EvC Forum: objective/subjective morals/conscience?

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

6 online now:	AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Rahvin
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,854 Year: 4,111/9,624 Month: 982/974 Week: 309/286 Day: 30/40 Hour: 2/2