# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  What sets the precedent for our morality?

## Terry1

This is a good question for atheists and agnostics or those who reside outside of the belief in creationism.  What sets the precedent for our morality and how did mankind from the beginning understand the difference between good and bad?  What does the theory of evolution actually tell us with regard to how we perceive what morality actually is and it's root origin from the beginning?

Moral Law is defined as this in the everyday dictionary:

:  a general rule of right living; esp :  such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason <the basic protection of rights is the moral law based on man's dignity.

This begs the question then---is there such a thing as "morality" absent God?

----------


## Schifference

What rules are universal and unchanging? Everything is tweaked & justified to fit today's society or an individual's actions.

----------


## Schifference

Don't murder sounds good until you do if for the good of all, or for safety of an individual or society, or self defense, or to protect your property from the fleeing person, or for retribution for some perceived criminal offense. 

Don't steal sounds good until a group of moral citizens get together and call themselves a city, state, or country and then steal the fruits of their labor via taxes. 

Don't commit adultery sounds good until an individual finds themselves in a relationship that they would rather not be in and then they find many reasons why sleeping with someone else is OK. 

Don't lie sounds good until people realize that the outcome cannot be changed and a lie allows the wronged person to feel better accepting the result.

----------


## Terry1

> What rules are universal and unchanging? Everything is tweaked & justified to fit today's society or an individual's actions.


So then you don't believe there was ever a *set* precedent for what mankind considers evil or good?  Socrates and Plato subscribed to metaphysics and realism, but neither were able to harness the understanding of the origin of the wisdom they taught.  Their logic seems circular in that it all revolves around the human mind and the ability to grow in knowledge, but then that same knowledge is always relative to ones frame of reference so that it's impossible for what one considers as knowledge and wisdom to be what another considers knowledge and wisdom.  How then does mankind become unified in their perception of good vs bad or evil?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Don't murder sounds good until you do if for the good of all, or for safety of an individual or society, or self defense, or to protect your property from the fleeing person, or for retribution for some perceived criminal offense. 
> 
> Don't steal sounds good until a group of moral citizens get together and call themselves a city, state, or country and then steal the fruits of their labor via taxes. 
> 
> Don't commit adultery sounds good until an individual finds themselves in a relationship that they would rather not be in and then they find many reasons why sleeping with someone else is OK. 
> 
> Don't lie sounds good until people realize that the outcome cannot be changed and a lie allows the wronged person to feel better accepting the result.


you can add the Drug War and Prohibition to the mix to.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Judeo-Christian morality (ethics) at least in word, even if not in deed, sets the precedent.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Could all of us in this forum universally agree on what actions are moral or immoral?  There are some easy ones we could agree on like Murder being immoral.  Other issues may be debated or argued such as certain kinds of drug use,  sexual behavior/orientation/BDSM, or forms of violent entertainment such as Grand Theft Auto 5.  

Would a precedent for morality even have anything to say about violent Video Games?  Or Social Media?  In our crazy world of new emerging technology, I think morality/ethics actually has to struggle just to keep up.  

Is Righteus Slaughtered immoral, or hilarious?

----------


## Schifference

C&P from a previous post/thread on the same topic.
When a person walks thru the woods and a tree limb falls and strikes a part of their body they realize that it hurts. When they are in conversation with someone and a person says something to them that emotionally hurt them they feel that. When they slip & fall to the ground it hurts. I think it is fair to say that emotional and physical pain is an experience that can be proven over and over again. If you strap a person to a chair and slam a sledge hammer into their kneecap or hand pain will be the product. A person that has experienced pain can take that learned knowledge and decide to not inflict pain onto another person because they simply associate that with a negative experience. A person that has run out of gas before or that was stuck in the snow has knowledge of how that feels. A simple gesture or lack thereof that keeps another from experiencing unpleasant physical or emotional suffering is simply an act of kindness that comes from an aware person.

----------


## Beorn

> C&P from a previous post/thread on the same topic.
> When a person walks thru the woods and a tree limb falls and strikes a part of their body they realize that it hurts. When they are in conversation with someone and a person says something to them that emotionally hurt them they feel that. When they slip & fall to the ground it hurts. I think it is fair to say that emotional and physical pain is an experience that can be proven over and over again. If you strap a person to a chair and slam a sledge hammer into their kneecap or hand pain will be the product. A person that has experienced pain can take that learned knowledge and decide to not inflict pain onto another person because they simply associate that with a negative experience. A person that has run out of gas before or that was stuck in the snow has knowledge of how that feels. A simple gesture or lack thereof that keeps another from experiencing unpleasant physical or emotional suffering is simply an act of kindness that comes from an aware person.


Great. That means the way to make the world a better place is to just poison everyone with carbon monoxide.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Variants of the Golden Rule have developed in societies the world over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

----------


## robert68

I don't know where you're getting you're definition of morality. Below are a couple definitions of it from long respected dictionaries. "God" isn't mentioned in even one of their definitions.




> American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
> 
> morality:
>     1.The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
>     2.A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
>     3.Virtuous conduct.
>     4.A rule or lesson in moral conduct.





> Merriam-Webster
> 
> moral
> : concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
> : based on what you think is right and good
> : considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
> 
> Full Definition of MORAL
> 
> ...

----------


## otherone

Morality exists independent of Biblical teachings.

----------


## Nang

> Morality exists independent of Biblical teachings.



Morality does not exist, let alone function, apart from God's commands (formal Law) and manifestations (natural laws of creation).  

Thus, there is no excuse for immorality:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."  Romans 1:20

----------


## otherone

> Morality does not exist, let alone function, apart from God's commands (formal Law) and manifestations (natural laws of creation).


Morality exists independent of Biblical teachings.

----------


## Nang

> Morality exists independent of Biblical teachings.



It does not exist apart from God's formal and/or natural laws of creation.

Morality is not inherent to mankind.

"There is none who does good; no, not one."  Romans 3:12b

----------


## otherone

> It does not exist apart from God's formal and/or natural laws of creation.


Morality exists independent of Biblical teachings.

----------


## Nang

> Morality exists independent of Biblical teachings.



According to what _objective_ standards?  

For you see, morality cannot be called such, according to subjective standards.

----------


## otherone

> According to what _objective_ standards?  
> 
> For you see, morality cannot be called such, according to subjective standards.


Cannot be called what? morality?

