# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  The Source of Morality

## usfan

There are 2, and only 2, possibilities for morality in the human experience. 

1. It is embedded by the Creator. 
2. It is a human construct for manipulation. 

It is a Real Thing, or it is a Lie.

Some naturalists argue that morality evolved among humans, and the successful societies were those that held to a higher moral standard.

But this argument is flawed on many levels.

1. The SOURCE of the morality is still human beings, using lies & deceit to manipulate human behavior. Natural selection can only 'select' those societies that are successful. 
2. If these man made constructs 'caused' the society to be more successful, then the foundation of the society is manipulation and deceit. Morality is not a Real Thing, but a lie for manipulation. 
3. Power and strength are the main factors in the survival and 'success' of any species, including humans. Theft, killing, fraud, and intimidation are virtues in any animal society. It would be also among humans,  if this were a godless universe. Conniving sneaks and bullies would be admired, not despised.
4. It takes power to enforce the human manipulations and constructs of man made morality.  Even now, enforcement of legislated morality (Law), is not voluntary,  but compliance is threatened by force.
5. The 'enlightened' human, that has evolved past needing gods and a felt moral code, would not care about the human constructs of morality, but only use them to manipulate other people.
6. Morality, in a godless  universe, is not and cannot be a 'Real Thing' in the human psyche,  but is a deception,  to manipulate people. 
7. Why would deceptions and manipulations be selected for survival? Strength of mind and body..  force and persuasion.. are the only positive factors in a godless universe. 
8. A steely minded materialist, not a superstitious blubbering fool, would be more likely to survive and prosper in a godless universe of 'might makes right.'  

We observe a universal, consistent moral base, in the human experience. Every culture, region, and ethnic group has a core moral base, that is assumed to be known by all, in the conscience of each person. It is reinforced by the institutions of society, but did not originate with them.  Laws are passed to enforce the morality that already exists.  Only sociopaths, who are considered aberrant humans, seem devoid of this inner sense.  Many atheists boast of their superior morality. They 'feel' the inner law in their conscience.   Why would they boast about being deceived and manipulated? Why would not all 'enlightened' humans not be sociopaths? They have no basis for morality. They know it to be a human construct for manipulation. 

They feel this sense of morality because it is Real.  It is NOT a human construct,  but has been embedded by the Creator. Morality is compelling evidence that the Creator has embedded this sense in human beings. The very clear observation that we humans both feel and submit to the dictates of conscience is evidence that the Creator IS.

_Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place._  ~Frederic Bastiat

----------

Karl (11-19-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-19-2021),Swedgin (11-19-2021),WhoKnows (11-24-2021)

----------


## yeuemmaimai

How we are to behave is clearly defined by the 10 commandments handed down from God to Moses.

----------

Karl (11-19-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-19-2021),S-N-A-F-U (11-27-2021),Swedgin (11-19-2021)

----------


## usfan

> How we are to behave is clearly defined by the 10 commandments handed down from God to Moses.


..and as Paul said in Romans, it is embedded in the conscience. This sense of morality is inherent.  The Law only affirmed what we already feel, in our innermost being.

----------

Karl (11-19-2021),Old Ridge Runner (11-19-2021),OneDumbBlonde (11-19-2021),S-N-A-F-U (11-28-2021),Swedgin (11-19-2021),yeuemmaimai (11-19-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

At what age does this inner law kick in exactly? If you kept a child in a box and didnt allow it to socialize or know anything about the world would this inner law be present when you let it out of the box at say age 10? And what society are you letting it out into? Does that make a difference? Into Aztec society? Or modern socialist Europe? Same embedded morality will be present? 

Young children dont understand how to share do they? They are egocentric. So this inner law just kicks in without socialization? I dont think it does. 

Anyway - Christianity promotes slave morality right? Thats why Hitler hated it. Its why Ragnar Redbear hated it.

I would argue that what you are promoting is in fact communism not evidence for the Creator. Freud said that we are all egocentric at our core right? Id-ridden at birth then we have the ego to please the id within what reality allows then super-ego tempers that with cultural influence on the individuals identity. Basically. Or in other words we are all selfish at our core and out for all we can get so far as reality and our culture allows. This is all quite capitalist. And at the other end you had Fromm who argued that our at our core was not only the need to satisfy our desires but a need to avoid isolation and aloneness. So he is saying that humans are not selfish at the core but communal. He was a Marxist..

 "Human nature is neither a biologically fixed and innate sum total of drives nor is it a lifeless shadow of cultural patterns to which it adapts itself smoothly; it is the product of human evolution, but it also has certain inherent mechanisms and laws. There are certain factors in man's nature which are fixed and unchangeable: the necessity to satisfy the physiologically conditioned drives and the necessity to avoid isolation and moral aloneness."

You Christians are big on community hey. 

And yeah psychopaths dont care about the community - they care about themselves. A psychopath is id-ridden at the core and free of a necessity to avoid aloneness of any kind. So a psychopath would tend to agree with Freud more than Fromm. But whatever political system the psychopath found himself within he would try to use the core moral base of that society - which comes from culture and the socialization of the individuals of that culture - to try to satisfy his id/his pursuit of happiness. Capitalism would be more conducive. 

Anyway - how do you know that psychopaths are not the only enlightened ones? And that the rest of you are retards? Why is it that there is this idea that being a sociopath/psychopath is a bad thing? Wouldnt it be best for a psychopath to run a large company for example? He wouldnt care if he had to fire a heap of people to cut costs. Wouldnt lose sleep over what happens to the people he fires. As long as you pay him enough all he is going to care about it the bottom line right? And doing a good job - so he keeps getting that executive pay. And bonuses. Or a leader of a nation. Wouldnt you need a psychopath? You wouldnt want some bleeding heart right? You would end up with Communism.

edit - But yeah - put a new born baby in a dark box. Put a hole in it to feed it. Dont let it out until its. 10 years old. Hell - lets keep it in there until its 20. No knowledge of the world and no socialization. You think its going to have a conscience? And what exactly is it going to feel bad about? What will make it feel guilty?

----------


## SharetheHedge

Why would God "imbed" a sense of moral standard within created creatures made "in his image and likeness", which SURPASSES, morally, the mercy and compassion that is attributed to HIM, and then expect us to be better than THAT when he knows we CAN'T be? 

_
14 "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."_

----------

patrickt (11-24-2021),Quark (05-24-2022)

----------


## Canadianeye

It's possible to test it all out, but nobody would ever do it. Just developing the test parameters and all the variables would be incredibly difficult and complex.

----------

Quark (05-24-2022),TheOneOnly2 (11-19-2021)

----------


## usfan

> At what age does this inner law kick in exactly? If you kept a child in a box and didnt allow it to socialize or know anything about the world would this inner law be present when you let it out of the box at say age 10? And what society are you letting it out into? Does that make a difference? Into Aztec society? Or modern socialist Europe? Same embedded morality will be present? 
> 
> Young children dont understand how to share do they? They are egocentric. So this inner law just kicks in without socialization? I dont think it does. 
> 
> Anyway - Christianity promotes slave morality right? Thats why Hitler hated it. Its why Ragnar Redbear hated it.
> 
> I would argue that what you are promoting is in fact communism not evidence for the Creator. Freud said that we are all egocentric at our core right? Id-ridden at birth then we have the ego to please the id within what reality allows then super-ego tempers that with cultural influence on the individuals identity. Basically. Or in other words we are all selfish at our core and out for all we can get so far as reality and our culture allows. This is all quite capitalist. And at the other end you had Fromm who argued that our at our core was not only the need to satisfy our desires but a need to avoid isolation and aloneness. So he is saying that humans are not selfish at the core but communal. He was a Marxist..
> 
>  "Human nature is neither a biologically fixed and innate sum total of drives nor is it a lifeless shadow of cultural patterns to which it adapts itself smoothly; it is the product of human evolution, but it also has certain inherent mechanisms and laws. There are certain factors in man's nature which are fixed and unchangeable: the necessity to satisfy the physiologically conditioned drives and the necessity to avoid isolation and moral aloneness."
> ...


What is the SOURCE of morality?

Is it a Real Thing, embedded by the Creator,  or a human construct to manipulate people?

Why submit to a human manipulation scheme?  Why is the conscience ..stung.. by violations?

Why not attempt your experiment, if humans are insignificant accidents in a godless universe? 

Why do you assume the conscience is contrived? You have never experienced any pangs of conscience? 

Why would sociopathy be 'bad!', in a godless universe?  Wouldn't it be a virtue?

When does the conscience 'activate'?  I don't know.  Western civilization (and most other cultures) posit a time during puberty when the awareness of innate right and wrong kicks in.  'Age of accountability', some have called it.  Why is that universal in the human experience,  if it is based on lies and manipulation?

----------


## usfan

> Why would God "imbed" a sense of moral standard within created creatures made "in his image and likeness", which SURPASSES, morally, the mercy and compassion that is attributed to HIM, and then expect us to be better than THAT when he knows we CAN'T be? 
> 
> _
> 14 "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
> I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
> and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.[f]
> 
> 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on Gods mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."_


Why an embedded morality?  I dunno..   :Dontknow:   maybe as a reflection of the Divine?

Your judgement of the Creator is based on prejudice and ignorance.  We do not nor cannot exceed or even meet the purity and perfection of the Almighty.

----------


## Swedgin

The BEST "moral" in a Godless Universe is "Survival of the Fittest."

In which case, theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. are all the BETTER "morals."

Compassion, sharing, honesty, and, even love, are nothing more than 'handicaps.'



Of course the best way to test your analogy is simply to look at our own nation:

--Even as we grow "away" from God, and Faith...well, look at the results in our civilization.

Look at the former Soviet Union, an inherently "godless" culture, where religion was openly attacked by the powers that be.

Now, this does not mean that ALL those wearing the "cloth of religion" are inherently good.

History tells us that MANY who do so, are simply hiding their own detestable natures.

----------

patrickt (11-24-2021),usfan (11-19-2021)

----------


## usfan

> It's possible to test it all out, but nobody would ever do it. Just developing the test parameters and all the variables would be incredibly difficult and complex.


It makes a tantalizing sci fi story..  'Lord of the Flies', and etc.  But most (all?) cultures recognize a time in a person's life when they are expected to know right from wrong.  The very concept of 'right and wrong' implies a sense of it.  Laws are made that have affirmed and enforced that moral code, but the morality came first, before the laws, else they would be fickle, arbitrary decrees that nobody would observe, voluntarily.

Is your conscience a real thing?  ..or a manipulation from human controllers? Why follow it, if it is a manipulative lie?

----------

Swedgin (11-19-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

deleted

----------


## Canadianeye

> The BEST "moral" in a Godless Universe is "Survival of the Fittest."
> 
> In which case, theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. are all the BETTER "morals."
> 
> Compassion, sharing, honesty, and, even love, are nothing more than 'handicaps.'
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the best way to test your analogy is simply to look at our own nation:
> ...


You should look up Russia religion for about 1,000+ years...until the early 1950s or so.

Russia was very religious, up until very recently. That isn't "inherently" godless. Just sayin.

----------


## TheOneOnly2

> What is the SOURCE of morality?
> 
> Is it a Real Thing, embedded by the Creator,  or a human construct to manipulate people?
> 
> Why submit to a human manipulation scheme?  Why is the conscience ..stung.. by violations?
> 
> Why not attempt your experiment, if humans are insignificant accidents in a godless universe? 
> 
> Why do you assume the conscience is contrived? You have never experienced any pangs of conscience? 
> ...


I have experiences pangs. But my overriding morality code developed under Christianity. As a Catholic child when I prepared for Confirmation I took that %$%$ seriously. Every decision that I made after Confirmation went back to my commitment to God. 

But yeah ok - I would agree with the puberty thing. You couldnt apply this core moral base stuff to a child. I agree. But at the same time - the kid has been socialized leading up to puberty. I tend to believe that this socialization would be responsible for the morality of the child. I think that different things would make me pang if I was not a Christian. 

I could say that the Romans felt no pangs when they were Pagans and watching Christians being fed to lions for their hatred of the human race.

----------


## usfan

> The BEST "moral" in a Godless Universe is "Survival of the Fittest."
> 
> In which case, theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. are all the BETTER "morals."
> 
> Compassion, sharing, honesty, and, even love, are nothing more than 'handicaps.'
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the best way to test your analogy is simply to look at our own nation:
> ...


1. Exactly.  'Survival of the fittest ', and 'might makes right' are the ONLY ..virtues.. in a godless universe.   The whole concept of good and bad is meaningless. 
2. Absolutely.  Theft, bullying, intimidation,  fraud, and killing are normal actions for the strong in any animal society.  Self sacrifice, helping the weak, and any selfless acts are stupid and ridiculous,  in an amoral universe of godlessness. 
3. The fruits of amoral godlessness can be easily seen in our culture, as atheistic naturalism is indoctrinated by state sponsored propaganda.  Crime, corruption,  and evil is exploding in a country once reputed to be a moral beacon.
4. The communist experiments did not 'evolve' a new, amoral, yet sacrificing 'new man!'  They only produced greedy, selfish old ones. And with only atheism as a basis, morality is not possible.   There are only human laws, enforced by the powerful.

----------

Swedgin (11-19-2021)

----------


## usfan

> Look at how the Nazis wanted to kill off the retards because they were useless mouths. They had to end the program due to public outrage. What is responsible for this public outrage? Your core moral base? Or slave morality of what was a Christian population? All of the stupid dystopian Nazi future media pushes the idea that a future Nazi society would be cold and fine with killing off the useless mouths like retards and the elderly that could not contribute. And given enough time I think this would have been possible. But you cannot turn an entire population into a master morality society from a slave morality society overnight. Its going to take longer than a few years. Especially if Christianity is their religion. 
> 
> I saw some Republican politician on Fox News once and he was crapping on about how he had a retard son and how he had the retard son come in to work with him and lick stamps. He was pushing some jobs for retards stuff or something. I cant remember exactly. Special Olympics type %$%$. And to me this sounded horrific. This retard lives to come to work with his father to lick stamps? This is giving his son a sense of self worth? Jesus Christ. If the son wasnt a retard he would ask someone to kill him right? To end his misery. And the thing is that most retards are self aware enough to know that they do not and cannot have the quality of life that normal people enjoy. Even a spastic. Back in the day you sent a spastic to a spastic school. But now the idea is to put them with 'mainstream' children but in a special education section of the school.. And these special needs children are not encouraged to interact normally with the 'mainstream; children. Not without planning or supervision. So its kind of like putting a cake in front of these kids but telling them they cant eat any of it. They can see it but cant taste it. Its sick. And who are we even doing this stuff for? Is the Special Olympics for the retards or for us? Why are we celebrating retards? As if being a retard is a good thing. Its not a good thing. Is it a good thing to be a runt? A midget? An animal would eat a midget baby right? Or reject it. Charlottes Web.. Its bullcrap. The man with master morality will end the misery at the source. The man with slave morality will take his retarded son to work and have it lick stamps. Ha. Cheer on the retards at the Special Olympics. Who is right? Isnt it better to have the courage to make the hard decisions? If old yeller has rabies you shoot the %$%$ing thing. You think that a master race is a bad thing? You really do hate evolution hey. No survival of the fittest for Christians. You push for devolution. Right? Ha.


I would say you rightly conclude the implications of your beliefs.  Amoral godlessness would not promote any compassion or help for the weak, aged, or flawed, just as the jungle doesn't.

