Conference yukon::christian_v7

       Before we can submit to any authority, we need to determine what
       morality is.  And towards this goal, we need to ask ourselves if
       there is an absolute morality.

       The word absolute carries a connotation of final, ultimate, and
       everlasting.  Therefore, an absolute morality *depends* on the
       consistency of the authority (God,
                                     self,
                                     society,
                                     others).

       Self is not consistent.  We change our ideas of good and bad all the
       time.  Society is not consistent and changes with the governments.
       Others?  Like what?  Reliance on another's authority?  Still
       changeable.

       If God exists, and He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God
       we read about in the Bible, then He declares an Absolute Morality
       and He has been absolutely consistent with it.

       Now, with free will, each person also chooses the morality of their
       own.  As was demonstrated in .0, when any two moralities do not
       align, something may be good to one and bad to another.  The
       morality a person chooses may be in conflict with God's morality.
       This is why it is important to know what God is like, if He exists.

       When we begin to understand what God is like, we can also begin to
       align our morality (concepts of good and bad) with His.  So, many
       people "come to God" by placing themselves under His authority; that
       is to say, they adopt His morality, by doing what God has declared
       to be good and eschewing what God has declared to be bad.  (To
       Christians, this includes the acceptance of God's provision for
       salvation -  which is good).

       So we can see that morality and authority are intimately linked.
       Rebellion to authority (in absolute terms) is immorality.  (I should
       be quick to add that I mean that rebellion to God [the Authority] is
       indeed immorality, but it even works for atheists who declare there
       is no God. In essence, an atheist is his own god, or supreme
       authority.)

       Remember that there are two kinds of submission: yielded and
       imposed. God accepts yielded submission and responds in love.  Why?
       Because we willingly adopt His standard of good and bad - life is
       without resistance to the Absolute Authority.  God will not impose
       His authority until Judgment Day (exceptions being Judgments, such
       as the one on Herod Agrippa when he was struck dead.)  What I mean
       is that God will not impose upon the free will He gave us, to be
       "robots."  Free will enables love to be given as well as received
       (or rejected).

       If there is a God, and he is the God in the Bible, One Day He will
       impose His authority on all the rebellious and morality will be no
       more.  That is, only bad, or only good.  (Now, relative morality
       will still exist: I like chocolate ice cream better than butter
       pecan; so comparative goods will exist in heaven, and I believe,
       comparative bads will be in hell.)

       If there is a God, and He is the God of the Bible, Who is
       omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then this God is an absolute
       and ultimate authority.  Any morality contrary to His is immorality.

       Does God exist?  What is God like?

    Matthew 21:23-25  NIV

    Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief
    priests and the elders of the people came to him.  "By what _authority_
    are you doing these things?" they asked.  "And who gave you this
    _authority_?"

    Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question.  If you answer me, I will
    tell you by what authority I am doing these things.  John's baptism -
    where did is come from?  Was it from heaven, or from men?"

    They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'from heaven,'
    he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From
    men,' - we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a
    prophet.

    So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."

    Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing
    these things."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       What was the point of putting off the chief priests like Jesus did?
       I do not think that Jesus was afraid to put himself in a dilemma (if
       he said from God, they would accuse him of blasphemy and stone him,
       and it wasn't his time - perhaps).

       Instead, Jesus uses the same type of questioning on those who would
       use it on him.  Because of their unwillingness to be honest with
       their answer, (to say either that John was a prophet and they were
       wrong not to believe John, or to say that John was of men and stand
       up for what they believed was truth,) the priests waffled and said
       "we don't know." They had their ideas, but instead backed out of the
       debate rather than be proven false.  Not worthy of a direct answer,
       because they gave none themselves, Jesus does not disclose his
       authority directly to them.

       More to come...

    John 18:37b-38a

    Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king.  In fact for this
    reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to
    the truth.  Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

    "What is truth?" Pilate asked.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

       Like everyone's personal morality (their concepts of what is good
       and what is bad), truth can also be personally definable.  This is
       part of what Pilate was saying in a rhetorical question.

       "We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?"  (Some of you
       will recognize this as a quote from Jesus Christ, Superstar.  I'm
       not here to debate its value.) The answer to this is also like
       personal morality: very often the answer is no, my truths are not
       the same as yours.

       And so we must ask, is there an Absolute Truth?  And again we see
       that absoluteness depends on the consistency of the truth for the
       person. If God exists, and He is the God of the Bible, omnipotent,
       omniscient, omnipresent, then God is absolute in His authority (He
       defines truth), He is absolutely consistent, and therefore
       absolutely Truthful.

