What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is the world...

2ndRateMind said:
So Jesus died for nothing, then? All His teaching, in vain?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...
Jesus made an effort to make man understand that we need to change ourselves from the inside out.
Some would say that, yes, Jesus did fail.
This is because it's much easier to believe in what could be seen,
and to enjoy the physical and emotional pleasures of this life.

Jesus said to count the cost before decided to follow Him.
Luke 14:28

He said the road would be narrow that leads to life,
and wide that leads to destruction.

I don't think He failed.
I think we fail to really follow Him.
 
wondering said:
I can't think of any topic that hasn't been decided on.

Can you???
Click to expand...
I come back to my own two major global concerns, which are absolute poverty, and the destruction of the ecosphere. While they are both widely deplored, people don't actually seem to be doing very much about them. There are even people who think that the only cure is more capitalism, which is precisely the system that has caused both problems in the first place. I really think the Church has a leadership role to play here, with some clear doctrine relevant to our times. It needs to find some political (small 'p') conviction, and then pursue that conviction fearlessly and relentlessly. It would be better respected among our younger generations if it did. And we all might even have a habitable planet two hundred years from now.

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
Last edited:
2ndRateMind said:
I come back to my own two major global concerns, which are absolute poverty, and the destruction of the ecosphere. While they are both widely deplored, people don't actually seem to be doing very much about them. There are even people who think that the only cure is more capitalism, which is precisely the system that has caused both problems in the first place. I really think the Church has a leadership role to play here, with some clear doctrine relevant to our times. It needs to find some political (small 'p') conviction, and then pursue that conviction fearlessly and relentlessly. It would be better respected among our younger generations if it did. And we all might even have a habitable planet two hundred years from now.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...
I agree those are good choices...but not what I had in mind.
Doesn't everyone think we need to save our planet?
It doesn't seem to be questionable.

However, the biggest church in Christianity is concerned about this.
You might like to read:

Pope Francis Encyclical and Climate Change

Pope Francis’s encyclical on ecology, Laudato Si, says that climate change is real and mainly “a result of human activity.”
catholicclimatecovenant.org catholicclimatecovenant.org

I do believe we're doing a lot in this regard.
However, the biggest culprit of all will go unchallenged.


1666725092545.png
 
Well, thanks for that. I wasn't aware of that encyclical. And it's definately a step in the right direction. However, I would like to see him go after the millionaires and billionaires of the world, also. There is only so much wealth in the world, you don't need that much to live a happy, healthy life, and the more wealth you hog, the less there is for others to live happy, healthy lives. And the more opportunity you have to damage the environment, either getting your wealth, or spending it, or both.

It's not as if there isn't gospel precedent: Jesus had a very dusty attitude towards wealth, as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31 KJV) proves. A few excommunications might set the right tone. Or maybe we just need a whole new concept in Christianity: the anti-saint. (a few steps worse than us ordinary sinners).

Best wishes, 2RM.

PS. I'm going to be away for a few days. I have a book on Neitzsche to read.
 
Last edited:
2ndRateMind said:
Thanks for that, for_his_glory. I agree with most it, except as follows:

Except I don't believe we know what God's Will is, other than in the most general terms, which is that we should live ethical lives. If you doubt this, check out the moral conundrum I gave wondering on the previous page, and then tell me that whatever is decided, the answer won't be contentious.

I don't blame Satan when I do something bad or wrong, and I don't credit God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit when I do something good or right. All they do is tempt us in the wrong/right direction. But, at the end of the day, the decisions I take are mine and mine alone, and I expect to answer for them on Judgment Day, both the bad, and the good.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...
I agree the decisions we make are our own whether good or bad. The will of God is for all of us to walk in the unity of love as we treat others the same way we want to be treated in all things that pertain to the moral laws that I listed we are to walk in. Satan will always temp those who are Christ own and again, we make the decision to not fall to those temptations.
 
