• 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.

Where is the grey?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PuzzledBread

Newbie
Mar 12, 2009
63
3
✟22,701.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Here's one of the main ideas that sets me against most faiths, the gray area. The Bible does tell us what is right and wrong, to adherents of Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality. However, as an ultimate guide, I've always wondered about situations which conventional morality would see as alright. Thou shalt not kill for example. That is very clear, however, some Christians keep weapons in their home for self defense. I believe the Bible states consistently that in war killing is moral, but is there a verse concerning defending yourself (If there is, this specific example might not be too great)? The commandment doesn't say not to calculate murder, or you can't kill, but if it is an accident or in defense its fine. The commandment clearly states not to kill.

There are numerous other examples, but just to focus on this. Regardless of whether believing in Jesus means it doesn't matter if you sin or not, how does a Christian navigate the gray area from a biblical standpoint?
 

tansy

Senior Member
Jan 12, 2008
7,027
1,331
✟50,979.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just briefly, I think that the commandment (in the Ten Commandments) should actually be better translated as "Thou shalt not murder", rather than "Thou shalt not kill".

I haven't really a clue how to answer the rest of your question...there are various points of view...however, I don't think God blames us if we (accidentally) kill someone in self-defence or whilst protecting our children.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
Here's one of the main ideas that sets me against most faiths, the gray area. The Bible does tell us what is right and wrong, to adherents of Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality. However, as an ultimate guide, I've always wondered about situations which conventional morality would see as alright. Thou shalt not kill for example. That is very clear, however, some Christians keep weapons in their home for self defense. I believe the Bible states consistently that in war killing is moral, but is there a verse concerning defending yourself (If there is, this specific example might not be too great)? The commandment doesn't say not to calculate murder, or you can't kill, but if it is an accident or in defense its fine. The commandment clearly states not to kill.

There are numerous other examples, but just to focus on this. Regardless of whether believing in Jesus means it doesn't matter if you sin or not, how does a Christian navigate the gray area from a biblical standpoint?

It really depends what you take to be your ultimate authority. Many Christians today, particularly of newer denominations, take the Bible to be that authority. This causes all sorts of problems because it was never intended to be used in this way, and quite simply is not up to the task. As you rightly say, we are commanded not to kill, and then in a couple of pages read of the ancient Israelites blithely killing left right and centre, and saying that God told them it was fine.

From my own point of view, I do not hold the Bible as the supreme authority, for the simple reason that such a viewpoint is not sanctioned in Scripture. Scripture always points to God being the supreme authority, and our most accessible image of God is that found in Christ himself. So my faith is Christocentric, rather than Bibliocentric. Rather than being equal to God in authority, the Bible then becomes what it actually says it is, which is a means to find God. In other words a signpost or directory of how to find him, but not actually God, written by God, or equal to God.

With a Christocentric faith, many areas which are left fuzzy, or worse still, actively condoned while being in fact barking mad (such as genocide and slavery, stoning of women etc) become inconceivable. For example, the OT says a woman caught in adultery can be stoned to death. Christ, on the other hand, says only he who is without sin can cast the first stone.

In other words, the Scriptures can be read through Christ, with him being the final arbiter, and the final plumbline by which we measure. And those bits which are actually patently barking mad can bring a wry smile to our faces, but not cause us any loss of sleep whatever.

In a Christocentric faith, the commandments of the Lord take precedence over all other Scripture. And the main commandments to follow are; love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour as thyself. All the rest of the law and the prophets follow from these, according to the Lord. Paul confirms this, when he says that even if we speak with the voices of angels, if we do not have love we are nothing.

