How to Choose Right From Wrong

[MrLeN]

There is another thread running on this forum, regarding ethics, which caused me to go searching for some original views on ethics that are not rooted in self serving, man made perceptions or theories. I feel that most people consider ethics to be something that is relative and something that can be tweaked per individual to suit themselves. This difference between my understanding of ethics and the views that others presented caused a rather useless and inconclusive debate.

Although this topic is similar in nature, I'd like to create a new post, because I am now branching off to cover the consequences of the origination of ones ethics. I'd like to investigate whether self invented, self serving, relative and ambiguous ethics can be compared with a singular the set of (supreme) ethics handed to us by God.

I have decided to create this thread after finding this article online:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/ethics.html

If you do not read this article, you will have no idea what I am talking about, so you probably should find another thread to involve yourself with. I understand that the article is rather long, and you probably don't want to read it. If so, that's fine. I wont mind if you don't post. However, this thread has been created for those that are generally interested in the topic and have something intelligent to say.

The article above is written in a way that I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with. What I like about it most is that it was written by a scholar, which also surprises me. Now, I already know that a good percentage of people in the world (and this forum) would not agree with the article. Maybe even using the term: "a good percentage" is an understatement. Because I know that hardly anyone cares about God or the simple things that he has asked of us. I understand that, but I am not trying to create a debate on religion. The debate is relating to ethics and the origins of them and the strength of ethics, depending on their origination. The source.

Nevertheless, I'd like to read the views of others on this topic. For the record, my ethics are rooted in the word of God, as written in the Holy Bible. If I find a concept to be unbiblical, I will reject it. This allows me to stick to a very well rounded, logical and intelligent thought process and understanding of things that doesn't cause conflict in my head.

I also believe that modern academia has no real or solid foundation, and is not much more than a conglomeration of confusion, which is one reason why I'd rather develop my character from biblical principles, as opposed to man made principles. When I listen to people, I have to stop to analyze everything they say, because I have to manually work out what is right and what's wrong. But when I read the Bible, I just accept it as truth, because in 15 years I have not found a single lie or anything that remotely resembles a lie. But all I'd have to do is watch the discovery channel for 20 minutes and I'll be up off my chair, flapping my arms saying: "WHAT A LOAD OF BULLDUST!", "They can't know that".

Although there are truths in man derived ethics, they are not solid enough for me to put stock in. I see constant problems with man and his ways, but I can honestly say that I have read nothing in the Bible that is not supreme in advice, logic and nature.

I'd also like to state that it does require effort to live life according to a God given set of supreme guidelines (ie: biblical ethics), and I understand that many people would rather just do what they feel like doing, thus creating their own personalized, ambiguous self serving set of ethics. But I still can't agree that it's a smart way to live.

Also, for the record. I am not religious. I despise man made religion. There's nothing good about it at all. It causes nothing but trouble and 99% of the "religions" of this word are not rooted in God's word, and are therefore not representative of God's will, even though they ALL claim the contrary. So no one can accuse God's word as being troublesome, simply because man has taken the book and twisted it into his own little fantasies and plots. Which, by the way, is a perfect example of a departure from Godly ethics.

So, to be clear. My question is:

What is your opinion on the article that I have referenced?

MrLeN

[Faglork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

faglork

[mike]

hehe faglork.

k, how bout:

supercilious

[MuNKyonline]

k, how bout:

supercilious
That's a bit cheeky Mike lol.

The opening part of the article 'How to Choose Right From Wrong' describes my views pretty accurately if you were to place me as being one of the students. I am an atheist who does not take life seriously and too believe that there isn't much point.

I believe people can choose what is right or wrong for themselves. The God and Bible I believe were just created to stop us from going crazy and to cast fear in those who wanted to wrong others thus creating a more stable society. The fact that this is the main reason of many wars and current world conflicts due to other societies beliefs not being the same as others makes the whole idea of ethics seem a joke to me.

There, that should get things going a bit =)

[mike]

I'm nothing if not cheeky.

I'm also evil, amoral and greedy apparently.

On a more serious note, I do have some reservations about politics/religion threads -even though this is the breakroom. Those subjects and internet forums have a nasty habit of not going too well together.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to give it a run and see. I would caution everyone however to keep things cordial. If it gets nasty in here I will pull the plug.

[mike]

Case in point.

Let's avoid a lot of personal 'evaluations' here. Be as critical as you like of subject matter. However, do refrain from a lot of the 'you' type of language.

[MrLeN]

I agree mike. I understand that "religion" almost always causes a raucous, and I can understand why. It truly is the cause of much of the worlds grief in the past. But that's not God's doing (or intention). The blame is on man. Therefore, I would sincerely like to try to steer clear of an utter religious debate. I am more inclined to discuss ethics, as it pertains to God's law. Not "religion" as such. There can be no true and full ethical debate if God's law is discarded. Also, let me say that I have no personal objective to promote religion, because I really don't like religion. I don't like the way it is conducted, and I don't like how men use it to achieve their sinister, worldly goals and objectives.

However, I honestly feel that the laws in which God has handed to us, through the Holy Bible, are far more advanced than absolutely anything academia can come up with. In my humble opinion, academia serves only to confuse situations when it comes to moral issues.

Let me also say that, there are branches of science which are, of course, extremely beneficial to humanity. There are a myriad of inventions, technologies and discoveries which serve the world very well, and without the diligent work of intelligent man, this world would certainly be a much more drab, cruel, unfair and unsophisticated place.

Having said all that, I really don't think that man possesses the intelectual tools to create a valid system of ethics, which is more functional and useful to the world than the principles that are outlined within the bible. I am no religious freak. I was not raised religiously. I have not been preached to. I am not regurgitating religious garble. I'm not even baptized. I am a member of no church, but I DO read the bible. And please allow me to say, and I really don't mean to blow my horn or gloat, but I am a reasonably intelligent and logical person and I do sincerely consider such things thoroughly.

What I have learned in the bible, in my mind, is nothing short of supreme. I also find it hard to believe that any one man could write such a logical and intelligent book. But the bible was written by many men, from different times and even in different languages. They all say precisely the same thing but with different wording. I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the bible, and fully believe, not through ignorance, but through understanding that bible provides every answer that man could ever need or use.

I feel that academia should stick to the nuts and bolts of the natural world, and should leave ethical, spiritual and intangible topics to the bible. Science cannot discredit the bible. It has not, and I can assure you that it never will. As a matter of fact, there are things written in the bible that man didn't actually find out or prove for many, many centuries later.

Hmm, but I guess I am dwelling on trying to prove the authenticity of the bible. I don't mean to. I just don't want anyone saying: "You're just ignorant and you just accept faith and not logic and faith and logic aren't the same and they're incompatible, blah blah blah". Hey, I have heard all that before, and please believe me, I am not ignorant.

So, in the spirit of good conversation, lets discuss the topic. Mike, if anyone does say something really stupid, I'd appreciate it if you could just edit the topic and not close a whole thread, just because one person has a chemical imbalance of the brain. Because someone WILL go overboard, I have no doubt.

Also, as I said. I understand that any topic that mentions God or the bible easily gets out of hand. But if we're really so advanced and "enlightened by learned men and academia", then why can't we handle the topic? Actually, the most influential topic to humanity.

I can offer my reason why. And I fully understand if people don't agree, and I expect people not to agree. But it is because people don't want to be told how to live. People don't like rules and they don't like being convicted of their actions. People just want to go about their life and live how they feel comfortable. If anyone tries to interrupt that, they'll get their back up. They'll get all upset and angry. But really, such conduct is not necessary. If people are so happy with who they are, and if they are content with the foundations of their beliefs and ethics, then they should be able to reply to a topic which involves God in a sophisticated and intelligent manner.

Or, dare I say, is it only those who follow "God's" principles that are able to keep cool? In such a case, who has a stronger foundation? An interesting question.

MrLeN

[jmiller]

My initial intention was to ignore this thread, even though I like this topic more than the original...I'm busy, and I didn't want to come in here and try to beat you up more-an ethical canundrum related to not picking a fight in another man's house, but then again, you invited it. I'm going to stick to most of that original intention and just offer a definition for you to consider.

Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts.

Don't box in that definition too much. It goes both ways--too justify unethical behaviors and to solidify original beliefs (the brain has a hard time with contradiction and usually protects the orignal belief in the face of evidence against at all costs because the alternative is too painful--even if the orignial belief is untrue. And pyschological discomfort is a good thing, really, it forces growth.

PS. I learned that pyschological concept through my useless and confusing education.

[MrLeN]

jmiller, please don't take offense to my reply, as I sincerely don't mean to offend you. And I am not just attempting to take a cheap stab at you. But your response outlines (in my mind) the exact "complications" that that academia causes, that I was referring to.

The bible presents things more simply, and in a way that everyone can understand. Even really silly people. Within the bible, you have a razor sharp, unwavering set of guidelines; laws. They have been condensed into 10 simple commandments, which if every person on this earth followed (unwaveringly), would result in the absolute eradication of morally derived injury and damage to society, humanity and all people contained within.

MrLeN

[jmiller]

loosely related, just posted fyi

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=280669#280669

[mike]

The whole 'school is dumb' and 'education is a problem' theme to your arguments is really not the best angle to take. You may have convinced yourself of such to compensate for whatever personal issue you had/have left over from not finishing high school or whatever but it's not really going to play all that well with the rest of the world.

That's not a pot shot at you for not finishing school, however you should understand that most people will tend to agree that education is a good thing. It actually makes you come across as more than a little egocentric and smacks of 'sour grapes' to some extent.

Insofar as christianity, religion, morality, and ethics are concerned. There fact that you have faith does not necessarily mean that everyone who doesn't prescribe to the doctrines of your faith is wrong. They may be wrong in the context of what you believe but that doesn't necessarily hold up within the contexts of their own faith (or lack thereof).

Not everyone believes in the same god you do. Not everyone believes in a god at all. That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them different. As such, the ethos set forth by your faith is not necessarily universal to anyone other than yourself.

There will be parts of your beliefs that are the same as others, there will be other areas where they are not. That's ok. It doesn't make either one of you more right or more wrong than the other. But it does by extension more or less assure that there will be precious few things that you can label as universally ethical or unethical. It's all subjective. Learning to accept and even applaud these differences is all part of growing as a human being.

[Chris]

i do have one question, if you say the bible is source for all ethics, how do other religions get theres? or howabout the quote on the front? aristotle existed in the BC era. how did he know so much about ethics if there was no bible for him to base his ethical structure on?

how about buddhists or the muslims? how do they establish ethics? or the jews for that matter? or people that are considered ethical but don't subscribe to the bible?

if the bible is the limit of your social education, you are honestly confining yourself to a sheltered existence, at least when it comes to actually being an enlightened individual.

[Faglork]

Or, dare I say, is it only those who follow "God's" principles that are able to keep cool? In such a case, who has a stronger foundation?

Hubris again. If you are not going to tone that down, I won't discuss anything with you. You are downright offensive.

faglork

[mikesmith76]

When I was at school I used to have many conversations with a very religious friend, who had much the same opinion as you do. He to saw the bible as the source of all good / morality / ethics / law or whatever you want to call it. I had a hard time swallowing his arguments as well.

To suggest that without the bible the human race would have no system of law or ethics is (in my opinion) just plain wrong. The 10 commandments are a strong set of guidelines but not the only source of 'rules'. Take me for example, I am a strong athiest and require proof before believing (or accepting) anything. I do not and never have believed in God, nor read the bible. None of my family are religious, nor have I ever been to church. Does this mean that I am totally devoid of any sence of right and wrong? Or does it just mean that I have a man made sence of what is moral / ethicaal, which can in no way match the 'enlightened' state of those who live by the bible?

[mike]

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

[greeneagle]

I don't even know which "ethics" thread to post this in, there are so many going right now. I certainly hope there aren't any more that break out.

I am a person of strong moral conviction (I think).

Having said that let's note that religious disputes have killed more than all other wars combined...

Raised in a strict oppressive Catholic environment from young CCD to parochial school and through a Jesuit College Prep...

I would like to bring up the Spanish Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition) at this point in this thread.

The Vatican is still rumored to have an unbelievable Renaissance art collection, locked away, hidden from the world in the name of "decency"!

I haven't had the opportunity here to mention that I am an ex-lay minister that led a children’s prison ministry for a 5000 member Southern Baptist Congregation years ago. The kids we dealt with were extreme hardcore, those that raped and killed family members and the likes.

This could become a real hard core Religious debate if I had any inclination to "play" there, but I don't, and frankly don't have the time right now.

I would like to make these 2 comments though:

"The Church" was completely miscued in the "Spanish Inquisition" and continues their miscue to this day in depriving the world of those art treasures from the masters... locked away securely in their vaults...all in the name of decency!

On top of that I cannot believe the push to “Saint” a Pope that turned his head from the predominate theme of “child abuse” during his reign!

This will probably be my one and only post here. I hope it makes an impact.

Ken

[MrLeN]

Faglork,

I don't see why you have quoted hubris twice. I am certainly not prideful in my statements and to bash or hurt anyone that doesn't agree with me couldn't be further from my reality. However, (you've demonstrated another problematic facet of today's thinking, to me) one of the tools of modern society is to set basic moral concepts in a light of "exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in fatal retribution", as quoted on your wiki page, so that harmless and wholesome issues are regarded by the masses as evil plots to ruin the world. Whoa, back up, that's too deep. And so is: "Hubris again. If you are not going to tone that down, I won't discuss anything with you. You are downright offensive." Mate, as you elude to, maybe it is not a good idea for you to participate in this discussion, as it seems that you are unable to concider whether the moral principles that were handed down to us by God, or not, are better or worse than what man has been able to come up with to date, without being deeply offended and fearful of fatal retribution. I can assure you mate, I am not about to look you up and come and burn your house down or anything. You're safe, I promise. You have my word.

There are a couple of people that insist that I am saying that the bible is the source of all ethics and without the bible ethics could not exist. Therefore I wont reply to each statement personally, because I'll be saying the same thing more than once. So I'll offer a general statement. Of course there are many, many unbiblically derived ethics (and so called ethics) in the world, created by men. There are also some highly ethical people in the world that have never laid eyes on the bible. But I'll also quote myself, in the first post of this thread:


Although there are truths in man derived ethics, they are not solid enough for me to put stock in. I see constant problems with man and his ways, but I can honestly say that I have read nothing in the Bible that is not supreme in advice, logic and nature.

greeneagle,

I would like to reiterate that I am not intent on pushing, promoting or preaching religion. As much as your reply emplores that you don't want to either, you've put up a pretty good defense against it, to the contrary. What I am after is a conversation leaning towards ethical standards, as it pertains to God's word vs. the ethics derived of men. I have already stated my opinion. Reminder:


I also believe that modern academia has no real or solid foundation, and is not much more than a conglomeration of confusion, which is one reason why I'd rather develop my character from biblical principles, as opposed to man made principles.

And regarding Catholicism. You wont get any argument from there mate. At the risk of offending Catholics who may read this, I'll openly state that the Catholic "religion" is not a church of God. For a start, they pray to Mary. According to the bible, the only one risen is Jesus. So they are praying to a dead person. Secondly, they bow down in front of statues of Mary and pictures and statues of Jesus and crosses. It says clearly in the bible:


Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Exodus 20:3-5

Catholicism is one of the biggest reasons why the masses have turned from God, and I can understand why too. It's just an evil, evil empire. But that's what it was designed to do. To control people, and to make sure thay to not understand how to obtain their eternal salvation.

The commandement above pretty much covers all other religions, as 99% of them bow down to something or other. And it only makes sense to me that a true God woould like to take glory for himself and not share it with bits of painted plaster or gold or anything else hand crafted. You'll get no debate from me about the evil that religion has caused in the world. But let me quote myself again:


I am not religious. I despise man made religion. There's nothing good about it at all. It causes nothing but trouble and 99% of the "religions" of this word are not rooted in God's word, and are therefore not representative of God's will, even though they ALL claim the contrary. So no one can accuse God's word as being troublesome, simply because man has taken the book and twisted it into his own little fantasies and plots.

