Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Destinyjesus3000]

Hi i want to make it personal, Again my name is Aaron, i will be participating on this site for the long Haul, i hope to learn and grow in my christian faith, and i hope to Learn and Grow in different theology and perspectives, and understand the view of the world and of the unsaved.

 

Christians dont always take the best approach in dealing with the Unsaved and so they get attacked, but that will happen either way regardless of approach, we will get attacked even if we agree with an unsaved person. However Christians, as do myself need to be respectful in our approaches, and if i have not i apologize, i want to Learn how to approach people even though believing something different but seeing the other side as well. When we really think about it, we are all more alike than different. We must seek to understand before we are understood i believe that is the appropriate thing to do when discussing things with the unsaved and vise verse. But Then again who am i to say what is appropriate and what is not? This brings me to my Topic.

 

 

 

Who is Moral? What is right and wrong?

 

God Made us so he Wrote the Law on our Hearts Bible says this in Romans 2 :15 " They Demonstrate that Gods Law is written on their hearts for their own thoughts either accuse them, or tell them they are doing right"

 

Everytime we dispute right and wrong we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds on to and not free to individually change this universal law so that everyone else can follow their personal view of it. Every Law has a Law Giver, we all know there is a Moral law, then obviously there is a Moral Law Giver. right? Who said we should help people? is that a universal Moral obligation? who or what woman/man made that obligation then? Even the most remote tribes cut off from civilization observe a moral Code similar to someone else's there may be differences in civil matters but bravery, loyalty, greed etc are universal, if man invented this moral law or code then it would be differ as much as every other thing man has invented and it would no longer be universal but it IS universal so if what someone believes does hold tru to what we know already exits, it should be discarded.

 

We all know whats absolutely wrong, then is there an absolute standard of righteousness. Without this objective standard, any objection is your personal opinion. Granted the unsaved don't need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective morals values exist but in order to ground an objective moral law, then you need to have a Transcendant source of those Values, because universal Moral law transcends humanity, and because a law requires a law giver, then the universal law requires a universal law giver and guess who that is?

[dyanaprajna0]

This is going to be interesting.

[bornnormal]

"Christians dont always take the best approach in dealing with the Unsaved and so they get attacked"

MAYBE if you would stop calling the normal folks (ie. Me) in such a fucking condescending way (unsaved). Then they (me) would care to read the rest of your post...

I don't have to be saved from nothing, thank you!

[bornnormal]

What The Hell is with All the Capitalisation?

[midniterider]

"Granted the unsaved don't need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective morals values exist" - full stop. That's all you need to know. :-)

 

"because universal Moral law transcends humanity" - no it does not. Human beings are the only beings who follow laws. Or ignore laws.

 

Every universal law has a universal law giver? You mean people couldn't figure out on their own that getting killed, raped, maimed, robbed, and cheated was rather unacceptable, hence why dont we make a law about it? Gosh, isnt that what members of congress do all day? Make laws! They are the law-givers! Woohoo!

[mcdaddy]

Typical uneducated, ignorant bullshit. Go read up on your church origins, some ancient hebrew/canaanite mythologies, comparative religion and a fucking science book and become an agnost/atheist like almost everyone else on here. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[bornnormal]

OK, I'm over myself, so:

 

"Everytime we dispute right and wrong we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of"

No. We assume a moral code that is a mixture of:

- our own cultural customs (ie. It's not considered immoral to hate gays in Texas but you would be considered immoral if you would be anti-gay in Holland)

- the prevailing moral zeitgeist (ie. it's immoral to keep slaves now, but it was perfectly OK only a few hundred years ago and even promoted by the church and the bible)

- and the fundamental morals that can be perceived to be engraved by evolution during all those years of successful coexistence between individuals/groups of a species (ie. do not murder/rape/steal are human moral laws, but apes have some very intricate ethical systems as well).

 

"We all know whats absolutely wrong, then is there an absolute standard of righteousness."

No, there isn't. You live in a bubble. Go, travel some and get to know some other cultures. There are huge differences in morality, only a few thousand miles away. And I am certain that you would not even have to go that far. Think of some subcultures in your area. Although I never met one, I am fairly certain that there are many decent, righteous porn stars out there. They just have a different approach on the morality of sex. So maybe a different morality can be found in every household.