       Jesus declares his purpose for becoming incarnate: to testify to the
       truth.  The fulfillment of the prophecies, God continues to
       demonstrate His consistency and authority to declare absolutes in
       morality (good/bad) and in truth.

       Jesus further shows that one who would be in truth must listen to
       him. The Christian faith places Jesus in the Godhead.  He declares a
       monopoly on absolute truth.  Pilate retorts from the understanding
       of personal truth.

       Is there an absolute truth?  And absolute morality?   Jesus said, "I
       am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

       More to come...

    Mark 10:17-18 NIV

    As Jesus started on his way, and man ran up to him and fell on his
    knees before him.  "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit
    eternal life?"

    "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.  "No one is good - except God
    alone."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

       In the passage transcribed in the previous note, Jesus declares
       himself to be the Truth.  Here, Jesus says no one is good except
       God.

       Several notes ago, absolute morality was determined only to exist in
       an absolute being (if one exists).   Jesus affirms this with his
       declaration that ONLY God is good.

       It is noteworthy here that Jesus never refuted the application of
       the word good to himself, especially pointed after his declaration
       that only God is good.  Jesus places himself in equality with God by
       declaring himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  The great
       "I am"s of the Bible are God's declaration of His character.

       Back to morality:  If God is the only one that is good, then all
       else is not good and we can never be good unless and until we align
       our morality to His absolute morality, align our truths with His
       absolute Truth, and submit ourselves to the absolute authority of an
       omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God (if one exists).

       More to come...

Romans 12:2 KJV
  And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by
the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and
acceptable, and perfect will of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

       When we speak of a God that exists as a God that is all-powerful,
       always-alive, and all-knowing, we speak of a God Who is absolute in
       authority, morality, and love.

       In the verse above, we see the goal of transforming our minds is the
       good, the acceptable, and the perfect.  We see that our ideas of
       what is good and what is bad must be aligned with God's in order to
       be acceptable.  Perfection, as it relates to God, is an absolute.

       The renewing of one's mind is a conscious shift from one's personal
       morality (which each of us has; everyone of us) to another personal
       morality.  In the context of Christianity, the conscious shift is to
       adopt the Personal Morality of a God we believe to be shown to us by
       the Bible and our personal experiences with His Spirit.  (Since
       personal experience is something not understood by those who do not
       experience it, we can suffice to say that the God we believe is the
       God of the Bible.)

       It seems clear from a scriptural standpoint (at least) that a person
       cannot find what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of
       God on their own personal morality if the renewal of one's mind is
       necessary. But what if one's personal morality already aligns with
       God's?  If we  accept Jesus' words, no one is good except for God.
       If we accept Paul's words, all have sinned and fall short of God's
       morality.  Therefore, no one's personal morality begin perfectly
       aligned with God's perfect and absolute morality.

       And not to skim over an important word: acceptable.

       If God exists, and He is the God of the Bible, God has absolute
       authority which give Him the power to define an absolute morality
       which means that anyone's personal morality that does not align with
       His is _unacceptable_ to Him.  Where moralities conflict between two
       persons, immorality exists. Where our personal moralities conflict
       with God's absolutes, immorality  exists.

       On Judgment Day, those who transform themselves by the renewing of
       their minds, adopting the absolute morality as their own and
       aligning their ideas of good and bad with His, will be found
       acceptable.  God will then be able to accept you into His presence.
       If one is not acceptable (not aligned), the God will not be able
       (another interesting discussion in and of itself) to accept you;
       malignment and conflict with His morals is immoral.  If God is
       consistent, then God is just and holy and cannot be absolutely pure
       if impurity is present.

       Acceptability is another reason it is important to know what God is
       like,  if you believe that God exists.

Exodus 5:1-2 KJV

  And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, "Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel, 'Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in
the wilderness.'"

  And Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and
let Israel go?  I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Pharaoh was divine to his people, and to himself.  Pharaoh
       determined what was good and what was bad.  We know that Pharaoh was
       neither divine, nor consistent with his morality (what human is?).

       Pharaoh here epitomizes our own stand against another's morality.
       God deemed it good to take Israel out of Egypt; Pharaoh thought
       otherwise. Pharaoh epitomizes our own desire to set the course of
       our lives and determine good and bad, as a king and even as a god,
       deciding right  and wrong.

