the right religion

[1robin]

I dont agree with #1. However it is difficult for me to envision anyone arriving at spiritual discernment without a spiritual rebirth. However the latter part I agree with.

Are you saying you did not agree with the verse I posted that clearly illustrated that there is a conflict of wills between our natural desires and God's will communicated through the Holy Spirit to us? This is such a universal conclusion I think either I must be saying or wrong or you are reading it wrong. I am simply pointing out that God's will many times is contrary to what we would chose. It is illustrated when Jesus' fleshly side is troubling him concerning what he will soon face. He admits he wishes there were another way but subordinates what his flesh desires for what the father desires. Being that we are not Christ many times we are not as successful as he was. If you still disagree can you elaborate at what point you disagree, as I said this is not a very contested issue.

#2 Man proposes but God disposes. Jesus is my Lord so I will go wherever He wants me to go. I firmly believe if God didn't want Christians to be here there wouldn't be any Christians left here.

That is truly an honorable and optimistic goal. However as Paul clearly states we many times desire different things than God does for us. Since we are not perfect at times we will fail to perfectly subordinate our will to his and the Bible is full of examples. Only one man never failed to obey and that is why he was the sufficient sacrifice that we could never supply ourselves. I still fail to see any real contentions between your views and mine.

 

[Muffled]

Are you saying you did not agree with the verse I posted that clearly illustrated that there is a conflict of wills between our natural desires and God's will communicated through the Holy Spirit to us? This is such a universal conclusion I think either I must be saying or wrong or you are reading it wrong. I am simply pointing out that God's will many times is contrary to what we would chose. It is illustrated when Jesus' fleshly side is troubling him concerning what he will soon face. He admits he wishes there were another way but subordinates what his flesh desires for what the father desires. Being that we are not Christ many times we are not as successful as he was. If you still disagree can you elaborate at what point you disagree, as I said this is not a very contested issue. [/b][/color]

That is truly an honorable and optimistic goal. However as Paul clearly states we many times desire different things than God does for us. Since we are not perfect at times we will fail to perfectly subordinate our will to his and the Bible is full of examples. Only one man never failed to obey and that is why he was the sufficient sacrifice that we could never supply ourselves. I still fail to see any real contentions between your views and mine.

No. I am saying that one does not need to be born again to enter heavenas opposed to what you said: 1. That we must be born again to reach heaven by grace through faith in Christ.
Jphn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The problem lies in the understanding of this term. I believe the Kingdom of God (Heaven) is not coterminus with Heaven. I believe I am in the Kingdom of Heaven because I have been born again but I am on earth not in Heaven. Neither do I believe that a perfect will is necessary to enter Heaven which you have correctly identified as happening by grace which I do agree is the case.

I believe that is neither here nor there. I believe that God does not guarantee Heaven to everyone who believes in Jesus or is born again and that His will may well be for a person to return to life on earth and often He will simply allow a person to choose life on earth over Heaven. And I believe on occasion where a person does not know his Bible well a person might not know how to get to Heaven.

 

[1robin]

No. I am saying that one does not need to be born again to enter heavenas opposed to what you said:Jphn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Neither do I believe that a perfect will is necessary to enter Heaven which you have correctly identified as happening by grace which I do agree is the case.

I had forgotten all about this discussion. I will attempt to recalibrate.

The entire concept of the new birth does not rest on one single verse but I think it could if necessary.

Without even mentioning that story in John the concept is still plenty evident.
New Birth is Given to Us by God
Just as we can't give physical birth to ourselves, we can't accomplish this spiritual birth by ourselves, either. God gives it, but through faith in Christ we can request it:
"In his great mercy he (God the Father) has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you ..." (1 Peter 1:3-4, NIV)
Because God gives us this new birth, we know exactly where we stand. That's what is so exciting about Christianity. We don't have to struggle for our salvation, wondering whether we have said enough prayers or done enough good deeds. Christ did it for us, and it is complete.

