And you make me smile, O' King of Good Vibes! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Now THAT'S funny!

And I ain't no yankee boy!! Cain't you hear me talk?

OK, where do I get my morals ? I'm glad you asked, bOb!

First, my morals are essentially defined by the Golden Rule. I adopted that from my upbringing, life experiences, and history. I learned it. This ain't rocket surgery.

Now, before anyone goes and charges that because my morals aren't rooted in some divine guidance and thus variable on a whim, I'll claim that the Golden Rule is essentially at the core of just about every organized cult ever devised. So I got ya all covered.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

That's about it, folks!

Time for night night!

WAT

heathenboy! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

OK WAT

So secularists learn their moral code from society. What informs society's moral guidelines ?

“Person” is “in control, on the “throne of their life,” “make their own decisions about what is “good or bad” without reference to God’s commands as being authoritative and without the "right" to choose to sin against God. They simply choose sin the same way Lucifer chose sin....the elevation of personal pride and desire about humble obedience and submission to THE only true and rightful Sovereign Lord of all.



It would appear (though you are not specific) that you lump me into your “couple of posters” who accuse you of “having no faith.” No, WAT, you DO have a faith, it’s just not the biblical Christian faith.

Yet you find no problem in attacking anyone who DOES have a strong belief in Christ and who advocates that "for Christians," GOD (not the individual man or woman) is in control and GOD has the sole authority to determine what is “right and what is wrong.”

WAT, there are many “religions” of the world who have “adopted” some of God’s commands WITHOUT the one key component of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and that includes the Jews (who are God's chosen race and the source of Jesus Christ and our being "ingrafted").

An example of such an “appropriation” would be the “Golden Rule.” Choosing to apply the Golden Rule to one’s life is GOOD, not bad. That is not the issue. The issue is “eternally saved” or “not saved.”

As with everything else, God sets that rule and that standard. We can choose to accept or we can choose to reject. We can attempt to appropriate “some” of what God says because “we like it, or we want to personally behave that way,” but that doesn’t save us and it in no way obligates anyone else to choose as we decided to choose.

Without God’s objective and external “yardstick” and without God’s exclusive right to determine “right and wrong,” secular (without Christ) humanity is left to determining what is “right and wrong” on their own, and everyone else has the exact same right of “self-determination,” even if what they choose as “Right” conflicts with your own chosen definition. Even the ever-changing secular morals will change what it “right and wrong” as society changes, or “evolves or devolves” depending on human perspective. God is unchanging. His commands are the “yardstick” regardless of what humans decide to think is “acceptable or unacceptable.”

So, yes WAT, I believe you have a faith. Just not a faith in Jesus Christ.



WAT, no one argues that all institutions and all people have “values.” WHAT those values are and HOW they are established and maintained is the issue. Non-Christian schools BEGIN with the elimination of God, no talking about God, no proclaiming God’s commands…because to do so would somehow “damage” the poor young “skulls full of mush.” Instead, the schools indoctrinate the children (who then grow up to be adults) that “one religion (or no religion) is as good as the next.” They DO NOT proclaim the truth. They ensconce the “individual” on the throne of their personal lives and proclaim them “god,” with the sole authority to determine what is “right and wrong” for themselves.

BUT WAIT!!... then they say that to live in “society” the individual must “give up” that right of sole self-determination and “submit” to rules that society has put in place (even if the individual thinks the societal rule is very wrong, perhaps even evil). WHY? Because secular society now elevates ITSELF to the throne and makes itself “god.”

Want an example of how the changing mores and morals of society can conflict with your own personal choices of “good and bad,” to say nothing of conflicting with God’s standards? Just look at abortion, the “legalized” murdering of millions of infants. Infanticide is now the “accepted” and “legally” good thing for Americans to do, if THEY so choose. It does not matter what God’s law says, it only matters what selfish, secular, humans decide is “good or bad.”

So please, WAT, do NOT try to equate secular schools with schools that are supposed to be upholding God’s laws and commands. Please do not attempt to diminish the role that the church is supposed to play simply because there are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” within EVERY organization on earth. While there is much that I disagree with Catholicism about, the STANDARD is the revealed Word of God in the Scripture, not individual choices to “obey or not to obey” when God has clearly spoken.



Of course that’s what you’d like. Each individual getting to “decide” for themselves and NOT having to submit to God.

You confuse “guaranteeing behavior” with the truth that we are ALL sinful, fallen, creatures with an innate “sin nature.” Sin begins “training us” from infancy. You can see it in babies who have to learn to share. Their natural instinct is to take what they “want” with no regard for anyone else. “Me, me, me first” is the “natural state.” The “differentiation” is NOT “having faith or not,” it is the OBJECT of that faith. The “object” of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ. IF Jesus is not who he said he was, then the “Christian faith” is in vain and of no more relevance than any other faith, or lack of faith, in the world. THAT is the difference. We can argue and debate all day long on a myriad of issues, as is going in the thread on evolution, but it’s all irrelevant to the question of “Is Jesus Christ who he said he was?”

