What is your moral compass?

[PrairieAir]

With the baby example, as Christians, we believe God is sovereign over everything. Will I get married? Will I have children? Which twin will live or die? God decides - period.

 

 

I have to pick at this one point. I don't really know what to say about the twin situation, but I would argue that not all Christians believe in this sovereignity of God concept. I don't. At least not as described in this paragraph. I strongly believe God has given us free will.

 

Adam and Eve were created and put into a perfect environment, yet they chose to disobey God. What did they have to gain by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? They already had full knowledge of good; only a knowledge of evil was to be gained. They chose to disobey that one commandment anyway. Surely God did not intend for Adam and Eve to choose disobedience. Surely he didn't set them up for failure and write it all into the script that way ahead of time. The Bible says that God is light and in Him there is no darkness. I cannot believe God purposed for man to sin and require a redeemer, although once man did sin, He went to great pains to make redemption available. Yet, this sovereignity theory as presented here seems to indicate that we have no free will and every single thing that happens is by God's design.

 

I'll admit, though, that there are many things in popular Christian doctrine with which I do not agree. That is why I do not use the teachings of the church or a church as my moral compass.

 

Not that I'm trying to condemn Adrianne's post or beliefs. I just want to clarify since she said "as Christians we believe". She did make some points in her post which I could agree to.

[Melinda in VT]

With the baby example, as Christians, we believe God is sovereign over everything. Will I get married? Will I have children? Which twin will live or die? God decides - period. The doctors and parents are only around to help carry out His will. We do what we can but in the end, God has the final say.

 

I'm a Christian, but I don't understand this line of thinking. In the case of the twins (assuming I'm understanding the facts of the case), if the parents separate the twins, one twin will get a heart and one won't. Since you can't live without a heart, the baby who is not chosen to get the heart will die.

 

Are you saying that God could decide to keep the twin without a heart alive? Or are you saying that God will not let the parents pick the "wrong" twin to get the heart?

 

(In case this comes across as snarky, I'm not meaning it to. I sincerely want to understand your thinking.)

[Phred]

So Adrianne, Plaid, what you are saying is that all those who simply say they use the Bible as their moral guide are leaving out a large part of what they're really using. Or, they're not using it correctly. Because you can't just use the Bible in a vacuum.

 

As to the specific question of polygamy. Would you please point me toward where polygamy is outlawed?

[Adrianne]

I'm a Christian, but I don't understand this line of thinking. In the case of the twins (assuming I'm understanding the facts of the case), if the parents separate the twins, one twin will get a heart and one won't. Since you can't live without a heart, the baby who is not chosen to get the heart will die.

 

Are you saying that God could decide to keep the twin without a heart alive? Or are you saying that God will not let the parents pick the "wrong" twin to get the heart?

 

(In case this comes across as snarky, I'm not meaning it to. I sincerely want to understand your thinking.)

 

Ah Melinda, it seems you have caught me in my own ignorance. I did not understand the full nature of the twin situation. I really do not know the specifics of this situation.

 

However, I still stand by what I said. I believe God is sovereign in the end He will decide what happens according to His will. I don't think that He will make the baby live without a heart (although if God wanted to - He could). What if the baby was kept alive on a bypass until another heart was available? What if the docs were wrong and a donor heart became available last minute? God is all about miracles.

 

I really do not feel comfortable trying to explain God's actions in these black and white terms. God is not always black and white. No one can understand completely and sometimes we have to go on faith.

[Adrianne]

So Adrianne, Plaid, what you are saying is that all those who simply say they use the Bible as their moral guide are leaving out a large part of what they're really using. Or, they're not using it correctly. Because you can't just use the Bible in a vacuum.

I need to give that some thought. I feel uncomfortable using absolutes when talking about people. Everyone is different in their Christianity. I can say that this is how I use the Bible.

 

As to the specific question of polygamy. Would you please point me toward where polygamy is outlawed?

I would encourage you to read Matthew 19. More specifically, Matthew 19:9 states, (these words appear in red which means they are spoken by Jesus)

 

"I tell you, that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery." (adultery is a sin according to the 10 Commandments).

 

I would also point you toward Adam and Eve, God's greatest example of a relationship between a man and a woman. God created Adam, and provided for him a single wife. He did not provide multiple wives for him.