[Vigile]

What The Hell is with All the Capitalisation?

 

See?! See?! You attacked him. His martyr complex is justified.

[bornnormal]

What The Hell is with All the Capitalisation?

 

See?! See?! You attacked him. His martyr complex is justified.

Hmm. I did not see that as an attack, only an observation. I thought the middle finger was kind of an attack though.

[Destinyjesus3000]

Im sorry are you stating that culture or society should decide the the Moral law or code of the world? im not speaking of individual laws, im speaking of MORAL laws, greed, bravery, loyalty cowardice, Man did not make these up they were implanted into our Hearts by God. How can culture and societies serve as the source for Objective Moral values for the entire world? Given the fact that many cultures and People who live in America are used to the american court system, some court systems are twisted in other countries, some cultures they love their neighbors and in some they eat them. We all know societies exist, and they can differ quite a lot where their moral framework is concerned. Which one is the right choice in which the entire World must act upon as an absolute right or wrong? If a singular culture cannot be chosen as the Moral standard for the world, then another possibility is just to let each culture decide on morality, and yet this becomes an issue because unless human beings around the world want to turn a blind eye to customs such as widow burning (a practice where a living wife is burned alive, with he deceased husband) The problem of even deciding what is a moral Law for the world to abide by within a culture becomes problematic, if the majority rules that rape is good does that make it morally good?

[bornnormal]

There are no Objective Moral Values^TM ! Get over it!

We are really only an immature civilization. Maybe one day we will have a uniform set of values laid down, and accepted throughout the world, but that is many generations away.

...and to remind you! You did not address any of my claims, you just burped up some bullshit that reinforces your flawed logic and virtually nonexistent knowledge on the topic. That is what everyone around here calls ignorance!

...and we loathe that

[Vigile]

Im sorry are you stating that culture or society should decide the the Moral law or code of the world? im not speaking of individual laws, im speaking of MORAL laws, greed, bravery, loyalty cowardice, Man did not make these up they were implanted into our Hearts by God. How can culture and societies serve as the source for Objective Moral values for the entire world? Given the fact that many cultures and People who live in America are used to the american court system, some court systems are twisted in other countries, some cultures they love their neighbors and in some they eat them. We all know societies exist, and they can differ quite a lot where their moral framework is concerned. Which one is the right choice in which the entire World must act upon as an absolute right or wrong? If a singular culture cannot be chosen as the Moral standard for the world, then another possibility is just to let each culture decide on morality, and yet this becomes an issue because unless human beings around the world want to turn a blind eye to customs such as widow burning (a practice where a living wife is burned alive, with he deceased husband)

 

*yawn*

 

The difference between reality and what your pastor is telling you my man is vast.

 

 

The problem of even deciding what is a moral Law for the world to abide by within a culture becomes problematic, if the majority rules that rape is good does that make it morally good?

 

This is actually a pretty good observation, however. You are correct that morality isn't entirely based on majority rule. Personally, I believe a good moral system is one that does not harm others. Rape, in general harms. Even rape is not absolute, however. If I told you to rape a person or I will push a button and destroy everyone in the entire state of Texas, what would be your moral responsibility in this situation? On one hand your actions would harm one. On the other hand, your inaction would harm many. What say you? (Don't bother telling me the moral obligation is on me the one who threatens. Clearly I'm evil here in this scenario. Thus the ball is in your court.)

[bornnormal]

I did not know what widow burning is, so I looked it up:

"Satī (Devanagari: सती, the feminine of sat "true"; also called suttee)^[5] was a religious funeral practice among some Indian communities in which a recently widowed woman would have immolated herself on her husband’s funeral pyre."

"The practice had been banned several times, with the current ban dating to 1829 by the British."

"The law now makes no distinction between passive observers to the act and active promoters of the event; all are supposed to be held equally guilty."

 

Where the fuck do you get all these stories from? Who told you that this topic has any relevance in the discussion about morals in the 21st century?