WAT, there can be NO “guaranteeing of behavior” when each person has the right to choose their behavioral standards for themselves with NO immutable reference point to determine if what they want is “right or wrong.” Society, through it’s laws, can try to mimic some of God’s laws, but since it tends to reflect the changing desires and morals of secular society, there is little that is “written in stone” in those secular “laws” either.

You're a good straight man, Bob.

Society's moral guidelines are formed, I believe, by our collective wisdom, individual experiences, and those who have gone before us. History is a terrific teacher.

When I was a small child, my brother got into some sort of trouble in the house and lied about it, blaming me for it. I got punished by my Dad. I didn't like it and it didn't feel fair. Later, my Dad figured out the real story and my brother got punished twice - once for the issue and once for lying about it. That lesson stuck with me.

Again, this is not rocket surgery.

Based on just a casual observation of society as a whole, it seems those with some "higher" moral code "source" are no better off and no better members of society than folks like me. In fact, just a casual cruise through history shows that those espousing "higher" authority seem to be the perpetrators of most of the world's problems.

Even today, just a few that are in progress that seem to me to be rooted in "whose morals are the right ones" include the prostetants vs catholics in Northern Ireland, the Croates vs the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, the Palestines vs the Jews in the Middle East, the Hutus vs the Tutsis in Rawanda, the [censored] vs the Sunis vs the Kurds in Irag, and, of course, the Christians vs the Moslems all over the world.

Dare to take a stab at who is "right" in any of those conflicts? And what is the struggle if it's not whose idealology is better?

WAT

I still think they should have chosen the Dalai Lama as the new Pope.

Now THAT would have been a neighborly thing 2 do!

-ol' 2long

So WAT, are you saying then that NONE of them are "right?" Or that none of them are "wrong?" I am not sure what you are saying. And all this time, I thought those conflicts were based on negative traits, such as power, envy, greed versus whose "ideology" is superior so that is news to me. The Tutsi's, for example were slaughtered because of long standing jealously, had nothing to do with "ideology." 'I am very confused about your point here.

Are you saying that your ideology is no better than the murderous Hutus or the terrorists?

Well, no more than one of them can be right, right? Of all the divine idealologies on this planet, at most only one is right.

My point is very simple - having a divine "standard" as Bob asserts is needed, doesn't seem to be any more effective at achieving better living than having a learned "standard". In other words, the source of the idealology doesn't seem important, and arguably can make things worse.

Because I don't have to argue with whose divinity is right, one could argue that my idealology is less provocative and less prone to conflict.

WAT

Well WAT, I routinely see you on here arguing about Christian ideology so yes, you do want to argue whose "divinity" is right. And it seems that, as far as you are concerned, anything goes except Christianity. You feel entitled to believe that your beliefs are true, but seem to not want to afford that same tolerance to Christians. Why would that be?

None of that's important, because they didn't pick the Dalai Lama 2 be Pope.

-ol' 2long <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In other words, you believe your "ideology" is better than Bob's, the very thing you rail against him about. It is ok for you to imply that your ideology is better than his, but God forbid he should ever say the same thing.

And the "source" may be unimportant to you, but it isn't to others. And that is ok, you are free to reject Christ, no one will stop you. But why do you have to be so angry about it, WAT? I don't understand that. Why not just reject him and move on? Be happy with your rejection!

**SNORT***

Dare to take a stab at who is "right" in any of those conflicts? And what is the struggle if it's not whose idealology is better?


That my whole point - define 'right'. my 'morally right' is adherent to God's codex. A darwinian existentialist may think its 'right' to support their progeny and personal survival at the expense of anyoneweaker.

My external morality codex is unchanging and is not subject to changing societal mores.

The adherence of believers to the codex changes between individuals, cults, and over time but the codex has remained since the start of recorded history it seems.

I am not judging who is a better bunch of people- holy joes or Sartre-ists. I am trying to determine why an existentialist who believes the 'selfish gene' theory should HAVE a learned counter-genetic morality code when in secular nature the 'right' morality is survival of the fittest.

At any given time I pretty much know if what I am doing is right or wrong against my external codex.

A Christian even in a very different culture SHOULD also have the same codex. Their interpretation may be different, their adherence and tolerance may vary but Scriptural morality is unchanging as written.

A Christian who grew in , say, Pol Pots Cambodia should still have knowledge of right and wrong from their religion. It should not be redefined by their socal context of no value for life.

