The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Golden Rule appears to be a universal moral maxim found in all religions. Here is an excellent poster (http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/poster_order.php) produced by the Catholic Scarbaro Missions group:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/Golden-Rule-Poster.gif


Historically, some theists have used the universally recognized "moral facts" in a silly-gism designed to prove the existence of God. Here is how William Lane Craig presents this ancient argument [source] (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/):
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
The problem with this argument is obnviously in the first premise. Morality has it's roots in human nature, not in some abstract setter of arbitrary rules. We have mirror neurons that fire when we see other people doing things or having things done to them. This causes us to actually feel what the other person is feeling. This is the root of empapthy and when processes through our powerful intellect, it leads us to imagine what it would be like to be that other person. And so the Golden Rule is built into each healthy human.

The problem I've always had with the argument for God from morality is that it lacks any connection with my moral intuitions. What does the idea of "God" have to do with whether it is right or wrong to do something? My moral intutions are based on the Golden Rule, not on a giver of arbitrary rules. And if the rules were not arbitrary, then we are saying that God is conforming his rule to an objective good, so there must be an objective good that is different than God. Of course, the theist could respond by saying that God conforms his rules to his own nature, and that his nature is what gives objective reality to the idea of "good." Be that as it may (it seems to me to be a meaningly moral tautology) it has nothing to do with the root of our moral intuitions as far as I can tell.

[Rose]

The Golden Rule appears to be a universal moral maxim found in all religions. Here is an excellent poster (http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/poster_order.php) produced by the Catholic Scarbaro Missions group:

www.biblewheel.com/images/Golden-Rule-Poster.gif

Historically, some theists have used the universally recognized "moral facts" in a silly-gism designed to prove the existence of God. Here is how William Lane Craig presents this ancient argument [source] (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/):

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

The problem with this argument is obnviously in the first premise. Morality has it's roots in human nature, not in some abstract setter of arbitrary rules. We have mirror neurons that fire when we see other people doing things or having things done to them. This causes us to actually feel what the other person is feeling. This is the root of empapthy and when processes through our powerful intellect, it leads us to imagine what it would be like to be that other person. And so the Golden Rule is built into each healthy human.

The problem I've always had with the argument for God from morality is that it lacks any connection with my moral intuitions. What does the idea of "God" have to do with whether it is right or wrong to do something? My moral intutions are based on the Golden Rule, not on a giver of arbitrary rules. And if the rules were not arbitrary, then we are saying that God is conforming his rule to an objective good, so there must be an objective good that is different than God. Of course, the theist could respond by saying that God conforms his rules to his own nature, and that his nature is what gives objective reality to the idea of "good." Be that as it may (it seems to me to be a meaningly moral tautology) it has nothing to do with the root of our moral intuitions as far as I can tell.

Instead of "God" giving humans their moral intuitions we see quite the opposite throughout history, where religion has caused people to go against their innate sense of right and wrong and promote a warped view of morality based on whatever their particular god is telling them.

[RC Christian]

The Golden Rule appears to be a universal moral maxim found in all religions. Here is an excellent poster (http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/poster_order.php) produced by the Catholic Scarbaro Missions group:

www.biblewheel.com/images/Golden-Rule-Poster.gif

Historically, some theists have used the universally recognized "moral facts" in a silly-gism designed to prove the existence of God. Here is how William Lane Craig presents this ancient argument [source] (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/):
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
The problem with this argument is obnviously in the first premise. Morality has it's roots in human nature, not in some abstract setter of arbitrary rules. We have mirror neurons that fire when we see other people doing things or having things done to them. This causes us to actually feel what the other person is feeling. This is the root of empapthy and when processes through our powerful intellect, it leads us to imagine what it would be like to be that other person. And so the Golden Rule is built into each healthy human.

The problem I've always had with the argument for God from morality is that it lacks any connection with my moral intuitions. What does the idea of "God" have to do with whether it is right or wrong to do something? My moral intutions are based on the Golden Rule, not on a giver of arbitrary rules. And if the rules were not arbitrary, then we are saying that God is conforming his rule to an objective good, so there must be an objective good that is different than God. Of course, the theist could respond by saying that God conforms his rules to his own nature, and that his nature is what gives objective reality to the idea of "good." Be that as it may (it seems to me to be a meaningly moral tautology) it has nothing to do with the root of our moral intuitions as far as I can tell.

Great post! In regards to the Bible, our objective sense of morality is what leads us to find certain sayings, teachings, and doctrines within the cannon as beautiful, God-inspired...and moral. We hear preachers preach on the morally good commands of God...and skim over the morally evil commands of God...murder, stoning, the belittlement of women, the rape of women, slavery, etc. Our moral intuition finds the morality in the Bible...and the immorality as well. Talk about 'cherry picking'...LOL! :winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Great post! In regards to the Bible, our objective sense of morality is what leads us to find certain sayings, teachings, and doctrines within the cannon as beautiful, God-inspired...and moral. We hear preachers preach on the morally good commands of God...and skim over the morally evil commands of God...murder, stoning, the belittlement of women, the rape of women, slavery, etc. Our moral intuition finds the morality in the Bible...and the immorality as well. Talk about 'cherry picking'...LOL! :winking0071:
Very well stated! That's exactly how Rose and I have been seeing things. We bring our innate morality to the Bible, the Bible does not give it to us.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Looking again at Craig's argument [source (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/)]:
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Here is how Craig tries to support his two premises:
What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning.

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well.

Is it true that "people generally believe both premises?" Does premise 1 "seem corect to them" because of their tolerance of other religions? Say what? :dizzy: That doesn't make any sense at all. There is no connection between "tolerance" of different values and a belief in a God. On the contrary, people who believe in a God tend to think that they should impose their values on others because they, and they alone, have the "absolute truth" of God Almighty.

This is why this argument fails so spectacularly. There is no connection between the "God concept" per se and morality. That's no where we get our moral intuitions at all. On the contrary, religions have tended to hijack and corrupt our innate moral intuitions. Just look at what has been done in the name of religion. The Inquisition. The Crusades. The Twin Towers. Endless mayhem and bloodshed. It is not for no reason that Stephen Weinberg famously wrote:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
But what about the fact that essentially all people have an intuition that some things are truly right or wrong, that objective moral values truly exist? The idea is that for objective morality to exist, it must be independent of any particular observer. If something is "objectively good" then it must be good no matter who is doing the judging. The typical example used in this debate is "It's always wrong to torture babies for fun." Anyone worth debating will usally agree to the truth of this proposition.

Now the problem is this. If humans are "just animals" and morality doesn't apply to animals, then how can we justify our belief in objective moral facts? It's funny to watch unprepared atheists stumble over this question. They often end up feeling forced to deny that there is any objective morality. So sad! So wrong! They fell into a silly rhetorical trap hidden by a false assumption snuck into the premise. The true meaning of "objective moral facts" is this: the moral value (good or bad) exists independantly of the observer. This is mistakenly taken to mean that objective moral values must exist in the absence of any observer! That's the mistake. Moral values are objective, but they exist only within humans (or other sentient beings if they exist).

Hows that for a solution?

[RC Christian]

Looking again at Craig's argument [source (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/)]:
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Here is how Craig tries to support his two premises:
What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning.

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well.

Is it true that "people generally believe both premises?" Does premise 1 "seem corect to them" because of their tolerance of other religions? Say what? :dizzy: That doesn't make any sense at all. There is no connection between "tolerance" of different values and a belief in a God. On the contrary, people who believe in a God tend to think that they should impose their values on others because they, and they alone, have the "absolute truth" of God Almighty.

This is why this argument fails so spectacularly. There is no connection between the "God concept" per se and morality. That's no where we get our moral intuitions at all. On the contrary, religions have tended to hijack and corrupt our innate moral intuitions. Just look at what has been done in the name of religion. The Inquisition. The Crusades. The Twin Towers. Endless mayhem and bloodshed. It is not for no reason that Stephen Weinberg famously wrote:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
But what about the fact that essentially all people have an intuition that some things are truly right or wrong, that objective moral values truly exist? The idea is that for objective morality to exist, it must be independent of any particular observer. If something is "objectively good" then it must be good no matter who is doing the judging. The typical example used in this debate is "It's always wrong to torture babies for fun." Anyone worth debating will usally agree to the truth of this proposition.

Now the problem is this. If humans are "just animals" and morality doesn't apply to animals, then how can we justify our belief in objective moral facts? It's funny to watch unprepared atheists stumble over this question. They often end up feeling forced to deny that there is any objective morality. So sad! So wrong! They fell into a silly rhetorical trap hidden by a false assumption snuck into the premise. The true meaning of "objective moral facts" is this: the moral value (good or bad) exists independantly of the observer. This is mistakenly taken to mean that objective moral values must exist in the absence of any observer! That's the mistake. Moral values are objective, but they exist only within humans (or other sentient beings if they exist).

Hows that for a solution?

Damn...that made my head swim! But it is exactly right! I'm going to see what Craig's 2012 schedule is looking like...prepare your intro speech!

[jce]

This is why this argument fails so spectacularly. There is no connection between the "God concept" per se and morality. That's no where we get our moral intuitions at all.

If man is created in the image of God, then man's innate morality is an attribute of God. If there is a God, and man is created in His image, then your argument fails in less spectacular fashion.


Hows that for a solution?

