Why no proof?

[Moral Orel]

A person has been attacked on the street just outside a pharmacy. Its outside of business hours and the victim is bleeding profusely, so they grab and brick and smash it through the pharmacy window to get the necessary bandages to stop the bleeding. Have they commited the crime of larceny (theft) or is this a well known established defence to the crime? Morals wise, I would think I would still feel a bit guilty at wrecking the pharmacy store.

Sure you might feel guilty, but there are some folk that would burn the pharmacy down simply because they want to see it burn. And my point is that if they don't feel bad about it, then there isn't evidence that there is a conscience in everyone.

Ivan Milat serial killer. I think he tried to plead insanity and got off for raping two of the women women but he's locked up in a maximum security facility serving a number of life sentences for the deaths of 7 backpackers. I think this man developed a taste for killing. Sorry I know this is a bit dark. Again this is a classic case of 1 Timothy 4.

So we decided that it was immoral (which I'm not disagreeing) but he does not feel it is immoral. That makes what he did a subjective moral. What's right for some isn't right for all. I believe some people can be wrong, but there isn't any moral that we all share.

Not sure why God would consider the creation of an automobile would be just as important as morals. But He did give us all the ability to be creative ourselves. He was giving us the opportunities to use and expand on our talents. In the book of Daniel it specifically states that in the last days knowledge would abound.

It's not just as important, it's an example of the fact that sure God invented everything in the sense that he was the first to think of it, but I think that idea get's mixed into what he gave us when he created us. God knows best, sure, but did God really make it so that everyone on Earth knows best from the day they were born? Doubtful. And I don't see any evidence to support that idea since so many people disagree, and children need so much correcting from bad behavior and encouraging towards good behavior.

Now its your turn to think hard on this. Are we not seeing more barbaric crime today than say 100 years ago? Like I said people turning away from God is resulting in a major decline in morals. What was once frowned upon is now being accepted.

No, we are not, actually. Historically, our world is less violent now than in a lot of previous times in history. If you look at America's history of lynch mobs in the south, you'll see a disgusting level of barbarism that is nothing like it is today. And if you go back just another 50 years (so 150 years all told) then you're dealing with US slavery. It wasn't all that long ago like people want to think.

Single mums who were single mums as a result of multiple partners without marriage was frowned upon. Its not thought twice about today. Divorce was at one time frowned upon. Divorces here prior to about 1975 and derived from the English law required people to "air their dirty laundry" because there had to be a cause to be divorced. That got abolished by our Family Law Act no cause.

That's a whole complicated issue that I don't really want to argue about because that will take us much deeper down the rabbit hole into a very different direction. Suffice to say I think that societal pressures to get married are a bad thing because it leads to unhappy marriages, and we can just take this as another example of morals not being ingrained in that we disagree with each other. Marriage is only good when two people love each other, and know each other well enough to be sure that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Unhappy marriages lead to unhappy kids.

There is another obvious example but I won't mention it because I don't want to risk this thread being closed. I'm sure you know what that is.

Yes, I know what it is, and it is just another example of people actually disagreeing on morals.

What's next polygamy and beastiality, the latter makes us all shudder I'm sure. But there will come a time when it will be pushed to be legalised, just as the other things preceding it.

This is a slippery slope argument, and it is ironically invalid. What should be noted is that if someone pushed for polygamy, which has been done in the US successfully, by the way, by some Mormons they have ample evidence in the Bible to support it. However, bestiality isn't going to ever be honestly pushed for because it is animal abuse, and we are gradually giving more and more inherent rights to animals.

I did however see a case once where legalized bestiality was tagged on to a bill that would legalize something else that the person opposed so that the whole law would never get voted for. I don't know if Australia has bonkers politics like that like we do in America, but it happens here all the time.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think the answer to my question that I have gotten from this thread though isn't really what I expected. I asked why there was no absolute proof as to the existence of God, but the general consensus is that there is so much evidence that it is proof or is basically proof and if I don't see that, then there is something wrong with me because I am making the conscious decision to doubt. Personally, I don't think doubt can be a conscious decision, so it seems more to be like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes to me. Sure, it's possible he has on some resplendent, magical gown, but it's also just as possible that people have convinced themselves of that so much that they can actually see the gown now.

 

[oi_antz]

I think the answer to my question that I have gotten from this thread though isn't really what I expected. I asked why there was no absolute proof as to the existence of God, but the general consensus is that there is so much evidence that it is proof or is basically proof and if I don't see that, then there is something wrong with me because I am making the conscious decision to doubt. Personally, I don't think doubt can be a conscious decision, so it seems more to be like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes to me. Sure, it's possible he has on some resplendent, magical gown, but it's also just as possible that people have convinced themselves of that so much that they can actually see the gown now.

Every time you are presented with the opportunity to believe an idea, you must make a decision. Doubt is the alternative to belief. Therefore, you are indeed choosing to doubt. But this is not meant to imply that you are necessarily making poor judgement in that decision, it obviously depends on circumstances. Eg, if I had have been presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ by the majority of people who preach it on this website, I would have become more aggressively opposed to Him, and that would have been the best decision to make IMO.

 

[MishSill]

No, we are not, actually. Historically, our world is less violent now than in a lot of previous times in history. If you look at America's history of lynch mobs in the south, you'll see a disgusting level of barbarism that is nothing like it is today. And if you go back just another 50 years (so 150 years all told) then you're dealing with US slavery. It wasn't all that long ago like people want to think.

Sure you might feel guilty, but there are some folk that would burn the pharmacy down simply because they want to see it burn. And my point is that if they don't feel bad about it, then there isn't evidence that there is a conscience in everyone.

So we decided that it was immoral (which I'm not disagreeing) but he does not feel it is immoral. That makes what he did a subjective moral. What's right for some isn't right for all. I believe some people can be wrong, but there isn't any moral that we all share.

There are people who enjoy being pyromaniacs. There are people who enjoy taking drugs. They know its against the law. Just because they enjoy it doesn't mean they lack morals.

Ivan Milat enjoyed killing. He knew it was wrong. Herein lies that freedom of choice I was discussing.

It's not just as important, it's an example of the fact that sure God invented everything in the sense that he was the first to think of it, but I think that idea get's mixed into what he gave us when he created us. God knows best, sure, but did God really make it so that everyone on Earth knows best from the day they were born? Doubtful. And I don't see any evidence to support that idea since so many people disagree, and children need so much correcting from bad behavior and encouraging towards good behavior.