2ndRateMind said:
I really shouldn't worry to much about that. God's Law, as I have previously pointed out, is objectively ethical. He will always set the standard, whether we believe in Him or not. Meanwhile, I still contend that we do not know what God's Law is, or objective ethics are. But we do have the capacity to learn from our mistakes, as individuals and as societies, and in academia, in moral philosophy and theology. And thus we do make progress, and will continue to do so so long as we rid ourselves of the arrogant assumption that we already know what objective ethics are, and that, surprise, surprise, they coincide with what we think is ethical.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...

2RM,

So you don't believe the Ten Commandments are objective ethics, objective because God decides the sovereign boundaries?

Oz
 
Last edited:
Aussie said:
2RM,

So you don't believe the Ten Commandments are objective ethics, objective because God decides the sovereign boundaries?

Oz
Click to expand...
Let's just say, I think we can, (and have) improved on them. They were an early first draft at ethics. Take 'Thou shalt not kill'. To which we have since added, for example: unless you are a soldier, engaged in a legitimate war. But only if your target is an opposing soldier, not a civilian. Unless that civilian is a spy. etc, etc.

One of the reasons, incidentally, I find the deontogical ethics approach (duty to keep rules) rather unsatisfactory is that experience should inform us that the rules proliferate, along with exceptions to those rules, and exceptions to those exceptions, and so on. And the diversity and richness of human experience should indicate to us quite decisively that it is entirely impossible ever to invent enough rules and exceptions to cover every eventuality we are ever going to encounter.

From which point of view, I would prefer Jesus' two great commandments, and the golden rule, except that they do not provide specific guidance on specific circumstances. The best that can be said of them here is that they do specify the attitude from which decisions in the ethical space are more likely to be more accurate.

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
Last edited:
Aussie said:
2RM,

What makes the genocide of the Amalekites so wrong? Which ruler are you using?

Oz
Click to expand...
For precisely the same reason the Jews themselves think the genocide perpetrated on them by the Nazis was wrong. It would be inconsistent to think that genocide done by the Jews acceptable, but to the Jews, unacceptable. In my, subjective, opinion. Either God approves of genocide, or He doesn't. Which do you want?

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
Last edited:
2ndRateMind said:
For precisely the same reason the Jews themselves think the genocide perpetrated on them by the Nazis was wrong. It would be inconsistent to think that genocide done by the Jews acceptable, but to the Jews, unacceptable. In my, subjective, opinion. Either God approves of genocide, or He doesn't. Which do you want?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...

God does not approve of murder.
 
So, we need to rescue God from the allegation (1 Samuel 15: 1-3 KJV) that He ordered this despicable action.

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Click to expand...

But first, let's look at things from the Amalek point of view. They were faced with the mother of all refugee crises. Not just a few thousand in boats, but an entire nation descending on them, posing an existental threat to their own nation, lands and way of life. So, in those days, most foreign policy was resolved by military might. Clearly, Amalek was not strong enough to confront this threat miltarily, or they would have done so. So they did the only thing they could; pick off the stragglers to the rear, to show the Jews they were not welcome.
...
Notice that the First Book of Samuel does not say 'God orders this'. It says 'Samuel said God orders this'. My impression, therefore, is that Samuel told Saul not what God says, but what Samuel wanted God to say. In other words, the genocide is Samuel's fault, not God's.

That is my interpretation of this passage. It is informed by Jesus' notion that God is the loving Father of all manind, not just the Jews, or, later, Christians. Your mileage may vary.

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
Last edited:
Free said:
There also needs to be much more outspokenness against the evils of false gospels, like the so-called prosperity gospel.
Click to expand...
I really couldn't agree more with you about the con-trick known as 'the prosperity gospel'. It really is nothing but rich pastors parasitically infecting the poor, and sucking away such meagre resources as they have. But it is symptom of two things, it seems to me: the social emphasis placed on wealth by capitalist societies and championed by tea-party neo-liberals, and the credulity that thinks: if the pastor can quote a few Bible verses, everything he says also must be true.

