I got in a morality debate with an agnostic and now I can't sleep

[RobbyS]

Here is a great quote that I came across in that link -

**An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias.**

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

Amen.

 

[josh987654321]

WE look for signs and then do not rightly read them. Reminding me of the of story of the farmer in the field behind his plow. He looks up into the sky and watches as a plane writes against the clear blue sky, “GP.” He decides that God is telling him to go preach. So he leaves his plow, spends years unsuccessfully. Finally, he decides that God had really meant “Go Plow.” and returns to his old profession and brings in a bumper crop every year thereafter.

That’s a good one

 

[tonyrey]

The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience, a fact of which Abraham was obviously unaware. He is rightly admired for his trust in God which was so deep that he would have sacrificed his own son. His mistake was to believe he **knew **

Luther, Calvin and so many others have gone wrong by believing they are inspired by God…

 

[tonyrey]

I would also like you to consider this -

If there is no God, than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, than there is no moral law and without moral law, there is nothing to distinguish between good and evil or right and wrong, thus there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong, it’s all just subjective opinion.

I think after seeing the horrors that mankind is capable of, I can certainly say that there is evil, I can certainly say that the holocaust and death camps of WW2, the persecution and dehumanization of the Jew’s was evil, however without God, that was just a form of morals that were not good or evil (right or wrong) it just didn’t work and there was nothing evil or wrong about it and id be surprised if anyone thought that.

Here is another story that you might like -

Does God exist?

A man went to a barber shop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the subject of a God, the barber said:
“I don’t believe that God exists.”

Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

“Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who allow all of there things”

The customer thought for a moment, but didn’t respond because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with dirty long hair and an untrimmed beard.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber: “You know what? Barbers do not exist.”

“How can you say that?” asked the barber. “I am here, and I am a barber, and I just worked on you”

“No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside.”

“Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me.”

“Exactly!” - affirmed the customer “That’s the point! God, too, DOES exist!
what happens, is people don’t go to Him and do not look for Him, That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”

Here is another saying that I like -

C.S. Lewis -
There are two kinds of people in this world 1) those who bend their knees to God and say “Your will be done” and 2) those who refuse to bend their knees to God and God says “Alright, your will be done.”

We will constantly reap the consequences of “man’s” will, because man on so many occasions thinks he knows better and especially if he can convince himself that God doesn’t exist, everything is justifiable. Moral subjectivity justifies all evil.

Anyway, just read through some of these, there are some good quotes there -
proofthatgodexists.org/favourite-quotes.php

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

Anything is possible when we rely solely on our own judgment and accept no higher authority as if we are God!

 

[twoshoes]

Well, I personally think that was a bad move. Forcing some one into something can raise their resistance to it and that may have happened here. That’s not to say he would be Catholic if he had not been forced.

Well that’s good. If he happens to one day find that he has an interest in Catholicism he may bring up the topic again. Until that day come up I’m sure you’ll both enjoy your friendship.

You might suggest to him that only thru full knowledge of the Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church can a valued judgement be made. He was forced Catholic at a young age, we all are taught things by our parents at a young age we disagree with . It doesnot make the teaching wrong. He must fill in the gap of knowledge created by his parents Only thru true knowledge and meditation can we know the truth. Only thru Love and knowing of the Mercy of Jesus Christ can he be found. Saint Tearsa of Avil said it best in the title to her book" The Way of Perfection", it’s a life long journey, your friend is just at the beginning.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m heading off some where, but here is a hastily written but lengthy response.

Just on a quick side note, I hope you are against Abortion, because I’m very strongly opposed to Abortion,

I don’t like it and it seems that when I discover some one else has had one in general it tends to be quite damaging of my view of that person. Where my point of contention comes up is on the topic of ectopic pregnancies. These pregnancies if carried to full term will result in the death of the mother and child alike. For this situation the general medical response is a “therapudic abortion.” The Catholic prescribe response (which is an application of the principal of double-effect) is to remove the Fallopian tube that contains the fetus. Currently the three paths of actions (doing nothing, aborting the fetus, or removing the fetus) result in the death of the fetus. Of the last two options I’m not convinced that removing the fetus is more moral than aborting it for this scenario.

I don’t expect to reach a resolution on that issue any time soon and it may not be important for the topic at hand.

Anyway to continue with what we are talking about

yes, back on topic

So what is your world view? what set of beliefs do you subscribe to?