Which leads me to ask why you posted three quarters of the things you've said. For what reason? I've already demonstrated that I agree with you. But your view is just another episide of the common sentiment in the word: "God? What God??! Yeah, he caused millions to die and he caused the wars, and it's his fault preists are molesting chilred and God caused the spanish inquesition, blah blah blah". But one conclusion that is being totally ignored by the ignorant (but all knowing, but totally mislead) masses, is that it is not God that is respinsible for these things. In the bible there is absolutely no demand or requirement for man to do any of these things. As a matter of fact, the bible implores us NOT do to these things over and over and OVER again. So anyone that says such things demonstrates to a person who DOES know and understand what is written in the bible, that he is making arguments and putting forth case issues on a God that he knows very little about. God is being misrepresented, blatantaly, and the masses listen to these midrepresentations and want nothing to to with God.

The problem with people these days is that no one understands God. No one understands what he has asked of us. No one has taken the time to find out. Oh it's all well and Good to have orgies and try 1000 different types of drugs. Hey "Gotta try everything once, right?". It's ok to stick your thing up a males backside (puke), it's ok to swear and curse and lie as long (as you don't get caught). But at the thought of God, most people throw their hands up and say: "What? Do what I am asked for the good of myself and others? Stuff that - too hard! I've got a rage to attend tonight, and there's goona be heaps of ***** there!", "School told me that the truth is what I want it to be, and that's it's relative for all. I believe I shall bow down to my cat, smoke weed, have 4 wives, and I am NOT hurting anyone else, so it's perfectly ethical, because ethics is relative too".

So then the only argument that anyone can every come up with is "God caused this, God caused that", which in reality he has done nothing of the sort and stands for the opposite of ever bad thing he is being accused of. The reason I am replying to you, in lenth, and particularly, is because I saw this coming, so I tried to prevent it from happening with several of my original posts. But you went right ahead and created the "religious" debate anyway. I don't want to ignore you. You have demonstrated 1). That you do not read a post properly before replying, 2). That although you know all about the spanish iquisition and Catholicism, you don't know very much about God at all. 3). You don't understand what "let's not have a religious debate" means.

Mike,

Mate, I am certainly not against education. As a matter of fact, I am all for education. I may not be formally educated, but I can assure you that I am quite educated and have spend a great deal of my time learning about and researching things that interest "ME". I am not full of what was in"the textbook". I really think you should step back on the "You're just all bitter because you didn't finish school" thing. No matter how you format the statement and reiterate that you're not taking a stab, you are. Personally, I am thankful that I didn't finish school in this "system". Because, and I am being extremely honest and even emphatic about this statement, when I look at all these shiny new scholars that run off the production line of academic institutions and listen to the programmed garble that exits their lips, I am quite astonished with the stupidity of this product. I am not sour. I honestly believe that today's educational institutions do more to desensitize people to lies and half truths than they to do promote free thought and expression. And it's ironic that modern educational institutions claim the exact opposite.

There's a huge problem creeping through the world right now. Academics are throwing their hands up, saying "It's all too hard". God must go. We'll preach evolution and we'll ban prayers from school. We'll take Christ out of Christmas and we'll call it X-Mas, or the "Holiday Season". We'll teach science and we'll make sure that not one students reaches the ranks of the "All knowing (know nothing)", enlightened "educated". Which is what I prefer to regard as "programmed".

Now I know that if there are any educated people reading this, they are going to take offense. But I am not taking a personal stab at you. I am indeed taking a stab, but it is at today's educational "systems".

MrLeN

edit I'd also like to let it be said that, although I was an astute, straight A student who possessed and presented a great degree of interest for many topics, I willingly departed the public education system before completing year 10.

This was because I was largely unimpressed with what I was being "told" and was constantly debating with teachers who had no answers to give me, other than what revolved around what "they" learned in the public education system, and what was "in the books", who also got rather annoyed with me as a student.

Spending time in such a manner, I felt, was a waste of my time and effort and an insult to my willingness to think for myself. In short, the time I spent in school was boring and uninteresting. And I don't blame any young student that feels the same. There are many such students, but those kids have "labels" with negative connotations attached.

My point is, the way in which I think, and the intellectual tendencies that I possess started at a young age. That is the reason why I was uninterested at school. Oh, I was interested, in many things, even more so than other students that were just happy to fill their books and pass their tests and get a gold star and a pat on the back, and to a much greater degree.

But I was not interested in gold stars and smiles from teachers. I was interested in me being able to learn for myself. To learn answers to the questions "I" had, which those acedemic idiots didn't have answers to, because they'd never actually "thought about it" and I was just considered as "disruptive". Poor things. I know they were just trying to earn their pay.

[jmiller]

Have you read the entire book you're speaking of? Maybe we are indeed opposites...I began w/ religion, took a path of academics, and ended with a stronger faith than before, albeit different than before...don't take the following as an attack on religion, just refuting what you say as a perversion of the truth

No wars on account of God? Quoting the book you insist upon...

"When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased
them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.

"So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate.”—Joshua 8:22-28

God was pretty brutal commanding genocide there...

And as for the book itself...a good history of one race, a good example of what not to do as well as some good advice for living...but as to whether God or man wrote it, then I'll quote myself as you did, but from somewhere else and unedited from its original--

"[The Bible] has been highly edited since ancient times to construct an argument in favor of one thing or the other. The Hebrew version of the Old Testament is in a different order all together (formed by the Massoretic (sp?) Council) and paints a different picture regarding prophecy--the order makes a difference, refer to the book God: A Biography, by Jack Mills, an ex-Jesuit Priest...The Catholic version often includes what happened to Israel between 400 BC and Christ's birth, at which time the Greeks were in charge. The Greek-titled Apocrypha is left out entirely from the Protestant version because somebody along the way decided it weakened the case for prophecy fulfillment, which was why the OT was reordered in the first place.

Even the collection of stories is suspect. Much of the earlier work was collected by King Solomon (who suddenly becomes the wisest man in the Bible by coincidence). Israel is glorified and ordained by God because THEY wrote it. What's more, the earliest myths are strikingly similar to myths in Africa, Mesopotamia, and all over Asia Minor. They were shared stories, not one people's stories (and probably older than most think, perhaps as much as 15,000 years or more--Solomon collected them from oral traditions around 12th century BC).

The King James version is the most inaccurate of the bunch, translted from Latin (after being translated from Greek and Aramaic more than a millenium earlier) by monks with bad Latin skills, who were already known to twist the history of the non-Christian people they'd conquered (like the Druids), and then forced a rhythmic poetic meter to it. Words like "young girl" were changed to "virgin" and "vagina" changed to "navel" to soften it.

The Bible has been reordered time and time again--where are the first hand accounts of Christ's life? Matthew and John were there, but Mark and Luke were disciples of Paul, and too young to have known anything. Why are the others discounted? Why is Thomas not included? Where are the Gnostic accounts? We deserve to know these things. And the early Catholic Church (as well as the later) didn't want us reading it.

Where's the account of Jesus between 12 and 30? Research is showing that he may have gone to India and studied Buddhism (which spawned 500 years earlier). Another something they wouldn't want you to know.

And then there's the kicker. Reincarnation, accepted in Greek Orthodox tradition was stricken from the Bible in 553 AD after the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople decided against it--after priests that insisted the current Bible not be changed kept turning up dead. The old version was reportedly burned and a new one rewritten. Why no reincarnation? Probably because with it, you couldn't scare the bejeezus out of people with Hell and control them and charge them for the purging of their sins."

There is no shortage of bad ethics in the Bible either, even from men the faithful are taught to emulate. Context is very, very important.

Really, I'd prefer if we didn't turn this into a religious debate, but you keep taking it there...and it may not be a discussion you want to have with me.

[Tubby]

MrLeN. There is no Universal Value system! One simply aquires values from whatever source they might be found and wear those that feel comfortable. Values are rather like the clothes you wear. Some Values are more 'fashionable' than others and fashions change as time moves along.
Sometimes it would seem that everyone is dressed in values for a 'different occasion'. Sometimes different events coincide and we are not realy where we think we are.