       Now, Pharaoh was a religious man.  He either believed he was a son
       of the gods, or readily accepted his position.  So we too place our
       own personal moralities in conflict with another.  On the human
       level, if I told you to eat lima beans because it was good for you
       to do so, you might rightfully say, "Who is Mark Metcalfe, that I
       should obey his voice? Who are you to tell me to eat lima beans?"
       (apologies to those who like lima beans.")

       This hearkens back to the question: Who is God?  What is He like?
       What authority does He have to declare absolute morality?

       Remember also that Pharaoh had free will and was given many
       opportunities  to yield to the Lord's authority.  He chose not to
       and in the end had God's authority imposed upon him.  Thus we see
       that God is the authority and established the right to declare the
       absolute morality.

Joshua 24:15 Amplified
  And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose you this
day whom you you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers
served on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites
in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve
the Lord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

       Joshua knows all about personal morality and he so much as tells
       Israel to make their choice and be done with it.  It is very
       interesting that when Israel responds, "Why, of course we will serve
       the Lord!"  Joshua says, in verse 19...

------------------------------------------------
Verse 19 Amplified
"You cannot serve the Lord; for He is a Holy God;
He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions and
your sins, if you forsake the Lord and serve strange gods; then He
will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good."
------------------------------------------------

       Joshua makes it plain that playing church is going to be worse for
       those than for those who reject church altogether.  More than other
       sins, profaning the name of the Lord is very dreadful.  This is not
       just the utterance of God's name in vain; it is claim of adopting
       the morals of God while committing hypocrisy; it is moral adultery.

       Back to verse 15: Joshua makes a couple of distinctions: the god of
       your fathers (traditional morals) and the god of the Amorites in
       whose land you dwell (cultural or situational morals).  Both of
       these are distinct  from the absolute morals of an omniscient,
       omnipotent, and omnipresent God.

       "My family, or my church, taught me their truth since I was knee
       high to a grasshopper."  The god of your fathers has determined
       morals (what is good and bad).  Do they align with absolute morals?

       "Everybody's doing it."  Three words of excuse that echo down the
       ages. The god of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.  Do the
       morals of the  people in whose land you dwell align with the
       absolute morals of an Eternal God?

       Both of these (like Ignorance and Lack in Dicken's Christmas Carol)
       are authorities which we adopt and into which adapt our personal
       moralities. Which is the greater foe?  The warning to Scrooge was
       Ignorance. The warning to us is the same.  Both project an ignorance
       or unwillingness to see absolute truth embodied in an absolute God.

       Lot lived in Sodom and was nearly swept away by making his dwelling
       among the rebellious who, like Pharaoh, did not recognize the
       Absolute Authority, not His absolute morality.  It behooves us all
       to question our tradition and the environment in which we dwell in
       light of the questions, "Does God exist?" and "What is God like?"

       Joshua ends verse 15 with one of the greatest declarations of free
       will: As for me and my house (for Joshua was the authority in his
       house), we will serve the Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Amplified

  Therefore if any person is (engrafted) in Christ,
the Messiah, he is (a new creature altogether,) a new creation;
the old (previous moral and spiritual condition) has passed away.
Behold the fresh and new has come.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

       When we adopt another's morality and take theirs as our own, we  do
       not nor cannot act solely upon our personal morality.  It becomes a
       shared morality but in the same sense that two people become one
       flesh and not in the sense of each bringing pieces for the whole;
       completeness versus compromise.  (Marriages are human and have an
       inherent compromise, but the mystical union of one flesh is what I
       am hitting and not the personal moralities of a couple.)

       If one shares a morality with an absolute God, then it is we who
       share His morality by the fact that God abides by His own morality,
       and then we do too, therefore the two moralities, (our personal and
       His absolute) become one.  Because an absolute God has an absolute
       morality, His morality is not corrupted by the mingling of another's
       personal morality.  (This is where acceptability comes in again.)

       Outside of the spiritual realm, this holds true in that if we adopt
       the morality of another we share the same values.  Trouble is,
       personal moralities shift and change all to easily and we will soon
       find ourselves being immoral (on the personal level) even if we do
       nothing different, because another's view of good and bad may
       change.

