Either Serve Or Burn In Hell

[cerad]

Everyone,theist or nontheist, is a slave to something or someone. It’s just a matter of who or what.

Could you present your definition of slavery? For example, a new born child is a slave of what exactly?

 

[chris_molter]

Could you present your definition of slavery? For example, a new born child is a slave of what exactly?

I suppose a newborn is a slave to their biology only , but I intended my statement to be directed at those who have reached the age of accountability.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris molter View Post
Everyone,theist or nontheist, is a slave to something or someone. It’s just a matter of who or what.

Could you present your definition of slavery? For example, a new born child is a slave of what exactly?

Everyone is subject to SOME “higher power”, and in fact a whole hierarchy of higher powers.

Slavery is dependence on someone for their very survival.

Babies are slaves to their parents. That most parents are benevolent masters doesn’t mitigate the fact that parents are masters of their slaves, who are their children.

There is, in reality, only one worthy master, who is God, as God doesn’t act as if we are His slaves, though we certainly are His slaves, because He allows us our free will.

 

[chris_molter]

Slavery is dependence on someone for their very survival.

It goes beyond even that. An atheist subsistence farmer could claim he’s a slave to no one since he can survive on his own. However, he would be a slave to other things, such as his passions.

 

[tm30]

So why does it have to be this way? Why can’t there be a third option for people who want nothing to do with either God or Satan? Why does refusing to serve God automatically mean a person is evil and deserve to be tortured in hell for all eternity?

Because there are only three places in the afterlife where you can go:

Heaven - the House of God
Purgatory - the Waystation to the House of God
Hell - The House of Satan

Take your pick. If you don’t choose God, by default, you’ve chosen Hell.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It goes beyond even that. An atheist subsistence farmer could claim he’s a slave to no one since he can survive on his own. However, he would be a slave to other things, such as his passions.

Quite true!

I actually had written “Slavery is dependence on someone or some thing for their very survival.”, but I self-edited out the bolded part because I consider one’s “passions” as simply handles which those persons-who-are-demons use to yank us around further immersing us in evil to lead us to hell.

We are slaves to demons if we let them drag us to hell via our passions.

 

[cerad]

Everyone is subject to SOME “higher power”, and in fact a whole hierarchy of higher powers.

Slavery is dependence on someone for their very survival.

Babies are slaves to their parents. That most parents are benevolent masters doesn’t mitigate the fact that parents are masters of their slaves, who are their children.

There is, in reality, only one worthy master, who is God, as God doesn’t act as if we are His slaves, though we certainly are His slaves, because He allows us our free will.

This is the first time I have ever heard that Catholics consider their children to be slaves. Interesting but somewhat disturbing.

 

[Contarini]

This is the first time I have ever heard that Catholics consider their children to be slaves. Interesting but somewhat disturbing.

“Catholics” don’t think this. That particular Catholic thinks this. Please do not generalize!

CatsandDogs is making a crude and thoughtless generalization, failing to distinguish among different kinds of subordination.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Slavery is dependence on someone for their very survival.

This is an extremely bad definition. After all, most slaves don’t depend on their masters for their survival. More often it’s the other way round in many ways. Masters may have life-and-death power over their slaves (at least in the case of chattel slavery), but in most slaveowning societies the masters would starve to death if the slaves weren’t there, or at least would have to learn some new skills very quickly in order to survive!

Dependence for survival is not what most people have historically meant by slavery. It seems to me that you’re creating a tendentious definition in order to make a dubious theological point.

Edwin

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This is the first time I have ever heard that Catholics consider their children to be slaves. Interesting but somewhat disturbing.

The word “slave” is rather loaded, isn’t it!?

While children ARE essentially the slaves of their parents, the Church demands that they be treated as we are to treat His children, which is according to Catholic morals and ethics, which equally essentially, makes the children of parents not-slaves but children.

Have fun misconstruing those you hate, should you be inclined in that direction.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

“Catholics” don’t think this. That particular Catholic thinks this. Please do not generalize!

CatsandDogs is making a crude and thoughtless generalization, failing to distinguish among different kinds of subordination.

Edwin

Think what you like.

I fully agree that the word “slave” is prone to being misunderstood. If you have a problem with the way that I use it, ask me to clarify.

I personally don’t like seeing the word, but with the help of the Church, I understand the word as it’s used in it’s various meanings in the bible.

