The Never changing God and his word and his law are the objective standards.
If that is your view, then so be it. It is your awareness. It does explain the source of your posture quite nicely. thank you for that.
With regards to the question of your phrase:
God is dead. There is no objective morality
I am going to dissect this in 3 parts. The first part is about the obvious. The second part is about the contents. The third part is the wrap up: conclusions & questions.
I - the Obvious:
I am sure, there are certain people who do say such thing as: " there is no objective morality", for obvious reasons, as you so eloquently memed. Bandwagonman just told you he sees objective morality, while not believing in your theos.
Note, how close Bandwagonman stays to his own awareness.
He does not directly disqualify your blanket statement. Though, in the course of your exchange, you seem to be showing an absolute faith in the words you memed. And so, by your own admission, Bandwagonman's statement has become a disqualifier for your meme.
Funny, you would base yourself on scripture .... I am going to pass that one, for now, as it is not directly pertinent to the issue at hand. Here are my questions from just observing the exchange:
-Have you really grasped what Bandwagonman is saying, and really recognized what he is saying?
-What is wrong with stopping and posing a question for further elaboration?
When you would look up on etymonline.com the word: arrogant, you will find the root as: ad rogare, towards asking, towards entreating. Quite the opposite of what we have become used to, is it not? Do we consider arrogant people as assuming a haughty overbearing posture?
If you would look up what your Greatest Teacher has demonstrated, is that asking questions helps in a couple of ways. One, it provides you with the insight of what the other person is saying. And second, it provides you with the time and the emotional maturity to contemplate a response in a way that appeals to the heart, connects people and conveys knowledge.
II - Contents:
Is it conceivable that there are people on this earth who live according to objective morality without believing in your theos?
According to your standards, your answer should be: No.
This is where I would want to elevate your consciousness.
The first proof comes from the same scripture you so absolutely take for is all end all. St Paul writes in Romans 2:1, 14,15:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Did you just perjure yourself?
Does not your Greatest Teacher teach you: what comes out of your mouth, makes you unclean?
It is even worse. Paul also writes this in 1 Corinthians 5:1:
Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations -- as that one hath the wife of the father! --
It is quite interesting to contemplate the Greek story of Oedipus and the fact that Paul wrote people in Greece. Paul would not even consider that story meeting the level of whoredom, as was practiced in that congregation among Christians. It was beyond the pale!
" errare human est" is quite applicable, wouldn't you say?
The following link offers you a discussion on the similarities and differences of stoicism and Christianity. I would recommend you read it without judgement as this comparison it exemplifies what Paul wrote in Romans.
https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-and-christianity/
The second proof is Nature herself.
The apostle John wrote in his first letter chapter 4:12:
God no one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His love is having been perfected in us;
Since we cannot see God, we have to look at what can be seen, what we can objectively be aware of. Nature, itself.
A careful consideration of the Declaration of Independence shows that whatever you postulate as the source, the objective morality is: all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Do you deny this?
If you do concur, you must surely agree that when honoring this position of every single human being endowed with these rights is followed, as day follows night, correct behavior follows: i.e. based on objective morality.
- take someones life: transgression against the property of another man.
- take someones freedom: transgression against the property of another man.
- force someone to obey you: transgression against the property of another man.
Note also how positively this is phrased. Compare this to, for example the 10 commandments which are basically 9 negations, and 2 positive performances. Elsewhere I have already gone into detailed analysis of why these 10 commandments are property rights. Honoring property rights, therefor, leads to objective morality.
Nature itself is a great teacher. There are 8 laws of nature. One you are quite familiar with, as it is also mentioned in your scripture: you will reap what you sow. In a more, eh ... , less agricultural orientation it is called: cause and effect. There are 7 others. It would be of a largesse to go into this right here, so, I will permit myself to just refer you to a wonder book, written by Michael Gleeson, with the name: Thesis on natural law, the science of morality.
Here is the link: https://michaelgleesonmedia.com/natural-law/
III-conclusion & questions:
I have just demonstrated from your own scripture, from nature, and from reason the falseness of your meme. This brings us to the question of the intended audience.
Clearly, those who do not belief in your God, are not by default attracted to the non-sequitur hitch of positions, thinking that a change would be in order. It is not even funny.
So, who would be the intended audience? Those who agree with your views? Why would that be valuable? They already, for good or bad, agree with you. Do you really need such confirmation obviously counter to your own scripture? How does that help you to serve your God?
So why did you make it?
I do thank you, indeed, for making it. It provided me with the opportunity to write the above with the hope you will find the heart to elevate your consciousness.
