God and sin

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I said someone who relies on their moral compass will undoubtedly make wrong choices and possibly make things worse for themselves. This is not me, I rely on God, not myself.

OK, so you don't rely on your personal moral compass.

How does that work in practice? In those cases where your personal moral compass tells you some act would be right (or wrong), but God knows better, how does God let you know that?

In other words, how do you know, when you act contrary to your personal moral compass, that you're doing what God wants, rather than making a mistake?

 

[Chriliman]

OK, so you don't rely on your personal moral compass.

How does that work in practice? In those cases where your personal moral compass tells you some act would be right (or wrong), but God knows better, how does God let you know that?

In other words, how do you know, when you act contrary to your personal moral compass, that you're doing what God wants, rather than making a mistake?

If I feel guilt after doing something that I didn't think was wrong at the time then I know it was actually wrong in God's view. I then honestly repent and move on.

If I feel blessed after doing something that I didn't think was good at the time, (maybe it just came naturally) then I know it was good in God's view.

Often the feeling of guilt or blessing comes after reading Gods word, where He's placing something on my heart in order to refine me.

These feelings are reliable because you can't fake the feeling of guilt and you can't fake the feeling of being blessed.

If one never feels guilt or blessing then it might mean they are far from God. It might take a tragedy in their life to wake them up and bring them closer to God.

 

[HitchSlap]

If I feel guilt after doing something that I didn't think was wrong at the time then I know it was actually wrong in God's view. I then honestly repent and move on.

If I feel blessed after doing something that I didn't think was good at the time, (maybe it just came naturally) then I know it was good in God's view.

Often the feeling of guilt or blessing comes after reading Gods word, where He's placing something on my heart in order to refine me.

These feelings are reliable because you can't fake the feeling of guilt and you can't fake the feeling of being blessed.

If one never feels guilt or blessing then it might mean they are far from God. It might take a tragedy in their life to wake them up and bring them closer to God.

Is there ever a situation where someone might feel guilty when they really shouldn't?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I feel guilt after doing something that I didn't think was wrong at the time then I know it was actually wrong in God's view. I then honestly repent and move on.

If I feel blessed after doing something that I didn't think was good at the time, (maybe it just came naturally) then I know it was good in God's view.

OK, but that's all after you've taken the action. I'm asking how you decide how to act - if, as you say, you don't rely on your personal moral compass.

Because if you don't rely on your personal moral compass, that suggests you must sometimes deliberately act contrary to it - on the basis that that's what God requires or expects. This is what I don't understand - if you decide to act contrary to your personal moral compass, you're deciding to do something you feel is wrong; what prompts you to do that? how can you tell it's what God wants rather than just being wrong?

[because, if you can't tell for sure, isn't it better to rely on your personal moral compass and do what you feel is right?]

I'm trying to clarify what you've been saying by asking specific questions, but your responses aren't answering them. If I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, or you can't explain it, please say so, but it increasing looks like you're being evasive.

 

[Chriliman]

OK, but that's all after you've taken the action. I'm asking how you decide how to act - if, as you say, you don't rely on your personal moral compass.

Because if you don't rely on your personal moral compass, that suggests you must sometimes deliberately act contrary to it - on the basis that that's what God requires or expects. This is what I don't understand - if you decide to act contrary to your personal moral compass, you're deciding to do something you feel is wrong; what prompts you to do that? how can you tell it's what God wants rather than just being wrong?

[because, if you can't tell for sure, isn't it better to rely on your personal moral compass and do what you feel is right?]

I'm trying to clarify what you've been saying by asking specific questions, but your responses aren't answering them. If I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, or you can't explain it, please say so, but it increasing looks like you're being evasive.

I'll be honest it is difficult to explain, especially to someone who has no faith in God whatsoever.

Imagine trying to explain your personal relationship with your parents to someone who has never had parents or even heard of parents(an orphan) They would have no basis for understanding the dynamics of the relationship.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'll be honest it is difficult to explain, especially to someone who has no faith in God whatsoever.