The jury is still out.

Good naturalistic points though.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If man is created in the image of God, then man's innate morality is an attribute of God. If there is a God, and man is created in His image, then your argument fails in less spectacular fashion.

Good morning John, :yo:

Your argument is correct if we begin by assuming that man is created in the image of God. But it can't be used to defeat my refutation of Craig's argument because he was trying to prove the existence of God. As you know, we're not allowed to assume what we are trying to prove. :winking0071:

Good chatting with you, bother-man.

Richard

[heb13-13]

Historically, some theists have used the universally recognized "moral facts" in a silly-gism designed to prove the existence of God. Here is how William Lane Craig presents this ancient argument [source] (http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/cci/five_arguments_for_god/):
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
The problem with this argument is obnviously in the first premise. Morality has it's roots in human nature, not in some abstract setter of arbitrary rules. We have mirror neurons that fire when we see other people doing things or having things done to them. This causes us to actually feel what the other person is feeling. This is the root of empapthy and when processes through our powerful intellect, it leads us to imagine what it would be like to be that other person. And so the Golden Rule is built into each healthy human.

The problem I've always had with the argument for God from morality is that it lacks any connection with my moral intuitions. What does the idea of "God" have to do with whether it is right or wrong to do something? My moral intutions are based on the Golden Rule, not on a giver of arbitrary rules. And if the rules were not arbitrary, then we are saying that God is conforming his rule to an objective good, so there must be an objective good that is different than God. Of course, the theist could respond by saying that God conforms his rules to his own nature, and that his nature is what gives objective reality to the idea of "good." Be that as it may (it seems to me to be a meaningly moral tautology) it has nothing to do with the root of our moral intuitions as far as I can tell.

This is funny.

Since God exists how would anyone be able to test if they would still have morality if God did not exist?

God formed the heart and the conscience and it cannot be tested whether you have a "heart" or conscience with the absent of God because you cannot kill or vaporize God.

You have to be able to prove this side by side with the existence of God.

The One that made our heart in the first place, can also make a NEW heart in us.
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: (Eze 11:19)


Best to you,
Rick

[Rose]

This is funny.

Since God exists how would anyone be able to test if they would still have morality if God did not exist?

God formed the heart and the conscience and it cannot be tested whether you have a "heart" or conscience with the absent of God because you cannot kill or vaporize God.

You have to be able to prove this side by side with the existence of God.

The One that made our heart in the first place, can also make a NEW heart in us.
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: (Eze 11:19)


Best to you,
Rick

Hi Rick,

I'm curious, how can you make the absolute statement that God exists? What proof do you have?

It seems you don't have any more proof that God exists, than atheists who say God doesn't exist.

All the best,
Rose

[jce]

Hi Rick,

I'm curious, how can you make the absolute statement that God exists? What proof do you have?

It seems you don't have any more proof that God exists, than atheists who say God doesn't exist.

All the best,
Rose

Rose, really? In any court of law, a verdict demands evidence. It is no different in the world of philosophy. Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science. The closer we examine creation, the more intricate detail we see.

Put that on a scale of justice next to the evidence for time+matter+chance. Do you see a balance?

Of course, I hear that there is still a "Flat Earth" society, the members of which still hold that the idea of a spherical earth is nothing more than a huge conspiracy perpetrated by globalists. What's curious is that as the evidence continues to mount against them, the reasoning they cling to becomes more absurd with each passing satellite.

God needs no man to prove His existence. The evidence is everywhere the open mind is willing to look, and it will continue to mount. I would hope you agree.

John

[CWH]

Hi Rick,

I'm curious, how can you make the absolute statement that God exists? What proof do you have?

It seems you don't have any more proof that God exists, than atheists who say God doesn't exist.

All the best,
Rose

And being a non-theist as stated, Rose, what proof do you have that God may exist?

God Blessings to all.:pray:

[Rose]

Rose, really? In any court of law, a verdict demands evidence. It is no different in the world of philosophy. Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science. The closer we examine creation, the more intricate detail we see.

Put that on a scale of justice next to the evidence for time+matter+chance. Do you see a balance?

Of course, I hear that there is still a "Flat Earth" society, the members of which still hold that the idea of a spherical earth is nothing more than a huge conspiracy perpetrated by globalists. What's curious is that as the evidence continues to mount against them, the reasoning they cling to becomes more absurd with each passing satellite.

God needs no man to prove His existence. The evidence is everywhere the open mind is willing to look, and it will continue to mount. I would hope you agree.

John

Hi John,

My question to you would be which "God" do you choose as creator? There are many to choose from and each is very different...

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose, really? In any court of law, a verdict demands evidence. It is no different in the world of philosophy. Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science. The closer we examine creation, the more intricate detail we see.

Put that on a scale of justice next to the evidence for time+matter+chance. Do you see a balance?

Of course, I hear that there is still a "Flat Earth" society, the members of which still hold that the idea of a spherical earth is nothing more than a huge conspiracy perpetrated by globalists. What's curious is that as the evidence continues to mount against them, the reasoning they cling to becomes more absurd with each passing satellite.

God needs no man to prove His existence. The evidence is everywhere the open mind is willing to look, and it will continue to mount. I would hope you agree.

John
Hey there John,

You have made a false dichotomy between Christian style theism and materialism. They are not the only possibilities.

For example, I see "God" as "all that is." The Universe (everything that is) is the "body of God" - it is a living all-inclusive conscious entity. This is not unlike the biblical references to God as the "all in all" which is "over all, through all, and in all." Therefore, I see neither theism or materialism as true.

Your assertion that "Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science" is not true. In all science, there are only three "gaps" which might allow a place for a "intelligent designer" of the kind you propose. 1) The origin of the universe, 2) origin of DNA, 3) the fine tuning of the universe. Now consider all the natural phenomena that the Bible atributes to God, such as pregnancy, earthquakes, and storms. We now know that all those things are explainable in terms of natural law. You argument is merely a "god of the gaps" argument. The moment that science successfully explains the gaps, your proof evaporates. We also must consider that natural science can explain a vast array of phenomena, and yet not one of those explanations requires an appeal to God. So here is the score: Science has never encountered any phenomenon that required "God" as an explanation, and the only unexplained things that might require God as an explanation refer to one-time events that occured in the distant past and that are not subject to experimental confirmation (Big Bang, DNA, Fine Tuning). Therefore, your appeal to science as evidence for God as an intelligent desinger is exceedingly weak because it does not apply to any phenomenon that can be experimental tested.

Furthermore, even if there is evidence of intelligent design it does even prove theism. If my perception of God as the living multi-dimensional universe is true, then that would explain the Big Bang, DNA, and Fine Tuning without theism.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And being a non-theist as stated, Rose, what proof do you have that God may exist?

God Blessings to all.:pray:
Why would a non-theist need (or want) to prove that God "may exist?"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If man is created in the image of God, then man's innate morality is an attribute of God. If there is a God, and man is created in His image, then your argument fails in less spectacular fashion.
Good morning John, :yo:

Your argument is correct if we begin by assuming that man is created in the image of God. But it can't be used to defeat my refutation of Craig's argument because he was trying to prove the existence of God. As you know, we're not allowed to assume what we are trying to prove. :winking0071:

Good chatting with you, bother-man.

Richard
Hey there John,

I'm reposting this in case you mised it.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Rick! :yo:

I'm back! My four day conference has ended and I now will have some time to engage in these facinating conversations again.


This is funny.
Since God exists how would anyone be able to test if they would still have morality if God did not exist?

I'm surprised that you don't see the irony of your question. Could you conceive of any "test" to prove God exists? No? Well then we are all on equal grounds there.

But there is an asymmetry between our positions. Given that there is no test that would prove God, then we know the answer to the question "What would the physical universe look like if there were no God?" The answer must be "the same as it looks when there is a God" since otherwise there would be a test to discern the existence of God. But we all know that there is no such test. Therefore, we can ask my question. And now, if we ask that question, it seem totally obvious to me that the whole universe, including our morality, would remain exactly as it is if there were no God. And this leads to a new question for you - do you really believe that there would be no "morality" in any human society if there were no God? If not, why not? Why wouldn't societies invent rules of "right and wrong" to govern themselves?



God formed the heart and the conscience and it cannot be tested whether you have a "heart" or conscience with the absent of God because you cannot kill or vaporize God.

If a theistic God doesn't exist, we don't need to "vaporize" anything but the false beliefs people have about the existence of such a God.



You have to be able to prove this side by side with the existence of God.

That doesn't work. You have never shown any connection between the origin of our moral intuitions and the existence of God. You merely asserted your hypothesis that we got our morals from God. But that makes no sense to me at all because I have never felt that something was right or wrong merely because someone's "God" said so! That seems absurd to me because things are good because of what they are and how they affect people, not because of what anyone (including God) might say about them.

My moral intutions are like a rock that cannot be moved. I know what is good and bad, and more importantly, I know why. According to you, nothing is good or bad in itself, but only because God arbitrarily says something is good or bad. And that's the error of your argument. I know why things are right or wrong, but you do not. You believe that nothing is right or wrong unless God says so, and this implies that God's choice is arbitray. Therefore, anything that God says is "good" is not actually "good" becuase that word now has no meaning. In your system, "good" means only "what God commanded." It has no connection with love or any other value. If you try to say that God's commands are based on "love" or "goodness" then you are assuming that there is such a thing as "love" or "goodness" independent of what God commanded. This is the fundamental error of the "command theory" of morality. Of course, the other fundamental error is that we all know that we base our moral intutions on the Golden Rule, not on arbitrary commands by a God.


