Godless morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
Again: what is the difference between living and dead in this context? Why can’t someone repent after he has died, and with the certainty that there is someone to whom he can admit his sins and be forgiven? Thomas asked for that kind of certainty and was given it. Most probably because Jesus loved him so much He wanted to grant him that certainty. Am I to believe that God has certain favourites that he grants that certainty , while otherswill suffer for their mistkae for eternity?
Click to expand...
Simply being incorrect about the existence of God is not enough to guarantee damnation.

Here is a short version of the Catholic view, that will hopefully address your question. I have not used the language of punishment, simply because it is not as useful here, but it is logically equivalent:

First, there is such a thing as baptism by desire. The explicit version is clear, but the implicit version is a little more complicated. Implicit baptism by desire occurs when a person really and truly is seeking after God, whether they know it or not.

Take into account that God is not just a rather large regular guy, but Goodness and Truth and Beauty and Existence, all as the same thing, and as thing themselves not as some thing that is good, true, beautiful, and exists.

So a person who has incorrect knowledge and does not think that God exists, but is truly seeking God, doing his best as he can to find Goodness and Truth is in fact seeking God, and if he does so fully, he might attain implicit baptism by desire.

Likewise, mortal sin is a complete turning from God done in full knowledge and full freedom. So refraining from explicitly worship God cannot be a mortal sin for a person who honestly does not think that He exists.

At death our fates are fixed, because during this life we have formed ourselves to be inline with goodness and truth, or to be opposed to them. Then at death, we see Goodness and Truth, and if we have been seeking this during our lives we join with it in celebration.

But if our lives have been a self centered rejection of Goodness and Truth for what our own gain, then we flee from God.

Judgement is mostly self inflicted. It’s not that God does not give us the opportunity to change, it’s that upon seeing God as He is, we know whether we are aligned with Him or not.

If not, then we hide from Him, and reject all that He may offer. But the ability to change is also a thing offered by God, and if in our clarity we know what comes from God and what does not, and reject all that would come from God immediately, then that includes the ability to change.

So yeah, Jesus may or may not grant any one of us certainty here, but refraining from granting a human certainty is not the same as condemning him to hell, even if God knows that that human would not come to explicit belief in God without such certainty. It all comes down to our choices in the end.

But it is also true that we are given different levels of opportunity. But because of that we are also held to different standards. Should Thomas have become an atheist later in life despite his experiences, that would be considered more severe than if someone who had no religious experience whatsoever did.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Iron

**It is not Catholic teaching that all atheists are damned. Some Catholics think so, but this really is going beyond what we have the ability to say. **

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33
Click to expand...
Indeed. But again, denying God, denying Christ, is more complicated then just not intellectually accepting that a Man named Jesus is God.

Note that I am not saying that it’s unimportant, only that it’s not strictly speaking required. That does not mean that we shouldn’t spread the faith, only that we cannot say for sure that those who do not explicitly hold it are damned.
 
belorg said:
Yes, that’s true. But the fact that we cannot explain this “how” yet does not mean it cannot be true. Just as the fact that we cannot explain how an immaterial being can influence the material world does not mean this cannot be true…
Click to expand...
It is irrational to believe something if we cannot give any reasons for what we believe…
 
Iron_Donkey said:
See, you can come up with a set of rules, and follow them, and maybe even show that they’d be consistent. But that doesn’t imply that they actually have any force. …]
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
“…]And I think it is 100% moral to torture cats.”

What will your response be?
Click to expand...
Historically it seems that such disagreements have been “resolved” with threats, punishments, and physical force. These seem to form part of the force behind a prescription of some behaviours. It’s not that I am suggesting these resolutions, but that seems to be how things commonly play through. A couple of days ago there was a man in the Atlanta area that beat a cat for “antagonizing his dog”[1]. I don’t know whether or not any one sat down with him to have a philosophical discussion on morality and animals. I do know he was arrested. The northern and southern states of the United States had disagreements before and the resolution involved gun battles, burning down cities, cutting resource lines, and other tactics before agreement was reached.

I’ve encountered some one for which I have reason to believe had nothing against harming cats[2]. One of our cat’s showed up decapitated and skinned after she was angry with us. She also didn’t seem to mind driving her daughter to other people’s houses to beat up their children so there were several behaviours for which we could not establish an agreement of acceptability. (Not to mention we already had previous problems with her). We established a policy of non-interaction with her family (and made sure she couldn’t get her hands on our other cat!). Trying to reason with her was considered dangerous. It seemed to be an okay strategy that we followed until she died of a heart attack one day.

[1] - Man beats 10 week old kitten for antagonizing his dog.

[2] - This individuals dog died when it it’s head got stuck by the collar while it was trying to dig a hole under our fence. It had snowed and the dog drowned as the snow melted and the neighbor felt that we were to blame for the dog’s death.
 