I can’t think of a name for a set of beliefs that would adequately describe my position. That’s not to say that there isn’t a name, but that I don’t know it. There are a lot of propositions that I would either evaluate as true or at least tentatively treat as true. When classifying some one on a religious spectrum it seems that the questions of interest are on one’s thoughts on how the world began and what happens after death. While I am familiar with many religious and non-religious descriptions of the state of the earlier universe and how it may have developed there’s not any that I can confidently evaluate as true. As to what happens after death, I don’t have the view that my ego/identity will survive my death.

Because most people just want to remain neutral, but little do they realise that they have a set of beliefs that are influenced by their world view. In other words, no matter what people say, everyone believes in something, there is no black and white for everything.

I get the feeling that those trying to remain neutral may be trying to avoid conflict or conversation about potentially divisive topics.

Also, I don’t know if you know this or not, but we are all spiritual beings, if you don’t place your faith in God, you will place your faith in something, because no matter how good science is, it says nothing about morality.

I’ve been told, but I don’t think that’s the same as “knowing.” For an example of the concept I am trying to convey, some one can write a check and can tell me that the check is good. While I may have been told that the check is good that doesn’t mean that I know that it is.

May I ask, have you ever read the Gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Yep, among others. Also bible readings were a part of our normal weekday and weekend routine.

If there is no God, than there is no moral law giver and if there is no moral law giver, than there is no moral law and without moral law, there is nothing to distinguish between good and evil or right and wrong, thus there is no such thing as good and evil or right and wrong, it’s all just subjective opinion.

I’m coming from a different view point. When talking about morality I’m usually concerned with trying to avoid emotional and physical harm to myself and others or not creating situations that put some one at a disadvantage or trying to assist some one out of situations that bring on such harm. At a base level I think this will result in decisions that are compatible with the ones you would make and don’t involve the invocation of an authority. So I don’t think we’ve got disagreements on killing some one, stealing, so on.

For me the difficulty comes up when dealing with decisions for which there will be some set of people that get harmed or put at a disadvantage no matter what decision is made (as when deciding on some public policies) or when dealing with some actions for which the potential harm is far separated from the actions (such as environmental related decisions).

Where I suspect we may have disagreement is with items that deal with “spiritual harm.” I’ve been told that masturbation leads to harm to ones soul. Assertions on harm to the soul are dependent on the existence of a soul, and that’s currently not something that I know to exists. Masturbation for me is largely an amoral issue. Now if I were convinced of some harm (to use something extreme let’s say ever 5th time some one masturbates some one does) then my stance would change. Similarly there are other items that are not a moral consideration for me, such as the first four commandments (or the first three, depending on which numbering you are looking at) that deal with worship.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m heading off some where, but here is a hastily written but lengthy response.

I don’t like it and it seems that when I discover some one else has had one in general it tends to be quite damaging of my view of that person. Where my point of contention comes up is on the topic of ectopic pregnancies. These pregnancies if carried to full term will result in the death of the mother and child alike. For this situation the general medical response is a “therapudic abortion.” The Catholic prescribe response (which is an application of the principal of double-effect) is to remove the Fallopian tube that contains the fetus. Currently the three paths of actions (doing nothing, aborting the fetus, or removing the fetus) result in the death of the fetus. Of the last two options I’m not convinced that removing the fetus is more moral than aborting it for this scenario.

I don’t expect to reach a resolution on that issue any time soon and it may not be important for the topic at hand.

yes, back on topic

I can’t think of a name for a set of beliefs that would adequately describe my position. That’s not to say that there isn’t a name, but that I don’t know it. There are a lot of propositions that I would either evaluate as true or at least tentatively treat as true. When classifying some one on a religious spectrum it seems that the questions of interest are on one’s thoughts on how the world began and what happens after death. While I am familiar with many religious and non-religious descriptions of the state of the earlier universe and how it may have developed there’s not any that I can confidently evaluate as true. As to what happens after death, I don’t have the view that my ego/identity will survive my death.

I get the feeling that those trying to remain neutral may be trying to avoid conflict or conversation about potentially divisive topics.

I’ve been told, but I don’t think that’s the same as “knowing.” For an example of the concept I am trying to convey, some one can write a check and can tell me that the check is good. While I may have been told that the check is good that doesn’t mean that I know that it is.

Yep, among others. Also bible readings were a part of our normal weekday and weekend routine.

