Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[frangiuliano115]

1. Not always, though. We’re at risk, of course, since we’re imperfect beings. Yet, we continually work at forming habits of virtues and learning more about God’s plan for us… and therefore, we get better at having consciences that are able to help us make good judgments.
2. Perhaps. On the other hand, ‘being raised in the wild’ doesn’t imply ‘never learned the difference between good and evil’ or even ‘never had opportunities to form one’s own conscience.’ It just means that, perhaps, his conscience hasn’t had the chance to encounter the situations that he will encounter in civilization, so he’s not yet ready to make good judgments in situations there.
3. Yes; we all do. Serial killers might not listen to it; psychopaths (or, more accurately, ‘sociopaths’) might be unable to listen to it, for a variety of reasons tied to mental disorders. But, we all have that ‘little voice’, whether we listen to it or not.
4. We’re both doing what PA rankles at when I remind her about it – making claims without attribution: ‘freely asserted, freely denied’, as it were. How, then, are we to determine whether conscience is ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’?
5. In other words, they make a conscious decision to ignore the little voice. I agree.
6. Ahh… the big lie of the modern era – “truth is subjective.” Truth is truth; our perceptions of it might differ subjectively, but it cannot simultaneously be truth and be subjective (and therefore, assert mutually exclusive things to various people). Let’s rephrase, then: if one person’s truth and another’s are at odds, then it’s necessary to find where their perceptions are in error.
7. That’s right. What’s the problem with asserting that sin is based on making bad decisions? It makes the actions no less sinful, and does not inoculate the sinner from being responsible for his poor decisions…
8. Yes; they had a conscience, too: when they sinned, they knew they’d done wrong. Without a conscience, they wouldn’t have felt badly – they wouldn’t have made up excuses to God when He asked what they’d done. In fact, your appeal to Adam and Eve helps demonstrate that, from the start, humans have had consciences!
9. It may not work perfectly, but it works. And, it requires our cooperation in order to do so.
10. I have a nice set of workout videos and weights in my apartment. I’m not big on working out, though, so they sit unused in the corner of a room. Would you really assert that “Gorgias has no exercise equipment”? Or, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “Gorgias has the tools at his disposal, but chooses not to use them?” That’s precisely what we’re saying about those who choose to sin – they have the tools, but they don’t put them into use.

Gorgias, I don’t mean to ignore you, but this is too much to do for someone with my time. Also, I wish I knew how to do that quote thing like you all do. Maybe someday… Anyway I numbered

1. “Not always though” WHAT? I said SOME of we humans DON’T have a conscience.
2. HOW do you learn the difference between good and evil in the wild? All you learn is how to survive; whatever that takes.
3. Look up the word “conscience” in any dictionary. We DON’T all have one.
4. I’m saying conscience is not always present. What does the have to do with the question of nature or nurture?? If it’s not there, the question is irrelevant.
5. We’re in agreement on this one. I think!!
6. You didn’t understand my point. There IS an absolute truth. In any case, you CANNOT argue where perceptions are in error. If you believe there is an absolute truth, you refer to the absolute truth! GOD. Not try to convince each other who’s right and who’s wrong.
7. It seemed like you were asserting that robbery is not a sin but an incorrect judgement. If I misundstood, I’m sorry. Can’t go back to the original post - no time.
8. Cannot remember what this whole idea was. It cannot be that I said that Adam and Eve did not have a conscience because they did for the very reasons you state.
9. Most of the time it doesn’t work perfectly, but sometimes it doesn’t work at all!

1’0. I don’t have a horse and have to walk 10 miles.

  I have a horse but prefer not to use him and have to walk 10 miles.

What’s the difference? I just walked 10 miles.

God bless

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, I don’t mean to ignore you, but this is too much to do for someone with my time.

No problems. There’s no rush here (nevertheless, this thread is moving pretty quickly, so our discussion might get swamped. It’s all good. )

Also, I wish I knew how to do that quote thing like you all do.

It’s pretty straightforward. When you hit the ‘quote’ button, the entire post you’re quoting gets wrapped in quote tags. Way at the beginning, there’s a “start quote” tag that says something like:

[QU OTE=frangiuliano115;13240656]

or even just

[qu ote]

And, at the end of the text that you want to quote, you just type in an “end quote” tag:

[/qu ote]

Or, you could just delete the quote tags that the board puts in, and select little bits and pieces. The ‘hash mark’ button (the ‘#’ in the row above the text entry box) inserts quote tags around a block of text you’ve selected with your mouse.

You could always play around with it a bit: enter some text, hit “preview post” (instead of “submit reply”) and see what it looks like, and then play around and edit it until you like what you see.

1. “Not always though” WHAT? I said SOME of we humans DON’T have a conscience.

Actually, you said “whenever we follow our own conscience, we run into trouble”. That’s what I’m replying “not always, though” to. It’s not always the case that we get it wrong when we turn to the judgments of our conscience.

1. HOW do you learn the difference between good and evil in the wild? All you learn is how to survive; whatever that takes.

We listen to our conscience, and then we observe whether our conscience agrees with our experiences (including what we’ve learned about morality). I would disagree with your assertion that “if one is born in the wild” he is “never exposed to anything”; rather, he’s just not exposed to living in human society. There’s more to morality than how we interact with other people.

