WAT - I have always assumed you were a fairly intelligent gentleman even though we have had some strong disagreements in the past. I may have to revise that assessment.

"But similar to what GBH said, FH is once again over the top suggesting - no, declaring - that knowing right from wrong is a capability secular folks cannot be credited with accomplishing, no matter what. Then when someone calls him on it, it's an "attack" on his faith. Who's attacking whom, here? Very silly, indeed. Very, very silly." "

Okay, let's take it one step at a time and see just WHAT was said, and by whom.



GBH: "Oh please, FH, not again. Do you still think that only people of YOUR chosen faith know right from wrong? What a bunch of utter baloney."

FH: "GBH, for what it's worth, it's not an issue of "knowing right and wrong." We all have that capacity as a result of the FALL."






GBH: "Oh please, FH, not again. Do you still think that only people of YOUR chosen faith know right from wrong? What a bunch of utter baloney. Christians do not have a monopoly on moral behavior, and to imply such is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen posted on this board. Not just offensive to us non-religious types, but also to those of other faiths."

FH: WAT, in the first place I NEVER said, or "implied" that ONLY Christians can choose to act in a moral way. My comments were directed at GBH's "substitute" of SOCIETY for God as to WHO or WHAT should "establish" the "rules" of morality and "right and wrong."

People have many times attempted to live by the "Golden Rule," for example. But even that is nebulous at best, IF someone believes they SHOULD be treated a certain way and that, therefore, entitles them to treat others in ways that other observers might see as "self-justification for sin and harmful" actions. (i.e., you should cheat on me, therefore I am entitled to have an affair because that's how I would want to be treated by you)

What I SAID to GBH (who, by the way, PICKED the fight with me. I did not go seeking her out.) was the following:

"Yep, you are right, GBH. We should all embrace the ever changing morals and mores of society as THE standards to go by. That way "anything goes" and there IS no immutable standard of "right and wrong." All is "right" if "we" ourselves say it's right! In short, the 60's mantra of "if it feels good, do it!" is true and right and any contrary position is wrong. "There is NO SUCH THING AS SIN." Now where have I heard that lie before????

How dare anyone say that adultery is wrong?!?!?!?

How dare anyone say that abortion and the deliberate taking of another person's life is wrong?!?!?!?

How dare anyone say that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman?!?!?!?

How dare anyone suggest that ANY moral or ethical position that THEY hold should apply to anyone else?!?!?

Commandments? Naw...no such thing....only "suggestions" that have no imperative or authoritativeness to them.

Just ask GBH for definitive confirmation.

GBH, do you really believe all this drivel you are arguing for?

In for a penny, GBH, in for a pound."

IF GBH or anyone else wants to use "societal whims" as the "yardstick" for morality, moral behavior, and to define right and wrong, they CAN. But in doing so, whether they choose to accept it for THEIR OWN life or not, they automatically grant everyone else the equal right to do whatever they want to regardless of how it might impact anyone else. It tacitly REMOVES moral and ethical restrictions from anyone who might choose to NOT "play by their arbitrarily established rules."



INDEED!

You need glasses, GBH. I never once said you were Amoral (definition of Amoral = without any morals of any kind). I never once implied you were, or are, Amoral. You HAVE morals, but they are based by self-admission upon the changing sands of society. Perhaps "go with the flow" might be a better discription.




GBH - you are flat disgusting and irrelevant. Enjoy your prejudiced life.

Religion can be an indication of shared values & beliefs in a person, but it is definitely not a guarantee of that or even of morality.

I think it is wrong to juxtapose a "religious" person with a "secular" person when discussing morality. I may want to raise my children in my faith, but if I want them to have good moral character, then I'll have to do more than teach them my religion - - I'll have to teach them how to make good choices in the everyday, modern world and I'll have to reinforce good morals with my own example.

People of certain faiths may feel disloyal to their faith if they change religions and/or marry someone of a different faith and/or raise their children in a different or no faith. I may not understand that position, but I accept it as part of their beliefs.

