Are My Personal Ethics Contradictory?

[Politico]

According to the bible god is the one who gave us free will, so in a way its true...

God gave us free will so your ethics are your own. It is when you try to impose them on others that there's a problem.

God gave us ethics to follow. Free will is our choice to follow them or not. Proverbs is full of ethics.

He gave us rules. If it makes you feel better to word it that way have at it.

 

[Intense]

Today, I was told that I cannot - absolutely impossible for me to - believe the way I do. Either I was for religion and freedom, or I was not.

To explain as an example: I am for complete religious freedom, yet I'm also okay with gay people getting married. I am definitely okay with someone owning fourteen thousand guns if they so wished, but I do want there to be a system in place to make sure a paranoid schizophrenic doesn't get one. I hate federal government but I like state government.

Stuff like that, but I want to focus on that first sentence.

It is apparently literally impossible for me to believe in both religious and (let's call it) personal freedom. Likewise because I can do both, I am (exact words here) an "affront against God" for believing as much.

Why? Why is it wrong to want what I feel is best for everyone? Why do I have to "choose a side"? Can things like gay marriage and religion truly not coexist? Am I grasping at straws wanting both?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2kO_5cNF5k]Three Card Monte Street Hustle - Card Tricks Revealed - YouTube[/ame]
Three Card Monte Street Hustle - Card Tricks Revealed

There is God there is Mankind,
There is what Mankind says God says,
and,
there is what God actually says.

There is free will,
and as a result, cause and effect.
What do we learn from it?
What do we deny?

Let's move away from judgement and just simplify.
What is motive?
Intent?
What is clarity of purpose?
How does that fit into any equation?

God made each of us.
He gave us free will,
choice.
So what does one do with this tool?
Are we curious?
Do we seek vision?
Do we come up with a plan through inspiration?

Do we blame God for what we do to each other with the free will he gave us?
At what point do we turn to Him? How far does the chasing of one's tail need to go before the negative gets erased?

 

[DGS49]

There are three forms of "truth" in the Bible.

Parts of the Bible are allegorical (see Genesis). It is made up of stories, passed down through generations that may have some factual basis, but maybe not. There may have been a big flood and some old geezer who survived it (many religions from that region have similar tales to tell), but certainly the whole earth was never covered with water. Couldn't happen; didn't happen. These parts of the Bible are "true" in the sense that they describe fundamental truths about human nature, divine nature, and the relationship between God and man.

Parts of the Bible are historical. They reflect the authors' intention to report on actual events that took place, but it must be remembered that the authors were not journalists, had no "fact checkers," and were only reporting their impressions of what happened. Did the water in the Nile turn to blood? Not bloody likely. Did something happen that discolored the water? Probably. The historical passages are "truthful" in the sense that they were not deliberate lies. But they may not be accurate to the extent that a modern report would be expected to be.

And of course the prophetic books and teaching books are not intended to be factual.

 

[froggy]

Today, I was told that I cannot - absolutely impossible for me to - believe the way I do. Either I was for religion and freedom, or I was not.

To explain as an example: I am for complete religious freedom, yet I'm also okay with gay people getting married. I am definitely okay with someone owning fourteen thousand guns if they so wished, but I do want there to be a system in place to make sure a paranoid schizophrenic doesn't get one. I hate federal government but I like state government.

Stuff like that, but I want to focus on that first sentence.

It is apparently literally impossible for me to believe in both religious and (let's call it) personal freedom. Likewise because I can do both, I am (exact words here) an "affront against God" for believing as much.

Why? Why is it wrong to want what I feel is best for everyone? Why do I have to "choose a side"? Can things like gay marriage and religion truly not coexist? Am I grasping at straws wanting both?

Have you given your life to Christ?

 

[PainefulTruth]

There is no such thing as the doctrine of infallibility.

So the Bible can be wrong. How many Christians and observant Jews would agree with that.



What has nothing to do with the Truth? The Bible? Is it the divine Truth or just the fallible words of men?



Objective, scientific Truth, yes. Beauty is also Truth but it can be different for everybody.

The Word of God is the truth and by reading it for ourselves we too shall know the Truth - and that is what sets us free from the deception of man / organized religion / false teachers, etc.

First you say the Word of God, or the Bible, is not infallible, but that Truth doesn't change. How then do you know what you read is the Truth--your infallible intuition? Any kind of appeal to an internal Holy Spirit is ripe for deception. Sexual orgasm can be seen as an overwhelming manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Judging something to be universal Truth with your emotions makes you become your own false teacher.

The bible is the infallible Word of God. The Church is not infallible. The Church is made up of human beings - some who are in leadership interpret the scriptures wrong. God is not fallible. Man is. example* The Catholic church doctrine holds to the infallibility of the Church yet the RCC has been proven fallible. No where did I ever say the Word of God is fallible. I am speaking of man made doctrines that are not supported by the Word of God.

You say that the Bible is infallible, but not man or the Church. So if man can corrupt the word of God now, certainly we could have then when things were so much more reliant on superstition, and there were no checks an balances--even as man was copying down the "infallible" words.

The Truth is, you have nothing to base your declaration that the Bible is/was infallible on except your desire (faith) to believe that it was...ever was-. It isn't driven by Truth, or even love, but fear.

 

[PainefulTruth]

If the Bible can't be corrupted, why does it warn against changing it at the end of Revelation.

 

[daws101]

If the Bible can't be corrupted, why does it warn against changing it at the end of Revelation.

the bible has already been corrupted lot's of it was edited out or embellished..
the warning is is like the disclaimer at the end of a movie :

 

[PainefulTruth]

the bible has already been corrupted lot's of it was edited out or embellished.

So, you admit that the Bible, the "Word of God", is corrupted?

 

[Agit8r]

According to the bible god is the one who gave us free will, so in a way its true...

I don't recall that particular passage. I think the you are thinking of Locke.

 

[daws101]

the bible has already been corrupted lot's of it was edited out or embellished.

So, you admit that the Bible, the "Word of God", is corrupted?

it's not an admission, it's a statement of fact....

 

[pacer]

According to the bible god is the one who gave us free will, so in a way its true...

There is a difference between free will, freedom, and liberty.

"Free will" is the capacity to take a certain course of action.

"...freedom implies an individual is unfettered in any manner to act. Freedom implies no boundaries to limit human actions.

The concept of boundaries, however, transforms the word freedom into the word liberty. Whereas the concept of freedom ignores the concept of obligations, the concept of liberty implies potential obligations. The word freedom ignores interactions with other humans, the word liberty acknowledges those interactions. The word liberty describes specific freedoms of action without obligations toward others,[1] but recognizes that obligations might exist. The concept of boundaries introduces obligations toward other people. The concept of freedom implies unrestricted movement and actions regardless of boundaries, but the concept of liberty imply restrictions on actions because of boundaries. Liberty acknowledges possible boundaries and merely is freedom from fiat boundaries.[2]"

Therefore, you have (free will) the capacity to take a certain course of action within the boundaries/obligations of the Ten Commandments (liberty).

Simple Liberty - What is Liberty?