I do not need a book, a government or a religon to define
or state my values. They are self evident in their birth
and concrete in their implementation. Nor do I need a …
a choir or chorus to support or augment my sense of …
morality. It is the offspring of observation married to
my own humanity.

The ‘age old’ question you cite … was first framed when
humans were all illiterate, before Guttenberg, and never
ventured past the village next door.

I am beyond those restrictions and have been for longer
than you have been ALIVE.

I say, the more you are involved with and the more …
immersed in humanity you are, the more you will value same.

And I will argue morality is nought but a conotation
of that value.

I actualy spent all day dwelling on your response. At the
end of the day, I came to the conclusion that you somehow
dismiss my values/morality because it is not ordained.
By a god. Or your God. To which I say…. That sort
of reasoning will limit your intellect, but I won’t allow
it to poison mine. Nietzsche be damned.

Your sense of right and my sense of right may be the same.

You have no right to dismiss or diminish my sense of right
simply because it comes from on high to you. THAT is and
will be the bane of religion as a structure until you and
your ilk grasp that concept. Right and wrong. Good and evil
are SELF EVIDENT. Seems like I’ve heard that before.

Granted, there will always be those that twist the …
goodness in my heart and yours to their own ends. Ain’t
me. Ain’t you.

But if we are are the same side … don’t question my
goodness, because if memory serves, the Bible says …
something about who among you is more holy? Who among you
will cast the first stone? Or something like that.

Save your rocks for an adversary that is not good in heart.

I’ll bet the Bible said something along those lines too.

Steel

Chasey – I assume you’re implying the Gospel of John is not authoritive (?) and therefore citing John 14 is…what? As you know, the authorship of several NT books has always and will continue to be in question, but as one who believes the Bible is inerrant, infallible and God-breathed, it would take some seriously contradictory evidence to even cause a scintilla of doubt in my mind that the apostle John indeed wrote it.

The Bible was written by men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but these men used their own styles, idioms, personalities and methods of expression. Whether or not John contains specific elements found in the four Gospels doesn’t come close to proving (showing?) it was not written through inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore, not part of the canon.

I know you didn’t go that far, but I was on a roll.

The accusations of Gnostic authorship are but one of many criticisms of John, which is no different (in my view) from criticism about the entire Bible’s inerrancy in general.

I hope you make my blog part of your daily reading.

We are all sinners, thank you for your honesty and for being a bigger person and admitting it. We all suffer from the sin of Pride, and many of us will never take the high road as you have done. This is reflected in many of the posts of your readers.

My favorite verses from John are from Chapter 15:

9. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

11. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Many Evangelicals, my parents included, feel that this Gospel differs from the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) by having clear Gnostic elements. According to the tradition, the gospel was written by a witness to the life of Jesus, by the name of John. This is strongly contested, and because people familiar with the gospel, like Ignatius, have mentioned nothing of it and also due to the specific way of using of sources by the author. Also, the gospel is dated to around 100 CE, was written in Greek, and little is obvious on its geographical origin.

Formation is often missing from John, there is only limited chronology up until chapter 12. From then on, the evolving crisis between Jesus and the Jews is the central theme.

In addition, in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is in Galilee, while in the Gospel of John Jesus is in Judea, and often in Jerusalem, as well.

There is also a big difference in John as there are no stories of exorcisms but there are as many as 7 miracles. As they say, “There are no parables, only parabolic discourses”.

I still feel these verses are paramount, as The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution/government and we break them everyday.

Many use God’s name in vain, many steal, many kill our unborn (sustained as the norm by so many Liberals), many get divorced in frightful numbers (practiced by Liberals and unfortunately many notable Conservatives are following suit of late), many kill in the name of God and commit senseless acts of terrorism.

Won’t they be shocked to find out that Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah and that He is going to rule the world from Jerusalem with a rod of iron!

Thank you for your time, LaShawn, I must get ready for Church – our evening services. Tonight I am the door greeter. Check back with you soon!

I’m still a sinner dealing with my own sins, especially pride, which is a daily struggle. But it is not unbiblical for me or any other Christian to point out that others are sinners. Since you’re probably new to my blog (at least as far as commenting is concerned), you should read my archives to get to know more about me before you judge me. I do much more than just find fault in others. I share the Gospel, write about current events and politics from a Christian worldview, and many other things. If we Christians couldn’t open our mouths to criticize anyone or anything unless we were faultless, none of us would be sharing God’s word with anyone.

Unfortunately the secular culture has persuaded many Christians into thinking it’s wrong to judge others, but we are supposed to make judgments everyday about everything. It would be foolish not to. How else do we discern false prophets, for example, if we’re “not to judge others” or help other Christians deal with sin in their lives? It is so easy to quote that verse, particular that one line, out of context. People unfamiliar with the Bible get a false understanding of it.

Yes, we are required to examine ourselves, but in the process, our own judgment about the world and other people is not suspended.

I wish Christians would cite verses like John 14:6 more often ( “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”) That’s what unbelievers need to hear, not that Christians aren’t allowed to “judge” anybody.

No need to be defensive about Scripture, either. You quoted a verse and I asked you to tell us more about it.

Scripture: Matthew 7:1-5

1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Thinking the best of other people is necessary if we wish to grow in love. And kindliness in judgment is nothing less that a sacred duty. Our judgment of others is usually “off the mark” because we can’t see inside the person, or we don’t have access to all the facts, or we are swayed by instinct and unreasoning reactions to people. It is easier to find fault in others than in oneself.

Please remember that. And I am hoping you will be Christian enough not to deem me a troll for having a difference of opinion (as I noticed in the posts below yours).

I know Scripture quite well, I was the “Sword Drill Champion” at our Christian camp every year except 10th grade! I dropped my Bible and my brother was able to a come in and beat me!

Yes

I couldn’t care less what your political affliliation is, but if you’re going to quote Scripture, let’s do it right. And who your parents are and what they did and didn’t do is irrelevant to the discussion.

You pose the age old question, can a person be good without God?

In a society that does not recognize an objective standard for “good” or what we christians call “righteousness”, your “values” will be reduced to mere “opinion” and “conjecture”. Then you will be faced with the question Steel, what makes your “values” moral?

I don’t know if you have read Friedrich Nietzsche. Many consider him the father of modern atheism. In his “Godless” worldview, your “values” would ultimately be determined by who has the most power.

1). Love our neighbor

2). Not “play God”

3). Learn to show tolerance to others

As a former Conservative, (raised in a religious household where my parents showed no tolerance and claimed to be the only real practicers of Christianity) I am here to tell you that you should all practice The Golden Rule, which most Conservatives, my family included, cannot seem to grasp or understand.

Judge not and you shall not be judged. For some reason Liberals have an easier time with this. My question is why?

As an ex-Conservative raised in a house where wearing a “hair shirt” was the norm, Liberal is a breathe of fresh air. I have actually found that Liberals can practice the Golden Rule with no problem. As for me I choose to align myself with Christ, the original Liberal who reached out to whores and beggars.

If you choose to take a religious path to your morals, that is wonderful. However, if you do not, AND you are willing to follow the reasoning necessary to find the best rules for working together with others, I think you will find that the underlying moral framework will be very similar, though they will vary widely in detail, just like the major religions do.

For the record, I oppose the death penalty because of the possibility of getting it wrong. It is easy to release someone and make reparations, but it is extremely difficult to un-kill someone. There are many occasions, however, that I feel Police are justified in killing a criminal who resists, instead of endangering themselves trying to apprehend them alive.