The “good” meaning of “slave” is what I meant, as should have been obvious to a well-intentioned person.

That we have a preponderance of ill-intentioned people here doesn’t overly surprise me.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, no. That is just a cop-out. It is accepting the second “horn” of the dilemma by stating that whatever God does is “good”.

No, it’s not. Again, go back to Platonism. The Form of Goodness is identical with the being of God.

You cannot “redefine” good as “something that God does” because that will make God’s goodness a “whim”.

I did not redefine good as something that God does. It would be helpful if you would characterize other people’s views accurately. Misrepresentation just slows the discussion down and annoys the other party. I said that goodness is identical to God’s *nature. *God’s actions follow from His nature.

Specifically, if one accepts the Biblical story of the Flood as valid, then God literally

That makes no sense. You say “valid,” which is a broad term, then slip in the adverb “literally.” What led you to think that I take that particular story literally? Doesn’t it look like myth to you?

Of course I think it is a myth that says something true about God, so this doesn’t entirely let me off the hook

killed every human: man, woman, child and unborn for their “wickedness” (along with all the land animals, who are not “wicked” in any sense of the word. If one calls that act “moral” or “good”, just because God did it, then that apologist will lose any credibility.

This depends on the point below:

Wrong. It is quite all right NOT to create someone. But to create, and THEN take that life away is undefensible.

If you give a gift to someone, you relinquish control over it. You cannor take it back, nor can you demand that it should be used in a certain manner. It is not “yours” any more.

But God does not–indeed cannot–“give” anything to us in the way you describe. According to classical Christian theism, we all exist in every moment only because God is causing us to exist. God did not just start the universe off and then step back. Existence is a gift that keeps on giving. Every moment of existence is a gift.

That being said, it is also a part of traditional Christian theology that God does not want His good creation to be destroyed. God is always on the side of life and against death. So even though we have no claim on continued existence over against God (because life is always in God’s hands and never becomes “ours” in such a manner that it would be unjust of Him to take it back), God’s goodness causes Him to continue to find ways to rescue us from the death that we have brought on ourselves by our own actions. That may be why 2 Peter 3:18-20 speaks cryptically of Christ preaching to the spirits in prison, and specifically mentions those who died in the Flood.

Do you accept the Flood as a historical event?

I’m sure there was at least one catastrophic flood, maybe more, in ancient times, which gave rise to the many flood legends. I do not think that the Biblical story is a literal description of something that happened exactly as described, no. It is a myth/legend conveying truth about God’s relationship with humanity. Most simply, that humans continue to sin and destroy one another through violence; that God allows human beings to reap the consequences of their actions; but that nonetheless God never wants to destroy the human race utterly, and always finds a way of renewing the covenant. And one reason I read the story this way is precisely that I read it through certain assumptions about what is good, and the firm belief that God is identical to the form of goodness (indeed, there would be no point at all in believing in God otherwise).

I cannot comment on that.

I wasn’t so interested in people being rude to you–bad as that is, it’s between you, them, and the forum administrators (and God and their own consciences!)–but in people who actually defend the divine-command theory of ethics that you seem to ascribe to Christians in general.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The word “slave” is rather loaded, isn’t it!?

While children ARE essentially the slaves of their parents, the Church demands that they be treated as we are to treat His children, which is according to Catholic morals and ethics, which equally essentially, makes the children of parents not-slaves but children.

Have fun misconstruing those you hate, should you be inclined in that direction.

I think you’re asking for it. You go on to say that children are not really slaves but children. That implies that children and slaves are in fact two quite different, even incompatible concepts. Which is how the words are normally used.

I’d like to hear where you find your odd definition in Scripture. Are you starting from the references in the NT to Paul and other Christians being “douloi” (slaves) of Christ?

Edwin

 

[foundthelight]

My original question to the unbelievers has gone unanswered.

What if you are wrong?

That is fine. I didn’t really expect an answer. What about this one;

What have I lost in my faith and obedience to my faith that I might have gained if I did not have faith? I.e. what are the negative consequences of my belief that you are so vocal against it? What are you trying to save me from?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I think you’re asking for it. You go on to say that children are not really slaves but children. That implies that children and slaves are in fact two quite different, even incompatible concepts. Which is how the words are normally used.

Yeah, I was rather clumsy. That’s not terribly unusual, as you well know!

The “slave who doesn’t mind being a slave” because he has a “worthy master” is the type of “slave” that I meant.

