# Ignorance



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 28, 2010)

There are mainly two ways of defining 'ignorance', one of which is 'uninformedness' and the other being 'disregard' or 'indifference'.

Now let me make a little claim here, "PEOPLE NEVER ACT OUT OF IGNORANCE."

Doesn't sound very convincing, does it? Much less biblical! However, let me help you understand where I am coming from. According to Proverb 16:2 "all the ways of a man are clean (that is, righteous) in his own eyes". Now, if this is true about us, and it certainly is, doesn't it agree with my statement earlier? Is there ever disregard or indifference in righteousness? NO, FOR THERE CANNOT BE.

Let me clarify how Proverb 16:2 should be rightly understood. It's, "Whatever we do, we regard as righteousness." When we sin, we don't sin "in our own eyes" because sin is contrary to righteousness. Now what exactly does it mean that we see all our actions as righteous? It means that we think we're not being indifferent! It means that we think we're doing that, which is acceptable before God!

A very common misconception is to picture one saying, "I DON'T CARE!" Such a statement immediately rises thoughts, such as, "THAT'S IGNORANCE!" But that's not the whole picture, is it, for it cannot be according to what the Bible says. We need to realize that there are always three different aspects from which to observe our own actions. We consider our deeds BEFORE, WHILE and AFTER acting. Now in which of those "categories" does the righteousness of our own eyes go? Let's use sinning here as an illustration:
BEFORE we sin, can we consider what we're about to do as righteous? NO. AFTER we've sinned, can we consider what we've done as righteous? NO. WHILE we sin, can we consider what we're doing as righteous? Now notice what happens, if I say, "NO." If in none of the three aspects observed the answer is, "YES," then that contradicts what the Bible says. The answer must be, "YES." and the way to make sense out of it is rather simple. BEFORE sinning, our conscience convicts us. AFTER sinning the same happens. However, WHILE sinning, our conscience is SILENCED. By what? By our INDIFFERENCE!

Now do you see it? Our indifference towards our conscience silences our conscience so that we can buy the lie that what we're doing is right (in God's eyes). And this is exactly what Romans 1:18 teaches us,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (or suppress) the truth in unrighteousness;"

To sum up my view: BEFORE sinning, there is indifference to sinning. WHILE sinning, there is simply uninformedness. AFTER sinning, there is a possibility of brokenness over the sin committed.

I hope this enlightened your understanding of our actions. God bless.

Feel free to comment.


Note: my claim, in one sense, is inconsistent with what I say later on in my post, that is, "However, WHILE sinning, our conscience is SILENCED. By what? By our INDIFFERENCE!" I already thought of altering my claim, but how you understand it really depends on how you define "out of ignorance". Another way of saying it would be 'ignorantly', but it really makes no difference.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2010)

Fair enough, but I once walked into a glass door that I didn't know was closed. I banged my head pretty hard. Maybe I was indifferent to the door or consequences, but not likely. I was ignorant of the door's condition. I don't see how that would be called a sin in the general sense of the word.


----------



## Pergamum (May 29, 2010)

People act out of ignorance all the time. 

In some cases it is sin, in other cases it is not.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> People act out of ignorance all the time.



Maybe your misconception is that you don't realize that NOT ALL OUR ACTIONS ARE CONCRETE. By action I mean action of the mind, which includes abstract verbs, such as, feeling compassion. We don't immediately feel compassion towards anything; there is always a natural choice or preference of the mind and that is what I mean by taking action.

Now let's consider and use as an example what VictorBravo said above, 

"I once walked into a glass door that I didn't know was closed. I banged my head pretty hard. Maybe I was indifferent to the door or consequences, but not likely. I was ignorant of the door's condition. I don't see how that would be called a sin in the general sense of the word."

There was a choice to make, "Am I going to be indifferent of the condition of the door or am I going to observe it carefully?" And according to what he said he was being indifferent, so, he chose the former option. NOW WHY DID HE CHOOSE THE FORMER OPTION? Because he was being indifferent? NO, BUT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Do I still have to clarify my point?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> NO, BUT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Do I still have to clarify my point?


 
And the reason he thought it was the right think to do was because he was ignorant of the facts.

May I suggest leaving the CAPS LOCK off? It comes across as yelling and detracts from what you are trying to say.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > NO, BUT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO! Do I still have to clarify my point?
> ...



Okay... I think I will once more clarify my point as suggested. Get this:

Our indifference is righteousness in our own eyes. In other words, our decisions are not familiar with the word 'indifference'.


----------



## Philip (May 29, 2010)

I think we need to distinguish between culpable ignorance (ie: where I ought to have known) and ignorance proper (I just didn't know, had no way to know, or was misinformed).

Example:

During WWII, the British counterspy service was the most efficient in the world. One of the things they did was to capture German agents and turn them into double agents. Very often, these agents would misinform the Germans on British plans. So, when D-Day came, the Germans had been misinformed about it and had acted to fortify Calais. I would call that acting in ignorance.


