PEACE OR UNREST

[jce]

Here is a simple test concerning your World View, if you have one.

I. Obedience to the teachings of Christ will:

1.
A. Produce greed
B. Increase generosity
C. Make no difference

2.
A. Produce a higher moral standard
B. Erode moral standards
C. Make no difference

3.
A. Bring peace
B. Instigate war
C. Make no difference


II. The world is trending toward:

A. Less greed, higher ethics and greater peace
B. More greed, lower ethics and greater conflict
C. The World is trending in neither direction, it is simply stable

III. In what way does your understanding of a trend, if any, reflect an acceptance of Christ or rejection of Him?

IV. Prior to Christ's first appearance:

A. The World was more barbaric with less emphasis on the value of the common individual
B. The World was more civilized placing a high value on the life of the common individual
C. No different than it is today

V. The Bible predicts a termination of man's government on the Earth, if true, prior to its fulfillment:

A. The World will be at peace
B. The World will be in great conflict

VI. In Whom or What, do you place your hope for a future society at perfect peace?

Now you know.

John

"No God No Peace"
"Know God Know Peace"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning John,

Thanks for the interesting questions. I think they lead to much insight, though not along the lines that you intended.

Here is a simple test concerning your World View, if you have one.
I. Obedience to the teachings of Christ will:

1.
A. Produce greed
B. Increase generosity
C. Make no difference

2.
A. Produce a higher moral standard
B. Erode moral standards
C. Make no difference

3.
A. Bring peace
B. Instigate war
C. Make no difference

The questions are "loaded" - they are based on the false presumption that the moral teachings of Christ are unique. The correct question would be about "Obedience to the moral teachings common to all traditions." Note that I am talking about the "intersection" (to use set theory terminology) of all the moral teachings from all traditions. The Golden Rule is a prime example. Moral teachings that are unique to an individual tradition, such as belief in a particular God like Allah or Yahweh, are not included in the set because they are not universal whereas true morality must be universal.

II. The world is trending toward:

A. Less greed, higher ethics and greater peace
B. More greed, lower ethics and greater conflict
C. The World is trending in neither direction, it is simply stable

I think A is clearly the correct answer though there is some ambiguity about "greed" since we have no objective measure for that. I live a life that would have been inconceivable just a hundred years ago. My wife is able to vote and function as an equal in society. Blacks have been emancipated from the profound evil of slavery that was institutionalized in the "Christian" southern states of the USA. Moral standards of equality for all people are spreading far and wide. Wars amongst the nations of the world continue to abate despite the "problem areas" caused primarily by religious fundamentalism (e.g. the Middle East) and ignorance and superstition (e.g. Africa).

III. In what way does your understanding of a trend, if any, reflect an acceptance of Christ or rejection of Him?

It would be foolish in the extreme to use "trends" as a reason to accept or reject Christ. Every conceivable "trend" has had it's day during the 2000 years of Christian history. And "trends" in the world tell us nothing about the truth or falsehood of the Gospel.

IV. Prior to Christ's first appearance:

A. The World was more barbaric with less emphasis on the value of the common individual
B. The World was more civilized placing a high value on the life of the common individual
C. No different than it is today

Again, the question is loaded. We could ask the same question about the time before the appearance of Buddha, Gandhi, or Muhammad. There is much evidence that the life of the Arabs improved greatly under Muhammad. The fact that there were wars between Islam and Christianity speaks no more against Islam than it does Christianity. It shows that religions tend to divide people and destroy peace, even as they promote peace within their own societies by giving folks a common belief.

V. The Bible predicts a termination of man's government on the Earth, if true, prior to its fulfillment:

A. The World will be at peace
B. The World will be in great conflict

Ha! That's a great question. It's all a matter of interpretation. Serious Bible believing Christians can come down on either side.

VI. In Whom or What, do you place your hope for a future society at perfect peace?

Again, your question is loaded. I don't believe in "perfection" of any kind, except perhaps in abstract mathematics. It's not a feature of this world.

And I don't see any reason to think that "perfect peace" would be desirable. Sounds pretty boring to me. A graveyard is the only place with perfect peace.

RIP? Nah ...

Now you know.

John

"No God No Peace"
"Know God Know Peace"

I know no such thing. That's just a slogan that would apply to a Muslim as well as a Christian. And Buddhists (who are atheistic) seem more peaceful than most theists. Indeed, it is theism itself that causes most of problems on earth because folks are busy killing each other over their different concepts of God. And that's the key - even if God is true, we are still trapped within our own conceptions of him. There is no reason to think that there is a special class of "true Christians" who really know the "true God" even though they are indistinguishable in every way from everyone else.

Great grist for my mill John.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

John,

Your interest in morality as a proof of Christianity makes me think it might be good to revisit my thread called The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality where I shared this pic of the Golden Rule in all the religions. Note that the pic was produced by the Catholic Scarboro Mission group.

[jce]

Good morning John,

Thanks for the interesting questions. I think they lead to much insight, though not along the lines that you intended.


The questions are "loaded" - they are based on the false presumption that the moral teachings of Christ are unique. The correct question would be about "Obedience to the moral teachings common to all traditions." Note that I am talking about the "intersection" (to use set theory terminology) of all the moral teachings from all traditions. The Golden Rule is a prime example. Moral teachings that are unique to an individual tradition, such as belief in a particular God like Allah or Yahweh, are not included in the set because they are not universal whereas true morality must be universal.

Great grist for my mill John.

Thank-you Richard for your spin. I understand why you would desire to shift the focus away from Christ.

The real crux of your problem here when espousing the virtues of man-made morality is this one simple overlooked fact; man's morality is accountable only to other men, and therefore is frequently compromised by all men whenever it is expedient for them to do so. The earth is filled with covenant breakers, liars and thieves. Each one practicing their own internalized version of morality, tweaking it when advantageous. Is this the system you place your confidence in? Is this the future wherein you have placed your hope? Such a system of accountability cannot continue and common sense suggests it is eternally doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the integrity of men and not on their Creator.

Now, let's re-shift the focus once again to the teachings of Christ, instructions that hold all men accountable to the Highest Authority. The Bible unambiguously states that a time is coming when the Ancient of Days will enter in Great Majesty and take His seat on the Throne of Judgement. There, He will demand an accounting of a life lived in rebellion and rejection of the Merciful Gift of His only Son. The teachings of Christ ARE UNIQUE because HE IS UNIQUE.

In closing, here's a little science question for you, and it's in the area of your expertise, mathematics. "If moral compromises outnumber acts of moral obedience, what will be its cumulative effect on a stable society?". Hint, check out history.

Your friend,

John

[Rose]

Thank-you Richard for your spin. I understand why you would desire to shift the focus away from Christ.

The real crux of your problem here when espousing the virtues of man-made morality is this one simple overlooked fact; man's morality is accountable only to other men, and therefore is frequently compromised by all men whenever it is expedient for them to do so. The earth is filled with covenant breakers, liars and thieves. Each one practicing their own internalized version of morality, tweaking it when advantageous. Is this the system you place your confidence in? Is this the future wherein you have placed your hope? Such a system of accountability cannot continue and common sense suggests it is eternally doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the integrity of men and not on their Creator.

Now, let's re-shift the focus once again to the teachings of Christ, instructions that hold all men accountable to the Highest Authority. The Bible unambiguously states that a time is coming when the Ancient of Days will enter in Great Majesty and take His seat on the Throne of Judgement. There, He will demand an accounting of a life lived in rebellion and rejection of the Merciful Gift of His only Son. The teachings of Christ ARE UNIQUE because HE IS UNIQUE.

In closing, here's a little science question for you, and it's in the area of your expertise, mathematics. "If moral compromises outnumber acts of moral obedience, what will be its cumulative effect on a stable society?". Hint, check out history.

Your friend,

John

Hi John,

Just wanted to ask a question on your statement that I highlighted in red. How is what you said about mans morality any different than what we read in the Bible where murder, rape, stealing, and adultery are all ordered and condoned by God? Aren't God's moral laws constantly being "tweaked" to fit the needs of the biblical story?

All the best,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank-you Richard for your spin. I understand why you would desire to shift the focus away from Christ.

The real crux of your problem here when espousing the virtues of man-made morality is this one simple overlooked fact; man's morality is accountable only to other men, and therefore is frequently compromised by all men whenever it is expedient for them to do so. The earth is filled with covenant breakers, liars and thieves. Each one practicing their own internalized version of morality, tweaking it when advantageous. Is this the system you place your confidence in? Is this the future wherein you have placed your hope? Such a system of accountability cannot continue and common sense suggests it is eternally doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the integrity of men and not on their Creator.

Good afternoon my friend,

There are many problems with your comments. Your assertion that "man's morality is accountable only to other men, and therefore is frequently compromised by all men whenever it is expedient for them to do so" applies equally to all men no matter what religion they believe in. Christians go about "frequently compromising" the morality taught by Christianity without any "authority" (God) doing anything about it.