There are certainly grey areas in life. And there are very many in Scripture, but there are not so many in Christ. There is the mystery of why he cursed a tree for being a tree :confused:, and there is the mystery of why he says that when you are washing up you only need to clean the inside of the dish, and then the outside will be clean - clearly showing that he was not used to washing up. But these are much less worrying than some of the attitudes attributed to God in the OT, which are shown in Christ to be totally and utterly impossible.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,678
52,518
Guam
✟5,131,102.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's one of the main ideas that sets me against most faiths, the gray area. The Bible does tell us what is right and wrong, to adherents of Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality. However, as an ultimate guide, I've always wondered about situations which conventional morality would see as alright. Thou shalt not kill for example. That is very clear, however, some Christians keep weapons in their home for self defense. I believe the Bible states consistently that in war killing is moral, but is there a verse concerning defending yourself (If there is, this specific example might not be too great)? The commandment doesn't say not to calculate murder, or you can't kill, but if it is an accident or in defense its fine. The commandment clearly states not to kill.

There are numerous other examples, but just to focus on this. Regardless of whether believing in Jesus means it doesn't matter if you sin or not, how does a Christian navigate the gray area from a biblical standpoint?
"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt do no murder" --- as Jesus, Himself pointed out:
Matthew 19:18 said:
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
And as far as killing in wartime, self-defense, or the death penalty --- this verse applies:
Ecclesiastes 3:3a said:
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Here's one of the main ideas that sets me against most faiths, the gray area. The Bible does tell us what is right and wrong, to adherents of Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality. However, as an ultimate guide, I've always wondered about situations which conventional morality would see as alright. Thou shalt not kill for example. That is very clear, however, some Christians keep weapons in their home for self defense. I believe the Bible states consistently that in war killing is moral, but is there a verse concerning defending yourself (If there is, this specific example might not be too great)? The commandment doesn't say not to calculate murder, or you can't kill, but if it is an accident or in defense its fine. The commandment clearly states not to kill.

There are numerous other examples, but just to focus on this. Regardless of whether believing in Jesus means it doesn't matter if you sin or not, how does a Christian navigate the gray area from a biblical standpoint?
The bible is not a set of commands to be followed come what may. It's not a clear-cut set of commands but a set of narratives bound by a meta-narrative. Those commands and rules that it contains are embedded within that narrative. A law, in the sense of set of rules, can never be adequate to deal with the complexities of real life, but a set of stories can.
 
Upvote 0
B

Bible2

Guest
PuzzledBread posted in message #1 of this thread:

The Bible does tell us what is right and wrong, to adherents of
Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality.

Greetings.

That's right, for Christians, because the entire Bible is inspired by
God, it is the ultimate guide to morality (2 Timothy 3:16-4:4). Christ
said that in order to be able to say that they love him, Christians
must actually obey what he commands in the Bible (John 14:21-24, 8:31).

PuzzledBread posted in message #1 of this thread:

However, as an ultimate guide, I've always wondered about situations
which conventional morality would see as alright. Thou shalt not kill
for example. That is very clear, however, some Christians keep
weapons in their home for self defense.

Christ commanded that Christians are not to defend themselves when
attacked (Matthew 5:39). They are not to employ physical weapons
(Matthew 26:52, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5). They are not to fight or kill
flesh and blood people (Ephesians 6:12). They are to follow the
example set by Christ himself when he was attacked (John 15:20,
1 Peter 2:19-23).
 
Upvote 0

PuzzledBread

Newbie
Mar 12, 2009
63
3
✟22,701.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Greetings.

That's right, for Christians, because the entire Bible is inspired by
God, it is the ultimate guide to morality (2 Timothy 3:16-4:4). Christ
said that in order to be able to say that they love him, Christians
must actually obey what he commands in the Bible (John 14:21-24, 8:31).



Christ commanded that Christians are not to defend themselves when
attacked (Matthew 5:39). They are not to employ physical weapons
(Matthew 26:52, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5). They are not to fight or kill
flesh and blood people (Ephesians 6:12). They are to follow the
example set by Christ himself when he was attacked (John 15:20,
1 Peter 2:19-23).


As I said, I'm not awfully familiar with the bible, but I remember bits and pieces of verses. Is there not a verse where Jesus encourages his followers to take up the sword against the enemies in a time of war? I'm sorry if that's too vague, but my question is. Sure, Jesus says this, but then there are verses in the OT which seem to allow violence and genocide of a large scale. How can you take all this information and discern exactly what god wants? There seem to be many different views on what the bible says about killing. It seems some people can barely agree on the black and white, let alone the gray area, so how can you find a solid idea of morality?