This is funny.
The One that made our heart in the first place, can also make a NEW heart in us.
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: (Eze 11:19)


Best to you,
Rick
Yes, the living Spirit that manifests throughout all creation certainly can and will put a "new spirit" within anyone who asks in faith.

Great chatting,

Richard

[jce]

Hi John,

My question to you would be which "God" do you choose as creator? There are many to choose from and each is very different...

Rose

How about this one:


The only way the universe as a whole can rise to a higher level of consciousness is by self-aware creatures (humans) carrying out self-determined actions, thus we are in a sense the 'Hands of God' working together to carryout the will of the whole collective universe of which we are a integral part.
Rose

John

[jce]

Hey there John,

For example, I see "God" as "all that is.
All the best,

Richard

Colossians 1:16-18 (KJV)

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Richard, you are really close on this. A sure sign of progress.

John

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39168#post39168)
Hi John,

My question to you would be which "God" do you choose as creator? There are many to choose from and each is very different...

Rose

How about this one:


Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39168#post39168)
The only way the universe as a whole can rise to a higher level of consciousness is by self-aware creatures (humans) carrying out self-determined actions, thus we are in a sense the 'Hands of God' working together to carryout the will of the whole collective universe of which we are a integral part.
Rose

Yes, indeed!

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there John,

For example, I see "God" as "all that is.
All the best,

Richard
Colossians 1:16-18 (KJV)

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Richard, you are really close on this. A sure sign of progress.

John
Very :specool:

There are only three points that I would need to "expand upon" for that passage to accurately reflect my perception.

1) The masculine pronouns are inaccurate. They do not describe the true nature of the Living Reality which gave birth to us. They are used only because of the limitations of human language caused by the fact that all humans are classed as either male or female.

2) The sense of "separateness" between God and the Living Reality that is an expression of the Divine Source. We remedy this by remembering that God is "all in all" and "through all and in all." There can be no "separation" between "all things" and the Source of Being though we may losed sight of the Unity of All when our eyes become transfixed by the "ten thousand things."

3) The seeing of God as an "agent" that chose to create "things" rather than as the Source from which those things inevitabley unfold like leaves on a tree.

I have had a transformative experience over the last week. I am now looking at the Bible with new eyes that are like the eyes I had when I came to a living faith in Christ and wrote the Bible Wheel book, only now on an entirely new level that sees both the good and the evil in it. I was once blinded by the light, and could not see the darkness in the Bible that is so obviously not a revelation of the Love and Light that is God.

In my previous incomplete and unbalanced faith, I never noticed the clue at the beginning of the story. Most people focus on the fact that we all "died in Adam" and must therefore be "saved" by the Messiah. But they have failed to grasp the key - if we inherit the death effect of "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" it means we also inherit the other effect, namely, we have had our eyes opened and we too "have become like God, knowing good and evil."

Every person is an unspeakably glorious Divine Being made in the "image of God." This is our true inheritence. The glory is hidden under the veil of flesh. All we need to do is part that veil and the limitless Light and Love of God will pour forth from your belly to give drink to a thirsty world.
Matthew 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
To "give drink" is to pour out the abundant Spirit of Life that we receive from God as the Source of Reality. It is an outpouring of sustaining love and grace. It is the opposite of "judgment" which constricts. Of course both are needed in life, but anyone who sees a person dying of thirst and chooses rather to constrict them more with judgment has failed to perceive and receive the grace of God.

Did Christ withhold this water from the "sinning" Samaritan woman? Did he even say a word about sin to her? No. On the contrary, he mentioned her hard life - IMAGINE what it would have been like to be a woman having gone through five men in that patriarchal society! - to let her know that he fully accepted her regardless of her struggles, and that the water of life was free to all who ask without conditions.
John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16*¶ Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he
This is the Royal Law of Universal Love. Go and do likewise.

[Rose]

Very :specool:

There are only three points that I would need to "expand upon" for that passage to accurately reflect my perception.

1) The masculine pronouns are inaccurate. They do not describe the true nature of the Living Reality which gave birth to us. They are used only because of the limitations of human language caused by the fact that all humans are classed as either male or female.

2) The sense of "separateness" between God and the Living Reality that is an expression of the Divine Source. We remedy this by remembering that God is "all in all" and "through all and in all." There can be no "separation" between "all things" and the Source of Being though we may losed sight of the Unity of All when our eyes become transfixed by the "ten thousand things."

3) The seeing of God as an "agent" that chose to create "things" rather than as the Source from which those things inevitabley unfold like leaves on a tree.

I have had a transformative experience over the last week. I am now looking at the Bible with new eyes that are like the eyes I had when I came to a living faith in Christ and wrote the Bible Wheel book, only now on an entirely new level that sees both the good and the evil in it. I was once blinded by the light, and could not see the darkness in the Bible that is so obviously not a revelation of the Love and Light that is God.

In my previous incomplete and unbalanced faith, I never noticed the clue at the beginning of the story. Most people focus on the fact that we all "died in Adam" and must therefore be "saved" by the Messiah. But they have failed to grasp the key - if we inherit the death effect of "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" it means we also inherit the other effect, namely, we have had our eyes opened and we too "have become like God, knowing good and evil."

Every person is an unspeakably glorious Divine Being made in the "image of God." This is our true inheritence. The glory is hidden under the veil of flesh. All we need to do is part that veil and the limitless Light and Love of God will pour forth from your belly to give drink to a thirsty world.
Matthew 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
To "give drink" is to pour out the abundant Spirit of Life that we receive from God as the Source of Reality. It is an outpouring of sustaining love and grace. It is the opposite of "judgment" which constricts. Of course both are needed in life, but anyone who sees a person dying of thirst and chooses rather to constrict them more with judgment has failed to perceive and receive the grace of God.

Did Christ withhold this water from the "sinning" Samaritan woman? Did he even say a word about sin to her? No. On the contrary, he mentioned her hard life - IMAGINE what it would have been like to be a woman having gone through five men in that patriarchal society! - to let her know that he fully accepted her regardless of her struggles, and that the water of life was free to all who ask without conditions.
John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16*¶ Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he
This is the Royal Law of Universal Love. Go and do likewise.

WOW! Now that was a good sermon... :clap2: I'd start going to church again if I could preaching like that...:prophet:

Much love to you my dear, :flowers:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

WOW! Now that was a good sermon... :clap2: I'd start going to church again if I could preaching like that...:prophet:

Much love to you my dear, :flowers:
Wow - words like that coming from my teacher! I am humbled ...

[heb13-13]

Did Christ withhold this water from the sinning Samaritan woman? Did he even say a word about sin to her? No. On the contrary, he mentioned her hard life - IMAGINE what it would have been like to be a woman having gone through five men in that patriarchal society! - to let her know that he fully accepted her regardless of her struggles, and that the water of life was free to all who ask without conditions.

Hi Richard,

I totally agree, Richard. That is how I came to the Lord. And once you are His and have His Spirit, the Spirit of God will lead you to put to death the deeds of the flesh. The Spirit of God will then lead you to do and think those things that are pleasing and in harmony with Jesus Christ.

Are you saying you originally came to God through a spirit of judgment and legalism? That will surely cause one to burn out as the Christian walk will be one of drudgery and lifelessness. One will never know about God's mighty delivering power from sin and self if they come to Him with their mind. Now, you can come back to Jesus by the spirit of Grace and love.:thumb:

No one can live the Christian walk in their own strength and flesh. It is impossible! The Christian life, unlike other religions doesn't take discipline. It requires the power of God (life of Christ).

Trying to be a Christian and understand God with the mind only, makes for a judgmental walk, because the Spirit of Grace is absent from that person. Once that person burns out, they then leave Christianity and now judge it and God as phony because it never "worked" for them.

Rom 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

A big problem today, indeed in all centuries, is that people are coming into the "church" without having repented (turned around) of their pride and ambition and other sins which take advantage of other people. So what do they do? They continue in the church to take advantage of others having never repented of their sins. They now have put on a religious cloak. The outside of the cup is "clean", but the inside is dirty. And formerly they were in the world, stepping on top of everyone to get to the top, they are now in the church, stepping on everyone to get to the top.

Jesus always came for those who were sick and did not come for the healthy. Unfortunately, many don't know they are sick. Their mind tells them they are "healthy".

And it is true, He did not kick a man when He was down. But once the Life of Christ is in a man, it will lead that man to honor and love God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, putting to death the deeds of the flesh. That is the new heart that is given to men. He is a Strong Tower and will deliver any man from his enemies if one wants that.

Good talking with you again,
Rick

I will be leaving soon for a trip and try to check in when I can.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I totally agree, Richard. That is how I came to the Lord. And once you are His and have His Spirit, the Spirit of God will lead you to put to death the deeds of the flesh. The Spirit of God will then lead you to do and think those things that are pleasing and in harmony with Jesus Christ.

Are you saying you originally came to God through a spirit of judgment and legalism? That will surely cause one to burn out as the Christian walk will be one of drudgery and lifelessness. One will never know about God's mighty delivering power from sin and self if they come to Him with their mind. Now, you can come back to Jesus by the spirit of Grace and love.:thumb:

No one can live the Christian walk in their own strength and flesh. It is impossible! The Christian life, unlike other religions doesn't take discipline. It requires the power of God (life of Christ).

