Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Moral depth is a term that describes a person’s level of commitment to principle.

I ran across an interesting use of this phrase in former *LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman’s book about the O.J. Simpson murders, Murder in Brentwood.

Fuhrman uses the phrase in respect to persons that were involved on both sides of the Simpson case, where for various reasons their moral depth was lacking and their judgment and actions became clouded. Particularly with one of the prosecuting attorneys, whose objectivity was compromised because as a black man he believed he had obligations to his race - as well as to his job as a prosecutor in a murder case. Because of the lack of moral depth this prosecutor was incapable of pursuing an unbiased and genuine effort to convict – as the defendant O.J. Simpson is black.

The O.J. case is a lesson in how people can be wrongly influenced by a lack of moral depth. Because O.J. was a high profile well liked ex-football hero, and because of the quest for personal fame, wealth, race issues, or the covering over of mistakes made in the case - both the defense and prosecution teams and even the jury turned their senses of judgment off. In reading over the evidence it's a wonderment how O.J. Simpson escaped the criminal conviction. While its plain to see that mistakes were made in evidence gathering and case presentation, even so the obvious evidence connecting Simpson to the murders make it difficult to see how Simpson got **off.

In the O.J. case, moral depth was lost to all but a few.

Moral depth for Christians
The issue of moral depth is a very important concern for Christians because it exemplifies not only what a person’s value system is, but how seriously they apply the value system against real world issues of conduct and faith. This is especially important and applicable for Christians who have left traditional religious systems for the spiritual wilderness, where they have no one to report to but themselves.

Persons that have departed from being under the thumb of organizational mandates and directives face a challenge: that of having to be true to Truth, when “Truth” has become less clearly defined, and vulnerable to interpretation based on personal likes and dislikes rather than implied principle in Scripture. If persons have dropped their guard and are over using their freedom in Christ, while under using their responsibility to such freedom, consideration should be given as to why. Is the reason really about a lack of “implied principle” found in Scripture? Or is it more about being influenced by personal preference and opinion – and does that reflect a lack of moral depth?

The Scriptures tell us not to use our freedom as an excuse for loose conduct, and a fair question for everyone to ask themselves is whether or not Christian freedom has been used as an open ticket to do or believe whatever one wants – and believe that God approves of that. The issue of moral depth comes into play here since we are all in this walk of faith thing together, and we all must be honest and candid and work as a team if we are going to be successful beating Satan's "air" of influence.

The Goal?
What exactly is the goal of using words and speech in Christian discussion forums? Is it the winning of the debate? The maintaining of one’s position no matter what? The fruitage of the spirit are amongst many things “reasonable”. The Scriptures just do not spell everything out, so the word reasonable becomes a key component for persons seeking the goal – which is to worship the Father in spirit and truth. There is no other goal. The harder we individually work to learn and apply – even submit ourselves – to God’s revealed word the better chance of our being pleasing to God. There is the trap of wanting to justify a position no matter what, or even to not have a position in order to avoid the chance of having to admit there are guidelines that must be met. Under the Law covenant lists of do's and don’ts, persons could meet the requirements of the list and consider they had met the full requirements of the Law. Violations of the Law were plainly written, but this left room for persons to claim that if something was not written as being unlawful than it must be fine to do, or to do a requirement of the Law but only to the level stated in the expectation and not from the heart.

Paul the apostle brings this up when he says that all things are lawful but not all things are beneficial. In a sense, technically, all things are lawful since the written Law with the written prohibitions were taken out of service. The New Covenant technically has only one law, the New Commandment, a sort of law of love. So what sort of guideline can that be? The law of love is a guideline that lets persons be all they want to be in the service of the True God - or not. If persons want to flaunt any notion of “law” because there is no list of do's and don’ts, they will do that. If persons want to over legalize and re-invent the law, they will do that. If persons want to justify whatever sort of belief or conduct that fits their ideas or preferences, they will. If persons want to approach true worship with the desire of learning the mind of God, they will do that.