If we were born not knowing the truth then its not going to make any difference to us one way or the other when we are trained? Kind of like the person who suffers with mental illness. I probably should have mentioned that in Australian law, children under 10 cannot be charged with a crime. A child however between 10-14.

No, we are not, actually. Historically, our world is less violent now than in a lot of previous times in history. If you look at America's history of lynch mobs in the south, you'll see a disgusting level of barbarism that is nothing like it is today. And if you go back just another 50 years (so 150 years all told) then you're dealing with US slavery. It wasn't all that long ago like people want to think.

You might want to look at the stats on people displacement. Its more horrific now than it ever was, given that displacement occurs due to violence.

That's a whole complicated issue that I don't really want to argue about because that will take us much deeper down the rabbit hole into a very different direction.

My whole point is quite simply, the world is moving away from God's standard.

 

[MishSill]

I think the answer to my question that I have gotten from this thread though isn't really what I expected. I asked why there was no absolute proof as to the existence of God

God seeks faith. Why do so many believe? Because He has responded to their faith. Not one of God's followers have ever demanded of Him proof of his existence. But His existence became know to them.

Read Psalm 34:8 and understand.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are people who enjoy being pyromaniacs. There are people who enjoy taking drugs. They know its against the law. Just because they enjoy it doesn't mean they lack morals.

Ivan Milat enjoyed killing. He knew it was wrong. Herein lies that freedom of choice I was discussing.

Now you're confusing the law with morals. Those are two different things. We write laws based on morals, sure, but we write them based on the morals of the majority, and in some cases we write laws while considering the minority. It does not mean that a person cannot have different morals than the law. Think about the case of the poor person stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. Most people would not consider that morally wrong, but it is legally wrong. Pyromaniacs and Ivan Milat know that what they are doing is illegal, but their morals tell them that they should do these things. They place their own pleasure over the misery of others when they determine what is right and wrong to them, which does not work in civilized society, and that is why we make laws.

If we were born not knowing the truth then its not going to make any difference to us one way or the other when we are trained?

In general, I don't believe so. Look at the children soldiers in Africa. They are warped and molded into doing unspeakable things, but they become so warped that they don't feel bad about it anymore, and in fact, will grow to feel good about it. It's a terrible thing, but it happens.

You might want to look at the stats on people displacement. Its more horrific now than it ever was, given that displacement occurs due to violence.

That is confusing the issue. There are more people now than there ever were before, so if violence displaces people, then more people will be displaced because there are more people, not because there is more violence. Look at the statistics on violence directly to get a clear picture. Here is one such article:
Violence Declining

My whole point is quite simply, the world is moving away from God's standard.

I don't think you're wrong about that. What I disagree with is that God imprinted his standard on our souls. If he exists, he imparted his standard through the Bible. And the world is a better place in a lot of ways because we have evolved beyond the Bible. I'm sure you disagree, but let me ask you what you think of women's rights, since you are a woman. Should we stick to the antiquated view that women are to be silent in church and are not allowed to hold a position of authority over a man? I quoted the passage earlier, but no one gave it any regard. Is there something inherent about females that makes them inferior to males?

 

[Nasrani]

Hi Mr Deka,
In your replies I see you respect accepted norms within American society such as love in marriage, respect for the bible. In one post I see you view violence as having been diminished overall and give examples of past acts of barbarism but limited them to US. I wonder how aware you are of barbarism and its increase throughout the world. Violence seems to be the norm in some countries and even expected out of religious obligations.
My question to you: if someone with a smile came inviting you to accept islam, they would approach you candidly, giving you the standard greeting, convincing you thru their scriptures that their god is great, etc etc. At the end of a 1/2 hour candid logical talk, would you be convinced?
Many do fall for the invitation until eventually thru further study, they realize the ideology is un-American, un-biblical, and immoral.

sura 8.12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

 

[Moral Orel]

In one post I see you view violence as having been diminished overall and give examples of past acts of barbarism but limited them to US

That's mostly because I am most familiar with American history, I don't have the examples to list off other countries.

I wonder how aware you are of barbarism and its increase throughout the world. Violence seems to be the norm in some countries and even expected out of religious obligations.

I can tell you're mostly referring to the Middle East, and I don't disagree things are pretty messed up over there. The thing I wonder, though, is if it is any more messed up than it was 100 years ago. I don't know their history. Here in America we wouldn't hear what was going on over their so well without our current 24-hour news cycle. But radical Muslim extremists have been fighting over their since Islam was established, so I don't know whether it is increasing or decreasing.

Of course, I don't care much for denouncing a religion based on some of it's members. I mean, Christianity has a troubled past in the Crusades and the Inquisition, and Judaism has it's troubled warring past you can read about in the Old Testament, so I guess pobody's nerfect.

...convincing you thru their scriptures that their god is great...

No one is going to convince me of anything based on scripture. I'd have to take somebody's word for it, and that is something I simply cannot do.

sura 8.12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

I could show you human sacrifice to God in the Bible, does that mean that the Bible is bad?

 

[MishSill]

Now you're confusing the law with morals. Those are two different things.

Are they?... then why do laws get changed as society's morals change?

In general, I don't believe so. Look at the children soldiers in Africa. They are warped and molded into doing unspeakable things, but they become so warped that they don't feel bad about it anymore, and in fact, will grow to feel good about it. It's a terrible thing, but it happens.

Yes they are warped and moulded into doing unspeakable things but their conscience remains...do you remember how Paul turned to God?...this was man persecuting and executing Christians. This man would have been conditioned as a child. I was conditioned as a child into the occult. At one point or another God taps us on the shoulder and says hey kiddo you're going the wrong way.

That is confusing the issue. There are more people now than there ever were before, so if violence displaces people, then more people will be displaced because there are more people, not because there is more violence. Look at the statistics on violence directly to get a clear picture. Here is one such article:
Violence Declining

I'm not talking about the number of displaced people in one particular place but all over the world...have a look at the UNHCR. Do you go to bed without locking your front door? Just yesterday household mail was opened up because the letters were sticking out of the mail box. People looking to steal identity no doubt.

What I disagree with is that God imprinted his standard on our souls.

Would you agree that we are born knowing both good and evil?

 

[Moral Orel]

Are they?... then why do laws get changed as society's morals change?

Because we develop better morals, most of the time. I explained the difference more in the last post. If there's something there that needs clarification, let me know.