 

Genesis 2:24

 

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

 

Edited to add:

 

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 in which God warns Solomon

 

14"When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.

16"Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.'

17"He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

18"Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests.

19"It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes,

20that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.

[Alenee]

Ah Melinda, it seems you have caught me in my own ignorance. I did not understand the full nature of the twin situation. I really do not know the specifics of this situation.

 

However, I still stand by what I said. I believe God is sovereign in the end He will decide what happens according to His will. I don't think that He will make the baby live without a heart (although if God wanted to - He could). What if the baby was kept alive on a bypass until another heart was available? What if the docs were wrong and a donor heart became available last minute? God is all about miracles.

 

I really do not feel comfortable trying to explain God's actions in these black and white terms. God is not always black and white. No one can understand completely and sometimes we have to go on faith.

 

I would also add that God decides the length of a person's life. There's no easy answer and that doesn't detract from the reality that God is God, in fact it just goes to show the rest that He is too big and great to comprehend completely. If He weren't, He wouldn't be God. No one has really ventured the hard answer here so I'll go for it. God uses lots of things in our life to test our faith in Him. He also uses tragedy to bring us into relationship with Him. When we are weak, then He is strong. That doesn't mean He causes it, but He will use it to bring about His purposes. I'm sure there are many who don't like that.

 

Phred and those who feel similarly...there are often times no easy answers. You can ask all you want, and seek God all you want. Jeremiah 29:13 says, "If you seek Me, you will find Me, if you seek Me with all your heart." If you're truly seeking God, you're going to find Him but you should also be prepared that there are things you just won't understand. That is our humanity. We are not supreme just because we have a most amazingly designed brain. God does love every singly one of us and wants us all to know Him. Seek His answers, not your own, and you WILL be amazed!

[Ahwahnee]

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount provides the basis for my moral compass. You can view it here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7

 

The Golden Rule is very similar, but the sermon goes further.:001_smile:

[Marie in Oh]

that says that Kings should not multiply wives. That tells me that there was a standard of one wife that was broken after the fall.

 

Genesis says that a man should leave his family and cleave to his wife-- not wives. I am convinced that polygamy was not condoned by God in OT times, rather it was another result of the fall.

 

Adam was made for one wife and Noah, who was one who walked with God, had one wife. At least we can assume as there is only mention of any others.

 

In the New Testament both Timothy and Titus lay out standards for spiritual leadership that says they should be the husband of one wife.

 

Just because it was a practice of the culture and recorded in the pages of the Bible doesn't mean that it was a practice that God intended or condoned.

[Murphy101]

agnostic to atheists to pagan family

not a church going bunch in them

 

I became started down teh path to becoming Roman Catholic after the birth of our 3rd, not because of him, just that's where I was in life, kwim?

 

I don't agree with the "do no harm" thing whole heartedly.

Why? Because sometimes some level of harm must be done to achieve good.

 

For example, a parent might tell their child they can't do any extracurriculiar activities until their attitude and or grades improve. At the time, it makes sense, but years later their kid tells themit did serious damage to their heart because that was the one area they felt some level of success in.

 

I don't neccessarily believe int eh Golden Rule either. What is fair and good for one person can be a terrible tragedy for another. I can not presume, for example, that every woman should get married and have chidlren because it is good and desirable for myself.

 

I tend to lean heavily on Natural Law, common sense, Tradition, and the Bibler too, even before I knew what that meant by Catholic terms.

 

I foudn that when I held up what I believed to be true, rational, and just to the Catholic Church, it just made sense to me. I've often learned something about my faith and thought - what the ? - but on closer examination of the rational behind it, I found it to be a sound doctrine.

 

I don't believe that right and wrong change.

I just think sometimes it's easier to do wrong instead of right.

I try to do the right thing anyhow.

I try to have compassion for those, including myself, who in a weak or ignorant time choose wrongly.

I believe my God is not limited in His mercy by my human failures.

 

There. I have no idea if that made any sense whatsoever.

 

I guess my moral compass is to simply do what is right as best I can.:)

 

My dh is agnostic - sorta.

He says I'm his moral compass.

Geez. no pressure there.

 

Interesting question.

