Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Cannibalism was mentioned early in the discussion which always leads me to this conundrum-
If we simply live by 'the Golden Rule', where do unto others...is the line in the sand visa vi morality, then it is not necessarily wrong to kill and eat another human being. There was a case just a short few years ago of a man in Germany who advertised for someone to kill and eat him. He wanted to be cannibalized. His greatest ambition was for another person to eat his flesh.
He easily found a willing partner, who killed and then ate him. The man who ate the man who wished to be eaten was prosecuted. Why? It was a voluntary agreement between the men, live and let die, so to speak.
RIGHT AND WRONG are concepts..concepts that have no meaning except in some CONTEXT.
Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.
Cannibalism was mentioned early in the discussion which always leads me to this conundrum-
If we simply live by 'the Golden Rule', where do unto others...is the line in the sand visa vi morality, then it is not necessarily wrong to kill and eat another human being. There was a case just a short few years ago of a man in Germany who advertised for someone to kill and eat him. He wanted to be cannibalized. His greatest ambition was for another person to eat his flesh.
He easily found a willing partner, who killed and then ate him. The man who ate the man who wished to be eaten was prosecuted. Why? It was a voluntary agreement between the men, live and let die, so to speak.
"Visa vi"(sic)?
LOL!!!
I guess we know who we're talking to here.
Your avatar is appropriate. Archy consistently revealed his ignorance. It was the basis for the comedy of the show.
What was the point of the Germany story? Was there one?
Cannibalism was mentioned early in the discussion which always leads me to this conundrum-
If we simply live by 'the Golden Rule', where do unto others...is the line in the sand visa vi morality, then it is not necessarily wrong to kill and eat another human being. There was a case just a short few years ago of a man in Germany who advertised for someone to kill and eat him. He wanted to be cannibalized. His greatest ambition was for another person to eat his flesh.
He easily found a willing partner, who killed and then ate him. The man who ate the man who wished to be eaten was prosecuted. Why? It was a voluntary agreement between the men, live and let die, so to speak.
"Visa vi"(sic)?
LOL!!!
I guess we know who we're talking to here.
Your avatar is appropriate. Archy consistently revealed his ignorance. It was the basis for the comedy of the show.
What was the point of the Germany story? Was there one?
You mean Archie?
If you cannot grasp the reason for my post, you have less business in this discussion than Charlie Manson.
"Visa vi"(sic)?
LOL!!!
I guess we know who we're talking to here.
Your avatar is appropriate. Archy consistently revealed his ignorance. It was the basis for the comedy of the show.
What was the point of the Germany story? Was there one?
You mean Archie?
If you cannot grasp the reason for my post, you have less business in this discussion than Charlie Manson.
If you can't defend it why are you here?
Lots of answers but nobody has a basis for their opinion (so far).
To a hungry person who enjoys the flavor of human flesh it is "right" to kill a human for food. Why is that person wrong?
Why are you deliberately avoiding my answer?
So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.
RIGHT AND WRONG are concepts..concepts that have no meaning except in some CONTEXT.
Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.
Poor argumentation.
He didn't say right and wrong were meaningless. He said they required context.
Bad form, DS.
Could you create a context where stealing a car would be a relative good? I'll bet you can.
To anyone with a brain they have used for any length of time, they would know the correct expression of "visa vi"(sic) and what it comes from.You mean Archie?
If you cannot grasp the reason for my post, you have less business in this discussion than Charlie Manson.
If you can't defend it why are you here?
To anyone with a functioning brain, the reason for the post is self-evident, meaning it doesn't need to be defended, it just needs to be read by someone other than an idiot.
Not at all.Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.
Poor argumentation.
He didn't say right and wrong were meaningless. He said they required context.
Bad form, DS.
Could you create a context where stealing a car would be a relative good? I'll bet you can.
I could steal a car if my wife was having a baby and I needed to rush her to the hospital. I could justify my action as right for the benefit of my wife but it is still wrong to steal. If we allow ourselves to justify a wrong for our own personal needs then everyone is free to create justification for breaking all sorts of laws or codes of ethics.
But Editec's comment is basically a short summation of "situational ethics" which opens all sorts of doors to folks' personal interpretations of what's right or wrong. If we're to live by situational ethics then we must conclude that there are no codes of ethics to break because we're all free to break them if there were any. Situational Ethics is the precursor to Anarchy (from an Anarchist's point of view).
To anyone with a brain they have used for any length of time, they would know the correct expression of "visa vi"(sic) and what it comes from.If you can't defend it why are you here?
