objective/subjective morals/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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Quote me where I said it please. I don't remember expressing my thought in exactly that way.Concerning Cain and Abel again. 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. Yep. Speculation which I think is accurate.Skipping down some then. 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: 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: 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: 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. 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.

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.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.With you, I don't tregard this as a problem of interpretaion. I regard it as a problem with your acknowledging of quotation.If I point out what it says you say it doesn't say that or that something is speculation. It is largely useless to debate about the Bible with a person who cannot master the facts of the Bible. 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.And maybe careful examination of the text is not the custom here in this Room. I feel more comfortable to have such text specific discussions in the Bible Study Room.I would like you to list for me eight or so things which you believe prove that human morals are relative.I want to see your examples. I do not know at this time whether I will concede that you have arrived at proof or disagree. My thoughts concerning some of this are style being formed.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 don't even promise that I will have a comment. But if you would I want to see some of your examples of evidence for your view.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The arguments over how to apply morals in a particular situation does not prove morality is all relative. An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right thing to do in a particular circumstance.A college professor may present a moral dilemma to some students like this:There are five people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only four people. If one person is not thrown overboard then they all will die. The students faced with this delimma may come up with different solutions as to who should be thrown overboard to save the rest. They may decide that morality is relative.But the dilemma actually demonstrates that morality is absolute. There would be no dilemma if morality were relative. 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."The reason for the dilemma is because there is absolute sense for the human right to life.Difficult situations in morality do not prove that there are no objective moral laws any more than difficult problems in science prove that no objective natural laws exist. Scientists do not deny that the objective world exists when they encounter difficult problems in the natural world.. They may have trouble knowing the answer.We shouldn't deny that absolute morality exists just because we have trouble knowing the answer to some difficult situations.I agree that there are differences on how people agree on how a commandment should be applied. But I think you are confusing that to mean that there is no absolute morality.Moral disagreements do not prove there is no Absolute Moral Law.Take abortion for example. Some think abortion is acceptable while others say it is murder.. BUt just because there are different opinions about abortion does not mean morality is relative.Each side, in fact, disagrees BECAUSE they are out to defend an absolute moral of protecting life and allowing liberty. The controversy is over which value applies or which takes precedences in the issue. Should we protect the baby or allow the woman to have "control over her own body"? Or does a person's right to life supersede another person's right to individual liberty?Moral disagreement does not prove morality is relative.Be back latter to see your other comments.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My thoughts are still developing in this area of morality. I do not claim to have a settled position on all aspects of it. So I am reading some posts here to help my own thoughts on the matter. What Scripture tells me is that the perfect man lived and died and rose again from the dead. But additionally, He is in a form in which He can unite, blend, and incorporate Himself with my being. That is so as to live His life again on the earth, but this time from within me in a mingled way."Abide in Me and I in you"This is the New Testament's call to live in an "organic" union with that perfect morality, as a vine flows its life into the attached branches.This is not attempt to summarize the whole Bible in a short paragraph. But I do point out that instead of Scripture telling us to go out and do 1,800 do's and don't as instructions, it tell us that Christ has taken care of our past offenses on His cross. And it tells us for the future we need to allow Him in His form as the divine life giving Holy Spirit to dispense His life and nature into our being that we could live one with Him.That is two lives intertwined and interwoven in a spiritual union. This union regulates our reactions and causes us to spontaneously live according to God's righteous nature. I think you may be right. I think however that Scripture didn't claim that it was going to do that. At least Scripture put everyone under condemnation - [b]"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."Paul's teaches that a chief function of the law of God was to expose man's sinful nature. Man was poisoned with a foreign element that constituted him a sinner. He thinks he is alright and it is a minor problem. God says in essense "You think it is a minor problem? Here take my law and live by it."All have failed.Right now what I see is that law God gave to Israel exposes man that no one is able to live up