EBOLA PATIENT LET IN to the U.S.

[AgeofKnowledge]

And that's going to happen by using the government to persecute the moral for refusing to facilitate immorality? I don't think so.

You are able to adequately generalize the problem here but then elsewhere ensure that those root causes can never be remedied because you simultaneously agitate for government to disempower and persecute the moral on behalf of the immoral.

Morality IS concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character and that IS the root issue.

At some point, to move forward, you're going to have to come to grips with your own illogical contradiction.

 

[PennEd]

and the love of christ just shines through so many of these postings ........ (please understand, this is SARCASM)

You have some other manner of speech we are unaware of?

 

[Danny_Night]

Are you sure?

 

[Esanta]

And that's going to happen by using the government to persecute the moral for refusing to facilitate immorality? I don't think so.

You are able to adequately generalize the problem here but then elsewhere ensure that those root causes can never be remedied because you simultaneously agitate for government to disempower and persecute the moral on behalf of the immoral.

Morality IS concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character and that IS the root issue.

At some point, to move forward, you're going to have to come to grips with your own illogical contradiction.

What are you rambling on about? I'm talking about alleviating poverty, better educating people, funding crop farmers, drilling wells, investing in business, construction, welfare systems, better economies, more stable governments, better medical care, rooting out police corruption. This has got absolutely nothing to do with gay rights in the UK and America.

You seem to think that because I support the equal rights of gay people that I somehow condone every other kind of behaviour you consider immoral; murder, rape, paedophilia, genocide, oppression and whatever else. Well you're wrong, AoK, continually, blatantly and bloody well infuriatingly.

The root cause of violence in Africa is the willingness to be violent, if we look at it from an individualist standpoint as you currently are, but there are issues with economy, education, policing, government and culture that are interdependently existent with, and influential on, the individual outlook itself. People are conditioned, AoK, and nothing exists in society totally cut off from something else.

Sure, a lot of people in these nations behave immorally, but it's not solely because they behave immorally.

Let's get something blatantly clear, I consider many, many things immoral; theft, arson, murder, paedophilia, rape, corporate malfeasance, genocide, the killing of an innocent under any circumstances, corporal punishment, child abuse, chemical warfare, carpet bombing, using nukes, detaining people for months on something as flimsy as 'suspicion', Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the barbaric practices of psychiatrists towards mental patients in days gone by, serial killing, cheating on your wife or husband, hitting children, discriminating against people because of their creed, colour, sexual orientation or gender, wife beating, assault, economic bullying, false advertising, using lead paint, covering up the dangers of tobacco, indecent exposure in front of children and in undesignated areas, killing species into extinction, extreme deforestation, oceanic pollution, and the list goes on. And I don't have the time to sit and explain to you why I believe all those practices to be wrong, but one thing you do not see in that list is homosexuality.

I find plenty of things immoral, definitely, but homosexuality is not one of them. Now, can you grasp that, AgeOfKnowledge? Can you actually understand that I find many, many things immoral in common with you, but homosexuality is not one of them? Can you genuinely now realize, that my finding homosexuality not immoral, does not mean that I find every other horrid human practice absolutely acceptable. It's a false representation of me to say otherwise, it's dishonest, it's an affront to fair argument, it is not academic; frankly, it's plain ignorant.

To use it in such a way as you do ''you force moral people to facilitate immorality'', then compare homosexuality to paedophilia, is a gross misrepresentation and a faulty generalization. By biblical basis sins can be grouped together as equal in their immoral nature, but using 'sin' as synonymous to 'immoral' is just twisting semantics to make your own interpretations or what's 'moral' and 'not moral' not opposable.

 

[Esanta]

Obviously, my reasoning for why an action is either moral or immoral is much more complex than yours, but if we ask a question like 'why is murder immoral?', the answer is generally 'because it just is'. A person doesn't necessarily need to understand the complexities of my moral reasoning to understand that a particular action is moral or immoral; murder, genocide, rape, child molestation, these are things that are normatively considered immoral.

