Are American declining in moral?

partinobodycular said:

Uhm, I do believe that you've quoted the wrong scripture, you're actually referring to Psalm 103:13. More to the point though, what father sets as a requirement for their love the fact that their children must fear them?

Or you could skip down a few verses to this one, Psalm 103:17 "But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him."

Fortunately for me, I do believe that these are prime examples of where the bible translators really messed up. But hey, if you choose to believe that God really wants you to fear Him, then be my guest. The only one losing out here is you, and you seem to be fine with it... so go ahead... fear away.

Click to expand...

Correct, it's Ps. 103. So lets see your improved translation?

BNR32FAN said:

I came to God from fear but it wasn’t fear of hell it was fear of being alone and dying alone never having a family. I’d say some time within a year I grew to love Him. Now I’m married to a beautiful woman with two beautiful daughters and a son and I praise His Holy name everyday.

Click to expand...

Great testimony! But yes, I feared hell, and then years later came across this statement of Jesus: "Do not fear those who can kill the body, but afterward can do nothing to you. Rather, fear Him who can destroy both your body and soul in hell (gehenna); I tell you, that's whom you should fear." (Lk. 12:4-5)

So, if Jesus delivered us from bondage to the fear of death (that is, eternal condemnation), then how could we be delivered from something we never were in bondage to? I get the idea that people who don't believe in fearing God (or fearing what He can justly do) have some issue they don't want to address.

tdidymas said:

"Do not fear those who can kill the body, but afterward can do nothing to you. Rather, fear Him who can destroy both your body and soul in hell (gehenna); I tell you, that's whom you should fear." (Lk. 12:4-5)

Click to expand...

I'm curious, how do you as a Baptist reconcile your belief in eternal damnation with Luke's claim that the soul will be destroyed in hell?

Will it... or won't it?

Methinks, that as with Psalms, the biblical authors were prone to taking a bit of poetic license.

I think any answer the question about the decline of morality of Americans must include considerations of the abolition of slavery, the extension of the franchise to black voters and increasingly allowing black people to exercise their rights as citizens.

The historical fact of the reduction in crimes generally and of violent crimes in particular is some evidence for an overall improvement in morality, I wonder if - just possibly - the question was framed with the narrower focus of sexual morality?

Whyayeman said:

I wonder if - just possibly - the question was framed with the narrower focus of sexual morality?

Click to expand...

Good point. While I think that the "moral health" of humanity is generally improving, I would not be prepared to say that our "sexual morality" is either improving or getting worse.

partinobodycular said:

I'm curious, how do you as a Baptist reconcile your belief in eternal damnation with Luke's claim that the soul will be destroyed in hell?

Will it... or won't it?

Methinks, that as with Psalms, the biblical authors were prone to taking a bit of poetic license.

Click to expand...

Your response implies:
1. You don't think Luke was quoting Jesus?
2. You formulate a doctrine of eternal punishment on your personal interpretation of a single verse of scripture?
3. Perhaps Luke (or Jesus) was taking poetic license in this verse, do you assume not?
4. How do you reconcile other quotes from Jesus on eternal punishment, such as Mat. 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"
which corresponds to Dan. 12:2 "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."?

When formulating something significant as doctrine to believe, you should be considering the wider context of scripture, rather than jumping to a conclusion on a single statement. Where are you getting the idea you are coming from?

tdidymas said:

Your response implies:
1. You don't think Luke was quoting Jesus?
2. You formulate a doctrine of eternal punishment on your personal interpretation of a single verse of scripture?
3. Perhaps Luke (or Jesus) was taking poetic license in this verse, do you assume not?
4. How do you reconcile other quotes from Jesus on eternal punishment, such as Mat. 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment"
which corresponds to Dan. 12:2 "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."?

When formulating something significant as doctrine to believe, you should be considering the wider context of scripture, rather than jumping to a conclusion on a single statement. Where are you getting the idea you are coming from?

Click to expand...

So I asked you a question and you deflected by asking me a series of questions in return. I'll assume that this was a perfectly understandable response.

However, it did nothing to address my curiosity. Will the sinner's soul be destroyed in hell... implying that their punishment isn't eternal... or was Luke's statement somehow in error, either because it's been mistranslated over the years, or it wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place. I mean we all do this from time to time... say things that aren't quite correct if taken literally.

Or maybe there's something other than the body and soul that survives hellfire, and eternal punishment applies to that. I just don't know.

So personally, I don't know why scripture seems to contradict itself on this topic, but it certainly seems to, so I'm simply curious as to how you as a Baptist reconcile eternal punishment with the soul being destroyed in Gehenna. It's just me being curious about something that I can't personally explain, and hoping that you could help clarify it for me.

partinobodycular said:

So I asked you a question and you deflected by asking me a series of questions in return. I'll assume that this was a perfectly understandable response.

However, it did nothing to address my curiosity. Will the sinner's soul be destroyed in hell... implying that their punishment isn't eternal... or was Luke's statement somehow in error, either because it's been mistranslated over the years, or it wasn't meant to be taken literally in the first place. I mean we all do this from time to time... say things that aren't quite correct if taken literally.

Or maybe there's something other than the body and soul that survives hellfire, and eternal punishment applies to that. I just don't know.

So personally, I don't know why scripture seems to contradict itself on this topic, but it certainly seems to, so I'm simply curious as to how you as a Baptist reconcile eternal punishment with the soul being destroyed in Gehenna. It's just me being curious about something that I can't personally explain, and hoping that you could help clarify it for me.

