A question for "The least of Jesus' Brothers" and sisters! How does one vow to be open minded yet closed email?

Someone recently noted: I am a good person, I like to think I have a good conscience and a pure heart, and I do so without the help of religion.

In fact, because of my lack of religion, if someone were to approach me and state that one of my moral beliefs was wrong, I’d be willing to listen, and possibly change my belief if the argument was solid. I am perfectly open to self-improvement, and not bound by rigid absolute morality as dictated by an ancient book.)

I was impressed by the words, “not bound by absolute rigid morality” as though this person thinks that it would be a physical impossibility to achieve, yet he/she knows that all mankind strives to work towards this in an average lifetime, provided they’re given the proper learning and application tools in life.
Yet, most of these supposedly open minded people ask questions and make open ended comments as to want to hear “miraculous healing words” and close their emails as reject any ideas or ideals from those who wish to respond?
Doesn’t that sound a bit hypocritical that people would seem to want to hear answers yet leave no venue for one to respond?
“Got Proof” you have made this statement more than several times, and I have given you personal testamony of my success and evidence of God, yet you have never openly responded to my evidence.

What you claim only sounds like a “copout” and “excuse” for you’re denying God’s existence… I can do no more to show God’s existence than you can to show his non-existence…..So the only thing left is to show how God works in and throughout our lives….
Actually, the fact that God is not working in your life is evidence of God’s existence as well, as God tells us in the Bible (his words) that “thos who deny me will not hear my words” which also means “will not be able to decipher my Bible for his benefit or will.”

Filed Under: Rigid Tools

Tags:

FInd sleep aids on sale now at drugstore.com! icon

About the Author:

RSSComments (7)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Rich says:

    Huh?

    If I understand you…Well, I’ll deal with the part of that that I understood: I don’t leave my email account open to every schmuck on these comment boards because the internet is just too big, and most people here are frakking fools.

  2. Got Proof? says:

    My e-mail is closed. I am open to intelligent, reasoned arguments. I am not open to hysterical threats and fanatical proselytizing.

    Sadly, those in the latter category seem to be the ones who e-mail the most.

  3. Les B says:

    Good question. I have noticed that myself. The Bible states “oppose the devil and he will flee from you. Watch and see who is fleeing.

  4. djmantx says:

    Answers has been having problems with their e-mail.. mine is always open but that doesn’t mean that the answers button will work.

  5. Sumptuous red roses show purity says:

    Unfortunately I had to close my e-mail because net can be a sewer. People like to open their pottymouths in the net.
    Atheist.

  6. Lightning From the East says:

    Typical for those who are actually closed minded in reality.
    The person is actually contradicting himself

    Not Bound by absolute rigid morality ? really ?
    Yes, there are such things as absolutes. There are also things that are relative, but if everything were relative then it would be absolutely true that everything is relative, and that would be self-refuting. So saying that everything is relative can’t be true. Likewise, if everything were absolutely true, then we couldn’t have such things as personal preferences or things that change. Relative truths can be things dependent upon each person.

    That which is absolute is always true. That which is relative is not necessarily always true. For example, it is always true that the number seven is greater than the number five. It’s always true that something cannot bring itself into existence.

    On the other hand, one person may believe that blue is a better color than green, where another person may disagree. In this case, what is true for one person is not true for another. Therefore, there can be truths that are relative, that change. The person who believes that blue is a better color than green may change his or her mind later on.

    Unfortunately, more and more people are not able to distinguish between absolute truths and relative truths, and they put their feelings and preferences above absolutes to make them more palatable. A typical example is when someone would say that “It is true for you that Jesus is the only way to God, but to a Muslim, Mohammed would be the only way.” Such statements ignore the logical possibilities of having two “only-ways” to God.

    So, there are absolutes and there are things that are relative.

    First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn’t the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t.

    Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.

    Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral “should and shouldn’t”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

    In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.

    Let me put some flesh and blood on this and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can’t complain when the situation suits somebody else’s fancy and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy.

    If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice, but opinions don’t make ethical standards. If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a Moral Law Giver.

    Anyway, some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says it’s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can’t help us here. It just isn’t up to the task of proving solid answers.

    Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self contradictory, and can lead to anarchy.
    True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more and the Bible offers us more.

    It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness, but not so in atheism’s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner.

    So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be, a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapt his ethics to suit the moment?

  7. shell says:

    hi Cajunboy,,,forgive me for not responding, to you questions,,i am a strong believer,,,,but i do wonder about your heart,,you see i have a living god,,and i refer to his book as *holy scriptures*,,not bible,,for this is not written,,so i do question your inner faith,,how strong is it,,be careful,,for one entertain angels and not know it,,

Leave a Reply