A World without Religion?

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Yes, I’ve noticed atheists invariably think they are wiser and more merciful than the God who died on a tree for them.

Mocking God will probably not sit well with the God you mock.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

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.

According to your view- not so much Augustine. He did believe eternal separation was a terrible thing. But that pain complemented the literal physical fire that tormented the bodies of the sinners.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Yes, I’ve noticed atheists invariably think they are wiser and more merciful than the God who died on a tree for them.

Mocking God will probably not sit well with the God you mock.

I don’t consider myself a paragon of kindness, but Abby universe I made would not inflict eternal suffering on my helpless subjects.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t consider myself a paragon of kindness, but Abby universe I made would not inflict eternal suffering on my helpless subjects.

It will be what it will be. It seems that those who fought against God’s kingdom of love will get justice - eternity with him whom they served. So, when you have to choose, choose love.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Fair enough.

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.

Ok.

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

Perhaps.

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.”

Clearly, this is a symbolic destruction.

For did you know just a few chapters later, the Amalekites are alive and well?

Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.)–1 Samuel 27:8

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.”

Same with these tribes.

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.

Fair enough. St. Augustine may not have supposed Jesus was being metaphorical. We can agree on that.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t consider myself a paragon of kindness, but Abby universe I made would not inflict eternal suffering on my helpless subjects.

Would you allow suffering at all?

 

[tonyrey]

No, not exactly. We are only compelled to follow a “well-formed” conscience. And what is a “well-formed” conscience? The one which does not deviate from the teachings of the church. As such, if your conscience disagrees with what the church says, then you should not follow it. Pretty much like the old adage went about Henry Ford: “you can have a car of any color, provided that you want a black car”.

False!
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

 

[tonyrey]

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.

A crude interpretation of the undeniable fact that people isolate themselves by their pride, selfishness and lack of love for others. In other words the lust for power inevitably leads to **self-inflicted **misery…

 

[tonyrey]

Would you allow suffering at all?

Those who complain about suffering imply that they could design a better world but they never produce a feasible blueprint…

 

[Bradski]

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.

What you might have heard (and which I quite probably have said myself), is that Catholics must believe certain things. Which is true, but which does not equate to Catholics must have blind faith. It is patently obvious that if you don’t believe some of the precepts of the Catholic church, then you are, by definition, not a Catholic. Or at best, a cafe latte Catholic, a Catholic in name only. And obviously there are very many of these (no small number use contraception, most have no problem with gay marriage and a large proportion of abortions are performed on Catholic women).

So you are free to question any matter and come to your own conclusions. In fact, it is probably considered a prerequisite for a Catholic. It’s just that if your conclusion contradicts the church’s, then ‘thanks for making the application, but at this point in time, we don’t expect it to be successful. We wish you well for the future’.

So it’s not: ‘Catholics must believe this’. It’s: ‘You must believe this if you are to be considered a Catholic’. Huge difference.

 

[Bradski]

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!”

Wow, hang on. You’re slipping God in by the side door here. As we previously agreed, there is no requirement to mention God (or the church etc), but here you are saying that if you come to a conclusion based on reason AND the natural law…

And as you have said earlier, natural law is written into your heart by the Natural Law Giver. To which you can appeal.

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

I’ll repeat what you said above:

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.

Now, on one hand we have agreed that the right answer can be found by reason alone. No need to defer to the church, or the pope or religion. As you said earlier:

I never argue with atheists that a position is moral or evil because the Church/Catechism/Scriptures/Pope says it is.

And also:

Yep. No requirement to mention religion whatsoever…
I can argue against all of those things without ever appealing to the Bible, the Church, the popes, the Catechism. Not even once.

But now it must be 'reason AND God (in the form of the Natural Law which He has given us). So if your reasons aren’t good enough, they must still be right because they are derived from God’s Natural Law. You are contradicting yourself by saying that you can reach a conclusion 'using reason and the natural law when you say that ‘there’s no need to appeal to a higher authority’.

If using the Natural Law is not an appeal to a higher authority (God is the Natural Law Giver!), then I don’t know what is. That’s like saying you won’t use God in any argument, but ‘it says here in the bible (which is God’s Word!)…’

It seems that if we agree on something, then reason is good enough. But if we disagree on something (and that would be because I think your reasons are not valid), then you can simply play the God card. Game, set and match to PR! Hard luck, Bradski and thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys.

From this it cannot be denied that you will be right in every case. If we agree, you are right, if we disagree, then you can ignore any reasonable arguments and bring in the Moral Lawmaker and you are still right. You cannot possibly be wrong. You know all the moral absolutes. It’s a waste of my time putting any thought into any matter, trying to work out if it is right or wrong and wrestling with the problem. I can ask you. If we agree, then I’m right. If we disagree, then you play your trump card and I’m wrong.

Of course, you can disprove this by giving me a moral absolute with which you don’t agree. If there isn’t one, then you are always right and we can all defer to you in matters of morality. If there is one, then how do you differentiate?

