Conflict of Conscience vs Scripture

[Gene2memE]

Every major religion has the golden rule enshrined as its basis--a sure sign that God has planted it in the hearts of all humankind.

Alternatively, it's a sign that there are basic, universal truths about morality which are accessible by all humans, and that successful religions co-opt those truths as their own.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Alternatively, it's a sign that there are basic, universal truths about morality which are accessible by all humans, and that successful religions co-opt those truths as their own.

Before you can claim that moral truths have been "co-opted" by religions, you'll need to understand that human consciousness, including any kind of universal morality found within it, is still an unanswered mystery in regards to the sciences.

 

[Landon Caeli]

In regards to Catholicism, we see the things of the natural world leading us into the direction of Eternal Law, as has been written about by St. Thomas Aquinas.

A universal, basic morality would be an obvious example of one of God's Eternal Laws.

 

[Gene2memE]

Before you can claim that moral truths have been "co-opted" by religions, you'll need to understand that human consciousness, including any kind of universal morality found within it, is still an unanswered mystery in regards to the sciences.

We don't have a complete understanding of consciousness.

So what?

Unless you're a solopsist, that has zero to do with the concept that there are basic, universal truths about morality which are accessible by all humans.

 

[Landon Caeli]

We don't have a complete understanding of consciousness.

So what?

Unless you're a solopsist, that has zero to do with the concept that there are basic, universal truths about morality which are accessible by all humans.

Of course it has something to do with it. We can't just have things happening, and not wonder why they're happening...

 

[zippy2006]

Projection! ...To say that *I* am the one into labeling.

It is a simple fact that you are doing little more than labeling and asserting. For example:

The bible is not opposed to polygamy either, in fact for a time, God allowed the Jews to have multiple wives... But the prudent man does not have multiple wives, nor does he own slaves, as his moral conscience guides him toward a more humble existence.

All you've done here is labeled monogamists "prudent" and "conscientious." There is no argument here, nor is there understanding. You are just labeling your own opinions as wisdom; nothing more.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It is a simple fact that you are doing little more than labeling and asserting. For example:


All you've done here is labeled monogamists "prudent" and "conscientious." There is no argument here, nor is there understanding. You are just labeling your own opinions as wisdom; nothing more.

You won't be able to explain how a man married to multiple wives can become "one flesh", considering that in order for this to happen, the women would need to be one flesh with one another as well. It's just not possible... Therefore, it is not prudent, not even scripturally.

...But I never needed the bible to tell me this in order to form an opinion, because I can see how the wives would feel lonely and left out at times... Ostracized even if they became less favorable, which is not a loving relationship... That’s what the conscience informs us of, when we don't deny it. It can show you what's right and wrong on it's own, if you're prudent.

On the other hand, an imprudent man, who ignores his conscience, would be less concerned about how the wives would feel. So he would need to rely on what's written, solely. And that's where real trouble begins if he misinterprets scripture - like how ignorant Christians used to burn witches, I guarantee they were ignoring their God given conscience when they did that.

 

[Landon Caeli]

@zippy2006 , does your conscience not over-ride the following two scriptural verses? Mine definitely does. I would not! Because it is not prudent for me to kill a witch or a wizard.

Exodus 22:18 – Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Leviticus 20:27 – A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

 

[zippy2006]

@zippy2006 , does your conscience not over-ride the following two scriptural verses? Mine definitely does.

Then according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, your conscience is malformed.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Then according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, your conscience is malformed.

So because I refuse to kill a witch, my conscience is malformed? Really..?

...Even though the 10 commandments say not to kill?

You are incorrect in how you see things.

 

[Robban]

So because I refuse to kill a witch, my conscience is malformed? Really..?

...Even though the 10 commandments say not to kill?

You are incorrect in how you see things.

Nowhere in the Ten commandments or the entire Bible does it say "You shall not kill"

The original Hebrew is "Lo tirtzach", which means "Do not murder"

The Hebrew word for killing is "hariga" a completely different verb.

There is a world of difference in this choice of words.

From an article by R. Aron Moss (teacher in Sydney Australia)

Further more he writes,

"I believe this is the most consistent and compassionate moral system.

Above all else, innocent life is protected, both by the commandment not to murder

and the commandment to kill those who are a threat to innocent people."

My own take on conscience

Conscience is a copout.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Nowhere in the Ten commandments or the entire Bible does it say "You shall not kill"

The original Hebrew is "Lo tirtzach", which means "Do not murder"

The Hebrew word for killing is "hariga" a completely different verb.

There is a world of difference in this choice of words.

From an article by R. Aron Moss (teacher in Sydney Australia)

Further more he writes,

"I believe this is the most consistent and compassionate moral system.

Above all else, innocent life is protected, both by the commandment not to murder

and the commandment to kill those who are a threat to innocent people."

My own take on conscience

Conscience is a copout.

So you would feel remorse after putting a witch to death, whose only crimes include reciting spells, sacrificing bats, and admission of guilt?

Or would you feel justified in it?

 

[Robban]

So you would feel remorse after putting a witch to death, whose only crimes include reciting spells, sacrificing bats, and admission of guilt?

Or would you feel justified in it?

It is about you saying what the text does not say.

.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It is about you saying what the text does not say.

.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Landon Caeli]

@Robban , it is murder to kill a witch. A grave sin.

 

[Robban]

@Robban , it is murder to kill a witch. A grave sin.

Again, it is about you saying what the text does not say.

 

[notworthconsideration]

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

I’m intruding, please forgive me.

If there is a ‘gap’ between scripture and the collective (or individual) conscience of religious people, it is merely evidence of a false religion using Scripture as a tool or weapon. Popular and financially immoral, it rules the peoples’ understanding of scripture- that’s why there are so many labels, to group them by the doctrinal variations in which they believe. (used to be one)

The culture (of churches) is changing to looser morals, more money, less doctrine (or more legalistic doctrine), entertainment, making money, blah blah

 

[Landon Caeli]

Again, it is about you saying what the text does not say.

In Catholicism, we say kill. We take it much further than just murder alone, and even include murderous thoughts, vengeance and hatred.

 

[Robban]

In Catholicism, we say kill. We take it much further than just murder alone, and even include murderous thoughts, vengeance and hatred.

The clip I copied was an answer to a question posed by someone,

Question: "Should Israel have an army, the big ten say you shall not kill.

The answer was clear and exact, not a wishy washy make up.

People want clear answers.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The clip I copied was an answer to a question posed by someone,

Question: "Should Israel have an army, the big ten say you shall not kill.

The answer was clear and exact, not a wishy washy make up.

People want clear answers.

But the clear answer doesn't apply to other similar questions - such is the root problem with fundamentalism.

For instance, if you take the 5th commandment, with it's murder/kill dichotomy, and apply it to the use of capital punishment, it no longer works there, even though it just did for having an army... Because in the old days, they didn't have jails, and killing people was the only method they knew for how to handle serious criminals. Today, we no longer need to put people to death in order to protect people from murderers, so there's really no need to kill at all in regards to the governing laws. Unlike war.

...This is also why the fundamentalist is incorrect when he says witches can and should be put to death. Even if the scriptures say so, it is still immoral, because there are other ways to handle things now outside of basic execution.

Things cannot always be clear, unfortunately. And they won't be. And that's why we have a conscience to think with.