----------



## jwright82 (May 29, 2010)

I have never been the most comfortable with deviding up human actions into sinful and not sinful, it is true that it does seem to be a practical necessity though. In my opinion the Bible seems to lay out a general direction or motive for humans depending on their spiritual orientation. Your example of this problem is ignorance but it is just an example of a larger problem, particuler human actions and their ethical standing. I think it is much less problamatic to stick with the general descriptions given in Scripture rather than trying to devide up human actions into ethical and netrual.


----------



## Pergamum (May 29, 2010)

Not all human actions and decisions are moral.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Not all human actions and decisions are moral.



Well, I admit that maybe a good 5% of our constant actions we are conscious of. So, it would seem that not all our actions are based on decisions. But I don't agree with you, when you suggest that decisions are not necessarily moral. Oh yes they are! Where there is no morality, there is no preference, and where there is no preference, there is no decision/volition! We would freeze in time, if there was no morality in our decisions.

I doubt you have read Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will". I highly recommend reading it!


----------



## Pergamum (May 29, 2010)

A sneeze is a human action.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> A sneeze is a human action.


 
If you willingly cause yourself to sneeze. Otherwise, it's the same as heartbeat, that is, uncontrollable.


----------



## Andres (May 29, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Not all human actions and decisions are moral.
> ...


 
What is moral in choosing what cereal to have for breakfast? or what socks to wear for the day?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Andres said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



You always consider the consequences of your decisions. Is it more beneficial to eat one type of food for breakfast than another? Is it more beneficial to wear one type of socks than another? You must develop your thinking, if you don't understand all our decisions are based on morality.


----------



## Andres (May 29, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...


 
Actually, this is not the case at all. I open my drawer and reach in. Whatever pair of socks my hand hits first, I wear that day. 
But for the sake of argument, let's say I did choose my socks based on which pair would be most beneficial - let's say i wear the heavier socks because my feet are cold. I still don't see how this is a moral choice or do I not understand what sense you are using the word 'moral'?

In regards to the cereal, what if i choose based on taste alone? Would you consider taste a benefit even if the cereal is chocked full of sugar and artificial flavors and is completely unhealthy for me? Surely I am not choosing the most beneficial cereal in this case, right?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Andres said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...


 
Let me put my point this way, "If all our decisions are not based on morality, that is, distinguishing good and evil, then we cannot acknowledge God in all our ways (Prov. 3:6), that is, to consider God's will, instead of pursuing our own will."

When we do things to the glory of God, we always consider what is the best thing to do. If not all our decisions are based on morality, then we simply cannot do all things to the glory of God. 

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." [1 Cor. 10:31]


----------



## Andres (May 29, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...


 
I think (if I'm understanding you correctly) you are placing importance on every decision in our life because you see every choice (even what socks to wear) as having an impact on God's will and glorifying Him. I would disagree with you here. I see absolutely no importance on the decision of what socks to wear. I can randomly choose any pair of socks to put on and I will still be in God's will _because_ I can glorify Him with either black sock or white socks or short socks or high socks. And the way I acknowledge God in all my ways is by thanking Him for his provision of clothing to wear and feet to put my socks on so I can walk, etc. I still don't view this as a moral issue.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Andres said:


> I see absolutely no importance on the decision of what socks to wear.



By that you neglect being faithful in the little things of life. Don't lean to your own understanding! Yes, we glorify God by showing gratitude to Him for our clothing He has provided us with, and that's what I call a moral choice; "Will I show gratitude to God or not?", "Will I do what is good or what is evil?"

I simply cannot understand how you STILL don't see morality in every decision we make...

Andres, I want you to get this: Everything that has to do with God, has to do with morality. And the thing is, all things have to do with God.

"In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." [Prov. 3:6]


----------



## Andres (May 29, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I see absolutely no importance on the decision of what socks to wear.
> ...


 
And I simply cannot understand how you think my decision of what socks to wear really affects my relationship with God. Let me ask you this, do you pray before every decision you make? Do you wake up in the morning and pray to God and try to discern His will for you in what clothes you should wear that day?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

Andres said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...


 
Do I pray before every decision I make? I must admit I don't and that's sin. Yet the Bible says, "Pray without ceasing." (1 Thess. 5:17) I think I need to remind you of what I said earlier, "I admit that maybe a good 5% of our constant actions we are conscious of." I am not necessarily conscious of what socks I am going to wear, though that's something that can easily engage my mind. Usually I am not. I think your problem is what seems "normal" to you. You don't find being faithful to God in all things, including the most minor things, as "normal". I am telling you, "It's of a great importance that you be not indifferent about things, which are of a minor importance to your own eyes."


----------



## Philip (May 29, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> I have never been the most comfortable with deviding up human actions into sinful and not sinful, it is true that it does seem to be a practical necessity though. In my opinion the Bible seems to lay out a general direction or motive for humans depending on their spiritual orientation. Your example of this problem is ignorance but it is just an example of a larger problem, particuler human actions and their ethical standing. I think it is much less problamatic to stick with the general descriptions given in Scripture rather than trying to devide up human actions into ethical and netrual.