I’m coming from a different view point. When talking about morality I’m usually concerned with trying to avoid emotional and physical harm to myself and others or not creating situations that put some one at a disadvantage or trying to assist some one out of situations that bring on such harm. At a base level I think this will result in decisions that are compatible with the ones you would make and don’t involve the invocation of an authority. So I don’t think we’ve got disagreements on killing some one, stealing, so on.

For me the difficulty comes up when dealing with decisions for which there will be some set of people that get harmed or put at a disadvantage no matter what decision is made (as when deciding on some public policies) or when dealing with some actions for which the potential harm is far separated from the actions (such as environmental related decisions).

Where I suspect we may have disagreement is with items that deal with “spiritual harm.” I’ve been told that masturbation leads to harm to ones soul. Assertions on harm to the soul are dependent on the existence of a soul, and that’s currently not something that I know to exists. Masturbation for me is largely an amoral issue. Now if I were convinced of some harm (to use something extreme let’s say ever 5th time some one masturbates some one does) then my stance would change. Similarly there are other items that are not a moral consideration for me, such as the first four commandments (or the first three, depending on which numbering you are looking at) that deal with worship.

I think you are taking a legalistic approach to authority. If you believe in good or evil, your thought and actions in grounded in a desire to achieve that good or avoid that evil… We tend to prize the truth, what we think is real.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think you are taking a legalistic approach to authority.

Could you expand on that? I’m not sure I follow you.

If you believe in good or evil, your thought and actions in grounded in a desire to achieve that good or avoid that evil…

I’m not sure what you mean by “believe in good or evil.”

We tend to prize the truth, what we think is real.

Okay, I’ve got no conflicts with that.

 

[josh987654321]

I don’t like it and it seems that when I discover some one else has had one in general it tends to be quite damaging of my view of that person. Where my point of contention comes up is on the topic of ectopic pregnancies. These pregnancies if carried to full term will result in the death of the mother and child alike. For this situation the general medical response is a “therapudic abortion.” **The Catholic prescribe response (which is an application of the principal of double-effect) is to remove the Fallopian tube that contains the fetus. Currently the three paths of actions (doing nothing, aborting the fetus, or removing the fetus) result in the death of the fetus. Of the last two options I’m not convinced that removing the fetus is more moral than aborting it for this scenario. **

I don’t expect to reach a resolution on that issue any time soon and it may not be important for the topic at hand.

yes, back on topic

Just as long as the fetus is not dehumanized, that the child in the mothers womb is treated with the same dignity and worth as any other human being.

In any situation, doctors should be trying to save both lives. Anyhow, I’m very happy you agree. I think when it comes to Abortion, we absolutely should not respect anyone’s rights to choose and we certainly shouldn’t be respecting their beliefs that a fetus is not a life.

Because the Nazi’s believed the Jew’s were less than human in order to justify their acts, just like pro-choice’s see the fetus, the child in the mothers womb as less than human and I doubt anyone would be respecting the Nazi’s beliefs of the Jew’s.

Moral subjectivity justifies all evil, it seems when we say a fetus is a human life with the same dignity or worth as anyone else, the reply is “Well those are your beliefs and I respect your beliefs, however I believe Abortion is a mothers right, that a fetus is just a mush of lifeless tissue and because I respect your beliefs you must respect mine.” This moral subjectivity of respecting everyone’s beliefs no matter how evil they are like Abortion is just madness.

Anyway sorry for the rant.

I can’t think of a name for a set of beliefs that would adequately describe my position. That’s not to say that there isn’t a name, but that I don’t know it. There are a lot of propositions that I would either evaluate as true or at least tentatively treat as true. When classifying some one on a religious spectrum it seems that the questions of interest are on one’s thoughts on how the world began and what happens after death. While I am familiar with many religious and non-religious descriptions of the state of the earlier universe and how it may have developed there’s not any that I can confidently evaluate as true. As to what happens after death, I don’t have the view that my ego/identity will survive my death.

Hopefully not your ego

Do you think there is life after death?

I get the feeling that those trying to remain neutral may be trying to avoid conflict or conversation about potentially divisive topics.

True, only problem with Atheism, is that while they claim to not believe in anything without scientific proof, they certainly place their beliefs in something, especially when it comes to morality, when it comes to how they live their lives, that’s why they say science isn’t a danger, it’s scientism that’s the danger. It’s thinking that science has something to say about morality, about how to live our lives.