Personally, I would want to POJA the religion issue long before M (or even engagement). I would like to think there is room for more than one religion/lack of, but I can appreciate how difficult this is in practice and with extended family.

I think POJA/compromise on religion can be difficult/impossible for some couples, just like POJA on the issue having children or not can be difficult/impossible. We should each have enough self-awareness to know if we are flexible on these issues or not. If not, then it should be addressed sooner rather than later in a relationship.

On a side note, I noticed a discussion about "obey" and "submit." As a Christian woman, those words have always made me bristle, but they are often taken out of context and misinterpreted/misused. I'm not very articulate, but I will try to explain. Just 2-3 verses later in the Bible it states the high standard by which the husband should treat his wife. This standard is that the husband should always do what is in the best interest of his wife/family/marriage and never what is best only for himself. If this standard is upheld by the husband, then the wife is happy to go along with it and it really is more POJA than beign "the man" of the house. Unfortunately, the "standard" part seems to be ignored when discussing the submit/agree part. I like to think of it as both spouses having that standard in mind when dealing with each other and the family/marriage.

Enough said.

neverthesame - thanks for the clarification on the context of choices as well the context of husband and wife "roles." But I somehow doubt that it will register with GBH. This is not the first time she has "gone after" Christian beliefs with little or no research other than her personal opinion.

God bless.

Enigma, any insight as to why this woman is divorced and whether or nor she was a Christian prior to her divorce?

FH wrote:

Coming from you, I consider that a compliment, because earlier, you wrote:
FH, there are elements of your posts that prove you know nothing about my sitch or my character. Absolutely nothing. But if that quote from you above about the Secular position isn't flat disgusting, irrelevant, and prejudiced, I don't know what is. Enjoy your prejudiced life.

Okay. But you go on to say that the other parts of Scripture dont apply to today. And as FH said, which parts do we get to pick and chose? Who decides what works today? And if it works today, does that mean the Commandments might not work tomorrow?


But the roles of husbands and wives are commandments and are moral issues.


Oh, but it does! Who decides morality? If we do, then it can be changed, just as FH was saying. If God does, then it NEVER changes. If it was moral 2000 years ago, it is moral now. Your problem with the word SUBMIT has to do with the fact that you do not understand what that word means. Too many in today's secular society use it as bondage, as a disrespectful term. Well, God authored the word and commanded a woman to submit to her husband...so it cannot by definition be disrespectful or immoral. Where it is disrespectful is where people take it and change the meaning of the word and change this commandment to what God did not intend.

I am not going to go into depth on this, as I have a whole section in the link at the bottom of my post. But the roles, as commanded by God Himself, for men and women have been set. They are not arguable, nor can they be changed. Please read that thread in the link below to understand what the real meaning of Biblical submission is.

Look, in the military, I submitted daily to the officers appointed over me. Did it mean I was less than them? Did it mean that it was disrespectful to me for me to have to do so? Absolutely not!!

The family was made and designed by God. He set the rules. He set them because he knows men and women, what they need. So, as I say...read the link. And you will see that Biblical submission is not bondage, it isnt disrespect, it isnt slavery. It is actually the highest form of respect, when done as God outlined it.

I tire of people taking the definition of terms and changing them for their own ends. It is liek the argument against the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The word "militia" is used in there, so people that dont know what the heck they are talking about, claim that that word means that the right to bear arms applies to the national guard. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The true definition of the word, as used when the men who penned the document wrote the word, means "all adult male citizens." That is the definition of the word when the amendment was written. Thus, the meaning of the amendment was meant to portray that all adult male citizens had a right to bear arms. (and dont get on me about women now...we changed the Constitution in order to make sure they are now equal).

I dont want to get in an argument about politics or anything like that. I am just saying that GBH, it is very evident that you do not understand the meaning of the word submission as applied in the Bible. Sure, husbands can take the word and apply it in their own tyrannical way. But they would be just as wrong.


