We No Longer Have A Moral Compass

[Eagledad 2784]

>>Well, I disagree

[Rooster7 11]

Merlyn,

 

Well, I disagree, given that god has rules for the proper way to keep and hold slaves, just for one example.

 

Your inference appears to be - God (the God of the Bible) endorses slavery. I not only disagreebut I further assert that this supposition demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of God and His Word. We, Gods children, exist in a fallen world. Gods instructions for us have many purposes (and this is especially true in the OT before His plan for our salvation was fully revealed). For example, see Matthew 19:3-9:

 

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

 

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

 

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 

Did God endorse divorce? Clearly Jesus teaches that Moses (Gods messenger) permitted it to occurbut Moses (and Jesus) never taught or declared divorce to be honorable or a righteous path.

 

In short, dont portray God through the words and actions of His children. We are flawed; He is not. Furthermore, there are many stories in the Bible and each has a message. Some stories demonstrate Gods capacity to love His children even when our behavior deserves His judgment. Is that a tacit endorsement of bad behavior? Of course, it is not. Its a demonstration of His merciful heart.

 

And I never see gods themselves issuing rules, only people claiming to speak for them, which is why basic societal rules like whether polygamy is OK have never been settled.

 

Interestingly, according to the verses I noted above, God clearly states that polygamy is not part of His design for us. And again, we are flawed God is not. So yes, there are many who speak without any real consideration of God or His Word.

 

On a more practical basis, since nobody can demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that their particular rules actually ARE "the" absolute rules, it all ends up being argued by people anyway.

 

True. But just because people disagree, that does not negate the reality of an absolute truth. You can make all the grand arguments you want some of which may even be convincing. But no matter how intelligent you are, and no matter how well you state your arguments if the God of the Bible exists (and I only say if for your benefit and to make this point), then within the next 30 to 40 years (assuming you are about 40 to 50 years old) you will not only meet Him, but you will be judged by Him. I dont say that to be judgmental or hostile towards you, but Id like for you to consider and recognize that your rhetoric has consequences not only for those that you convince, but for you personally. I hope your convictions are truly heartfelt not because I feel that will change the results of those convictions, but at least you are not marching down a road with pride as your bandleader. IF you truly believe that God does not exist (or that his moral compass is infallible), then so be it Im sure you sleep well and theres nothing else I can say. BUT if youre just presenting arguments to show how well you can defend yourself and/or belittle the arguments of others well, that makes you a great debater, but it doesnt negate the truth nor will it allow you to sleep very well. For your consideration I hope you do.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Explain to the Southern Baptists how they got everything wrong; I don't believe any of it, of course (the talking animals being something of a tip-off). My main point is, even people who think there IS an absolute morality can't demonstrate that their "absolute" morality is correct when it differs from someone else's "absolute" morality, so it all ends up being argued by humans in any case. It's really just the usual fallacy of argument from authority.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, Merlyn, yeh quest for an absolute truth in science too, eh? Cosmological "theories of everything" and all that.

 

But lots of scientists don't agree on what da absolute truth is, or even what we know at the moment. Those arguments, too, like debates on da cause and potential consequences of global warming or the age of the universe or whatnot - all "end up being argued by humans in any case." It's usually just the usual fallacy of an argument from (scientific) authority or reputation, eh?

 

What you're describin' is how all human knowledge progresses. Rooster just gave a beautiful example of how Christians see progress and deepening of their understandin' of God over time, as God reveals more to us and we listen more intently and with better informed hearts.

 

And yeh have to be a bit careful about how yeh read the bible, eh? Da "slavery" of the OT was not the same thing as the chattel slavery of black Africans by the West. Still not morally OK as a social institution, but social institutions are not really da purview of religion, eh? Especially in a period of time before democracy. Religion concerns itself with personal morality and relationship with God. What is just behavior for an individual living in such a time, whether da individual is a ruler or a peasant?

 

Remember that it was da faith-filled believing Christian folk who aggressively pursued the end of chattel slavery in the West. Many of 'em sacrificing their fortunes and their sons to the cause.

 

I confess, though, that I have an old-fashioned moral compass, eh? I think the torture of people, includin' prisoners in your care, is everywhere and always wrong. And as someone with a legal background, I think that in democratic civil society the suspension of habeas corpus (among other acts!) is a gross violation of da social contract, and the solemn vow to Protect and Defend the Constitution.

 

To have any meaning, religious values and absolute morality must be applied first and always to ourselves, and our friends, and the country to which we pledge allegiance.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

Yah, Merlyn, yeh quest for an absolute truth in science too, eh?

 

Science isn't at all about finding "absolute truth".

 

But lots of scientists don't agree on what da absolute truth is, or even what we know at the moment.

 

Because that isn't what science is about.

 

"Absolute truth" is what some religions pretend to know. That's got nothing to do with science.

[GernBlansten 10]

Our moral compass is reading a little truer today.

Habeas corpus was restored.

[Beavah 205]

Science is the search for truth - Linus Pauling

 

Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume... Freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus I deem [an] essential principle of our government. Thomas Jefferson

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -- Einstein.

[Rooster7 11]

So Merlyn - do you see death as being your final experiment? Certainly, no amount of experimentation in your lifetime will prove your theory correct - i.e. God does not exist.

[FScouter 24]

No, Einstein said death was the final experiment.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I'll have more information when I'm dead, but I doubt that any gods will put in appearances.

[Rooster7 11]

Aha...but you do have doubt. ;-) And from a little seed...

 

Sure would like to have you on this side of the fence. Your powers of persuasion and logic are truly gifts from... (Well, you know who).

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Just have your invisible friend show up sometime.

[skeptic 1004]

Ah Merlyn; my "invisible friend" shows up regularly. You might recognize he/she in a sunset, or the power of a lightning bolt, or perhaps the smile of a tiny child. On the other hand, probably not, as you do not appear to see these types of things as anything beyond ourselves. It is sad to me that some people seem to have such arid souls.

 

But, I believe that you will have one more chance at the time that you "cross the bar". Reality will be obvious; but you will still have "free will", and can choose to deny one last time.

 

Good luck.

[packsaddle 753]

Merlyn, I contend that you'll have no information whatsoever at death. Your neurons will cease to fire, your metabolism will shut down and you will cease to exist except as a pile of quickly-decomposing organic chemicals. Your thoughts will cease, your memories vanish, your knowledge lost, at least anything that isn't written somewhere.

Merlyn will only continue as whatever memories we continue to have or as whatever ideas you originated and communicated, that may still be propagated through the generations. But in less than 100 years you and most of the rest of us will be essentially anonymous, or at least long forgotten - even by our relatives.

People will care nothing for you and the best you can hope for is an indifferent universe.

Have a nice day.