Acts 17:16-23 NIV

  While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see
that the city was full of idols.  So he reasoned in the synagogue with the
Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day
with those who happened to be there.  A group of Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers began to dispute with him.  Some of them asked, "What is
this babbler trying to say?"  Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating
foreign gods."  They said this because Paul was preaching the good news
about Jesus and the resurrection.
  Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where
they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are
presenting?  You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we
want to know what they mean."  (All the Athenians and the foreigners who
lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening
to the latest ideas.)
  Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens!
I see in every way you are very religious.  For as I walked around and looked
carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this
inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.  Now what you worship as something unknown
I am going to proclaim to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Paul adopted the morality of an absolute God, a morality that
       created a  dispute among people in a city full of idols.  Each idol
       represented an authority, an authority as dependable and consistent
       as the god itself. The Good that Paul proclaimed was different
       enough for some to sneer and call him a babbler (one who utters
       nonsense); they did not understand it.

       However, some were curious enough to want to know more.  Alas, it
       seems that they wanted to add to their intellectual library instead
       of possibly finding what God is like so that they can align their
       morality (be justified) with God.  They "spent their time doing
       nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas."  This
       might be well and good for Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison if they
       spoke of the possibilities of electricity.  Remember the context
       here is many idols, many gods, and an unknown god.

       It is extremely important to note that Paul understands that these
       men  are very religious; not merely philosophers, but religious
       philosophers. Each philosopher had an idol, or perhaps themselves
       (or their intellect) were the object of worship.

       The men of Athens brought Paul in to hear the morality of the
       Authority  that Paul adopted.  It conflicted with some of the
       moralities they adopted for themselves.  Paul proclaimed the unknown
       God in verses 24-31 and like the parable of the soils, it yielded
       some fruit while others rejected it, while still other withheld
       their judgment and said they wanted to hear more.

       I wonder if those others got to hear more.  The Scripture says Paul
       left  Athens in the next paragraph.  We don't know the time between
       the events but of those people who hadn't made their mind, or simply
       wanted to  continue stocking their intellectual library, had they
       passed their  opportunity.  (For the Christian, we believe that God
       can enable the  proclaimed word of God to live on in the minds of
       those who are ready to accept it, but hasn't taken root yet.)

    Acts 19:13-17 NIV

    Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the
    name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed.  They would
    say, "In the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come
    out."

    Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.  The evil
    spirit answered them. "Jesus I know and Paul I know about, but who are
    you?"  Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and
    overpowered them all.  He gave them such a beating that they ran out of
    the house naked and bleeding.

    When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they
    were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in
    high honor.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

       Authority belongs to those who can wield its power.  This is a
       passage that speaks of a spirit world, so it does not ask the
       question, "Does God exist."  This passage does speak a bit about the
       authority structure of spirit world where morality has taken sides
       in Good versus Evil.  It shows that Good has rule over Evil, and
       Evil has rule over stupidity.

       Rightfully, as can be demonstrated in Scripture, the name of Jesus
       has the power to cast out demons.  So why is it the seven sons of
       Sceva could not?  They invoked the name of Jesus whom Paul preached.
       Authority must be bestowed by a higher authority.  The Sceva seven
       plied their trade with a prescription but no responsibility to its
       Prescriber.  It brings God down to the level of circus performer,
       making the writhing crazy man sane again.  God had no part of it.

       Absent the authority given from a higher authority, its seven
       against one and the seven are out-matched.  "Jesus I know" [the name
       with authority] "and Paul I know about" [the man given authority]
       "but who are you?" [Who are you that have no authority over me?]

       The story goes on to say that God was glorified because many
       believed in the name of Jesus and burned their sorcery scrolls.
       Even the demons know the authority, the Absolute Authority God has
       to grant.

       Because authority is only as powerful as the higher power that
       grants it, the Sceva seven had no power because they had no
       authority.  Those of us empowered by God's authority have the power
       He grants us. (A lesson should be taken from Moses who struck the
       rock against God's command to speak to the rock.  Moses went beyond
       God's granted authority.  We should do no less and no more than God
       requires.)

       If God is the absolute authority, and authority is only as good as
       its higher authority, then who or what is God's higher authority?

       The answer is obviously that an Absolute Authority is the end of the
       chain.  In Scripture God swears by himself with binding covenants
       because there is no greater authority on which to establish the
       contract between God and man or God and nation.  By doing so, He
       uses Himself as collateral in the deal.  It is only as valid as His
       consistency and His power to follow through.

       If God is a disinterested god, then perhaps he doesn't care.

       If God is the God of the Bible, then He has demonstrated an absolute
       consistency, and absolute power, and an absolute authority to do
       exactly as He says.  Absolute Authority has the power to declare and
       enforce an absolute morality.

