A World without Religion?

[Aloysium]

The first three commandments all pertain to how we are to praise the spiritual overlord- hardly the first thing I’d put in any such guide. The next 5 have been independently arrived at all over the place, and the final two are fairly trivial. And clearly these commandments weren’t absolute, as there was much killing and thieving of land by the order of the law giver yet to come.

The judge is on our side so long as he gets unconditional obedience and praise. I’ll leave the comparison to certain Earthly leaders as an exercise for the reader.

Any idea why your heart is hard?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Using pornographic terms to describe your lovemaking wouldn’t be inaccurate either.

But you would reject it (or ought to, anyway) nonetheless.

I might say “that’s not how I would express it”, but it could still be correct- who knows.

Pretty much.

I reject this, just as you do.

This is the best description of hell I’ve read. From Peter Kreeft:

“Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.”

His choice. Not God’s.

The fact that modern believers try to dress it up nicely is to be expected, but my wording was more or less a direct quote.

Mark 9:47, NIV: “And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,”

Luke 12: 4-5, NIV: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. "

It seems that earlier Church thinkers did not share this particular view- as I recall, Augustine spends quite a bit of ink explaining why “eternal punishment” is not necessarily an objectionable concept. The very idea that hell is a punishment seems to contradict the view you posted.

We’ve got a peaceful Catholic deity for a peaceful Catholicism, but that hasn’t always been the case.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

What do you mean by “deity”? There exists such overwhelming beauty! Your use of “d” indicates you don’t have a clue. Pray!

Not comfortable with the idea of using a common noun (god) as a name but don’t want to cause confusion. Generally I just stick with Christian deity or “the deity” once it’s clear who we’re talking about. I guess Elohim or something could work but that seems to have mormon connotations.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Not comfortable with the idea of using a common noun (god) as a name but don’t want to cause confusion. Generally I just stick with Christian deity or “the deity” once it’s clear who we’re talking about. I guess Elohim or something could work but that seems to have mormon connotations.

In modern day times it does have a stronger association with mormonism, but I still hear Elohim used in non-Mormon churches too. I tend to use “Yahweh” which people in modern times only seem to associate with Christianity and Judism (though there is some history of other referent concepts). “God” seems to be more inclusive of other god-concepts, and of course “god” is even more inclusive at times referring to almost any non-physical being (not necessarily all powerful)

 

[inocente]

And they were wrong in their discernment. And I don’t even know that they believed it was “objectively immoral”. Where do you get that from?

Some vows are moral. Not all vows are moral.

Haydock, in his Catholic Commentary, wrestled over the morality of that vow of Jephthah’s in Judges 11:31, writing over 1800 words.

If only he had the delightful discernment of internet posters.

Huh? Do you think all GIFS I post are of me?

Just because I didn’t add a there’s no need to take me literally.

 

[PRmerger]

I might say “that’s not how I would express it”, but it could still be correct- who knows.

There you go…

The fact that modern believers try to dress it up nicely is to be expected, but my wording was more or less a direct quote.

Well, more like “less” than “more”.

Mark 9:47, NIV: “And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,”

Luke 12: 4-5, NIV: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. "

I don’t know if you remember back from your Catholic days…but we do not read Scripture without the lens of the faith which gave us this Scripture.

Did you know that when we read in Ruth that we seek refuge under God’s wings that we don’t believe God has actual feathers, right?

It seems that earlier Church thinkers did not share this particular view- as I recall, Augustine spends quite a bit of ink explaining why “eternal punishment” is not necessarily an objectionable concept. The very idea that hell is a punishment seems to contradict the view you posted.

I don’t see any contradiction.

Could you post the source of St. Augustine’s ideas on hell, please?

We’ve got a peaceful Catholic deity for a peaceful Catholicism, but that hasn’t always been the case.

Really? I think you may need to review your Bible and your Catechism. God has been a God of peace since…well, since the days of the OT.

I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country–Leviticus 26:6

 

[PRmerger]

Haydock, in his Catholic Commentary, wrestled over the morality of that vow of Jephthah’s in Judges 11:31, writing over 1800 words.

If only he had the delightful discernment of internet posters.

Wrestling over the morality of that vow…hmmmm…that provides great apologia for my POV…so thank you!

QED.

Just because I didn’t add a there’s no need to take me literally.

Same with me.

 

[humble_catholic]

The first three commandments all pertain to how we are to praise the spiritual overlord- hardly the first thing I’d put in any such guide. The next 5 have been independently arrived at all over the place, and the final two are fairly trivial. And clearly these commandments weren’t absolute, as there was much killing and thieving of land by the order of the law giver yet to come.

The judge is on our side so long as he gets unconditional obedience and praise. I’ll leave the comparison to certain Earthly leaders as an exercise for the reader.

If God is love itself, if God is truth itself, if God is goodness itself why would t we praise, love and adore him, heck if I make it to heaven I would go in on my knees .

Atheism as a worldview logically leads to nihilism , a worldview without any ultimate meaning, any ultimate purpose , ultimate value and no ultimate hope . A worldview in which love is just a series if chemical reactions mixed in with electrical signals coming from a network of neurons controlled by a brain.

I love ultimate truth, I love ultimate goodness, I love objective morality , I love ultimate justice .
Why would any rational human being feel any other way ?

 

[tonyrey]

If God is love itself, if God is truth itself, if God is goodness itself why would t we praise, love and adore him, heck if I make it to heaven I would go in on my knees .

