Lucifer/Satan is...bad?

Jar,
Yes, I agree. This is one of the many reasons I think that the Bible, if you will, should be taken as a lifestyle change for the person instead of a "moral one upmanship" by a group. Unfortunately, that is how the wording of the Bible has set itself up as until Jesus specifically (but for most one has to believe the ENTIRE writings): where one group being chosen over another and, for example, since this group felt they were the chosen by their God...imagine that?...and since the writing by many is taken literally then this was taken as a "green light" for the mass murders committed for the occupation of Canaan (one example). To play the devil's advocate I don't think there is a single religious person out there that might entertain the idea that they (the Israelites) were actually being led astray to commit these atrocities by their very own satan?!?! That if they had been closer to God there would have been a better way? Just a suggestive flip of the coin to the other side.

Sleeping Dragon,
I would like to make sure I have a well-thought out reply, unfortunately I am very busy, but promise to get back to you by Tuesday.-Thanks

God's law is written into our hearts. Our conscience (when not destroyed by arrogance) guides us to His laws. China had never explicitly heard the LDE, but followed lots of them. I have not studied much Chinese history and culuture, but their LDE based morals that pop out to me are: self-discipline, manners, MUCH repect for family, elders, and other authority, honor, bravery on the battlefield, military establishment.As a side note, I observed an example of the relationship of LDE to prosperity today. Today, I began working at a pool on the poor side of town. At this pool, many patrons are rude, disrespect the authority of the lifeguards and managers, have fouler language, and repeatedly disobey the rules. A fight breaks out about once a week. At the other pool on the richer side of town, patrons mostly follow the rules and obey the lifeguards. Whether you chose to believe the poorer environment produced the lack of establishment values, or the lack of establishment values produced the poor environment is up to you I guess. I believe the latter is true. Right. There is a wrong way and a right way to pursue change.
Booker T. Washington is my favorite example of a Black American humbly, lawfully, and successfully striving to help his race come out of oppression and ignorance. Well, I don't want to get into a debate about civil rights right now.But, I WILL say this provoking thing on it though: equality is a myth. It never has been and never will be (not even in heaven). 1. and 2. The interpretations of our own nation's laws have evolved greatly. Cannonic laws cannot be changed. Only the interpretations of them change. This is why humility which provides objectivity is the most essential virtue in interpreting and applying all law.
3. and 4. Pretty much right.
5. I hate the word religious, but if you mean it as in the sense of God's one true set of LDE, then yes.
6. Well, in THIS nation we have tried our best and succeeded to probably a greater degree than any other nation in making all equal before the law. And yeah pretty much. Societies are always changing and so are religions.
I was trying to get you to see that there IS an ultimate standard of morality outside societies and religions. Arrogance, subjectivity, and satan is what attacks it.Social morality is a dynamic standard. No. I'm implying nations that adhere to LDE become great and prosper. I think I said in an early post that Laws of Divine Establishment are knowable and applicable truth for believers and non. From what you said above, I guess that you believe the law of the land (social morality) is the final standard, yet this too is always changing (unless you believe America is evolving towards and destined to become a perfect and everlasting nation, which goes against what history and God tells us). I do not believe social morality can ever be completely relied upon as the ultimate standard of morality, because the laws of the land are always changing, God's stay the same, and the interpretations of both are always changing and revolving through the different lenses of arrogance.Yes, it seems we've hit the final core of the kernel. Either all viewpoints are relative to one another and therefore possibly equally valid, or all viewpoints are relative to one STANDARD STATIC viewpoint. You believe the law of the land must become this static standard, and I believe God's LDE must be the static standard upon which the law of the land and social morality is anchored.And even if we should nail down what this static standard of morality is, hardly anyone will agree on the interpretation.Again, this is why it all boils down to arrogance/subjectivity/satanic viewpoint vs. humility/objectivity/divine viewpoint.Human history is, among other things, a great power experiment to see which one will win. Of course God knows which one wins, but he is letting Satan and all of us find out for ourselves.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-15-2004 12:54 AM