New Birth Causes Total Transformation
New birth is another term for regeneration. Before salvation, we are degenerate:
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins ... " (Ephesians 2:1, NIV)
After the new birth, our regeneration is so complete it can be described as nothing less than a totally new life in the spirit. The Apostle Paul puts it this way:
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17, NIV)
Again, we look the same on the outside, but inside our sinful nature has been fully replaced with a new person, a being who stands righteous in the eyes of God the Father, because of the sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ.

New Birth Brings New Priorities
With our new nature comes an intense desire for Christ and the things of God. For the first time, we can fully appreciate Jesus' statement:
"'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6, NIV)
As we pursue an intimate relationship with Christ, we experience a love unlike any other.
As Christians, we still sin, but it becomes shameful to us because we now realize how much it offends God. With our new life, we develop new priorities. We want to please God out of love, not fear, and as members of his family, we want to fit in with our Father and our Brother Jesus.
When we become a new person in Christ, we also leave behind that suffocating burden of trying to earn our own salvation. We finally grasp what Jesus has done that for us:"'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'" (John 8:32, NIV)
New Birth - What Does the Bible Say About New Birth?

I copied and pasted because I am in a hurry but it does an adequate job of stating the case.
A new creation. 2Co 5:17;Ga 6:15;Eph 2:10
Newness of life. Ro 6:4
A spiritual resurrection. Ro 6:4-6;Eph 2:1,5;Col 2:12; 3:1
A new heart. Eze 36:26
A new spirit. Eze 11:19;Ro 7:6
Putting on the new man. Eph 4:24
The inward man. Ro 7:22;2Co 4:16
Circumcision of the heart. De 30:6;Ro 2:29;Col 2:11
Partaking of the divine nature. 2Pe 1:4
The washing of regeneration. Tit 3:5
http://www.gospelhall.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2604
There are about a hundred more at this site: BIBLE VERSES ABOUT NEW BIRTH

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I believe that is neither here nor there. I believe that God does not guarantee Heaven to everyone who believes in Jesus or is born again and that His will may well be for a person to return to life on earth and often He will simply allow a person to choose life on earth over Heaven. And I believe on occasion where a person does not know his Bible well a person might not know how to get to Heaven

That was confusing. Are you mixing in some kind of reincarnation with Christianity? You seem to suggest that heaven will be one place and earth will be in another. This is not the case Biblically speaking. Heaven will be on Earth after the judgment and it's capitol will be the new Jerusalem. The Earth will be burned to a crisp and then allowed to grow back as intended (garden of Eden) and Christians will all live in heaven on the Earth. There will be no continuation of present conditions to return to.


All Things Made New
21 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me,[b] "Write, for these words are true and faithful."
Revelation 21:1-8 NKJV - All Things Made New - Now I saw a new - Bible Gateway


I am sure I have asked but I can't remember. Where is it you get what you believe from? Many of the claims you make are not part of any mainstream Christian group I have ever heard of. People have a right to believe whatever they wish I can just never get used to what people base those beliefs on. I try very very hard not to read into anything something I prefer and many things I believe the Bible states are not what I wished was true. I however do not find the same attitude in many others and can't help but see it implied by your claims, yet you have the absolute right to them none the less.


Side note: There is some indication that people who never heard the gospel will be judged accordingly but it indicates very little more than that.

In summary the kingdom of God and Heaven may not be identicle but are certainly inseperable and interconnected. New birth is how grace is applied and percieved. The Bible stresses an assurance of salvation (in the past tense) that can only be had if a line of demarcation is passed.

 

[Ingledsva]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Personally I don't see any religion as the "right one" other then to the individual that believes it is, of course.

I believe if there is a God - the source would flow to all, and not become CLOGGED with dams/religions and their DOGMA, on the Spiritual River.

There may be a God - but humans create religions - and it shows when you read their holy books.
*

 

[1robin]

Personally I don't see any religion as the "right one" other then to the individual that believes it is, of course.

