Conscience: A Difficult Question

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Which side is God on?

The dilemma: The religion you believe to be the true one teaches something your conscience disagrees with, even after studying and trying to resolve the issue. Should you:
1. Accept that God knows more than you do, and follow the teaching out of humility.
2. Reject the teaching and follow your conscience.

Which option do you think God endorses and why?

This dilemma is why I feel I can prove morality has to be something that is not dependent on intellect to understand. If the stupid people are only following it out of humility, then it fails, because if they think it's wrong and are deferring to someone else to understand that it's not, they might as well be deferring to Nazis. If "god says" should convince them when their conscience says otherwise, then people will use "god says" to convince them to do evil, and nobody will break free of evil influence if the evildoers at the top simply peddle, "I know best."

However, sometimes I also feel that people who disagree with a moral principle should look at the society that principle buys, and leave people alone who want to live like that, as long as they provide right of exit.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #19]

no one is born with perfect understanding and morals. We start with what our parents and our larger culture teach us - which inevitably is imperfect and will conflict with what is good and right. Even if we hypothetically were born in an environment that was perfect - one would still need to internalize the teachings of that perfect moral system, which requires study, debate, reflection, and time.

Given that people do lie about morality for their own ends, doesn't this mean we're just doomed? If we all have to decide to listen to someone or something else, because no one understands morality... then isn't that just giving the world over to the liars? If there's one Right Teacher with capitals R and T, okay, so be it, but if we don't understand morality internally, from the get-go, how the heck are we expected to pick the Right Teacher out of the swarms of liars, which a Christian must admit exist?

And if there's supposed to be something in my heart that creates harmony with the Right Teacher, and shows me which one that is, why don't I just cut out the middle-man and follow my heart to start with?

I wouldn't say that no one understands morality, or even that it is all that complicated. While different individuals and cultures across time have taken on any number of stances regarding morality, for the most part we find that there is a lot of agreement. From the scriptural standpoint, we are fully capable of understanding and acting according to what is right and true - and this was true well before Christ came along. Deutoronomy 30 is a particular powerful passage concerning this matter; I suggest reading it all (its short).

Deutoronomy 30:11-20 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]

Men can do some work women can't. Men earn higher - probably because men are more aggressive and competitive. Two males equals two higher earners, on average, who can compete better. When you add in the fact that these pairs usually don't have to support a child, the advantage becomes overwhelming. You can see it in largely gay areas like Wilton Manners, Florida: Housing prices balloon in response to more gay disposable income. They edge male-female pairs out of the market.

And there's nothing wrong with this in a capitalistic system. No judgment. It's just that if your goal is reproduction then maybe not allowing this to happen is smart.

I can certainly see certain economic advantages to homosexual couples. At the very least they don't have to worry about the cost of children. Though I wouldn't say this makes them superior. Rather, as you note, men tend better at certain things - and visa-versa. Doubling down on the things that only men are good at or that only women are good at will generally leave the couple lacking. A heterosexual couple can benefit from the respective strength of both sexes. And, of course, heterosexual pairings are vital to humanities continued existence.

While the OT Law was certainly favorable towards the Hebrews within Israel in certain respects, I don't see it or the larger scriptural narrative as being in anyway racist. It doesn't teach that the Hebrews were either a superior or inferior people/race. But open to hearing why you think so.

It depends on which definition you're using. By that definition, no. Not necessarily. By the modern definition of power + privilege, definitely yes. Jews gave themselves privilege in those very laws - privilege over non-Jews. If a white person treating another white person better because he is white, is racist (which most people accept as flat fact) then so too is it when Jews do the same for theirs. Since the Bible not only empowers them to do that, but outright tells them to, if you want to use any kind of modern definition of racism, the Bible is extremely and openly racist.

Unless you believe God doesn't exist, in which case all the stuff in the Bible that could be considered racist, is just the totally understandable revenge fantasy of a vastly underprivileged and downtrodden group.

I would not consider being treated a bit differently under the law to equal racism. For example: most modern nations require that you be a citizen in order to hold down a job within their borders. This means that the native/naturalized residents are treated one way, while aliens are treated another. There's no hatred or sense of superiority in such laws; rather the laws of a nation are meant to protect and serve the residents of that nation first and foremost.

That said, the OT Law commands that foreigners residing in the land be treated just as a native-born Israelite's. The only laws where there would be a difference would be that the Law permits one to have permanent slaves from other nations. I can't think of other examples off of the top of my head.

Lev 19:34 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

This is basically the argument made here, many times, in rejection of Christianity.

To my mind, they are valid arguments. However, they aren't arguments against biblical Christianity so much as they are arguments against the numerous bad interpretations there are out there - such as all of those sects that maintain Once Saved Always Saved, or that salvation requires nothing on our part, etc. Of course, I acknowledge that my views - while very biblically based - are not particularly orthodox.