1. Look up the word “conscience” in any dictionary. We DON’T all have one.

The dictionary is a poor basis for a philosophical or theological argument.

1. I’m saying conscience is not always present. What does the have to do with the question of nature or nurture?? If it’s not there, the question is irrelevant.

I know you are; and I’m saying it is always present (but in some people, it has been quieted). In other words, we’re both just asserting our point of view without anything to substantiate it (although my view is shared by the Church).

The issue we’re discussing is precisely the question of ‘nature vs nurture’: I say that a conscience is part of human nature, and you say that it’s something that is obtained by virtue of living life.

1. We’re in agreement on this one. I think!!

Yes; but I’m claiming that we all have that ‘little voice’; I think you’re saying that we all do not.

1. You didn’t understand my point. There IS an absolute truth. In any case, you CANNOT argue where perceptions are in error. If you believe there is an absolute truth, you refer to the absolute truth! GOD. Not try to convince each other who’s right and who’s wrong.

Hmm… I think I did understand your previous post; but this point, in this post, escapes me. You asked “whose truth? what if my truth doesn’t agree with your truth?”. My response is that there’s no such thing as individual truth. Oh, there is certainly personal perception and personal interpretation (and personal misinterpretation); but that’s different than really believing that there are ‘truths’ which are held personally and which are mutually exclusive.

And, we can absolutely argue about errors in perception! That’s one way of getting a person from error to truth!

1. It seemed like you were asserting that robbery is not a sin but an incorrect judgement. If I misundstood, I’m sorry. Can’t go back to the original post - no time.

No – robbery is both sinful and incorrect judgment. Socrates (and later, Augustine) argued that when people choose vice, they aren’t doing so in order to be vicious – rather, they are attempting to choose what is good. However, their perception of ‘good’ is warped. (For instance, Hitler thought that it was ‘good’ to eliminate the Jewish race from the face of the earth. Clearly, he was horribly mistaken. Still, it was – in his mind – in service of the pursuit of the good.)

1. Cannot remember what this whole idea was. It cannot be that I said that Adam and Eve did not have a conscience because they did for the very reasons you state.

You asked, “You really think we have a conscience by nature? We’re going back to Adam and Eve.” I took that to mean that you were claiming that Adam & Eve did not have consciences. Maybe I misunderstood you.

1. I don’t have a horse and have to walk 10 miles.

  I have a horse but prefer not to use him and have to walk 10 miles.

What’s the difference? I just walked 10 miles.

Different example than the one I used. In my example, I have a resource, but choose not to use it – that is, I do not take an action. In your example, you take the action – but simply use a different resource in doing so.

 

[zz912]

Wait! I’m either too tired (also too tired to answer gorgias right now) and didn’t read right, or you better reread what Rhubard said before you speak to your friend.

He’s not saying that if God is all 3 things then evil CANNOT exist, he’s proposing the age-old problem that is the opposite. If God is all 3 of these things, then WHY does evil exist.

In other words, if evil exists:

1. God is not a good God. OR
2. God is not omnipotent.

(I can’t work the omniscient in there but it doesn’t matter - I can’t really remember it being included).

Just reread it first.

Good Night!

And that age-old problem has a fundamental flaw in that is assumes that God cannot bring greater good out of an evil, which He can.

 

[ahs]

I just wanted to give an update. At first the person I was trying to respond to [the reason for my OP] decided he didn’t want to discuss it anymore. My friend who chose not to respond, did reply to my private message asking why he had jumped the fence.

We ended up having a very long and very disappointing conversation yesterday. It turns out that his view of a “debate” is where I (or anyone else) must answer all his questions, but he is not required to answer any and is free to make any assumptions he chooses, regardless of whether they are logical.
It even came to a point where I started pointing out the fallacies (which I hate doing in friend-discussions…I try to just ask questions instead, where the answer would take care of that). I posted a link to yourlogicalfallacyis.com and gently offered that he might read over it and be able to make more rational points. “No, I don’t go to websites…books…articles…it’s just me and what I know…”.

The short of it is, he isn’t interested in anything other than what he has convinced himself of.

I did write a couple articles (a 2-part) on defining “evil” and then using that to reject God. Gorgias, your first responses are used HEAVILY in part 2. (I owe you bottle of good wine if you are ever in Texas). Pallas, I used our dialog in the first part, but I used a different name. I tried to shrink it down to the meat of it, but I also tried to preserve both sides’ positions.

• Defining “Evil” on my Own Terms, and Using it Against God: Part I (subjective definitions)
• Defining “Evil” on my Own Terms, and Using if Against God: Part II (faulty conclusions)

 

[frangiuliano115]

And that age-old problem has a fundamental flaw in that is assumes that God cannot bring greater good out of an evil, which He can.

Here’s your scripture:

**And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God…
Romans 8:28
**

Of course you’re right. Except that this isn’t what I was speaking of. It has more to do with where evil comes from.

1. God is not a good God or He wouldn’t have created evil
2. God is not all powerful or He would eliminate evil wherever it comes from.

So you see, if we say that God is good AND all powerful - then where does evil come from?

Now my question is rhetorical of course. Just wanted to explain that what I’m saying is different than what you’re saying.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

I just wanted to give an update. At first the person I was trying to respond to [the reason for my OP] decided he didn’t want to discuss it anymore. My friend who chose not to respond, did reply to my private message asking why he had jumped the fence.