Luke 16:27-31 NIV

He answered, "then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house,
for I have five brothers.  Let him warn them, so that they will not also
come to this place of torment."

Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the Prophet; let them listen to them."

"No father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them,
they will repent."

He said to him, "if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they
will not be convinces even if someone rises from the dead."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

       In this passage of Scripture we understand that a rich man no longer
       has to rely on a faith statement to know what happens to mankind
       after  death.  With this reality, he takes pity on himself and also
       realizes his brothers are headed for the same danger.  (It is
       interesting that compassion flows from this man in torment.)

       The rich man calls Abraham, father twice.  He is identifying himself
       as one of the "in" crowd and yet find himself cast into the
       compartment of  torment while Abraham and Lazarus exists in the
       compartment of comfort where there is a fixed chasm between.
       Although he has identified with Abraham (the father of the faith),
       he evidently did not heed Moses and the Prophets himself, or he
       would not be in this place of torment.

       That Abraham, through Jesus, says for the five brothers to heed
       Moses and the Prophets places the written word in authority for
       right living. The written text has authority to test the spirits
       that would speak to you and counterfeit His voice.

       I will be quick to point out that Moses and the Prophets point to a
       Messiah, by which we can test Jesus as Messiah through the
       prophecies.

       Some people wonder why God spoke directly to Abraham, and Moses, and
       the Prophets and why they were recorded, and how the Bible was
       chosen from many parts of literature.  Moses and the Prophets are a
       starting point.  They were accepted as Scripture.  (Those who do not
       believe God  exists don't have to concern themselves with this.)
       Literature that was consistent with Moses and the Prophets and was
       believed to be inspired writings as well were added by a group of
       religious men to make up our Bible.  If all we had was Moses and the
       Prophets and a plethora of other writings, we could make our own
       assessments as to which pieces of  literature meets the criteria.
       We would find that the gospels of Jesus Christ are perfectly
       consistent with Moses and the Prophets.

       But some of us do not want to rely on the writings, especially Old
       Testament stuff like Moses and the Prophets.  That's storybook
       material.  Yet, it  was accepted as Scripture, which pointed to a
       Messiah, showed the absolute morality of God, and portrayed God's
       authority.

       Abraham says, if they don't believe this, then they cannot and will
       not believe the miracle of someone rising from the dead.  In other
       words, they have made up their minds.

       Some people who call themselves Christians, like the rich man
       identifying with Abraham as those Jews in front of John the Baptist
       declared "we are sons of Abraham, cannot be followers of Christ
       unless the are consistent with Christ.  How do we know what text to
       believe to tell us about the Christ?  How do we know that Moses and
       the Prophets point truly to Jesus as the Messiah?

       The fact of the matter is that we do not know.  Neither did the rich
       man until after he had descended.  What we have is a preponderance
       of evidence that enables us to make the faith statement, "I
       believe."  We can say I believe based on the testimony of millions
       of people who have tested the Scriptures of Moses and the prophets
       and found Jesus to be the Messiah. We can say I believe, based on
       the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises God makes.

       To say, I believe in a God that demonstrates himself to be
       inconsistent  with the written text is to believe in a different god
       altogether.  If  God is inconsistent, then there may as well be no
       God.  Every man should follow Joseph Campbell and follow their bliss
       for no one can know for  certain whether their personal morality
       aligns with God's inconsistent morality.  Make the best of it, close
       your eyes real tight and wish as hard as you can, hoping to align
       your morality with an inconsistent God.

       Rather, I choose to align myself with an Absolutely Consistent,
       Absolute Authority.

Malachi 3:5-6 KJV

And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against
the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against the false swearers,
and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and
the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear
not me, saith the Lord of hosts.  For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore
ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       God did not wholly consume Israel in their sins because of the
       hireling who was unjustly oppressed, the widow, the fatherless, and
       the cheated stranger.  God justice is absolute.  When he comes to
       judge, He will judge each person and the whole community is not
       consumed for the sake of even the vast majority of sinful people.

       Look back to Genesis 18:23-33 (selected verses from this passage):

       [Abraham said to God] "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the
       wicked?... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

       And the Lord said, (v32) "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."

       We live in a society where personal morality reigns supreme.  And
       many of us  wonder when judgment will come upon our land.  To be
       sure it has already and will continue to come until the people who
       are called by His name will humble themselves and pray.  (2 Chron.
       7:14)

       That is, people who claim to have God must humble themselves by
       discovering God's absolute morality and aligning their personal
       morality to it.