To jar:Thank you for your reply. The answer is informative and thought provoking, which is EXACTLY what I wanted, thank you.Reply to your post: But you haven't answered my question. Laws are scrutinised and interpreted under strict guidelines, thus they are objective and are used as a standard for morality. Laws may not reflect "true" morality in a subjective sense, but they are pragmatic and suffice for regulating the normal operations of a society.My question: Since spiritual morality is subjective, what IS the difference between spiritual morality and "I do what I feel like"?I am not only talking about Christianity here. I am pointing out that anyone can initiate a religion, and thus anyone can define "right" and "wrong" to whatever they want.Example:If I am a murderous psychopath, I can create a religion such that murder is a ritual that must be performed regularly in order to comply with my version of spiritual morality (to appeal to my god). Thus as you can see, in this case, spiritual morality has no meaning. It is merely defining "right" as whatever I want.In a society where cats are sacred, my religion justifies the killing of cats as spiritually moral.In a society where violence is prohibited, my religion promotes unadulterated 24/7 violent rampage.In a society where sexual promiscuity is discouraged, my religion requires sex orgies 5 times a day, all invited.I can see no reason why spiritual morality is valid for this hypothetical religion, yet it is one, and so its teachings are, by definition, spiritually moral.(Note: the above example can be applied to any context/societies, so it is free from the "the constraints of time, space and society" that you have mentioned) Some would argue bitterly on this point. Is this an opinion or a supported claim?Also, are you contesting the notion that there is only one truth, and truth is unchanging? You're using the term "morality" to describe what the people at the time believes to be "right". This is social morality, not spiritual. I have already brought up the point that social morality changes with time and adapts to thinkings at the time (post 43). My point is that religion does not (or cannot).As my example above has shown, spiritual morality need not conform to time, place or culture. Religions can redefine morality irrespective of laws, commonsense, culture or conscience. I cannot see how any guidelines/laws can be subjective, that's all. Objectivity means unbiased, not scientific, and certainly not measurable/testable.Religion is subjective, granted, but so are government policies. It's just that laws and guidelines should not be.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

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

Question 3: Is there any difference between bad, immoral, and sin?Morality has to do with aceeptable/unacceptable human behavior in response to faith/practice in a deity. To orthodox most christians, immorality stands out as rebellion against stipulated laws and lifestyle guideline proposed to humans by God.Sin can be simply categorised as that which is in opposition to God/Deity

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: Errrrr....no. IF LDE comes from God, and China has never heard of the biblical God before the 19th century, then it cannot follow the LDE.What you mean is that China follows laws or moral standards which are consistent with some of the values promoted by the LDE.But then your statement... ...would have to be changed to... ...which is essentially pointless. All societies must have, at some point, practiced some elements of LDE. But the majority of communities and civilisations in history have been eradicated. I think you have commited some kind of logic flaw there.Let LDE = apple
Let China = mint slices
Let edible = common grounds between China's laws and LDE
Let existence = delicious
Let laws of LDE = properties of appleLDE includes personal volition, marriage, family, community, nation.
(Apple is edible, sweet, crisp, and fruity.)China abide by some properties included in LDE. China is still in existence
(Mint slices are edible. They are also delicious.)China is still in existence (not destroyed) because it follows the LDE.
(Mint slices are delicious because they are like apples.)But mint slices are NOT delicious because they are like apples. They are delicious because they are minty, chewy, chocolatey biscuits, which is nothing like apples. Just like the majority of laws in China is nothing like LDE.In your case, maybe the richer patrons were more orderly because they had good rules, but it could ALSO be because they are richer and so are better educated, or a million other factors. The situation you have described demonstrates a correlation at best, not causation.I think you should probably retract: ******************************************************************** To me, equality is like perfection. Pursued endlessly, yes, but never completely achieved. Yet is it not worth pursuing for? The legislative process is hardly saturated with humility. It is through endless debates from subjective viewpoints that objectivity is reached. What is it? Well, since LDE is a Christian concept, nations which abide by the LDE must be Christian. If a country is non-Christian (the majority of them), then the concept of LDE would not exist, and so they cannot, by defintion, abide by it.Abiding by properties of LDE is not abiding by LDE. Actually, I think I kind of brought up the point that social morality is dynamic (changing) and spiritual morality is static (unchanging) in post 43. Of course social morality is changing, but it needs to be in order to remain pragmatic and useful. I don't have any conception of a "final standard", only useful ones. Errrrrr....no. Social morality is dynamic, as you have stated in post 48. Spiritual morality is static. That's what I'm getting at. It's funny that you should class "objectivity" with "divine viewpoint" when jar has repeatedly asserted that religion is purely subjective. I share jar's perspective in this one. Religion is subjective.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