I'm going to have to ponder this some more.

[3lilreds in NC]

I use the golden rule, which really is an application of Scripture, yes? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

 

I also tend to go with how I was raised, I know. For example, I feel very strongly that one should support people who lose a loved one by going to funerals. I would move heaven and earth to be there for a funeral, whether to hold a hand, be a shoulder to cry on, or a presence in the back of the room. It's just what you DO. However, dh's family is not that way and they are, well, wrong. :D I am quite sure nothing in the Bible says "Thou shalt attend funerals" but it's important to me, because that's the way I was raised. Other things like that come into play, too.

 

Interestingly, my mom is a Christian but my dad is not, yet they both raised me with the same values of how to treat other people. The only thing my dad lacks is mercy, and I have even seen some significant changes in him in that regard over the last few years.

[dragons in the flower bed]

You mentioned 2 things that I find interesting: "theory of natural rights" and "personal responsibility for free will". I would be interested in what that theory means to you, from where was that theory derived, and how you define "personal responsibility for free will".

 

If I may distract poor Stephanie from her packing further by potentially completely misrepresenting her position, I'd like to interject here on your middle question, "from where was that theory derived." Theory of natural rights and personal responsibility for free will can both be traced back to the Greeks. In fact, all ideas can be traced down through the ages in a lineage of thought processes of writers of various cultures. It's why I'm a classical homeschooler: because decisions about ethical behavior are quite bound up with the points made during the centuries of Great Conversation human beings have had. And my goal is to raise good people.

[Phred]

Please excuse me while I delve into the Bible myself.

 

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

 

Here, Jesus validates the Old Testament fully. And we see in the OT numerous examples of polygamy... God-approved polygamy.

 

But further. In Matthew 22:23-32.

 

"23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.

25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.

26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.

27. Finally, the woman died.

28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,

32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

 

In 23-28 the Jews are referring to Deuteronomy 25:5 where, if a woman's husband dies and she doesn't have any children with him then she must marry his brother, regardless whether that brother is already married or not. When this is brought up to Jesus he doesn't prohibit it... he treats it as normal and goes on to discuss matters of heaven.

 

Exodus 21:10 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 89 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Deuteronomy 21:15

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

 

And... here in the OT... without showing examples of Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines... here are examples of polygamy being wound into "God's laws."

 

My point is simply this... you can read through this thread and it reads like a Vatican seminar. "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible." The same answer would be found if you asked the FLDS members. Yet the answers as to whether polygamy is acceptable are 180 degrees different. How is this possible using the same book as a guide? How is it possible being guided by the same holy spirit?

 

It's not. One or both groups have it wrong.

 

Is it any wonder I don't understand how the Bible can be claimed as a moral compass?

[Rose in BC]

You know after pondering these posts and the question itself I needed to add a few thoughts.

 

The bible and the holy spirit are my moral compass.

 

Of course, being raised in a home and being influenced by parents, their core values also shaped me. Sometimes negatively. Sometimes positively.

 

Of course, living in a world and surrounded by the culture I am also shaped by these outside influences. Sometimes negatively. Sometimes positively.

 

But because I love the Lord and have a relationship with him I am compelled to make decisions that I hope will glorify and honour him. Do I fail at this? Yes I do. Do I always make the best decision? No I don't. I don't because I am not God. But I use the bible to get to know who God is. I read the bible to learn of the character of God.

 

Many of the stories in the bible are actually stories depicting how people make decisions that are not honouring to God and truly reflect God's mercy while dealing with imperfect human beings.

[Soph the vet]

Please excuse me while I delve into the Bible myself.

 

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

 

Here, Jesus validates the Old Testament fully. And we see in the OT numerous examples of polygamy... God-approved polygamy.

 

Yes, Jesus is validating that the OT is the Word of God. He fulfilled the moral law by keeping it perfectly. He fulfilled the ceremonial law by being the embodiment of everything the law's types and symbols pointed to and He fulfilled the judicial law by personifying God's perfect justice. All the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic law were fulfilled in Christ and are no longer observed by Christians (Colossians 2:16,17 and Galatians 5:1)

Making a jump from Jesus validating the OT to "God-approved polygamy" has not been achieved here. Polygamy was rampant in middle Eastern cultures of OT times and is reflected in Scripture but where does it say God approves?

