Anything Divine in the Bible?

Straggler writes:Yes and no. First i would point out that, it was not i that introduced the idea of intelligence as an explanation for morality. But yes, if this is the standard and that intelligence is omnipotent then it would be the standard, how could it not be? Does justice not play any part in human behavior or free will, if God exists and he is omnipotent?. Even so, yours and others actions of taking, killing or eating of the life of animals would therefore be evil, based on this principle correct? By "others" you mean humans? So your ethics are valid if they are applied to humans but not applicable when applied to lower life forms. What if someone does not agree with this principle, are they wrong, where there is no standard, really How would you decide Gods actions are evil, when you commit the same "crimes" agains a lower species. If you can do this why cannot an omnipotent deity dispense justice according to his knowledge.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

C writes:Oh you mean the enlightenment that kills children that are nearly completely formed and born, correct?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Abortion and infanticide go back much farther than that. And both still occur in areas not subject to the influence of The Enlightenment.But The Enlightenment means that, in some parts of the world at least, shamans are no longer able to force their particular tribal beliefs on an entire population, as well as neighboring populations, with the thread of torture and burning at the stake.I think that's a good thing. Don't you?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Bertot, If you are asking can they go to the point they can lose their salvation, the answer is no.If you are asking if they can get out of God's will, the answer is yes.In fact you can get out of His will to the point He will take you on home so you won't be a bad influence on others.As you hear so many here refer too.Ananias and Sapphira proved that point when they lied to the Holy Ghost in Acts chapter 5.They didn't lose their sonship and daughtership but they did lose their life as God removed them from the earth.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT writes:While I dont agree with the doctrine that one can not eventually lose thier status of salvation, this is a very interesting point of view. Ive never seen it explained quite that way. Thanks for your remarks and I will think about it.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Coyote writes:While I know the word enlightenment refers to a specific set of circumstances, but it most assuredly refers to a state of mind as well. That being the case one wonders why we would consider oursleves enlightend, when we take the lives of human beings that are nearly born into this life. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see that this practice is much like that of any previous race of people that has went before us.Again in this instance it is the intellect that suggest that a choice is more important that this physical matter we call a child. Humans are taking a PRINCIPLE that they believe to be more precious than they do the MATTER we categorize as the child. In this way we set a presidence that PRINCIPLE is often more mportant that PRATICALITY.As a human being we feel no shame or guilt when we kill or eat an animal, becase most as even Cavediver indicated in his posts that he did not feel the action was evil. From the intellect then it is reasoned that there is a principle involved that alleviates us form this guilt.In Gods existence it is no different. In the same way we kill and eat or simply kill an animal for misbehaving badly,we believe we are justified and we feel no guilt Why would not the creator of all life, not only have this right but exercise it against an omnipotent understanding and perspective. The principles of justice, mercy and holiness are those decisions by which such actions are carried out. Its only that ETERNAL,knowledge, justice, mercy and wisdom, that could and does respond in such a fashion.Given the fact that we as human beings involve ourselves in the same activity, how in the world will we begin to condemn his actions. He is as far above us as we are above the rabbit, even if we are created in his image.Principle seems always to proceed praticality where intellect is involved. "Greater love (principle) has no man than this than he lay down his life (the pratical aspect) for another. It would follow that in Gods existence as creator, judge and moral arbitrator, those principles are often like ours, yet infinite in application.Keeping principle in mind, how do we understand or stand in relationship to the holiness of God. The ark of the covenant was like the foot of the mountain at Siani, it was a place where the presence of God resided for a time. like the ark, it was holy, to the point that the sentence of death resisded on any that encrouhed upon it. Now this could be that he is an ego maniac or it could be that his nature is such that is to be revered to a point we oursleves cannot understand, unless he reveals that to his creation. Or it could be that God wished to teach people that obedience is of the highest order, because sin is not compatiable to his nature. At any rate people needed to understand this principle.As the scripture states, "after we have done all that WE can, we are still as dirty rags before him"In Christ these rags are washed and clean and we can now call him father. "If we say we have no sin we decieve ourselves and make God a liar. If we do sin we have an ADVOCATE with the father Jesus Christ the righteous".So from a point of INTELLECT it is all about principle from an eternal perspective.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I shouldn't need to explain why it is comical, at least not to anyone who knows the Bible. What you posted is not in ANY Bible. The thickness is there because YOU have not posted what the 'Lord' is believed to have said. I am pretty certain that the 'Lord' did not make the statement that you posted.Maybe you should read Matthew 7:6 again.

I have never equated intelligence with moral virtuousness. You are the one making that silly argument and applying that flawed conclusion exclusivel to your God.FOR EXAMPLE
Intelligence allows choices to be moral but does not make ones choices morally virtuous.
If a lion kills and eats a human baby in front of it's distraught mother is the lion "evil"?
Can a dumb animal acting on instinct ever be evil? I would say not.
Can a man who knowingly hacks a human baby to death for fun as the baby's mother begs him not to be described as "evil"? Quite possibly.
What is the difference? Intelligence empathy and knowledge of the consequences of ones actions. The man is more intelligent but can hardly be described as more morally virtuous.Intelligence gives the ability to be moral or immoral. It does not in itself make a being morally superior. How can you claim absolute morality if any action described as "evil" in one context can be justified in another context in the name of justice? Justice is a relative term!!!!! "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
It depends who or what are included as "others". I have some sympathy with those who would include some animals. But not enough symapthy to stop eating many other animals.The standard of morality I propose is not absolute. It is based primarily on rational argument. Regarding the rights of less intelligent animals than ourselves I think that an argument can be made both ways. And that it potentially applies differently to different animals. Actually no.
I would probably include other primates to some degree. I would certainly include, for example, an alien species of equal (or even greater) sentience than ourselves.
I woulde definitely include a super intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient creator being. There is no absolute standard. That is correct. But there is the standard of rational argument. Simply stating that you have the moral right to torture cats because you do not like cats is not rational and therefore not valid or morally justified by the measure I am proposing.
I would make the argument that sentience is a broad rational basis for full inclusion as "others" but that needless suffering should be avoided to a wider set of "others" including the less sentient. By the standard I have outlined above for God to actually create lesser but sentient and self aware beings whom he knowingly and intentionally tortures with misery, suffering and pain is the height of immorality.If God should find himself one day to be human would he want to be ruled over by a God like him?If the answer is 'No' then he has failed the test of the standard of rational morality I am proposing.

