<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong, it does not, only those who wish to make it more then what it appears to be must interpet something, such as yourself. (Tolkien is a great example everyone "thought" LOTR was about WWII but it wasn't, luckily he was alive today to tell us otherwise, sadly the many authors of the bible are not.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You missed my point, I apologize if I did not make it clear. My point is that "everything" must be interpreted for it to mean anything. Even "self-explanatory" things must be "explained" by you; through interpretation.
<!--QuoteBegin-FreeSearch Definition of "interpret"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FreeSearch Definition of "interpret")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->to decide what the intended meaning of something is:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing has meaning unless it is interpreted. I am not referring to "reading between the lines" as you must have thought, no, I mean when reading "the lines themselves" you interpret (find meaning) all the while. Everything must be interpreted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I was getting at was the fact it says YOU MUST CONFESS on the 10th day of the seventh month, once a year, which is clearly states in the beginning.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not a debtor to the law of God. I am a debtor to Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for me. If following the law is the way to heaven, then I won't be there. I am a transgressor of the laws of God. But I am alive in the law of Grace, as John writes: "For the law came by Moses but grace and truth come by the Lord, Jesus Christ."
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again what is sad is you disreguard what your god tells you to do, completely, oh but wait you live under the "new covenant" yet in this new covenant in that Matthew quote, jesus is telling you the old laws STILL APPLY. Lets quote the entire passage shall we?
In the following passage jesus tells you the "new covenant", but maintains that the old laws still apply as referenced by the last few verses. Which means, at this very moment you are committing sins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the last verse of the section you quoted. Funny that Jesus states that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and scribes. Funny, because the pharisees and scribes followed the law, to the letter. They followed the law and not God. The law became their new God, so much so that they could not see God when he was among them.
The new covenant goes beyond the law. It goes from rules, to grace. Check out Galatians, chapter 5. It covers this very well, indeed.
And don't think that Jesus abided by the law, either. He set the adulterous woman free, while the law demands death. You can read that in John, chapter 8. Jesus did not come to condemn the world, nor did he command his disciples so. Jesus came so that "Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." He came that we might "have life and have it more abundantly."
And quite frankly, this discussion is detracting from my abundant life.
But this is what I say to all of you who claim the Bible to be a hoax and God to be dead: I pray that you are right! For your sake. Think carefully about your decision in words and thought. What if God IS real? What if the Bible IS true? (Indeed I ask these questions for myself, of Islam, Hinduism, etc.)
But you have made your minds up far too quickly, you are arrogant in your hearts. I am a fool and nothing. I never could nor will understand God and his purpose and his will, though I try. I pray seeking truth and I earnestly run towards it. I believe, through faith, that the Bible is true and God is on the throne but if that isn't so, I pray that the real God will have mercy on me and reveal himself to me. So this is what I have found. That no other gods are willing to step forward. When I cry out, God the father of Jesus Christ answers me; Krishna is silent and Bhudda far away from me. But Jesus Christ is close beside me, even inside me. If there are other gods or another true god, let him come forward to me and to you all. But the answers remain but one; the God of the Bible declares His majesty and He reigns on high. Amen.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But you have made your minds up far too quickly, you are arrogant in your hearts. I am a fool and nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you're being a little hard on everyone, yourself included. It's no more arrogant for Cyndane to believe there is no God at this point than it is for you to believe in one.
...Although I'm still not sure why belief is creeping into this topic. (See my previous post.)
Yes, belief should not be in this topic, so I will side with snidely.
If we are to look at right and wrong, and by what you say the bible covers it, which it clearly contradicts itself. That would lead the bible into a falsehood, and therefore make it irrelvant to use as a reference for morals, since the OT says one thing and you claim the NT says something different. (It doesn't, actually, but I will concede because you don't seem to read much.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you're being a little hard on everyone, yourself included. It's no more arrogant for Cyndane to believe there is no God at this point than it is for you to believe in one.
...Although I'm still not sure why belief is creeping into this topic. (See my previous post.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still believe that it is relevant, at least to my opinion but since everyone else wishes belief dropped from this discussion - dropped it is. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, belief should not be in this topic, so I will side with snidely.
If we are to look at right and wrong, and by what you say the bible covers it, which it clearly contradicts itself. That would lead the bible into a falsehood, and therefore make it irrelvant to use as a reference for morals, since the OT says one thing and you claim the NT says something different. (It doesn't, actually, but I will concede because you don't seem to read much.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't debate with you, since you ceaselessly insult my intelligence, I do plenty of reading and certainly will do more as I continue to grow in my faith.
Since we leave God out of this, here is what we all pretty much think: Right is whatever feels right and wrong is whatever feels wrong and you, as an individual, are the judge of this subjective system. Is this accurate?
