|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: objective/subjective morals/conscience? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days)  Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
In the now closed Anything Divine in the Bible? Me and Jaywill were having a discussion regarding conscience. I previously had a discussion in the same thread with Bertot about morals. I would like to answer Jaywill here, as I didn't have the time to do so before the thread got closed.
After that, I suggest we continue the discussion in the direction of the objective or subjective morals of men, and their consciences. Anyway, my answers to Jaywill:
Jaywill writes:
No worries, there's no time limit.
I can't respond to all your remarks today. Do you have a set of keys on you? How many keys do you have on your key chain?
That's not what I was getting at, I am fully aware that some people steal. My argument however is that this is not because they are not listening to their conscience, but it is because every man has a different conscience. We don't think the same things are right and wrong, and this is not because we "do not listen" it's because we hold different values. The "what do you mean?" answer I gave, was part of a bigger whole, trying to show you that I do not actively suppress my conscience. I might do it subconsciously, but then how are we to know what the right conscience is?
Why don't you just leave everything unlocked ? Are you afraid that somebody may steal something. Go into the world then with your key chain preaching that not everyone will listen to their conscience not to steal. Don't blame me. I just mean to state that we all have a conscience.
Well, yes. However, it is different for everyone.
You will find some hardened serial killers with no remorse, that though I am convinced that they have a conscience, they have totally ignored it to the extreme.
Or their conscience doesn't view their actions as bad.
Arguing about "the same conscience" is getting fuzzy to me.
It was you who claimed all men had the same conscience, not me. I hold that everyone has a different one.
It was a side point. I agree that this is my interpretation.
Ok.
I think that the killing of the cattle to cloth Adam and his wife was the model upon which Abel knew that the offering of blood of an animal was required.
How was he to know? Again, it says no such thing.
His parents told him.
Again, nowhere to be found.
And I think by revelation he and they knew that God required to be approached by the blood of a sin offering.
Speculation.
You are right that it does not explicitly state that.
Yes. So why do you insist it says this? If there is absolutely nothing that can lead you to think this, why do you hold it as true? I have a theory about this myself, I'll unfold it later.
We know that Abel's offering was accepted. We know that Cain's was not. When we read on into Exodus, Leviticus, etc. some expositors believe that they can ascertain why.
Were they there? No. Then how did they know?
There was no blood in Cain's offering.
Nowhere in Genesis 4 does it say it should have.
I think another reason is less likely though I have heard some other's proposed. I mean "Without ther shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" was strongly proclaimed by God in latter records.
Yes, and Cain shed the blood of his brother, now let's forgive him.
So is it unreasonable to interpret that that is why Abel's offering was accepted and Cain's was not?
Since absolutely nothing points to that being the case, yes.
That has no real bearing on what was stated - ["God recognized Abel's offering and rejected Cain's ..."]
All I was answering to was the statement of god part. I agree he whimsically chose one over the other. I don't agree it is stated anywhere why he did it.
That is simply a reference to Genesis 4:4,5. You have a point about what was and was not said about why He chose one but not the other. You have no point that there was not a discrimination. Again. This is a side point which may be arguable.
So are a lot of other things. I think it's time for my theory now. God's an asshole. He just wanted to play a game with Cain and Abel, and totally misjudged the outcome. Now, when he realized this, instead of being a nice god and explaining to Cain what he did and why he shouldn't do that, maybe give him a small punishment and bringing Abel back to life, he decides to shun all responsibility and lay the blame solely on Cain. But again, that's just a theory of my own. However, it is just as plausible than yours.
However, you have so far said nothing which refutes that Cain did not regard the conviction of his conscience.
Cain didn't even realize he had done anything wrong, there was no murder before this, how was he to know what he'd done? And so, his "conscience" couldn't have made him feel one way or the other.
I think that is the main thing you are trying to refute. Right?
Yes, and I think I just did. 
I am not sure who wrote this sentence, me or you.
You wrote:"He has just murdered his brother Abel. He is totally callous about it." To which I responded:"Indicating he felt no such thing as a conscience." But I do not mean that he had no conscience.
You certainly implied it with that sentence.
I mean that he would not listen to his conscience.
Then why is it not stated like that in the bible? It just says he has no idea what he has done. Not that He had no idea but something inside him made him feel like it was wrong. It could've made it all alot clearer if it had said that, it didn't however. So it's anyone's guess whether or not he actually did feel his conscience or not.
Did Cain argue that he had not done anything wrong? No he did not.
Because he didn't know he had. hard to argue if you have no idea what's going on.
Then we can assume that he knew that God was right that it was wrong to murder his brother.
Or we can assume that he genuinely had no idea what was going on. Since there is nothing in the text to indicate he knew he had done wrong, I think this is the better explanation.
His concern was not remorse but only regret that he was going to be punished.
I'd feel the same way. Something happens that I have no idea about what that was, and I get punished because somehow I should've known it was wrong to do it. Instead of the instigator of it all taking his responsibility, he shuns it and blames Cain.
What do you think about the murderer in court who when sentenced shows no sign of remorse at his act?
I think that points to the thing I've been arguing for all along. That there is no "universal conscience".
I would think that he either is putting on a show that he doesn't care what he did or he really doesn't care.
