But I’d also rebuke anyone who claims to know who specifically is in hell. God sits on the seat of judgement. Not Bradski, Vonsalza, Christopher Hitchins or the Pope.
But all those people know the punishment for committing a mortal sin and not repenting: ‘ If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell…’
That’s repentance AND God’s forgiveness. Not repentance OR God’s forgiveness. You need both. Our Nazi murderer and rapist gets heaven if he repents and God forgives him. But the Jewish father definitely gets hell.
As I said, it’s a funny old system.
There are many within Christendom, such as myself, that don’t think the place in hell for the unrepentant thief is as “hot” as it is for the unrepentant serial child rapist.
If I were a Christian I’d like to think that as well. Except I’d have nothing to base it on other than my belief that anything else is about as far from any sane person’s sense of justice as it’s possibly to get.
Once again you have failed to answer straightforward questions: yadda yadda…’
As I said, more than once, these questions are not for me. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe that there is a God. There is no conundrum on which I need to cogitate. These debates are simply a way for people like me pointing out to people like you that you hold views which are illogical and contradictory. How you resolve them is what I am interested in. It’s no good to keep asking me how I would resolve them. I don’t have the problem.
How does it follow that if there is objective truth about right and wrong then one looses their free will? We agree that the intentional killing of innocent human beings is evil but that did not stop the Manchester terrorist from making his personal decision. I’m sure he **felt **that he was doing the right thing.
On the assumption that free will exists, then having an objective truth does not preclude you from using it. If something is right in itself, with no reference to it’s conditions or anyone’s personal opinion, then you can still do wrong.
Reasons that are a product of our ephemeral emotions are always suspect. Reasons that are a product of our disciplined mind are more reliable.
I’ve no problem with that at all.
If there are right reasons and wrong reasons then there must be objective truths about right and wrong.
Reasons aren’t necessarily right or wrong in themselves. If you hold to that then you are heading a tight little circle: ‘There is an objectively correct answer and this must be a valid reason because it points to the objectively correct answer’.
Spare me the snipe on Catholics; you’re above that.
It wasn’t meant as a cheap shot so apologies if you took it as such. But it was meant as part of my argument. If Catholic A believes that something is wrong and Catholic B believes it to be right then where is the objective truth there? Ah, but, you say, the church gives us guidance. OK, but there are two problems with that.
Firstly, the church doesn’t declare on all moral matters. So one has to make one’s own mind up. Maybe using revelation? Well A and B both do that and come up with different answers, so that doesn’t help. Secondly, how does the church decide on matters where it does make a decision? If the answer to that is ‘God sez so’, then I will ignore that completely. Just as the terrorist in Manchester would. But if you say that they have valid reasons, then how do you think those were arrived at? They would be a product of a disciplined minds perhaps (we can leave God out of it). And as I said, I have no problem with that.
But their disciplined minds aren’t the only disciplined minds around. There are many sources one can use for making moral decisions and I will use as many as I can before coming to a decision. If I choose differently to the Catholic church then so be it. I’d like to think that you do the same as well. In which case you are using your own intellect to reach a decision and you have no basis for claiming an objective truth. Or maybe you always go with the church. In which case I will claim an appeal to authority.
The terrorist in Manchester believed just as you do: if it feels right to me then it must be OK. And you will have no reason to move the next possible terrorist to believe his act is immoral.
This is a frustrating phrase: ‘If it feels right, then it must be OK’. No, no and no again. That is a trite argument and has no place here. Arguing against an objective morality DOES NOT mean that one does whatever one pleases. But it does mean that one does what one thinks is right. Catholic, atheist and terrorist all. That quite often runs directly counter to what one would like to do.
And the only way to convince someone they are wrong is not to plead to some ephemeral objective good (however you have personally determined what that might be) but by the use of reasonable arguments.
Would you prefer to lose your free will? Or do you consider yourself or your descendants to be immune to temptation or weakness if compelled to live in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany? Were they all monsters?