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

To michaelkuyenga:Welcome to this forum, michaelkuyenga.A short question I would like to pose to you:What is morality without religion?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

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

I believe that is incorrect on two points.First, Laws are not a standard for morality. Two different things. Many things can be legal yet immoral. And, as in your new example, you defined a condition that would be moral, yet illegal.I said

quote:

---

There is no such thing as permanent and immutable spiritual morality.

---

and you responded. Of course they will. It's likely that I can list them and their arguments.But let me ask you a question or three.Haven't we already discussed the current view that many of the spiritual laws in Leviticus, laws relating to morality, no longer apply?And as to the one TRUTH, so far no one seems to be able to say just what it is. Ask a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, a Budhist and Hindu and the closest thing you will get to the One Truth is that the others are wrong.You said... but in the next paragraph... I tend to agree with the second statement. Actually, objective does mean measureable/testable. The speed limit is 35MPH. If you exceed it, you broke the law. That MUST be true for any law. They must be testable or there is no way of telling if they were broken.In practice though, they are also subjective, and must be. Thou shalt not kill. (except to protect someone else or in time of war or as an execution of a convicted killer or...) The police often do not ticket speeders that are moving with the traffic flow and are going less than X MPH over the posted speed limit and not driving recklessly.I go back to what I have been saying all along.I know that you would like firm, clear answers, but you are in an are fraught with subjective limits.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok let me get back to my original idea with Laws of Divine Establishment. I am proposing that whether or not people believe in God or recognize his moral authority, that His LDE, being TRUTH, will be used by them to some degree. The more they use, the more stable and happy their lives are, and the more stable and prosperous the nation becomes. A society with no self-discipline, no marriage, no family, no national authority, no military, no concept of murder, no concept of stealing, no concept of lusting, no concept of privacy, property, or self-determination, would be no society.Many have dreamed of a utopian society where the above description would fit, only they believe the general goodness of man makes this possible or at least worth attempting. God and history tell us, the general badness of man always wins out in such an environment, thus the need for LDE. If everyone were equal, we would all be the same, and would have no freedom. It would be impossible for someone to chose to be different. I know you are smarter than this and I assume what you want is for everyone to have complete equality before the law. The final decision comes from people, the judge and jury. If those people, blinded by arrogance, hate, fear, and subjectivity, believe a black man is a non-person and probably deserves death or chains anyway, objectivity will not be reached. So the legislative process, while designed specifically to eliminate subjectivity in the final decision, is still subject to it and still depends upon the integrity and objectivity of the people. LDE. Eh... Sorry that I misunderstood you. To me THIS is dangerous. Like I said, if there is no final standard, all viewpoints are relative to one another, and therefore possibly equally valid. If killing me seems right to you, you can make a law prohibiting my existence and kill me. Perhaps this is not useful to you, but other people might think so. yes. If God is truth, then what he thinks is true. If we align our thinking with God's, we will know the truth. Objectivity is being able to remove one's self from one's thinking to determine the ultimate truth. You and Jar believe objectivity is the removal of one's self and GOD and his truth from our thinking in order to judge between viewpoints. If we remove God, his truth, and what we believe to be truth from our thinking, we are left to decide between a myriad of human subjectively created viewpoints which can all be equally valid depending on what our underlying subjective desires tendencies want to be valid.If a religion is created by man, it's truths are subjective. If it is created by God, it's truths are real and objectivity finds them.

