P
PRmerger
Guest
So you are presenting more of an agnosticism?
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
Thanks for your response.
There is no equivalent to a Magisterium for Atheists, but I assume if one were discussing a moral question, most might be receptive to a discussion concerning the harm resulting from an act.
That might be the point of contact. The matter then boils down to what constitutes harm, since the universality of the moral norm of “do no harm” has been accepted as true.
We would have agreed that we must subject our will to that imperative.
Now the way I see it, things are a bit more complex.
The commandments are more than laws established to direct a society towards harmony and away from harmful acts.
The first three are (CCC):
- I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
- You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
- Remember to keep holy the LORD’S Day.
Life is a journey towards God, who is Beauty, Love, Truth and Life eternal.
This growing in Christ, who is the Way itself, is of supreme importance.
Everything else will fall short; in Him we find true fulfillment.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Also, this may be helpful.
From apologist Jimmy Akin:
Presumably, they would symbolize things like the need to be totally
separate from pagan culture, of how radically incompatible the pagan
lifestyle is with faith in God. On this theory the books of the
Pentateuch would have reached their final form some time after the
events they describe, and these stories about wiping out the Canaanites
(which the Israelites did not actually fulfill; there were still
Canaanites living later) were included to teach the later readers how
they must reject paganism, and that the original audience was meant to
understand the nature of these stories as cautionary tales from which
they were to draw a moral lesson (i.e., don’t be pagan; stick with God).
jimmyakin.com/2007/02/hard_sayings_of.html
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Do you suppose it is possible for an evil being to tolerate prolonged suffering for the sake of remaining evil (having things their way, so to speak) even for an indefinite period? If so, then the “permanency” of suffering could be entirely due to the determined evil stance of the one suffering as a result of their own willfulness, no?
I would suggest this appears plausible, since good men can endure prolonged suffering so as to not capitulate to evil. I would assume it, likewise, to be possible for evil men to take a similarly determined stance on behalf of evil.
What you appear to be insisting is that causing a good man to suffer in order to bring about his demise is morally equivalent to causing an evil man to suffer in order to bring about his conversion. Do we have any reason to think that to be true? And what if the evil man remains resolute in his commitment to evil? Should that resolution, itself, be rewarded in your view?
Now, you might insist that suffering is an evil in itself and, therefore, one ought never to use suffering to bring about good since that entails using evil as a means to good. Unfortunately, such a premise is not as compelling as it appears. It assumes suffering is evil in itself.
What it also entails is that God by creating pain or suffering as indicators of harm to prevent worse harm would mean God is using evil as a means. God, under that paradigm, would have created suffering (an evil) as a means to prevent further evil. That can’t be true, now can it?
Ergo, suffering, in itself, is not evil, but only an indicator of harm done and a generally useful one at that. When I put my finger on a hot stove, my suffering pain reminds me that I am doing substantial harm to my body. Is it evil for God to have made suffering a part of my everyday experience to prevent me from doing determinable harm to myself?
If, however, real evil is in the ontological ruination of an essentially good being by their own determined will, then whether they suffer as a result of their evil choices would seem incidental to the destruction (evil) caused by those choices and suffering would be understood to function as a disincentive or barrier against the moral agent becoming or doing more evil. The real harm is not in the experience of suffering, per se, but in the end state of moral degeneracy and ontological harm. It would, also, appear to be a good thing for suffering to exist as a continual reminder to potenitally evil agents of what they are turning themselves into.
Furthermore, it would seem to be a good thing to remind resolutely evil beings of their resolve on behalf of evil, based on the principle that evil should never, ultimately, be rewarded. Provided, of course, that the suffering is proportionate to the willfulness of resolve on behalf of evil and the extent to which evil is inacted.
Further, there seems to be a presumption on your part that the afterlife has duration – is ongoing in a temporal sense – rather than eternal or timeless. That is not necessarily the way it can be understood and that would mean hell may not be ongoing in terms of lasting forever, but in the sense of having ontological finality.
What that does mean is an open question, but it doesn’t require that your prolongation view of hell need be granted.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
What would be the traits of a “nicer” god that you would hope to find?
And why would those traits be “nicer” than the Catholic God?
B
Bradski
Guest
Sin is a religious concept. ‘Sin causes harm, the Church says contraception is a sin, therefore contraception causes harm’. That’s not admissible. As you said:
But you are back to saying: ‘The church says it’s wrong because it’s wrong because it’s wrong…’. You are still required to make an argument, leaving out the religious component (no mention of God/the church/the Pope etc).