Any Christian German soldier who pulled a switch in a concentration camp KNEW the Christian codex was being violated. Would a secularist , raised in a fascist culture know that ?

I am truly interested in this.

I can fully understand why Rationalists obey the law of the land, but law is not necessarily MORAL. In the UK if you shoot a burglar who is in your bedroom at night he ( or his family) can sue you , ruin you and have you sent to prison.

That is not a 'just' or right law IMO. Its not moral.

I believe there are as many or more good living rationalists, Buddhists , SUFIs and muslims than Christians, I am not starting a turf war LOL !

I am just interested as to the reasoning behind the general adoption by the secular world of 'morals' that largely mirror the Christian codex when 'the selfish gene' would dictate a very different response.

ROFL !

At least the DL wasn't a mmber of the Nazi youth party as a kid !

Mel, Mel, Mel - you're reading WAY too much into this. Don't git yer knickers in a knot.

I do not argue against anybody's idealology insofar as "morals" and right and wrong are concerned. I presume these variations adhere to societal norms and if they don't, society and elected governments have a way of correcting them. I will resist, though, if I feel my rights are being infringed. I do ask a lot of questions when someone wants to force their particular brand on others and "no thank you" doesn't work. Just so happens many Christians are not content to hold their beliefs to themselves and for some reason need to recruit others to their view and impose their faiths where they are not welcome or don't belong and theirs is the only right one. Talk about intolerance. "No thank you" very often doesn't work. This is the whole issue with our discussion of Creation "Science" on the other thread and overt efforts to get it into public schools' science classes. (I'm not singling out Christianity here - just so happens people of this idealology are the ones I have most interaction with due to living in the US.)

I couldn't care less what anybody else thinks so long as the result of those beliefs do not conflict with societal norms in a way that infringes on my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I don't attempt to sell my beliefs to anyone else and I believe they are compatible with society as a whole. It's not called the "Golden Rule" for nuthin'.

WAT

Yo Bob - what did you have for breakfast this morning? Something that was alive at one time, I bet!


Good for you!

So, you'd sign up for the Crusades today? Kill those heathens!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


I don't know what you mean by the "selfish gene."

I would argue that the Golden Rule predates Christianity by thousands of years. Christianity seems to mirror the secular code, not the other way 'round. So, who "adopted" whom? Take out for a moment the couple 10 commandments having to do with God and what are you left with? Essentially, the Golden Rule. It's intuitive to beings of reason.

WAT

WAT, I haven't seen anyone trying to "force" their views down your throat, only folks who have expressed their own Christian view, which for some strange reason, seems to get YOUR knickers in such a knot that you start aggressive call out threads like this.

Expressing one's views is not "imposing their faith" anymore than you are "imposing your views" when you express them. Christians are not required to "keep their beliefs to themselves" as you say, anymore than you are required to "keep your beliefs to yourself." Free Speech also applies to Christians, much to the dismay of many.

And yes, you very much try to "sell" your beliefs, just as you are doing on this very thread. Oddly, you think it's only bad if Christians express thier views.

Tolerance is a 2-way street and it can work both ways, WAT. Why not give it a try for once?

I don't know what you mean by the "selfish gene."

WAT the 'selfish gene' is the desciption I've seen for the way that survival of the fittest works. Creatures instinctively protect their own genes at the expense of any threat creature that is weaker.

I wonder how the higher forms of morality, and the concept of forgiveness evolved when some or much of this behaviour is counter-protective of an individuals gene pool.

"Selfish gene" would instinct me to kill OM as he threatened the safety of my progeny and breeding partner.

The crusades thing is irrelevent as they were not driven by scriptur ebut by bored , impecunious land barons in Europe in the name of the Church. They took place DESPITE the Christian codex not as instructed by them.

This 'golden rule' how did that evolve and why when it is more darwinian to kill anyone who might threaten us, steal our resources or space ?

You seem to be ridiculing the idea of a Deity-set morality codex but the 'golden rule' just , well IS and thats NOT silly at all but is a credible morality codex despite it being largely counter-evolutionary in its mercy.

This does interest me.

I believe you haven't seen such a thing. I guess it's quite silly to imagine anything being "forced" on a forum such as this that we participate in voluntarily. But I consider efforts to institutionalize prayer in school, put Biblical creation in science classes, and general proselytizing to be unwelcome attempts to "force" views on others, including me. That's more than just "expressing a view." I don't go around knocking on doors recommending people adopt my view of the universe.

And, I'm not trying to sell my beliefs. I'm answering your questions.

As for this "aggressive call out thread", perhaps I was initially too sensitive. I will be more relaxed in the future. At least I started it off with a joke. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I perceived Bob's statement, right or wrong, to be an over generalization - not unlike other generalizations you have railed against, and rightfully so.

WAT