Trying to be a Christian and understand God with the mind only, makes for a judgemental walk, because the Spirit of Grace is absent from that person.

Hey there my friend, :yo:

It's great to be in agreement!

I didn't come to faith because of "judgment and legalism." Not at all. On the contrary, it was a living revelation. But over time, as I studied the Bible and interacted with "normal" Christians, I fell more and more away from the direct revelation I had received and into the dogmatic version of the faith - much as your posts seem to me sometimes, as when you seem to be putting the dogmas of sin and hell over the direct revelation of God as Love and Light. I understand that you are looking for a total logical coherence to the Bible under the assumption that it is all Divine Truth, but that's the very thing that kills the Living Truth that is Christ.

The Bible is designed to kill the ego so that it can give new life. The "fundamentalists" are resisting the Spirit when they insist that every word of the Bible must be fit into a logically coherent doctrine. That is not only wrong, but it kills the message by attributing darkness of hell and eternal merciless judgment unto God and so destroys the image of God.

Great chatting, brother-man,

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hey there my friend, :yo:

It's great to be in agreement!

I didn't come to faith because of "judgment and legalism." Not at all. On the contrary, it was a living revelation. But over time, as I studied the Bible and interacted with "normal" Christians, I fell more and more away from the direct revelation I had received and into the dogmatic version of the faith - much as your posts seem to me sometimes, as when you seem to be putting the dogmas of sin and hell over the direct revelation of God as Love and Light. I understand that you are looking for a total logical coherence to the Bible under the assumption that it is all Divine Truth, but that's the very thing that kills the Living Truth that is Christ.

The Bible is designed to kill the ego so that it can give new life. The "fundamentalists" are resisting the Spirit when they insist that every word of the Bible must be fit into a logically coherent doctrine. That is not only wrong, but it kills the message by attributing darkness of hell and eternal merciless judgment unto God and so destroys the image of God.

Great chatting, brother-man,

Richard




Is there any light without darkness?

Is there any love without hate?

Is there any good without evil?

Is there any humility without pride?

How do you tell the difference?

Or is it all the same to you?

Best to you,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Is there any light without darkness?

Is there any love without hate?

Is there any good without evil?

Is there any humility without pride?

How do you tell the difference?

Or is it all the same to you?

Best to you,
Rick
They are all examples of dualities that are inextricable bound together. Yin/Yang. But then there is the WAY. The TAO in which all is unified. There is a state of cosciousness that transcend such dualities and sees the Unity of All. But it's not easy to talk about. It needs to be experienced directly. GNOSIS.

[heb13-13]

They are all examples of dualities that are inextricable bound together. Yin/Yang. But then there is the WAY. The TAO in which all is unified. There is a state of cosciousness that transcend such dualities and sees the Unity of All. But it's not easy to talk about. It needs to be experienced directly. GNOSIS.

Who has not experienced them?

[jce]

Who has not experienced them?

I willingly admit that I have experienced both sides. I also was once blind... but now I see!

Keep runnin' the race brother Rick! That's some good news about brother Richard too!!!

John

[jce]

Before I came to the forum today, I read an article about a retired man who was taking a walk when an armed gunman forced him to walk back to his home. The details were a little sketchy, but in essence, the gunman intended to rob them in their own home. There was a struggle and the elderly man was shot. Sometime during the event, the elderly man pleaded for the life of his wife telling the gunman that she was in remission from cancer. The robber left the woman unharmed, but her husband, who pleaded for her life, died at the scene as the gunshot wound was fatal.

I couldn't help but think that, as we debate the issues of life here in this forum, the world is in dire need of the good news of Christ. The Grace & Redemption, Love and Peace that He offers to all who will come to Him. I pray that as we leave our differences here in the forum, we will enter the world with God's offer of hope to those who are hurting all around us.

John

[heb13-13]

Before I came to the forum today, I read an article about a retired man who was taking a walk when an armed gunman forced him to walk back to his home. The details were a little sketchy, but in essence, the gunman intended to rob them in their own home. There was a struggle and the elderly man was shot. Sometime during the event, the elderly man pleaded for the life of his wife telling the gunman that she was in remission from cancer. The robber left the woman unharmed, but her husband, who pleaded for her life, died at the scene as the gunshot wound was fatal.

I couldn't help but think that, as we debate the issues of life here in this forum, the world is in dire need of the good news of Christ. The Grace & Redemption, Love and Peace that He offers to all who will come to Him. I pray that as we leave our differences here in the forum, we will enter the world with God's offer of hope to those who are hurting all around us.

John

Good word, John. Thanks.

I certainly want to spread the love of Christ. I have great opportunities everyday and thank God for them. I believe there is nothing else that gives help to man now and hope for tomorrow.

God's blessings and peace to all,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Before I came to the forum today, I read an article about a retired man who was taking a walk when an armed gunman forced him to walk back to his home. The details were a little sketchy, but in essence, the gunman intended to rob them in their own home. There was a struggle and the elderly man was shot. Sometime during the event, the elderly man pleaded for the life of his wife telling the gunman that she was in remission from cancer. The robber left the woman unharmed, but her husband, who pleaded for her life, died at the scene as the gunshot wound was fatal.

I couldn't help but think that, as we debate the issues of life here in this forum, the world is in dire need of the good news of Christ. The Grace & Redemption, Love and Peace that He offers to all who will come to Him. I pray that as we leave our differences here in the forum, we will enter the world with God's offer of hope to those who are hurting all around us.

John

Yes, the world needs more love. Absolutely. But is Christianity the souce of that love? I don't think so. God is the source of Love. And religion? It is more often than not an engine of hate.

If Christ is an expression of the Love of God, then it has little to do with the religion of Christianity, and there is no need to mention his name unless inspired in the moment of helping another, such as when that person might have heard the name of Christ and it might be meaningful to them. But to spread the dogmas of Christianity, like the teaching that the Source of Love will torture you forever if you do not sign up with the dogmas? That's evil and must be rejected absolutely.

[jce]

Yes, the world needs more love. Absolutely. But is Christianity the souce of that love? I don't think so. God is the source of Love. And religion? It is more often than not an engine of hate.

If Christ is an expression of the Love of God, then it has little to do with the religion of Christianity, and there is no need to mention his name unless inspired in the moment of helping another, such as when that person might have heard the name of Christ and it might be meaningful to them. But to spread the dogmas of Christianity, like the teaching that the Source of Love will torture you forever if you do not sign up with the dogmas? That's evil and must be rejected absolutely.

God is the source of that love through Christ and I have no problem with spreading the positive aspect of the good news of hope and the gift of Eternal Life in Christ. The Christian community is divided over many of the perceived Biblical doctrines. Why go there unless asked. The basic message from Scripture is humanity needs God and God has prepared the way for reconciliation. Human government is destined to fail apart from God. You may disagree with that theology, but the evidence is abundant in the history books of humanity. Like it or not, unless God intervenes, the American society is on the familiar path of degeneracy. Not dissimilar to Rome.

God's best to you Richard.

John

[jce]

Good word, John. Thanks.

I certainly want to spread the love of Christ. I have great opportunities everyday and thank God for them. I believe there is nothing else that gives help to man now and hope for tomorrow.

God's blessings and peace to all,
Rick

Brother Rick, You echo the sentiment of God's sheep. It is the desire of those who have been born of the Spirit and the Word to exercise compassion on those who are the downcast of our great society. Though we may not possess the silver and gold of this world, what we do have to offer in Christ is beyond comparison with such corruptible things.

Blessings Brother.

John

[Rose]

God is the source of that love through Christ and I have no problem with spreading the positive aspect of the good news of hope and the gift of Eternal Life in Christ. The Christian community is divided over many of the perceived Biblical doctrines. Why go there unless asked. The basic message from Scripture is humanity needs God and God has prepared the way for reconciliation. Human government is destined to fail apart from God. You may disagree with that theology, but the evidence is abundant in the history books of humanity. Like it or not, unless God intervenes, the American society is on the familiar path of degeneracy. Not dissimilar to Rome.

God's best to you Richard.

John

The problem with the "basic message from Scripture" is what is tagged onto "God is Love". If one doesn't accept the Christian doctrine of needing to be reconciled to God then they are rejected and God's love isn't extended to them. True love does not have conditions tagged onto it. The whole human race is a family and should be loved by God as such...no conditions.

All the best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The problem with the "basic message from Scripture" is what is tagged onto "God is Love". If one doesn't accept the Christian doctrine of needing to be reconciled to God then they are rejected and God's love isn't extended to them. True love does not have conditions tagged onto it. The whole human race is a family and should be loved by God as such...no conditions.

All the best,
Rose

That is the true Gospel. It seems ironic that everyone preaches that you can't do anything to deserve God's love and then proceed to tell you what you must do, and threaten you with eternal damnation if you fail to comply with the conditions! :confused:

[Rose]

That is the true Gospel. It seems ironic that everyone preaches that you can't do anything to deserve God's love and then proceed to tell you what you must do, and threaten you with eternal damnation if you fail to comply with the conditions! :confused:

Kinda crazy isn't it...:dizzy:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, the world needs more love. Absolutely. But is Christianity the souce of that love? I don't think so. God is the source of Love. And religion? It is more often than not an engine of hate.