I'd go with the latter in at least some cases, strengthening my point.
Many times the judge will adjust the sentence based on whether the convicted person shows CONSCIENCE and remorse at his crime.
Yes. And still some don't show it. Again, perfectly logical if you realize all men have different moral values, and so, no "universal conscience" can exist.
Why you think it should be different for Cain is a mystery to me.
It isn't. Cain simply didn't think he acted badly. He had no conscience to tell him otherwise.
The Apostle John says concerning Cain " ... we should love one another, not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous."
John knew Cain? No. Then how does he know this to be the case?
I would say that the sight of his brother became hateful reminder to him that his own works were evil while his kid brother's were righteous.
No. He murdered his brother because someone was playing games with them and that person didn't think it would end badly. There is absolutely nothing on the text that suggests it is as you say.
Would you say that one who murders his brother lovelessly is not surpressing his conscience?
No. I am saying every man has a different conscience, based on his own personal experiences, and his personality. He doesn't suppress anything, the conscience simply isn't the same for all men.
Whose making up stuff on the fly here?
I'd say we both are. So we have to look at what the text actually says, which is far from what you are claiming. Ok, not everything I say is mentioned there either. I am willing to scrap a few things, but let's study the text in earnest, shall we?
Cain knew his works were evil according to the Apostle John.
And John wasn't there nor did he know Cain. So his oppinion is baseless.
There was a conscience in him.
Nowhere in the text does it say this.
This may be a matter of symantics. Or it may be a problem that you're just being disagreeable on general principle.
I don't like the fact you say men suppress their conscience. I say they don't, it simply isn't a universal conscience of right and wrong, it is subjective.
You don't like the phrase "suppress his conscience?" Ignore? Not take heed? Shut up? Shut out? Cover up with reasonings?
None. It is different for each person.
I think suppress is appropriate because Paul speaking of the history of mankind talks about "holding down the truth in unrghteousness"
It might be appropriate, I still see no evidence for this.
Holding down is suppression. Holding down the truth I think includes holding down the truthful conviction in the human conscience that a wrong act has been committed.
What I'm saying is that this doesn't happen. Not everybody feels bad about the same things, this is not because they "suppress" their conscience, this is because theirs is different.
Something told Cain not to kill.
Not true. There was nothing that told him this. There is at least nothing in the text which points to this.
His conscience told him.
Nothing in the text.
He held that down and killed anyway.
Not in the text.
What ground do I have to say this?
I'm curious.
My ground is Genesis 4:7 - " ... And if you not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desure is for you, but you must master him.
This is god's answer to Cain being depressed he didn't accept his offering. I think god's not very nice here, first Cain, out of good will towards god, offers something, gets rejected, and then god tells him that when he acts well, he will be accepted. And if he acts bad, sin will come for him. Nothing to do with conscience, but with the temptations of sin.
This appears to be God's warning that his evil temper is about to cause him to sin terribly.
It comes off more as a general statement. God could've been a bit more specific if he had known Cain was going to kill Abel. In fact, he could've been a nice god from the very beginning and accepted either man's offering, in stead of arbitrarily choosing one over the other.
The next verse is about Cain luring his brother to the field in order to kill him.
Nowhere does it say Cain lured Abel, it says they were talking, and came upon a field. That's when Cain acted.
He did not master the sin crouching at the door (probably meaning the door of his heart).
Heart's have nothing to do with emotions, it's all in the brain. The sin a t the door was a general statement. Once again, if god had wanted to be specific, he could've been, but he wasn't. Why wasn't he? Well, either he wanted Cain to kill Abel (and then act all high and mighty about it), or it was a general statement, not meant for Cain specifically.
Any thought that the suppression or resistence of the conscience of Cain is not indicated here I can't take seriously.
Why? Because nothing in the text alludes to it? It's very simple, Jaywill. If the text had wanted to convey that message, it could've easily done it by stating it. It didn't however, and now you're inserting stuff into it to make it say that.
I explained that.
No you didn't.
Did you ever have naughty kids and you asked them about thier behavior, knowing all along what they did?
No never. Nor would I do that, I'd let them know I was fully aware of what they did.
Why? Because maybe your style and God's style are not the same.
That's an understatement. 
He did the same thing to Adam you know? He asked Adam where He was when Adam was off hiding.
So, instead of taking this as another sign that god is not omniscient, you explain it away with things not found in the text.
No, I don't think that God was puzzled as to what tree Adam was hiding behind.
Then why did he ask? Why not go to Adam and say "You can't hide from me Adam, I'm omniscient." But he didn't he asked where he was, because he didn't know where he was.
I think God knew just what happened and just where Adam was off hiding.
Then why did he ask?
He certainly knew where I was, that's for sure.
Ok, stop right there....God appeared to you?
I think in this respect Adam was not that much different from most of us who have tried to hide ourselves from God.
I'm not hiding. Not that that would be possible from an omniscient and omnipotent being, so your sentence makes little sense if god is really that way. But anyway, god hasn't "found" me, and I'm right here.
I am serious and not kidding. As a very little kid I remember hiding under a blacket to God would not see me.
.....You're scaring me. I used to hide for the boogyman. I outgrew that though, there is no such thing as the boogyman.
It wasn't a whim. It was according to His eternal plan of redemption as symbolized in the offering.
So, god wanted one human being to kill another? How nice of him.
It pointed to Christ who was "slain from the foundation of the world" ( Rev. 13:8).
NOTHING from genesis points to Christ. And even if it did, since the gospels were written many centuries after Genesis, they would've used it to make their fictional saviour look like he fitted.
I like to keep reading through the rest of the book. That helps me to get a full picture of God's character and nature.
It doesn't improve much, you know. Only when we get to the new testament has he suddenly stopped being an asshole. So, either he finally saw he was on the wrong path, and changed, or this is a different god.
I might also.
Well then, you understand Cain.
The only people pertinent to the focus of that particular story mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.
Ok, fair enough. However, they're still only one family, however large, he should have no problem getting away from them.
I don't know that in the course of time there were not other people. They had lots of children. The ones mentioned are important to the development of the history the writer wants to tell. If you have nothing else to say about Cain's conscience, I think I have no need to add anything.
I hope this clarified a bit. But I'm not as much interested n Cain's particular conscience. I would like much more to discuss your notion that all men are given the same conscience by god.
You're welcomed to have another interpretation.
As are you. But don't expect people to take your word for waht you say happened. Now, this was my reply to Jaywill. I would like to continue this discussion about subjective and objective conscience/morals. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bertot writes:
Sure, I say there is no such thing as "objective morals" or a "universal conscience" give to us by god.
Great. Do you have an opening statement or a statement of proposition, that you are wanting to defend? Also, as two days have passed I am not sure Jaywill knows this thread exists, we might want to alert him.
Yes, that would be best I think I'm going to point it out to him. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bertot writes:
It's just Limburg, my country is The Netherlands, my province is Limburg, just like Virginia is a state of The United States Of Amreica, and is not referred to as "The Virginia". But it's just a small tidbit, so don't worry. Huntard from the Limburg writes:
Really, Duh, I didnt know that. Do you think you could, elaborate, extrapolate and or expound on this idea outside this current informative and profound statement.
I should've elaborated. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I say there is no such thing as "objective morals" because everything I see in the world around me points to morals being subjective. Not everyone thinks the same things are good and bad, they differ from person to person. If you ask person A what he thinks of something, then ask person B you are likely getting a different answer. As in, if I ask you what you think of abortion, I’m guessing you’re against it (correct me if I’m wrong). I on the other hand am in favour of abortion, though limited to certain circumstances. So, if there are objective morals, why do we feel differently on this issue? This can be extrapolated to the conscience. If god gave us a conscience, it would only be logical that he would give everyone the same one, filled with what he thinks are good and bad standards. The fact people feel differently about different moral questions points to the fact this is not the case. So, if we did get a conscience from god, he has not been consistent with it, which I would find quite strange for someone to do. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello JavaMan, thanks for your input.
JavaMan writes:
Well, I think it' still not objective then. Since there will be different societies who hold different morals. Further, I think PaulK got it a bit better with intersubjective. However, I still think that when you go down to the detail level of each person;s morals and values, it will differ from person to person.
You are being too simplistic. Morality isn't subjective. It is a social thing (and hence is objective, in the sense of being shared between people). You, I, Bertot and Jaywill would all agree that killing other people is morally wrong.
Well....That just depends. I can certainly think of scenario's where I would find it OK to kill another human being. However, I fully expect other people to disagree with me on those. That's why I say it's all subjective, because at that detail level, I don;t think anyone will agree on everything. Pedantic perhaps, but that's the way I see it.
Hell, even most killers would agree with us that killing other people is morally wrong (they just choose to do what they want instead of following the moral rule).
See, you say "most killers" this is because there are indeed killers who didn't think they did wrong, subjectiveness if I ever saw it. 
In the case of abortion, we have a disgreement about how that moral rule is applied in reality. We're dealing with a moral dilemma. You and I would argue that allowing abortion (under prescribed rules) is less harmful than making abortion illegal, whereas Jaywill and Bertot (I'm making assumptions here) would argue that the rule about killing is absolute, allowing no deviations, and applies just as much to embryos and fetuses as it does to postnatal humans.
There are plenty of people who are in favour of the death penalty, yet against abortion. Again, if that ain't subjective, I don't know what is.
In the case of capital punishment we can see a similar moral dilemma, one side insisting that the right to life is absolute (although only applying to postnatal humans), whereas the other side argues that society has a right to take life under certain circumstances.
And here we have people who are against capital punishment and for abortion. It's all subjective I tell you.
Where I would disagree with Jaywill and Bertot is in defining where the moral rules come from.
Of course. Something that doesn't exist can't give rules.
They believe the rules come from God, and so are absolute and unchanging,
Which is exactly what I'm arguing against. The simple fact is peoples morals have always been changing, and will continue to change forever more.
whereas I, being an atheist, believe that moral rules are just a kind of social agreement, a way of arranging society so that we don't have to worry all the time about being murdered by our neighbours (although that does sometimes happen :-().
