Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   objective/subjective morals/conscience?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 1 of 94 (491638)
12-18-2008 5:49 PM


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:
I can't respond to all your remarks today.
No worries, there's no time limit.
Do you have a set of keys on you? How many keys do you have on your key chain?
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.
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?
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 ..."]
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.
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.
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.
You don't like the phrase "suppress his conscience?"
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.
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.
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.
Ok, fair enough. However, they're still only one family, however large, he should have no problem getting away from them.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-18-2008 6:01 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 5 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2008 2:07 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2008 10:24 AM Huntard has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 94 (491641)
12-18-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-18-2008 5:49 PM


Ready to promote ....
but I can't figure out where to put it .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2008 5:49 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 12-19-2008 12:16 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 3 of 94 (491681)
12-19-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-18-2008 6:01 PM


Re: Ready to promote ....
Yes, I can see the dilemma.
How about the "faith and belief" forum? It's about the objective and subjectiveness of something god's supposed to have given us. Our conscience.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-18-2008 6:01 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 94 (491684)
12-19-2008 12:34 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 5 of 94 (491781)
12-21-2008 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-18-2008 5:49 PM


Huntard writes"
Now, this was my reply to Jaywill. I would like to continue this discussion about subjective and objective conscience/morals.
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.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2008 5:49 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 12-21-2008 7:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 6 of 94 (491789)
12-21-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2008 2:07 AM


Bertot writes:
Great. Do you have an opening statement or a statement of proposition, that you are wanting to defend?
Sure, I say there is no such thing as "objective morals" or a "universal conscience" give to us by god.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2008 2:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2008 9:14 AM Huntard has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 7 of 94 (491800)
12-21-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Huntard
12-21-2008 7:14 AM


Huntard from the Limburg writes:
Sure, I say there is no such thing as "objective morals" or a "universal conscience" give to us by god.
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.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 12-21-2008 7:14 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 7:48 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 8 of 94 (491841)
12-22-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2008 9:14 AM


Bertot writes:
Huntard from the Limburg 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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2008 9:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 12-22-2008 8:55 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 10 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-22-2008 9:32 AM Huntard has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 9 of 94 (491842)
12-22-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Huntard
12-22-2008 7:48 AM


Morality is social not subjective
quote:
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.
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. 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).
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.
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.
Where I would disagree with Jaywill and Bertot is in defining where the moral rules come from. They believe the rules come from God, and so are absolute and unchanging, 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 :-().
So, I don't believe rules are absolute, but I do believe they are objective.
Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 7:48 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2008 9:57 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 1:28 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 10 of 94 (491844)
12-22-2008 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Huntard
12-22-2008 7:48 AM


Huntard 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.
Yeah I know it was just a joke, a bit of dry humor, you will get use to it after a while, everybody else in my life has. I will bet that is a very beautiful place to live and work.
Ill try and get started on this today, kinda busy.
Also I did not know you had started another debate On Dr. Warren's debate with Dr. Flew, interesting I will take a further look at it. Dr Warren was one of my instructors way back in the early seventies he held two other debates of this type and about 100 to 150 public debates with denominationalists. The other two of this type were the Warren-Matson debate on 'I know that the God of the New Testament, the one that is to punish some eternally in Hell, does exist' and the Warren-Barnhart debate on Utilitarian ethics verses Christiain ethics', if you are interested. The other disputants were Wallace I Matson, from Berkely at California, professor of philosophy, and wrote a book called 'The existence of God' and Joe E Barnhart, I believe he was the chairman of the philosophy department at the university of Texas in Denton. Dr. Barnhart was especially abusive and critical in his debate with Dr. Warren but to no avail, Dr Warren being the experienced apologist, logician and philosopher, put it aside and systematically destroyed most of Joes attempts at arguments. Dr Warren in also the founder of Apologetics Press, if you are interested in any of these other debates
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 7:48 AM Huntard has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 11 of 94 (491845)
12-22-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by JavaMan
12-22-2008 8:55 AM


Re: Morality is social not subjective
quote:
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. 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).
A better term would be "intersubjective". The first two meanings (at least) described here, on Wikipedia would seem to fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 12-22-2008 8:55 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 12 of 94 (491846)
12-22-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-18-2008 5:49 PM


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.
I do not have a strong objection to saying "We have different consciences". This seems a symantic issue to me.
Do we have different minds? Or do we have the same mind?
Do we have different emotions? Or do we have the same emotion?
Do we have different memories? or do we all have the same memory?
Do we have different wills? Or do we have the same will?
I regard this as somewhat symantic and have no debate against you wanting to say "We all have a different conscience."
I think the point of argument between the theist and the atheist is about shifting morals or not. Is there evidence of a Moral Law of some kind for all humans.
I think there is. But let's see your other comments.
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.
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.
For example:
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. Though perception or factual understanding concerning the abilities of "witches" has changed. Can they really kill people with a evil spell? "Probably not" is the opinion about their abilities which has changed.
My point is that sometimes what is submitted as evidence of changing moral values actually represents something esle is going on.
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.
Sometime I think you hurry up and do something so as not to think about it too long. You are concerned that the conscience will persuade you otherwise.
I might do it subconsciously, but then how are we to know what the right conscience is?
That is true. We do it so automatically that it sometimes seems subconscious. We need to be enlightened.
Proverb 4:18 says " ... the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until the full day."
The experience of becomming righteous is a matter then of being progressively more and more enlightened within. 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.
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.
This is a little tricky. I think it is a symantic problem.
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.
You know I am a Bible believing person. So we are not able to live up to the good that we know. And we are not able to fully resist the evil that we know. We have the knowledge of good and evil but we lack the life power to behave according to this knowledge.
Then we have the problem of what to do with this disharmony. We humans have a number of different ways to deal with this inward disharmony.
Usually we are more strict towards others about it than we are on ourselves. We tend to be more sensative when we are wronged and less sensative when we have wronged someone else.
I think we need the Great Physician Jesus.
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.
Quote me where I said it please. I don't remember expressing my thought in exactly that way.
Concerning Cain and Abel again.
me:
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.
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.
Moving on to new ground then.
Speculation.
Yep. Speculation which I think is accurate.
Skipping down some then.
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?
Don't get confused about the story. The offering occured before Cain killed Abel. So any acceptance of Cain and Abel prior to that had to do with other things.
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.
In the plenary whole of the revelation it should be important. We see a divine mind behind the writing and a unifying scheme throughout Scripture.
Your view may be that it is just a disjunct scrapebook of unrelated and irrelevant pieces of religious data. Some of us do not share this 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).
Abel was a tender of sheep by profession (Gen. 4:2). They didn't eat the sheep. So I believe that the sheep were used to provide offerings for God's satisfaction. Clothing and maybe milk were a byproduct. I believe that Abel not only believed the revelaion of the slain substitute for Adam and Eve's justification, but he lived for it.
I think Abel cared for the worship of God primarily whereas Cain cared only for his living. He 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.
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. Hebrews says:
"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. If such a person was enfluenced by the Hebrew Levitical priesthood, then the mentioning of these offerings might be related to that system.
At any rate, I believe that Abel was an unusual person occupying his time with pleasing God as his first concern of human life.
The Apostle John says that Cain was of the evil one. 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:
"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)
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.
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.
Concerning Cain and Abel Jesus also said this to the opposing Pharisees:
"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 ,urdered between the temple and the altar." (Matt.23:35)
Here again we see Abel discribed as "righteous Abel". Abel had faith in God and Abel was made rightoues because of this faith.
We also see that Abel was righteous in First John 3:12,13:
" ... 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. Do not marvel brothers, if the world hates you." (1 JOhn 3:12,13)
Abel's faith was righteous. Abel's offering out of faith was a righteous work accepted by God. Abel lived unto God and for God's satisfaction primarily. That he cared for first. His brother Cain's offering apparently was not out of faith but human presumption. It was an unrighteous act.
Satan the evil spirit stirred up Cain to slay his righteous brother with faith. In the same way the world is stirred up today by Satan to hate the believers in Christ. This is a spiritual battle not a battle of flesh and blood. This is a spiritually instigated hatred.
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.
"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)[/qs]
"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.
With this nature is the desire to kill the people of faith. They also have been poisoned. But they have faith in God's saving way.
The truth is with God's word and God's salvation. The Devil is only the father of lies and lying and murder. He speaks lies out of his perculiar kind of treasure - his possessions. That is his own unique nature as the original Liar.
Murderer from the beginning must refer to the beginning of man on the earth in Genesis. There Cain by instigation of the Devil, murdered Abel. Cain gave in to the Satanic nature operating in him. Abel by faith approached God with faith in God's salvation.
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.
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.
You can make your point without being inflammatory. I will accept an apology.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-18-2008 5:49 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 3:20 PM jaywill has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 13 of 94 (491850)
12-22-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JavaMan
12-22-2008 8:55 AM


Re: Morality is social not subjective
Hello JavaMan, thanks for your input.
JavaMan writes:
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).
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, 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 12-22-2008 8:55 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2008 2:47 PM Huntard has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 14 of 94 (491851)
12-22-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Huntard
12-22-2008 1:28 PM


Re: Morality is social not subjective
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes:
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.
Peoples morals have always been changing because they have no higher authority to answer to than themselves.
I would agree with you that without that higher authority which you deny, morals are competely subjective.
Since man has become as gods morals are determined by what each individual determines them to be, for whatever reason they determine them to be.
That is the reason there can be no agreement as to what is right and what is wrong.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 1:28 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 3:23 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 15 of 94 (491853)
12-22-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
12-22-2008 10:24 AM


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:
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.
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.
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.
They have a different conscience or they don't view their actions as bad? I have no real argument with that.
Well, then we're back again to the problem I laid out above about god and conscience.
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:
God created the human conscience.
To which i replied in Message 377 with:
Huntard writes:
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.
To which you replied in Message 380 with:
Jaywill writes:
I think the question should be: Why do some listen to their conscience and some do not?
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.
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.
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.
I've just taken this as a whole big piece so in only need to say this once. This isn't mentioned ANYWHERE.
The bloody sacrifice is prominent in the Old Testament.
Yes, it does seem preoccupied with blood.
Hebrews says:
"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)
Again, Cain shed the blood of Abel, let's forgive him.
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:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
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:
"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)
The fact Abel was righteous does not mean Cain wasn't. Nowhere in the original text does it hint at anything of this nature.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
You can make your point without being inflammatory. I will accept an apology.
I shouldn't have worded it so strongly, you're right. I apologise.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2008 10:24 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2008 2:27 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 19 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2008 10:27 AM Huntard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024