Then I don't see the problem with doing that, without religion. This is my argument - called the Purple Wager - about why you shouldn't follow any religion and should just be a good person. If there's no god, you're doing the right thing anyway and you ought to be happy even if you don't get rewarded. If there's a fair and righteous god, he'll reward this and you get what you deserve. If there's an unfair god for whom being a good person is not enough, you can't win anyway, because an unfair god might demand specific behaviours and not tell you, tell you but allow lots of misinformation so you have no way to pick the right specifics, or even end up punishing you on a whim when you picked the right specifics anyway.

In other words, if god is unfair, worrying about what he wants is pointless. And if god is fair, we have everything we need to be righteous without having to guess which religion is correct. And if there is no god, just be a good person anyway.

So just be a good person.

I wouldn't argue that religion is necessary to live a moral life; man is a moral agent whether he wants to be or not. Now, from a religious perspective, a full account of morality means acting out of love not only for ones fellowman, but also acting out of love for God (indeed, this takes precedence). Thus a purely secular moral system can get a lot right, but is inevitably incomplete.

More importantly, however, morality is only part of some religions. Morality is an important concept in Abrahamic religions - but in other religions this is not necessarily the case. Taoism straight up rejects the concept of morality.

Furthermore, it is not enough to act morally from a Christian perspective. Christianity calls one to go above and beyond morality (which is simply expected of you) to self-sacrifice, to going beyond what the Law requires of us. You aren't entitled to a reward because you don't go around murdering random people. But you would be entitled to a reward for putting your life on the line to help some stranger being attacked. Morality demands that we love others as ourselves, while Christ demands that we love others as he has loved us.

John 13:34-35 34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 15:12-13 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

This is another matter a lot of Christians get tripped up over. They think that when Paul taught that works of the Law won't save you/declare you righteous that therefore any and all works are useless with regards salvation (despite numerous passages to the contrary). They don't understand that, like Christ, Paul calls us to go above and beyond the requirements of the Law.

1 Cor 9:13-18 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.

[Purple Knight]

And if there's supposed to be something in my heart that creates harmony with the Right Teacher, and shows me which one that is, why don't I just cut out the middle-man and follow my heart to start with?

I wouldn't say that no one understands morality, or even that it is all that complicated. While different individuals and cultures across time have taken on any number of stances regarding morality, for the most part we find that there is a lot of agreement. From the scriptural standpoint, we are fully capable of understanding and acting according to what is right and true - and this was true well before Christ came along. Deutoronomy 30 is a particular powerful passage concerning this matter; I suggest reading it all (its short).

Deutoronomy 30:11-20 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You don't necessarily want me to read things because I read them critically. I can just highlight a few things here and point out that this passage is trying to have it both ways. In blue, I show where you're supposed to follow your heart and it'll be fine. In red, it outright says the opposite: Essentially, if your heart disagrees, well then, your heart is wrong.

It has to try to talk out of both sides of its mouth like this. Because if it says the blue bits and really means them, it has put itself out of a job.

The only charity I can give here is that the Right Teacher may be wiser than I am, so that with everything he has said, if I am completely honest, there is harmony with my heart, and with anything he has said that does not make sense at first, I can listen with a fully and honestly open mind and through study, find concordance.

But that is giving people who say they disagree, as a group, very little credit. You'll find me attacking atheist positions more than I do religious ones, because I am frightened that this is the case - that atheists are a little closed-minded and honest study can actually find harmony. I do not find that to be the case which is why I continue to be so hard on fellow atheists. I think I have the burden of proof: To address all this apparent fiction free from bias, and also to give it its best face before I can say for certain that my heart disagrees.

But if it still does disagree with my heart, or even the heart of just one honest person who has studied to the best of their ability, it absolutely has to be wrong. A fair god would not give people consciences that pointed the wrong way and then damn them for thinking the teachers he sent must be liars because he built their hearts to reject those teachers.

I can certainly see certain economic advantages to homosexual couples. At the very least they don't have to worry about the cost of children. Though I wouldn't say this makes them superior. Rather, as you note, men tend better at certain things - and visa-versa. Doubling down on the things that only men are good at or that only women are good at will generally leave the couple lacking. A heterosexual couple can benefit from the respective strength of both sexes. And, of course, heterosexual pairings are vital to humanities continued existence.

The things women are good at over and above men, tend to be centred around having and raising children, which, although vital for humanity, imposes a serious cost on the people doing it that cripples them if they're in competition with people who don't. In this case we will see if Nature can beat capitalism. If it can't, and we want our species to go on, we may have to safeguard people crippling themselves to ensure the future of humanity, against the competition of those better equipped to win because they are not suffering that burden.

You get a tax credit if you have a child but unless you are very wealthy and paying loads of taxes, it does not pay for the child. You don't have to ban homosexuality but you do have to do something, or it's going to come to the point where regular people see what's happening and want to ban homosexuality. As Boaty pointed out, they are killing homosexual men in Uganda. To me it seems to be a desperate measure against the rampant spread of AIDS. And to me it's a shame nobody did anything about AIDS before it got so bad that the pitchforks came out.