to it. All are condemned by it. It acts as a instructer leading fallen men to understand the need for salvation, redemption through Christ's atoning sacrifice on His cross for the sins of the world, and for the need for Christ to dispense His life and nature into those joined to Him - born of God to be partakers of His life. I think the answer is YES, to the SOURCE of perfect morality.The SOURCE yes. The source is God's nature. This perfect morality flows out of what He is by nature.But I think probably what you are trying to do is in essence say "Okay, show me what page and what paragraph and what sentence tells us exactly what to do in all possible situations among an infinite number of cases."We do not have a Bible of 900 trillion pages telling what the perfect reaction is in an infinity of human situations. What then do we have?We have the life testimony of a perfect man - Jesus Christ. That is a man who never commited one sin.We have His redemptive death and resurrection for our justification before a perfect righteous God.We have this Christ's ability to enter into our being, if we allow Him in, to live an "organic" union with us in all our varied and difficult situations.And we have TIME to learn how to live in oneness with Him in ever deepening degrees of union. We can abide in Him as an indwelling Presence. And He can abide in us as a realm and sphere to express His perfect life from within us, regulating our reactions, manifesting Himself in our personalities. This union expresses the highest level of morality on the earth, if we allow Him access to all of our soul. Notice that the paragraph you quoted from me did not mention God at all.But now that you mention it, this is what I think follows - If there is an absolute Moral Law there must be a Law Giver. There must be someone to whom we are obligated.A Moral Law means a Moral Legislator. A Moral Law means Law Giver, a Prescriber. That would be God. I think two things might be be necessary here for you to demonstrate if you hold to classic Darwinianism. I think you would have to argue that morals are material things. I mean hate must have a weight. Love must have its own atom. There must be a molecule for jealousy and a molecule for loyalty.I think that to fit morality into a purely evolutionary paradigm you have to stress the materialism of morality. That is as life forms do what they do to replicate themselves some mutations pass on material substance which is equvalent to moral values. The benefitial mutations are then made to survive through natural selection.Does love have a weight? Is there an atom for honesty? I think that is where we are if morality comes about from your evolutionary process. I want to think more on this. Good question. I notice that the first or second of the Ten Commandments says something about you shall love the Lord your God with all of your soul, all of your heart, all of your strength, all of your mind."Now if this perfect Moral Law flows out of what God IS by nature rather than what He arbitrarily decides, then to be in touch with His nature must provide the perfect answer. His nature knows exactly what to do.Perhaps that is why the commandment to absolutely love Him with the entire being. We know that none have done that except the Son of God. We know that the rest of us have fallen short of the glory of God and have all sinned.I am no ready to say that if my Bible had 900 billion trillion chapters in it that one portion would give the perfect answer to every possible situation of moral delimma among an infinite number of situations. But I think I am ready to say that there is a absolute Moral Law which flows out of God's nature. I think to the degree that it flows into man who is made in His image man can live the highest level of righteousness.That's about all I can chew right now. Be back latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks. I agree that this is subjective. What could be more subjective to a person than thier life?However, both in our experience as Christians and in the teaching of the NT this subjective experience grows into a corporate expression. That is why Paul speaks of "the Body of Christ", ie. all that are living by this divine life provide a body for one Person to express His desires on the earth."For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12)What happens as these deepening degrees of union regulate the believers is that the "body of Christ" emmerges, an aggregate and collective unity of experience. This entity is even called [b]"the Christ" - "so also is the Christ".God's goal then is not individual spirituality in a disjointed, isolated way of personal subjectivity. His dispensing of His life into people is for the formation of a corporate expression of the one body with one life and one expression of God united with humanity.The individual man, Jesus the Son of God, after His resurrection, was universalized and distributed into His believers. God infused this individual man with supernatural universality - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)This means that the SAME PERSON, the SAME MAN is in a form in which He can be dispensed into millions of people who can then live in Him as a realm simultaneously.It is important to realize that this subjective one is God-Man. Yes, to live in God as a realm is subjective. But there is only one God. And though there are scandelous divisions among brothers and sisters in Christ we do have His promise that He will build His church and that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.So while we do ascknowledged schisms and divisions we also have to testify that we have tasted oneness and unity in many cities accross the earth. The body is coming into existence. The corporate unity is emmerging. The subjective and personal is always being builded into the whole, fitly framed and compacted together.Paul taught much about this:"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

​

Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone; In whom all the building, being fitted together; is growing into a holy temple in the Lord;

​

In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." (Eph. 2:19-22)The individual believers with the individual indwelling of Christ as life is growing along with and into a collective vessel, a corporate dwelling place of God. This is a organically growing building, a living temple emmerging through the encrease of Christ's life in a group of believers. This is exceedingly practical to many of us.As God dispenses His holy nature into these individuals what is developing is a holy living temple to contain God. That is God in a collective body of people - a corporate Body for Christ and a living temple for God as eternal life.I think the essence of your fear is that the new covenant I desicribe will only result in many isolated and subjective monk like individuals. That is not God's goal. And I beleive that what goal He has He cannot fail to reach in spite of our failures. Yes, I noticed that even in the giving of the ten commandments and the additional statutes, God had Moses appoint judges for decisions of hard cases. And the most difficult cases were to be brought to Moses. That is the Old Testament.In the New Testament though we are confronted with strange and difficult situations God promises that He will not allow the believer to be tempted above what he is able to withstand in His grace: The very term Father should communicate a sense of His wise and in depth understanding of the matters concerning His children. Jesus said that the very hairs on our head were numbered (Luke 12:7).Now if I pull out a hair and God knows, for example, that is hair # 134,264 and another hair is hair # 322,808 then He has intimate knowlege concerning my physical being. I know that He has just as detailed knowledge concerning my psychological and spiritual being as well as heredity, circumstances, inclinations, weaknesses, etc.I really don't think I can lose here. I did speak of the need to learn with time. Just as in natural life there is no instantaneous adulthood at the moment of birth, so at the moment of being born again, I am only at the beginning of my new life.Growth takes time and much trial and error. The divine Father knows that. I am not dodging if you mean. "Please point out the instruction in the Bible that tells me what to do in the next 10,000 actions I will perform for the rest of the day."Then our Bibles would be so huge you know. Even givin today's storage technology it would be slow, cumbersome, and impractical. So this is not a dodge anymore that the promise of "a new covenant" by God to His people is dodge. This now is the law of God's life being dispensed into man. First there was the law of letters. Then the new covenant is the promise of the law of God's life and nature being written in a living way into the inner being of the receivers.What you might call a "dodge" I would call the new covenant promised by God to impart His Spirit into His believers.The question then is not "What Would Jesus Do?". It is rather "What IS Jesus Doing?".Because "the last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). He is in a form in which He can live and DO within us. "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3:17)Once "the Spirit of the Lord," which is virtually the Lord Himself, ie. the life giving Lord, the God giving Lord, is dispensed into the human heart, it is then our responsibility to allow Him to successively transform us by degrees into His image. Here is the continuation of the above passage:"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

​

But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit."In other words, there is no escape from having to go through the process of successive growth, from one degree to another to another, by degrees, more and more into the "SAME IMAGE" of Christ.Now if you are going to throw back at me:" Well, jaywill, this is problematic you see, because all Christians are not instaneously perfect from day one. So there is lots of room for errors, mistakes, false starts, hypocrisies, inconsistancies, down right disobediences ... etc. So you see you have far from a perfect system going there."I would reply that you put much faith in the process of evolution don't you? How much trial and error has to take place in that system? Allow us to develop in spiritual growth as well.No one is getting away with anything here. I may be saved eternally and have eternal life. That does not mean that God cannot do some thing with me and even TO me in the age to come, let alone in this age.Putting aside the unbelievers in Christ for a moment, Paul says as well as His Master warns the Christians that we must all stand before the One who is living in us one day, and give an account of our life as His disciple: Remember that I said that if there is a Moral Law then there must be a Law Giver. There must be one to whom we are accountable.Yes, I may get over on you. I may get away temporarily with something. But I cannot get away forever. I am accountable to God - to Christ who lives in me now. I can be forgiven and still be disciplined by a wise Heavenly Father.I don't think we can improve upon God's way. That is true. But we Chistians will not abandon our faith because of some failures of His people.The record of the Bible is a record of God overcoming the failures of some of His people. Adam failed. Abraham failed somewhat. Isaac and Jacob failed somewhat. Saul failed. David had a big failure. Then many kings had some failures. The whole nation failed. God didn't stop. He Jews failed to recognise their Messiah. Peter had some big failures. There have been some failures of the Christian church in the last two thousand years.The resume of God however is filled with His ability to jump over the obstacles of man's failures. So we believe that He will reach His goal, if not with all, at least with a representative remnant.
( I do not speak of eternal redemption here but of the normal expression of spiritual victory of His people ). Do not forget - there is one to Whom we are ultimately acountable. Rare things are precious things often.If you split the right atom you will release tremendous energy although many other atoms were overlooked.As the centries roll on there are those obtaining the promises. There are those living in victory. Their numbers are encreasing in Paradise and on earth in spite of the immaturity of a greater number. God will acculate a number whom He will resurrect to be co-kings with Christ over the age to come.The story of how Gideon wrought a great victory with only 300 men is a lesson. God will obtain His purpose even if He is limited to a minority of cooperative ones.I have no immediate comment about the evolutionary portion of your reply yet. I want to read more about evolution.Skipping down then - But you could mean that as an outsider with no experience.Those standing outside of the construction that Noah was building probably thought that a "ARK" to save them from a "FLOOD" was kind of vague and ephemeral. They had never seen either.The Bible is saying that something is coming on the world which we neither have ever seen before. This dispensing of God's life and nature into man to saturate man should be thought of as the reality of the typology of the ark of Noah.We will be saved by what we build. That means by allowing this Spirit of Christ to fill us and saturate our personalities we are being built into that living vessel which alone will be able to stand what is coming.Otherwise we will be swept away with our ethics, our morals, our best efforts to do what is right. We will not be able to stand against the tide of the tribulation which is coming.This ark of Christ's salvation then is neither too nebulous or vague but very very practical. But it is spiritually based. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.