Christian Thread: My opinion on the 12 Universal Laws

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Empathy can be the standard, as "right and wrong" are personal perceptions. Laws don't dictate what's right and wrong, they dictate what a civilized (or not so civilized) society needs from people in order for that society to survive.

(Your) God judges what's in a person's heart, not which secular or biblical laws they broke.

I ask again, why would you steal from someone, because it's important to understand why people do the things they do. Personally, I think that unsocial behavior comes from deep seated FEAR of rejection or death, or from a mental disorder.

a reply to: windword

Personally, I think that unsocial behavior comes from deep seated FEAR of rejection or death, or from a mental disorder.

Hiya, w. Yes - it comes from all of those sources. FEAR - or a mental disorder.
It's sad, really.

sigh

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Hiya!

Why people do the things they do is complicate and complex, but, yeah, fear, fear of rejection and fear of dying, in my opinion, is the main cause of why people behave in anti-social ways. That, or they're unable to feel empathy, because of a mental disorder.

a reply to: windword

Precisely. It does, actually, make me very sad that people are so indoctrinated into whatever "belief" (not based on fact, but merely on ancient texts) that THEY believe they are 'right', and everyone else is condemned.

The recent news that the Pope (who I think is a TRULY good person) and the Dalai Lama (who is ALSO a fantastic person) are talking about giving up also makes me very sad..
I guess it's on us to help now. Hard job. But - okay - then that's what we have to do.

We've already gotten a good start, though --- right?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Indoctrination!

Indoctrination, brainwashing and repetitive rhetoric, THAT'S what make people abandon what they know already is "right and/or wrong". It's very sad. Sad and disturbing.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by Joecroft
The “best lies have some truth” doesn’t cover my question… And your reply to Enlightened only covers one part of my question, and not the other part, i.e. about being like God etc….was that a lie too…?

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
No it wasn't a lie. The way they became like God(and lets remember they were already in the image of God) is that they gained an experiential knowledge of evil.

2 points

Firstly, the second part of the sentence i.e. about becoming like Gods (which you stated was true) is connected to the first part of the sentence, about eyes being opened and knowing both good and evil etc…

For the last part to be true (becoming like Gods) the first part condition (knowing good and evil) must be true also…

And secondly (which is my main point) you can’t know both good and evil, until you’ve experienced them both together…IMO

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
An experiential knowledge that wasn't previously there. In parallel, Adam and eve knew it was wrong to eat from the tree, they had never experienced eating from the tree.

But that’s what I’m trying to get across to you, God told them it was wrong, but they didn’t know why it was wrong…

Imagine a small child, who told it is wrong to throw stones at windows; now the child only knows what its been told, is wrong, but the child has no knowledge, experience or understanding of why its wrong…and it’s the same with the Adam and Eve story IMO…

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
Adam and eve had a sense of Good and evil as I said.
They knew not to disobey God's command. They had never committed evil though and therefore lacked a true understanding of the difference.

But Adam couldn’t have had a sense of Good and Evil, because you have to experience them first, before you can understand it, and know it. And also, in the story, everything is Good and perfect in the Garden, so how could they have any sense of Evil prior…?



- JC

a reply to: Abednego

TextJust one question. If Jesus is "Son of God", why does He called himself "Son of Man"?

The celestial realm is traditionally created first and it was in this realm that God revealed Himself in a visible image. Moses teaches that this image of the spirit was revealed as His Word. At this time the Word had not as yet been shown in the terrestrial image called Jesus. The Word of God was begotten of the Creator as an entity with life within the entity. Moses teaches us that the Word of God is the image of the likeness or total spirit God. Both are one and the same just as you are one with your image and a portion of life or spirit. God made man in His image (Word) and after His likeness (Spirit). Just as the Father has two portions that are one, so man also has two portions that are one.

As the celestial Word was in the celestial realm He was not the son of man. He became the son of man as he shed his celestial image and took the terrestrial image. He was still the likeness with life within Himself but had divested the celestial image (substance) and took the terrestrial substance of flesh, bone and blood. This was the portion which had to die. Flesh and blood is not allowed in the celestial realm. Therefore, as He became flesh, He then became a son of man with the same properties as all men. As He and we die the image of man must perish and a substance change takes place in the image of all spirits.

As the Word was with God and has returned to God He was no longer the son of man called Jesus (YAHUSHA), but is known once again as the Word of God. The reason He is referenced as the begotten Son of God is that the spirit of the Word never changed as He became Jesus the begotten of God. In other words He was the begotten son of God in the celestial realm as well as the terrestrial realm. The Jesus (son of man) has died and will never be known again as Jesus the son of man. That image is dead and will never rise again. Jesus is referenced as Jesus for our understanding only because there is no other name under heaven given unto men that we might be saved.

The difference between Jesus' resurrection and our resurrection is that we have had no previous existence and we must receive a new substance covering for our spirit but even so we will not lose our memory (spirit) in death of the terrestrial image. As Jesus the son of man died He was restored to His formal celestial properties as the "Word ". We have no former existence so we must have re birth and not restoration.
My opinions, naturally, as this is all theology.

a reply to: Seede

The Jesus (son of man) has died and will never be known again as Jesus the son of man. That image is dead and will never rise again.

But didn't Jesus rise in the same body, wounds and all, when he resurrected? He was taken up into heaven bodily.

Luke 18
8 I tell you, he will grant justice to them quickly! But when the Son of Man returns, how many will he find on the earth who have faith?"

You say the Son of Man will not return whereas Jesus says he will. Your theology doesn't seem to match what Jesus and the gospels claim.

a reply to: windword

Empathy can be the standard, as "right and wrong" are personal perceptions. Laws don't dictate what's right and wrong, they dictate what a civilized (or not so civilized) society needs from people in order for that society to survive. (Your) God judges what's in a person's heart, not which secular or biblical laws they broke. I ask again, why would you steal from someone, because it's important to understand why people do the things they do. Personally, I think that unsocial behavior comes from deep seated FEAR of rejection or death, or from a mental disorder.

I was waiting on you to call moral subjective. Lets make something clear. I didn't say empathy couldn't be a subjective whim on which a person builds a moral code. I said empathy cannot be an objective standard for an objective moral code. I think we have a discussion on morals about anytime its brought up in a thread we are both active on.

a reply to: Joecroft

I don't understand your first point as it seems to agree with what I've said.

And secondly (which is my main point) you can’t know both good and evil, until you’ve experienced them both together…IMO

Genesis 2:17
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.

God's command to Adam shows that Adam understood the difference between life and death. It also shows that Adam would think of death as a consequence not a reward. Understanding the difference between life and death easliy gives the one the understanding that its right to preserve life and to prevent death. If he didn't understand that one was good and one was bad why would death be thought of as a consequence.

Also, You(hopefully lol) and I have never experienced murder. We would both say that murder is wrong. Why? Because we have experienced life and death in the world. We can see the two together and understand that one is good and one is evil. Adam had this understanding as well as its clear from God's command. So Adam and eve knew what good was and they knew what evil was. They had not yet however experienced being evil. Which I think we agree on.

I interpret their eyes were opened, to mean they changed to a sinful state of being. Their eyes were opened to the temptations of sin. The tempter went from external(Serpent) to the internal(Psyche).

God told them it was wrong, but they didn’t know why it was wrong…

They knew it was wrong because it would end life, and life was Good and death was evil.

And also, in the story, everything is Good and perfect in the Garden, so how could they have any sense of Evil prior…?

Well first he was made in God's image. Many believe part of that image is understanding morality(Right and wrong but not necessarily experiencing it like you and I haven't experienced murder). As I said earlier they had experienced life and death in some fashion as Adam was expected to know the difference.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

We obviously have opposing views. I contend that mankind is basically good, and that our moral values are imprinted on our souls and is manifested through empathy.

You think that mankind is corrupt and can only find moral values outside of itself, through the intervention of your God.

But didn't Jesus rise in the same body, wounds and all, when he resurrected? He was taken up into heaven bodily. a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As Jesus was flesh He still had life within Himself and as He chose to die in the manner He did die was by His own will.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Tradition tells us that as we die and change image substance, we still retain the identification of this image which we have now. As Jesus died and was restored to the "Word", what He presented to the living was his celestial image as well as His terrestrial image. Both were the same image except that He showed His wounds for the sake of those who would doubt such as Thomas.

You say the Son of Man will not return whereas Jesus says he will. Your theology doesn't seem to match what Jesus and the gospels claim.

The Son of man Jesus is dead and the Son of God "Word " is restored. The scriptures show us the name "Jesus" for our understanding only. When i say dead what I mean is that the terrestrial flesh and blood has been done away with and shall never again be a part of Him. He is not in the flesh and blood as we are.


Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Just as there is only one Begotten of God so there is only one "Word Of God". Both are the same.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

You say the Son of Man will not return whereas Jesus says he will. Your theology doesn't seem to match what Jesus and the gospels claim.

As the authors of scripture said He will return was true. You forget that it is the spirit which is the same on earth as in heaven. When the authors tell us that the son of man will return they are referencing Him as they know Him. No one knows Him as The Word because they were never in the celestial realm to know Him as the The Word.

Even though I don't find your scripture in Luke 18:1 I understand what you mean. The scriptures are correct. The son of man will return simply because He is known as the son of man to this creation. If He were in the celestial realm He would be known as The Word Of God. As the Word of God returns to this world the ones who have ever seen Him would recognize Him as Jesus. He is Jesus in celestial spirit but not in flesh and blood. Even though He looks the same, He does not have flesh and blood. He will not reincarnate only to die once again. He returns as the son of man will look and will be referred to as the son of man but His true name is "The Word Of God" the Lords Of Lords. To be clear I would say that by the word "death" I mean that the flesh and blood has been done away with. The second death is another matter which applies only to the spirit.

a reply to: windword

We obviously have opposing views. I contend that mankind is basically good, and that our moral values are imprinted on our souls and is manifested through empathy.

You claim to believe in an objective standard with a subjective basis. Its contradictory. Empathy in you and empathy in me do not derive the same objective moral code your claiming exist in the soul. I see no reason to believe that the morals developed by human beings based on empathy are objectively true.

You think that mankind is corrupt and can only find moral values outside of itself, through the intervention of your God.

This is not my view at all. If you think it is you have egregiously misunderstood my view on morals. You are right in that I think that man is "corrupt" in that Man has a sinful nature. My view is that all humans have the ability to judge what is right and wrong because human beings notice when something is not in line with nature of God. God is the foundation of Good in the Christian world view. His essence is goodness. I don't think morals are found outside of themselves throuhg intervention of God. I think partially as you do. All People have the moral code written within there souls. That code is based on the essence of Goodness that is rooted in God. I don't think you need belief in any religion to have the ability to recognize this. i think its an inherent ability of man from the small portion of Gods image that remains in us.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yea I would get tired of all my logical fallacies getting pointed out to..

a reply to: windword

We obviously have opposing views. I contend that mankind is basically good, and that our moral values are imprinted on our souls and is manifested through empathy. You think that mankind is corrupt and can only find moral values outside of itself, through the intervention of your God.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

a reply to: Seede

Leviticus 20
10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Should we take this at face value as well? Or do you pick and choose what from the OT you choose to believe?

Either it's none of it or it's all of it right? At last that's the argument I hear from Christians all the time.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You claim to believe in an objective standard with a subjective basis.

Nope. Never made that claim. I don't believe there is such a thing as an "objective moral standard".

I think partially as you do. All People have the moral code written within there souls. That code is based on the essence of Goodness that is rooted in Gods.

Okay. So you believe that mankind CAN BE good because God is good.

I don't think we need God to be good and do the "right" thing.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Either it's none of it or it's all of it right? At last that's the argument I hear from Christians all the time.

Yea and thats the argument your going to get right now.....To get the answer to "Should we take this at face value as well? Or do you pick and choose what from the OT you choose to believe? " You need to answer this question: What is the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? Whats the difference between the two? Where does the teaching come from? If you really want to know you answer those questions for yourself. Because you won't listen to what I say.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And how do we know us all being unrighteous wasn't part of the Old Covenant as well? Jesus never says we are all sinners, he even called some righteous. Only Paul claims we are all sinners and that our works are like filthy rags. As we know, Paul never met Jesus and only quotes him one time throughout his epistles, and that has to do with cannibalism.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: windword

We obviously have opposing views. I contend that mankind is basically good, and that our moral values are imprinted on our souls and is manifested through empathy. You think that mankind is corrupt and can only find moral values outside of itself, through the intervention of your God.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Oh, I understand that Yahweh thinks we're filthy unworthy sacks of shatt! I don't think much of him either! I also could care less about Isaiah's or Paul's personal self images and self hatred problems. There is nothing healthy about self loathing.