Click to expand...

Firstly, Mat. 10:28 uses the phrase "destroy both body and soul in hell," whereas Luke 12:5 uses the phrase "cast into hell." Therefore, the term "destroy" is associated with Matthew. Here is Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's commentary: "which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell--A decisive proof this that there is a hell for the body as well as the soul in the eternal world; in other words, that the torment that awaits the lost will have elements of suffering adapted to the material as well as the spiritual part of our nature, both of which, we are assured, will exist for ever."

Strong's lexicon indicates the word does not have to mean total annihilation (out of existence), with definitions such as: put out of the way entirely, render useless, (metaphorically) to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell, to perish, to be lost, ruined, to lose.

The point of the statement is that God is the one to respect above man.

John Gill's commentary: "to torment and punish both body and soul "in hell", in everlasting burnings; for neither soul nor body will be annihilated; though this he is able to do. As the former clause expresses the immortality of the soul, this supposes the resurrection of the body; for how otherwise should it be destroyed, or punished with the soul in hell?"

Dr. Constable's interpretation: "Destroy here does not mean annihilation, but ruination. The same Greek verb appears in 9:17, and describes ruined wineskins. Note that the body can die, but the soul cannot."

Bengel commentary: "ἀπολέσαι, to destroy, to ruin. It is not said to kill: the soul is immortal."

People's NT Commentary: "Fear God, who can condemn the soul to banishment. The command is to fear not the displeasure of man, but that of God."

Most commentaries I have access to don't say one way or another. My point in the previous post was that we should examine all scripture on the subject in order to make a proper assessment. Other scriptures are clear that the punishment of evildoers is eternal.

I hope this answers your question.

tdidymas said:

I hope this answers your question.

Click to expand...

Actually, yes it did. It explains how you reconcile the difference between the body and soul being destroyed on the one hand, and yet experiencing eternal punishment on the other. Unfortunately it raises another curious question. Because you seem to have reconciled them by altering the meaning of the word "destroy" to fit your preferred narrative. Which is odd, because earlier in this thread I questioned the use of the word "fear" in Psalm 103. If you want, I can go find biblical commentaries that will support alternate interpretations of the text.

Personally, I don't think 'fear' is really a translation error, instead I think it's a difference in cultural perspectives. Children in the ancient Middle East were likely raised believing that they should fear their father, (after all, in the OT he could have them stoned to death) I also believe that this attitude was then reflected in how they interpreted the relationship between themselves and God. But nowadays, rather than teaching children to fear their fathers, we teach them to respect their fathers, it's a matter of semantics perhaps, but a far more Christian ideal if you ask me... and that is how I think Psalm 103 should be interpreted.

My point being, if you want to change the meaning of 'destroy' to fit your own personal narrative, then I'm perfectly fine with that. But at least allow me the same freedom in questioning the use of the word 'fear' in Psalm 103.

Truthfully though, I think that when people begin to divide themselves over the meaning of a few words in a hard to decipher book, then they really have lost the gist of Micah 6:8. Instead, they've simply replaced one set of laws with a newer set of laws, and somehow believe that this constitutes a new covenant, when what it really means is that they've missed the point altogether.

partinobodycular said:

Actually, yes it did. It explains how you reconcile the difference between the body and soul being destroyed on the one hand, and yet experiencing eternal punishment on the other. Unfortunately it raises another curious question. Because you seem to have reconciled them by altering the meaning of the word "destroy" to fit your preferred narrative. Which is odd, because earlier in this thread I questioned the use of the word "fear" in Psalm 103. If you want, I can go find biblical commentaries that will support alternate interpretations of the text.

Personally, I don't think 'fear' is really a translation error, instead I think it's a difference in cultural perspectives. Children in the ancient Middle East were likely raised believing that they should fear their father, (after all, in the OT he could have them stoned to death) I also believe that this attitude was then reflected in how they interpreted the relationship between themselves and God. But nowadays, rather than teaching children to fear their fathers, we teach them to respect their fathers, it's a matter of semantics perhaps, but a far more Christian ideal if you ask me... and that is how I think Psalm 103 should be interpreted.

My point being, if you want to change the meaning of 'destroy' to fit your own personal narrative, then I'm perfectly fine with that. But at least allow me the same freedom in questioning the use of the word 'fear' in Psalm 103.

Truthfully though, I think that when people begin to divide themselves over the meaning of a few words in a hard to decipher book, then they really have lost the gist of Micah 6:8. Instead, they've simply replaced one set of laws with a newer set of laws, and somehow believe that this constitutes a new covenant, when what it really means is that they've missed the point altogether.

Click to expand...

I showed you commentaries to prove it's not my own personal narrative. You appear to be using using that term "personal narrative" to completely reject what I wrote. Historical Christianity has taught that the soul suffers eternally in lake of fire judgment, as implied in Jesus' words in Mk. 9:46 and many other scriptures. So I could put your words right back at you. Like I warned before, to take one single word from scripture to build a doctrine is a dangerous method of interpretation, and usually ends up as what most Christians call heresy (which BTW is what the annihilation idea is called by most Christians). I am aware that there are 3 different views on this issue, and I consider it to be a minor point that doesn't necessarily affect one's salvation. But if you're just wanting to argue about it, then I'm done with this conversation.

tdidymas said:

But if you're just wanting to argue about it, then I'm done with this conversation.

Click to expand...

I have no desire to argue at all, but I do believe that you're right about one thing, this conversation is done.