A World without Religion?

[AnimalSpirits]

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.

I haven’t alleged unfairness, I’ve alleged less than total goodness. A good, or even decent, being would not inflict eternal suffering, either by directly casting some into fire or creating beings in such a way that they would be eternally miserable if they made the wrong choices.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

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.

This is the religious explanation, but they were discussing the assertion that these things actively cause harm. For those of us that have no problem circumventing nature to promote human happiness/well-being, the above holds no weight.

 

[davidv]

This is the religious explanation, but they were discussing the assertion that these things actively cause harm. For those of us that have no problem circumventing nature to promote human happiness/well-being, the above holds no weight.

How do you know those circumventions have not cause harm?

 

[Peter_Plato]

**

This is the religious explanation, but they were discussing the assertion that these things actively cause harm. For those of us that have no problem circumventing nature to promote human happiness/well-being, the above holds no weight.

It is debatable whether circumventing nature actually promotes human happiness or well-being in any lasting sense. This requires a belief that momentary pleasure or an amalgam of such pleasures is what constitutes human well-being. Obviously, you think so, which is why you put so much stock in the opposite - suffering or deprivation - being what evil essentially is. You are very likely wrong about that.

 

[PRmerger]

Excellent. So you do believe someone named Jesus walked the earth?

And let’s not be precious and make reference to Jesus, your surgeon who walked the earth 10 years ago and performed your vasectomy.

In the context of our discussion, I’m going to hope that you don’t deny that the historical Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago, yes?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is the religious explanation, but they were discussing the assertion that these things actively cause harm. For those of us that have no problem circumventing nature to promote human happiness/well-being, the above holds no weight.

As discussed earlier in the thread, the Catholic religion is for life and the promotion of life giving values and behavior. No religion at all is a formula for the finality of death, and so pleasure (hedonism), the only alternative to the finality of death, becomes the supreme criteria for living the good life. Artificial birth control and masturbation do not promote the “happiness/well-being” you speak of, since they offer only momentary experiences of orgasm, not happiness itself. If sex alone was the criteria for “happiness/well-being,” hookers would be the happiest people in the world. That’s a doubtful proposition, though it could well be an illusory happiness in the mind of the hooker that is finally overcome when the hooker loses her looks and can no longer trade on them.

 

[Aloysium]

This is the religious explanation, but they were discussing the assertion that these things actively cause harm. For those of us that have no problem circumventing nature to promote human happiness/well-being, the above holds no weight.

As to harm, I think I will repost:

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.

I might argue that a person does choose to bring harm to themselves, to go to hell through a willful turning away from God, persisting in it until the end.

One does so, in seeking one’s self-interest, appropriating for oneself and refusing to return to God what belongs to Him. Whether it is not sharing with one’s neighbours what has generously been granted us, or at the very least not apologizing for having done so, or whether it is an act something so seemingly trivial as masturbation, we are left with ourselves. How can it be otherwise? It is love that makes this world tolerable. Without it, there is only hell.

This in contrast to the rest of creation together calling out “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” (Isaiah 6)

 

[AnimalSpirits]

How do you know those circumventions have not cause harm?

I do not intend to categorically prove that all things that circumvent nature do not cause harm- just that whether or not something is “natural” should not be a consideration in discerning its impact. If a contraceptive (used properly) controls the spread of disease and/or reduces unwanted pregnancy, I view that as unanimously good. Nobody wants disease and people using contraception don’t want pregnancy (self section). Moral hazard is a possibility, but I doubt that any can argue that such a phenomenon makes it bad in and of itself (lest everything from insurance to helmets could be considered harmful).

This should not be surprising. If you think a divine planner made all things, then it might make sense to believe that he had a certain purpose in mind for each thing and that these purposes matter. From a perspective with no divine designer, then it makes little sense to be concerned with the purpose of objects or acts- things are the way they are due to unthinking natural processes.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

**

It is debatable whether circumventing nature actually promotes human happiness or well-being in any lasting sense. This requires a belief that momentary pleasure or an amalgam of such pleasures is what constitutes human well-being. Obviously, you think so, which is why you put so much stock in the opposite - suffering or deprivation - being what evil essentially is. You are very likely wrong about that.

