Lucifer/Satan is...bad?

Yes. Religion can be abused.But in each case it is the abuse of religion. It is not the religion.I readily admit that religion can and is abused. So is almost every other motivating factor from capitalism, socialism, communism; pick your favorite.But it is not religion that is at fault, it is religion been abused.Let me try an analogy.Party A shoots party B.Is the fault the GUN? Or is the fault that party A shot party B?The GUN is the tool used. But the gun did nothing. It is not evil or good. It is an object that was abused.If that isn't sufficient then I'll try to explain further. I'm old and senile and often have trouble making myself understood (but I don't drool as much as I used to).

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I find discussions on morality and God to be endlessly thought provoking, SD.Q1 and Q2:In my experience, these two are tied together when it comes to being a Christian. I agree as jar pointed out that the stand alone idea of "good" and "bad" are extremely subjective, however, in the context of the way you are asking the question I think it leaves little room for ambiguity and is the reason there are so many different/same Christians. In the end, in Christianity everything revolves and relates to God even/and Jesus. I especially like your question later about obedience because it is very true that within the Christian religion "To love is to obey"...you to your parent, you to God, etc. So, obedience to him by following his and his "writers" teachings as described in the Bible are a reflection of the love you have for him.Therefore, is all there is. He created us, he spoke with some and directed others in what he wanted. A deeper meaning would imply something extra for us. We live for him, his relationship, and for the final goal which is what every human has written about since the dawn of time no matter if Christian or not....'Eternal Life'.Q3andQ4:This means that, yes, in the context of Christianity, immoral, sin, "bad" is anything that goes against the Christian God and his teachings...why would it mean anything that goes against the teachings of Buddha????**This is a not-so-humble opinion**

No, I agree with you. There is and will always be abuse of power whether it be through religion or otherwise. However, I was just merely pointing out that:
1)If I believe that what I am doing is right IT DOES NOT make the other person WRONG. That is determined by who can kick who's ass, right??
2)It was/is Osama's, and his cronies, abuse (as you pointed out) of the Muslim religion that led these people to the point they found themselves at which is a strong belief that what they were doing was right/moral, etc.Example: Do you think that we should punish all of the people (underlings in terrorism gang) that initially supported and believed the priests(Osama, etc) who molested children??? My Disclaimer:I think that terrorists should be punished.....as well as anyone who did not believe the children.3) "The more money one has the more principles one can afford". and now I would add "afford to abuse" Anyway, I think I've kinda strayed off the topic..gee that's a first,lol.

Of course such acts should be condemned and punished.But that is also a very, very important point and one that I, for one, thank you for bringing up.It is not beliefs that are bad and should be punished, but acts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar:Thank you very much for your reply. I was preoccupied and I apologise for my lateness.Reply to your post: I agree to some extends that differences in religious views may, in time, be trivial in SOME families (such as yours), and I am happy for you.Unfortunately, I believe this is not necessarily the case. In cases where the religious belief is well imbedded within the culture itself (e.g. Hindu vs. Christianity, Buddhism vs. Mormonism, etc.), we see that the clash is far from "minor".Sometimes such clashes can exacerbate to the point of separation from and segregation within families, but I am not sure if you are familiar with such situations. Sorry, my expression bad = P.From my understanding, morality is doing what is right, but we have 2 types of morality:Social morality, which is defined by laws set in a society and regulates a community regardless of the religious inclinations of its constituents.Spiritual morality, which is defined by religious literatures in the form of laws, rules, guidelines, parables (?), etc. taht defines what is right and wrong in the eyes of the god(s) or spiritual leaders.Sin is a concept that arose from spiritual morality. I want to investigate if the Christian concept of immorality (sin) is necessarily related (and if so, how) to social immorality (breaking laws).Thus my question: what relationship do you see between the concept of sins (a Christian concept) and social immorality (I am restricting this to the social concept. That is, law-breaking). Perhaps a better way to phrase my query is as follows: Suppose that a religious institution was founded, and that a special religious ritual (practiced 5 times a day) is a massive sex orgy by the entire congregation. Now legality aside, some would argue that such a practice is immoral, yet it is "spiritually moral" for the religion in question. Thus the dilemma.By the 9/11 case, I was attempting to highlight the above dilemma (though unsuccessful, it seemed). The point I was trying to raise is that religions' ability to redefine the concept of morality means that it can ultimately endanger a society.I hope this clarifies my point.Note: if we bring our first point (conflict between religion and family) under scrutiny, which authority should we obey: parents or God? As Tagless has so helpfully pointed out, obedience is a major part in both filial love and Christian love for God. What if the two conflicts? Thank you for enlightening me to the context of the Abraham/Issac case. I now understand the matter a little clearer.However, I was not only raising the point that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. My point is that all religions CAN do so. It doesn't matter what ultimately happened in the Abraham story, the fact remains that Abraham took Issac to the open and was about to slaughter him like a lamb. This event highlighted the fact that religious morality (obeying God) can surpass social morality (attempted murder), and ultimately endangering a society. This is the point I am making.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Actually, a real example could be polygamy and Mormonism.