 
These general descriptions generally involve attitudes and ground motives rather than actions. My choosing to listen to Bach over Rachmaninoff is not an ethical choice until you get to the level of ground motives and attitudes. Once we analyze it to that level, though, the choice of Bach over Rachmaninoff is irrelevant: I could just as easily have chosen the other way round with no change in my ground motives and attitudes. One can glorify and enjoy God just as much with Rachmaninoff as with Bach and one can dishonor and despise God just as much with Bach as Rachmaninoff. The choice itself is neutral---the attitudes and ground motives are ethical.

I would also like to challenge the idea that ignorance always includes indifference---Columbus was not indifferent to the existence of America because it was a very relevant fact. However, he acted in ignorance of this fact and thus discovered this fact.


----------



## Peairtach (May 29, 2010)

Moral "ignorance" is different from empirical or rational ignorance.

Moral "ignorance" is always culpable because we all know the God of Scripture, who made us, and thus know what it is morally right to do.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2010)

I note that if we have a moral duty to exhaustively contemplate every potential ground for every potential decision, plus a moral duty to investigate all facts before acting lest we be indifferent to something that might be important, etc., we will end up violating our moral duty to work to put food on our families' tables.

Sigh and shrug. There are many things we fallen humans will get wrong. . . .


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 29, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> I note that if we have a moral duty to exhaustively contemplate every potential ground for every potential decision, plus a moral duty to investigate all facts before acting lest we be indifferent to something that might be important, etc., we will end up violating our moral duty to work to put food on our families' tables.
> 
> Sigh and shrug. There are many things we fallen humans will get wrong. . . .


 
We don't "investigate all facts before acting" because the gap between God's mind and our minds is like the gap between heaven and earth. We think of our own decisions as righteous because we think we've considered every crucial point or aspect to justify our actions. Therefore, I don't think it's a good argument to say we get too exhausted by fulfilling our moral duty in contemplating all things for the glory of God. As if we could contemplate all things!!! But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do so.

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> I would also like to challenge the idea that ignorance always includes indifference---Columbus was not indifferent to the existence of America because it was a very relevant fact. However, he acted in ignorance of this fact and thus discovered this fact.


 
That's not what I am suggesting at all. I think I distinguished that 'ignorance' can whether mean 'informedness' or 'indifference' (or 'disregard'). In indifference there is by default also informedness. However, in informedness there isn't necessarily indifference.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2010)

Well, earnest friend, if we are to strive to contemplate all things, then I see no other alternative than to be exhausted. 

I think you are overworking this idea. We have a moral duty to prioritize our thoughts and actions. That means that we ignore certain things at certain times. If we didn't learn to prioritize, we'd be useless. Sometimes we make mistakes in setting priorities, and that leads to banging your head because of ignorance stemming from the mistake.

Christ taught us several places to set priorities and not spend time worrying about details of unimportant things, as in Matthew 6:32-34, especially verse 34:



> Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


----------



## jayce475 (May 29, 2010)

God's civil and ceremonial law makes a distinction between sins committed due to ignorance and those that are wilful. If the bible makes the distinction, we have to make the distinction and stand on the position that sometimes we sin out of ignorance and sometimes we sin wilfully (with elements of indifference). Ignorant sins are still sins, but God is merciful to forgive. What we repent of is what we do know, but our blessed Intercessor and High Priest is also interceding for us so that we are forgiven of both what we do know and what we don't (or only realize sometime after). 

It is true that we ought to be much more sensitive to the sinfulness in both our thoughts and deeds, but the suggestion that absolutely every single thought and action is moral in nature is not practically accurate. Deciding to take a bath now instead of half an hour later (assuming it's not in the way of important things either way) is not a moral decision. Deciding between washing my hands with warmer or cooler water is not a moral decision. Deciding to put my books on the second level of the bookshelf instead of the third is also not a moral decision.

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------




VictorBravo said:


> Well, earnest friend, if we are to strive to contemplate all things, then I see no other alternative than to be exhausted.
> 
> I think you are overworking this idea. We have a moral duty to prioritize our thoughts and actions. That means that we ignore certain things at certain times. If we didn't learn to prioritize, we'd be useless. Sometimes we make mistakes in setting priorities, and that leads to banging your head because of ignorance stemming from the mistake.
> 
> ...


 
I second what Raymond is saying. Even in actions that do have a moral basis, such as choosing food that is healthy for ourselves instead of eating junk, we need to prioritize and be reasonable. If I really wanted to figure out whether I should have grilled fish or baked chicken for lunch, I can do a few days of research before making my decision. That's not practical and it is quite reasonable for me to just choose whichever one I fancy as long as I know that it is reasonably healthy.