Imagine trying to explain your personal relationship with your parents to someone who has never had parents or even heard of parents(an orphan) They would have no basis for understanding the dynamics of the relationship.

So the issue is not with our ability to understand, but yours in explaining.

 

[Chriliman]

So the issue is not with our ability to understand, but yours in explaining.

No I think the issue goes much deeper than that. There is a fundamental problem that needs correction. I trust that God knows how to fix it.

Just keep living your life and honestly seeking truth.

 

[Davian]

No I think the issue goes much deeper than that. There is a fundamental problem that needs correction. I trust that God knows how to fix it.

Just keep living your life and honestly seeking truth.

Do you find that only those that have "honestly" sought the truth agree with you?

 

[Dave-W]

And, at that point, they would not consider the IRS a fiction anymore. Your analogy fails.
How does that compare to the Christian God? When has it done something that cannot be dismissed as myth, imagination, hoax, or outright fabrication?

I doubt very seriously when you stand before HIM at final judgement, that you will still consider HIM to be myth.

 

[Davian]

I doubt very seriously when you stand before HIM at final judgement, that you will still consider HIM to be myth.

Scare tactic fail.

Care to address the question?

 

[Dave-W]

I did answer the question. You asked "When" and I told you when. Or would you like to clarify the question?

I am sorry if you do not like the answer but that is not my problem.

Unless you decide to believe and turn your life around before then, you will not know until the day of final judgement. Your choice.

 

[Davian]

I did answer the question. You asked "When" and I told you when. Or would you like to clarify the question?

I am sorry if you do not like the answer but that is not my problem.

Your answer is laughable. On what other claims can we pull out "you'll find out when you die" canard? You'll know the truth behind UFOs after you die. The secrets behind 9/11 will be revealed after your final breath. Bigfoot will meet you in the afterlife.

Unless you decide to believe and turn your life around before then, you will not know until the day of final judgement. Your choice.

Belief is not conscious choice. There is no virtual switch in my brain that I can flip and say "today, I shall toss out most of mainstream science, and believe in gods".

Would you hold me accountable for something beyond my control?

 

[Dave-W]

Belief is not conscious choice. There is no virtual switch in my brain that I can flip and say "today, I shall toss out most of mainstream science, and believe in gods".

Actually, you CAN do that if you want. It is your choice.

 

[Davian]

Actually, you CAN do that if you want. It is your choice.

Try it yourself. Choose to believe that gods are only characters in books. And then, next week, switch back. Do it right now.

 

[zippy2006]

What about situations where you have no other choice, and you know inaction would also be wrong, e.g. situations where you must choose what you feel to be the lesser wrong? Is that inevitably a sin?

Is there a hierarchy of sin to hep one decide in such difficult situations?

It seems that normative moral & ethical theories, whether consequentialist, duty based, rights based, or even virtue based, all seem to run into the problem of situations where the theory conflicts with our inner moral compass, our personal sense of fairness & justice, of right and wrong...

I'm curious to know if Christian moral philosophy has anything to say about that, as the Bible has examples of people commanded by God, or His representative(s) to act in conflict with their own personal sense of justice; but in those situations it (presumably) isn't a sin.

This suggests two possibilities, either your statement about what constitutes a sin is mistaken, or what you mean by 'When you know something is wrong' is really 'When you know something is contrary to God's command' (the tenets of Christian morality) regardless of your personal moral compass. Or perhaps there's some other possibility?

Truly normative ethical theories did not begin in earnest until the time of William of Ockham in the 13th and 14th centuries and were significantly augmented by Kant and also the birth of Protestantism. It is interesting that Christianity grew up in the less developed shadows of such ethical theories, seen particularly in the legalism of the Pharisees, and offered a kind of response to them. The early Christians emphasized the New Law of the Holy Spirit that is written on the heart of the believer rather than on tablets of stone, and this parallels readily with Aristotle's virtue ethics.

