Ends in 50 Years

[Kenny]

No doubt for many of us the standard set more than a thousand years ago is not high enough, and not so easy to change. But such will be more likely if such religious books were just written by other humans rather than having some divine input perhaps. How would they foresee the future any more than we can these days?

I don’t know how… but somehow those of more than a thousand years ago have pegged Israel to the letter and then beyond just that.

 

[Stevicus]

So, if the consensus is that cannibalism is perfectly fine (and there are some people groups who have that position) then “let’s eat”??

If the consensus is “kill all homosexuals” (which I don’t subscribe to), it is therefore ok?

It's not okay. It would obviously be different from the moral standard set by the consensus in our society at present. But if the political consensus in society makes the choice, then there's nothing to stop them - except for some outside force. Maybe another country might invade (after they reach a moral consensus), or maybe God might intervene (although I wouldn't count on it).

 

[Kenny]

It's not okay. It would obviously be different from the moral standard set by the consensus in our society at present. But if the political consensus in society makes the choice, then there's nothing to stop them - except for some outside force. Maybe another country might invade (after they reach a moral consensus), or maybe God might intervene (although I wouldn't count on it).

So, basically, you are forcing your standards on someone else. I’m not objecting to that—simply that people are forced to a moral standard. Every law forces a standard on those who object to the law.

Are you also suggesting a world order that sets the consensus?

So, whether by a book that is supported by consensus or without a book that is supported by consensus, you are stipulating that morality is never a real standard since it always fluctuate. (We have seen that through the ages) One could say that in “some cases” - it would be different but not wrong.

If there is a God (or gods) He wold set it (or they). If enough believe there are no gods, then they set the standard.

And for the cannibals in the Amazons, they certainly would enforce their standard on us as we greet them

 

[The Hammer]

I agree knowledge sets one free. Don’t you think that an All-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator would be the ultimate Source of knowledge?

No?

 

[McBell]

We can say anything. We can say we don't believe in the laws of physics, and that the law of gravity will have no impact on them. Until we test it and take a jump of that Eiffel Tower. We may never believe until we hit the terminus.

What makes you think that sin has not been tested?
AND found lacking in substance?
The biggest difference between sin and gravity is that gravity has an actual effect on reality without relying on humans to enforce it...

 

[Kenny]

I agree knowledge sets one free. Don’t you think that an All-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator would be the ultimate Source of knowledge?

For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding…
Proverbs 2:6

In my view, yes!

 

[InChrist]

In my view, yes!

Mine, also. It’s nonsensical in my view to imagine that there could be further knowledge beyond that of an ALL-KNOWING Being.

 

[Audie]

According to your morals.

Ask some Christians about the inquisition
see whose morals are tinged.

 

[Heyo]

So, basically, you are forcing your standards on someone else. I’m not objecting to that—simply that people are forced to a moral standard. Every law forces a standard on those who object to the law.

Are you also suggesting a world order that sets the consensus?

So, whether by a book that is supported by consensus or without a book that is supported by consensus, you are stipulating that morality is never a real standard since it always fluctuate. (We have seen that through the ages) One could say that in “some cases” - it would be different but not wrong.

If there is a God (or gods) He wold set it (or they). If enough believe there are no gods, then they set the standard.

And for the cannibals in the Amazons, they certainly would enforce their standard on us as we greet them

I think you are confusing morals, ethics and perhaps laws here.

Laws are the most rigid. they are imposed by some entity that is able to enforce them.

Morals are a personal code you adhere to. They are based on your instincts and form by philosophising about "the right life". Your environment influences how you think about morals. There are no standards for morals nor is there a consensus. There are, however, standards on how to think about them.

Ethics are between the personal and the official law of the land. They are unwritten but there is a consensus, however vague.

You are talking about ethics in your above post, not morals.

Ask some Christians about the inquisition
see whose morals are tinged.

Morals or ethics?

 

[Heyo]

And for the cannibals in the Amazons, they certainly would enforce their standard on us as we greet them

There are no (known) cannibals in the Amazonas, there are, however, still tribes who, until recently, practiced cannibalism on Borneo.

 

[sun rise]

Ask some Christians about the inquisition
see whose morals are tinged.

History is replete with individuals who have not fully lived their ideals and gone far astray. If a doctor prescribes a proven remedy for an illness but some patients don't take the cure as directed and remain sick or get sicker, that does not render the remedy false.

 

[Kenny]

I think you are confusing morals, ethics and perhaps laws here.

Laws are the most rigid. they are imposed by some entity that is able to enforce them.

Morals are a personal code you adhere to. They are based on your instincts and form by philosophising about "the right life". Your environment influences how you think about morals. There are no standards for morals nor is there a consensus. There are, however, standards on how to think about them.

Ethics are between the personal and the official law of the land. They are unwritten but there is a consensus, however vague.

