Morality without God?

[Charlemagne_II]

Publisher
**
Having religious beliefs in no way insures morality…history teaches us that the most heinous crimes against humanity was based on religious views. **

Very true. The religious belief in the devil assures us that everyone, including a Christian, is capable of a heinous crime. The difference is that without religious belief there is no assurance that the crimes of the irreligious will not be far greater than the crimes of the religious. The massive crimes of the 20th century were not instigated by the Vatican, but by anti-religious political systems that routinely persecuted Jews and Christians.

The other side of the coin is that having religious beliefs is a spur to being better than we usually are. Having no religious beliefs is to have no spur , no moral mandate not only to avoid evil, but to do good, and to do it with a generous heart.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
And a law that’s not based on morality? It’s illegal not to wear a seatbelt. Are you going to tell me it’s immoral not to? It’s illegal to walk down the street carrying a gun. Am I acting immorally to do so? Let me know… **

It is immoral to disobey the laws of the land ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s), unless the laws themselves are immoral. This applies in both instances you have indicated here. The seatbelt laws are designed to preserve life, and that is a moral concern. Carrying a gun, if it is prohibited by law, is prohibited for the purpose of public safety, and that is a moral concern.

You need to come up with better laws that are not at all rooted in the moral impulse.

 

[D_Martin]

It is immoral to disobey the laws of the land ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s), unless the laws themselves are immoral. This applies in both instances you have indicated here. The seatbelt laws are designed to preserve life, and that is a moral concern. Carrying a gun, if it is prohibited by law, is prohibited for the purpose of public safety, and that is a moral concern.

Na, your off the mark here Charlemagne II , if you are one who is in agreement with God through His Son Jesus Christ, then render unto Caesar is something one has agreed to. If you never have agreed to it, then how can it be held against you? If one is a U.S. citizen, one is not bond to be a good Russian citizen. Therefore morals are relative to those who agree. Agree to something then do otherwise is immoral, to do as agreed is moral. It isn’t anymore complicated then that.

The same is required in marriage, in government, peace between nations, friendships, partnerships, business transactions, and especially between men and God. And note none of those things require religion to be executed morally.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

You need to tell Crude that. He thinks that materialist atheists believes that the right thing is just what feels good. It seems I’m moral anyway because of God, even if I don’t believe in Him

I think its possible for an atheist to adopt the moral stance of the Church in its entirety (coincidentally?) while still failing to acknowledge God or the Church as being true. However, I would say that is unlikely. Morality isnt just what causes direct harm to others. As Crude has noted, pornography, masturbation, contraception for example are not directly physically harmful to others, yet they are still immoral. It is unlikely for a person who cannot see why these things are immoral to uphold these values if nothing is there to bind them to it.

 

[Linux]

Bradski
**
And a law that’s not based on morality? It’s illegal not to wear a seatbelt. Are you going to tell me it’s immoral not to? It’s illegal to walk down the street carrying a gun. Am I acting immorally to do so? Let me know… **

It is immoral to disobey the laws of the land ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s), unless the laws themselves are immoral. This applies in both instances you have indicated here. The seatbelt laws are designed to preserve life, and that is a moral concern. Carrying a gun, if it is prohibited by law, is prohibited for the purpose of public safety, and that is a moral concern.

You need to come up with better laws that are not at all rooted in the moral impulse.

loool! Civil law and moral law is not the same thing. Its not intrinsically immoral to disobey the law of the land. There is a legitimacy behind the concept of civil disobedience if the law of the land is in conflict with moral truth.

There is nothing immoral about giving tax if it is for the common good and the preservation of the state. And sometimes it is unwise to create a revolution on the basis of high tax if it will lead to a greater evil.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

loool! Civil law and moral law is not the same thing.

But I did not say they are. I said that civil law is derived from moral law. Some civil laws are morally good, some are morally bad. But they all have a connection with moral law either way. Either they sustain it or they oppose it. The laws that favor abortion are immoral. The laws against murder are moral. You can’t get around it. All law is rooted in morality.

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. This is because Christ allows that the law itself is rooted in right doing, but if it is not, then we must render unto God what is God’s.

 

[Linux]

Linux

loool! Civil law and moral law is not the same thing.

But I did not say they are. I said that civil law is derived from moral law.

You are aware that there is a split between church and state? I don’t know what you mean when you say that civil law is derived from moral law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

**You are aware that there is a split between church and state? I don’t know what you mean when you say that civil law is derived from moral law. **

Examples:

Moral law: We have a moral obligation to pay our way in this world if humanly possible.
Civil law: We must pay taxes for those benefits we enjoy supplied by the government.

Moral law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Civil law: Obligation to fulfill contracts you have made with others.

Etc. etc.

 

[Hamlet123]

I think its possible for an atheist to adopt the moral stance of the Church in its entirety (coincidentally?) while still failing to acknowledge God or the Church as being true. However, I would say that is unlikely. Morality isnt just what causes direct harm to others. As Crude has noted, pornography, masturbation, contraception for example are not directly physically harmful to others, yet they are still immoral. It is unlikely for a person who cannot see why these things are immoral to uphold these values if nothing is there to bind them to it.

There is few if anything that is more harmful to society than pornography,
I have seen more than a few studies concluding the harmful effects to society of contrapception
Masturbation is deadly to society; I’ll wait for another to expalin all these particularly this one

 

[PetrusRomanus]

There is few if anything that is more harmful to society than pornography,
I have seen more than a few studies concluding the harmful effects to society of contrapception
Masturbation is deadly to society; I’ll wait for another to expalin all these particularly this one

Im not sure I follow your post.

