• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The gospel according to Jim

joe1776

Well-Known Member
As a Bible believer I think we are equipped with morality in a basic sense, but it is ultimately a social or cultural construct which evolves but is always founded upon the basic sense of morality we possess.

When we rationalize morality, through cultural, traditional, social or religious deviations of that natural possession of morality we tend to obfuscate it by intellectual or emotional influences.

Take homosexuality for example. When I was born in 1966 homosexuality was generally hated. Considered immoral. That gradually has changed in my lifetime due to the emotional and intellectual probings of a changing society. It gets more and more acceptable. This is seen as progressive, but in the ancient lands of the Bible it was much more practiced and accepted. Have we then really regressed rather than progressed?

Conversely, take pedophilia. It was also widely accepted at that time, but is universally rejected now. Joseph, at 32, married Mary, at 14 or 15 years old. The practicality of that in modern times is in stark contrast to the practicality or it in ancient times. Then, the man learned a trade, then established himself so he could take care of a family. Marrying a sexually mature female.

Things have changed so the moral view changes.

You bring up societal changes but what motivates those changes. I focus on the abolition of slavery because we know its history pretty well.

My position is that the abolition of legal slavery was conscience-driven. It began with the most sensitive consciences and spread from mind to mind globally over a few centuries. I think the same is happening with equal rights for women and homosexuals.

You say that homosexuality was once accepted but while that might be true in some societies, I doubt it was true globally. But, we can't be sure. However, the moral trend is toward equality.

At some point, though, half the world still accepted legal slavery while the other half did not. At that time, the morality of the issue might have seemed subjective. But, in fact, it had simply not yet run its course.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The question then becomes will they judge more or less harshly depending on whether the case is about murder or self defense. Are they inclined to find guilty in the greater crime based upon it's severity rather than the facts. In such a case you see morality bended and corrupted.
IMO, you've made up facts that aren't going to happen. But, I can't prove that.
 

Earthling

David Henson
IMO, you've made up facts that aren't going to happen. But, I can't prove that.

I don't think I introduced any facts, I just asked a question. If the crime is thought to be severe by the general populace, for example, child molestation case in which a young male juvenile (let's say, Mary's age, 14) consented to sex with an adult male they are less likely to judge the case fairly as they would if it was a young male juvenile consenting to sex with an adult female.

So, in the case of of something like slavery it's popularity effects the moral perceptive of it en masse. Of course, on an individual level, it would be less favored by those who are subject to rather than benefiting from it.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Have you seen any discussions here about how each one of us can help wake up more people?
I haven't seen that around here too much, but then I don't see every conversation here. To me, we all just do our best to wake up as the priority, and inspire others to do the same on their paths. But plenty don't want to wake up and prefer ignorance. It may be miserable, but its familiar. "The devil you know, is better than the one you don't." That's kind of everyone's story, until we realize it's all an illusion.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I haven't seen that around here too much, but then I don't see every conversation here. To me, we all just do our best to wake up as the priority, and inspire others to do the same on their paths. But plenty don't want to wake up and prefer ignorance. It may be miserable, but its familiar. "The devil you know, is better than the one you don't." That's kind of everyone's story, until we realize it's all an illusion.

I think we can do a lot more to help it happen, if we encourage and support each other, and exchange ideas and experiences with each other. I see that happening offline, but I think it could be happening online too. Have you seen it happening anywhere on the Internet, people who are practicing and promoting self improvement and community service for a better world and to help others; getting encouragement and ideas from each other? Maybe it's happening under the headings of some specific kinds of community service. That might be what I'll search for next.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I see baptism with physical water as the baptism of John, and I don't think it has anything to do with salvation at all. I think that the baptism of Jesus is with the water that He talked about to the woman at the well.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I see baptism with physical water as the baptism of John, and I don't think it has anything to do with salvation at all. I think that the baptism of Jesus is with the water that He talked about to the woman at the well.

Do you disagree with the scriptures on that point? There were no baptisms in Judaism before John began baptizing in the Jordan River, those Jews who wanted to publicly demonstrate their repentance over breaches of God's law. (Mark 1:4)
John was sent "in advance" of the Messiah to prepare the way for him, having people in a repentant frame of mind and ready to accept the teachings of their Christ. (Luke 1:17)

It was John who baptized Jesus in the Jordan. It was full immersion baptism because it speaks about Jesus coming up out of the water and thereafter receiving holy spirit. (Matthew 3:16) To equate the water of Jesus baptism with the water he spoke about to the Samaritan woman is totally unsupported by scripture.
Baptism is a Christian requirement. (Matthew 28:19-20)

What do you think baptism is for? Why did people get baptized as Christ's disciples? Did you know that Christian baptism is completely different to John's baptism? Those who accepted John's baptism did not automatically become Christians.