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can't debate with you, since you ceaselessly insult my intelligence, I do plenty of reading and certainly will do more as I continue to grow in my faith. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can debate with me all you want, but you are calling the bible accurate as to morals, when it clearly is not. If you can't see the contradictions you are bringing into this with the whole "old covenant" and "new covenant" since they are supposed to be supplimental to each other I seriously think you should read the OT a bit more.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we leave God out of this, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We are going to leave god out of this, because according to what you have debated with us so far, it is quite contradictory.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Right is whatever feels right and wrong is whatever feels wrong and you, as an individual, are the judge of this subjective system. Is this accurate? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bingo, that is how right and wrong work in the real world.
Hold on, why can't Dark ATI bring God in to this thread? After all he did start this thread and for him, god (or whatever) is the source for his morals. He gets his right and wrong from what he is told god says they are.
Of course, you can't really debate about right and wrong when your morals are simply given to you but even so, 'god' is just as valid an answer as any others given here.
It's not that he can't say "God is right and everything against God is wrong".
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATI+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATI)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question of God's existence ties into the question of what is right and what is wrong. If my God, the one from the Holy Bible, exists; then right and wrong take on a whole new meaning. God is vital to this debate even if he does not exist simply because he is integrated into my opinions and beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While it's true that his God's existence would change what is right and wrong, we can't prove that God exists, so debating His existance is not a worthwhile line of discussion (at least in this thread). It can't lead anywhere. That's all I was saying.
I agree it can't really be debated but the original question allows him to post his side of it, if it didn't he could soon edit <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, there are many non-biblical approaches to the question. You might want to check out on <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant' target='_blank'>Immanuel Kant</a>, to name one of the most influential.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the Categorical Imperative, from which all other moral obligations are generated. He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world (e.g., what would make us happy). Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and only rational agents.
A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires. (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative.) Kant's categorical imperative was formulated in three ways, which he believed to be roughly equivalent (although many commentators do not):
* The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) says: <b>"Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."</b>
* The second formulation (Formula of Humanity) says: <b>"Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."</b>
* The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two. <b>It says that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as legislating universal laws through our maxims. We may think of ourselves as such autonomous legislators only insofar as we follow our own laws.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, Kant is a pillock, never liked his approach to ethics and categorical imperative is too inflexible for me simply because if its used how it seems to be intended then it creates blanket rules that ignore the situation.
However, if you tailor the rules so that they match situations, i.e. you cannot kill in <i>this</i> situation but you can in this one. You can't steal here and here but you can here etc... well then it just becomes meaningless.
Well, when breaking Kant down to the basics, he simply says that you have to decide for every situation based on the best of your knowlege and do what you would consider the best for everybody. Sounds quite logic does it?
All he implys is, that every enlightened human being should consider the consequences of his actions and act accordingly. You could also understand it in a way that you should act like you would want others to act on yourself.
Kant is not really that rigit if you take it from that perspective.
The weakness I see in the theory is, that it implys that you are not responsible for things you do not know. So ignorance is bliss you could say. Yet Kant expects any enlightened being to gather the information nessesary to judge the situation correctly and without bias. There lies the true mistake imho, as such truely enlightened people are quite few and far between.
Comments
You missed my point, I apologize if I did not make it clear. My point is that "everything" must be interpreted for it to mean anything. Even "self-explanatory" things must be "explained" by you; through interpretation.
<!--QuoteBegin-FreeSearch Definition of "interpret"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FreeSearch Definition of "interpret")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->to decide what the intended meaning of something is:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing has meaning unless it is interpreted. I am not referring to "reading between the lines" as you must have thought, no, I mean when reading "the lines themselves" you interpret (find meaning) all the while. Everything must be interpreted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I was getting at was the fact it says YOU MUST CONFESS on the 10th day of the seventh month, once a year, which is clearly states in the beginning.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not a debtor to the law of God. I am a debtor to Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for me. If following the law is the way to heaven, then I won't be there. I am a transgressor of the laws of God. But I am alive in the law of Grace, as John writes: "For the law came by Moses but grace and truth come by the Lord, Jesus Christ."
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again what is sad is you disreguard what your god tells you to do, completely, oh but wait you live under the "new covenant" yet in this new covenant in that Matthew quote, jesus is telling you the old laws STILL APPLY. Lets quote the entire passage shall we?
In the following passage jesus tells you the "new covenant", but maintains that the old laws still apply as referenced by the last few verses. Which means, at this very moment you are committing sins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the last verse of the section you quoted. Funny that Jesus states that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and scribes. Funny, because the pharisees and scribes followed the law, to the letter. They followed the law and not God. The law became their new God, so much so that they could not see God when he was among them.
The new covenant goes beyond the law. It goes from rules, to grace. Check out Galatians, chapter 5. It covers this very well, indeed.
And don't think that Jesus abided by the law, either. He set the adulterous woman free, while the law demands death. You can read that in John, chapter 8. Jesus did not come to condemn the world, nor did he command his disciples so. Jesus came so that "Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." He came that we might "have life and have it more abundantly."