To anyone with a functioning brain, the reason for the post is self-evident, meaning it doesn't need to be defended, it just needs to be read by someone other than an idiot.
Hint: It's French.
So you can't explain what you meant so even an "idiot" could understand your point?
It seems you would simply be talking to a peer.
Why are you deliberately avoiding my answer?
So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.
I cannot speak for Bruce but I know exactly where I have found it to be. At the precise point I do not want to surrender something and the Word is telling me I must. This is the ultimate conflict of the human soul and until I surrender the thing there is no peace. (peace with God ) This is where I decide to go on with God or come to a standstill. Because I'm not going one step further until that matter is dealt with.
The only other alternative is to say, I am not convinced that the Word of God is true, unaltered, infallible. I believe the truth needs to be "adjusted" to accomodate the times I am living in and the desires of my heart whatever they may be. I'm not only willing to deny Jesus before men ( His Word is Him ) but I'm approving those who will join me in the effort. At the end of the day I've become my own god.
In answer to the OP. I find if I am walking with God my conscience is very keen to right and wrong. If I am running from God my conscience could well be ignored and not too effective depending upon how long I've been ignoring it for.
The conscience can become seared and with that searing there is no longer anything to gauge right and wrong by other than what the Christian should gauge their right and wrong on - return to being led by the Holy Spirit AND the Word of God.
That is covered in Romans 1.
On the matter of morality, values, and knowing right from wrong? The Holy Spirit has dealt with me on matters others would be say, that isn't a sin! But it was for me because the LORD said, not to do it. The more a person obeys God the keener their conscience becomes. The more they will walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh.
The reverse is also true - leading to a complete blindness in which a counterfeit spirituality fills the vacuum completely. It is a dangerous place to be.
What about the atheist whose life is exemplary in every way? Gave to charities, did good works in 3rd world countries, gave huge donations - such as the Rockafellers have done perhaps?..... The very mention of their names - people reply - such a good family! Does God recognize any good work, any moral effort apart from Christ, any good word or deed done apart from Christ as anything more than something to be burnt up on judgment day? Not according to Him He doesn't. I will take Him at His Word because to do otherwise is simply irrational.
To anyone with a brain they have used for any length of time, they would know the correct expression of "visa vi"(sic) and what it comes from.To anyone with a functioning brain, the reason for the post is self-evident, meaning it doesn't need to be defended, it just needs to be read by someone other than an idiot.
Hint: It's French.
So you can't explain what you meant so even an "idiot" could understand your point?
It seems you would simply be talking to a peer.
Maybe you shold send your whining complaints to "Archy" Bunker.
Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.
Poor argumentation.
He didn't say right and wrong were meaningless. He said they required context.
Bad form, DS.
Could you create a context where stealing a car would be a relative good? I'll bet you can.
I could steal a car if my wife was having a baby and I needed to rush her to the hospital. I could justify my action as right for the benefit of my wife but it is still wrong to steal. If we allow ourselves to justify a wrong for our own personal needs then everyone is free to create justification for breaking all sorts of laws or codes of ethics.
But Editec's comment is basically a short summation of "situational ethics" which opens all sorts of doors to folks' personal interpretations of what's right or wrong. If we're to live by situational ethics then we must conclude that there are no codes of ethics to break because we're all free to break them if there were any. Situational Ethics is the precursor to Anarchy (from an Anarchist's point of view). For a society to operate in a civilized manner there must be a hard and fast set of ethics/morals/rights/wrongs.
So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.
I cannot speak for Bruce but I know exactly where I have found it to be. At the precise point I do not want to surrender something and the Word is telling me I must. This is the ultimate conflict of the human soul and until I surrender the thing there is no peace. (peace with God ) This is where I decide to go on with God or come to a standstill. Because I'm not going one step further until that matter is dealt with.
The only other alternative is to say, I am not convinced that the Word of God is true, unaltered, infallible. I believe the truth needs to be "adjusted" to accomodate the times I am living in and the desires of my heart whatever they may be. I'm not only willing to deny Jesus before men ( His Word is Him ) but I'm approving those who will join me in the effort. At the end of the day I've become my own god.
In answer to the OP. I find if I am walking with God my conscience is very keen to right and wrong. If I am running from God my conscience could well be ignored and not too effective depending upon how long I've been ignoring it for.
The conscience can become seared and with that searing there is no longer anything to gauge right and wrong by other than what the Christian should gauge their right and wrong on - return to being led by the Holy Spirit AND the Word of God.
That is covered in Romans 1.