Atheism as a worldview logically leads to nihilism , a worldview without any ultimate meaning, any ultimate purpose , ultimate value and no ultimate hope . A worldview in which love is just a series if chemical reactions mixed in with electrical signals coming from a network of neurons controlled by a brain.

I love ultimate truth, I love ultimate goodness, I love objective morality , I love ultimate justice .
Why would any rational human being feel any other way ?

No! Unless they have a criminal mentality.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

There you go…

Well, more like “less” than “more”.

Directly borrowed choice of verb and description.

I don’t know if you remember back from your Catholic days…but we do not read Scripture without the lens of the faith which gave us this Scripture.

… And creates an interpretation that fits its audience. Currently the audience doesn’t like the idea of the an all powerful being tossing sinners into eternal fire.

Did you know that when we read in Ruth that we seek refuge under God’s wings that we don’t believe God has actual feathers, right?

The author very will might have. Lots of gods have wings, so who knows.But granted that metaphor is utilized in some instances.

I don’t see any contradiction.

There’s a difference between the direct consequences of your actions and punishment for them. If I put my hand on a stove, nobody punishes me. Thus it would be improper to claim that a burnt hand is my punishment for touching the stove.

Similarly, if someone’s final destination is just a choice they make, then it’s quite odd to talk about reward or punishment.

Now, I might argue that the creator is still responsible even if it is truly 100% on the individual. He created your soul and made the rules that it has to follow- you (not literally “you”) can’t hide behind “rules are rules, sorry” when you get to make the rules. Why even make souls that are capable of eternal suffering?

Could you post the source of St. Augustine’s ideas on hell, please?

I’ll poke around- what I posted was just my memory of going over his stuff in school way back when. I thought
his stuff would be easily accessible online, but that may not be the case.

Really? I think you may need to review your Bible and your Catechism. God has been a God of peace since…well, since the days of the OT.

I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country–Leviticus 26:6

Well that quote is just false. A great many swords have passed through Israel in the meantime.

But more generally, the very deity speaking those words ordered and committed genocide earlier on- hardly the actions of the metaphysical embodiment of peace and love.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Could you post the source of St. Augustine’s ideas on hell, please?

The City of God, Books XX and XXI

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The City of God, Books XX and XXI

Both books are located online here. Just click “next” to go from chapter to chapter.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XX.html

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Both books are located online here. Just click “next” to go from chapter to chapter.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XX.html

Thanks! My Google-fu failed me in that instance.

In any event, it seems that this particular church father did not believe that the suffering of hell was limited to separation from the creator, or that the denizens somehow put themselves there. Rather, it was a specific place created for a specific purpose- a grand torture chamber filled with fire that would burn living human bodies without destroying them- for all time.

 

[Midwest88]

Yeah, sounds horrifying. Who on earth would want to live in a place like that.

Edit: You were being sarcastic…weren’t you?

No. It’s all naivety at play. I never bought into the modernist “wisdom.”

 

[Midwest88]

AnimalSpirits;12660128**:

I think it was more of a “thank you Captain Obvious” sort of statement, which is fair I think.

It wasn’t. See my previous post.

A more full argument is that religion doesn’t add anything- you can teach morals without a spiritual overlord finding who’s naughty or nice. Clearly you won’t be 100% effective, but you won’t be at a serious disadvantage compared to faith based teaching.

“Full” argument compared to what? Spiritual overlord? What is this the feudal times? One serious disadvantage I can see clear as day is when secularists try explain to their own morals, or morals in general (if they even want to, because in my experience people don’t want to be “moralized”) - even when those morals are based out of the Judeo-Christian framework. There is no such thing as “secular morals.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In any event, it seems that this particular church father did not believe that the suffering of hell was limited to separation from the creator, **or that the denizens somehow put themselves there. **Rather, it was a specific place created for a specific purpose- a grand torture chamber filled with fire that would burn living human bodies without destroying them- for all time.

I doubt St. Augustine believed the denizens did not choose hell over heaven.

What he certainly might have believed is that it is a stupid choice.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

“Full” argument compared to what? Spiritual overlord? What is this the feudal times?

I agree that the belief in a celestial ruler is best left in feudal times.

One serious disadvantage I can see clear as day is when secularists try explain to their own morals, or morals in general (if they even want to, because in my experience people don’t want to be “moralized”) - even when those morals are based out of the Judeo-Christian framework. There is no such thing as “secular morals.”

If you googled the phrase you placed in quotes I suspect you might find contrary evidence. Just because some people need the threat of eternal pain to be nice doesn’t mean we all do.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I doubt St. Augustine believed the denizens did not choose hell over heaven.

What he certainly might have believed is that it is a stupid choice.

If you’re using the words “punishment” and “reward”, then it’s not the sinner or saint that’s doing the choosing, but rather the one issuing the sentences.

Augustine clearly paints the picture of a deity substantially more cruel than the one people describe today- a deity willing to work miracles (if need be) simply to extend the suffering and torment of those who didn’t live in line with his desires.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you googled the phrase you placed in quotes I suspect you might find contrary evidence. Just because some people need the threat of eternal pain to be nice doesn’t mean we all do.

But here’s the rub that unbelievers do not like to consider: if there is eternal punishment ahead, we should ALL fear it! And wouldn’t that be a collective prod for us ALL to be nice?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree that the belief in a celestial ruler is best left in feudal times.

Then we are agreed, and you are quite Catholic when you say this.