Sorry, but that statement simply will not stand even a cursory review.Let me try to explain.You said... The key phrase is and what we believe to be truth.What YOU believe to be truth.Once you introduce that into the equation, what YOU believe to be the truth all objectivity goes out the window.I have never said remove GOD. That would be difficult since as a Christian, removing GOD would be a conflict in basic definitions. As a Christian, I must have GOD in any summation.Earlier in that post you said... No one has said anything of the sort. Even a completely Atheistic society wouold still proscribe most of the things you mention.Throughout history, there have been very successful societies not based on Christianity. There have also been horrid, oppressive, destructive, muderous societies that WERE based on Christianity. So I do not see where you can find any support for your assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To jar:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post:I will define morality thus:"Morality is the guideline for what is "right" and what is "wrong"."I don't think you will argue against this simple definition, so on with the show. Law is not a standard for morality? Surely laws are guidelines for what is right and what is wrong? If not anywhere than surely within a society? You know, I have never ever heard this: before in my life. How peculier! Either you are nitpicking or you have a really strange idea of what laws are. Give examples.My example does not support your statement. My example has shown that all practices (murder, cat-killing, etc.) defined as immoral by society (illegal) can all be redefined as moral by religions, thus demonstrating the pointlessness of spiritual morality: ********************************************************************* We have discussed and agreed that in your view, the laws in Leviticus Laws no longer apply. As a matter of fact, you said that only "Love God" and "Love others as you would love yourself" should be adopted. So? What are you talking about? Of course they can tell you what the one Truth is! The one Truth is whatever they believe in. They don't agree on it, but it doesn't mean that they don't BELIEVE "that there is only one truth, and truth is unchanging" (which was my point, word for word).You seem to have misunderstood my sentence.********************************************************************* Ahhhh.....I see the misunderstanding. Explanation is required, please bear with me.Regarding 1st quote, laws change in a society frequently. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is changed with every precedent set, reinterpretation made, or new laws written. No one can argue that laws, in this sense, are not dynamic.Now religion: You mentioned that the two laws one should hold are "Love God", and "Love others as you love yourself". May I ask, when was the last time Christian morality has changed standards? Perhaps around 2000 years ago when Jesus came and got rid of the OT laws? And it has remained unchanged ever since. Thus my point that spiritual morality does not change.Regarding 2nd quote: Society is regulated according to laws (social morality). Laws tells us what is right to do, and what is wrong to do. Thus from the day that we were born, the concept of laws = morality were imprinted into our brains, as they should be since laws apply to everybody in the society.When I say that "Religions can redefine morality irrespective of laws, commonsense, culture or conscience.", I don't mean that religions change and "evolve" like laws do (see above), but instead I meant that they can override the imprinted concept of morality (that law = morality) and change our concepts of right and wrong: thus redefining morality. So strong is faith that religion can (and has been known to) override even the most innate of our values (commonsense, culture, conscience, even self-preservation).I hope you can see that my idea is consistent.********************************************************************* Ummmmm...no. objective things/concepts CAN be measurable/testable. It doesn't have to be: (Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com)I think you're referring to defintion 3(b). Read 3(a). You need not respond to this point because you are obviously mistaken.******************************************************************* You're mixing things up. The laws themselves do not (to the best of my knowledge) include subjective elements. It is a clear definition of scenarios (murder vs. manslaughter vs. self-defense vs. misadventure vs. war) where killing a person is justified/unjustified and thus whether the defendent should be punished or not. How is this subjective? This is discretion. It is when you circumvent the law when the situation is understandable or reasonable (e.g. speeding to get a wounded individual to medical facilities, keeing up with traffic, etc.). There are clear guidelines as to what situations call for discretions (ask any police officer). Again, this is part of the law, not an exception of.You CAN be subjective when you use discretion, but then that would be failing to follow the law (or breaking the law, or abusing your authority), and not subjectivity on the part of the law.********************************************************************This is the 3rd time I am asking for a reply to: Are you avoiding the question?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

