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.

[1213]

....
1. Accept that God knows more than you do, and follow the teaching out of humility.
2. Reject the teaching and follow your conscience.
...

I believe it depends on the reasons. If you could give an intelligent and good reason for what you do, then I think you could be counted righteous and as the Bible tells, eternal life is for righteous.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46

I'll give you an intelligent and good reason for doing something. "We have to leave the Union or those Northern abolitionists will have more free states and will force us to give up slavery, and our economy depends on slavery." No wonder the Righteous South is so obsessed with the Bible. It endorses slavery.

Funny thing is that the south is, by what I know, mainly Republicans nowadays and north is "Democrats" that were the ones who supported slavery. What you say is for me good reason to think that no human should ever have any power over any other human.

[Purple Knight]

At any given time, act in accordance with your understanding, faith and conscience. And if there is a matter where you find your conscience at odds with the scriptures, then study and struggle that you might rectify the two. Often times the conflict is going to be rooted in a misunderstanding, other times it maybe a conflict between one’s upbringing/culture vs God’s Law.

That's my version of giving logical charity to the religion. A lot of it, okay, it may be right and I may be wrong. I'm not even positive society should permit superior male-male pairs to edge inferior male-female pairs out of niches they may need, in order to reproduce. I think American slavery was vile, but I don't see any reason Biblical slavery is. The whole world accepted it. And look, the Bible is, by modern definitions (and if the Jews have the privilege the Bible provides them) completely racist, but maybe it's entitled to be so. Maybe everyone is. I don't even think individualism is functional in 100% of situations, and I can even see God sending out Hebrews to slaughter Amalekites on the basis that if I introspect on my disgust for that, and ask myself what I would want done to the Hebrews to make it right, I have to accept that individually punishing each individual Hebrew that bashed a baby... won't cut it. Then they just get to wipe out a race and let individual offenders be punished and at the end we have a group of snickering Hebrews who didn't individually do anything wrong, but they win, because their enemies are gone.

But one person paying for the sins of another person? I can't get that through my head. If God can make final justice, that ain't it. While I don't think individualism always works, no amount of study and charity will make me believe that individual guilt is transferable.

Maybe a group of people does something and punishing anything less than the group won't give justice to the victims. And in so doing, maybe you have to punish some individuals who did nothing wrong, individually. It's not fair, but it might be necessary. But bloody carp nuggets, this stops short of absolving real guilt by punishing someone innocent. Who does that? Who thinks that's okay? Even if I could somehow serve some criminal's time in jail for him and that would be functional and he wouldn't reoffend, that's... not right. That's not justice. It can't be.

[boatsnguitars]

....
1. Accept that God knows more than you do, and follow the teaching out of humility.
2. Reject the teaching and follow your conscience.
...

I believe it depends on the reasons. If you could give an intelligent and good reason for what you do, then I think you could be counted righteous and as the Bible tells, eternal life is for righteous.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46

I'll give you an intelligent and good reason for doing something. "We have to leave the Union or those Northern abolitionists will have more free states and will force us to give up slavery, and our economy depends on slavery." No wonder the Righteous South is so obsessed with the Bible. It endorses slavery.

Funny thing is that the south is, by what I know, mainly Republicans nowadays and north is "Democrats" that were the ones who supported slavery. What you say is for me good reason to think that no human should ever have any power over any other human.

You seem to have an incredibly selective view of history. The North was largely against slavery. The Southern Democrats (remember the Civil War?) eventually became Republicans.

Please look into this, as you appear to be very ignorant about your history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_ ... e%20voters.


This is literally old news. You should not be this unaware of an issue you seem to be quite proud to talk about as a point of fact.

[TRANSPONDER]

....
1. Accept that God knows more than you do, and follow the teaching out of humility.
2. Reject the teaching and follow your conscience.
...

I believe it depends on the reasons. If you could give an intelligent and good reason for what you do, then I think you could be counted righteous and as the Bible tells, eternal life is for righteous.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Matt. 25:46

I'll give you an intelligent and good reason for doing something. "We have to leave the Union or those Northern abolitionists will have more free states and will force us to give up slavery, and our economy depends on slavery." No wonder the Righteous South is so obsessed with the Bible. It endorses slavery.