We ended up having a very long and very disappointing conversation yesterday. It turns out that his view of a “debate” is where I (or anyone else) must answer all his questions, but he is not required to answer any and is free to make any assumptions he chooses, regardless of whether they are logical.
It even came to a point where I started pointing out the fallacies (which I hate doing in friend-discussions…I try to just ask questions instead, where the answer would take care of that). I posted a link to yourlogicalfallacyis.com and gently offered that he might read over it and be able to make more rational points. “No, I don’t go to websites…books…articles…it’s just me and what I know…”.

The short of it is, he isn’t interested in anything other than what he has convinced himself of.

I did write a couple articles (a 2-part) on defining “evil” and then using that to reject God. Gorgias, your first responses are used HEAVILY in part 2. (I owe you bottle of good wine if you are ever in Texas). Pallas, I used our dialog in the first part, but I used a different name. I tried to shrink it down to the meat of it, but I also tried to preserve both sides’ positions.

• Defining “Evil” on my Own Terms, and Using it Against God: Part I (subjective definitions)
• Defining “Evil” on my Own Terms, and Using if Against God: Part II (faulty conclusions)

Of course he doesn’t want to answer anymore! You have all the answers and he doesn’t.

How do you convince yourself of anything with no information? This is an interesting concept.

You know what I think of people like your friend? I think they’re trying to convince THEMSELVES not you or even have a real debate. Maybe if he could convince you, he’d be more comfortable with his decision to abandon God. When he sees that he’s getting nowhere with you, the only option is to end the conversation.

You’ve done all you could. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

Will be reading your articles.

God bless

 

[ahs]

Of course he doesn’t want to answer anymore! You have all the answers and he doesn’t.

How do you convince yourself of anything with no information? This is an interesting concept.

You know what I think of people like your friend? I think they’re trying to convince THEMSELVES not you or even have a real debate. Maybe if he could convince you, he’d be more comfortable with his decision to abandon God. When he sees that he’s getting nowhere with you, the only option is to end the conversation.

That is EXACTLY what I thought! I even told him, “It sounds to me like you aren’t having a debate. You are just repeating yourself over and over to no one but yourself, trying really hard to convince yourself of something that requires you to misrepresent the facts. Why do you do that?”

You’ve done all you could. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

Will be reading your articles.

God bless

Thanks!

 

[Bradski]

Since we certainly cannot depend on faithdancer, or anyone else for the correct answer we seek. We humans are not capable of deciding natural law or morality.

Then the concept is nonsensical. It’s no good saying that God will supply the answer, because all we do is move the question along the line. Whom do we now depend on to tell us all that any one person has been given the correct answer?

I’m not always right at all in my own selfish ego, clouded by sin. However, the Holy Spirit is always right and natural law is always right and when I act according to natural law, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then I will do right every time.

The question is not ‘doing right’ but ‘being right’. Again, it seems quite simple to find out the answer to any moral problem: We ask you, or anyone who says that they are following natural law and are being guided by the Holy Spirit. Is it that easy? Ridiculously easy, apparently. Oh, except when your position differs to someone else’s and then…back to Step One: How do we know who is right?

Hmm… so, at some point in the continuum, a thing goes from being merely ‘wrong’ and begins being ‘evil’? We’re using these terms differently, then.

Possibly. But I did define mine as being the popular notion of it being something very wrong indeed.

Is it the agreement that makes it evil, though?

No. It’s a subjective term. As you concur later, just because everyone agrees to something doesn’t necessarily make it right (or wrong).

As a Christian, I answer that morality is objective; that is, it does not find its definition from any created being.

Then do you believe that evil would exist if there was no-one to commit evil?

You’re talking about ‘conscience’ here, I think. I find out by searching my conscience. That doesn’t mean that my conscience has all the answers; my part in the project is to form my conscience properly, so that, as I make the decisions in each day of my life, I’m able to hear what it says better and better.

You still have a problem in that if you want to make a decision on whether someone is acting morally, you, personally, are determining if someone’s conscience has been well developed. You are comparing it to what YOUR little voice says and if it matches, then they are good to go. If it doesn’t then it’s the other person that has the problem. Your little voice is ALWAYS right.

If that is not the case, then you would literally have no idea if someone else’s view was the correct one as you would have to admit that your little voice is sometimes wrong and, this is the important bit, you have no way of determining if and when it is wrong. There are many Christians on this forum with different views in regard to certain aspects of morality. You either have to say that your view is the correct one (because it is based on your well-formed conscience) or you have to admit that you have no idea who is right.

There is another option, of course. You can give reasons why you think that something is either right or wrong. You can forget that little voice. In fact, it might be a very good idea to either ignore it or engage it in a reasoned debate before you make a decision. We all know that that little voice is generally encouraging us to do things that we want to do in any case. If you decide not to do it, then that is your conscience talking. Which has been formed by reasoned, internal debate.

Let’s use the bank robbery as an example. You might say that not stealing money is your conscience telling you not to do it. But all you have to do is ask: WHY is it telling you not to do it. It doesn’t formulate these calls out of thin air. This happens after internal debate. You get all the information about the problem and look at the pros and conns. You listen to people whose opinion you value. You think about the consequences. You try to ignore your prejudices. You engage in an internal debate (often subconsciously). Then you reach a decision. And that decision is given voice by that little Jiminy Cricket character deep inside you.

