I think the death penalty would be a more effective deterrent. This IMHO would be more appropriate than the death penalty, ordered by Yahweh, for a man who simply gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36).
A different cultural context wouldn’t justify children being treated differently merely due to the condition of their birth. How could it?
If you wanted me to answer the question, you should have defined “morality” first. Depending of how “morality” is defined, the question may be flawed. If morality is defined as “a system of ideals governing conduct” then it doesn’t made a lot of sense to speak about the universe being either moral or amoral, because morality is an inherently social thing. In that case, speaking of an amoral/moral universe would make no more sense than speaking of a governed/anarchist universe.
How do you know what precepts are Christian and what are not? Do you get your morality from Yahweh? The Bible said that Yahweh mandated those things.
“Benefit” means something that promotes well-being (answers.com/topic/benefit). So I hold certain principles which promote well-being for everyone (which may be called morality). “Good” and “evil” can be understood as that which promotes well being for everyone and inhibits well-being for everyone respectively. These aren’t “things” that pop out of nowhere. What’s beneficial
Why can’t people decide what purpose ( which can mean “an aim or goal” answers.com/topic/purpose ) they want to give to life? Why not make that goal happiness (like I have)? I think happiness is an excellent goal, don’t you?
Why couldn’t morality (I’m using the definition above) have been created out of the need to deal with problems arising from living in community?
If this was so, then why did St. Paul tell slaves in Ephesians 6:5-9, to obey their masters? Also, why would 1 Timothy 6:1-2 say that slaves should respect their masters? Jesus mentions slaves (often translated to “servants” or “maids”) in parables many times. If slaves aught to obey and respect their masters, isn’t that indicating that it would be immoral to run away or refuse to be property (an thus that they aught to remain slaves)?
Actually, I was making a philosophical statement. If a omniscient god wanted to write a book that would appear to be obviously authored an omniscient being, he wouldn’t allow any errors in it. If god didn’t want the book to appear to be authored by an omniscient being, then why would he use that book as the foundation for his religion?
What if those statements were made by Yahweh (like the ones above)? If not, why would you believe in the theology of a religion for which the holy book gets fundamental statements by your god wrong?
On this case, I’m simply telling you what your own church says. This is what this Catholic website says (emphasis added):
catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
It think that this shows that people don’t necessarily need to believe in a god to behave in an appropriate way. A lot of theists may say “if there wasn’t a god, what would keep you or others from doing X, Y, and Z.”
Why not altruism? If one did something because of altruism, it isn’t prideful for that to be appropriately acknowledged.
What’s more praiseworthy, doing something sacrificial for someone else for no reason other than a selfless concern for their welfare, or because you will be rewarded after death if you do, and punished after death if you don’t?
I think you’re thinking of someone else. However, I’ll try to keep my posts to lengths appropriate for what I’m responding to. Sometimes, responding to something cannot be adequettely done in a few words.
I don’t intend to come off the wrong way by saying this, but if that’s the case, you’re willing to shut down your reasoning when it seems to contradict your faith.
“Theist” is just a term that refers to someone who believes that there is a god who isn’t a deist. It’s a more umbrella term. All Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians, somewhat like all Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. I don’t quite see how one would think that that categorization this is a trap or mistake
, however I’ll try to keep in mind that you’d rather me avoid using that term when addressing you.I would consider invoking god to do something would be equivalent to doing it yourself.
It’s not prideful to open-mindedly evaluate if one’s belief in his god, or belief that there is a god at all, if justified. That’s not the same as thinking one knows better than god (if god exists).
I didn’t mean to tell you to leave. I meant to say that if you don’t want to post you don’t have to. It seems to me like you might be taking what I say a little too personally (which I think tends to happen when one’s core beliefs are being questioned).
Well, I think if we handle one question at a time rather than a barrage of questions in one post, we can gnaw the bone as long as we like and not take up frames and pages of text.
Thank you, very much, for refraining from terming me neither a theist nor a deist. I’m a Christian who chooses (freedom of choice again) to worship my savior in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.“Theist” is just a term that refers to someone who believes that there is a god who isn’t a deist. It’s a more umbrella term. All Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians, somewhat like all Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. I don’t quite see how one would think that that categorization this is a trap or mistake
If Christian theology were not true, a Christian wouldn’t have any duty to protect his/her faith.