And that last part is why I say they're still subjective. I will agree with you however, that some basic "morals" are agreed upon by societies. And people in these societies will generally keep to them. However, since societies change, so do these basic morals, and that's why I say they are subjective, or as PaulK said, at the very least intersubjective. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Jaywill, thank you for your reply.
I do not have a strong objection to saying "We have different consciences". This seems a symantic issue to me.
The problem with you agreeing to this, is this: You say god gave us our conscience. If you then say every conscience is different, I have to ask you why god gave everyone a different conscience, and not all the same one, as then it would be easy for everyone to recognize his will, and what was truly right and wrong. Since he has not done this, he apparently WANTS some people to go to hell, which is not very nice of him, nor is it consistent of him if he truly loves us.
Do we have different minds? Or do we have the same mind?
Every mind is different, in its functioning and in its make up, for everyone makes different neural connections, and every brain varies in size.
Do we have different emotions? Or do we have the same emotion?
This is hard to answer. We basically have the same emotions, like love, hate, anger, happiness and so forth. However, for everyone, these emotions will be triggered by different things.
Do we have different memories? or do we all have the same memory?
Obviously, we all have different memories.
Do we have different wills? Or do we have the same will?
If you mean free will, that's a whole new discussion which I might get into later. For now let me say that every person will make choices dependant on different things than another person.
I regard this as somewhat symantic and have no debate against you wanting to say "We all have a different conscience."
The problem I have with this I outlined above. But thanks for agreeing.
I think the point of argument between the theist and the atheist is about shifting morals or not.
Well, yes, basically. For if morals shift, they cannot be absolute, or there is no way to tell.
Is there evidence of a Moral Law of some kind for all humans.
I haven't seen it in any case.
I think there is.
I'd like it if you'd point it out to me, and how the reason everyone seems to act differently, when this law is so absolute.
But let's see your other comments.
Alrighty.
I think that many of the things people point to as evidence of changing moral values, when closely exmined really are not. There is something else going on there.
Perhaps, though I think I'll disagree.
For example:
I think it's wrong to kill a person even IF that person used spells to kill someone. In fact, I would be very interested in studying how this "magic" works. So, again, we have a different opinion, regardless of the fact whether it happened or not.
A few hundred years ago people killed witches for casting spells and murdering people. Today in the US we no longer do that. Does that indicate a change in morals from hundreds of years ago to today? Our knowledge has increased to a point that we no longer believe that a person can cast a spell and murder someone. What has changed is not the moral principle that murder is wrong.
Seems to me like it has. Again, I think it's wrong to kill someone under those circumstances, NO MATTER WHAT.
Though perception or factual understanding concerning the abilities of "witches" has changed.
True, but that means the burning of innocents was viewed as wrong, not the burning of someone whose methods of killing we don't understand. And the burning of innocents wasn't viewed as wrong throughout all time either. How many villages were burned with their citizens still in the buildings because the conquering party felt they had every right to do this.
Can they really kill people with a evil spell? "Probably not" is the opinion about their abilities which has changed.
See above.
My point is that sometimes what is submitted as evidence of changing moral values actually represents something esle is going on.
Actually, the moral value on this HAS changed. Whereas in your example, the burning of people who killed someone by methods they didn't understand was seen as good, I see it as bad. The point is not that they hadn't killed anyone, the point is that everything these people knew pointed to the fact that they had killed. If that happens today, I still think it's wrong to burn them. I think it's wrong to kill them in any way, in fact.
Sometime I think you hurry up and do something so as not to think about it too long.
No not really, I thought long and hard about these things, never did I have a sense of what I was considering was bad in any way. Nothing inside even hinted at that fact. How do you explain that then?
You are concerned that the conscience will persuade you otherwise.
No I'm not. I've never had this problem with these issues, not even in hindsight. Now, I'm not talking about new facts becoming available, and me changing my stance on something, I'm talking about, out of the blue, without any outside source, me thinking "hmm, I was wrong there, I'm going to change my position on it". That has NEVER happened to me.
That is true. We do it so automatically that it sometimes seems subconscious.
No, it does not seem, I'm very well aware of my own thoughts, thank you very much. It is either done subconsciously, in which case we'll never know what is truly right and wrong (as so far as these things exist). Or it doesn't happen at all, which seems to fit all the facts I've come across so far. By the way, are you again arguing we DO all have the same conscience? I thought you had abandoned that point?
We need to be enlightened.
I don't need to be anything, my choices suit me perfectly well, and I don't feel bad when I make them, nor do I feel bad any time afterwards without any reason whatsoever.
Proverb 4:18 says " ... the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until the full day."
It might say that, it's not evidence of that actually being the case, now is it?
The experience of becomming righteous is a matter then of being progressively more and more enlightened within.
There's just one problem here. Since we all think and act differently, this "feeling enlightened" would feel differently for each person. And so, again, we won't be able to tell if we truly are enlightened, or if we are being deluded.
So we may have a weak feeling or practically no feeling about some things. But God can cause us to have more feeling and more illumination within our hearts.
And how would we tell this to be the case? Or, more importantly, if we know this isn't the case, how come god isn't doing it then? He's all powerful isn't he? Why doesn't he just fix in every man his absolute rules, then we can never break them, and we'll all go to heaven. The fact he doesn't do this makes it seem like he wants some people to go to hell, he's being his old trusty assholy self again.