I was conditioned as a child into the occult. At one point or another God taps us on the shoulder and says hey kiddo you're going the wrong way.

That sounds terrible, and I'm sorry. But not everyone gets the tap on the shoulder.

I'm not talking about the number of displaced people in one particular place but all over the world...have a look at the UNHCR.

I believe that what you mean is the total number of displaced people throughout the world, right? If so, then my argument still stands. There are more people. Look at actual violence statistics instead of things derived from violence statistics to make your judgements. Did you read the article I shared?

Just yesterday household mail was opened up because the letters were sticking out of the mail box. People looking to steal identity no doubt.

That doesn't sound like violence, it seems a little out of place in the discussion. Just because I acknowledge that violence is on the decline, doesn't mean I am naive enough to think that the world is now full of sunshine and rainbows. Of course I lock my door.

Would you agree that we are born knowing both good and evil?

No, absolutely not. That's what I've been saying this whole time. And since every child is raised differently and everyone ends up with their own beliefs and morals, I see no evidence to think that this is true. Let me ask you this, why do so many different denominations of Christianity ever differ in what they think is moral and what is not? If you are actively trying to relate to God, then shouldn't you have the exactly correct answer and shouldn't there only be one?

 

[MishSill]

Because we develop better morals, most of the time. I explained the difference more in the last post. If there's something there that needs clarification, let me know.

I'm thinking that we have different definitions on how morals play a part in peoples lives. Just to clarify, I understood you were saying in your previous post that people who do something evil out of pleasure is their stated moral standard?...which in my view means they would have no concept at all that what they were doing was wrong. But how could they gain pleasure in doing something they know is evil if their moral standard is saying that evil is good and good is evil.

Perhaps you can clarify for me this aspect a bit more. Because in my view if a person takes pleasure in commiting evil then they would have to know that its wrong... right? If that is the case, then doesn't their moral standards align with ours?

But not everyone gets the tap on the shoulder.

You are seeking God and He is tapping you on the shoulder.

I believe that what you mean is the total number of displaced people throughout the world, right? If so, then my argument still stands. There are more people. Look at actual violence statistics instead of things derived from violence statistics to make your judgements. Did you read the article I shared?

Yes I read the article but I couldn't find his statistics. Only his theories on why he believes it should be going down. I was actually looking at the number of countries experiencing displacement... it is unprecedented.

That doesn't sound like violence, it seems a little out of place in the discussion. Just because I acknowledge that violence is on the decline, doesn't mean I am naive enough to think that the world is now full of sunshine and rainbows. Of course I lock my door.

I thought we were talking on the broader subject of morality. I have been stating that morals are on the decline. There was a time when people lived without having to worry about locking their doors. With the technological advancements we have, these have become open doors for identity fraud.

No, absolutely not. That's what I've been saying this whole time. And since every child is raised differently and everyone ends up with their own beliefs and morals, I see no evidence to think that this is true. Let me ask you this, why do so many different denominations of Christianity ever differ in what they think is moral and what is not? If you are actively trying to relate to God, then shouldn't you have the exactly correct answer and shouldn't there only be one

We had a case over here known as Bilal Skaf. If you google his name you should be able to get some info on it. This person along with his brother and with a few others raped several women. These guys were conditioned in the Islamic faith. The Islamic leaders stood up for them saying that the women here should not dress like a piece of meat to be devoured. In other words, the women were asking for it. As you can imagine there was an uproar about it.

Skaf was boasting in the prison of his deeds. Once again as above, a person wouldn't boast without knowing what they did was wrong. Regardless of his conditioning, he knew he was wrong and the silly man also thought that he was going to get protection in the prison... that was until one of the wardens decided to put him in his place.

I would like to answer your question about the different denominations having a difference of opinion on what they think is moral or not. Can you give me an example of what you have seen and I'll address it for you.

And the world is a better place in a lot of ways because we have evolved beyond the Bible. I'm sure you disagree, but let me ask you what you think of women's rights, since you are a woman. Should we stick to the antiquated view that women are to be silent in church and are not allowed to hold a position of authority over a man?

Sorry I forgot to address this one. I will now. You are right that I disagree with your assertion that the world is a better place because it has evolved beyond the bible. The world is seriously not a good place.

The scripture about being silent in the church was actually explained once by a minister (who was a male). The women hung out in the upper gallery where they often chit chatted. They were asked to remain silent in the church service.

I still believe that the man is the head of the house but I also love the line in the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding "the man is head but the women is the neck and she can turn the head anyway she wants"...lol. Seriously though, the man is to be respected as the leader of his family. We are there to compliment, inspire and support. However we are not there to be abused. Men seem to have lost track of their important roles in that regard.

I'm not sure where the bible says however, that women cannot hold an occupational positions above men.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just to clarify, I understood you were saying in your previous post that people who do something evil out of pleasure is their stated moral standard?...which in my view means they would have no concept at all that what they were doing was wrong. But how could they gain pleasure in doing something they know is evil if their moral standard is saying that evil is good and good is evil.

They don't "know" it's evil. That's the point. And they don't have to have the view that "good is evil" either. Everything isn't so polarized.

Perhaps you can clarify for me this aspect a bit more. Because in my view if a person takes pleasure in commiting evil then they would have to know that its wrong... right? If that is the case, then doesn't their moral standards align with ours?

You're thinking about it wrong. People don't enjoy doing bad things for the sake of it being bad, they enjoy doing bad things because that bad thing makes them feel good. Not bad things in general. So their moral standard could very well align with ours in a lot of ways, such as saying "please" and "thank you", but they could also feel that their pleasure is the most important thing and they have a right to receive it no matter what it costs someone else (kind of like rich folk, haha).

Yes I read the article but I couldn't find his statistics. Only his theories on why he believes it should be going down.

Here's a couple of fact based quotes from the article. If you look the topic up on Google, you'll find plenty more articles about the same subject.

...homicide rates in British towns and cities going back to the 14th century. The rates had plummeted by between 30 and 100-fold. That stuck with me, because you tend to have an image of medieval times with happy peasants coexisting in close-knit communities, whereas we think of the present as filled with school shootings and mugging and terrorist attacks.

...modern states at their worst, such as Germany in the 20th century or France in the 19th century, had rates of death in warfare that were dwarfed by those of hunter-gatherer and hunter-horticultural societies.​

Once again as above, a person wouldn't boast without knowing what they did was wrong.

