Is the world...

[GodsGrace]

The philosopher's tripartite model of knowedge is that it is 'justified, true, belief.'

I can tell you now, for certain sure, that even in the civilised world, at this time we cannot justify our ethics and ethical systems, beyond doubt and questioning. And if we can't wholly and completely justify them, we obviously do not know whether or not they are true and accurate representations of God's objective law. The best we can do currently is to allow everyone their say, as we do in democracies when we choose our governments. And while there is a certain amount of consensus, there is also considerable disagreement to discover on close examination. Even among Christians! So, as the Chinese curse wishes upon the accursed, we live in interesting times.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Apparently you're in agreement with subjective morality.
Of course you're allowed your opinion.

But what makes you think we are unable to justify our objective morality?
Allowing everyone their say is the worst type of social morals.
How does that even create morals if we could all do what we believe to be right?
Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong?

Do you think God gave us laws to imprison us or to live better lives?
Why do you think Moses gave the Israelites laws when they were released from slavery
and crossing the Sinai?

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, Jesus' ethical approach was strategic, rather than tactical. There are, for example, His two great commandments:


And He endorsed the Golden rule:


But when it came to specifics, He was either cryptic or spoke in parables, leaving for us to decide what He actually meant.

And there were some specifics He didn't address, at all:, for example, the treatment of animals, and the treatment of homosexuals, and the treatment of women. And modern life and modern living keeps on throwing up more moral conundrums for us to resolve, particularly in medicine and medical science, in society, in the economy, and in politics, and of course, the really big, existential issues around the environment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I see what you mean.
Past midnight here...tomorrow.

 

[Free]

I can't see God punishing anyone who believes in Him and loves HIm, and has led, on account of that, a reasonably decent sort of life.

What is the standard God himself has set? Is it that one must just live a "reasonably decent sort of life"? Is morality even the issue, as given in the Bible? It doesn't take much to see that morality isn't the issue and the standard God sets is perfection, not goodness, and so is completely unattainable by our own doing.

So, I'm going to bite this bullet. As you have pointed out, Jesus said (John 14:5 KJV)

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

What if He was just plain wrong about that?

If someone doesn't know if he was wrong or thinks he was wrong, then that person should literally just throw out their Bible, or at least the NT. Especially when we consider what he says just a few verses later:

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. (ESV)

Which is something he mentions more than once (John 8:28, 38; 12:49). So, if Jesus isn't trustworthy in what he says, then neither is the Father, and now we can throw out the OT as well. But, of course, he wasn't wrong.

You read a lot, and then use that intellect, those discriminatory powers and critical faculties I referred to earlier, to reach the judgment that seems appropriate to you.

Which means you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God and authoritative. So why believe any of it at all? There is literally no point. Do you read all the orthodox Christian scholars, theologians, and philosophers from the early church onward? Or do you mostly just stick with modern "progressives," liberal theologians, and skeptics?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What is the standard God himself has set? Is it that one must just live a "reasonably decent sort of life"? Is morality even the issue, as given in the Bible? It doesn't take much to see that morality isn't the issue and the standard God sets is perfection, not goodness, and so is completely unattainable by our own doing.

If morality isn’t an issue to God, what is? If goodness isn’t an issue to God, what is? Why are the ten commandments moral matters? Why are the Beatitudes mainly moral??

Don’t mistake me, I think the post you addressed needs to be addressed. In this I agree. But God does not require a standard beyond us. He does not require perfection. He asks us to be “complete” but doesn’t require it or nothing. Jesus said merely giving a cup of water is noted and rewarded by Him.

The best way to describe Him is He is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He doesn’t require perfection. He requires that we do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with Him. His burden is light, not a standard beyond us (heavy.)

 

[2ndRateMind]

Apparently you're in agreement with subjective morality.

That's not what I said. I said we do not know what objective morality is. So all we have is our various subjective moralities.

Of course you're allowed your opinion.

Thank you. So, of course, are you.

But what makes you think we are unable to justify our objective morality?

Try it, and see. And don't say: because that is what Jesus/ the Bible says... I'm looking for rational argument(s).

Allowing everyone their say is the worst type of social morals.

I dare say, just as democracy is the worst type of political system. Apart from all the others.

How does that even create morals if we could all do what we believe to be right?
Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong?

We all are to so decide, and we all do, anyway.