Funny thing is that the south is, by what I know, mainly Republicans nowadays and north is "Democrats" that were the ones who supported slavery. What you say is for me good reason to think that no human should ever have any power over any other human.quote]


Yes, it was an odd thing that the two sides seem to have switched names, but that is what happened. The old Southern slavery Democrats became Republicans and the old abolitionist Republicans became Democrats. It was equally odd that the South tried to pretend it was about Rights not slavery, while the North, was fighting for the Union, which became about Slavery, which it was, as the secession was really only about slavery after all.

[1213]

...The old Southern slavery Democrats became Republicans and the old abolitionist Republicans became Democrats. It was equally odd that the South tried to pretend it was about Rights not slavery, while the North, was fighting for the Union, which became about Slavery, which it was, as the secession was really only about slavery after all.

Sorry, I don't believe war is ever about freedom. In this case it may have benefited slaves, but I believe it is only coincidence and main purpose was to increase power of the other side. Freedom is only a word used to justify the fight for more power for some leader.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The old Southern slavery Democrats became Republicans and the old abolitionist Republicans became Democrats. It was equally odd that the South tried to pretend it was about Rights not slavery, while the North, was fighting for the Union, which became about Slavery, which it was, as the secession was really only about slavery after all.

Sorry, I don't believe war is ever about freedom. In this case it may have benefited slaves, but I believe it is only coincidence and main purpose was to increase power of the other side. Freedom is only a word used to justify the fight for more power for some leader.

I might argue that the South might have done better to stay in the union and go along with paid plantation - work rather than buying slaves. I think it was about keeping blacks as slaves and it was never about anything else.

Whatever the politics might be behind then secession and civil war, it was a revulsion against slavery (not found in the Bible unless it was done to Your own people) that human morality (not Biblical, which was fine with it) would no longer tolerate. It was a tragedy that the South could not see that slavery would have have to go, sooner or later, and not have gone to war over being outnumbered by free states.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]

That's my version of giving logical charity to the religion. A lot of it, okay, it may be right and I may be wrong. I'm not even positive society should permit superior male-male pairs to edge inferior male-female pairs out of niches they may need, in order to reproduce.

lolz - why do you think male-male pairs are superior?

I think American slavery was vile, but I don't see any reason Biblical slavery is. The whole world accepted it. And look, the Bible is, by modern definitions (and if the Jews have the privilege the Bible provides them) completely racist, but maybe it's entitled to be so. Maybe everyone is.

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.

But one person paying for the sins of another person? I can't get that through my head. If God can make final justice, that ain't it. While I don't think individualism always works, no amount of study and charity will make me believe that individual guilt is transferable.

Maybe a group of people does something and punishing anything less than the group won't give justice to the victims. And in so doing, maybe you have to punish some individuals who did nothing wrong, individually. It's not fair, but it might be necessary. But bloody carp nuggets, this stops short of absolving real guilt by punishing someone innocent. Who does that? Who thinks that's okay? Even if I could somehow serve some criminal's time in jail for him and that would be functional and he wouldn't reoffend, that's... not right. That's not justice. It can't be.

I will make a controversial point here: Jesus' sacrifice was not a 1:1 payment for our sins. Nor did he pay more or less than what our sins demand. This is something that most Christians get wrong.

There are several problems with this conception. First, if all sins have been paid for like a financial transaction - then everyone should be saved; end of story. But obviously they aren't under the biblical narrative, and so this idea that he paid for our sins and nothing else is required is clearly flawed. Indeed, there are numerous passages in scripture that say things like: you must lose your life to save it.

Second, we are told that love and mercy are greater than justice. But if Christ's sacrifice boils down to justice and balancing some cosmic scale, then where is the room for mercy? In parables about the Kingdom of God, it is likened to a King who forgives debtors their debt to him (and requires us to in turn forgive others their debts). The King doesn't go searching for someone to pay those debts; they are simply stricken from the record.