If Christ is an expression of the Love of God, then it has little to do with the religion of Christianity, and there is no need to mention his name unless inspired in the moment of helping another, such as when that person might have heard the name of Christ and it might be meaningful to them. But to spread the dogmas of Christianity, like the teaching that the Source of Love will torture you forever if you do not sign up with the dogmas? That's evil and must be rejected absolutely.
God is the source of that love through Christ and I have no problem with spreading the positive aspect of the good news of hope and the gift of Eternal Life in Christ. The Christian community is divided over many of the perceived Biblical doctrines. Why go there unless asked. The basic message from Scripture is humanity needs God and God has prepared the way for reconciliation. Human government is destined to fail apart from God. You may disagree with that theology, but the evidence is abundant in the history books of humanity. Like it or not, unless God intervenes, the American society is on the familiar path of degeneracy. Not dissimilar to Rome.

God's best to you Richard.

John
Hey there John,

I don't understand why you brought up "human government." Nothing I have written was intended as having anything to do with that topic. I put no "hope" at all in government. But now that you mention it, we have the ironic teaching from Paul that says all governments - good or bad - are "established by God." Why does God set up governments that are not good? That seems very strange indeed.

Now I have no problem with Christ being the "channel" through which God pours forth his love, unless you are suggesting that Christ doesn't pour out God's love to anyone not in the "club." Then we would have an irreconcilable difference.

As for predictions of the destiny of America - yes, if history is any indicator, then this country will eventually fall since no society has lasted forever. But then again, things are transforming in amazing ways. Humans are becoming drastically less violent, more loving, more caring. How much money and effort has America given away to help others? When in history did we have organizations like the Peace Corp or all the United Way or all the other charitable organizations? At what other time have we had such democratic education? And there has never been a time when we could reduce suffering of humanity like now with medicine. Life is now is not short and brutal like it used to be in so many places. The list goes on and on. The times now are unlike any time that has ever existed in the history of the world. Sure, there's still a lot of suffering in the world, but it's nothing like the history of this planet. The desire of James Joyce, to awake from the nightmare of history, is finally coming to pass in many ways. And what do we have to thank for this? Religion? Far from it! Institutinoal religions have been and continue to be one of the primary sources of pain and suffering in the world. And they usually oppose the very things that make for progress towards a better world. If you want to talk about ""the evidence" that is "abundant in the history books of humanity" you will have to admit the truth of these facts.

God's best is always for you, my friend,

Richard

[jce]

Hey there John,

I don't understand why you brought up "human government." Nothing I have written was intended as having anything to do with that topic. I put no "hope" at all in government. But now that you mention it, we have the ironic teaching from Paul that says all governments - good or bad - are "established by God." Why does God set up governments that are not good? That seems very strange indeed.

Well, good question Richard. I don't think you can disconnect the concept of "morality" from it's counterpart, "immorality". The fact that mankind behaves immorally requires an institution of justice and law enforcement, administered by men in order to protect the moral, law abiding citizen. Human morality seems to require human government.

Regarding Paul's teaching, yes I believe that to be true, and Biblical history attests to God's involvement in the affairs of men. He most likely does it to extend the longevity of the human race on earth to accomplish at least one of His purposes, the gathering (or harvesting if you will) of believers. It is after all, His vineyard and His project, and to Him, relatively speaking, it will simply be "a short work".


Now I have no problem with Christ being the "channel" through which God pours forth his love, unless you are suggesting that Christ doesn't pour out God's love to anyone not in the "club." Then we would have an irreconcilable difference.

God commends His love to all mankind (whosoever will) in the offering of His Beloved Son as a sacrifice for our sins. That we might be made acceptable in His sight through the Righteousness of Christ. I would hope that we agree here.


As for predictions of the destiny of America - yes, if history is any indicator, then this country will eventually fall since no society has lasted forever.

No argument here.


But then again, things are transforming in amazing ways. Humans are becoming drastically less violent, more loving, more caring. How much money and effort has America given away to help others? When in history did we have organizations like the Peace Corp or all the United Way or all the other charitable organizations? At what other time have we had such democratic education? And there has never been a time when we could reduce suffering of humanity like now with medicine. Life is now is not short and brutal like it used to be in so many places. The list goes on and on. The times now are unlike any time that has ever existed in the history of the world.

Based on your evaluation of the current state of humanitarianism, one could make an argument that God will subdue the earth "not by power, nor by might, but by My Spirit, says the Lord".


Sure, there's still a lot of suffering in the world, but it's nothing like the history of this planet. The desire of James Joyce, to awake from the nightmare of history, is finally coming to pass in many ways.

Well, it may be a bit premature to jump to conclusions. The final chapter in the history books of man, has yet to be written.


And what do we have to thank for this? Religion? Far from it! Institutinoal religions have been and continue to be one of the primary sources of pain and suffering in the world. And they usually oppose the very things that make for progress towards a better world. If you want to talk about ""the evidence" that is "abundant in the history books of humanity" you will have to admit the truth of these facts.

I'm a little surprised by your underwhelming estimation of the accomplishments of men who were influenced by the Scriptures to make an effort to create a better life for the common man. Many of these Bible believing people found it important to place a greater value on their fellow man whom they deemed to be made in the image of God. Perhaps your use of the word "institution" refers to the ungodly behavior of men united in a corporate effort to dominate and enslave the world, in which case I would agree.

It was Jesus who said... "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were, then my servants would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now my kingdom is not from here".


God's best is always for you, my friend,

Richard

And to you too Richard for your contributions to intellectual thinking.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well, good question Richard. I don't think you can disconnect the concept of "morality" from it's counterpart, "immorality". The fact that mankind behaves immorally requires an institution of justice and law enforcement, administered by men in order to protect the moral, law abiding citizen. Human morality seems to require human government.

Regarding Paul's teaching, yes I believe that to be true, and Biblical history attests to God's involvement in the affairs of men. He most likely does it to extend the longevity of the human race on earth to accomplish at least one of His purposes, the gathering (or harvesting if you will) of believers. It is after all, His vineyard and His project, and to Him, relatively speaking, it will simply be "a short work".

I think you missed my point. Why did God choose to setup wicked rulers? If human governments are from God, then God has a lot of blood on his hands.

And it also means that America was never a godly nation because she was born in revolution and rebellion against the Christian government that God setup over her.



God commends His love to all mankind (whosoever will) in the offering of His Beloved Son as a sacrifice for our sins. That we might be made acceptable in His sight through the Righteousness of Christ. I would hope that we agree here.

No he doesn't do anything like that. There are billions of people who lived and died without ever hearing the name of Christ.

And besides, the Bible says you have to be elected by God to get saved. YOu have no choice in the matter. That's what the founders of the Protestant religion taught, anyway.



I'm a little surprised by your underwhelming estimation of the accomplishments of men who were influenced by the Scriptures to make an effort to create a better life for the common man. Many of these Bible believing people found it important to place a greater value on their fellow man whom they deemed to be made in the image of God. Perhaps your use of the word "institution" refers to the ungodly behavior of men united in a corporate effort to dominate and enslave the world, in which case I would agree.

I'm sorry if my statement seemed too general. There have been many good people "influenced by Scriptures" to make the world better. But think of the number that were influenced for evil!

[jce]

I think you missed my point. Why did God choose to setup wicked rulers? If human governments are from God, then God has a lot of blood on his hands.

God has had blood on His hands from the very beginning when in the Garden He clothed our progenitors in animal skins to cover their nakedness. I think this is where you miss the big picture Richard. You accuse the God of the Bible for atrocities that you, yourself think you could never commit. What may appear to you as "unnecessary acts", by the God of the Bible may have actually worked to your benefit. Remember what happened to mankind before the flood swept them away? God took a "hands off" approach to demonstrate the inevitable natural result. "The earth was filled with violence and the imagination of man's heart was evil continually". This is what you get when man sovereignly acts out his own version of morality devoid of God's intervention.

God has a purpose for everything He does, but faith is a pre-requisite to accept it. Acceptance does not always require complete understanding. You seem to accept other possibilities to account for creation, but do you understand them? Of course not, but you have at least a little faith that there could be some merit in those theories.

I don't defend God's actions here and He certainly does not require man's defense. Those who trust Him are completely confident in His work and His plan. If however, there is no God, then all options are off the table and limited to placing one's trust and hope in the best laid plans of men and their ability to govern themselves.


And it also means that America was never a godly nation because she was born in revolution and rebellion against the Christian government that God setup over her.

Your statement reinforces the problem with man's morality. He is by nature, a lawbreaker.

Now, you may have a problem with the method that our founding fathers used to free themselves from what they considered to be unfair taxation, but I don't hear you complaining about the freedom and prosperity that you and Rose enjoy today in this country which is one of the benefits of the acts you have just condemned.


No he doesn't do anything like that. There are billions of people who lived and died without ever hearing the name of Christ.

Have you ruled out the possibility of "Universalism"? It seems I read somewhere in this forum that you or Rose, or perhaps both once espoused that doctrine.


And besides, the Bible says you have to be elected by God to get saved. YOu have no choice in the matter. That's what the founders of the Protestant religion taught, anyway.

Perhaps a fallible interpretation?


I'm sorry if my statement seemed too general. There have been many good people "influenced by Scriptures" to make the world better.

