Morality vs. morality

Well, I suppose any declarative statement is open to discussion.

Bartholomew said:

People can be and are moral without being religious.

Click to expand...

Well, that only holds true if you (if anyone) can tell us what such a "morality" would be based upon.



If that "morality" is merely a human construct ... then it would seem any human would be free to ignore or contradict that supposed morality (and thus Morality would be utterly moot and void)

Mere "popular opinion" or "majority vote" or any other form of solely human consensus doesn't make a thing 'moral' ...

... unless one agrees that a million Nazis thinking it's 'moral' to commit genocide are more 'moral' than one person fighting to save others from genocide (the "good" of the Nazi state be d***ed)

*shrug*

I suppose people into "Science" could object to HARRY POTTER's "magic" content too: How sad (they'd say) that the world's youth are fed such a pernicious concoction of untruth and empty fantasy ... rather than letting their young minds be directed to material fact!

The world's problems cannot be solved by a generation whose minds are shaped to expect fantastical solutions, or believe their woes are caused by evil magics and monsters! tsk tsk!

small axe said:

Well, that only holds true if you (if anyone) can tell us what such a "morality" would be based upon.

Click to expand...

That's a valid and perplexing question, and many, many books have been written addressing that very thing.

The world's problems cannot be solved by a generation whose minds are shaped to expect fantastical solutions, or believe their woes are caused by evil magics and monsters! tsk tsk!

Click to expand...

Nor can the world's problems be solved by those whose minds are shaped to believe that not only are those who disagree with them wrong, but are actually evil. Once you accept that your thinking and God's are in synch, it naturally follows that those who disagree are setting themselves above or against God, and they need to be dealt with summarily. Not a great prescription for world peace.

small axe said:

People can be and are moral without being religious.

Click to expand...

Well, that only holds true if you (if anyone) can tell us what such a "morality" would be based upon.



If that "morality" is merely a human construct ... then it would seem any human would be free to ignore or contradict that supposed morality (and thus Morality would be utterly moot and void)

Mere "popular opinion" or "majority vote" or any other form of solely human consensus doesn't make a thing 'moral' ...

Click to expand...

You know, I can't find the word 'morality' anywhere in the Bible. Morality is the concern with right and wrong, but Jesus wasn't concerned about that. He boiled the Law down into 2 commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. It's not concerned with right and wrong, it's concerned with love.

Interestingly, under Grace, morality IS moot and void. Paul said: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14 and All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. -- 1 Cor 6:12

So yes, it is certainly possible to be moral without being religious. But moral isn't what God is looking for. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one -- Romans 3:10

Non-deist morality is generally based on not hurting people. As is deist morality when you get down to it.

Roger J Carlson said:

You know, I can't find the word 'morality' anywhere in the Bible. Morality is the concern with right and wrong, but Jesus wasn't concerned about that. He boiled the Law down into 2 commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. It's not concerned with right and wrong, it's concerned with love.

Interestingly, under Grace, morality IS moot and void. Paul said: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14 and All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. -- 1 Cor 6:12

So yes, it is certainly possible to be moral without being religious. But moral isn't what God is looking for. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one -- Romans 3:10

Click to expand...

I think I know what you're getting at, Roger, and I'd agree that a person's morality is not what makes him justified in God's eyes. That said, I do think God is concerned with morality as we've defined it in our discussion here. I think He does care if we do right or wrong in the sense that He cares whether or not we obey His commandments. To "love one another" covers a lot of moral ground. If you love someone, you won't steal from them, commit adultery with their spouse, lie about them, etc. Loving God and others is pretty much the fiber of the Ten Commandments. So while we are not under the law positionally, as regards salvation, we are to love God which means obey Him and seek to do what pleases Him. This is how we bear fruit and find joy. (See John 14 and 15:10, 11--"If you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.")

Originally Posted by small axe
Quote:
People can be and are moral without being religious.
Well, that only holds true if you (if anyone) can tell us what such a "morality" would be based upon.



If that "morality" is merely a human construct ... then it would seem any human would be free to ignore or contradict that supposed morality (and thus Morality would be utterly moot and void)

Mere "popular opinion" or "majority vote" or any other form of solely human consensus doesn't make a thing 'moral' ...

Click to expand...