And quite frankly, this discussion is detracting from my abundant life.
But this is what I say to all of you who claim the Bible to be a hoax and God to be dead: I pray that you are right! For your sake. Think carefully about your decision in words and thought. What if God IS real? What if the Bible IS true? (Indeed I ask these questions for myself, of Islam, Hinduism, etc.)
But you have made your minds up far too quickly, you are arrogant in your hearts. I am a fool and nothing. I never could nor will understand God and his purpose and his will, though I try. I pray seeking truth and I earnestly run towards it. I believe, through faith, that the Bible is true and God is on the throne but if that isn't so, I pray that the real God will have mercy on me and reveal himself to me. So this is what I have found. That no other gods are willing to step forward. When I cry out, God the father of Jesus Christ answers me; Krishna is silent and Bhudda far away from me. But Jesus Christ is close beside me, even inside me. If there are other gods or another true god, let him come forward to me and to you all. But the answers remain but one; the God of the Bible declares His majesty and He reigns on high. Amen.
~ DarkATi
I think you're being a little hard on everyone, yourself included. It's no more arrogant for Cyndane to believe there is no God at this point than it is for you to believe in one.
...Although I'm still not sure why belief is creeping into this topic. (See my previous post.)
If we are to look at right and wrong, and by what you say the bible covers it, which it clearly contradicts itself. That would lead the bible into a falsehood, and therefore make it irrelvant to use as a reference for morals, since the OT says one thing and you claim the NT says something different. (It doesn't, actually, but I will concede because you don't seem to read much.)
...Although I'm still not sure why belief is creeping into this topic. (See my previous post.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still believe that it is relevant, at least to my opinion but since everyone else wishes belief dropped from this discussion - dropped it is. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, belief should not be in this topic, so I will side with snidely.
If we are to look at right and wrong, and by what you say the bible covers it, which it clearly contradicts itself. That would lead the bible into a falsehood, and therefore make it irrelvant to use as a reference for morals, since the OT says one thing and you claim the NT says something different. (It doesn't, actually, but I will concede because you don't seem to read much.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't debate with you, since you ceaselessly insult my intelligence, I do plenty of reading and certainly will do more as I continue to grow in my faith.
Since we leave God out of this, here is what we all pretty much think: Right is whatever feels right and wrong is whatever feels wrong and you, as an individual, are the judge of this subjective system. Is this accurate?
~ DarkATi
I can't debate with you, since you ceaselessly insult my intelligence, I do plenty of reading and certainly will do more as I continue to grow in my faith.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can debate with me all you want, but you are calling the bible accurate as to morals, when it clearly is not. If you can't see the contradictions you are bringing into this with the whole "old covenant" and "new covenant" since they are supposed to be supplimental to each other I seriously think you should read the OT a bit more.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Since we leave God out of this,
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are going to leave god out of this, because according to what you have debated with us so far, it is quite contradictory.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkAti+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkAti)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Right is whatever feels right and wrong is whatever feels wrong and you, as an individual, are the judge of this subjective system. Is this accurate?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo, that is how right and wrong work in the real world.
Of course, you can't really debate about right and wrong when your morals are simply given to you but even so, 'god' is just as valid an answer as any others given here.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATI+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATI)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question of God's existence ties into the question of what is right and what is wrong. If my God, the one from the Holy Bible, exists; then right and wrong take on a whole new meaning. God is vital to this debate even if he does not exist simply because he is integrated into my opinions and beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it's true that his God's existence would change what is right and wrong, we can't prove that God exists, so debating His existance is not a worthwhile line of discussion (at least in this thread). It can't lead anywhere. That's all I was saying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the Categorical Imperative, from which all other moral obligations are generated. He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world (e.g., what would make us happy). Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and only rational agents.
A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires. (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative.) Kant's categorical imperative was formulated in three ways, which he believed to be roughly equivalent (although many commentators do not):
* The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) says: <b>"Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."</b>
* The second formulation (Formula of Humanity) says: <b>"Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."</b>
* The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two. <b>It says that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as legislating universal laws through our maxims. We may think of ourselves as such autonomous legislators only insofar as we follow our own laws.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However, if you tailor the rules so that they match situations, i.e. you cannot kill in <i>this</i> situation but you can in this one. You can't steal here and here but you can here etc... well then it just becomes meaningless.
All he implys is, that every enlightened human being should consider the consequences of his actions and act accordingly. You could also understand it in a way that you should act like you would want others to act on yourself.
Kant is not really that rigit if you take it from that perspective.
The weakness I see in the theory is, that it implys that you are not responsible for things you do not know. So ignorance is bliss you could say. Yet Kant expects any enlightened being to gather the information nessesary to judge the situation correctly and without bias. There lies the true mistake imho, as such truely enlightened people are quite few and far between.