But does that mean that it’s the right decision? Well, unfortunately, no.

It’s not as illogical or nonsensical as you make it out to be. Are there authorities in whom you trust? Of course there are: science, for one. So, how do you know if your understanding is correct? If it matches up with the authority that you hold to be correct.

No, no and no again. Absolutely no. Emphatically no. The only thing that I can say if my opinion matches that of the general scientific community (for want of a better phrase), then ALL I can say is that, at this moment in time, as far as I am aware, until further investigation, my belief on a given matter matches that of the scientific community. When the consensus of that community changes (because of further discoveries or more detailed investigation) or completely reverses its original position, then I am at liberty to hold to my position OR change my mind.

Naturally, any scientific belief I might hold is not personally presented with all the bells and whistles and disclaimers attached, but it IS implied. Every time. Always. Nothing is cast in stone. Whereas for a Catholic, correct me if I am wrong, contraception (as an example) will always be wrong. There is no: ‘As far as I am aware at this time and until further investigation by the church…contraception is wrong.’

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR BRADSKI

You include me in your list of wrongsayers but I want to say right now that you’re wrong on so many little points that it’s impossible for me to take the time to go thru them all.

As for mine you say:

**Then the concept is nonsensical. It’s no good saying that God will supply the answer, because all we do is move the question along the line. Whom do we now depend on to tell us all that any one person has been given the correct answer?
**

What question are we moving along what line? I said, or at least intended, that christians rely on God for their conscience and that it must be formed by those standards. I don’t depend on ANYBODY for my conscience. Being an atheist you have a problem with this since you don’t believe God (an absolute moral indicator) exists.

The others will answer on their own but just quick:

FAITHDANCER:

Christianity teaches that we ARE RIGHT (with God) and we also strive TO DO right. If you read the book of Romans you would understand this concept. But I know the bible is nonsense to you and you cannot use it for arguing since you don’t believe in it. But we do, so right away there is a fundamental problem. Yes, sometimes our “position differs” because we’re human and will always make mistakes. That doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit will not guide to all truth.

GORGEOUS:

He’s just restating what I said above in his previous comment. Morality is objective and he does not find, or look for, an answer in any created being. He’s RIGHT as we christians are concerned. Then you ask if evil would exist even if there were no one to commit it.
Now this is an interesting question. Let me ask you this: If a tree falls in the forest and there’s nobody around to hear it, does it still make a noise??

Then you go on again to Gorgeous re the little voice. It’s just a repeat of the above. You can’t understand that gorgeous is TRYING to listen to his conscience but sometimes we fail. And, yes, they are conformed to different levels. This I know for sure because I’ve taught it. Posters on these forums might have a different level of morality because, unfortuantely, some don’t get proper training from the church, OR they prefer not to use that training. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an absolute truth.

The bank robber scenario. We christians who desire to live by the word of God do not stop to ask ourselves WHY we shouldn’t rob the bank. We just KNOW that it is wrong. Boy, I might really need that cash but the consequences affect my eternal soul. So I won’t rob it and need not confer with myself, as you say, to reach that conclusion. Again, I repeat, we are frail and may not listen to the correct thing to do.

I apologize to everyone if I jumped in but I just couldn’t help myself.

Guess I’ll have to read Romans all over again!!

God bless

 

[Bradski]

The bank robber scenario. We christians who desire to live by the word of God do not stop to ask ourselves WHY we shouldn’t rob the bank. We just KNOW that it is wrong.

I don’t think that the answer is as simple as you are trying to make out. That somewhere things are just ‘wrong’ and we would know it without going through any process of working out why.

There are reasons for everything. Literally everything. Literally every scenario containing any moral problem you could possibly imagine. Including robbing banks. Saying simply that it’s ‘just wrong’ is not good enough. Not by a long way.

If you need to convince someone that a position you hold is the correct one, then it would be worse than useless simply telling someone who holds a different view that they are ‘just wrong’. It’s the equivalent of a parent telling their child not to do something ‘just because I say so’. You are going to need an argument. Based on evidence. ‘Don’t do that because…’ And fill in the gaps as necessary.

Again, I will repeat what I’ve been saying along. If you simply say that something is wrong and another Christian disagrees, then how do I know who is right? I am going to need to you to convince me that you are right. If you have nothing other than ‘I’m right just because’, then I have to say I won’t take much notice.

And you must note that not all problems are covered by what the church says, or can be found in scripture or the bible. Like how many refugees should a country accept. Like the morality of factory farming. Like gun control. Like invading another country. Like justifiable homicide. Like any number of matters. None of which have a simple, everyone agrees, one-size-fits-all answer. The answers to all these questions are entirely subjective. As they are to everything.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t think that the answer is as simple as you are trying to make out. That somewhere things are just ‘wrong’ and we would know it without going through any process of working out why.

There are reasons for everything. Literally everything. Literally every scenario containing any moral problem you could possibly imagine. Including robbing banks. Saying simply that it’s ‘just wrong’ is not good enough. Not by a long way.