Roger J Carlson said:

You know, I can't find the word 'morality' anywhere in the Bible. Morality is the concern with right and wrong, but Jesus wasn't concerned about that. He boiled the Law down into 2 commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. It's not concerned with right and wrong, it's concerned with love.

Interestingly, under Grace, morality IS moot and void. Paul said: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14 and All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. -- 1 Cor 6:12

So yes, it is certainly possible to be moral without being religious. But moral isn't what God is looking for. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one -- Romans 3:10

Click to expand...

I may be missing your point, sir.

Your answer seems to be based upon what Jesus said,
and about what Paul wrote,
and about what Grace is (and I think you're meaning God's grace) --

Those all seem based on 'religion' ...

... in the sense that if we erase the 'religious' connections to Jesus, God, and Paul ... there's no reason really to care about their opinions about Morality.

I myself quote Gandhi below, he was one moral human being. But really, Morality isn't imo "one person quotes Gandhi and one person quotes Marx ... and one person quotes Jesus ... and thet're all Morally equal because people get to define Morality" etc.

Morality based upon personal whim? Morality based upon personality, ego, or cultural or economic happenstance? That sort of "morality" seems transitory, ephermeral, evanescent and dangerously self-serving ...

As might be all morality based only upon mere human construction, no matter how well-intentioned.

Any supposed morality a mere mortal constructs, I as a mortal think myself free to disagree with (as the context demands) and thus not bound to obey. I return to my examples of Nazi "morality" justifying genocide: I'm free to reject their political morality; it doesn't bind me because it is not morally "better than" me.

Morality originating with the Divine ... that alone is morality "better than" us and so binds us, as I see it.

small axe said:

I may be missing your point, sir.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are.

Your answer seems to be based upon what Jesus said,
and about what Paul wrote,
and about what Grace is (and I think you're meaning God's grace) --

Those all seem based on 'religion' ...

... in the sense that if we erase the 'religious' connections to Jesus, God, and Paul ... there's no reason really to care about their opinions about Morality.

Click to expand...

If you are implying that I believe all religions/philosophies are equally valid, you're wrong. I firmly believe that Christianity is the one true way to God.

However, we're not discussing the truth of Christianity. We're discussing morality. Morality (according to Dictionary.com) is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Many cultures have rules of conduct. Anyone who follows those rules of conduct are moral -- by definition.

So can we determine which person is more moral? Oddly enough, bible talks has something to say about that.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; -- Rom 3:23
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:10
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags -- Isaih 64:6

In other words, none of us can do right. None of us is moral. The filthy rags of my Christian morality are just as dirty as those of a follower of Ghandi.

And with all due respect to Pat, I don't believe God is concerned with our morality. God is concerned with the condition of the heart. Jesus reduced the Law to two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. How do we love God? By keeping his commandments. How do we love our neighbor? By doing right to him wherever he is.

But it's the LOVE that comes first. Doing right is the result of the love. No matter how righteous you try to be, no matter how moral you are regardless of the system on which it is based, without love (both for God and others) your works are as filthy rags.

As 1 Corintians 13: 1-3 says: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

And this is why I have steadfastly limited religious debate in this forum. Debate whose purpose is simply to prove a Christian viewpoint over another is not showing Christian love. They are a clanging cymbal, they are nothing, and they gain nothing.

But it's the LOVE that comes first. Doing right is the result of the love. No matter how righteous you try to be, no matter how moral you are regardless of the system on which it is based, without love (both for God and others) your works are as filthy rags.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by small axe
I may be missing your point, sir.
Yes, you are.

Quote:
Your answer seems to be based upon what Jesus said,
and about what Paul wrote,
and about what Grace is (and I think you're meaning God's grace) --

Those all seem based on 'religion' ...

... in the sense that if we erase the 'religious' connections to Jesus, God, and Paul ... there's no reason really to care about their opinions about Morality.

Click to expand...

Roger J Carlson said:

Yes, you are.
If you are implying that I believe all religions/philosophies are equally valid, you're wrong. I firmly believe that Christianity is the one true way to God.

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't meaning to suggest or imply that about your beliefs.

I had meant to suggest that a claim to Morality cannot be 'supported' if we see that Morality is being merely based upon transitory human opinion.

I was just wondering, because you wrote:

So yes, it is certainly possible to be moral without being religious.