Rights aren't rights. Outside of a society protecting them, you have none. If you act to hurt society within the limits of the law (for example, if you have sex while having HIV) figuring about the hapless person you just gave it to, that it's their own darn fault for not being careful, figuring it is society's duty to protect your freedom, you're free to keep thinking that as the society keeping your rights sacred starts to crumble and you lose them as a simple matter of cause and effect.

I would not consider being treated a bit differently under the law to equal racism. For example: most modern nations require that you be a citizen in order to hold down a job within their borders. This means that the native/naturalized residents are treated one way, while aliens are treated another. There's no hatred or sense of superiority in such laws; rather the laws of a nation are meant to protect and serve the residents of that nation first and foremost.

And those laws are being called out as racist, because they favour some over others.

You're free to use the believing one race is superior/inferior definition, I just don't think it's useful. If you take it one way, Asians being better at math and Blacks at basketball, it's obviously true and anyone who notices this obvious truth is a racist. If you backpedal to thinking "superior race" would mean nothing about ability and only about the innate value of the individual, racism would be an absolutely useless descriptor because a genuine Nazi could still genocide people off because of ability, or because of anything else, and simply say the innate value is the same. Heck, he could say he is protecting his race from competition, not make any judgments about innate value, and you have a non-racist Nazi doing all the things a Nazi does.

I don't like that definition because if it happens to be true that some races have higher ability than others, you've just made up a nasty word intended to insult people and applied it to anyone who notices the truth. If it's supposed to be something awful, maybe it's like slavery and it's a word that shouldn't be tossed around until you're actually doing awful things to people. Let's take the Nazi from our previous example. Instead of taking away the belief that his race is superior and having him doing the exact same things but being honest that he's just out to help his own, let's keep his belief that his race is superior but have him never treat anyone inequally. Maybe he says, I think we're superior, which is why we have to allow open and fair competition, so that we can win on those terms.

That said, the OT Law commands that foreigners residing in the land be treated just as a native-born Israelite's. The only laws where there would be a difference would be that the Law permits one to have permanent slaves from other nations. I can't think of other examples off of the top of my head.

That's a pretty big difference, and roughly equivalent to unpaid internship versus chattel slavery, with the perhaps notable exception that in the Bible you can't ever beat a slave to death. For economic reasons and for purely selfish motives from white American slave owners, I seriously doubt it happened often and it would be against the owner's interest to kill a slave by beating unless that slave was so disobedient as to cost the owner money. I can't find any statistics about how often it happened so I assume it was terribly uncommon.

To my mind, they are valid arguments. However, they aren't arguments against biblical Christianity so much as they are arguments against the numerous bad interpretations there are out there - such as all of those sects that maintain Once Saved Always Saved, or that salvation requires nothing on our part, etc. Of course, I acknowledge that my views - while very biblically based - are not particularly orthodox.

It's not out of the question with honest study that you find the one outlier that is "supposed to be" a test. This is a valid explanation for both sin transference and divine hiddenness: You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing, and it would not be entirely out of the question to tell people all their lives that if they accept sin transference, they get into Heaven, and then, at the end, the correct choice is to reject sin transference and willingly go to Hell.

I just feel bad for all the Christians who have been fully duped into thinking letting someone be beaten and tortured for their wrongs is actually the right thing to do.

I wouldn't argue that religion is necessary to live a moral life; man is a moral agent whether he wants to be or not. Now, from a religious perspective, a full account of morality means acting out of love not only for ones fellowman, but also acting out of love for God (indeed, this takes precedence). Thus a purely secular moral system can get a lot right, but is inevitably incomplete.

How are we supposed to pick the correct god to act out love for? There are thousands. Why should I not worship the Devil? Because I see that he's evil, or because someone else tells me so? If I'm just supposed to throw out my conscience and trust somebody, I'm not going to pick the right person to trust, 99% of the time.

More importantly, however, morality is only part of some religions. Morality is an important concept in Abrahamic religions - but in other religions this is not necessarily the case. Taoism straight up rejects the concept of morality.

Furthermore, it is not enough to act morally from a Christian perspective. Christianity calls one to go above and beyond morality (which is simply expected of you) to self-sacrifice, to going beyond what the Law requires of us. You aren't entitled to a reward because you don't go around murdering random people. But you would be entitled to a reward for putting your life on the line to help some stranger being attacked. Morality demands that we love others as ourselves, while Christ demands that we love others as he has loved us.

A rational person might not want either. There's a conflation here between giving up my life to save someone from something merely unfortunate, which I would agree is righteous, and saving someone from the just punishment for their wrongs, which is not. If I sacrificed myself to save a baby from a burning building, people would applaud. If I broke death row inmates out of prison, the people would probably not be nearly as happy about it.

This is another matter a lot of Christians get tripped up over. They think that when Paul taught that works of the Law won't save you/declare you righteous that therefore any and all works are useless with regards salvation (despite numerous passages to the contrary). They don't understand that, like Christ, Paul calls us to go above and beyond the requirements of the Law.

