A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

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.

Well, only if you read parts of St. Augustine, picking and choosing.

 

[PRmerger]

Just because some people need the threat of eternal pain to be nice doesn’t mean we all do.

It’s a rudimentary and preliminary impetus to be good, to be sure, but one ought not discount that type of motivation.

We are agreed, however, that if it’s the source and summit of a moral agent’s impetus, then this is sad, indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Directly borrowed choice of verb and description.

Irrelevant. Still “less”. Not “more”.

… 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.

Well, that’s simply begging the question, isn’t it?

Why don’t you offer some arguments supporting your assertion, and then we can discuss further.

The author very will might have.

Do you have any evidence that the author “very well might have”?

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.

Sure it is. If you know that putting your hand on a hot stove burns you, and you do it any way…it’s punishment.

Now, I might argue that the creator is still responsible even if it is truly 100% on the individual.

Yes. Are you familiar with the Angelic Doctor’s exposition on this: God’s antecedent will vs God’s consequent will?

Why even make souls that are capable of eternal suffering?

Because they were made for magnificent, sublime and eternal joy.

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.

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

Only if you take it literally. Again.

I find it so peculiar when folks who presumably have the ability to think in the abstract, come to the CAFs and demonstrates an acute inability to use this type of thinking.

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.

Only if you take it literally.

 

[Bradski]

There is no such thing as “secular morals.”

Maybe you didn’t read the previous posts.

If I were asked if someone should be allowed to do A or B (it really doesn’t matter what A or B is), then I would try to decide what the result of that person going A or B would be. Maybe there would be inconsequential results. Maybe the person herself would be harmed. Maybe someone else, or even society as a whole.

If it were left to me to make the decision, then I would gather as much information as possible about the prospective consequences and then, maybe after a debate with others, or after an internal debate, I would decide whether doing A or B was right or wrong.

Now unless I’m very much mistaken, you would go through the same process. If you are a good Catholic and the matter relates in some way to what the church has already decided, then what you decide will coincide with the church’s position. As far as I am concerned, that’s not necessarily the case.

But how we reach our moral position is exactly the same way. We think about the problem, we gather as much information as possible, we talk to people who’s opinions we trust, we listen, we argue, we debate, we read, we think about potential consequences and then we decide.

For the life of me, I can’t possibly see any other way you could do it. Unless you simply accept what the church says with no thought at all. And that’s far from being a good Catholic.

So I arrive at secular morals exactly the same way as you arrive at yours. Wasn’t too difficult to understand, was it?

 

[PRmerger]

For the life of me, I can’t possibly see any other way you could do it. Unless you simply accept what the church says with no thought at all. And that’s far from being a good Catholic.

Love that you know this, Bradski!

Just wondering–was this (Catholics are obligated to chew on what the Church says before giving their assent to her teachings) something you knew prior to coming to the CAFs, or did you learn that from being here?

So I arrive at secular morals exactly the same way as you arrive at yours. Wasn’t too difficult to understand, was it?

Of course.

But the problem for you comes when someone else doesn’t agree with your discernment. You can only say: well, you believe that killing your daughter is moral. I don’t, Different strokes, eh?

The believer, however, can appeal to the Moral Law, given to us by the Moral Lawgiver.

There is something outside of ourselves to whom we appeal.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, only if you read parts of St. Augustine, picking and choosing.

He literally devotes entire chapters to the matter. One justifying how it might be possible to suffer eternally and not die, another explaining how it might be possible for fire to torment without killing, and finally a few stating that even if it makes no sense, the divine could do it anyway because that’s how being all powerful words- he uses the word miracle repeatedly. This is a series of fully fleshed out chapters, not a line or two I borrowed.

The fact that you don’t like what I’ve posted doesn’t mean the post was erroneous. Augustine believed in a god that not only tossed people into a pit of eternal flame, but would actively ensue that they continued to suffer forever. And why shouldn’t he? Hardly seems out of character for a god that levels cities and orders genocide.

Oh, and Charlemagne found a link to the online version. Should be on the last page.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

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?

So long as you believe that your deity is willing to torture helpless foes for as long as possible,I suppose so. What would you think of a world leader that adopted such a policy?

 

[Bradski]

Love that you know this, Bradski!

Just wondering–was this (Catholics are obligated to chew on what the Church says before giving their assent to her teachings) something you knew prior to coming to the CAFs, or did you learn that from being here?

It always seemed common sense to me that one should question things.

Parent: Don’t do that.
Child: Why not?

I never grew out of that. But having said that, a number of Catholics on this site in particular have emphasised it.

But the problem for you comes when someone else doesn’t agree with your discernment. You can only say: well, you believe that killing your daughter is moral. I don’t.

That’s exactly what we both do. With reasons. And our reasons would trump his. Remember, we said we wouldn’t have to mention God, scripture, the church…the arguments would hold on their own.

The believer, however, can appeal to the Moral Law, given to us by the Moral Lawgiver.

But there’s no need to appeal to a higher authority, as we agreed. That is, unless your arguments don’t hold in the first instance (if they don’t, then why would you agree with them in the first instance?). We don’t have to appeal to any Moral Law, or any Moral Lawgiver. All the laws are ones with which you agree. The arguments must hold, as far as you are concerned. We can just ask you.

There is one other option. That you don’t agree with, or at best don’t understand the consequences of maintaining ‘your’ position (we really don’t understand the mind of God, but what He tells us MUST be true). But maintain it you must. Then we have you explaining: ‘Yes, I realise my arguments aren’t strong enough, but it’s wrong because it’s wrong because…well, because God says so.’

There are a lot of Christians who might disagree with your position and they say that God tells them something else. Is it then: there’s more of us! Are we eventually reduced to taking a vote?

I’ll stick with reasoned arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

It always seemed common sense to me that one should question things.

Too true. Too true.

But did you know this about Catholicism before you came here?

Most atheists are quite illiterate about Catholicism, and I’ve heard it said a thousand times (and no doubt will hear it a thousand times more here on the CAFS with new atheist posters) that Catholics must have blind faith and obedience.

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

 

[PRmerger]

He literally devotes entire chapters to the matter.

I doubt you’ve read Augustine since we started this discussion. So you’re going by your memory of this…which is undoubtedly sketchy.

One justifying how it might be possible to suffer eternally and not die, another explaining how it might be possible for fire to torment without killing, and finally a few stating that even if it makes no sense, the divine could do it anyway because that’s how being all powerful words- he uses the word miracle repeatedly. This is a series of fully fleshed out chapters, not a line or two I borrowed.

Ok.

It’s heartening that all of the possibilities are considered by the great theological minds of my faith.

The fact that you don’t like what I’ve posted doesn’t mean the post was erroneous. Augustine believed in a god that not only tossed people into a pit of eternal flame, but would actively ensue that they continued to suffer forever. And why shouldn’t he?

Well, I’ll one up you on that, Animal. Jesus Himself talked about hell in a similar manner.

Of course, we understand the words through the lens of the Church, and don’t take it in isolation of everything else that has been revealed.

Hardly seems out of character for a god that levels cities and orders genocide.

Can you cite specifically what genocide you are talking about? Book, chapter and verse, please.

Oh, and Charlemagne found a link to the online version. Should be on the last page.

Please give me the quotes you are referring to. Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

So long as you believe that your deity is willing to torture helpless foes for as long as possible,I suppose so.

I reject this god, same as you.

My God doesn’t have foes. Nor does He torture folks. If He did, He’d force some souls to be with Him in heaven, where His love is so odious to them, it would be be eternal torture for them.

Since God is love, He created a place where they can escape the torture of His love.

And yet, He loves them still.

If they would only turn around and face the love…yet they refuse to. Forever.

 

[PRmerger]

But there’s no need to appeal to a higher authority, as we agreed.

If you come to the right conclusion, using your reason and the natural law which is written in your heart, then, sure, there’s no need to appeal to a higher authority.

However, if someone comes to a different conclusion than you (it’s absolutely fine to slay my daughter!), then you have to say, “Oh! You used the same process I did but came up with a totally different idea. I guess I can’t fault you for that! Different strokes I guess!”