And if you see Charles about, ask him as well. I asked the same question in a different thread after he accused me of not answering one of his question (to which I gave quite a detailed answer - maybe he just didn’t like it) and he ignored it.

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.”*

*EDIT: Of course, there are lots of things that may be “right for you but not for me.”

Correct on both accounts (taking into account your edit). We both agree on some things, but not on others. The fact that we agree does not make it a moral absolute. Just because everyone agrees does not make it absolute. It isn’t dependant on a vote. But it appears from the first part of this post that moral absolutes are those that you have judged to be written into your heart by God.

That is, if you declare it be a moral absolute, then you cannot be wrong, because it is God who is actually telling you.

Edit: I’ve use Moral Law and Natural Law as synonyms in this matter. You have stated that Moral Law is given to us by God, but I have reasonably assumed that you would agree that Natural Law is, by default, God given (Catechism 1959: The Natural Law, the Creator’s very good work…).

Those who complain about suffering imply that they could design a better world but they never produce a feasible blueprint…

You were given a number in another thread, Tony. It’s not exactly the hardest thing in the world to image. For those with imagination, anyway.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Really?

“Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. "

Pretty explicit for a “symbolic” destruction.

For did you know just a few chapters later, the Amalekites are alive and well?

Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.)–1 Samuel 27:8

Same with these tribes.

And you’ll still find Jews, Ukrainians, and Armenians mulling around today by the millions. Genocide generally doesn’t end in 100% and total annihilation.

Fair enough. St. Augustine may not have supposed Jesus was being metaphorical. We can agree on that.

Which brings me back to my earlier point- scripture verses are reinterpreted as modern scientific knowledge and sensibilities adjust. The ancients didn’t have any trouble with a supreme being that created the world in 6 literal days, or one that intentionally inflicted suffering upon sinners. But to many moderns, the first is superstition and the latter is sadism- thus we get a friendly deity for a friendly time.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Would you allow suffering at all?

I can’t really picture a world without suffering, so it’s hard to say what that would look like.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Those who complain about suffering imply that they could design a better world but they never produce a feasible blueprint…

Take the current world, as viewed by Catholics. I make one change: The damned now either sleep or spend eternity in some neutral state. I haven’t perfected the world, but I’ve certainly improved it now that I’ve removed the celestial torture chamber.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t consider myself a paragon of kindness, but Abby universe I made would not inflict eternal suffering on my helpless subjects.

That’s backwards. God does not inflict it on you, you inflict it on yourself.

Choices have consequences. If you deny God, God does not impose himself on you.

It’s called free will. But only a fool freely chooses hell.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalms: 1

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Take the current world, as viewed by Catholics. I make one change: The damned now either sleep or spend eternity in some neutral state. I haven’t perfected the world, but I’ve certainly improved it now that I’ve removed the celestial torture chamber.

You still don’t get it. God does not torture us. We choose to be tortured.

After all, you can also choose heaven over hell.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

That’s backwards. God does not inflict it on you, you inflict it on yourself.

Choices have consequences. If you deny God, God does not impose himself on you.

It’s called free will. But only a fool freely chooses hell.

“The fool in his heart says there is no God.” Psalms: 1

A. This description is out of line with both the word of Jesus and the interpretation of Augustine.

B. Are we to believe that the omnipotent, omniscient, embodiment of goodness was unable to create souls that would not suffer eternally once separated from him?

 

[Bradski]

That’s backwards. God does not inflict it on you, you inflict it on yourself.

Your child is being naughty. You could send her to her room, but instead you beat her mercilessly. Hey, she inflicted it on herself, you say as the police break down your door.

‘My client’s defence, which is entirely reasonable, is that he told her, in advance, that this was going to be the punishment for not eating her turnips.’

Howdya think you’ll get on?

Oh, and try the question a few posts back, can you. You missed it in the last thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your child is being naughty. You could send her to her room, but instead you beat her mercilessly. Hey, she inflicted it on herself, you say as the police break down your door.QUOTE]

Common sense tells us that a child who misbehaves, and knows he misbehaves, has to reckon with consequences. Or as atheist objectivist Ayn Rand liked to constantly remind us, “Actions have consequences.”

If a man engages in mass murder, he has no right to complain of the death sentence. If a man spits in God’s eye, he has no right to complain of consequences he knows must be severe if he has an ounce of common sense.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A. This description is out of line with both the word of Jesus and the interpretation of Augustine.

B. Are we to believe that the omnipotent, omniscient, embodiment of goodness was unable to create souls that would not suffer eternally once separated from him?

A. Please be specific about how it is out of line with Jesus and Augustine.

B. God’s benevolence was demonstrated by Jesus dying on a tree for our sake. You won’t find any God more benevolent than that God. Again, eternity of torment is our choice. If we don’t want God, God will never force himself on us. This is why we are fools to deny God and we are fools to behave in such a way as to deserve the eternal torment of separation from God.