-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
Explain how other people do have the "urge" as you put it? What makes you different? I have news for you. We all have the "urge" to sin. It is inherent in our nature as human beings. Why do some resist it as you do (so you say)?
Answer me about your conscience. How did people come to have a conscience? There is absolutely no other explanation than by intelligent design.
Answer me about your conscience. How did people come to have a conscience? There is absolutely no other explanation than by intelligent design.
Glad to hear it. But what gives you the right to condemn those who do what YOU consider wrong things, and if what is wrong today is not wrong tomorrow, how is there ANY absolute right and wrongs?
Further, I find it beyond interesting, that YOUR philosophy of "treat others how you'd like to be treated" IS DIRECTLY FROM SCRIPTURE, where I said all morality derives from to begin with!
Is it off topic? Didn't the Mayan's murder their own citizens to appease the gods so that rain would come and the crops would grow? That's good, right? Haven't rulers throughout millennia taken on countless numbers of concubines because of a right they said they had? That made the rulers happy so that's good, right?
I thought my point was pretty clear but apparently it wasn't. So here it is:
If you don't believe there's a moral law giver then you have no other choice but to say that all moral systems are man-made and all are equally valid. If you suggest that all moral systems are NOT equally valid then what leg do you stand on to make that determination? It would be pure arrogance on your part to suggest one is better than another.
So what's the alternative? Well let me ask you a question: as a kid have you ever felt bad for something you did? Once when I was four years old I punched my sister in the mouth and really messed up her lip. At four I didn't know about God or morals or any of that but I do remember that I feel REALLY bad about it. That was obviously my conscience telling me that I had done wrong. And I'm suggestion to you that we all have the same God-given conscience: Christians, Jews, atheists, heathens etc. We all inherently know right from wrong. If we acknowledge that our conscience comes from a moral law giver who is superior to ourselves then we now have a baseline for judging other moral systems. If we don't then we have no right to judge other cultures that permitted murder, rape, etc. It's all personal or societal preference.
No, I don't. I find what you believe to be very unclear. It would really helped me if you would define what you mean by "morality".
An action or choice is moral (or right) when it somehow promotes happiness, well being or health or if it minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both. It is immoral (wrong) if it diminishes happiness, well being, or health or it somehow cause unnecessary harm or suffering or, again, it does both.
I get this from observations on the use of morality by people around me, and from its usage in literature and other forms of media. Generally if I am talking about things that are moral following these guidelines people tend to already understand that these are moral without me explaining my definition to them, which is to some degree an indicator that it is on the right track.
Also, notice how nothing about this is subject or relativistic. The fact that murder causes harm, or saving a life minimizes it, is not a personal opinion that is only true for me. Harm, pain, suffering, health, well being; these are real things. They are not contingent on my mind. I don't have to agree that someone is dying for them to actually be dying. People live and they die. They experience pain and suffering and they experience joy and health. Even with our limited technology, this is still objectively measurable. For example, you can use a electroencephalography machine and which parts of the brain are being affected, and to what degree, when the person is subjected to certain experiences. Different parts of the brain will light up when someone experiences sadness than when someone experiences joy. When we hurt or help a person, it causes real quantifiable things to happen in that person's brain. Yes, this may be a subjective experience for them but it is still objectively happening. From this we can determine, objectively, whether things are moral or immoral.
Plus, I am pretty sure we don't need state of the art technology to be able to recognize that things like rape and murder cause unnecessary harm and suffering.
This is actually a very bad version of the golden rule. I don't think it is very useful. In fact, I think it can be quite harmful.
An action or choice is moral (or right) when it somehow promotes happiness, well being or health or if it minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering or it does both. It is immoral (wrong) if it diminishes happiness, well being, or health or it somehow cause unnecessary harm or suffering or, again, it does both.
I get this from observations on the use of morality by people around me, and from its usage in literature and other forms of media. Generally if I am talking about things that are moral following these guidelines people tend to already understand that these are moral without me explaining my definition to them, which is to some degree an indicator that it is on the right track.
Also, notice how nothing about this is subject or relativistic. The fact that murder causes harm, or saving a life minimizes it, is not a personal opinion that is only true for me. Harm, pain, suffering, health, well being; these are real things. They are not contingent on my mind. I don't have to agree that someone is dying for them to actually be dying. People live and they die. They experience pain and suffering and they experience joy and health. Even with our limited technology, this is still objectively measurable. For example, you can use a electroencephalography machine and which parts of the brain are being affected, and to what degree, when the person is subjected to certain experiences. Different parts of the brain will light up when someone experiences sadness than when someone experiences joy. When we hurt or help a person, it causes real quantifiable things to happen in that person's brain. Yes, this may be a subjective experience for them but it is still objectively happening. From this we can determine, objectively, whether things are moral or immoral.