[MrLeN]

"So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate.”—Joshua 8:22-28

This quote is not even close to full. It is out of context. And this is the EXACT reason why people don't understand the word of God, because of people like you that quote things out of context, purposefully. And you stand, holding a flag which reads "academic" on it. Your post is 95% hearsay, has nothing to do with the topic and is just a blatant disregard towards the suggestion that we've decided to steer this topic away from religion. Most people don't actually reads the bible for themselves, but they would prefer to listen to the lies that others tell about it (in much the same way that you just presented them), which helps them to justify shrugging of God's word (and the ethics contained within). Here's what the bible actually says in Joshua 8:22-28:


22 And the other issued out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side: and they smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape.
23 And the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua.
24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.
25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.
26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
27 Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua.
28 And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.


Now I have been accused of turning this thread into a religious debate. And for some reason and I'll bash my head into a tree before I can work out why, but I keep being told that "religion" is a bad thing, even though I have agreed to that no less that 95,000 times during the short life of this thread. So what's the point? Just to cloud the issue? Two members have done this. Not me. greeneagle did it, and also started giving history lessons of the Catholic "religion", and of course I hade to reply to him, but I insisted that I did not want to cause a religious debate, and after I put forth my reply, I got back to the subject at hand.

I am also going to do the same thing with you, jmiller. You (again) after I have reiterated, time and time again that I am against man made religion, give a big (so called, hearsay) history lesson all about "man made religion". Now, again, (and I'll reiterate the word "AGAIN"), I would like to keep this debate simple. I would like to discuss the usefulness of ethics as they pertain to God's law Vs. man made ethic.

Again, in other words: I am interested in the debate, as pertaining to God's word. Not the history of what men have done with religion. We don't need any history lessons on religion. We don't need to know about Greeks or reincarnation. We don't need to debate whether or not Jesus might have gone to India. Maybe he did, who cares. He might have gone to Antarctica to pet the seals. It doesn't matter. Now I know if I reply to all these things, yet another person will step forward and accuse me of preaching religion. As you have. So it ends here. I am not going to fall into the trap. No response.

Now for anyone that has been confused (mislead), I'll re-present the topic:

Which is a more structurally sound foundation for ethics? God's unwavering and preformatted set of ethics? Or mans "relative", "change from day to day", "depends on the perceptions of an individual", "Justifiable, depending on which way you look at it" ethics?

MrLeN

P.S. jmiller, oh, I'd love to have a "religious" debate with you. You're mistaken. Just not in this thread.

[MrLeN]

Ok, let's get this thread right ON topic..

Here are the Ten Commandments:



20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


Now, what I'd like to ask is:

1). Can anyone find a problem with these commandments? And please don't say, "Well, what is a problem? Problems are also relative". That's typical academic garble, which causes nothing but confusion. We don't need to define it. I'm sure we can all just get with the gist, for the sake of a coherent topic. By "problem", I am referring to anything that causes pain, grief, death, unfairness. Etc..

2). Where is the list of man made, relative and justifiable ethics that people these days seem so keep to defend and rely on?

If no such list can be presented, then I'd submit that the world is, in fact, in a form of anarchy - now. I'd also say that without a universal set of truths or a fundamental basis for understanding, war, hate, intolerance etc.. are inevitable, which can lead only to the exact "problems" that academics, pride groups and activists think they're solving, by all trying to get their "relative" opinions thrown into the mix.

The longer time moves forward and as complicated as these man made "ethics" *evolve, people are going to lose out. So far, in my mind, I see that the decent, wholesome and respectful people are losing out in this world, for the sake of people who want to throw common decency to the wind, because it's all too hard for them.

But, of course, that is my opinion. And we all know that these days, we're all tolerant and people are allowed to have (and promote) any opinion we like, aren't we? Lest we'd be intolerant. And we all know, that's practically a sin these days.

MrLeN

*Word used loosely.

[Tubby]

Quote
"1). Can anyone find a problem with these commandments?"

Yes MrLeN, I have a problem with them, I think they are primitive and simplistic.

[MrLeN]

I agree that they are simplistic. That's the beauty of them.

Primitive? Those commandments are no more primitive than the conduct I see in this world each day, I'm afraid.

MrLeN

[Tubby]

I am not sure where you are headed MrLeN, Surely you must know that we all understand it is a crazy world. Surely you understand that presenting us with the Ten commandments is not a solution. This has been done before.

[MrLeN]

Well, I am not presenting the Ten Commandments in an attempt to convince everyone to follow them. Because I know I'd have more chance of seeing pigs fly than accomplishing that.

It's just that so many people seem intent on promoting "each to their own" type ethics, principles, theories and attitudes, so I wanted to debate whether men are capable of living a decent life that doesn't affect anyone else without at least a basic, universal set of ethics for everyone to stick to. I submit that most men certainly cannot.

Personally, I think the Ten Commandments work extremely well, at least for those that observe them. Of course they don't work in a world that is intent on ignoring them. It is my opinion that if the whole world stopped what they were doing and got those commandments ingrained into their heads (haha, fat chance, I know), world hunger would be solved in a few short months.

But most of all, I am kind of sick and tired of watching this world fall apart, and in this last generation is has gone one further. It's not falling apart, but now it's being ripped apart. The thing that gets under my nails even more than that, is how almost everyone shrugs it all off, but worse, actively subscribe to, defend and promote all of these concepts. The people that are being hurt most are the meek and the humble and the poor and the blameless.

And on a last note, it also annoys me that very few people believe in God. Because when you try to live your life in a way that is courteous to yourself and others (and God), while other people are bashing and thrashing their way through life laughing their heads off at everything, to the detriment and expense of others, it's pretty sad.

I'm talking really simple things, like picking on people, being nasty, snickering, general trouble causing, ripping people off and being generally dishonest. See, these are things that, although I have also been guilty of (I'll admit it, sure), I put in a great deal of effort to turn from.

I guess that's why you'll see me grow 35' long nails and teeth sharper than razors at the sight of someone being nasty. It is not good to be like that, I understand, and I am as nice as pie to people, UNTIL I see someone taking advantage of someone else, or being generally nasty or obnoxious, because really, no one has the right.

But people are so prideful and obnoxious. These days you can't explain to someone that they are doing wrong, because it is ingrained into people's demeanor: "I will NOT be told what to do!" - So much ego. So much pride; "I'm alright thanks Jack, bugger the rest of you".

I don't intend on doing much more with this thread. I can pretty much rest my case here. Fact is, no one gives a damn. Simple as that.

MrLeN

[Tubby]

quote
"so I wanted to debate whether men are capable of living a decent life that doesn't affect anyone else without at least a basic, universal set of ethics for everyone to stick to. I submit that most men certainly cannot."

and . . . . You decide what is decent? using your values that are derived from the Bible ?

MrLeN. . Get Real!

[MrLeN]

Of course I don't decide what's decent. I am not implying that I personally know what's decent any more than anyone else does. But in my humble opinion, the bible offers a pretty good compass, at worst, especially for people that have absolutely no idea whatsoever, and there's heaps of them. And at best (which is my belief) is "the" superior source of universal ethics.

However what concerns me is that most people don't really even care what's decent. Even if no one knows what a true and just ethical and moral standard is, wouldn't it, at the very least, be something to aspire to? People spend too much time worrying about "numero uno". And even on this very forum, there are a multitude of people, educated people with degree's, that are of the opinion that the world doesn't even necessarily need ethics. Which I am still bewildered and dumbfounded by to be honest.

You've already admitted that the world is crazy. That in itself pretty much demonstrates (to me) that you subconsciously understand and agree that man is not able to run a just and fair world, as long as he disregards ethics. What is so foreign about what I am saying that is causing you to tell me to get real?


and . . . . You decide what is decent? using your values that are derived from the Bible ?

To be perfectly truthful, I don't see much sense or intellect in this comment at all. Not only did I say nothing of the sort, and therefore it is an incorrect statement. But it is intended as an insult (not that I'm insulted, really), but nevertheless, it is.


Yes MrLeN, I have a problem with them [the Ten Commandments], I think they are primitive and simplistic.

Can't you think of something to say that has a bit more substance to it? Something that has a bit more thought behind it? In my "relative" understanding, I see these comments as rather primitive and simplistic. I am not saying that out of spite. That's truly what I see.