I believe if there is a God - the source would flow to all, and not become CLOGGED with dams/religions and their DOGMA, on the Spiritual River.

There may be a God - but humans create religions - and it shows when you read their holy books.
*

So the God you think exists would not reveal himself clearly in a single source or at all. If all religions are man made your God is mute and diabolical in his silence. If they are all from God he is contradictory and hides bits of truth in numerous mountains of garbage.

My God made a single accurate revelation with over 2000 accurate and detailed prophecies that do not allow for human creation of them. It is the most attested work in ancient history and contains the most attested individual in ancient history. It contains the only example of perfection to have ever existed on Earth and is the most scrutinized and cherished book in human history. That is far more consistent with any benevolent personal God than the examples in the earlier paragraph.

 

[Ingledsva]

Personally I don't see any religion as the "right one" other then to the individual that believes it is, of course.

I believe if there is a God - the source would flow to all, and not become CLOGGED with dams/religions and their DOGMA, on the Spiritual River.

There may be a God - but humans create religions - and it shows when you read their holy books.

So the God you think exists would not reveal himself clearly in a single source or at all.

I don't have a God - but the thought is that Deity just sets things in motion with logic which allows choice, etc. No need for religions.

If all religions are man made your God is mute and diabolical in his silence. If they are all from God he is contradictory and hides bits of truth in numerous mountains of garbage.

There is no need for a Deity that has a religion. Religions have garbage because they are all man made.

My God made a single accurate revelation with over 2000 accurate and detailed prophecies that do not allow for human creation of them. It is the most attested work in ancient history and contains the most attested individual in ancient history. It contains the only example of perfection to have ever existed on Earth and is the most scrutinized and cherished book in human history. That is far more consistent with any benevolent personal God than the examples in the earlier paragraph.

The 2000 correct prophecies is just bull. Also we would expect some of the history to match up - but that doesn't prove the magic stuff.

 

[1robin]

I don't have a God - but the thought is that Deity just sets things in motion with logic which allows choice, etc. No need for religions.

That is the thought for deism but not in theism and not what reality suggests.

There is no need for a Deity that has a religion. Religions have garbage because they are all man made.

The fact every culture in history has developed ideas about these issues makes it a vital issue and if a God that is worth knowing about exists he should have provided revelation concerning these issues. Is the garbage in the Bible why no one believes it? Wait a minute, 1/3 of the Earth's population believes the most scrutinised book in human history is absolutely true including many of the most intelligent men who have ever existed throughout history so I must have missunderstood. Issac Newton knew garbage when he saw it.

The 2000 correct prophecies is just bull. Also we would expect some of the history to match up - but that doesn't prove the magic stuff.

Just bull isn't an argument it is a punt. I will give you a break and we can discuss the most picked on Bible prohecy there is in order to determine the accuracy of your indepth analysis if you wish. The prophecy of Tyre's destruction. If you want to defend your just bull diagnosis just say when, but it will have to be done tomorrow. I have to go. Have a good afternoon.

 

[Ingledsva]

That is the thought for deism but not in theism and not what reality suggests.
The fact every culture in history has developed ideas about these issues makes it a vital issue and if a God that is worth knowing about exists he should have provided revelation concerning these issues. Is the garbage in the Bible why no one believes it? Wait a minute, 1/3 of the Earth's population believes the most scrutinised book in human history is absolutely true including many of the most intelligent men who have ever existed throughout history so I must have missunderstood. Issac Newton knew garbage when he saw it.

Just bull isn't an argument it is a punt. I will give you a break and we can discuss the most picked on Bible prohecy there is in order to determine the accuracy of your indepth analysis if you wish. The prophecy of Tyre's destruction. If you want to defend your just bull diagnosis just say when, but it will have to be done tomorrow. I have to go. Have a good afternoon.

LOL! The oldest Hebrew texts are perhaps 2nd century BCE fragments, and the texts were written and re-written over hundreds of years.

