The Harm To Others

[davidk]

I think the traditional New Testament understanding is that the Holy Spirit (part of God) indwells us to help us know God's will (right from wrong; good from evil). At the simplest level, the Holy Spirit provides us with a conscience, which we can choose to ignore and its urgings will seem weaker, or we can follow the Holy Spirit's leading to relflect God's glory. That fits with my life experience, but maybe it's not so convincing if we consider that human morality depends largely on cultural standards. So I would apply teachings of Jesus that He intentionally separated from time and culture.

 

I believe the Bible is a written record of man's experience of God. Human understanding of God continues to evolve. When Jesus was tested by an expert in the law of the day, He replied that the greatest commandment is to Love God (with ALL your heart, soul, and mind) and Love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else follows. Those are the timeless standards. I agree with the contributors who would test leadings they believe are from God using the standards of the sanctity of life and purity of love. Our challenge is to see each of our fellow humans (even our enemies) as God sees them (precious!). If we act on that premise, we are different than Hitler or Stalin. I agree that human morality currently does not always live up to the ideals of sanctity of life or purity of love.

 

Are there any times that the principles of loving and respecting life conflict? Euthanasia of someone who is intensely suffering MAY be such a case, which proves that we have to use our God-given brains and pray and do the best we know how while holding God's basic principle of love as our guide. The Methodist church teaches to make hard decisions based upon scripture, tradition, reason AND experience. All 4 should be prayerfully considered.

 

Also, you might not want to laugh about dirty looks, David -- if the eye is bad, the whole body is full of darkness. (Mt. 6:23) Jesus reminds us we have to root out the inner bad feelings in order to get control of our outer actions. I think He's right. I don't believe we have to literally gouge out our eye, but Jesus asks us to intentionally question our motives to root out the unhealthy.

I just recently re-read you post, and I have questions similar to yours about the influences of culture on how we perceive right from wrong. I'd like to share some of that with you.

I believe the Bible is an accurate written record of mans experience with God. Jesus 2 commandments summarized the 10. These are the absolutes of God, the timeless standards, we throw our 'morality' against and cast into the rubbish heap what doesn't stick. Jesus spoke pretty critically of traditions and experiences that don't stick. That would be the only caveat.

I couldn't agree more than to say we should see man as God does, created in His image. Understanding that gives us the infinite God's personal perspective on the value, preciousness, and meaning of man. That's what Hitler and Stalin couldn't understand and that is why they are wrong! Brilliant observation.

 

Given the culture, how do we discern right from wrong? (You mentioned the Methodist teaching.)

 

Jesus did not seperate His teaching from culture, because I believe He gave us the absolutes of God and it's culture that over time has done the seperating. If the final catagories of right and wrong were only sociological, statistical, situational ethics, or some standard of averages, we could not have morality (knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil). In the setting of culture's indefinite definitions of right and wrong, being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong.

 

Above all else we can do, consider prayerfully.

[davidk]

Here are the main passages that I was referencing to:

 

Ex 32:26-29

Lev 26:7,8

Num 21:2,3,34,35; Num 25:4,5; Num 31:7-11,15,17,18,40

Deut 2:32-35; Deut 3:1-3,6,7; Deut 7:1,2; Deut 9:3; Deut 20:16,17;

Joshua 6:21; Joshua 8:22,24-27; Joshua 10:28-40; Joshua 11:11,12,14,19-21

1 Sam 15:3,8; 1 Sam 27:9,11

Eze 9:5,6

 

I hope you take the time to look these passages up and read them in context, David.

 

Four important notes about these passages:

 

1. None of these include God-acts where God himself is said to kill people outright (such as the flood, fire falling from heaven, etc.). These are only passages where God, according to the text, tells his people to kill others (in direct contradiction of one of the 10 commandments, no less).

 

2. There are enough of these passages to establish a pattern. This was simply the way Yahweh did things in the OT.

 

3. Modern warfare is based (or claims to be so) upon "just war theory", one of the tenets being that civilian (or innocent) casualties be kept to a bare minimum. Almost everyone of these passages describe "utter annihilation" with not only men capable of fighting back being killed, but women and children also. It is interesting to note in the Numbers 31 account that the Israelites were allowed to keep virgin as war-booty and as gifts for the priest. This is moral? I think not.

 

4. Lastly, if this is God's pattern for warfare, that our enemies are to be completely wiped off the face of the earth, then it is no wonder that modern society has little use for this kind of "war-god". Any god who commands his people to completely destroy others, to commit genocide, is certainly NOT a God of love who desires that NONE perish.

 

PS - This is not a personal attack, just an observation. It is interesting that you yourself did not even know where these passages are. But I'm not pointing a condemning finger, I was exactly the same when when I was a fundamentalist. Even if someone had pointed out these passages to me, I would have declared that God was God and can do whatever he wants or described how wicked these original inhabitants of Canaan were. But no matter how you cut it, it is, according to the scriptures, God-sanctioned genocide.

 

Assuming to be true anything not in evidence (ie; "you yourself did not even know where these passages are") is inadmissable for drawing a conclusion.

 

After a thorough review of the passages provided, and the context in which they reside, I have found the evidence to be insufficient to uphold your accusation of God being genocidal or immoral.

It is determined that God has, by definition, the authority to judge in His infinite wisdom righteous and unrighteous behavior and to exercise whatever reward He deems approprite to that behavior in any manner he deems appropriate. He has not, under any circumstance, demonstrated a proclivity to use any systematic measures to prevent births, cause injury, kill, or create unlivable living conditions of anyone simply based on politics, race, culture, religion, or language.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

It is determined that God has, by definition, the authority to judge in His infinite wisdom righteous and unrighteous behavior and to exercise whatever reward He deems approprite to that behavior in any manner he deems appropriate.

 

In other words, God has "carte blanche", he can do absolutely anything he wants, no matter how much suffering it causes, and whatever he does is considered to be wise, righteous, and good.

 

It's too bad Jesus didn't understand this "darker side" of God. If he had, he surely would have instructed Israel, as Yahweh had done in the OT, to continue killing her enemies.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

 

It is determined that God has, by definition, the authority to judge in His infinite wisdom righteous and unrighteous behavior and to exercise whatever reward He deems approprite to that behavior in any manner he deems appropriate.

 

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

[davidk]

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

 

Good idea. We do need to really make sense with each other. May I suggest we need to talk from the same foundation or presupposition (a necessary antecedent condition in logic). Otherwise we won't have any real understanding of what the other is saying.

-

The basic presupposition is that there really are such things as absolutes.

 

This little formula, "A is A" and "If you have A it is not non-A", is the first move in classical logic, it's called "antithesis".

 

Absolutes imply antithesis. This is what makes it possible to discuss what is right and what is wrong, true and false, good and evil.

 

Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it Christianity is meaningless.

 

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.

---

[JosephM]

(snip)

Absolutes imply antithesis. This is what makes it possible to discuss what is right and what is wrong, true and false, good and evil.

 

Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it Christianity is meaningless.

 

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.

---

David,

 

This seems to me to be a real twist on words. Is it not ludicrous to assume that 'right', wrong, good and evil are absolutes and objective? They are among the most subjective terms that exist in the world today. There is no objective way to measure such things as they change with the whims of men in power, morals, geographics and cultures. You yourself use your subjective mind to say that God has the authority to do these things that wayfarer2 has questioned yet the only measure you can use to make it objective is your sole reliance that your subjective (using your senses) interpretation of Christianity is objective and assuming that that interpretation you call Christianity can be used by all others to come to the same conclusion. It seems almost laughable to me.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.

---

 

David, the subject of this thread is the harm to others, not the existence of God. I know that it sounds funny, given the length of many of my posts, to ask for brevity, but let me ask again:

 

>>If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

 

Can you persuade me, not that God is God, but that God is a morally just and righteous being to kill or command the killing of all of these people?

[davidk]

David, the subject of this thread is the harm to others, not the existence of God. I know that it sounds funny, given the length of many of my posts, to ask for brevity, but let me ask again:

 

>>If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

 

Can you persuade me, not that God is God, but that God is a morally just and righteous being to kill or command the killing of all of these people?

If I say God, does it mean the same as when a non-Christian says god?

 

If we want to discuss anything with each other without any basis of understanding, discussion or debate cannot happen. We would be speaking different languages.

 

For me to persuade you of God's being right in all cases, I would show you God's position as Creator of all that exists. And I would show you that He's not safe, but He's good.

[davidk]

this post is in error

[Guest wayfarer2k]

If I say God, does it mean the same as when a non-Christian says god?

 

Well, growing up in a Judeo-Christian culture, let's say that I have heard, as you mentioned, that God is the creator of the universe, that he is the author of life. And let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I have questions about God's goodness because of all the suffering I see in the world.

