Humanity is very diverse and so is our culture. I perceive 2 distinct points of view being represented in most of these Spiritual discussions : One group thinks the behaviors prescribed or prohibited in the Bible should be the moral standard our society as a whole should live by. For them, if the Bible prohibits a behavior, then that act is certainly immoral and should be illegal. They need no other arguments to justify their position. The other group thinks that individuals in our society should be allowed to follow their own moral guidelines. The second group doesn't have the same heartfelt religious beliefs concerning the Bible so they require secular arguments to convince them a behavior or act should be considered immoral and illegal. Bible based arguments do not satisfy these people because their religious or secular beliefs on morality are not represented in the Bible. THE QUESTION: Do you see this statement as a falsehood with flawed logic or as an epiphany? Thanks in advance.
2007-01-04 13:53:56 · 4 answers · asked by johnthejust 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes I think your analysis is accurate, wheather they agree with it I don't know. Very good and well thought out observation.
2007-01-04 14:07:11 · answer #1 · answered by Andres 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your statement is mostly correct.
the difference pointed out is the difference between having a sinful nature, as all humans are born with, and having a "reborn" nature that God provides to those who believe.
those still with sinful natures, in fact, want to be their own god and follow their own rules and even create earthly gods to follow such as greed, power, lust, etc.
on the otherhand, true Christians have a new nature, acceptable to God, and wish to follow God's plan for their lives as it is revealed to them and do not create or serve earthly gods.
they wish to serve their God as is pleasing to Him and relish spending an eternity with the Almighty.
2007-01-04 22:04:20 · answer #2 · answered by Chef Bob 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The statement, to me, is valid. It is not inflammatory in any way. It merely reflects your honest observations. I am purposely not taking a stand, either way.
2007-01-04 21:57:16 · answer #3 · answered by intrepid 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I see this statement as "Duh ;-p"
2007-01-04 21:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