Do you think God gave us laws to imprison us or to live better lives?
Why do you think Moses gave the Israelites laws when they were released from slavery
and crossing the Sinai?

As I said, God wants us to live an ethical life, because He loves us, wants the best for us, and that is the best kind of life to live, for us, and for everyone else. Only thing is, He leaves us to work out for ourselves what that ethical life is.

There appear to be (at least) four main academically credible schools of thought among ethicists:

Deontology: we have a duty to accept and observe rules. That duty may be owed, for example, to our families, our nations, or to God.

Utilitarianism: The greatest happiness of the greatest number determines what is ethical.

Virtue ethics: The ethical life is best achieved by developing one's character and cultivating the virtues.

Situation ethics: What is ethical is determined by finding the optimum solution amongst all interested parties in any given situation.

Needless to say, all these approaches have issues, problems and objections associated with them. My own preference, when confronted by a particularly knotty moral conundrum, is to consider it from each of these angles, and then make my decision.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

What is the standard God himself has set? Is it that one must just live a "reasonably decent sort of life"? Is morality even the issue, as given in the Bible? It doesn't take much to see that morality isn't the issue and the standard God sets is perfection, not goodness, and so is completely unattainable by our own doing.


If someone doesn't know if he was wrong or thinks he was wrong, then that person should literally just throw out their Bible, or at least the NT. Especially when we consider what he says just a few verses later:

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. (ESV)

Which is something he mentions more than once (John 8:28, 38; 12:49). So, if Jesus isn't trustworthy in what he says, then neither is the Father, and now we can throw out the OT as well. But, of course, he wasn't wrong.


Which means you don't believe the Bible is inspired by God and authoritative. So why believe any of it at all? There is literally no point. Do you read all the orthodox Christian scholars, theologians, and philosophers from the early church onward? Or do you mostly just stick with modern "progressives," liberal theologians, and skeptics?

I've pretty much addressed all this already, and see no reason why I should repeat myself.

Meanwhile, you haven't explained yet why someone who believes in God, and loves Him, and on that account lives a reasonably decent short of life, should be punished (or at least denied heaven, which amounts to the same thing). How is that consistent with God's goodness, justice, and mercy?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Do you read all the orthodox Christian scholars, theologians, and philosophers from the early church onward? Or do you mostly just stick with modern "progressives," liberal theologians, and skeptics?

Hmmm. I am certainly not obsessive about reading theology. My field is rather wider than that. I did maths, physics, chemistry and biology at school, which has proven to be a good grounding in the basics. These days, I read sociology, psychology, environmental science, economics, politics and philosophy (particularly political philosophy, ethics, and the philosophy of religion), and a little theology when I come across an appealing title. For me, it's all about God's World, and therefore, by implication, about God.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Free]

If morality isn’t an issue to God, what is? If goodness isn’t an issue to God, what is? Why are the ten commandments moral matters? Why are the Beatitudes mainly moral??

I am not saying that morality isn't an issue, I am saying it isn't the issue that determines whether one goes to heaven or not. Spiritual deadness, separation from God, is the issue. Jesus died for our sins to reconcile us to God and make us spiritually alive, not to make us good.

I also think the Beatitudes are not mainly moral; they're mainly spiritual. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's excellent book, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, talks much about the Beatitudes.

Don’t mistake me, I think the post you addressed needs to be addressed. In this I agree. But God does not require a standard beyond us. He does not require perfection. He asks us to be “complete” but doesn’t require it or nothing. Jesus said merely giving a cup of water is noted and rewarded by Him.

See Matt 5:48 and Gal 3:3. The Law required perfection but it was unattainable (Heb 7:11, 19). Jesus's blood justifies us before God (Gal 2:16; Heb 10:14).

The best way to describe Him is He is easy to please and hard to satisfy. He doesn’t require perfection. He requires that we do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with Him. His burden is light, not a standard beyond us (heavy.)

But no one can be saved and so go to heaven without first being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Doing good works is a result of justification, not a means to it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I am not saying that morality isn't an issue, I am saying it isn't the issue that determines whether one goes to heaven or not. Spiritual deadness, separation from God, is the issue. Jesus died for our sins to reconcile us to God and make us spiritually alive, not to make us good.

Ok this provide some clarity but I can assure you, Jesus died to make us good. No one is reconciled to God and remains as evil as before. Jesus died to free us from sin which, by definition, means morally good.

I also think the Beatitudes are not mainly moral; they're mainly spiritual. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's excellent book, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, talks much about the Beatitudes.

If we don’t DO the moral teachings he presents, they are of no value, even if we think we’ve gained some “spiritual” something. Jesus was very practical.

See Matt 5:48 and Gal 3:3. The Law required perfection but it was unattainable (Heb 7:11, 19). Jesus's blood justifies us before God (Gal 2:16; Heb 10:14).

Please quote where God requires perfection. To this day, “without holiness shall no man see God.” A man might be justified and still never see (understand) God. That hasn’t changed but it isn’t perfection, it’s holiness.

But no one can be saved and so go to heaven without first being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Doing good works is a result of justification, not a means to it.

Being saved is baby christianity. There’s more.

 

[Free]

I've pretty much addressed all this already, and see no reason why I should repeat myself.

Meanwhile, you haven't explained yet why someone who believes in God, and loves Him, and on that account lives a reasonably decent short of life, should be punished (or at least denied heaven, which amounts to the same thing). How is that consistent with God's goodness, justice, and mercy?

You are not really thinking critically enough about these things, which isn't surprising given what you mostly read. This argument is begging the question regarding who God is, what "reasonably decent" means, and what "goodness, justice, and mercy" all mean. You also don't understand the utter sinfulness of sin, not that I blame you since most who profess to be followers of Christ don't either.

The Bible is clear that one must believe in God and Jesus as revealed in the Bible and in the atoning work of Christ as revealed in the Bible, believing that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. People who reject Christ and his atoning work, though outwardly they we may call them "good people," are living in active rebellion against God.

Is it just for people who break the law in this life to suffer no consequences? If judges were merely good and merciful, letting people go free, what would be the point of having laws in the first place? Where would the justice be? Similarly, is it just that God let people into heaven who have lived in active rebellion against him, rejecting the means he provided for their salvation? Should God do it just because he is good and merciful, thereby undermining his justice? Justice demands that they remain separated from God after this life. Do you even recognize the cost of sin, that God had to send his only Son to die for it, that that was the only way? The price that was paid to provide salvation for those who believe is literally infinite.

I highly recommend you read The Cross of Christ, by John Stott, to start.

Hmmm. I am certainly not obsessive about reading theology. My field is rather wider than that. I did maths, physics, chemistry and biology at school, which has proven to be a good grounding in the basics. These days, I read sociology, psychology, environmental science, economics, politics and philosophy (particularly political philosophy, ethics, and the philosophy of religion), and a little theology when I come across an appealing title. For me, it's all about God's World, and therefore, by implication, about God.

So, very little that is actually relevant to determining what "is" and what "isn't" true in the Bible. Do you understand hermeneutics and how they apply to the different genres of Scripture? Your approach is entirely subjective. Do you believe truth and morality are subjective?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I am not saying that morality isn't an issue, I am saying it isn't the issue that determines whether one goes to heaven or not. Spiritual deadness, separation from God, is the issue. Jesus died for our sins to reconcile us to God and make us spiritually alive, not to make us good.

If Jesus died to make us free from sin, it means to make us good, morally good. But in the end we might have to just disagree. I think Jesus died to make us morally good. That is, we were to be the moral light or salt of the earth. This is what God wants. I do not see that His main goal is to people Heaven but to have a people who live our His will on the earth. Yes, we do this by the Holy Spirit but you can see that obeying the teaching of Jesus has this fruit in the world.

Second, reconciled to God is not a legal position. Either there is a relationship which actually does require holiness or there is not one. But no man will come to God and demand Heaven because of a legal position they thought they acquired by believing that was true. Jesus said some would try but he will not acknowledge a relationship.

I also think the Beatitudes are not mainly moral; they're mainly spiritual. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's excellent book, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, talks much about the Beatitudes.

I see "blessed are the Merciful for they shall receive mercy" as moral. +Give to those who ask of you" is practically moral. +Forgive those who sin against you" is moral. It is a measurable state whereby a man can know if he is so living. "Spiritual" is ethereal. Who knows if they are spiritual?

See Matt 5:48 and Gal 3:3. The Law required perfection but it was unattainable (Heb 7:11, 19). Jesus's blood justifies us before God (Gal 2:16; Heb 10:14).

I do not see that these show that.