What do you make of Romans 6:3-4?

"Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 So we were buried with him through our baptism into his death, in order that just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in a newness of life."
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I see baptism with physical water as the baptism of John, and I don't think it has anything to do with salvation at all. I think that the baptism of Jesus is with the water that He talked about to the woman at the well.
Do you disagree with the scriptures on that point?

I don’t think so.

What do you think baptism is for? Why did people get baptized as Christ's disciples?

If you mean baptism with physical water, I don’t know. Maybe it was just a popular thing to do at the time. Maybe the apostles thought it was a requirement for repentance, like in the beginning they thought new believers had to be circumcised. I don’t know.

If you mean baptism with the water of Jesus, I think it’s for us to live a better life.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If you mean baptism with physical water, I don’t know. Maybe it was just a popular thing to do at the time. Maybe the apostles thought it was a requirement for repentance, like in the beginning they thought new believers had to be circumcised. I don’t know.

The physical act of baptism is actually a symbolic death, burial and resurrection, if you think about it. For Jesus, there was no sin to repent from, so his baptism was a presenting of himself to begin his mission as Messiah.
He died to the doing of his own will, and was raised to a new life of dedicated service to the doing of God's will rather than his own, as he said, "let not my will but yours be done".

Christian baptism is similar for followers of Jesus. They die with reference to their own will and begin a new life dedicated to the doing of God's will first....a life of selfless service to God.

If you mean baptism with the water of Jesus, I think it’s for us to live a better life.

If by the "water of Jesus" you mean the "living water" that he promised to the Samaritan woman, then remember what he told her?.......“If you had known of the free gift of God and who it is who says to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” (John 4:10)
He went on to tell her in Verse 14..."Whoever drinks from the water that I will give him will never get thirsty at all, but the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water bubbling up to impart everlasting life.”

Or in John 7:37..."On the last day, the great day of the festival, Jesus stood up and he called out: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink."

What was this "living water" and what is the "thirst" that he speaks about? It was the Christian message about God's Kingdom that would impart everlasting life. The message was to be shared and the invitation to take this life giving water offered to all. But only the "thirsty" ones would want to drink.

"let anyone hearing say, “Come!” and let anyone thirsting come; let anyone who wishes take life’s water free." (Revelation 22:17) Its a wonderful invitation and yes it means becoming a better person...more Christ-like every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
We can't train our brains to react with the pain of guilt when we have intentionally harmed an innocent person anymore than we can train it to react with pain when we sprain an ankle.
In my experience childhood has everything to do with this, and Psychology reveals that personality forms during childhood rather than appearing fully formed at birth.

You are insisting you're right even though I've shown it's not possible.
You also are insisting on something, but where is your evidence?

Imagine an unbiased jury of say 33 people, unhindered by laws, who will render a verdict based only on their conscience, on a specific moral case in which all the relevant facts are known. My position is that the verdict of the majority is the objective moral truth in that specific case.
Juries prevent government bias not misjudgement. Innocent people do get convicted.

Morality only seems subjective because the number of ways a verdict might be the result of bias is almost endless.
Historically that does not bear out. Different societies have had different accepted social standards some of which our society considers to be cruel. How can you ignore it?

My position is that the abolition of legal slavery was conscience-driven. It began with the most sensitive consciences and spread from mind to mind globally over a few centuries. I think the same is happening with equal rights for women and homosexuals.
You may insist abolition of slavery was conscience driven, but it thrived here for over a century in spite of that, in spite of Quaker voices objecting in the public square. Why did conscience not drive slavery out?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I see the Bible picturing some things that happen in its stories as the sayings and doings of a person, sometimes as the effects of a kind of invisible mist or vapor, sometimes as if it’s one person doing all of it, and sometimes as if it’s more than one person. Some of the early church fathers simplified all that to one God Who is also three Persons: the Father being a person who says and does everything that Jesus says the Father says and does, the Son being Jesus, and the Holy Spirit being a person who says and does everything else that G-d says and does.

I think that calling that “monotheism” is oversimplifying it, and missing the point of the scriptures passages that look like monotheism. I don’t think those passages are about how many Gods there are. I think they’re about how many gods there aren’t.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
In this thread I'll be posting random thoughts about what I see the Bible saying about various topics.