 

But further. In Matthew 22:23-32.

 

"23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.

25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.

26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.

27. Finally, the woman died.

28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,

32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

 

In 23-28 the Jews are referring to Deuteronomy 25:5 where, if a woman's husband dies and she doesn't have any children with him then she must marry his brother, regardless whether that brother is already married or not. When this is brought up to Jesus he doesn't prohibit it... he treats it as normal and goes on to discuss matters of heaven.

 

This was a provision for family lines to remain intact and widows to be provided for....not an endorsement of any kind of polygamy.

 

 

Exodus 21:10

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 89 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

 

This is a law concerning slaves/servants. Again, slavery was rampant in the culture and this is a provision for female servants to not be left intentionally destitute on the part of their master. It is not a condonement of the behavior by God.

 

Deuteronomy 21:15

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

 

The original Hebrew (according to John MacArthur) renders the phrase "has had two wives". This passage is really about the right of primogeniture (inheritance of the firstborn) and again not about condoning the practice of polygamy.

 

And... here in the OT... without showing examples of Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines... here are examples of polygamy being wound into "God's laws."

 

I Kings 11 talks about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines and how they "turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the Lord his God" (vs.4) Why would God approve of Solomon's polygamy that would lead Solomon away from God?

 

My point is simply this... you can read through this thread and it reads like a Vatican seminar. "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible." The same answer would be found if you asked the FLDS members. Yet the answers as to whether polygamy is acceptable are 180 degrees different. How is this possible using the same book as a guide? How is it possible being guided by the same holy spirit?

 

It's not. One or both groups have it wrong.

Yep. One is wrong;), the polygamists.

 

Is it any wonder I don't understand how the Bible can be claimed as a moral compass?

 

I cannot make you understand this. You do not seem to have any real desire to understand this. This is just another example of taking a thread and turn it into God and Bible bashing. I don't see anyone bashing your moral compass. The original question was "what is your moral compass?" Not "please critique the moral compasses of others". Phred, do you understand that some of us view your "questions" as attacks? If you asked questions that you truly wanted answers for I would be happy to give it a shot.

[Miss Marple]

OK, help me out here. Where did the Greeks get this theory? In other words, why was the Greek system of thinking more "moral" or superior to our thinking today or even of the thinking of other ancient societies? If they had decided that murder was OK, would we embrace that today simply because the idea came from the Greeks? I can think of many things that the Greeks did that were legal and probably considered moral at the time that, today, would appall us.

 

Does morality change over time? Is there some "standard"? All we have to do is look at history to see that a lack of a moral standard has led to great destruction (I'm thinking the Holocaust right off the bat).

 

I agree that we can trace ideas back to various cultures and can even agree that some of these cultures might have had some morality, but as far as I can see there must be something beyond humanity that is responsible for the definition of morality. Otherwise we are just picking and choosing someone else's worldview (Greeks, Enlightenment Philosophers, etc.) to claim as our own and that, of course, begs the question of, "why is this particular line of thinking more moral than another". Perhaps we need to define "morality".

[Plaid Dad]

 

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

 

Here, Jesus validates the Old Testament fully. And we see in the OT numerous examples of polygamy... God-approved polygamy.

 

No. First of all, there is no positive command to take multiple wives in the Old Testament. Second, Christ "fulfills" the Law by his righteous life and by his willing death on the Cross.

 

Look, we could go round and about on this endlessly. From what I've seen, you'd enjoy that immensely; it seems to be most of what you do here. But I've seen no evidence that you are actually doing anything with the information people give you about Christianity other than using it to bolster your own prejudices. I'm happy to provide answers to sincere questions, but I'm not interested in debate for its own sake. There are plenty of other venues for debates between religious believers and atheists. Last time I checked, this was a homeschooling board, so I'm now returning to the regularly scheduled programming.

 

To anyone who has a sincere desire for answers on doctrinal issues from a Catholic perspective, I recommend first, reading the Catechism and second, visiting catholic.com. Follow up on what you find there. Read serious books. Talk to well-educated religious leaders. Those are reasonable ways to get the answers you're looking for.