But, since it’s pretty much to be expected that if people CAN misinterpret what is said, someone WILL do so, and when that someone (me) is a knucklehead in his choice of extremely loaded words he (me) will get duly knocked around for it!

(( Isn’t this some variant of Murphy’s Law? ))

I’d like to hear where you find your odd definition in Scripture. Are you starting from the references in the NT to Paul and other Christians being “douloi” (slaves) of Christ?

Edwin

I think you’ve found where I’m coming from, though my strengths (which are few) are not really in the scripture citing department.

Thanks for the reference to “douloi”. I think that sums it up pretty well.

 

[ateista]

No, it’s not. Again, go back to Platonism. The Form of Goodness is identical with the being of God.

I did not redefine good as something that God does. It would be helpful if you would characterize other people’s views accurately. Misrepresentation just slows the discussion down and annoys the other party. I said that goodness is identical to God’s *nature. *God’s actions follow from His nature.

Well, then you “define” God as “good”, whatever that means. “Good” I understand as a secular term. Your usage escapes me.

Both in the original and the modern version of the Euthyphro dilemma the concepts of God and good are defined independently. In the attempted effort to espace the dilemma, the two concepts are “merged”. That does not solve the dilemma, it just “defines” it out of existence at the price of the abandoning the meaning of “good”.

That makes no sense. You say “valid,” which is a broad term, then slip in the adverb “literally.” What led you to think that I take that particular story literally? Doesn’t it look like myth to you?

My friend, pretty much everything in the Bible looks like myth to me. As a matter of fact in the libraries the Bible is in the mythology section. Do you think that this is the result of a “vast secular conspiracy”?

But God does not–indeed cannot–“give” anything to us in the way you describe. According to classical Christian theism, we all exist in every moment only because God is causing us to exist. God did not just start the universe off and then step back. Existence is a gift that keeps on giving. Every moment of existence is a gift.

That is just the good old “sustaining cause” argument. Do you mean it literally? That the very atoms would fall apart, if God did not pay attention to them? Or we would disintegrate into “dust”, if God did not maintain us?

And as far as I understand, it is not the only argument “classical” theism has. It also maintains, that God is not directly involved in the workings of the Universe. These two arguments are mutually exclusive. And truth be told, your interpretaton is sheer nonsense to me. Why would there be laws of nature (that the Catholic Church accepts) if God had to magically maintain us every second? Maybe you meant it allegorically and not literally. But then what does it mean?

For those who are permanently incapacitated, whose pain never ceases (natural causes!), and for those who are being tortured and raped (evil human causes) this alleged “gift” of existence looks like more of a curse. Why else would people commit suicide, if they did not find this existence unbearable?

 

[Contarini]

Well, then you “define” God as “good”, whatever that means. “Good” I understand as a secular term. Your usage escapes me.

Defining goodness is pretty difficult no matter what one’s philosophy/theology/ideology. How do you define “good” in “secular” ways?

I would define good as that which conduces to the flourishing of being. But of course that is vague. A generally reliable guide to what is good is found in our moral intuitions. Generally, because of course our intuitions can be warped in various ways on either a cultural or an individual level. But I would say that if your moral intuition tells you that something I ascribe to God is not good, then one of two possibilities is the case (leaving out the possibility that God does not exist, of course):

1. I am wrong in ascribing this thing to God; or
2. What I am ascribing to God does not in fact violate the “simple” moral intuition that lies at the base of your reaction. For instance, I would say that the basis for your reaction to the Flood story is the quite correct intuition that a good being does not desire the destruction of beings. I do not think that the correct interpretation of the Flood story ascribes to God the desire for the destruction of beings. But I do think that it ascribes to God the choice to allow human beings to face the consequences of their actions (while still holding out ultimate hope for redemption, as the passage from 1 Peter indicates). And the major reason that I do not believe this to be a violation of God’s goodness lies in my concept of God as Being itself and the one who gives us existence in every moment. Since you have no place in your scheme of the universe for God, naturally you have no place for a being who would have the “right” to do what the Bible describes God as doing.

Both in the original and the modern version of the Euthyphro dilemma the concepts of God and good are defined independently.

Yes, but that’s a category mistake. Any concept of God worthy of the name cannot be defined separately from the concept of goodness. How are you defining "God’ without including goodness in the definition? And who are you to tell believers that your conception of God (which you don’t believe corresponds to anything) is somehow the “real” one? Don’t you see the sheer nonsense of this?

A very powerful being who caused us to exist in the form in which we now exist (I refuse to admit the possibility that a being who was not ultimately good could create out of nothing) is not necessarily “God” in the Christian sense. Such a being, absent the perfections Christians ascribe to God, would simply be a very powerful alien and would not deserve our worship, or even our respect except insofar as his/her/its moral qualities demanded such respect.

In the attempted effort to espace the dilemma, the two concepts are “merged”. That does not solve the dilemma, it just “defines” it out of existence at the price of the abandoning the meaning of “good”.

How does it do that? You have not provided any rationale for this sweeping claim. I am not claiming that “goodness” is simply to be defined as “identical with whatever we may choose to say God is like.” I am saying that our intuitions about what is good derive from God and are shadowy reflections of God’s nature. Our intuitions may be mixed up in various ways, but they are not simply irrelevant.

The concepts of God and goodness are not independent. The concept of goodness is one of the concepts–I would say the most important one–from which our concept of God is formed.

My friend, pretty much everything in the Bible looks like myth to me.

Then you are just as careless a reader as the fundamentalist Christians who think it’s all history. (Actually they aren’t careless, just ideologically blind. Perhaps the same is true of you.)

As a matter of fact in the libraries the Bible is in the mythology section.

Not in any library I can remember. Not that the point is of any importance.

Do you think that this is the result of a “vast secular conspiracy”?

And just where did that weird comment come from? Of course it is possible that if a librarian put the Bible in the mythology section, that would indicate the librarian’s bias–just as the library cataloguing systems I’m familiar with (Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress) show a Christian bias by putting the Bible in a section all its own.

 

[Contarini]

That is just the good old “sustaining cause” argument.

And it is indeed a good one. Not so much an argument as a concept basic to any conception of God worthy of the name. I’m flabbergasted why people who reject the view of God as “sustaining cause” bother to believe in God at all.

Do you mean it literally? That the very atoms would fall apart, if God did not pay attention to them? Or we would disintegrate into “dust”, if God did not maintain us?

Not dust. Nothingness. Of course. This is a basic Christian concept.

And as far as I understand, it is not the only argument “classical” theism has.

“Classical theism” can mean a lot of things. When I use the term I’m thinking of the things Christian theologians would hold in common between about 300 and 1300. I use that thousand-year period because it seems to me that there was a pretty strong consensus in the Christian concept of God during those years, which is not quite so clear before 300 (Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus differ among themselves more radically than you find most theologians doing after 300) and begins to disintegrate in the later Middle Ages. I’m thinking primarily of the great patristic theologians (Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Augustine) at one end of that period, and Thomas Aquinas at the other end.

Many more modern theologians and theistic philosophers have ideas about God that differ radically from this earlier consensus. And one of the ways they moved away from it was by postulating a more distant concept of God who winds up the universe like a watch and lets it run under its own power. From my perspective, that barely qualifies as a concept of God at all. I’d prefer to call such a being by a different name altogether, and I disbelieve in such a being just as strongly as you do.

It also maintains, that God is not directly involved in the workings of the Universe.

Depends on what you mean by “directly.” God generally works through “second causes”–through “natural laws,” free created agents, etc. But God is the concurring cause of every real thing (that is, everything good) that is caused by these created agents. God does not simply cause one thing which causes another which causes another. God is active at every step in the causal chain, but not in a way that replaces the activity of creatures.

These two arguments are mutually exclusive. And truth be told, your interpretaton is sheer nonsense to me. Why would there be laws of nature (that the Catholic Church accepts) if God had to magically maintain us every second?

Define “magically.” And you misunderstand the traditional Christian concept of laws of nature. These do not replace God’s action sustaining the world. They are the means by which God sustains the world.

For those who are permanently incapacitated, whose pain never ceases (natural causes!), and for those who are being tortured and raped (evil human causes) this alleged “gift” of existence looks like more of a curse. Why else would people commit suicide, if they did not find this existence unbearable?