The Septuagint isn't untill 200 CE.

It is easy to make an event look like a prediction when one is writting after the fact!

And of course the New Testament is also after the fact.

PS. It doesn't matter how many people believe in an invisible being; - where is the proof? There is none.

 

[illykitty]

If there is one right religion, it sure isn't clear which it is. I have read so much about all religions, I still have no idea what is right. Jews have their proofs, Christians have theirs, Muslims too, Hindus also, Sikhs... There's too much to go through! There's nothing easy about all of this nor is it clear!

Which to believe, Jews about Jesus not filling all requirements or Christians about him being part of the Trinity or Muslims being one God only, Jesus being a prophet and Muhammad being the last messenger? Hindus, about Brahman the highest deity manifested in many attributes? They have some of the oldest texts!

Everything is so confusing, there's no answer! I have no idea how anyone just choses one... There's nothing simple about this! It seems so simple and clear to some people but to me nothing is more muddy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sometimes I wonder how is it even possible that so many people believe, all at once, that there is an all-powerful God with a Plan that purposely created all of existence and knows everything about us and also that he has a marked preference for some specific faith over all others.

We wouldn't tolerate such self-contradictory stances from any human. How come so many state that God is so?

 

[camanintx]

Just bull isn't an argument it is a punt. I will give you a break and we can discuss the most picked on Bible prohecy there is in order to determine the accuracy of your indepth analysis if you wish. The prophecy of Tyre's destruction. If you want to defend your just bull diagnosis just say when, but it will have to be done tomorrow. I have to go. Have a good afternoon.

Are you talking about the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:7-14 where your God says "I will make you a bare rock" and "You shall never be rebuilt"? Would that be the same Tyre which was under siege from King Nebuchadnezzar until 573 BC when they negotiated a settlement that left the city untouched? Would that be the same Tyre that still exists to this day?

 

[Straw Dog]

I found the Right religion once, but then it broke out into debate over the Right denomination within the Right religion. Fortunately, I was able to deduce the Right denomination within the Right religion, but then a debate broke out about the Right interpretation of the holy book within the Right denomination within the Right religion. Well, after that ordeal, I finally discovered the one Right interpretation of the one Right holy book within the one Right denomination within the one Right religion. Then I noticed there were a plethora of nuances regarding how individuals had their own Right interpretation of the one Right holy book within the one Right interpretation of the one Right denomination within the one Right religion... At some point, I just gave up and realized the whole endeavor of seeking to impose a monolithic absolutist Truth upon all was quite absurd and I haven't stopped laughing since.

 

[Ingledsva]

I found the Right religion once, but then it broke out into debate over the Right denomination within the Right religion. Fortunately, I was able to deduce the Right denomination within the Right religion, but then a debate broke out about the Right interpretation of the holy book within the Right denomination within the Right religion. Well, after that ordeal, I finally discovered the one Right interpretation of the one Right holy book within the one Right denomination within the one Right religion. Then I noticed there were a plethora of nuances regarding how individuals had their own Right interpretation of the one Right holy book within the one Right interpretation of the one Right denomination within the one Right religion... At some point, I just gave up and realized the whole endeavor of seeking to impose a monolithic absolutist Truth upon all was quite absurd and I haven't stopped laughing since.

Verry well stated. :yes:

*

 

[1robin]

Are you talking about the prophecy in Ezekiel 26:7-14 where your God says "I will make you a bare rock" and "You shall never be rebuilt"? Would that be the same Tyre which was under siege from King Nebuchadnezzar until 573 BC when they negotiated a settlement that left the city untouched? Would that be the same Tyre that still exists to this day?

