Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Stupid believers maybe. Amish just made up their own rules.Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?
God has 10 Laws. Jesus added one. That is it.
What would civilization be like if we followed them? Perfect.
A study was done Great, to answer the question you posed:
A group of people were given a test that they could cheat on. And they did. The test was stopped and those being tested were asked to think about the 10 commandants for 10 minutes. The testing resumed. Not one person cheated on the remainder of the test.
It is clear that we cannot all agree on what, where or who God is. Thus, establishing objectively what God's 'laws' are is not possible.
Of course, 'God's laws' would be the very definition of moral.
Lacking that, the question is the morality of law. Without the objective standard of God or other, all such morality is necessarily relative. It is what humans identify/decide it to be.
For society, secular law must reign. For a believer, God's law must. The problem for the believer is that she/he must realize that belief is purely personal, an existential decision on the part of the individual and not incumbent on anyone or anything external.
Reminder: Jesus said any sin but one could be forgiven (extra points given for knowing what that one sin is!). So, breaking a law for a Christian, intentionally or by accident, is not 'mortal'.
Stupid believers maybe. Amish just made up their own rules.Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?
God has 10 Laws. Jesus added one. That is it.
What would civilization be like if we followed them? Perfect.
A study was done Great, to answer the question you posed:
A group of people were given a test that they could cheat on. And they did. The test was stopped and those being tested were asked to think about the 10 commandants for 10 minutes. The testing resumed. Not one person cheated on the remainder of the test.
What is the penalty for a child who refuses to honor her parents because the father raped her while her mother turned a blind eye. That happens in about 1 in 600 Christian families so we are talking about a lot of children not respecting their parents.
Will those girls go to hell for not following that commandment?
Regards
DL
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin, according to Jesus. points please.
I understand your point, there4, but one can be objective when presented with any law regardless of it's origin.
Thou shalt not kill is a Jewish law. That we Christians have adopted. The same is a secular law handed down by governments. All three connected to morality. There are moral reasons for one law, in three different objectives.
If mortals are the subject of law, how can breaking the law not be mortal?
you cant really be a christian in our society without living on the fringes of it and being at great risk of being prosecuted for doing so
you cant really be a christian in our society without living on the fringes of it and being at great risk of being prosecuted for doing so
The US Constitution seems to coincide with what we understand as the Christian version of "God's law". Most Christians have been raised with moral values that don't conflict with the law of the land. I don't see any problem except when the radical jihadists advocate a version of 6th century skewed sharia morality.
[
people have different ideas about what G-d's law is.
and therein lies the problem.
religious extremists always think their pov is the only pov.
you cant really be a christian in our society without living on the fringes of it and being at great risk of being prosecuted for doing so
The fringes of what? Society or Christianity? My beliefs are closer to gnosticism, so I'm DEFINITELY on the fringe of both.
[
I find that athiests tend to lean towards Big Government and are left leaining. I don't think this to be a coincidence. After all, we all have the inner voice demanding "justice" and the Golden Rule, but what outlet do we have for such a voice when we see those in need? For those of faith, we have outlets like church outreaches. In fact, look at any outreach around the world outside of government and what you will find is that it is dominated by those of faith. .
[
The Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal under God. .
Gods law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Our literature is rife with criticisms of Gods laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of Gods law.
Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.
Believers say that Gods laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of Gods laws by secular governments.
If believers believed that Gods laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.
Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?
No believer is living by Gods law.
If believers believe in Gods laws, should believers be living by them?
Law without punishment is impotent law.
Should believers demand that secular law use Gods punishments where those few laws are basically identical?
Regards
DL
Law is neither moral or immoral it's just a law. The application of said law is what makes it moral or immoral.
For arguements sake let's assume the bible is correct. God gave everyone free will, and the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning. God supplies the laws and let's us choose wether we want to follow them or not. God will punish those who broke his laws in the end of times. On the contrary mans law only concerns itself with maintaining law and order, right now. Punishment is also right now, not at the end of times. God's people can't wait for Gods punishment, so they lend a hand.
Believers are the greatest bunch of rationalizers ever. no challenger anywhere. They stand alone at the top of the mountain.
I did think this obvious, but because if God existed God would, by definition of the term, be the supreme arbiter of all good, bad, evil, just and other laws, including moral. As the only truly objective standard, God would be the reference to which all would have to yield.
As it is, we have to accept that this word, moral, comes from humans as do all words and concepts and, so, is totally and can only be relative to us.
I don't see it as obvious at all. I will agree that such a being might have the power to enforce any standard it pleases, but why does that power make it moral?
YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!
Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.
[
That's why they began each session with prayer.
YOU may want to argue with the Almighty, but it could be deleterious to your health and eternal life!
Just kidding, but for God to be God, God has to be Good itself. It comes with the job description. There is no dispute possible. What God is is good and all good comes from God.
Otherwise, it's an impostor.
Interesting. But aren't you saying that God must therefore meet your standards or it is not God? Does that not then make you the final arbiter of morality?
May I humbly point out that you missed the 'if' clause; if God existed. It is not my claim at all. I speak only about the meaning of words. You are free to speak of God in other terms, but it could alter the original meaning of the term. We can call black yellow if we want, by why would we do that?
P.S. Until God makes an undisputed appearance, humans are the ultimate arbiter.
[
That would be an astonishing point, and one I would agree upon, but even I'm going to say "please provide a supporting source."
Law and morality are completely separate concepts so to muddle the two would be a mistake. The goal of the secular law isn't meant to provide a moral framework but to protect the right of those within the community.
Religious edict may seek to portray itself as a moral system but it is not. Religious law like secular law has a different purpose aside from morality. Religious law is meant to keep the followers of the faith following the authority of the doctrine while some laws that are moral in nature exist out of necessity. Is it then any surprise that the first 4 commandments or about religious observance to the doctrine?
[
That would be an astonishing point, and one I would agree upon, but even I'm going to say "please provide a supporting source."
Buddy. If I have to then you are not a moral man as moral people know what is going on in the world.
You sound like Iran's leader when he said there were no gays in his country. You are suggesting there is no family rape in Christianity.
Regards
DL