Click to expand...

But you had given Christian (Paul, Jesus, 'Grace' etc, all 'religion' based) quotes in reference to your statement about morality not depending upon a religious foundation.

Indeed, I missed your point.

However, we're not discussing the truth of Christianity. We're discussing morality. Morality (according to Dictionary.com) is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Many cultures have rules of conduct. Anyone who follows those rules of conduct are moral -- by definition.

Click to expand...

I do understand your point there. I just would beg to disagree (and that can wrap up that issue: we respectfully simply disagree.)

If one states that Nazis in fact had 'rules of right conduct' ... and that conforming to Nazi rules of conduct is the definition of living a 'moral' life ...

Then indeed that both illustrates our different approach to defining 'morality' ... and illustrates my point: human morality isn't morality, only Divine morality is morality.

But I cannot dispute your dictionary definition, I suppose, you're right.

So can we determine which person is more moral? Oddly enough, bible talks has something to say about that.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; -- Rom 3:23
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:10
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags -- Isaih 64:6

In other words, none of us can do right. None of us is moral. The filthy rags of my Christian morality are just as dirty as those of a follower of Ghandi.

Click to expand...

On that I both see your point (finally) and do indeed agree!

And with all due respect to Pat, I don't believe God is concerned with our morality. God is concerned with the condition of the heart. Jesus reduced the Law to two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. How do we love God? By keeping his commandments. How do we love our neighbor? By doing right to him wherever he is.

But it's the LOVE that comes first. Doing right is the result of the love. No matter how righteous you try to be, no matter how moral you are regardless of the system on which it is based, without love (both for God and others) your works are as filthy rags.

As 1 Corintians 13: 1-3 says: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

And this is why I have steadfastly limited religious debate in this forum. Debate whose purpose is simply to prove a Christian viewpoint over another is not showing Christian love. They are a clanging cymbal, they are nothing, and they gain nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm just back from a banning for wondering aloud about Someone's opinion about "When is merely expressing one's free thought via free speech ... fairly or unfairly labeled 'debate' ???"

So I speak as meekly as I can here: The Moderator's wishes are realistically RULES and LAWS here to be justifiably OBEYED by all here in 'a privately owned forum' ... I don't dispute that, I'm not disputing it now, I'm OBEYING it now.

But leaving someone in UNCORRECTED Ignorance isn't demonstrating Christian Love, either.

That's why (I think) sometimes discussions here are intense enough to be mistaken for 'debate' ...

It's because CARING PEOPLE CARE ENOUGH to repeat their points, if those points seem to be misunderstood by the other.

If you hadn't re-phrased and repeated your point, I would've not understood your point. That would've been my loss. But someone repeating a point isn't showing lack of Christian Love, and sincere people WRESTLING over difficult issues (whether agreeing or disagreeing) isn't either.

Hey, I took a liberty writing that, when a little voice inside me was saying "Don't comment and you can't get in trouble again" ...

I'ma ban myownself for three days for taking the liberty, when I know I should just lay low, it's all good!

Like heck will I be afraid and second-guess myself whether to comment when the comment arises and wants to be said!

I have ZERO reason to think anyone here would object to my comment ... I'll just say it and pay the ransom to myself on that one.

Thanks for explaining your point to me. I took it as someone caring to explain something, not a 'debate'

small axe said:

Roger J Carlson said:

However, we're not discussing the truth of Christianity. We're discussing morality. Morality (according to Dictionary.com) is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Many cultures have rules of conduct. Anyone who follows those rules of conduct are moral -- by definition.

Click to expand...

I do understand your point there. I just would beg to disagree (and that can wrap up that issue: we respectfully simply disagree.)

If one states that Nazis in fact had 'rules of right conduct' ... and that conforming to Nazi rules of conduct is the definition of living a 'moral' life ...

Then indeed that both illustrates our different approach to defining 'morality' ... and illustrates my point: human morality isn't morality, only Divine morality is morality.

But I cannot dispute your dictionary definition, I suppose, you're right.

Click to expand...

We certainly can agree to disagree on this. It's a matter of definition, which I why I entitled this thread "Morality vs morality".

However, I would still contend that God is not interested in morality in the slightest. It is man that continues to insist upon it.

