Why act morally?

[Nang]

For all the people who have it wrong, who have a different understanding of morality than yourself (which I think is actually everyone else, but for the sake of argument let's say there are people with the exact same supernaturally-revealed understanding of morality as you), are they all intentionally lying when they claim that?

There is such a thing as spiritual delusion.

Persons can be very religious, but still depend upon themselves, or make salvation contingent upon their human actions.

It is called "works-righteousness." Humanistic religion.

Or do they also honestly believe that they really have God's revelation? I find it hard to believe that they are all intentionally lying.

They remain in bondage to ungodly delusion. They do not really have comprehension of light from darkness; truth from lies.

And if they honestly believe that they are the ones who have God's revelation, but they are wrong, then how do you know that *you* are not the one who is wrong and honestly believes it?

There is a spiritual plumbline, and it is the Holy Scriptures.

Any confession or teaching of saving faith, must be examined according to and against EVERY WORD WRITTEN BY GOD.

There is no other standard, by which man can confess faith, or stand for faith, but by the absolute, objective Truth of God, as revealed to mankind in the Holy Scriptures . . not in this world or on Judgment Day.

Jesus Christ confessed in His prayer to Father God:

". . Your Word is Truth."

 

[Crashland]

There is a spiritual plumbline, and it is the Holy Scriptures.

Any confession or teaching of saving faith, must be examined according to and against EVERY WORD WRITTEN BY GOD.

There is no other standard, by which man can confess faith, or stand for faith, but by the absolute, objective Truth of God, as revealed to mankind in the Holy Scriptures . . not in this world or on Judgment Day.

Jesus Christ confessed in His prayer to Father God:

". . Your Word is Truth."

I think I see where you are going with that, but there are a lot of Christians who also believe that salvation comes through faith and not works, and that the Word is the Truth, but who have different understandings of morality from you and from each other. Having a delusion means that you truly believe that you know the truth, but you really don't. How do you know whether they are the ones who are deluded, or yourself? And from my perspective on the outside, I see many different Christians (and also people in other religions) all claiming to have faith that they are the ones who have experienced spiritual revelation, and yet so many inconsistencies between everyone. From my perspective this looks exactly what it should look like when everyone has subjective morality but they all believe they are the ones who have the true objective basis.

 

[Nang]

I see many different Christians (and also people in other religions) all claiming to have faith that they are the ones who have experienced spiritual revelation, and yet so many inconsistencies between everyone. From my perspective this looks exactly what it should look like when everyone has subjective morality but they all believe they are the ones who have the true objective basis.

I understand. This is truly the situation.

There must be an objective moral and legal rule, by which various testimonies can be proven true or false.

I contend such deciding testimony, is the Holy Scriptures which are not interpreted by sinful men, but Holy Scriptures that testify and interpret themselves.

It takes holy men, selected by God, to do this holy work . . . II Peter 1:20-21:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy NEVER came by the WILL of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." II Peter 1:20:21

And II Timothy 3:16a says:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . ."

A soul is either gifted with faith by the grace of God to believe, spiritually interpret, and testify to the above truths, according to all the word of God, or not.

 

[Crashland]

I contend such deciding testimony, is the Holy Scriptures which are not interpreted by sinful men, but Holy Scriptures that testify and interpret themselves.

It takes holy men, selected by God, to do this holy work . . . II Peter 1:20-21:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy NEVER came by the WILL of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." II Peter 1:20:21

And II Timothy 3:16a says:

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God . . ."

A soul is either gifted with faith by the grace of God to believe, spiritually interpret, and testify to the above truths, according to all the word of God, or not.

You are both maintaining that God is the source of objective truth, and that it requires a (selective) act of God for a person to be able to know that truth objectively. I'm not sure we can really progress much from there as it looks like it might shift into a discussion about the validity of the Bible, and you are circularly using the Bible as evidence of its own veracity. Exploring why you see the Bible as reliable truth and why I don't see it that way is surely beyond the scope of the topic. I would mention though that this issue raises what I might consider to be paradoxical implications about God judging both groups of people by the same standard - those who he has blessed with his revelation of the truth, and those for whom it is impossible for them to objectively know the truth. If that is the implication, then that itself in my subjective view, does not seem moral.