Why? Well for you, it's mainly because you're told they are, but it's also because deep down, you understand that you would not like to be raped, molested, a victim of genocide or a victim or murder. Now, some people might want to be victims of murder, or to be raped - there are some strange folk in this world - but even so, generally, people don't want to be a victim of any of these because it is a violation of their being, because murder ends life - survival is a human instinct - because rape is forced sex and human emotions dictate that sex is about mutual attraction or about love, thus rape is offensive like that.

Ask me why I think homosexuality is not immoral, and the answer is of course complex, but to simplify that answer; somebody else deciding to be homosexual does not offend me, hurt me, or violate me.

 

[Esanta]

Because your moral outlook is strictly deontological and based upon very specific interpretations of a text widely disputed in its meaning and interpretations - yet you assume the fully ontological nature of God - you cannot either properly care for, or fathom, moral viewpoints that run contradictory to your own, thus in your eyes they have absolutely no validity whatsoever. You apply such a perspective to all discussions on ethics, presuppose your interpretations of what is a 'valid' morality and what is not a valid morality upon others' ethical interpretations, thus you are, by very practice, unwilling to give due consideration to alternative points of view.

Definitely not a hallmark of an academic mind.

If you do not agree with a morality or legal system based on reasoning outside that which is contained within the bible, that is of course, your prerogative, but the least you could do is recognize that you are not the ultimate authority on morality, and there exist in your country millions of people who do not hold your specific views on all issues of morality, even within your own group; 'Christianity'.

Thus, I would ask myself why, if I think God's morality is total, objective, infallible and universal, others who follow the same book as me come to strikingly different moral conclusions. The answer is because cognition itself is subjective. It always will be; we can't change that.

That alone - that people reading the bible and wanting to follow the religion, can come to conclusions about particular moral situations that contradict your conclusions - should be evidence enough for you to question the rigidity of your outlook.

 

[tourist]

Because your moral outlook is strictly deontological and based upon very specific interpretations of a text widely disputed in its meaning and interpretations - yet you assume the fully ontological nature of God - you cannot either properly care for, or fathom, moral viewpoints that run contradictory to your own, thus in your eyes they have absolutely no validity whatsoever. You apply such a perspective to all discussions on ethics, presuppose your interpretations of what is a 'valid' morality and what is not a valid morality upon others' ethical interpretations, thus you are, by very practice, unwilling to give due consideration to alternative points of view.

Definitely not a hallmark of an academic mind.

If you do not agree with a morality or legal system based on reasoning outside that which is contained within the bible, that is of course, your prerogative, but the least you could do is recognize that you are not the ultimate authority on morality, and there exist in your country millions of people who do not hold your specific views on all issues of morality, even within your own group; 'Christianity'.

Thus, I would ask myself why, if I think God's morality is total, objective, infallible and universal, others who follow the same book as me come to strikingly different moral conclusions. The answer is because cognition itself is subjective. It always will be; we can't change that.

True. We can only change ourselves.

 

[Esanta]

True. We can only change ourselves.

I'd agree with this point. I explored the concepts of morality down to conditioning, circumstance, cognition, relation of memories to experiences, preferences, likes and dislikes, upbringing and even to the nature of thought itself and I came to a quite revelatory conclusion, that should have actually been what I began with; thought is free. Within the mind, the person thinks secretly, uniquely, comparing, contrasting and analysing both sensed things and the inner cognitive process themselves in linkages and forms that are absolutely and totally not able to be reconstructed. No two thoughts are ever exactly the same, for within cognition itself are cognate the ever changing moods, circumstances, senses - sights, sounds, smells and tastes - of any present moment which are being linked to individual, unique memories, conclusions, conceptualizations and conditionings.

There is an complexity to the human individual thought that makes generalization, shared blame, presupposition, assumption and many other practices disingenuous, almost blatantly obtuse even, and at the effort to try to understand and comprehend these complexities, there comes a moment of resign where a person says 'it's just too complex', 'my mind is the only one I can control'.