From the very beginning in the Garden of Eden, all God has wanted was a relationship with man. Yes, he set a rule, but he wasn't primarily interested in man following a bunch of rules. When man broke the single rule God set, that created the gap.

Later, God tried to create a relationship with Abraham and his descendents. All he gave them in the beginning was the Covenant, not a bunch of rules. But as time passed, the Israelites proved they needed more structure, so he gave them the Law and the Prophets.

Still later, the Israelites complained that they didn't have a King like all the other kids...uh...countries and they wanted one too. So he gave them a King -- and more laws and rules.

And then Jesus comes along and says, okay, we've tried the rule thing and that hasn't worked either with you guys. Let's throw out all those negative rules and replace them with two positive ones: Love God and each other. Oh, and by the way, I'll die to pay the price for all the rules that have ever been broken, so you can stop worrying about them. All I want is to have a relationship with you, okay?

But people to this day are not happy with that God-given arrangement. We still insist on a bunch of do's and don'ts. Rules of conduct. Right and wrong.

That's what morality is: a system of following right and wrong. Whether the morality is based on Biblical principles or Nazi doctrine, it is still a human invention. And God tells us clearly that we can't have a relationship with him based on morality, because all our works are filthy rags -- whether they're based on Biblical principles or Nazi doctrine.

That's the basis for my statement. I don't insist that anyone agree with it.

The problem is: I have never found anyone who could say, they were truly moral on their own. Religion recoginzes that true morality, is a conscious act. People make judgment calls about other people everyday. Unless you truly know the person whom you are judging, then judging becomes the immoral act.




Just a Thought
_____________


Everlasting,


Moon over Key Biscayne

Thanks for re-opening this thread, Roger. I'm a later-comer to this thread and stumbled upon in just half an hour ago after it had already been closed.

And to everyone else here I'll just explain that I was so moved by this one quote below from Roger, that I simply had to respond to it. But since I was unable to post in the thread, the best I could do was give him a rep point for this quote.

I've highlighted in blue the parts I want to emphasize.

Roger J Carlson said:

You know, I can't find the word 'morality' anywhere in the Bible. Morality is the concern with right and wrong, but Jesus wasn't concerned about that. He boiled the Law down into 2 commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. It's not concerned with right and wrong, it's concerned with love.

Interestingly, under Grace, morality IS moot and void. Paul said: For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. -- Romans 6:14 and All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. -- 1 Cor 6:12

So yes, it is certainly possible to be moral without being religious. But moral isn't what God is looking for. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one -- Romans 3:10

Click to expand...

And Pat's response also.

Pat~ said:

I think I know what you're getting at, Roger, and I'd agree that a person's morality is not what makes him justified in God's eyes. That said, I do think God is concerned with morality as we've defined it in our discussion here. I think He does care if we do right or wrong in the sense that He cares whether or not we obey His commandments. To "love one another" covers a lot of moral ground. If you love someone, you won't steal from them, commit adultery with their spouse, lie about them, etc. Loving God and others is pretty much the fiber of the Ten Commandments. So while we are not under the law positionally, as regards salvation, we are to love God which means obey Him and seek to do what pleases Him. This is how we bear fruit and find joy. (See John 14 and 15:10, 11--"If you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.")

Click to expand...

And then this:

Roger J Carlson said:

Yes, you are.
If you are implying that I believe all religions/philosophies are equally valid, you're wrong. I firmly believe that Christianity is the one true way to God.

However, we're not discussing the truth of Christianity. We're discussing morality. Morality (according to Dictionary.com) is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Many cultures have rules of conduct. Anyone who follows those rules of conduct are moral -- by definition.

So can we determine which person is more moral? Oddly enough, bible talks has something to say about that.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; -- Rom 3:23
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Rom 3:10
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags -- Isaih 64:6

In other words, none of us can do right. None of us is moral. The filthy rags of my Christian morality are just as dirty as those of a follower of Ghandi.

And with all due respect to Pat, I don't believe God is concerned with our morality. God is concerned with the condition of the heart. Jesus reduced the Law to two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. How do we love God? By keeping his commandments. How do we love our neighbor? By doing right to him wherever he is.

But it's the LOVE that comes first. Doing right is the result of the love. No matter how righteous you try to be, no matter how moral you are regardless of the system on which it is based, without love (both for God and others) your works are as filthy rags.