I don't think that contains any contradictions, but what then is the point of the law? It's like a boss who outlines all your duties, then after you do them, he chastises you for "doing the minimum." If he wanted you to do more, why didn't he just tell you? It may make sense, but it also begs the question: If there's no difference between breaking the law and failing to go above and beyond it, why follow it at all? We do make sacrifices to treat people with basic dignity. Sometimes, we make big sacrifices. I might give my life for a murderer because I realise it's kill or be killed, but only giving up my life for something I'm not required to do makes me good?

It renders the law pointless. And it's lazy. And it's nothing to do with people being greedy, just wanting the reward. The reward is a symbol of something that people want: Having done well in life, having been a good person. If these laws do not help you achieve that, they are pointless. And if going above and beyond is necessary, why is it enough, since it is just now part of what is necessary? It's a goalpost that automatically shifts to just above what a person has achieved.

[iam1me2023]

You don't necessarily want me to read things because I read them critically. I can just highlight a few things here and point out that this passage is trying to have it both ways. In blue, I show where you're supposed to follow your heart and it'll be fine. In red, it outright says the opposite: Essentially, if your heart disagrees, well then, your heart is wrong.

It has to try to talk out of both sides of its mouth like this. Because if it says the blue bits and really means them, it has put itself out of a job.

The only charity I can give here is that the Right Teacher may be wiser than I am, so that with everything he has said, if I am completely honest, there is harmony with my heart, and with anything he has said that does not make sense at first, I can listen with a fully and honestly open mind and through study, find concordance.

I would not agree with you that the blue bits simply means follow your heart. The fact that interpreting it as such leads to an immediate contradiction is your clue that that is probably not the intended meaning. Rather, it is saying that no special prophet or the like is necessary for you to understand and obey the Law; you are fully capable of doing it.

But that is giving people who say they disagree, as a group, very little credit. You'll find me attacking atheist positions more than I do religious ones, because I am frightened that this is the case - that atheists are a little closed-minded and honest study can actually find harmony. I do not find that to be the case which is why I continue to be so hard on fellow atheists. I think I have the burden of proof: To address all this apparent fiction free from bias, and also to give it its best face before I can say for certain that my heart disagrees.

I find that both groups can be pretty closed minded about certain things, while more open minded about others. It just depends upon the topic. You can draw similar divides about Liberals vs Conservatives and such as well - those points where they are rhetorically ingrained they tend to be less open-minded about; they've already made up their minds for better or worse. For example: it can be very difficult to have an honest conversation about the Trinity w/ many Christians - who want to buy the fiction that Christianity has always taught as a core doctrine the Trinity; despite the fact that it took hundreds of years to develop historically.

But if it still does disagree with my heart, or even the heart of just one honest person who has studied to the best of their ability, it absolutely has to be wrong. A fair god would not give people consciences that pointed the wrong way and then damn them for thinking the teachers he sent must be liars because he built their hearts to reject those teachers.

I think that's a bit extreme - to say that if *anyone* has studied to the best of their ability and failed to reconcile a matter that therefore it must be wrong. In the first place because it's impossible to know if someone truly tried their best - and in the second place because different people have different intellectual capabilities. Most people, quite frankly, aren't half as intelligent as they like to think.

Our consciences are reflections of our beliefs and values. While it is certainly important to obey your conscience - and while God definitely takes ones conscience into account - it is by no means a fool-proof mechanism. As we study and grow in our understanding, so too will our conscience change and be refined overtime.

The things women are good at over and above men, tend to be centred around having and raising children, which, although vital for humanity, imposes a serious cost on the people doing it that cripples them if they're in competition with people who don't. In this case we will see if Nature can beat capitalism. If it can't, and we want our species to go on, we may have to safeguard people crippling themselves to ensure the future of humanity, against the competition of those better equipped to win because they are not suffering that burden.

Not just that - but certainly women tend to be more naturally geared towards care of the home and family (which I for one am quite thankful for; I hate the constant upkeep of house work). Women, as the generally weaker and less aggressive sex, are also correspondingly more natural when it comes to things like conflict resolution/avoidance, compromise, and emotional intelligence.

And those laws are being called out as racist, because they favour some over others.

You're free to use the believing one race is superior/inferior definition, I just don't think it's useful. If you take it one way, Asians being better at math and Blacks at basketball, it's obviously true and anyone who notices this obvious truth is a racist. If you backpedal to thinking "superior race" would mean nothing about ability and only about the innate value of the individual, racism would be an absolutely useless descriptor because a genuine Nazi could still genocide people off because of ability, or because of anything else, and simply say the innate value is the same. Heck, he could say he is protecting his race from competition, not make any judgments about innate value, and you have a non-racist Nazi doing all the things a Nazi does.

I don't like that definition because if it happens to be true that some races have higher ability than others, you've just made up a nasty word intended to insult people and applied it to anyone who notices the truth. If it's supposed to be something awful, maybe it's like slavery and it's a word that shouldn't be tossed around until you're actually doing awful things to people. Let's take the Nazi from our previous example. Instead of taking away the belief that his race is superior and having him doing the exact same things but being honest that he's just out to help his own, let's keep his belief that his race is superior but have him never treat anyone inequally. Maybe he says, I think we're superior, which is why we have to allow open and fair competition, so that we can win on those terms.