To Tagless:Thank you for your post, as well as your helpful interpretation of my post.I have a very interesting (or so I believe anyway ^_') question that I would like to ask you:By defintion, Satan is against God, so he is spiritually immoral (doing the wrong thing by God's standards). However, is Satan immoral by society's standards? That is, if Satan is to exist, what would be "wrong" with him?Consider:
Satan is arrogant
- but then so are most people. Arrogance is the epitome of self-respect, self-confidence and self-esteem. Though not widely regarded as a "good" trait, it is far from being socially unacceptable.Satan is God-less
- but then so are all non-ChristiansSatan is deceptive and a lying SOB
- but then everyone has lied every once in a whileSatan is powerful, intelligent and good in music
- surely there's nothing wrong with that.Satan is evil
- but as we have discussed, evil IS Godless, so that's covered.Satan is violent and wants to kill you and drag your soul into the bottomless pits of hell and torture you for the rest of eternity.
- this is the impression I got from movies like "Warlock" and "End of Days". However, I don't recall any violence by Satan's hands in either the NT or the OT (where the majority of violence was perpetrated by God). As for torturing your soul for eternity, what's in it for him? Why would he want to do so? As for wanting to end the world or undo creation, remember Noah?Can you enlighten me please?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

So what you are saying is that this "law" applied all along even though nobody other than God was aware of it and God did nothing to enforce it or even to suggest that it existed. Can you offer any evidence that it did apply and was intended to apply from the beginning ? Or is it just your opinion ?

I can see one glaring problem with this, the Sin of not publishing time and place for the meetings. Seriously, where is the issue? Do their meetings, even 5 times a day, bother anyone else? If so, then tell them to kep it quiet. Other than that, who cares? Well, religion says obey GOD first. I hope each individual will make the best and wisest choice. Sorry. IMHO, simply not a correct interpretation.First, as I said, the Abe story is a parable that must be viewed within the concept of the society at the time. Within that context, there was no attempted murder. His behavior would not even have been a social morality issue at the time. So really, I don't see any problem there at all.This is not meant as a criticism but hopefully as a way to illustrate my viewpoint. IMHO, you are committing the same error as the Fundies and Literalists when they try to point to History or Science in the Bible. You are applying today's point of view and knowledge base to a civilization from 2-6,000 years ago. And just as in those cases, it doesn't work.Let me finish with one other, perhaps unjustified but certainly obvious general trend in many of your posts.Throughout you seem to return to statements like... First, sure I am aware of such situations. Hey, there are many such incidents laid out even in the Bible.But then I have also seen families break apart over jobs, money, wives (or husbands), lusts or lack of lusts, politics, national pride, geography, history...People are pretty much people and we can be incredibly stupid at times.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To custard:Thanks ^_^. Or the Aum sect in Japan?Thanks for your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