I didnt say they werent harmful, I said they dont directly harm anyone in a physical way.

 

[Publisher]

can you remind me, please

Just one should suffice…Cathar crusades by the Catholic church, the phrase “kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out” is of Catholic origin. Protestant Geneva and the attrocities done to non-calvinists to name two…would you like more?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Pornography dehumanizes the people who make and the people who consume it.

Birth control can produce harmful effects in those who use it. It certainly can reduce the possibility that one’s genes will survive through the next generation. Because so many people use it, a society can barely replenish itself without opening the floodgates of immigrants who never use it.

Masturbation is not directly harmful to others, but is harmful to those who use it as a substitute for normal sexual relations. It is usually a symptom of sexual and emotional loneliness. As such, it may help to produce release, but also promotes inner shame in those who are capable of inner shame.

 

[PRmerger]

Just one should suffice…Cathar crusades by the Catholic church, the phrase “kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out” is of Catholic origin. Protestant Geneva and the attrocities done to non-calvinists to name two…would you like more?

Best not to use examples of people who do not subscribe to the teachings of their faith.

The actions of the proponents of an ideology who break its rules do not disprove the truthfulness of that ideology.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Na, your off the mark here Charlemagne II , if you are one who is in agreement with God through His Son Jesus Christ, then render unto Caesar is something one has agreed to. If you never have agreed to it, then how can it be held against you? If one is a U.S. citizen, one is not bond to be a good Russian citizen. Therefore morals are relative to those who agree. Agree to something then do otherwise is immoral, to do as agreed is moral. It isn’t anymore complicated then that.

The same is required in marriage, in government, peace between nations, friendships, partnerships, business transactions, and especially between men and God. And note none of those things require religion to be executed morally.

This can’t be correct. Moral law is what is obligatory regardless of assent. It is the mere fact of being a moral being that obligates each of us to be moral. If it was just a question of agreement, then a murderer would simply need to declare that he is no longer in agreement with civil law or moral law and, therefore, neither of these have any jurisdiction over his actions.

Morality cannot simply be a question of agreement because of the obligatory nature of morality. We could not – if it were a question of agreement – be obligated to anything we do not agree with, so it would simply be a matter of declaring disagreement and no moral code would ever again be obligatory.

This isn’t even true with regard to civil law. We are obligated to obey the law so long as the law is sanctioned under natural moral law precisely because legitimate governing authorities receive their mandate to govern in a manner that benefits the well-being of citizens (as determined by the natural good or welfare of humans) under their authority. Without receiving legitimacy under moral law, governing bodies would have no authority, morally or otherwise, to induce citizens to obey laws.

Natural moral law is the only obligatory code to which all human moral agents are bound; and that because of the fact that they are rational moral agents, not because they agree or assent. Civil law has authority only as directly sanctioned by natural moral law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Publisher

**Just one should suffice…Cathar crusades by the Catholic church, the phrase “kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out” is of Catholic origin. **

The Cathari and the Catholic Church (from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

"The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and practice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: “However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience’ sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.” (See Lea, Inquisition, I, 106.)

 

[Hamlet123]

Im not sure I follow your post.

I didnt say they werent harmful, I said they dont directly harm anyone in a physical way.

pornagraphy directed harms the one observing as well as his family
contracepts harms the potential child and it effects the two emotionally who should be procreating

 

[Linux]

Linux

**You are aware that there is a split between church and state? I don’t know what you mean when you say that civil law is derived from moral law. **

Examples:

Moral law: We have a moral obligation to pay our way in this world if humanly possible.
Civil law: We must pay taxes for those benefits we enjoy supplied by the government.

Moral law: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Civil law: Obligation to fulfill contracts you have made with others.

Etc. etc.

You are merely stating a correlation, you are not proving that civil law is based on moral law. Is legalised abortion based on moral law? No. Civil law is not based on Catholic Moral Dogma.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out” is of Catholic origin. . . .

searched the CCC; can’t find it - Part, Chapter, Article please
was it St Augustine? St Thomas Aquinas, maybe?

given that Church teaching provides the moral standard by which this attitude is deemed immoral, you haven’t supported your claim

 

[Publisher]

searched the CCC; can’t find it - Part, Chapter, Article please
was it St Augustine? St Thomas Aquinas, maybe?

given that Church teaching provides the moral standard by which this attitude is deemed immoral, you haven’t supported your claim

I entered “Cathar kill them all” and got numerous hits from Google…perhaps you could further investigate on your own…don’t know who wrote the portion of the article quoted…

"After the fortified city embarrassingly got itself captured within hours by camp followers, Caesar of Heisterbach recorded one of history’s more quotably infamous instances of prayerful deliberation:

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

Or, in glorious Latin:

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

And so they did."

The Albigensian Crusade is black mark on historic Christianity.,IMO. Although I have read Catholic apologetics defending the Cathar extinction.

 

[PRmerger]

I entered “Cathar kill them all” and got numerous hits from Google…perhaps you could further investigate on your own…don’t know who wrote the portion of the article quoted…

"After the fortified city embarrassingly got itself captured within hours by camp followers, Caesar of Heisterbach recorded one of history’s more quotably infamous instances of prayerful deliberation:

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

Or, in glorious Latin:

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

And so they did."

The Albigensian Crusade is black mark on historic Christianity.,IMO. Although I have read Catholic apologetics defending the Cathar extinction.

I think you are mistaking the utterances of sinful Catholic men with that which the deposit of faith given to the Catholic Church.