Most of your cronies,  however, pretend to ache with compassion for these, but without a philosophical basis.

Edit:  i see you deleted this post..  why?  Not PC?  You are honest in following the implications of your philosophical foundation.  Atheistic naturalism produces these conclusions exactly.  It is refreshing to see someone who doesn't bob and weave, trying to claim 'moral superiority!', while immersed in an atheistic worldview.

----------

TheOneOnly2 (11-19-2021)

----------


## Karl

> There are 2, and only 2, possibilities for morality in the human experience. 
> 
> 1. It is embedded by the Creator. 
> 2. It is a human construct for manipulation. 
> 
> It is a Real Thing, or it is a Lie.
> 
> Some naturalists argue that morality evolved among humans, and the successful societies were those that held to a higher moral standard.
> 
> ...


Methinks somebody has a Case of that "Middle Class" MORALTY..

----------


## Karl

....

----------


## usfan

> You should look up Russia religion for about 1,000+ years...until the early 1950s or so.
> 
> Russia was very religious, up until very recently. That isn't "inherently" godless. Just sayin.


Russian communism was 'inherently godless', not the monarchy.  They threw off the shackles of human oppression masked in religious lingo, for one masked in pseudoscientific lingo.

----------


## Swedgin

> You should look up Russia religion for about 1,000+ years...until the early 1950s or so.
> 
> Russia was very religious, up until very recently. That isn't "inherently" godless. Just sayin.



Soviet Union, not "Russia" in general, throughout history.

The Soviet Union (as with most Socialist/Communist systems) was VERY hard on religion, and people of faith.

For a very basic and simple reason:  Those systems all but require that GOVERNMENT be THE center of all things for their citizens.  Government, must basically replace ALL gods.

IF not, then their systems start to fail.....

----------

usfan (05-25-2022)

----------


## Canadianeye

> It makes a tantalizing sci fi story..  'Lord of the Flies', and etc.  But most (all?) cultures recognize a time in a person's life when they are expected to know right from wrong.  The very concept of 'right and wrong' implies a sense of it.  Laws are made that have affirmed and enforced that moral code, but the morality came first, before the laws, else they would be fickle, arbitrary decrees that nobody would observe, voluntarily.
> 
> Is your conscience a real thing?  ..or a manipulation from human controllers? Why follow it, if it is a manipulative lie?


You lie every day. You even conjure up intricate ways to lie to yourself. Numerous times, as does the person and/or persons you lie to numerous times a day - and - you have your entire life as have they.

I'm okay with the fact that you will consider that as sin, which is operating, and a deity supplied conscience is a tool for recognition of that sin.

I obviously don't agree with that. To each their own.

----------


## Swedgin

usfan has never lied to me.

----------

usfan (11-20-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Soviet Union, not "Russia" in general, throughout history.
> 
> The Soviet Union (as with most Socialist/Communist systems) was VERY hard on religion, and people of faith.
> 
> For a very basic and simple reason:  Those systems all but require that GOVERNMENT be THE center of all things for their citizens.  Government, must basically replace ALL gods.
> 
> IF not, then their systems start to fail.....


Yes. I've had to make the same distinction in debates with progs who try to blame all sorts of atrocities only on religions. The atheistic and non religious regimes are as responsible as any religion.... which causes me to conclude that wars and atrocities have- at their root - nothing to do with religion.  Religion is nothing more than a convenient battle cry that could be replaced with "FOR MOM AND APPLE PIE" or "FOR BLUE EYED PEOPLE" or "FOR PEOPLE WHO WIPE WITH THEIR LEFT HAND", etc.


Off topic probably.. sorry.

----------

Swedgin (11-19-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> The BEST "moral" in a Godless Universe is "Survival of the Fittest."
> 
> In which case, theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. are all the BETTER "morals."


The organisms that have the best fit to the conditions they find themselves in have better breeding success than those who do not. This has nothing to do with theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, or genocide.

----------


## Gator Monroe

The Torah

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> The organisms that have the best fit to the conditions they find themselves in have better breeding success than those who do not. This has nothing to do with theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, or genocide.


Guess which sectors of people in the US are breeding the most.

----------


## Gator Monroe

> Guess which sectors of people in the US are breeding the most.


Hmong ? Pacific Islanders ?? Brazilians ???

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Guess which sectors of people in the US are breeding the most.


The ones who best fit the circumstances, of course.

----------


## Swedgin

My father once told me that "All wars are based on Religion."

And, for many years, I was in agreement.

But, after pouring through History (perhaps my favorite subject!), I have come to the conclusion that Wars are basically fought over TWO things, which are the flip side of each other:  POWER and MONEY (Resources).

RELIGION is used as a cover or, "excuse," in most cases.

Examples:

--The Roman conquests were 100% 'honest.'  They had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, or morals.  Simply conquest and more denarii!

--The ISLAMIC conquests, were largely based on Religion, although, again...that may have simply been Mohammed's "cover."  What can not be denied, is that the Muslim Armies and Kingdoms became fabulously wealthy from their "Jihads..."

--The Mongols did not pretend.  When they came to your city, they had ONE purpose, and ONE purpose only....

--In all those European wars over Religion:  Did they not involve the CATHOLIC Church, which just happened to be one of THE most powerful institutions in the Western World at the time?


While the PEOPLE may fight and die for their Faith...I contend that FAITH is NOT the typical reason human beings go to war.

The causes of war are far more basic, and mundane, whether they be two tribes, two empires, or two faiths....

----------

usfan (11-19-2021),WhoKnows (11-24-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> How we are to behave is clearly defined by the 10 commandments handed down from God to Moses.



You shall have no other gods before Me.You shall make no idols.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.Keep the Sabbath day holy.Honor your father and your mother.You shall not murder.You shall not commit adultery.You shall not steal.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.You shall not covet.


God wants to be your first god. That covers 1-4.

The rest are rules to help is live together in groups.

----------


## SharetheHedge

> Why an embedded morality?  I dunno..    maybe as a reflection of the Divine?
> 
> Your judgement of the Creator is based on prejudice and ignorance.  We do not nor cannot exceed or even meet the purity and perfection of the Almighty.



Your only tactic is to try and PROHIBIT logical investigation of the subject - like the Biden administration would have us trust and obey that their multi-trillion $ spending bill is going to cost us ZERO DOLLARS, while their claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. 


Let's put this statement to the test...


_
20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h]__21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
_

The "right" alluded to here, is the right of one with the absolute power to do it - it is NOT a MORAL right. The obvious failure of supposing this is God's moral right is in the analogy itself. The "pottery" is NOT a living, sentient being. A potter has the moral right to disregard or destroy any pottery he might make, because it's ONLY pottery, per the analogy. That analogy does NOT depict the actual situation. 


The preceeding verses make it even clearer...


_
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden._


He hardens who he wants to harden, and what is the real PURPOSE of all this? "That his name be proclaimed in all the earth". Does that not sound self-centered? Does any of this reflect the characteristics of love enumerated in 1Cor.13? "Love" would NOT pick and choose who to have mercy on, and love does not even take into account a WRONG suffered. 

What would the purity and perfection of an omnipotent God be BASED on? How would God be thought of as perfect and pure before there was anyone to compare him to? What should God be praised for if he is what he is by NATURE, and not what by what he ACHIEVED? And why would a perfectly pure being WANT to be praised if he is by nature self-giving and not self-GETTING? In short, if there is ANYTHING in this whole plan for the benefit or enjoyment of God, it doesn't measure up to "love" on his part. Love is ENTIRELY SELF-GIVING.

Could it be that what we are seeing, in the bible, is MAN'S conceptualization of the characteristics a deity might possess, and that is the reason they inevidably seem to contradict each other?

----------

MisterVeritis (11-19-2021)

----------


## yeuemmaimai

> You shall have no other gods before Me.You shall make no idols.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.Keep the Sabbath day holy.Honor your father and your mother.You shall not murder.You shall not commit adultery.You shall not steal.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.You shall not covet.
> 
> 
> God wants to be your first god. That covers 1-4.
> 
> The rest are rules to help is live together in groups.


Those are all you need to live a upright life. God made 10 laws, people cannot behave so they get the brilliant idea of making MORE laws.

----------


## SharetheHedge

> You shall have no other gods before Me.You shall make no idols.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.Keep the Sabbath day holy.Honor your father and your mother.You shall not murder.You shall not commit adultery.You shall not steal.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.You shall not covet.
> 
> 
> God wants to be your first god. That covers 1-4.
> 
> The rest are rules to help is live together in groups.



And how is #4 even RELEVANT to us today?

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Those are all you need to live a upright life. God made 10 laws, people cannot behave so they get the brilliant idea of making MORE laws.


God didn't make those. Men did.

----------

WhoKnows (11-24-2021)

----------


## TheOneOnly2

> I would say you rightly conclude the implications of your beliefs.  Amoral godlessness would not promote any compassion or help for the weak, aged, or flawed, just as the jungle doesn't.
> 
> Most of your cronies,  however, pretend to ache with compassion for these, but without a philosophical basis.
> 
> Edit:  i see you deleted this post..  why?  Not PC?  You are honest in following the implications of your philosophical foundation.  Atheistic naturalism produces these conclusions exactly.  It is refreshing to see someone who doesn't bob and weave, trying to claim 'moral superiority!', while immersed in an atheistic worldview.


Ha. 

Well. If I speak my truth people tend to think that Im a terrible person. I do not care what people think of me unless I want something from them but .... people get sensitive about the retard stuff. I had an edit after this where I said that a spastic should come to the conclusion that he should kill himself. I thought that maybe I was going a bit far and that mods might ban me. I dont want that because Im trying to make contact with US intelligence through this site and convince them to give me a job. HA. CIA/NSA wouldnt want bleeding hearts right?

----------


## TheOneOnly2

> It's possible to test it all out, but nobody would ever do it. Just developing the test parameters and all the variables would be incredibly difficult and complex.


The Forbidden Experiment. 

I am sure that one of my childrens services teachers mentioned a developmentalist that kept a child in a box but after looking all I can find is the Skinner Box thing. Maybe thats what she was talking about. 

Apparently Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II did an experiment with infants that were raised in isolation to see if there was a natural language. 

The closest thing I can find to the Forbidden Experiment is the Genie Wiley story. 

0-genie-feral-wild-child.jpg

There seems to be a lot of children that were raised by animals though. 

Harlows 'Pit of Dispair' experiment is interesting. His Iron Maiden feeding thing was interesting as well. 

You know - in a lot of cultures 'controlled crying' would be considered child abuse/neglect. 

Anyway - have you seen the movie Wild Child ( 2008 )? Im a pretty big Emma Roberts fan.

edit - Oh yeah. How about that Turpin family thing. Did you see those chicks in the media the other day? Diane Sawyer interview. Those girls didnt know what a sidewalk was. Or what a police person was. Were not allowed to shower. Etc etc. They did have passes to Disneyland though... Weird. These Christians and their home schooling.... Gotta keep a better eye on them hey.

Jordan-Turpin-5-Things-vertical.jpg

Holy %$%$ right? They had this girl chained to a bed.





They had youtube apparently. Were Justin Bieber fans. went to Disneyland regularly. Didnt know what a sidewalk was... Weird.

Had a phone. But had to climb out a window to call police from a payphone. No knowledge of outside world. Didnt know what a sidewalk was. HA. 

Christian home schoolers. Time to ban them.




> ESCAPING HELL *Moment I saw outside world for first time when I escaped parents who chained up kids – I’d never seen sidewalk before*


Moment I saw outside world for first time when I escaped parents who chained up kids - I'd never seen sidewalk before (the-sun.com)



906804_1.jpg

HA! Google 'Turpin Conspiracy'. Nothing. Couple reddit threads.

----------

Canadianeye (11-20-2021)

----------


## SharetheHedge

> usfan has never lied to me.



Not to me either! (I'm even beginning to suspect it was really usfan, not GW, who chopped down the cherry tree and told his father the truth about it)  :Cool20:

----------

usfan (11-20-2021)

----------


## usfan

By saying 'man made morality is a lie!', exposes it as a human manipulation,  to control people.  If there is no embedded standard of absolute morality   THEN it can only be a made up agenda of control. 

For example.  In a godless universe, stealing food, a mate, or anything is not wrong.  It is a virtue in all other animal societies.  So the only explanation is that some human, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago, decided, arbitrarily, to invoke a fearmongering superstition, to stop people from stealing from him.  It worked, and this society thrived (allegedly). Natural selection 'selected' this society, and every subsequent generation promoted the same superstition of angry gods, who didn't like stealing.

But, if in fact this is a godless universe,  THEN there are no 'angry gods', and stealing is not wrong.  The morality that was contrived is based on a lie.

'Enlightened' people,  who have overcome these primal superstitions, would not be controlled by this lie, but would realized that avoiding theft is NOT an inherent duty to a Creator, but a human construct for manipulation. They would throw off these stupid, arbitrary mandates, and live freely.  Natural selection would choose them, as more intelligent, clear thinking, advanced beings, that are not manipulated by superstitions.  They would steal easily, and only avoid stronger entities who could hurt them.

Is that what we observe?  No.  Atheistic societies do not throw off all sense of morality,  but APPEAL to an inner moral code to manipulate people. 

  'From each according to his ability;  To each according to his need..'

Marxist countries forbid theft, and many things that just happen to be the same as the universal standards of morality found in EVERY society.  They attempt to 'evolve' a New man, who would altruistically sacrifice for the collective.  Communist regimes murdered millions,  trying to help evolution 'evolve' this New man.  But the philosophical basis is  convoluted, and humans know it.  Why work hard, for others? If  this is a godless universe, better to steal whatever i want to advance my own survival and prospects for reproduction. There are no angry gods to placate, and no reason to slave away for the benefit of other greedy, selfish people.  And that is rampant in those societies, and theft is normalized.

This basic flaw is why Marxism does not, and cannot work.  They appeal to 'morality!', with no basis.

The very FACT, that human beings automatically observe, feel, and follow (imperfectly), this sense of absolute morality is compelling evidence that the Creator IS. He has embedded these standards within us, with a sensitive conscience that stings us, with real pain, when we violate it.  Repeated violations can desensitize the conscience,  and turn a person into a criminal or amoral sociopath. But for most, the conscience is real, and they follow it, with rare violations,  EVEN if they claim amorality as their belief...  EVEN if they have been indoctrinated into atheistic naturalism as their worldview. 

So where is the lie?  It is not the instinctive observation of an embedded moral code, it is the LIE of atheistic naturalism,  mandated by state propaganda centers, to deceive people and divide them from their Maker.  We KNOW morality is Real, and follow our consciences, NOT the convoluted madness of amoral anarchy, that is the logical conclusion of atheistic naturalism.

----------


## usfan

> Ha. 
> 
> Well. If I speak my truth people tend to think that Im a terrible person. I do not care what people think of me unless I want something from them but .... people get sensitive about the retard stuff. I had an edit after this where I said that a spastic should come to the conclusion that he should kill himself. I thought that maybe I was going a bit far and that mods might ban me. I dont want that because Im trying to make contact with US intelligence through this site and convince them to give me a job. HA. CIA/NSA wouldnt want bleeding hearts right?


I think people should realize and follow the logical conclusions of their beliefs.  Only a stupid fool would submit to manipulators with an agenda. In a godless universe,  'moral absolutes!', can only be a made up human manipulation. Why follow these superstitions?

