Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHumans decide what is morally acceptable.
Right or wrong exists because of us. How could it exist outside of ourselves?
Humans decide what is morally acceptable. (And this moral acceptability may very well change over time). And this doesn't mean, as humans, we each have a unique morality. For society to work, the majority, by and large, share the same moral outlook. (Murder is wrong etc).
Sorry but torturing babies for fun is always wrong regardless of what humans decide.
Originally posted by finnegan
We do need a moral code or a basis for morality. The God of the bible cannot be used for that purpose. At the minimum, the bible is incapable of being used morally without a lot of careful selection and interpretation. If we believe in an absolute moral code, then we should only follow God if we decide He is behaving morally and not when He behaves immorally. That also implies that God can after all be judged in terms of a moral code and hence that He can be shown at times to have acted immorally, which yet again invalidates the use of God as the source of morality.
Some comment:
We do need a moral code or a basis for morality.
------------------------------------------------------------------
We do. And the one we have from God functions to conclude that ALL have sinned. All may have not sinned against the law of God in the same transgression. But ALL have sinned.
The Old Testament established God's hatred for sin - #1, and it establishes that ALL are in need of forgiveness, justification, and reconciliation to God.
The God of the bible cannot be used for that purpose. At the minimum, the bible is incapable of being used morally without a lot of careful selection and interpretation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible does not suggest that difficult moral problems do not exist anymore than difficult mathematical problems do not exist.
That there are some rather difficult situations is frankly very clearly spelled out in the history of Israel.
But the main two things above prepare us for salvation in a Perfect Man against Whom the law of God had no claim of infraction.
Again:
1.) All have broken God's law.
2.) All are in need of forgiveness, redemption, justification before God.
If we believe in an absolute moral code, then we should only follow God if we decide He is behaving morally and not when He behaves immorally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Old Testament establishes that we cannot follow this code perfectly.
There is One Who was perfect.
This One -
1.) Died a redeeming death in our place; a substitutionary death of an innocent and completely Righteous One on our behalf.
2.) Transfigured Himself into a form in which He can live again, yet THIS time - live in us.
Arguments of this kind often arrive at a complaint that we cannot live a code by God.
But the salvation is that the Perfect One - provide for our justification firstly, and secondly live again His own God pleasing life from within us.
The law of God is still here. But we receive the resurrected and available Person Jesus Christ and learn to walk in Him.
"the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
He comes into the forgiven sinner and blends His perfect life with our fallen one.
Through a process of sanctification we learn to walk by this life giving Holy Spirit.
" But I say, walk by the Spirit [the life giving Spirit that the last Adam became] and you shall by no means fulfill the lust of the flesh." (Gal. 5:16)
Two Steps:
1.) Eternal Redemption -
2.) Receiving a new divine life in the form of life giving Spirit - Jesus Christ in a form available to join to a man's innermost spiritual being, in order to walk in Him, walk with Him, walk in oneness with Him, have Him walk in your walk.
That also implies that God can after all be judged in terms of a moral code and hence that He can be shown at times to have acted immorally, which yet again invalidates the use of God as the source of morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see it this way.
Difficult situational issues have been clearly expressed throughout the Bible.
Yet a Perfect Man has nevertheless been demonstrated and vindicated by resurrection.
Paul says that if we receive Him and walk by the Spirit we will by no means fulfill the sin craving lusts of the fallen humanity.
Of course this walk is a growing and deepening walk. As natural life grows and matures and consummates so does the new life imparted into man which is Christ in His form as life giving Spirit. He supplies the perfect Jesus. He enables and supplies with the life power to live.
This whole matter of Christ Himself becoming our God pleasing walk is called Grace.
Difficult situation still exist. But one pioneer of this new walk (the Apostle Paul) constantly remind the believers that Christ is with them - in their spirit.
Here we see him saying that the saved man is JOINED to the Lord Jesus - "organically" -
" He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
And here are a number of places he REMINDS the Christian that the grace of Christ, like a divine power steering, is with the believer's innermost being.
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen." (Gal. 6:18)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." (Phil. 4:23)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." (Philemon 25)
"The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22)
Jesus Christ the Perfect God-man can live in us today.
I mean today.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeRight or wrong exists because of us. How could it exist outside of ourselves?
Right or wrong exists because of us. How could it exist outside of ourselves?
Humans decide what is morally acceptable. (And this moral acceptability may very well change over time). And this doesn't mean, as humans, we each have a unique morality. For society to work, the majority, by and large, share the same moral outlook. (Murder is wrong etc).
Not if you believe that right is right even if everyone is against it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is for it.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkCan you provide an example of where 'right is right even if everyone is against it?'
[b]Right or wrong exists because of us. How could it exist outside of ourselves?
Not if you believe that right is right even if everyone is against it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is for it.[/b]
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThat is a hard thing to ask. If there was such an instance he would be a part of the group of the total "everyone" being against it. Then of course he would not say it is right.
Can you provide an example of where 'right is right even if everyone is against it?'
How about a matter which is right, in which a very large number of people are against it, perhaps even a majority ?
Originally posted by sonshipHey, it was fetchmyjunk himself who spoke of 'everyone.' I agree the box is a hard one to get out of, but fair's fair, the fellow willing climbed into it.
That is a hard thing to ask. If there was such an instance he would be a part of the group of the total "everyone" being against it. Then of course he would not say it is right.
How about a matter which is right, in which a very large number of people are against it, perhaps even a majority ?
How about another horse joke while we wait?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeEven if everyone is choosing wrong doesn't make it right for you to choose wrong as well. For example if everyone is talking when the teacher told them not to, doesn't mean you should talk with them. The right thing to do would be to show them to stop talking.
Can you provide an example of where 'right is right even if everyone is against it?'
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHow do you know that is the 'right thing to do'? Does it say so in the Bible? Are teachers always right? On what basis did you make the claim?
Even if everyone is choosing wrong doesn't make it right for you to choose wrong as well. For example if everyone is talking when the teacher told them not to, doesn't mean you should talk with them. The right thing to do would be to show them to stop talking.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet's first go back to my original claim that it is always wrong to torture babies for fun regardless of what people think, do you agree or disagree?
How do you know that is the 'right thing to do'? Does it say so in the Bible? Are teachers always right? On what basis did you make the claim?
Our spooky duke friend thinks that things are only wrong if the majority decide it is. In other words if the majority were to decide that it was right, he would be ok with it. How about you?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkStep away sir from the torturing babies example.
Let's first go back to my original claim that it is always wrong to torture babies for fun regardless of what people think, do you agree or disagree?
Our spooky duke friend thinks that things are only wrong if the majority decide it is. In other words if the majority were to decide that it was right, he would be ok with it. How about you?
Why have you abandoned your example of genocide being absolutely wrong, even while holding the belief that biblical genocide was justified, hence invalidating its absolute wrongness?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeStep away sir from the torturing babies example.
Step away sir from the torturing babies example.
Why have you abandoned your example of genocide being absolutely wrong, even while holding the belief that biblical genocide was justified, hence invalidating its absolute wrongness?
Too close to the bone? I will once you tell me why you think it would be ok to torture babies for fun if the majority decided it was right.
Why have you abandoned your example of genocide being absolutely wrong, even while holding the belief that biblical genocide was justified, hence invalidating its absolute wrongness?
We are discussing humans are we not? I still maintain that it is absolutely wrong for humans to decide to commit genocide. When did I justify human decisions to commit it?
You on the other hand would be ok with it if the majority decided it was right?