MrLeN

[kgun]

Now I know I do a stupid thing,

- Read half the original post.
- Clicked on the link and noted:

Ray Cotton is the former finance director and treasurer of Probe Ministries. He received a B.S. in business administration/management science from the University of Northern Colorado, a certificate in Christian studies from the Center for Advanced Biblical Studies, and an M.A. in interdisciplinary studies at the University of Texas at Dallas. He now serves in a ministry to international students. He can be reached at at Dallas. He now serves in a ministry to international students.

- Skimmed some other posts.

Here are my remarks before I hurry to the shop and buy some food before it closes. I will read the whole post later.

Regarding ethics and economics, there is a concept of business ethics (http://www.business-ethics.com/) and ethical investments (http://www.eiris.org/).

The Central Bank of Norway, has to judge that when it uses money from the oil fund to invest in foreign companies. In my view it is fruitful and important concepts.

[jmiller]

well, it's now obvious that you can't be reasoned with. You refuted the passage I quoted with a passage taken from a different version that said essentially the same thing. And you were the first to quote scripture, so i followed your lead.

I'm done. The point was, you were basing your entire ethical structure on the Bible and God's law and then expect the discussion to somehow not be religious in nature. You make way too many assumptions about me too. I was pointing out that many characters in the Bible were far from ethical, and they believed they were following God's law. I have read that book and studied it cover to cover.

At 16, I was District President of Methodist Youth, Representative to the Ecumenical Council, on the Evangelism Committee, the UMC Administrative Board, member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and President and Founder the Christian Fellowship Club which attracted some 300 initial members. In college, Director of Publicity and Advertising and Resident Assistant for the United Methodist Student Center. You assume I don't know the subject and you're wrong.

As for the "hearsay," it's fine if you think so, just becareful of morphing that word into a less agreeable one "heresy."

You've missed every point presented and made so many assumptions that this is again a pointless debate if no one is allowed to disagree with your views, and if you put the debate into an objectionable box whereby all must assume there is God's law (that is somehow not religious), you not only have hemmed in the discussion but the vastness and limitlessness of God himself.

Plus, the very basis of your argument that God physically wrote the law you refer to is fallacious. The law was written by men and their interpretation of what God wanted. You've been using the "God's law" premise as a trump card to anyone who would speak against you and it doesn't fly.

this is really ridiculous. I'll leave you in peace and hold to my vow not to return. Good luck.

[MrLeN]

What you are trying to do, instead of discussing the topic, in the way that has been suggested and agreed upon; ie: To discuss the ethics of men Vs. ethics handed to us by God, without going all religious, is to try and turn this thread into a religious debate (anyway) and to discredit God's word by giving hearsay history lessons on religion that have pretty much nothing to do with anything, other than to inject a big smokescreen of confusion and a sentiment of discredit into the topic.

The reason we need to try and steer clear of a religious debate is that it could go on forever and never be resolved -- pointless. I know that. So, I am trying hard to keep the topic right down to the ethics debate. Not history lessons or religious debates. I understand that most people couldn't give a flying circus cow, belly dancing across the moon about God. Therefore, I am trying to limit the debate to, if anything, just the ethics that are outlined in the bible, namely: the Ten Commandments, and there are others.

In my mind, the only relationship religion has to do with God's word is to demonstrate how ignorant and stupid man can actually be when he has no true intention of actually observing God's word. Just the fact that you seem to think a conversation relating to God's word "is" religion and that God's word and religion are the same thing, demonstrates to me that you really don't understand the difference.

You're getting all upset, because I haven't made a call for group hugs and beers in the name of jmiller who has told us that he's been a president of this and the director of that and the assistant of something else. Hey that proves nothing. What do you expect me to say? "Oh, sorry mr jmiller sir. I didn't know. Sorry, I'll back down. I can't compete with your great and vast knowledge and experience".

I'll have you know that some of the most knowledgeable people on God's word are also the most deceptive and evil people on the planet. ie: The Pope. Knowledge of the bible, God's word, history and membership of religious organizations certainly does not qualify anyone as a righteous and truly knowledgeable person. And if you ever want my opinion on all that great knowledge you have; it's useless. You have obviously learned nothing. You have no idea whatsoever, and I don't know what you did with those organizations, but it's blatantly apparent that you didn't have your nose between the pages of the bible.

For a start, a righteous person that is truly intent on understanding God's word would not persistently try to turn an ethics debate into a religious debate, while at the same time, claiming the opposite, while trying to discredit God's word, and therefore the whole debate, with some imaginary chest of "religious" badges. A righteous person that has learned anything at all from the bible would never conduct themselves or present information in the way you have in this thread. You obviously have no regard for God, or his word, or the ethics that he handed to us at all.

The whole reason why people in this world have NO idea about God is because of liars and "users" of God's word. Most people can't be stuffed actually reading the bible, so they investigate by asking questions. They get told a whole heap of bull dust, much the same as the information you have presented, and they walk away thinking that there's no difference between God and satan himself.

You know nothing. And if you really do possess the knowledge that you claim, then you've sold yourself short mate. Some of the BIGGEST loonies walking this planet, and I mean real PROPER loonies, are people that walk around with a bible in their hand. God is used in this day and age for the wrong reasons by too many people.

MrLeN

[kgun]

Now I have read the hold post, and have nothing more to add.

Back to business (as usual). :-)

[Tubby]

MrLen - why is my statement "the world is crazy"
"a subconsciously understand and agree that man is not able to run a just and fair world."

Why is is it not simply a personal observation of what Is. You ask us to discuss a set of values that you have selected. Then you ask us to totally ignore reality, things we know, our own experiences, and our education. What you offer us for discussion is a constructed reality, you include rules that there must be a 'just and fair world', and that it must be run by man. None of understand the rules that you have applied to this discussion. It is not a reflection of the Real world.

MrLeN you are on the Verge of thinking nobody understand the problems of the world except you. You need to get some agreement from somewhere to keep your thinking 'Tuned to the rest of us'. .

[Chris]

LeN, i like how, out of ALL this text you have entered since yesterday, you've ignored my questions. so here we go again:


i do have one question, if you say the bible is source for all ethics, how do other religions get theres? or howabout the quote on the front? aristotle existed in the BC era. how did he know so much about ethics if there was no bible for him to base his ethical structure on?

how about buddhists or the muslims? how do they establish ethics? or the jews for that matter? or people that are considered ethical but don't subscribe to the bible?

if the bible is the limit of your social education, you are honestly confining yourself to a sheltered existence, at least when it comes to actually being an enlightened individual.

[Tubby]

jmiller quote;
"Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts. "

I thought this post was worth the effort. It basically says The world is aware of MrLeN's concerns. and is looking at it . . I have not come across 'Cognitive Dissonance' before, Although I have read items that skirt around it.

Thanks jmiller, you continue to dig up items that make this forum worthwhile . .

[MrLeN]

Tubby,


Why is is it not simply a personal observation of what Is. You ask us to discuss a set of values that you have selected. Then you ask us to totally ignore reality, things we know, our own experiences, and our education. What you offer us for discussion is a constructed reality, you include rules that there must be a 'just and fair world', and that it must be run by man. None of understand the rules that you have applied to this discussion. It is not a reflection of the Real world.

Mate, I don't know where you're getting all that from. But I can assure you that I have not set the debate in light of some constructed reality and I haven't given any rules either. However, it has been pretty much agreed since the start (at least, I thought), that we'd try and keep the topic away from religious debates. Is that what you're referring to?


MrLeN you are on the Verge of thinking nobody understand the problems of the world except you. You need to get some agreement from somewhere to keep your thinking 'Tuned to the rest of us'.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Therefore I am not after agreement. However, during my posts I have indeed offered my own opinion, in due response to the information that others have presented. However, no one has really tried to stick with the topic and because of this we've gone from one hitting one brick wall to another. Even my most of my own statements in this thread have very little to do with the topic (including this one), because I have spent time to respond to posts that have not kept with the topic.

