@Bill Sorensen: [Regarding the question of why humans are moral …

Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.

@Bill Sorensen:

[Regarding the question of why humans are moral beings while animals are not]

It’s an inane question, Sean. Animals were never meant to be moral beings nor amenable to moral law.

You keep making this statement, but I’m asking you to explain why. Why aren’t animals moral beings? What makes them amoral while humans are moral beings? What’s the basic difference here? Can you explain it?

This is the question you keep avoiding. Yet, it is key to your misunderstanding of “original sin”.

Man does not lose his culpability to the moral law simply because he is ignorant.

What then is it that makes man, and not animals or robots, morally responsible?

This is your argument. In the end, your whole problem as I see it, is you limit guilt to awareness. So you claim no one can be “guilty” unless they know they are guilty.

That’s right. It is possible to be evil without being morally guilty of being evil… as would be the case for an evil robot or an evil animal.

This does not even make sense in the secular world. If the speed limit is 35 and some is going 50 because they don’t know the limit is 35, they are still “guilty” of breaking to law.

Yes, but they are not morally guilty because the moral law is a law regarding knowledge of the Royal Law of Love. The moral law is the Royal Law of Love. Love requires knowledge that the loving action is the right action and love requires freedom of will and freedom of choice to decide if one is or is not going to act according to the Law of Love.

I don’t care if they know it or not. Their personal awareness and/or knowledge of the law is no factor.

When you’re talking morality, it is a factor because the moral law is based on knowledge that the Law of Love is right and that all actions that go contrary to what one thinks would be the loving thing to do is wrong. That is why only God can definitively determine the true moral state of a person… because only God can accurately read the heart or motives of a person.

You seem to be confusing empirically objective actions with morality. They aren’t the same thing. While sin is indeed the “Transgression of the Law”, the law being spoken of here is the Royal Law – a Law that deals strictly with motive to do or not to do what one believes is the loving thing to do in a given situation. If you don’t have knowledge of the Royal Law, then you’re not a moral being. If you do have knowledge of this law, then you are a moral being. It’s as simple as that.

It may well be a factor in how the judge will determine their punishment for violating the law. But it has nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not.

One may be guilty of breaking many types of laws without knowledge that one is breaking any law. However, it is impossible to break the moral law without knowledge of it since it is written on the hearts of all morally accountable human beings. Until one reaches the level of consciousness to be morally accountable, one may break all kinds of laws ignorantly. However, one is not morally guilty for breaking any of these laws until one understands the implications of what one is doing relative to the only moral law – i.e., the Royal Law of Love.

Yet, you and others try to build a theology concerning guilt based on awareness and not on the objective reality.

Again, you seem to be trying to base guilt on something that is empirically objective. That is why you think you can accurately judge the moral state of a person simply by looking at the things that he does. But, as the Bible explains, “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” – 1 Samuel 16:7. The Ten Commandments aren’t really The Moral Law. They are only reflections of the real, underlying, moral Code – i.e., the Royal Law of Love.

Guilt, therefore, is based on a conscious awareness of the moral implications of what one is doing. This is what separates humans from all other animals or robots. An animal or robot could do the very same “evil” things and be morally guiltless. Why? Because, the animal or robot does not understand the moral implications of its actions (are you really going to write an animal or a robot or even a little baby a speeding ticket? – just because “it’s the law”?).

You and I, on the other hand, do understand the moral implications of our thoughts and actions because we understand the Royal Law. That is why we are moral beings and animals/robots are not. It’s really quite simple…

If you refuse to see the difference, you could never understand guilt in the context of original sin. And so you made this comment….”…..being born evil isn’t quite the same thing as being born guilty of being evil……”

This is the most convoluted statement I have ever read.

It’s not convoluted at all once you understand why animals and/or robots are not moral beings and why humans are…

The doctrine of the Trinity is not more clear than the doctrine of original sin. The bible and EGW support and teach both.

The Bible and Mrs. White do teach about a type of “original sin”, to be sure, but they do not promote the Catholic concept of original sin that you’re trying to promote.

Now, there’s a lot of things the Catholics got right – to include their concept of the Trinity. However, there’s a lot of things the Catholics got wrong – to include their concept of “original sin”.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
I guess someone who accepts neo-Darwinism must have some problems with the reality of Biblical prophecy…


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do if you happened to have been in a place like Sandy Hook Elementary School when a shooter entered the building. Or, what you would do if someone threatened the lives of your own family. Also, don’t tell me that Australia has no police force or that the police there don’t carry guns…


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
The Bible and Ellen White are very clear that Satan and his angels were forced to leave heaven just as Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden after they fell to Satan’s charms. They are also very clear that the wicked will one day be excluded, by force, from the New Jerusalem and will, eventually, be completely destroyed from existence. I don’t think that’s how it worked with you and your family…


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.