cSc61 Loc: Austin

Whether it be gay-rights, same-sex marriage, a******n choices, or a dozen other moral hot-button issues of the day, time spent arguing morality in America today is most definitely time wasted. Either we are led by our religious convictions, in which case we are obliged to follow the moral instruction of our Creator, or we choose to subject ourselves to the ever-changing mores of the society in which we live. Either way we have very little say as individuals beyond the act of choosing the one and ignoring the other.

Imagine for a moment you and 5 of your friends are lost in the forest on a cloudy day. You’re not exactly sure where you are but you know there is a road out just north of the forest. You have a compass in your pocket that you are certain points true north. You decide to follow that compass. Your friends get together and decide collectively to follow their own path. Now you may wish to stand and argue the merits of either choice but progress is not made until the journey begins.

You may decide you don’t want to be alone in the forest and therefore choose to ignore your compass completely and follow the crowd. Conversely, one or more of your friends may be convinced of the certainty of the compass and decide that following his or her friends is not in their best interest. Either way, you are either following the compass or following the crowd.

Thankfully we still live in a free society (for the time being) in which we are allowed to choose which ‘moral compass’ to follow. Arguments will be made, ad nauseam, as to who is most enlightened or which choice is the more progressive in an attempt to bully us into making one choice over the other. In the end, all that will matter is who gets out alive and who remains lost in the forest.

Grugore

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Kachina

So true! People seem to think that to be free means they have some sort of right to tell other people how to live. Freedom of choice is everyone's right, not just those who yell loudest.

Grugore

Freedom also has responsibilities. Moral relativism is a danger to any society. Morals are absolute. Something is either moral, or it isn't. Period.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jelun

It would be so interesting to be around to see the reactions of those who are wrong in their certainty, wouldn't it?

cSc61 Loc: Austin

But that's just it don't you see. Moral certainty is defined by the compass you choose to follow. For you, morality is a constant - never changing. What was immoral 100 years ago is still immoral today. For others, moral codes are defined by society and society is ever-changing (I believe it is referred to as enlightenment).

Who is to say which is right? We must all go our own way and see who makes it out of the forest. I am confident it will be me, so I will not be persuaded to change course ... regardless of how many names I'm called or titles I'm given. As I stated earlier, I do not have a say in the matter. My Creator has made those decisions for me. If he is wrong, then my compass does not point true north and I am lost.

jelun

Maybe something was always moral and people just didn't know enough to realize it.
It is evolution of a different sort.
There is a document in the US that guarantees equal rights, not equal rights just for people who do what you like.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


We often forget the responsibilities, which include trying to prevent destructive laws from becoming the law of the land. I know of no Christians who demand that you do it my way or we will lock you up. However, I do know that the "progressives" who demand that people be fired from their jobs because they support Defense of Marriage laws, or call on everyone to not shop in a store because the owner of the chain supports DOMA with his personal money. Professors have been fired for not supporting "gay rights" issues or daring to tell the t***h that sexual preference is not a genetic trait. So who is making the demands? NOT CHRISTIANS

jelun

You are fooling yourself if you think that those same people who you are calling out about wanting boycotts or expecting people to follow laws are not Christian.
Eighty five percent of people in the US identify as Christian. I have Christian friends who are at least as liberal as I am.
Variety is the spice of life.
You can live anyway you want. Just allow others the same dignity.

cSc61 Loc: Austin

I believe I know the meaning you are trying to convey, but the exact interpretation of your words, "...live any way you want," is the definition of anarchy.

My original thought was the exact opposite. We do not, as a rule, pick and choose what our individual moralities will be, they are defined for us. What we do choose, generally, is which set of rules to live by - societies or a supreme being.

jelun

Of course we do.
If "we" didn't, people who believed in specific religious doctrines would follow those doctrines and not pick and choose.
How many sects in Christianity deny followers the use of birth control?
How many dictate no waste of male seed?
How many Christians pick and choose from, oh... le'ts say Leviticus?

How many married women who are Muslims leave their heads uncovered and arms bare in the US and Europe?

How many Jews and Christian women cut their hair?
And on and on, people pick and choose every single minute of every single day.
Not admitting it doesn't make it false.

cSc61 Loc: Austin

What you must be referring to is our individual right of interpretation.

A reasonable example, I think, is the 5th Commandment, "Thou shall not commit murder." Some interpret this to mean thou shall not k**l - period - and therefore refuse to serve in the military (conscientious objectors). Others interpret this as the unjustified taking of life and therefore are adamantly against a woman's right to choice. Clearly the author of that command knew exactly what was meant.

If these commandments, as an example, are the moral compass one chooses to follow, then one must interpret for themselves it's true meaning. What they can not do is say, "I'll follow 3, 4, 7 and 9, but ignore the remaining 6."

Now of course they could, literally, do just that ... we're given the freedom and free will to do so ... but that's someone I would consider to be morally adrift - following no real moral compass to speak of.

Grugore

The Bible is not open to interpretation. The reason so many misunderstand what is written is because they do not have the help of the Holy Spirit. When one studies the Scriptures, it should be done through prayer and the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we have men of learning, trying to wrest the t***h from it's pages, when they should be humbly asking for Gods Holy Spirit to reveal it's t***h. Every controversy about the meaning of the Bible is a result of man interfering with the work of the Holy Spirit.

jelun

I thought I was pretty clear about the references.
How many Christians who attend sects that disallow the use of birth control ignore the sanctions put forward by their church?

The point is that if one is claiming that homosexuality is an a*********n as claimed in Leviticus then the rest of the prohibitions that are in Leviticus must be respected, don't they?
I don't accept the Holy Bible as the word of God, for those who do whichever version they believe is what should be followed.
I don't see how that can be a matter of splitting hairs.