----------



## Philip (May 29, 2010)

> That's not what I am suggesting at all. I think I distinguished that 'ignorance' can whether mean 'informedness' or 'indifference' (or 'disregard'). In indifference there is by default also informedness. However, in informedness there isn't necessarily indifference.



I don't see how indifference implies uninformedness. I may be perfectly well-informed on the arguments for and against the existence of William Shakespeare and still be indifferent on the subject. Indifference simply means subjective irrelevance: ie, I am indifferent on a subject if and only if I do not consider the subject worth having an opinion on so far as I am concerned. It has nothing to do with uninformedness and in no way implies it.



> From Webster's 1828 dictionary:
> IG'NORANCE, n. [L. ignorantia; ignoro,not to know; ignarus, ignorant; in and gnarus, knowing.]
> 
> 1. Want, absence or destitution of knowledge; the negative state of the mind which has not been instructed in arts, literature or science, or has not been informed of facts. Ignorance may be general, or it may be limited to particular subjects. Ignorance of the law does not excuse a man for violating it. Ignorance of facts if often venial.
> ...



Every dictionary I have looked at thus far defines ignorance this way and it is not used in your sense in ordinary language, therefore your sense is not very helpful.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 30, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Christ taught us several places to set priorities and not spend time worrying about details of unimportant things, as in Matthew 6:32-34, especially verse 34:
> 
> 
> 
> > Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.



"Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." [Matt. 6:31-33]

I think you're taking these verses out of context. Notice the situation here. It's not like these people had food, drink and clothes to the degree that they couldn't choose which food to eat, which drink to drink or which clothes to wear. It's the very opposite! They did not have enough food, drink and clothes. And that's why God encouraged them by saying, 
"Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? for I know that ye have need of all these things. Don't think I will let you die because of these things! Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

I believe in God's sovereignty in all things. I also believe that God desires to show His sovereignty in all things. Therefore I believe that the very means by which God will keep me healthy is by causing me to choose the right food and the right drink. If we were not to care about these things whatsoever, why should we think, whether the meat we eat is raw or the water we drink is polluted? We could just eat excrement and not waste our money on these "seemingly trivial" matters!

As to verse 34, are you suggesting that we should have absolutely no thoughts of tomorrow? Is this really what you think God is communicating to us? I take verse 34 to mean this, "God knows exactly how much burden we can bear in our hearts before it turns to further sinning (note: anxiety is a sin). God knows the incapacity of our minds and He won't cause us to be tempted more than what we can bear (1 Cor. 10:13). God not only gives the trouble to each day that is sufficient for that day, but also the mercies which are given in order to carry that day's trouble (God's mercies are "new every morning"–Lam. 3:22-23). Therefore, don't lean on your own insight (Prov. 3:5), but cast all your anxieties upon God (1 Peter 5:7)!"

Now don't make the misconception that our relying on God denies our moral duty. It simply does not work that way. It's the same with our relation to the law of God. We are under grace, not the law! Yet, if we live by faith, we will do the law by nature–by the divine, righteous nature of Christ that we are partakers of (2 Peter 1:4). WE GIVE INTO GOD'S HANDS THINGS WE SIMPLY CANNOT SOLVE BY OURSELVES. If I was invited to preach in a foreign church the next day, I would FIRST think myself what to say there, THEN ask God, if what I thought was pleasing to Him and ask for His guidance.

Moreover, I highly doubt that, if you were in a similar situation, you would simply abandon the idea of preparing your speech and rely on God's "providence".


----------



## jwright82 (May 30, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > I have never been the most comfortable with deviding up human actions into sinful and not sinful, it is true that it does seem to be a practical necessity though. In my opinion the Bible seems to lay out a general direction or motive for humans depending on their spiritual orientation. Your example of this problem is ignorance but it is just an example of a larger problem, particuler human actions and their ethical standing. I think it is much less problamatic to stick with the general descriptions given in Scripture rather than trying to devide up human actions into ethical and netrual.
> ...



There is truth to what your saying but I said that there was a general direction that a person's life takes. I do not set aside my general spiritual ground-motive when I do something that it only seems to be not involved with, but we don't know if it is or not. What is needed in this discussion is a theological anthropology that could decide on these disagreements because that is where the disagreement is. 

Also it is of no value to pick some seemingly irrelavant action (listining to one great composer over another or picking out what socks to where) to try to prove some nuetral area of human life that is not spiritual or ethical. The argument already assumes that which it is trying to prove thus making it circuler, you are assuming a certian kind of theological anthropology and analyzing the action in question based on that viewpoint and then claiming it proves your original assumption. We can only give analysis based our view of theological anthropology.


----------



## Philip (May 30, 2010)

> Also it is of no value to pick some seemingly irrelavant action (listining to one great composer over another or picking out what socks to where) to try to prove some nuetral area of human life that is not spiritual or ethical.



So how exactly is it ethical? Can you show that there is an inherent value system within these choices so that one option is more moral than the other? If not, then the choice itself is neutral and the moral element is not in the choice itself.