In the end, there is judgment involved when the master returns. We should strive to get a “job well done” commendation by using our given “talents” to advance the Master’s interests. What are the Master’s interests, and what level of talents have we each been allocated? This is for us to figure out as individuals, and we need to be faithful and discreet about that. If we think we are going to pull the wool over the Master’s eyes we are only fooling ourselves - all the rhetoric in the world will not fool the one who sees into the heart. We should consider what is written in the Book of Life that is opened at the end of this age. I wonder if what we are writing on these dbs will be part of our own judgments? Much like any other court case where testimony is presented and recorded, the Book of Life may be a record not only of what persons did during their lives, but what their attitude was toward the Mission. Did they want to wrap every topic around the axle in order to always question everything? Or were they willing to get to the truth of the matter? Were they always promoting personal opinion and worldly studies and trends, or were they desirous of getting God’s mind on matters of faith?

How deep was their moral depth?

We must not be spiritual loose cannons, there is just too much at stake: everlasting life –somewhere - as well as the influence now that our words and reasoning’s have on others. One scripture that always intrigues me is in Revelation where the ones executed with the axe for the witness they gave to Jesus are resurrected. Right away these ones are given “powers of judging”. Ask: What kind of persons would God and Jesus entrust with such power? Power to judge the nations, to shepherd them with an iron rod? To judge angels? What would be the basis for so doing?

I think the men and woman that are raised to life at that time are persons with moral depth - persons that really truly wanted to know the mind of God, even to the point they were willing to throw out their own ideas or likes and dislikes whenever the preponderance of evidence warranted it. Our level of moral depth has to be such that we are willing to exercise sound consideration in regards to the belief sets of persons of our own race, religion, family, our own friends on these dbs – even ourselves. We have to be willing to stand up for Truth even when that means parting with our own closely held paradigms and beliefs.

Do we think we have this level of moral depth? If not we should be working to achieve it.


v r


* LAPD – Los Angeles Police Department, USA
** Simpson was later convicted in the civil case, with the Plaintiffs awarded $11 million.

Note: This piece is not intended to be an assault on any persons or belief sets – it is only meant to probe the topic of “moral depth” in how we all approach worshipping the True God.

Hi veritas re,
I support the thoughts in your article :thumbup:,
It's quite rare to read such posts.

With brotherly love
Jan

Yes, very good... thanks.

Of course, Mark Fuhrman shouldn't be writing such a book since his lack of moral depth and proven lying on the stand under oath resulted in OJ Simpson's being acquitted. But his point is well taken.

In my view, this is why most people need to hang onto the JW organization; because they lack the personal moral depth to maintain integrity in their relationship with God and Jesus on their own, and they need the crutch of an association of brothers. Of course, an association of brothers isn't bad, it's just that I wouldn't know where to tell them to turn should they leave the organization, since they need that crutch to morally survive.

As for those who must win debates: we all used to be like that when we were associated with (at least those of us who were) Jehovah's Witnesses. For, since we had "the truth," we had to stand up for it and beat it into everyone's heads. Because, not doing so would cause us to fail as "witnesses," and agreeing that we were wrong would have been denying "God's Organization," making us "apostates.":bangin:

And when I see someone on this site who endlessly wants to argue their point (as in the trinity, or Jesus is Jehovah, or the teachings of Pastor Russell), I can safely assume that they are members of some cult who, like we used to be, are here faithfully "witnessing" to us about the doctrines of their church, with little regard for scripture. Nope, I'm not saying that their arguments are necessarily wrong, just their methods.

Having the moral fortitude to be open minded and to allow others to be wrong when they choose to be, is in fact something that qualifies us to be found worthy judges, as you said, Veritas. But mindless and endless arguing of taught doctrinal points becomes very tiresome for me.:readthis:

well I do agree with you here VR, and a very thought provoking topic.


The issue I see here is on the lines of what DP said the litmus test.

I do not fully agree with him thou that it is based on Fruitage.


I personally am tired of going round for round with people about how to follow the bible standards.