Do people boast about giving to charity? If so, then I think it would stand to reason that a person can boast about things that are wrong, if they believe they were right to do them.

I would like to answer your question about the different denominations having a difference of opinion on what they think is moral or not. Can you give me an example of what you have seen and I'll address it for you.

There are some that believe women shouldn't wear pants because they would be dressing like a man. They are also not supposed to wear make-up, and no one is to wear jewelry.
Some believe that contraception is wrong in any way, shape, or form. Also, the same folk believe that in-vitro fertilization is evil.
Some folk believe polygamy is okay.
I'm remiss to actually state the names of the denominations as I understand them to follow these rules because I don't want to make generalizations of these people, but you can probably guess at least some of them.

I'm not sure where the bible says however, that women cannot hold an occupational positions above men.

And I'll just quote my original post here:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

He even gives the whole "Adam and Eve" reason behind why women are less than men, which to me, is preposterous.

 

[MishSill]

They don't "know" it's evil. That's the point. And they don't have to have the view that "good is evil" either. Everything isn't so polarized.

You may have heard of this. It applies to your country's laws as well as to mine.

The M'Naghten Rules
The House of Lords delivered the following exposition of the Rules:

the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.[4]
Such a person is insane. I think we already covered these people, as they are clearly without morals.

This was not the case with Ivan Milat or Bilal Skaf both of whom are incarcerated and not put in mental health institutions.

You're thinking about it wrong. People don't enjoy doing bad things for the sake of it being bad, they enjoy doing bad things because that bad thing makes them feel good. Not bad things in general. So their moral standard could very well align with ours in a lot of ways, such as saying "please" and "thank you", but they could also feel that their pleasure is the most important thing and they have a right to receive it no matter what it costs someone else (kind of like rich folk, haha).

But the real point is regardless of whether the bad thing makes them feel good or not, they know its bad or else you apply the M'Naghten Rules. If they know its wrong they have morals. The very thing you've been arguing with me all this time...lol

Yeah the good old rich folk...always getting their own way.

Here's a couple of fact based quotes from the article. If you look the topic up on Google, you'll find plenty more articles about the same subject.
...homicide rates in British towns and cities going back to the 14th century. The rates had plummeted by between 30 and 100-fold. That stuck with me, because you tend to have an image of medieval times with happy peasants coexisting in close-knit communities, whereas we think of the present as filled with school shootings and mugging and terrorist attacks.

...modern states at their worst, such as Germany in the 20th century or France in the 19th century, had rates of death in warfare that were dwarfed by those of hunter-gatherer and hunter-horticultural societies.

If you're going to quote one article, I'll do the same:
http://www.actionaid.org/australia/conflict-at-its-highest-level?gclid=CN2An7mOmcYCFUVvvAodPoAA1Q

This seems to point out that global conflict is out of control and us naughty Aussies are not doing much to help out apparently.

Do people boast about giving to charity? If so, then I think it would stand to reason that a person can boast about things that are wrong, if they believe they were right to do them.

I definitely don't boast about giving to charity. That is between me and God.

Again I take you back to the point and that is they know its wrong... the very essence of morals. A person who boasts is a person who knows.

There are some that believe women shouldn't wear pants because they would be dressing like a man. They are also not supposed to wear make-up, and no one is to wear jewelry.
Some believe that contraception is wrong in any way, shape, or form. Also, the same folk believe that in-vitro fertilization is evil.
Some folk believe polygamy is okay.
I'm remiss to actually state the names of the denominations as I understand them to follow these rules because I don't want to make generalizations of these people, but you can probably guess at least some of them.

What you describe are not denominations of Christianity. It is our God and His morals we are discussing here... or as far as I know? I think you might need to be a bit more specific here.

He even gives the whole "Adam and Eve" reason behind why women are less than men, which to me, is preposterous.

Reformation Study Bible
"to exercise authority over. This Greek word appears only here in the New Testament and is probably used by Paul to refer to some level of judicial or governing authority. Under the influence of the false teachers, certain women have apparently moved into positions of governing authority within the church, which Paul prohibited (1 Cor. 14:34)."

1 Corinthians 14:34New King James Version (NKJV)

34 Let your >[a] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

Women are physically weaker than men. Women are more emotionally expressive. Could be what Paul was alluding to in respect of authority within the church??

 

[Moral Orel]

But the real point is regardless of whether the bad thing makes them feel good or not, they know its bad or else you apply the M'Naghten Rules. If they know its wrong they have morals. The very thing you've been arguing with me all this time...lol

Knowing something is illegal and feeling that it is wrong are two different things. The very thing we've been arguing about all this time. When you're talking about people who are not psychopaths, but do evil things, they avoid getting caught because they don't want to face penalties. They do the crime because they don't think that law should apply to them. That doesn't make them insane. Fearing penalty of law is not the same thing as a conscience.

When you're talking about psychopaths, we're talking about someone who has something wrong with their biology, and not their soul.

If you're going to quote one article, I'll do the same:
http://www.actionaid.org/australia/conflict-at-its-highest-level?gclid=CN2An7mOmcYCFUVvvAodPoAA1Q

This seems to point out that global conflict is out of control and us naughty Aussies are not doing much to help out apparently.

I read that displacement is higher than ever, I didn't read anything that says we live in a more violent world though. Again, displacement isn't violence in itself, and just because more people are moving away from violence doesn't mean that more violence is happening.

Again I take you back to the point and that is they know its wrong... the very essence of morals. A person who boasts is a person who knows.

Explain this please. I boast about things I am proud of and that I want to do again in the future. I don't boast about things that I am ashamed of or that I feel guilty about. I do things that you would consider immoral, and I boast about them because I do not consider them immoral. I do things that you would consider moral and I boast about them because I also consider them moral. I don't boast about everything I do all the time, but setting an example has it's place, so it's not as though I do things and never speak of them. So why does boasting about something show that they knew better?

What you describe are not denominations of Christianity. It is our God and His morals we are discussing here... or as far as I know? I think you might need to be a bit more specific here.

Are these things the foundations of the denominations? No, I never said that. But they are tenants that go along with different denominations and that get preached right along with the basic tenets. So why do some Christians think it is okay to wear jewelry, and some do not? Why is contraception immoral to some Christians and not to others? Polygamy is okay for some Christians, and not for some? If people all have morals imprinted on their souls, then the people seeking God the most should be the most aware of that, and they should agree on morals. But since not even Christians agree on morals, why would you think that they are imprinted on our souls?