I generally don’t accept an absolute “good/evil” paradigm, but I’d argue that inflicting suffering that isn’t “productive” in some way is more or less the essence of evil.

And my view is a bit utilitarian on pleasure- if something enables people to do more of what they like, or reduces the risks involved, without harming others, I laud it.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

As discussed earlier in the thread, the Catholic religion is for life and the promotion of life giving values and behavior. No religion at all is a formula for the finality of death, and so pleasure (hedonism), the only alternative to the finality of death, becomes the supreme criteria for living the good life. Artificial birth control and masturbation do not promote the “happiness/well-being” you speak of, since they offer only momentary experiences of orgasm, not happiness itself. If sex alone was the criteria for “happiness/well-being,” hookers would be the happiest people in the world. That’s a doubtful proposition, though it could well be an illusory happiness in the mind of the hooker that is finally overcome when the hooker loses her looks and can no longer trade on them.

Clearly happiness does not monotonically increase with orgasms- but, equally clearly, people actively seek pleasure from sex. Contraception just allows them to do it with less risk. I’d put it in the same category as artificial sweeteners (discounting any potential health impact), which allow people to get the pleasure from their sugary drinks without fulfilling the “natural” purpose of eating (nutrition).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Clearly happiness does not monotonically increase with orgasms- but, equally clearly, people actively seek pleasure from sex. Contraception just allows them to do it with less risk. I’d put it in the same category as artificial sweeteners (discounting any potential health impact), which allow people to get the pleasure from their sugary drinks without fulfilling the “natural” purpose of eating (nutrition).

Catholic do not believe in promiscuity as a moral value or a contributor to happiness, and therefore contraceptive devices are not necessary to protect physical health between two loving spouses who don’t need to worry about risk factors. No contraceptive device can fully protect us from declining moral integrity (nor even from declining physical health) if we are promiscuous. There is no moral equivalence between artificial contraceptive devices and artificial sweeteners.

 

[tonyrey]

Being eternally eaten by worms that do not die and fires that are not quenches… sounds like torture to me.

 

[Bradski]

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.”

You should read what I write not what you want to read.

Harm. If you cause no harm, then you have done no wrong. The harm doesn’t have to be physical.

I will of course accept your apology for misrepresenting my position.

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.

Yep.

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.

Did anyone suggest that? I don’t think I did. No, I’m absolutely sure I didn’t. So you are misrepresenting my position yet again.

Doing it once I can put down to an honest mistake. Doing it twice has me thinking that maybe you aren’t paying attention to what I say.

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.

Sure you can. If I agreed with any arguments that you make to that end, then as a reasonable person I would change my views and agree with you. As it is, despite the fact that I am, I don’t and therefore I haven’t.

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.

One of the definitions of a good relationship (let’s say marriage but you don’t have to be married for this to be true) is that both partners do not cheat on each other (well, it’s one of my definitions – you can agree or not). If one does, then the relationship, that trust that they had in each other, whether the other one is aware of it or not, is broken.

If you knew two couples, one couple faithful to each other, but the woman in the other relationship slept around (without her husband knowing) would you say that the relationships that both couples had were the same? I’d suggest that you’d agree that the second one was broken. Even if the husband didn’t know. Cheating isn’t cheating only if you get caught.

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.

We’re not.

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?

If we’re discussing talking snakes and global floods, then yes, I know these things didn’t happen. Everything else is either definitely true, probably true, possibly true, possibly false, probably false and any other permutation that you can think of, all depending on the evidence.

Excellent. So you do believe someone named Jesus walked the earth?

I’m putting that in the ‘probably true’ box.

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.

If you can’t offer a good argument against sex (including first person singular activities) without mentioning God, then you are back to: ‘It’s wrong because it’s wrong because…well, the church says so’. The fact that you agree with the church’s decision doesn’t matter whatsoever.

You need a better argument other than ‘God doesn’t want you to’.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You should read what I write not what you want to read.