And that’s quite…lame.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So long as you believe that your deity is willing to torture helpless foes for as long as possible,I suppose so. What would you think of a world leader that adopted such a policy?

I would say he is usurping God’s prerogatives.

In point of fact, the law allows for life in prison or for execution in many states.

Would you say that life in prison and the death penalty should be abolished on the grounds that torturing criminals with these kinds of sufferings “as long as possible” is over the top?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And that’s quite…lame.

 

[PRmerger]

If you come to the right conclusion,

And please note, Brad, that you and I both agree that there is a RIGHT conclusion when someone assesses the question: is it moral to slay my daughter if she wants to divorce her husband?

There is no such thing as saying, “It’s right for you but not for me.”*

#objectivemorality

*EDIT: in this context.

Of course, there are lots of things that may be “right for you but not for me.” To wit: we can agree that it may be right for you to force your kids to eat mashed turnips. But I wouldn’t do that (to your kids. Or to mine). And I would never tell you: you can’t force** your kids to eat their mashed turnips.

**force = authoritatively tell them to eat their mashed turnips.
If you physically forced them to do this…well, then I might have to intervene. :sad_yes:

#distinctionsdistinctionsdistinctions

 

[PRmerger]

There are a lot of Christians who might disagree with your position and they say that God tells them something else. Is it then: there’s more of us! Are we eventually reduced to taking a vote?

That Christians disagree with our position ought not be interpreted as: therefore there is no correct answer.

I’ll stick with reasoned arguments.

No one here has disagreed with you regarding the importance of “reasoned arguments”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We don’t have to appeal to any Moral Law, or any Moral Lawgiver. All the laws are ones with which you agree. The arguments must hold, as far as you are concerned. We can just ask you.

There is no civilization past or present that has not appealed to a moral law and a moral lawgiver. Even the atheistic Soviet Union exercised dictatorship over the laws of the Soviet Union, and anyone who violated them was punished with extreme prejudice. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, all hostile to religious institutions, nevertheless made dictatorships of their own and anointed themselves the Supreme Lawgivers.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I doubt you’ve read Augustine since we started this discussion. So you’re going by your memory of this…which is undoubtedly sketchy.

I read through the chapters pertaining to Augustine defending his views of hell.

It’s heartening that all of the possibilities are considered by the great theological minds of my faith.

So to be clear, Augustine believes (based on his reading of scripture), that the almighty created a special place specifically to torture the unfaithful- this not one possibility among many that he is considering. Rather, he’s considering various means by which his deity of choice could carry out this practice.

Well, I’ll one up you on that, Animal. Jesus Himself talked about hell in a similar manner.

Of course, we understand the words through the lens of the Church, and don’t take it in isolation of everything else that has been revealed.

And Augustine, in his interpretation, painted a much less pleasant picture than you seem to believe in.

Can you cite specifically what genocide you are talking about? Book, chapter and verse, please.

1 Samuel 15 (1-3). “And Samuel said to Saul, c“The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel din opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Deut 20 (16-18). “16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.”

Please give me the quotes you are referring to. Thanks.

I’m referring to chapters rather than quotes. Augustine does not suppose that Jesus was being metaphorical when describing a deity casting people into eternal fire, as you have- rather, he takes him at his word. He doesn’t ponder if the fire is a metaphor for separation from the divine- he wonders how exactly a material fire can torment someone for all time, how a human body can sit in fire and be tormented but not burn up entirely.

It’s difficult to summarize his view in specific quotes- and I suspect even if I produced a quote you don’t like you’d insist I was taking it out of context. Thus, I’ll encourage you to read his words yourself, and see if you can square them with a god which supposedly isn’t going out his way to create suffering:

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

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Since God is love, He created a place where they can escape the torture of His love.

How nice of him to fill it fire and torment, and create them in such away that being in said place would be torture in and of itself.

 

[PRmerger]

How nice of him to fill it fire and torment, and create them in such away that being in said place would be torture in and of itself.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Animal.

I rarely use it.

At any rate, the fire is not a literal fire. It is a metaphor for suffering and pain, which occurs when anyone cuts himself off from Love.