Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

[Nithavela]

Fortunately, the scripture instead points to a much better situation for all: to do 'wrong', one must be aware it is wrong. Not by accident, nor by innocent actions without understanding. To be accountable, we have to know it's wrong when we do it.

"And where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans ch 4, and again in chapter 5)

No matter what anyone asserts in any other answer, it's just fact without awareness of doing wrong -- think here of children unaware of doing what we consider a wrong thing, because they are immature and don't yet understand -- there is no accountability, no sin.

So, first children aren't doing sin, because they do not understand. They are still truly in a state of innocence regarding their immature actions! This helps us understand one part (there are more) of why Christ said of children not yet baptized (in His own words!) --
Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

All will be judged fairly (children, adults, those incapacitated, all, no exceptions). Romans chapter 2, verses 6-16 (if you want to understand this better, read with real listening through Romans chapter 2, or at least verse 6-16)
Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

So, children who die are going to gain Life, generally. But....what about you and me? What will be our outcome?

There is someone who can wash you clean of all wrongs you've done. It took nothing less than the necessity that the very One from God (with Him since the beginning) would have to come and suffer under all our wrongs so that we could be changed, and redeemed! It's an amazing grace, truly.

How do you justify not killing children?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If the land and plants and animals and humans were severely diseased, why did he keep two of every single species. Didnt God , by doing so, simply propagate a new diseased population of animals and humans. And what I dont get is why it all became diseased simply because some men were sinning. I mean obviously young children are innocent so they wouldnt be sinning. Unless of course the story is just that - an analogy in order to propagate a lesson

We don't know the condition of the animals on the ark, but Sir Albert Howard, father of modern organic agriculture, was able to reverse many animal diseases, most notably the dreaded "foot and mouth" disease of cattle, by feeding them healthy foods and placing them on healthy pasture. Such foods and pasture would have been available in the restored earth after the flood.

God brought the animals to the ark, which suggests that he selected them as well, so it's my guess that they were quite healthy.

Regarding death by drowning. It's probably the most merciful way to put mankind out of it's corrupt misery. Think about it for a moment and I believe you will agree.

 

[Par5]

Here's a few. Remember that antibiotics weren't known in Noah's day.

Cattle Diseases: Signs and Prevention | Arrowquip

Come on now OldWiseGuy, you know as well as I do that when the bible and Christians describe something as corrupt they use the word to describe something they consider to be evil, something that is offensive to their god, they don't use it to describe the physical wellbeing of something, be that man or beast. How on earth can an animal be corrupt, and how can you call a newborn baby corrupt? The worst it can do is fill its diaper!

 

[FireDragon76]

Come on now OldWiseGuy, you know as well as I do that when the bible and Christians describe something as corrupt they use the word to describe something they consider to be evil, something that is offensive to their god, they don't use it to describe the physical wellbeing of something, be that man or beast. How on earth can an animal be corrupt, and how can you call a newborn baby corrupt? The worst it can do is fill its diaper!

Corrupt does not necessarily mean intrinsically evil.

 

[Zoii]

Corrupt does not necessarily mean intrinsically evil.

Gosh - if they weren't intrinsically evil but instead were ill, that seems just totally wrong to genocide the whole human race and the whole animal kingdom because they were unwell. Not even their fault.

 

[Par5]

Corrupt does not necessarily mean intrinsically evil.

Yes, but when the bible talks about corruption it interprets corruption as something evil. Christians, when referring to actions they consider evil they call those actions corrupt. I have never heard a Christian, or anyone else, say a person was corrupt because they were ill.
Biblegateway.com gives the biblical meaning of corruption.
"A state of spiritual decay and moral dishonesty, arising from the effects of sin, which expresses itself in disobedience towards God. Corruption of nature as a result of the fall. Ge 6:11. Sinful humanity is corrupt."
I can't see how an animal or a newborn baby could possibly be aware of any of those things in order to qualify being called corrupt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It’s an interesting one though I think. There are a lot of people working at the top level in physical sciences who wouldn’t deny that purpose in the universe would be the logical conclusion, although it is often called ‘the appearance of purpose’, which is a metaphysical statement, a belief rather than demonstrably factual. If you take out all such use of metaphor and linguistic shenanigans from arguments put forward in the God delusion etc you don’t have much of an argument left.

I don't require any arguments for claims that I'm not making or defending.
I don't see much point in making such negative claims, which are essentially null hypothesis.

I don't claim that no gods exist. How could I ever support such a claim?
However, I don't by the claim that one does exist - on the count that it's unsupported.
In practice, that means I settle on the null hypothesis. Which means that I'll live my life as if gods do not exist. Just like I drive the road as if there is no invisible rock blocking my way.