On the matter of morality, values, and knowing right from wrong? The Holy Spirit has dealt with me on matters others would be say, that isn't a sin! But it was for me because the LORD said, not to do it. The more a person obeys God the keener their conscience becomes. The more they will walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh.
The reverse is also true - leading to a complete blindness in which a counterfeit spirituality fills the vacuum completely. It is a dangerous place to be.
What about the atheist whose life is exemplary in every way? Gave to charities, did good works in 3rd world countries, gave huge donations - such as the Rockafellers have done perhaps?..... The very mention of their names - people reply - such a good family! Does God recognize any good work, any moral effort apart from Christ, any good word or deed done apart from Christ as anything more than something to be burnt up on judgment day? Not according to Him He doesn't. I will take Him at His Word because to do otherwise is simply irrational.
Good post.
As a Christian I know what I'm called to do from a biblical standpoint but my flesh battles my spirit continually. My personal will sways with the wind but the written Word changes not and remains my guide through thick and thin. So no matter what my personal will is I am still bound by my sense of right and wrong which sears my conscience. I believe the Holy Spirit often speaks to us through our conscience. When I'm confronted with situations that don't seem to have a right or wrong answer I simply ask for the Spirit's guidance and pray that I choose correctly.
Speaking from a personal point of view I feel blessed that I have a Guide to help me navigate through this world -- a world that has no hard and fast concept of right and wrong and that's easily swayed by the whims of a particular political party or society or special interest group. People need to feel like they're a part of something and I believe that they are willing to "bend the rules" if it means they can gain a sense of popularity or a sense of belonging. A Christian often has it tough as he/they/we are called to stand up to and against the popular whims or new societal "norms" of the day. Unfortunately, many modern Christians are willing to sell their sense of right and wrong to join the same clubs.
Not at all.Poor argumentation.
He didn't say right and wrong were meaningless. He said they required context.
Bad form, DS.
Could you create a context where stealing a car would be a relative good? I'll bet you can.
I could steal a car if my wife was having a baby and I needed to rush her to the hospital. I could justify my action as right for the benefit of my wife but it is still wrong to steal. If we allow ourselves to justify a wrong for our own personal needs then everyone is free to create justification for breaking all sorts of laws or codes of ethics.
But Editec's comment is basically a short summation of "situational ethics" which opens all sorts of doors to folks' personal interpretations of what's right or wrong. If we're to live by situational ethics then we must conclude that there are no codes of ethics to break because we're all free to break them if there were any. Situational Ethics is the precursor to Anarchy (from an Anarchist's point of view).
Context is the basis for judgment.
It is the legal concept of mitigating circumstances.
Context is key. It doesn't destroy the fabric of society. It prevents a society from becoming heartless slaves to absolutes.
So you base your sense of morality on your own opinion. That's cool. That's all you had to say. I would be curious as to what formed your opinion though.
I cannot speak for Bruce but I know exactly where I have found it to be. At the precise point I do not want to surrender something and the Word is telling me I must. This is the ultimate conflict of the human soul and until I surrender the thing there is no peace. (peace with God ) This is where I decide to go on with God or come to a standstill. Because I'm not going one step further until that matter is dealt with.
The only other alternative is to say, I am not convinced that the Word of God is true, unaltered, infallible. I believe the truth needs to be "adjusted" to accomodate the times I am living in and the desires of my heart whatever they may be. I'm not only willing to deny Jesus before men ( His Word is Him ) but I'm approving those who will join me in the effort. At the end of the day I've become my own god.
In answer to the OP. I find if I am walking with God my conscience is very keen to right and wrong. If I am running from God my conscience could well be ignored and not too effective depending upon how long I've been ignoring it for.
The conscience can become seared and with that searing there is no longer anything to gauge right and wrong by other than what the Christian should gauge their right and wrong on - return to being led by the Holy Spirit AND the Word of God.
That is covered in Romans 1.
On the matter of morality, values, and knowing right from wrong? The Holy Spirit has dealt with me on matters others would be say, that isn't a sin! But it was for me because the LORD said, not to do it. The more a person obeys God the keener their conscience becomes. The more they will walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh.
The reverse is also true - leading to a complete blindness in which a counterfeit spirituality fills the vacuum completely. It is a dangerous place to be.
What about the atheist whose life is exemplary in every way? Gave to charities, did good works in 3rd world countries, gave huge donations - such as the Rockafellers have done perhaps?..... The very mention of their names - people reply - such a good family! Does God recognize any good work, any moral effort apart from Christ, any good word or deed done apart from Christ as anything more than something to be burnt up on judgment day? Not according to Him He doesn't. I will take Him at His Word because to do otherwise is simply irrational.