But no one can be saved and so go to heaven without first being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Doing good works is a result of justification, not a means to it.

Salvation is baby Christianity, the milk of the word. There is more but the more definitely requires following the teaching of Jesus.

 

[jasonc]

FHG,

Dottie Rambo sings about something the Book of Revelation emphasizes about the New Jerusalem: "Tears will never stain the streets of that city."

I'm blessed to know there is no place for death and weeping in the New Jerusalem.

Oz

If there was some new evil that certainly wouldn't be

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, Jesus' ethical approach was strategic, rather than tactical. There are, for example, His two great commandments:


And He endorsed the Golden rule:

I've always believed that the commandments and the golden rule covers everything that could come our way in life.

For instance, the NT states nothing about drugs. Many have ruined their lives by doing hard drugs, and maybe even marijuana may be destructive. So where does it say not to do drugs?
It doesn't.

But Jesus did say to love our neighbor as we love ourself.
If we love ourself, why would we want to harm ourself?

Would we harm our neighbor? No. Because we're supposed to love them. (a Godly love of course).
Same for our very own body.

But when it came to specifics, He was either cryptic or spoke in parables, leaving for us to decide what He actually meant.

One of the reasons Jesus spoke in parables was precisely so we could add our own understanding to what He was teaching. He was general in His teachings (not all of them) because they would cover more ground and because we could understand the parable in our own mind.
This was actually a very good strategy.
How would you expect Jesus to cover every little thing that could happen to you in life?
And expecially 2,000 years ago when we didn't have many modern inventions.
(that certainly affected our society).

And there were some specifics He didn't address, at all:, for example, the treatment of animals, and the treatment of homosexuals, and the treatment of women. And modern life and modern living keeps on throwing up more moral conundrums for us to resolve, particularly in medicine and medical science, in society, in the economy, and in politics, and of course, the really big, existential issues around the environment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The treatment of animals is covered by the golden rule.
Homosexuals is covered by the golden rule.
Ditto for women.
BTW, woman were treated better at the time of Moses than at the time of Jesus, and yet He had women in His entourage and showed respect for them.
I feel that everything is covered.
I really don't see a problem and don't understand why you do...
I might be ignorant about some issues you really understand.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am not saying that morality isn't an issue, I am saying it isn't the issue that determines whether one goes to heaven or not. Spiritual deadness, separation from God, is the issue. Jesus died for our sins to reconcile us to God and make us spiritually alive, not to make us good.

I also think the Beatitudes are not mainly moral; they're mainly spiritual. Martyn Lloyd-Jones's excellent book, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, talks much about the Beatitudes.


See Matt 5:48 and Gal 3:3. The Law required perfection but it was unattainable (Heb 7:11, 19). Jesus's blood justifies us before God (Gal 2:16; Heb 10:14).


But no one can be saved and so go to heaven without first being justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Doing good works is a result of justification, not a means to it.

I'm so tired of hearing the above.
Jesus taught us TO BE GOOD.
He came here to forgive our sins and to show us how to be a part of the Kingdom of God here on earth.
We have to be good to be a part of the Kingdom of God.

The beatitudes are moral in nature.
Of course without spirituality once cannot even try to maintain them.

The law required perfection.
So everyone in the OT times was doomed to hell because they could not be perfect?

I agree with your last sentence.

We have a member on here that claims we are not saved IF WE DO GOOD WORKS.
This is all Jesus spoke about!

I think we're getting a little carried away with all this stuff about being saved.
Maybe we need to read the words of Jesus again.

He never said JUST BELIEVE IN ME and you'll be saved.
He taught HOW to be saved.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've always believed that the commandments and the golden rule covers everything that could come our way in life.

For instance, the NT states nothing about drugs. Many have ruined their lives by doing hard drugs, and maybe even marijuana may be destructive. So where does it say not to do drugs?
It doesn't.

Drugs are called pharmacia and it’s forbidden in the NT.

But Jesus did say to love our neighbor as we love ourself.
If we love ourself, why would we want to harm ourself?

Pleasure

Would we harm our neighbor? No.

Of course. Look at the Ukrain today.

Because we're supposed to love them. (a Godly love of course).
Same for our very own body.



One of the reasons Jesus spoke in parables was precisely so we could add our own understanding to what He was teaching.

That’s not the reason he gave.

