Missrebel said:
Uh and uuuummm are my way of being cyber polite and indicate that I am giving you a moment to re/consider. Forgive me if I appeared disingenuous.
Shouldn’t our reason be the thing that provokes thought?
<B>I will answer your question but you won't like it because we don't have the same working vocabulary. </B>
Vocabulary or statements? Again if I disagree with you it is through my perceptions of ‘truth’ as opposed to yours. And please don’t think I am ever angry with you or anyone else. Intelligent individuals should be able to share views and learn from each other without childish anger or name calling.
<I>Look this thread is about morality, not our religious perspectives.
So what is it to be moral? Can you answer that without a book, without someone else’s opinion? Can you find out from within yourself ? Because that’s the origin of morality, not a political or religious system. If we use a religious system then whose should we use, yours, theirs? You think your right someone else thinks their right, you go to war kill each other and nothing has changed since the beginning of recorded history. Can we get away from that nonsense, get away from the accusations of ‘evil’, the stupidity of war, the fragmented thinking of me and you, friend and enemy?
I say war is immoral, killing is immoral. That you can’t save an unborn baby and then accept killing one through ‘collateral damage’ because killing then becomes your subjective opinion.
You can’t have you cake and eat it too. You either save all babies or none because each is equal in God’s eyes.
So what’s you answer?</I>
<B>You want the definition of morality without benefit of any religious interference. I don't believe that there IS such a thing. </B>
Not the definition. That is easy enough. I want the justification for your actions that you believe are moral.
You don’t believe there is such a thing? Can’t be moral without a book, someone else’s opinion? Is that what you’re saying? That God is not within you, that you can’t find truth from within yourself?
<B>I said that the heart is desperately wicked...no accusation or x-ray vision needed...I simply trust the Word of God to be true and He said that the human heart is desperately wicked.</B>
No, you trust a book that you believe represents the word of God. Big difference. Now you expect the individual to be wicked without inquiring on your own, without introspection. What if your book is wrong on this issue?
<B>Now without His Words in a book would I know that? ...Maybe...on second thought all I would have to do is look around a little and I'm sure I could see all kinds of evidence of humanity's wickedness.</B>
Good start but look without preconceived words from a book.
<B>Without His words in my heart would I admit that? Probably only in others. What do I mean? That my own pride and arrogance will only allow me to see and condemn easily someone else's faults...funny but Jesus addressed that as well, kind of like He knew what we really are or something. (I say WE because I am as guilty as some and worse than others).</B>
Yes but the question is, is God in your heart without the book? If no book existed would you be abandoned by God?
<B>You have used scriptural concepts to try and convince me that I should not use scriptural references to be moral.</B>
No I only used this avenue because it is one you know. I would as easily debated the issue from another or no religion.
<B>What you would like to hear is that man can be moral without God...you and the others who question the bible as an authoritative work want to find a way to bring about utopia without any of the religious convention and prove somehow that man is God because he THINKS. Or that pacifism somehow equates with brotherly love...</B>
No, not at all. My premise is that God is from within the individual and man’s morality is not a product of a book because when the book becomes the impetus of our actions then we no longer reason. We take someone else’s word for the truth we should find within ourselves. Then we have my book and your book. My concepts of the truth and yours. No we have a problem with whose book is right. Morality is not established by religious or political systems. They are amoral. Morality can only come from the core of the individual because there is where he is at one with God.
<B>you said Christ was a pacifist and that he died...I say he slew His enemy and defeated the powers of darkness when He rose from the dead.</B>
I say Christ never raised a weapon. He preached non-violence and never warred along with other spiritual leaders. So if you say you are a Christian I don’t see how you can be one who follows what Christ preached and did and then war.
As far as slewing his enemies at his death then maybe if you believe strongly enough in that you can too but while you're alive your actions if you declare to be a Christian, must follow his.
<B>You asked how I deal with my enemies. First I can honestly say that those that I would consider my enemy are not you and anyone who thinks like you...anyone who pokes God in the eye will have to answer to Him, just like I will for my sins.</B>
Am I “poking god in the eye”? Am I challanging Christ’s actions? Am I hating, killing and condemning? Perhaps you should look back over this thread?
<B>What is moral...nothing without a standard to compare it to. Who shall offer the standard? I choose Jesus. NOT Allah or Buddah or anyone else...why? None offer me life but Christ.</B>
You don’t know that. It is a statement void of reason and inquiry.
<B>There are immoral wars, yes.</B>
All war is immoral.
<B>There are moral wars.</B>
Which ones? Maybe you better read some history.
<B>There are moral leaders and immoral leaders.</B>
Is your morality a product of your leader. What are you saying here?
<B>Children will die in moral and immoral wars. I can save no one.</B>
So then you’re a pacifist.
<B>If you want to know what I think is moral that about sums it up...
that I cause no one else to sin. I will be held accountable.But sin is a whole other thread that polite society can't seem to discuss anymore...</B>
Can you cause someone else to sin? Is that within your power or theirs?
You’ll have to be more clear. I’m not sure if you think war is moral or not.
<B>I guess it won't mean squat to hear this but my heart aches when I read the stuff you write. Others who have your same style cause me to feel the same way. I hear you talk and I understand your frustration..</B>
I’m not frustrated. You’re wrong. what's your point here?
.<B>how wonderful the world would be if we could truly put aside the divisions. But that is not ours to do and I can prove it...if I say peace, will that make it happen? Nope because others will only accept that offer of peace if I renounce something that is more of me than the air I breathe. How can we cross the divide? I believe that we are getting closer to that event all the time. Sadly it will come with pain and finality. But I hope and pray that I and you are on the same side of the line when it is drawn...</B>
Peace comes from within the individual. If you want peace find it there not in a social or religious system. When we find peace within ourselves then no one can take it away. No book, no government and no other individual. When we raise our fist then the peace within us vanishes.
There is a story about an old Native American and his grandson. The old man says,” I feel there are two wolves fighting inside me. One is full of anger and hate and the other full of compassion and peace.” His nephew asks,” which one wins grandfather?” and the old man replies, “The one I feed.”
Again and again,
I say war is immoral, killing is immoral. That you can’t save an unborn baby and then accept killing one through ‘collateral damage’ because killing then becomes your subjective opinion.
You can’t have you cake and eat it too. You either save all babies or none because each is equal in God’s eyes.
So what’s you answer? Whom do you save, both or neither?