And as for those claiming the narrative provides the morals, and there is no clear cut set of guidelines. You're probably right, however, how can you take the moral high ground in that case? How can you say you cannot have morals without religion, when the morality the bible provides is more of a loose narrative on morality, and is interpretable based on your own perception?
 
Upvote 0

Ryft

Nihil sine Deo.
Jan 6, 2004
418
95
Kelowna, BC
Visit site
✟23,578.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
To adherents of Christianity, the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality. However, as an ultimate guide, I've always wondered about situations which conventional morality would see as alright. Thou shalt not kill for example. That is very clear. However, some Christians keep weapons in their home for self defense. I believe the Bible states consistently that in war killing is moral, but is there a verse concerning defending yourself? . . . How does a Christian navigate the gray area from a biblical standpoint? . . . There seem to be many different views on what the bible says about killing. It seems some people can barely agree on the black and white, let alone the gray area, so how can you find a solid idea of morality?

IS KILLING MORAL OR IMMORAL?

You nearly touch the answer here, contained within the question itself. The issue is about "right and wrong"; i.e., morality, which calls our attention to sin and the fact of God's righteousness, sovereignty, and justice. Allow me to explain.

First of all, the Bible does not rule against killing per se; in other words, killing is not wrong in itself. As you already realize, there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God actually commands people to kill. So if it were true that killing is sinful in itself, then God was commanding people to sin.

That creates problematic contradictions, so it can't be correct.

Obviously, then, killing is not wrong in itself—thankfully, since I have killed thousands of spiders and mosquitoes, etc. As some others here have rightly pointed out, it's more accurate to read it as "murder," which means unlawful killing. And that is the all-important word to pay attention to: "unlawful." When it comes to morality (right and wrong), unlawful means "contrary to God's prescriptive commands" because it is God who is the ultimate and sovereign Lawgiver. (Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God, which he expresses prescriptively through his commands.)

When it comes to questions about legality, it is man's laws that come into play ("unlawful" in this sense means illegal). But when it comes to questions about morality, it is God's laws that should be referred to ("unlawful" in this sense means immoral).

(This is where Catherineanne injected the potential for confusion into the issue, because where else do we authoritatively discover God's commands but in the Sacred Scriptures? And if the trinitarian doctrine is true—and it is—then Christ-centered and God-centered are not in conflict. God's prescriptive commands are consistent throughout the very place we can find them: the Sacred Scriptures. As you rightly alluded to, "the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality" because morality is communicated by God and his prescriptive will, which is set down authoritatively in the Bible. It is not the source of morality, but the instructive guide. Furthermore, since moral order is grounded in the very nature of God, it is because we are created in the image of God that we are innately tuned to right and wrong.)

So is killing immoral? Sometimes, but not all the time. Sometimes killing is moral. And sometimes refusing to kill is immoral. The grayness is easily cleared away when you understand that the issue is actually not about killing in itself; rather, it's about what God has commanded. All life is mine, God says, the sovereign creator and sustainer of all things. To give life and to take life is God's office. If we take a life in the absence of a command from God, it is immoral (sin) by virtue of being "murder" or unlawful killing, because life is not ours to give or take away. If God commands it (e.g., some Israelite scenario in the Old Testament) then it is moral because it's obedience to God. And since all life belongs to God, his default command to us is "don't kill." That's the rule. There are no exceptions without his express say-so.

So morality, right and wrong, is about obedience to the will of God. Obey God, moral. Disobey God, immoral.

CHRISTIANS WITH WEAPONS IN THEIR HOME

What about Christians who keep weapons in their home for self-defense? To such Christians I would pose my own question: "Why do you mistrust God?" God is sovereign over all creation, is he not? God is more powerful than all the forces of creation, is he not? God knows all things, does he not? God is holy and just, is he not? Doesn't he love his own children with a depth and scope that cannot be expressed? Does he not look after his own? Does he not have their best interest in mind? Is it not written, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose"? Can such Christians explain why they have weapons in their home with an answer that is consistent with these truths?