> There is truth to what your saying but I said that there was a general direction that a person's life takes. I do not set aside my general spiritual ground-motive when I do something that it only seems to be not involved with, but we don't know if it is or not.



I'm certainly not conscious of my ground motives all the time. When I am choosing between Bach and Rachmaninoff, my thought is not "Which glorifies God more?" but "Which do I prefer at the moment?" Now, we may be able to go back further and find deeper truths that influence me to think this way, but by the time we get there, the choice itself is irrelevant and I could have chosen the other and still kept the same ground motives.


----------



## jwright82 (May 30, 2010)

> So how exactly is it ethical? Can you show that there is an inherent value system within these choices so that one option is more moral than the other? If not, then the choice itself is neutral and the moral element is not in the choice itself.



True if you isolate the choice out and so simplify human action than it is not ethical but if all of me is involved in an action than some small part of it is ethical even if in an a small way. If everything I do is motivated by what I love most and what I love most determines my religous orientation than in that very general way our individual choices can be seen in new light.



> I'm certainly not conscious of my ground motives all the time. When I am choosing between Bach and Rachmaninoff, my thought is not "Which glorifies God more?" but "Which do I prefer at the moment?" Now, we may be able to go back further and find deeper truths that influence me to think this way, but by the time we get there, the choice itself is irrelevant and I could have chosen the other and still kept the same ground motives.



I completly agree with you here and I think this is another example of your insight that we aproech these things from two different perspectives, you the particulers and me the general.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

And I think that Rachmaninoff is better than Bach.


----------



## Philip (May 30, 2010)

> True if you isolate the choice out and so simplify human action than it is not ethical



But this is the whole goal of the field of ethics: to determine what the right course of action is in a given circumstance. Ethics can provide _what_ you ought to do in that circumstance, and maybe an immediate _why_. All that ethics provides is the list of attitudes and actions that deserve praise or blame.

Would we blame an unbeliever for choosing mint over cherry ice cream? No, we would blame him for unbelief. It is not the action itself or even the immediate motive that is praiseworthy or blameworthy, but the general attitude toward life in general. Such attitudes may affect daily decisions of taste, but often it is quite indirect and possibly non-ethical.

I think what you are trying to say is that all of our actions are ultimately done either autonomously or in a spirit of dependence on God. That I will agree to, but not to the statement that "all choices are ethical." That is not the way we think of ethics normally.



> And I think that Rachmaninoff is better than Bach.



That is a blameworthy statement. Anyway, we're off topic.


----------



## Pergamum (May 31, 2010)

Chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan? Which one is more moral?

_De gustibus non est disputandum_


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 31, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan? Which one is more moral?
> 
> _De gustibus non est disputandum_



"It is that motive, which, as it stands in view of the mind, is the strongest, that determines the will." -Jonathan Edwards

"Chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan?" One of those has the strongest motive to move your will. But why? What exactly is that, which so motivates the mind? Isn't it your seeing from which option the most benefits come? Ask yourself, "Why would I prefer chocolate to vanilla?" Don't reply, "Well, it really doesn't matter to me. I just choose the one which I most feel like choosing." WHY? By what motive do you make your decision? By indifference? NO, BY YOUR OWN WISDOM! You choose the one which you find the most righteous decision. That Chocolate, vanilla and neopolitan would all be righteous options in your mind does not nullify the fact that one of them you find the most righteous, the most beneficial choice. "Which one is more moral?" The one you choose over the others.


----------



## Pergamum (May 31, 2010)

There are non-moral decisions.


----------



## Philip (May 31, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Chocolate, vanilla, or neopolitan? Which one is more moral?
> ...


 
This is just silly. I don't choose one flavor over the other because it's more moral: I choose it because I happen to like it. It's a matter of taste, not ethics. Would you blame me or praise me for choosing one option over the other? If not, then the choice itself is not inherently moral.

Honestly, though, to say that one flavor of ice cream is more righteous than another is just absurd.


----------



## Prufrock (May 31, 2010)

I think you're stretching this a bit far, Samuel. Yes, we are supposed to do all things to the glory of God, but some things really are "neutral," so to speak. Take eating dinner, for example. Why should I eat dinner with my friends and family, and how does it tend to God's glory? 1.) Because I need to sustain my body so I can continue to live in his service; 2.) To enjoy the breaking of bread together and have fellowship; 3.) Perhaps to thankfully enjoy a bit of God's provision. What rules dictate my eating? Pretty much just general principles: 1.) I should probably not be eating only Cheetos or chocolate cake for dinner every night: that would be immoderate and intemperate and just plain silly -- since one of my goals is the sustaining of my body, my choices need to be in line with those goals; 2.) Frugality ought to be considered: at my salary, I should not be eating fillet mignon and caviar each night, nor should I probably be eating only the absolute cheapest food I can find; and perhaps there are a few other general rules. These are all moral principles and rules as to why and how I eat dinner. But within these *general* moral principles of glorifying God, there are "neutralities," so to speak, which are simply not "moral." Which tea I have to drink tonight, so long as I have no unrighteous motives in choosing it, really doesn't matter; and I'm not going to choose which rice packet I cook up tonight based upon anything other than whichever flavor is closer to my hand when I open the cabinet. I certainly applaud the fact that you want to glorify God in all that you do; but I would suggest a slightly different mindset. The extension of what you are saying would mean that it is a moral choice which shoe I tie first, or whether I brush my top or bottom teeth first.