Good post.
As a Christian I know what I'm called to do from a biblical standpoint but my flesh battles my spirit continually. My personal will sways with the wind but the written Word changes not and remains my guide through thick and thin. So no matter what my personal will is I am still bound by my sense of right and wrong which sears my conscience. I believe the Holy Spirit often speaks to us through our conscience. When I'm confronted with situations that don't seem to have a right or wrong answer I simply ask for the Spirit's guidance and pray that I choose correctly.
Speaking from a personal point of view I feel blessed that I have a Guide to help me navigate through this world -- a world that has no hard and fast concept of right and wrong and that's easily swayed by the whims of a particular political party or society or special interest group. People need to feel like they're a part of something and I believe that they are willing to "bend the rules" if it means they can gain a sense of popularity or a sense of belonging. A Christian often has it tough as he/they/we are called to stand up to and against the popular whims or new societal "norms" of the day. Unfortunately, many modern Christians are willing to sell their sense of right and wrong to join the same clubs.
Poor argumentation.
He didn't say right and wrong were meaningless. He said they required context.
Bad form, DS.
Could you create a context where stealing a car would be a relative good? I'll bet you can.
I could steal a car if my wife was having a baby and I needed to rush her to the hospital. I could justify my action as right for the benefit of my wife but it is still wrong to steal. If we allow ourselves to justify a wrong for our own personal needs then everyone is free to create justification for breaking all sorts of laws or codes of ethics.
But Editec's comment is basically a short summation of "situational ethics" which opens all sorts of doors to folks' personal interpretations of what's right or wrong. If we're to live by situational ethics then we must conclude that there are no codes of ethics to break because we're all free to break them if there were any. Situational Ethics is the precursor to Anarchy (from an Anarchist's point of view). For a society to operate in a civilized manner there must be a hard and fast set of ethics/morals/rights/wrongs.
Exactly! If you are a Christian living by faith ( the just shall live by faith ) you resist Satans temptation to steal the car, call taxi and instead pray Lord, I know you are with us in this and that you are in full control of this situation. I'm your Servant and we are your responsibility. We trust you will handle this. That is the highest order of faith.
Or - I pray and realize that by breaking the law I have now opened myself up for a satanic attack in which a car from nowhere could hit us legally and I've got no grounds to stand on...
*
I see all of this from a spiritual pov and I couldn't justify stealing the car because it would leave me and my spouse wide open for an attack from the enemy. If we are without a car and must steal one we are already under attack.. that is the time to double down and lay your faith out on the line for God bigtime. He loves it.
My favorite prayer is if you deliver me from this situation you deliver me but even if you do not deliver me from it I will not bow down to Baal! Either way I praise God alone - the outcome is up to Him.
I cannot speak for Bruce but I know exactly where I have found it to be. At the precise point I do not want to surrender something and the Word is telling me I must. This is the ultimate conflict of the human soul and until I surrender the thing there is no peace. (peace with God ) This is where I decide to go on with God or come to a standstill. Because I'm not going one step further until that matter is dealt with.
The only other alternative is to say, I am not convinced that the Word of God is true, unaltered, infallible. I believe the truth needs to be "adjusted" to accomodate the times I am living in and the desires of my heart whatever they may be. I'm not only willing to deny Jesus before men ( His Word is Him ) but I'm approving those who will join me in the effort. At the end of the day I've become my own god.
In answer to the OP. I find if I am walking with God my conscience is very keen to right and wrong. If I am running from God my conscience could well be ignored and not too effective depending upon how long I've been ignoring it for.
The conscience can become seared and with that searing there is no longer anything to gauge right and wrong by other than what the Christian should gauge their right and wrong on - return to being led by the Holy Spirit AND the Word of God.
That is covered in Romans 1.
On the matter of morality, values, and knowing right from wrong? The Holy Spirit has dealt with me on matters others would be say, that isn't a sin! But it was for me because the LORD said, not to do it. The more a person obeys God the keener their conscience becomes. The more they will walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh.
The reverse is also true - leading to a complete blindness in which a counterfeit spirituality fills the vacuum completely. It is a dangerous place to be.
What about the atheist whose life is exemplary in every way? Gave to charities, did good works in 3rd world countries, gave huge donations - such as the Rockafellers have done perhaps?..... The very mention of their names - people reply - such a good family! Does God recognize any good work, any moral effort apart from Christ, any good word or deed done apart from Christ as anything more than something to be burnt up on judgment day? Not according to Him He doesn't. I will take Him at His Word because to do otherwise is simply irrational.
Good post.
As a Christian I know what I'm called to do from a biblical standpoint but my flesh battles my spirit continually. My personal will sways with the wind but the written Word changes not and remains my guide through thick and thin. So no matter what my personal will is I am still bound by my sense of right and wrong which sears my conscience. I believe the Holy Spirit often speaks to us through our conscience. When I'm confronted with situations that don't seem to have a right or wrong answer I simply ask for the Spirit's guidance and pray that I choose correctly.
Speaking from a personal point of view I feel blessed that I have a Guide to help me navigate through this world -- a world that has no hard and fast concept of right and wrong and that's easily swayed by the whims of a particular political party or society or special interest group. People need to feel like they're a part of something and I believe that they are willing to "bend the rules" if it means they can gain a sense of popularity or a sense of belonging. A Christian often has it tough as he/they/we are called to stand up to and against the popular whims or new societal "norms" of the day. Unfortunately, many modern Christians are willing to sell their sense of right and wrong to join the same clubs.
You applaud this poster who denigrates all good service a man might do for others if it doesn't start from god.
I find that terribly sad.
The red part of your post is precisely the need that Christians respond to.
If the Rockefellers (or more to the point, Carnegie) did this wonderful service to their fellow man and the poster wants to denigrate them, hasn't he sold his sense of right and wrong to stay a member of his club in good standing? Is standing against the societal norm that Carnegie did a colossal amount of good with his fortune and that is still good in spite of his atheism something to preen over?
This is the slavery to absolutes that make men evil in spite of their good intentions.
Not at all.I could steal a car if my wife was having a baby and I needed to rush her to the hospital. I could justify my action as right for the benefit of my wife but it is still wrong to steal. If we allow ourselves to justify a wrong for our own personal needs then everyone is free to create justification for breaking all sorts of laws or codes of ethics.
But Editec's comment is basically a short summation of "situational ethics" which opens all sorts of doors to folks' personal interpretations of what's right or wrong. If we're to live by situational ethics then we must conclude that there are no codes of ethics to break because we're all free to break them if there were any. Situational Ethics is the precursor to Anarchy (from an Anarchist's point of view).
Context is the basis for judgment.
It is the legal concept of mitigating circumstances.
Context is key. It doesn't destroy the fabric of society. It prevents a society from becoming heartless slaves to absolutes.
I have to disagree. I have no choice. What if the "fabric of society" starts to lean towards making child pornography "legal" and incorporates that practice into that society's code of ethics. Would it be right because society says so? I say that child pornography has been, is, and always will be WRONG. I don't mind being a "slave to that absolute."
Good post.
As a Christian I know what I'm called to do from a biblical standpoint but my flesh battles my spirit continually. My personal will sways with the wind but the written Word changes not and remains my guide through thick and thin. So no matter what my personal will is I am still bound by my sense of right and wrong which sears my conscience. I believe the Holy Spirit often speaks to us through our conscience. When I'm confronted with situations that don't seem to have a right or wrong answer I simply ask for the Spirit's guidance and pray that I choose correctly.
Speaking from a personal point of view I feel blessed that I have a Guide to help me navigate through this world -- a world that has no hard and fast concept of right and wrong and that's easily swayed by the whims of a particular political party or society or special interest group. People need to feel like they're a part of something and I believe that they are willing to "bend the rules" if it means they can gain a sense of popularity or a sense of belonging. A Christian often has it tough as he/they/we are called to stand up to and against the popular whims or new societal "norms" of the day. Unfortunately, many modern Christians are willing to sell their sense of right and wrong to join the same clubs.
You applaud this poster who denigrates all good service a man might do for others if it doesn't start from god.
I find that terribly sad.
The red part of your post is precisely the need that Christians respond to.
If the Rockefellers (or more to the point, Carnegie) did this wonderful service to their fellow man and the poster wants to denigrate them, hasn't he sold his sense of right and wrong to stay a member of his club in good standing? Is standing against the societal norm that Carnegie did a colossal amount of good with his fortune and that is still good in spite of his atheism something to preen over?
This is the slavery to absolutes that make men evil in spite of their good intentions.
Two things. I applaud her because of her honest opinions and because she posted without denigrating others.
I also happen to agree with her from a Christian point of view.
I don't think that she (nor I) look down on anyone who does "good" from a secular standpoint. I love when one person does something nice for someone else. That's in line with Christ's second great commandment. I'm not free to judge the heart and soul of another man. I believe that duty lands in the hands of Someone greater than I.