[Deva]

Human beings constructed moral codes. Human beings wrote the Bible. Its human all the way. As for the burning wives example (illegal in India), we have heard it many times here, as Christians try to act all superior about what can only be "western civilization". Tell the American Indians about how the "civilization" of Bible God treated them, then get back to us.

 

In the meantime, go preach crazy elsewhere, we are all stocked up.

[Realist]

Im sorry are you stating that culture or society should decide the the Moral law or code of the world? im not speaking of individual laws, im speaking of MORAL laws, greed, bravery, loyalty cowardice, Man did not make these up they were implanted into our Hearts by God. How can culture and societies serve as the source for Objective Moral values for the entire world? Given the fact that many cultures and People who live in America are used to the american court system, some court systems are twisted in other countries, some cultures they love their neighbors and in some they eat them. We all know societies exist, and they can differ quite a lot where their moral framework is concerned. Which one is the right choice in which the entire World must act upon as an absolute right or wrong? If a singular culture cannot be chosen as the Moral standard for the world, then another possibility is just to let each culture decide on morality, and yet this becomes an issue because unless human beings around the world want to turn a blind eye to customs such as widow burning (a practice where a living wife is burned alive, with he deceased husband) The problem of even deciding what is a moral Law for the world to abide by within a culture becomes problematic, if the majority rules that rape is good does that make it morally good?

 

....

 

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.” Arthur C Clarke.

[Onyx]

What a smilingly nasty message of conversion you have here. Until you drop the conversion angle, I'm not going to talk to you about the complex philosophical issue of absolutism/relativism in morality.

[JadedAtheist]

We all know whats absolutely wrong, then is there an absolute standard of righteousness.

 

We do now? Tell me, if you were standing in front of a mine shaft and a cart all of a sudden broke loose and started flying down towards innocent people, what would you do if the only intervention available to you was to switch its path? In the direction it's heading, it'll kill 5 people, the other it'll kill a single person but you can make the decision? What would you do? What is the absolute moral position to take here (chapter and verse please)?

[Antlerman]

Destiny, why do you need some external law from a sky God to keep you behaving properly in society? Don't you have love in your own heart?

[dyanaprajna0]

Wait for it, wait for it...(deep breath in)...TROLL!!! Seriously dude, are you even reading what's being said? You're surely not paying attention or putting any thought into it. Are you going to debate, or just spout your nonsense? I need to know, so I know whether to waste my time or not.

[hereticzero]

There is no world of the unsaved only the imaginative world of religious minds at work. History has proven that Christianity never had the high ground for morals.

[bornagainathiest]

Aaron,

 

Others here have correctly questioned you on the unfounded assertions you've made in your opening message - so I won't duplicate their words. Instead, I'll ask you to help me out with this issue...

 

What extra-Biblical, objective evidence can you cite for the existence of the Christian God that you assert created us?

 

I ask, because you seem to take it as a given that a such exists.

If you believe so, purely by faith, that's ok. Whatever floats your boat. However, personal faith is a purely subjective matter. The fact that you believe something doesn't automatically require me to believe it too - just because you do. Nope. Likewise, I can't expect you to believe something that I do, purely on the basis of my personal faith in it, right?

 

The common denominator between us is objective evidence. Therefore, would you please be so kind as to answer my above question.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[hereticzero]

Im sorry are you stating that culture or society should decide the the Moral law or code of the world? im not speaking of individual laws, im speaking of MORAL laws, greed, bravery, loyalty cowardice, Man did not make these up they were implanted into our Hearts by God. How can culture and societies serve as the source for Objective Moral values for the entire world? Given the fact that many cultures and People who live in America are used to the american court system, some court systems are twisted in other countries, some cultures they love their neighbors and in some they eat them. We all know societies exist, and they can differ quite a lot where their moral framework is concerned. Which one is the right choice in which the entire World must act upon as an absolute right or wrong? If a singular culture cannot be chosen as the Moral standard for the world, then another possibility is just to let each culture decide on morality, and yet this becomes an issue because unless human beings around the world want to turn a blind eye to customs such as widow burning (a practice where a living wife is burned alive, with he deceased husband) The problem of even deciding what is a moral Law for the world to abide by within a culture becomes problematic, if the majority rules that rape is good does that make it morally good?