I am about to step outside to mow the lawn: I really don't want to spend the rest of my life standing there with the lawn mower, not having started yet, while I contemplate whether it is more beneficial, moral or righteous to mow in a diagonal, horizontal or vertical pattern -- and I know it would take me a life time, because I have no idea how to figure that out. I am not trying to sound sarcastic, but there are simply too many weightier duties in life for me to spend time figuring out something like that, and *especially* to accidentally bind someone's else conscience who hears my words, so that they think such things matter and that they might be sinning by choosing apple pie over cherry.


----------



## Andres (May 31, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


 
Agreed. And it would almost be as absurd as saying one pair of socks is more righteous than another pair as our dear friend so adamantly attempted to persuade me.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 31, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


 
It seems to me that you're not wholly conscious of the motives that draw your will to act. I cannot blame you, if that's the case. However, as far as my mind is concerned, I do can make all my decisions (not all actions though!) moral. I think it's useless to bring this debate any further, since your argument remains that my conclusion is just utterly "absurd".


----------



## Pergamum (May 31, 2010)

I do know that plaid is unholy, and polyester is of Antichrist.


----------



## Philip (May 31, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> I do know that plaid is unholy, and polyester is of Antichrist.


 
Honestly, this is heresy! Plaid is a most holy pattern, particularly the Stewart and Black Watch Tartans. And as for polyester, it is a good thing in moderation.



> It seems to me that you're not wholly conscious of the motives that draw your will to act. I cannot blame you, if that's the case. However, as far as my mind is concerned, I do can make all my decisions (not all actions though!) moral. I think it's useless to bring this debate any further, since you're argument remains that my conclusion is just utterly "absurd".



Can you point to something praiseworthy or blameworthy in my choice of ice cream? Otherwise, so long as there are no evil motives on my part, the choice is morally neutral. It may not be aesthetically neutral, but aesthetic decisions are not always moral. Aesthetics is on a different plane than ethics (though there may be some overlap).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (May 31, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> I do know that plaid is unholy, and polyester is of Antichrist.



"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that *there is nothing unclean of itself*: but *to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean*." [Romans 14:14]


----------



## Philip (May 31, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I do know that plaid is unholy, and polyester is of Antichrist.
> ...


 
Samuel, it was sarcasm.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 1, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I do know that plaid is unholy, and polyester is of Antichrist.
> ...


 
Thank you for that Biblical Rebuke

(p.s. there is also a thread on Cannibalism and Scripture, if you would also like to copy and paste your rebuke there).


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jun 1, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


 
Are you kidding me?


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 1, 2010)

> But this is the whole goal of the field of ethics: to determine what the right course of action is in a given circumstance. Ethics can provide what you ought to do in that circumstance, and maybe an immediate why. All that ethics provides is the list of attitudes and actions that deserve praise or blame.
> 
> Would we blame an unbeliever for choosing mint over cherry ice cream? No, we would blame him for unbelief. It is not the action itself or even the immediate motive that is praiseworthy or blameworthy, but the general attitude toward life in general. Such attitudes may affect daily decisions of taste, but often it is quite indirect and possibly non-ethical.
> 
> I think what you are trying to say is that all of our actions are ultimately done either autonomously or in a spirit of dependence on God. That I will agree to, but not to the statement that "all choices are ethical." That is not the way we think of ethics normally.



Well first there is no what in ethics without why, but that is a whole different discussion. I think we can agree here. There is a difference between ethics as a body of knowledge and ethical dimension to things. But again if you look at the disagreement on this thread it is over anthropology, or differing interpretations of human beings and there actions.


----------



## Caroline (Jun 1, 2010)

*Caroline arrives late to the discussion* 

Is this a discussion on the existance of adiaphora? I didn't think that was seriously a matter of dispute. 

It seems apparent to me that God loves personality. The Bible isn't full of instructions so much as it is full of people. There ARE instructions, but everywhere, there is story and personality. I love the Bible verse where people note that it must be Jehu approaching because he drives his chariot like a madman. I can't think of any theological implications of that--it's almost just like it's there just because it's too funny to leave out, like a historian noting that great General Fred always wore orange socks. Even in the writing of the Scriptures, there are obvious style differences from one book of the Bible to the next.