Chris,



LeN, i like how, out of ALL this text you have entered since yesterday, you've ignored my questions. so here we go again:

i do have one question, if you say the bible is source for all ethics, how do other religions get theres? or howabout the quote on the front? aristotle existed in the BC era. how did he know so much about ethics if there was no bible for him to base his ethical structure on?

how about buddhists or the muslims? how do they establish ethics? or the jews for that matter? or people that are considered ethical but don't subscribe to the bible?

if the bible is the limit of your social education, you are honestly confining yourself to a sheltered existence, at least when it comes to actually being an enlightened individual.


Mate, I have answered your question:


There are a couple of people that insist that I am saying that the bible is the source of all ethics and without the bible ethics could not exist. Therefore I wont reply to each statement personally, because I'll be saying the same thing more than once. So I'll offer a general statement. Of course there are many, many unbiblically derived ethics (and so called ethics) in the world, created by men. There are also some highly ethical people in the world that have never laid eyes on the bible. But I'll also quote myself, in the first post of this thread:

And the quote I was refering to is here:


Although there are truths in man derived ethics, they are not solid enough for me to put stock in. I see constant problems with man and his ways, but I can honestly say that I have read nothing in the Bible that is not supreme in advice, logic and nature.

But if you want a personalize reply with your name sewn into the collar, I have reiterated again and again -- and again, in this thread and the two other branch threads that man is indeed capable of inventing ethics. Even good ones too. But these ethics are all relative from individual to individual. Also, man is just plain outright not capable of running this word in a fair and just way, according to any ethical standard that he can devise. Well, at least to any ethical standard that has been devised to date.

Therefore, I'm pretty much asking, "Then hey, what's wrong with the ethics God gave us"?

The way I see it. As true Christianity declines (oh boy, and it is declining something shocking) and as the moral fiber of society disintegrates (and it is disintegrating), and as once predominantly Christian nations throw God's law to the wind and remove all his commandments from courthouses and prayers from classrooms, etc.. Basically, as man throws God's ethics out the window and assumes his own, is the world becoming a better more "free" and "advanced" place? Or is it becoming more dangerous and inhospitable. My opinion is that western nations were founded on Christianity and they thrived and prospered and became world powers, because they (for the good part) lived according to the way God has asked. And this last generation is throwing all of that away, and I feel that it's the reason why the world is fast falling into a well of turmoil and anguish.



how about buddhists or the muslims? how do they establish ethics? or the jews for that matter? or people that are considered ethical but don't subscribe to the bible?

What I think of these religions really doesn't matter. I am referring to the God who created of Heaven and Earth, the Alpha and the Omega, and the laws and ethics that he has provided to the inhabitants of this earth through the Holy Bible and also his spirit.

MrLeN

[MrLeN]

Ok, we've gone through two pages of objections, replies to sub-issues and attempts to disregard and discredit God's laws. ie: ignoring the topic and trying to discredit it's foundation.

Now, for a second time I am going to try to get back to the topic. But this time I'll keep it really, basic simple.

Question:

God's Commandments..

Does man have an adequate system to replace these commandments with?

If not, then why not stick to what has caused western nations to prosper (uncontrollably) for the last several hundred years?

Is it a coincidence that the day we think it's fine to show utter filth on TV, pull down the commandments, ban prayers, drop anything that has the word Christ in it, that we've hit turmoil?

Is it a coincidence that as this new generation grows up full of "pride" and "freedom" and "rights" but also "no respect" or "righteousness", that the world is becoming more dangerous, uneducated and unjust?

Is it not true that western nations are fast becoming the most uneducated civilizations on the civilized world, where once they were the most privileged?

Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that we've thrown God's book out the window?

MrLeN

[Tubby]

"Question:
God's Commandments..
Does man have an adequate system to replace these commandments with? "

Yes,
we have the rule of Law.
these laws even cover how fast you can drive your car near a school during certain hours. they have prescribed penalties and are constantly being updated, modified, and 'tested'

"If not, then why not stick to what has caused western nations to prosper (uncontrollably) for the last several hundred years? "

The steam engine ? electricity ? MrLeN you did not tell us what made us prosper (uncontrollably)

"Is it a coincidence that the day we think it's fine to show utter filth on TV, pull down the commandments, ban prayers, drop anything that has the word Christ in it, that we've hit turmoil?"

I do not watch TV, where I live The churches, Salvation army still accept Christ. and I do not recall hitting termoil. Have you hit termoil in Melbourne?

"Is it a coincidence that as this new generation grows up full of "pride" and "freedom" and "rights" but also "no respect" or "righteousness", that the world is becoming more dangerous, uneducated and unjust? "

MrLen this list is turning into a load of Bullshit of things said off the top of your head...

"Is it not true that western nations are fast becoming the most uneducated civilizations on the civilized world, where once they were the most privileged?"

Bull shit,

"Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that we've thrown God's book out the window? "

I always said you were 'Trippy' MrLeN
Your posts age getting a bit silly now.
"the fact that we've thrown God's book out the window?" IS JUST PLAIN SILLY TALK.. I myself am a non believer, but even I can see people heading to church, I have Christians calling to my home twice a year to give me A message from Christ. You are simply making up all this crap to suit your own addenda.

I would like to know what happenned to make you so angry with the world, Why is it you cannot see the balance between what is good and what is Bad. Why do you pull isolated statements of what is wrong from the air and present them as evidence. Do you need some help MrLen?

[MrLeN]

Tubby,


Yes, we have the rule of Law. these laws even cover how fast you can drive your car near a school during certain hours. they have prescribed penalties and are constantly being updated, modified, and 'tested'

Good point mate. In Victoria the government has gone crazy with speed limits. It used to be fairly simple. 100 in a highway. 80 in a semi built up area. 60 in a built up area and the odd yellow sign which gives you a recommended speed. Now, there are signs saying 50, 60,70,80,90 and 100. There are Melbourne roads which are renowned for containing ALL of these limits in a 5 kilometer stretch. The problem has even been on the news. To make matters worse, there have also been a proliferation of "privatized" speed camera companies. They're out to get you on every second road and street corner.

The highways and bridges all have speed cameras installed now and the whole situation has just got out of control. It is literally "highway robbery". The government couldn't care less about road fatalities. It's all about money. Greed. There's barely a driver in Victoria that hasn't been fined in the last year. The government is expecting us to drive like robots. go only "several" kph over the limit and you'll get a present in the mail a day or two later.

This is a perfect example of why men are unable to sufficiently devise proper laws. Admittedly, we do need them, of course. But my point is that without a foundational set of ethics, man is not able to create laws. The biblical ethic: "Love thy neighbor" would help out in this situation. If people generally loved each other they wouldn't fill the roads with financial traps. Oh and that's exactly what they are.


The steam engine ? electricity ? MrLeN you did not tell us what made us prosper (uncontrollably)

What made us prosper was that the majority of us were decent. Things could get done efficiently without too much red tape. There was give and take and most people generally respected each other. Now that all that is reversing, we'll no longer prosper for long. Now, most people are immoral and couldn't care less that they are.

The US has an 8 Trillion dollar deficit. Did you know that? Every US citizen is currently living from and trading what can best be described as "Monopoly Money". It has the same value. Why did this happen? Simple. A disregard for ethics. namely: God's law.


I do not watch TV, where I live The churches, Salvation army still accept Christ. and I do not recall hitting termoil. Have you hit termoil in Melbourne?

Of course I have. I just finished watching the news. Two women in their early 20's were stabbed to death last night, in the next suburb from mine. There are Lebanese guys punching up camera man in broad daylight out the front of court houses. There are gangs of 20+ Lebanese guys bashing singular white males half to death. It's on camera and none of them are locked up, and it's a month later.

There are constantly youths crawling the streets late at night right up until the sun comes up. Kicking people's gates in and whatnot. And I live in what is considered a "good" area. If the parents of these demented children brought them up ethically, then they wouldn't be on the streets at night. I have woken up to find my car has been damaged at least three times in the past several years. Yes, I have hit turmoil in Melbourne and it's getting worse.


MrLen this list is turning into a load of Bullshit of things said off the top of your head...

I rarely say anything off the top of my head. Especially with important topics. I can assure you that everything I have said in this thread involved thought.


"Is it not true that western nations are fast becoming the most uneducated civilizations on the civilized world, where once they were the most privileged?"

