thats too difficult for some to grasp. You are again correct. God is omniscient. He knows what is going to happen. That does not mean that a man does not have a free will. Some here will simply cop out on this or they simply cannot grapes the concept...... the individual is presented with a decision or circumstance. He evaluates and makes a choice..... it is his choice to make and he does. The infinite omniscient God knew what he would choose. Simpe concept. Very much like a parent, who knows his child very well, given certain circumstances, can discern how that child will react .....
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,656 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,656 Likes: 1 |
DBT
It doesn't matter what you did or did not say ... I have more moral analysis to offer between the Old Testament and the New Testament and will discuss that with a person who has a moral code.
Again I am calling you out. What is your moral code? Without that you are not a moral person and having further discussion with you on this would be moral folly. Why I would try to reach a moral understanding with an amoral or immoral person? It is not my moral code that is in question. It is not your moral code that is in question. It is moral code of the bible that is being questioned. Namely, the one set of standards concerning Love and and the attributes of Love, what Love does and does not do, and that God is said to be Love....while on the other we see descriptions of God acting in a way that completely and utterly contradicts these attributes and values. This has nothing to do with me. It is not personal. I am merely pointing to a problem that is clearly there to be seen.
Last edited by DBT; 07/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,656 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,656 Likes: 1 |
Simpe concept. Very much like a parent, who knows his child very well, given certain circumstances, can discern how that child will react .....
Riiight....which is why all 'good parents' place their children in the hands of a cunning trickster as a test, then punish them severely when they are inevitably led astray in their naivety. Worse, cursing their children and their children's children for good measure...
Last edited by DBT; 07/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
DBT
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person
2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form
3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
Again I am calling you out -- what do you believe about the reliability of the record of Jesus' teachings and what are your moral credentials?
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
DBT
...and yes I have declared the Bible as my moral code and am prepared to defend that position and the coherency of Bible morality...
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Looks like DBT is going to pass ...
Would any other skeptic like to continue a discussion on the moral coherency between the Old and New Testament beginning first by identifying:
1. if you are or consider yourself a moral person
2. if you have a moral code that you can provide in written form
3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
I have always tried to be a moral person.
Never found any need to put that in writing.
Of course the Bible is the best source of the teachings of Jesus.
And a lot of the problems and contradictions i find in the Bible have been noted by many others.
So what? Who put you in charge of the rules?
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Upon what basis do you consider yourself a moral person? If you want a profitable moral discussion there needs to be some equally applied understandings. I am only asking from you what I have provided myself. You have no case of any moral contradictions without revealing the basis from which you make your moral judgments. Are you afraid to reveal your moral foundation or lack thereof?
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,859 |
What if a person beleived that the teachings outlined in the New Testament are a solid foundation for moral living, and endeavours to live by them, without believing that the whole thing is necessarily the inerrant word of God? I've listened to and read people who I think have some excellent points and ideas to live by, but also some that aren't quite right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
What if a person beleived that the teachings outlined in the New Testament are a solid foundation for moral living, and endeavours to live by them, without believing that the whole thing is necessarily the inerrant word of God? I've listened to and read people who I think have some excellent points and ideas to live by, but also some that aren't quite right. A good place to start is this simple but profound moral code from the five precepts of Buddha: "For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must be so to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
What if a person beleived that the teachings outlined in the New Testament are a solid foundation for moral living, and endeavours to live by them, without believing that the whole thing is necessarily the inerrant word of God? I've listened to and read people who I think have some excellent points and ideas to live by, but also some that aren't quite right. That is a very good observation. I think this describes Jefferson quite well. He did not just tear down all morality but rather he at least recognized that some system of morals needs to govern and he believed that Jesus had the best system of them. While he would not accept all the Bible he did accept that the moral teachings of Jesus were reliably recorded and should be followed--which means he certainly believed that Jesus was a man of history. There is no eternal salvation in moral living but there is an earthly blessing to yourself and others. Giving our lives to Jesus and allowing Him to change our hearts gives us the nature that desires to follow His morals and other teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 945
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 945 |
DBT
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person
2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form
3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
? How do you prove that you have a moral code in written form. You can state what you believe in, but actions don't always match what we say. You prove your moral code in your actions. Morality comes in many forms. What is considered moral by one could very well be considered immoral to others. Have you ever took a college level ethics class? You would know that a supernatural being is only one of about three main theories of the origins of ethics/morality. You do not need a belief in god to be a moral person. I would be willing to bet that in comparison of a religious group and an atheist group, they would both have about the same distribution of what many would consider moral and immoral population. Your making a judgement against another member, and if he did provide a glimpse his moral compass, you would likely dismiss it based on your own bias.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
To further define this point--we need to make a clear distinction between faith and morals. Morals are the bedrock foundation of a society which if challenged or overthrown will reinvent that society. Morals are the foundation of law.