This is a very strong argument. The problem of pain and evil is the one huge problem with traditional theism (not that there are no other problems, but this is the one for which traditional theism is least able to come up with a satisfactory solution). But I do have two objections to the argument as you’ve stated it. First, the fact that the gift of existence is sometimes accompanied by unbearably painful circumstances does not negate the fact that existence is in and of itself good. In the second place, I question whether people who commit suicide are generally engaging in a rational act. Do you seriously want to argue this? One obvious counter-argument would be that people still committed suicide when they were told that they would go to hell if they did (something that of course few Christians believe today, precisely because we recognize that people who commit suicide are rarely engaging in some kind of calculated rejection of the gift of life).

Edwin

 

[jhblack]

I think Contarini has the floor for the discussion with ateista, so don’t let this post drag away from his too much. I just wanted to add something:

Without God there is no objective good in existence, because (maybe being overly simple here) the value of life is attributed by Something other than a human. If value of life is only attritubed by humans, then it becomes subjective: whoever’s opinion is better will carry the day.

Ateista you make several points about the sufferings of people (sorry I forgot to quote), which you use in attempt to discredit moral objectivity, or rather, God’s goodness, correct? If “quality of life” is how we define “value of life,” then we live in a scary world. At any moment, our neighbor could decide that our “quality of life” does not meet his standards, so he’ll kill us in our sleep “compassionately” so we don’t have to suffer through life with a mini-van instead of a Corvette.

Quality of life does not define value. We have value because God loves us. Would I want to simply be in the position where I’m being raped, starved, and beaten everyday, or in fear of it? No, not really. Would I if it meant I could trade places with someone who would then, after being removed from physical torture, pursue a faithful life? It’s possible. Likely? I’m not sure. That’s a question I have to ask myself, and pray to God that I’ll never look past someone in need whom I can help. However, simply because there are those with a poor quality of life does not mean that their life isn’t precious, that God doesn’t love them. If God doesn’t love them, then He doesn’t love me. If God doesn’t love then He is not God, and we are all worthless except for subjective opinion.

Those of us who have it easy, who can sit in compfy houses and post on forums and have plenty of food; those of us with these things have a responsibilty to give back to the world in some way: through intellectual advancement, labor, err… some way! Lol Lost my train of thought there.

 

[ateista]

Defining goodness is pretty difficult no matter what one’s philosophy/theology/ideology. How do you define “good” in “secular” ways?

I would define good as that which conduces to the flourishing of being. But of course that is vague.

I agree on both counts. It is an excellent starting point, and yes, it is a bit vague, though that comes from the fact that is is applied to many, diverse “beings”. So, let’s flesh it out. This will be a long one, but hopefully it will meet your agreement.

1. In a universe without life, there is nothing good or bad.
2. In a universe with life which is without a nervous system (vegetation type of life), there is biological good and bad, for each living being. Good is survival, bad is death. Good is the propagation of the genes. Of course this “good” is not something these beings are aware of, but they strive for it nevertheless.
3. In a universe with life where the beings have a nervous system, but no cognitive functions, the same applies. There is biological good only. There is no “moral” good here. The predator is not “evil” for killing the prey. However, this biological good is more complicated. The beings (animals) are not consciosly aware of it, but in this world there is pleasure and pain - something that vegetation does not experience. Pleasure is good, pain is bad. This is obvious from the observation, that animals seek pleasure and avoid pain.
4. Finally, in a universe where life is advanced to have cognitive functions, we have both biological and moral good. The biological good is still survival, and the seeking of the pleasure is still a biological imperative. However, this is tempered by considerations for others.

A fully selfish attitude is self-defeating. Sure, for a while it can bring temporary “gain”, but it interferes with others, who can and will resist. They will team up and prevent the fully selfish person to have “his way”. So, people will try to balance the selfish “good” (at the expense of others) and the cooperative “good”, where the individual may “suffer” a lesser plateau of biological good - for the short run, but on the long run it will be compensated.

I hope we can agree so far. We all know that there are psychpaths and sociopaths, and we also know that society will restrict their behavior.

Our concepts of good and bad, moral and immoral are all due to the fact that we are biological creatures, who seek biological good. On top of that we are both individuals and social beings. This is the reason that we all must balance our selfish gains and the unselfish attitude toward others. And that leads to moral and immoral behavior.

Someone who is totally selfish will be shunned as immoral. Someone who is totally unselfish is stupid. Not just he deprives himself of the biological goods he can achieve without the expense of others, but being totally selfless he does not care about his own well-being and becomes a burden for others.

There is a good balance (as always) between selfish and unselfish (altruistic) behavior. To strike that balance is not easy.

Continued below (and later… I am pretty tired).