Bull shit,


Mate, I am not lying, I promise. The western world, especially the US are fast becoming the dumbest people in the civilized world, per capita.


I always said you were 'Trippy' MrLeN Your posts age getting a bit silly now.
"the fact that we've thrown God's book out the window?"
IS JUST PLAIN SILLY TALK.. I myself am a non believer, but even I can see people heading to church, I have Christians calling to my home twice a year to give me A message from Christ. You are simply making up all this crap to suit your own addenda.

Ok, well not every single living soul on earth has turned from God. But what I mean is that per capita, the numbers of good, decent God loving people are dwindling. And from my perspective it is the biggest singular reason why morals have declined, dramatically. I am not making anything up and I don't have an "agenda".


I would like to know what happened to make you so angry with the world, Why is it you cannot see the balance between what is good and what is Bad. Why do you pull isolated statements of what is wrong from the air and present them as evidence. Do you need some help MrLen?

I am not angry at the world. I feel really sorry for what's happening in the world. I do see the balance between what is good and bad, and I see that the balance is tipping and I can see that within the next decade or two, the whole world system will collapse. Or something dramatic is going to happen. Nothing good can happen from the proliferation of immorality and ignorance.

Yes I do need help. I need help to understand why not one person regards anything I've said as logical. Instead, I have witnessed utter competition. Which, in my view, demonstrates the exact problems I am referring to.

MrLeN

[Tubby]

Quote
"Yes I do need help. I need help to understand why not one person regards anything I've said as logical. Instead, I have witnessed utter competition."

I do not think this is correct. As I understand it mostly we do not understand what you are saying.

You want everyone to love each other and be nice?
YES! we all want that MrLeN. But to condemn speeding laws that are designed to protect children as they leave school because they collect revenue from people who are unable to obey simple laws?

This law is derived from the ones you promote, Society accepts it is wrong to kill children with cars accidently or otherwise. So It extends The THOU SHALL NOT KILL. to you will not drive at more than 30k in this area because you will kill our children, and If you do and get caught doing it we shall fine you $100. Well, What Bastard thought that up, MrLeN thinks it is just designed to collect revenue.
Australian motorists still kill Children every month of the year
What do you want them to do MrLen? Do you want them to remove the speed signs and replace them with "LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR " Sign Well It Will not bloody Work. even if you think it should...

Quote
" There's barely a driver in Victoria that hasn't been fined in the last year. The government is expecting us to drive like robots."

What is your beef here MrLen, you promote gods laws,
Australia still kills hundreds of people on the roads every year. This is an attempt to keep our road users alive. What would you do. Issue every driver with the Ten commandments.

The rest of the world can see these problems MrLeN, But it seems the rest of the world understands it is an extremely complex problem and just standing on a soapbox wanting to debate a simplistic solution that will not work is more akin to someone who has lost the plot than a sensible discussion.

[MrLeN]

Tubby,


What do you want them to do MrLen? Do you want them to remove the speed signs and replace them with "LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR " Sign Well It Will not bloody Work. even if you think it should...

and


What would you do. Issue every driver with the Ten commandments.

Mate, I was really trying to be serious, but I literally burst into laughter at those comments. I really didn't see them coming. Even though they are sarcastic, they're the wittiest statements I've seen from you on these forums. I hadn't had a laugh today, so thanks.

However, I understand that there are people speeding. People that just don't care -- until they run someone down. I also fully support speed rules. What I don't like is the government going way overboard, changing signs every second week, and placing speed cameras in those areas, in an attempt to collect money. They are taking one step further and literally trying to set people up.

Also, now that these speed camera operations have been privatized, they only sit their cars in the places that they can make the most money. I know where they sit, and so do most other local people. We could just take the next street down, which is less busy and roar up the street doing 200 KPH. Not that I do, or would though. I am a very law abiding driver. I do my utmost best to obey all road rules.

As do the majority of people. However, I have been caught out on several occasions over the last couple of years, doing about 4 KPH over the limit. And that's not bad considering I've probably passed about 5,000 speed cameras in that time. I feel that this money is being literally snatched from me. Stolen. Because I am honestly and sincerely trying to obey the road rules, and so are hundreds of thousands of other drivers that have to cough up.

And I'll have you know that even before all these advertising campaigns and new speed limits, I have always slowed right down around schools. I know full well that some kid could run out from between a two cars chasing a ball. As a matter of fact, ever since I've had my license I have always slowed down to a "crawl" in such areas. I also do the same in car parks and other public areas where you need to be careful.

It's just common sense.

MrLeN

[greeneagle]

Let's just blow this thread all the way out:

Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) won the Palestinian election by a landslide and they evidently don't even know how to behave in their win.

Radical Muslims find their Base in the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuran) in which by "Western" ideology was formed by a cruel illiterate delusional pedophile:
That's a Religious Leader I want Ref-1 (http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b1muhammadca.htm)
That's a Religious Leader I want Ref-2 (http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352728&TOCID=2083225348)
"Mohammad the Pedophile Ref-3" (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/muhtpammed.htm)

(Comment; This thread is a good example of why both political and religious threads are not relevant or desired on an international webmaster forum)

The relevant point being here, is that almost everyone has some kind of belief system. According to "Western Morals" an evidentiary history of a "Religious Leader" that is so deeply mired in controversy with delusion, pedophilia, cruelty and the likes ... just doesn't line up with sound "morals", in which we choose to base "Right and Wrong" decisions on!

From a Biblical Prophecy perspective, is the stage now set for Armageddon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon)?

What are you trying to accomplish here MrLen?
Does the presumed further alliance of Biblical Prophesy in current events scare you?
Are you trying to bring others along?
Are you personally ready?

Let's just lay this whole "right and wrong" decision based thread right out smack in the middle of current affairs, so that it has more relevance for today and now!

I do want to know what your personal crusade is all about and why you are as determined as you are, in your continuing unmitigated current practice of opening up new personal value and ethics threads in a webmaster forum, though.

I certainly haven't noticed an overall set of decrepit personality traits that can be ascribed to webmasters in general, nor have I seen it here at WPW, nor can you assign those accusations here or to the webmaster community in general... So what's your point here?

Ken

[mike]

I do want to know what your personal crusade is all about and why you are as determined as you are, in your continuing unmitigated current practice of opening up new personal value and ethics threads in a webmaster forum, though.
Ken

It's cool, as long as it stays in the breakroom and stays relatively civil. The Breakroom is here for off-topic stuff after all.

[MrLeN]

Hamas won the Palestenian election by a landslide.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest bit.


Radical Muslims find their Base in the Qur'an in which by "Western" ideaology was formed by a cruel illiterate delusional pedophile.

The bible speaks of a great and abominable religion which will play a major role in the end days. There's only one religion I can think of which is causing great abominations, world wide and is growing like wildfire. I'll stop short of naming that religion, and I'll leave that thought right here.


What are you trying to accomplish here MrLen?

Considering that so many people on this forum think they have a justification for everything, regarding ethics (ie: The SEO thread). And because hardly any mods seem to agree with the ethical standards that I have put forth, in that thread (even though many members do, and I even got a job offer out of it, because a member was impressed with my ethical standards). I thought I'd try and put those ethics to the test, based upon the foundation of my ethics. So I am not necessarily in a crusade to get everyone to accept biblical ethics. I am trying to get people to justify their ethics, since so many people around this joint think their perception of ethics is better than mine. I could well have just left the bible out of it. I probably could have created this thread without letting anyone know. But for the sake of being open, honest and, well, transparent, I thought; what the heck. I might as well include the reason that I have the ethical views that I do, as well as where I get them from. But as soon as people saw "God" and "Bible" mentioned, they couldn't get passed it and stick to the topic. Which, I admit was kind of expected. But I thought that by explaining that I am not on a religious crusade at the start, people might be able to look past it. But everyone got all upset and all religious anyway. *sigh*


Does the presumed further alliance of Biblical Phrophesy in current events scare you?

I'm not sure I understand the question. So I'll wait for clarification before replying.


Are you trying to bring others along?