A husband DEMANDS nothing!! The Bible doesnt allow him to do that. The Bible commands the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Would Christ demand that this guy's wife do something like that even though she isnt comfortable with it? Of course not. Thus, if he is doing so...then he is NOT doing his part. And as you will read in that thread link below...God will take care of that man. The husband is the head of the wife...but Jesus is the head of the husband. And if he is abusing her, and she is submitting to Jesus and her husband...Christ will take up her case. And he is in for a world of hurt!!

So, as I said, your hypothetical does not apply because nowhere does the Bible allow for this kind of treatment of a husband to his wife.


Again, by saying these things...then you do not understand Biblical submission. If a husband is doing this, then he is not submitting to Christ. And if He is not submitting to Christ in these "demands," then they are illegal orders. And she need not obey an illegal "order." God does nto condone abuse!

GBH, you must understand what Biblical submission is to be able to speak about it. It is not what you outline in your hypotheticals.


No it is not! Look, if a wife is submitting to her husband's leadership...and he is loving his wife like Christ loves us...then POJA is perfectly accomplished. What leader does not listen to his troops? Only a fool does that. How is running roughshod over his wife loving?

Too many think that the man can just do all of this and get away with it. Not so!! Christ is not powerless here! He will take care of that man. By submitting to her husband's rightful authority, she is allowing Christ to take charge of the situation and to get that man back online.

POJA is only really possible when husband and wife are functioning within the arena that God has set forward. Sure, there may come a time where an issue comes that neither can agree. But maybe it is an issue that has to be resolved then. Well, the Bible says that the wife then submits to the husband's decision. But it also says that the husband is to be submitting his decision to Christ's decision.

God gives husband's authority over their family. With that, certain access and power is given to husband's that wives and children do not have. So, if both the husband and wife are following Christ, but disagree on something that has to be done...if she is submitting to Christ and her husband...and he is submitting his decision to Christ...then most likely, his decision will have been the proper one as it will have been vetted by Christ Himself.

Again, I dont want to go any further here on this. But I do knwo GBH that you really need to study up on what real Biblical submission is and what God does command husbands and wives do. And if there is then still a problem with it, then your problem would be with God...not with "certain male posters."


Not what he said, GBH. he didnt say you condoned it. He said how dare YOU say that adultery is wrong, if you can change other commandments to the times? He is saying just because you view adultery is wrong, doesnt mean someone else views it as wrong. And if there is no God, no one to set the standard, then your ascertain that adultery is wrong would be wrong...because there really would be no morality. Just what a group of people believe at the time. Which means it can and will change.

You cant have it both ways. Either God's commandments and morality is true...and you have to accept ALL of it. Or, we can change it to fit the times. Which means one day, adultery could be considered moral.


I have NEVER heard FH say that Christians are the only persons with morals!! EVER!! God's laws and morality are certainly available to be seen by believer and unbeliever alike. The issue is that Christians have a direct relationship with the God of this Universe, which means if we really are believers, we dont subject our decisions to what we believe...but instead to what Christ commands. I do not need to say "I believe that such-and-such is wrong." I dont need to say that, because in my life, it does not really matter what I believe. It matters what God says! So instead of me saying "I believe...", I instead say "Such-and-such is wrong." THAT is what non-believers have a problem with. Because they believe the Christian is being arrogant, when in fact, all we are doing is repeating what God Himself has told us. Through prayer. Through His Word, etc.


He NEVER said that!

In His arms.

Mortarman, FH posted this:


That is where FH very strongly implies that Christians are the only persons with morals. It's right there, he posted it, neither of you can deny its existance.


It's "The husband is the head of the wife" part that I have a problem with. AND if I had a nickel for every abused wife I have heard about who prayed to God for it to stop, only to have it continue, or worse, have her die at the hands of her husband, well, I'd be able to retire and spend my life barefoot in the kitchen, right where I belong, right?

I don't come here to be preached to. You have your beliefs, I have mine. But when I see zealots like you and FH making blanket and false assumptions about non-Christians, like FH's "secular position" above, I have a hard time keeping quiet. It's an insult to all of us.

I know ark... silly silly silly to argue with a zealot. I'm done now.