I require reasons to assume / believe / accept that there is a god.

Now replace "god" with "purpose". The exact same logic applies?
Is there purpose to the universe? There doesn't appear to be... I have no reason to believe there is. The claim that there is, is not sufficiently supported for me to accept it. So I don't.

Does it mean that I claim that there is no puprose? Nope. But it does mean that I provisionally settle on the null hypothesis and will live my life as if there is no purpose to the universe.

I can’t see how a materialist can claim not to believe in dysteleology but be an atheist,

Well, I just explained it.

wouldn’t someone who doesn’t believe in either teleology or dysteleology be an agnostic?

Agnosticism is not some third option between atheism and theism. At best, one is a qualifier of the other. They are different answers to different questions.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, but when the bible talks about corruption it interprets corruption as something evil. Christians, when referring to actions they consider evil they call those actions corrupt. I have never heard a Christian, or anyone else, say a person was corrupt because they were ill.
Biblegateway.com gives the biblical meaning of corruption.
"A state of spiritual decay and moral dishonesty, arising from the effects of sin, which expresses itself in disobedience towards God. Corruption of nature as a result of the fall. Ge 6:11. Sinful humanity is corrupt."
I can't see how an animal or a newborn baby could possibly be aware of any of those things in order to qualify being called corrupt.

There’s a strong argument that can be made that corruption in the Bible refers to people, animals, nature etc no longer serving their intended purpose, designed to result in harmony, but instead are wayward and chaotic, and self-serving, as in the various Biblical instances of leaders using their positions to enrich themselves and neglecting their responsibilities. Many of the OT narratives are based around ideas of purpose and meaning, themes that all cultures in the ANE leaned towards. Whereas now when people think about creation in the West anyway we tend more often than not to think ‘where did this stuff come from and how does it work’, the ANE mindset was more ‘what is the ordained order of things, and what is our place in it’.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't require any arguments for claims that I'm not making or defending.
I don't see much point in making such negative claims, which are essentially null hypothesis.

I don't claim that no gods exist. How could I ever support such a claim?
However, I don't by the claim that one does exist - on the count that it's unsupported.
In practice, that means I settle on the null hypothesis. Which means that I'll live my life as if gods do not exist. Just like I drive the road as if there is no invisible rock blocking my way.

I require reasons to assume / believe / accept that there is a god.

Now replace "god" with "purpose". The exact same logic applies?
Is there purpose to the universe? There doesn't appear to be... I have no reason to believe there is. The claim that there is, is not sufficiently supported for me to accept it. So I don't.

Does it mean that I claim that there is no puprose? Nope. But it does mean that I provisionally settle on the null hypothesis and will live my life as if there is no purpose to the universe.



Well, I just explained it.



Agnosticism is not some third option between atheism and theism. At best, one is a qualifier of the other. They are different answers to different questions.

Maybe...I do think that there are reasons to believe that the available evidence supports a conclusion that there is purpose in creation, although that can’t be proved either way as far as I know. I can’t get my head around how you can sit between the 2 beliefs, I mean I suppose you can disregard those issues but I’m not sure how you maintain that. The impossibility sometimes of really ‘getting’ another person’s POV maybe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you saying that you genuinely don’t understand that if you or I had be born 4,000 yrs ago in Canaan or Mesopotamia, and were one of the people these teachings were initially presented to, we wouldn’t have a completely different understanding of it? A completely different way of thinking about it? That it wouldn’t contrast with how slaves were treated in surrounding cultures? That’s your starting point, from where you can begin to put together an understanding of how to approach this issue. Treating what was happening then in terms of your thinking now won’t lead anywhere.

Again... he's god...

If he can tell you not to eat shrimp and engage in bisexual orgies, he can tell you not to treat human beings as products wich you can trade and inherit.

People back then had a different way of thinking about a lot of things, about wich this god didn't seem to need any accomodating.

But I agree, off course. Yes, people back then didn't know any better. So to me, it is rather unsurprising that it is mentioned in a book born in that culture, as if it is a very normal practice.

 

[Tom 1]

People back then had a different way of thinking about a lot of things, about wich this god didn't seem to need any accomodating.

Actually there is a great deal of accommodating. Taken as a whole there is an attempted progression from wandering to settled order to attempts to create a model society, that breaks down because the material God is working with (us) is stubborn, unreliable, prone to self destruction and so on. It’s a long study and a lot of reading to get your head around but it’s worth doing. God is both remarkably tender and remarkably fierce, jealous and intense. I don’t think it’s possible to understand God’s character by just picking out issues isolated from a wider and deeper context.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can’t get my head around how you can sit between the 2 beliefs

Ok.

Let's try something else.

I flip a coin. I cover up the result. Neither of us know if it is heads or tails.
I claim that it is heads and ask if you accept that claim.
ie: that you agree that it is heads - a knowledge claim. A positive belief that it is indeed heads. An acknowledgement that the claim "it is heads" is a true claim. Actual belief. Not just some guess or bet. Just so that it is clear....

You'll presumably say that you can't commit to such belief, because you don't have enough intel - you have no justified reason for such a commitment.

Does that mean that you are willing to commit to the opposite claim: that it is tails instead?
Off course you don't....

Now, to bring this analogy into the topic, let's say that heads in this analogy is the equivalent of "god exists" and tails the equivalent of "god does NOT exist".

Accepting the claim "it is heads" would make you a theist. Not accepting that claim, makes you an atheist.

And as seen in the example above, not accepting the claim "it is heads", does not mean that you accept the claim "it is tails".

Not that belief in god is like a coin toss, off course. But the analogy nicely shows how not believing the claim that x exists ("it is heads"), does not automagically mean that you make or accept the claim that x does not exist ("it is tails")

 

[Tom 1]

Ok.

Let's try something else.

I flip a coin. I cover up the result. Neither of us know if it is heads or tails.
I claim that it is heads and ask if you accept that claim.
ie: that you agree that it is heads - a knowledge claim. A positive belief that it is indeed heads. An acknowledgement that the claim "it is heads" is a true claim. Actual belief. Not just some guess or bet. Just so that it is clear....

You'll presumably say that you can't commit to such belief, because you don't have enough intel - you have no justified reason for such a commitment.

Does that mean that you are willing to commit to the opposite claim: that it is tails instead?
Off course you don't....

Now, to bring this analogy into the topic, let's say that heads in this analogy is the equivalent of "god exists" and tails the equivalent of "god does NOT exist".

Accepting the claim "it is heads" would make you a theist. Not accepting that claim, makes you an atheist.

And as seen in the example above, not accepting the claim "it is heads", does not mean that you accept the claim "it is tails".

Not that belief in god is like a coin toss, off course. But the analogy nicely shows how not believing the claim that x exists ("it is heads"), does not automagically mean that you make or accept the claim that x does not exist ("it is tails")

I get what you’re saying, I just can’t get my head around how you negotiate all of the different layers of meaning and evidence of different kinds etc with that as your baseline. I’m not saying you don’t, just that I don’t get it. I suppose my starting point is that there is meaning - that thoughts, actions and ideas of all kinds have real consequences that aren’t limited to those things which can be empirically tested, at least not in any absolute sense that fits within current models.

 

[Norbert L]

You said it yourself: communist.

Atheism is not communism.
Communism, is its own ideology.

The problem with totalitarian regimes like the Soviets, North Korea etc is communism.




Atheism, is not a belief system.
"Atheism" is a label for people who do not follow a specific belief system. That specific belief system, being theism.

It doesn't tell you anything about which belief system IS being followed - if any, that is!



The thing is though, your label comes with a set of doctrines and dogma's that are implied by the label.

Atheism is the opposite.
The label doesn't give you any positive description about what is believed.
By the label "atheist", you actually know NOTHING "positive" about me in terms of what I DO believe, what I DO accept, what my worldview actually is....

The only thing the label tells you, is that I'm not buying into the claims of theism, and that's it. It tells you what I do NOT believe.

Given your explanation above, I see it as one way Atheists can bridge the gap and distance themselves from other Atheists.

It would be a fact to state a Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were run by Atheists. You are an Atheist that rejects their worldview. What needs to be established is the cause of their worldview. Does correlation imply causation with anything objective here? It certainly establishes that governments lead by these Atheists would NOT agree with other Atheists like yourself. Likewise in the case of abortion, a very small minority of Atheists are pro-life and not pro-choice, there is another divide.

The point is there are measurable differences among Atheists based on evidence, they very much resemble the differences between theists. Bridging the gap leaves me with a picture of a two way street.

 

[Radagast]

Accepting the claim "it is heads" would make you a theist. Not accepting that claim, makes you an atheist.

Accepting the claim would make you a theist.

Denying the claim (accepting the negation of the claim) would make you an atheist.

Not accepting either the claim or its negation would make you an agnostic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Come on now OldWiseGuy, you know as well as I do that when the bible and Christians describe something as corrupt they use the word to describe something they consider to be evil, something that is offensive to their god, they don't use it to describe the physical wellbeing of something, be that man or beast. How on earth can an animal be corrupt, and how can you call a newborn baby corrupt? The worst it can do is fill its diaper!

The usage is primarily the physical ruin of their way of life, which certainly includes health. Of course it was the violence and continuous evil that filled the earth that God was most concerned about.

Transliteration
shachath
Pronunciation
shä·khath' destroy (96x), corrupt (22x), mar (7x), destroyer (3x), corrupters (2x), waster (2x), spoilers (2x), battered (1x), corruptly (1x), miscellaneous (11x).

KJV Translation Count — Total: 147x
The KJV translates Strong's H7843 in the following manner: destroy (96x), corrupt (22x), mar (7x), destroyer (3x), corrupters (2x), waster (2x), spoilers (2x), battered (1x), corruptly (1x), miscellaneous (11x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay
   1. (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be injured, be ruined, be rotted
   2. (Piel)
      1. to spoil, ruin
      2. to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)
      • (Hiphil)
        1. to spoil, ruin, destroy
        2. to pervert, corrupt (morally)
        3. destroyer (participle)
      • (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Corrupt does not necessarily mean intrinsically evil.

It was violence and evil that corrupted their way of life, and would have destroyed everything. In other words they trashed themselves and the earth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is both remarkably tender and remarkably fierce, jealous and intense.

He's also remarkably human, with human emotions and human ideas, that seem to match the culture that wrote it down.

I guess you know where I'm going with this.
The bible, to me, looks exactly like I would expect if it were the work of humans.

From an all-knowing, all-just, all-powerfull god who's supposed to be the very standard of morality and ethics? Nah, i expect better. And just a bit better, but a LOT better.

I can rewrite the 10 commandments in 10 seconds and come up with a better, more efficient, more effective and morally superior set of rules.
That's just embarassing.

I don’t think it’s possible to understand God’s character by just picking out issues isolated from a wider and deeper context.

Again, objectively, there is no context in which it is okay to keep slaves, to commit genocide, to kill babies and toddlers. There just isn't.

I don't say this easily, but I don't see what kind of argument could ever possibly convince me of the opposite. I just can't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I get what you’re saying, I just can’t get my head around how you negotiate all of the different layers of meaning and evidence of different kinds etc with that as your baseline.

Not sure what you mean by that. I'ld love to explain (I honestly think it's a very interesting point of discussion), but as I say, not sure what you mean with "different layers of meaning and evidence".

I suppose my starting point is that there is meaning - that thoughts, actions and ideas of all kinds have real consequences that aren’t limited to those things which can be empirically tested, at least not in any absolute sense that fits within current models.

My starting point is that it is unwise to assume things without justifiable reason.
In other words, I'll accept that X has "special meaning", when it can be demonstrated / rationally supported to be the case.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Given your explanation above, I see it as one way Atheists can bridge the gap and distance themselves from other Atheists.

That's where the root of your misunderstanding is.
I don't have a need to "bridge gaps", because there are no such gaps to be bridged.

Consider this: you don't believe santa claus is real.
Hitler didn't believe santa claus is real.

Do you feel like you need to "distance yourself" from nazism, because both you and Hitler share a disbelief in the existance of santa claus?

Off course you do not....
So why would I feel a need to "distance myself" from Stalin, because both of us share a disbelief in the existance of a theistic deity?

I don't. A communist who thinks the soviets were evil, might feel a need to distance himself.

It would be a fact to state a Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were run by Atheists.

Sure. But it would also be more accurate and meaningfull to say that they were run by radical communists...

You are an Atheist that rejects their worldview.

As in, I am an atheist but not a communist.
Communism isn't inherent to atheism.

What needs to be established is the cause of their worldview

That would be marxism / radical communism.
That's their actual worldview.

As I have already explained, atheism is not a worldview. It is rather a word that expresses the explicit rejection of one particular worldview (theism).

Does correlation imply causation with anything objective here? It certainly establishes that governments lead by these Atheists would NOT agree with other Atheists like yourself.

Because they are communists and I am not a communist.
Our collective atheism is completely irrelevant to that fact.

Likewise in the case of abortion, a very small minority of Atheists are pro-life and not pro-choice, there is another divide.

Nothing in atheism dictates how one should view abortion either.
Because, once more, atheism ONLY expressed the disbelief of one very specific thing: theism. It doesn't assert anything. It doesn't impose doctrines. It doesn't impose anything at all. It's, in fact, as empty a label as it gets, as it only tells you what a person does NOT believe.

I wonder how many times it must be repeated?

The point is there are measurable differences among Atheists based on evidence

Obviously.
I'm sure there are also measureable difference among people who don't play football as well.

, they very much resemble the differences between theists.

Except when it comes to the doctrines and dogma's that are inherently part of theism, off course.

When someone tells me that they are a christian, then there's a whole list of assumptions that I can make about that person concerning the beliefs that they will hold.

While when someone tells me they are atheist, the only real thing I know about him/her then, is what they do NOT believe.