I've not seen anyone assert that such laws are racist - and they certainly aren't. That said, I have heard of people trying to extend the meaning of racism to any number of things that aren't traditionally considered racism. I think this just hurts your cause, myself, as many/most people are going to scoff at the idea that such policies are racist. And don't get me wrong - I would love to be able to freely migrate to another country and work and live there without all the red tape; I would love to get out of America to a more socialized country. But I'm not going to go around accusing people of racism and hate crimes because a country's laws show preference for their residents over non-naturalized aliens.

Also, the fact that there are problems with the conceptualization of race/racism and thus of Nazism is not a problem if you aren't racist or a Nazi.

I say that rather than trying to make everything out to be racist - which, like calling everyone a Nazi, cheapens your position and loses the point - you should find more appropriate terms to describe the phenomenon in question. Don't unnecessarily muddle your concerns with what racism is generally and historically taken to mean. I will definitely be sticking to the traditional/historical usage of the term myself.

That's a pretty big difference, and roughly equivalent to unpaid internship versus chattel slavery, with the perhaps notable exception that in the Bible you can't ever beat a slave to death. For economic reasons and for purely selfish motives from white American slave owners, I seriously doubt it happened often and it would be against the owner's interest to kill a slave by beating unless that slave was so disobedient as to cost the owner money. I can't find any statistics about how often it happened so I assume it was terribly uncommon.

There are far more differences between what the OT Law permits vs what America practiced. Kidnapping = death in the OT Law, whereas kidnapping fueled the US slave market. Runaway slaves were to be protected and you couldn't return them to their master under OT Law - vs in the US they had to develop the under ground railroad to get away, and would be hunted down like dogs to face death, torture, etc as punishment. The OT Law forbade masters from abusing their positions and severely injuring their servants. If you killed a slave, then you would be put to death. If you so much as knocked out a tooth, then the slaves debts were forgiven on the spot and freed. Compare that to how the US abused, beat, and killed their slaves reguarly. In the OT Law, if a master took a woman slave for himself - then she was to be given the rights of a wife. In US slavery they often took slave women for sex, but rarely if ever took them as wives or recognized their children as their own.

The reason you can't find statistics is because they didn't see any reason to record the deaths of slaves whom they regarded as less than human.

It's not out of the question with honest study that you find the one outlier that is "supposed to be" a test. This is a valid explanation for both sin transference and divine hiddenness: You're supposed to do the right thing because it's the right thing, and it would not be entirely out of the question to tell people all their lives that if they accept sin transference, they get into Heaven, and then, at the end, the correct choice is to reject sin transference and willingly go to Hell.

That's definitely not the correct choice. Justice is a good thing, but not the best. Forgiveness and mercy and greater than justice.

I just feel bad for all the Christians who have been fully duped into thinking letting someone be beaten and tortured for their wrongs is actually the right thing to do.

He did die for everyone; but the purpose was not to blindly wipe out all sin without regard to the sinner. His blood is the blood of the New Covenant - through which anyone can be saved. His life and death serve as an example of how we are called to live - giving our lives to God and to our fellowman.

How are we supposed to pick the correct god to act out love for? There are thousands. Why should I not worship the Devil? Because I see that he's evil, or because someone else tells me so? If I'm just supposed to throw out my conscience and trust somebody, I'm not going to pick the right person to trust, 99% of the time.

That's something everyone must answer for themselves, ultimately. However, might I suggest that it is wise to serve a God that actually cares for and loves humanity, and acts to reconcile us to himself. The gods of other religions typically have transactional relations with man; they'll bless you if you supply them with sacrifices, sex acts, etc. but they ultimately don't really care about you or humanity all that much. Worshipping such gods is more a matter of acquiring their blessing for personal gain than it is to have a relationship with those gods. On the other hand, YHWH needs nothing from us - what can you give him that is not his already? Instead he accepts as service to him helping those in need - especially the least of these.

A rational person might not want either. There's a conflation here between giving up my life to save someone from something merely unfortunate, which I would agree is righteous, and saving someone from the just punishment for their wrongs, which is not. If I sacrificed myself to save a baby from a burning building, people would applaud. If I broke death row inmates out of prison, the people would probably not be nearly as happy about it.

Agreed that context matters. Blindly freeing death row inmates = denying justice to those they've harmed, and letting them run free to continue harming others. One must act by considering all parties and not showing favoritism.

I don't think that contains any contradictions, but what then is the point of the law? It's like a boss who outlines all your duties, then after you do them, he chastises you for "doing the minimum." If he wanted you to do more, why didn't he just tell you? It may make sense, but it also begs the question: If there's no difference between breaking the law and failing to go above and beyond it, why follow it at all? We do make sacrifices to treat people with basic dignity. Sometimes, we make big sacrifices. I might give my life for a murderer because I realise it's kill or be killed, but only giving up my life for something I'm not required to do makes me good?