I sure can deny its existence. He never says that! He is saying that EVERYONE has morals. And they are either defined by God, or they are defined by the individual. if defined by God, then none of us have a right to change them. If defined by God, then there is such a thing as immorality. If defined by each of us, then there really is no such thing as immorality or immoral behavior.


I know you do. Just as some people in the military have a problem with the captain being the head of the company. Doesnt matter. Them still be the rules! Really, if you do not liek the rules, you should take them up with the person who set the rules. But, knowing God as I do, He didnt do this because he just felt like it. He did it in this manner for a reason. Check out that thread at the bottom here, and you will find out what His reason is.


Again, abuse has NOTHING to do with Biblical submission. God does not call for a woman to stay there and be abused. that is NOT submission, just as I am not called to be abused by my superior officer in the military. If he is breaking the rules as outlined by the military, then I do not need to submit to him in that area. And the military does take care of that officer!

God takes care of that tyrannical husband too. Always!! First off, a woman that isnt a Christian but is praying to God, isnt going to be heard by God anyway. But, lets say a woman is a Christian and is praying and submitting. God ALWAYS takes up her case! ALWAYS!


I am a zealot now??? Wow, havent been called that before on here. There are plenty of my atheist friends that I think will come on here to refute your definition of me.

The last I saw, this particular thread had to do with Christianity, with husband and wives and what God outlines. HHHmmmmm?!? Me thinks that if you dont want a discusion about God and Christians, dont respond or even read a thread that has to do with that. I have never come onto any of your threads and "preached" at you. So, an apology would be in order here, GBH. I have neither called you names nor sought you out to ridicule you. Only to help you understand what FH was trying to impart, and maybe to get you to open your mind a little and learn something here. You wanted to discuss why you have a problem with God's design for marriages. Okay. And I respectfully tried to tell you what God's definition truly is. You can either chose to accept it or not. I am just the messenger...I didnt write the message.

Again, I think you maye here from a few of my atheist friends on here shortly about whether Mortarman is a zealot. Sure, we do not agree on God and such. But no one that knows me would ever call me a zealot.

The only person here to use false presumptions has been you, GBH. FH, and I, have both tried to show that intellectually, immorality cannot be possible if we all get to define what is moral. The secular position is that man decides what is moral, which man can change his/her mind. The Christian position is that God defines morality and that God never changes. Which means that immorality is possible.

That's it! That's all FH was saying. It wasnt a presumption. It is a fact of what the secular position is. It is a fact what the Biblical position is.

No need for taking this stuff personally, GBH. I dont! The reason I dont is that when someone attacks Biblical principles, they arent attacking me...they are attacking God. And I think He is big enough to handle it!

In His arms.

By FH -



OK, maybe I'm not very intelligent after all.

But what this quote above seems to say is that secularists cannot have morals, or at least cannot distinguish from anything else what "feels good." Further, we cannot think beyond ourselves and our emotions dictate our lives.

Am I reading that wrong?

If I am, please explain what I should read into that.

Maybe the key word is "position." Sure, the Christian "position" is that adultery is wrong. This certainly doesn't seem to do any good - very, very frequently.

Conversely, the secularists "position" isn't archived in some book somewhere, because there isn't a "book" or dogmatic "command." But there is life, learning, upbringing, and the intuitive Golden Rule (that ditty of wisdom that FAR outdates Christianity) and we have to live with our consciences. For me, this works a lot better than most "believers" commands work for them and my personal ethics don't allow me to change my integrity or values on a whim. How else would you, FH, explain how I'm a good and moral person? How is it possible that my XW - who "became" Catholic during her affair and married in the Catholic church to a Catholic adulterer has a full set of morals?

So, I happen to agree - "You answer to no one but yourself." (And my government.) Guaranteed, answering to myself is working a LOT better than many believers supposedly answering to a diety. I'll stack my "standard of behavior" against anyone's, any day.

How is it possible that a heathen like me can do ANYTHING right?

The fact that it IS possible, if not common, destroys your logic, quoted above.

WAT

WAT,

A couple of things.