As for morality, upon deep introspection it becomes as simple as this; do not cause another human being suffering. Applying our own rules to others is of course something we all often like to do, because we are a hierarchical species, we dominate, aggravate, take charge, desire power, but at a certain point the futility of it all becomes self-apparent.

While I'm sharing this and generalizing, its because relaying something is an act of putting it on somebody else, giving it out. Yet, I firmly believe in the right to a decision to either take it up or ignore it altogether, without any threat therebehind. At the end of the day, we can only change ourselves.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm not rambling. I pointed out the logical inconsistency with your false assertion.

Why don't you head over to Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2013 and start familiarizing yourself with the levels of immorality (e.g. a state of wickedness) and corruption (e.g. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power) that keep these nations in a permanent state of bondage no matter how much money flows into them.

In your deception, you falsely assert that people who engage in sweeping immoral behaviors in their personal lives are going to be agents of morality in their civic and political lives but it doesn't work that way in reality and Africa is a perfect example of how that doesn't work.

You see my ignorant friend; it is God's Holy Spirit, mediated by Jesus, which is the agent of moral regeneration and apart from His mysterious work one cannot be a truly moral person nor even enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5–8).

It is the regenerate (e.g. a biblical motif of salvation that emphasizes the rebirth or re-creation of fallen human beings by the indwelling Holy Spirit) who possess more than just a residue of Imago Dei in this fallen world that are empowered by God Himself to desire God's holiness in their personal, civic, and political lives (Rom 6:13 RSV; cf. Rom 7:5–6, 10; 8:6, 10).

In total there are two possible states for a person: regenerate or unregenerate. Because truth is found in correspondence, to know whether someone is unregenerate or regenerate all that's needed is to match what corresponds to regeneration or unregeneration accurately. God's Word explains the what and the how.

If people claim to be regenerate and live wicked lives filled with blatant sexual immorality such as homosexuality, John states that the regeneration of those people should be doubted for their life shows that they are still a child of the devil in an unregenerate state.

God's normative morality is very simply that which aligns with God's holiness or in theology that which corresponds to God's holiness qualified by an accurate application of His special revelation.

To put it simply: If you are regenerate, then you have a new godly nature from God Himself that has changed what you are as a person to your very core and your position with respect to God. This new godly nature naturally aligns with and seeks God's holy normative morality. This is why you don't find genuine Christians living lives of great wickedness and seeking to persecute other Christians who uphold God's holiness in their lives and organizations though you do see fake or professing Christians (unregenerate people who merely profess to be Christians but are not in reality) living lives of great wickedness and seeking to corrupt and defile God's holiness.

So you can continue handing all the aid and investment you want to immoral people who act corruptly with it deceiving yourself an immoral people can make a moral nation. Obviously not. It hasn't, it won't, and it never will. That will only happen when the people themselves repent from their immorality and are changed by God who endows them with a new nature that desires to correspond with His holiness (e.g. normative morality) in their life (personal, civic, and political).

THEN you'll see a moral people reform their nation.

What you're falsely asserting goes against both scripture, the rules of logic, observable human history, and what we presently observe in the world.

You're wrong Esanta.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I mean how ignorant you are Esanta to falsely assert that unregenerate people who live lives of great immorality are going to be genuine agents of moral reform.

Obviously, you're not being logical but given the sorry state of liberal academia in the West today; you might have an "academic mind" in that sorry sense... lol.

 

[Esanta]

I'm not rambling. I pointed out the logical inconsistency with your false assertion.

Why don't you head over to Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2013 and start familiarizing yourself with the levels of immorality (e.g. a state of wickedness) and corruption (e.g. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power) that keep these nations in a permanent state of bondage no matter how much money flows into them.

In your deception, you falsely assert that people who engage in sweeping immoral behaviors in their personal lives are going to be agents of morality in their civic and political lives but it doesn't work that way in reality and Africa is a perfect example of how that doesn't work.

You see my ignorant friend; it is God's Holy Spirit, mediated by Jesus, which is the agent of moral regeneration and apart from His mysterious work one cannot be a truly moral person nor even enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5–8).