It renders the law pointless. And it's lazy. And it's nothing to do with people being greedy, just wanting the reward. The reward is a symbol of something that people want: Having done well in life, having been a good person. If these laws do not help you achieve that, they are pointless. And if going above and beyond is necessary, why is it enough, since it is just now part of what is necessary? It's a goalpost that automatically shifts to just above what a person has achieved.

The Law has many purposes: to govern the state of Israel, to serve as a teacher of God's will, to establish moral requirements/accountability, etc. This last point is emphasized by Paul.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Romans 7:7;12-13 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” ... 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

And, yes - if you live according to the Spirit/Love, going above and beyond the basic moral requirements of the Law, then the Law does indeed become obsolete!

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

[Purple Knight]

I would not agree with you that the blue bits simply means follow your heart. The fact that interpreting it as such leads to an immediate contradiction is your clue that that is probably not the intended meaning. Rather, it is saying that no special prophet or the like is necessary for you to understand and obey the Law; you are fully capable of doing it.

The only way I can be fully capable of following the Law is if I have a way, for sure, to know what it is. I'd have to have an inbuilt way to detect which Law is the Law, and reject laws presented as ultimate and perfect and from God, which are actually not.

I find that both groups can be pretty closed minded about certain things, while more open minded about others. It just depends upon the topic. You can draw similar divides about Liberals vs Conservatives and such as well - those points where they are rhetorically ingrained they tend to be less open-minded about; they've already made up their minds for better or worse. For example: it can be very difficult to have an honest conversation about the Trinity w/ many Christians - who want to buy the fiction that Christianity has always taught as a core doctrine the Trinity; despite the fact that it took hundreds of years to develop historically.

I think that's a bit extreme - to say that if *anyone* has studied to the best of their ability and failed to reconcile a matter that therefore it must be wrong. In the first place because it's impossible to know if someone truly tried their best - and in the second place because different people have different intellectual capabilities. Most people, quite frankly, aren't half as intelligent as they like to think.

Our consciences are reflections of our beliefs and values. While it is certainly important to obey your conscience - and while God definitely takes ones conscience into account - it is by no means a fool-proof mechanism. As we study and grow in our understanding, so too will our conscience change and be refined overtime.

I know atheists can be closed-minded. Some are more dogmatic than many Christians. I present T.J. Kirk as an example of a dogmatic atheist. What I'm saying I find hard to believe (as should any thinking person) is that amongst all the people who reject religion, including all Christians who were once faithful and decided they could be no longer, there is not a single solitary person who honestly studied, attempted to find harmony, and could not.

And that one person disproves a fair and just god, because a fair and just god would not give him a conscience that pointed the wrong way. I also reject that one's conscience is dependent on upbringing because it is the only thing that can show you your upbringing was unrighteous. If it can fail, then people can just be indoctrinated into evil with no way to ever know they are wrong. And that sort of invalidates the kind of free will necessary for it to be fair that some people are saved and some are damned (or at least, not saved).

I've not seen anyone assert that such laws are racist - and they certainly aren't. That said, I have heard of people trying to extend the meaning of racism to any number of things that aren't traditionally considered racism. I think this just hurts your cause, myself, as many/most people are going to scoff at the idea that such policies are racist. And don't get me wrong - I would love to be able to freely migrate to another country and work and live there without all the red tape; I would love to get out of America to a more socialized country. But I'm not going to go around accusing people of racism and hate crimes because a country's laws show preference for their residents over non-naturalized aliens.

Also, the fact that there are problems with the conceptualization of race/racism and thus of Nazism is not a problem if you aren't racist or a Nazi.

I say that rather than trying to make everything out to be racist - which, like calling everyone a Nazi, cheapens your position and loses the point - you should find more appropriate terms to describe the phenomenon in question. Don't unnecessarily muddle your concerns with what racism is generally and historically taken to mean. I will definitely be sticking to the traditional/historical usage of the term myself.

You can do that, but I have shown it to be non-useful. First by imagining a Nazi and taking away the part where he believes his race is superior (but having him commit the same atrocities against other races), and alternatively having him continue to believe that he is superior but never treating anyone of another race inequally. The second looks nothing like a Nazi anymore, but you believe he is still racist because of a nebulous belief he holds. Second, I'm glad you called me a racist because I said I believe white people are evil. I do believe that, and it isn't racist by your definition because evil does not equal inferior. In other words, your definition is 1) nondescriptive of actual racism and 2) too easy to get out of.

If it doesn't even apply when you mean it to, that should offer some insight that the definition is, at very least, in need of refinement.

I'm not against alternative definitions, I maintain that my points will follow even if my favoured definitions are not used, and I disavow liberals who insist on specific definitions. But your definitions should at least be useful and actually describe what they need to describe, or we can't communicate.

White people are evil ≠ White people are inferior, so racist in your sense does not describe a position that white people are evil. To express what you want to express, you should start by explaining why believing a race is evil is racist. That will probably lead you to the definition you want and then we can communicate.