As 1 Corintians 13: 1-3 says: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

And this is why I have steadfastly limited religious debate in this forum. Debate whose purpose is simply to prove a Christian viewpoint over another is not showing Christian love. They are a clanging cymbal, they are nothing, and they gain nothing.

Click to expand...

This is really awesome stuff here.

Right now I have a terrible conflict with my real life biological brother. And I can't get past it. He is a very mentally ill person. I personally believe he is a true-blue, certifiable sociopath.

He has wreaked the most horrible misery upon my entire family for the past thirty years, and has no remorse for the permanent damage he has inflicted upon so many lives, especially those of us here in the family. He has committed terrible acts of violence against me, against my mother, and my yonger brother, including striking our mother in the face and leaving a terrible bruise that lasted for more than a week. He has stolen thousands of dollars from my mother -- money that he takes to the gambling casinos and blows at the poker and blackjack tables. He has been arrested for petty theft and has made my mother bail him out of jail. He has also stolen from me, vandalized my personal property, and my mother's house shows years of damage from kicked in doors and windows that he is responsible for. And once (about five years ago) he was so irritated with me (over something truly petty) that he rigged up a false situation to try and get me (who has never been arrested for anything) arrested for allegedly stealing something from our mother's house--and had our mother not been there to dispute his claims to the officers who arrived on the scene, I most certainly would have been arrested (that's how thorough he was in pre-planning this scenario, and also how thorough his knowledge of the law is, from his own experience at being arrested himself). The officers just rolled their eyes at each other when they realized the truth of what was really going on. And as the two cops were leaving, the lead officer asked my mother with unmistakable sarcasm and annoyance over the whole situation: "So what do you wanna do now, Mom?" My mother growled: "I wanna take them both over my knee and spank them!" And the lead officer shook his head and pointed at my brother and dryly snorted to her: "Spank HIM!" and then they got in their police car and left. I never saw the police report, but I'm sure it was a real hoot.


I literally hate my literal brother. And I know I'm not "allowed" to, no matter how justified I am in this hate. I can't get past it and I really need God's help in getting past it.

This thread has really been an eye-opener.

My 2 cents?

We're confusing "morals" with "ethics" here. Morality (my definition, but I think generally accepted) is how a person's behavior measures up to some absolute standard. This standard cannot deviate from person to person.

Ethicalness (is that even a word?) is how a person's behavior measures up to the standards set by society.

CS Lewis delves deeply into this very issue in his "Mere Christianity" and provides a very logical progression to the conclusion that a person cannot truly be moral unless he/she also admits that someone, somewhere, has created an absolute standard of morality. He's implying this 'someone' is, in fact, God, and if memory serves me, anyone who acknowledges this moral standard is also acknowledging the existence of God. In short, according to Lewis you cannot claim to be moral without (at least subconsciously) believing that God exists.

Using Lewis' logic, if an atheist claims to be moral and he/she is truly an atheist, then in all likelihood, this person is really saying he/she is 'ethical'...they just don't realize the difference. By definition, being ethical does not make you a 'good' person, nor does being unethical make you a 'bad' person. Being ethical just means you are abiding by whatever society has decided is 'acceptable behavior'.

Of course, this all assumes Lewis was correct.

FWIW.

small axe said:

Roger J Carlson said:

And this is why I have steadfastly limited religious debate in this forum. Debate whose purpose is simply to prove a Christian viewpoint over another is not showing Christian love. They are a clanging cymbal, they are nothing, and they gain nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm just back from a banning for wondering aloud about Someone's opinion about "When is merely expressing one's free thought via free speech ... fairly or unfairly labeled 'debate' ???"

So I speak as meekly as I can here: The Moderator's wishes are realistically RULES and LAWS here to be justifiably OBEYED by all here in 'a privately owned forum' ... I don't dispute that, I'm not disputing it now, I'm OBEYING it now.

But leaving someone in UNCORRECTED Ignorance isn't demonstrating Christian Love, either.

That's why (I think) sometimes discussions here are intense enough to be mistaken for 'debate' ...

It's because CARING PEOPLE CARE ENOUGH to repeat their points, if those points seem to be misunderstood by the other.

If you hadn't re-phrased and repeated your point, I would've not understood your point. That would've been my loss. But someone repeating a point isn't showing lack of Christian Love, and sincere people WRESTLING over difficult issues (whether agreeing or disagreeing) isn't either.