We are the beneficiaries of the sacrifice made by many imperfect men who came before us.


But think of the number that were influenced for evil!

I think the number of evildoers right here in the very nation they founded has increased from then till now. But I don't think you can label these modern day evildoers as followers of Christ's teachings, at least I hope that you would not.

May the God of all knowledge and wisdom guide your thoughts.

His Best to You!

John

[Rose]

God has had blood on His hands from the very beginning when in the Garden He clothed our progenitors in animal skins to cover their nakedness. I think this is where you miss the big picture Richard. You accuse the God of the Bible for atrocities that you, yourself think you could never commit. What may appear to you as "unnecessary acts", by the God of the Bible may have actually worked to your benefit. Remember what happened to mankind before the flood swept them away? God took a "hands off" approach to demonstrate the inevitable natural result. "The earth was filled with violence and the imagination of man's heart was evil continually". This is what you get when man sovereignly acts out his own version of morality devoid of God's intervention.

God has a purpose for everything He does, but faith is a pre-requisite to accept it. Acceptance does not always require complete understanding. You seem to accept other possibilities to account for creation, but do you understand them? Of course not, but you have at least a little faith that there could be some merit in those theories.

May the God of all knowledge and wisdom guide your thoughts.

His Best to You!

John

Hi John

The way the Bible portrays God is that the fall of man was intentional from the beginning. In much the same way as a human puts out a mouse-trap with cheese that we know to be irresistible to the mouse...God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden with fruit that was irresistible to humans. Just as the mouse has no choice, but to eat the cheese; Adam and Eve had no choice, but to eat the fruit.

It seems the plan of God was to destroy the man he created, so he could save him...?

All the best,
Rose

[jce]

Hi John

The way the Bible portrays God is that the fall of man was intentional from the beginning. In much the same way as a human puts out a mouse-trap with cheese that we know to be irresistible to the mouse...God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden with fruit that was irresistible to humans. Just as the mouse has no choice, but to eat the cheese; Adam and Eve had no choice, but to eat the fruit.

It seems the plan of God was to destroy the man he created, so he could save him...?

All the best,
Rose

If I were a naturalist, I would be inclined to agree that mice and men are at or about the same level. However, since I believe the Bible accurately presents to us the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and it discloses that He has a plan, it must be that Adam's failure to obey was already anticipated, and in the larger scheme of things, man will gain something necessary in his development which will be of significant value for life in eternity.

Of course, in the absence of any long term vision (life beyond here), most naturalists conclude that there is no big picture and consequently, are limited to repeating the nursery rhyme... "3 blind mice (or "men" if you will)".

Rose, I believe the roots of your understanding come from Scripture and you are looking for a drink elsewhere right now, but eventually you will find all other waters bitter and return to the Fountain of Life from whence you once drank.

May God continue to keep you in His care.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

God has had blood on His hands from the very beginning when in the Garden He clothed our progenitors in animal skins to cover their nakedness. I think this is where you miss the big picture Richard. You accuse the God of the Bible for atrocities that you, yourself think you could never commit. What may appear to you as "unnecessary acts", by the God of the Bible may have actually worked to your benefit. Remember what happened to mankind before the flood swept them away? God took a "hands off" approach to demonstrate the inevitable natural result. "The earth was filled with violence and the imagination of man's heart was evil continually". This is what you get when man sovereignly acts out his own version of morality devoid of God's intervention.

Hey there John,

If the verifiable evidence is any guide, God has had a "hands off" approach throughout history, and that directly contradicts what the Bible says. So why believe any of it as "literal" history? It's whole worldview is flawed. Creation didn't happen circa 4000 BC. There was no flood, God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

But assuming the flood did happen - did it fix anything? Nope. Shortly thereafter God had to wipe out everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Why didn't he just educate them and the teach them the ways of righteousness? The God of the Bible does nothing that I would expect from an intelligent loving parent. He seems to be totally lost in his love of violence. He seems to delight in perverting the souls of his own people. Have you never considered what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? You are commanded to kill all the men, women and children. So you go forth, find a tent, rip it open and see a tender 16 year old mother with a baby at her breast and a toddler standing near playing with a doll. She falls at your feet, begging for mercy but you have no mercy. You lift your sword and disembowel the toddler in two with a single swing, splattering the mother's face with the blood and guts of her own child. She cries out in agony of soul unlike any scream you ever heard in your life. She begs for the life of her baby, she pleads for mercy, but you have no mercy. You are on a mission from your god. You raise your sword and slaughter her and her infant suckling. Then you go to the next tent and do it all again, and again, and again. Oh, and don't forget to capture a few sexy virgins to take back to be distributed amongst the soldiers! Do you not see how this would utterly destroy your soul? The evil is unspeakable. If anything is known with any certainty, it is that the actions attributed to God in the Bible cannot all be true. Something is wrong with this picture. The irony is outrageous - Christians are forced to justify the slaughter of children? That's what William Lane Craig has done. He says God did nothing wrong slaughtering the Canaanite children because they all went to heaven. How he failed to recognized that the same logic justifies abortion I know not. Such is what happens when we choose to believe that a book written by fallible men trumps our own moral intuitions.



God has a purpose for everything He does, but faith is a pre-requisite to accept it. Acceptance does not always require complete understanding. You seem to accept other possibilities to account for creation, but do you understand them? Of course not, but you have at least a little faith that there could be some merit in those theories.

Faith? FAITH? What does "faith" have to do with accepting the moral abominations in the Bible?

But I do understand what you mean about having an incomplete picture. We all are stuck with that. No one has all the answers. But why choose the fundamentalist approach to Scripture? That's what causes the problem and forces you to conclude that the moral abominations attributed to God are not really evil. I think it makes a lot more sense to just call things as they are.



I don't defend God's actions here and He certainly does not require man's defense. Those who trust Him are completely confident in His work and His plan. If however, there is no God, then all options are off the table and limited to placing one's trust and hope in the best laid plans of men and their ability to govern themselves.

What does that mean? Of course God needs man's defense! Without it, who would believe in him? Who would write his books for him? Who would explain what his books "really" mean?

Those who think they are trusting "Him" completely are actually trusting their own ideas about him that the learned from other people or books written by other people. Or that they "interpreted" from their own private ideas.

The option is not to conclude that "There is no God" - but you have no option but to trust in things you have learned from other humans. Everything you know came through your culture. What would you be like if you were adopted and raised by Arabic speaking Muslims? Chinese? Tribesmen in New Guinea? You need to think about these things when you think about the "Big Picture" of God and all.



And it also means that America was never a godly nation because she was born in revolution and rebellion against the Christian government that God setup over her.
Your statement reinforces the problem with man's morality. He is by nature, a lawbreaker.

Now, you may have a problem with the method that our founding fathers used to free themselves from what they considered to be unfair taxation, but I don't hear you complaining about the freedom and prosperity that you and Rose enjoy today in this country which is one of the benefits of the acts you have just condemned.

I've got no problem with it at all! I was only pointing out that it contradicts the Bible, so America was never "godly" like Christians like to think. The Bible says that we should not have rebelled against England. That's the great irony - Christians singing praise of the American Godless Rebellion against our Divinely Appointed British Overlords.

It's all incoherent. That was my point.



Have you ruled out the possibility of "Universalism"? It seems I read somewhere in this forum that you or Rose, or perhaps both once espoused that doctrine.

No - Rose and I were exploring Universalism when we discovered that we no longer fit the definition of "Christian." So we just quit trying to make Christianity "work" and dropped it all.




And besides, the Bible says you have to be elected by God to get saved. YOu have no choice in the matter. That's what the founders of the Protestant religion taught, anyway.
Perhaps a fallible interpretation?

Of course it could be a false interpretation. But it is the dominant interpretation, and I've never seen anyone find a coherent way to get around it after decades of looking at various attempts.




I'm sorry if my statement seemed too general. There have been many good people "influenced by Scriptures" to make the world better.
We are the beneficiaries of the sacrifice made by many imperfect men who came before us.

Yes, and we are the victims of many sick, twisted, and ruthless men who made up some very strange doctrines.



I think the number of evildoers right here in the very nation they founded has increased from then till now. But I don't think you can label these modern day evildoers as followers of Christ's teachings, at least I hope that you would not.

I think evil has been on a steady decline for centuries.



May the God of all knowledge and wisdom guide your thoughts.

His Best to You!

John
And to you!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi John

The way the Bible portrays God is that the fall of man was intentional from the beginning. In much the same way as a human puts out a mouse-trap with cheese that we know to be irresistible to the mouse...God put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden with fruit that was irresistible to humans. Just as the mouse has no choice, but to eat the cheese; Adam and Eve had no choice, but to eat the fruit.

It seems the plan of God was to destroy the man he created, so he could save him...?

All the best,
Rose
If I were a naturalist, I would be inclined to agree that mice and men are at or about the same level. However, since I believe the Bible accurately presents to us the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and it discloses that He has a plan, it must be that Adam's failure to obey was already anticipated, and in the larger scheme of things, man will gain something necessary in his development which will be of significant value for life in eternity.

Of course, in the absence of any long term vision (life beyond here), most naturalists conclude that there is no big picture and consequently, are limited to repeating the nursery rhyme... "3 blind mice (or "men" if you will)".

