Moral Argument for the Existence of God

[ynotzap]

Yes, I have. And I wasn’t zapped! And all that you say points to one underlying assumption: Anything I see or think can be the work of the alleged Satan. Including the Church and your exhortation. Good work.

Impossible, there you go again, its an attitude of infallibility. A hidden fault, no guilt involved, Jesus has to remove the blinders. Did you ever encounter Him? We all are born with blinders. Ignorance is universal.and so is truth.

 

[Sochi]

Impossible, there you go again, its an attitude of infallibility. A hidden fault, no guilt involved, Jesus has to remove the blinders. Did you ever encounter Him? We all are born with blinders. Ignorance is universal.and so is truth.

Yes, the steam engine, airplane genetic manipulation, a bee being able to fly, going to the moon. All those are impossible. And a lot more. But like you say, it is all the devils work. And what are you calling “Jesus?” Just asking.

 

[ynotzap]

Yes, I have. And I wasn’t zapped! And all that you say points to one underlying assumption: Anything I see or think can be the work of the alleged Satan. Including the Church and your exhortation. Good work.

You are misconstruing my words. I don’t assume about things I know, they are confirmed for me by reality. You made that erroneous assumption, and judgement. You included the Church as possibly being the work of Satan… including my exhortation in your false assumption If I go along with your attributed assumption, then you don’t really understand the Catholic faith. The Church teaches through divine revelation that Jesus Christ God-man was sent by the Father to redeem us from the works of Satan Did you know when you were baptized, you were also exorcised, but the effects of original sin remain? To quote The Man, Jesus, how can Satan drive out Satan, how can his kingdom survive. You see in our belief system when you say that Jesus does things by the power of Satan you are sinning against the Holy Spirit, and its considered the unpardonable sin. So you see what you attribute to me as an underlying assumption just doesn’t exist except in your mind This is what self-righteousness is, an attitude of infallibility, it based on hidden pride, one of the effects of original sin. You , according to your thinking might say, "Well you are self-righteous too(Good Job) what makes you so sure.? Have you ever heard of God-righteousness This is what belief in Jesus Christ as God-man and Redeemer makes us. And without Him we remain “self-righteous” And we can go from there and make up our own rules, and morals, and behaviour and justify ourselves What I am callling Jesus is already stated. I don’t expect you to agree with anything I have stated, many I suspect don’t. That doesn’t matter to me, but it concerns me for the love of my brothers. Jesus also wept over Jerusalem, I can only be grateful to, and for Him for His love for me ( and for all of us in spite of our rejection of Him)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One thing is absolutely certain, Jesus intended and still intends all men to be active, faithful members of his Church, humbly submitting their faith and moral convictions to the Magisterium of the Church. Further, there is never a valid justification for leaving the Church. One who does so places himself outside the certain guidance of the Holy Spirit.

" Private revelations " must always be submitted, for discernment, to the Church, who alone can decide on the validity and meaning of such " revelations. "

One of the keys for discerning the validity for such " revelations " is that they must always agree and support the teachings of the Church. Anyone who attempts to judge such things on his own, has a fool for a director. Futher, " feelings " are no reliable guide to the authenticity of such " revelations. " In fact, they should be held with suspicion. One thing is certain, if such " revelations " leads one away from the Church, they are not from God.

Linus2nd

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

The Categorical Imperative has its own problems as a universal standard for morality. It can very much be read as a matter of maximizing rational self-interest, which in itself is not a basis for good or evil. Don’t kill, so people don’t kill me or people I like. Don’t steal, so people don’t steal from me or from people I like. And so on…

As I recall, in his book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins made the argument that reciprocal morality (I’ll be nice to you, if you are nice to me) is an “evolutionally successful strategy.”

However, as I pointed out earlier, reciprocal or conditional morality is just Old Testament retributive justice disguised as mutual benevolence. Better than no morals at all, the old scriptures are certainly not the last word in morality, because when push comes to shove they authorize returning evil for evil (Kill those who try to kill you. Steal from those who would steal from you. And so on…).

In fact, Jesus taught just the opposite, i.e. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you… Love you enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you…” etc., etc. (Mat. 6:38-44). But make no mistake, doing your duty and trying to “overcome evil with good” can get you killed, and often it is the moral cowards who survive.

The one categorical imperative is just a generalized version of the personal Golden Rule - Act as you would have everybody act - Do as you would be done by others. It is a universal law derived not from experience, but from pure synthetic a priori reason. It does not authorize retribution (which is the flip-side of reciprocal morality), but it does fit with the pursuit of telos (purpose) and the Summum Bonum (highest good), which in this world may be defined as the human satisfactions of virtue, universal morality, and other utilities of happiness.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca