Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

[Rivga]

Sorry, no. There were no innocent children ..... and the destruction was not just for mis-deeds, but for complete evil hearts full of deception, devastation, "kill, steal and destroy" motives from the very core of all the hearts, much like today....

Are you saying that the was no Child killed Or are you saying that The children killed were not innocent?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Are you saying that the was no Child killed Or are you saying that The children killed were not innocent?

What does God's Word Say ? (I agree with Him)

 

[Rivga]

What does God's Word Say ? (I agree with Him)

Well there is no talk about him removing the children from said places, so the assumptions would have to be that Children, babies and passing animals were all killed.

So following on from that your words most mean that you therefore believe that the Children killed were not innocent.

But I wanted clarification from you so as not to put words into your mouth.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well there is no talk about him removing the children from said places, so the assumptions would have to be that Children, babies and passing animals were all killed.

So following on from that your words most mean that you therefore believe that the Children killed were not innocent.

But I wanted clarification from you so as not to put words into your mouth.

There is also no indication in God's Word, Plan or Purpose that any of the children killed in the flood were innocent. Oh, you might have heard somewhere some emotional or so-called rational type(worldly, carnal, fleshly) reasoning contrary to Scripture, but stick with what is acutally written , as God reveals His Word, to be abiding in the truth as He Says.

 

[FireDragon76]

As a mainline Lutheran I see my sense of ethics rooted in a relationship with God based on grace, being a forgiven sinner, and I go out into the world hopefully with a sense of graciousness towards the world as a consequence.

If that doesn't sound like ethical absolutism, it's because it isn't. Christianity is an ethic of faith, hope, and love, not legalism.

 

[Rivga]

I don't see how these Scriptures are pro-slavery.

The first is instructions for how Christian slaves ought to live. There were many slaves in the Greco Roman world who became Christians. They needed to know how to live. So Paul gives them instruction.

The second is case law for how people should be punished for sexual activity with slaves. It does not positively command or condone slavery.

The third is a restriction on Hebrew debt-slavery. No matter the size of the debt, the slavery could only last 6 years.

How are those laws and instructions pro slavery?

So if I ran a school any my anti-bully policy read:

"You can only punch another child 6 time" and
"You cannot punch them in the face" and
"if the have to visit the hospital 2 days after you attack them then you'll be in for it!"

Would you say that anyone calling my school Pro-bully was factually wrong?

I mean if you have a very limited view of what Pro-Slavery means, so if you think it can only be pro-slavery if the Scripture promotes slavery as a must do, then maybe you have a point but even within those bounds Scripture is still complicit with slavery.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most of the changes to what constitutes morality in the eyes of this culture are influenced by at least one principle or set of principles found in Scripture. So that helps keep this in perspective.

Indeed. I'd argue one reason the mainline churches have become so "irrelevant" is because their values have triumphed among social elites. Liberalism, consensual decision-making, scholarship and respect for competency, working for a just society, those are all values that the Protestant mainline first championed.

 

[Rivga]

If that doesn't sound like ethical absolutism, it's because it isn't. Christianity is an ethic of faith, hope, and love, not legalism.

So is the end goal of you morals system to emulate God/Jesus or is it to judge for yourself and justify yourself afterwards?

Sorry FireDragon - it is a clumsy question, but I cannot come up with a better way to phrase it. What I am trying to get at is, do you believe that it is your mission to decipher what God would do or have you do. Or do you believe that you walk your path based on what teaching Christianity has provided, your knowledge of the world and your heart and this will be enough or what is expected from you.

 

[FireDragon76]

So is the end goal of you morals system to emulate God/Jesus or is it to judge for yourself and justify yourself afterwards?

I don't think of being a Christian as a closed moral system.

 

[Rivga]

I don't think of being a Christian as a closed moral system.

Beautifully concise, thanks FireDragon.

 

[Zoii]

Sorry, no. There were no innocent children ..... and the destruction was not just for mis-deeds, but for complete evil hearts full of deception, devastation, "kill, steal and destroy" motives from the very core of all the hearts, much like today....

I dont accept that

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I dont accept that

So ?
Can you change God's Word, Plan or Purpose ?

 

[Zoii]

So ?
Can you change God's Word, Plan or Purpose ?

I can change myself n be open to learning new things n hold to the ideal that whatever I'm totally certain about today may change tomorrow simply because I've seen new evidence. I'm not about changing anyone else

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I can change myself n be open to learning new things n hold to the ideal that whatever I'm totally certain about today may change tomorrow simply because I've seen new evidence. I'm not about changing anyone else

Good, then, the next step is to find out from God , from and in line with His Word completely,
what God said about the children , vs what you heard otherwise somewhere else.

(Sometimes, just knowing where you learned something is enough to know it is wrong. (I don't think we can accomplish that here, on the forum , though).)

So, instead, going to God's Word to see what God says is what to do. Right ? It may take longer than expected, as there may be a lot of territory to uncover, or to cover, depending on the breadth and depth of what is involved.

 

[Zoii]

Good, then, the next step is to find out from God , from and in line with His Word completely,
what God said about the children , vs what you heard otherwise somewhere else.

(Sometimes, just knowing where you learned something is enough to know it is wrong. (I don't think we can accomplish that here, on the forum , though).)

So, instead, going to God's Word to see what God says is what to do. Right ? It may take longer than expected, as there may be a lot of territory to uncover, or to cover, depending on the breadth and depth of what is involved.

Good idea Jeff. I know I am supposed to conform here, but I just can't. I do like to sit in the silence of an empty church n think on these things tho

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Good idea Jeff. I know I am supposed to conform here, but I just can't. I do like to sit in the silence of an empty church n think on these things tho

I would rather warn you (and everyone else who ever visits internet locations)
to NOT CONFORM HERE. (might clarify later) ....

Did someone tell you to conform here ? Did they give a reason ?
I don't think that would be a good idea for ANYONE, no , not at all.

 

[Rivga]

Most of the changes to what constitutes morality in the eyes of this culture are influenced by at least one principle or set of principles found in Scripture. So that helps keep this in perspective.

I can agree in the statement but must say that almost every position has been taken by theists on most subjects and scripture has been used to defend each of the positions.

During Slavery debates people just screamed bible passages at each other, for hours on end. Suffragettes movement similar, each side came armed with Scripture supporting their own side.

So even if we sat here today with Slavery still present in the Southern States and male only voting rights you would still be able to make the same statement and be accurate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So you are saying that moral rules exist, and God (alone) is not beholden to such rules/morals. And by extension if someone was commanded by God to do something against those rules then that person would be exempt from Judgement from those actions or is it for God alone to take such actions?

...I think we just need to realize that rules are 'made' for beings who are not all-knowing and are morally fallible and/or prone to misperceiving a world that functions in an already designated way. Thus, we need rules; God does not.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

A question for Theists, given the Scriptures of most of the major religions are old and given that morality* has moved on since most of the scriptures were wrote.

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

For example Homosexuality - whilst I realise a lot of Theists still disagree with this and there is no conflict between Scripture and Conscience for them, but for many Theists in the west there is clearly a conflict (see Ireland historic vote).
Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.



*this is an assertion, but one based on evidence of the change in societal behaviours, Laws, justice systems, you get the picture.

Not all theists believe in organized religion. I specifically left Christianity because I could not reconcile the Bible with my conscience or my common sense.

I still believe there is a God/Creator; however, I also believe It to be unknowable and not explained by existing religions. I believe religion is man's attempt to create God and is, therefore, faulty.

 

[Halbhh]

A question for Theists, given the Scriptures of most of the major religions are old and given that morality* has moved on since most of the scriptures were wrote.

How do you bridge the gap between what is clearly in the your scriptures and your Conscience?

For example Homosexuality - whilst I realise a lot of Theists still disagree with this and there is no conflict between Scripture and Conscience for them, but for many Theists in the west there is clearly a conflict (see Ireland historic vote).
Or another easy example is Slavery, which is significantly less divisive than homosexuality, now but it was not at a certain point.



*this is an assertion, but one based on evidence of the change in societal behaviours, Laws, justice systems, you get the picture.

Even though slavery continues today even in the U.S. (such as sex trafficking for one, and also as indentured servitutde in some instances), long before the U.S. Underground Railway, where slaves escaped to the North still had to hide so they were not recaptured, God had already given an instruction to regulate and begin a slow upward progression to counter human nature on this.

Israel had a law from God, no less:

15 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."

That's 3500 years before we were trying to do this in the U.S.A.

Consider the central commands to Christians for how to relate to all other human beings:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
and
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the prophets."

There is no higher level of morality to progress upward to from this, don't you agree?

So, therefore logically, one could only remain at this peak, or else move backwards from those to being less moral, or perhaps more common, hadn't yet arrived up at that level of morality to begin with.

Don't you agree?