Rose, I believe the roots of your understanding come from Scripture and you are looking for a drink elsewhere right now, but eventually you will find all other waters bitter and return to the Fountain of Life from whence you once drank.

May God continue to keep you in His care.

John
I think I detect some humor in your comments John! That's always a good sign. :thumb:

But relative to God, men are not far from mice, are they?

In any case, I agree that the Garden story represents something that man needed to "gain something necessary in his development." It looks like the classic example of the process of psycho-spiritual individuation. Very profound stuff really. But as far from a "literal" interpretation as the moon is from Green Cheese.

[jce]

Hey there John,

If the verifiable evidence is any guide, God has had a "hands off" approach throughout history, and that directly contradicts what the Bible says. So why believe any of it as "literal" history? It's whole worldview is flawed. Creation didn't happen circa 4000 BC. There was no flood, God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

But assuming the flood did happen - did it fix anything? Nope. Shortly thereafter God had to wipe out everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Why didn't he just educate them and the teach them the ways of righteousness? The God of the Bible does nothing that I would expect from an intelligent loving parent. He seems to be totally lost in his love of violence. He seems to delight in perverting the souls of his own people. Have you never considered what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? You are commanded to kill all the men, women and children. So you go forth, find a tent, rip it open and see a tender 16 year old mother with a baby at her breast and a toddler standing near playing with a doll. She falls at your feet, begging for mercy but you have no mercy. You lift your sword and disembowel the toddler in two with a single swing, splattering the mother's face with the blood and guts of her own child. She cries out in agony of soul unlike any scream you ever heard in your life. She begs for the life of her baby, she pleads for mercy, but you have no mercy. You are on a mission from your god. You raise your sword and slaughter her and her infant suckling. Then you go to the next tent and do it all again, and again, and again. Oh, and don't forget to capture a few sexy virgins to take back to be distributed amongst the soldiers! Do you not see how this would utterly destroy your soul? The evil is unspeakable. If anything is known with any certainty, it is that the actions attributed to God in the Bible cannot all be true. Something is wrong with this picture. The irony is outrageous - Christians are forced to justify the slaughter of children? That's what William Lane Craig has done. He says God did nothing wrong slaughtering the Canaanite children because they all went to heaven. How he failed to recognized that the same logic justifies abortion I know not. Such is what happens when we choose to believe that a book written by fallible men trumps our own moral intuitions.


Faith? FAITH? What does "faith" have to do with accepting the moral abominations in the Bible?

But I do understand what you mean about having an incomplete picture. We all are stuck with that. No one has all the answers. But why choose the fundamentalist approach to Scripture? That's what causes the problem and forces you to conclude that the moral abominations attributed to God are not really evil. I think it makes a lot more sense to just call things as they are.


What does that mean? Of course God needs man's defense! Without it, who would believe in him? Who would write his books for him? Who would explain what his books "really" mean?

Those who think they are trusting "Him" completely are actually trusting their own ideas about him that the learned from other people or books written by other people. Or that they "interpreted" from their own private ideas.

The option is not to conclude that "There is no God" - but you have no option but to trust in things you have learned from other humans. Everything you know came through your culture. What would you be like if you were adopted and raised by Arabic speaking Muslims? Chinese? Tribesmen in New Guinea? You need to think about these things when you think about the "Big Picture" of God and all.

I've got no problem with it at all! I was only pointing out that it contradicts the Bible, so America was never "godly" like Christians like to think. The Bible says that we should not have rebelled against England. That's the great irony - Christians singing praise of the American Godless Rebellion against our Divinely Appointed British Overlords.

It's all incoherent. That was my point.


No - Rose and I were exploring Universalism when we discovered that we no longer fit the definition of "Christian." So we just quit trying to make Christianity "work" and dropped it all.


Of course it could be a false interpretation. But it is the dominant interpretation, and I've never seen anyone find a coherent way to get around it after decades of looking at various attempts.


Yes, and we are the victims of many sick, twisted, and ruthless men who made up some very strange doctrines.


I think evil has been on a steady decline for centuries.


And to you!

Richard

All very good points Richard and well received.

I must add, that I read no religious books that prepared me for what I was to discover about myself in the Bible. There is a powerful message in that Book which goes beyond the ability to explain.

In fact, my first reaction to the Bible was why is this Jesus guy involved. It simply made it more confusing. I was looking for the one and only God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. I worked my way through the OT and it was not until I got to the NT that I discovered the importance of God's Son. I probably mentioned this in prior conversations, but when I got to Romans 10:9-10, I immediately knelt by my bed and verbally confessed my faith in Christ. I rose a new man in Christ. My old way of life was suddenly behind me, I had a new life in the same body. This experience can only be understood by those who have shared this experience of the new birth. That was in April of 1973. Since that day, my faith in God, and His Word, remain unshaken.

I will add that many of the difficulties in the Bible may never be resolved in my lifetime, but I really do trust God that it will one day all make sense. In the mean time, I will try live my life according to Christ's example.

It is good to exchange with you Richard.

John

[jce]

I think I detect some humor in your comments John! That's always a good sign. :thumb:

Yes it is. We must not take ourselves to seriously on some of this stuff.


But relative to God, men are not far from mice, are they?

:hysterical:



In any case, I agree that the Garden story represents something that man needed to "gain something necessary in his development." It looks like the classic example of the process of psycho-spiritual individuation. Very profound stuff really. But as far from a "literal" interpretation as the moon is from Green Cheese.

Well stated!

John

[Rose]

If I were a naturalist, I would be inclined to agree that mice and men are at or about the same level. However, since I believe the Bible accurately presents to us the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and it discloses that He has a plan, it must be that Adam's failure to obey was already anticipated, and in the larger scheme of things, man will gain something necessary in his development which will be of significant value for life in eternity.

Of course, in the absence of any long term vision (life beyond here), most naturalists conclude that there is no big picture and consequently, are limited to repeating the nursery rhyme... "3 blind mice (or "men" if you will)".

Hi John,

Yes, according to the Biblical story Adam's failure was already anticipated, and that my friend is preciously the point. God knew that the way he created Adam and Eve they would have no resistance to the temptation of knowledge, just as the mouse has no resistance to the temptation of food. That is why I say that according to the way God is portrayed in the Bible he clearly set up the fall...it was planned and there was no way man could have done anything differently. It was in God's hands from the beginning, so from that we can conclude his purpose in creating man...was for him to fall, and need a redeemer.


Rose, I believe the roots of your understanding come from Scripture and you are looking for a drink elsewhere right now, but eventually you will find all other waters bitter and return to the Fountain of Life from whence you once drank.

May God continue to keep you in His care.

John

I began my journey years ago by looking to Scripture for the answers to purpose, and it ended up being the very Scriptures themselves that led me away from them to a broader viewpoint. Now, I can return once again to them and glean the morsels of truth I find there, without the compulsion to lock myself in the "God box". Far from finding the waters bitter, I have found a refreshing wholeness and meaning to life that I was blinded to before.

Thank you for your continued discussion on this matter, :signthankspin:

Rose

[kathryn]

The Creator is a master composer. He knows how to build a tension so acute in us in the mixture of harmony and discord, the rising and falling of major and minor chords, that by the time we hear the Grand Climax, we find we have been pressing into it with such hunger and anticipation, it is immediately recognizable . We know we've come HOME and its been the song of our Heart all along.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

All very good points Richard and well received.

I must add, that I read no religious books that prepared me for what I was to discover about myself in the Bible. There is a powerful message in that Book which goes beyond the ability to explain.

In fact, my first reaction to the Bible was why is this Jesus guy involved. It simply made it more confusing. I was looking for the one and only God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. I worked my way through the OT and it was not until I got to the NT that I discovered the importance of God's Son. I probably mentioned this in prior conversations, but when I got to Romans 10:9-10, I immediately knelt by my bed and verbally confessed my faith in Christ. I rose a new man in Christ. My old way of life was suddenly behind me, I had a new life in the same body. This experience can only be understood by those who have shared this experience of the new birth. That was in April of 1973. Since that day, my faith in God, and His Word, remain unshaken.

I will add that many of the difficulties in the Bible may never be resolved in my lifetime, but I really do trust God that it will one day all make sense. In the mean time, I will try live my life according to Christ's example.

It is good to exchange with you Richard.

John
Hey there John,

Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. I would never deny that there is something super-powerful and transformative about the Bible. I experienced things like that for years. And the reality of the "something" that happens when a person submits to Christ - who can deny it? But then it get's woven with all sorts of strange doctrines about the Bible being "inerrant and infallible" and then next thing you know, the mystical experience is entirely occluded.

That's why it can be so easy to "lose yourself" in the religious doctrines and then you lose the benefit you got from the light that's in the Bible. And worse, the light is used to justify the darkness! Maybe we should think about that for a little while.

But all these problems can be avoided if we just put our own integrity first. Never believe anything just because someone told us we must or because it's written in some book. Besides, the Book is subject to interpretation so it would be very foolish to let some interpretation trump our intuitive beliefs.

And so now I am free to receive all the light that's in the Bible, and I can reject all the darkness.

Great chatting, brother-man!

Richard

[CWH]

[QUOTE=RAM;39410]Hey there John,

If the verifiable evidence is any guide, God has had a "hands off" approach throughout history, and that directly contradicts what the Bible says. So why believe any of it as "literal" history? It's whole worldview is flawed. Creation didn't happen circa 4000 BC. There was no flood, God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.
If you do not believe all these biblical events happened why do you believe the killings and rapes as commanded by God happened? You are not consistent in your beliefs. Perhaps you could tell us how you come to a conclusion that certain events in the Bible are real.


