- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes God desire you to abstain from blood transfusions or not?
Oh excuse us for exercising our own consciences, i see National Socialism is still alive and well!
take it back to the proper thread Spanky or shall we add hijacking to your list of misdemeanours? , for you have some unfinished business there or did you think to slink away like a bushy tailed fox, slyly covering your tracks, after which i will ta ...[text shortened]... onfession and offer you absolution, depending of course on whether you show a repentant spirit.
Oh excuse us for exercising our own consciences, i see National Socialism is still alive and well!
No one has denied your right to exercise your conscience. What people have denied is that your conscience is well-formed. I am not sure why you continually invoke the banner of conscience as a defense here. Conscience does not exempt anyone from criticism. A properly formed conscience requires constant checks and critiques, otherwise it would just be a license for personal whim.
25 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KOnce again, why should my conscience be judged by you? are you a God? a judger of consciences?
Does God desire you to abstain from blood transfusions or not?
[b]Oh excuse us for exercising our own consciences, i see National Socialism is still alive and well!
No one has denied your right to exercise your conscience. What people have denied is that your conscience is well-formed. I am not sure why you continually invoke the banner of consci ...[text shortened]... requires constant checks and critiques, otherwise it would just be a license for personal whim.[/b]
(Romans 14:4) . . .Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. . . let each man be fully convinced in his own mind
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you think that rape and murder should be subject to conscience and not be checked by any societal restraints? How far are you willing to concede the freedom of conscience?
Once again, why should my conscience be judged by you? are you a God? a judger of consciences?
(Romans 14:4) . . .Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. . . let each man be fully convinced [b]in his own mind[/b]
25 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI do not rape or murder, pillage or steal, it is a violation of my conscience, the acts are clearly condemned in the word of God, whether or not they are subject to social restraint is the business of government and law enforcement agencies, which as a Christian, we are under duress to comply with, in a relative sense. But that is not the issue here for the acts of my conscience in this regard are not against the law, for i claim the right of self determination, therefore I shall to ask you again, who appointed you as a judge of my conscience, are you a God? are you a judge of consciences? indeed why should my conscience be judged by you?
Do you think that rape and murder should be subject to conscience and not be checked by any societal restraints? How far are you willing to concede the freedom of conscience?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut such acts may be countenanced by the conscience of another, or, at least, not condemned by conscience. Presumably then they too should be exempt from any criticism.
I do not rape or murder, pillage or steal, it is a violation of my conscience, the acts are clearly condemned in the word of God, whether or not they are subject to social restraint is the business of government and law enforcement agencies, which as a Christian, we are under duress to comply with, in a relative sense. But that is not the issue here ...[text shortened]... are you a God? are you a judge of consciences? indeed why should my conscience be judged by you?
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhy, on the basis that they do not transgress the conscience? what if their conscience is not working? indeed, it seems to be the case in psychopaths that they cannot feel the pangs of conscience, that they know not what remorse feels like, indeed, if their consciences had been working, they would not have committed murder or rape. Secondly they transgress the law of the land, and thirdly they transgress the law of the Christ. In my case i have done none of these things and therefore you have no basis for judging my conscience, have you?
But such acts may be countenanced by the conscience of another, or, at least, not condemned by conscience. Presumably then they too should be exempt from any criticism.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhy, on the basis that they do not transgress the conscience? what if their conscience is not working?
why, on the basis that they do not transgress the conscience? what if their conscience is not working? indeed, it seems to be the case in psychopaths that they cannot feel the pangs of conscience, that they know not what remorse feels like, indeed, if their consciences had been working, they would not have committed murder or rape. Secondly they tra ...[text shortened]... e done none of these things and therefore you have no basis for judging my conscience, have you?
Indeed. If conscience is the sole arbiter, who are you to comment on the morality of their actions? If they have no conscience, then still, what power do you have to condemn their actions as immoral?
Secondly they transgress the law of the land
This is a separate issue. The legality of any action is quite different from its morality.
thirdly they transgress the law of the Christ.
Are you here admitting the option of rebuking others, irrespective of their conscience, on the basis of the law of Christ? It seems you are contradicting yourself.