He was general in His teachings (not all of them) because they would cover more ground and because we could understand the parable in our own mind.

Not usually. The disciples asked Jesus the meaning. They didn’t think they were to make up
a meaning.

This was actually a very good strategy.
How would you expect Jesus to cover every little thing that could happen to you in life?
And expecially 2,000 years ago when we didn't have many modern inventions.
(that certainly affected our society).

What inventions do you think affect morality?

The treatment of animals is covered by the golden rule.
Homosexuals is covered by the golden rule.
Ditto for women.
BTW, woman were treated better at the time of Moses than at the time of Jesus, and yet He had women in His entourage and showed respect for them.
I feel that everything is covered.
I really don't see a problem and don't understand why you do...

I agree.

I might be ignorant about some issues you really understand.

Not addressed to me but it’s still humble of you. Nicely done!!

 

[GodsGrace]

Drugs are called pharmacia and it’s forbidden in the NT.

OK

Pleasure

But it would be a sin...
Jesus did cover this.
The other member was saying that Jesus did not cover all topics we could come across.
I think He did.

Of course. Look at the Ukrain today.

We don't all love our neighbor, do we??
The worldy paradigm.

That’s not the reason he gave.

We could start a thread on this if you'd like.
There are a few reasons actually.

Not usually. The disciples asked Jesus the meaning. They didn’t think they were to make up
a meaning.

What inventions do you think affect morality?

All of them.
An invention could be used for the good or for the evil.
(except maybe for the wheel - LOL, but I'd have to think about it a minute!)

I agree.

Not addressed to me but it’s still humble of you. Nicely done!!

There's much to learn...

 

[Free]

I'm so tired of hearing the above.
Jesus taught us TO BE GOOD.
He came here to forgive our sins and to show us how to be a part of the Kingdom of God here on earth.
We have to be good to be a part of the Kingdom of God.

Tired of what, exactly? Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. That should be completely uncontroversial. We first have to be saved, at which point we then become a part of the kingdom of God. Being good has never and will never save anyone.

The beatitudes are moral in nature.
Of course without spirituality once cannot even try to maintain them.

Each of the beatitudes describe how each Christian ought to be; they are spiritual. The first three are concerned with the state of the heart, the deep awareness of need. The fourth is where the need is fulfilled. The last three are the natural result of the first four. Each beatitude follows from the one before, so they have to be kept in sequence. Of course, there is much more to it than that.

The law required perfection.
So everyone in the OT times was doomed to hell because they could not be perfect?

Not at all.

I agree with your last sentence.

If you agree with my last sentence, then what is it that you disagree with, since that is the essence of my post?

We have a member on here that claims we are not saved IF WE DO GOOD WORKS.
This is all Jesus spoke about!

Does the member claim that "we are not saved if we do good works" or "we are not saved by our good works"? Those are two very different things. The latter is correct, the first doesn't really make sense.

I think we're getting a little carried away with all this stuff about being saved.
Maybe we need to read the words of Jesus again.

He never said JUST BELIEVE IN ME and you'll be saved.

On the contrary:

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

This idea is repeated throughout the NT.

He taught HOW to be saved.

Yes, by believing in him and his finished work on the cross.

 

[2ndRateMind]

You are not really thinking critically enough about these things, which isn't surprising given what you mostly read.

Don't be patronising.

Do you believe truth and morality are subjective?

I have already discussed my position on ethics. My position on truth is related. It is objective. When we can verify a proposition through reason or our senses, we know what it is. However complete truth, in the sense of a comprehensive world view accounting for all the universe's phenomena, a 'Theory of Everything', a 'God's eye view', eludes us. In this sense, truth may be objective, but we don't know what it is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

... Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. That should be completely uncontroversial. We first have to be saved, at which point we then become a part of the kingdom of God. Being good has never and will never save anyone.

I certainly know salvation can happen through Christ. It happened to me that way. But I cannot honestly say that I know that to be the only way salvation can happen, because I have never actually been a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist or a Hindu, etc.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[eddif]

Acts 4:10 kjv
10. Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

2 Corinthians 11:4 kjv
4. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

It seems there is one Gospel we are to listen to and proclaim.

I had a fellow tell me one time he just did not think a person treating others right God would not reject him.
Sounds like Good news, but seems it is another Gospel other than the true one.

Takes a lot of patience th keep after The Gospel.

Mississippi tedneck
eddif