I would consider invoking god to do something would be equivalent to doing it yourself.
It’s not prideful to open-mindedly evaluate if one’s belief in his god, or belief that there is a god at all, if justified. That’s not the same as thinking one knows better than god (if god exists).
Yes, and you are bringing your personal faith crisis to this thread. TruthSeeker, in the ‘70s’, during my 30’s, I learned to tell people (a bunch of bar going cowboys), they don’t tell me what I am. I choose what I am, other people don’t choose what I am. And, that goes for college professors, too. Just because you question your faith doesn’t mean I have to question my faith. My faith and the Church’s teachings are not the problem to me that your faith and the Church’s teaching seem to be to you.
it is my understanding that he wrote in his journals that he is an atheists and his friends and family attest to him being an atheist. that’s good enough for me since the matter has little consequence for me either way.(there are lots of other atheists in foxholes either way. see maaf.info/expaif.html )In my past conversations with atheists, many have been quite skeptical of Jesus’ claims to have been divine, to have started a church, to have been our atonement. They ask for his own writings as verification of such.
I’m just applying the same paradigm.
Do you have this level of skepticism regarding Pat Tillman’s atheism?
What words did he say that professed atheism?
Perhaps if you were in dialogue with a fundamentalist Christian this would be an appropriate argument, but, as I’m sure you know, Catholics do not believe that “the book that is in question is the source of one’s theology”.
in know that jesus supports this sentiment in the doubting thomas incident, but why would god think it is more virtuous to believe in him based on insufficient evidence than based on the sort of evidence with which thomas was presented?
Fair enough.
I’ve already given you an example. Maximilian Kolbe. No evidence for an atheist giving his life for a stranger out of love.
we weren’t talking about devoting ourselves to a person. we were talking about believing an intellectual proposition (was pat tillman an atheist? was jesus born with no earthly father? does bread and wine turn into flesh and blood when a priest prays over it?). committing to a person is not about believing dubious claims on insufficient evidence. it is about deciding to love them or more likely simply recognizing that an other’s happiness is essential to your own. assenting to the truth of certain sentences is completely irrelevant, so your point here is way off the mark.
I answered it BRIGHT ONE! I’ve been repeating my self so many times its become a running joke.
You are so full of it.
Are you seriously a student of theology?
Here you go making assumptions about me yet again.
? Or in a more general sense, you are claiming that there are “Catholic Atheists”.BUT why? If morality is just an invention, whats so bad about death? Whats so bad about crime?
Seriously, are you this behind?
Well, first, no human can make his own universe. That would mean he or she is God.
If you did answer AntiTheist’s question about slavery, where did you answer it? This was his question:
Merely so I can better clarify your position, do you even accept that Jesus was a real, specific person or do you subscribe to the Jesus Myth theory? Note I plan on not further participating in this discussion, even the amount I have already done is minimum.
If you give me incomplete information regarding how you define key word that you are using in an argument, I have make educated guesses regarding those gaps. That’s not being “full of it”. If you don’t want me to come to the conclusion that your reasoning (deductive reasoning plus how you back up the premises), explain your view a little more thoroughly so I don’t have to make assumptions.
You obviously didn’t get the point of what I said. I was refuting your notion that if morality is created one has NO obligation to follow it. If god created morality, than your notion that a created theology carried NO obligation is destroyed by the fact that you (and theologians) say one is obligated to obey god. If god didn’t create morality, than morality transcends god (which is what some of my philosophy professors thought), thus it would make sense to judge god’s character (I know you’d probably say that being perfectly moral is one of god’s characteristics, however I don’t see reason for this).
Considering what I said after that, about religiosity being correlated with homicide, higher mortality rates in adolescence and early adulthood, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortions, not exactly.Well, so let me get this straight, you are atheist who is religious
I label things “bad” if they hinder one’s well-being (see my other posts).
Ddarko, if one looks at the bracketed portion of what I wrote, one would see that I was aware of this, so don’t say I’m behind.
Obviously I’m talking about a hypothetical. However, in your view, if I was god incarnate (and Jesus was not), there would be no moral problem if I decided to kill you for no reason. What if I decided to make you suffer immensely before you died? What if I were to make you (or at least allow you) to suffer forever in an afterlife?
You are NOT GOD. Get it in to your HEAD if you indeed do have one.