[Murphy101]

My point is simply this... you can read through this thread and it reads like a Vatican seminar. "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible." The same answer would be found if you asked the FLDS members. Yet the answers as to whether polygamy is acceptable are 180 degrees different. How is this possible using the same book as a guide? How is it possible being guided by the same holy spirit?

 

It's not. One or both groups have it wrong.

 

Is it any wonder I don't understand how the Bible can be claimed as a moral compass?

 

Indeed. I can understand your frustration.

Here's a thought to consider.

The bible is not just God's laws. Actually only a small part of it is. The majority of it is history. For knowledge. To learn from, both to repeat the good and avoid the bad.

God didn't make polygamy. Men did. God made ONE man and ONE woman for each other.

There are TWO laws discussed in the bible.

The laws of men and the laws of God.

I do not think Jesus listened out of condoning the acts, but because that is where those people were and the question they posed. A very shallow question for such supposed holy and learned men at that. He goes on to discuss heaven to remind them of the bigger picture and the real goal - not earthly sexual pleasures, but heaven and God. It's no different than if a youth minister were talking to a bunch of teens who were into american idol (just an example! my dh loves that silly show) - does it mean he really is okay with american idol or does it simply mean he is connecting with those he is trying to connect and minister to?

 

Mankind has many laws that we live by for the sake of social structure and some level of civil harmony. A priest, or a even a prophet, that takes such information as the fact of life that it is does not make it God's law.

 

I have not read anything in the bible that mentions God created and condoned polygamy. The fact that it existed and man made laws to address the many issues that it created does not mean that it was God's law.

 

God's mercy is not dependent on humans. He sees us sin all the time. And again and again, He offers hope and chances for us to do better and forgives us when we try to do so. Just like a good father should.

 

My children do many things that I do not agree with. I do not smite them for it. Neither do I agree with it. I simply try to steer them to do otherwise, to learn to do better, and forgive them as they struggle to do so.

 

Frankly, from a civil law perspective I don't see how current society can argue against polygamy. But that's a whole other subject and doesn't mean I believe it to be a okay from my religious perspective - I don't.

 

Altho, my dh says he thinks any man who is nuts enough to WANT more than one woman in his life at a time shouldn't be able to marry on mental grounds and I think the idea of a 2nd or 3rd wife around here would be nice - as long as she was the one to clean the toilets and diapers and I was the only one "privledged" enough to sleep with the hubby.;)

 

I find it interesting that you mention the vatican. many prots I've met think catholics never read the bible!

 

hmmm, so I go look in my trusty catechism of the catholic church to see what it has to say about this ...

 

"Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the plygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even thought according to the Lord's words it still carries traces of man's "hardness of heart" which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives." and it references Mt 19:8; Deut 24:1

 

As love in a marriage is intended to unify man and woman into one under God, it cannnot be divided and should be exclusive.

 

It also says that if a man desiring conversion who already has a polygamist family, he is under grave duty in justice to honor any contracted obligations to his former wives and children.

 

IOW, he can't just say, "oh I'm catholic now" and ditch them like so much dirt. No, he has to leave the relationship, but he also still has an obligation to deal with them in a just manner.

 

Anyhoo. an interestng discussion.

I have a dinner to attend this evening with another family and I fully intend to bring this up for conversation and see where it leads.:)

 

edited to add, it took me forever to type all that out in between feeding lunch and phone calls. I see others have responded as well. I don't get the impression that the bible questions were not serious. I got the impression it was assuming things of the bible not true.

[dragons in the flower bed]

OK, help me out here. Where did the Greeks get this theory?

 

From thinking about it.

 

In other words, why was the Greek system of thinking more "moral" or superior to our thinking today or even of the thinking of other ancient societies?

 

Oh, I see. You're not wondering about the origin of the idea, you're wondering about the validity of it. Or possibly connecting the two. I'm not sure I want to become involved in that sort of argument on these forums. Yet I seem to have . . . :::sigh::: :)

 

I don't think I would claim that the Greek system is the best one. It's the one that lasted, the one that won and continues to win, and the one we're in. I'd guess that it's the fundamental one because it encouraged further thinking, and sharing of that thinking.