Faith on the other hand is purely voluntary--meaning it lies solely between individuals and God or a group of individuals and God. You cannot coerce faith or it is no longer faith. The genius of the American and Canadian experiences were that they understood this distinction in their early days. Their laws were based on Biblical morals but they left faith be free. The two should work hand in hand and that is how we allow diversity of religion and yet keep a strong moral foundation for law. The next challenge is what morality will we accept as our basis?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
DBT
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person
2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form
3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
? How do you prove that you have a moral code in written form. You can state what you believe in, but actions don't always match what we say. You prove your moral code in your actions. Morality comes in many forms. What is considered moral by one could very well be considered immoral to others. Have you ever took a college level ethics class? You would know that a supernatural being is only one of about three main theories of the origins of ethics/morality. You do not need a belief in god to be a moral person. I would be willing to bet that in comparison of a religious group and an atheist group, they would both have about the same distribution of what many would consider moral and immoral population. Your making a judgement against another member, and if he did provide a glimpse his moral compass, you would likely dismiss it based on your own bias. Yes of course you can have personal morals without writing them down. But unless they are based on something that can be written down they are worthless. Additionally, if you are going to do a moral analysis from a moral benchmark you need to write them down so everyone can see the moral benchmark. My code is written, but no skeptics have provided their code by which they are making moral observations and judgments. And yes as you note no skeptic here seems willing to provide a written moral code that they will stand by. That is a very evident sign of the weakness of their system and why moral discussions with them are often unproductive. I did not ask for belief in deity, I asked for a written moral code for reference. I'm still waiting for that--lacking that there is no moral foundation in skepticism and no means by which a skeptic can consider themselves a moral person. Do you have a moral code that you ascribe to? Is it written or can it be written? Does anyone else use it or is it just your personal opinion?
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/11/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
DBT
I reiterate if you wish to do a more in-depth moral analysis of the Bible you need to declare:
1. if you are a moral person
2.if you have a moral code and then provide it in written form
3. if you believe the NT is a reliable record of Jesus' teachings.
It is sheer folly to proceed without this understanding in place. You want to engage in a moral analysis but you refuse to identify by what standard we are evaluating the coherency of Bible morality. Again if you do not have a moral code you are not a moral person and therefore not qualified to do a moral analysis of any type. Your amorality or immorality will prejudice you against any sound moral argument. This would be same as taking a convicted criminal from a penitentiary and sitting him in the judge's seat to interpret case law as he saw fit.
? How do you prove that you have a moral code in written form. You can state what you believe in, but actions don't always match what we say. You prove your moral code in your actions. Morality comes in many forms. What is considered moral by one could very well be considered immoral to others. Have you ever took a college level ethics class? You would know that a supernatural being is only one of about three main theories of the origins of ethics/morality. You do not need a belief in god to be a moral person. I would be willing to bet that in comparison of a religious group and an atheist group, they would both have about the same distribution of what many would consider moral and immoral population. Your making a judgement against another member, and if he did provide a glimpse his moral compass, you would likely dismiss it based on your own bias. I don't believe that is fair. What I do believe is Thunderstick has shown himself tolerant, patient, well spoken, and accepting without ridicule that which others post. Of course, he believes that simply being a moral person will not save you. It won't. Certainly, it will well serve anyone and everyone to have a well tuned moral compass, but beyond that there is a much larger and more significant prize. And that prize is something we want for all of those who do not presently believe. Many have given their lives in taking this prize to the masses. It was also the last declaration made by Jesus to His disciples to spread the Word about Him throughout the world.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,743 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,743 Likes: 2 |
DBT
It doesn't matter what you did or did not say ... I have more moral analysis to offer between the Old Testament and the New Testament and will discuss that with a person who has a moral code.
Again I am calling you out. What is your moral code? Without that you are not a moral person and having further discussion with you on this would be moral folly. Why I would try to reach a moral understanding with an amoral or immoral person? It is not my moral code that is in question. It is not your moral code that is in question. It is moral code of the bible that is being questioned. Namely, the one set of standards concerning Love and and the attributes of Love, what Love does and does not do, and that God is said to be Love....while on the other we see descriptions of God acting in a way that completely and utterly contradicts these attributes and values. This has nothing to do with me. It is not personal. I am merely pointing to a problem that is clearly there to be seen. Yeah, i got a real problem with the sun coming up later and going down earlier around here every darn fall. Its ridiculous i tell you and im not going to stand for that BS. If thats how its going to be just count me out.
Last edited by jaguartx; 07/11/19.
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,945 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,945 Likes: 7 |
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible. And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein". What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals. But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement. The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness. The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law. An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
571 members (16penny, 1234, 160user, 06hunter59, 12344mag, 1beaver_shooter, 61 invisible),
1,903
guests, and
1,159
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,884
Posts18,497,822
Members73,980
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
