Soldiers of Jah (page 12)

PSacramento

How do you know that Jesus wasn't misrepresenting the correct view?

A VERY VALID question.

MY view is this:

I am human and imperfect and my morals and sense of right and wrong are the same, imperfect.

YET, I know that when I read the horrific things attributed to God, I KNOW there were NOT right because the very morals given to US by God, tell me they are not right. When I read the teachings of Jesus and read the words of love, compassion, fellowship and kindness, I KNOW these thinsg to be correct and true because of that very same moral sense I have.

A moral sense given to me by God threough his son Jesus, given to ALL of US.

So how can I, an imperfect human with an imperfect sense of right and wrong, have superiour morals than the God they created them?

I can't, as such, by sheer reason, I see God for what God truly is as he revealed himself to Us in His Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

notverylikely

YET, I know that when I read the horrific things attributed to God, I KNOW there were NOT right because the very morals given to US by God, tell me they are not right.

How do you know, thought? If we are all imperfect how do we know that our current sense of morals are what is right? Basically, how do we know that the OT stories aren't the right one?

PSacramento

How do you know, thought? If we are all imperfect how do we know that our current sense of morals are what is right? Basically, how do we know that the OT stories aren't the right one?

Another good question.

We are instill in us, from the very start, a "universal" moral and while some try to deny that, the moment they are wronged they will be the first to say, "No fair !".

Fact is, from the earliest writers, people knew the difference between "want to do and ought to do", we have always known that moral sense, it had to come from somewhere and it is that core sense that allows us to see and contemplate a far greater Good than what we are and IF God is THAT greater Good, how can he demand acts that WE find wrong ?

notverylikely

That an interesting angle. It would seem, however, for a moral code it would have to be universal. I certainly don't know a a universal moral code that has always existed.

I would think for it to meet the criteria of "universal" it would have to be demonstrable in the sense that the larger populations of the larger amount of cultures and civilizations would have to share it.

Morals and ethics regarding sex, life, stealing, torture, etc., seem to have been very fluid throughout the years.

PSacramento

I agree that EXPANDED moral codes tend to be very flexable, IF we look at them from the outside in or in the case of soem extreme view point (like someone enjoyng being torutured or enjoying tortouring).

I think it is fair to say that, as an example about stealing, that some cultures have a extreme view ( cut off the hand) or a "lackdaical view" ( slap on the wrist) but that ALL do NOT like or want what is THEIRS stolen.

Again, I am speaking about the universal moral of "I know I want to do this, but I know I ought to do that", that difference between doing what we can and doing what we should, just the very nature of asking that question of ourselves, "should we"?

Christianity is unique NOT because it has the code, ALL religions tend to have it, but because of how it is apllied and to whom: To all and with love, not for recompense.

I believe that makes it a truly moral code, perhaps even "superiour".

But going back to what you said, I think that every cililization, big or small, has shared that moral code, and regardless of how they applied it to others, they would ALWAY wanted it applied to themselves.

notverylikely

Again, I am speaking about the universal moral of "I know I want to do this, but I know I ought to do that", that difference between doing what we can and doing what we should, just the very nature of asking that question of ourselves, "should we"?

Understood, but there no such moral code that is universal.

Christianity is unique NOT because it has the code, ALL religions tend to have it, but because of how it is apllied and to whom: To all and with love, not for recompense.

If there were such a code, it would be completely independent of religion since the code would be instilled in US, not in a religious system.

But going back to what you said, I think that every cililization, big or small, has shared that moral code, and regardless of how they applied it to others, they would ALWAY wanted it applied to themselves.

Certainly they have not :)

PSacramento

Well, I don't recall any group pf people that would concur with being killed and raped by another group.

I don't recall any that would concure with their possesions being taken from themwithout their permission.

I don't recall any group that would concur with being treated in any way other than what THEY would conside "fair".

Do you?

notverylikely

Well, I don't recall any group pf people that would concur with being killed and raped by another group.

That's a simple "I don't want bad things to happen to me". It's not morals at all.

I don't recall any group that would concur with being treated in any way other than what THEY would conside "fair".

That's also not morals. The definition of "fair" varies so widely as to be unseable.

brotherdan

Lets say that God DID kill men, women, and children in the past. Lets say that I tell God, "You're wrong."

Guess who is going to lose that battle?

I'm on God's side all the way.

PSacramento

That's a simple "I don't want bad things to happen to me". It's not morals at all.

For there to be a "bad thing" there must be a "good thing" and where do we get this notion of good and bad? Morals.

We may CHOOSE to "pervert" that innate moral to justify doing what we want, we just don't want someone to do the same to us.

That's also not morals. The definition of "fair" varies so widely as to be unseable.

It may vary, though not as widely as you may think, but it is still there.

Soldiers of Jah

Share this