----------


## Nang

> What rules are universal and unchanging?


The moral and natural laws of creation . . .objective and absolute laws established by God the Creator.





> Everything is tweaked & justified to fit today's society or an individual's actions.


Right.  This subjectivism does not produce morality, but rather produces hedonism.

----------


## Nang

> Cannot be called what? morality?


Subjective hedonism cannot be called "morality."

----------


## otherone

> Subjective hedonism cannot be called "morality."


Are you referring to situational ethics?

----------


## Nang

> Are you referring to situational ethics?


No.  Ethics are not the same as objective morality.

I was thinking more of moral relativism.

----------


## Brett85

I have to agree with Nang for the second time today.  That has to be a record.    There is an absolute right and wrong that's found in the Bible and the Bible alone.  The Bible forbids us from doing certain things, and these things are absolutely wrong in every single case.  These are things the Bible explicitly says are wrong such as murder, stealing, adultery, lying, etc.  Without the Bible as our foundation, there would be no absolute right and wrong, and people could justify evil behavior simply by claiming that they don't believe that the behavior they're engaging in is wrong.  But we know from the Bible that there are absolute standards of right and wrong, that there are certain things that are wrong for anyone to do.  Of course, there are gray areas that aren't mentioned anywhere in the Bible as well, and when it comes to the gray areas we have to listen to the Holy Spirit for guidance in order to determine whether a certain activity is right or wrong.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What sets the precedent for our morality and how did mankind from the beginning understand the difference between good and bad?


I'd say that man defines himself in a way that is premised solely upon his personality. After all...it's what he can see and understand. And so his personality is the driver for his moral perception. He then seeks order premised upon his own perception of morality and conforming to his want for centrality.

----------


## otherone

> These are things the Bible explicitly says are wrong such as murder, stealing, adultery, lying, etc.  Without the Bible as our foundation, there would be no absolute right and wrong, and people could justify evil behavior simply by claiming that they don't believe that the behavior they're engaging in is wrong.


There are 1 billion Hindus who've blown the first three commandments alone.
Evil bastards.

----------


## Brett85

> There are 1 billion Hindus who've blown the first three commandments alone.
> Evil bastards.


John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

----------


## otherone

> I'd say that man defines himself in a way that is premised solely upon his personality. After all...it's what he can see and understand. And so his personality is the driver for his moral perception. He then seeks order premised upon his own perception of morality and conforming to his want for centrality.


I don't believe every man reinvents the wheel, morally speaking (except for Nietzsche's ubermensch, of course).  Morality is simply an agreed upon set of behaviors that I believe has it's roots in primate social behavior.  The addition of a supernatural boogeyman who, like Santa, monitors your behavior for infractions is a brilliant invention of TPTB to keep the flock in line.

----------


## otherone

> John 14:6
> 
> Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."


You've missed the point.  Are they evil?

----------


## Brett85

> You've missed the point.  Are they evil?


It depends on how you define "evil."  If committing at least one evil act makes someone evil, then all of us are evil, since every single one of us have sinned and have broken God's commandments.

----------


## Nang

> It depends on how you define "evil."  If committing at least one evil act makes someone evil, then all of us are evil, since every single one of us have sinned and have broken God's commandments.


Yep, and this is exactly what is denied by subjective (relative) moralism.

These ungodly philosophers think there is inherent good in all men, but the Word of God teaches otherwise.

Only God is good . . .

----------


## otherone

> It depends on how you define "evil."  If committing at least one evil act makes someone evil, then all of us are evil, since every single one of us have sinned and have broken God's commandments.


Your definition of evil:
_ These are things the Bible explicitly says are wrong such as murder, stealing, adultery, lying, etc. Without the Bible as our foundation, there would be no absolute right and wrong, and people could justify evil behavior simply by claiming that they don't believe that the behavior they're engaging in is wrong. But we know from the Bible that there are absolute standards of right and wrong, that there are certain things that are wrong for anyone to do._

  There are billions of folk who don't worship the Christian God, breaking the first three commandments.  If the Bible provides moral absolutes, then all these billions are committing evil.

----------


## Nang

> Your definition of evil:
> _ These are things the Bible explicitly says are wrong such as murder, stealing, adultery, lying, etc. Without the Bible as our foundation, there would be no absolute right and wrong, and people could justify evil behavior simply by claiming that they don't believe that the behavior they're engaging in is wrong. But we know from the Bible that there are absolute standards of right and wrong, that there are certain things that are wrong for anyone to do._
> 
>   There are billions of folk who don't worship the Christian God, breaking the first three commandments.  If the Bible provides moral absolutes, then all these billions are committing evil.


This is fact.

----------


## HVACTech

This begs the question then---is there such a thing as "morality" absent God?[/QUOTE]

silly question.
I am a deist. the definition of "GOD" is quite elusive for me. 
a persons morals are directed by their principles, if they do not have them, or cannot define them. they will make decisions based on feelings and emotions. 
a better question would be. 

is there such a thing as morality, absent Liberty?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Numbers 15:32-36:



> While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, *“The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”* 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.

----------


## Nang

> This begs the question then---is there such a thing as "morality" absent God?
> 
> silly question.
> I am a deist. the definition of "GOD" is quite elusive for me. 
> a persons morals are directed by their principles, if they do not have them, or cannot define them. they will make decisions based on feelings and emotions. 
> a better question would be. 
> 
> is there such a thing as morality, absent Liberty?


Is there such a thing as objective liberty (known by faith in Jesus Christ?), or is liberty only subjective?

----------


## otherone

> This is fact.


You are consistent, I'll give you that.  Frankly, I've found most Calvinists to have a consistent interpretation of scripture at least.

----------


## otherone

> is there such a thing as morality, absent Liberty?


Hmmm.
A better question is if morality exists in the absence of society.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Deut. 25:11




> When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Timothy 2 : 11,12




> 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

----------


## Nang

> Timothy 2 : 11,12


Bah . . . this forum is not a church . . .

----------


## VIDEODROME

2 Kings 2:23-24




> 23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
> 
> 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.



Don't $#@! with Bald people who call upon The Lord to send bears to eat your kids.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is the Bible absolute morality?  Or just parts of the Bible like the Commandments?  

I dunno some of this stuff seems weird.  Killing kids with bears is kind of reactionary.  

Also, I don't know if Timothy really counts as a Biblical morale guide with Christians saying women must be submissive and have no leadership role.

----------


## HVACTech

> Is there such a thing as objective liberty (known by faith in Jesus Christ?), or is liberty only subjective?


my discovery of Shakespeare"s bible.
helped me to understand this argument. we all know that the "bible" has been translated. we also know that there is not always a good match when translating.
therefore.  
there should be a gazillion footnotes.
the KJV does not have them.
the Geneva bible does. 
the gunpowder plot occurred in 1605.  the KJV was released in 1611.
are these two events connected?

----------


## HVACTech

> 2 Kings 2:23-24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't $#@! with Bald people who call upon The Lord to send bears to eat your kids.


note to self....

----------


## Brett85

> Deut. 25:11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.


How do you know that this instruction from God is wrong if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> John 14:6
> 
> Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."


Only if you subscribe literally to what is in the Bible (or what the translators decided the Bible should say). You do, which is fine - but that's your belief. The majority of humans on planet Earth believe otherwise. I don't understand why "my way is the only way" Christians don't understand this.

Baffling.

Beliefs are beliefs. Everybody has them. That's why it's pointless and arrogant and prideful to judge the beliefs of someone else. Look instead at how they live and treat their fellows.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> How do you know that this instruction from God is wrong if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong?


If I lived in Biblical times, I might have grown up thinking this is quite correct.  I might even stand with a growing crowd to see her hand get cut off.  

Instead though, I grew up in contemporary times with different standards.  You are right that I think cutting off hands on a whim like that is kind of overkill.  

What would I think if I grew up in the year 4000 A. D. ?  Would I have yet another moral standard as a consequence of growing up in a different time, environment, and society? 


Morality could probably be considered a human system almost like Government.  So it's no wonder people try to mix the two.  Is there an absolute good system of government?  I don't think so.  I think many human systems are continual works in progress developing and hopefully improving overtime.  Often with many setbacks and really dumb ideas like ObamaCare or Prohibition.

----------


## TER

> Only if you subscribe literally to what is in the Bible (or what the translators decided the Bible should say). You do, which is fine - but that's your belief. The majority of humans on planet Earth believe otherwise. I don't understand why "my way is the only way" Christians don't understand this.
> 
> Baffling.
> 
> Beliefs are beliefs. Everybody has them. That's why it's pointless and arrogant and prideful to judge the beliefs of someone else. Look instead at how they live and treat their fellows.


Because what they believe will also dictate and mold how they treat others.  We judge how they treat others which is often a fruit of what they believe.  Help them with their belief, and you help them in how they treat others.

----------


## otherone

> Because what they believe will also dictate and mold how they treat others.  We judge how they treat others which is often a fruit of what they believe.  Help them with their belief, and you help them in how they treat others.


There are those who justify atrocities by invoking God.  it happened in the OT, it happens today.  I have a difficult time believing in a just, merciful God when he instructs his chosen people to exterminate every man, woman, and child in a rival city.  So the whole "knowing them by their fruits" thing rings hollow with me.

----------


## TER

> There are those who justify atrocities by invoking God.  it happened in the OT, it happens today.  I have a difficult time believing in a just, merciful God when he instructs his chosen people to exterminate every man, woman, and child in a rival city.  So the whole "knowing them by their fruits" thing rings hollow with me.


You need to separate the time of the Old Covenant with the time of the New Covenant.  It is easy for us to sit here and judge the actions and decrees of God which were thousands of years ago, but we have no idea what life was like back then.  We should not presume to know the human condition and the reasons why God would allow such things which us here in the year 2014 consider to be ruthless and sinful.  True, these are hard things to accept that a merciful God would allow, and I confess I don't understand how and why God would allow such a thing (now looking through the light of Christ's teachings and the revelation of God through Christ).

But we must understand that we all now live in a time when the Light of the World has entered into it and the fulfillment of the times of old have been accomplished and a new and everlasting Covenant between God and man has been introduced.  While some use the excuse of the Old Covenant to justify their destruction and murder now, they do so in a time in which it has become obsolete now that God has entered into the world and filled it with His Holy Spirit.

----------


## VIDEODROME

That doesn't seem absolute.  

Maybe when people say the Bible is the source of their morality they need to be more specific so I understand them.  Are they all referring to the New Testament only?  Or basically just the life of Jesus as an example?

----------


## Brett85

> If I lived in Biblical times, I might have grown up thinking this is quite correct.  I might even stand with a growing crowd to see her hand get cut off.  
> 
> Instead though, I grew up in contemporary times with different standards.  You are right that I think cutting off hands on a whim like that is kind of overkill.  
> 
> What would I think if I grew up in the year 4000 A. D. ?  Would I have yet another moral standard as a consequence of growing up in a different time, environment, and society? 
> 
> 
> Morality could probably be considered a human system almost like Government.  So it's no wonder people try to mix the two.  Is there an absolute good system of government?  I don't think so.  I think many human systems are continual works in progress developing and hopefully improving overtime.  Often with many setbacks and really dumb ideas like ObamaCare or Prohibition.


Yes, and the old law that you described is outdated and no longer applies today.  The Bible says that the Old Mosaic law was nailed to the cross when Christ died on the cross.  However, Christ still made it clear that the 10 commandments aren't obsolete, and we're supposed to do our best to obey the 10 commandments.  We're supposed to still refrain from murder, stealing, using the Lord's name in vain, etc.

----------


## TER

otherone, let us say that those children and women who died in the massacre decreed by God in the OT suffered innocently for a short time yet they were given eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven as a recompense for their deaths.  Would we judge God the same?  Of course, we might say it still was unfair, but was it fair for Christ Himself to suffer and die on the cross?  Perhaps those who died innocently during this massacre were given special dispensation by God on account of His mercy, and though they suffered and did not get a chance to grow old they now live in eternal bliss forever and ever with the angels in heaven.  

You see, we don't know the mystery of God's judgements, especially when it comes to those whom we feel on the outside to have suffered unjustly or innocently.  We do know through the great revelation of God given through Christ that our Father in Heaven is forgiving, and is merciful, and loves us more then we can even imagine.  Perhaps there indeed are surprises which await us on that final day when all will be revealed.  Perhaps these are the things which St. Paul said were 'unlawful to talk about' when he had his great vision in the third heaven.  We simply do not have all the answers.  All we can do is pray to God for understanding, for mercy, for forgiveness, and do our best to follow His commandments.  When we do this, then although the world around seems to be falling apart and the coming down all around us, we have the peace of Christ and the assurance of faith which overcomes all things, including death.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Yes, and the old law that you described is outdated and no longer applies today.  The Bible says that the Old Mosaic law was nailed to the cross when Christ died on the cross.  However, Christ still made it clear that the 10 commandments aren't obsolete, and we're supposed to do our best to obey the 10 commandments.  We're supposed to still refrain from murder, stealing, using the Lord's name in vain, etc.