I’ve been told, but I don’t think that’s the same as “knowing.” For an example of the concept I am trying to convey, some one can write a check and can tell me that the check is good. While I may have been told that the check is good that doesn’t mean that I know that it is.

What if they are a multimillion dollar corporation and the check is only for $100 and he say’s “it’s good.” You may not know his check is good, but you have a fairly good idea that it is, the chances of it not being good are very unlikely.

So what option do you have, will you refuse the check because there is no way of “knowing” if it will bounce or not? Will you refuse that check because your worried that it could bounce? What if it doesn’t? You just chucked away $100.

Ever heard of Pascals Wager?

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

Yep, among others. Also bible readings were a part of our normal weekday and weekend routine.

Excellent

Can you acknowledge that there are many truths in the teachings of Jesus Christ?

John 7:14-18

14 When the festival was about half over, Jesus went into the temple and started teaching. 15 The leaders were surprised and said, “How does this man know so much? He has never been taught!”

16 Jesus replied:

**I am not teaching something that I thought up. **What I teach comes from the one who sent me. 17 If you really want to obey God, you will know if what I teach comes from God or from me. 18 If I wanted to bring honor to myself, I would speak for myself. But I want to honor the one who sent me. That is why I tell the truth and not a lie.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

I’m coming from a different view point. When talking about morality I’m usually concerned with trying to avoid emotional and physical harm to myself and others or not creating situations that put some one at a disadvantage or trying to assist some one out of situations that bring on such harm. At a base level I think this will result in decisions that are compatible with the ones you would make and don’t involve the invocation of an authority. So I don’t think we’ve got disagreements on killing some one, stealing, so on.

For me the difficulty comes up when dealing with decisions for which there will be some set of people that get harmed or put at a disadvantage no matter what decision is made (as when deciding on some public policies) or when dealing with some actions for which the potential harm is far separated from the actions (such as environmental related decisions).

Matthew 6:25-34

25 I tell you not to worry about your life. Don’t worry about having something to eat, drink, or wear. Isn’t life more than food or clothing? 26 Look at the birds in the sky! They don’t plant or harvest. They don’t even store grain in barns. Yet your Father in heaven takes care of them. Aren’t you worth more than birds?

27 Can worry make you live longer?[e] 28 Why worry about clothes? Look how the wild flowers grow. They don’t work hard to make their clothes. 29 But I tell you that Solomon with all his wealth[f] wasn’t as well clothed as one of them. 30 God gives such beauty to everything that grows in the fields, even though it is here today and thrown into a fire tomorrow. He will surely do even more for you! Why do you have such little faith?

31 Don’t worry and ask yourselves, “Will we have anything to eat? Will we have anything to drink? Will we have any clothes to wear?” 32 Only people who don’t know God are always worrying about such things. Your Father in heaven knows that you need all of these. 33 But more than anything else, put God’s work first and do what he wants. Then the other things will be yours as well.

34 Don’t worry about tomorrow. It will take care of itself. You have enough to worry about today.

He who thinks that religion is to be practiced seeking only an eternal reward, is mistaken with regard to God. Surly they must think of God as a banker who only looks at the numbers… Clearly, They are completely unaware of the fact that the only valid law for God is love.

He who truly loves will always consider himself in debt, and the last thing in his mind will be that his love be rewarded. This is why Jesus taught us to give alms, trying that our left hand not know what our right hand does because receiving alms is almost always a humiliation, only alleviated by the love with which it is given. That is to say, that the only kind of alms that does not hurt, comes from the one whom fully identifies with the person in need, and shares with him from the much or the little that he has. In this way there is no room for vanity in the one who gives, or humiliation in the one who receives.

Matthew 20:1-16

As Jesus was telling what the kingdom of heaven would be like, he said:

Early one morning a man went out to hire some workers for his vineyard. 2 After he had agreed to pay them the usual amount for a day’s work, he sent them off to his vineyard.

3 About nine that morning, the man saw some other people standing in the market with nothing to do. 4 He said he would pay them what was fair, if they would work in his vineyard. 5 So they went.

At noon and again about three in the afternoon he returned to the market. And each time he made the same agreement with others who were loafing around with nothing to do.

6 Finally, about five in the afternoon the man went back and found some others standing there. He asked them, “Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?”

7 “Because no one has hired us,” they answered. Then he told them to go work in his vineyard.

