But what is "murder?" What is "adultery?" From culture to culture, the definitions of those words can vary so greatly that they become meaningless if one tries to stretch them across cultures.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
According to Scripture, everyone does (Romans 2:14-15).
Murder, adultery are naturally written on the human conscience as wrong, while parental respect, care for the elderly are naturally written on the human conscience as right.
We find that understood in pagan cultures.
Murder is understood as wrongly taking human life.But what is "murder?" What is "adultery?" From culture to culture, the definitions of those words can vary so greatly that they become meaningless if one tries to stretch them across cultures.
I disagree. If murder is wrongly taking human life, what constitutes wrongly, will vary from culture to culture. Under Nazi Germany, killing a Jewish person was not wrong as long as the killer was Aryan; in another culture it would be considered wrong.Murder is understood as wrongly taking human life.
Adultery is understood as being sexually unfaithful to one's spouse.
It's not about the definition, it's about the nature of the conscience.
Respectfully, I see an occasion for a possible misunderstanding:Murder is understood as wrongly taking human life.
Adultery is understood as being sexually unfaithful to one's spouse.
It's not about the definition, it's about the nature of the conscience.
Agreed. . .but that it is even on the radar in pagan cultures is evidence of conscience.I disagree. If murder is wrongly taking human life, what constitutes wrongly, will vary from culture to culture. Under Nazi Germany, killing a Jewish person was not wrong as long as the killer was Aryan; in another culture it would be considered wrong.
If adultery is being sexually unfaithful, some cultures justify having sex with other women as natural for a man and should be expected of him; thus not unfaithful. Other cultures that same act will be adultery. It is often about the definition
Actually conscience itself is natural, with an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).Respectfully, I see an occasion for a possible misunderstanding:
The character of the conscience is based on an image of God/god.
To rephrase:
We reason upon what we believe to be true, therefore the conscience is subject to knowledge and ignorance of what the Truth is.
Edit: Note that I posted this 1 minute behind Ken-1122 without knowing the poster had already posted ahead of me.
Have you considered that the conscience is the product of the knowledge of good and evil? For what it's worth here are some things I think about.Actually conscience itself is natural, with an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).
God is all things including all forgiving. Or is he not sovereign?Now if only Jesus did not state the contrary. . .(John 3:18)
Does that alter the fact that we have an innate sense of right and wrong, called conscience (Romans 2:14-15)?Have you considered that the conscience is the product of the knowledge of good and evil?
More Biblical teaching on conscience, thanks.For what it's worth here are some things I think about.
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 3-10
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Titus 1:15
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:7-9
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
Yeah, people really get out of hand if they think an anonymous collective is listening.There was a little video recently of a little girl, maybe four years old, clutching a bottle of apple cider vinegar and demanding her mother to give her a drink of that "juice." Her mother tried to explain that it wasn't juice and didn't taste good. The tyke insisted that it was juice, and she wanted some, starting to go into a tantrum.
The mother then poured out a bit into the bottle cap for the little girl to taste...and the result was predictable. The little girl learned a couple of significant lessons at very small cost.
A host of commenters immediately hurled insults, accusing the woman of child abuse to the point of insisting that protective child services take the child from her.
Actually conscience itself is natural, with an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).
No, it doesn't, but my point is that the conscience is subject to an imagery of God/god. So, I think your use of the term "conscience' might be misunderstood since I think you mean to convey that the subjective conscience only exists because there is an objective reality that includes the existence of many subjective views.Does that alter the fact that we have an innate sense of right and wrong, called conscience (Romans 2:14-15)?
It depends on whether objectively speaking we intend to convey that it was the natural order that was corrupted, or that objectively we intend to convey that the natural order was to learn we are corruptible. That is to say that a positive cannot be valued without it's negative.Our fallen nature is likewise the product of the knowledge of good and evil (disobedience), but do we not still refer to it all as the natural order.
There was a little video recently of a little girl, maybe four years old, clutching a bottle of apple cider vinegar and demanding her mother to give her a drink of that "juice." Her mother tried to explain that it wasn't juice and didn't taste good. The tyke insisted that it was juice, and she wanted some, starting to go into a tantrum.
The mother then poured out a bit into the bottle cap for the little girl to taste...and the result was predictable. The little girl learned a couple of significant lessons at very small cost.
A host of commenters immediately hurled insults, accusing the woman of child abuse to the point of insisting that protective child services take the child from her.
A reasonable assessment.Some people have nothing to do but complain and intervene. That action was harmless and (as you said) taught a lesson or three.
No doubt there are degrees towards what is unreasonable.And if the mother had limited the girl to *only* drinking (and requiring drinking) vinegar for breakfast every morning in place of juice for a month that would be cruel and serve no purpose. (Certainly not the worst thing that a parent could do. Not sure if it would cross the abuse threshold.)
This world and its ways is the closest that an unbeliever is going to come to Heaven.
Apart from Salvation, no one in it can escape its social entropy.
Trying to keep it going is as futile as "perpetual motion."
If the answers were not in agreement, it can be demonstrated which one is not according to Scripture.
If Scripture itself appears to be in disagreement, that which reconciles the "disagreement" would be the correct understanding.
It does. You keep asking for a static social ideal that will work apart from one's [philosophy].That doesn't address my point.
The reason there is so much confusion about objective morality is that there are two senses or contexts in which the concept of objectivity is used. One is in the metaphysical sense of things existing independent of consciousness such as a tree or a rock being a tree or a rock regardless of anyone's thoughts to the contrary. The other context has to do with the nature and means of knowledge or epistemology. In that context, objectivity is defined as a method of identifying and defining the things we perceive that exist independent of the mind. I only see people using it in its metaphysical meaning and never its epistemological meaning. If one tries to use the metaphysical meaning in the context of knowledge, then of course knowledge can't exist independent of the mind and one will be led to think that all knowledge is subjective. Objective morality is impossible since concepts don't exist independently of the mind.I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"
Could something that thinks it is true explain it in a totally different way
please please please do not just say "but why do you think that"
I would suggest that you only use scripture
It does. You keep asking for a static social ideal that will work apart from one's [philosophy].
I was saying that there is no such ideal social model when you remove God's intervention from the picture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?