Why give aid to weak or flawed people?  They are not 'eternal souls, created in the image of God', but mere animals..  accidents of nature in a temporary, meaningless environment.

----------


## usfan

> My father once told me that "All wars are based on Religion."
> 
> And, for many years, I was in agreement.
> 
> But, after pouring through History (perhaps my favorite subject!), I have come to the conclusion that Wars are basically fought over TWO things, which are the flip side of each other:  POWER and MONEY (Resources).
> 
> RELIGION is used as a cover or, "excuse," in most cases.
> 
> Examples:
> ...


Good points.  It is part of the ..Indoctrination.. to blame 'Religion!!'  (eek!!), as the opiate of the masses, and that 'Science!', will free us, and bring an era of love, peace, and harmony.

..right..  as if 'Science!' has any moral teaching ability.  All it teaches us is the law of the jungle, and might makes right.

No, wars and human aggression is not the fault of 'religion!!', but is common to humanity.  Atheistic societies are as brutal (or more so) than any societies based on theistic moral absolutes.

----------

Swedgin (11-24-2021)

----------


## yeuemmaimai

> God didn't make those. Men did.


yeah sure, that's why the very first one states Thou shalt not have any other gods before me...

----------


## MisterVeritis

> yeah sure, that's why the very first one states Thou shalt not have any other gods before me...


Yep. The Hebrew god's supporters wanted their god to be first in line for worship. Notice that in this story god doesn't say he is the only god.

----------


## usfan

> Yep. The Hebrew god's supporters wanted their god to be first in line for worship. Notice that in this story god doesn't say he is the only god.


It seems to me you just want to bait people into your 'Atheists vs Christians!', flame war.  You ignore the topic, whatever it is, and parrot your obsession:

1. I don't believe in your god.
2. There is no evidence for your god.
3. Your god is petty, unjust, and mean.
4. I hate your god.

This is fine and well, and you can believe whatever you want.  But to constantly bait people, disrupt the threads, and repeat the same lame assertions over and over is lame and tiresome.

Since you are one of the best baiters, here, perhaps you should change you handle from 'misterV', to 'masterB', for master Baiter.   :Big Grin: 

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## usfan

Back to the topic.

How can there be any 'value judgement',  in a godless universe?   Why would Hitler be 'bad!', and Mother Theresa be 'good!', when there is nothing inherently good or bad?  They are subjective opinions, not absolutes. 

How can you call a line 'crooked!', unless you have a concept of straight?

I observe even atheists,  allegedly disbelieving in embedded morality, stand in moral outrage over a perceived injustice,  especially if they were the wronged party.  How can this be?  A truly amoral universe would have no logical basis for 'righteous indignation', or other expressions of morality.  Only might makes right. If you want to kill some undesirables or deplorables,  why not?  ..unless they kill you, first.  So striking first, in surprise, and ruthlessly would be a virtue, in a godless universe.  There would be no pesky moral absolutes to restrain you.

Why would stealing be 'wrong!!' among humans,  when it is a virtue in every animal society?   Humans do it, anyway, and weave justifications to soothe their guilty consciences.  Why bother?  Why not just admit that stealing is good and aids your survival?   Why call it 'bad!!'?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Back to the topic.
> 
> How can there be any 'value judgement',  in a godless universe?   Why would Hitler be 'bad!', and Mother Theresa be 'good!', when there is nothing inherently good or bad?  They are subjective opinions, not absolutes. 
> 
> How can you call a line 'crooked!', unless you have a concept of straight?
> 
> I observe even atheists,  allegedly disbelieving in embedded morality, stand in moral outrage over a perceived injustice,  especially if they were the wronged party.  How can this be?  A truly amoral universe would have no logical basis for 'righteous indignation', or other expressions of morality.  Only might makes right. If you want to kill some undesirables or deplorables,  why not?  ..unless they kill you, first.  So striking first, in surprise, and ruthlessly would be a virtue, in a godless universe.  There would be no pesky moral absolutes to restrain you.
> 
> Why would stealing be 'wrong!!' among humans,  when it is a virtue in every animal society?   Humans do it, anyway, and weave justifications to soothe their guilty consciences.  Why bother?  Why not just admit that stealing is good and aids your survival?   Why call it 'bad!!'?


Good set of questions. (And issues).

Here's my personal view. (YMMV and all that).

There is such a thing as empathy. Some people have it, some don't - or let's say, some have more than others.

The ruthless unfeeling "logical" path through life is instantiated in things like "Machiavellian" philosophies, which often translate into the less Machiavellian real world in interesting ways (like Robert Greene's 48 Rules of Power, which was originally intended for the corporate world).

We are born with whatever "brain wiring" we happen to have. If you put 100 kids in a room and show them a snake eating a mouse for dinner, ten of them will bust out crying or run screaming from the room, ten of them will say "wow, cool" and want to see it again, and maybe half will consider it's just nature taking its course.

"Most" people, if they witness a murder close up, will intuitively understand that it's "bad".

"Most" people, will actually get physically ill the first time it happens. It's kind of a reflex, it's pre-wired.

However there are psychopaths and all manner of other brain constructions, that will be indifferent.

Because they lack empathy. There is a specific brain pathway that's involved, from the amygdala to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. It's completely dysfunctional in psychopaths, the brain scans prove it. And, this pathway is affected by trauma in childhood (especially physical trauma and brain trauma like anoxia), so just because you're born with the capability to be empathic doesn't mean you're going to end up that way.

The brain pathway mediates the "emotional content of social interactions". Psychopaths have difficulty verbalizing "only" those feelings associated with people, and there is also a specific lexical deficit related only to words with social-emotional content.

----------


## SharetheHedge

> Since you are one of the best baiters here, perhaps you should change you handle from 'misterV', to 'masterB', for master Baiter.



How did I know that was coming? (no pun intended  :Rolleyes20: )

----------


## Canadianeye

> How did I know that was coming? (no pun intended )


Just a shot in the dark?

----------

usfan (11-24-2021)

----------


## SharetheHedge

> Just a shot in the dark?



 :Geez: I fear I've started something more off-topic than usual...

----------

MisterVeritis (11-24-2021),usfan (11-24-2021)

----------


## patrickt

> The BEST "moral" in a Godless Universe is "Survival of the Fittest."
> 
> In which case, theft, brutality, lies, murder, slavery, genocide, etc. are all the BETTER "morals."
> 
> Compassion, sharing, honesty, and, even love, are nothing more than 'handicaps.'
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the best way to test your analogy is simply to look at our own nation:
> ...


Then all people who did not believe in your magical god were simply survival of the fittest. That would be me so I am living proof that you statement is bigoted nonsense. And, churches that supported slavery, murder, theft, and even genocide would be evidence of the opposite.

The OP is nonsense, too, when it posits only two options, one the writer supports and one that's worded so no one would support it. Typical behavior for evil fanatics who can murder, commit genocide, steal and commit any other violent act for their faith. The key isn't the religion, it's fanaticism.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-24-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

What I find interesting is that if God is the basis of all morality, why is He so amoral? Sounds like if you break it down, He imposes His ideals, but isn't subject to them, which makes it the epitome of not only hypocrisy, but a means to control. So whether morals are a human construct, or something given to us by a higher power, the end game is ultimately the same. Control. 

I do not believe that "God" in any iteration, gives us "morality". "Morality" is a societal construct which not only constantly evolves, but is also society dependent. 

We hear of the "nature vs. nurture" ideologies in Psychology. Religion doesn't factor into that at all, if memory serves. I'm not a Psychologist, and studied this many years ago, but don't remember any "God" coming into the picture.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-24-2021),SharetheHedge (11-24-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

_Yep. The Hebrew god's supporters wanted their god to be first in line for worship. Notice that in this story god doesn't say he is the only god._



> It seems to me you just want to bait people into your 'Atheists vs Christians!', flame war.  You ignore the topic, whatever it is, and parrot your obsession:
> 
> 1. I don't believe in your god.
> 2. There is no evidence for your god.
> 3. Your god is petty, unjust, and mean.
> 4. I hate your god.
> 
> This is fine and well, and you can believe whatever you want.  But to constantly bait people, disrupt the threads, and repeat the same lame assertions over and over is lame and tiresome.
> Since you are one of the best baiters, here, perhaps you should change you handle from 'misterV', to 'masterB', for master Baiter.


Have you ever noticed I remain polite with you?

It is true there is no evidence supporting the existence of any gods, not just yours. Your stories, not mine indicate the god you believe in is a monster. That is not my doing. It is yours.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Back to the topic.
> 
> How can there be any 'value judgement',  in a godless universe?   Why would Hitler be 'bad!', and Mother Theresa be 'good!', when there is nothing inherently good or bad?  They are subjective opinions, not absolutes. 
> 
> How can you call a line 'crooked!', unless you have a concept of straight?
> 
> I observe even atheists,  allegedly disbelieving in embedded morality, stand in moral outrage over a perceived injustice,  especially if they were the wronged party.  How can this be?  A truly amoral universe would have no logical basis for 'righteous indignation', or other expressions of morality.  Only might makes right. If you want to kill some undesirables or deplorables,  why not?  ..unless they kill you, first.  So striking first, in surprise, and ruthlessly would be a virtue, in a godless universe.  There would be no pesky moral absolutes to restrain you.
> 
> Why would stealing be 'wrong!!' among humans,  when it is a virtue in every animal society?   Humans do it, anyway, and weave justifications to soothe their guilty consciences.  Why bother?  Why not just admit that stealing is good and aids your survival?   Why call it 'bad!!'?


Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery.

----------

patrickt (11-24-2021),WhoKnows (11-24-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery.


Which is what a civilized society IS. It has nothing to do with belief in a God. Some people may look to a God for guidance, but there is nothing in a God that "gives". If you truly believe that, then you agree that you have no free will, and everything is preordained. Which is contrary to the belief that a God gives us free will, to decide on our own.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-24-2021),patrickt (11-24-2021)

----------


## SharetheHedge

> What I find interesting is that if God is the basis of all morality, why is He so amoral? Sounds like if you break it down, He imposes His ideals, but isn't subject to them, which makes it the epitome of not only hypocrisy, but a means to control. So whether morals are a human construct, or something given to us by a higher power, the end game is ultimately the same. Control. 
> 
> I do not believe that "God" in any iteration, gives us "morality". "Morality" is a societal construct which not only constantly evolves, but is also society dependent. 
> 
> We hear of the "nature vs. nurture" ideologies in Psychology. Religion doesn't factor into that at all, if memory serves. I'm not a Psychologist, and studied this many years ago, but don't remember any "God" coming into the picture.



The God of the Hebrews (OT) was fearful and vindictive, even pummelling the hell out of his "chosen people" on multiple occasions.

The Greco-Roman version of the Hebrew God (NT) makes an effort to be more loving and even sacrificial, but ultimately his plan of salvation still falls short of completely alleviating ALL the judgement, and even there ends with a "lake of fire" for, arguably, MOST people who have ever lived.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-24-2021),patrickt (11-24-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

Sigh.

The source of morality is brain wiring. Easy peasy.

And God created all human beings, even psychopaths.

----------


## patrickt

> Sigh.
> 
> The source of morality is brain wiring. Easy peasy.
> 
> And God created all human beings, even psychopaths.


My sister and I were created by John and Arbilee. And then, when I married, JoAnne and I created Sean and Adrianne. Around 385,000 babies are born each day. No god is involved.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-25-2021),WhoKnows (11-25-2021)

----------


## Rutabaga

morality is subjective.

see honor killings or abortion.

----------


## nonsqtr

> morality is subjective.
> 
> see honor killings or abortion.


Hm. I wouldn't go "quite" that far. Subjective implies arbitrary, and I don't think morality is arbitrary. ("In most cases").

I think everyone finds an equilibrium, a morality that makes sense to them, based on their brain construction and experience.

In medicine (and pop psychology) there is an expression called "neurotypical", and people who are neurotypical and develop socially in a normal way tend to hover/revolve around similar moralities.

----------

patrickt (11-25-2021)

----------


## patrickt

> morality is subjective.
> 
> see honor killings or abortion.


I don't think it is but it is subject to rationalization. "I can explain...." Three union cops approached me one night and one handed me a letter. "Everyone is signing this." I read it and it was asking the chief to change the department rules so officers could get free meals or half-price meals in restaurants. I let the letter fall and said, "Not everyone. I won't sign it. It's wrong."

The youngest union goon said, "I can explain it." I held up my hand and said, "For twenty years I've listened to murderers and rapists and child abusers and pedophiles explain it. Doesn't make it right."

I was amazed at how often the "explanations" were based on the Bible.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-25-2021)

----------


## usfan

> Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery.


Those 'created' rules are just human constructs,  to manipulate people.  There is no basis for morality, in a godless universe. You choose what you want, i choose mine.  Nobody can say. 'My values are 'better' than yours!', because there is no standard of 'better'.

Amorality is the only logical conclusion of a godless universe. 

It is subjective, arbitrary, and based only on the decrees of whomever has the power to enforce THEIR opinions on everyone else. 

If Hitler says 'Kill the Jews!',  then that is the moral standard,  since he has the power.  If the supreme court says, 'slaves are property!', or 'unborn babies can be killed, legally!', then that is the standard, and nobody has any basis to dispute it.  Only if someone can gain power themselves,  and issue THEIR arbitrary standards,  can the values of a culture change.   But they are fickle, arbitrary, and without any absolute basis, in a godless universe.   ONLY if there is a Creator/God,  Who embedded a Real moral standard in humanity,  AND established a conscience as a 'moral compass', can there be any appeal to an inherent, absolute morality.

----------


## usfan

> Which is what a civilized society IS. It has nothing to do with belief in a God. Some people may look to a God for guidance, but there is nothing in a God that "gives". If you truly believe that, then you agree that you have no free will, and everything is preordained. Which is contrary to the belief that a God gives us free will, to decide on our own.


Time and man made rules cannot make fickle human decrees into absolute morality.  

A godless universe can has no basis for 'good!', or 'bad!'  Survival and reproduction are the only overriding factors, in a world ruled by natural selection,  but whether a species survives or not doesn't matter. The universe spins on, indifferent to death, life, or moral outrage from deluded animals who pretend their lives matter.

----------


## usfan

> Sigh.
> 
> The source of morality is brain wiring. Easy peasy.
> 
> And God created all human beings, even psychopaths.


What (no Who, in a godless universe), 'hard wired' fickle human decrees into humanity?   How? Why?  If there was no Creator/God to embed a conscience. THEN.. moralizing is just human manipulation,  to control people.

Why would natural selection 'hard wire' a delusion into humanity?   Why would an enlightened person,  free from superstition and human manipulation,  submit willingly to such arbitrary controls?

----------


## usfan

> My sister and I were created by John and Arbilee. And then, when I married, JoAnne and I created Sean and Adrianne. Around 385,000 babies are born each day. No god is involved.





> I don't think it is but it is subject to rationalization. "I can explain...." Three union cops approached me one night and one handed me a letter. "Everyone is signing this." I read it and it was asking the chief to change the department rules so officers could get free meals or half-price meals in restaurants. I let the letter fall and said, "Not everyone. I won't sign it. It's wrong."
> 
> The youngest union goon said, "I can explain it." I held up my hand and said, "For twenty years I've listened to murderers and rapists and child abusers and pedophiles explain it. Doesn't make it right."
> 
> I was amazed at how often the "explanations" were based on the Bible.