And our moral compass and our fruitage is very subjective. To say the least
So many things influence our daily lives and out thinking patterns that even
our fruitage is based on our own perspective. That is unless of course you use a set of principles as a guideline.

Everyone reverts back to LOVE. but what if most of us really don't even know what LOVE really is or how to feel it.?
If we don't Feel Love it is very hard to give something you don't posses.
And to me Moral depth comes from the ability to understand what LOVE really is.

I find thru these pages on the internet that although many have some form of Love most do not or cannot due to some limitations apply it.

I personally feel that most if not all people need to go back and start at the basics and learn to be happy with them first before moving on to the deep things of GOD that cause many arguments.

1pet3:88Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

Matthew 24:12
"Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.

Most of us humans are damaged goods at this point.

yea and I am sure someone can find out where I have not shown love on these boards.

Maybe I will start a thread on is it possible to be moral in all circumstances based on what we live in today. Was Jesus morality considered moral by everyone or just GOD?

and if we are immoral is that it? is that the end ? or do we admit it and try harder? or do we make excuses for our immoral behaviors?
or do we take a concensus among our peers to see if evryone elses morals are around the same as our own?

I believe that many think GOD grades on what I have come to know as a bell curve. Are the standards of our day the new standards GOD requires of us?

not looking for an argument just things I think about.

again little bro I think you may have it bass akwards.

Matthew 12:34
" You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

Therefore they never had any truth. and Jesus proved it to them.

33"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for (A)the tree is known by its fruit.
34"(B)You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? ©For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

35"(D)The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.


The Samaritian new truth that is why he came to the aid of the one that was ailing. Truth was in his heart as light.

Only those that know truth can speak truth. not the other way around. Light begets light. and darkness begets darkness

A roten tree cannot produce good fruit can it?
"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all"

34Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness. 35See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. 36Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be completely lighted, as when the light of a lamp shines on you."

Please check for yourself.

sometimes little brother the ones that look all shiny and bright are mascarading around as angels. Smooth words and a smooth tongue.
Have you not learned this before?

Perhaps BIG bro, perhaps -- me thinks we are speaking about the same thing, though perhaps I did not make myself clear.

Please allow me to explain! :thumbsup:

When I said that the Pharisee and the Levite had "the Truth", I meant that they were part of the system of worship that God had in place, before the arrival of Jesus - which meant that, if you were to take the religious route of saying that Truth was a doctrinal matter -- then yes, the Pharisee and the Levite most definitely had the Truth.

The samaritan on the other hand, was part of a system of worship that was not "acceptable", more so in the eyes of those who belonged to that which God put in place, so if you were to take the religious route of saying that Truth was a doctrinal matter, then yes, the samaritan did not have the Truth.

Of course, matters of interpretation matter very little if what we know cannot be translated into real world effects e.g brotherly Love - hence the fruitage of one's knowledge give the observer a chance to see whether what they have in their heart is of darkness or of Light.

Jesus words in the scripture you quoted further prove that 1) they didnt know the Truth, as it wasnt in their hearts, and 2) that appearances are deceptive e.g just because it quacks like a duck, doesnt mean its a duck.

The scripture you quote is precisely the point I am attempting to make. Our fruitage e.g not doctrinal interpretation but our actions - are what determine whether what we know is good or not. As I see it, what we know doesnt really matter. Its what we do, that counts. As the parable of the good samaritan shows, the Pharisee and the Levite knew the Truth (they had the "correct" interpretation), but what they did showed that it was not in their hearts.

The samaritan could be anyone BIG bro -- even people we think arent Christians.

Depends bro -- Satan can speak truth, and he also knows Truth - yet its not in him and nor does resonate with Truth.

Likewise, I can study the Bible and have the correct interpretation but I still have to do something. The good samaritan shows me two things > 1) that Truth exists in us all, but we need to chose its reality and 2) that there are people who we think are not worthy of our association, who do in fact fulfill what it means to live the Truth.

1 John 1:5, one of my favourite scriptures.

Thats true BIG bro.