The Never changing God and his word and his law are the objective standards.
If that is your view, then so be it. It is your awareness. It does explain the source of your posture quite nicely. thank you for that.
With regards to the question of your phrase:
God is dead. There is no objective morality
I am going to dissect this in 3 parts. The first part is about the obvious. The second part is about the contents. The third part is the wrap up: conclusions & questions.
I - the Obvious:
I am sure, there are certain people who do say such thing as: " there is no objective morality", for obvious reasons, as you so eloquently memed. Bandwagonman just told you he sees objective morality, while not believing in your theos.
Note, how close Bandwagonman stays to his own awareness.
He does not directly disqualify your blanket statement. Though, in the course of your exchange, you seem to be showing an absolute faith in the words you memed. And so, by your own admission, Bandwagonman's statement has become a disqualifier for your meme.
Funny, you would base yourself on scripture .... I am going to pass that one, for now, as it is not directly pertinent to the issue at hand. Here are my questions from just observing the exchange:
-Have you really grasped what Bandwagonman is saying, and really recognized what he is saying?
-What is wrong with stopping and posing a question for further elaboration?
When you would look up on etymonline.com the word: arrogant, you will find the root as: ad rogare, towards asking, towards entreating. Quite the opposite of what we have become used to, is it not? Do we consider arrogant people as assuming a haughty overbearing posture?
If you would look up what your Greatest Teacher has demonstrated, is that asking questions helps in a couple of ways. One, it provides you with the insight of what the other person is saying. And second, it provides you with the time and the emotional maturity to contemplate a response in a way that appeals to the heart, connects people and conveys knowledge.
II - Contents:
Is it conceivable that there are people on this earth who live according to objective morality without believing in your theos?
According to your standards, your answer should be: no.
This is where I would want to elevate your consciousness.
The first proof comes from the same scripture you so absolutely take for is all end all. St Paul writes in Romans 2:1, 14,15:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Did you just perjure yourself? Does not your Greatest Teacher teach you: what comes out of your mouth, makes you unclean?
It is even worse. Paul also writes this in Corinthians 5:1:
Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations -- as that one hath the wife of the father! --
It is quite interesting to contemplate the Greek story of Oedipus and the fact that Paul wrote people in Greece. Paul would not even consider that story meeting the level of whoredom, as was practiced in that congregation among Christians. It was beyond the pale!
" errare human est" is quite applicable, wouldn't you say?
The following link offers you a discussion on the similarities and differences of stoicism and Christianity. I would recommend you read it without judgement as this comparison is exemplifies what Paul wrote in Romans.
https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-and-christianity/
The second proof is nature herself.
The apostle John wrote in his first letter chapter 4:12:
God no one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His love is having been perfected in us;
Since we cannot see God, we have to look at what can be seen, what we can objectively be aware of. Nature, itself.
A careful consideration of the Declaration of Independence shows that whatever you postulate as the source, the objective morality is: all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Do you deny this?
If you do concur, you must surely agree that honoring this position of every single human being endowed with these rights is followed, as day follows night, with objective morality.
- take someones life: transgression against the property of another man.
- take someones freedom: transgression against the property of another man.
- force someone to obey you: transgression against the property of another man.
Note also how positively this is phrased. Compare this to, for example the 10 commandments which are basically 9 negations, and 2 positive performances. Elsewhere I have already gone into detailed analysis of why these 10 commandments are property rights. Honoring property rights, therefor, leads to objective morality.
Nature itself is a great teacher. There are 8 laws of nature. One you are quite familiar with, as it is also mentioned in your scripture: you will reap what you sow. In a more, eh ... , less agricultural orientation it is called: cause and effect. There are 7 others. It would be of a largesse to go into this right here, so, I will permit myself to just refer you to a wonder book, written by Michael Gleeson, with the name: Thesis on natural law, the science of morality.
Here is the link: https://michaelgleesonmedia.com/natural-law/
III-conclusion & questions:
I have just demonstrated from your own scripture, from nature, and from reason the falseness of your meme. This brings us to the question of the intended audience.
Clearly, those who do not belief in your God, are not by default attracted to the non-sequitur hitch of positions, thinking that a change would be in order. It is not even funny.
So, who would be the intended audience? Those who agree with your views? Why would that be valuable? They already, for good or bad, agree with you. Do you really need such confirmation obviously counter to your own scripture? How does that help you to serve your God?
So why did you make it?
I do thank you, indeed, for making it. It provided me with the opportunity to write the above with the hope you will find the heart to elevate your consciousness.
