Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   objective/subjective morals/conscience?
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 61 of 94 (493038)
01-05-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
01-05-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Objective and absolute morality cannot exist unless we can know the mind of God.
If you are a Believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, read 1 Cor 2.
The Solomon test you propose is not realistic. Hospitals/doctors have to make decisions like this all the time. It is a "team decision", not a moral decision, based on who is the most needy candidate who is able to receive and not reject the organ. I don't play hypothetical games with unbelievers, and neither does the Lord.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 01-05-2009 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Blue Jay, posted 01-05-2009 6:49 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2009 9:29 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 62 of 94 (493048)
01-05-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by John 10:10
01-05-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
You didn't answer Huntard's question.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by John 10:10, posted 01-05-2009 12:29 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 01-05-2009 5:01 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 63 of 94 (493052)
01-05-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bluescat48
01-05-2009 3:09 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
You didn't answer Huntard's question.
God's children know the voice of Jesus as He declares in John 10:27,
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bluescat48, posted 01-05-2009 3:09 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 5:09 PM John 10:10 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 64 of 94 (493053)
01-05-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by John 10:10
01-05-2009 5:01 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
God's children know the voice of Jesus as He declares in John 10:27,
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me"
So, basically, you have no way to tell. Thanks for clearing that up.
Though I find it highly dangerous you would act on any voice in your head.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 01-05-2009 5:01 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by John 10:10, posted 01-06-2009 10:02 AM Huntard has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 94 (493063)
01-05-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by John 10:10
01-05-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Hi, 10:10.
10:10 writes:
I don't play hypothetical games with unbelievers, and neither does the Lord.
I beg to differ. Have you ever heard of something called a "parable?" Basically a "parable" is a story that Jesus tells, and, afterwards, He asks His audience (frequently "unbelievers," like Pharisees and Sadduccees) how it applies to real life.
Jesus says to some unbelievers: "Let's say there was a man who was beaten up on the side of the road, and three people saw him, but only one stopped to help him. Which do you think is neighbor to that man?" (Luke 10).
The only difference between Jesus' parables and Straggler's "hypothetical game" is that Straggler doesn't know what the correct answer to his "hypothetical game" is.
At any rate, I am not an unbeliever. Will you play hypothetical games with another believer?
-----
10:10 writes:
The Solomon test you propose is not realistic.
Funny that you should choose a Bible story as the label for something you regard as unrealistic.
-----
10:10 writes:
Hospitals/doctors have to make decisions like this all the time. It is a "team decision", not a moral decision, based on who is the most needy candidate who is able to receive and not reject the organ.
Don't muddy the waters: the analogy isn't about a hospital any more than the "Parable of the Ten Virgins" is about a wedding. Like any parable, analogy or "hypothetical game," it's the principle, not the details, that are important.
But, since you can't handle that, let's try it another way:
If there are two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims, neither of whom will survive another hour without a heart, and only one heart to give, who do you give it to?
The essential question is, "How do you choose who will live and who will die?"
This is one of very few questions that I'm sure everybody in the world will agree is a moral issue.
Edited by Mantis, : Added last sentence.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by John 10:10, posted 01-05-2009 12:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-05-2009 11:52 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 71 by John 10:10, posted 01-06-2009 10:40 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 66 of 94 (493096)
01-05-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Blue Jay
01-05-2009 6:49 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Mantis (aka Bluejay) writes:
If there are two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims, neither of whom will survive another hour without a heart, and only one heart to give, who do you give it to?
The essential question is, "How do you choose who will live and who will die?"
Actually, if the two victims are both conscious and aware of what is going on, I think that the essential question should be: How do you provide a basis for the two of them to reach a consensus choice among themselves? The most moral solution to the dilemma would be the one that the affected parties can both agree to.
If one or both victims are not conscious or aware enough to make this choice, then the decision should involve the person(s) most attached to the victims by relation, dependency of affection. (In the absence of such proxies, the doctor(s) involved must do their best to pick the one who has the best chances for immediate success in the procedure, and longer productive life after the procedure; any judgment based on perceived benefit to the rest of society may be going too far.)
It strikes me as entirely possible that the notions of altruism and self-sacrifice to a greater good can be elicited from average people, even in such a life-or-death situation. And this can be true even when the people involved are not Christians of any variety.
Of course, it's just as likely (probably more so) that such a consensus could not be reached within the allotted hour, in which case... who knows? If they really both die at the same time, perhaps there is a third potential recipient around somewhere -- both gambled on a possibility of outlasting the other and both proved wrong, and it's their own fault that they both died. If one does go first, well, it looks to me like a form of natural selection, which operates outside of any moral code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Blue Jay, posted 01-05-2009 6:49 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2009 12:11 AM Otto Tellick has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 67 of 94 (493100)
01-06-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Otto Tellick
01-05-2009 11:52 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Hi, Otto.
Otto Tellick writes:
Of course, it's just as likely (probably more so) that such a consensus could not be reached within the allotted hour, in which case... who knows? If they really both die at the same time, perhaps there is a third potential recipient around somewhere -- both gambled on a possibility of outlasting the other and both proved wrong, and it's their own fault that they both died. If one does go first, well, it looks to me like a form of natural selection, which operates outside of any moral code.
Interesting observation: you can find subjective morals anywhere!
But, I don't think the patients get to decide if they're on the top of the list or not: such a decision is definitely better placed in the hands of the hospital staff (an unbiased third party). Likely, the two patients wouldn't even be told about each other unless absolutely necessary.
And, the conditions of the analogy were pretty unrealistic, anyway: it's highly unlikely that you'll run into such a tough decision. But, the point of the analogy isn't to represent something in practical terms, but to get at something that's hard to demonstrate with practical terms.
-----
Let me reiterate that the hospital analogy is still just an analogy.
We can debate about how to make the analogy better, or we can debate about the principle behind the analogy. Both are important components of logical debate, but, in this case, further discourse on the analogy would likely only detract from the main issue, which is whether morality has an ultimate, objective source.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-05-2009 11:52 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-06-2009 3:10 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 68 of 94 (493105)
01-06-2009 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Blue Jay
01-06-2009 12:11 AM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Mantis writes:
Interesting observation: you can find subjective morals anywhere!
I'm sorry, I really don't understand the intent of this remark. Could you explain what you mean by this? How does it relate, exactly, to the bit you quoted?

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2009 12:11 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2009 12:17 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 94 (493129)
01-06-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by John 10:10
01-05-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
The fact is that that believers in Christ often come to opposing moral conclusions. This is obviously and innately relevant to the idea of the God given absolute morality that you espouse.
By ignoring and evading this fact you do your faith a disservice......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by John 10:10, posted 01-05-2009 12:39 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 70 of 94 (493133)
01-06-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Huntard
01-05-2009 5:09 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
So, basically, you have no way to tell. Thanks for clearing that up.
Though I find it highly dangerous you would act on any voice in your head.
No, it's the other way around. You have no way to tell.
As for me, just as I learned to listen and respond to the love of my earthly parents as I grew up, I've learned to listen and respond to the love of my heavenly Father as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those that have entered into the new birth relationship with the Lord as He explains in John 3:3-7 can hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27).
The danger is in not following Him.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 5:09 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Huntard, posted 01-06-2009 11:36 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 71 of 94 (493139)
01-06-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Blue Jay
01-05-2009 6:49 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Jesus does not say "let's say there was a man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho."
Jesus says there was "a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers."
This was a real life happening, not some hypothetical teaching Jesus was giving to Jews who despised Samaritans.
If there are two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims, neither of whom will survive another hour without a heart, and only one heart to give, who do you give it to?
I'm sure you think you've found the perfect moral delimma to which there is no answer. But on earth we all live with imperfect people with imperfect bodies. There is no such thing as "two equally-needy and equally-compatible heart-injury victims," as you have described. As I said, a "hospital team" would make the best decision based on the need of person and the ability of the person not to reject the new heart, commending both into the hands of God for continuing life or death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Blue Jay, posted 01-05-2009 6:49 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 72 of 94 (493145)
01-06-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by John 10:10
01-06-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
John 10:10 writes:
No, it's the other way around. You have no way to tell.
Really? You know what I am able to tell or not? You don't even know me, so kindly take your assumptions elsewhere.
Since it is you who has failed to supply any way of telling whether the voices he hears are actually the voice of god, I'd say you're the one with the problem, not me.
As for me, just as I learned to listen and respond to the love of my earthly parents as I grew up, I've learned to listen and respond to the love of my heavenly Father as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
No you didn't. You assume you did, but since you can't point to a single way of telling, you actually can't.
Those that have entered into the new birth relationship with the Lord as He explains in John 3:3-7 can hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27).
You just think you do, and since you can't supply a method of distinction, you are a very dangerous individual.
The danger is in not following Him.
The danger is in not being able to tell if it really is him who is talking to you.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by John 10:10, posted 01-06-2009 10:02 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by John 10:10, posted 01-06-2009 3:10 PM Huntard has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 73 of 94 (493147)
01-06-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Otto Tellick
01-06-2009 3:10 AM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
Hi, Otto.
Otto writes:
Mantis writes:
Interesting observation: you can find subjective morals anywhere!
I'm sorry, I really don't understand the intent of this remark. Could you explain what you mean by this? How does it relate, exactly, to the bit you quoted?
Well, it doesn't, really: not directly, anyway. Just to the overall gist of your post. You discussed patients getting together and making decisions, and then one patient holding out, hoping to outlast the other... clearly these are several different moral choices being made by consulting different moral compasses.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Otto Tellick, posted 01-06-2009 3:10 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 74 of 94 (493156)
01-06-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Huntard
01-06-2009 11:36 AM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
As for me, just as I learned to listen and respond to the love of my earthly parents as I grew up, I've learned to listen and respond to the love of my heavenly Father as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ.
No you didn't. You assume you did, but since you can't point to a single way of telling, you actually can't.
The danger is in not being able to tell if it really is him who is talking to you.
Your contention is not with me, but with Jesus who declared His children can know His voice and follow Him (John 10:27).
All you are proving is that you are not one of His children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Huntard, posted 01-06-2009 11:36 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Huntard, posted 01-06-2009 4:10 PM John 10:10 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 75 of 94 (493157)
01-06-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John 10:10
01-06-2009 3:10 PM


Re: Moral vs Ceremonial law
John 10:10 writes:
Your contention is not with me, but with Jesus who declared His children can know His voice and follow Him (John 10:27).
No, my contention is with you, and with your inability to provide a way with which to tell if the voice you are hearing actually is the voice of god.
You have provided nothing, not one single bit of the mechanism you use to determine whether or not the voice you hear is the voice of god, no matter how many times you claim you did.
What if you heard two voices, one would command you to feed the needy all Sunday long, and the other would command you to go help the sick all Sunday long. Which would you follow, and why? And don't come up with that same drivel you fed Mantis about hypothetical situations. They are there to illustrate a point. Now, for you to illustrate your point, all you'd have to do is say: "I'd do this, and these are my reasons". That would make it clear. Failing to answer the question will make only one thing clear, namely, that you have no way to tell if god is speaking to you. And that, quite frankly, will make you very dangerous.
All you are proving is that you are not one of His children.
I thought all humans were god's "children"?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John 10:10, posted 01-06-2009 3:10 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John 10:10, posted 01-06-2009 5:04 PM 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