There are those who sin and who do not say anything about it, while mascarading as angels. Forums and Churchs are full of them.

Then there are those who admit what they do and continue to engage, knowing full well that it may not be received in a great light.

How is one supposed to differentiate? Because one says they do one thing that we feel promotes sin, while the person who promotes sin in secret, while putting on his/ her "Praise the Lord" face for everyone to accept, somehow slips under the radar?


Sometimes BIG bro -- the ones that look all shiny and smooth and mascarade as angels are just that.


Each to their own, though. :hug:

Beau, I agree with your first two.

1There are those who sin and who do not say anything about it, while mascarading as angels. Forums and Churchs are full of them.

2Then there are those who admit what they do and continue to engage, knowing full well that it may not be received in a great light.

How is one supposed to differentiate? Because one says they do one thing that we feel promotes sin, while the person who promotes sin in secret, while putting on his/ her "Praise the Lord" face for everyone to accept, somehow slips under the radar?

Differentiate? precisly the point of my disagrement. We differeniate
based on standards. I guess the problem is who's standards we pick to go by. I personaly don't care about the "sin" issue as no man alive secretly or not is immune to it. so what do you do when you have multiple people that all admit they are sinners and yet still hold different standards of morality?

a) remove yourself
B) argue
c) quietly/rationaly try to make a point
d) stand for what GOD says in the bible as the gauge
e) all of the above

At what point is speaking futile? and if it is futile and no middle ground of morality can be met then what?
WE have in one corner people who do not know or care to know GOD's standards
we have in another corner those that seek to know his mind on things.
when we take on the role of Follower of christ as a choice who is more accountable for what their actions are?

I say the pharasee's and saducee's. because they claim to know the law. So who are they? I say they be anyone who teaches. that means anyone who gives their opionion on spiritual matters just as we are doing.
But does it make all who claim to follow or know the law and yet sin without law?
Are some just mistaken in the way they apply the law.?
I would Say PAUL the manslayer is a perfect example of this.
so not all who are without rules and without law are better off then those with them who struggle to do right but yet cannot achieve it.
And PAul himself said it was our right to judge those "within" and in fact that their is no one better to do so. how can those outside judge what they do not know.

BTW their is a third way from the two you said above.

you said
"Sometimes BIG bro -- the ones that look all shiny and smooth and mascarade as angels are just that."

I would tend to disagree, God specifically in the bible points out to be wary of those that blow trumpets before themselves. Just as Jesus was un noticed and even despised. I use the bible as my gauge and try to check to make sure that it is not my own thoughts interjected. which happens frequently.

AS you say here
"Each to their own, though. "

I say each to GOD's will would be better.

I believe that their are scriptures that indicate we are to submit to the "moral authority" so someone must have the right to be that even on earth today. I geuss what I am saying is that it is not just a matter of opionion.

Hi Jim,

From what I've read in books authored by those caught in controversy (prime ministers, ministers of states, American presidents, etc), their writing consists of part repentance / part justification. Books are used to argue what can't be argued in a public forum of political correctness.

Sometimes we glean a truth closer to absolute by reading them but depending on our own moral depth, we may not perceive truth with much objectivity.

Take Clinton's repentant words over Monica, that he used deception in order to protect her. While there may be merit to his justification considering the big guns that were out for his blood at the expense of hers, "moral depth" is still only as deep as most are willing to view it superficially, as anyone in the public arena knows.

sw

Yes, who in their right mind would want to be found "in the public arena," much less president of the USA? Gotta have some real megalomania problems.

I think the pronouncement against Egypt at Isaiah 19:11 is now proving true of world leaders: "Then fools will be appointed their rulers; and as councilors to the king there in Tanes, will be those who’ll tell him things that are stupid."

Hi veritas re,

Well thought out.

What I find frightening about “moral depth” is its inability to find anchorage between the objective and subjective truth. All of us are led to believe at one time or another what is “The Truth,” and that at any given time that truth seems absolute—without dispute—until we discover something new that contradicts what we formerly believed.