 

But I've read enough of the Old Testament to see that God has either directly or indirectly caused much human suffering himself. How would you convince me that the suffering and deaths of about 5 million people was a good and righteous thing for God to do? Would I just have to have faith that God is good and just and righteous, despite his actions, or is there some evidence that you could offer me that would convince me that all of this violence, suffering, and death came from a morally righteous being?

[minsocal]

Good idea. We do need to really make sense with each other. May I suggest we need to talk from the same foundation or presupposition (a necessary antecedent condition in logic). Otherwise we won't have any real understanding of what the other is saying.

-

The basic presupposition is that there really are such things as absolutes.

 

This little formula, "A is A" and "If you have A it is not non-A", is the first move in classical logic, it's called "antithesis".

 

Absolutes imply antithesis. This is what makes it possible to discuss what is right and what is wrong, true and false, good and evil.

 

Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without it Christianity is meaningless.

 

The basic antithesis is that God objectively exists in contrast to His not existing. Which is the reality, changes everything.

---

 

Conceptual Relativity. The history of human belief is saturated with the perspective of a necessity of “rightness” or “wrongness”. This, I think, is a mistake. The more attractive alternative is to view our history of reflected thought as a treasure of ideas that are all attempting to say something “true” about “ulitimate” reality. The common tendency is to find a part of some perspective, identify it as false and then reject the entire package. The result is not trivial when groups of human beings identify themselves with a perspective or are identified by others as having that perspective. The tragedy of this is captured in the old saying in folk psychology, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

[davidk]

Well, growing up in a Judeo-Christian culture, let's say that I have heard, as you mentioned, that God is the creator of the universe, that he is the author of life. And let's say, for the sake of illustration, that I have questions about God's goodness because of all the suffering I see in the world.

 

But I've read enough of the Old Testament to see that God has either directly or indirectly caused much human suffering himself. How would you convince me that the suffering and deaths of about 5 million people was a good and righteous thing for God to do? Would I just have to have faith that God is good and just and righteous, despite his actions, or is there some evidence that you could offer me that would convince me that all of this violence, suffering, and death came from a morally righteous being?

 

God told man evil was possible, and told us how to avoid it. But did man listen? Nah! What does God know? He's not here! I know I can get away with this. I'm fine without Him. Nothing bad'll happen. Hey, watch this! Aw, man! What kinda God would let that happen. He must be a mean God.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

God told man evil was possible, and told us how to avoid it. But did man listen? Nah! What does God know? He's not here! I know I can get away with this. I'm fine without Him. Nothing bad'll happen. Hey, watch this! Aw, man! What kinda God would let that happen. He must be a mean God.

 

This would be your response to someone who questions the "darker side" of God in the Old Testament? Instead of offering a persuasive argument that God is good, you would attack that person?

 

I've asked you three times to convince me that a god who slaughters about 5 million is a "good" god. You can't do it. Obviously, you either have no answer to this dilema or you simply consider me not worth interacting with on it. So be it.

[October's Autumn]

It is a shame that one person has been allowed to hi-jack these threads. It seems to me that the discussion could be much more productive if that wasn't allowed to happen.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

It is a shame that one person has been allowed to hi-jack these threads. It seems to me that the discussion could be much more productive if that wasn't allowed to happen.

 

OA, I don't know if you're referring to me or not. I do admit that I tend to chase rabbits. And sometimes I lose myself on rabbit trails. I need an online OnStar.

 

Where I was trying to go with David, stated briefly, is that I think if we see God as a deity who wants to cause harm to humanity, then it is not too big of a step for us, as worshipping humans, to then want to be the "hands of God" who desire to carry out whatever agenda we think God has. If we think God is pro-slavery, we become pro-slavery. If we think God is anti-women, we become anti-women. If we think God is anti-gay, we become anti-gay. I could be wrong, I know, but I think our view of God (harmful or life-giving) has a strong bearing on whether we become harmful or life-giving humans.

 

Anyway, OA, I'm no longer dialoguing with David. It doesn't seem to be profitable for either of us. Sorry if I "hi-jacked" this thread. I should have had just a post (or maybe two) and then dropped it. So please join in and let us know what you think about this subject.

[davidk]

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

 

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

If God is God he has all authority, whether you like it or not. Otherwise He would not be God.

---

Your attack on the OT has been relentless with such absolute statements as; "But no matter how you cut it, it is, according to the scriptures, God-sanctioned genocide."

I responded saying ,"He has not, under any circumstance, demonstrated (biblically) a proclivity to use any systematic measures to prevent births, cause injury, kill, or create unlivable living conditions of anyone simply based on politics, race, culture, religion, or language."

 

Then you had the affrontary to tell someone else "I suspect David is telling me that if I don't worship this "god of genocide" also found in the bible, that I am worshipping the wrong god." I looked, and could not find at any time my remotely saying you should worship a biblical 'god of genocide'. My insistance has been that it does not exist. I ignored this but it could have been considered the first personal attack.

 

You followed that up with: "In other words, (you have said) God has "carte blanche", he can do absolutely anything he wants, no matter how much suffering it causes, and whatever he does is considered to be wise, righteous, and good."

I looked and could not find anywhere my saying God causes any wanton harm or suffering to anyone. Second personal attack.

 

I haven't been the one doing the attacking.

---

Because we knew our reading of OT Scripture was at odds, I had hoped to help by suggesting we find some commonality or we would continue to "talk past each other".

 

Because you had used absolutes in your arguements, I had assumed you would understand the anithesis post on absolutes. Which one is the reality? Does God objectively exists; or does He not? The answer changes everything. Does God's creation, including man, objectively exist? Morality?

I know one who believes God does not objectively exist, nor does creation, nor morality. And that explains his ability to indefinitely equivocate his positions with no possiblity of verification. He can only say what things aren't, not what they are, resting only on arbitrary, situational, or cultural 'standards'.

 

If God does objectively exist, then we can consider God's goodness, man's personality, morals, existance, and so forth. It can also be considered that God has given man personal, propositional revelation. Either way his character (being infinite and all) would be the law of the universe.

 

So what does the Bible describe? Man was made in God's image from the dust. And man was good in body and soul, in perfect harmony with God, with wife, nature, and himself. Man had these gracious provisions and to remain in that condition.

 

This is where we diverge. You seem to believe the biblical God now runs around willy nilly, indiscriminately killing and abusing innocent man for no apparent reason.

 

I believe at this point, Man had been given a choice by the Biblical God: obey or disobey. In His mercy, God told us what to expect from the results of disobedience. But, man willfully chose to disobey God and as a result, man lost communion with God and the external universe became abnormal, not as God made it, changed by man's sin. All under man's domination was affected. Morals suddenly exist.

 

The Biblical God is still good, but man has purposefully changed and now has to struggle with his discontinuity to God, nature, and himself.

 

All of the references you provided have this setting of mans struggle within this rebellion and discontinuity with everything. All of scripture is sifted through these truths.

 

You see: to discuss "harm and suffering" is to discuss good and evil is to discuss man and his relationship with God is to discuss absolutes.

[JosephM]

David, I suspect we are spending alot of time talking past each other. So please allow me the opportunity to turn the tables and ask you questions:

 

How do you know this? How do you know that God has the authority to do this? If I wasn't a Christian, how would you persuade me that God was right in killing, directly or indirectly, approximately 5 million people in the Old Testament?

 

If God is God he has all authority, whether you like it or not. Otherwise He would not be God.

 

David,

As you are probably aware by now, Bill has left and though you continue to post his question to you, your only answer other than your long accusation and defense which I omitted from this post, all you have said is ...

 

"If God is God he has all authority, whether you like it or not. Otherwise He would not be God."

 

It seems to me that Bill was sincere in his question to you and had put the past dialog behind. Your answer seems to me not to be a very persuasive answer to one who isn't a Christian. Perhaps you might consider leaving off the attack and counterattack dialog and answering his querstion for me unless of course that is the extent of your answer.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Given the culture, how do we discern right from wrong? (You mentioned the Methodist teaching.)

 

Jesus did not seperate His teaching from culture, because I believe He gave us the absolutes of God and it's culture that over time has done the seperating. If the final catagories of right and wrong were only sociological, statistical, situational ethics, or some standard of averages, we could not have morality (knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil). In the setting of culture's indefinite definitions of right and wrong, being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong.

 

Above all else we can do, consider prayerfully.

 

David, I appreciate your response. I think Jesus' teaching WAS bound up in his culture. That is why he generally used agrarian metaphors. I understand your desire to have ONE absolute standard of morality that everyone should be accountable to, because then our choices would only be whether to follow the ONE teaching or not, instead of HOW to follow the teaching today. But, it is difficult to be human since we have free will over our choices. How much of Jesus' teaching is literal and how much is metaphorical or hyperbole raise questions that cause the response to Jesus' teachings to be intensely personal. There does not appear to be one "right" answer. Jesus' teachings often mean different things to different people, and often he does not clarify in order to leave the answers up to us.

 

I believe it would just be easier for all of us if we admit none of us have the WHOLE truth about God. God is larger than what any one of us comprehend at this moment. I believe God is larger than the Bible, and I believe God is bigger than Jesus. That's why the spiritual journey intrigues us for a lifetime.

 

I agree that prayer and listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is the best way to determine right and wrong always. Sanctity of life and pure love are great measuring sticks.

 

Are you concerned about particular moral standards you think others are not following in our culture? Sometimes our concern with setting down standards of right and wrong are in response to feeling we need to be able to judge others against them. Are you concerned that your situation is asking you to make moral choices that are not in line with the absolutes you feel God has set down? For example, if my husband were beating me nightly I might be questioning whether the teaching that God hates divorce is an absolute or something I could justify as irrelevant in my situation.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Given the culture, how do we discern right from wrong? (You mentioned the Methodist teaching.)

 

Jesus did not seperate His teaching from culture, because I believe He gave us the absolutes of God and it's culture that over time has done the seperating. If the final catagories of right and wrong were only sociological, statistical, situational ethics, or some standard of averages, we could not have morality (knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil). In the setting of culture's indefinite definitions of right and wrong, being right would be just as meaningless as being wrong.

 

Above all else we can do, consider prayerfully.

 

David, I appreciate your response. I think Jesus' teaching WAS bound up in his culture. That is why he generally used agrarian metaphors. I understand your desire to have ONE absolute standard of morality that everyone should be accountable to, because then our choices would only be whether to follow the ONE teaching or not, instead of HOW to follow the teaching today. But, it is difficult to be human since we have free will over our choices. How much of Jesus' teaching is literal and how much is metaphorical or hyperbole raise questions that cause the response to Jesus' teachings to be intensely personal. There does not appear to be one "right" answer. Jesus' teachings often mean different things to different people, and often he does not clarify in order to leave the answers up to us.

 

I believe it would just be easier for all of us if we admit none of us have the WHOLE truth about God. God is larger than what any one of us comprehend at this moment. I believe God is larger than the Bible, and I believe God is bigger than Jesus. That's why the spiritual journey intrigues us for a lifetime.

 

I agree that prayer and listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is the best way to determine right and wrong always. Sanctity of life and pure love are great measuring sticks.

 

Are you concerned about particular moral standards you think others are not following in our culture? Sometimes our concern with setting down standards of right and wrong are in response to feeling we need to be able to judge others against them. Are you concerned that your situation is asking you to make moral choices that are not in line with the absolutes you feel God has set down? For example, if my husband were beating me nightly I might be questioning whether the teaching that God hates divorce is an absolute or something I could justify as irrelevant in my situation.

[October's Autumn]

OA, I don't know if you're referring to me or not. I do admit that I tend to chase rabbits. And sometimes I lose myself on rabbit trails. I need an online OnStar.

 

Nope, wasn't referring to you!

[October's Autumn]

Where I was trying to go with David, stated briefly, is that I think if we see God as a deity who wants to cause harm to humanity, then it is not too big of a step for us, as worshipping humans, to then want to be the "hands of God" who desire to carry out whatever agenda we think God has. If we think God is pro-slavery, we become pro-slavery. If we think God is anti-women, we become anti-women. If we think God is anti-gay, we become anti-gay. I could be wrong, I know, but I think our view of God (harmful or life-giving) has a strong bearing on whether we become harmful or life-giving humans.

 

I think for many people it is the opposite. They use God to justify their own evil: anti-gay, anti-women, racism, sexism, etc. But I see too many people who don't want to be confused with the facts. Heaven forbid they be educated on why the bible really isn't anti/ism! They don't want to hear it. They are perfectly happy justifying their own bigotry with the bible.

 

Of course there are exceptions. But that is what I see most of the time.

[davidk]

David, I appreciate your response. I think Jesus' teaching WAS bound up in his culture. That is why he generally used agrarian metaphors. I understand your desire to have ONE absolute standard of morality that everyone should be accountable to, because then our choices would only be whether to follow the ONE teaching or not, instead of HOW to follow the teaching today. But, it is difficult to be human since we have free will over our choices. How much of Jesus' teaching is literal and how much is metaphorical or hyperbole raise questions that cause the response to Jesus' teachings to be intensely personal. There does not appear to be one "right" answer. Jesus' teachings often mean different things to different people, and often he does not clarify in order to leave the answers up to us.

 

I believe it would just be easier for all of us if we admit none of us have the WHOLE truth about God. God is larger than what any one of us comprehend at this moment. I believe God is larger than the Bible, and I believe God is bigger than Jesus. That's why the spiritual journey intrigues us for a lifetime.

 

I agree that prayer and listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit is the best way to determine right and wrong always. Sanctity of life and pure love are great measuring sticks.

 

Are you concerned about particular moral standards you think others are not following in our culture? Sometimes our concern with setting down standards of right and wrong are in response to feeling we need to be able to judge others against them. Are you concerned that your situation is asking you to make moral choices that are not in line with the absolutes you feel God has set down? For example, if my husband were beating me nightly I might be questioning whether the teaching that God hates divorce is an absolute or something I could justify as irrelevant in my situation.

I'll be brief about Jesus not being manipulated by the local culture. Quite the contrary. Jesus knows that in order for the people he was speaking to, to understand, he had to speak in a language they spoke. That includes any idioms or subtleties. Culture does not change nor influence His Truth, only in how it's sufficiently communicated.

 

If two men have different moral standards directly contradicting the other (One says there is one way, while the other says; there is more than one way), they may both be wrong, one or the other may be right, but both could not be right. Don't be fooled otherwise. All religions conflict. Which do you choose?

 

I agree Life's Sanctity and Love are great standards. But on what basis do you believe the Sanctity of life and love have any real meaning? I believe they have meaning because man was created in the image of an infinite-personal God by the infinite-personal God .

---

Truth is true. Whatever is not truth is not true.

 

God's Grace to you.

[JosephM]

If two men have different moral standards directly contradicting the other (One says there is one way, while the other says; there is more than one way), they may both be wrong, one or the other may be right, but both could not be right. Don't be fooled otherwise. All religions conflict. Which do you choose?

 

It may seem that way on the surface. But both may be right and looking at the same thing from a different perspective. One says there is one way to God and another says there are many. One may be on 1 of twelve spokes to a wheel. Another on a different spoke. One may be positioned above the center of the wheel. The ones on the spokes can only see a single spoke leading to the center while the one positioned above the wheel sees 12 spokes leading to the center. None can convince the other which one is right and which one is wrong because each is right from his limited perspective (view). And then to complicate things further a fourth is positioned below the wheel and sees that the center is attached from below to another wheel. Does one choose to form ones belief as an absolute belief as fact or does one seek to understand the perspective of the one's seeing differently and merely conclude that there are limitations when things are viewed from different perspectives and only when those limitations have been removed or transcended shall we see what really is ? Just a thought to consider.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

I agree Life's Sanctity and Love are great standards. But on what basis do you believe the Sanctity of life and love have any real meaning? I believe they have meaning because man was created in the image of an infinite-personal God by the infinite-personal God .

 

Metaphorically, I agree with you. I believe humanity can exhibit more on God's nature than any other creature because we have self-awareness that probably no other creature has (except for maybe dolphins and whales). But my belief in the sanctity of life and love comes not so much from the origins of it as from its rarity and transforming power. Believing that mankind was created in God's image has not stopped wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch-trials, slavery, the subjugation of women, Darfur, or other human attrocities. These in especially so because traditional Christianity holds to the notion that God's image was lost with "the fall". We need more than a "this is where we came from theology". We need a God-inspired vision of what we can be and where we are going.

 

Again, just something to think about.

[davidk]

It may seem that way on the surface. But both may be right and looking at the same thing from a different perspective. One says there is one way to God and another says there are many. One may be on 1 of twelve spokes to a wheel. Another on a different spoke. One may be positioned above the center of the wheel. The ones on the spokes can only see a single spoke leading to the center while the one positioned above the wheel sees 12 spokes leading to the center. None can convince the other which one is right and which one is wrong because each is right from his limited perspective (view). And then to complicate things further a fourth is positioned below the wheel and sees that the center is attached from below to another wheel. Does one choose to form ones belief as an absolute belief as fact or does one seek to understand the perspective of the one's seeing differently and merely conclude that there are limitations when things are viewed from different perspectives and only when those limitations have been removed or transcended shall we see what really is ? Just a thought to consider.

That's a terrible analogy. You revealed the truth on the outset of a 12 spoked wheel. That's the truth here.

Regardless of any one elses's opinion on how many spokes there are, only one was right and everyone else was wrong!!!

 

I don't wonder that you may not understand this. Because first, one needs to transcend their earthly conscousness to open their soul's eye to the universal conscousness as it surrounds, encompasses, and lifts one's immortal soul to the highest of peaks of sprituality to that truth that is unshakablely true into the eternal.