Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seems a distinction without a difference, to me.
These verses become far more clear if we listen to all the full text, fully through the entire book(s). That way, we get all of the needed context for each.Thanks for the response. What about the verses that are in contradiction to these ideas?
Such as throwing people in fire, Mt 3:10, 7:19 or dividing families Mt 10:21, or the flood Mt 24:37 etc. This is why I think the Bible is a bad source of morality. It has good and bad things in it.
It is clear that the instructions from God are not "Clear and easy". Christians don't agree on what it takes to be saved.These verses become far more clear if we listen to all the full text, fully through the entire book(s). That way, we get all of the needed context for each.
So, if you are interested:
Matthew 3:10 The axe lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (and 7:19)
This is explained more fully and helpfully in John 15:1-17 -- that any believer that refuses to follow the true and clear and easy to understand instructions of God, to love others as we love ourselves -- anyone refusing to bear that fruit -- such persons refusing to even try to do this aren't suitable for an eternal life and won't gain eternal life. Further, for believers, we learn in John 15 that we can only really succeed to the extent that we look to Christ and rely on Him as we seek to bear such fruit.
Will people betray others to death because of the ideas in the commitments?Next you picked a verse from a time when believers will be persecuted in an extreme way (though this has happened in the past also):
Matthew 10:21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death.
It's saying simply that even close family members (that don't believe) will betray their Christian family members (inform on them, turn them over) to the mob or authorities in such times of intense persecution.
Jesus affirms that the flood happened and as such as He is God he decided to kill all but 8 people on earth.Matthew 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man.
This verse is saying that when Christ returns for the final time (to come), it will be unexpected for most of the people, who will be living their lives as if nothing that matters will interrupt ordinary life as usual.
If "social justice" means "equality of outcome" then that would indicate throwing away "responsibility."The Ten Commitments:
1. Critical Thinking
2. Ethical Development
3. Peace and Social Justice
4. Service and Participation
5. Empathy
6. Humility
7. Environmentalism
8. Global Awareness
9. Responsibility
10. Altruism
They are explained here: Living Humanist Values: The Ten Commitments - TheHumanist.com
Seems to me that anyone, no matter what their beliefs, can get behind these ideas.
What do you object to here or what do you think should be changed or added?
Jesus affirms that the flood happened and as such as He is God he decided to kill all but 8 people on earth.
If "social justice" means "equality of outcome" then that would indicate throwing away "responsibility."
Nowhere in the description of social justice in the link I attached does it say "equality of outcome". There is a reason I attached the link so you could read it for yourself.If "social justice" means "equality of outcome" then that would indicate throwing away "responsibility."
He killed them all by drowning. He could have just killed them where they stood or make all the women barren and let them die off after a normal life. Then he could have transported them and given them the same chance to repent. Why did He choose a more cruel way to die?And God transported the portion that was wicked drowned in the Flood to become "spirits in prison" where Christ Himself came to give them the gospel message of salvation!
-- 1rst Peter chapter 3 verse 18 through chapter 4 verse 6.
A very fair chance! Grace. He is merciful to any that repent.
Did anyone read the link? You went further to give them a bad motive "succeed in great havoc" just because they are unbelievers. This is the true discrimination and a show of Christian priviledge, assumed bad motives because of unbelief.If equal outcome is what social justice
warriors are out to bring about, they are
doomed to fail in that but may yet succeed
in great havoc, which may be the actual goal.
I did read it, but many people who advocate for equality of outcome say the same things that site does about social justice. That's why I threw that out there.Nowhere in the description of social justice in the link I attached does it say "equality of outcome". There is a reason I attached the link so you could read it for yourself.
He killed them all by drowning. He could have just killed them where they stood or make all the women barren and let them die off after a normal life. Then he could have transported them and given them the same chance to repent. Why did He choose a more cruel way to die?
Many Christians once thought slavery was ok, is it ok for me to think that about you because you are a Christian?I did read it, but many people who advocate for equality of outcome say the same things that site does about social justice. That's why I threw that out there.
Did anyone read the link? You went further to give them a bad motive "succeed in great havoc" just because they are unbelievers. This is the true discrimination and a show of Christian priviledge, assumed bad motives because of unbelief.
God says this about everyone today. No one is good not one.Cruelty -- that's a very good thing to carefully consider(!).