When young people fall in love and say their previous love wasn’t real but this one is, what happens when they fall in love again? When does real become absolute? Same with what we believe is truth. Our former belief must become flawed before the new one can become real.

I guess this is one of those ‘live and learn’ scenarios. So my question is this: when it comes to moral depth, does it not depend on how much we are willing to admit that absolute truth is always beyond our grasp? Or are we so unaware that our finite nature does not permit us a clear grasp while in our conflicted, sinful state—that we see so little beyond a three-dimensional world hopelessly lost to sinners in denial of sin?

So I’ve ceased faulting people for their beliefs and deeds—no matter how weird they sound. But that doesn’t mean I want their company either. Instead I will wait until they write something down—whether in poetry, prose or some other form of confession, for it always happens that if people are inspired to write, they write their best in some form of regret and the lessons they learned from their former crimes and flawed beliefs.

But if I get stuck on just looking for error I learn nothing and my moral depth remains at the shallow end of the pool.

Love,

sw

Hi sw - - Good points you make, and I share your concerns. The scale of “what is Truth?”– as you point out - runs from the purely *objective to the fuzzy math realms of the *subjective. Per the definitions of these two words it appears that the closer persons get to the subjective, the farther they get from what God’s definition of “Truth” is – which is the version of “Truth” that I believe everyone agrees is what we should be seeking.

Jesus exemplified his practice of using the Heavenly Father as the defacto guide for his value system. Jesus said that he did not do single thing of his own initiative, but did as he saw the Father doing. Surely Jesus was not a robot that was incapable of independent thoughts and actions, so what did he mean? I think that he meant that he accepted that the Father is the sole determinant of the abstract qualities of right and wrong, and he incorporated that value system as his own. Of course this came from knowing the Father intimately over time, which in my view is why Jesus points out in John 17:3 the importance of knowing the Father. When we know someone well enough, we are able to pretty much guess how they will think about some issue – there is some sort of sixth sense involved - at least as far as the core moral issues and belief structures go.

As free moral agents mankind has the capacity to do exactly what is in their hearts to do. The book of James talks about “subject ourselves to God, oppose the Devil” – speaking to “indecisive ones” - asking them to “draw close to God and he will draw close to you”. This points out the connection and value of “moral depth” - in how much persons really want to draw close to God - since the Scripture says that God draws close to us in direct proportion to how serious we are about drawing close to him.

It’s a no pain no gain deal – it is not easy to throw off the imperfect flesh. Gold is where you find it, and we are admonished to search for Truth as for hidden treasure.

The moral depth factor seems to be more about intent. In other words when persons intend to subject themselves to God, God sees that and in turn draws himself close to them, so they can perceive his personality. It’s my feeling that the perception of God’s qualities can be learned from Scripture, so it is a level playing field for everyone as far as that goes. But Jesus marveled that God was able to reveal things to babes and hide things from the self important – which means that understanding the mind of God is gauged not only by Scripture, but by intent: those that do not want to know do not draw close to God, and God does not reveal himself to them. So persons get what they want. Romans says that God is willing to give persons up for dead – when he sees that they truly did not want to find him.

Do such persons lack moral depth to learn the things of God?

What scares me is the level of self deception that persons are capable of – which goes past mere religious deception. While it’s probably true that our imperfect state impedes our finding of absolute truth, as much of the impediment can come from our own blindness. The Pharisees provide the perfect example of very intelligent persons that purely did not want to “see” the obvious. I find it incredible that they were witnesses to stunning miracles performed right before their eyes, and yet they sought to kill Jesus.

Other persons watching the very same miracles were beside themselves with shock and awe and instantly “glorified God” in acknowledging the source of Jesus’ power. So in my mind self delusion and “subjective truth” are closely related, since persons form their beliefs through their own frame of reference, not through the Father’s frame of reference. Is the core problem a lack of “moral depth”? It seems so, and this is why in my mind we need to work to get close to the Father in how we think. How we do this is as Jesus said - keep on seeking and keep on asking – with assurance that the door of understanding to absolute truth will be granted to us - to understand the mind of God. If we sense that we are hung up on our own subjective ideas, or if the input we get from others indicates that we lack objectivity in how we are processing Scriptural indicators, then maybe we should get a clue?