WHAT ABOUT CONVENTIONAL MORALITY?

You said you don't understand how people can say "you cannot have morals without religion." Hopefully what I've said so far helps clear much of that up. On the issue of "conventional morality" I will explain the Christian argument even further.

Conventional morality is unreliable because it is man trying to interpret and understand his moral compass without acknowledging the source thereof. We have an innate sense of right and wrong because all mankind is created in the image of God, the ground of moral order. But if we ignore his Word and try to understand morality by our own sin-laden wisdom, we wander across very shaky terrain with inherently unreliable results. (The situation is actually more desperate, for by dismissing God from the equation we actually end up with no intelligible morality at all. In a godless framework, man is just a biochemical collection of molecules and atoms operating according to the physical laws of the universe; things like morality, consciousness, knowledge, etc., are accidental illusions, i.e., not real. The logical conclusion of a godless framework is Nihilism.)

IS THE BIBLE OUR ULTIMATE GUIDE TO MORALITY?

The Bible is the fundamental guide to our proper understanding of and relationship with God, who is the ground of moral order. Although nature reveals that God exists, it is the Sacred Scriptures that reveal who God is, who we are in relation to him, and his eternal plan of redemption. There are several sources of revelation, but only one that is authoritative in this world that suffers under sin. And to those who make noise about bibliolatry or "bibliocentric", I always respond: "Scripture is a vehicle of revelation, not an object of worship."
 
Upvote 0
B

Bible2

Guest
PuzzledBread posted in message #8 of this thread:

Is there not a verse where Jesus encourages his followers to take
up the sword against the enemies in a time of war?

Greetings.

Actually, no, Jesus commands the opposite, that his followers need
to put away their physical swords (Matthew 26:52) and turn the
other cheek (Matthew 5:39).

PuzzledBread posted in message #8 of this thread:

Sure, Jesus says this, but then there are verses in the OT which
seem to allow violence and genocide of a large scale. How can you
take all this information and discern exactly what god wants?

Jesus brought the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31-34),
the commands of which have replaced what was permitted under the
Old Covenant (Matthew 5:38-48).
 
Upvote 0

PuzzledBread

Newbie
Mar 12, 2009
63
3
✟22,701.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
IS KILLING MORAL OR IMMORAL?

You nearly touch the answer here, contained within the question itself. The issue is about "right and wrong"; i.e., morality, which calls our attention to sin and the fact of God's righteousness, sovereignty, and justice. Allow me to explain.

First of all, the Bible does not rule against killing per se; in other words, killing is not wrong in itself. As you already realize, there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God actually commands people to kill. So if it were true that killing is sinful in itself, then God was commanding people to sin.

That creates problematic contradictions, so it can't be correct.

Obviously, then, killing is not wrong in itself—thankfully, since I have killed thousands of spiders and mosquitoes, etc. As some others here have rightly pointed out, it's more accurate to read it as "murder," which means unlawful killing. And that is the all-important word to pay attention to: "unlawful." When it comes to morality (right and wrong), unlawful means "contrary to God's prescriptive commands" because it is God who is the ultimate and sovereign Lawgiver. (Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God, which he expresses prescriptively through his commands.)

When it comes to questions about legality, it is man's laws that come into play ("unlawful" in this sense means illegal). But when it comes to questions about morality, it is God's laws that should be referred to ("unlawful" in this sense means immoral).

(This is where Catherineanne injected the potential for confusion into the issue, because where else do we authoritatively discover God's commands but in the Sacred Scriptures? And if the trinitarian doctrine is true—and it is—then Christ-centered and God-centered are not in conflict. God's prescriptive commands are consistent throughout the very place we can find them: the Sacred Scriptures. As you rightly alluded to, "the Bible is seen as the ultimate guide to morality" because morality is communicated by God and his prescriptive will, which is set down authoritatively in the Bible. It is not the source of morality, but the instructive guide. Furthermore, since moral order is grounded in the very nature of God, it is because we are created in the image of God that we are innately tuned to right and wrong.)