My sense is that few people, and I think even few in churches, have been able to comprehend/accept what the text says was happening just before the Flood -- a situation so extreme the mind doesn't want to encompass it.
We tend to want to discount it, just not see it.
Like if we don't look, it will go away.
Maybe many people read it and then their mind refuses to allow the words to be what they are saying.
But the wording is about a shocking situation.
Verses 5 through 11, with several real surprises (including destroying a pet favorite theory of many that God foresees all things, disproven here in my opinion). Have a look, if you like:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
Except Noah right? I will say again, God could have dealt with the problem a more humane way, he is God right. Setting an example for future people to always act humanely. Why does He just go to drowning them off the bat?[I think many people can't quite grasp, or maybe it's they can't quite accept, that wording: that the culture of the peoples had descended to the point where they had only evil thoughts, and all of the time. A fantastically extreme level of evil that we'd grope to try to find replicated anywhere...maybe one would think of the guards herding people into the gas chambers at Auschwitz, but...well, worse. Not any love or compassion anywhere at all, not even occasional. Not even here or there. But zero love, zero kindness. Only rape and murder and brutality, constant, everywhere, all the time.]
What did the animals ever do?6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
[Here in my view the idea God foresees all things is disproven. In my opinion.]
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” ...
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.
Except Noah right?[Only violence, everywhere, all the time, and filling all places and probably even all hours of the day.]
So then do we as moral people treat them cruelly? Hitler may have deserved to be drowned but it would have been immoral to put him into a room and flood it until he died. That would make us immoral as well. An eye for an eye is immoral.Ok, see why this seems hard for many to grasp? They don't want to acknowledge -- or maybe it's just strong reluctance to think about... -- that humans can do something like Auschwitz, or worse....
When things are this bad, living that way is cruelty, already.
Cruelty -- that's a very good thing to carefully consider(!).
My sense is that few people, and I think even few in churches, have been able to comprehend/accept what the text says was happening just before the Flood -- a situation so extreme the mind doesn't want to encompass it.
We tend to want to discount it, just not see it. Or if someone does see it, maybe the mind self-protectively forgets....
Like if we don't look, it will go away.
Maybe many people read it and then their mind refuses to allow the words to be what they are saying.
But the wording is about a shocking situation.
Verses 5 through 11, with more than one surprise (including destroying a pet favorite theory of many that God foresees all things, disproven here in my opinion). Have a look, if you like:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
[I think many people can't quite grasp, or maybe it's they can't quite accept, that wording: that the culture of the peoples had descended to the point where they had only evil thoughts, and all of the time. A fantastically extreme level of evil that we'd grope to try to find any parallel for....
...maybe one would think of the guards herding people into the gas chambers at Auschwitz, but...well, worse. They had not any love or compassion anywhere at all, not even occasional. Not even sometimes. Zero love, zero kindness. Only rape and murder and brutality, constant, everywhere, all the time.]
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
[Here in my view the idea God foresees all things is disproven. In my opinion.]
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” ...
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.
[Only violence, everywhere, all the time, and filling all places and probably even all hours of the day.]
Ok, see why this seems hard for many to grasp? They don't want to acknowledge -- or maybe it's just strong reluctance to think about... -- that humans can do something like Auschwitz, or worse....
When things are this bad, living that way is cruelty, already.
No, you saidThat seems to be the biggest red herring I have seen in a long time.
My objections are too many and would take too long to list and explain. My main problem with Humanism is that it is just a secularized version of religious morality, the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism. Altruism is incompatible with human nature. I'm speaking of altruism as it was originally defined.The Ten Commitments:
1. Critical Thinking
2. Ethical Development
3. Peace and Social Justice
4. Service and Participation
5. Empathy
6. Humility
7. Environmentalism
8. Global Awareness
9. Responsibility
10. Altruism
They are explained here: Living Humanist Values: The Ten Commitments - TheHumanist.com
Seems to me that anyone, no matter what their beliefs, can get behind these ideas.
What do you object to here or what do you think should be changed or added?
How about as it is defined in the link I posted? That is what we are discussing. It may be against our human nature but why is it not good to strive to be more altruistic?My objections are too many and would take too long to list and explain. My main problem with Humanism is that it is just a secularized version of religious morality, the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism. Altruism is incompatible with human nature. I'm speaking of altruism as it was originally defined.
How about as it is defined in the link I posted? That is what we are discussing. It may be against our human nature but why is it not good to strive to be more altruistic?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?