So Absolute Morality was changed one time by the Crucifixion?  But now it's all set?  When people say "Biblical Morality" what they're really referring to are the 10 Commandments? 

What if something is not covered by these commandments?

----------


## otherone

> otherone, let us say that those children and women who died in the massacre decreed by God in the OT suffered innocently for a short time yet they were given eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven as a recompense for their deaths.  Would we judge God the same?  Of course, we might say it still was unfair, but was it fair for Christ Himself to suffer and die on the cross?  Perhaps those who died innocently during this massacre were given special dispensation by God on account of His mercy, and though they suffered and did not get a chance to grow old they now live in eternal bliss forever and ever with the angels in heaven.  
> 
> You see, we don't know the mystery of God's judgements, especially when it comes to those whom we feel on the outside to have suffered unjustly or innocently.  We do know through the great revelation of God given through Christ that our Father in Heaven is forgiving, and is merciful, and loves us more then we can even imagine.  Perhaps there indeed are surprises which await us on that final day when all will be revealed.  Perhaps these are the things which St. Paul said were 'unlawful to talk about' when he had his great vision when he was lifted to the third heaven.  We simply do not have all the answers.



Thank you, TER, for the thorough response, but it is not God that I hold responsible for the murders, but his followers.  Saying, "don't condemn my God for this, he has a plan", as you shove a sword in my gut, sounds a bit like you are excusing your own culpability in the matter.  Do you see?
"Don't blame me, I'm just following orders".

----------


## TER

> Thank you, TER, for the thorough response, but it is not God that I hold responsible for the murders, but his followers.  Saying, "don't condemn my God for this, he has a plan", as you shove a sword in my gut, sounds a bit like you are excusing your own culpability in the matter.  Do you see?
> "Don't blame me, I'm just following orders".


When the massacre in the Old Covenant occurred, the murders had every right to use that excuse because that was the expressed will of God.  When Abraham was about to sacrifice his own son as he was commanded to by God, he had every right to use that excuse because it was the expressed commandment of God.  Why God allowed the first event to be accomplished and why he stopped the second event to be fulfilled are reasons known only to God.  Presumably, the episode of Abraham being stopped from killing his own son but instead being provided a ram stuck in a thicket was a foreshadowing of the work and sacrifice of God's Son as an substitutionary expiation for the godlessness and sinfulness of mankind.  Not merely that God prevented, but that He took even the pain and suffering of a lost son and suffering father so that the pain of men might be battled and overcome.  This is a God of selfless love.  A Triune God.  A God of communion and life and being.

That being said, the excuse of killing innocents as a decree given by God does not fly in the light of Christ's teachings and the establishment of the New Covenant.  It cannot possibly be accepted as being the will of God since the law of love revealed by the Son has supplanted and become the law of our lives.

But of course, people still do heinous crimes under the pretense of doing God's work, and I share your sentiments and sadness.  But we must be careful not to judge God because of the sins of those who claim to follow Him.  Of course, I am not saying that you do this, but many do.

----------


## PursuePeace

I say if you read the bible, perhaps do it while meditating on LOVE.  I think there are some things that people try to justify and rationalize in the bible, that should not be justified at all, but rather condemned. 

But back to the topic at hand. (edited to add: Well, hopefully the following doesn't seem off-topic.) The first commandment: To love God with all of your heart, mind and soul. How can you love ANYTHING or ANYONE with ALL of your heart, ALL of your mind, all of your soul... if you don't KNOW that thing or person with ALL of your heart, mind and soul? Seems to me that first command is for our benefit. Not that God NEEDS our love, but that God wants us to begin to KNOW Him. God wants us to QUESTION.

Those who know love, know God for God is love. "God is LOVE." Ponder, meditate on LOVE and you are getting to know God. 1 corinthians 13 gives a pretty good picture of love. The second command goes perfectly with the first: Love your neighbor as yourself. Take that knowledge (of love) and put it out into the world.

_Matthew 22:34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’c 38This is the first and greatest commandment.39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’d 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”_

I think it's so simple a child could understand, and most probably do moreso than adults who have to make everything so complicated/"strings attached". Sometimes, I wonder if we actually understood more clearly, as children... but forgot a lot of it along the way as we grew up. Maybe that sounds weird, I don't know.
peace..

----------


## TER

> I say if you read the bible, perhaps do it while meditating on LOVE.


Our entire being and created nature finds life in love, for in love we better understand our very source of being and life Who is God, and all things given to us by the goodness and love of God. 

 This life is Christ Himself, for as He says "I am the resurrection and the life!" just before He raised Lazarus who laid four days dead.  

Our life is in Christ, our salvation is in Christ, for Christ is life for all of creation.  By His resurrected human flesh our own nature has been healed and restored to the image of God, being granted release from the power of sin and the separation of death.  The body Christ has received from the Virgin is the body which has redeemed our own bodies and become the Firstfruits of our new creation. The Son of God Who is the Son of Man Who is The Lord of creation.  The Lord who washes the feet of His disciples. The Vine which gives us life.  The Bread of life and Manna from heaven Who is the eucharistic communion of love and sustanence to our entire being.  The Incarnate Logos of God, Who offered His Body and Blood so that our own bodies and blood might gain eternal life and being.  Christ giving life and being to all, and in all.  The sanctification of the human race and all of the things of creation.  The Kingdom of God and the life of the ages.

----------


## Terry1

*Luke 19: 37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;

38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.

40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Romans 8:22  22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.  23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.  24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?*

*Morality is God*

God is the precedent for our morality.  Roman 8:22 tells us that "creation groans and labors in pangs".  Luke 19:37 tells us that if the praises of the saints are silenced that even the "stones would cry out".

God is pure light and in Him there is no darkness.  God can not create or partake in evil, but He can manipulate the circumstance by nothing more than removing His light and allowing evil to serve His own purpose against evil itself--therefore if we look at what the results of evil, sin and death cause in this world without understanding the sources of both good and evil, ignorance then would blame God instead of the rightful source of all evil, which is satan.