As you know from previous discussions, I think your concept of morality is based on a false foundation that contradicts the very meaning of morality itself. Morality has nothing to do with "accountability" to some "authority." Something is moral or immoral because of what it is and how it affects people. God himself could not declare something to be "good" if it is in fact evil. Objective morality is not subject to the arbitrary whims or decrees of any "authority" - even God. Therefore, God cannot be the source of morality.

Your assertion that I have been espousing the "virtues of man-made morality" indicates that you have yet to understand my position. I don't even believe in "man-made morality." On the contrary, I believe that morality is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be human. It's not something arbitrary and man-made. The fact that morality is universal proves it is not a man-made invention. On the contrary, it is something innate to human beings. It gets confused, of course, with cultural norms and religious dogmas, so some folks lose site of its true origin and think it comes from the god of their religion. But that makes no sense to me at all, especially when we see that there is no god who can be shown to be objectively good in any theistic religion. On the contrary, all the gods have their moral problems that "just happen" to reflect the moral failures of the culture that produced them.

Furthermore, your assertion that I have been espousing the "virtues of man-made morality" seems rather ironic given that you are espousing the virtues of your man-made god which directly contradicts the universal morality that says things like genocide, infanticide, oppression of women, and slavery, are wrong. I understand that you don't think your god is man-made, but that's just your personal opinion. It's pretty hard to deny that the God of the Bible looks like a human invention since he displays the whole panoply of human lusts and moral failings that have been the topic of our many discussions.

Now, let's re-shift the focus once again to the teachings of Christ, instructions that hold all men accountable to the Highest Authority. The Bible unambiguously states that a time is coming when the Ancient of Days will enter in Great Majesty and take His seat on the Throne of Judgement. There, He will demand an accounting of a life lived in rebellion and rejection of the Merciful Gift of His only Son. The teachings of Christ ARE UNIQUE because HE IS UNIQUE.

The teaching that there will be a final judgment is not unique to Christ. Indeed, the teaching about the "Ancient of Days" comes from the Jewish book of Daniel, written long before Christianity arose. Merely asserting that Christ's teachings are unique because Christ is unique does not help to "re-shift the focus" of your original questions. On the contrary, it changes everything and so requires a total rewrite of the questions you first asked. I would be happy to answer again if you reformulate your questions to fit the new angle you want to focus on.

And as an aside - I really don't see how you could think that non-Christians are all living "in rebellion and rejection of the Merciful Gift of His only Son." Most people who have ever lived never heard the name of Christ. And of those who have heard, they've all heard conflicting assertions of what they are supposed to believe to be "saved." And besides all that, it seems absurd that God would demand a person can only be saved if they accept an ambiguous set of dogmas delivered from fallible humans which are indistinguishable from any other set of false religious dogmas. Do you really think that's the way God has set things up?

In closing, here's a little science question for you, and it's in the area of your expertise, mathematics. "If moral compromises outnumber acts of moral obedience, what will be its cumulative effect on a stable society?". Hint, check out history.

Your friend,

John

When I "check out history" I see that society improved in inverse proportion to the religiosity of its population. Remember the good old days when the Christians ruled and they had institutional slavery and murdered Native Americans with impunity? The sword you wield has two edges, my friend.

I really appreciate your comments. Thanks for working with me on theses questions.

Richard

[David M]

Hello to all

I notice that the title of the thread; 'Peace or Unrest' has decidedly shown this a thread leading to unrest instead of peace as the subject of the replies has moved towards the question of morality.

So on the subject of morality, I shall just add the following thoughts;

1. God is the Creator and therefore has the right to expect man to show Him respect.
2. God hates those who are disrespectful to Him and who do the abonimable things which God hates.
3. Man is imposing his own moral code on God. Man's morality is not universal and is not absolute.
4. God has no man-made laws to apply to Himself. God is, who He is and His nature does not change.
5. God is loving and merciful, but hates man's evil is vengeful towards the wicked.
6. God has given us the example of a moral code in action in the person of His only begotten Son; Jesus.
7. God offers us eternal life on earth in His glorious kingdom to come. What can man offer?

All the best,

David

[David M]

John,

Your interest in morality as a proof of Christianity makes me think it might be good to revisit my thread called The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality where I shared this pic of the Golden Rule in all the religions. Note that the pic was produced by the Catholic Scarboro Mission group.