 

Does morality change over time? Is there some "standard"? All we have to do is look at history to see that a lack of a moral standard has led to great destruction (I'm thinking the Holocaust right off the bat).

 

Or is it great destruction because we hold that moral standard? In other words, if we didn't have some sense of moral standard, we wouldn't differentiate the Holocaust from a picnic in the park.

 

I agree that we can trace ideas back to various cultures and can even agree that some of these cultures might have had some morality, but as far as I can see there must be something beyond humanity that is responsible for the definition of morality. Otherwise we are just picking and choosing someone else's worldview (Greeks, Enlightenment Philosophers, etc.) to claim as our own and that, of course, begs the question of, "why is this particular line of thinking more moral than another". Perhaps we need to define "morality".

 

I tend to think that it's a matter of consensus. Like, if ten racers set out running for the finish line, and three drop out, sure we can say we choose one of the drop-outs as our winner, but the rules of the game were that the one who reaches the finish line first wins. The winners, the moral standards, are such because we agree that they are. Some ideas have lasted. Those are the winners.

 

Interestingly, physicists are starting to think this about the very structure of the universe -- it's there because we all agree it is. Yes, it is circular.

[Phred]

I cannot make you understand this. You do not seem to have any real desire to understand this. This is just another example of taking a thread and turn it into God and Bible bashing. I don't see anyone bashing your moral compass. The original question was "what is your moral compass?" Not "please critique the moral compasses of others". Phred, do you understand that some of us view your "questions" as attacks? If you asked questions that you truly wanted answers for I would be happy to give it a shot.

I'm not attacking your belief in God or the Bible. "The Bible" is just not a possible answer to the question as it must be interpreted as an answer to whatever question you wish the answer to... which is why the FLDS and you can use it to come up with completely different answers to the same question.

[iquilt]

The Bible and Jesus Christ.

[Alenee]

 

Phred, you really need to stop using blanket statements. I've seen you use this line of thinking in several threads assuming you are the last word about the topic at hand and it's discrediting to you. I'm not going to go back through every thread you've posted in but fyi, I have no respect for you or your arguments when you use these types of statements.

[happyWImom]

Now, it is the Bible. I was raised in a church going home, but not true Christian at the time. My mom is now. Also, now we are, for the most part surrounded by like minded people, so we all go by scripture. (Or TRY anyway!)

[LisaNY]

No. First of all, there is no positive command to take multiple wives in the Old Testament. Second, Christ "fulfills" the Law by his righteous life and by his willing death on the Cross.

 

Look, we could go round and about on this endlessly. From what I've seen, you'd enjoy that immensely; it seems to be most of what you do here. But I've seen no evidence that you are actually doing anything with the information people give you about Christianity other than using it to bolster your own prejudices. I'm happy to provide answers to sincere questions, but I'm not interested in debate for its own sake. There are plenty of other venues for debates between religious believers and atheists. Last time I checked, this was a homeschooling board, so I'm now returning to the regularly scheduled programming.

 

To anyone who has a sincere desire for answers on doctrinal issues from a Catholic perspective, I recommend first, reading the Catechism and second, visiting catholic.com. Follow up on what you find there. Read serious books. Talk to well-educated religious leaders. Those are reasonable ways to get the answers you're looking for.

 

You are not alone in your thinking on this. Every time "phred" posts, it reminds me of the stuff I used to see on the "Flame Board" over at Vegsource. I never participated in those discussions there, and I don't plan to here.

 

On a side note: I was just mentioning to someone how refreshing it is to see thoughtful, reasonable, and respectful discussions here among people even though they come from very diverse backgrounds on religion/politics, social issues, etc. That says a lot about the kind of people we have here. :001_smile:

[Phred]

Phred, you really need to stop using blanket statements. I've seen you use this line of thinking in several threads assuming you are the last word about the topic at hand and it's discrediting to you. I'm not going to go back through every thread you've posted in but fyi, I have no respect for you or your arguments when you use these types of statements.

It's called "taking a stand". I derived this one from logic. A compass points one direction... north. Here we have two groups using the same "compass" and it's pointing 180 degrees opposite for each. This question just can't be answered with platitudes. Do you want to bet that the answer "the Bible" was based more upon "what should a good Christian say?" than "where do I derive my moral compass from?" Is it so much to ask people to think?