Obviously (as some here have already stated), all adiaphora CAN potentially be moral, but not necessarily is so. In other words, if one chooses wool socks to get back at one's spouse who is allergic to wool, then this would be a sin, and so the choosing of socks could be a sin. That doesn't mean it is always a moral decision. If it's truly adiaphora, then it seems like the most God-glorifying thing to do is to shine forth the personality that God gave you, whatever that is.

The alternative is, as someone noted already, to become quite useless. My husband actually got into that for a while as a Catholic Charismatic when he was young and foolish. He heard that everything has potential moral consequences and you have to pray about God's will for everything ... and he ended up getting fired from his job. When you have to agonize and pray over every little thing, you find that there's no time to do anything else. He couldn't keep up with his work anymore and his boss judged him lazy and lacking concentration. In retrospect, he says that was fair enough, and it taught him a lesson that the best way to serve the Lord is not to stop and pray so much as to work hard.


----------



## Philip (Jun 1, 2010)

> Well first there is no what in ethics without why, but that is a whole different discussion. I think we can agree here. There is a difference between ethics as a body of knowledge and ethical dimension to things. But again if you look at the disagreement on this thread it is over anthropology, or differing interpretations of human beings and there actions.



But here again, we face the problem: why did the unbeliever choose to eat cherry ice cream? According to you, he did so because of his unbelief. I happen to think that it was because he likes cherry ice cream. True, he eats it in unbelief, but not _because_ of unbelief.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 1, 2010)

> he eats it in unbelief, but not because of unbelief



Good summary.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > Well first there is no what in ethics without why, but that is a whole different discussion. I think we can agree here. There is a difference between ethics as a body of knowledge and ethical dimension to things. But again if you look at the disagreement on this thread it is over anthropology, or differing interpretations of human beings and there actions.
> 
> 
> 
> But here again, we face the problem: why did the unbeliever choose to eat cherry ice cream? According to you, he did so because of his unbelief. I happen to think that it was because he likes cherry ice cream. True, he eats it in unbelief, but not _because_ of unbelief.


 
I would say that the ethical demension of an act however small that may be is always going to be done in an ultimate religous sense of either beleif or unbeleif. As far as what causes what me thinks you are simplifying human beings a bit, again the differing anthropologies. I would recomend Dooyweerd's anthropological thoughts here. Human action is a complex thing that cannot be so sliced up and devided like that. I favor Frame's perspectivalism here. We can look at the different perspectives or aspects of a thing but they are all essentially one.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 3, 2010)

I was ignorant of the fact they were giving away free sirloins down the street (I wish) and so I ate hamburger for lunch. Nothing indifferent or immoral here. I didn't choose not to eat sirloin, but because I am not omniscient, I simply didn't know the feast was just down the street.


----------



## Philip (Jun 3, 2010)

> We can look at the different perspectives or aspects of a thing but they are all essentially one.



I think you're oversimplifying the human person. I don't have a single ground motive that drives every decision. Certainly, autonomy/dependence will _inform_ our every decision, but in some areas, our decisions will be based on aesthetic and personal preferences rather than inherently moral. The norms in these areas are highly subjective and non-moral.

Again, if you would not praise or blame a person for taking particular options in a decision, then the moral qualities of that decision would spring purely from ultimate ground motives that would inform all decisions rather than from the immediate motivations that actually produced it. We can't blame the unbeliever for listening to Vaughan Williams or eating ice cream because these things are inherently neutral. What we blame him for is unbelief---the spirit in which these things are done.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > We can look at the different perspectives or aspects of a thing but they are all essentially one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree that every decision we make is done on a complex interplay of reasons and ground-motives I would just stress that the religous-ground-motive is the one that sums a person's life, remember I look at the big picture. This trickles down into every trival decision we make. Another element we have not discussed is the role of common grace here.


----------



## Philip (Jun 4, 2010)

> I agree that every decision we make is done on a complex interplay of reasons and ground-motives I would just stress that the religous-ground-motive is the one that sums a person's life, remember I look at the big picture. This trickles down into every trival decision we make. Another element we have not discussed is the role of common grace here.



Then please identify the moral element in the trivial decisions: how does my ground-motive affect my choice of socks or neckties? Again, your big picture, while nice and interesting, seems to indicate less of a factor and more of a spirit in which we act. The ground-motive is not a cause of action, but a spirit in which we act. The moral element is not found in the act itself or the motives which produced it, but in the background spirit in which the decision was made.

Here's the application I would make: an unbeliever makes a donation to help orphans in Haiti and maybe even, having training, goes down to help. He is doing it in spite of the fact that he had to quit his job: he just wanted to help. Is this a good act? Yes and no. Yes in an intrinsic sense (ie: we would praise him for it). No in an ultimate sense (ie: it holds no value with God because the man did it in a spirit of unbelief).

When we speak of "ethical decisions" we are speaking of choices that can be meaningfully called "good" or "evil" in an immediate or intrinsic sense. We are leaving ground motives out of the question because they are the spirit in which an action is done and have no necessary connection to the action itself. That is to say, two people might have the exact same ground motives and do different things.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jun 4, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > InSlaveryToChrist said:
> ...