       How do we know what God's absolute morality is?  The Christian
       answers according to the authority of Scripture from the faith
       statement that  God's morality is contained therein based on the
       preponderance of evidence  for its consistency and validity.  Other
       faith statements have less sure footing for lack of means by which
       to test their hypothesis.

       There are two types of morality not yet discussed:  contextual
       morality and non-morality (amorality).  They are almost the same.

       Contextual morality says that something is moral or immoral
       depending on the context.  The sun melts wax and hardens clay.  Here
       morality is dependent on the object to which it is applied. and
       demonstrates the interdependent relationship between personal and
       absolute morality.   Without a two-person interaction between moral
       authorities, there is no agreement nor conflict.  Without the Law,
       there can be no breaking of the Law.  (Where is the law written?  On
       our hearts, so ignorance will be no excuse when we match our
       personal morality to His absolute morality.)

       Amorality says that something is neither moral nor immoral; no value
       is placed on it; it does not depend on a context.  Non-moral things
       often are used in contextual morality and are sometimes confused
       with being good or bad themselves.  Inanimate objects are best
       understood to be neither moral nor immoral; they retain no implicit
       moral value.  For example, alcohol is non-moral, possessing neither
       good nor bad properties *unless used* (action) for a purpose that is
       deemed of benefit (good) or detriment (bad).  A gun possesses no
       moral value unless used for killing for food (good; morally
       dependent) or for killing another (bad; generally thought so,
       anyway) or for war (morally dependent).

       Actions are less understood because actions can have concepts of
       "good" and "bad" placed on them because of their consequence.  But
       it is the consequence of an action that makes it good or bad.
       Sometimes the action is neither good nor bad, except in context.

       For example, eating meat may offend someone.  For others it is a
       non-issue. The value (good/bad) is placed on the action, not the
       meat.  The meat is the object on which the action occurs.  The
       reason the action of eating meat is bad is the moral judgment that
       killing animals is wrong.  The reason the action of eating meat is
       good is the moral judgment that killing animals is not wrong, nor
       right, but permissible and meat tastes good (another value).

       Another example: the act of sex is condoned and encouraged only
       inside the marriage bonds but explicitly condemned outside of the
       marriage bonds.   The Bible understands contextual morality by
       spelling this out in explicit terms. To say that lustful sex is
       wrong but loving sex is right flies in the face of the context which
       is the marriage bond.  By definition, all sex outside of marriage is
       lustful and none of it loving.  Why? Because it conflicts with the
       moral authority of the Bible and its God.  Conflict with a morality
       is an immorality. Therefore in context of the Bible's moral
       statement, there is no such thing as loving sex outside of marriage,
       no matter how much the two people  who participate agree in their
       personal moralities; the two people exist in conflict to the other
       morality.
       Are people who commit immoral acts immoral people?   Remembering
       that immorality is something in conflict with another's morality,
       immorality is like dirt that clings to a person.  The conflicting
       moral act is immoral. While the dirt is not part of the person, the
       dirt remains on a person unless removed.  By aligning with the
       morality of another, the immorality disappears because the
       moralities become the same.  In actuality, either two become dirty
       in the same way or two become clean in the same way.

       If one believes in a Holy God, who is absolutely clean, then we can
       only become clean like God in our actions, so as not to conflict
       with His morality. So again we see how important it is to know what
       God's morality is.

       Is God such a Person not to make his morality clear?  If the
       Absolute Authority does not make morality clear, then we are
       abandoned to our personal moralities and must all cross our fingers.
       This would not be a God of love.

  Guilt.

  I've heard several people describe their upbringing in religious
  organizations as having been based on guilt feelings.  And I
  discovered for some, this was more than humorous anecdotes of
  childhood but actual impaction on their lives.

  Modern society has chosen to deal with the guilt feelings,
  stemming largely from these childhood persuasions of religion.
  But modern society, especially through psychology, has thrown the
  baby out with the bath water, dismissing all guilt.

  There are several kinds of guilt.  One is the condition of guilt
  which is completely devoid and separate from feelings.  It doesn't
  matter how anyone feels, because a person is either guilty or innocent.
  Another kind is the guilt we feel, a "remorseful awareness of
  having done something wrong."

  Dealing with guilt feelings, we need to understand the difference
  between "appropriate guilt" and "inappropriate guilt."
  Appropriate guilt should be felt when we do something wrong.
  Inappropriate guilt is felt because we think we [may] have done
  something wrong, when in fact we have not.

  Psychology tends to paint all guilt as inappropriate guilt,
  especially by saying that there is almost nothing that is *wrong*
  to feel guilty about.  This is the message of moral relativism: we
  define right and wrong and therefore if something is "right for
  us," there is no need nor room for guilt feelings.

  But this is not something the Christian needs to be involved in.
  A properly balanced person feels guilt when something wrong is
  done.  An unbalanced person has his conscience desensitized
  (seared).  And we have desensitizing influences all around us.

  The fact is, we are ALL guilty.  "All have sinned and come short
  of the glory of God."  We cannot be made innocent; we can only be
  declares "not guilty" by reason of pardon.   "The wages of sin is
  death, but the gift of God is eternal life."  Eternal life is a
  gift not meeting with out just desserts.

  So how do we know which wrongdoings we've done (guilt condition)
  for which to feel remorse (guilt feeling)?  You cannot know unless
  you have an Absolute Morality (See note 31.*) as a point of
  reference: "for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the
  righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
  witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of
  God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them
  that believe: for there is no difference: - Romans 3:20b-22"  The
  Absolute Morality that was bound up in the law is based in the
  "righteousness of God" Who is the Absolute Authority.

  Getting close to God, (and He has provided a way for us to be
  intimate and personal with Him), will make us more sensitive to
  Right and Wrong, Good and Evil.  And we will (and should) feel
  guilty (because we are) when we do wrong, sinning against God
  first, and against others secondarily.

  Mark

    John 1:1-3 ------------------------------------------------------------  
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
    was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made
    by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    For weeks now, I have been thinking about these verses, and most
    especially the Word.  In discussing the philosophies of morality and
    authority we now understand that the greater power defines what is
    right and what is wrong; that in the absence of an absolute authority
    (God), morality is based on the integrity of the greatest (power)
    authority until that authority is usurped, rendering it a weaker power
    than the one that usurped it. 

    However, in the presence of an Absolute Authority, the definition of
    right and wrong is based on the integrity of the absolute, and
    therefore is defined absolutely as right and wrong.

    Upon this foundation we have the Word.  We refer to the Word of God as
    the Bible in some cases, as the spoken word of God, and in John 1 it
    refers to Jesus, the second Person of the Godhead, the Word.

    The Word is the defining power.  Nothing is defined (made) without Him;
    and everything is defined (made) by Him.  Definition by the Word is the
    beginning of creation.

    It is extremely important that we see the Word not only as a defining
    mechanism, or a communication of an idea, but as that which comprises a
    comprehensive attribute of God: Absolute Authority to define all
    things, whether it be material or invisible things, or the definition
    of ethics, morality, contrast, power, dimension, and so on.

    "The Word was God."  God's creative power speaks worlds into existence.
    "And God said, 'Let there be light.'  And there was light."  There is
    no way we can comprehend this beyond what it says: God spoke and it was
    so.  We can never know what generates God's creative power as if God
    was a specimen to be studied.  

    When Moses asked about God, God responded by saying, "I AM THAT I AM." 
    There are no comparisons that could convey the unique and vast nature
    of God.  There is no amount of time that could be spent in describing
    all there is to know about the Infinite and the Absolute; the Absolute
    Infinity.

    When God initiated covenants, He swore by His own name because there
    was no higher authority to back up His claim.  God staked His covenants
    on the integrity of absolute authority.  And this is why we have
    assurance, often in the face of earthly opposition to God's
    definitions.

    Hebrews 11:3 and 6 say, "Through faith we understand that the worlds
    were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not
    made of things which do appear.  But without faith it is impossible to
    please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that
    he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

    Tying back to the very first note, we ask "Does God exist?"  The Bible
    accepts this as fact but acknowledges that the reader may or may not.
    "He that comes to God must believe that He exists..."  This is not to
    say that God existence is dependent on my believe; that if I do not
    believe, he will not exist.  This is as foolish as a child who hides
    under a blanket thinking that the child is hidden from the view of
    others.  This is saying that answering the question "Does God exist" in
    the affirmative is the _first_ step.  And Hebrews 11:6 defines what the
    next step is!  "God is a rewarder of them that _diligently_ seek Him."

    God exists.  Whether you believe it or not doesn't change the fact.
    However, believing is the first step; only the first step, but the most
    important step to make. 

    "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
    whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting
    life." John 3:16

    He is the Absolute Authority; the Word.