Reformation Study Bible
"to exercise authority over. This Greek word appears only here in the New Testament and is probably used by Paul to refer to some level of judicial or governing authority. Under the influence of the false teachers, certain women have apparently moved into positions of governing authority within the church, which Paul prohibited (1 Cor. 14:34)."

1 Corinthians 14:34New King James Version (NKJV)

34 Let your >[a] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

Women are physically weaker than men. Women are more emotionally expressive. Could be what Paul was alluding to in respect of authority within the church??

Can you explain why he alludes to Eve and her deception then? I always hear the explanation that there is "historical context" I need to keep in mind when reading the Bible, but here, very plainly, he gives the reason, and it isn't because women are a bit different from men. Even without alluding to Eve, your explanation still paints a picture of women being inferior to men. Do you agree with that? Are women inherently inferior to men?

 

[MishSill]

Knowing something is illegal and feeling that it is wrong are two different things. The very thing we've been arguing about all this time. When you're talking about people who are not psychopaths, but do evil things, they avoid getting caught because they don't want to face penalties. They do the crime because they don't think that law should apply to them. That doesn't make them insane. Fearing penalty of law is not the same thing as a conscience.

When you're talking about psychopaths, we're talking about someone who has something wrong with their biology, and not their soul.

Correct, the problem with the mind is overriding the person's ability to reason... similar applies to people suffering with dementia. Its simply a sickness.

I obviously used murder as an example because it is the sole thing that would make the average person think twice and three or more times before carrying out the deed. Its called morals. Despite their being a written law, everything thinking sane person knows its wrong to take another person's life.

Once again I take you back to the scripture that pointed out that a person's conscience can be seared as if with a hot iron. Milat had a gap between the first killing that couldn't be proved and his subsequent killings that they did eventually catch him on. I have no doubt, if he committed the first killing, he wouldn't have felt good about it. Plucked up the courage again to carryout the second, started searing his own conscience and continued with the others.

I read that displacement is higher than ever, I didn't read anything that says we live in a more violent world though. Again, displacement isn't violence in itself, and just because more people are moving away from violence doesn't mean that more violence is happening.

Give me a break...if displacement is so great what do you think is going on. It means the world is at an unrest.

Explain this please. I boast about things I am proud of and that I want to do again in the future. I don't boast about things that I am ashamed of or that I feel guilty about. I do things that you would consider immoral, and I boast about them because I do not consider them immoral. I do things that you would consider moral and I boast about them because I also consider them moral. I don't boast about everything I do all the time, but setting an example has it's place, so it's not as though I do things and never speak of them. So why does boasting about something show that they knew better?

Bilal Skaf boasted about raping all those women. I'm sure then you can relate to that? I certainly can't.

Are these things the foundations of the denominations? No, I never said that. But they are tenants that go along with different denominations and that get preached right along with the basic tenets. So why do some Christians think it is okay to wear jewelry, and some do not? Why is contraception immoral to some Christians and not to others? Polygamy is okay for some Christians, and not for some? If people all have morals imprinted on their souls, then the people seeking God the most should be the most aware of that, and they should agree on morals. But since not even Christians agree on morals, why would you think that they are imprinted on our souls?

Please advise which Christian denominations object to wearing jewellery? I'm not aware of any.

Polygamy does not apply to any Christian denomination. I think you might be mixing that up with another religion that does.

Its not contraception that is sinful, its fornication and adultery.

Yes you are dead right. Those seeking God will experience those morals coming alive within their sole. I think the main purpose though is for the protection of others.

If we seriously didn't have any morals, I would suggest you watch one of the geographic channels that show what life is like for animals in the jungle, kill to survive and be killed. What difference does it make, the whole world is headed in that direction anyway.

Can you explain why he alludes to Eve and her deception then? I always hear the explanation that there is "historical context" I need to keep in mind when reading the Bible, but here, very plainly, he gives the reason, and it isn't because women are a bit different from men. Even without alluding to Eve, your explanation still paints a picture of women being inferior to men. Do you agree with that? Are women inherently inferior to men?

Yes I believe we are. It is true we were made as a help mate to men. Paul was of the opinion that women are more persuadable than men, referring to Adam and Eve.

I'm personally a very strong person but I have to say I've had some pretty bad experiences with men and I believe that is largely because of me demonstrating that strength.

I've been in the man's world of motorsports. I have to say I was very tempted to paint my car pink, so they knew there was a woman driver. I think that the men were torn between the urge to let me pass in front of the them into the elevator or holding the door open, the nice gestures that men do and knowing on the track they have to do the opposite. I watched men become very aggressive towards women drivers on the track.

I've often been called classy, men always hold the door open for me or allow me to precede them on the elevator etc. for which I always express my gratitude.

I'd much rather see this than trying to see men and women on the same level.

Yes we are capable of doing things. I think our curious natures and ability to research, compliments the male.

Men are great accomplishers. Often behind every great man is a great woman.

This is how I believe God meant us to be.

 

[Moral Orel]

Despite their being a written law, everything thinking sane person knows its wrong to take another person's life.

And what's the difference between a normal person and an insane person? Biological, neurological, physiological differences that can be observed. There is evidence that the lack of morals in such a person has nothing to do with their intangible soul.

But there are also plenty of good reasons to kill another human that we've already talked about.

Milat had a gap between the first killing that couldn't be proved and his subsequent killings that they did eventually catch him on. I have no doubt, if he committed the first killing, he wouldn't have felt good about it. Plucked up the courage again to carryout the second, started searing his own conscience and continued with the others.

And maybe there were other killings he didn't take credit for and didn't get implicated in. But probably he was just lying low because he was sure he was going to get caught. I have plenty of doubt that he ever felt guilty about killing anyone. Since he went on to kill more people, I think that would suggest that he didn't feel bad, not that he did feel bad. If I do something a second time it's because I liked it and it made me feel good, not because I forced myself to go through with it a second time even when it made me uncomfortable.

Give me a break...if displacement is so great what do you think is going on. It means the world is at an unrest.

What country do American refugees run to? What about all the Australian refugees? UK? Japan? Germany? France? The whole world isn't at unrest because there is turmoil in the middle east. Thanks to our superior mobility and civilizations, people feel as though they have a place to run to and they are capable of getting there easier.