Are you stating that my Lord paid a price on the Cross because I did not distinguish between which Socks were the will of the Father for me to choose and haphazardly choosing the socks of my own will? Surly you are not?


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 5, 2010)

Some socks are clearly reprobate because they go astray, away from the fold, and never return.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 5, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > I agree that every decision we make is done on a complex interplay of reasons and ground-motives I would just stress that the religous-ground-motive is the one that sums a person's life, remember I look at the big picture. This trickles down into every trival decision we make. Another element we have not discussed is the role of common grace here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Your right, if you can prove your assumed anthropology of course, but even as you admit the spirit in which we do things does taint our every action. This is the ethical element to it we do things either in submission to God's will or autonomy. I also do not believe that there is such a thing as intrinsic good only dependent good, that an act is dependent on how God judges it to be good or bad.


----------



## Philip (Jun 5, 2010)

> Your right, if you can prove your assumed anthropology of course, but even as you admit the spirit in which we do things does taint our every action. This is the ethical element to it we do things either in submission to God's will or autonomy. I also do not believe that there is such a thing as intrinsic good only dependent good, that an act is dependent on how God judges it to be good or bad.



So can we meaningfully praise someone's actions?

Let us assume for a moment that the unbeliever in my example actually professed Christianity and, to all appearances, was a Christian---would we be justified in praising his action? If there is no intrinsic good, then we may not praise anyone's actions---even if they are, in fact, done in dependence on God. We have to be moral agnostics about goodness if we take your view.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 5, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Some socks are clearly reprobate because they go astray, away from the fold, and never return.



Is there is sarcasm afoot?


----------



## Philip (Jun 5, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Some socks are clearly reprobate because they go astray, away from the fold, and never return.


 
Actually, my theory is that in the back of every dryer, there is a gap in the space-time continuum that leads to a limbo for socks.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 5, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > Your right, if you can prove your assumed anthropology of course, but even as you admit the spirit in which we do things does taint our every action. This is the ethical element to it we do things either in submission to God's will or autonomy. I also do not believe that there is such a thing as intrinsic good only dependent good, that an act is dependent on how God judges it to be good or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why aganosticism? It seems, and I say seems, that you are insinuating that certian acts are right or wrong in and of themselves regardless or wrether or not God exists or not. That means that God looks to some standered outside His own charector to decide what is right or wrong.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 5, 2010)

See "Are There Adiaphora?" in Jochem Douma's excellent "Responsible Conduct: Principles of Christian Ethics"

Responsible Conduct: Principles of Christian Ethics: Amazon.co.uk: Jochem Douma, Nelson D. Kloosterman: Books

There is sinful, morally culpable ignorance and there is that which is not. God does not hold men guilty for the latter.

They are qualitatively different types of ignorance.

The type of sins of ignorance for which sacrifices were provided in the Old Covenant - rather than prosecution and possibly execution for gross, wilful and presumptious sins (see e.g. Numbers 15 and Hebrews 10) - were sins of morally culpable ignorance, not the kind of empirical and rational ignorance which men are not morally culpable for.

Clearly morally non-culpable ignorance can and does cause or contribute to bad outcomes in this World. We do not know what provision would have been made before Man Fell into sin.

E.g. if unbeknown to me someone has put poison in my drink, I'm not morally culpable for my death by drinking it. But for me this is just a "bad" providence.

God is good and just. We have enough real sins of our own to be guilty for before God, without Him holding us guilty for things we couldn't possibly know. How good, fair and just is God!

This seems to be a current theme on PB. I recently replied to a thread that was implying we may be guilty of sins that we haven't done but that God would know we were going to do!

We have enough real sins that we have committed already without adding imaginary sin and guilt to our accounts!


----------



## Philip (Jun 5, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> Why aganosticism? It seems, and I say seems, that you are insinuating that certian acts are right or wrong in and of themselves regardless or wrether or not God exists or not. That means that God looks to some standered outside His own charector to decide what is right or wrong.



I would say that they are wrong in and of themselves because they would not be possible without God. They are right or wrong actions in relation to God regardless of the spirit in which they are done. Ground motives are imparted by humans, not God. In other words, the autonomous man corrupts his own good actions and God judges him for that. We may justifiably praise him in this life when he does good, even knowing that it is futile in the end.

If, though, the action's whole moral value stems from its ground motives (as you maintain) and since we cannot actually know what another human's actual ground motives are, we cannot know what the moral value of another's actions are.


----------



## Caroline (Jun 5, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Some socks are clearly reprobate because they go astray, away from the fold, and never return.


 
All socks are reprobate. The apostles and early church fathers wore sandals. Socks are mentioned nowhere in the Bible, whereas sandals are mentioned twenty-eight times, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Socks are a modern invention of cultural liberalism that caters to the comfort of the individual. All true believers shun socks at all times.


----------