Click to expand...

This part of the discussion properly belongs in private messages, but I think it will be instructive for everyone, so I'm leaving it here.

First of all, I'm writing this, but I'm not the only mod. However, Pat and I are in complete agreement on the purpose of this forum. We're a team, each of us contributing unique skills, and I'm immensely pleased she's on board.

Sure. Sometimes vigorous discussion, even debate, can be an effective way to share the Gospel. But you have to know your opponent really well, and internet discussion boards are not really conducive to knowing someone well enough. In addition, tone is very hard to portray in text. You might think that the underlining and capitalizing you do is simply for emphasis, but others see it as the verbal equivalent of poking them in the chest.

You must also be aware that this board has a history of some serious rancor by Christians toward others at AW, all in the name of Christian Love. When I became a mod here, there were several "spirited debates" that had far more to do with trying to score points than to show Christ's love. The mods gave serious thought to doing away with the Christian Board altogether. There are still AW members who don't feel comfortable here, and I grieve over that.

More recently, there were several posters who delighted in stirring up religious debate. They were interested in the debate in and of itself. This also caused a lot of problems.

This board reflects my personal approach to proselytizing and one that Pat shares as well. And that is to show the Love of Christ and to let Him to His work. I don't have to convince people of anything. All I try to do is plant a seed. That's all God asks us to do.

You might think that you show you care when you debate someone, but more often than not, the other person doesn't feel that way. The Bible asks "what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul". I would ask, what does it profit the Kingdom of God to win a debate and lose a soul?

So I've decided to allow honest discussions and limit debate. Which brings up the question of how they differ. I've discussed this before in the Purpose of this Board thread, but I'll give it another try.

A discussion is when the parties listen to what each other believe and then tell what they believe. In a discussion, the purpose is understanding.

A debate is when the parties are trying to prove their points while disproving their opponent's. The purpose of a debate is winning over the opponent. And opponent is the operative word here. A debate is an adversarial relationship. You can't show Christ's love as an adversary.

The line between discussion and debate is tricky. Sometimes I jump the gun, and sometimes I'm a little late on the draw. (And sometimes I mix metaphors.) But when I see a discussion devolve into a debate, you can be sure either Pat or I will step in.

ETA: Let's keep any further discussion about the purpose of the board in PM from now on, okay?

Plot Device said:

I literally hate my literal brother. And I know I'm not "allowed" to, no matter how justified I am in this hate. I can't get past it and I really need God's help in getting past it.

This thread has really been an eye-opener.

Click to expand...

Wow, Plot. That's a lot of weight to carry. I'm glad something I said could help. I'll pray for you.

Roger J Carlson said:

... And then Jesus comes along and says, okay, we've tried the rule thing and that hasn't worked either with you guys. Let's throw out all those negative rules and replace them with two positive ones: Love God and each other. Oh, and by the way, I'll die to pay the price for all the rules that have ever been broken, so you can stop worrying about them. All I want is to have a relationship with you, okay?

But people to this day are not happy with that God-given arrangement. We still insist on a bunch of do's and don'ts. Rules of conduct. Right and wrong.

That's what morality is: a system of following right and wrong. Whether the morality is based on Biblical principles or Nazi doctrine, it is still a human invention. And God tells us clearly that we can't have a relationship with him based on morality, because all our works are filthy rags -- whether they're based on Biblical principles or Nazi doctrine.

That's the basis for my statement. I don't insist that anyone agree with it.

Click to expand...

Well I agree with it.

Christian rules and Nazi rules. All the same, right? Yes, I agree. It's so easy for me here in the Twenty-First Century to latch onto hindsight and assert that I never would have followed Hitler. But I fear I would have been a facist dupee like so many others. I am reminded of a very good line from an otherwise dismal motion picture, The Postman where the evil petty king says to his prisoner (Kevin Costner) as an explanation for why so many men were willing to follow his tyranical rule: "Men don't want brotherhood, they wan't leadership!" Don't give us righteousness and justice, give us rules and structure.

I'm the kind of person who gravitates very heavilly toward rules and structure. And I am uncomfortable when rules and structure are not in place. And here in lies the danger of the Nazi trap.