Intelligence does not allow choices to be moral at all, if there is no absolute standard. This is a decision you have chosen form the recesses of your mind. You could not even demonstrate that morality is a real thing and then apply it to some circumstance, becuause in the above statement alone you have DEFINED then REDEFINED morality to fit different contexts. It is ridiculous to say a choice is moral then say it is not morally virtuous. It is etither a moral act or it is not.
Secondly, you simply avoided the example I gave about mans actions twords other species and applied your contrived definition of morality to humans on humans. This was the exact point I was making earlier. We believe that actions twords humans are either moral or immoral, then dot apply the same logic to lowere species. This is a contrived statement because you wish it to be such. Your same logic does not work when you impose your ethics, morality and will on a lower species. Its flat contradictory. I wont even grace this with a response it is so silly. Each comment you make digs your hole deeper and deeper to demonstrate you have not a single plank of the platform from which to make moral judgements without God and an absolute standard Please define needless suffering. From whos perspective will you make this determination. Excuse me little friend the deer, you do understand that the suffering that I am going to inflict on you is for your good and mine, as I am more intelligent than you, so when I slam this arrow through your heart or neck, surely you will understand, correct?The argument from rational argument will not help your cause either.If this is your platform then then you would not be justified in any action twords a species that caused them death or harm for any of your rationalization. Your sentience should prevent you from any harm to those little fellows for any of your contrived reasons, correct? There is simply no way to make sense of morality, without an absolute standard. Matter in motion dude, matter in motion. Firstly because the absolute standard implies that all knowledge is taken into consideration in the matter. That is what is meant by omniscient. From a eternal perspective and even a human context degrees of standards or ethics are demonstratable. However, if intelligence is going to be the determining factory, then it must be assumed that a being with all knowledge is the sandard for all actions. Evil could not be attributed to an action where such intelligence is applicabale.I was using justice in this context, not from a finite position. Certainly if there is no God or absolute standard then YES justice is relative in any context, correct? Your standard is both contradictory and inconsistent. You actions twords all species invalidates your argument and gives you no platform to condemn anothers actions. Secondly, you cannot know what the punishment should be if intelligence is the standard. He was and he did. He humbled himself and became obdedient even unto death. He demonstrated the point of absolute morality and how it is to be understood and practiced. He knew and paid the eternal price and perspective for sin.Isnt ironic, even form this perspective you cannot condenm him for his actionsD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Like you and other religious zealots. Of course. I and a dozen other posters have already told you what they measure against. You just fail to agree what we tell you they measure against are. No my problem, yours. And yours are based on your own opinion and interpretation of religious scripture as well. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves doctrinally or even morally the same set of standards. Otherwise, why would there be over (this applies to other religions as well) 38,000 Christian denominations. Ok, I have no problem with that. Yes, human morality is an evolving social system of accepted behavior. True. Your point? Let us look up that definition shall we? Morality- "conformity to the rules of right or moral conduct". Ok what are we measuring it against? In today's modern world, against the consensus of the whole of the human species as being acceptable behavior. The only thing religion does, is takes this standard and elevate it a an unseen, unproven supernatural entity which in no way we can question as to whether itself is moral or not. That is the only difference. That is not a moral standard that is a biological fact (except in the case of extremely rare deformities). Abnormal in a biological way, yes. You are confusing biological common properties based on our genetic "programming" with the social and psychological process of creating codes of behavior. Two totally different and unrelated creatures, so to speak. Having one head vice two is not a standard of morality. It may be a social stigma caused by fear and paranoia but I have never seen a law that says "Thou shalt not have two heads" or "Two heads are better than one." Sorry, had to interject some humor here.Even if this was a standard of behavior, so what? It would be wrong to persecute individuals having deformities or handicaps because it is the consensus of modern society that the common good should be preserved i.e. not maltreating people with deformities. Why, because it helps stabilize societies and prevent the disintegration of an individual's rights (as long as they don't interfere with other peoples rights) of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Go screw in a light bulb . Sorry your condescending and arrogance really ticks me off. I think your position has no validity, so there. Where does this get us? Nowhere. Saying my position has no validity does nothing to bolster your argument at all. It just makes you look arrogant and stupid and undermines your credibility.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

A) You have abjectly failed to show that an absolute standard can exist.
B) This is an assertion with no supporting argument. The moral framework I am espousing is based on rational thought, empathy and compassion. As have you in your ongoing and abject failure to demonstrate any absolute standard of morality. The difference is that I embrace this inevitable failing while you deny it. An action or choice can be immoral by the rational empathatic standard I have outlined. You have yet to explain how the "absolutes" of the ten commandments apply without relative reference to context. Not true. I have already stated that sentience, not specism per se, would be the logical basis for the moral framework that I am espousing. I have in fact explicitly stated that I would not just apply these standards to humans. How? I gave you the example of a dumb beast committing the same act as an intelligent man. How can the lion be as morally responsible as the man is?Without intelligence the very concept of morality (or immorality) is impossible. To argue otherwise is just foolish. Then you are a fool. To impose the same standard of morality regarding actions against bacteria as I would do against a fellow human or even a chimpanzee is ridiculous. A) You have no absolute standard
B) Can you explain how exactly my rational, sentience based argument is wrong rather than just 'name calling'? No. I would actually be deeply opposed to hunting for sport. I certainly don't think killing purely on the basis of being more intelligent is morally right.I am pretty sure that I am more intelligent than you but I wouldn't consider killing you to be my moral right Killing for food I think can be rationally justified...... (But don't worry I wouldn't eat you either) Unless you claim to know the mind of God justice will always be a relative term. As such any deviation from the strict and explicit 10 commandments should be considered immoral when acted out by humans.Do you agree? If not why not? On what grounds, for example, do you "absolutely" conclude that killing is "just" such that the commandment opposed to killing should not apply? Less inconsistent than the insistence on an absolute morality that quite evidently does not exist!!!!Intelligence is not the standard. Empathy is the standard I am espousing. Only you have talked of "punishment".Empathy requires intelligence but more than intelligence itself "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a statement of empathy. That is where you are going wrong.Does your God not have empathy? I read a story today in the newspaper. A woman in the Congo whose house was invaded by militia was tortured along with her husband, son and three daughters. After hours of torture and witnessing the torture of here family she was forced to have sex with her son. Purely for the entertainment of her torturers. Then her son was killed. In front of his mother, father and sisters. Then the mother and daughters were repeatedly raped. The father was forced to watch. Then they killed the father. Finally they took the daughters and left the mother in a burning house. The mother survived with severe burns, horrific rape indiced injuries, her husband and son dead and her daughters almost certainly living as sex slaves. If they are lucky.An omniscient, omnipotent creator of "everything that there is" not only knows the suffering of this woman he created it at root. He created this world, he created "evil", suffering, pain, humiliation and degradation. And he can stop it. But he chooses not to.Would your God trade places with that woman?
If that woman traded places with your God, knowing what she now knows, do you think she would she let this happen to another human being?