What standard is there, to appeal to 'right!', in your godless universe?   Why not get free stuff, if you can?  Why not use your power to improve your position and standing, in the social structure?  If there are no gods to impose their arbitrary decrees, so why submit to human's arbitrary decrees?

If there is only man made laws, enforced by people with guns, how can you judge any legal edict as 'wrong!'?  If the chief can decree 'free lunch!', why not take it?  Why would it be 'wrong!', and by what overriding standard can you condemn any man made laws? Abortion? Redistribution?  Slavery?

A godless universe has no basis for absolute morality.  There are only arbitrary man made constructs,  to manipulate people.

----------


## usfan

> Good set of questions. (And issues).
> 
> Here's my personal view. (YMMV and all that).
> 
> There is such a thing as empathy. Some people have it, some don't - or let's say, some have more than others.
> 
> The ruthless unfeeling "logical" path through life is instantiated in things like "Machiavellian" philosophies, which often translate into the less Machiavellian real world in interesting ways (like Robert Greene's 48 Rules of Power, which was originally intended for the corporate world).
> 
> We are born with whatever "brain wiring" we happen to have. If you put 100 kids in a room and show them a snake eating a mouse for dinner, ten of them will bust out crying or run screaming from the room, ten of them will say "wow, cool" and want to see it again, and maybe half will consider it's just nature taking its course.
> ...


Empathy is different from an embedded morality.   It warrants a deeper response, and perhaps another thread, to differentiate between the absolute morality embedded in the human conscience,  and the emotion of empathy, that influences some people's responses. 

Empathy can be .. managed.. to accomplish a moral task.  A doctor,  for example,  overcomes empathy in surgery, to fix someone.   A cop is not motivated by empathy,  but justice, when he shoots a perp.

'Empathy!', has become the progressive catch all, for moral standards,  but it is fickle, and gets tired.  Even altruistic people lose their empathy, and respond from duty, conscience,  and the overriding sense of right and wrong, aka, morality. 

Morality is a much higher, more powerful motivation than empathy, which varies from individual to individual,  and can even conflict with morality.

----------

nonsqtr (11-25-2021)

----------


## usfan

Nobody wants to address this?

_Why would stealing be 'wrong!!' among humans, when it is a virtue in every animal society? Humans do it, anyway, and weave justifications to soothe their guilty consciences. Why bother? Why not just admit that stealing is good and aids your survival? Why call it 'bad!!_'?

Why would you even have, 'a guilty conscience?'

..just assert, 'I is moral!!  There is no god, but i follow a moral compass!'?

Why?  Why not steal, or kill, if you can get away with it?  Lie, bang the neighbor,  do whatever you want.  Why be a dupe to man made manipulation?

----------


## SharetheHedge

> Those 'created' rules are just human constructs,  to manipulate people.  There is no basis for morality, in a godless universe. You choose what you want, i choose mine.  Nobody can say. 'My values are 'better' than yours!', because there is no standard of 'better'.
> 
> Amorality is the only logical conclusion of a godless universe. 
> 
> It is subjective, arbitrary, and based only on the decrees of whomever has the power to enforce THEIR opinions on everyone else. 
> 
> If Hitler says 'Kill the Jews!',  then that is the moral standard,  since he has the power.  If the supreme court says, 'slaves are property!', or 'unborn babies can be killed, legally!', then that is the standard, and nobody has any basis to dispute it.  Only if someone can gain power themselves,  and issue THEIR arbitrary standards,  can the values of a culture change.   But they are fickle, arbitrary, and without any absolute basis, in a godless universe.   ONLY if there is a Creator/God,  Who embedded a Real moral standard in humanity,  AND established a conscience as a 'moral compass', can there be any appeal to an inherent, absolute morality.



A God with free will, who, using that free will, creates beings whom he ALSO gives free will to, but when the created beings use THEIR free will, they get PUNISHED by the big F.W. guy (and by "punished", I don't mean just a 10 minute "time out")

How is that MORAL? It appears to be self-centered on GOD'S part. Isn't it inevidably all about his desire to be WORSHIPPED? If that is the case, then OUR self-centeredness is no wonder. The apples don't (CAN'T) fall far from the tree in this regard. The consciousness of "SELF" is the root of all selfishness and self-gratification. God has it, and he gave it to us even though FOR US it is a curse. Why? Because there's no one above God (if the bible be true) to judge him for using HIS free will but there IS for us - and it's HIM.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-25-2021)

----------


## usfan

> A God with free will, who, using that free will, creates beings whom he ALSO gives free will to, but when the created beings use THEIR free will, they get PUNISHED by the big F.W. guy (and by "punished", I don't mean just a 10 minute "time out")
> 
> How is that MORAL? It appears to be self-centered on GOD'S part. Isn't it inevidably all about his desire to be WORSHIPPED? If that is the case, then OUR self-centeredness is no wonder. The apples don't (CAN'T) fall far from the tree in this regard. The consciousness of "SELF" is the root of all selfishness and self-gratification. God has it, and he gave it to us even though FOR US it is a curse. Why? Because there's no one above God (if the bible be true) to judge him for using HIS free will but there IS for us - and it's HIM.


By what moral standard do you presume to judge God?  If He is the Source of morality (which is the premise of the OP), then every sense of 'right and wrong', originates in His Standards.

Accusations of 'Wrong!', directed to the Law Giver, are irrational, and based on ignorance of God and hostility toward Him..  the human natural state.  We cannot presume to judge God, when our own cognitive processes are distorted, and we cannot even perceive God.

But the main point here is, 

'Why do you observe moral standards, if they are just human manipulations in a godless universe?'  If there is no Law Giver, why do we almost instinctively observe it?

Could it be that they are not human constructs?  Perhaps moral absolutes are embedded by God,  as a moral compass? 

If we cannot perceive God, the moral Law Giver, yet 'feel' His absolutes, perhaps our spiritual perceptors are broken, and need to be fixed?

----------


## Canadianeye

> Time and man made rules cannot make fickle human decrees into absolute morality.  
> 
> A godless universe can has no basis for 'good!', or 'bad!'  Survival and reproduction are the only overriding factors, in a world ruled by natural selection,  but whether a species survives or not doesn't matter. The universe spins on, indifferent to death, life, or moral outrage from deluded animals who pretend their lives matter.


I think you're arguing with yourself.

If the world was a place of only atheists - with no concept of deities, it would be a shit show IMO.

Deities and religion operate "generally" on fear, threats, punishments, rewards, rules and guidelines. Punishments and rewards are often of an eternal nature.

Without that in our societies, at all, I honestly believe it would be a shit show - but that doesn't make your deity (or anyone else's) actually existent/real.

Has somebody on this forum told you, that the world would be a peachy keen place...minus all religious input into our societies? Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually I read atheists/agnostics saying stuff like the 10 commandments are good for societies etc. Christianity is a positive foundational base for society. Stuff like that. They acknowledge the benefits of it.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-25-2021)

----------


## usfan

> I think you're arguing with yourself.
> 
> If the world was a place of only atheists - with no concept of deities, it would be a shit show IMO.
> 
> Deities and religion operate "generally" on fear, threats, punishments, rewards, rules and guidelines. Punishments and rewards are often of an eternal nature.
> 
> Without that in our societies, at all, I honestly believe it would be a shit show - but that doesn't make your deity (or anyone else's) actually existent/real.
> 
> Has somebody on this forum told you, that the world would be a peachy keen place...minus all religious input into our societies? Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually I read atheists/agnostics saying stuff like the 10 commandments are good for societies etc. Christianity is a positive foundational base for society. Stuff like that. They acknowledge the benefits of it.


That is evidence of the Reality, imo.

 Why would an 'enlightened' person, free from superstition, and the shackles of man made religion, willingly submit to man made decrees, made only to manipulate him?

The ACTUAL PRACTICE  of most people, including atheists,  is to observe a moral code..  an instinctive moral compass, that guides their choices. 
Why would they do this, if this is a godless universe?  Has the Soviet New Man already evolved?  Will this new man sacrifice his selfish desires for the good of the collective?  Is that the real basis for human morality?  Altruistic sacrifice for the good of the collective?

The atheistic basis to create the New Man failed, miserably. The American constitution was written for a moral people, and morality can ONLY come from an embedded sense from the Creator.  The success of the American Experiment was ENTIRELY based upon the acknowledgment of God and Natural Law.

So yes, the social structure of humanity is ..better.. in a God fearing environment, where morality is upheld and affirmed.  But an atheistic society has no basis to appeal to this, other than some idealistic sacrifice for the collective.  "Be nice!", they plead, but why?  Why not gang bang with your homies?  Why not take what you want, in a dog eat dog world of amorality?

The ideological results of the ..transformation.. of America from a Christian influenced, God centered basis, into an amoral, atheistic,  State centered, elitist based ideology has already produced bitter fruit. What makes you think this will change,  as atheistic naturalism continues to be exclusively mandated by State Propaganda centers?

----------


## SharetheHedge

> By what moral standard do you presume to judge God?  If He is the Source of morality (which is the premise of the OP), then every sense of 'right and wrong', originates in His Standards.
> 
> Accusations of 'Wrong!', directed to the Law Giver, are irrational, and based on ignorance of God and hostility toward Him..  the human natural state.  We cannot presume to judge God, when our own cognitive processes are distorted, and we cannot even perceive God.
> 
> But the main point here is, 
> 
> 'Why do you observe moral standards, if they are just human manipulations in a godless universe?'  If there is no Law Giver, why do we almost instinctively observe it?
> 
> Could it be that they are not human constructs?  Perhaps moral absolutes are embedded by God,  as a moral compass? 
> ...


*
"By what moral standard do you presume to judge God?  If He is the Source of morality (which is the premise of the OP), then every sense of 'right and wrong', originates in His Standards."


*Simple. By evaluating whether God lives up to his OWN moral standards for man. 

For instance, why would God require absolute obedience for man (in living up to the moral standard he has placed in him) when he knows that man CANNOT do that over the course of a lifetime, and that the penalty for that is however terrible you estimate the Lake of Fire will be? 

How is ETERNAL punishment a "fair" penalty for a FINITE amount of sin? Why is the recipe for salvation contingent upon FAITH, which makes it even more difficult and insures even less will attain it, if God desires that "none should perish"? 

Let's go even deeper. Why would God create man in the first place, knowing the catastrophy that would ensue? Was there SOMETHING "in it" for God? If so, how does that square with 1Cor.13 which states that "Love does not seek it's own (way)"?

Scripture tells us it was for HIS "good pleasure", and also that he demands worship. Was God being ENTIRELY SELFLESS in considering how many human souls would end up in hell if he went ahead and created them, just to obtain for himself a _relative few_ who would believe in him and prostrate themselves before him? 

Why should God DEMAND ANYTHING of man when God has no one above him to demand anything of HIM? Should an omnipotent being be immune from being judged MORALLY, just because he has the POWER to do anything he wants? (Isn't that the situation that Totalitarian governments aspire to?)

----------

MisterVeritis (11-25-2021)

----------


## usfan

> *
> "By what moral standard do you presume to judge God?  If He is the Source of morality (which is the premise of the OP), then every sense of 'right and wrong', originates in His Standards."
> 
> *Simple. By evaluating whether God lives up to his OWN moral standards for man. 
> 
> For instance, why would God require absolute obedience for man (in living up to the moral standard he has placed in him) when he knows that man CANNOT do that over the course of a lifetime, and that the penalty for that is however terrible you estimate the Lake of Fire will be? 
> 
> How is ETERNAL punishment a "fair" penalty for a FINITE amount of sin? Why is the recipe for salvation contingent upon FAITH, which makes it even more difficult and insures even less will attain it, if God desires that "none should perish"? 
> 
> ...


You seem to want to argue theological dogma.  This thread is not specific to any religious belief,  but is about the 'Creator vs atheistic naturalism' dichotomy.

Your accusations toward a Character in a religious text, that you deem. 'Immoral!' are based on your interpretations and preconceived biases.  You don't even follow the logical progression of this set of religious texts.

But, as an aside, i can (and have, ad nauseam) explain the theology behind the biblical texts.
1. God does not require 'absolute obedience!', nor can we. We are born ..infected..  with the sin virus, and can only live IF.. we receive the vaccine..  this one works, though.
2. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned. All will die, if a Cure is not discovered. One or two 'sins' do not kill us, the inherent sin nature, does.
3. Why we were created, with free will, and the ability to rebel is unknown.  Why is that even a question?  How do you condemn God for giving us free will?
4. Critical and pejorative projections toward God, for 'evil!' motives are based on ignorance of God and hostility..  the natural state of man.  You provide a stereotypical caricature of the natural man,  angry at his Creator.  Your projections are not the motives of the Almighty Creator of the universe. You anthropomorphize a tyrant, with human motives, because you think He is like you.
5. 'Hell' was created for 'the devil and his angels'.  Only those who follow the devil's path of rebellion will join him.

These deflections do not explain a moral compass in a godless universe. Why not steal, if it aids your survival?  Why would adultery be 'wrong!'?

----------


## Canadianeye

> That is evidence of the Reality, imo.
> 
>  Why would an 'enlightened' person, free from superstition, and the shackles of man made religion, willingly submit to man made decrees, made only to manipulate him?
> 
> The ACTUAL PRACTICE  of most people, including atheists,  is to observe a moral code..  an instinctive moral compass, that guides their choices. 
> Why would they do this, if this is a godless universe?  Has the Soviet New Man already evolved?  Will this new man sacrifice his selfish desires for the good of the collective?  Is that the real basis for human morality?  Altruistic sacrifice for the good of the collective?
> 
> The atheistic basis to create the New Man failed, miserably. The American constitution was written for a moral people, and morality can ONLY come from an embedded sense from the Creator.  The success of the American Experiment was ENTIRELY based upon the acknowledgment of God and Natural Law.
> 
> ...


Again...you are arguing with yourself.

How many people identify as believers, and how many identify as atheists? In America and even world wide?

The policy makers and legislators are predominantly, overwhelmingly - believers.

Let me put it another way. Fix the damn problems, cuz you have massively overwhelming numbers to do so - and - you all have powerful deities on your side(s). You had even *bigger* numbers just a few decades ago and several centuries ago you had the power to kill me for saying things you didn't like.

Pick up the ball. You dropped it.

----------


## usfan

> Again...you are arguing with yourself.
> 
> How many people identify as believers, and how many identify as atheists? In America and even world wide?
> 
> The policy makers and legislators are predominantly, overwhelmingly - believers.
> 
> Let me put it another way. Fix the damn problems, cuz you have massively overwhelming numbers to do so - and - you all have powerful deities on your side(s). You had even *bigger* numbers just a few decades ago and several centuries ago you had the power to kill me for saying things you didn't like.
> 
> Pick up the ball. You dropped it.


You seem to think 'policy!' can be made apart from an ideological basis.  It cannot.  The Driver of policy (and beliefs, and the implications of those beliefs), are from the IDEOLOGICAL BASIS. A left wing ideologue didn't wake up one morning and say. 'Hey! It would be cool to mandate atheistic naturalism as the State religious belief!'  No. The foundational elements of marxist ideology had already been indoctrinated in every institution, and the outworkings..  the fruit of the ideology..  became increasingly apparent. Crime, socialism, subservience, elitism, racism (toward whites) and religious intolerance grew exponentially, and the fruit of that increase is readily apparent.