First, there really isnt a Christian position. It is a Christian relaying God's position. I have many positions and beliefs. Many times, they are not what God says they should be. As a Chsitian, I then subject my beliefs to God's standard. So, my beliefs really become irrelevent.

Maybe FH could have written what he wrote a little differently. But the menaing is still clear. Either God defines morality, or man does. If God does, then there are laws, and rules and commandments and morals that cannot be changed by mankind. Thus, the definition of right and wrong.

If man decides, then how is it that one man can say "adultery is wrong" and another say "there is nothing wrong with it?" How can any man or woman say it is wrong. Sure they can say it is wrong for themselves. But they have no right, except the right of getting more people to believe as they do...to impose that moral standard on anyone else.

This is what FH was trying to say.

You want to bring up Christians that do not follow God's tenets. First off, just because someone sleeps in a garage does not make him a Ford. Many people who say they are Christians, really are not. But, even a believer can make mistakes and chose not to follow God's tenets. And they pay for those wrong decisions.

The fact that you can do right has nothing to do with it WAT. Anyone can look at and see that the grass is green. It is green because that particular color's definition is that of being green.

To the Christian, in this illustration (it is just an illustration, folks), the grass is green because God defined that color to be green.

To the non-Christian, the grass can be green (because it is). Or that person may want to call it blue. And without a higher authority defining the definition of the word, then which one is right? The one with history behind them, or more people believing as the do? What right does anyone have in defining morality or judging right or wrong?

All that FH has tried to say is that everyone has morals. And they are based on something. Either their own upbring and internal wants, needs and desires...or they are based on God's desires.

As I said, I have many wants, needs and desires that go against what God says. Most of the time, I chose to follow God's commandments instead of my own judgment. In those times, I have never been failed or made a wrong decision. Where I have failed is when I chose to do things my way.

In His arms.

Here we go again... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />





LOL.TOO funny WAT! Glad to see you back.

One more thing...
It isnt that a person cant chose to do right, no matter who they are. Just like any person can chose to do wrong (even a believer).

What Christians are trying to impart from God is that it isnt you or I are necessarily DOING anything wrong...it is that we ARE wrong. It isnt what we do...it is a state of being.

We were born wrong. Everytime we eat our cereal, we are wrong. Not because the act of eating the cereal is wrong...it is the fact that we were born apart from God. We are stained with sin. We ARE wrong.

Even the most loving, helpful unbeliever is still wrong in God's eyes.

What the believer has that the unbeliever doesnt is someone that overcomes our wrongness. It isnt that we are no longer wrong or do wrong. It is that someone that has NEVER been wrong, someone who is sinless, has made us right. We still did the wrongs. We still were (are) wrong at times. But a believer has someone that bridges that gap and allows us to cross over from being wrong to being right in God's eyes.

So, as I said...anyone can do right. But no one can BE right without Christ. Which means the central question that believers always ask unbelievers..."who do you say Jesus is?" The answer to that question will decide each and every one of our states of being. Whether we want to believe or not.

In His arms.

...and back to the original question.....

I honestly see no pros in converting [color:"blue"] in order to marry [/color] anyone.

Becoming a christian or entering into any other belief system is not something that is external. Rather, it is internal and can not be forced onto somebody or faked.

He could go to church, say the right things and do all the required motions of becoming a christian, but without that true belief in his heart it means nothing.

FIM

Hi MM -

I fully understand the notion that believers have an "aothority" to point to as being, well, the authority and further, that I understand the Chevy in the garage thingy.

Further, further, I understand the minor premise, major conclusion that those without an "authority" figure thus have no "baseline" and thus, are prone to choose as they see fit and are doomed to screw up, doomed to selfishness.

The latter is sorta like the Monty Python "Burn her, she's a witch" logic because she weighs more than a few pebbles and thus, will sink.

My point that I have offered before and that some refuse to acknowledge, is that in the end, possession of "authority" induced morals vs "humanist" morals doesn't seem to be any better. So what good is it to espouse being in a such better "position" when others without that position are no worse off? - and in many, many, many cases, are WAY better off. I'm a better "Christian" than the Dover school board who lied under oath on the stand. Wouldn't you agree?