8 That evening the owner of the vineyard told the man in charge of the workers to call them in and give them their money. He also told the man to begin with the ones who were hired last. 9 When the workers arrived, the ones who had been hired at five in the afternoon were given a full day’s pay.

10 The workers who had been hired first thought they would be given more than the others. But when they were given the same, 11 they began complaining to the owner of the vineyard. 12 They said, “The ones who were hired last worked for only one hour. But you paid them the same that you did us. And we worked in the hot sun all day long!”

13 The owner answered one of them, “Friend, I didn’t cheat you. I paid you exactly what we agreed on. 14 Take your money now and go! What business is it of yours if I want to pay them the same that I paid you? 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Why should you be jealous, if I want to be generous?”

16 Jesus then said, “So it is. Everyone who is now first will be last, and everyone who is last will be first.”

God doesn’t deal in what man consider fair or unfair, only in what is right. Anyone caught up on fairness will struggle in understand the things of God, especially these passages.

Stick to Love and Mercy (Forgiveness & Compassion) and you need not worry about the rest.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Where I suspect we may have disagreement is with items that deal with “spiritual harm.” I’ve been told that masturbation leads to harm to ones soul. Assertions on harm to the soul are dependent on the existence of a soul, and that’s currently not something that I know to exist. Masturbation for me is largely an amoral issue. Now if I were convinced of some harm (to use something extreme let’s say ever 5th time some one masturbates some one does) then my stance would change. Similarly there are other items that are not a moral consideration for me, such as the first four commandments (or the first three, depending on which numbering you are looking at) that deal with worship.

“Masturbation for me is largely an amoral issue.” Not true. A couple of years ago, I would have bought right into that, but I couldn’t ignore the truth written on my heart, I desperately wanted to think of it as an amoral issue, but it’s not, it’s clearly not and does great harm, especially with todays such easy access to pornography.

Masturbation manipulates the way you view sex. For the worse. It becomes no longer about procreation, but all about and only about self gratification, about appeasing your own sexual desires. It turns into a drug. To a very unhealthy addiction.

You need to make a decision, that you will not be ruled by your desires. Also remember masturbation and pornography go hand in hand, so it’s not just one, it leads to other issues.

Anyone who sees masturbation as an amoral issue, is gravely mistaken, I don’t know how I can explain it to you, but for me, it was basically a truth written on my heart, I tried to supress it and ignore it, but it just kept getting worse and worse until I could no longer ignore it and now I deeply regret all the times that I tried to ignore it.

Sexuality is sacred. It’s not to be abused and misused for self gratification. If you reflect on this issue, I’m sure you will find the truth written on your heart that it is clearly immoral. Remember it’s like a drug, the more you use it, the more addicted you become and the more your body needs it. Most people realise how much of a vice it really is when they strive for chastity, when they first try to live without it.

Please watch this - youtube.com/watch?v=suoUY2k6gPE

& youtube.com/watch?v=TUiQxxlO8Ak

They are very short, only take about 5min.

Telling us to obey instinct is like telling us to obey ‘people.’ People say different things; so do instincts. Our instincts are at war … Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of the rest.
C.S. Lewis

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I’m not sure what you mean by “believe in good or evil.”

An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at Ohio State University, the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” It’s white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had just one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?

The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias

It’s because if you believe in Good and Evil, yet not God, than you have nothing to distinguish between Good and Evil accept for yourself, depicting man as God.

It’s like this story above, the double standards of Atheism, is that they claim there is no God, yet they subscribe to his truths that man learnt from God because they don’t reject the truths in the foundations of God’s teachings, the foundations of God is Love.

God Bless

Thanks for reading
Josh

 

[RobbyS]

Could you expand on that? I’m not sure I follow you.

I’m not sure what you mean by “believe in good or evil.”

Okay, I’ve got no conflicts with that.

Some people don’t believe in “good” or “evil,” . Good being what ought to be and evil being what ought not to be. Hume argued that we cannot get from “is” to ‘Ought,” but most people really do.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Some people don’t believe in “good” or “evil,” . Good being what ought to be and evil being what ought not to be. Hume argued that we cannot get from “is” to ‘Ought,” but most people really do.

I contributed to Goodwill. Does that count? Also I don’t watch when Evil Knevil does his stunts!

 

[RobbyS]

I contributed to Goodwill. Does that count? Also I don’t watch when Evil Knevil does his stunts!

If you contribute to Goodwill, you are doing good. Unless of course, you are contributing bad goods: combustible bras, for instance, or counterfit bills.