The politicians,  judges, lawyers, teachers, professors, bureaucrats,  and almost every decision maker in every public institution are ruled and controlled by progressive ideologues. Their personal beliefs in a deity are irrelevant.   They actively and militantly OPPOSE the Creator, biblical Christianity, and traditional America (which are all linked together, ideologically)

This is not about the lame 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war, which my historical and philosophical analyses inevitably become, but the SOURCE of the ideology that drives the beliefs, that produces the policy. 

Amorality is inevitable in a godless universe,  and marxist ideology.  A new man cannot be forged by social engineers, but they still try..  even if they have to kill everyone. 

_National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over._ ~Adolf Hitler

"_As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man."_ ~Ieng Sary, foreign minister under Khmer Rouge

----------


## MisterVeritis

_Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery._



> Those 'created' rules are just human constructs,  to manipulate people.  There is no basis for morality, in a godless universe. You choose what you want, i choose mine.  Nobody can say. 'My values are 'better' than yours!', because there is no standard of 'better'.
> 
> Amorality is the only logical conclusion of a godless universe.


People who live together in groups tend to come up with similar, but not identical rules to help them live together. It does not seem to matter which gods they believe in.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Time and man made rules cannot make fickle human decrees into absolute morality.  
> 
> A godless universe can has no basis for 'good!', or 'bad!'  Survival and reproduction are the only overriding factors, in a world ruled by natural selection,  but whether a species survives or not doesn't matter. The universe spins on, indifferent to death, life, or moral outrage from deluded animals who pretend their lives matter.


It is true that reproductive success is the measure in the real world. Nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct. 

I do not care if you fail to reproduce. I do not care if you believe you are worthless. Individuals do not do things for the good of the species. We do things that we believe will benefit us.

Does it bother you that you live in a Universe without any gods?

----------


## MisterVeritis

> What standard is there, to appeal to 'right!', in your godless universe?   Why not get free stuff, if you can?  Why not use your power to improve your position and standing, in the social structure?  If there are no gods to impose their arbitrary decrees, so why submit to human's arbitrary decrees?
> 
> If there is only man made laws, enforced by people with guns, how can you judge any legal edict as 'wrong!'?  If the chief can decree 'free lunch!', why not take it?  Why would it be 'wrong!', and by what overriding standard can you condemn any man made laws? Abortion? Redistribution?  Slavery?
> 
> A godless universe has no basis for absolute morality.  There are only arbitrary man made constructs,  to manipulate people.


There is no such thing as absolute morality.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Nobody wants to address this?
> 
> _Why would stealing be 'wrong!!' among humans, when it is a virtue in every animal society? Humans do it, anyway, and weave justifications to soothe their guilty consciences. Why bother? Why not just admit that stealing is good and aids your survival? Why call it 'bad!!_'?
> 
> Why would you even have, 'a guilty conscience?'
> 
> ..just assert, 'I is moral!!  There is no god, but i follow a moral compass!'?
> 
> Why?  Why not steal, or kill, if you can get away with it?  Lie, bang the neighbor,  do whatever you want.  Why be a dupe to man made manipulation?


People who murder their neighbors, steal their things, and are otherwise unsociable tend to do less well than those who live by the group's rules.

That is all.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Those 'created' rules are just human constructs,  to manipulate people.  *There is no basis for morality, in a godless universe*. You choose what you want, i choose mine.  Nobody can say. 'My values are 'better' than yours!', because there is no standard of 'better'.
> 
> Amorality is the only logical conclusion of a godless universe. 
> 
> It is subjective, arbitrary, and based only on the decrees of whomever has the power to enforce THEIR opinions on everyone else. 
> 
> If Hitler says 'Kill the Jews!',  then that is the moral standard,  since he has the power.  If the supreme court says, 'slaves are property!', or 'unborn babies can be killed, legally!', then that is the standard, and nobody has any basis to dispute it.  Only if someone can gain power themselves,  and issue THEIR arbitrary standards,  can the values of a culture change.   But they are fickle, arbitrary, and without any absolute basis, in a godless universe.   ONLY if there is a Creator/God,  Who embedded a Real moral standard in humanity,  AND established a conscience as a 'moral compass', can there be any appeal to an inherent, absolute morality.


Bold mine. How can you claim this, unless you know of a Godless society where there is pure anarchy?

----------


## patrickt

> What standard is there, to appeal to 'right!', in your godless universe?   Why not get free stuff, if you can?  Why not use your power to improve your position and standing, in the social structure?  If there are no gods to impose their arbitrary decrees, so why submit to human's arbitrary decrees?
> 
> If there is only man made laws, enforced by people with guns, how can you judge any legal edict as 'wrong!'?  If the chief can decree 'free lunch!', why not take it?  Why would it be 'wrong!', and by what overriding standard can you condemn any man made laws? Abortion? Redistribution?  Slavery?
> 
> A godless universe has no basis for absolute morality.  There are only arbitrary man made constructs,  to manipulate people.


I realize you can't understand anyone having a concept of right and wrong with an imaginary god to threaten them. That's you. A friend of mine, years ago, said, "Everyone will steal if they think they can't get away with it." I said, "All you just said is you will steal if you think you can get away with it. Not everyone does." When you say that without a god to force someone to be good they'll be bad you are only talking about yourself. And, you might be right.

----------


## MisterVeritis

_Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery._



> Those 'created' rules are just human constructs,  to manipulate people.  There is no basis for morality, in a godless universe. You choose what you want, i choose mine.  Nobody can say. 'My values are 'better' than yours!', because there is no standard of 'better'.


You don't like humans, do you?

----------


## nonsqtr

> _Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups._


I concur. History concurs. We "discover" morality, just like we discover everything else.

If there's an absolute morality, it's a moving target. 

The Old Testament specifies exactly how much a woman is worth, if she's been raped or if she's slept with animals.

Fast forward a couple thousand years and we get to the Magna Carta, where the sovereign guarantees the rights of the rabble.

Then another 500 years to the US Constitution, where everyone becomes sovereign.

(Lately we have commies, which is kind of a de-evolution, but that's a whole different equation).

----------

MisterVeritis (11-26-2021)

----------


## CWF

> Nobody wants to address this?
> 
> _Why would stealing be 'wrong!!' among humans, when it is a virtue in every animal society? Humans do it, anyway, and weave justifications to soothe their guilty consciences. Why bother? Why not just admit that stealing is good and aids your survival? Why call it 'bad!!_'?
> 
> Why would you even have, 'a guilty conscience?'
> 
> I would not know what Sin is unless God told me in His Word.  That is where morality comes from.  From God.
> 
> ..just assert, 'I is moral!!  There is no god, but i follow a moral compass!'?
> ...


The Law is "The Law".  It is broken down into ten principles, but is one law.  Break one principle and you have violated the entire law.

The Sabbath was "Made for man, not man for the Sabbath."  Since keeping the Sabbath is one principle, not keeping it violates the entire Law.  Therefore, The Law was made for man, not man for the Law.  The Law was not made for animals.

Man is NOT an animal.  God made man in His image, In His likeness.  God is NOT a man. He is a Spirit, but when manifest looks like the man that He created in His image. The Book of Revelation tells us what God looks like.  Christ also said that " If you have seen Me, then you have seen the Father" meaning of course that He and the Father are One. One God.

The penalty for breaking the Law is Death.  Sin is breaking the Law.  The Wages (what one earns for breaking the Law) is Death.  The Gift of God is Eternal Life.  You don't earn it by keeping the Law.  It is a "GIFT."  "If you love Me, Keep the Commandments" Christ stated.

Doesn't sound to me like God is a monster at all, now does it?

----------

usfan (11-26-2021)

----------


## patrickt

> The Law is "The Law".  It is broken down into ten principles, but is one law.  Break one principle and you have violated the entire law.
> 
> The Sabbath was "Made for man, not man for the Sabbath."  Since keeping the Sabbath is one principle, not keeping it violates the entire Law.  Therefore, The Law was made for man, not man for the Law.  The Law was not made for animals.
> 
> Man is NOT an animal.  God made man in His image, In His likeness.  God is NOT a man. He is a Spirit, but when manifest looks like the man that He created in His image. The Book of Revelation tells us what God looks like.  Christ also said that " If you have seen Me, then you have seen the Father" meaning of course that He and the Father are One. One God.
> 
> The penalty for breaking the Law is Death.  Sin is breaking the Law.  The Wages (what one earns for breaking the Law) is Death.  The Gift of God is Eternal Life.  You don't earn it by keeping the Law.  It is a "GIFT."  "If you love Me, Keep the Commandments" Christ stated.
> 
> Doesn't sound to me like God is a monster at all, now does it?



The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)

1
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

3
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

5
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

6
You shall not murder.

7
You shall not commit adultery.

8
You shall not steal.

9
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.


I think you made a good case for monster. I'll assume the Ten Commandments are your ten principles. Now, for starters, four of the ten are egocentric nonsense. I investigated child abuse cases enough to know that no one should be ordered to honor their mother and their father. As for coveting, it's the bedrock of capitalism. People want things, they covet things. Coveting isn't the problem it's what you do, or are willing to do, to get the thing you covet. If you covet your neighbor's horse and offer to buy it there's no problem. If you're a politician and you covet everyone else's money and you take it by force or threats of force, that's wrong.


And then, there's this. "For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me...." Wow, according to you, if you fail on any of the commandments your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren will be punished. That would be, if it were real, pretty monstrous. Sorry, but your god sounds a lot like my ex-wife.


If you think I don't take any of this seriously, you're right. I do take fanatics seriously but not their gods.

----------

MisterVeritis (11-26-2021)

----------


## usfan

> The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
> 
> 1
> I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
> 
> 2
> You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
> 
> 3
> ...


What do you base your moral outrage toward God, Christians,  and the bible, on? Situation ethics? Whatever 'feels' right?  Your opinion?

You easy condemn and belittle Christianity, the Creator,  and 'Christians!'(eek!!), but why?  If this is a godless universe,  as you assert, and only 'might makes right'  what standard do you use to condemn Christianity and the Creator?   Does evolution teach that God is 'bad!!'?  How would it do that?

The topic is the SOURCE of morality.  Religious bigotry toward your ideological enemies is not really appropriate.   ..but i expect you will continue.

You do illustrate the leftist indoctrinated, trigger emotion of 'empathy!', very well.
American tolerance for diverse religious views?  ..not so much.

It is kinda pathetic..  an old man, poring over the scriptures,  looking for 'gotchas!' to bludgeon his enemies with.   :Shakeshead:

----------


## usfan

> Bold mine. How can you claim this, unless you know of a Godless society where there is pure anarchy?


The subject is not the existence of morality,  but the source.  We observe a consistent moral code, in the human animal,  that transcends beliefs about gods.

IOW, morality is real, among humans,  and they follow their moral compass even if they don't believe in a law Giver.

We don't see amoral anarchy in human societies, because they are embedded with a moral compass,  by the Creator. 

In a godless universe,  we would expect at least some cultures to exhibit amoral anarchy, where only might makes right.  The fact that we don't,  is evidence that the Creator IS.

----------


## usfan

> _Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery._
> 
> People who live together in groups tend to come up with similar, but not identical rules to help them live together. It does not seem to matter which gods they believe in.


So..  you believe they are all just 'made up!' rules, that some powerful leader mandated to the group.  It cannot be an imbedded moral code, by the Creator,  since you live in a godless universe. 

Why should anyone follow these superstitious rules, anyway?  If you can steal, lie, kill, or better yourself in any way, is that not the overriding factor? 

Why do people inherently follow a 'conscience', if it is just a man made construct for control?  Why would any enlightened person,  free from superstition and human manipulation, follow, willingly, these apparently embedded moral directives? 

Deception? Superstition?

----------


## Canadianeye

It's all ancient. Primitive. Tribal. What works best. Fungus made a deal with algae... :Smiley20:

----------


## SharetheHedge

> You seem to want to argue theological dogma.  This thread is not specific to any religious belief,  but is about the 'Creator vs atheistic naturalism' dichotomy.
> 
> Your accusations toward a Character in a religious text, that you deem. 'Immoral!' are based on your interpretations and preconceived biases.  You don't even follow the logical progression of this set of religious texts.
> 
> But, as an aside, i can (and have, ad nauseam) explain the theology behind the biblical texts.
> 
> 1. God does not require 'absolute obedience!', nor can we. We are born ..infected..  with the sin virus, and can only live IF.. we receive the vaccine..  this one works, though.
> 2. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned. All will die, if a Cure is not discovered. One or two 'sins' do not kill us, the inherent sin nature, does.



"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James.2:10)


According to this, one or two sins CAN "kill us" and God DOES require absolute obedience. It doesn't matter if we have an inherently sinful nature or not. Adam did NOT have a sinful nature but he sinned on just one point and not only was he seperated from eternal life but ALL his descendants were also. That is, we are BORN "lost" according to the NT.

Does that seem FAIR? Does that seem like a PLAN that a beneficent, omnipotent and omniscient deity would take an eternity (past) to come up with?





> 3. Why we were created, with free will, and the ability to rebel is unknown.  Why is that even a question?  How do you condemn God for giving us free will?



Because, if omniscient, he would have KNOWN that would end up badly. He would have CREATED a disaster that he then would try and make an "antidote" for. 

If a mugger points a gun at you and says - "Your money or your life", do you THANK HIM for sparing your life if you hand over the money? Of course not. Because HE was responsible for placing you in a life and death situation to begin with.





> 4. Critical and pejorative projections toward God, for 'evil!' motives are based on ignorance of God and hostility..  the natural state of man.  You provide a stereotypical caricature of the natural man, angry at his Creator.  Your projections are not the motives of the Almighty Creator of the universe.



I am not "angry" at a Creator. I am questioning whether the bible represents the CORRECT UNDERSTANDING of who that creator is - if indeed there is a creator, and if so, whether that creator has any demands on us. I would have to be CONVINCED that the bible is true to be angry at the God it depicts.  





> You anthropomorphize a tyrant, with human motives, because you think He is like you.



The question is whether the authors of the BIBLE did that. In many ways, it appears they might have.





> 5. 'Hell' was created for 'the devil and his angels'.  Only those who follow the devil's path of rebellion will join him.



Baloney. If God is "all-knowing" then he can never have a NEW thought... "Oh, I think I'll toss in a few billion rebellious humans also, as long as there's room in this Lake of Fire for them also". Could an infinite deity be taken by surprise by such an AFTERTHOUGHT? 





> These deflections do not explain a moral compass in a godless universe. Why not steal, if it aids your survival?  Why would adultery be 'wrong!'?



I believe others here have addressed this? The preservation of a tribe, society, and eventually a civilization, requires laws against behaviour that might threaten the breakdown of that society. Common sense would have told them that stealing, or murder, for example, is usually going to elicit a violent response. 

The question is why would we NEED to imagine that such laws come from a DEITY for us to realize that it's better to keep the peace and not mistreat each other if it just MAKES SENSE, per experience, that it DOES?

----------

MisterVeritis (11-26-2021)

----------


## MisterVeritis

_Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery._

_People who live together in groups tend to come up with similar, but not identical rules to help them live together. It does not seem to matter which gods they believe in._



> So..  you believe they are all just 'made up!' rules, that some powerful leader mandated to the group.  It cannot be an imbedded moral code, by the Creator,  since you live in a godless universe. 
> 
> Why should anyone follow these superstitious rules, anyway?  If you can steal, lie, kill, or better yourself in any way, is that not the overriding factor? 
> 
> Why do people inherently follow a 'conscience', if it is just a man made construct for control?  Why would any enlightened person,  free from superstition and human manipulation, follow, willingly, these apparently embedded moral directives? 
> 
> Deception? Superstition?