The Aristotelian vein of Christianity culminated in St. Thomas Aquinas and borrowed heavily from Aristotle's virtue ethics, which is significantly different from modern ethical systems such as those you listed. The difference lies primarily in Aristotle's emphasis on prudence for the moral life and his insistence that virtue is learned not primarily by reading textbooks and memorizing extrinsic rules, but by observing and learning from the virtuous man. Finally, the "incentives" to act virtuously are intrinsic rather than extrinsic to the agent. Thus virtue is intimately bound up with one's "moral compass." This understanding is quite strong in Catholic moral philosophy today and Servais Pinckaers is one of the primary authorities on the topic. Pope John Paul II enunciates a similar understanding of the moral life in his encyclical, Veritatis Splendor.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Aristotelian vein of Christianity culminated in St. Thomas Aquinas and borrowed heavily from Aristotle's virtue ethics, which is significantly different from modern ethical systems such as those you listed. The difference lies primarily in Aristotle's emphasis on prudence for the moral life and his insistence that virtue is learned not primarily by reading textbooks and memorizing extrinsic rules, but by observing and learning from the virtuous man. Finally, the "incentives" to act virtuously are intrinsic rather than extrinsic to the agent. Thus virtue is intimately bound up with one's "moral compass." This understanding is quite strong in Catholic moral philosophy today and Servais Pinckaers is one of the primary authorities on the topic. Pope John Paul II enunciates a similar understanding of the moral life in his encyclical, Veritatis Splendor.

Thanks for that, I'm not particularly well up on how Catholic moral philosophy relates to Aristotle's virtue ethics. That the incentives are intrinsic, and connected to one's moral compass, seems to resolve the problem of conflicts between Catholic moral philosophy and one's moral compass, but also serves to emphasize the problem of dealing with apparent conflicts with God's commands... perhaps this is where Catholic guilt comes in

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks for that, I'm not particularly well up on how Catholic moral philosophy relates to Aristotle's virtue ethics. That the incentives are intrinsic, and connected to one's moral compass, seems to resolve the problem of conflicts between Catholic moral philosophy and one's moral compass,

Sure.

but also serves to emphasize the problem of dealing with apparent conflicts with God's commands... perhaps this is where Catholic guilt comes in

After Ockham's bifurcation of will and law scripture came to be read in an increasingly moralistic and command-oriented light, as can be seen especially in Puritanism and American Protestantism. Even Sola Scriptura tends to infuse the Bible with a strongly normative character.

If those errors are avoided then I'm not convinced that the problem is nearly as prevalent as you say. Christian moral commands are not tightly packed, and there is significant space for prudentia. Yet for both Aristotle and the Church the good life is objective and the search for happiness is not a relativistic affair. A human person must therefore shape themselves to achieve the end of happiness just as an athlete must shape themselves to achieve their end of excellence.

 

[Locutus]

If your son wanted to, he can certainly find a reason to reject you as his father. You would be too mad to punish him.
This is not a fiction. It happened since human existed.

A child (even an adult child) will only reject a parent who gives them cause. Why would a SOUND parent give a child cause to reject them, then punish the child for having done what they were essentially programmed to do? Only a bad parent would do such a thing. A bad parent would find a way to blame the child.

 

[Locutus]

There are 2 ways to look at this.

1. When the father hates the child he will always punish them to be sure they get their just desserts.
2. When a father loves the child he corrects them in their failure to teach them a bigger lesson.

Now one must ask: does the God we serve love us or hate us? Pain may result in some correction but pain is never the point.

are you serious? burning in a lake of fire for eternity is an act of love?

that is the purest hatred imaginable.

 

[juvenissun]

A child (even an adult child) will only reject a parent who gives them cause. Why would a SOUND parent give a child cause to reject them, then punish the child for having done what they were essentially programmed to do? Only a bad parent would do such a thing. A bad parent would find a way to blame the child.

No. It is the other way round.
A child will reject parents when he find a good reason to do so.
The burden is on the child, not on parents.