*Morality is God*--the absence of God is the absence of morality itself.  Without the light--darkness is the result.  For if it's true what Jesus said that the very stones would cry out if the praises of Him are silenced and that "creation groans and labors with pangs", we must understand the meaning of why the stones would cry out and why creation would groan in labor.

Since God is the creator of all things---everything has life in it and the ability to understand who God is being the creator of them Himself.  Morality is the understanding of who God is and what represents Him.  

Take the little children for example, what do they understand before they reach the age of accountability?  Why are the little children innocent and unaccountable to sin until they are old enough to understand the difference between good and evil?  Why does our Lord call those who believe in Him His "little children" and "sheep"?  What does knowledge do to mankind absent the wisdom of God?  

These are all things we should ask ourselves because what has happened to us as we became "knowledgable" of good and evil is that we have become corrupted and blinded by it also--Just the same as Adam and Eve did when they ate of the tree of knowledge--so until we come into the wisdom of who God is we are as unknowing that all knowledge is evil.  

Little children trust in their parents--they only see good in their parents--they don't question what they see.  They have no worries about worldly things and don't know the difference between rich or poor, good or evil because they blindly trust those they know are their Mother and Father.  No matter what parents do--children do not question it.  It is the sins of the parents that curse their own children as they grow and become accountable in life.  Until that time--children are all trusting, innocent and dependent upon their parents to feed them, clothe them and take care of them.

Morality is not something that is learned--we are born with it being created in the image and likeness of God and are not accountable until we come into knowledge which is evil absent the wisdom of God.  God is the precedent for our morality because He is the creator of it.  Once we come into the knowledge of good and evil, only then are we accountable because now being of the age of accountability--we must make a choice between good and evil, which is something that the little children do not have to do.

What did Jesus tell us then?  *Matthew 18:3 
and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
*

So then what happens to us as we age and come into the knowledge of good and evil?  We become accountable then knowing the difference while we were not accountable before we did.  So God's morality isn't learned--we are born with it being created in the image and likeness of God.  It's knowledge and the world that corrupts absent the innocence of little children who never question the authority of their parents and trust them no matter what they do because they are born innocent and moral.

----------


## Terry1

*Innocence defined:*

1. (n.) The state or quality of being innocent; freedom from that which is harmful or injurious; harmlessness.
2. (n.) The *state or quality of being morally free from guilt or sin*; purity of heart; blamelessness.

3. (n.) The state or quality of being not chargeable for, or guilty of, a particular crime or offense; as, the innocence of the prisoner was clearly shown.

4. (n.)* Simplicity or plainness*, bordering on weakness or silliness; artlessness; ingenuousness.


Moral defined:

•8310 morality, and creation
•8311 morality, and redemption



*8309 morality*

Conformity to the standards of right living, especially in the sight of God. Scripture stresses that morality is grounded in the nature of God himself, and provides practical guidance concerning moral living and decision-making.

----------


## Beorn

> So Absolute Morality was changed one time by the Crucifixion?  But now it's all set?  When people say "Biblical Morality" what they're really referring to are the 10 Commandments? 
> 
> What if something is not covered by these commandments?


No, morality didn't change. Not all of the old law was absolute. Some of it applied only to the Nation of Israel. God destroyed many foreign nations for their iniquities in the OT, but I don't recall him ever destroying a nation because they ate shellfish. 

There has always been one consistent standard for all of humankind. The 10 commandments and Jesus's two commandments embody that consistent standard.

----------


## Brett85

> So Absolute Morality was changed one time by the Crucifixion?  But now it's all set?  When people say "Biblical Morality" what they're really referring to are the 10 Commandments? 
> 
> What if something is not covered by these commandments?


When it comes to the moral issues that aren't covered in the Bible, we call these "gray areas," and we're supposed to listen to the Holy Spirit/and/or our conscience.  When it comes to the gray areas, what's wrong for one person may not be wrong for someone else.

----------


## Terry1

We are born moral--morality is innate in us until we reach the age of accountability.  This is when we come into knowledge and corruption.  We don't become moral--we are born moral and innocent.  It's said that we are "born into sin" and that is because we are born of the flesh, but the flesh remains in a state of innocence until the age of accountability.  This is why Jesus said, that we must become as "little children" in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

How many will grasp this understanding?  Then if you want to question that based upon "those pots made for destruction"--then we are told that God foreknows us.  So does that mean that if a child dies in innocence that God will damn them to hell because He foreknew them?  No--if they die in innocence and morality--they remain that way forever.  Only those pots made for destruction are those that come of age and accountability and then reject God that He foreknew are those who are damned to hell.  Only God knows who they are.

----------


## Beorn

> We are born moral--morality is innate in us until we reach the age of accountability.  This is when we come into knowledge and corruption.  We don't become moral--we are born moral and innocent.  It's said that we are "born into sin" and that is because we are born of the flesh, but the flesh remains in a state of innocence until the age of accountability.  This is why Jesus said, that we must become as "little children" in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> How many will grasp this understanding?  Then if you want to question that based upon "those pots made for destruction"--then we are told that God foreknows us.  So does that mean that if a child dies in innocence that God will damn them to hell because He foreknew them?  No--if they die in innocence and morality--they remain that way forever.  Only those pots made for destruction are those that come of age and accountability and then reject God that He foreknew are those who are damned to hell.  Only God knows who they are.


Start a new thread. This is off topic (heh, from your own OP) and just meant to troll Calvinists.

----------


## otherone

> We are born moral--morality is innate in us until we reach the age of accountability.  This is when we come into knowledge and corruption.  We don't become moral--we are born moral and innocent.





> These ungodly philosophers think there is inherent good in all men, but the Word of God teaches otherwise.
> Only God is good . . .


MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Y'all been nanged, beyotches.

----------


## Terry1

> MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> Y'all been nanged, beyotches.

----------


## Schifference

> No, morality didn't change. Not all of the old law was absolute. Some of it applied only to the Nation of Israel. God destroyed many foreign nations for their iniquities in the OT, but I don't recall him ever destroying a nation because they ate shellfish. 
> 
> There has always been one consistent standard for all of humankind. The 10 commandments and Jesus's two commandments embody that consistent standard.