This is a little tricky. I think it is a symantic problem.
Well, then we're back again to the problem I laid out above about god and conscience.
They have a different conscience or they don't view their actions as bad? I have no real argument with that. I would rather express it them not listening to the conscience.
Do they, or do they not have a conscience that tells them it is bad? Either they do, or they don't. Either they suppress it, in which they know it's bad but do it anyway, and will feel remorse, and will at some point in time show it, you can;t hide that forever. Or they don't, and then the it's not a problem for them at all, and they show no remorse because they don't feel any. So which is it Jaywill? Either their conscience does tell them it is wrong, or it doesn't. you can;t first say it doesn't and then in the very next sentence say it does.
You know I am a Bible believing person.
Yes.
So we are not able to live up to the good that we know.
Maybe you're not, but I certainly am.
And we are not able to fully resist the evil that we know.
Maybe you're not, but I certainly am.
We have the knowledge of good and evil but we lack the life power to behave according to this knowledge.
Maybe you're lacking it, I certainly am not.
Then we have the problem of what to do with this disharmony.
I have no disharmony.
We humans have a number of different ways to deal with this inward disharmony.
What inner disharmony?
Usually we are more strict towards others about it than we are on ourselves.
I'm not, as long as you don't harm another person, do whatever you want. That's what I do.
We tend to be more sensative when we are wronged and less sensative when we have wronged someone else.
I don't recall the last time I "wronged" somebody.
I think we need the Great Physician Jesus.
I'm doing fine without him.
Quote me where I said it please. I don't remember expressing my thought in exactly that way. Well, you might not have expressly said it in such a way, you certainly implied it, here are the quotes: in Message 374 you wrote:Jaywill writes:
To which i replied in Message 377 with: God created the human conscience.Huntard writes:
To which you replied in Message 380 with:
Then why are not all consciences equal? If god made them, I'm sure he would make it so that it was clear to everybody what was right and wrong. This is so obviously not the case I say that god didn't make our conscience.Jaywill writes:
Implying that you do think god gave everyone the same conscience. And that is only because not everybody listens that we act differently. You even said things to this extent in the post I'm replying to.
I think the question should be: Why do some listen to their conscience and some do not? Concerning Cain and Abel again.
Ok.
I briefly answered this already. I already stated that it is not explicitly stated such. And I refered to the Levitical statement that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Yes, and as I replied to that, Cain shed Abel's blood, so we should forgive him.
Yep. Speculation which I think is accurate.
Based on what? If it is pure speculation, then why is yours correct and someone else's isn't?
Don't get confused about the story. The offering occured before Cain killed Abel.
I know. Yet when Cain finally did shed blood, as Leviticus said he should (at least, according to you) he got punished by god. So, do we need to shed blood, or not?
So any acceptance of Cain and Abel prior to that had to do with other things.
Yes, with god being arbitrary. But why didn't he accept Cain then after he did "shed blood"
The Bible is purposeful. There seems no reason why God would inform us of His rejection of one offering of Cain but the acceptance of Abel if it had no reason.
The why is that reason not stated? Why leave us guessing? Why not simply say, "Cain, your offer sucked because of these things" and make it clear to all. Why does god want to come of as someone arbitrarily choosing one person over the other if he could teach everyone a valuable lesson about what to offer here?
In the plenary whole of the revelation it should be important.
Then why isn't it stated better? Why leave all the blanks? If it's that important, one would think god would've given greater care to detail. Since he has not, apparently it isn't important at all.
We see a divine mind behind the writing and a unifying scheme throughout Scripture.
A divine mind that gets simple facts of reality wrong? A unifying scheme that contradicts itself? I don't see how you could say that.
Your view may be that it is just a disjunct scrapebook of unrelated and irrelevant pieces of religious data.
No not really. I think the bible was written as a system to keep people under control, as are in essence all religions.
Some of us do not share this view.
I know, but the evidence does not favour your view.
Why would Abel raise sheep? Man was not instructed to eat meat until after the flood (Gen.9:1-4). Previously man was to be vegetarian only (Gen.1:29).
You can also use sheep for their wool only, you know.
Abel was a tender of sheep by profession (Gen. 4:2). They didn't eat the sheep.
Again, ever heard of wool? It does not require you to eat the sheep if you sheer it, you know.
So I believe that the sheep were used to provide offerings for God's satisfaction.
Could be, nowhere does it says they did though.
Clothing and maybe milk were a byproduct.
Ah, so you do know about wool, why then claim the sole purpose for sheep would be eating. In fact, I think the prime purpose for keeping sheep IS their wool, since you can sheer a sheep more then once.
I believe that Abel not only believed the revelaion of the slain substitute for Adam and Eve's justification, but he lived for it.
Will you quit inserting your own musings into the story? Nowhere does it says this, what makes you draw this conclusion? What facts point to this?
I think Abel cared for the worship of God primarily whereas Cain cared only for his living.
This is getting tiresome. If you have grounds to think this, other then what you would like the text to say, please provide it. Furthermore, by claiming all these things about the story that are nowhere mentioned, are you saying you know god's mind? I don;t think he's all big on you saying that.
e probably considered his livelihood to be more practical. Perhaps the raising of sheep for offerings to God seemed a waste of time to Cain. He may have asked himself why Abel didn't perform a more practical task to help them live on the cursed earth.