Let me share a fact with you, and this is totally true. When ice cream sales go up, the rate of drownings goes up. When ice cream sales are down, the rate of drownings is down. Doesn't that prove that ice cream causes people to drown? These are totally true statistics. So ice cream must have a direct effect on drowning and there is nothing else to do with all the drownings.

The fact is that people eat more ice cream in the summer, and they swim more in the summer. Sometimes you have to look at more than the first statistic you see to derive useful information from it.

Bilal Skaf boasted about raping all those women. I'm sure then you can relate to that? I certainly can't.

Calling my moral character into question isn't a very good argument. I believe rape is bad, but I believe some things are fine that I'm sure you feel are bad, and I would have no reservations boasting about them. When I was in high school and I smoked marijuana for the first time, I bragged about it because it was fun, and not many friends of mine had tried it yet. Turned out that I got bored with it quickly and never really got into it, but I still don't feel it was immoral.

But I don't even need to relate to him. I just have to show you that some folk don't feel bad about doing bad things, thus being free from a conscience, and thus being free from objective morality. He disagrees with our moral that raping is bad, therefore rape is a subjective moral because some people feel it is okay. And more people than you would believe think that as well. Some people believe that a woman isn't allowed to say no to her husband, no matter what she is feeling. That's rape to me, and immoral, but a lot of people disagree.

Please advise which Christian denominations object to wearing jewellery? I'm not aware of any.

I attended an Apostolic church that cited a verse in the Bible about not wearing flashy clothing and jewelry or makeup. The actually exchanged wrist watches instead of rings when they got married because watches were functional, and therefore morally acceptable. It may have been an Apostolic thing, it may have had something to do with the Pentecostal group that I believe Apostolics are a smaller part of, or it might have just been that one group of Christians. Either way, these people seeking God found a moral that you and many others didn't.

Polygamy does not apply to any Christian denomination. I think you might be mixing that up with another religion that does.

I think some folk don't like to think of Mormons as Christians, but as far as I know, they still believe Jesus was God and the path to salvation, right? Whatever "crazy" notions they have beyond that doesn't make them not Christians to me. "Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints" right? And since I've never heard the part of the Bible that says polygamy is wrong, and there are plenty of parts that talk about people with multiple wives, I don't understand where people get the idea that it is immoral anyways.
It wouldn't be the life for me, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people who feel that it is right for them.

Its not contraception that is sinful, its fornication and adultery.

Catholics believe it is wrong. There's a thread going on right now in the ethics and morality section if you want to see for yourself. And yes, fornication and adultery are wrong according to them as well, but so is contraception and IVF.

If we seriously didn't have any morals, I would suggest you watch one of the geographic channels that show what life is like for animals in the jungle, kill to survive and be killed. What difference does it make, the whole world is headed in that direction anyway.

I never said we don't have morals. I said we have morals and they didn't come from God. God gave you some extra morals, but humans developed morals all on their own.

 

[MishSill]

And what's the difference between a normal person and an insane person? Biological, neurological, physiological differences that can be observed. There is evidence that the lack of morals in such a person has nothing to do with their intangible soul.

But there are also plenty of good reasons to kill another human that we've already talked about.

Policing, war...doesn't mean that these people don't have a conscience but if they do it regularly enough their consciences will become seared and not think twice about it. In these examples some people would consider the searing to be important so these people can carry out their job in protecting its country's citizens.

It would be a good place to go to actually. I can imagine if these people were interviewed they would have said what a challenge it was for them to undertake their first killing.

You said there was evidence in respect to people suffering with insanity. Any chance you can point me in the right direction there.

What country do American refugees run to? What about all the Australian refugees? UK? Japan? Germany? France? The whole world isn't at unrest because there is turmoil in the middle east. Thanks to our superior mobility and civilizations, people feel as though they have a place to run to and they are capable of getting there easier.

Last I checked our Terror Alert Level was High, so was the Uk and France. What's yours?

Just last December we experienced a siege in a prominent cafe in Martin Place, Sydney on a business day.

Calling my moral character into question isn't a very good argument. I believe rape is bad, but I believe some things are fine that I'm sure you feel are bad, and I would have no reservations boasting about them. When I was in high school and I smoked marijuana for the first time, I bragged about it because it was fun, and not many friends of mine had tried it yet. Turned out that I got bored with it quickly and never really got into it, but I still don't feel it was immoral.

I knew what response I'd get. I wasn't calling your personal character into disrepute. Most people would be of the view that rape is bad. So did Bilal Skaf, that's why he was boasting about it.

Morals are concerned with helping people discern right and wrong.

I take back what I said about guilt. I realised that would only be the emotional response. Even though it may be an indication that someone has done something wrong.

The bible does talk about drugs... sorcery is the key word... or pharmakia in the Greek. It opens the door to demonic attachment. I think the destructiveness of it speaks for itself. The devil always gets people with the old frog in the pan trick.

But I don't even need to relate to him. I just have to show you that some folk don't feel bad about doing bad things, thus being free from a conscience, and thus being free from objective morality. He disagrees with our moral that raping is bad, therefore rape is a subjective moral because some people feel it is okay. And more people than you would believe think that as well. Some people believe that a woman isn't allowed to say no to her husband, no matter what she is feeling. That's rape to me, and immoral, but a lot of people disagree.

Bilal Skaf knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong.

A person who carries out a deed and doesn't understand the nature of what they've done and sees no wrong in it, will always be subjected to the McNaghten Rules and deemed insane.

I attended an Apostolic church that cited a verse in the Bible about not wearing flashy clothing and jewelry or makeup. The actually exchanged wrist watches instead of rings when they got married because watches were functional, and therefore morally acceptable. It may have been an Apostolic thing, it may have had something to do with the Pentecostal group that I believe Apostolics are a smaller part of, or it might have just been that one group of Christians. Either way, these people seeking God found a moral that you and many others didn't.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/new_apostolic_church.htm

I don't recall hearing of an Apostolic Church in Australia. I googled it and got this.

Hang five I just found a link to an Apostolic Church here. I read the what we believe outline and the vision...it appears to be in line with my Christian values.

We are probably more conservative and maybe a lot more conservative compared to some people who go out partying, showing a lot of flesh and very flashy fashions with chunky jewellery and gothic makeup. They may have been alluding to that rather than no make up at all.

Everything with God is basically conducting your life in a reasonable way. Not needing to go over the top for anything.

