Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
It's possible though that you don't understand me, so I will clarify. The morality, or "perfect will of God" as St. Paul put it, was always there, but God gave a lesser version appropriate for the times , intending to bring them out of it in the future .

Augustine felt that human beings were dumbed down from sin, so the right thing isn't obvious to them. The word "wisdom" has relevance here. From the NT:
"But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and sincere." From the other lines as well around it, it seems that Paul thought a person who is like this - arriving at perfection - would have this intuitive ability within to know how they should conduct themselves worthily, and would live in such an excellent manner. They would be able to apply that finer morality in less obvious instances , and so live a perfect life.
 
grah33 said:
Now you're making me go around the mountain again. A few seconds I will, but this week I'll be getting into a new gear for Lent. Those verses do show that a lesser form of morality was needed to deal with the times, so don't put God in a box. And I'm glad it's in there, since everyone asks that question. Nicely answered for all.
Click to expand...

You are completely confused. These are your words:

grah33 said:
I meant that morality is morality; right and wrong doesn't change, it's always the same.
Click to expand...

A lesser form of morality vs. morality is morality
to deal with the times vs. it's always the same

so don't put God in a box: I haven't brought God into the argument at all. You are the one boxing yourself in with your contradictory statements.

To be honest there is no point arguing or discussing any of this with you. Your statements are completely belief based, incoherent at times, contradictory within themselves and devoid of any historical or factual underpinning.
 
bellenuit said:
To be honest there is no point arguing or discussing any of this with you. Your statements are completely belief based, incoherent at times, contradictory within themselves and devoid of any historical or factual underpinning.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up. Saves me typing a response.

jog on
duc
 
grah33 said:
It's possible though that you don't understand me, so I will clarify. The morality, or "perfect will of God" as St. Paul put it, was always there, but God gave a lesser version appropriate for the times , intending to bring them out of it in the future .
Click to expand...
Perhaps we do understand you.
This God of yours is willing to impose a lesser standard of morality so that his supposed flock will understand their sins or whatever "bring them out of it" means.
So rather than set a standard for perfection, it's more wise to set a lesser standard... for reasons which are not clear.
I would love to hear the argument for how condoning what is not moral is an appropriate way to improve morality.
Laud not, forbid!
 
bellenuit said:
You are completely confused. These are your words:



A lesser form of morality vs. morality is morality
to deal with the times vs. it's always the same

so don't put God in a box: I haven't brought God into the argument at all. You are the one boxing yourself in with your contradictory statements.

To be honest there is no point arguing or discussing any of this with you. Your statements are completely belief based, incoherent at times, contradictory within themselves and devoid of any historical or factual underpinning.
Click to expand...

I won't argue about words, as that would be a waste of time. Although you've made me realize that the NT does a great job of explaining morality and its constancy over time, and variation (in terms of prescribed codes to follow). The NT does a great job in knocking off the atheist's argument - that morals aren't constant, therefore God doesn't exist.
 
rederob said:
Perhaps we do understand you.
This God of yours is willing to impose a lesser standard of morality so that his supposed flock will understand their sins or whatever "bring them out of it" means.
So rather than set a standard for perfection, it's more wise to set a lesser standard... for reasons which are not clear.
I would love to hear the argument for how condoning what is not moral is an appropriate way to improve morality.
Laud not, forbid!
Click to expand...
NT will give you the answer, easily enough:
"
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
"
Also Christ's explanation for the changes ;it was simply to hard for them to follow in Moses's time. It's a bit like taking baby steps , and then bigger steps later on when you're ready.
 
grah33 said:
The NT does a great job in knocking off the atheist's argument - that morals aren't constant, therefore God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
There is no such argument that I am aware.
Typically morality is measured at societal levels, and standards of behaviour across different societies can be very different. Determining right and wrong from moral positions, on the basis of what society accepts, can be quite different from the humanist's position.
A problem with the God idea is that about half the world does not ascribe to it and there is no evidence that their morality suffers as a result (and I am not talking about people without belief).
 
grah33 said:
Also Christ's explanation for the changes ;it was simply to hard for them to follow in Moses's time. It's a bit like taking baby steps , and then bigger steps later on when you're ready.
Click to expand...
So what was not moral was ok?
Yes, it's not acceptable, but don't worry. You can repent any time you like and still go to heaven.
qed
 
rederob said:
So what was not moral was ok?
Yes, it's not acceptable, but don't worry. You can repent any time you like and still go to heaven.
qed
Click to expand...

There is a metaphor for it in the OT, which foreshadowed this simplicity; they merely looked up at the pole with the bronze serpent suspended on it, and were saved. So yes, it's that easy. Anyone who wants it can get it. Although for many it isn't so easy.
 
grah33 said:
There is a metaphor for it in the OT, which foreshadowed this simplicity; they merely looked up at the pole with the bronze serpent suspended on it, and were saved. So yes, it's that easy. Anyone who wants it can get it. Although for many it isn't so easy.
Click to expand...
So much for your arguments - they fall apart at the seams.
And yes, it's easy for anyone to repent: do you have a different bible to everyone else?
 
 
I thought it happened in Pakistan. I found the following link.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...fter-abducting-and-killing-boy-15-423545.html
Racists are jailed for life after abducting and killing boy, 15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
List of countries by intentional homicide rate

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/spreading-fear-how-social-media-contributes-fear-crime

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/safest-countries-in-the-world/
Revealed: The world's safest (and least safe) countries

https://muscatdaily.com/Archive/Oma...male-tourists-second-in-the-world-Survey-5bcf
OMAN SAFEST ARAB COUNTRY FOR FEMALE TOURISTS; SECOND IN THE WORLD: SURVEY
 
Tom Elliott says there are ‘astonishing inconsistencies’ with our reaction to attack on Christians

 
Religion and fundamentalism. How literally should we quote the Bible ?

Check out this letter to a famed Christian broadcaster..

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination…End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

www.americamagazine.org

Dr. Laura and Leviticus

A healthy antidote to Scriptural literalism of any sort
www.americamagazine.org www.americamagazine.org
 


Right or wrong this is guessology as no one really knows. So maybe the speaker should mention this and not tell people it is definitely so. He is a very good speaker so make your own choice.
 
Last edited:
Top