 

[westNwewaxation]

Tonight I was talking with a friend of mine who is agnostic. He brought up the point that faith is not a reliable source of moral virtue; you cannot be sure of it because people are capable of doing bad things in the name of God. The thing is we both believe in absolute morality as opposed to relative morality. We both agreed that the human conscience is evidence of this. I brought up that human conscience can be disordered and needs guidance. I said that the Church exists for this reason. He told me this was blind faith, I denied this. He brought up the story of Abraham, how God commanded Abraham to kill his own Son as a sacrifice. I argued that God is the author of life and has the complete right to give and take life. He sort of showed me how this was based on blind faith because the Islamic terrorists could use the same argument. He said “how do we know this is the voice of God.” You can’t argue from conscience anymore, because our conscience would not allow us to do something like that. The whole defense of the Christian moral ethos is that it resonates with the human conscience and is written on our hearts. The story of Abraham is problematic because God gave Abraham a moral conscience and then commanded him to do something that goes against it, in fact, something that according to the old testament is abominable: human sacrifice. Ultimately Abraham showed that he was willing and capable to do this, and God rewarded him not for his moral judgment but for his obedience. This makes the Christian ethos one of obedience only, not conscience. Thus blind faith. I do not believe that any Catholic would recommend that someone accept something that goes against their conscience. So how can I expect an agnostic to accept the teachings of the Bible and of God?

I haven’t read the whole thread I just wanted to answer your OP. If this has already been said I apologize. I just want to say that I think the error here is taking the example of Abraham and making that the be all and end all of Christian morality.

Abraham is just one example of God’s interaction with mankind. He lived in a very different time, with different morals and attitudes, thousands of years ago, and consequently God interacted with him in a way different from how He interacts with us today. Not because God has changed, but because we have changed, our attitudes etc.

Abraham is one example of faith, but that does not mean his is the only example or the definitive one in all aspects. We have to take scripture as a totality, and look at it in all its aspects and all the different examples it gives.

I think your friend led you to think in terms of putting too much emphasis on Abraham’s example and reading too much into it and making it the be all and end all. Hope that makes sense and sweet dreams!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Some people don’t believe in “good” or “evil,” . Good being what ought to be and evil being what ought not to be. Hume argued that we cannot get from “is” to ‘Ought,” but most people really do.

Sorry, but the above isn’t personally meaningful to me.

I understand ought to express contingencies, agreements, and “obligations” (where the term “obligation” is being used very loosely since many times one can ignore or decide to not fulfill those obligations). About the only time I use the word “ought” in these forums is in response to some one else that had used it to get clarification on what is being expressed.

I also don’t know what it means to “believe in good and evil.” The phrase “believe in” can be used to label

• proposition evaluated as true
• an item that is thought to exists
• a stance that is seen as representational of one’s position
• a position that is thought to be beneficial
• an item or idea for which a person has confidence or trust

Most of these definitions don’t seem to contextually fit into how I think you are using the word. I suspect the one that you would consider applicable is “an item that is thought to exists.” But that definition applied to my understanding of what “good” and “evil” mean could be a form of reification.

It’s possible that a different definition of good and evil is being used here than how I see it normally used. I’ve seen many in this forum supply a definition for “Evil” being something like “a deprivation of good.” But even that definition isn’t meaningful to me. I tend to use the term “evil” as a synonym for “malicious” (describing one’s intents and motivations).

Sorry…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would also like you to consider this -…]

Just letting you know I managed to read your messages. I’ve got to to get a device programmed and up and running so some one can take it to France, so I haven’t the time to give time to a quality response immediately. Once this is all done and packaged I’ll come back to respond.

Thanks.

 

[josh987654321]

Just letting you know I managed to read your messages. I’ve got to to get a device programmed and up and running so some one can take it to France, so I haven’t the time to give time to a quality response immediately. Once this is all done and packaged I’ll come back to respond.

Thanks.

That’s perfectly fine

God Bless.

 

[LegoGE1947]

If you contribute to Goodwill, you are doing good. Unless of course, you are contributing bad goods: combustible bras, for instance, or counterfit bills.

I think it would be difficult to have a bad good. That would be like a round square, jumbo shrimp, military intelligence. Now bras go over the “bust” so maybe that would be possible. There are other kinds of fitters than counterfitters, such as steamfitters, shipfitters, etc.