But assuming the flood did happen - did it fix anything? Nope. Shortly thereafter God had to wipe out everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Why didn't he just educate them and the teach them the ways of righteousness? The God of the Bible does nothing that I would expect from an intelligent loving parent.
Criminal rehabilitation does not work for many criminals. This is evidence by the numerous repeated offenders and feedbacks from the criminals themselves, and there are other factors as well such as social stigmas and rejections. No wonder the prisons are full to the brim. God probably knew that criminal rehabilitation does not work well, might as well punished them with death and stopped them from more sin and crimes until they have truly repented and then forgive them and raised them up.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235296000207


He seems to be totally lost in his love of violence. He seems to delight in perverting the souls of his own people. Have you never considered what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? You are commanded to kill all the men, women and children. So you go forth, find a tent, rip it open and see a tender 16 year old mother with a baby at her breast and a toddler standing near playing with a doll. She falls at your feet, begging for mercy but you have no mercy. You lift your sword and disembowel the toddler in two with a single swing, splattering the mother's face with the blood and guts of her own child. She cries out in agony of soul unlike any scream you ever heard in your life. She begs for the life of her baby, she pleads for mercy, but you have no mercy. You are on a mission from your god. You raise your sword and slaughter her and her infant suckling. Then you go to the next tent and do it all again, and again, and again. Oh, and don't forget to capture a few sexy virgins to take back to be distributed amongst the soldiers! Do you not see how this would utterly destroy your soul? The evil is unspeakable. If anything is known with any certainty, it is that the actions attributed to God in the Bible cannot all be true. Something is wrong with this picture. The irony is outrageous - Christians are forced to justify the slaughter of children? That's what William Lane Craig has done. He says God did nothing wrong slaughtering the Canaanite children because they all went to heaven. How he failed to recognized that the same logic justifies abortion I know not. Such is what happens when we choose to believe that a book written by fallible men trumps our own moral intuitions.
Such things happened in all human wars as well with killings of babies and children and systemic rapes of women and commanded or approved by their military commanders. It is not fair to blame such atrocities entirely on God as human factors such as lust and violence also play a part. Many of these atrocities were carried out by non-Christians.


But I do understand what you mean about having an incomplete picture. We all are stuck with that. No one has all the answers. But why choose the fundamentalist approach to Scripture? That's what causes the problem and forces you to conclude that the moral abominations attributed to God are not really evil. I think it makes a lot more sense to just call things as they are.
Agree, we will only know why God did those things when we meet Him in heaven. I always believe He has good reasons to do so. Perhaps, He being the Chief Judge has His own laws which He has to enforced with integrity such as Death sentence to those who served other gods. I have asked a question which goes unanswered, what happened if you are the judge and your children did a heinous crime deserving death, will you issue the death penalty to your children? I am sure you will in order to uphold integrity and justice in the law but you will do it with much grief and regrets in your heart. Same goes with God when He decided to destroy earth with a flood.


What does that mean? Of course God needs man's defense! Without it, who would believe in him? Who would write his books for him? Who would explain what his books "really" mean?

Those who think they are trusting "Him" completely are actually trusting their own ideas about him that the learned from other people or books written by other people. Or that they "interpreted" from their own private ideas.
I have said before that knowing what was written in the Bible and what denomination you belong to will not guarantee you a place in heaven but obeying the commandments of Loving God with all your heart, soul and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself will. Knowledge of what is written in the Bible is good but not essential enough to get you to heaven. Doing the will of God will guarantee you a place in heaven.


The option is not to conclude that "There is no God" - but you have no option but to trust in things you have learned from other humans. Everything you know came through your culture. What would you be like if you were adopted and raised by Arabic speaking Muslims? Chinese? Tribesmen in New Guinea? You need to think about these things when you think about the "Big Picture" of God and all.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.... hope everyone is not a fool.


No - Rose and I were exploring Universalism when we discovered that we no longer fit the definition of "Christian." So we just quit trying to make Christianity "work" and dropped it all.
Biggest mistake you all have made in your life....Lord forgive them. Let's pray :pray::pray:


I think evil has been on a steady decline for centuries.
That's your perception. Communism killed at least 200 million in this century and WW1 and WW2 killed about 100 million and there were many other wars. When will such evils ever end?

Lord forgive us for we may not know what we are doing. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If you do not believe all these biblical events happened why do you believe the killings and rapes as commanded by God happened? You are not consistent in your beliefs. Perhaps you could tell us how you come to a conclusion that certain events in the Bible are real.
Ah, let me clarify. I didn't assume that those things really happened. I only said that the Bible teaches that God commanded those things.



Criminal rehabilitation does not work for many criminals. This is evidence by the numerous repeated offenders and feedbacks from the criminals themselves, and there are other factors as well such as social stigmas and rejections. No wonder the prisons are full to the brim. God probably knew that criminal rehabilitation does not work well, might as well punished them with death and stopped them from more sin and crimes until they have truly repented and then forgive them and raised them up.

Well, OK. Everyone is free to have their own beliefs. Personally, I just reject the idea that all the biblical mythology records literal history. It sure makes life easier and thinking clearer believe you me!



Such things happened in all human wars as well with killings of babies and children and systemic rapes of women and commanded or approved by their military commanders. It is not fair to blame such atrocities entirely on God as human factors such as lust and violence also play a part. Many of these atrocities were carried out by non-Christians.

If God ordered murder and rape, he is responsible. He could have explained to his people that violence is almost never a solution, and it is always the solution of last resort! As it is, the Bible presents Yahweh rather like the apotheosis of George W. Bush.



Agree, we will only know why God did those things when we meet Him in heaven. I always believe He has good reasons to do so. Perhaps, He being the Chief Judge has His own laws which He has to enforced with integrity such as Death sentence to those who served other gods. I have asked a question which goes unanswered, what happened if you are the judge and your children did a heinous crime deserving death, will you issue the death penalty to your children? I am sure you will in order to uphold integrity and justice in the law but you will do it with much grief and regrets in your heart. Same goes with God when He decided to destroy earth with a flood.

Why would God care about "other gods" if they don't even exist?

I have no problem with a parent sentencing her own child to death if she were a judge. But that's not what we're talking about here. God was not only the judge - he also was the legislator who wrote all the laws, and the teacher that taught his children. We humans do not have to kill offenders. Many countries have abandoned the death penalty ~ maybe that's a way to interpret the work of Christ on the cross: he ended the death penalty. I don't know, but I do know that I have no reason to think of God as "judge" like in the Bible. Would it not be better to free our mind from the dictatorship of brutal ways of thinking? Why not? Why do we have to lose? Think of what we have to gain! A vision of a transfigured universe in which each person we meet is a child of God! Is that not a place we'd all like to be?



I have said before that knowing what was written in the Bible and what denomination you belong to will not guarantee you a place in heaven but obeying the commandments of Loving God with all your heart, soul and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself will. Knowledge of what is written in the Bible is good but not essential enough to get you to heaven. Doing the will of God will guarantee you a place in heaven.

So anyone who wants to go to heaven can go? Woohoo! I'm down with that brother!

:woohoo:




No - Rose and I were exploring Universalism when we discovered that we no longer fit the definition of "Christian." So we just quit trying to make Christianity "work" and dropped it all.
Biggest mistake you all have made in your life....Lord forgive them. Let's pray :pray::pray:

Why do you say that? What have we lost? Our hearts are filled with more joy and love that at any time in our lives. If a tree is known by its fruit, this is one good tree!




I think evil has been on a steady decline for centuries.
That's your perception. Communism killed at least 200 million in this century and WW1 and WW2 killed about 100 million and there were many other wars. When will such evils ever end?

No, it's the perception of many others too, such as Steven Pinker who wrote the book The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670022950/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=thebibwhe-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0670022950&adid=1ESPDHF23V7N9BRXNAN0&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Frcm.amazon.com%2Fe%2Fcm%3Flt1% 3D_blank%26bc1%3D000000%26IS2%3D1%26bg1%3DFFFFFF%2 6fc1%3D000000%26lc1%3D0000FF%26t%3Dthebibwhe-20%26o%3D1%26p%3D8%26l%3Das4%26m%3Damazon%26f%3Dif r%26ref%3Dss_til%26asins%3D0670022950). It's very sad that Christians would be "behind the curve" on the most significant transformation in the history of the world. I'm hoping to help change that. There are Christians out there who are not "fundamentalist" and who do not need a violent and evil world to justify the existence of their religion, but choose rather to be on the vanguard of the transformation into the Kingdom of Heaven here upon terra firma.

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

Either you and Jesus have the same agenda, or, yours is at variance with His. Your last post's ending reminded me of His words:

When you pray, say,

Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be your Name,
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done, as in heaven,
So on earth.

Luke 11:2



He shall see the travail of His soul, and be satisfied:

Isaiah 53:11a

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Either you and Jesus have the same agenda, or, yours is at variance with His. Your last post's ending reminded me of His words:

When you pray, say,

Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be your Name,
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done, as in heaven,
So on earth.

Luke 11:2



He shall see the travail of His soul, and be satisfied:

Isaiah 53:11a
:specool:

Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.