If you need to convince someone that a position you hold is the correct one, then it would be worse than useless simply telling someone who holds a different view that they are ‘just wrong’. It’s the equivalent of a parent telling their child not to do something ‘just because I say so’. You are going to need an argument. Based on evidence. ‘Don’t do that because…’ And fill in the gaps as necessary.

Again, I will repeat what I’ve been saying along. If you simply say that something is wrong and another Christian disagrees, then how do I know who is right? I am going to need to you to convince me that you are right. If you have nothing other than ‘I’m right just because’, then I have to say I won’t take much notice.

And you must note that not all problems are covered by what the church says, or can be found in scripture or the bible. Like how many refugees should a country accept. Like the morality of factory farming. Like gun control. Like invading another country. Like justifiable homicide. Like any number of matters. None of which have a simple, everyone agrees, one-size-fits-all answer. The answers to all these questions are entirely subjective. As they are to everything.

Well, you’re either in my time zone, or you can’t sleep!

I tend to write quickly and can’t sit here for too long so sometimes my answers seem brusque or incomplete, and for that I apologize.

You see, for christians it is that simple. You have to remember though the old saying:
We’re Christian - Not perfect
Christian only means that we believe that God exists and that Jesus is God in human form (another quick explanation!) that we believe that we are sinful, in need of salvation, and He is our salvation through His death on the cross and His resurrection assures us that one day we will also “resurrect”. Can’t go there…

Now, I understand your basic question. As you have noticed I’m sure, gorgious and I are having our own little debate. But you see, it’s because of small nuances, or the fact that we are using different words for the same idea, or that we misunderstand each other, or just quite simply that we don’t agree because of different reasons.

For example. Take the CCC. Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’ve taught out of this book. It explains catholicism - the different ideas - why catholics believe what they do. If you take a passage that’s a little complicated and make two persons read it, they might come up with two different answers! Now this is a whole different topic which we won’t get into. Well, for instance, the CCC could have been written in simpler terms so it would be easier to understand. I came off of a thread that was 34 pages long debating whether or not it’s necessry to be devoted to Mary to be saved. I can understand that if you were following along YOU would not have known who was right. So you would have to really research it on your own. BTW, it’ not.

One

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

Okay. So taking your parent-child example. Have you raised kids?? You can’t really explain to them WHY they can’t do every little thing. It tires you out to explain it to them and, anyway, they can’t really understand it because they naturally want to do what they want to do. Sound familiar? Christianity is the same. It’s GOOD to understand WHY something can’t be done, but we have to TRUST that God is right even if we don’t understand it. So a commandment tells you not to steal. So we know we can’t steal from the bank. If we think about it there are logical and reasonable reasons that you, an atheist, and I, a christian, could agree upon, but what if it’s things that we have difficulty bringing to a logical conclusion? Then we have to just trust that God is right. Like, for instance, why is adultry wrong? Two adults. Nobody has to know. Who could it possibly be hurting??? See. It could be debated forever - so we TRY to just do the right thing as God would want.

If God says it’s wrong, it must be wrong. It is that simple. But it takes faith in a being or power you don’t believe in so for you it becomes complicated. And REALLY difficult because, yes, WHO do we trust then??

Another poster brought up the fact that Samurai were taught different moral premises and that for them it was right. Of course, they’re in a different culture at a different time. Okay. But if they were christian, their morality would have had to conform to christian ideals. See?

Now you say that every scenario could contain different moral problems. This is true if you follow philosophy, but not if you follow theology. You must know, being I think an intelligent person, that there is a branch of study called Moral Theology. Diffcult situations could arise, but, guess what, there’s an answer to them.

So getting back to the bank robbery - for us it is as simple as saying that it is WRONG. We don’t feel like we have to convince anyone it is because it, for us, it simply IS!!

If I say something is wrong and another christian diagrees you are correct in being confused. But it’s only because we’re just talking here BUT the church does have an answer. Including refugees, invading countries, etc. It’s just that no one of us can know everything the church teaches because it’s just too exhaustive so a lot of times we’re just giving our opinion.

So, you see, you say everything is subjective (if I understood your last sentence) those who believe in God believe in objective values.

Not believing in God creates many problems for we humans.

God bless you, as I’m sure He does

 

[Bradski]

Well, you’re either in my time zone, or you can’t sleep!

Down under in Sydney.

Okay. So taking your parent-child example. Have you raised kids?? You can’t really explain to them WHY they can’t do every little thing. It tires you out to explain it to them and, anyway, they can’t really understand it because they naturally want to do what they want to do. Sound familiar? Christianity is the same. It’s GOOD to understand WHY something can’t be done, but we have to TRUST that God is right even if we don’t understand it.

When children are young then they aren’t likely to understand why they can’t do some things. And yes, as a father, I’m sure I have echoed my own father (and everyone else’s) in saying: ‘…because I say so!’ But we obviously need to give them the reasons at some point and the relevant information we think is necessary for them to be able to make their own minds up. I don’t WANT them just to trust that I am always right because I might well be wrong. Although the analogy is not entirely apt as you would understand God to be always correct.

But, and this is my point again, how do I know that you, or anyone else, is doing God’s will? Of course, it’s easy to point to a specific commandment where it covers the problem:

So a commandment tells you not to steal. So we know we can’t steal from the bank.

But this is the father saying: ‘Don’t do this because I say so’. I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that the only reason you don’t rob the local bank is because there is a specific commandment telling you not to do it. But that is exactly what you said above and what you go on to say:

If we think about it there are logical and reasonable reasons that you, an atheist, and I, a christian, could agree upon, but what if it’s things that we have difficulty bringing to a logical conclusion? Then we have to just trust that God is right. Like, for instance, why is adultry wrong? Two adults. Nobody has to know. Who could it possibly be hurting???

What you say there is a little unnerving. Yes, there are relatively easy moral problems - should you rob a bank or should you torture animals for fun, that any reasonable person of whatever faith, or with no faith whatsoever, could work out for themselves. The answers are not dependent on your belief system. The answers are independent of them. The fact that Moses is meant to have rolled up with a tablet containing a few rules and regs does not mean that Christianity has ownership of them. They are universal. And for a good reason. Any reasonable person can work them out for themselves. Which of the following significantly different sentences describes you best?

I do not commit adultery because I am a Christian.

I do not commit adultery and I am a Christian.

What you said above implies that the first is correct: ‘…why is adultry wrong? Two adults. Nobody has to know. Who could it possibly be hurting???’ That means that if you weren’t a Christian, you wouldn’t have a problem with it. I can’t see that. I think you would have a problem with it. And I’d like to think that if you weren’t a Christian you’d be able to articulate it without any problem. Hence…it isn’t simply dependent on God saying it’s wrong. It’s wrong for a reason that is independent of any divine imprimatur.

Now you say that every scenario could contain different moral problems. This is true if you follow philosophy, but not if you follow theology. You must know, being I think an intelligent person, that there is a branch of study called Moral Theology. Diffcult situations could arise, but, guess what, there’s an answer to them.

An answer singular? Well, on some you may get close to universal agreement. But on most…?

If I say something is wrong and another christian diagrees you are correct in being confused. But it’s only because we’re just talking here BUT the church does have an answer. Including refugees, invading countries, etc. It’s just that no one of us can know everything the church teaches because it’s just too exhaustive so a lot of times we’re just giving our opinion.

Well, I’m not exactly confused. It’s more that I am pointing out the reasonable proposition that either one of you is right or you are both wrong. And if you are just proffering personal opinions, then that isn’t a problem. But if you are both claiming to represent God’s views or are speaking with a well-developed conscience and have based your opinion on natural law and it agrees with scripture, then we have a problem.

And the church does not have an answer to everything. I don’t think that any Catholic expects it to either. Otherwise you could point out the church’s position on battery farms or hunting or beauty pageants or any number of matters. These things, like everything else, we have to work out for ourselves. And having done that, the moral solution becomes our moral solution. Not the moral solution.

What you class as moral absolutes are simply problems on which there is (generally speaking) universal agreement.

 

[Rau]

…I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that the only reason you don’t rob the local bank is because there is a specific commandment telling you not to do it.

For the Christian, the presence of a divine law is a sufficient reason. All the better if human reason also concludes one should not steal - and often that is so.

…The answers are not dependent on your belief system. The answers are independent of them. The fact that Moses is meant to have rolled up with a tablet containing a few rules and regs does not mean that Christianity has ownership of them. They are universal. And for a good reason. Any reasonable person can work them out for themselves.

Then why is it that the Catholic accepts the notion of intrinsically wrong acts (always wrong to choose) whereas another (perhaps an atheist) accepts a Consequentialist or Proportionalism approach viz. do what you will if you perceive less “bad outcome” from that approach than an alternative. Thus, the moral answer IS dependent on the belief system.

Which of the following significantly different sentences describes you best?

I do not commit adultery because I am a Christian.

I do not commit adultery and I am a Christian.

It would be an error to insist that the answer must be exclusively one or the other. Divine law teaches that fornication is wrong. Human reason can also see reasons to shun fornication - children should know their father; a breach of trust may be discovered and do harm to the family unit; etc. etc.

And I’d like to think that if you weren’t a Christian you’d be able to articulate it without any problem. Hence…it isn’t simply dependent on God saying it’s wrong. It’s wrong for a reason that is independent of any divine imprimatur.

Happily, this is often true, but perhaps not always.

And the church does not have an answer to everything. I don’t think that any Catholic expects it to either. Otherwise you could point out the church’s position on battery farms or hunting or beauty pageants or any number of matters. These things, like everything else, we have to work out for ourselves. And having done that, the moral solution becomes our moral solution. Not the moral solution.

The negative moral precepts “Thou shallt not…”] are (in the Catholic belief system) universal and absolute applying to everyone and everywhere, always. Such moral laws are THE moral obligations - individuals don’t get to use their judgement. However, for acts not contravening a negative precept, the morality of it often involves a matter for judgement, and in that case, the culpability of the actor is limited by his own judgement, exercised in good faith.

What you class as moral absolutes are simply problems on which there is (generally speaking) universal agreement.

Happily, that is often so. But I come across posters here who accept that it is moral to kill one innocent if they perceive that will save more than one other innocents. But in Catholic moral theology - the absolute is that you may not murder an innocent for any reason - that is a moral absolute not universally accepted.

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR BRADSKI

I will be answering your post but I doubt I’ll be able to add anything to what Rau has said.

Will have to reread both though.