So is killing immoral? Sometimes, but not all the time. Sometimes killing is moral. And sometimes refusing to kill is immoral. The grayness is easily cleared away when you understand that the issue is actually not about killing in itself; rather, it's about what God has commanded. All life is mine, God says, the sovereign creator and sustainer of all things. To give life and to take life is God's office. If we take a life in the absence of a command from God, it is immoral (sin) by virtue of being "murder" or unlawful killing, because life is not ours to give or take away. If God commands it (e.g., some Israelite scenario in the Old Testament) then it is moral because it's obedience to God. And since all life belongs to God, his default command to us is "don't kill." That's the rule. There are no exceptions without his express say-so.

So morality, right and wrong, is about obedience to the will of God. Obey God, moral. Disobey God, immoral.

CHRISTIANS WITH WEAPONS IN THEIR HOME

What about Christians who keep weapons in their home for self-defense? To such Christians I would pose my own question: "Why do you mistrust God?" God is sovereign over all creation, is he not? God is more powerful than all the forces of creation, is he not? God knows all things, does he not? God is holy and just, is he not? Doesn't he love his own children with a depth and scope that cannot be expressed? Does he not look after his own? Does he not have their best interest in mind? Is it not written, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose"? Can such Christians explain why they have weapons in their home with an answer that is consistent with these truths?

WHAT ABOUT CONVENTIONAL MORALITY?

You said you don't understand how people can say "you cannot have morals without religion." Hopefully what I've said so far helps clear much of that up. On the issue of "conventional morality" I will explain the Christian argument even further.

Conventional morality is unreliable because it is man trying to interpret and understand his moral compass without acknowledging the source thereof. We have an innate sense of right and wrong because all mankind is created in the image of God, the ground of moral order. But if we ignore his Word and try to understand morality by our own sin-laden wisdom, we wander across very shaky terrain with inherently unreliable results. (The situation is actually more desperate, for by dismissing God from the equation we actually end up with no intelligible morality at all. In a godless framework, man is just a biochemical collection of molecules and atoms operating according to the physical laws of the universe; things like morality, consciousness, knowledge, etc., are accidental illusions, i.e., not real. The logical conclusion of a godless framework is Nihilism.)

IS THE BIBLE OUR ULTIMATE GUIDE TO MORALITY?

The Bible is the fundamental guide to our proper understanding of and relationship with God, who is the ground of moral order. Although nature reveals that God exists, it is the Sacred Scriptures that reveal who God is, who we are in relation to him, and his eternal plan of redemption. There are several sources of revelation, but only one that is authoritative in this world that suffers under sin. And to those who make noise about bibliolatry or "bibliocentric", I always respond: "Scripture is a vehicle of revelation, not an object of worship."

Very informative post, there isn't a lot I can say without inciting an off topic debate, but there is one idea which stuck out. Two actually looking back.

Christians with weapons mistrust god because they choose to place extra defenses instead of trusting he will look out for them. Does this mean wearing seat belts is mistrusting god? Does this mean we shouldn't build jets with redundant systems in case of failure? Does this mean we shouldn't wear safety goggles when welding, or shoes so we don't step on rocks? When does this concept begin and where does it end. If what you said was true, safety is a moot concern in life. However, safety is a huge concern, we have multiple layers of earthly protection for most any deadly force. So does this only apply to home defense, or should Christians remove the fire alarms from their homes?

And morality, you're staking quite a large claim, that morality outside of Christianity cannot exist. But you neglect to mention that 17% of America is admitted to being atheist, and I propose that number is far higher than that projection since admitting to atheism could be social suicide in America, casting yourself out from the group. How can it be, that at least 17% of America is in a state without morals, yet our system stands, and Christians across the board get in trouble with the law for the same crimes at nearly the same rates. What about other religions? What moral insight does the bible provide that other religions do not? Religions that may have preceded yours no less! I may be wrong (As I have been several times so far :p) But where in the Bible does it say the only true morality is that which is presented in its pages?

Greetings.

Actually, no, Jesus commands the opposite, that his followers need
to put away their physical swords (Matthew 26:52) and turn the
other cheek (Matthew 5:39).