You mean it didn’t happen? Who would have thought, eh? Does Jim let on how he differentiates between what did actually happen as stated in the bible and what was written for the masses as a teaching aid (don’t mess with God unless you want a good smiting)? He seems not to know:
‘It is just that because we live in such a different age and because our literature works so differently that we don’t easily recognize which parts are literal and which are not’.
And in passing, I like this quote:
‘And it is one of the reasons why God had so much trouble dealing with the whole of the world thirty or more centuries ago’.
God had trouble dealing with someone? Really, Jim. And this:
‘As long as God makes sure that I receive more happiness than unhappiness as an innocent then I cannot claim he was being unjust with me’.
So it’s OK to beat the living daylights out of someone as long as you buy him a beer later. Yeah…right…
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
No eternal suffering would be the trait that’s relevant here.What would be the traits of a “nicer” god that you would hope to find?
And why would those traits be “nicer” than the Catholic God?
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
In this argument all I’m presenting is that the Christian god does not appear to the embodiment of good. In general I’d label myself an agnostic atheist.
A
AnimalSpirits
Guest
Since I’m arguing against Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, I’m operating within their framework- the idea that the damned individual not just chooses to go to hell but chooses to remain in hell is not one that I’ve encountered in any section of the bible so it’s not one I’ve considered here.
Moreover, I do not accept the notion that the eternal suffering posited in hell could be considered an effective deterrent. The first part of a deterrent is credibility- jail would not be effective if people were unsure of it’s existence or exactly how long people would remain there, if at all. Even within Christianity, we’ve seen several examples of differing branches rejecting hell as a place of eternal torment.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
We create a misunderstanding, it seems to me, when we begin to confuse deterrent and conversion. Merely deterring someone from DOING evil is not the same thing as converting someone from BEING evil. I wouldn’t suppose that merely refraining from doing evil is sufficient for sanctity.
The issue would seem to be deeper than mere changing behaviour, no?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I doubt anyone would argue that a person chooses to go to hell, but it might be true to say that by our choices we put ourselves there owing to what we have turned ourselves into.
Now, the question of remaining in hell is not, I would think, one of mere choice but, rather, of refusal to renounce what we have turned ourselves into. A refusal to be reborn, so to speak - to change or disengage from the integral grounds for the choices that we have made.
L
LoveMorrissey
Guest
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens disagreed on this. 2 of the most famous Atheists and part of the “four horsemen”.
Hitchens said he wouldn’t like a world without religion which to me shows how confident he was in debate.
The UK is becoming increasingly secular and it is very worrying - we are seeing the results with our future doctors, lawyers etc. being lying in the gutters every Saturday night.
Religion itself is almost taboo in the UK (apart from Northern Ireland).
I remember when I was at Secondary School how people were mocked and called “Bible bashers” and other terms and this sort of vicious anti-religious sentiment is just growing here and as a result we are behind targets on child poverty, suicide and alcohol and drug abuse.
We need religion, we need God.
B
Bradski
Guest
Yeah, that went well as far as I recall.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough. I amend to: Immoral acts cause harm.
No. Rather: Contraception causes harm, therefore it is wrong.
Possibly.
Both are permissible.
And yet *you *do know? How is that possible that you claim to not know if Jesus actually walked this earth yet know that some tribes were actually slaughtered at God’s command?
Yep. Not literally, of course. God is omnipotent.
But I may be powerful as a parent, relatively speaking, yet still have trouble with my toddlers…who just don’t get it.
Hey…just a piece of advice. It’s a little disrespectful how you’re referring to him.
Kind of like a teenager would talk to his neighbor who’s just told her to pick up the beer can she left on his front lawn. “Ok, Jim. Got it, Jim. I won’t do it again, Jim.” And when the neighbor corrects her, she plays all coy and says, “Oh? Isn’t that your name? I’m sorry! I didn’t know you had a different name, James.”
Try Jimmy. Or Akin. Or Mr. Akin.
Well, compared to eternity with Him, our stay here on earth is but one night’s stay at a bad motel. (Channeling St. Teresa of Avila).
P
PRmerger
Guest
I find it good to continue to love someone, yet provide a place for this person who finds my love odious.
That’s a rather…er, to use your word “nice”…thing to do.
B
Bradski
Guest
An immoral act, by definition, causes harm. It’s late so I can’t figure out if you’re begging the question or being redundant.
You’ll need some reasons.
Did someone nominate me as the biblical expert on tribal warfare? Did I say that someone called Jesus never walked the earth? Maybe they both happened. Some people (Jimmy is one of them) thinks that at least one of those things probably didn’t happen.