    Genesis 2:16-17 -------------------------------------------------------
    And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the
    garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good
    and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
    thereof thou shalt surely die."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Question Authority."  There have
    been many authorities which have made the advice of this axiom almost a
    necessity.  People set themselves up as authority and clamor to make
    their definitions the definitions to which others should align
    themselves.  But this speaks to a universe without an absolute
    authority; a universe where everything is relative.

    Questioning authority is something that born in us.  Some of us are
    downright curious and want to know why authority has defined what it
    has.  But not all questions are sincere queries for data; there is a
    design to them.  Consider the very first question in the Bible:

          Genesis 3:1  Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast
          of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto
          the woman, "Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every
          tree of the garden?"

    Do you think the serpent's motivation was to ask for clarification?  On
    the  contrary, the serpent was asking to confuse the truth and replace
    it with a lie.  The plan *from the beginning!* is to confuse what is
    known; what is defined, what the Truth is.  And lies are particularly
    deceptive when they contain elements of the truth in them.

    Jesus dealt patiently with people who had honest doubts.  Consider
    Thomas whom Jesus allowed to touch his side because Thomas would not
    believe unless he had proof.  (That's where we get the phrase,
    "Doubting Thomas.")  Consider also the man who  said, "Lord I believe,
    help thou my unbelief."

    Jesus also dealt with people who had questions that were designed to
    entrap him. "What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto
    Caesar, or not?"  (Matthew 22:17)   "Is it lawful to heal on the
    sabbath days? that they might accuse him."  (Matthew 12:10) "The
    Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it
    lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matthew 19:3)
    Check out Jesus' answers to these types of questions.

    Questions with a design are intended to redefine what is known to be
    the truth by attempting to discount, discredit, or divest the
    authority; often the attempt is to replace a truth with an alternate
    truth.

    In all too many cases, the serpent wins over and over again.  And we,
    like Eve, seeing "that the tree was good for food, and that it was
    pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise," take
    the fruit and eat it, and give it "also unto her husband with her; and
    he did eat."  Not only do we accept the "new truth" because it sounds
    so much more pleasing that the truth, and we want the "new truth" to be
    so, or believe to to be so, but we seek others to add to those who also
    believe it to be so.  

    You can ask a lot of questions of God.  Be aware that not all questions
    are the same, even if the same question may be asked by different
    people.  Both Abel and Cain brought sacrifices to God but one was
    accepted and the other rejected because of the attitude in their
    hearts.
    
    Questions about the Bible may come naturally.  Questioning the Bible's
    authority is in the serpent's domain.  Examine the questions you ask,
    and the motivation behind asking it even before searching for an
    answer.  That is, if you ever intended to search for the truth, or
    sought to redefine it.

    Mark

Note 31.17  YIELD::GRIFFIS

>       Ken Hagin says that the "if" word is the red badge of doubt.
>       I particularly avoid using with reference to religious matters,
>       because Jesus said 'let your yes be yes and your no be no'.

You have not attempted to comprehend the tenor of these notes.
And your replies here are little more than jibberish.  If there
is something you want to contend then do so.

>>  done.  An unbalanced person has his conscience desensitized
>>  (seared).  And we have desensitizing influences all around us.
>               I don't!

Interesting comment.  I don't doubt that your conscience is not seared.



Note 31.18 YIELD::GRIFFIS

>       Yet, intimate knowledge of the heart and motive of the devil
>       is not necessarily a good thing.

Are you saying we should not study what the Bible says about the Devil and
his ways of luring us into sin?


>>    In all too many cases, the serpent wins over and over again.  And we,
>
>       The devil only thinks that he wins.  In God's Divine plan, he
>       does not.

There are too many souls in hell to claim that Satan only thinks he wins
in all too many cases.  Don't confuse battles with the war.


>>    he did eat."  Not only do we accept the "new truth" because it sounds
>>    so much more pleasing that the truth, and we want the "new truth" to be
>>    so, or believe to to be so, but we seek others to add to those who also
>>    believe it to be so.
>
>               I do not accept false 'truths', false beliefs, or anything
>       which contradicts the Word of Truth.

This is a declaration of faith, only, Greg.  The proof is in the pudding,
as they say.  I hope you are correct.  Let us bear fruit in keeping with
righteousness.

Mark

On request, replies deviating from the subject of this string have been 
moved.  Destination to be determined, willl appear in the note title.

							  Andrew
							co-moderator