pwii wrote:A) Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.
Wow, I hope you realize how sick that sounds. In case you don't know, incredibly sick. And the fact you appear to believe you aren't saying anything wrong is even worse.Because everyone receives a moral compass by the Holy Spirit, and can commonly agree on certain things.
Actually, I received a moral compass because my parent's taught me right and wrong, my culture had a good role in it, and I came to my moral conclusions through my own final decisions. Fairydust had nothing to do with it. Agreement on things doesn't require a holy spirit.
Example: Do not commit murder. Its not a religious law, it is a law that makes sense. You don't want to be murdered, nor do you want the people you love to be murdered. therefore, you want murder illegal. For the few people that think murder is okay, you want to make sure they get in trouble and don't move on to hurt people you love.
So lets take your idea of this 'natural moral compass' bestowed upon everybody. If everyone was born with a similar moral compass, those born into privilege like monarchs also should have this moral compass, like everyone else. I'm talking purely about monarchs, people who were born into privilege, so it wasn't a political/social/economic choice. This is also not a democratic monarchy, like England has now. This is the old fashioned, "The Kings Word is Law" monarchy, with a very rigid social structure.
Lets make up a fake percentage. Psychopath's, AKA people who have no problem hurting other people, are among the minority in a society.
I'll say 5% of the human population end up being psychopaths.
If everyone is born with this similar compass, that means that in this society, be it working class, middle, upper or monarch, no class should have a higher percentage then any other group, because this morality is spread upon everyone equally. That means Monarch leaders should also only have around 5% of their leaders lacking this moral compass. But that is not the case, there have been a huge percentage of monarch leaders that have done psychopathic and horrible things to their people. How can this be possible of a holy spirit already gave them their morals, morals just like everyone else's? Just take a study of English monarch's, as fascinating as they are, they're completely insane. I'm pretty sure you can find similarities between most monarchs.
It comes down to how their parent's raised them, their society's culture, and their own decisions. If your parent's say you can do whatever you want because you're a prince, and your culture dictates that you're officially more important then everyone else, then whats stopping you from acting like a psycho? Nothing, and certainly not a divine moral compass. Ironically, this runs with your idea that 70% of Israeli leaders were bad. How can 70% of Israeli kings be so bad if all people have an equal compass they're born with?
Your idea of so called 'Higher and lower ethics' still just makes God sound like a huge hypocritical jerk, still believing we deserve everything we get. Also, if we have freewill, God cant abolish wrong anyway, because hey, that's the point of freewill.
Freewill is freewill, and Gods control is Gods control. Either we have freewill or we don't. There is no middle ground, because how exactly can you be free to choose your own will, if a god can just pull some strings and get you to dance when he wants?
If Jesus/God lets some crap happen, and makes sure other crap doesn't, that means we don't have freewill according to you, because they're using the puppet strings to keep these harmful people at bay. Then again, we DO have freewill according to you... do you see the confusing contradicting circle you're running around in?
Also, a lot of bad things that happen to people are things that should never happen to a person, that is not presumptuous. If my best friend got into a car accident with a drunk driver, and she ended up in the E.R., she certainly did not deserve it, and it should not have happened to her. Does it mean it wouldn't happen? No, but it should not have happened. Would and Should have totally different meanings, look them up.
Chances are that Drug dealer you were talking about was just pissed at you for not paying him enough, or ended up having a bad day because other people who also have free will started shit with him, or he was born with an anger problem, ect. ect. That's freewill, it affects all of us equally. Also if he doesn't force said drug dealer to beat someone up, how exactly did he change circumstances? Did he force someone else to beat up the drug dealer, thus the drug dealer beats you up? Or did a box magically move in front of the drug dealer while he was walking, thus making him trip and upsetting him to the point he chooses to beat you up? Sounds like a cop out. He probably beat you up because you weren't doing something he wanted you to do, or hes a sadist.
Please use some logic with your arguments. Nothing you say makes sense, ever. And you don't seem to have anything reasonable to back anything up. If you have to keep re-explaining yourself over and over again, contradicting your own statements, to people and they still have no clue what you're actually talking about, time to re-evaluate yourself.