 

[ewizacft]

They're called philosophers. That's what we're doing right now. Philosophers, like scientists, only discover the laws, they don't create them.

Of course you CAN live your life like there are no moral absolutes. The question is, SHOULD you?

How does one discover a moral law? The questions that I asked, the "you" was "you" (videodrome), not you all. I would like to know how Videodrome would answer these questions because I can not answer the questions for Videodrome. Then I will know what Videodrome believes.

 

[Crashland]

They're called philosophers. That's what we're doing right now. Philosophers, like scientists, only discover the laws, they don't create them.

Of course you CAN live your life like there are no moral absolutes. The question is, SHOULD you?

I would say yes, you should. Living with the perspective that there are no moral absolutes is the equivalent of keeping an open mind that there may be certain things you might want to consider that you haven't yet considered. I would argue that believing that your morality is absolute stifles your ability to think critically about how you evaluate what is moral and your ability to re-evaluate something when necessary. Or if you maintain instead only that there *exist* moral absolutes but that you do not necessarily know them yourself, then that is really functionally no different from the very definition of subjective morality.

 

[otherone]

if you maintain instead only that there *exist* moral absolutes but that you do not necessarily know them yourself, then that is really functionally no different from the very definition of subjective morality.

Congratulations...you've just invented THIS guy:

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Out of all that is created, man alone can communicate using language.

Not true. Many animals (e.g., whales) can communicate via language. It may not be as sophisticated as human language, but it's language nonetheless.

From the beginning God has communicated objective and absolute truths to man, through the spoken and written and incarnated Word.

Amazing!

How do you know He/She/It did? Can you prove God was the author of the words and not man?

 

[VIDEODROME]

The question is can you live your life like there are no moral absolutes? Do you believe that rape is absolutely wrong?

I personally think rape is wrong. Fortunately, I was raised in this time period and society. A variety of influences led me to that conclusion.

Unfortunately, other people arrive at a different conclusion. Some might even claim rape is virtuous if it done to captured enemies or to the women of a rival tribe.

I'm not sure what the importance is of the Absoluteness of certain crimes being wrong. I guess I could arrive at the personal opinion that rape is Absolutely Wrong, but that does not mean that all world societies throughout history agree with me.

 

[Zeeder]

Morality isn't determined by a book. It's determined by the consequences. Why is murder wrong? Because the 10 commandments said so? That's absurd.

If murder was moral, then there would be no people left. That's why it's immoral. Overtime, humans learned this.

The same is true for stealing. Stealing destroys. Our Government steals, which eventually destroys the economy. A society full of thieves crumbles to nothing.

You can call this type of common sense "God" if you want.

 

[Nang]

Not true. Many animals (e.g., whales) can communicate via language. It may not be as sophisticated as human language, but it's language nonetheless.

Yes, it is indeed communication, but it is not language using words, which was my point. Our human ability to use words is unique.

How do you know He/She/It did? Can you prove God was the author of the words and not man?

The proof of God is all around you in the creation. No man (or accident) could have produced this universe. However, Christians do not believe because of proof or even such evidence, but only because God gifts them with faith to believe. Christians live by faith, not by sight.

 

[Nang]

Morality isn't determined by a book. It's determined by the consequences. Why is murder wrong? Because the 10 commandments said so? That's absurd.

If murder was moral, then there would be no people left. That's why it's immoral. Overtime, humans learned this.

The same is true for stealing. Stealing destroys. Our Government steals, which eventually destroys the economy. A society full of thieves crumbles to nothing.

You can call this type of common sense "God" if you want.

There is no disputing that consequences deter crime and immorality . . . sometimes. But consequences fall far short of being absolute.

There is a Psalm (73) in the bible, where a moral man is perplexed by the ease and good life that many immoral, wicked persons enjoy. This vexed the moral man, until God showed him that the immoral only temporarily enjoy life, but then life is taken away from them. The consequences of living a moral, holy, and godly life is everlasting.