I think some folk don't like to think of Mormons as Christians, but as far as I know, they still believe Jesus was God and the path to salvation, right? Whatever "crazy" notions they have beyond that doesn't make them not Christians to me. "Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints" right? And since I've never heard the part of the Bible that says polygamy is wrong, and there are plenty of parts that talk about people with multiple wives, I don't understand where people get the idea that it is immoral anyways.
It wouldn't be the life for me, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people who feel that it is right for them.

I could get into another discussion about religions claiming to be Christian that aren't but just for now I'll say that Mormonism is just that Mormonism.

Re: Polygamy... Genesis 4:23...Lamech was a descendant of Cain who was cursed. Whilst polygamy is certainly written in the bible God is against it. This is really no different to the current arguments of marriage equality. Did God make Adam and Eves or Adam and Steve?

Catholics believe it is wrong. There's a thread going on right now in the ethics and morality section if you want to see for yourself. And yes, fornication and adultery are wrong according to them as well, but so is contraception and IVF.

I'll have a look at it. I used to be a Catholic.

I never said we don't have morals. I said we have morals and they didn't come from God. God gave you some extra morals, but humans developed morals all on their own.

If there is no objective morality then how do our subjective morals all just happen to line up? I know what you're going to say...teaching. But there's so much more to it. There are things we have to work out for ourselves... wouldn't you agree?

 

[Moral Orel]

Policing, war...

...defending your property, killing pedophiles...
How about killing to defend you faith? Let's not go down the typical radical Muslim extremist route and let's talk about the Crusades instead since it would be something that you could possibly relate to, but maybe not. At the very least we won't run the risk of generalizing an entire religion based on the actions of a small minority or citing verses from a book neither of us have really read. I've seen where those discussions go.

Now the Crusades get an extra bad rap that they don't deserve. They weren't full of people who just wanted to kill. What happened was that Muslims had taken over a lot of the middle east, and for a long time, they let people practice whatever religion they wanted. Then some other Muslims conquered them, and so no other religions were allowed. A lot of Christians liked taking pilgrimages to the Holy Land, and now they were being persecuted by the current occupants for trying. So the church organized an army to kill and conquer the infidels.

These people felt as though they were justified by their God to kill and conquer and were so strong in their faith that on top of risking their lives, gave up their fortunes to go off on their holy war. So even people immersed in Christianity can find that killing has it's place, and don't agree that killing is always wrong.

You said there was evidence in respect to people suffering with insanity. Any chance you can point me in the right direction there.

Serial Killer brain scans
I used a Christian source so that you wouldn't say it was biased. It does of course state that people can go against their nature with other factors in play, but the researcher finds that there is a neurological difference between normal people and serial killers.

Last I checked our Terror Alert Level was High, so was the Uk and France. What's yours?

I don't pay any attention to that. Honestly, I don't see the purpose. What am I supposed to do with that information? Never mind, that's a whole different argument I don't want to have so I'll just say this:

Is your terror alert high because you just experienced a terrorist attack? If the attack didn't happen, then there is no evidence that the world is more violent.

Just last December we experienced a siege in a prominent cafe in Martin Place, Sydney on a business day.

I actually give a lot of credit to Australia for getting rid of a lot of guns in your country. You all had your history with mass shootings like we keep having in America, so you got together and agreed that you all didn't need a ton of guns, and now you don't have mass shootings any more.

rape is bad. So did Bilal Skaf, that's why he was boasting about it.

I just don't understand this. Can you explain why someone would boast about something that they felt bad about? It just doesn't follow for me.

The bible does talk about drugs... sorcery is the key word... or pharmakia in the Greek. It opens the door to demonic attachment. I think the destructiveness of it speaks for itself. The devil always gets people with the old frog in the pan trick.

I experimented with other drugs and alcohol as well. I found some drugs I liked, but I never cared much for alcohol. I stopped drinking and drugging a long time ago just because I lost interest. I never drank much because I don't care for the feeling. I stopped doing other drugs just because I grew up and had responsibilities. I never became intoxicated by anything more than a few times a year. I was also an un-believer long before I ever stopped doing anything. So the Devil doesn't always get people with that trick, and while I stopped doing it, I still don't feel it was ever wrong.

A person who carries out a deed and doesn't understand the nature of what they've done and sees no wrong in it, will always be subjected to the McNaghten Rules and deemed insane.

There's a difference between "not understanding the nature" of something and "not feeling bad" about something.

I don't recall hearing of an Apostolic Church in Australia. I googled it and got this.

Hang five I just found a link to an Apostolic Church here. I read the what we believe outline and the vision...it appears to be in line with my Christian values.

We are probably more conservative and maybe a lot more conservative compared to some people who go out partying, showing a lot of flesh and very flashy fashions with chunky jewellery and gothic makeup. They may have been alluding to that rather than no make up at all.

Everything with God is basically conducting your life in a reasonable way. Not needing to go over the top for anything.

So you agree that these people who are seeking God found different morals than you? Or are you attacking their faith and saying that they worship God incorrectly because there is one correct set of morals?

Re: Polygamy... Genesis 4:23...Lamech was a descendant of Cain who was cursed. Whilst polygamy is certainly written in the bible God is against it. This is really no different to the current arguments of marriage equality. Did God make Adam and Eves or Adam and Steve?

I'm not going to get into the homosexuality debate. But those are two very different things. The Bible has verses that seem to state that one is wrong, while it has verses that show some of the best followers of God had lots of wives and concubines (which is even worse). Moses, David, Solomon... I know the New Testament talks a lot against adultery, but that's different because it is people you are not married to. Is there a Bible verse that says you shouldn't be married to more than one person? I think the fact is people decided it was wrong, and I don't think it's ideal either, but people decided not to do it, not the Bible.

If there is no objective morality then how do our subjective morals all just happen to line up?

Our subjective morals don't all line up, that's why their subjective. I think drugs are okay, you don't. I think vulgarity is okay, you don't. Some folk are more extreme than me, so I can't sit here saying all the sins of the world are things I think are okay, but there are some folk who have morals that don't line up.

I know what you're going to say...teaching. But there's so much more to it.

You're right, there is more to it if you are really trying to do the best thing possible. You need to do some serious introspection and evaluation of your morals to decide what is truly best. You can use the Bible to help you, but you shouldn't blindly follow what you think the rules to be.

There are things we have to work out for ourselves... wouldn't you agree?

I do agree. We work these things out for ourselves. If they were ingrained on our souls this wouldn't be necessary because we would just know. But we have to work at morals.