WAT
--------------
If it's Intelligent Design, how do you explain ear hair, male nipples, things that flap when we run, and no cup holders?

WAT:

It seems these days that Robertson opens his mouth... ...only 2 change feet. I thought "ID" wasn't supposed 2 be an issue of injecting religion in2 science classrooms. If it isn't, why would Robertson essentially "curse" Dover for thwarting this goal? (sidebar: It's not a religious or science issue, it's a SOCIAL issue, so if the IDers want it in school, then by all means discuss it in social studies classrooms).

FH:

"I, myself, faced the same situation. My reaction was really quite simple because I both loved and respected my, at the time, fiance. My reaction was "if I don't get some answers to my questions that I can accept (I was Agnostic at the time), we will NOT be getting married." If you truly love someone, you should be willing to "DIE" for them. Not getting married would be a "form" of death for someone who IS truly in love, just as Christ died for us."

My particular path 2 enlightenment led me from being a Christian, 2 an agnostic, 2 what I would have insisted at the time was an atheist, 2 what I prefer 2 describe myself now as a spiri2al atheologist. But I'm still growing. I'll let you know what comes next, when it's next.

"But to "convert" just to get married and have "ACCESS" to "legitmate sex," is a recipe for future disaster. Once CANNOT fake acceptance of Christ. Let me correct that, one CAN "fake it," but sooner or later the trials, temptations, and tribulations of life will "put that claim to the test." Acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal LORD and SAVIOR is a life-changing event."

What's curious is that I can agree with the concepts here, as they pertain 2 the original 2uestion. Sincerity is the key 2 a successful relationship, particularly a marriage (stating the painfully obvious).

"Let's just take ONE divergent position, as an example of a potential future dilemna.

The Christian position: Thou shalt NOT commit adultery. No "suggestion," a clear and unequivocable COMMAND, an external STANDARD of behavior that a Christian submits their "wants and desires" to no matter what "ups and downs" are ocurring in their marriage.

The Secular position: "If it FEELS good, do it. You answer to no one but yourself and your emotions override all other concerns. It's "okay" to commit adultery because "everyone is doing it." Commitment??? It's no longer "Until death do us part." Now it's "until I no longer FEEL loving toward you.""

That's 2 divergent positions. And while I must fall under the "Secular" category in this artifical either/or characterization, I haven't a fargin' clue what you're talking about. None of it describes my morality, spiri2ality, or integrity in any way, shape or form.

End of discussion.

-ol' 2long

But to "convert" just to get married and have "ACCESS" to "legitmate sex," is a recipe for future disaster. Once CANNOT fake acceptance of Christ. Let me correct that, one CAN "fake it," but sooner or later the trials, temptations, and tribulations of life will "put that claim to the test." Acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal LORD and SAVIOR is a life-changing event."

NO ONE
and certainly no 29 year old male in this day and age NEEDS to get married to have sex...

no kidlets from previous encounters
never been married,...
he's prime meat ...on the market my friends...and he don't need to get on his knees...to get down...if you get my drift....

if he is considering learning about her sect of Christianity...
it is certainly deeper than wanting sex...because it is illogical at his age ...

more in line is his age makes him ripe for starting to realize his own mortality ...and wrastle that a little...

reality is he probably wants to be married..
probably wants to marry her...
and probably admires the traits of her beliefs that manifest in her persona....

for any of us to apply our judgements is ludicrious
to deem more apt to cheat without this or that belief...based soley on not knowing squat about him exacept that right now he is not of the same church as her...

to make these leaps of ill-logic..
dooming and dammmming her and him..

sad sad sad...

people fake the acceptance of Christ all the time..and in his name do horrid horrid little deeds....

I find the judgement of his potential actions sad...and ironic...

all churches welcome and have programs to accept new members...I am sure a huge number of these "converts" come from couples..one a member...another becoming a member based soley on the one that brought them there...

again I say..
God alone knows each persons heart...
and we should support such a choice to embrace something to believe in rather than speak of such huge leaps of forboding and warning...

ARK

Hey MM, up in these parts, God took care of a tyrannical mother. Yup, she was a Christian, went to church every Sunday. She killed her foster son -- hit him and shook him and beat him so hard he drowned in his own vomit. She was charged with manslaughter, and one by one, all of her Christian friends from the Christian church talked about what a good Christian she was to the news media, the lawyers, to anyone who would listen.

Because she is a Christian, God looked over her and apparently had much influence on the judge, who found her innocent of manslaughter (she had smartly turned down a jury trial knowing that they'd nail her to the wall).

I suppose the little boy wasn't a Christian (he was just her foster child, after all). So he didn't deserve to have some higher diety watching over him and he died. Christian mother got off with an aggrevated assault conviction and later on, even got a job at a middle school years later after lying on her job application.

Glad to hear that God takes care of Christians like this. Can you see why I am totally disenchanted with that sect?

If/when I screw up, and being human, that happens once in a while, I am not going to rely on God or Jesus or anyone to bail me out. I will do that on my own, or seek the help of a trusted friend or qualified professional.

WAT, first things first, I owe you an apology for a "cheap shot" and I tender it to you. I was wrong to let emotions rule.




WAT, yes, you are "reading" that wrong. What you have presented there are two "opposites," "extremes" if you will.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery was given to the Israelites, and through them, to all of mankind. It is an absolute. It is an unchanging Commandment (not suggestion) by God.

On the other extreme is the hedonistic view that ANYTHING is okay if it "feels good" to you. In the 60's (my generation) it was the "mantra" to enable "free love" and lowering of sexual morals and mankind to the level of animals reacting out of "heat."

On the one end is God and His commands, unchanging and unwaivering regardless of any society's current moral "tolerance" level. On the other end is secular humanistic reasoning the each person gets to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" for themselves, regardless of what anyone else might think.




As Mortarman said, the "correct" phrasaeology would be "God's position." Christians accept and submit to God's commands, or at least they should. However, NO ONE ever said to hold up ANY man (other than the Son of Man) as God. For the rest of us, saved and unsaved alike, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We are all sinners. Saved sinners (Christians) still continue to live in a fallen sin-natured body and in a sinful world. That is why we are admonished to be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. We all have the ability to make choices. God provides the "yardstick" with which to measure potential "opposing" choices against to see which one honors God and which on does not. But make no mistake about it, we will ALL struggle against sin our entire lives. The issue is not, and never has been, whether or not anyone on earth can lead a "good life." There is ONLY one who IS good, and that is God. The rest of us, no matter how we might try to make "good choices" are sinners. Satan makes a concerted effort to get Christians to "stumble" and fall into sin, because it helps to destroy or hamper their witness. Simply put, Satan knows who God is, who Jesus is, and is still perpetuating the same lie he began with, "God didn't really mean what He said."




It's not that you can't choose to behave in what you might consider to be a "good way," you can. Many do. The point is that all of our "righteousness" is as "fithy rags" to God because we are all sinners and none of us keeps all the commandments perfectly. Is it preferable that you choose to behave "morally" while rejecting God? Sure. I wish that more would do the same. But we wouldn't have to look too far to find where even the "best of us" falls on our face in some areas. That's the point. Toss in society changing the rules and you have a "moving target" as to what "good and evil," "right and wrong," are.



Not hardly does it "destroy" the logic. The Logic has been proven historically time and time again. It IS the moral degradation of a society that is the major contributing factor to a given society's collapse. It is the "Law of Entropy" if you will, for society. That without the constant infusion of God's immutable laws, society devolves, not evolves (to use Evolutionary terminology).

Left to their own base desires, mankind is capable of committing the most heinous acts while attempting to convince others that they are "morally right." History, again, is grim witness to the abuse of power and morality by both clegry and common man, in order to satisfy the wants and desires of man, not to be obedient to God's commands.

One more time, my apology for my uncalled for slander.

GBH, your display of mental prowess is illuminating and laughable. Not worth even commenting upon. Irrelevant and uninformed.