You are talking about ethics in your above post, not morals.

The above, I thought, was quite good.

But aren’t they are intertwined within the context of the previous poster? The ethics of the community are usually enforced by the laws of the community. If the laws were unethical, the community would revolt.

 

[Heyo]

The above, I thought, was quite good.

But aren’t they are intertwined within the context of the previous poster? The ethics of the community are usually enforced by the laws of the community. If the laws were unethical, the community would revolt.

That would be an ideal but it seldom is so in reality. Not everything we see as ethical is made into law and not all laws are ethical, some are downright unethical. That holds even in functioning democracies where one would expect the law to be made and respected by the people. That may be because the ethics have changed and the law didn't keep up. E.g. a Kanton (state) in Switzerland didn't have voting rights for women until 1971. In Germany you are not allowed to deny the Holocaust but you are allowed to deny the Armenian genocide. In Britain people don't have bodily autonomy because they are (officially) property of the King. But everywhere you are allowed to cheat on your SO even so most of us find that unethical.

 

[MikeF]

If there is a God (or gods) He wold set it (or they). If enough believe there are no gods, then they set the standard.

Would you also entertain the notion that if there were a god or gods, they may abstain from setting such standards? I'm just curious if, especially in the case of more than one god, some or all may be indifferent to humanity in your opinion, or whether in your view, there is some property of godness that compels a god to take interest in human affairs and specifically set such standards. If later is the case, how do gods settle their potential differing opinions on such matters? What would inform their choices?

 

[Stevicus]

So, basically, you are forcing your standards on someone else. I’m not objecting to that—simply that people are forced to a moral standard. Every law forces a standard on those who object to the law.

Are you also suggesting a world order that sets the consensus?

So, whether by a book that is supported by consensus or without a book that is supported by consensus, you are stipulating that morality is never a real standard since it always fluctuate. (We have seen that through the ages) One could say that in “some cases” - it would be different but not wrong.

If there is a God (or gods) He wold set it (or they). If enough believe there are no gods, then they set the standard.

And for the cannibals in the Amazons, they certainly would enforce their standard on us as we greet them

The bottom line is, nothing is etched in stone. In the end, morality is whatever the consensus at the time says it is, and yes, that does fluctuate. And in a sense, we already have a world order that sets the consensus. At least on a surface level. Sometimes morality is just a matter of political expediency and public image. For example, our government might say "we are invading Iraq because their government is immoral," but the continued presence of other immoral governments of countries which we do not invade would be proof positive that morality is most definitely not the government's motivation.

 

[Little Dragon]

Far more admirable- the more so as it gets
no posthmous medal of honour nor the least
recognition or thanks- are those who
selflessly act a life of quiet courage,
sacrificing everything of themselves in service
to others.

THAT is heroic, that is love

I concur.

 

[sun rise]

If the laws were unethical, the community would revolt.

I wish that were true. To use an extreme case: Nazi Germany. But there are many other examples of people enduring or worse endorsing unethical laws.

 

[Unfettered]

The World as we know it ends in 50 years. Complete and total annihilation.

Or so some say.

If that's true, what do we/you do?
Give up? Go with the flow? Create Chaos?

Do what I can to influence the world against taking the path of self-destruction.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The book did not even exist when jesus was alive
nice embellishment. I pointed out, that a fisherman could catch man more fish if understanding how to bring more in.
Does not make a person into a god or christ.
I am aware of the story. My point of bringing up the wine, was that anyone can make wine, if they know how.
Lots of opinions but it is 'the name' that is the 'holy of holies' not a person
The proper understanding of 'the name' is what enables mankind to know what is real. Not a place, country or state but the unveiling. That unveiling is the true promise, not magic and miracles.

How true that Revelation was written decades after Jesus died, but unlike the rest of mankind God resurrected dead Jesus.
Jesus will use the Resurrection Power on Resurrection Day meaning Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day of governing over Earth for a thousand-year day. 1st. Cor. 15:24-26

Sure anyone can make wine but could anyone make wine at a moments notice.
Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast, right then and there.
ALL the miracles Jesus performed are showing us or giving us a preview, a coming attraction of what Jesus will be doing a a grand-global scale when Jesus will govern over Earth for a thousand years.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..................However my priority would be to help save us from annihilation. If poss.
Not waiting for a God to grovel to fawn over plead with and beg. Never going to happen! Not in ten thousand trillion googolplex giga years.

I find Jesus' priority was to help save us from annihilation because: it is possible.
That is why Jesus chose the theme about God's kingdom in his preaching and teaching work - Luke 4:43
Not sit around waiting for God but like Jesus tell others the good news of God's kingdom ( thy kingdom come.... )
A thousand years of blessings are coming to Earth as described in Isaiah 35th chapter. - 1st Cor. 15:24-26
The 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will save righteous people - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15