 

[com7fy8]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

Jesus is better than the proof we humans can look for. It can be like if you see a house and you want proof that some guy built it. Even if you find out he did, still you might not know him personally so you can appreciate who he is and how he is as a person; unless you know him personally, you do not really know who exists.

Like this, we need how God shares His own love with us "in our hearts" (Romans 5:5) so we can experience and enjoy Him and appreciate how He is. However, in order to have this love, we need to live His all-loving love. And because ones are impersonal, not caring for any and all people, and since we can be conceited . . . picking and choosing who is good enough for us - - this can cancel us out from being with God in His personal sharing and caring family love. And so we are lonely in our self-isolated way of "loving", using people for what we want, being in love with someone we hope to use.

So, there is proof, but our own ego's character keeps us from being able to know it.

Therefore, faith is not only believing, but we need "faith working through love", Paul says in Galatians 5:6. He also says, "But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17) So, I think we could say that true Christian faith has us in union spiritual with Jesus Himself. And this is our proof, how we are in actual union with Him in His love. Being "one spirit with Him" is our true "evidence" (Hebrews 11:1).

 

[MishSill]

And what's the difference between a normal person and an insane person? Biological, neurological, physiological differences that can be observed. There is evidence that the lack of morals in such a person has nothing to do with their intangible soul.

I used a Christian source so that you wouldn't say it was biased. It does of course state that people can go against their nature with other factors in play, but the researcher finds that there is a neurological difference between normal people and serial killers.

Putting two of your separate quotes together here. I'm not bothered at all if you used a scientific source to answer what was going on in the brain or to address any other scientific questions. Just actual Christian stuff.

I can't begin to imagine what a paradox this would be for people according to their brain scans would be predisposed to murder and therefore should be locked up even before they commit a crime?

I watched my father dying and I was shown his brain scan. They looked like those in the article except the right side of his brain was completely dead. What I'm saying here is that what is going on in the brain is largely a result of something else than the brain itself. Eg. Dad was deprived of oxygen when he had a massive stroke.

I believe I've said before that I don't believe a diseased brain is able to control what is going on in their soul.

I think there is a reason why the McNaghten's Rules stand the test of time.

So you agree that these people who are seeking God found different morals than you? Or are you attacking their faith and saying that they worship God incorrectly because there is one correct set of morals?

It was not clear whether women were advised not to wear any jewellery or makeup at all or to not overdo it.

Any chance we could stick to the ten commandments when it comes to morals as they are the only ones I am aware of or are certainly the key ones in the Christian walk.

There's a difference between "not understanding the nature" of something and "not feeling bad" about something.

I just don't understand this. Can you explain why someone would boast about something that they felt bad about? It just doesn't follow for me.

Again I put these two different quotes together. Morals only make you understand good from bad. Somehow this part of the conversation got around to feelings. A person can "know" something is bad but still boast about it. It doesn't mean that evil is good to them. Satanists are a classic example of these attitudes. They take great delight in performing acts that know that God abhors. It does not in any way imply they have different morals. They are out to offend God.

I experimented with other drugs and alcohol as well. I found some drugs I liked, but I never cared much for alcohol. I stopped drinking and drugging a long time ago just because I lost interest. I never drank much because I don't care for the feeling. I stopped doing other drugs just because I grew up and had responsibilities. I never became intoxicated by anything more than a few times a year. I was also an un-believer long before I ever stopped doing anything. So the Devil doesn't always get people with that trick, and while I stopped doing it, I still don't feel it was ever wrong.

I highlighted in bold one of your sentences. What makes you think that the drugs were going to interfere with your responsibilities? In what way? and who told you that would happen?

The devil always gets people with that trick with addictive drugs, very difficult to get out of.

...defending your property, killing pedophiles...

Christian faith objects to killing. We certainly would not do it to defend our property or kill pedophiles. We rely on the laws of the land to deal with people who commit crimes.

Are you trying to tell me that you would defend your property by killing the thieving person, or kill a person accused of pedophilia?

How about killing to defend you faith? Let's not go down the typical radical Muslim extremist route and let's talk about the Crusades instead since it would be something that you could possibly relate to, but maybe not. At the very least we won't run the risk of generalizing an entire religion based on the actions of a small minority or citing verses from a book neither of us have really read. I've seen where those discussions go.

Yes the Crusades first began in 1095 when summoned by Pop Urban when the muslims were in the "holy land". I've always understood the purpose of war is to protect our borders. From memory there were about 3 crusades. Tooing and froing.

I'm not going to get into the homosexuality debate. But those are two very different things. The Bible has verses that seem to state that one is wrong, while it has verses that show some of the best followers of God had lots of wives and concubines (which is even worse). Moses, David, Solomon... I know the New Testament talks a lot against adultery, but that's different because it is people you are not married to. Is there a Bible verse that says you shouldn't be married to more than one person? I think the fact is people decided it was wrong, and I don't think it's ideal either, but people decided not to do it, not the Bible.

Again I bolded one of your sentences. You pretty much answered the question.

Considering Jesus is God's begotten son, lets see what He has to say. I've again bolded the key words.

Mark 10 New King James Version (NKJV)
Marriage and Divorce
10 Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again.

2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’a]" 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the "two" shall become one flesh’; b]" so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Our subjective morals don't all line up, that's why their subjective. I think drugs are okay, you don't. I think vulgarity is okay, you don't. Some folk are more extreme than me, so I can't sit here saying all the sins of the world are things I think are okay, but there are some folk who have morals that don't line up.

Searing is always going to be the differences to God's standard.

I should point out to you here that before I became a Christian, my moral standard was much lower, I was an occultist and a binge drinker. The whole time I did that stuff I had a sense that it was wrong but I didn't know God or was led to believe in my early teaching that God was unreachable. I was wishing that I could have had a personal relationship which I now understand and have.

You're right, there is more to it if you are really trying to do the best thing possible. You need to do some serious introspection and evaluation of your morals to decide what is truly best. You can use the Bible to help you, but you shouldn't blindly follow what you think the rules to be.

After experiencing life as I have, I'm not sure I could honestly say that I'm following the bible blindly. The bible had the opposite effect of opening my eyes, to going with the masses blindly.

If you think that a particular act is bad today but is ok tomorrow, would you call that changing with the times or a moral decline?

From Monday, I'll be back to studies. My apologies if I'm not here too often. I have enjoyed debating this topic with you.