It is the regenerate (e.g. a biblical motif of salvation that emphasizes the rebirth or re-creation of fallen human beings by the indwelling Holy Spirit) who possess more than just a residue of Imago Dei in this fallen world that are empowered by God Himself to desire God's holiness in their personal, civic, and political lives (Rom 6:13 RSV; cf. Rom 7:5–6, 10; 8:6, 10).

In total there are two possible states for a person: regenerate or unregenerate. Because truth is found in correspondence, to know whether someone is unregenerate or regenerate all that's needed is to match what corresponds to regeneration or unregeneration accurately. God's Word explains the what and the how.

If people claim to be regenerate and live wicked lives filled with blatant sexual immorality such as homosexuality, John states that the regeneration of those people should be doubted for their life shows that they are still a child of the devil in an unregenerate state.

God's normative morality is very simply that which aligns with God's holiness or in theology that which corresponds to God's holiness qualified by an accurate application of His special revelation.

To put it simply: If you are regenerate, then you have a new godly nature from God Himself that has changed what you are as a person to your very core and your position with respect to God. This new godly nature naturally aligns with and seeks God's holy normative morality. This is why you don't find genuine Christians living lives of great wickedness and seeking to persecute other Christians who uphold God's holiness in their lives and organizations though you do see fake or professing Christians (unregenerate people who merely profess to be Christians but are not in reality) living lives of great wickedness and seeking to corrupt and defile God's holiness.

So you can continue handing all the aid and investment you want to immoral people who act corruptly with it deceiving yourself an immoral people can make a moral nation. Obviously not. It hasn't, it won't, and it never will. That will only happen when the people themselves repent from their immorality and are changed by God who endows them with a new nature that desires to correspond with His holiness (e.g. normative morality) in their life (personal, civic, and political).

THEN you'll see a moral people reform their nation.

What you're falsely asserting goes against both scripture, the rules of logic, observable human history, and what we presently observe in the world.

You're wrong Esanta.

I never said this at all:

''people who engage in sweeping immoral behaviors in their personal lives are going to be agents of morality in their civic and political lives''

Taking a contextual statement, making a gross generalization from it and then applying that generalization in argument to refute the contextual statement is just really, really manipulative.

 

[jjtj22]

As for morality, upon deep introspection it becomes as simple as this; do not cause another human being suffering. Applying our own rules to others is of course something we all often like to do, because we are a hierarchical species, we dominate, aggravate, take charge, desire power, but at a certain point the futility of it all becomes self-apparent.

I strongly disagree. This is the basis of an argument for evolution that moral codes come from the desire of the human species to survive. However, complete public nudity and bestiality are examples of God's moral law written in the hearts of men that do not cause human suffering.

Now I am sure there are extreme examples of cultures that violate these codes but the vast majority of cultures throughout history follow these moral laws.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The contextual statement is this Esanta, God isn't going to bless immorality: he's going to condemn it. Immorality has already been judged.

The entire purpose of the Gospel is the redemption and regeneration of humanity FROM immorality and condemnation TOWARD sanctification and ultimately glorification with God in His kingdom.

Genuine Christians ARE grace-justified, moral agents of truth, whom are presently being sanctified out of immorality which Jesus metaphorically referred to as "salt" and "light" despite ourselves. Do you remember what Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 5, about salt and light?

Jesus said:

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

Jesus did not say that you are to accept and/or engage in sweeping gross sexual immorality with other people which corrupts the very soul (see here), use the government to persecute everyone that refuses to facilitate that, and that you could build a moral society from that false POV and God would bless it.

^ That's ludicrous, the opposite of what Jesus said and did, and diametrically opposed to His ministry and the reason for His coming.

God's not going to apologize to Sodom and He's not going to bless nations that reject the Gospel in Christ (e.g. justification -->sanctification --> glorification) and His holiness.

You cannot have a populace with a corrupt, lost, and deceived soul engaging in sweeping immorality that create successful moral nations with God's blessing. It doesn't work that way no matter the amount of social programs you engage in.