What was the deal with Sodom and Gomorrah? Was God mad about something?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What was the deal with Sodom and Gomorrah? Was God mad about something?


I heard that the two factions of the Anunnaki were disputing the control of the spaceport. 

Or something like that. There were giants in those days....

----------


## VIDEODROME

> When it comes to the moral issues that aren't covered in the Bible, we call these "gray areas," and we're supposed to listen to the Holy Spirit/and/or our conscience.  When it comes to the gray areas, what's wrong for one person may not be wrong for someone else.


I'm intrigued that Absolute Morality can change depending on circumstances.  Maybe I'm not following what is meant by Absolute.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm intrigued that Absolute Morality can change depending on circumstances.  Maybe I'm not following what is meant by Absolute.


The Bible doesn't address every single moral issue.  It does address some, and we know that certain things are wrong for everyone, such as murder and stealing.  But since the Bible doesn't address every single moral issue, I don't believe that there's an absolute right and wrong on every single moral issue.

----------


## Nang

> What was the deal with Sodom and Gomorrah? Was God mad about something?


Well, yeah . . .

He observed more than a _smidgeon_ of corruption, in those places.

----------


## Nang

> The Bible doesn't address every single moral issue.  It does address some, and we know that certain things are wrong for everyone, such as murder and stealing.  But since the Bible doesn't address every single moral issue, I don't believe that there's an absolute right and wrong on every single moral issue.


One will find that the Ten Commandments cover all varieties of "gray areas."

A lessor sin will always prove to be the fruit of a greater moral sin.

Example:

Adam and Eve were punished with death with eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.

Why did this eating of fruit cause the downfall of humanity, and usher death into this world?

Because of the greater sin of Adam's demonstration of lack of love, faith, obedience, and unbelief in the words and commands of his Maker.

Adam broke the first commandment of God, by eating fruit.

Eating fruit, in itself is not a sin, but disobeying God, IS.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> 5They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”
> 
> 6 So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. 7 “Please, my brothers,” he begged, “don’t do such a wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection.”


Peculiar standards.  Who's side is really worse?  A crowd of Sodomists?  Or Lot willing to bargain away his daughters to a horny mob?

Why would a God even want to take sides here?

----------


## otherone

> The Bible doesn't address every single moral issue.  It does address some, and we know that certain things are wrong for everyone, such as murder and stealing.  But since the Bible doesn't address every single moral issue, I don't believe that there's an absolute right and wrong on every single moral issue.


...and now enters the snake oil salesmen.  There are moral absolutes, and they are independent of biblical teachings.  That's the problem with getting all of one's ideas from just one place.

----------


## otherone

> Peculiar standards.  Who's side is really worse?  A crowd of Sodomists?  Or Lot willing to bargain away his daughters to a horny mob?
> 
> Why would a God even want to take sides here?


Entertainment.
Creation is the Almighty's Jerry Springer show.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Entertainment.
> Creation is the Almighty's Jerry Springer show.


Hmm...  or maybe the Gong Show?  

Maybe GOD is like The Unknown Comic?

----------


## otherone

> Hmm...  or maybe the Gong Show?  
> 
> Maybe GOD is like The Unknown Comic?



Sure. Why not.  Read Job.   It's hilarious.

----------


## Brett85

> One will find that the Ten Commandments cover all varieties of "gray areas."
> 
> A lessor sin will always prove to be the fruit of a greater moral sin.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Adam and Eve were punished with death with eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.
> 
> Why did this eating of fruit cause the downfall of humanity, and usher death into this world?
> ...


I think there are quite a few moral issues that really aren't covered in the Bible.  For instance, is it a sin to drink alcohol?  Some Christians believe that it is, and others don't.  It's not an issue that the Bible is explicit about.  I personally think it's just an issue that each individual Christian should decide for themselves based on what the Holy Spirit tells them.

----------


## Nang

> I think there are quite a few moral issues that really aren't covered in the Bible.  For instance, is it a sin to drink alcohol?  Some Christians believe that it is, and others don't.  It's not an issue that the Bible is explicit about.  I personally think it's just an issue that each individual Christian should decide for themselves based on what the Holy Spirit tells them.


I am not addressing explicitness.

It is not against the moral Law of God to drink alcohol.  Not mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

However, drunkenness is addressed and warned against throughout Scripture, for drunkenness is often the cause for breaking any one or more of the Ten Commandments.

----------


## Nang

> Sure. Why not.  Read Job.   It's hilarious.



What do you find "hilarious" about the Book of Job?

----------


## Brett85

> It is not against the moral Law of God to drink alcohol.  Not mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
> 
> However, drunkenness is addressed and warned against throughout Scripture, for drunkenness is often the cause for breaking any one or more of the Ten Commandments.


I agree.

----------


## otherone

> What do you find "hilarious" about the Book of Job?


Nothing.
Confucius say, "Never use sarcasm around literalist."

----------


## Nang

> Peculiar standards.  Who's side is really worse?  A crowd of Sodomists?  Or Lot willing to bargain away his daughters to a horny mob?
> 
> Why would a God even want to take sides here?


Good observation and good question . . .

God kept his earlier eternal promises to Lot, despite Lot's sins, to prove faithful to His Covenant with Abraham, but very severe and sorry temporal consequences still came about because of Lot's luke-warm obedience to God's moral standards.

God is gracious . . but God is not mocked.  

What a man sows, so shall he reap.

----------


## Nang

> Nothing.
> Confucius say, "Never use sarcasm around literalist."


ok . . .

But I am not a "literalist."

And I would still be interested in the cause of your sarcasm.

----------


## otherone

> ok . . .
> 
> But I am not a "literalist."
> 
> And I would still be interested in the cause of your sarcasm.


The bible is not the literal word of god?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Because what they believe will also dictate and mold how they treat others.  We judge how they treat others which is often a fruit of what they believe.  Help them with their belief, and you help them in how they treat others.


And if others decide they need to "help" you with your beliefs, you're Ok with that as well, right? 

Do unto others.

You don't see the arrogance of thinking your beliefs are better than the next guy's?  Or he thinking same toward you?  That's why it's pointless to judge beliefs. Judge fruits instead.

"Watch my feet, not my mouth."

----------


## Nang

> The bible is not the literal word of god?


Of course, but not all passages are to be understood literally . . . e.g. the Book of Revelation is symbolic, figurative, and rarely literal.