It takes a great deal of personal wisdom to operate from a position of "meta-rules" which is my home-made term for describing a state of highly advanced "rules-awareness." It's a state where you not only KNOW the rules, you also UNDERSTAND them, and can successfully and correctly apply them in ALL circumstances. And then, whenever a situation arises that isn't covered by the rules, you very deftly improvise via your meta-awareness of the existing rules to satisfy all concerned parties. I think very few of us have that kind of wisdom. I think it's a level of wisdom so profound that perhaps only a true judge --both a literal present day judge as well as an ancient Old Testament-era judge --could possess it. And so in this sort of lack of wisdom we all need God's guidance in trying to muddle through the grey areas of life on a daily basis. Otherwise, we all could wind up saluting another Fuhrer.

But I like rules (I'm a moderator's dream). And I like seeing them play out in nice neat packages of order and effiency in our human interactions. And when relationships are blissfully orderly, I can deceive myself into ALSO thinking they are godly -- but Nazi Germany is certainly ample evidence that "A" doesn't always equal "B." People who don't abide by the rules annoy me. And people who get away with not abiding by them infuriate me. And then my sin of Phariseic comparison of myself to others creeps in. "Come on, God! I'm a GOOD girl! Why can't you bless me and punish my brother based solely upon that!" and then "Why should I keep abiding by the rules if it gets me nothing? If you won't value them, then maybe I won't either!"

But no -- it's not "the rules" God values, it's love. The separation between the two needs to be made in my mind. It's a difficult separation to make, but both scripture and history demand it to be made.

And so I need help with my heart as well as with my wisdom. I need divine help with it all.

rwam said:

My 2 cents?

We're confusing "morals" with "ethics" here. Morality (my definition, but I think generally accepted) is how a person's behavior measures up to some absolute standard. This standard cannot deviate from person to person.

Ethicalness (is that even a word?) is how a person's behavior measures up to the standards set by society.

CS Lewis delves deeply into this very issue in his "Mere Christianity" and provides a very logical progression to the conclusion that a person cannot truly be moral unless he/she also admits that someone, somewhere, has created an absolute standard of morality. He's implying this 'someone' is, in fact, God, and if memory serves me, anyone who acknowledges this moral standard is also acknowledging the existence of God. In short, according to Lewis you cannot claim to be moral without (at least subconsciously) believing that God exists.

Using Lewis' logic, if an atheist claims to be moral and he/she is truly an atheist, then in all likelihood, this person is really saying he/she is 'ethical'...they just don't realize the difference. By definition, being ethical does not make you a 'good' person, nor does being unethical make you a 'bad' person. Being ethical just means you are abiding by whatever society has decided is 'acceptable behavior'.

Of course, this all assumes Lewis was correct.

FWIW.

Click to expand...

This is profound. But yes, it all hinges upon the the definitions of "moral" and "ethical."

I don't know, guys, I think God DOES want us to try to be moral and I think he HAS set a standard that we know we should try to strive for. Whether He expects us to attain it is a whole nuther matter.

Then again, let's assume there is some divine absolute standard of perfect morality. Since we're all flawed with imperfect vision, doesn't it stand to reason that each one of us will have a varied perception of what 'true morality' is?

Ow. Now my head hurts.

Roger J Carlson said:

... Pat and I are in complete agreement on the purpose of this forum. We're a team, each of us contributing unique skills, and I'm immensely pleased she's on board.

Click to expand...

I am too. ~Pat's awesome!

Roger J Carlson said:

The Bible asks "what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul". I would ask, what does it profit the Kingdom of God to win a debate and lose a soul?

Click to expand...

I agree. On the one hand, CS Lewis's words are certainly applicable: "What the Church needs is accuracy, accuracy, and more accuracy." But on the other, he was a man of profound grace in his conversations with other people. He knew when to be an icy cold debate-driven machine, and when to speak the truth in love. He was a man of extraordinary wisdom in that regard.

Roger J Carlson said:

A debate is an adversarial relationship. You can't show Christ's love as an adversary.

Click to expand...

And I would argue that since "you know who" [/Harry Potter book series] is ALSO called "The Adversary," perhaps we should all think twice before taking on that role.

rwam said:

I don't know, guys, I think God DOES want us to try to be moral and I think he HAS set a standard that we know we should try to strive for. Whether He expects us to attain it is a whole nuther matter.