I’m not sure I’m going to accept the problems you have/had with getting your kids to eat their dinner as being comparable to any problem whatsoever that God might have. In fact, as I’m pretty certain you would agree that even suggesting that God may have some problems is risible.
Sorry, but I’ll pass on the advice. Australians do not place much stock in formality. There’s an unwritten rule that every name is translated to the familiar version. Unless it is only one syllable to start with in which case it is lengthened, generally by the addition of a vowel. So James becomes Jimmy. Jimmy becomes Jim and Jim becomes Jimbo.
There is a subtle formality that is used when you might use James (or Jimmy, but never Jimbo) such as the French and Spanish use, but it has to be earned. ‘Mister’ is only used by children and the surname on its own is either used when being sarcastic or intimidating.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
There is more than a little question begging of your own in this definition, since it presumes a certain kind of direct, third-party observable and immediate kind of harm is the only harm to be taken under consideration - in other words, only physical injury is included. Ergo, “I can do whatever I like as long as I cause no one harm.”
The kinds of harm you rule out - also by definition - are the first person, non-physical, not so obvious, long term, slow breakdown, alienation from self and others kinds of harm that are difficult to register on any objective metric, but still exist. These are the harms that the word “sin” tries to get at.
Since you don’t allow that sin exists you have a convenient means by which to define morality in what you think are indisputable and objective terms, but which leave out of account a great deal of immorality by rendering it non-existent, by definition.
One possible means of showing your view to be inadequate is to point out that merely refraining from doing others direct physical harm does not make anyone a paragon of virtue. Thus, simply NOT murdering, NOT raping, NOT abusing and NOT stealing things that others need for living - merely refraining from doing such harmful things - does not definably make anyone a good moral agent. The chair in my living room has lived up to all those moral constraints all its life, but I would hardly say it is living an enlightened moral life - although you would appear to be so inclined.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Don’t forget: you also acknowledge that it also may be immoral even if it has the potential to cause harm.
Immoral acts are those which may (someday) cause harm, harm a person physically, emotionally, psychologically, harm an entity, such as the truth, a relationship, society, institution, system…
That leaves us Believers with a whole lot of leeway, doesn’t it, to tell you why something is immoral. We can say: gay “marriage” is wrong because it harms society.
Just like you say adultery is wrong because it harms a relationship. Although you haven’t really said how it *harms *a relationship. Esp. if no one ever finds out.
Same for you. How is a relationship harmed if someone cheats, even if no one finds out?
I assume that you believe the moment they do the deed it’s wrong, At that very moment. Not when the partner finds out.
What reasons can you give for adultery harming a relationship?
Excellent. You are not an biblical expert on tribal warfare. So please stop explicating on it. Your opinion would have no value. If we are operating on the premise that only biblical experts can expound and pontificate here.
Or one doesn’t necessarily have to be a biblical expert on tribal warfare in order to have an opinion on it…and that means you have stated that it did happen but yet also deny some of the other things that the bible records never happened? How is it that you know this?
Excellent. So you do believe someone named Jesus walked the earth?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Again, since God gives us a choice between eternal joy and eternal suffering, I don’t see why the Christian God appears to you less than fair.
I know eternal suffering does not seem deserved to you, but is eternal joy deserved?
Is it that you just want God to be “nice,” whether or not we are “nice”?
But I think God has been “nice” since he gives us eternal joy if we choose it by repenting of our sins and actively following the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If we don’t choose eternal joy, that is on us, not on God.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The reason we are wrong to practice artificial birth control is in line with the natural law morality, which prescribes that we always act according to our nature. Artificial birth control interrupts the natural flow of life into the human race. There are other ways to prevent birth, such as following the menstruation calendar. This is acting responsibly, as we always ought to act, and while it is birth control, it is natural birth control.
Masturbation is like artificial birth control in that it places the emphasis of pleasure on our uncontrolled hedonistic impulses, and not on the pleasure of the act that was intended to produce life. The seed is produced, but it has no where to go so as to promote the flow of human life into the human race.
Sex is a natural event with a holy purpose. When we deprive it of its purpose, we act against the will of God. We cannot fool our Father God any more than we can fool our Mother Nature.
Masturbation is like artificial birth control in that it places the emphasis of pleasure on our uncontrolled hedonistic impulses, and not on the pleasure of the act that was intended to produce life. The seed is produced, but it has no where to go so as to promote the flow of human life into the human race.
Sex is a natural event with a holy purpose. When we deprive it of its purpose, we act against the will of God. We cannot fool our Father God any more than we can fool our Mother Nature.
- Status