You have a woefully inadequate understanding of that prophecy. King Nebuchadnezzar was specifically said to only destroy the mainland city or (choicest houses, it says he will attack the island fortress but not defeat it) but it goes on to say that they meaning Nebuchadnezzar and an unnamed addition king (Alexander, and some even throw a Muslim army in there for some reason but it isn't needed or helpful) will together destroy the city. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city proper and Alexander destroyed the island fortress. Alexander's uncharacteristic brutality and completely destruction was a result of the fact that the Phonecians killed his messangers and hung them from the walls. His seige was one of the greatest in history and was destructive beyond reaosn. It even used the largest seige machines ever constructded.

You must pay strict attention to where the verses say he and they. It is a perfect description of what happened. Tyre was eventually destroyed by Alexander and it's island fortress was reduced to piles of rubble on top of a bare rock and that bare rock was indeed used for drying nets for many years afterward. It also goes on to add to it's wealth of detail by saying that since King Nebuchadnezzar would not get enough booty to pay his soldier back for their attack so God would allow him to subdue Egypt which he historically went on to do. God also used the specific set of words (you, that, and the) city to specifically specify that it was the Phoenician city of Tyre that would not be rebuilt. God was mad at the Phoenicians not the geographical coordinates and not only was the Phoenician city of Tyre never rebuilt the entire Phoenician culture from that moment declined and eventually disappeared. In fact even Egypt never regained her former status either even though there was no prediction of its destruction.

If you wish to examine prophecy I have some things to suggest.
1. Pay very strict attention to word usage. When God said that (you and it, meaning Phoenician Tyre) will never be rebuilt he did not mean that when any city was ever began on the spot, he would kill whoever was doing the building. He had nothing against either the spot on the map or other cultures who later built a different city there.
2. Keep in mind that you are reading what is called an apocalyptic literary style of writing that was popular in many cultures of the day. That type of writing was designed to awe, not to give a technical blow by blow description of events and there are many examples of this writing from all major cultures. This has no effect on this prophecy as it is accurate in detail but will affect others. For example when the Bible mentions the "breaking" of a nation it does not mean it's annihilation, it means the subversion of its tradition ruling powers.
3. Do not apply arbitrary literal or symbolic meanings that modern culture assigns to words. Hebrew culture 3000 years ago had a different accepted meaning of words and concepts and that is the context any meaningful examination must be made, as long as the standard is consistent and universal.

I have debated the Tyre prophecy many times because it is one that is most picked on because it is one that has a complex fulfillment but a complete and perfectly accurate fulfillment none the less. It contains over a dozen very detailed predictions that no one questions but since a Bible critique does not have the option of allowing it to stand they will always settle on the same two issues in the end. Both issues are completely insufficient to counter the prophecy and are either based in ignorance or willful arbitrary determinations that no proper exegesis will allow.

1. That the prophecy was written after the fact. There is not one single scrap of anything that can be used as evidence for this. All evidence that does exist (historical markers, cultural indicators, purpose) all suggest pre event construction. However even if if could be shown to be written after King Nebuchadnezzar's attack (and it can't), it will not help with Alexander’s predicted attack which was the more effective anyway that occurred quite a few years later (300 plus I think).
2. That when God said it, you, and that city will never be rebuilt, since a different city built by a different culture at the same spot built a new Tyre. I think that anti-theists in general know this one makes no sense whatever but by this time there is nothing left that will prevent them from being forced to conclude the prophecy is true. It is a pre-conclusion trying to force reality to adjust. God was mad at the Phoenician culture especially at Tyre because they had rejoiced when Israel lost control over the valuable Silk Road trade routes. God judged them. Not the stones used to build the city or the geographical location its self, which makes no sense. He said that city will never be rebuilt by those people. It never was, in fact the entire culture declined from that moment and eventually ceased to exist independently.

Keep in mind this prophecy is one of the ones selected for supposed inaccuracy yet 90% of the predictions are never even questioned and the ones that are, are attacked by completely insufficient and illogical arguments that make no sense and have no justification in well-established Bible exegesis methods. They only have a foundation in a preconceived position that can't allow it to be correct no matter the cost to credibility. This prophecy is accurate in every detail and it is only one of 2,500. Other prophecies actually predict exactly what Alexander's empire that split into four peices would result in, in perfect detail.