IOW's I believe in the literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, without being a "literalist" who disallows analogy, etc. when literalism is made impossible.

----------


## Schifference

> Well, yeah . . .
> 
> He observed more than a _smidgeon_ of corruption, in those places.


Is that sort of corruption morally acceptable today?

----------


## Nang

> Is that sort of corruption morally acceptable today?


Are you asking about homosexuality being morally acceptable by God, today?

----------


## Terry1

> Are you asking about homosexuality being morally acceptable by God, today?


Homosexuality wasn't the only reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, it was just one of the reasons they were all wicked.  This again is your warped version of Gods word.

----------


## Schifference

> Homosexuality wasn't the only reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, it was just one of the reasons they were all wicked.  This again is your warped version of Gods word.


What were the other reasons God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah? Was homosexuality biblically moral back in Sodom & Gomorrah? Is it moral today?

----------


## Terry1

> What were the other reasons God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah??


Sodom and Gomorrah was a terrible place where they tortured people who didn't follow their rules and persecuted people who believed in God.  They did a lot of horrible things to and with each other and no--it wasn't all about homosexuality like so many uninformed so-called Christians would like to believe.  They used to do things like cover people with honey, nail them to crosses and let the bees and animals sting and bite them to death.  They had many torture techniques they performed on people.  They were pure evil and that's why God destroyed them. 




> Was homosexuality biblically moral back in Sodom & Gomorrah? Is it moral today?


Don't get me wrong here Schiff--I love gay people and wish them nothing but goodness and kindness, but biblically--it's like any other sin that needs to be acknowledged, realizing this isn't something God wants His children doing.  

You know as well as anyone else here that morality is relative depending on what people believe and whatever their frame of reference is.  If one believes in the God of the Bible--then they must also realize when they're doing something that goes against that belief.  We're either true to ourselves and our beliefs or we're not.  It's everyone's freedom to choose in this life which path they want to take.  After all---the only person we'll all be accountable to in the end is God--He is the ultimate judge--if one retains that belief.

Christians aren't supposed to judge people because they're living a certain way.  What our real calling is--is to tell them about a better way--a better life and sow seeds of love and kindness.  If they choose to go another way then--that's their choice and freedom to do so and we simply leave them to God peacefully.  That is what a real true believer is and how they're supposed to witness to those who don't believe in or understand who God is.

----------


## VIDEODROME

The Lord is very particular about what people do when they're naked.  

Is Cunnilingus moral?

----------


## Brett85

> The Lord is very particular about what people do when they're naked.  
> 
> Is Cunnilingus moral?


Yes, as long as it's a married couple doing it.

----------


## Terry1

> The Lord is very particular about what people do when they're naked.  
> 
> Is Cunnilingus moral?


I wish now I hadn't googled that.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I wish now I hadn't googled that.


Sry.  I didn't mean to cause awkward moments especially if someone did a Google Image search while in the coffee shop or something.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I wish now I hadn't googled that.


Is interesting the picture that was chosen for the wiki page. Getting back to the married aspect of it that traditional conservative mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunnilingus

----------


## Brett85

> I wish now I hadn't googled that.


I made the same mistake.

----------


## Terry1

> I made the same mistake.


I'm glad you cleared that up because I was wondering how you knew what that was without Googling it.   I was going to ask VIDEODROME the same thing but I was too lazy to type out his username and didn't want to call him "VD" cause that doesn't sound right either.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is Hetero Porn more acceptable morally than Gay Porn?

----------


## Terry1

> Is Hetero Porn more acceptable morally than Gay Porn?


Oh no--not gonna Google that one either.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I found the story about Terry1's corrupt Deacon interesting.  Somehow this guy completely missed the memo on Morality?  Or he knew he was being immoral but him or his wife just really wanted to fix up their house and get a new pool.  

In light of a story like this, I tend to look at Morality as a list of Commands, but this needs be backed up with critical thinking.  I think just giving people a list of DOs and DON'Ts are just rules with no meaning or comprehension.  If anything, such lists create resentment in many people toward whatever authority made them.  

Morality or Ethics really has to be explored and people need to think about this stuff for any of it to sink in.  This also goes beyond the mere consequence of Punishment whether it's in the the Afterlife or with more Earthly Authorities.   Reward vs. Punishment is a teaching tool used when you think the people are just stupid and not up to more sophisticated thinking.  

It could be worth considering this Deacon's actions and how this was a very human failing of them to do this.  I guess the Deacon came into possession of this money and knew he could use it responsibly or give in to Desire for the fleeting pleasure of nice new things.  This is unbelievably short sighted.  Did he or his wife even consider the stress of covering up a lie like this for years?  The truth of this coming out one way or another seems inevitable.  Even if they evaded any kind of punishment from the Law, were they prepared to see their status disappear when the congregation eventually found out?  Or become alienated from their own daughters?  

You can consider this situation even without Moral Law.  This kind of act is so immature, putting so much at stake for shiny new toys, I'd question their mental health.  This gets to an area that Morality is almost hopeless to address.  

In another thread I posted this Meme pic of a cat going "YOU GOT ME RIBBONS OMG OMG.".  Somewhere deep down inside some people, they're emotionally a lot like that Cat, even if it's expressed in a more clever human way.  They see $#@! they want badly and the gears in their mind start spinning and somehow higher thinking and better judgement are unable to put the brakes on it. 

Good examples of this are Gambling Addicts in Casinos.  Go ahead and tell them they're immoral.  They may have a Moral Compass and even know what they're doing is self destructive.  The mind is a powerful and strange thing and it can sometimes just turn on itself.  Telling people rules to follow is useless when they've compromised their own mental faculties.  

Do I have a point here?  I guess to me Morality seems like a Christian idea saying eventually you will be punished for you're sins or reap what you sow.  It doesn't seem adequate as a Guide to better living on it's own though.  I do tend to think Eastern Religion / Buddhism tried to explain this as following a Path.  Their teachings also caution people against the dangers of Desire, Attachment, and Anger.  It seems to me they were aware of human failings in a more psychological way and wanted people to train their minds to avoid these pitfalls.  Often, they used Meditation or other mental exercises.  I've heard some Buddhists create elaborate sand paintings and destroy them to teach a lesson on Impermanence. 