More properly understood, while Christ did die for all - his death was both the culmination of his exemplary life in service to God, which we are now called to follow, and the foundation of the New Covenant through which we are offered salvation. Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, that was made with the physical tribe of Israel and their descendants - entry of which required physical circumcision of the males, the New Covenant is one that is available for all people - entry of which requires circumcision of the heart. One is born into the Mosaic Covenant, generally, and thus most people enter into it independent of their own will. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is entirely a matter of the individual's will - one must choose of their own volition to seek to do what is good and righteous.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]

That's my version of giving logical charity to the religion. A lot of it, okay, it may be right and I may be wrong. I'm not even positive society should permit superior male-male pairs to edge inferior male-female pairs out of niches they may need, in order to reproduce.

lolz - why do you think male-male pairs are superior?

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.

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.

But one person paying for the sins of another person? I can't get that through my head. If God can make final justice, that ain't it. While I don't think individualism always works, no amount of study and charity will make me believe that individual guilt is transferable.

Maybe a group of people does something and punishing anything less than the group won't give justice to the victims. And in so doing, maybe you have to punish some individuals who did nothing wrong, individually. It's not fair, but it might be necessary. But bloody carp nuggets, this stops short of absolving real guilt by punishing someone innocent. Who does that? Who thinks that's okay? Even if I could somehow serve some criminal's time in jail for him and that would be functional and he wouldn't reoffend, that's... not right. That's not justice. It can't be.

I will make a controversial point here: Jesus' sacrifice was not a 1:1 payment for our sins. Nor did he pay more or less than what our sins demand. This is something that most Christians get wrong.

There are several problems with this conception. First, if all sins have been paid for like a financial transaction - then everyone should be saved; end of story. But obviously they aren't under the biblical narrative, and so this idea that he paid for our sins and nothing else is required is clearly flawed. Indeed, there are numerous passages in scripture that say things like: you must lose your life to save it.

Second, we are told that love and mercy are greater than justice. But if Christ's sacrifice boils down to justice and balancing some cosmic scale, then where is the room for mercy? In parables about the Kingdom of God, it is likened to a King who forgives debtors their debt to him (and requires us to in turn forgive others their debts). The King doesn't go searching for someone to pay those debts; they are simply stricken from the record.

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

More properly understood, while Christ did die for all - his death was both the culmination of his exemplary life in service to God, which we are now called to follow, and the foundation of the New Covenant through which we are offered salvation. Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, that was made with the physical tribe of Israel and their descendants - entry of which required physical circumcision of the males, the New Covenant is one that is available for all people - entry of which requires circumcision of the heart. One is born into the Mosaic Covenant, generally, and thus most people enter into it independent of their own will. The New Covenant, on the other hand, is entirely a matter of the individual's will - one must choose of their own volition to seek to do what is good and righteous.

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.

[Purple Knight]

On the other hand, consider how humane modern Capitalism is - where you can be caught up in a life time of debt out of college that you can never pay off - and thus are an indentured servant for life. Suddenly 6 years of servitude under the OT Law isn't looking so bad, now is it?

This is my case against a generic argument against slavery. "It's called slavery, so it's wrong," is an entirely definitional argument, and divorces what is actually done to people and how they suffer under it, from the wrongness of an act which is then reduced to a definition and simultaneously stripped of meaning.

They will say, owning another person is wrong. I say, okay, I own the King of England. Does this do anything, me just saying that? If it's on paper? OMG I'm the worst slaver in the world, now, aren't I?

Or just maybe... you know... whether I've done anything horrid to the King of England is dependent on things I've actually done to the King of England, and not, you know, whether I've made a piece of paper. Maybe. Just maybe.

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?

[Purple Knight]

At any given time, act in accordance with your understanding, faith and conscience. And if there is a matter where you find your conscience at odds with the scriptures, then study and struggle that you might rectify the two.

And if nothing comes up, then what? Punt?

This is my basic question. I can reconcile most of those issues with maximum charity, but not direct sin transference. Not why we need Jesus. If I'm guilty of sin, someone else can't pay that for me.

And if my ancestors are guilty of something, while I might need to make up for it, I probably should help try to rectify it... but the idea that I can't make up for it so I'm going to burn in Hell for it unless I let someone else suffer for me... is frankly the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.