 

[1robin]

I found the Right religion once, but then it broke out into debate over the Right denomination within the Right religion. Fortunately, I was able to deduce the Right denomination within the Right religion, but then a debate broke out about the Right interpretation of the holy book within the Right denomination within the Right religion. Well, after that ordeal, I finally discovered the one Right interpretation of the one Right holy book within the one Right denomination within the one Right religion. Then I noticed there were a plethora of nuances regarding how individuals had their own Right interpretation of the one Right holy book within the one Right interpretation of the one Right denomination within the one Right religion... At some point, I just gave up and realized the whole endeavor of seeking to impose a monolithic absolutist Truth upon all was quite absurd and I haven't stopped laughing since.

So I guess any claim where any part of it is debated indicates that no truth exists. Religion is the most profound and complex issue in human history and I do not think the COC arguing for no music against the Methodists arguing for it or the protestant symbolic transubstination or the Catholic literal understanding, is any reason to conclude that micro divisions justify macro rejection. By your bizarre logic I guess no scientific truth exists because elements of every theory are debated. This is simply another false appeal to the absurd, used as a justification for rejecting ultimate accountability. There is not universal and total agreement on every single issue concerning over 700,000 words in the most scrutinized book in human history so let's all just give up and do whatever we want, which is what we wanted to do anyway. Moral relativism that results in the killing of millions of innocent babies each year yet which does not allow the execution of convicted killers is the type of chaotic nonsense that this type of "there is no truth" thinking that is the plague of the modern world, unfortunately always results in.

 

[1robin]

Sometimes I wonder how is it even possible that so many people believe, all at once, that there is an all-powerful God with a Plan that purposely created all of existence and knows everything about us and also that he has a marked preference for some specific faith over all others.

We wouldn't tolerate such self-contradictory stances from any human. How come so many state that God is so?

I believe that the virtually universal belief that some type of transcendent force exists is good evidence that one does. However being that most people reject the true God because they prefer the one they invented would produce exactly what we see. I know of no one that believes specifically what you describe but it was a confusing statement. It makes even less sense that if there were one single God he would have given many and contradictory revelations buried amongst tons of garbage. I believe that he gave one pure revelation and that all others are manmade (even if they do contain some truth) and that revelation is in the Bible. What I see in the world is exactly what the Bible says I should see and so it causes me no confusion or perplexity.

 

[Straw Dog]

So I guess any claim where any part of it is debated indicates that no truth exists. Religion is the most profound and complex issue in human history and I do not think the COC arguing for no music against the Methodists arguing for it or the protestant symbolic transubstination or the Catholic literal understanding, is any reason to conclude that micro divisions justify macro rejection. By your bizarre logic I guess no scientific truth exists because elements of every theory are debated. This is simply another false appeal to the absurd, used as a justification for rejecting ultimate accountability. There is not universal and total agreement on every single issue concerning over 700,000 words in the most scrutinized book in human history so let's all just give up and do whatever we want, which is what we wanted to do anyway. Moral relativism that results in the killing of millions of innocent babies each year yet which does not allow the execution of convicted killers is the type of chaotic nonsense that this type of "there is no truth" thinking that is the plague of the modern world, unfortunately always results in.

Hey Robin!

I'm glad that you're not one of those folks that really do think all these variations in interpretation have ultimate significance, but there are quite a few out there. I don't know that I'm seeking to justify a rejection of accountability. I'm responsible for my own actions and if I feel that I've offended some person, be it human or deity, then I would try to seek reconciliation with them.

I actually agree with you about total relativism. I believe that Truth is constant, but it is also highly complicated and multifaceted such that no single individual perspective can claim a monopoly on it. At best, we can only uncover partial or pragmatic "truths" on a relative basis due to inherent limitations in language and human perception. I think recognizing limitations is just as important as realizing potentials. Again, this isn't the same thing as total relativism because we're all still seeking the same Truth, but we're approaching it and viewing it from different angles within the confines of human limitations.