There are far more differences between what the OT Law permits vs what America practiced. Kidnapping = death in the OT Law, whereas kidnapping fueled the US slave market. Runaway slaves were to be protected and you couldn't return them to their master under OT Law - vs in the US they had to develop the under ground railroad to get away, and would be hunted down like dogs to face death, torture, etc as punishment. The OT Law forbade masters from abusing their positions and severely injuring their servants. If you killed a slave, then you would be put to death. If you so much as knocked out a tooth, then the slaves debts were forgiven on the spot and freed. Compare that to how the US abused, beat, and killed their slaves reguarly. In the OT Law, if a master took a woman slave for himself - then she was to be given the rights of a wife. In US slavery they often took slave women for sex, but rarely if ever took them as wives or recognized their children as their own.

The reason you can't find statistics is because they didn't see any reason to record the deaths of slaves whom they regarded as less than human.

They still had a profit motive not to kill them wholesale. A slave costs about $40k in today's money. That equals a new car. If you spend $40k on a car, you don't cause damage to it unless you need to.

I'm not denying that slaves had more rights under the Old Testament. I'm saying it was still racial, generational slavery. I also don't think it was impermissible or that much worse than wage slavery today, but if the reason people hate American slavery so very much (that it was along racial lines, and generational) was modeled on Biblical slavery, who can you blame for that but those who wrote the Bible and gave one race the right to generationally enslave others?

And does kidnapping truly not apply to captives taken from war? How far did you have to run to be protected? If it was easy I think people would sell themselves into slavery, run, get protection, and sell themselves again. Something about that doesn't add up.

That's definitely not the correct choice. Justice is a good thing, but not the best. Forgiveness and mercy and greater than justice.

He did die for everyone; but the purpose was not to blindly wipe out all sin without regard to the sinner. His blood is the blood of the New Covenant - through which anyone can be saved. His life and death serve as an example of how we are called to live - giving our lives to God and to our fellowman.

If forgiveness and mercy can simply rise above justice like that, I don't see as how anyone had to be tortured to death. But if there's some fundamental law of the universe that justice must be done, I don't see how guilt, sin, or punishment can rightly be transferred from one to another.

If I'm just supposed to throw out my conscience and trust somebody, I'm not going to pick the right person to trust, 99% of the time.

That's something everyone must answer for themselves, ultimately. However, might I suggest that it is wise to serve a God that actually cares for and loves humanity, and acts to reconcile us to himself. The gods of other religions typically have transactional relations with man; they'll bless you if you supply them with sacrifices, sex acts, etc. but they ultimately don't really care about you or humanity all that much. Worshipping such gods is more a matter of acquiring their blessing for personal gain than it is to have a relationship with those gods. On the other hand, YHWH needs nothing from us - what can you give him that is not his already? Instead he accepts as service to him helping those in need - especially the least of these. [/quote]

If he's as fair and generous and loving as you say, a good deed done to any one of the humans he so loves and cares for is a good deed to him, and service to him, whether I believe he exists or not. If he cares that I do these acts in his name then he cares most for his own self and his own ego, and only about humanity as a secondary concern, at best.

I'm not saying having an ego like that is bad. I certainly do. But I'm honest with people about what I want and why I want it. I don't claim to be selfless because I'm not. And I don't trick people stupider than I am so that I can feel good about myself. I don't leave people with nothing to go on, then punish them for not knowing what I wanted. And most of all I'm a real person, so if somebody else lies about what I want, I can correct that.

That last is really the crux of the issue, isn't it? If God is real, and fair, he has an obligation to communicate what he wants, if he wants things. And if people lie about what he wants and others are deceived, he shouldn't sit up in Heaven and snicker about how dumb the suckers are - he should correct it. The only way this works is if our consciences all point true north.

Agreed that context matters. Blindly freeing death row inmates = denying justice to those they've harmed, and letting them run free to continue harming others. One must act by considering all parties and not showing favoritism.

I think you have a good starting point here for the definition we talked about earlier. I agree that not showing favouritism is an admirable goal. But it gets complicated when injustice is concerned. If Bob chops off Mary's limbs, he has created injustice because she has no limbs and he still does. Since she did nothing to deserve this, that is unfair and unjust. She can simply forgive him, or the law can do so in her stead, but the injustice still exists in the universe.

I argue it continues to exist even if religion is right and both Bob and Mary go somewhere when they die. Still having limbs enabled Bob to do more good works than Mary could. Mary could not help others the way Bob could. In fact Mary was a burden. But Mary never asked to be a burden, and wanted to do more good works. So it seems reasonable that any blame for what Mary failed to achieve because she had no limbs actually falls upon Bob. Simply forgiving him is unfair to Mary, even in terms of there being an afterlife. When you harm someone, it has an effect, and that remains true even if there's another life after this one.

The Law has many purposes: to govern the state of Israel, to serve as a teacher of God's will, to establish moral requirements/accountability, etc. This last point is emphasized by Paul.

Requirements for what exactly? If what you've said is so, and what God actually wants is for you to go above and beyond the law, the law falls short of God's will about what people should do. If the murderer is the same at the end, as someone who did not go above and beyond the law but merely followed it, then what difference does following it make?

Just as pursuing the reward is selfish, so too is expecting people to take pains to follow your laws and respect you, and earn nothing above what a murderer and rapist earns for his acts.

And, yes - if you live according to the Spirit/Love, going above and beyond the basic moral requirements of the Law, then the Law does indeed become obsolete!

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

It seems like people don't need any gods to know these things.

[Miles]

.

..................... iam1me2023.

..................... Sorry I missed your reply back on the 22nd. Here's a catch-up of sorts.

[Replying to Miles in post #6]

Who said so? This sounds like the lame excuse of some Sunday school teacher who had a hard time making heads or tales of the Bible herself.

First of all - the very name Israel means "He who struggles/wrestles with God," and was given to Jacob in the biblical narrative after wrestling with an angel.

My source disagrees. According to Strong's lexicon "Isreal" (יִשְׂרָאֵל ) as found in Genesis 32:28 means "God prevails." "the second name for Jacob given to him by God after his wrestling with the angel at Peniel" and "the name of the descendants and the nation of the descendants of Jacob."

Secondly, and more to the point: no one is born with perfect understanding and morals. We start with what our parents and our larger culture teach us - which inevitably is imperfect and will conflict with what is good and right. Even if we hypothetically were born in an environment that was perfect - one would still need to internalize the teachings of that perfect moral system, which requires study, debate, reflection, and time.

So what? Where is the "supposed" part from your assertion "One is supposed to struggle with the Word of God . . . ." in the picture? Other than yourself, who says anyone is supposed to struggle with the Word of god?

What spirit might that be? What is the "right" spirit?

One that seeks what is true, one that seeks the well-being of others, one that seeks to do what is right.

Sounds reasonable.

I look at god who had the wrong idea until Moses straightened him out. Obviously god can't always be trusted to do the right thing.

You are free to think as you wish - but that's definitely not the lesson. The people went and constructed for themselves another God to worship after being shown miracle after miracle, and were saved from slavery in Egypt. God had every right to be angry with them. And ultimately that generation was still cut-off from the Holy Land as a result.

Your answer here completely ignores my point that "God can't always be trusted to do the right thing." Care to address it rather than go on about the reason for his anger?

Are you sure? Where is this written?

I provided you a quote from Romans that says as much; that one's conscience will both condemn and defend them (Romans 2:12-16). Furthermore, the larger biblical narrative shows that God is ready and willing to work with those who are trying to do good - even if they are misguided. Saul, for instance, was trying to good when he persecuted Christians - but was subsequently converted and renamed Paul.

How about the good, but "misguided," practicing homosexual men, whom god says "shall surely be put to death?" What is their chance of working with Him, other than Zero?

And if nothing comes up, then what? Punt?

My conscience tells me god was wrong in condoning slavery. My conscience tells me god was wrong in ordering practicing male homosexuals to be killed. My conscience tells me god was wrong in ordering the deaths of innocent women, children, and infants after the Israelites destroyed the Amalekites.

You make a choice, and if you find that it was in error later - such as that it caused unintended harm - then you do your best to address the error and to learn from it.

So if "at any given time, act in accordance with your understanding, faith and conscience," can produce bupkis, I may as well consult with my atheist neighbor. Correct? I mean, among other things, god and I disagree about slavery, killing practicing gays, and killing innocent people out of spite. Truly, he isn't anyone I'd care to be friends with in real life. My friends are nice.

You are free to disagree - but you should also study to understand the various issues from the biblical perspective so that at least you disagree from an informed position. Take slavery, for instance: the scriptures also teach that most forms of slavery, like that of 18th and 19th slavery in the US, are evil.

Where? Where do the scriptures "teach that most forms of slavery. . . . are evil."

Slaves were to have rights and protections, and were by no means to be regarded as sub-human or abused.

So you think that beating a slave to death is not punishable unless he dies from it within a day or two? I certainly think it's punishable, and so does my atheist neighbor.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “If a man beats his slave to death—whether the slave is male or female—that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished—for the slave is his property.-/indent]

Kidnapping people got the death penalty.

As I understand it, only if the person is an Israelite. All others are evidently fair game.

Runaway slaves were not to be returned to their masters - but protected and welcomed.

Didn't read a thing about being protected and welcomed. Got a specific Bible in mind?

Killing a slave would mean you forfeit your own life,

See my remark above about beating one's slave to death.

In otherwords, the form of slavery permitted under the OT Law is drastically different from what you probably think of and are familiar with when you hear the term "slavery."

Not at all. Slavery back in OT Israel could be just as barbaric and inhumane as slavery elsewhere and at other times.

.

[Purple Knight]

Runaway slaves were not to be returned to their masters - but protected and welcomed.

Didn't read a thing about being protected and welcomed. Got a specific Bible in mind?

This doesn't pass the smell test to me because many of these people received compensation for selling themselves into slavery. If you can just run into your master's neighbour's yard and your slavery is annulled, why not sell yourself again for infinite money?

At very least I don't think we're getting the whole story.