ICAN wins Nobel Peace Prize.

[2ndRateMind]

So, I am truly undecided on this one.

ICAN is the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

Seems to me, even if your own cities had been nuked, and your own people massacred, it would still not be a moral action to order a reciprocal nuclear strike. Revenge is no excuse to obliterate innocent millions.

If that's not moral, then clearly a preemptive first strike could not be moral either.

But the whole idea of deterrence is that your enemy should not know, and could not judge, whether you would act morally or immorally in response to their aggression.

How do we get from a MAD (mutually assured destruction) world, to a SHE (sane, humane and ecological) world?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Judging anything as "good or bad" is the poisoned knowledge told in the Bible, and the other lie told was that we people are like God which we are not, and so if we want to start judging correctly then we must stick to "right and wrong" and shun that poisoned knowledge.

Do you think that what is right is not also what is good? Or what is good is not also what is right? Seems to me they are two sides of the same beautiful coin.

Best wishes, 2RM

[JP Cusick]

Do you think that what is right is not also what is good? Or what is good is not also what is right? Seems to me they are two sides of the same beautiful coin.

Any person can take any "right or wrong" and view it as "good or as bad", which is one big reason why so many people unwittingly go astray.

As like people who view crack-cocaine or getting drunk as a "good thing".

I love to find opposites - because opposites give a huge amount of insight.

Must people have finally found out that "love and hate" are not opposites, as they are both connected on the same side.

The opposite of hate is encouragement.
The opposite of love is lust.

The opposite of good is not evil - the opposite of good is bad, which thereby shows that Genesis interprets the word incorrectly as evil.

The opposite of evil is righteousness.

The concepts of "right and wrong" are the two opposite sides of their own coin.

The poisoned knowledge has people viewing "good" and "right" as the same but they are not.

Judging anything as "good or as bad" is judging the quality based on our own perception, and people just do not have the ability to do that correctly.

To judge right from wrong is judging the actions, which is why God gave commandments of right and wrong, and Jesus gave principles to gauge right from wrong, and people have a conscience for right and wrong, but "good and bad" are capricious and arbitrary and untrustworthy.

This is not a complicated reality, and every person can test it and can see it their self just by stopping the poisoned judging, and every time it gets clearer and clearer.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

First, a country should know the risks of violating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons! Upsetting the World in the process!

What risks are those?

Even then, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is enforced by UN (Security Council).

Really, how has it done that?

If a nuclear ban ever comes into existence then we are already in Utopia? Why not, rather, include all nuclear powers into a New START Treaty?

Because treaties only work when there is a credible threat involved. What credible threat does strategic patience present to DRNK or Iran? If everyone agrees to not use nukes, what is the consequence for breaking that treaty?

[2ndRateMind]

So, Jesus is claiming that God is perfect, and admitting He wasn't. And challenging the young, rich ruler to belief in a goodness that wasn't necessarily materially advantageous for him, but nevertheless good for wider humanity. I don't see how this contradicts the notion that the concept of good has a meaning common between God and His children.

I can see that you are trying hard to change and twist the words into what is not being said, and I must wonder why people resist the truth with so much determination?

Judging anything as "good or bad" is the poisoned knowledge told in the Bible, and the other lie told was that we people are like God which we are not, and so if we want to start judging correctly then we must stick to "right and wrong" and shun that poisoned knowledge.

This is really a simple message, supported by scripture, and you need to stop trying to make it complicated or confusing.

Hmmm. Not entirely sure what is complicated or confusing about insisting that good means approximately the same thing for both God and humanity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

Hmmm. Not entirely sure what is complicated or confusing about insisting that good means approximately the same thing for both God and humanity.

As like abortion, in that many people including the US Supreme Court sees abortions to be good and as not bad, but God simply declares = Thou shalt not murder.

See = declaring "right from wrong" has NOTHING to do with any judgment of good or as bad.

The idea of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is totally based on the poisoned knowledge of good and bad, because people see that MAD as "bad" and to be "good" is to not do that.

So judging MAD by "right and wrong" would be a totally different equation, because MAD is only talking about the aftereffects.

If people were functioning by "right from wrong" then MAD would not exist, there would not be any such equation as MAD.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), link HERE, and it never talks about "right or wrong", and it does use the word "moral and morality" but it is only based on judging by the same old poisoned knowledge of good and bad.

So no - when humans claim "good or bad" it does not mean approximately the same thing as God declaring right from wrong.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 15 by JP Cusick]

OK, so this thread has taken a direction more suited to the philosophy section. No matter.

Seems to me, that what is kind, what is noble, what is true, what is brave, what is pure, and what is just, are all subsets of what is good. And so is what is right. The reason we think the right desirable is because it is good. We can argue God is righteous because we believe Him to be ultimately good; we cannot argue that righteousness is desirable for any other reason than it is good. If it was not good, righteousness would be the enemy of virtue, instead of its companion.

And if God is not good, just righteous, and righteousness is not a matter of goodness, then we have sufficient reason to defy Him, at every opportunity, however futile that defiance might be, in obedience to a moral imperative to pursue the good that would precede God in its claims on our allegiance.

But I do not think that is a problem for us, because, first and foremost, God is good, and good is God's shadow on the world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JP Cusick]

OK, so this thread has taken a direction more suited to the philosophy section. No matter.

What do you expect?

Were we to give up our faith or put aside our faith and just talk about this in secular terms?

Did you want to discuss the morality without God or the Bible?

My philosophy goes into every discussion.

Seems to me, that what is kind, what is noble, what is true, what is brave, what is pure, and what is just, are all subsets of what is good. And so is what is right. The reason we think the right desirable is because it is good. We can argue God is righteous because we believe Him to be ultimately good; we cannot argue that righteousness is desirable for any other reason than it is good. If it was not good, righteousness would be the enemy of virtue, instead of its companion.

And if God is not good, just righteous, and righteousness is not a matter of goodness, then we have sufficient reason to defy Him, at every opportunity, however futile that defiance might be, in obedience to a moral imperative to pursue the good that would precede God in its claims on our allegiance.

But I do not think that is a problem for us, because, first and foremost, God is good, and good is God's shadow on the world.

This is an exact demonstration of people confusing right from wrong by injecting their own ideas of "good and bad" and it really is the justification for sins throughout humanity.

And in many ways I agree with you = that the poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" has been the biggest reason for people to defy God.

God is good - and people can not correctly comprehend any of it - but righteousness and doing right and rejecting wrong = that is so easy to comprehend.

[Bust Nak]

Do you think that what is right is not also what is good? Or what is good is not also what is right? Seems to me they are two sides of the same beautiful coin.

It's just his unique way with words. From my conversations with him, by "good" he means "moral according to the subjective standards of man," by "right" he means "moral according to the universal standard of God."

Were we to give up our faith or put aside our faith and just talk about this in secular terms?

This is not about setting your faith aside, it is about communicating your point across to other people. You can discuss the morality with God and the Bible just fine without adding your own meaning to words. There are commonly used terms that convey the message you want to convey, yet you choose to use a confusing non standard vocabulary that only confuses your message. Why not stick to the common meaning of these words?

This is an exact demonstration of people confusing right from wrong by injecting their own ideas of "good and bad" and it really is the justification for sins throughout humanity.

No, this is a demonstration of people being confused by you injecting your own ideas of "good and bad" and this has nothing to do with sins. You use English in a weird way and that alone is the cause of this confusion. Everything you said about "good and bad" can be rephrased slightly and no one would be confused about what you are trying to say.

[JP Cusick]

It's just his unique way with words. From my conversations with him, by "good" he means "moral according to the subjective standards of man," by "right" he means "moral according to the universal standard of God."

That is correct, and it is exactly the point.

My cheers and applause to that.

The "good and bad" are subjective to man - while the "right and wrong" are subjective to God.

The former is inaccurate and harmful, and the latter is reliable and beneficial.

This is not about setting your faith aside, it is about communicating your point across to other people. You can discuss the morality with God and the Bible just fine without adding your own meaning to words. There are commonly used terms that convey the message you want to convey, yet you choose to use a confusing non standard vocabulary that only confuses your message. Why not stick to the common meaning of these words?

The reason I nit-pick on words is based on my intention to be as honest and true as possible which includes that my words need to be accurate - and not just the common vulgar meaning of words.

I say what I mean, and mean what I say.

It really is an enlightenment to comprehend the huge significance of our language and our vocabulary because our words have huge power and abilities, and in many cases the words can be more powerful than the actions.

This is why Jesus is called "the word" of God, because the words are vitally significant and controlling.

Our ability to communicate in detail is what makes humanity above the animals, and without that humanity would be nothing but brute beast.

[Bust Nak]

The reason I nit-pick on words is based on my intention to be as honest and true as possible which includes that my words need to be accurate...

This is why Jesus is called "the word" of God, because the words are vitally significant and controlling.

You say that, but the Bible mixes the word "good" and "right" up all the time. The two words are interchangeable not just in common vulgar meaning, but also in scripture. Here are some examples:

"Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause."

The "good" here obviously referred moral according to God, otherwise God would not ask us to learn it.

"And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord."

This verse is even more specific, there is no doubt the "good" here is according to God.