I am not trying to bring anyone anywhere (in this thread). But I am not ashamed of saying that I am an aspiring ally to God's cause. Even though I'm probably more of a hindrance to him half the time. If I get the chance, through my daily life, I will ask my friends about God. I don't force anything onto them. I think just a mention is good enough. Just something to get them thinking. To plant a seed. But again, that is not my intention in this thread.


Are you personally ready?

To die? I have my doubts about my eternal salvation. I believe that as fine and deny I view myself, I am just a dirty rag to God. It doesn't matter how hard I try to please God with works, I'll never possess the tools to please him, from within myself. I need to trust in God and let him work in me. To allow that to happen, I need to be open and transparent. Personally, I think I am not living up to the expectations that God has of me. But at the very least, I do have such aspirations. I sincerely hope I'll get there and not be influenced too much by this worldly system, which is something I try to shield myself from. Mainly by trying to hold on to and acknowledge the ethics that God has presented. Again, I don't always do a great job of that, but I am trying.


I do want to know what your personal crusade is all about and why you are as determined as you are to continue opening up personal value and ethics threads in a webmaster forum, though.

This is the only thread I opened. Let me explain. See, there was this SEO thread (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=59877&highlight=) where a member was asking if it was ok to SEO two rival client sites. My opinion was no, and I posted a response based on ethics, which is what the member had been asking for. Then a moderator (I think it was Chris) chopped my response off (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=59958&highlight=) and left a note in the thread saying that it has been "threadjacked". Then all the mods came in and started pounding me on ethics. So, considering that these mods thought that my ethical views were all wrong, I decided to open this thread. That is exactly why I am asking people to explain how they come to the conclusion that my views on ethics are wrong. At least I have a fundamental foundation for my ethics. But the ethics of these mods are all relative and, to be frank, much lighter to carry and justify.


I certainly haven't noticed an overall set of decrepid personality traits that can be ascribed to webmasters in general, nor have I seen it here at WPW, nor can you assign those accusations here or to the webmaster community in general... So what's your point here?

Well, this comment assumes that I have "noticed an overall set of decrepit personality traits that can be ascribed to webmasters in general". But if you read above, you'll see that the origin of this thread was caused by mods wanting to challenge me on my ethical standards. So I created a thread for it, they all got upset and convinced themselves that I was on some sort of religious crusade. And as many times as I have insisted that I am not, religion keeps getting brought up, again, and again, and .. again. But I truly and sincerely am only trying to discuss ethics. It just so happens that my personal ethics are founded (or at least I try to found them) in the bible.

MrLeN

[greeneagle]

MRLen,

I have to express my observations here:

MrLen:


"To die? I have my doubts about my eternal salvation."

The Christian faith is all about faith as small as a grain of mustard seed. Going from Old Testament to new..."The veil was rent in twain"... Yes that's right it was torn in half exposing the "Holy of Holies"...meaning that you have direct access to God, you don't need an intersessor, after Christ's sacrafice.

Catholicism continues to throw a wrench in the works there with archaic practices like confession to a priest.

If you want to preach the Bible to everyone here please have the faith to believe that Christ died for your sins and you are definitely saved, if you are a believer, as your expressed faith commits to.

If this is a personal battle that you are having internally and want input through others opinions...

I hope you just found it.

Best Regards,

Ken

[MrLeN]

I agree with all that you've said. I especially believe that the Catholic religion is merely a business organization, which "uses" God. A shop that says: "Eternal Salvation here: $14.95". But it is not up to them to offer such a product. The whole religion is one big blaspheme, and God will sort that out when the time comes.

However,


Christ died for your sins and you are definitely saved

This is not true. He has dies for our sins, which has wiped our slates clean from our transgressions and our sinful nature. However, this gift is conditional. We must accept Christ as our Lord and savior and we must earnestly repent of our sin to claim this gift. To repent also means to earnestly try to live our lives according to God's will.


If you want to preach the Bible to everyone here..

I'm not. The thread has been created as a debate on ethics. But I have spent most of my time replying to religious issues. It's not my fault that no one wants to reply to the topic, but instead keep bringing up other things.

MrLeN

[greeneagle]

What was this then:

MrLen:

Quote:
"To die? I have my doubts about my eternal salvation."

Ken

[Atlantean]

Some good reading about ethics:

http://ethics.acusd.edu/index.asp

[MrLeN]

What was this then:

MrLen:

Quote:
"To die? I have my doubts about my eternal salvation."

Ken

By that, I mean that I am not earnest enough in my desire to do God's will. I am merely being honest. Anyone can sit here and say: "I'm saved!", "I'm great!", "I'm marvelous!", "Pats on the back all round for me!", "I am Mr Righteous!", "Heaven for me!"..

..but the truth is, I am not. I have many faults. I aspire to be totally open to God, but I don't always try my best. It says clearly in the bible that if we a lukewarm, God will spit us from his mouth.

MrLeN

[greeneagle]

Points well taken MrLen...

But not everyone is tightrope walking the top of the fence with you, one way or the other.

Ken

[Tubby]

Quote
"Mate, I was really trying to be serious, but I literally burst into laughter at those comments. I really didn't see them coming. Even though they are sarcastic, they're the wittiest statements I've seen from you on these forums. I hadn't had a laugh today, so thanks."

That Is good MrLen . . Some Clarification please.

Thou shalt not Kill: is a good law as it is Gods law.

Do not accidently kill children Is a good law as it is derived from the above law.

Speeding Fines to Enforce this law, is good.

Fine MrLeN for breaking this law by a measly 4kph is wrong. (because they cheat and catch people when they are not looking and use sneaky 'unethical' methods, raise revenue etc.)

Are you suggesting that 'Ethical' methods of enforcing this law that do not work and continue to kill children. Is more 'ethical' . . . Than sneaky underhand 'unethical' methods that do catch offenders. This is a serious Question MrLeN, our laws reflect our society standards.

MrLeN, I have taken your arguments seriously, and have purposefully pushed the subject away from the 'Concept' to a real and practical problem that I can understand (and others)

[crankydave]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

The 10 Commandments...

Gods law? Mans Law? Man's interpretation of Gods law? Something else? Which is right? Which is wrong?


20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

A jealous God? A fraility? Jealousy is right? Can this not lead to coveting?


20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How? Within walls of bits of plaster, stone and paint? An altar? A crucifix? Did not Jesus do his Fathers work within such walls?


20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Kill what? Plant? Animal? Man?


20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Yet God covets the love of man. Is this right? Is it wrong?

MrLen... You wield the bible like a sword and yet you know not whether or not it is truly the word of God. You condemn what you call "mans law" in favor of Gods law when you know not from whom or what it comes. It is your interpretation. Your law. Mans law.

Dave

[Tubby]

Crankdave. I am fairly sure that when it comes to the Barmaid down the pub with the big Knockers. A little bit of 'coveting' is quite acceptable.

[MrLeN]

Ok, I'll leave you two here to rub each others backsides. I'm off to do some other stuff.

MrLeN

[Tubby]

Yes MrLeN.
I expect you forgot what your purpose was.

[Burf.com]

just my 2c worth, I managed half way down the first page and got completely confused in this very deep subject. I Like the idea Munky said about the Bible. It was a tool to make a society stable.

[kgun]

Thou shalt not Kill: is a good law as it is Gods law.

I disagree, I think, in extreme situations, it can be etichal to kill, even the least of two evils. What if a criminal with a gun in his hands threatened your children? I am no hero, but I know what would have been right to me in that situation. But it is an exception.

And in my view, actions, e.g. Mother Theresa, speak louder than words. You may kill with the bible, koran etc. in your hands. Religious leaders are often among the most dangerous person's you ever meet.

Usual concept in finance: "Money speaks."

Scenario, a fund manager, that has to make ethical investments (http://www.eiris.org/) comes to a company to look for investment opportunities. He concludes that because of ethical considerations, he can not invest in the company. If enough fund managers do the same, that speaks more than words. And when it comes to money, many (I do not say all) forget their faith or religion. Reccomended Book: Edwin Lefevre: "Reminiscences of a Stock Operator". Originally published in 1923, it is still read by thousands. It is a true classic and the "Bible" of a stock trader.

Sorry for looking at this from the standpoint of an economist.