If the lack of moral depth is a factor that causes persons to rely on their own ideas of “what is Truth?” – and God sees that in them – then there is the need to evaluate where our heads and hearts are at. The Scriptures over and over use terms like humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and he will exalt us. Trust in YHWH with all your heart, and do not lean upon your own understanding, and he himself will make our paths straight. Surely the Father knows that we are imperfect, thus is forced by his own code of justice and rightness to give us everything we need to succeed in the quest for everlasting life. The apostle Paul points out that nothing external can get in between persons and the quest - - so the only blocks must be self induced.


v r


*subâ‹…jecâ‹…tive
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.


*obâ‹…jecâ‹…tive
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book*.

Hi veritas re,

And yes I know “fuzzy math,” since some of the finest mathematicians and physicists (Newton, Einstein and Hawking, to name a few) have pointed to their own dilemma of accepting the illogic of dogma in both religion and science. The spiritual realm is kind of a sixth sense. Deep down we all know it exists but something keeps us in ignorance. Maybe we’re afraid to do the math.

And this “knowing the Father” has now become a thorn in my side since two extremes are present in religion but not so obvious in spirit.

Christendom, in her process of making relationship with God a hierarchal thing (ie only available to seminary graduates) versus the WT overcompensation in translating the scripture as “taking in knowledge.” Both are in error. Jesus was neither hierarchal nor simply a lowly, obedient student. He was with his Father for who knows how long? He was instrumental in creating all. And yet so very humble to admit that he needed to learn more by experiencing an unjust human death.

I’m always amazed at how little we make of Jesus from a Unitarian perspective versus how much Trinitarians make of Jesus to the other extreme. It’s this overcompensation that offends real truth seekers since they have to keep giving up past beliefs and reconfigure new ones (knowing they are still in the realms of relative truth). Which is why I say that no matter how much the Father reveals Himself, we will never know the Father as the Son knows Him, although truth is not learned but revealed.

It is my opinion then that reading the Bible will get us no closer to absolute truth. Neither will praying or living a good moral life. Unless we do them all—read, pray, live—in what way will we learn anything when the Father reveals the truth to us?

The way I see it, morality is ALL about intent. Some of us learn from an early age to manipulate sympathy from telling partial truth. Others (like me) tended to be naïve enough to tell all (and I used to pay dearly for that). I also believed everything others said because my own intentions were good but I failed to see that any deception could be so deliberate.

As I got older I feared naivety. It embarrassed me for others to know I was so stupid. And so I acted out a façade that in itself was deceptive, but I hated it because it inhibited me from laying bare my true self—especially when it came to my new discovery of God. So I guess time has given me lessons in the sense that I am thankful for being stupid because if my intentions were good, then I would learn more through being formerly stupid and admitting it than trying to be someone who had recognition and position.

Which is why I think our Father knows better than we how truly lost we are—and why Jesus got so emotional over the insensibility of the hearts of some and wept over the pitiful state of others so deceived by them.

It is my belief that learning never ceases—that even our Father learns and has learned simply through interaction with all intelligent creation. How long does iron sharpen iron? Why does learning have to end just because one is all-knowing? Creativity was built within all as an attribute of God and free-will, which is why I believe God’s wisdom is infinitely advancing eons ahead of us all—even as Paul had to say in wonder, “Oh, the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge!” and “Who has come to know His mind?”

So in my former post I said, “if I get stuck just looking for error I learn nothing,” I think it applies to every intelligent being. As for moral depth, it ceases to exist in that environment. I believe that Satan made that environment and deceived himself with position apart from his Father and so looks only for error with the intent to justify his own. And he still sells his own brand of reality on the open market given him—the whole world—so that the truth remains veiled by another level of spirit realm clouding our vision and which empowers self-justification if we let it.

Affection in Christ,

sw