25 Sep 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ktheir actions condemn them, not my conscience, nor have i stated that conscience is the sole arbiter, in fact i even mentioned two others, which you have dismissed on flimsy grounds. Indeed as Christians, we obey the law of the land because of conscience, as far as it depends upon us in a relative sense until it supersedes the law of the Christ. But we are of course not talking of my conscience judging others, but yours, for you have now been asked eight, perhaps more times, on what basis you are to be appointed a judge of my conscience, for i have neither transgressed the law of the land nor the word of God, therefore on what basis are you judging my conscience?
why, on the basis that they do not transgress the conscience? what if their conscience is not working?[/b]
Indeed. If conscience is the sole arbiter, who are you to comment on the morality of their actions? If they have no conscience, then still, what power do you have to condemn their actions as immoral?
Secondly they transgress the law of the of their conscience, on the basis of the law of Christ? It seems you are contradicting yourself.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLook, I don't think you understand what conscience is. You are the only one I have ever heard argue that freedom of conscience means freedom from any sort of criticism. I doubt even you observe that rigorously. I suspect you offer moral admonishments and corrections very frequently (in fact, both Jesus and St Paul recommend it.) For example, Jesus says "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3). You have expanded freedom of conscience to a ridiculous extent.
their actions condemn them, not my conscience, nor have i stated that conscience is the sole arbiter, in fact i even mentioned two others, which you have dismissed on flimsy grounds. Indeed as Christians, we obey the law of the land because of conscience, as far as it does not supersede the law of the Christ.
25 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ki have argued no such thing, stop assigning to me values that i do not possess, indeed i have now been trying to ascertain for days, on what basis you are a judge of another's conscience, if there is a basis, then let it be heard, if not, then why are you doing it? indeed if you cannot find a reason, i think you are disqualified from ever commenting on any issue of morality on these forums and it would be better if you took up knitting instead. You could knit bbar a beard warmer 😉
Look, I don't think you understand what conscience is. You are the only one I have ever heard argue that freedom of conscience means freedom from any sort of criticism. I doubt even you observe that rigorously. I suspect you offer moral admonishments and corrections very frequently (in fact, both Jesus and St Paul recommend it.) For example, Jesus says "If ...[text shortened]... ts, forgive him" (Luke 17:3). You have expanded freedom of conscience to a ridiculous extent.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou will have to clarify what your position. I officially do not understand. Only a few days ago you said that I could not criticise your moral beliefs because your conscience somehow prohibited me. You then argued that freedom of conscience would prevent you advising anyone on a moral dilemma, that the outcome of conscience should be completely private. You said it even applied to your wife. Do you retract any of this?
i have argued no such thing, stop assigning to me values that i do not possess, indeed i have now been trying to ascertain for days, on what basis you are a judge of another's conscience, if there is a basis, then let it be heard, if not, then why are you doing it? indeed if you cannot find a reason, i think you are disqualified from ever commenting ...[text shortened]... s and it would be better if you took up knitting instead. You could knit bbar a beard warmer 😉
on what basis you are a judge of another's conscience, if there is a basis, then let it be heard, if not, then why are you doing it?
I have not claimed to be the judge of anyone's conscience. What I have claimed is that conscience does not exempt anyone from criticism. It cannot not an excuse for immoral conduct. The reasoning of conscience should be open to all and others should be able to criticise it. So when you say that blood transfusions are wrong according to your conscience, I should be allowed to ask why and criticise the reasons you give and vice verse. I do not see why this should be so controversial.
25 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Ki have claimed nothing of the sort, i am merely trying to ascertain the basis on which you seek to criticise the exercising of my conscience, which as yet, evades us.
You will have to clarify what your position. I officially do not understand. Only a few days ago you said that I could not criticise your moral beliefs because your conscience somehow prohibited me. You then argued that freedom of conscience would prevent you advising anyone on a moral dilemma, that the outcome of conscience should be completely private. Yo the reasons you give and vice verse. I do not see why this should be so controversial.
Can i order a woolly pointy hat, like the popes, so that when i sit judging the consciences of others i can look officially like a conscience judger! thanks, makes sure its here before Christmas, your fan - robbie 🙂