I've just taken this as a whole big piece so in only need to say this once. This isn't mentioned ANYWHERE.
Cain brought to God an offering of what he could produce and what he could do out of his own goodness. Abel brought the blood which anticipated the redemption accomplished for man by God in Christ. The bloody sacrifice is prominent in the Old Testament.
Yes, it does seem preoccupied with blood.
Hebrews says:
Again, Cain shed the blood of Abel, let's forgive him.
"And almost all things are purified by blood according to the law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Heb. 9:22) Some modern scholars, even non-Christian ones, believe that someone of a priestly caste was responsible for some of the writing of Genesis.
Sounds reasonable, he could control the people better when he controlled the contents.
If such a person was enfluenced by the Hebrew Levitical priesthood, then the mentioning of these offerings might be related to that system.
It might be, but then he didn't write it very clearly, he could've made it a lot more clearer by stating it. Or even by referring back to it in Leviticus, he didn't however. So since we only have this little piece of text to analyse, we should not insert wishful thinking into it.
At any rate, I believe that Abel was an unusual person occupying his time with pleasing God as his first concern of human life.
There you go again. This is you inserting your own thoughts and preferences into the story. Maybe god meant it completely differently, are you willing to go to hell for altering his story?
The Apostle John says that Cain was of the evil one.
Yes, and as we have allready established, John didn't know Cain, so how did he know?
That is the devil who ever opposes God and God's saints. It is no wonder that Satan would be enraged at such a believer on the earth as Abel and seek to destroy him. What Abel did he did by faith and Satan the Devil hates for man to have faith in God:
More unjustified inserting, I hope for your sake your right, else you can ask the devil if he really did that.
"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent acrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying to his gifts; and through faith, though he died, he still speaks." (Hebrews 11:4)
Since Hebrews eleven stars with the statement:
quote:How was Cain to know what to sacrifice, he just had to "hope" he chose the right thing? Apparently he did not. This kind of arbitrary behaviour by the one your worshipping would piss me off as well. I gave you the basic reason above in Hebrews 11:4. He offered his offering in faith and he was righteous before God. So God accepted his gifts.
And Cain was not? How do you know? Nowhere does it say this.
Concerning Cain and Abel Jesus also said this to the opposing Pharisees:
The fact Abel was righteous does not mean Cain wasn't. Nowhere in the original text does it hint at anything of this nature. "So upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matt.23:35) I'll skip a bit because you keep repeating it, basically.
His brother Cain's offering apparently was not out of faith but human presumption. It was an unrighteous act.
Then why does the text not state this? It is completely unclear why god made the choice. All the things added later (and by any account, many many centuries since it happened) don;t make it cleare at all, they state Abel was "righteous" and Cain being "of the evil one" without ever having been there, or knowing either Cain or Abel. Why would we trust their word?
Satan the evil spirit stirred up Cain to slay his righteous brother with faith.
Not mentioned anywhere.
In the same way the world is stirred up today by Satan to hate the believers in Christ.
I don't hate people because they believe in Christ. I don't think anyone, except perhaps those of some other religions does. Oh, and those of the other religions that hate you, claim you hate them too, and that it's their version of satan that is doing this.
This is a spiritual battle not a battle of flesh and blood. This is a spiritually instigated hatred.
Well, since I don't hate you, does this mean the devil doesn't care about me?
Another word from Jesus on Cain and Abel teaches more. It was a matter of Cain giving into the lying evil Satanic nature that had been proisoning all mankind. A nature which has no truth in it.
No, that was said unto people who didn't want to believe Jesus's claims, even though he offered no evidence for them. So I fail to see how it could apply to Cain as Jesus didn't exist back then.
"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own [possessions] for he is a liar and the father of it." (John 8:44) "Your father the devil" ... indicates that the evil nature of Satan has "fathered" all humans. We have inherited the Satanic nature since the disobedience of Adam. Murderer from the beginning must refer to the beginning of man on the earth in Genesis.
Or to the fact that the devil murdered from the very beginning of his creation.
There Cain by instigation of the Devil, murdered Abel.
Again this speculation.
Cain gave in to the Satanic nature operating in him. Abel by faith approached God with faith in God's salvation.
Specu...yeah, you get the point.
With this statement our talk is over. I regard it a violation of one of the clearly stated rules of the Forum. That is not to be inflammatory.
I shouldn't have worded it so strongly, you're right. I apologise. You can make your point without being inflammatory. I will accept an apology. I'll alter that statement to "God is a prankster." Are we cool now? I still think he didn't act very nice and loving, by not making clear why he did as he did, and so his "prank" is quite upsetting to me. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Jaywill, sorry for the delay, been busy and stuff.
Jaywill writes:
Thank you.
I accept your apology. Now, my usual participation on this Forum is at the Bible Study Room. I am kind of new to this room (Faith and Belief). I am beginning to see that discussion of the statements of the Bible is not profitable with you because you do not regard the facts as they are presented.