God did not implant anything in our heads. (The Christian church beat it into us over thousands of years of religious persecution.) You haven't proven your god exists. All you are is just one more Real Christian™ bringing us heathens the True Message™ of the one and only True Jesus™ of which we have obviously heard nothing about and you make up as you go</insert sarcasm where appropriate>. You obviously believe other cultures' court systems are twisted except for the good ol' US of A's court system. Does that mean you believe only our court system is perfect? If you do, you are greatly mistaken. I would tell you to ask any of those who were innocent yet convicted and executed by our god-given court system but since it was given to us by god you probably think they deserved it anyway? Sadistic laws are the result of sadistic people and their imaginings of a sadistic god, a lot like the Christian one. These days Christian sadists believe that to help the hungry is a socialist doctrine to feed the hungry in public parks or to pass out food near tourist attractions. We sure don't want to ruin someone's vacation by lining up a bunch of raggedly dressed people and feeding them where it might make someone unhappy and hurt their itsy bitsy feelings. If anything, history has proven Christianity has no moral compass.

 

What custom has widow burning or this another one of your made up theories? I haven't heard of anyone burning a widow because her husband died. Christians came from America to Africa where they helped pass laws that make it acceptable to rape lesbians in order to cure them of their lesbianism. These are Christian laws being passed because they are inspired by the god American Christians brought them.

 

Cultures have their own gods, which is yours? Sorry, I keep forgetting you have no proof yours exists either. Oops, I forgot you have the true story of the talking snake giving a girl a magic apple and that some how proves your god exists.

 

What does your prophet Jeremiah say about the law of god? Or do you read your babble at all? How do you read it, a chapter or book at a time or only the warm and fuzzy parts that agree with your church doctrine?

[hereticzero]

I did not know what widow burning is, so I looked it up:

"Satī (Devanagari: सती, the feminine of sat "true"; also called suttee)^[5] was a religious funeral practice among some Indian communities in which a recently widowed woman would have immolated herself on her husband’s funeral pyre."

"The practice had been banned several times, with the current ban dating to 1829 by the British."

"The law now makes no distinction between passive observers to the act and active promoters of the event; all are supposed to be held equally guilty."

 

Where the fuck do you get all these stories from? Who told you that this topic has any relevance in the discussion about morals in the 21st century?

And, what about human sacrifice. The Christian OT has a story of a young girl who was sacrificed to the Christian god in order for her father to save face and keep his oath he made after a hard day's work of murdering innocent people in the land god gave the Jews. Where does genocide fit in the Christian doctrine of individual health care?

[dyanaprajna0]

I did not know what widow burning is, so I looked it up:

"Satī (Devanagari: सती, the feminine of sat "true"; also called suttee)^[5] was a religious funeral practice among some Indian communities in which a recently widowed woman would have immolated herself on her husband’s funeral pyre."

"The practice had been banned several times, with the current ban dating to 1829 by the British."

"The law now makes no distinction between passive observers to the act and active promoters of the event; all are supposed to be held equally guilty."

 

Where the fuck do you get all these stories from? Who told you that this topic has any relevance in the discussion about morals in the 21st century?

And, what about human sacrifice. The Christian OT has a story of a young girl who was sacrificed to the Christian god in order for her father to save face and keep his oath he made after a hard day's work of murdering innocent people in the land god gave the Jews. Where does genocide fit in the Christian doctrine of individual health care?

 

I think it's subsidized.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

universal law requires a universal law giver and guess who that is?

Guess not the Bible, since its law is based on old semitic and middle eastern law, which was made by people because they got sick of people stealing (most early laws were about theft).

 

There are no universal laws.

 

Biblical law is an offshoot of other regional bronze age law ideals. It shows especially when you read things like "eye for an eye" (Also found in the Babylonian lawtext Hammurabi's Code). Also, the claim that its divine in origin isn't unique to Biblical Law, Babylonian law was identical in that way, just read Hammurabi's Code, it claims that the Gods themselves gave the law to Hammurabi, to bring order to the people of Babylon.