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

SdI agree that we disagree.If you define Morality as then IMHO, it will change with time and circumstance.I don't believe that is quite true. Morality is a purly religious concept. Morality has little to do with what is right or wrong outside that religious concept. There are many things that could be immoral within the religious precept yet still perfectly legal.I said that IMHO, the two rules were as stated. But that is my opinion. It is MY moral code. I believe it would work for others, but that is my belief. Others may well believe differently, and as long as they do not try to force their beliefs on me in a manner that will negatively effect me, they are free to hold their beliefs.As to objectivity being measurable and testable, all of the examples you pulled up in the definitions are either measurable or testable.I can test a material object.I can test something's existence.I can test or measure both conditions of 3a and b.We disagree but that's fine. I am simply giving you my opinions.I keep trying to answer but you don't like my answers.There is no real difference until and unless, what you feel like doing impacts me. And there is the rub.Many things that were spiritually moral, and perhaps many today believe ARE spiritually moral, are horrid. For example, the current and continued oppression of gays. It is wrong, and even if moral, should be opposed.So, I still contend that the area you are exploring is simply subjective and it is unlikely that you will be able to find the nice objective answers you would like.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To Hangdawg13:Thank you for your reply.Reply to your post: No wonder you can't see my point. If you define LDE thus, then you are using a circular argument.Self-discipline, marriage, family, etc. are properties of a successful society. It is the combination of these factors which contribute towards the concept of prosperity and progress in a community. For example, we judge societies with national authority as more prosperous than one without. Thus your argument runs into problems. Consider:You're saying that sugar (society) is good sugar (prosperous) if it is sweet (has LDE).
But we define good sugar (prosperity) as sweet sugar (Societies with self-discipline, marriage, family, etc.).If you don't see my point, answer this question: how do we measure prosperity of a society?(Hint: Strength of national authority? Size of military? Strength and justice of legal system?) You are right. I meant that. However, that raised some good point:If we are all equal, there can be no greed, jealously, envy. There's either no lust or infinite lust. Freedom should still be present. We can choose to be different, but the moment we do, everyone else do so as well. In effect, we would all be clones subjected to an identical environment. Sounds like utopia to me! Mate. If they are going to decide on an outcome irrespective of the process, then they're not really using the process now, are they? You point is like stating that cars are not a form of transportation if the person in front of the steering wheel refuses to drive. LDE is a Christian concept. Thus it is religion. I was really hoping for a better answer than that.********************************************************************* Allow me to explain:Suppose that a car is made up of 4 wheels, 4 tires, 1 engine, 1 gear box, 1 body frame, and 1 steering wheel.1) You said that societies with no LDE will be destroyed. No car = no go.
2) I said that China has existed for a long time with no LDE. No car = go.
3) You said that that's because China's laws included some elements of IDE. 2 Wheels + engine = go too.
4) I argue that then you initial claim (1) is wrong. Societies can exist and prosper without LDE. No car does not mean no go, no car can still go quite well.Like I said before, if you consider all the laws of LDE as a form of LDE itself. That is, each law of the LDE is considered a separate entity (each part of the car is a car). Then you cannot explain why so many societies, which must have been practicing one or two LDE laws (possessing one or two parts of the car) were destroyed (cannot go).Hope this clears it up.********************************************************************* That's why we have an objective law-making process to ensure that my wanting to kill you does not result in a law that allows you to be killed. Where's the danger? Also, you can always leave a society if you don't like the law there, unlike religion. Do you want me to address this or are you comfortable with discussing it with jar?Patiently awaiting 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.Reply to your post: Yes.... I think you have redefined the word "morality" to fit with your opinion. Are you sure that is wise? Pay special attention to number (3) and (4). What you are referring to is merely spiritual morality: what one should do under a religion. If you substitute "morality" with "spiritual morality" in your above quote, then everything works out just fine (though it would undermine any points that you have tried to make).********************************************************************* I agree totally. I only wanted you to say this: "that is my opinion. It is MY moral code."Some people in this forum have a tendency to confuse a personal opinion with a supported claim. I am happy you are not one of them. Errrrr....no. You cannot test or measure 3a. How do you measure or test how objective a critic is? This is a main point since our discussion revolved around the objectivity of laws. Objectivity is the LACK of bias. How MUCH is someone NOT biased? How do we quantify non-bias? Believe me, you don't want to go there because it is a dead end.I don't believe that we disagree on this because of differences in value and opinion. I think we disagree on this because you seem to think that objectivity is scientific just because science is meant to be objective. The reverse is not always true.******************************************************************** I am unskilled at reading between the lines for answers to straight-forward questions. Please make your answers more explicit next time for me. ^_^You mentioned that morality is a purely religious concept. I have shown how this is (by definition) not so (see top of this post).If there is no difference between "spiritual morality" and "what I feel like", then what gives credibility to spiritual morality? Why IS it a standard for morality (right and wrong)? But I have recognised the fact that religion is subjective. I simply cannot see how morality (what is right and wrong) can be subjective. Thus I see "spiritual morality" as an oxymoron.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