I will regards facts as facts. Statements from a book written by men are questioned by me unless backed up with supporting evidence. Anyone can claim whatever they want in a book, it is only when we examine the supporting evidence, do we see what of those statements is true. If we have no supporting evidence, we have to stick to what the text says. Since it's very clearly silent on many of the things we have discussed, I object to you inserting things of your own devising into it. You may hold them as true, that's fine by me. But in order to convince me you would have to show to me why it is true.
So I don't think it is profitable to talk about Genesis, First John, Proverbs or any other book of the Bible with you here because you don't care what it says.
Sure I care what it says, as long as there is supporting evidence.
With you, I don't tregard this as a problem of interpretaion. I regard it as a problem with your acknowledging of quotation.
I can quote from books too, will you accept everything I quote as the truth?
If I point out what it says you say it doesn't say that or that something is speculation.
Because that's what it is. We can disagree on the interpretation, but when the text says absolutely nothing on something you're claiming, I can't help but point that out.
It is largely useless to debate about the Bible with a person who cannot master the facts of the Bible.
What facts are we talking about here? The bible exists, this is a fact. It was written by men, this is a fact. Now, what those men wrote is NOT a fact. The only way you can show things in books to be facts is to show supporting evidence for their claims, else you have to stick strictly to the text.
If it says "Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother" but some one says "No, the Devil did not instigate Cain to do anything" we get nowhere fast.
I did not say that. I said that the original text of genesis does not say that the devil made Cain do it. Regardless of what someone who lived long after believed of the event. If he is so certain this is the case, what did he base this on? Nothing in the text points to this, so, I conclude he was speculating. You take his speculation as fact, because it fits with you interpretation of the story. That's fine by me, but if you want to convince me this is indeed what happened, show me the evidence for it. Paul can claim a lot about someone he didn't know and who lived thousands of years before him, but why would I consider it to be reliable?
And maybe careful examination of the text is not the custom here in this Room.
No idea, I've never been here either. But I think it's not really a problem, else AdminNosy wouldn't have put it here.
I feel more comfortable to have such text specific discussions in the Bible Study Room.
Perhaps I will make a subject on it there at a later date. For now, I'll continue this discussion.
I would like you to list for me eight or so things which you believe prove that human morals are relative.
Prove is a strong word. I don't like to use it since it has a finality to it. I could be wrong about all this, I simply don't see anything that points to that. But very well, I'll make a list. Though it won't really be a list, as I think one thing will suffice here, and it's all encompassing really. Individuals don't agree on what is "right" and "wrong" on the personal level. Let me try to explain this. I assume you are against murder. So am I. I don't know how you feel about the death penalty, I am against it. If you are in favour, then we differ right there. However, I am not against the taking of a human life in all circumstances. I can think of various scenarios when I would find it acceptable to kill a human. And I'm pretty sure we won't agree on all of them. Further, I am in favour of abortion, under certain circumstances. Where, as a Christian, I am pretty sure you are against it. Now, why do we not feel the same about these things? I say that's because there is no "universal conscience" or no "absolute morals". Perhaps I can come up with other things that point to this, but I'd think this is all the evidence one needs.
I want to see your examples.
I've given you a few.
I do not know at this time whether I will concede that you have arrived at proof or disagree.
How could you, you don't know what I will say yet.
My thoughts concerning some of this are style being formed.
Ok, perhaps we can learn from each other.
But let me see some of your exampes of what you think prove that from time to time or society to society moral values are completely relative.
I hope they are to your liking. If not, I could provide more examples that all point to the principle I mentioned.
I don't even promise that I will have a comment.
That would be too bad, I rather enjoy our conversations.
But if you would I want to see some of your examples of evidence for your view.
At your service! I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Mantis, it's always nice to get some more input.
Mantis writes:
I'm not sure if ALL people will agree to this, but yes, generally, it will be agreed upon that one should die. Given of course that these are all "normal" people, and not child molesting murderers, in which case it becomes a bit more complicated. But that's semantics. But the choice I see here is not who gets to live, but who gets to die, Now, as I pointed out earlier, if I were in such a situation, I wouldn;t want to die, there are also people who would sacrifice themselves to save the group. These two are diametrically opposed, and I don't see how there can be claimed to be an absolute morality on this. It's true we have a strong will to live, but apparently not that strong in everybody.
I actually agree, in part, with what Jaywill is saying. The fact that all the people agree that they should allow four of the five people to survive indicates that they do agree that the proper course of action is to maximize human survival. This points to some sort of moral code that they all agree on. It doesn't point unambiguously there, though, neither does it prove that agreement will be universal.
Basically what I've been trying to say, yes.
For instance, modern people may have a psychological aversion to killing in general, and wish to minimize the amount of it they have to do.
On the whole, true. Of course when we go to the individual level, this might not be accurate.
If the choice was having to kill one of five bunnies lest all of them die instead, do you think the solution would be any different?
Yes, I would actually. I wouldn't really care as much about 5 bunnies as I do about 5 humans. It all depends on the circumstances I guess. That's also part of the problem with these examples, they lack specifics of the situation. How will they die, what kind of persons are they, and more of those questions. Now, if all 5 bunnies were to die painless, or relatively painless, deaths, I wouldn't find it that disheartening for all5 to die, they could be used as a food source. Yes, again semantics, but they are important details, I think. Perhaps I think too much about these things.