I ought to say, I am not against capitalism. On a small scale, between mutually consenting individuals, it works very well. On a large scale however, with many millions or even billions of dollars at stake, it has proven to be a complete disaster, and threatens our very existence as a species. (I sometimes think, if Armageddon ever happens, which climate change and a dearth of resources can only hasten, the only survivors on land will be cockroaches and Mormon preppers. And of the two, I rather think I prefer the cockroaches :lol) So, we need to get back to Jesus' pithy observation that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And consider whether our lives are better spent accruing more and more wealth, or just being good to those who need our help.

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
Last edited:
2ndRateMind said:
I really couldn't agree more with you about the con-trick known as 'the prosperity gospel'. It really is nothing but rich pastors parasitically infecting the poor, and sucking away such meagre resources as they have. But it is symptom of two things, it seems to me: the social emphasis placed on wealth by capitalist societies and championed by tea-party neo-liberals, and the credulity that thinks: if the pastor can quote a few Bible verses, everything he says also must be true.

I ought to say, I am not against capitalism. On a small scale, between mutually consenting individuals, it works very well. On a large scale however, with many millions or even billions of dollars at stake, it has proven to be a complete disaster, and threatens our very existence as a species. (I sometimes think, if Armageddon ever happens, which climate change and a dearth of resources can only hasten, the only survivors on land will be cockroaches and Mormon preppers. And of the two, I rather think I prefer the cockroaches :lol) So, we need to get back to Jesus' pithy observation that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And consider whether our lives are better spent accruing more and more wealth, or just being good to those who need our help.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like there are some things we can agree on after all. :wink Capitalism is, in theory and in basic practice, the best system to get people out of poverty, but is in need of major reform. Likely not going to happen unless we have some sort of “great reset” or something. Lol
 
2ndRateMind said:
You said
wondering said:
I said IN OUR NATURE...
Not in OUR LAWS.

I think the point you were making was that, just because we have more civilised laws, it does not mean we have more civilised natures, than in the past. Was that what you were getting at?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...
Yes!
Thanks.

Our natures have been brought under more civilized ethics. But that's due to more civilized laws...catch 22.

At this rate, how much time will it take till the laws have a real effect on our nature?
Till we're more aware of the common good?
Sam Harris style.

We still have wars, both small in families and friends, and big, amongst nations. I just don't have much hope.
 
Free said:
Well, it looks like there are some things we can agree on after all. :wink Capitalism is, in theory and in basic practice, the best system to get people out of poverty, but is in need of major reform. Likely not going to happen unless we have some sort of “great reset” or something. Lol
Click to expand...
Hmmm. What do you think I am trying to achieve, here?

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
wondering said:
Yes!
Thanks.

Our natures have been brought under more civilized ethics. But that's due to more civilized laws...catch 22.

At this rate, how much time will it take till the laws have a real effect on our nature?
Till we're more aware of the common good?
Sam Harris style.

We still have wars, both small in families and friends, and big, amongst nations. I just don't have much hope.
Click to expand...
Well, think of it as a benign spiral. Barring catastrophe. When our natures improve, our ethics improve. When our ethics improve, our laws improve. When our laws improve, our social environment improves. When our social environment improves, our natures improve. (As well as our DNA makeup, there is a whole social nurture dimension that helps build our natures). And so on.

Best wishes, 2RM.
 
2ndRateMind said:
Well, think of it as a benign spiral. Barring catastrophe. When our natures improve, our ethics improve. When our ethics improve, our laws improve. When our laws improve, our social environment improves. When our social environment improves, our natures improve. (As well as our DNA makeup, there is a whole social nurture dimension that helps build our natures). And so on.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Click to expand...
Yes. Nature, Nurture.
I'm happy to see that you're so hopeful.
I'm not a negative person and enjoy my life,
I do, however, have little hope for mankind in general.
See you around...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top