This creates the illusion that only we alone possess privileged access to Truth, rather than that we can openly exchange ideas and share with other perspectives to get a clearer picture of reality. This breaks everyone up into "communities" of competing ideas, with each falsely believing that they are the only ones with the one perfect perspective of Truth. We may never be able to perfectly articulate Truth in any one single point of view due to these limitations, but that doesn't warrant an abandonment of the journey altogether. If anything, it should make us realize how much we really need each other to make more sense of reality. At least, that's my view on things. How do things look from your end?

 

[1robin]

Hey Robin!

I'm glad that you're not one of those folks that really do think all these variations in interpretation have ultimate significance, but there are quite a few out there. I don't know that I'm seeking to justify a rejection of accountability. I'm responsible for my own actions and if I feel that I've offended some person, be it human or deity, then I would try to seek reconciliation with them.

Hello strawdog. Did you recently change your avatar from a picture of a cowboy to this new one? Well you have me out of whack. Judging from your initial statement or my misunderstanding of it I was expecting a fight, not agreement. I have no idea what I am supposed to do now.

I actually agree with you about total relativism. I believe that Truth is constant, but it is also highly complicated and multifaceted such that no single individual perspective can claim a monopoly on it

I can allow agreement with the claim that probably no mere human has total access to all truth, but that would not apply to an omniscient being.

At best, we can only uncover partial or pragmatic "truths" on a relative basis due to inherent limitations in language and human perception. I think recognizing limitations is just as important as realizing potentials. Again, this isn't the same thing as total relativism because we're all still seeking the same Truth, but we're approaching it and viewing it from different angles within the confines of human limitations.

Well the relevant argument goes like this.
1. Objective moral values can only exist if God exists.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
I do not think the issue that clear but there are very good reasons to believe objective morals do in fact exist absolutely. The statements so clearly and logically imply God that it has scared the anti-theists so bad they have had to resort to the denial of any absolute moral values at all and that has necessarily resulted in the modern evils I mentioned above and countless more. Philosophers also say that religion is the only source that can suggest an "ought" to morality. Yet subjectivists deny God but insist we "ought" to believe morality is subjective. I have always found it interesting that any theory that denies God will eventually self-implode in chaotic contradiction at some point.

This creates the illusion that only we alone possess privileged access to Truth, rather than that we can openly exchange ideas and share with other perspectives to get a clearer picture of reality. This breaks everyone up into "communities" of competing ideas, with each falsely believing that they are the only ones with the one perfect perspective of Truth. We may never be able to perfectly articulate Truth in any one single point of view due to these limitations, but that doesn't warrant an abandonment of the journey altogether. If anything, it should make us realize how much we really need each other to make more sense of reality. At least, that's my view on things. How do things look from your end?

As long as you agree that absolute truth as a category exists and that morals are objective in effect if not reality I can't really contend with much of what you claim. I can't expect that even if morals values are absolute that our perception of them would be perfect. Nor can a moral system designed for adoption by an individual be easily translated into application by a society. If you do not use disagreement as an excuse to give up and conclude moral absolutes do not exist then I have no complaint. Shalom,

 

[Straw Dog]

I can allow agreement with the claim that probably no mere human has total access to all truth, but that would not apply to an omniscient being.
Well the relevant argument goes like this.
1. Objective moral values can only exist if God exists.
2. Objective moral values exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

I don't know that the moral values are perfectly objective so much as inter-subjective. I guess I occupy a middle ground between total relativism and total absolutism. I was saying that I believe there to be an absolute reality or Truth beneath all appearances, but morals are different and have more to do with the proper way for humans to live together within the context of Earth. I don't equate morality with absolute Truth, but rather with partial or pragmatic "truths" created within particular contexts and due to limitations in human perception and language.

Could you please list what you consider to be objective moral values so I might have a better idea what you mean?