Jesus brought the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31-34),
the commands of which have replaced what was permitted under the
Old Covenant (Matthew 5:38-48).

I'm going to keep looking for that verse, because I remember it clearly, but for now, I'll take your word :)
 
Upvote 0

Ryft

Nihil sine Deo.
Jan 6, 2004
418
95
Kelowna, BC
Visit site
✟23,578.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Very informative post, there isn't a lot I can say without inciting an off topic debate . . .

My inbox is not restricted to this thread's topic of discussion. So please feel free, if you have a substantive concern that you'd like to see the Christian response to. Having said that, let me address the two criticisms you raised.

Christians with weapons mistrust god because they choose to place extra defenses instead of trusting he will look out for them. Does this mean wearing seat belts is mistrusting god? . . . When does this concept begin and where does it end.

The answer is perspicuous and straight-forward: "at the point of tension with the nature or prescriptive will of God." In the example you opened the discussion with, we were brought to a point of tension with the prescriptive will of God, raising a moral question (q.v. his default command against killing). When man's laws state that we are permitted to kill in self-defense, we are brought into tension with God's laws which state that we're not so permitted (the rule that has no exceptions without God's explicit say-so). The Christian is to trust God in the face of this tension, abiding in obedience to him.

And morality, you're staking quite a large claim, that morality outside of Christianity cannot exist.

It seems you misunderstood my position. I certainly think morality can, and does, exist outside Christian theism. Remember, I said we all have "an innate sense of right and wrong because all mankind is created in the image of God, the ground of moral order"; and that "it is because we are created in the image of God that we are innately tuned to right and wrong." Christians are not by any means the only people who recognize right and wrong. Non-believers do too, quite obviously.

Christians are, however, the only ones who can account for morality qua morality. Non-believers are not able to do this, because "by dismissing God from the equation [they] actually end up with no intelligible morality at all." Non-believers have the capacity to recognize right and wrong (ethics) but they are incapable of accounting for this feature (meta-ethics), because the assumptions they bring to the task prevent them from transcending the descriptive to the prescriptive. In other words, at best they can achieve only biographical or sociological 'is' statements (descriptive); they cannot achieve moral 'should' statements (prescriptive).

Therein lies the rub. Most non-believers innately believe that certain things are properly immoral and objectively so, such as murdering children, but at the same time they seem unaware that such beliefs are not produced by their worldview, a cognitive deficit brought into sharp focus when they attempt to defend their moral stance by reaching into their worldview for the necessary currency. Hence, "no intelligible morality." (An interesting side note: this is also one reason why every Problem of Evil argument inescapably fails.)

But you neglect to mention that 17% of America is admitted to being atheist, and I propose that number is far higher than that projection since admitting to atheism could be social suicide in America, casting yourself out from the group.

I would challenge your numbers here. According to a very extensive and robust survey (a representative sample of 35,556 adults living in the United States), 16.1% of Americans self-identify as "non-believers"; of that group, only 1.6% describe their non-belief as "atheist" (while 2.4% as "agnostic" and 12.1% as "nothing in particular"). Although it could be argued, successfully, that in reality these are all atheism, your claim was describing those who freely admit to being atheist—and 1.6 is a rather smaller number than 17.

I'm going to keep looking for that verse, because I remember it clearly, but for now, I'll take your word :)

I have a hunch you're looking for Luke 22:36.
 
Upvote 0
B

Bible2

Guest
PuzzledBread posted in message #11 of this thread:

But where in the Bible does it say the only true morality is that
which is presented in its pages?

Greetings.

What the Bible says is that the morality which is presented in its
pages is infallibly true: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect"
(2 Timothy 3:16-17). This means that any morality which includes
points which contradict any part of the Bible's morality, is not a
wholly true morality, but could be a hodgepodge of truth and error.
For example, just because a non-Christian pacifist may be moral
with regard to his/her pacifism, that doesn't mean that all the rest
of that person's morality is necessarily true. He/she could feel that
certain sexual activities are perfectly moral, whereas the Bible shows
that those activities are immoral (e.g. Romans 1:26-27).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.