I will of course accept your apology for misrepresenting my position.

Yep.

Did anyone suggest that? I don’t think I did. No, I’m absolutely sure I didn’t. So you are misrepresenting my position yet again.

Doing it once I can put down to an honest mistake. Doing it twice has me thinking that maybe you aren’t paying attention to what I say.

Okay, you have my attention.

Explain what YOU mean by harm in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding.

 

[Bradski]

Okay, you have my attention.

Explain what YOU mean by harm in a way that leaves no room for misunderstanding.

Too much room for misunderstanding, Pete. Life ain’t black and white. Too many variables (Causing pain is wrong? So immunizing your child is wrong because it’s painful? Lying is wrong? That’s harmful? So you’d have told them she was in the attic? You’d tell him where the gun was hidden? You’d tell her that, yeah, her bum does look fat in that frock. Allowing people to die is wrong? So you’d push the fat guy onto the tracks?).

Pick something on which we disagree and we can use that to explain our positions as to why we think it’s right or wrong. That’s what everyone does, so it’s not difficult. Although some of the decisions are - so a blanket definition can get you into all sorts of problems.

It’s all relative, you see. I’m sure someone mentioned that earlier.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Too much room for misunderstanding, Pete. Life ain’t black and white. Too many variables (Causing pain is wrong? So immunizing your child is wrong because it’s painful? Lying is wrong? That’s harmful? So you’d have told them she was in the attic? You’d tell him where the gun was hidden? You’d tell her that, yeah, her bum does look fat in that frock. Allowing people to die is wrong? So you’d push the fat guy onto the tracks?).

Pick something on which we disagree and we can use that to explain our positions as to why we think it’s right or wrong. That’s what everyone does, so it’s not difficult. Although some of the decisions are - so a blanket definition can get you into all sorts of problems.

It’s all relative, you see. I’m sure someone mentioned that earlier.

Well, Brad, I can’t say that I didn’t expect this.

You accuse me of reading into your meaning of harm, yet you are unwilling to define what you DO mean by harm.

Unfortunately, you are still willing to hang YOUR entire moral system on a definition of harm, as if it were a well-defined term to begin with.

You see no problem with this?

Of course you wouldn’t BECAUSE that leaves you in the decidedly INvulnerable position of accusing others of misinterpreting what you mean at the same time as having no actual commitment to what you DO mean.

 

[PRmerger]

If we’re discussing talking snakes and global floods, then yes, I know these things didn’t happen. Everything else is either definitely true, probably true, possibly true, possibly false, probably false and any other permutation that you can think of, all depending on the evidence.

I’m putting that in the ‘probably true’ box.

And I’m putting the God commanding the literal annihilation of a tribe in the “probably not true” box.

 

[PRmerger]

If one does, then the relationship, that trust that they had in each other, whether the other one is aware of it or not, is broken.

Wait…what?

Someone’s trust can be broken without even knowing it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you can’t offer a good argument against sex (including first person singular activities) without mentioning God, then you are back to: ‘It’s wrong because it’s wrong because…well, the church says so’. The fact that you agree with the church’s decision doesn’t matter whatsoever.

You need a better argument other than ‘God doesn’t want you to’.

There simply is no better position to take with an atheist who is oblivious of the harm he does to his soul when he chooses hedonism over self restraint and the will of God.

The reminder that you are meant to be God’s obedient child may well fall on deaf ears, but it is a reminder to yourself of why you are here. Are you not here seeking to justify or confirm your unprovable assertion that there is no God who will hold you accountable for your life sooner or later?

A world without God anywhere in it will be more "nasty, brutish, and short " than a world with God in it. Our human nature will be twisted in tooth and claw and drenched in blood, thanks to that other fellow you also don’t believe in … you know, the one with the malicious grin. :bigyikes:

 

[Bradski]

Someone’s trust can be broken without even knowing it?

Yeah, naturally. A relationship of trust between two people requires both parties to abide by it. One talks of breaking that trust if one party abuses it. Cheat on your partner and you’ve broken the relationship. I can’t put it plainer than that.