Hello Richard

As your chart shows 13 different faiths, it is not surprising that there is a similarity of statements. If we were all free-thinkers, we would end up with as many faiths as there are people. Once we beging to search for similarities and begin to classify people into groups, then your chart is not surprising. What does this wonderful looking chart tell us? I appreciate the work you have put into making this chart.

All these separate faiths (belief-sets) do, is add to the confusion from finding the one true faith which is of God. Either God exists or He does not. If God does not exist, then all these faiths are pointless. If there is only ONE GOD, then all 13 faiths you show cannot be correct. From the writings we have by way of the published books (bibles) of these different religions, it has to be decided which are revelations of the one true God. Once the one true source has ben established, we ought to take regard to what the one true God has revealed.

Comparing these different religions is a waste of time unless it leads to finding out which (if any) is the true teaching that comes from the ONE GOD. Once this has been done, the other religions should be dumped and time spent studying the one that is true. Hence, I am delibetately fogetting the teaching of all other religions in favor of one.

The ONE GOD expects us to do this. We cannot sit on the fence and be undecided. Either we are HOT or COLD for the one True Faith or we are inbetween and are lukewarm. If all the 13 religions you show say the same thing, then it is up to each of us to determine whether we want to be HOT for that religion or not. That decision should only be made once all all other religions has been rightly eliminated.

Instead of continually studying religions, I have made my choice and that is why I stick with the one. No longer do I need to make comparisons; I use my time to learn more about the teachings of the one.

Your work is good for anyone who is researching different religions in order to find the ONE TRUE TEACHING. I encourage everyone to do this and find which teaching has originated from the ONE GOD.

All the best,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello to all

I notice that the title of the thread; 'Peace or Unrest' has decidedly shown this a thread leading to unrest instead of peace as the subject of the replies has moved towards the question of morality.

So on the subject of morality, I shall just add the following thoughts;

1. God is the Creator and therefore has the right to expect man to show Him respect.
2. God hates those who are disrespectful to Him and who do the abonimable things which God hates.
3. Man is imposing his own moral code on God. Man's morality is not universal and is not absolute.
4. God has no man-made laws to apply to Himself. God is, who He is and His nature does not change.
5. God is loving and merciful, but hates man's evil is vengeful towards the wicked.
6. God has given us the example of a moral code in action in the person of His only begotten Son; Jesus.
7. God offers us eternal life on earth in His glorious kingdom to come. What can man offer?

All the best,

David

Good morning David,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

1. God is the Creator and therefore has the right to expect man to show Him respect.
Yes, God has the "right" to do and demand whatever he wants, such as kill everyone in the flood and order his people to chop up babies. But if he does things like that, how then can we say that he deserves respect? You wouldn't respect any human who did such things. Why would God deserve respect if he does things that would be considered abominable if done by any other person?

2. God hates those who are disrespectful to Him and who do the abonimable things which God hates.
First, God has commanded people to do morally abominable things. This is the primary error of your assertion. God commands the things that he says he hates. The morality taught in the Bible is logically incoherent and so are literally impossible to believe since incoherent statements are meaningless. This is why Christians cannot agree with atheists that genocide, slavery, and the oppression of women are immoral. God commanded those things, so they must be "right." Well, sorry to break the news to you, but they are not right and not good. And if you say they are right, then you contradict your assertion that God is good.

Second, if God hates his enemies then he violates the most fundamental teaching of Christ, to love your enemies.

Third, your statement directly contradicts the Biblical testimony that God loved us "while we were yet sinners" who were "disrespectful to him and who do the abominable things which God hates."

3. Man is imposing his own moral code on God. Man's morality is not universal and is not absolute.
When you judge that God is good, you are "imposing your own moral code on God." That's the only reason you think anything is good about him. You see things in the Bible that match your own moral code and you judge accordingly.

4. God has no man-made laws to apply to Himself. God is, who He is and His nature does not change.
His nature changed dramatically in the New Testament.

5. God is loving and merciful, but hates man's evil is vengeful towards the wicked.
Love does not hate. Hate is not love. You can't say that "God is love" and "God is vengeful." We know this because it is a universal principle. No person who pours out vengeance on his enemies can be said to "love them."

6. God has given us the example of a moral code in action in the person of His only begotten Son; Jesus.
The morality of Christ is much better than the morality of the God of the OT, and that's a huge problem that has vexed Christians from the beginning.