Iron
**
Likewise, mortal sin is a complete turning from God done in full knowledge and full freedom. So refraining from explicitly worship God cannot be a mortal sin for a person who honestly does not think that He exists.**

I was an atheist for many years. At the time I may have thought I honestly did not believe in God. I know now that that was not true. I lied to myself that God does not exist. The lies we tell ourselves can be more self damning than the lies we tell others. I believe there is no such thing as an honest atheist, for the simply reason that no atheist can honestly say he knows that God does not exist.
 
belorg
**
But I can give plenty of reasons.**

Try proving that God does not exist, and try proving it beyond a reasonable doubt! 😉
 
Moral laws require a lawgiver. Obviously no human being will ever be seen as being the source of authority for the entire human race. Sure people can come together to make laws for a society; however, these laws cannot be said to be moral or immoral, objectively, without a God.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I lied to myself that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
That’s what you did.

It’s not valid to extend this to every other atheist.
I believe there is no such thing as an honest atheist, for the simply reason that no atheist can honestly say he knows that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Hi 😃

I’m Sarah and I’m thrilled to meet you 😃

Sure, I don’t *know *for certain if God exits or not.

Neither does anybody else, regardless of their faith 🤷

Such lack of knowledge, combined with, what is to me, lack of evidence, is sufficient for me to be able to honestly say, I don’t believe such a Being exists, and consequently do not believe in such a Being.

Honestly 😃

Sarah x 🙂
 
My own discovery that morality could not exist without a loving God who set down the rules for us to follow began with the discovery of Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus. When I discovered this piece of music I was convinced beyond doubting that only God could have inspired it. There could be no other source than the God who is Love, because the music speaks to the heart rather than to the head. It is surely the heart by which we really find God, not the head.

“Ave Verum Corpus” translated means “Hail true Body,” and this music is a tribute to the Blessed Sacrament that Christ left to us so that we would always feel near to Him.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

The hymn is translated as follows.

Hail True Body

Hail, true Body,
born of the Virgin Mary,
who having truly suffered,
was sacrificed on the cross for mankind,
whose pierced side
flowed with water and blood:
May it be for us a foretaste [of the Heavenly banquet]
in the trial of death.

It is better to close your eyes when listening.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
My own discovery that morality could not exist without a loving God who set down the rules for us to follow began with the discovery of Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus. When I discovered this piece of music I was convinced beyond doubting that only God could have inspired it. There could be no other source than the God who is Love, because the music speaks to the heart rather than to the head. It is surely the heart by which we really find God, not the head.

“Ave Verum Corpus” translated means “Hail true Body,” and this music is a tribute to the Blessed Sacrament that Christ left to us so that we would always feel near to Him.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

The hymn is translated as follows.

Hail True Body

Hail, true Body,
born of the Virgin Mary,
who having truly suffered,
was sacrificed on the cross for mankind,
whose pierced side
flowed with water and blood:
May it be for us a foretaste [of the Heavenly banquet]
in the trial of death.

It is better to close your eyes when listening.
Click to expand...
I can understand that listening to beautiful music could lead you to belive it was inspired by God. But what has morality got to do with this? This sounds like a variation on Peter Kreeft’s Esthetic Argument, which may be interesting but not related to morality AFAICT.
 
Hypnotoad said:
Moral laws require a lawgiver. Obviously no human being will ever be seen as being the source of authority for the entire human race. Sure people can come together to make laws for a society; however, these laws cannot be said to be moral or immoral, objectively, without a God.
Click to expand...
“Moral laws require a lawgiver” is a question-begging argument. Of course laws given by a lawgiver require a lawgiver to give them.
But you should first prove that moral laws are that kind of laws, IOW that they are prescriptive laws, and secondly you should prove that there is a way that those prescritions if they exist apply to every person.
 
belorg said:
“Moral laws require a lawgiver” is a question-begging argument. Of course laws given by a lawgiver require a lawgiver to give them.
But you should first prove that moral laws are that kind of laws, IOW that they are prescriptive laws, and secondly you should prove that there is a way that those prescritions if they exist apply to every person.
Click to expand...
In short prove God exists. One cannot prove the existence of a law without also proving the existence of the lawgiver. 👍
 
belorg

**First define ‘God’. **

Well, if you deny God exists, you surely know what it is you are denying exists. 😉
 
belorg

**I can understand that listening to beautiful music could lead you to belive it was inspired by God. But what has morality got to do with this? **

It has everything to do with morality, because it bespeaks love, and love is the foundation of all moral acts. Read the lyrics again.

“No greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
 
Charlemagne_II said:
belorg

**First define ‘God’. **

Well, if you deny God exists, you surely know what it is you are denying exists. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I know what I am denying. But I have several proofs, depending on the kind of God.
 
belorg

Yes, of course I know what I am denying. But I have several proofs, depending on the kind of God.

I’m not trying to be evasive, but I think we are about to hi-jack the theme of this thread.

If you want to discuss this further, start another thread and let me know the title. Thanks. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top