The purpose of the Ten Commandments is primarily God's means of revealing to men how to live selflessly. To live for God (the first 5 commandments) and then to live for our fellow man (the last five commandments), instead of living selfishly just for ourselves. Jesus Christ repeated this truth, when He said to love God and to love our fellow man.

This is true, absolute morality that leads to life without end.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The proof of God is all around you in the creation. No man (or accident) could have produced this universe. However, Christians do not believe because of proof or even such evidence, but only because God gifts them with faith to believe. Christians live by faith, not by sight.

I didn't ask if you could prove God exists; I asked if you could prove God was the author of the Bible, so that the moral standards revealed therein are indeed the absolute, objective standards man should follow.

If, as I suspect, it is all based on faith then it is nothing more than subjective morality because it cannot be objectively demonstrated to others.

 

[Nang]

I didn't ask if you could prove God exists; I asked if you could prove God was the author of the Bible, so that the moral standards revealed therein are indeed the absolute, objective standards man should follow.

If, as I suspect, it is all based on faith then it is nothing more than subjective morality because it cannot be objectively demonstrated to others.

This faith to believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ, is not inherent to men, but comes to man from outside himself. God gives men faith; therefore faith is not subjective.

And study of the bible is quite assuring and worth the trouble, for despite its length and the history it covers, and despite the fact that God used men to actually pen it and transcribe it from generation to generation, it proves to be cohesive and without contradiction at all. A bible student finds that any particular verse will stand the scrutiny of all the rest of what is written. IMO, this is supernatural. No author or any other work of literature makes the claim of being inerrant and non-contradictory, and then lives up to it.

Also, God claims to be the author, for He speaks in the first person; He reveals His Son as being Logos; and credits God the Holy Spirit for inspiring the human instruments who wrote the exact words that proceeded from His mouth. Moses and Jesus both said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

And then there are all the prophecies that have come to be exactly as predicted . . .

And there are the miracles recorded therein . . .

If this tome was written by fakes and scoundrels, they did a very big job, and a very good job, of fooling a very numerous people, since the beginning of time!

Do you find anything wrong or worrisome about a person like me, who does believe absolute truth from God has been given by God to mankind in the Holy Scriptures? What harm could be found in believing God condescends to communicate with His creatures by such means?

 

[Crashland]

The proof of God is all around you in the creation. No man (or accident) could have produced this universe.

Just because there are limits to our understanding of the history of the universe, does not mean that the universe as we know it is the result of an all-powerful, perfectly-just sentient being, who for some reason does not require something even higher to explain his existence, who wants to have a relationship with his own creation and who has chosen to reveal himself to humans through certain ancient scrolls.

 

[Crashland]

This faith to believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ, is not inherent to men, but comes to man from outside himself. God gives men faith; therefore faith is not subjective.

And study of the bible is quite assuring and worth the trouble, for despite its length and the history it covers, and despite the fact that God used men to actually pen it and transcribe it from generation to generation, it proves to be cohesive and without contradiction at all. A bible student finds that any particular verse will stand the scrutiny of all the rest of what is written. IMO, this is supernatural. No author or any other work of literature makes the claim of being inerrant and non-contradictory, and then lives up to it.

Yet students of the Koran also claim that the Koran is inerrant, non-contradictory, and lives up to it. Both Christians and Muslims have developed quite elaborate systems of apologetics to try to explain how all the apparent inconsistencies in their holy books are really not inconsistencies if you understand them correctly. Many other religions besides Christianity claim to have inerrant holy texts, and if you talk to them about it they will be happy to address anything in them that you feel is a contradiction, just like you are happy to explain yours. Why should we dismiss their claims and not yours?

And then there are all the prophecies that have come to be exactly as predicted . . .

And there are the miracles recorded therein . . .

The Bible is not unique in this regard. Almost all major religions claim to have fulfilled prophecies and miracles.

If this tome was written by fakes and scoundrels, they did a very big job, and a very good job, of fooling a very numerous people, since the beginning of time!

Isn't this exactly what you think about the Hindu's Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist Tripitaka, and every other religious text from other religions that have undoubtedly fooled BILLIONS of people? Why should we think that about their religious texts and not yours?