I have observed quite a good deal of love, righteousness, and consistency in the Christian community. I asked God to lead me to Christians who would help my faith rather than hurt my faith.I guess I am not hunting for those who give me reason to doubt the Gospel. Rather I keep my eye out for those who give me reason to believe the Gospel.Now the tension between spiritual realiy and hypocrisy is nothing new to the new testament age. Even as far back as Cain and Abel the Bible exposed this constant tension between those walking in God's revelation and those inventing religion. The tension is constant throughout the Old Testament.There is throughout the whole history of God's interaction with man this contrast between presumption and faith. There is no reason to beleive that with the incarnation of Christ and the establishment of the church it would suddenly stop.On the contrary, Christ warned of future hypocrisy in His name. And the apostles all warned of future apostasy. So I do not think that instances of this hypocrisy is a statement on the unreliability of the teachings and Person of Jesus.You claimed to have seen much hypocrisy. Don't think I have not seen as much as you. Perhaps I could have even more reason to throw in the towel and give up on believing in Christ. Somehow by God's mercy I have been more impressed with the positive examples of living Christ.My early prayer to God was - "Lord Jesus, lead me to those Christians who can help me grow." God was faithful to that prayer.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is indeed a horrible story. But it is not the end of the story.Now if I were an atheist I would believe that these tormentors will only peacefully desolve into dust. There would be no accounting and no vindication whatsoever. This is what the Atheist offers. The sinner only comfortably melts away into the dust of the earth.But the Bible paints a quite different picture. No one is getting away with anything. Because Divine Judgment is not carried out swiftly, human beings sometimes give themselves fully over to evil. Of course if they do not repent and believe the Gospel they are in for a bitter awakening.They may inflict pain for a terrible but short time. God is able to torment them for eternity - But to those who cry out to God for saving and call on Christ Paul speaks: So I ask myself in light of this horrendous story - "Is my God only the God of people who do not suffer terribly? Is my God only the God of those who are comfortable? Can God get below these depths of suffering and uphold such people?"The story is terrible. But did the article say anything about how God may have flooded them with grace and empower them to undergo such horrendous treatment ?Perhaps some evening spend about an hour reading Fox's Book of Martyr, how Christians were crucified, roasted, burned, etc.My God cannot be only the God of those who do not suffer. And my God cannot be DIRT. As the Athiest only believes that no justice or accounting will ever take place but all just dissolve into the soil, never having to answer to God for thier crimes.Your article is terrible. But it does not tell the whole story. And I don't give up on the hope of the Word of God because of it.Does agnosticism or atheism make the account more bearable, more excusable ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Soul is suppose to be SOIL

And if the mother just so happens to not turn to Christ in her lifetime, then she will join these rebels in hell, and be tormented by God for eternity...

I am glad that I do not have to make the decision. I am glad that the responsibility of that determination is not upon me but upon God.However, I do notice that the Apostle speaks of two classes of lost people:1.) Those who do not know God2.) Those who do not obey the Gospel of Christ." ... rendering vengence to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thess. 1:8)This may mean that some who are not familiar with the Gospel are saved because they do know God. They have not rejected the Gospel that they have not heard. But they do know God.I am not sure. But perhaps this is the case.Atheism or agnosticism still offers no adaquate alternative to the situation.Now let me ask you a question. Do you think there is such a thing as a person being turned off to the message of salvation in Christ, because he WANTS to be turned off ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.