'What if' ~ "Risk Management" for family day

[TOM4CWB]

Coleville,

How each person treats others... is what counts.

Best example I can think of is this:

Do Not Judge Others

7 “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2
For you will be treated as you treat others.[a] The
standard you use in judging is the standard by which
you will be judged.[b]
7:2a Or For God will judge you as you judge others.
7:2b Or The measure you give will be the measure you
get back.

The Golden Rule

12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do
to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the
law and the prophets.

22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord!
We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in
your name and performed many miracles in your
name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away
from me, you who break God’s laws.’[Matthew 7]"

Clearly the intents of the heart... are what is going to
be looked at.

Cheers

[farmaholic]

Thanks for the help Coleville, I
understand it now....INTOLERANCE....

[ColevilleH2S]

And again Tom, all good points. But I'll drag this back to my societal evolution theory. If "in their heart" a Eighteenth century nobleman felt it was right in both his eyes, and the eyes of his God, to own black slaves, did that make it right? And by who's standards?

I suspect if you asked the nobleman about the Golden rule he would say, the slave is not fully human, and therefore the golden rule does not apply.

Fast forward to today. I ask myself if hogs I may own should be afforded human-like rights. I would say no, a pig is not a human, therefore the golden rule should not apply.

The society of 1700 said the nobleman was right, but our society says he was wrong. Today's society says I am right, but what about 300 years from now?

There is, and always will be interpretation and grey zones of morality. It all depends on who you ask and the surroundings they are in. Which brings to mind another question. Is the moral code that an allied soldier followed during the fighting in WW2, the same code he followed in civilian life after the war? I say no, it depends on circumstances.

I'm not saying there is not a moral code, or not a right and wrong. I'm just saying they are fluid and fuzzy. And not hard and fast, as some would say.

[rhoff]

Farmaholic if I didn't tolerate you I wouldn't try to
foster a discussion with you. Even if i was
intolerant,would you say that was wrong? And if
you did couldn't someone just say "there really is
no right or wrong,and you shouldn't disagree with
his beliefs"
Coleville I'm curious to hear your response to my
hypothetical question. The other question I have
for you is this.
If a society from another century commits things
we now consider morally repugnant why do you
assume morals change and not the possibility that
the whole society is simply just violating a
unversally held standard of morality?
I hope nobody misreads my intentions of this
discussion. Im not trying to come across as
intolerant or disrespectful,it's sometimes hard to
have this discussion in this kind of format and
show sincerity through mere words on a post.

[TOM4CWB]

Coleville,

It is clear... there is no difference between how we are
to treat people... NO MATTER who they are... or when
they lived.

Roman society was riddled with slavery...
discrimination against women... Blacks...

Because all are to be equal... this made early Christians
targets for persecution... to be killed.

"There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free
people, males nor females. You are all the same in
Christ Jesus."[Galatians 3:28]

All are to be treated fairly... with love... no matter who
they are.... what they believe... taking vengeance is
NOT allowed... 'turn the other cheek'.

Cheers

[ColevilleH2S]

rhoff I will just sum up my answer by saying, right and wrong, resides in the eye of the beholder.

Tom, scripture is an excellent measuring stick because of the length of time it has been around, but again it is all how people interpret it. Some old testament verses, are downright contradictory to new testament teachings. Now, did God change the definition of right and wrong, or did people change.
I submit that the Bible is a manmade venture, certainly the new testament is. People sat down and decided what gospels were worthy to be included in it, and which should be left out. I think those decisions, were a reflection of the view of right and wrong for them. They set the bar, but we measure it with an eye jaundiced by the society we are immersed in.

And when I say jaundiced, this is what I mean; Westboro Baptist Church and the United Church of Canada, both read the same Bible, but boy do they interpret it in different ways.

[TOM4CWB]

Coleville,

People did not change... but the understanding of how
the principals/systems worked; certainly did between
the Old and New understandings between us and our
maker. Many human based 'rules' crept in over the
time before Jesus revealed the fulfillment of the plan.

Law vs GRACE... the law still is there... but Grace
covers the problem with Love (a freedom based
motivational system).... instead of the general human
tendencies generally of works and performance (Law
based).

Cheers!

[ColevilleH2S]

Tom said "People did not change... but
the understanding of how
the principals/systems worked"

I can agree with that. But I will
probably take that further than you
would, by adding, this proves that our
understanding of right and wrong is in
flux. Always has, always will.

And (for rhoff) I realize my statement
may sound absolutest, but I absolutely
contend it is not meant to be.LOL

[ColevilleH2S]

The question of whether Law reflects
moral right and wrong? Hum there is a
lot to think about in that topic. I'll
step away for now and ruminate on that
one.

[TOM4CWB]

Coleville,

"this proves that our
understanding of right and wrong is in
flux."

Jesus provides the proof that the opposite is the case:

"But what do you think about this? A man with two
sons told the older boy, 'Son, go out and work in the
vineyard today.'
The son answered, 'No, I won't go,' but later he
changed his mind and went anyway.
Then the father told the other son, 'You go,' and he
said, 'Yes, sir, I will.' But he didn't go.
"Which of the two obeyed his father?" They replied,
"The first." Then Jesus explained his meaning: "I tell
you the truth, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes
will get into the Kingdom of God before you do (the
lawyers and religious leaders).[Matthew 21:28...]

Nothing under the sun has changed... Coleville!

[agchat]

Tom:
"The real mind boggler is that there are an
infinite number of Tom's supporting the old
CWB"
Lets first start of Tom by giving us a full
description of that quotation. Then we will
continue on beliefs and religion from there.

[TOM4CWB]

Agchat,

That 'Quote' came from:

Topic: Mississippi River Levels Improve, New Diesel
Refinery

" 'checking'
posted Feb 17, 2013 10:44

With an infinite universe, and an infinite number of
parallel universes, mathematics says that there are an
infinite number of Gods being worshipped. Your one
God rule is out.

The real mind boggler is that there are an infinite
number of Tom's supporting the old CWB."

IP: Logged
Edit?

I think Checking meant exactly what he said...

Am I right Checking?