To jar:Thank you for your reply. What if it is not so "to themselves"? What if they actively promote prostitution as a form of penitence (all proceeds go towards the religious institution, of course, tax-free)? Or if they promote subway gas attacks/bombing?If everything is fine as long as they keep to themselves, how about mass suicide? Religion, apart from a nice way to lead to self-development and spiritual growth, is also a whooper of a motivational source. You may declare the above examples as "misuses" of religion, or you may declare them as evil cults (which, by defintion, is "a system or community of religious worship and ritual"), but the fact remains that to the members and followers, what they believe in is the Truth.This, is the issue. That is to be expected. All religions consider their teachings above and beyond anything physical. That's why cult leaders can convince members to break laws and kill themselves ^_^. (I am not implying that Christianity is a cult, by the way)By the same token, if religions dictate that teachings should be obeyed before parents, then religion and parental guidance conflict. Similarly, if religions dictate that teachings should be obeyed before society, then religion and law conflict. Is there a problem with this? Ahhhhh....ok. So suppose that today, a person by the name of "lab rat #1" kills his/her son, and explains that god (any god, not restricted to Christianity) instructed him/her to do so in order to prove their faith, then it would highlight my point, yes? If you want to make the case more fitting, suppose that lab rat #1 was caught before he/she had the chance to kill his/her son and so he/she was only charged with attempted murder.What is your view on this hypothetical case?Note that the Abraham example was in the context of the time, yet mine is identical without time context. What's the difference in conclusion? So very true. Yet I was not making the point that religion is a unique source of differences in value between family members.Remember how we got here? We were dicussing this... and I was saying that sometimes we cannot love our parents and God at the same time. If you agree that sometimes the two laws cannot simultaneously hold, then you have, in effect, agreed with my initial point.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

I think you are working way to hard to prove a point.A couple points. First, you will have a hard time getting me too upset about examples like prostitution, selling drugs, gambling or many of the other whatifs you can pull up. Frankly, IMHO most should be legal and when it comes to drugs in particular I would say they should not only be legal, but federalized, subsidized and made available for free.You bring up the issue of some guy trying to kill someone because God told him to. Here you have an action that is most certainly wrong today. You can't do it. Sorry, but regardless of his belief, can't just kill someone else.You also mention mass suicides such as Jonestown. That was a tragedy. No doubt about it. But it was not criminal. Some of the actions, for example parents killing children or even adults forcing other adults to take poison which might have happened, may well have been criminal, but if so, those that did it then committed suicide and so are beyond our legal or social system.As to the problem of obedience, you can and have alluded to situations where there is such a gulf that the two parties cannot find common ground. Again, I must ask, is that a religious problem or a human one?SD.I really wonder what your point is. IMHO, such gulfs should not be an issue, except for the personalities of the parties involved. I really don't see any major conflict there, except a very human one. We can all be horrible asses at times.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar: The 2 questions are:
1) Is the point worth making? To me, yes. Hence this thread. To you, not sure.
2) Have I proved the point? Still working hard at it. And yes you have successfully skipped my entire point.Some would say that "prostitution, selling drugs, gambling or many of the other whatifs I can pull up" are socially immoral, which is my point.Some would say that Tokyo subway gas attack and 9/11 are socially immoral, which is my point too, but you have ignored them. (quite conveniently too).My point is that religious morality and social morality can conflict because religious morality can be set to ANYTHING. The fact that in your opinion, one should place God above all else highlights my point that religion has the power to offset social morality by redefining what is right to the individual. Thanks. But what I have described is something that is (so very obviously) socially immoral, but (not so obviously) spiritually moral. To lab rat #1, god(s) instructed him/her to kill his/her son. He/she is doing the right thing by his/her own religious standards (obeying the said god(s)), thus demonstrating my point (again) that religious morality and social morality CAN conflict. So by forcing others to take poison, they DID break the law, yes? If they have broken the law, then they are criminal, yes? Thus they have done something that is socially immoral, yes? But because they have only obeyed what their religious leader told them to do, they are spiritually moral, yes? So religiou/spiritual morality and social morality can conflict to the point of making people break the law, yes? If so, you are agreeing with me and there is no discussion.Whether they can be punished by our legal/social system after their death is irrelevant. The point is that they have accomplished something that is socially wrong, but spiritually "right", if only to them. THIS is my point. Same deal with 9/11. Same deal with Tokyo gas-bombing. I was merely curious if the two NT laws are exempt from contradiction. It appears that there are circumstances where they cannot co-exist. It is not a "problem" as such. I understand your point perfectly, yet you appear to have misunderstood mine. Such gulfs (in opinions between 2 parties) are NOT the issue. This: is the issue. I have suggested a situation where the two laws cannot simultaneously hold. You have agreed that they are in conflict in these cases. You mentioned also that the 2 laws are hierarchical, so one should place God before parents. Thus my subsequent point that: I have stated many many times what my point is. It is that:Spiritual morality (what is right according to your religion) and social morality (what is right according to the society/laws) can conflict to the point of law-breaking.I have shown examples where this is the case (Jonestown, Aum sect, 9/11), and you have shown that in your opinion, Love/obedience to God can surpass love/obedience to man/self (which must include social laws).QED.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

As far as I know, the term "Laws of Divine Establishment" is a term coined by R.B. Thieme Jr. as I have not heard anyone else use that specifc term. LDE are simply laws that govern the sinful human race just like physics governs nature. If you study the Bible, you can classify the principles based on what are general truths for everyone and what are doctrines for believers. The general truths for everyone are the LDE. In the Old Testament, many laws were only for believers to teach them things about God (they would be no use to unbelievers who did not believe in God). This did not mean murder in a pagan society was ok in God's eyes, because this law applies to all humanity.Morality in God's eyes is obeying these LDE. Morality in society's eyes is obeying society's standards.It is wrong to murder someone. Anyone but the most arrogant criminal can understand this. My conscience tells me this is wrong. But a criminal can be so fragmented and divorced from reality by arrogance that his conscience is completely wiped away.Similarly, the more arrogant a society gets on the whole, the more the society will drift away from these LDE, so that what is immoral in God's eyes becomes moral in society's eyes (e.g. murdering jews who are all considered immoral). Eventually, a society without LDE will be destroyed or restored to LDE. I quoted Jesus who quoted Moses describing the first union between man and woman and the precedent this set for the rest of the human race. (Of course if you do not believe this is God's Word and this is not really what happened and both Jesus and Moses were not speaking for God, then this precedent carries significantly less weight with you) Anything other than this is considered immoral by God. He even went to the trouble to list several specific perversions under the "Do Not Do" category. Regardless of whether or not society sees humility as moral and arrogance as immoral, humility is what gives people the capacity to accept and obey authority even if they may disagree with it.If I say, "The income tax violates my constitutional rights so I'm not going to pay it," then I am arrogant and bucking national authority regardless of whether or it does violate my rights. .As I've just used it, the example of Nazi Germany is a simple example of this that most people can understand. The society became convinced that Jews were "immoral" "filthy" "degenerate" people. Citizens thought it was their social moral duty to find and turn in Jews to be tortured and killed. This was evil yet society saw it as moral and lawful. The combined greatness of a nation depends on that nation's alignment of it's "social morality" (laws) with God's morality (LDE).
Freedom, peace, prosperity, and citizens of integrity come to a nation and it's people in adherence to LDE (God's morality).I don't want to give the impression that adherence to an "immoral" social law is necessarily a Christian sin. For example, it may be immoral for a government to tell its people they MUST wear a seatbelt in the car because the government has taken away freedom and responsibility from its individuals. Following this law of questionable morality is NOT a sin. In fact disobeying this law would be a sin because this is arrogantly bucking authority. A citizen should only disobey a law if to follow it would be a sin. Buckling up is not a sin.I hope I've made some sense.

Well, let's struggle on.I have already said that the two commandments are Hierarchical.Love God.Love others as you love yourself.You have brought up examples where people have commited anti-social acts in the neame of GOD or religion. I have said, yup, bad things can and are done in the name of religion. They are bad things and should be punished.I have said that in my opinion, those are examples of misuse of religion.Life is not easy. Life is not clear cut. Life requires decisions and choices between conflicting possibilities.The best any can hope is to choose wisely.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion