Oompa Loompa said:

As a theists, i personally believe that morality is objective and absolute because the standard I have accepted comes from my religion. However, unless I can prove my religion to be true, I cannot prove my standard to be absolute.

Click to expand...

But we can look at examples of morality and determine if they are objective or not. I'm looking at the practicalities of the matter, not whether it can be accepted as a theoretical matter or one of faith. It's not valid to say 'X is wrong' if you think it's the right thing to do.

Take lying as the obvious example. It's a divine command not to lie. But would you lie to save the lives of your family? I'm certain that you would. So to call that lie morally wrong makes no sense.

Take 'Do not kill'. Some say it should be taken as 'do not murder'. But murder isn't an absolute concept. There's murder in the first degree, the second and third. All relative to the conditions.

Take torture. Absolutely wrong? But what you would define as torture would be different to someone else's definition. And you'd each have your reasons. Therefore it cannot be objectively wrong. It depends on the circumstances.

Stopped_lurking said:

Do you know if anyone actually present their measure of fitness? Otherwise I'll look through the references tomorrow.

The most common measure of fitness is differential reproductive success. So how do we measure the "statistical likelihood of genes surviving" if not by an increase in the relative or absolute frequencies of that gene (there is no identified rape gene?) in the next generation. Do rapist produce more offspring than non-rapists? If not why should we believe that forced-sex mating is highly successful strategy?

Does it? Who showed that, and by which measure? In humans? Perhaps it does in mallards?

Click to expand...

All of this is a distraction from the cogent point, because whether or not this particular example holds it highlights that we can't point to fitness and declare it moral. In the course of the discussion another behavior that is dubious as far as morality is concerned was raised, infanticide. So getting into the nitty gritty of whether or not rape improves fitness in humans does nothing to address the point. It just deflects from it.

fhansen said:

We do when we're born again, made new creations, etc.

Click to expand...

Adam did not take it away Ro 1:17, Php 3:9.

BCP1928 said:

Not as a legal problem, but as a moral problem for his Christians supporters. But it appears you answered that--any amount of white collar crime is OK with Christians.

Click to expand...

Wow talk about a straw man. I’ve heard many liberals here whine their heads off because of Trump’s white collar non violent convictions but a violent murderer is ok. Secondly your mischaracterization of Christians is not appreciated nor welcomed.

Hans Blaster said:

I do know that a lot of people are interested in it because they want to order people around like tough guys.

If there is an agency that has earned total and complete disrespect it is ICE/BCP and it didn't start this year.

Click to expand...

There are definitely people who have no business being in law enforcement but you are judging all of them by the actions of a few.
It's not about ordering people around

bob121 said:

Why not pour the surplus into widows, orphans, and gospel outreach?

Click to expand...

Jesus said there will always be poor so the churches took it to mean it was an opportunity to empire build

DaisyDay said:

So no forgiveness, ever? Even though this violent crime for which she has paid has no real bearing on the actual job, she should be punished forever while the guy with 34 felony convictions gets rewarded.

Click to expand...

I think it has a bearing on the job and I didn’t say anything about forgiving her. Tell me, would you let a child molester work at a day care center after he/she completes their sentence?

DaisyDay said:

The citizens of Bangor disagree.

Click to expand...

Yep. They own it.

Bradskii said:

You're right. It would have to be heritable. And if beneficial it would become fixed within a population.

Click to expand...

Because selection takes place at the level of populations and not at the level of individuals there is no need for direct transmission, all that would be needed is that the presence of the strategy improves the populations survivability as a whole. But again, the specifics of evolution is a red herring to the point about fitness and morality and the naturalistic fallacy.

Bradskii said:

Well yes. I agree. Facts are absolute. But is it the case that you think that all morality is objective and none relative?

Click to expand...

As a theists, i personally believe that morality is objective and absolute because the standard I have accepted comes from my religion. However, unless I can prove my religion to be true, I cannot prove my standard to be absolute. Therefore, the position that I am arguing here on this thread is that it is either absolute, or it is not. If not, morality cannot actually exist and that it only exists as an abstract idea similar to the abstract idea of the concept of a thing called "North" in the vacuum of deep intergalactic space. The ultimate result would be me asking, "What give you the right to tell me I am wrong?" The honest answer is nothing.

Oompa Loompa said:

Sure they do. Their choice was to throw it in the trash and buy junk from a vending machine.

Click to expand...

Somehow it’s Michelle’s fault these terrible parents never taught their kids to not waste food and make better choices for themselves.

Clare73 said:

We never got to have any righteousness when we were born.

Click to expand...

We do when we're born again, made new creations, etc.

Quick poll: What’s the #1 thing that keeps you coming back to Sunday worship?

☐ The preaching of the Word ☐ The singing & psalms ☐ Fellowship with the saints ☐ The Lord’s Table ☐ Other (tell us below!)

Vote & spill your story. Have a great day/night. God bless.

Jason in Japan

keras said:

You seem to have difficulty in reading and understanding Prophesies like the OP of this thread. ALL of the apostate, ungodly and false religion peoples will be gone after the Lords Day of wrath. Zephaniah 1:14-18 makes that crystal clear.

The new nation of Beulah will live in all of the Holy Land, that will have just been cleared and cleansed by the Lord.
'desolated', as per Hosea 4:3

Click to expand...

keras, you have no viable explanation to the reuniting of the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom into one kingdom again.

Your entire theory is based on replacement, not re-uniting.

Stopped_lurking said:

An evolutionary approach also requires that the propensity to rape would be heritable, do you know if that have been investigated?

Click to expand...

You're right. It would have to be heritable. And if beneficial it would become fixed within a population.

stevevw said:

Why should not he appologise for claiming the whole thread is pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

Why should @Warden_of_the_Storm apologise for stating the obvious, this is a bona fide pseudoscience thread.

The only debatable aspect now in this thread which has outlived its relevance by a considerable margin is whether you are that stupid, disingenuous or somewhere in between.
Your MO is to ignore anything inconvenient facts which contradict your nonsense and double down as if the facts never existed.
Other contributors have also effectively repudiated your nonsense only to be subjected to the same MO.
I will use my posts to summarize why this thread should have ended long ago and its ongoing existence is based on beating a dead horse.

The vase sub thread should have ended when you and your so called experts failed to take into consideration the actual capabilities of modern technology into producing granite vases.
When this was taken into account the odd scans using recognized metrology software shows the vases are nowhere near levels obtained by modern lathes. Then there is the issue of the provenance of the vases….
Despite this you continue to blow your trumpet about the amazing circularity and symmetry of vases based on amateur metrology software which tells you nothing about cylindricity or surface deviations which are the key parameters to determine if vases were made on modern lathes. Recognized metrology software having this capability revealed vases were not made on modern lathes yet your argument is to simply ignore this inconvenient fact.

The other sub-thread on the cutting of granite should have ended when you failed to answer why Khufu’s unfinished sarcophagus ended up the way it did if circular saws were used resulting in a machine finished surface with indications of a circular striations. The plaster cast on the unfinished surface revealing straight striations and a variable kerf is a clear signature of straight saw abrasion cutting and was one piece of evidence in formulating the theory of this cutting method.
As usual your response was to ignore the evidence and carry on as usual.

On those rare occasions when you put your foot in your mouth where even by your standards ignoring the facts is unsatisfactory, a spin story based on lies becomes a necessity.
When you inadvertently dropped the line of obelisks being produced in the 18th dynasty with simple tools it contradicted your conspiracy theory of 18th dynasty obelisks being forgeries as they were constructed with superior Old Kingdom technology.
A spin story based on lies that Old Kingdom obelisks which were made out of granite and were larger and more intricately detailed than 18th dynasty obelisks when the archaeological evidence shows the exact opposite.
Your spin story turned out to having more holes than the original conspiracy theory.

Then there is the spin story of lathe produced granite vases predating the Naqada period to address the discrepancy of the use of knapped tools in this period.
When one of your so called experts puts out a document of high precision granite vases from the Naqada period which you have cited on numerous occasions is not only contradictory but raises the question at the start of my post whether this is an example of incompetence or disingenuous behaviour.

This pseudoscience thread should be allowed to die a natural death.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Because God's decree does not eliminate means; it establishes them. His patience is not uncertainty about the outcome; it's the ordained space in which the elect are brought to repentance according to His timing.

Click to expand...

But this doesn't quite work. Why does He need to have patience with them, if the means is strictly His regenerating them?

Dikaioumenoi said:

How, then, can it makes sense to say it is possible for someone to come, yet the Father's drawing -- the very act that makes it possible -- also fail?

Click to expand...

It's simple: He gives enough grace for them to come, and yet doesn't make that grace irresistible; He wants them to consent. So they're drawn, and may come, or they can resist the draw, or consent but turn back and leave later. In fact, in order for those in Heb 11:6 to taste of the heavenly gift, they must be drawn to, attracted by, that gift first.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Yes, it does. But not for any reason discussed above. What necessitates the conclusion that all who are drawn (i.e., all who are enabled) will come and be raised is that the grammar of the verse identifies the same individual in both clauses. The "him" who is drawn is the same "him" who will be raised:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

This becomes even clearer when phrased contrapositively:

"If he is able to come to me, then the Father has drawn him, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Who will be raised up on the last day? The one who is drawn/enabled. There is no distinction or separate category; the drawing guarantees coming and final resurrection.

Click to expand...

"No one can come to me unless the Father draws him" does not exclude those who refuse to come even though drawn.

And, BTW, Plato used ἑλκούσης to describe common attractions to worldly pleasures and modern Greek uses it similiarly (έλκω).

timothyu said:

Financial upkeep, the result of institutional business, instead of following a way of life, a movement that seeks to aide and share..

Click to expand...

Agreed—institutional business has eclipsed the way of life. Churches chasing hundreds of thousands or millions for flashy projects in prime districts while real needs go unmet? That’s the very inversion Jesus warned against: storing treasure where moth and rust destroy (Matt 6:19–21).
Why not pour the surplus into widows, orphans, and gospel outreach? The early church met in homes, shared everything, and turned the world upside down (Acts 2:44–47; 4:32–35). No marble foyers required, or glass cathedrals.
What would a truly counter-cultural church look like in your eyes—one that aids and shares instead of builds empires? Hope you are having a great day or night.

Oompa Loompa said:

Morality without an absolute standard is like trying to find North in the middle of space. Although the concept of North may exist as an abstract idea, it truly does not exist. North is merely relative to one's individual position. If I am floating this way and you were floating that way, and I said North is here and you said North was there, who is right and who is wrong? The answer is neither. Likewise, without an absolute to measure, morality can only exist as an abstract thought. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Therefore it would be nonsensical and worthless debating morality whatsoever.

Click to expand...

You actually just explained exactly what relativistic morality entails. Which is that morals only exist within a societal framework, just as "north" only exists within an cartographical one. North is not absolute, but the northernmost point on a map gives a reference for that frame. So objectivity is required, but not an absolute. But relativism places that objectivity in the societal framework, making it impossible to compare across societies.

fhansen said:

That's fine, as long as we don't simultaneously dismiss the personal righteousnss given to us then (Ro 1:17, Php 3:9), and
that Adam took away from us (Ro 5:17, 18-19). .

Click to expand...

We never got to have any righteousness when we were born.

All those of Adam are born with the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputed righteousness of Christ to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, Php 3:9).

The credited (imputed) righteousness of Ro 1:7, Php 3:9 is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, not our own righteousness.

Brightfame52 said:

Post 84 do you understand it?

Click to expand...

Brightfame52 said:

When Christ died, it was to save His People from their sins Matt 1:21, hence inclusive in His Death was all that was necessary to secure the intended saving effects of His death. Nothing was left up to man to do in order for His Saving Death would be fruitful, He is Saviour alone ! Rom 8:32

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 8

Click to expand...

Christ did more than accomplish forgiveness of sin for us, but also the power, the grace, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit by which to overcome sin so that we may have life (in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, IOW-Rom 8:4). So now we are debtors, with obligation, expected to respond throughout our lives. Without His paying the price this would be impossible.

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

God covets our participation, and our increasing willingness, in fact.

Studyman said:

This is the question that all men must answer. And as it turns out, your post doesn't represent the first time it was asked. Lets go through some of the examples of folks God chose to have written about, that asked and answered the exact same question.

The first example God showed us was in the very beginning. God placed Adam and Eve into a garden full of trees, and told them they could eat of them all but one.

But Eve posed your question, "Does it really matter what tree we eat from, even though God told me it does"?

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

As it turned out, it didn't matter at all to Eve, but it certainly did to God.

And again;

Gen. 19: 16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. 17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

But Lot's wife thought to herself, "does it really matter if I look back or not", even though God's messengers said not to"?

26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

As it turned out, it didn't matter to Lot's Wife, but it certainly did to God.

And again;

1 Kings 13: 7 And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward. 8 And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place:9 For so was it charged me "by the word of the LORD", saying,Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.

But a false prophet convinced him to consider in his heart, "Does it really matter if I eat or drink water or turn again by the same way", even though God told me not to?

18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. 19 So he went back with him, and "did" eat bread in his house, and drank water.

24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase.

As it turned out, even though the Prophet was convinced it really didn't matter if he obeyed God or not, it certainly mattered to God.

And again;

2 Kings 5: 1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper.

10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.

But Naaman said in his heart, "Does it really matter what river I wash in, even though the messenger of the Lord said to wash in the Jordan?

11But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

But there were folks who cared for him, and they reasoned with him, and persuaded him that it really does matter to God whether or not we follow His Instruction.

14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

I could go on and on because you are not the first man to consider in his heart, "Does it really matter if I honor God as being worthy of my obedience"? The bible is full of examples of this very thing.

And in every example given by God in His Holy Scriptures that Paul said were trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works", it certainly did matter to God.

Why then would Jesus tell men to live by Every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God, if it no longer "matters to Him" if we believe Him?

Click to expand...

Because first off there are eons of Words proceeding from the Mouth of God not recorded in Scripture.

If this ceased the universe would disappear in a moment.

While Scripture is our necessary reference it is not exhaustive.

Living by every Word that proceeds from Him is a daily dynamic experience as we commune with His indwelling presence.

He has the Authority to replace one Covenant with another, and He did.

The declarations associated with the New, are better because they are personalised and reveal what He intends in the moment.

Man made the Sabbath into something God never intended.

Oompa Loompa said:

I agree with the text in that it basically says what I have said before. But is much better articulated. What stood out to me was his comment that relativity requires an absolutes.

Click to expand...

Well yes. I agree. Facts are absolute. But is it the case that you think that all morality is objective and none relative?

SabbathBlessings said:

For what its worth this is what God of the Bible said about the Lords Day and being a holy convocation.

The Lords Day in God's own Words- the only one in the Bible He claimed as His

Isa 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,

Exo20:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.

What He claimed as a holy convocation or church

Lev 23:3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.

What Jesus kept as a holy convocation

Luke4:16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. What He read from is the Book of Isaiah if you keep reading in this passage

What His church and apostles kept as a holy convocation, just as Jesus quoted from and predicted

Isa 56:6 “Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant—
7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain,
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
Will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

Why we see both Jews and Gentiles and all people coming together to hear the word of God every Sabbath in the NT

Acts 13:14
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.

Acts 13:27
For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.

Acts 13:42
So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 13:44
On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

Acts 15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Acts 16:13
And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

Acts 17:2
Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

And what continues on forever as a holy convocation but instead of worshipping Him in spirit, it will be in person.

Isa 66:23 “For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.

What Paul was referring to

Heb 10: 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

Click to expand...

SabbathBlessings, grace and peace to you in Christ. Your comment has much 'worth'—your words are worth far more than fine gold, for they point us straight to God’s own (Ps 19:10). Thank you for this rich Sabbath thread from Genesis to the new earth. It stirs the heart to treasure the Lord’s Day as a holy convocation.

Your verses breathe the same fire that drives my original post: God calls His people to cease, to gather, to hear His voice together. I love how you trace the pattern through Jesus and the apostles.

A gentle question to deepen the joy: When the shadow meets the Substance, does the day itself shift with Him? Christ rose on the first day (Matt 28,28:1), the Spirit fell on a first-day feast (Lev 23:15–16; Acts 2), and the church broke bread and collected offerings then (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). Colossians calls sabbaths “a shadow… but the substance is Christ” (Col 2:16–17).

So we still gather weekly—eagerly, as Heb 10:25 urges—but on the day resurrection broke the grave. What do you make of that first-day pattern?

Christians should carefully read John 4:21-24, Romans 11:1-36 ( especially Romans 11:21-23)and beware of the current extreme, anti Israel sentiments that are emerging. Unbelievers should read and be hopefully converted.

Israel has a lot to answer for but it has enemies who will always try to not allow it to even exist.