I’m in Europe. Just got back from a U2 concert, for which I have no words to describe.

So I might be out of commission for today!!

God bless
P.S. Not only was it morally acceptable - it should be mandatory for every christian to know U2’s work!

 

[Bradski]

FOR BRADSKI

I will be answering your post but I doubt I’ll be able to add anything to what Rau has said.

Will have to reread both though.

I’m in Europe. Just got back from a U2 concert, for which I have no words to describe.

So I might be out of commission for today!!

God bless
P.S. Not only was it morally acceptable - it should be mandatory for every christian to know U2’s work!

Turin?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Down under in Sydney.

Yes. Turin. Or Torino, as we like to say. So back into the real world.

When children are young then they aren’t likely to understand why they can’t do some things. And yes, as a father, I’m sure I have echoed my own father (and everyone else’s) in saying: ‘…because I say so!’ But we obviously need to give them the reasons at some point and the relevant information we think is necessary for them to be able to make their own minds up. I don’t WANT them just to trust that I am always right because I might well be wrong. Although the analogy is not entirely apt as you would understand God to be always correct.

Some basic problems with your thinking, according to we christians, that is.
It’s true that at some point it would be nice to explain to your kids why they cannot do something. Paul speaks of this (will not look up scriptures because that is circular reasoning, is it not?) when he says that christians are fed milk but the time comes when it’s time for meat. But what if they can never understand? Maybe they’re not intelligent enough, maybe they have a mental problem, maybe they never deveop wisdom. So at some point we’d have to agree that they should just obey because you say so. Now you answered your own problem with your worry that you wouldn’t want them to always listen to you because you might be wrong. Of course, God is never wrong. Now we’re not talking here about whether the child should or should not accept the new job, but only moral questions. (although the new job might entail some moral problem).

But, and this is my point again, how do I know that you, or anyone else, is doing God’s will? Of course, it’s easy to point to a specific commandment where it covers the problem:

My dear Bradski, this is so much more complicated than you think! How can any of us know if we are following God’s will? Even christians. But I’m not even sure you mean it in the same way I do. Let’s just say that for most things there is some commandment or concept or religious law that helps us to know that we are following His will.

But this is the father saying: ‘Don’t do this because I say so’. I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that the only reason you don’t rob the local bank is because there is a specific commandment telling you not to do it. But that is exactly what you said above and what you go on to say:

If that is my only reason, what would be so wrong with it? The outcome is still good. Even just using natural law. I live in a place where the jewelry box you are looking at in a jewelry store is left in front of you while the salesperson goes in the back to get some more glittery stuff or answer the phone, etc. Boy, sometimes those rings look really beautiful and it would be so EASY to just take one. Who can know that I wouldn’t? Sliding Doors. But I know God and how unhappy He would be if I did and that’s enough to stop me. Maybe it’s this supernatural infusion of grace chrisitans talk about - whatever - the outcome is the same. The ring doesn’t get stolen.

What you say there is a little unnerving. Yes, there are relatively easy moral problems - should you rob a bank or should you torture animals for fun, that any reasonable person of whatever faith, or with no faith whatsoever, could work out for themselves. The answers are not dependent on your belief system. The answers are independent of them. The fact that Moses is meant to have rolled up with a tablet containing a few rules and regs does not mean that Christianity has ownership of them. They are universal. And for a good reason. Any reasonable person can work them out for themselves. Which of the following significantly different sentences describes you best?

I do not commit adultery because I am a Christian.

I do not commit adultery and I am a Christian.

I think this concept goes along with the jewelry store concept, if I understand correctly.
It does depend on MY belief system, but mine is not the only one. Atheists could be very moral people; they also have a belief system. Do I understand what you’re saying??
Christians don’t necessarily even believe for a belief system - it’s all different from that.
I could argue that God isn’t even a belief system (which is incl in the package) but christianity is a real relationship with the power that created the universe. It’s a way to have divinity made real in you (not in the Budhist sense), a way to get to spend eternity with the eternal God.

So, I do not commit adultry because I am a Christian. Sometimes a guy could look as good as that ring! But, somehow, which is a mystery to me, the thought immediately leaves my mind.

However, either answer is correct. You could be an atheist and understand why it would be harmful or wrong. No monopoly. The natural law.

What you said above implies that the first is correct: ‘…why is adultry wrong? Two adults. Nobody has to know. Who could it possibly be hurting???’ That means that if you weren’t a Christian, you wouldn’t have a problem with it. I can’t see that. I think you would have a problem with it. And I’d like to think that if you weren’t a Christian you’d be able to articulate it without any problem. Hence…it isn’t simply dependent on God saying it’s wrong. It’s wrong for a reason that is independent of any divine imprimatur.

Absolutely. The answer is above. Well, My answer anyway.

ONE

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

An answer singular? Well, on some you may get close to universal agreement. But on most…?

I’ll bet you could ge t universal agreement on most. If you’re following philosophy or natural law. I have to refer to my above answer re what being christian really means - it’s not JUST a belief system. But if we disagreed on something, I’d have to check out what Jesus would do, as they say.

Well, I’m not exactly confused. It’s more that I am pointing out the reasonable proposition that either one of you is right or you are both wrong. And if you are just proffering personal opinions, then that isn’t a problem. But if you are both claiming to represent God’s views or are speaking with a well-developed conscience and have based your opinion on natural law and it agrees with scripture, then we have a problem.