No gods are required. People live in groups. Of course the rules are made up. We made them up to help us live together in groups.

----------


## Canadianeye

> So..  you believe they are all just 'made up!' rules, that some powerful leader mandated to the group.  It cannot be an imbedded moral code, by the Creator,  since you live in a godless universe. 
> 
> Why should anyone follow these superstitious rules, anyway?  If you can steal, lie, kill, or better yourself in any way, is that not the overriding factor? 
> 
> Why do people inherently follow a 'conscience', if it is just a man made construct for control?  Why would any enlightened person,  free from superstition and human manipulation, follow, willingly, these apparently embedded moral directives? 
> 
> Deception? Superstition?


Have you ever coveted? Of course you have. Now...why did you covet?

You have a deity who told you not to. You have numerous written guidelines from a variety of different sources that said it is not good to covet. You have a conscience (no matter how that conscience got into you) that tells you if feels wrong to covet.

You have to call it sin. I call it human nature, with a tribal origin. Patrick calls it the basis of capitalism.

----------


## CWF

It is interesting to see that the God of the Old Testament is actually the one who became the Savior of the New Testament, Jesus Christ. The One who paid the penalty, who suffered the most severe beating and mutilation of any person, and then was nailed up to die a torturous death in full view of the public, mocked and scorned by most of them, with a wreath of thorns crammed down upon his head as a crown of scorn and ridicule.  He was the Word, prior to giving up His eternal Life to become a living person so that He could pay that penalty that each of us deserve.

And some call God a monster?  None of us would even have a life to live if it were not for the Goodness of God.  None of us.

Christ paid the penalty for all of us.  That means Adam too.

Here is a little known secret for those who scorn and mock God.  Adam lived 930 years. From him and Eve came much talk about God to the people (offspring) that came after them. This talk was the premise of the very idea that there was a God.  Man did NOT conjure up the notion of a Deity, rather man was informed of the fact. Mock and scorn if you will.  It is the truth.

Another little secret for scorners and mockers.  The God who gave the Commandments written in stone was the Word.  The One who became Jesus Christ.  No man, at anytime, has seen God the Father, nor has anyone ever heard His voice.   Research that fact in the Bible if you want.  But, you probably won't.  Just keep mocking like the little monsters you are.  Not God.

----------

usfan (11-27-2021)

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

Concerning The 10 Commandments


Actually, God gave his Law, including the Ten Commandments, specifically to the ancient nation of Israel, none other. (Deuteronomy 5:​2, 3; Psalm 147:19, 20) The Mosaic Law is not binding on Christians, and even Jewish Christians were “released from the Law.” (Romans 7:6)  The Mosaic Law was replaced by *“the law of the Christ,”* which includes all that Jesus instructed his followers to do.​—Galatians 6:2; Matthew 28:19, 20.

*Are the Ten Commandments relevant today?
*
Of course, because the Ten Commandments reveal God’s thinking, we can benefit from studying them. (2 Timothy 3:​16, 17) The Ten Commandments are based on reliable principles that will never go out-of-date. (Psalm 111:​7, 8) In fact, many of these principles underlie the teachings of what is commonly called the New Testament.

 Jesus taught that the entire Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, rested on two fundamental commandments. He said:* “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs.” (Matthew 22:34-​40)* So although Christians are not expected to observe the Mosaic Law, they are commanded to love God and their fellow humans.​—John 13:34; 1 John 4:​20, 21.

----------


## usfan

> I realize you can't understand anyone having a concept of right and wrong with an imaginary god to threaten them. That's you. A friend of mine, years ago, said, "Everyone will steal if they think they can't get away with it." I said, "All you just said is you will steal if you think you can get away with it. Not everyone does." When you say that without a god to force someone to be good they'll be bad you are only talking about yourself. And, you might be right.


I've always found this 'argument' very bizarre.  It has been around for decades (probably millennia!), and is prominently listed in "The Atheists Handbook: How to Destroy Christians in Online Debates".

The logic is convoluted,  as most logic is, with progressive indoctrinees. 

1. There is no God!
2. There is no absolute morality!  It's just man made constructs! 
3. Atheists don't need a god to frighten them into being moral, we do it automatically,  from our deep sense of morality! 

So there is no real morality,  as it is just made up by man to manipulate people,  yet they boast of how they observe and submit to these man made, superstitious decrees..

You boast of being a manipulated dupe?  Really?

Aside from the convoluted reasoning, it doesn't rebut my points, but reinforces them.  I am not saying. "atheists are immoral!!", as this accuser implies, but the opposite.  Atheists DO observe the moral code, embedded deep within their psyche.   They shouldn't,  if it is just a man made construct for manipulation,  but they do.  They provide evidence,  with their own actions, that absolute morality is real, and is evidence of the Creator.

If this poster had read and comprehended the OP, they wouldn't have tried to inject this old atheist talking point.  But parroted mantras, not Reason, are the main weapons of progressive dupes.

----------


## usfan

> It's all ancient. Primitive. Tribal. What works best. Fungus made a deal with algae...





> _Over a long period of time we have created rules to help us live together in groups. It is not that much of a mystery._
> 
> _People who live together in groups tend to come up with similar, but not identical rules to help them live together. It does not seem to matter which gods they believe in._
> 
> No gods are required. People live in groups. Of course the rules are made up. We made them up to help us live together in groups.





> Have you ever coveted? Of course you have. Now...why did you covet?
> 
> You have a deity who told you not to. You have numerous written guidelines from a variety of different sources that said it is not good to covet. You have a conscience (no matter how that conscience got into you) that tells you if feels wrong to covet.
> 
> You have to call it sin. I call it human nature, with a tribal origin. Patrick calls it the basis of capitalism.


Glib one liners, or undefined terms, dropped as if they automatically refute the OP, is not 'reason'.  You do not show HOW some man made rules, issued by some tribal leader, became so ingrained in people that they instinctively observe them, thousands of years later.

How does 'evolution!' impart a lie, that has no benefit to our survival, into the instincts of man?  Ruthlessness and strength are the only virtues in a godless universe of might makes right. 

WHY, would enlightened people submit to these man made superstitions? 

In the rest of the animal world,  stealing, killing, and deception are virtues.  Might makes right. Evolving humans would have made better use of strength, cunning, and steely minded resolve,  not blubbering over superstitions. 

Glibly saying, 'morality is just humans getting along in groups!', does not answer this.  It is not reason, but a dogmatic statement of belief. There is a moral compass, embedded in everyone,  that could ONLY have come from our Maker. There is no basis for morality in a godless universe. There is only might.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Glib one liners, or undefined terms, dropped as if they automatically refute the OP, is not 'reason'.  You do not show HOW some man made rules, issued by some tribal leader, became so ingrained in people that they instinctively observe them, thousands of years later.
> 
> How does 'evolution!' impart a lie, that has no benefit to our survival, into the instincts of man?  Ruthlessness and strength are the only virtues in a godless universe of might makes right. 
> 
> WHY, would enlightened people submit to these man made superstitions? 
> 
> In the rest of the animal world,  stealing, killing, and deception are virtues.  Might makes right. Evolving humans would have made better use of strength, cunning, and steely minded resolve,  not blubbering over superstitions. 
> 
> Glibly saying, 'morality is just humans getting along in groups!', does not answer this.  It is not reason, but a dogmatic statement of belief. There is a moral compass, embedded in everyone,  that could ONLY have come from our Maker. There is no basis for morality in a godless universe. There is only might.


Glibly saying rules come from god is goofy. How did such rules come from god? 

Animals that live together in groups also have rules. Did their rules come from god? Stop blubbering over superstitions.

----------


## SharetheHedge

> So..  you believe they are all just 'made up!' rules, that some powerful leader mandated to the group.  It cannot be an imbedded moral code, by the Creator,  since you live in a godless universe. 
> 
> Why should anyone follow these superstitious rules, anyway?  If you can steal, lie, kill, or better yourself in any way, is that not the overriding factor? 
> 
> Why do people inherently follow a 'conscience', if it is just a man made construct for control?  Why would any enlightened person,  free from superstition and human manipulation, follow, willingly, these apparently embedded moral directives? 
> 
> Deception? Superstition?



The thing is, given a choice between a supernatural explanation for something and a natural explanation, you always choose the supernatural. Why?

That is not only bias, but it offends rationality. If something CAN be explained naturally then that explanation NEEDS to be favored over a supernatural explanation. Consideration of the supernatural should only occur if there is NO other possible answer because, otherwise, you end up with the mentality of a primitive tribe, where EVERYTHING is explained on a supernatural basis and SUPERSTITION REIGNS SUPREME - where there is no need for scientific discovery in understanding the world around them.

In the area of morality and human behaviour I believe there are reasons, based on intelligence and social awareness, that people would have come up with laws to protect civilization. Appeal to an "inner awareness" and such is too subjective, and IMO, probably represents some of the weakest argumentation for the imprint of a creator's character or personality upon us  :Dontknow:

----------

MisterVeritis (11-29-2021)

----------


## usfan

> Glibly saying rules come from god is goofy. How did such rules come from god? 
> 
> Animals that live together in groups also have rules. Did their rules come from god? Stop blubbering over superstitions.


Your tu Quoque fallacy does not work.

I HAVE explained, and provided evidence, that morality is an embedded ..sense.. instilled by the Creator,  to guide our choices.  It is (presumably) a reflection of HIS standards.  Sin may muddy them, repeated violations may numb this sense, but it is universal in the human experience. 

Your 'rebuttal?'

"Nuh-uh!!  ..We made up the rules!  ..just like animals!"

1. The ONLY animal 'rule', is might makes right.  Jungle Law,  not Natural Law. 
2. 'Evolution!', has no way of instilling a human deception in the human animal. 
3. Boasting of being manipulated by human controllers does not seem very enlightened. 

You have no rebuttal for any of my points, just glib assertions.  I leave you with them.

----------


## usfan

> The thing is, given a choice between a supernatural explanation for something and a natural explanation, you always choose the supernatural. Why?
> 
> That is not only bias, but it offends rationality. If something CAN be explained naturally then that explanation NEEDS to be favored over a supernatural explanation. Consideration of the supernatural should only occur if there is NO other possible answer because, otherwise, you end up with the mentality of a primitive tribe, where EVERYTHING is explained on a supernatural basis and SUPERSTITION REIGNS SUPREME - where there is no need for scientific discovery in understanding the world around them.
> 
> In the area of morality and human behaviour I believe there are reasons, based on intelligence and social awareness, that people would have come up with laws to protect civilization. Appeal to an "inner awareness" and such is too subjective, and IMO, probably represents some of the weakest argumentation for the imprint of a creator's character or personality upon us


I started a whole other thread..  just for you, and this concept.  Your points here are NOT 'rational conclusions',  but a projection of bigotry and bias.

You say, "Christians just choose to believe superstitions! They have no evidence but are just living in a fantasy!'

This is false.  Most Christians i know, know God.  They have an intimate,  personal relationship with the Almighty Creator of the universe.  THAT is the basis for their belief.

You can dismiss it. Scoff, or claim 'deception!', but it is not an irrational leap of faith, as you constantly try to portray, but a logical conclusion,  with the information they have.

The irrationality lies with those admitting ignorance of God, yet presuming to 'know!', the life experiences of all other humans,  for thousands of years.   This irrationality is projection, from those believing in a completely unevidenced worldview (atheistic naturalism), and assuming that because they believe something without evidence, from bias or wishful thinking, (contrary to the actual facts),  that others are as irrational and deluded as they are.  That is not a rational conclusion, but presumption of ignorance. 

'Because I am ignorant of something,  everyone must be!'

From the 'choose to believe' thread:



> It is my observation and conclusion that  most people do not arbitrarily 'choose' their worldview,  but it ..develops.. from multiple influences over their lifetime.  It changes, as information and persuasion 'tweaks' or even upheaves a previous opinion.
> 
> Of the many factors, i see Indoctrination.. instilling a belief by repetition.. as the most common.  The most powerful, that shakes people to their foundations,  is Divine Revelation.  It nullifies the Indoctrination from human institutions instantly, even if the mind is confused by the spin and lies from the indoctrinated propaganda. Reason is befuddled, temporarily,  until the facts and soundness of Truth displaces the lies instilled by worldly institutions.

----------


## usfan

I'll repeat these points, since they have been ignored by the naturalists. 

_So.. you believe they are all just 'made up!' rules, that some powerful leader mandated to the group. It cannot be an imbedded moral code, by the Creator, since you live in a godless universe.

Why should anyone follow these superstitious rules, anyway? If you can steal, lie, kill, or better yourself in any way, is that not the overriding factor?

Why do people inherently follow a 'conscience', if it is just a man made construct for control? Why would any enlightened person, free from superstition and human manipulation, follow, willingly, these apparently embedded moral directives?

Deception? Superstition_?

The ONLY REASON for anyone to observe man made constructs, and pretend they are 'good!', is superstition or delusion.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Your tu Quoque fallacy does not work.
> 
> I HAVE explained, and provided evidence, that morality is an embedded ..sense.. instilled by the Creator,  to guide our choices.  It is (presumably) a reflection of HIS standards.  Sin may muddy them, repeated violations may numb this sense, but it is universal in the human experience. 
> 
> Your 'rebuttal?'
> 
> "Nuh-uh!!  ..We made up the rules!  ..just like animals!"
> 
> 1. The ONLY animal 'rule', is might makes right.  Jungle Law,  not Natural Law. 
> ...


This is pure kook stuff. I leave you to it.

----------


## usfan

> This is pure kook stuff. I leave you to it.


Thanks..  i hope so..

 :Thumbsup20:

----------


## SharetheHedge

> I started a whole other thread..  just for you, and this concept.



PLEASE don't make me take the blame for you starting yet ANOTHER thread on the evidence for a Creator  :Notme:   :Smiley20: 





> Your points here are NOT 'rational conclusions',  but a projection of bigotry and bias.
> 
> You say, "Christians just choose to believe superstitions! They have no evidence but are just living in a fantasy!'
> 
> This is false.  Most Christians i know, know God.  They have an intimate,  personal relationship with the Almighty Creator of the universe.  THAT is the basis for their belief.



And that belief is SUBJECTIVE, based on emotion and personal conviction, the motivation of which is no doubt stimulated by entertaining the possibility of a heaven and hell and a desire to believe they can be headed for one and not the other.

And again, I am NOT concluding they are "living in a fantasy" but only pointing out that they MAY be, because what they believe is based on faith and cannot be proven. Also it is supernatural in nature which doesn't argue in it's favor.





> You can dismiss it. Scoff, or claim 'deception!', but it is not an irrational leap of faith, as you constantly try to portray, but a logical conclusion,  with the information they have.



What information do they have - other than they have CHOSEN to believe something by FAITH? Whole bunches of humans have different religious convictions and MOST (if not ALL?) of them are wrong, if their beliefs are exclusive to one another, which most ARE. 




> The irrationality lies with those admitting ignorance of God, yet presuming to 'know!', the life experiences of all other humans,  for thousands of years.   This irrationality is projection, from those believing in a completely unevidenced worldview (atheistic naturalism), and assuming that because they believe something without evidence, from bias or wishful thinking, (contrary to the actual facts),  that others are as irrational and deluded as they are.  That is not a rational conclusion, but presumption of ignorance. 
> 
> 'Because I am ignorant of something,  everyone must be!'
> 
> From the 'choose to believe' thread:



The argument for a generic Creator, and a PERSONAL God, who has instructions for mankind and a threat of judgement for not following them, and a provable notion of a personal relationship with the Divine, are LIGHT YEARS apart, theoretically. You make the jump via some kind of theological "worm hole" I guess? 

Instead of starting yet another thread on proving the existence of a Creator, why don't you just ASSUME you've made your point there (which you sort of already do  :Smiley20: ) and start writing some that BRIDGE the gap between this obvious Creator and the Christian VERSION of HIM? Isn't that where the theological "rubber meets the road" anyway? What's the POINT of believing in a Creator if that Creator doesn't necessarily have anything to DO with us after possibly tiring of what might have just been an experiment on his part?

----------

usfan (12-01-2021)

----------


## usfan

IF.. this is a godless universe..
AND IF.. morality is a human invention..

THEN.. the stronger and more shrewd might as well exploit the gullible. Why not? The Dream of America is an illusion.. a fantasy for deluded fools. Truth is irrelevant, and lies are useful tools. The end justifies the means.

BUT...

IF.. there *IS* a Creator/God
AND IF.. this Creator has instilled His Values and morality within man..
AND IF.. all humans were created equal..

THEN..
Truth matters.
Lies are evil and destructive.
Liars and criminals should be punished and deterred from anti-human, immoral actions that exploit others.

IF.. the latter scenario is Actual Reality, THEN.. a Reckoning is very likely. Uncontrolled and unchecked evil cannot be allowed to fester in humanity indefinitely. The Judge will not allow it.

These things have been foretold. History is unfolding to a climax. If not in our lifetime, it will still happen.

The demise of America is a tragedy for the entire human experience. One of the Webster boys predicted it thusly:

"_Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."_ ~Daniel Webster

Perhaps America is the ..force.. restraining unchecked evil in this world.. perhaps the Time for mass delusion and a Spirit of Deception is upon us.. unleashing the demons of Hell upon a rebellious and wicked generation.

IF.. these are the End Times, THEN circumspection is in order, and careful consideration for the welfare of our souls is more urgent now than ever. Delusion is sweeping the world. Madness and folly replaces reason, science, and facts in Progresso World.

It is a time of Great Danger, and we should make every effort to be reconciled to our Creator.

----------


## usfan

> PLEASE don't make me take the blame for you starting yet ANOTHER thread on the evidence for a Creator


Blame..  credit..  a matter of perspective,  i suppose.   :Dontknow: 

This thread was not really part of the 'evidence for the Creator', series, though i believe that 'morality' is a compelling argument for a creation event, vs random accident of nature. 




> And that belief is SUBJECTIVE, based on emotion and personal conviction, the motivation of which is no doubt stimulated by entertaining the possibility of a heaven and hell and a desire to believe they can be headed for one and not the other.


I disagree. Those who have ENCOUNTERED the living God have more than a blind leap in the dark.  They have been confronted with the most profound Truth in the universe, and their consequential conclusions are rational.

It is a pejorative projection, to accuse a person of just blindly believing something.  Is that how you arrived at your worldview?  Just 'choosing' something that alleviated your fears and fed your superstitions?




> And again, I am NOT concluding they are "living in a fantasy" but only pointing out that they MAY be, because what they believe is based on faith and cannot be proven. Also it is supernatural in nature which doesn't argue in it's favor.


If this is a godless universe,  THEN those who believe in a Creator/God are deluded fools.  There is no way to soft pedal that.  The inverse is also true.  Those who believe in atheistic naturalism,  if there is, indeed, a Creator,  are deluded fools.



> What information do they have - other than they have CHOSEN to believe something by FAITH? Whole bunches of humans have different religious convictions and MOST (if not ALL?) of them are wrong, if their beliefs are exclusive to one another, which most ARE.


Divine Revelation.   Opened eyes. Spiritual regeneration.  This is a real thing, for those who have experienced it.  Naysayers can only assert, without any evidence,  that it is a delusion.



> The argument for a generic Creator, and a PERSONAL God, who has instructions for mankind and a threat of judgement for not following them, and a provable notion of a personal relationship with the Divine, are LIGHT YEARS apart, theoretically. You make the jump via some kind of theological "worm hole" I guess?


I sometimes cross into Christian theology, but it is not my main argument for the Creator.  Philosophy,  science,  anthropology,  history, and psychology provide plenty of evidence for the Creator,  with no need to quote bible verses. 

Do bible verses convince you of the possibility of the Creator?  How about Entropy? Universal morality? Angst? mtDNA?   The PHYSICAL evidence for a creation event is overwhelming. There is no evidence for atheistic naturalism. There are no processes that can create order from disorder, life from non-life, and complexity from simplicity.  SCIENCE.. not theology, is the better argument,  especially for those with preexisting bias against Christianity (indoctrinated by state propaganda centers). 




> Instead of starting yet another thread on proving the existence of a Creator, why don't you just ASSUME you've made your point there (which you sort of already do ) and start writing some that BRIDGE the gap between this obvious Creator and the Christian VERSION of HIM? Isn't that where the theological "rubber meets the road" anyway? What's the POINT of believing in a Creator if that Creator doesn't necessarily have anything to DO with us after possibly tiring of what might have just been an experiment on his part?


I haven't had an addition to that series in some time.  I posted a summary,  a few days ago, but that is it, for now.  The evidence is abundant and obvious, for any not indoctrinated into Progressivism, or for those who have broken the spell of delusion from the god of this world.

I think enough of my posts HAVE emphasized the gospel message, and the urgency to repent and seek one's Maker. That is the Most Important Thing, and is why my emphasis, in the last couple of years,  has been just that.  Saving the American Experiment is a lofty goal, and still is a major theme, for me.  But without a spiritual Awakening,  i don't see that happening...and now that the End Times loom before me, urgent warnings to seek our Maker seem more timely.

----------


## Jen

A real sense of morality comes from our Creator.  It seems that some people have it embedded from birth and others do not.

I can't give a reason that some people are moral while others are not.  Any reason that comes to mind is..........chilling.  Too chilling to even think about.

----------

Swedgin (12-05-2021)

----------


## usfan

> A real sense of morality comes from our Creator.  It seems that some people have it embedded from birth and others do not.
> 
> I can't give a reason that some people are moral while others are not.  Any reason that comes to mind is..........chilling.  Too chilling to even think about.


I think everyone is born with it.  I remember hearing interviews with serial killers, and they admitted they knew it was wrong, they just didn't care, or the ..drive.. to do evil was just stronger.

Compared to the Holiness of God,  no human comes close.  But we know, innately, when we violate the conscience. We may deny it, shift blame, or make up justifications,  but our consciences,  if they aren't numbed by constant violation, or state sponsored propaganda,  know.

----------


## Jen

> I think everyone is born with it.  I remember hearing interviews with serial killers, and they admitted they knew it was wrong, they just didn't care, or the ..drive.. to do evil was just stronger.
> 
> Compared to the Holiness of God,  no human comes close.  But we know, innately, when we violate the conscience. We may deny it, shift blame, or make up justifications,  but our consciences,  if they aren't numbed by constant violation, or state sponsored propaganda,  know.


I"m sure that everyone is born with a conscience, but if we take a look at humanity, we see that the conscience is stomped down and ignored very early on in some people.  Others knowingly stomp it out of existence later.

When you see young children committing heinous crimes you have to wonder what happened to make them able to do that.

----------

usfan (12-05-2021)

----------


## usfan

> I"m sure that everyone is born with a conscience, but if we take a look at humanity, we see that the conscience is stomped down and ignored very early on in some people.  Others knowingly stomp it out of existence later.
> 
> When you see young children committing heinous crimes you have to wonder what happened to make them able to do that.


It seems fairly obvious, to me.  The pursuit of sin..  just little things, at first, then growing to reject EVERY moral value there is in traditional America.

The 60s saw an explosion of rejection of sexual values,  normalizing adultery, homosexuality,  and every perversion imaginable. 

Then came constant propaganda from academia,  entertainment,  government,  and EVERY HUMAN INSTITUTION, promoting 'if it feels good, do it!', and other grab the gusto slogans of epicurean indulgence.

How can we NOT be in the sewer of moral depravity?  We have pursued it for decades.  The constant bombardment of amoral Indoctrination,  casting off the pesky conscience, scoffing at the religious prudes, and lusting after sin with reckless abandon, sears the conscience,  and numbs it to the Creator's standards.

The depravity we have sunk to is the evidence of the Creator's judgement. We have been given over to depravity, and cannot see that this is the judgement from God.

Repentance and a spiritual awakening..  a revival..  is the only hope for America.  But i don't think there is time. It seems to me we have begun the Final Countdown.

----------


## Jen

> It seems fairly obvious, to me.  The pursuit of sin..  just little things, at first, then growing to reject EVERY moral value there is in traditional America.
> 
> The 60s saw an explosion of rejection of sexual values,  normalizing adultery, homosexuality,  and every perversion imaginable. 
> 
> Then came constant propaganda from academia,  entertainment,  government,  and EVERY HUMAN INSTITUTION, promoting 'if it feels good, do it!', and other grab the gusto slogans of epicurean indulgence.
> 
> How can we NOT be in the sewer of moral depravity?  We have pursued it for decades.  The constant bombardment of amoral Indoctrination,  casting off the pesky conscience, scoffing at the religious prudes, and lusting after sin with reckless abandon, sears the conscience,  and numbs it to the Creator's standards.
> 
> The depravity we have sunk to is the evidence of the Creator's judgement. We have been given over to depravity, and cannot see that this is the judgement from God.
> ...


No.  There probably is not time to make the turn around.  Also, people are so deep into the depravity that they may not know how to even begin to climb out of it.  Things that are perverse have come to feel normal.  We won't climb out of and run from something that we see as normal.  

People enjoy their corrupt habits and don't want to leave them.  Many people believe that if they fake being religious, that's good enough.  It's not.  We have probably begun that Final Countdown ...  but exactly what Doomsday will look  like, I can't even guess.

----------

usfan (12-05-2021)

----------


## usfan

> No.  There probably is not time to make the turn around.  Also, people are so deep into the depravity that they may not know how to even begin to climb out of it.  Things that are perverse have come to feel normal.  We won't climb out of and run from something that we see as normal.  
> 
> People enjoy their corrupt habits and don't want to leave them.  Many people believe that if they fake being religious, that's good enough.  It's not.  We have probably begun that Final Countdown ...  but exactly what Doomsday will look  like, I can't even guess.


I am encouraged by your insights, and loyalty to the Truth.  These are (i believe) the 'perilous times', the apostles warned of, and that Jesus foretold.  The signs of the times point to it.

A Great Apostasy is also in those predictions, and i fear for my brethren,  and myself, that we may be distracted with the worldly,  and miss the Bridegroom.  I do not know what form these things will take, but i see ..shallow.. spirituality..  PSEUDO spirituality, among professing Believers. We are ripe for a great Apostasy, and it cuts me to the quick.  I fear too many go through  the motions, and do not have knowledge of God. 

I can imagine no.more chilling verdict than, 

21_Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? 23Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!_
Matthew 7

----------

Jen (12-05-2021)

----------


## Jen

> I am encouraged by your insights, and loyalty to the Truth.  These are (i believe) the 'perilous times', the apostles warned of, and that Jesus foretold.  The signs of the times point to it.
> 
> A Great Apostasy is also in those predictions, and i fear for my brethren,  and myself, that we may be distracted with the worldly,  and miss the Bridegroom.  I do not know what form these things will take, but i see ..shallow.. spirituality..  PSEUDO spirituality, among professing Believers. We are ripe for a great Apostasy, and it cuts me to the quick.  I fear too many go through  the motions, and do not have knowledge of God. 
> 
> I can imagine no.more chilling verdict than, 
> 
> 21“_Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’_
> Matthew 7


That's the most chilling thing. I seek God with all my heart. I have done absolutely nothing magnificent. I'm no prophet. But I just seek God.  That's all I can do.

----------

usfan (12-06-2021)

----------


## usfan

A belief in atheistic naturalism cannot include human equality,  or any concept of 'value' for the person.  Everyone is at varying stages of evolution,  and the 'fittest', that is, the more cunning, ruthless, intelligent, and controlling will have more opportunity and desire to exploit the inferior members of society.   Why not? Sheep are there to be sheared. Kill babies? Old people? Inferior tribes?  Sure. Why not? The stronger survive, and inferiors are there to be used, or eliminated. That is the logical conclusion of atheistic naturalism. 

The principles from the Enlightenment:  Natural Law, and human equality are CONTINGENT, on a Creator. ONLY if God created everyone equal, AND endowed them with inalienable rights, can those concepts be valid. Otherwise,  they are baseless platitudes.. delusions and manipulations from human controllers.

----------


## Canadianeye

I see a continuous theme in nature documentaries, most currently, something from a David Suzuki narrated piece regarding trees, mountain beetles, deforestation etc.

The expert/professional who was in charge of the entire project (and apparently a globally recognized expert) - kept saying about how Mother Nature does this and does that.

"Mother Nature has a plan A, a plan B and probably plans all the way to Z".

"Mother Nature burns the trees to kill the beetles".

"The beetles die off in Plan B of Mother Nature, at -40 degrees weather, that is sustained for at least 2 days."

----------


## SharetheHedge

> I started a whole other thread..  just for you, and this concept.  Your points here are NOT 'rational conclusions',  but a projection of bigotry and bias.
> 
> You say, "Christians just choose to believe superstitions! They have no evidence but are just living in a fantasy!'
> 
> This is false.  *Most Christians i know, know God.  They have an intimate,  personal relationship with the Almighty Creator of the universe.  THAT is the basis for their belief.*
> 
> You can dismiss it. Scoff, or claim 'deception!', but it is not an irrational leap of faith, as you constantly try to portray, but a logical conclusion,  with the information they have.
> 
> The irrationality lies with those admitting ignorance of God, yet presuming to 'know!', the life experiences of all other humans,  for thousands of years.   This irrationality is projection, from those believing in a completely unevidenced worldview (atheistic naturalism), and assuming that because they believe something without evidence, from bias or wishful thinking, (contrary to the actual facts),  that others are as irrational and deluded as they are.  That is not a rational conclusion, but presumption of ignorance. 
> ...



But let one of those Christians that you "KNOW", "knows God", come to a point where they claim they no longer believe, and you will say they never REALLY knew Him. Right?

----------


## yeuemmaimai

God gave us 10 laws to follow. 

Man had made millions upon millions of laws

yet people deny God and try to do it their way with disastrous results

----------

tlmjl (05-24-2022)

----------


## yeuemmaimai

> But let one of those Christians that you "KNOW", "knows God", come to a point where they claim they no longer believe, and you will say they never REALLY knew Him. Right?


in that case it would be knew God and rejected Him and their fate is not a good one if they do no repent

----------


## Wilson2

".....1. It is embedded by the Creator.
2. It is a human construct for manipulation......

Morality comes from both.

Good morality comes from the Creator.

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

*There is No question that God has set the Moral Standards for humankind*

However, In today’s world, many people reject God’s standards. (Rom 1:18-32) They allow popular opinion to influence their dress and grooming and their conduct. Many flaunt their gross wrongdoing and criticize those who live by a different standard.—1Pet 4:3, 4.