Sometimes in the gospels, the gospel of Jesus is called the "gospel of the kingdom," and I'm thinking that what Jesus means by "gospel of the kingdom" is everything He says about "the kingdom," "the kingdom of God," or "the kingdom of heaven." I'm also thinking that it means the kind of life a person can have by trusting Him, which I think is the best thing that can happen to anyone; and what the world needs most of all and most urgently, for human progress, and to stop the rampaging, right the wrongs and repair the damage. I don't think that trusting Jesus explicitly is the only way that can happen. I think it can happen to anyone, no matter what they believe or don't believe about Jesus or even about G-d. It's something that I think of as a kind of love and trust, that moves a person to try to become a better person, with the aim of helping to improve the lives of others. I think that will grow and spread, until it becomes enough that social conditions will stop getting worse and start getting better. I think that will take a few more generations at least. Unless and until that happens, I don't think that any plans or programs of any governments, organizations or movements can stop things from getting worse.

Some other topics I might discuss are the role of scriptures, baptism, faith and works, the Trinity, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for posting, but other Bible verses are specific as to who will inherit the Kingdom and how--and that definitely INCLUDES trusting Jesus personally for salvation.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If you take the Bible as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation, it isn't a guidebook on how to make a better place for us, it's a guidebook on how to survive the coming destruction. It isn't going to get better, it's going to get worse. Until it ends as we know it, and then the Kingdom of heaven, which includes the earth and the heavens, will be renewed. The first step of that is a war in heaven where all the rebellious spirit creatures are cast out. A new heavens. Then they go to Earth and cause a great deal of trouble. That's where we are now.
You must watch a lot of Trinity Broadcasting interspersed with a lot of Sci Fi Cannel. And read a lot of conspiracy theory.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I see baptism with physical water as the baptism of John, and I don't think it has anything to do with salvation at all. I think that the baptism of Jesus is with the water that He talked about to the woman at the well.
The apostles disagree with you on that point.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
There were no baptisms in Judaism before John began baptizing in the Jordan River, those Jews who wanted to publicly demonstrate their repentance over breaches of God's law.
Yes. There were. Baptism, or spiritual washing, was a fairly common occurrence, for various reasons, in pre-Johanine Judaism.
 

Earthling

David Henson
You must watch a lot of Trinity Broadcasting interspersed with a lot of Sci Fi Cannel. And read a lot of conspiracy theory.

The Book of Revelation, actually. Maybe at seminary they taught you that it was written by Steven King, but it was John.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The apostles disagree with you on that point.

Maybe. I'm not sure. I did some research on it yesterday, and found out it might have been a common practice following circumcision. It might have been a common practice associated with conversion or confirmation. Just because the apostles did it doesn't mean that they thought it was a condition for salvation. Even if they did, that doesn't make it true. They were wrong about a lot of things, according to the stories. They misunderstood Jesus again and again, so much that He had to come back and explain it all to them again, after His resurrection. Even then, they still thought it was only for Jews, until Peter had his dream and his experience that convinced him otherwise. Even then, for a time, they still thought people had to be circumcised.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Maybe. I'm not sure. I did some research on it yesterday, and found out it might have been a common practice following circumcision. It might have been a common practice associated with conversion or confirmation. Just because the apostles did it doesn't mean that they thought it was a condition for salvation. Even if they did, that doesn't make it true. They were wrong about a lot of things, according to the stories. They misunderstood Jesus again and again, so much that He had to come back and explain it all to them again, after His resurrection. Even then, they still thought it was only for Jews, until Peter had his dream and his experience that convinced him otherwise. Even then, for a time, they still thought people had to be circumcised.
I’d say that the church is and does what those who have been placed in authority say the Church is and does. It’s not a condition for salvation, but it IS a sacrament— that is, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Yes. There were. Baptism, or spiritual washing, was a fairly common occurrence, for various reasons, in pre-Johanine Judaism.

Well, the word baptism means to dip under water, so baptism for the purpose of cleansing only applied to cups and dishes etc. being washed by being fully immersed in water, this did not apply to humans in that sense. The hand washing was done up to the elbow, not fully immersing the body.

According to Mark 7:3-4....For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands up to the elbow, clinging to the tradition of the men of former times, 4 and when they come from the market, they do not eat unless they wash themselves. There are many other traditions that they have received and cling to, such as baptisms of cups, pitchers, and copper vessels.

When the Pharisees complained to Jesus that his disciples did “not wash their hands when about to eat a meal,” Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Not because he favored eating with dirty hands, but because the washing was part of their oral tradition. It was a religious ritual. Hands had to be washed before and after the meal and sometimes during the meal, with special water, and in different ways with different foods. Knowing all the intricate nonsense the Pharisees in those days commanded concerning the washing of hands immediately gives understanding of why Jesus rebuked them. It shows a religious ritual was involved, that it was a part of the oral tradition of the Jews that Jesus said made void the Word of God, and it eliminates any erroneous thought that Jesus favored eating food with dirty hands. (Matthew 15:1-6)
 
Top