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

Well, I think we've come almost as far as we can with LDE. I think we agree on the existence and importance of many of these certain underlying principles (which I am calling LDE). Our difference in opinion is that I believe God created them, they are the ultimate standard for moral truth, and they cannot be changed. You believe humans created them out of necessity and for improved society, and can change them with their evolving needs (this IS true of laws of the land).Circular arguments establish a relationship between two things. I'm establishing the relationship between LDE and a prosperous society.
They are inseperable as you have illustrated. Again, I think our difference is that you do not beleive they are Divinely Established, they are just invented moral laws subject to change. Maybe I've misunderstood you again. Now that's just wierd. But, of course it will never happen, and it is ridiculous to think we can make people more equal with laws, which is what socialistic government has tried to do, and by doing so has removed freedoms, and is what I disapprove of, and is what I was thinking of when I brought up equality, and that is a run-on sentence. No they are not. My point was that objectivity IS essential in having the process work in real life. The process is not run by machines that always work as expected. It is run by fallible humans who always have an agenda. Even if we succeed in creating the perfect process, the perfect laws, they will be misused, misinterpreted, and eventually completely perverted from their original intent if the citizens do not have integrity and objectivity.How many people do you think are out there who can think completely objectively about all things? Can you evaluate most things objectively? Do you think I can? What did you expect me to say? If you do not believe there is a God nor an ultimate standard of truth, what kind of answer would satisfy you? Aliens gave us LDE so that we could advance to their level? If you disqualify anything as truth, if it comes from a God who you do not believe in, no wonder you can never find God!If LDE are Christian concepts, then why do you follow them? Because we must! LDE are truths about how we live together in a society! Like it or not, you follow principles outlined in God's Word. What?!? Well, I guess you can walk, but that is a very time consuming way to get to work. I would rather drive.Can you point me to a society that has existed completely apart from LDE? I thought we were coming to an agreement on some things, but I guess not. Maybe it is the term laws of DIVINE ESTABLISHMENT that is throwing you. If I said, universal definition of morality, would you be more inclined to agree to the existence and importance of these universal time-tested principles? Okay. I do not agree with this illustration. I think there is more or less a smooth scale with 10 being complete adherence to the universal definition of morality (UDM)(I will try to refrain from including God in this concept even though thats where I believe it came from) and 0 being no adherence to UDM. An approximate list of things on the scale is: America is at an 8. Britain is at a 7. North Korea is at a 4. Nigeria is at a 1 or 2. The Palestinian authority is at a 1. The height of the French Revolution and the climax of the Lord of the Flies novel is a 0. Your wanting to kill me is an extreme example, but entirely possible after a few decades with no recognition of an ultimate standard by it's citizens. No human law-making process has ever evolved a perfect society. Do you believe America will? ...only if we get the dadgumed theists out of office, right?Besides, as I already pointed out, society is not JUST dependant on the process, but also dependent on the integrity and objectivity of its people (unless you have iron discipline and Big Brother, but then you have no freedom and you've defeated your purpose).Do you think a nation made by the people and for the people can shape itself into such a grand establishment that it somehow prevents the degeneration of it's citizens own character?The idea that a utopian nation can exist with perfect laws treating everyone equally and maintaining freedom apart from any recognition by it's citizens or it's government of an ultimate standard of morality is false. nevermind... let's focus on whether or not there is an ultimate standard of truth first. If there is one, objectivity will find it.