Christians by definition, we must courageously uphold God’s moral standards. (Rom 12:9) How? We should tactfully make known what is acceptable to him. But we also need to maintain a high standard in our own life. For instance, when selecting styles of dress and grooming, we might ask ourselves: ‘Do my choices reflect God’s standards or the world’s? Does my dress and grooming identify me as a God-fearing Christian?’ Or when choosing a program or a movie to watch, we might ask ourselves: ‘Would God approve of this program? Whose standards of morality does it promote? Might my choice of entertainment weaken my moral defenses? (Ps 101:3) Could it be a stumbling block to family members or others?’—1Cor 10:31-33.

Why is it so important that we uphold God’s moral standards? Christ Jesus will soon destroy the nations and all wickedness. (Ezek 9:4-7) Only those who are doing the will of God will remain. (1John 2:15-17) Let us, then, champion God’s moral standards so that eyewitnesses of our good conduct may glorify Him.—1Pet 2:11, 12.

Think about it... :Thinking:

----------


## Quark

Okay I'll only say this once in this thread.

Morals is what a person has and ethics is what the community has. The Ten Commandments are the ethics of the Judeo-Christian community and are man derived for living in community based on experience. A person's moral code is personally derived from a person's experiences.

Okay have at it. I'm out of here.

----------


## TedintheShed

"The Creator" is always a human construct so the answer is that morality is always a human construct. The source of morality is human intellect. 

Now, it may be for manipulation and it may not. It's intent may still be benign.

----------

Quark (05-24-2022)

----------


## SharetheHedge

> in that case it would be knew God and rejected Him and their fate is not a good one if they do no repent



So you do NOT believe in "Once saved always saved?"

----------


## Quark

> "The Creator" is always a human construct so the answer is that morality is always a human construct. The source of morality is human intellect. 
> 
> Now, it may be for manipulation and it may not. It's intent may still be benign.


Good answer.

----------

TedintheShed (05-24-2022)

----------


## usfan

> But let one of those Christians that you "KNOW", "knows God", come to a point where they claim they no longer believe, and you will say they never REALLY knew Him. Right?


Deception is rampant, in this world. The seed of Faith is sown in many different soil conditions.  Not all of them will yield a healthy, long lived plant.

I cannot explain 'Why?', some people begin the race, then tire, get bored, or decide to quit, for whatever reason.  But the choices of some does not invalidate the Reality of those who have good roots, in fertile soil.

----------


## usfan

> ".....1. It is embedded by the Creator.
> 2. It is a human construct for manipulation......
> 
> Morality comes from both.
> 
> Good morality comes from the Creator.


'Morality' is the embedded standard, placed by the Creator,  to give us a compass..  a standard for behavior that is felt in the conscience of man.

'Bad' morality would be violations of those standards, or aberrations in the human psyche. Insanity, sociopathy, and repeated violations of the inner conscience can sear it, leaving it scarred and insensitive.

There ARE 'human constructs for manipulation', but these do not inviolate the reality of the Real, felt, inner conscience, that guides our moral choices.

Deception, indoctrination, a scarred conscience, and perhaps brain damage can blind one to the inner standard that is universal among human beings. But the very fact that it IS a universal trait among humans is compelling evidence that it is real, and not a human construct, AND that the Creator has embedded these standards in us, to guide our choices.

----------


## usfan

> Okay I'll only say this once in this thread.
> 
> Morals is what a person has and ethics is what the community has. The Ten Commandments are the ethics of the Judeo-Christian community and are man derived for living in community based on experience. A person's moral code is personally derived from a person's experiences.
> 
> Okay have at it. I'm out of here.


Say it once, or a thousand times. You offer no logic for this belief, which is just an indoctrination from state sponsored manipulators.

'Morality' can ONLY have it's source from 2 places:
1. The Creator placed it in us.
2. It is a human construct for manipulation. 

1. It is a Real Thing, embedded in our psyche,
..or..
2. It is a lie, to manipulate and control people. 

It is absurd to think a person's moral code comes from experience.  Morality is there in the very young, who have little experience. Experience can affirm the awareness of the inner conscience,  OR.. it can sear the conscience,  to justify immoral behavior. 

Do you follow your conscience?  ..most of the time, everyone does. Some people are 'bad!', 'immoral!', 'evil!', and 'sociopathic!'  They are considered negatives in society, not admired for acting on their belief in an amoral universe of human constructed platitudes.

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

> So you do NOT believe in "Once saved always saved?"


*Bible verses that disprove the teaching of ‘once saved, always saved’


*The Bible warns against serious sins that will keep a person from entering God’s Kingdom. (1 Corinthians 6:​9-​11; Galatians 5:​19-​21) If salvation could not be lost, *such warnings would be meaningless.* Instead, the Bible shows that someone who has been saved can fall away by returning to a practice of serious sin. For example, Hebrews 10:26 states: “If we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left.”​—Hebrews 6:​4-6; 2 Peter 2:​20-​22.

 Jesus emphasized the importance of maintaining faith by giving an illustration in which he likened himself to a vine and his followers to branches on that vine. Some of them would at one time demonstrate faith in him by their fruits, or actions, yet would later fail to do so and be “thrown out like a [fruitless] branch,” losing their salvation. (John 15:​1-6) The apostle Paul used a similar illustration, saying that Christians who do not maintain their faith “will be lopped off.”​—Romans 11:17-​22.


 Christians are commanded to “keep on the watch.” (Matthew 24:42; 25:13) Those who fall asleep spiritually, whether by practicing *“works belonging to darkness”* or by not fully performing the works that Jesus commanded, lose their salvation.​—Romans 13:11-​13; Revelation 3:​1-3.

Many scriptures show that those who have been saved must still endure faithfully to the end. (Matthew 24:13; Hebrews 10:36; 12:​2, 3; Revelation 2:​10) First-century Christians expressed joy when they learned that fellow believers were enduring in their faith. (1 Thessalonians 1:​2, 3; 3 John 3, 4) Does it seem reasonable that the Bible would stress faithful endurance if those who did not endure would be saved anyway?

*Only when his death was imminent did the apostle Paul feel that his salvation was assured.* (2 Timothy 4:​6-8) Earlier in his life, he recognized that he could still miss out on salvation if he gave in to fleshly desires. He wrote: “I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.”​—1 Corinthians 9:​27; Philippians 3:​12-​14.

----------


## usfan

> "The Creator" is always a human construct so the answer is that morality is always a human construct. The source of morality is human intellect. 
> 
> Now, it may be for manipulation and it may not. It's intent may still be benign.


..maybe..

Asserting your beliefs does not compel that as a rational conclusion.

You ignore the very real possibility that the Creator IS,  AND has embedded a moral code in us.

IF.. this is reality, THEN.. morality is NOT a human construct,  but a Real Thing.

What is the evidence?   The fact that human beings willing and INSTINCTIVELY observe an inner ..conscience.. is compelling evidence that a moral code, from the Creator,  has been instilled within us.

If this was a godless universe,  amorality would be common.. universal among humans,  with only arbitrary whimsy providing lists of platitudes for people to observe..  if they want to.

Intellect as the source of morality?    :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Our minds grope for justifications to soothe our violated consciences. Fantasy, wishful thinking, and self delusion are all 'intellect!' can offer.

No, morality is real, and present in every human culture,  regardless of intelligence or technological advances.  The fact that those who believe in amorality are often ..usually.. the most morally outraged says volumes.

----------


## SharetheHedge

> Deception is rampant, in this world. The seed of Faith is sown in many different soil conditions.  Not all of them will yield a healthy, long lived plant.
> 
> I cannot explain 'Why?', some people begin the race, then tire, get bored, or decide to quit, for whatever reason.  But the choices of some does not invalidate the Reality of those who have good roots, in fertile soil.



So, as I asked "Y", you do, or do you not, believe that "once saved - always saved"? 

Do you believe a person can be TRULY born again, at a specific moment in time, and then end up in the lake of fire through a loss of faith or habitual sin after their salvation experience?

----------


## usfan

> So, as I asked "Y", you do, or do you not, believe that "once saved - always saved"? 
> 
> Do you believe a person can be TRULY born again, at a specific moment in time, and then end up in the lake of fire through a loss of faith or habitual sin after their salvation experience?


I don't know.  The bible is filled with admonitions to 'endure!', 'Hold fast!', 'Do not be deceived!', etc.

That seems to imply that there are dangers for our soul, and care and alertness are needed.

The parable of the sower describes different 'soils' that the seed is sown in.

I have the uneasy feeling that the 'once saved, always saved!' crowd may be using this to justify license.  'Do whatever you want, 'cause you're saved!'

..maybe.. but maybe not. The main duty of the redeemed is to walk by the Spirit, and not cater to the desires of the flesh. Carte blanche license to sin would seem to indicate a following of sinful desires,  not a goal of spiritual growth.

----------


## yeuemmaimai

> So you do NOT believe in "Once saved always saved?"


If you are saved, you would not turn around and reject God. 

This isn't rocket science here

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

> If you are saved, you would not turn around and reject God. 
> 
> This isn't rocket science here


If we were perfect, and not flawed humans that could be assumed, but we're not!  My post # 125 puts that to rest.  The apostle Paul also affirmed, saying that Christians who do not *maintain* their faith will be lopped off.​Romans 11:17-​22.

Of course, the *buffet religions of pic 'n choose* would reject such a thing, as not in keeping with their mindset, 'tickling the ear' over solid spiritual food.

----------


## SharetheHedge

> I don't know.  The bible is filled with admonitions to 'endure!', 'Hold fast!', 'Do not be deceived!', etc.
> 
> That seems to imply that there are dangers for our soul, and care and alertness are needed.
> 
> The parable of the sower describes different 'soils' that the seed is sown in.
> 
> I have the uneasy feeling that the 'once saved, always saved!' crowd may be using this to justify license.  'Do whatever you want, 'cause you're saved!'
> 
> ..maybe.. but maybe not. The main duty of the redeemed is to walk by the Spirit, and not cater to the desires of the flesh. Carte blanche license to sin would seem to indicate a following of sinful desires,  not a goal of spiritual growth.



The obvious question becomes - how do you know YOU are saved if there is a chance you might not "persevere"?

For that matter, how do you know you are saved NOW, if you still sin? I never knew a Christian that believed they still didn't have some sin in their life (aka - "_God's not finished with me yet_"  :Cool20: )  So how do you know when/if you slipped too far away AS a Christian, that it amounts to not enduring?

Not trying to be a pain in the ass but these are questions that I KNOW occur to Christians and should be classified as ESSENTIAL doctrines or understandings. Do you think the bible would be unclear on such a concern? 

See, if you were open enough to entertain the possibility that the scripture may contradict itself on some things, that would represent a common sense possibility. But if you can't "go there" because it is against your faith, it's just something else you might have to relegate to "it's a mystery"  :Dontknow:

----------

Quark (05-25-2022)

----------


## yeuemmaimai

> If we were perfect, and not flawed humans that could be assumed, but we're not!  My post # 125 puts that to rest.  The apostle Paul also affirmed, saying that Christians who do not *maintain* their faith “will be lopped off.”​—Romans 11:17-​22.
> Of course, the *buffet religions of pic 'n choose* would reject such a thing, as not in keeping with their mindset, 'tickling the ear' over solid spiritual food.


again it isn't rocket science as you have to ask if they were saved in the first place... 

If you were claiming to be saved and you turn your back on God, then your claim was false.

----------


## usfan

> The obvious question becomes - how do you know YOU are saved if there is a chance you might not "persevere"?
> 
> For that matter, how do you know you are saved NOW, if you still sin? I never knew a Christian that believed they still didn't have some sin in their life (aka - "_God's not finished with me yet_" )  So how do you know when/if you slipped too far away AS a Christian, that it amounts to not enduring?
> 
> Not trying to be a pain in the ass but these are questions that I KNOW occur to Christians and should be classified as ESSENTIAL doctrines or understandings. Do you think the bible would be unclear on such a concern? 
> 
> See, if you were open enough to entertain the possibility that the scripture may contradict itself on some things, that would represent a common sense possibility. But if you can't "go there" because it is against your faith, it's just something else you might have to relegate to "it's a mystery"


Project how you want.  The topic is the source of morality.. whether it is a Real Thing, or a man made manipulation. 

The Transaction of Redemption is between a soul and its Maker. I leave that to Him.

I have no problems with 'conflicts' in scripture, real or imagined.  My knowledge of God is not contingent on a set of memorized tenets of faith, but the Living God, who created all things.

I am aware that the welfare of my soul is in the hands of the Almighty... always was, is, and will be.  I am content that He who has begun the Transformation will complete it, in His time. I do not need to be God, and will trust Him.

Maybe you have everything in the universe neatly laid out, defined, and explained..  that is a delusion,  imo, but perhaps you believe you do.  I don't.  There are mysteries in this life, and even more mysteries in the spiritual dimension that i have only glimpsed.  I have seen and understand a lot..  probably more than most. Many mysteries in this life have been revealed to me, and i soar in the heavens with my Maker, awe struck by the majesty and wonder of His creation. 

So, you can accuse me of closed mindedness, but i know what i know, or more precisely, Who i know.

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

> again it isn't rocket science as you have to ask if they were saved in the first place... 
> 
> If you were claiming to be saved and you turn your back on God, then your claim was false.


We're not talking about rocket science, I't about the IMPERFECTION of man and his intentions falling short of his complete dedication. Jesus knew this, that's why many scriptures show that* those who have been saved must still endure faithfully to the end.* (Matthew 24:13; Hebrews 10:36; 12:​2, 3; Revelation 2:​10) First-century Christians expressed joy when they learned that fellow believers were enduring in their faith. (1 Thessalonians 1:​2, 3; 3 John 3, 4)
 

Does it seem reasonable that the Bible would stress faithful endurance if those who did not endure would be saved anyway?  :Thinking:  

There is no Scripture alluding to the fact,* once saved always saved. * Scriptures to the contrary, as  previously quoted bare that out for those that are 'lite' on perception and understanding.

*Even amongst the 12 Apostles, Judas Escariot strayed from his original dedication and faith, only to be corrupted, and turn on Jesus and his ministry.

*

----------


## usfan

A godless universe has no mechanism to embed moral codes within human beings.  It can only stare blankly as humans concoct platitudes for behavior. But if the conscience is REAL, then the Creator must have embedded it in our psyche as a compass for behavior.  A godless universe does not care if you observe some made up, pretended standards, that have no basis.

Is that what we observe?  Man made platitudes whimsically decreed by those in power? No. We observe a universal standard of morality, across the human spectrum. Theft is wrong, in every human culture, though it is a virtue in the rest of the animal kingdom. 

The Evidence overwhelmingly suggests a creation event,  and by implication,  a Creator.  Human morality is compelling evidence that the Creator IS,  and that we are NOT accidents of nature in a godless universe.  Only by constant immersion in state propaganda are people indoctrinated to believe in Naturalism. Common sense,  Real science, our own souls, and the inner Witness scream, "Creator!!"  Don't let them make a fool of you. Atheistic Naturalism is a satanic lie.. it is deadly poison for your soul. Your Creator IS. Seek Him, now, before it is too late.

----------


## yeuemmaimai

God made 10 laws and they cover every aspect of our lives. 

Man has made untold millions of laws, and yet here we are in a wicked Godless society that cannot do what is right

----------