 

Do you lose all respect for someone when they say that, "homosexual marriage is wrong!" Then you've lost all respect for John McCain. How about when someone says that, "A woman's right to choose should never be made illegal." Then you've lost all respect for Barack Obama. Blanket statements happen all the time...

 

Really... you need to stop shooting the messenger and direct your comments to the message. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Show me already.

[Peek a Boo]

It's called "taking a stand". I derived this one from logic. A compass points one direction... north. Here we have two groups using the same "compass" and it's pointing 180 degrees opposite for each. This question just can't be answered with platitudes. Do you want to bet that the answer "the Bible" was based more upon "what should a good Christian say?" than "where do I derive my moral compass from?" Is it so much to ask people to think?

......

Really... you need to stop shooting the messenger and direct your comments to the message. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Show me already.

 

actually..... when you study the compass and magnetic north you get lots more than just "here's north" lol. your explanation is a bit simplistic.

 

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

the Earth's magnetic field's inclination and intensity vary at different latitudes

 

The compass changes and magnetic north changes. What about True North vs Magnetic North? It's not a specific "point" --it's a general location. The purpose of a compass isn't to "just" point north --it is also to reveal the many other directions that we can go. What KIND of compass are we talking about?? A gyrocompass? Qibla compass? Does the concept of correcting for deviation ring a bell?

 

You are "wrong" in your analysis of the Bible because you refuse to study it as a piece of literature: you refuse to look at the overall plot, the cross referencing of scripture to scripture, and the purpose of the God and Christ referenced therein. You want to snatch a few pieces and toss them in the mix. I've pointed that out to you at least a couple times now ;) I'd say that if there's anyone who needs to read the Bible and actually study it, it would be YOU. There are at least a couple of secular books that do just that.

 

Yes, people can use something as a moral compass and still come to differing conclusions on how best to USE that compass. Not everyone who uses a compass wants or needs to go North.

 

You say you "strive to do no harm" --yet you are more than willing to inflict emotional harm by being overly critical of another's faith. What kind of "harm" do you see as being ok vs not ok? How can "do no harm" be a "moral compass" when so many different people interpret "harm" in so many different ways? Can you give us a list of things that would be considered "harmful" and "not harmful"? for a start, at least? It doesn't sound logical or reasoned to me. So you are wrong in your basic litaray analysis of a book, and you are [logically] wrong in using "do no harm" as a moral "compass."

 

edited to add: "Is it so much to ask people to think?" --that question goes two ways, Phred ;)

 

 

and to answer the OP-- I use [respectively] the Bible, the Holy Spirit, the counsel of Believers, and the study of history/science as my "moral compass.'

[Peek a Boo]

Harm none = the unnecessary causation of a net gain in fear, death, or pain among living things.

 

 

ahhh.. but Mama Lynx-- we then have to deal w/ Phred's [and other's] willingness to kill humans at various stages of development for reasons that tend to be arbitrary, based on a perceived positive potential, or based on a subjective value of "worth." So the next question [that really might not apply to this discussion] is how does the word "death" in your definition play into this?

 

edited: and how do you define "net gain"? WHO's net gain?

[Pam Wilhelm]

The Bible...... and The Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy. ..........and what I just "feel" is the right thing.

[Mekanamom]

My personal moral compass is pretty much based on the golden rule, like many others here. I do not turn to the Bible for personal guidance, but many of our societal norms are very intertwined with various religious faiths. I don't think that society in general can be completely separated from religion.

 

I was raised in a Christian church, but the golden rule became very clear (to me) when I attended a friend's Buddhist church when I was a child. I almost always refer back to that experience when I think of treating others the way I would want to be treated.

[Mekanamom]

I'm not attacking your belief in God or the Bible. "The Bible" is just not a possible answer to the question as it must be interpreted as an answer to whatever question you wish the answer to... which is why the FLDS and you can use it to come up with completely different answers to the same question.

 

Phred- the FLDS have another set of scriptures in addition to the Christian Bible.

