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.
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 wonder how proud your wife would be if her child died in the street when you could have saved it.
I'm sure she would share your devotion.
Hey, it was god's will.
Or did that person leave their keys in the ignition because it was god's will?
Oh well, kill the kid and ask later.
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 your rebuttal argument is that situational ethics are real?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 wonder how proud your wife would be if her child died in the street when you could have saved it.
I'm sure she would share your devotion.
Hey, it was god's will.
Or did that person leave their keys in the ignition because it was god's will?
Oh well, kill the kid and ask later.
But now you're questioning another person's morals which you have no right to do if you're living in a world of situational ethics. What's "right" for you may not be right for Jeremiah because there are no rights or wrongs in a world where everyone chooses for themselves.
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.
Jesus wept. I'm weeping reading this post ( because in Matthew 24 Jesus knew this day was coming). The truth is siding with political parties, groups is not something the disciples would have been involved in, Drifting Sand. The politicization of God - especially within some of the church - has been a deeply grieving thing to watch. The bending you are witnessing is the compromise within their own lives which has led to no more sermons on holiness, obedience and repentance. It's dark in there.
You specifically stated their WORKS should be burned on judgment day.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.
Contexts change as facts change but the truth does not change. The Word of God which is the truth is eternal and the content factual 100% of the time. Therein it is the guide chosen by which our founding fathers established America.
If a foundation is sure why not build on it?
I did not denigrate philanthropists such as Carnegie or Rockafeller. I'm merely stating that their good works did not reveal their character because only the Word of God can reveal such things. Time always proves Gods Word right.
According to the Word of God it rains on the just and the unjust. A person could be moral, wealthy, a philanthropist, reject Jesus Christ and miss heaven entirely. How am I denigrating an individual for having made his own choice to deny Christ? Could his works save him? No they could not. Could his wealth save him? No it could not.
Christ alone can save a mans soul. The offer is open to whosoever will call upon His name. The Rich, the Poor, the prostitute, the tax collector the whosoevers.. there can be no excuses for rejecting such a pardon offered freely to one and all.
One of the most revealing truths about mans own "goodness" is that after he's gone awhile we find out he wasn't quite as "good" as we were told he was!
Amazing what money can buy people such as Rockafeller. Monuments built in their names, libraries and other institutions named after them, revised family histories, business dealings, meetings with the Pope and heads of nations. The praises of men preferred over the truth of Gods Word. Ignored to their own peril...
The one thing it cannot buy them is entry into heaven. They either come in the narrow gate or not at all.
Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:
Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?
3) The Problem of Morality
Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?
Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.
Problems for Atheists
IMO, its just the opposite. Religions are full of excuses.
Atheists don't have anyone to blame. They don't have the option of saying "god moves in mysterious ways", "the devil made me do it" or any of the other platitudes. They have to take the blame, the responsibility and the credit for their own actions.
If there is no God and thus no universal code of morality, what's this business about "responsibility" for your actions? Since there is no objective meaning or morality in your view, how can you compel people to accept your admittedly subjective moral standard?
Has it ever occurred to you that entire civilizations have existed and flourished prior to the invention of your gods?
It would seem that your gods are irrelevant in terms of societies ability to establish codes of conduct that benefit the greater good.
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.
Well the poster you are lauding thinks that these good works should be burned on judgment day, so make up your mind, because you can't support loving when someone does good and burning those good actions to cinders on judgment day. These are the logical disconnects that make me crazy.
As long as someone says "god" or "Christ" the rest of what they say is irrelevant and arguments become nonsensical and contradictory.
Plant your flag SOMEWHERE!
Why not have the courage to disagree with that poster, as you plainly do based on your post to me?
Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:
Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?
3) The Problem of Morality
Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?
Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.
Problems for Atheists
Explain the moral code of these true believers: Terrorists, Middle-age Crusaders, Inquisitors, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, who said:
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
I believe those who defy the law of gravity from a high bridge or tower are wrong.
The Maya, for one. How about Egyptian.If there is no God and thus no universal code of morality, what's this business about "responsibility" for your actions? Since there is no objective meaning or morality in your view, how can you compel people to accept your admittedly subjective moral standard?
Has it ever occurred to you that entire civilizations have existed and flourished prior to the invention of your gods?
It would seem that your gods are irrelevant in terms of societies ability to establish codes of conduct that benefit the greater good.
Name those civilizations for me.
My gods? How do you presume to know who my gods are?The Maya, for one. How about Egyptian.Has it ever occurred to you that entire civilizations have existed and flourished prior to the invention of your gods?
It would seem that your gods are irrelevant in terms of societies ability to establish codes of conduct that benefit the greater good.
Name those civilizations for me.
You do understand that many gods preceded your gods, right?
Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:
Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?
3) The Problem of Morality
Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?
Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.
Problems for Atheists
Explain the moral code of these true believers: Terrorists, Middle-age Crusaders, Inquisitors, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, who said:
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
I believe those who defy the law of gravity from a high bridge or tower are wrong.
The Maya, for one. How about Egyptian.Has it ever occurred to you that entire civilizations have existed and flourished prior to the invention of your gods?
It would seem that your gods are irrelevant in terms of societies ability to establish codes of conduct that benefit the greater good.
Name those civilizations for me.
You do understand that many gods preceded your gods, right?
The vast majority of the world's population is heterosexual so it goes without saying heterosexuals will make up the larger proportion of AIDS cases.Your AIDS riff is pure ignorance.
The vast majority of victims of the disease worldwide are heterosexual.
You can look it up.
The vast majority of the world's population is heterosexual so it goes without saying heterosexuals will make up the larger proportion of AIDS cases.Your AIDS riff is pure ignorance.
The vast majority of victims of the disease worldwide are heterosexual.
You can look it up.
Neither does adultery, and Christianity may be right about that, too.
But I don't see your crusade about that.