You’re right here. Couldn’t agree more. How many on these posts really know God’s views? Do we have a well-developed conscience? A lot of christian opinion does agree with natural law because God put that natural law in man’s heart! I must refer you to the book of Romans1:18 or thereabouts. BUT, if you spoke to Fr. Spitzer about anything, he’d send you in the direction of what christianity believes! And many others. He’s a priest and physicist.

And the church does not have an answer to everything. I don’t think that any Catholic expects it to either. Otherwise you could point out the church’s position on battery farms or hunting or beauty pageants or any number of matters. These things, like everything else, we have to work out for ourselves. And having done that, the moral solution becomes our moral solution. Not the moral solution.

Right again. Except that we do have A moral solution not OUR moral solution. Problem: We are imperfect humans and could not possibly adhere to all of God’s rules and regulations. But here we have to refer to Jesus Christ and the New Covenant and you wouldn’t accept that since you don’t believe Jesus is God and our conversation would necessarily have to end. Just take the beauty pageant for example. In christianity’s law it would be wrong. Why? Because we don’t see ourselves as a body but as a body that is the temple of a soul and spirit. (we all have souls actually but that’s a whole different story). But you could be a christian and still be in a beauty pageant because you haven’t attained that level of belief yet. Jennifer Lopez says she’s christian. Nuff said.

What you class as moral absolutes are simply problems on which there is (generally speaking) universal agreement.

No. Abortion might be accepted by a large, or even majority - don’t know the statistics right now - of the population. It would still be absolutely morally wrong for a christian.
Living together sans that piece of paper is accepted today, don’t need the statistics for that. Christianity holds that living together is wrong too. And there are reasons we could logically agree on why it may not be beneficial, but that wouldn’t make it be morally wrong. Bu christians think it is.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

GORGIAS

Are you around?

Wanted to thank you for the instructions on how to do “that quote thing”.
I sat here one day and figured it out as soon as I realized that the and the ] were commands it became easy. I used to use dos, believe it or not.

So you were very helpful in detailing exactly how to do this!

Thanks again

God bless

 

[Bradski]

My dear Bradski, this is so much more complicated than you think! How can any of us know if we are following God’s will? Even christians. But I’m not even sure you mean it in the same way I do. Let’s just say that for most things there is some commandment or concept or religious law that helps us to know that we are following His will.

I would say that there are most definitely portions of scripture that can be interpreted in such a way as to give guidance to anyone on any matter. But the key word in that sentence is ’interpreted’. We are talking about the possibility of there being an objective truth for all moral matters and it seems to be as slippery a concept as one could imagine.

If that is my only reason, what would be so wrong with it?

It would mean that you are simply following a rule and have no concept of right or wrong. I’m sure that you realise the difference between not doing something simply because you have been told not to do it and not doing it because you know it’s wrong. It also means that you would never question a rule: ‘It says here I mustn’t do X, therefore I mustn’t do it’. As far as I know, there is no problem in Catholics questioning their faith. In fact, you have to KNOW that what you are being told is true rather than blindly accepting it. If there are reasons why you shouldn’t do X, then those reasons are available to anyone, not just to those of faith. They cease to be religious and become secular.

So, I do not commit adultry because I am a Christian…However, either answer is correct. You could be an atheist and understand why it would be harmful or wrong. No monopoly. The natural law.

If by ‘Natural Law’ you mean ‘The Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Do Something’ then I’d agree. But there always seems to be a tendency by Christians to tie in the Natural Law with a Natural Law Giver, therefore giving it the Divine imprimatur. It is then becomes less a decision reached by reasonable people and more a divine and objective command. But if we can reach a decision on right or wrong by reasoned argument, then we don’t need any divine command. It becomes a secular exercise.

Notwithstanding that there are very often very good arguments on both sides of any debate and we could say that there is no correct answer. At which point you bring in the divine and say that there must be a right answer. And we’re back to Step One. The ONLY answer at which we can arrive is by reasonable argument. And there are no definitive answers on that route. Only consensus.

I’d have to check out what Jesus would do, as they say.

I think it would be more accurate to say what you think that Jesus would do. It would be your interpretation of His reaction: ‘I can’t imagine Jesus saying that this was OK so it must be wrong’.

Problem: We are imperfect humans and could not possibly adhere to all of God’s rules and regulations. But here we have to refer to Jesus Christ and the New Covenant and you wouldn’t accept that since you don’t believe Jesus is God and our conversation would necessarily have to end.

It wouldn’t have to end. Because I don’t need to believe that Jesus is God to use what you refer to as Natural Law to reach a reasoned decision on any matter.

Living together sans that piece of paper is accepted today, don’t need the statistics for that. Christianity holds that living together is wrong too. And there are reasons we could logically agree on why it may not be beneficial, but that wouldn’t make it be morally wrong. But christians think it is.

If there are no reasons why it would be wrong, then it is not immoral. Just saying that the church says so ain’t good enough these days. And if the church gives reasons as to why they believe it to be wrong, those reasons have to stand or fall on their own merits. As you may have noticed, the arguments against SSM, for example, are failing. Time was (and still is, to a certain degree) that people accepted what the church said because the church had said it.