Then again, let's assume there is some divine absolute standard of perfect morality. Since we're all flawed with imperfect vision, doesn't it stand to reason that each one of us will have a varied perception of what 'true morality' is?

Ow. Now my head hurts.

Click to expand...

I would say that in light of this entire conversation, it might be a progressive and prescriptive journey of sanctification we're talking about here. He wants us FIRST to love, and THEN to obey.

Jesus says: "IF you love me THEN you will obey my commands." And here we have the old if-then loop. The IFpart always comes first, and then the THEN part always follows after.



But IF we get it backward, THEN it probably won't work. IF we go for the obedience thing first, THEN we might assume that the obedience in and of itself IS the fulfilment of the whole "love" command.

This might not be correct, but I'm kinda groping my way through it right now.

Plot Device said:

I would say that in light of this entire conversation, it might be a progressive and prescriptive journey of sanctification we're talking about here. He wants us FIRST to love, and THEN to obey.

Jesus says: "IF you love me THEN you will obey my commands." And here we have the old if-then loop. The IFpart always comes first, and then the THEN part always follows after.



But IF we get it backward, THEN it probably won't work. IF we go for the obedience thing first, THEN we might assume that the obedience in and of itself IS the fulfilment of the whole "love" command.


This might not be correct, but I'm kinda groping my way through it right now.

Click to expand...

Well said, Plot.

Thanks, rwam.

Wish I could stay but I gotta go do some work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwam
I don't know, guys, I think God DOES want us to try to be moral and I think he HAS set a standard that we know we should try to strive for. Whether He expects us to attain it is a whole nuther matter.

Then again, let's assume there is some divine absolute standard of perfect morality. Since we're all flawed with imperfect vision, doesn't it stand to reason that each one of us will have a varied perception of what 'true morality' is?

Ow. Now my head hurts.

Click to expand...

I would say that in light of this entire conversation, it might be a progressive and prescriptive journey of sanctification we're talking about here. He wants us FIRST to love, and THEN to obey.

Jesus says: "IF you love me THEN you will obey my commands." And here we have the old if-then loop. The IFpart always comes first, and then the THEN part always follows after.



But IF we get it backward, THEN it probably won't work. IF we go for the obedience thing first, THEN we might assume that the obedience in and of itself IS the fulfilment of the whole "love" command.

This might not be correct, but I'm kinda groping my way through it right now.


__________________

Click to expand...

I think this hits the nail on the head. The Bible is pretty clear that salvation is before sanctification--so that any 'good works' prior to salvation are as 'filthy rags.' They don't justify you in God's eyes, in other words. But I'd agree with these posters that God IS interested in the 'right' and 'wrong' choices we make (our 'morality') as a Christian. In Romans 8:28, 29, it tells us that that is the very reason for our calling--to be transformed into the image of Christ, who knew no sin.

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

This is also repeated in Romans 12, which starts off exhorting us to be not conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds by the Spirit. The rest of the chapter details what 'love' looks like, and what qualities our lives should reflect. The Christian life is a pilgrimage, a process where (hopefully) we grow to be more and more like Christ. That would involve striving to make Christ-like choices between either good and better or good and bad as defined by God's Word. But our striving alone isn't the whole picture. We depend on God's grace to flow into our lives, as we submit to God's authority, in order to enable us to think and choose like Christ would.

Plot Device said:

Right now I have a terrible conflict with my real life biological brother. And I can't get past it. He is a very mentally ill person. I personally believe he is a true-blue, certifiable sociopath.

...(snipped)

I literally hate my literal brother. And I know I'm not "allowed" to, no matter how justified I am in this hate. I can't get past it and I really need God's help in getting past it.

This thread has really been an eye-opener.

Click to expand...

I'm so sorry for this situation, Plot Device. I have a family member myself who has many of the same tendencies, and who has caused much havoc over the years, and I know what a challenge it can be not to become bitter.

It's not only grace that saves us, but grace that enables us to have the mind of Christ. And this process sometimes takes awhile, though I believe that if we pray asking for that grace, He'll give it. I'll pray for you; that's such a struggle, I know.

Plot Device said:

I am too. ~Pat's awesome!

Click to expand...

And you are, too!

(I'll give you those 10 rep points later. )