Plus, I am pretty sure we don't need state of the art technology to be able to recognize that things like rape and murder cause unnecessary harm and suffering.
This is actually a very bad version of the golden rule. I don't think it is very useful. In fact, I think it can be quite harmful.
Last edited:
Who makes this determination? You? Me? Somebody else? What if an action is seen as good by one party and not by the other party? Which one is correct, and why? What if something you perceive to be harmless is considered very harmful to another party involved in your action but isn't in a position to speak out against it?
This philosophy is wrought with potential land mines.
This philosophy is wrought with potential land mines.
Restraints on evil include fear of law enforcement and courts, fear of God, fear of loss of reputation and ostracization from a group, God's grace, cultural norms. Observations are that numerous, non-religious people have been highly disciplined and moral. Motivations can be many. Restraints can break down during wars, riots, natural disasters and other events where chaos increases.
Of the definition? Or determining whether or not it causes those things? If the latter I have already explained that.
By how they fall into the definition given. One outcome would be objectively more moral than another. It might not be able to be determined at that time, but it would still be the case.
Then that is most unfortunate, and hopefully the problem would be brought up and corrected. Reality isn't going to mold itself into what we would find to be just or good. There is some silver lining though, this will make it so that people are always encouraged to continue the pursuit of new ways to determine whether or not certain things are moral. New technology, and models, will end up being developed that will allow the fact of one decision to be more moral than another to be demonstrated.
By how they fall into the definition given. One outcome would be objectively more moral than another. It might not be able to be determined at that time, but it would still be the case.
Then that is most unfortunate, and hopefully the problem would be brought up and corrected. Reality isn't going to mold itself into what we would find to be just or good. There is some silver lining though, this will make it so that people are always encouraged to continue the pursuit of new ways to determine whether or not certain things are moral. New technology, and models, will end up being developed that will allow the fact of one decision to be more moral than another to be demonstrated.
You interpreted what I said wrong, I simply said Faith is not Faith if one knows all. I did not say for no one to inquire. I inquired found the freedom I needed, And today p;lain and simply trust God the creator of all, through the Son Christ who is my Savior and completed the perfectness I needed and I am today a partaker in this, thanking God daily entering hid courts with thanksgiving and praise, being too busy there, and nothing but love to all comes out
Mischief among children and others will increase if they think that no one is watching and that they won't get caught and can get away with something. Faith in God adds awareness of someone else who is always watching. Over the millennia of human history, I am sure that perpetrators of misdeeds have often not been caught. Future general resurrection of all who have ever lived will provide an opportunity for judgment and reckoning. God is watching always. Judgment seems to be delayed but it will come.
Prayer: Lord Jesus, have mercy.
Prayer: Lord Jesus, have mercy.
Bottom line from the book of Job, no matter what don't give up in belief to God
For the Book started out with Satan telling God Job won't curse you now, look at the hedge you got around him? God took that hedge off knowing Job would never curse God. And he did not curse God even after his own wife said curse God and die. He still would not. Even when man came around as counselors he even rebuked them, and then said the he knew his redeemer lives and would stand on the earth in latter days.
No friend that is Faith
I look to see and hear from God what is the context, the bottom line that you are trying to tell us? Not mankind God the creator of all
For the Book started out with Satan telling God Job won't curse you now, look at the hedge you got around him? God took that hedge off knowing Job would never curse God. And he did not curse God even after his own wife said curse God and die. He still would not. Even when man came around as counselors he even rebuked them, and then said the he knew his redeemer lives and would stand on the earth in latter days.
No friend that is Faith
I look to see and hear from God what is the context, the bottom line that you are trying to tell us? Not mankind God the creator of all
Either the God of creation, revealed through Christ Jesus the Son or the God of self?
Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Because of this:
Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
As a man believes so is he period, that is how we all are designed by thought we are led, and whatever thoughts dominate we are in belief to that thought, that created our emotions, that many time emotions lead over truth and we are deceived thereby. can anyone be angry with out angry thoughts? Anger is an emotion is it not? And when one is in anger and does not want to be, tries to not be, but just can't, why?
Because no one can change there emotional feelings ever, without changing there thoughts that created that emotional feeling of anger that took control of how you.
Just something to think about as we all grow to love each other and hear each other without condemnation
Because no one can change there emotional feelings ever, without changing there thoughts that created that emotional feeling of anger that took control of how you.
Just something to think about as we all grow to love each other and hear each other without condemnation