The U.S. is a good example of that. We're about $20 trillion in debt (a debt that transcends any other nation's debt in the history of the world) with social programs and public education dominating our federal, state, and local budgets and our nation is in a rapid socio-economic deterioration that exactly mirrors its moral and religious deterioration.

In one to two decades, skyrocketing interest payments will force the government to dramatically curtail social programs, public education, public works, etc...

Will my nation's populace repent and align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ toward God's holiness and begin to reform a nation that got off track or "double-down" in rebellion and persecute genuine Christians and greatly increase immorality in society corrupting their very soul and inviting God's judgment?

Time will tell.

I never said this at all:

''people who engage in sweeping immoral behaviors in their personal lives are going to be agents of morality in their civic and political lives''

Taking a contextual statement, making a gross generalization from it and then applying that generalization in argument to refute the contextual statement is just really, really manipulative.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Correct: justification --> sanctification --> glorification.

Incorrect: justification --> desecration --> glorification.

Can you see where the problem is in the incorrect statement?

(Hint: replace desecration with sanctification).

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

This can be easily disproven using one of his own false assertions. He stated that it's OK to use the government to persecute genuine Christians causing them to suffer for refusing to facilitate immorality when ordered to do so (1) on behalf of people who practice a particular sexually immoral behavior because otherwise those who practice the particular sexually immoral behavior would suffer.

So is his assertion false, hypocritical, or both?

I would argue it is both false and hypocritical.


Notes:

(1) This deprives Christians of their human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality which He ordained for all creation under natural law and their religious liberty.

I strongly disagree. This is the basis of an argument for evolution that moral codes come from the desire of the human species to survive. However, complete public nudity and bestiality are examples of God's moral law written in the hearts of men that do not cause human suffering.

Now I am sure there are extreme examples of cultures that violate these codes but the vast majority of cultures throughout history follow these moral laws.

 

[jjtj22]

This can be easily disproven using one of his own false assertions. He stated that it's OK to use the government to persecute genuine Christians causing them to suffer for refusing to facilitate immorality when ordered to do so (1) on behalf of people who practice a particular sexually immoral behavior because otherwise those who practice the particular sexually immoral behavior would suffer.

So is his assertion false, hypocritical, or both?

I would argue it is both false and hypocritical.


Notes:

(1) This deprives Christians of their human right to a free moral conscience toward God's normative morality which He ordained for all creation under natural law and their religious liberty.

I will be praying for Esanta, didn't realize he wasn't a Christian, I just thought he was just a little lost in the "love is all there is" philosophy.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Pray that God will remove the strong arm of deception from his mind and that he'll come into the kingdom of God and learn what's really going on rather than stand on the outside and make a lot of false assertions that mislead ignorant people.

I will be praying for Esanta, didn't realize he wasn't a Christian, I just thought he was just a little lost in the "love is all there is" philosophy.

 

[Nautilus]

to be fair its been two weeks, and there havent been any huge outbreaks on US soil...looks like they knew what they were doing after all. Guess some people just over-reacted.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I hope you're right and think so for the immediate but let's see over the next few months what transpires.

to be fair its been two weeks, and there havent been any huge outbreaks on US soil...looks like they knew what they were doing after all. Guess some people just over-reacted.

 

[Esanta]

I strongly disagree. This is the basis of an argument for evolution that moral codes come from the desire of the human species to survive. However, complete public nudity and bestiality are examples of God's moral law written in the hearts of men that do not cause human suffering.

Now I am sure there are extreme examples of cultures that violate these codes but the vast majority of cultures throughout history follow these moral laws.

Well, they do. If I stand nude on a beach and someone lusts or in any other way desires, which I'm certain it will, then that is causing suffering of a kind, but then public nudity is not necessarily a cause of any suffering; it's dependent on the people around. If I have sex with an animal, which is a disturbing example, and which makes me wonder if you don't think people who don't believe the bible are utter perverts that are going to have sex with animals, I not only degrade myself and most definitely feel a sense of shame, but I cause an animal suffering too.