Do you find anything wrong or worrisome about a person like me, who does believe absolute truth from God has been given by God to mankind in the Holy Scriptures? What harm could be found in believing God condescends to communicate with His creatures by such means?

The only part about it that I find worrisome is when the Holy Scriptures trump reason and logic when it comes to questions of morality, and when those views are forced on others. And to a lesser extent, when the Holy Scriptures causes a resistance to scientific progress when newly discovered information conflicts with it. Other than that it doesn't really bother me.

 

[Nang]

Just because there are limits to our understanding of the history of the universe, does not mean that the universe as we know it is the result of an all-powerful, perfectly-just sentient being, who for some reason does not require something even higher to explain his existence, who wants to have a relationship with his own creation and who has chosen to reveal himself to humans through certain ancient scrolls.

I cannot think of anything higher God could provide to manifest His Being and Majesty, than His creation and all the wonders existent within.

Our discoveries of the heavens and the earth prove to be inexhaustible, as are His divine attributes!

 

[Nang]

Yet students of the Koran also claim that the Koran is inerrant, non-contradictory, and lives up to it. Both Christians and Muslims have developed quite elaborate systems of apologetics to try to explain how all the apparent inconsistencies in their holy books are really not inconsistencies if you understand them correctly. Many other religions besides Christianity claim to have inerrant holy texts, and if you talk to them about it they will be happy to address anything in them that you feel is a contradiction, just like you are happy to explain yours. Why should we dismiss their claims and not yours?

The Bible is not unique in this regard. Almost all major religions claim to have fulfilled prophecies and miracles.

Isn't this exactly what you think about the Hindu's Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist Tripitaka, and every other religious text from other religions that have undoubtedly fooled BILLIONS of people? Why should we think that about their religious texts and not yours?

These are all excellent arguments, but the Christian will counter that no ~religion~ has any revelation superior to the Christian revelation of the Incarnate Christ; the unique God/Man witnessed and recorded in history as actual and true.

The only part about it that I find worrisome is when the Holy Scriptures trump reason and logic when it comes to questions of morality, and when those views are forced on others.

No Reformer like myself finds any need to "force" belief upon another, for we know that our belief came to us from God, despite and outside of our wills, actions, or efforts. Besides, you voluntarily entered this Religion Forum, surely with some expectation a Christian or two might present some opinions on the subject matter.

And to a lesser extent, when the Holy Scriptures causes a resistance to scientific progress when newly discovered information conflicts with it. Other than that it doesn't really bother me.

I am not a scientist, so am unaware of any such thing. What newly discovered information do you believe the Holy Scriptures resist?

 

[Crashland]

I cannot think of anything higher God could provide to manifest His Being and Majesty, than His creation and all the wonders existent within.

The universe, if anything, would show God's power and his creativity. What I am looking for is something to show his existence. I mean, just look under the tree for evidence that Santa is generous. But that is a moot point if Santa does not exist to begin with.

According to the Bible, God really did not have a problem unequivocally demonstrating his existence in the past. He didn't seem particularly concerned about affecting the Israelites' "free will" of whether to accept him when he literally spoke to Moses or when he put those miracles on full display taking them out of Egypt. But these things do not happen today.

 

[Crashland]

No Reformer like myself finds any need to "force" belief upon another, for we know that our belief came to us from God, despite and outside of our wills, actions, or efforts. Besides, you voluntarily entered this Religion Forum, surely with some expectation a Christian or two might present some opinions on the subject matter.

I was mainly referring to law and the separation of church and state. When people cause the state to endorse a general religious, particular religious, or non-religious view. Or when laws are based on a mainly religious morality (prohibition of gay marriage,..etc). And yes I am aware I am in the minority in this forum and that Christians will present their opinions but that is why I am here. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I am not a scientist, so am unaware of any such thing. What newly discovered information do you believe the Holy Scriptures resist?

Some easy examples would be when we discovered that the universe is not geocentric, when we have used physics to discover the formation of stars, the early history of the universe and the age of the universe, when we have advanced our knowledge of how species change over long periods of time, and certain advances in medical practices.