Alternately, there could be a selfish or mob-mentality issue. The more people you try to kill, the more enemies you make for yourself. So, tossing one person over with the help of three co-conspirators is a lot easier than tossing two people over with the help of two co-conspirators. Also, a person who understands the human will to survive would likely find it practical to solve the problem to the maximum positive effect.
Hmm, you could be on to something here.
Also, as you’ve pointed out, Jaywill’s argument doesn’t address the reasons for the final choice as to who is to be tossed.
Yes, quite important, if you ask me.
Undoubtedly, the selection of who is to be tossed will be selfish in nature. If you were one of the five, you would certainly argue long and hard for someone else to be thrown over, so as to preserve your own life. Or, if your wife and/or baby was with you, you would also probably try to prevent them from being tossed, too.
Yes, almost certainly. However, as I've pointed out, people have been known to sacrifice themselves when faced with this kind of situation.
This clearly indicates that humans do not view all human life equally, and thus, also do not have an “absolute sense of the human right to survival.”
Yes, that's how I see it.
No offense to you or Jaywill, but I personally feel that my wife and my baby have a greater right to survival than either of you. If my choice were between you and my wife, I’d hack your head off without hesitation (sorry).
No apologies necessary, I'd probably do the same.
Think of other possible reasons for your selection:
Yes, leading to subjectivity.
These aren’t all based on the decision that there is an absolute human right to life. But, to return to Jaywill’s argument, that we agree that maximizing survival is the superior option, I think this suffers from an issue of scale. Broaden the question enough, and you’re certainly going to find agreement somewhere.
Quite true, in the bigger picture, the deaths of those 5 don't mean a thing.
For instance, two people:
Nice analogy.
Person A: I believe God created us and all animals in their modern form 6000 years ago.Person B: I believe that we and all animals arose slowly, over millions of years, through a series of intermediate forms. Step back one step, and you may get this: Person A: I believe that there must have been an uncaused Initial Cause.Person B: I believe that all things must have been caused somehow. Step back one more step, and you may get this: Person A: I believe that life, the universe and everything came into being.Person B: I believe that life, the universe and everything came into being. You see? We found agreement. Clearly, this means that beliefs in origins are not subjective. The principle provided by Jaywill’s argument is the same. You can blur any belief system into near perfect confluence with any other belief system by simply contrasting them with a hypothetical third system that is very different from them, as he does here:
jaywill writes: If there were no right to life then we could solve the problem by saying "It doesn't matter. Throw everyone overboard and let them all drown. Who cares anyway who lives? They all can die." But, relative morality does not demand total sadism (which is, itself, a moral system, ironically), nor does it demand that everybody be in complete disagreement about all points. It only demands that there be some level of disagreement about all points. And, I guarantee, if Jaywill’s professor presented this dilemma to enough students, he would find some who did, indeed, propose to kill them all.
Exactly what I'm trying to say.
Finally, Jaywill argues that disagreement over morality doesn’t prove that morality is relative (which I find to be a completely bizarre argument).
I think he's saying that although humans disagree on everything, that doesn't mean that somewhere, there is something that is an absolute moral law. Humans just don't know what it is. It's a useless argument, since if we are to entertain the thought merely because it could be, it's absolutely pointless.
But, surely, the converse is also true, right? Agreement on morality doesn’t mean that morality is absolute.
Of course.
For instance, if the Muslims accomplish their goal to kill off or enslave all the non-Muslims in the world (cf. Buzsaw), they will have effectively established universal agreement on a single moral system. I doubt Jaywill will argue that this makes Muslim morality absolute in its truth.
Well, I think there are a lot of differences even within Islam. But I get the point you're trying to make.
So, likewise, that everyone in a class believes in the maximization of human survival doesn't prove that there is an absolute human right to life.
Well said.
Surely, then, as Catholic Scientist suggests, we can only assess the subjectiveness/objectiveness of morality based on the views of people on the subject, because those are the only systems of morality that we can quantify (...sigh...) objectively.
Hehe, and a nice ending as well. Yes, this is basically what it comes down to. If there IS and absolute moral law, we don't know what that is. And so, it becomes non-existent as far as we are concerned. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Mantis writes:
Yes, I agree. It all depends on the details of the situation.
The majority would probably make the same choice for the humans and the bunnies, although the majority would probably be smaller for the bunnies. And, it would definitely change depending on who had to do the killing and how they had to do it. If you only had to sit in a classroom and radio the decision to somebody else, it would be relatively easy. And, if all you had to do was push a button (during which you could look away or cover your eyes), you would be less averse to killing than if you had to snap a neck with your bare heads. Yeah, I wasn't espousing the "Muslim Apocalypse" point of view. It was a kind of tongue-and-cheek reference to one of Buzsaw's pet topics.
Ah, I see.
Now, a general question here:
Not on my account. I think they can be interchanged just fine. I have been using "relative" and "subjective" morality as essentially interchangeable. But, is this really correct? I could see "relativity" referring to different situations, and "subjectivity" referring to different people. Does this distinction need to be made, or am I overthinking it (again)? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