7. God offers us eternal life on earth in His glorious kingdom to come. What can man offer?
There is much disagreement amongst Christians about where they will spend "eternal life." Your version of the religion says one thing, while versions made up by other men say something else. That's how we know they are all man-made. Your version of Christianity differs dramatically from versions made by other men.

I really think that we will just be talking past each other if we play ping-pong with lists like this. The problem is simple - your morality is fundamentally inconsistent. You apply one standard for humans and no standard for God. If God commands chopping up babies, then chopping up babies is not absolutely immoral. Your entire moral system is fundamentally relativistic. You have no moral absolutes at all. Christians claim that there can be no moral absolutes without God, but then they show that they have no moral absolutes at all because whatever God commands, no matter how abominable, must be "good"! The Bible destroys, rather than establishes, true morality. How's that for irony?

[jce]

Originally Posted by jce
Thank-you Richard for your spin. I understand why you would desire to shift the focus away from Christ.

The real crux of your problem here when espousing the virtues of man-made morality is this one simple overlooked fact; man's morality is accountable only to other men, and therefore is frequently compromised by all men whenever it is expedient for them to do so. The earth is filled with covenant breakers, liars and thieves. Each one practicing their own internalized version of morality, tweaking it when advantageous. Is this the system you place your confidence in? Is this the future wherein you have placed your hope? Such a system of accountability cannot continue and common sense suggests it is eternally doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the integrity of men and not on their Creator.

Hi John,

Just wanted to ask a question on your statement that I highlighted in red. How is what you said about mans morality any different than what we read in the Bible where murder, rape, stealing, and adultery are all ordered and condoned by God? Aren't God's moral laws constantly being "tweaked" to fit the needs of the biblical story?

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose

Thanks for your comment and question. The Biblical text you are referencing in your indictment of God, being complicent with the plundering Israelites, was resolved in an earlier topic I titled "Biblical Propositions", the relevant portion of which follows:

(1) Because of Adam's transgression, a curse of death has passed on to all subsequent generations of mankind and creation to this day.

(2) Death will claim all mankind born of the generation of that first man.

(3) The Bible appears to be silent on the method of death, nor does it appear to set any limitations regarding the time of one's death. If true, then all methods of death, whether of nature, war, old age, natural causes, disease, accident, execution by man or even execution by God Himself, appear to be unrestricted. If that is also true, then God cannot be condemned for taking life, but rather is justified in requiring it by any means He chooses. Thus, the how, when and where of terminating a life appears to be at His prerogative.

(4) God is not a thief. The world and all it contains belongs to Him. Everything is His claim, to give to whomsoever He will. There appear to be no exclusions nor limitations to His property rights. Whatever man possesses has been entrusted to him by God, whether it be land, wealth, wisdom, knowledge, power, authority, husband, wife, concubine, children, etc.

In the Old Testament, God has destroyed many lives through such natural phenomena as flooding, astronomical bombardments and earthquakes. He has struck down what appear to be good men like Uriah for his disobedient act of steadying the ark. He has sent the angel of death to slay the firstborn in Egypt and drowned Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. And yes, He has also ordered the slaughter of the indigenous populations of Canaan and beyond. And, as if there was not enough proof already of His authority, He steps into the New Testament and strikes down Ananias and Sapphira in the presence of Peter and other witnesses.

In all of these executions there were men, women and children. So, what message are these recorded acts intended to send to us today about this God? That He doesn't exist? Can you make such a statement with any certainty? On the contrary, these actions establish the fact that He is in complete control of His creation, not just the living creatures, but also the very elements of nature. Furthermore, it also demonstrates His sovereign right to select those Whom He chooses to execute and those Whom He chooses to deliver. Is there any question as to why He was so greatly feared by His own people, less alone the enemies of His people? What about this generation today? Do they express any fear or reverence of Him who is the same yesterday, today and forever? Evidently not based on their boldness to raise their voices in mockery or judgement against Him. I can only credit such presumptuous bravery to the fact that they did not witness these fearsome acts firsthand, otherwise they might wisely cup their hands over their mouth in silence before they utter foolish statements.

Now Rose, I mean no offense, but how is it that any of us, as transgressors of God's commandments, in our limited abilities, level charges against God, who has without reservation, demonstrated that He, and He alone is in complete charge of human destiny by rights of ownership. Can any of us effectively prosecute a case against Him? Can we send Him a subpoena and summon Him to court? Can all of us in a united effort prove our case against Him? Can we sentence Him to death? If we could only ask Friedrich Nietzsche these questions.

What else can I say?

I remain your friend,

John