The Never changing God and his word and his law are the objective standards.
If that is your view, then so be it. It is your awareness. It does explain the source of your posture quite nicely. thank you for that.
With regards to the question of your phrase:
God is dead. There is no objective morality
I am going to dissect this in 3 parts. The first part is about the obvious. The second part is about the contents. The third part is the wrap up: conclusions & questions.
I - the Obvious:
I am sure, there are certain people who do say such thing as: " there is no objective morality", for obvious reasons, as you so eloquently memed. Bandwagonman just told you he sees objective morality, while not believing in your theos.
Note, how close Bandwagonman stays to his own awareness.
He does not directly disqualify your blanket statement. Though in the course of your exchange, you seem to be showing an absolute faith in the words you memed. And so, by your own admission, Bandwagonman's statement has become a disqualifier for your meme.
Funny you would base yourself on scripture .... I am going to pass that one, for now, as it is not directly pertinent to the issue at hand. Here are my questions from just observing the exchange:
-have you really grasped what Bandwagonman is saying, and really recognized what he is saying?
-What is wrong with stopping and posing a question for further elaboration?
When you would look up on etymonline.com the word arrogant, you will find the root as: ad rogare: towards asking, towards entreating. Quite the opposite of what we have become used to, is it not? Do we consider arrogant people as assuming a haughty overbearing posture?
If you would look up what your Greatest Teacher has demonstrated, is that asking questions helps in a couple of ways. One, it provides you with the insight of what the other person is saying. And second, it provides you with the time and the emotional maturity to contemplate a response in a way that appeals to the heart, connects people and conveys knowledge.
II - Contents:
Is it conceivable that there are people on this earth who live according to objective morality without believing in your theos?
According to your standards, your answer should be: no.
This is where I would want to elevate your consciousness.
The first proof comes from the same scripture you so absolutely take for is all end all. St Paul writes in Romans 2:1, 14,15:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Did you just perjure yourself? Does not your Greatest Teacher teach you: what comes out of your mouth, makes you unclean?
It is even worse. Paul also writes this in Corinthians 5:1:
Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations -- as that one hath the wife of the father! --
It is quite interesting to contemplate the Greek story of Oedipus and the fact that Paul wrote people in Greece. Paul would not even consider that story meeting the level of whoredom, as was practiced in that congregation among Christians. It was beyond the pale!
" errare human est" is quite applicable, wouldn't you say?
The following link offers you a discussion on the similarities and differences of stoicism and Christianity. I would recommend you read it without judgement as this comparison is exemplifies what Paul wrote in Romans.
https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-and-christianity/
The second proof is nature herself.
The apostle John wrote in his first letter chapter 4:12:
God no one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His love is having been perfected in us;
Since we cannot see God, we have to look at what can be seen, what we can objectively be aware of. Nature, itself.
A careful consideration of the Declaration of Independence shows that whatever you postulate as the source, the objective morality is: all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Do you deny this?
If you do concur, you must surely agree that honoring this position of every single human being endowed with these rights is followed, as day follows night, with objective morality.
- take someones life: transgression against the property of another man.
- take someones freedom: transgression against the property of another man.
- force someone to obey you: transgression against the property of another man.
Note also how positively this is phrased. Compare this to, for example the 10 commandments which are basically 9 negations, and 2 positive performances. Elsewhere I have already gone into detailed analysis of why these 10 commandments are property rights. Honoring property rights, therefor, leads to objective morality.
Nature itself is a great teacher. There are 8 laws of nature. One you are quite familiar with, as it is also mentioned in your scripture: you will reap what you sow. In a more, eh ... , less agricultural orientation it is called: cause and effect. There are 7 others. It would be of a largesse to go into this right here, so, I will permit myself to just refer you to a wonder book, written by Michael Gleeson, with the name: Thesis on natural law, the science of morality.
Here is the link: https://michaelgleesonmedia.com/natural-law/
III-conclusion & questions:
I have just demonstrated from your own scripture, from nature, and from reason the falseness of your meme. This brings us to the question of the intended audience.
Clearly, those who do not belief in your God, are not by default attracted to the non-sequitur hitch of positions, thinking that a change would be in order. It is not even funny.
So, who would be the intended audience? Those who agree with your views? Why would that be valuable? They already, for good or bad, agree with you. Do you really need such confirmation obviously counter to your own scripture? How does that help you to serve your God?
So why did you make it?
I do thank you, indeed, for making it. It provided me with the opportunity to write the above with the hope you will find the heart to elevate your consciousness.
The Never changing God and his word and his law are the objective standards.
If that is your view, then so be it. It is your awareness. It does explain the source of your posture quite nicely. thank you for that.
With regards to the question of your phrase:
God is dead. There is no objective morality
I am going to dissect this in 3 parts. The first part is about the obvious. The second part is about the contents. The third part is the wrap up: conclusions & questions.
I - the Obvious:
I am sure, there are certain people who do say such thing as: " there is no objective morality", for obvious reasons, as you so eloquently memed. Bandwagonman just told you he sees objective morality, while not believing in your theos.
Note, how close Bandwagonman stays to his own awareness.
He does not directly disqualify your blanket statement. Though in the course of your exchange, you seem to be showing an absolute faith in the words you memed. And so, by your own admission, Bandwagonman statement has become a disqualifier for your meme.
Funny you would base yourself on scripture .... I am going to pass that one, for now, as it is not directly pertinent to the issue at hand. Here are my questions from just observing the exchange:
-have you really grasped what Bandwagonman is saying, and really recognized what he is saying?
-What is wrong with stopping and posing a question for further elaboration?
When you would look up on etymonline.com the word arrogant, you will find the root as: ad rogare: towards asking, towards entreating. Quite the opposite of what we have become used to, is it not? Do we consider arrogant people as assuming a haughty overbearing posture?
If you would look up what your Greatest Teacher has demonstrated, is that asking questions helps in a couple of ways. One, it provides you with the insight of what the other person is saying. And second, it provides you with the time and the emotional maturity to contemplate a response in a way that appeals to the heart, connects people and conveys knowledge.
II - Contents:
Is it conceivable that there are people on this earth who live according to objective morality without believing in your theos?
According to your standards, your answer should be: no.
This is where I would want to elevate your consciousness.
The first proof comes from the same scripture you so absolutely take for is all end all. St Paul writes in Romans 2:1, 14,15:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Did you just perjure yourself? Does not your Greatest Teacher teach you: what comes out of your mouth, makes you unclean?
It is even worse. Paul also writes this in Corinthians 5:1:
Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations -- as that one hath the wife of the father! --
It is quite interesting to contemplate the Greek story of Oedipus and the fact that Paul wrote people in Greece. Paul would not even consider that story meeting the level of whoredom, as was practiced in that congregation among Christians. It was beyond the pale!
" errare human est" is quite applicable, wouldn't you say?
The following link offers you a discussion on the similarities and differences of stoicism and Christianity. I would recommend you read it without judgement as this comparison is exemplifies what Paul wrote in Romans.
https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-and-christianity/
The second proof is nature herself.
The apostle John wrote in his first letter chapter 4:12:
God no one hath ever seen; if we may love one another, God in us doth remain, and His love is having been perfected in us;
Since we cannot see God, we have to look at what can be seen, what we can objectively be aware of. Nature, itself.
A careful consideration of the Declaration of Independence shows that whatever you postulate as the source, the objective morality is: all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Do you deny this?
If you do concur, you must surely agree that honoring this position of every single human being endowed with these rights is followed, as day follows night, with objective morality.
- take someones life: transgression against the property of another man.
- take someones freedom: transgression against the property of another man.
- force someone to obey you: transgression against the property of another man.
Note also how positively this is phrased. Compare this to, for example the 10 commandments which are basically 9 negations, and 2 positive performances. Elsewhere I have already gone into detailed analysis of why these 10 commandments are property rights. Honoring property rights, therefor, leads to objective morality.
Nature itself is a great teacher. There are 8 laws of nature. One you are quite familiar with, as it is also mentioned in your scripture: you will reap what you sow. In a more, eh ... , less agricultural orientation it is called: cause and effect. There are 7 others. It would be of a largesse to go into this right here, so, I will permit myself to just refer you to a wonder book, written by Michael Gleeson, with the name: Thesis on natural law, the science of morality.
Here is the link: https://michaelgleesonmedia.com/natural-law/
III-conclusion & questions:
I have just demonstrated from your own scripture, from nature, and from reason the falseness of your meme. This brings us to the question of the intended audience.
Clearly, those who do not belief in your God, are not by default attracted to the non-sequitur hitch of positions, thinking that a change would be in order. It is not even funny.
So, who would be the intended audience? Those who agree with your views? Why would that be valuable? They already, for good or bad, agree with you. Do you really need such confirmation obviously counter to your own scripture? How does that help you to serve your God?
So why did you make it?
I do thank you, indeed, for making it. It provided me with the opportunity to write the above with the hope you will find the heart to elevate your consciousness.