I suppose the Commandment against Coveting touches on Attachment, but with no deeper explanation, many people just don't get it.  It has no impact.  Also, many people can Covet, but have no such problems like this Deacon.  They "Keep up with the Joneses" legitimately through their own success.  So maybe it's not so much that Coveting is plain bad, but it is a potential danger.  You can Desire nice things your neighbors have, but you should be aware that Desire is potentially dangerous if you let it run amock overriding better judgment.  


NOTE:  Not promoting a conversion to Buddhism here, but I do find their point of view on many things interesting.

----------


## Terry1

> I found the story about Terry1's corrupt Deacon interesting.  Somehow this guy completely missed the memo on Morality?  Or he knew he was being immoral but him or his wife just really wanted to fix up their house and get a new pool.  
> 
> In light of a story like this, I tend to look at Morality as a list of Commands, but this needs be backed up with critical thinking.  I think just giving people a list of DOs and DON'Ts are just rules with no meaning or comprehension.  If anything, such lists create resentment in many people toward whatever authority made them.  
> 
> Morality or Ethics really has to be explored and people need to think about this stuff for any of it to sink in.  This also goes beyond the mere consequence of Punishment whether it's in the the Afterlife or with more Earthly Authorities.   Reward vs. Punishment is a teaching tool used when you think the people are just stupid and not up to more sophisticated thinking.  
> 
> It could be worth considering this Deacon's actions and how this was a very human failing of them to do this.  I guess the Deacon came into possession of this money and knew he could use it responsibly or give in to Desire for the fleeting pleasure of nice new things.  This is unbelievably short sighted.  Did he or his wife even consider the stress of covering up a lie like this for years?  The truth of this coming out one way or another seems inevitable.  Even if they evaded any kind of punishment from the Law, were they prepared to see their status disappear when the congregation eventually found out?  Or become alienated from their own daughters?  
> 
> You can consider this situation even without Moral Law.  This kind of act is so immature, putting so much at stake for shiny new toys, I'd question their mental health.  This gets to an area that Morality is almost hopeless to address.  
> ...


I was basically trying to say that by my own observations through the years and experiences with the church of four walls is that--if people are expecting to find better people in the church of four walls than they do at work, the grocery store or in every day life--they're going to be very disappointed, because people don't automatically change because they go to church because people go for different reasons and the same for those who don't go for certain reasons.  

Most of the people I've been led spiritually to witness to weren't in the church--I ran into them through other events and circumstances.  Some people need the church of four walls and it's their calling to be there and attend---some haven't been called to do that just the same.  People are just people no matter what they believe.  If they're being drawn to God--they'll be led to someone God is using as His witness no matter where that is.  We live our own convictions and witness the Lord.

I had a very close friend, she was from China.  Her and her husband had a great restaurant.  She was an easy convert to Christianity.  She used to worship Buddha.  She even made my favorite dish and sacrificed that to Buddha one day as I was there to witness this.  I said to her, hey Chuga--is he going to finish that or are you just going to toss that out.  She said do you want it?  I said yeah because why waste my favorite Chinese dish on a guy who can't appreciate it. LOL   We used to laugh and talk for hours sometimes.  She finally came around and became a Christian later.

This sort of reminded me about the Bible story of the show bread that was meant as a sacrifice when there were hungry people who needed that food to eat.

----------


## VIDEODROME

That's interesting.  It seems like both Christianity and Buddhism have things added to them over the centuries.  I'm not sure sacrificing things to the Buddha is really a core part of that belief.  It almost seems like Buddhism with a dash of Shinto.  

If Buddha has attained Nirvana he has no need of someone's food.

----------


## Terry1

> That's interesting.  It seems like both Christianity and Buddhism have things added to them over the centuries.  I'm not sure sacrificing things to the Buddha is really a core part of that belief.  It almost seems like Buddhism with a dash of Shinto.  
> 
> If Buddha has attained Nirvana he has no need of someone's food.


Yeah, she did that and had something smoking there too, I can't remember what that was.  But I do remember her chanting and raising her arms.  I was amused at her.  Ole Buddha lost out on that meal--it was good!

----------


## VIDEODROME

I don't get it.  The Buddha is not supposed to be a Deity.  He was a Human Being.  He is just supposed to have reached a higher potential or Enlightenment.  

I suppose it all starts in a simple way.  A person has a statue of the Buddha only because he is a revered Guide and you look to him for inspiration, not worship.  Overtime this things get mixed up.  

Somewhat the same even for The Tao.  People wanted to use the concept for absurd chemistry or alchemy. 

So who knows how far Christianity may have strayed from it's original core teachings.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't get it.  The Buddha is not supposed to be a Deity.  He was a Human Being.  He is just supposed to have reached a higher potential or Enlightenment.  
> 
> I suppose it all starts in a simple way.  A person has a statue of the Buddha only because he is a revered Guide and you look to him for inspiration, not worship.  Overtime this things get mixed up.  
> 
> Somewhat the same even for The Tao.  People wanted to use the concept for absurd chemistry or alchemy. 
> 
> So who knows how far Christianity may have strayed from it's original core teachings.


Yeah, but don't they set bowls of food down in front of the statue of Buddha in China and bow down and pray to him?  I know I've seen pictures of this.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well, as we've seen here, there are different denominations of Christianity.  The same goes for Buddhism.  

This is also probably very similar to why Christian Holidays have weird $#@! like the Easter Bunny.  Buddhist teachings probably bumped into practicing Polytheists who made him into another God.

----------


## Terry1

> Well, as we've seen here, there are different denominations of Christianity.  The same goes for Buddhism.  
> 
> This is also probably very similar to why Christian Holidays have weird $#@! like the Easter Bunny.  Buddhist teachings probably bumped into practicing Polytheists who made him into another God.


True.  Phalliscism is something that's penetrated a lot of Christianity and I'm sure that a lot of people don't understand a lot of the symbolism that goes with phalliscism.   Symbology is actually an interesting subject, because it explains where a lot of these rituals, practices, customs and holidays that support them came from.  Most of them revolve around mysticism and the worship of the solstices and are rooted in ancient Babylonian culture.

----------


## otherone

> True.  Phalliscism is something that's penetrated a lot of Christianity


I see what you did there....

----------


## Terry1

> I see what you did there....



Whoops--

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I see what you did there....


I got Terry1 looking up porn.

----------


## Terry1

> I got Terry1 looking up porn.


LOL---Yeah, I'm less curious about those big words you post now than I was before.

----------