 

I'm not a bible expert, so I really can't comment on what is in there. But the commandment to obey God's law of polygamy is contained here in the Doctrine & Covenants:

 

http://www.lds-mormon.com/132.shtml

[Murphy101]

It's called "taking a stand". I derived this one from logic. A compass points one direction... north. Here we have two groups using the same "compass" and it's pointing 180 degrees opposite for each. This question just can't be answered with platitudes. Do you want to bet that the answer "the Bible" was based more upon "what should a good Christian say?" than "where do I derive my moral compass from?" Is it so much to ask people to think?

 

Do you lose all respect for someone when they say that, "homosexual marriage is wrong!" Then you've lost all respect for John McCain. How about when someone says that, "A woman's right to choose should never be made illegal." Then you've lost all respect for Barack Obama. Blanket statements happen all the time...

 

Really... you need to stop shooting the messenger and direct your comments to the message. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Show me already.

 

ah, but do they say homosexuality is wrong without any knowledge of why they beleive it is wrong? If so, then yes. I beleive homosexuality is wrong. I believe it goes against God's design, or the Natural Law that He created. I believe that historicly and now, it is detrimental to society.

 

I believe a woman's supposed right to choose to kill her baby should be illegal. And yes, I think it's hogwash to claim it's not a baby too. If it's not a baby, then she's not pregnant and doesn't have a problem. I do not beleive that the value of life is only in it's ability to work and think. Life in and of itself has value, however small or sufferring it may be. And even if I didn't think that, I sure as heck don't want other people deciding whose life is worth living, thank you very much.

 

You are not taking a stand. You are refusing to educate yourself. If you don't want to follow the bible, then I certain don't think you should feel you have to. But don't sit there claiming to know it better than those who do follow it.

 

I agree with others. The "Do no harm." theory has got to be at least as untenable as you claim the bible to be.

 

Now I'm willing to explore why I think and beleive the way I do.

As I've said, it is an interesting question and I don't think it can be reduced to a single word or phrase answer either.

You do not seem to be willing to actually think and ponder this question though. You claim we are offerring platitude and you offer one of your own, "Do no harm." with zero reference to how you determine what is or is not harm.

 

:lurk5:

[chiguirre]

You are "wrong" in your analysis of the Bible because you refuse to study it as a piece of literature: you refuse to look at the overall plot, the cross referencing of scripture to scripture, and the purpose of the God and Christ referenced therein. You want to snatch a few pieces and toss them in the mix. I've pointed that out to you at least a couple times now ;) I'd say that if there's anyone who needs to read the Bible and actually study it, it would be YOU. There are at least a couple of secular books that do just that.

 

I had to smile when I read this because studying the history of the composition of the biblical texts was one of the major reasons I'm an atheist. I especially like Bart Ehrman's books and Teaching Company classes, particularly God's Problem.

 

As to the original question of a moral compass, I found Adam Smith's (yes, THAT Adam Smith) Theory of Moral Sentiments to be the most personally resonant.

[Peek a Boo]

I had to smile when I read this because studying the history of the composition of the biblical texts was one of the major reasons I'm an atheist. I especially like Bart Ehrman's books and Teaching Company classes, particularly God's Problem.

 

As to the original question of a moral compass, I found Adam Smith's (yes, THAT Adam Smith) Theory of Moral Sentiments to be the most personally resonant.

 

:) yes, i do understand that studying How the Bible Came to Be is quite an undertaking in and of itself.... and why the presence of the Holy Spirit in understanding it through faith is the only real way to solidly identify with it.

 

My biggest issue, tho, is in seeing it critiqued as it stands --you don't critique the plot of a book based on the circumstances surrounding its conception. i have been quite pleased to see Pam's scriptural posts: even tho she no longer sees the Bible as she once did, she does have an intimate understanding of why things are written the way they are..... or something like that. Rephrase if you know what I'm talking about, lol. I need a Coke ;)

[Kim in SouthGa]

Interesting discussion here...but I must say, unless a person has had the awesome experience of feeling God working in their life, that person will never understand how we can believe the Bible. I did not become a follower of Jesus Christ until I was about 19 years old, which is still young, but boy did I do a lot of damage in those years!!!!! No one in my family was a Christian, and morals were very loose. I am a walking miracle-by all accounts, I should be dead. I am just in awe that One so great could love someone like me, but I know it is true, and so I live my life in gratitude, trying my best to glorify Him with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength.