Morality without God?

[ChaosKompf]

If Christ didn’t exist, how did the Christian religion come into being?

Because Paul founded the Catholic church and Constantine turned it into a political establishment by legalizing it.

I am not sure if Yeshua existed or not. There is not much historical documentation so my personal answer is going to be no. Anyways that really doesn’t matter. The OP asked for whether or not you needed a god for morality.

Our common law system is the derivative of Liberalism which promotes unalienable human rights, something a god is opposed to, as he curses people for going against what they are commanded to do. Our American society is founded on both the common law system and liberalism. Do we need a god for morality? No.

We humans are the masters of our own Fate. We built the world. We will become immortal one day through technology as in the development of technology is the act of evolution (the whole point of evolution is to develop technology to make life easier.)

We have dealt with a lot of problems in the past 10,000 years but through globalization, development of newer technology, modernized resource consumption, efficiency, etc. we shall have less wars and maybe perhaps become immortal.

 

[gregj]

I think that God’s will may be expressed even by those who do not know or believe in him. With God, all things are possible. His absolute truth may be understood even by those who do not believe. Of course, those who do not believe are not knowing of their duties in the same way believers are. It is the difference between I think that something is right and I know that God commands it to be right. Both are right but the latter acknowledges the authority for it being so.

 

[OxygenMan]

Because Paul founded the Catholic church and Constantine turned it into a political establishment by legalizing it.

I am not sure if Yeshua existed or not. There is not much historical documentation so my personal answer is going to be no. Anyways that really doesn’t matter. The OP asked for whether or not you needed a god for morality.

Our common law system is the derivative of Liberalism which promotes unalienable human rights, something a god is opposed to, as he curses people for going against what they are commanded to do. Our American society is founded on both the common law system and liberalism. Do we need a god for morality? No.

We humans are the masters of our own Fate. We built the world. We will become immortal one day through technology as in the development of technology is the act of evolution (the whole point of evolution is to develop technology to make life easier.)

We have dealt with a lot of problems in the past 10,000 years but through globalization, development of newer technology, modernized resource consumption, efficiency, etc. we shall have less wars and maybe perhaps become immortal.

There are a few problems with this. Western Liberalism only had the idea of “inalienable rights” because it claims they were endowed by a creator. Without an true source of “rights”, they are not truly rights, but merely privileges extended by a government and observed by a society. They can just as easily be taken away.

Also, you will never be immortal. Even if technology comes into being that lets you live past a natural lifespan, you will die. Whether it is the sun’s eventual loss of energy, an accident, or some other cosmic catastrophe, you’re going to die.

And since you believe that Paul alone created the religion, does that mean you don’t believe the other apostles existed?

 

[ChaosKompf]

There are a few problems with this. Western Liberalism only had the idea of “inalienable rights” because it claims they were endowed by a creator. Without an true source of “rights”, they are not truly rights, but merely privileges extended by a government and observed by a society. They can just as easily be taken away.

Also, you will never be immortal. Even if technology comes into being that lets you live past a natural lifespan, you will die. Whether it is the sun’s eventual loss of energy, an accident, or some other cosmic catastrophe, you’re going to die.

And since you believe that Paul alone created the religion, does that mean you don’t believe the other apostles existed?

Well what I mean is that 200 years ago humans lived 200% less than they do now. As of now we have children born today who may live to the age of 150.

I am not saying Jesus didn’t exist. I am just saying the story doesn’t sound believable but that is just unto my case. Jesus may have existed from 1 CE to 33 CE but then we would have to know the timeline from 1 CE to 20 CE so that we can get a general idea of the events that transpired.

Most of the Apostles I think were Zealots (Jewish Nationalists who wanted to end Roman imperial occupation of Israel) as in they believed that you should “give unto Caesar what is Caesar and give to me what is mine.” If Jesus did say that and the Romans heard that then that would make them think he is a nationalist calling for a revolution as there had been many Zealot uprisings up unto 77CE where they were expelled. So I think he was killed for treason and sedition under Roman law.

Anyways I can’t disprove anything. Jesus could’ve existed. Not sure.

 

[OxygenMan]

Well what I mean is that 200 years ago humans lived 200% less than they do now. As of now we have children born today who may live to the age of 150.

I am not saying Jesus didn’t exist. I am saying that he was mysticized to the point where the original individual may have been skewed. Jesus may have existed from 1 CE to 33 CE but then we would have to know the timeline from 1 CE to 20 CE so that we can get a general idea of the events that transpired.

Most of the Apostles I think were Zealots (Jewish Nationalists) as in they believed that you should “give unto Caesar what is Caesar and give to me what is mine.” If Jesus did say that and the Romans heard that then that would make them think he is a nationalist calling for a revolution as there had been many Zealot uprisings up unto 77CE where they were expelled. So I think he was killed for treason and sedition under Roman law.

Anyways I can’t disprove anything. Jesus could’ve existed. Not sure.

Fair enough. There are others who are better versed in historical records, so I’ll leave that to them.

As for “render unto Caesar”, however, it was the opposite view of what the nationalists wanted, so that is difficult to believe as a reason for execution for treason. Jesus was telling the Israelites to pay their proper due to the Roman government, exactly what the Zealots did not want. The Zealots later tried to throw off Roman rule anyway, and it ended disastrously.

 

[ChaosKompf]

Fair enough. There are others who are better versed in historical records, so I’ll leave that to them.

As for “render unto Caesar”, however, it was the opposite view of what the nationalists wanted, so that is difficult to believe as a reason for execution for treason. Jesus was telling the Israelites to pay their proper due to the Roman government, exactly what the Zealots did not want. The Zealots later tried to throw off Roman rule anyway, and it ended disastrously.

Jesus though within the bible routinely criticized the Pharisees for their loyalty to the Roman imperialist government and then said they were not loyal to the OT. Many times he calls them out for their outward display of their faithfulness which he notes as hypocrisy. In my perspective that would appear as though Jesus would want individuals to oppose the Roman government. Plus in Revelations Jesus talks about dissolving the Roman empire transforming Israel into a sovereign nation.

EDIT

Furthermore our population has exploded by 350% (we had 2 billion people 1800’s now reaching 7 billion.)

 

[OxygenMan]

Jesus though within the bible routinely criticized the Pharisees for their loyalty to the Roman imperialist government and then said they were not loyal to the OT. Many times he calls them out for their outward display of their faithfulness which he notes as hypocrisy. In my perspective that would appear as though Jesus would want individuals to oppose the Roman government. Plus in Revelations Jesus talks about dissolving the Roman empire transforming Israel into a sovereign nation.

I don’t understand. The pharisees were not highly loyal to the Roman government. Christ calling out their hypocrisy would not have interested the Romans a great deal, as they were concerned only with political authority, not internal religious disputes, at the time. If Christ had opposed King Herod’s rule, for instance, the Romans would have had trouble with him. But the pharisees were just a religious sect who had no strong political ties to Rome.

Revelations was written long after Christ’s death, so that would not have led up to his execution.

 

[ChaosKompf]

I don’t understand. The pharisees were not highly loyal to the Roman government. Christ calling out their hypocrisy would not have interested the Romans a great deal, as they were concerned only with political authority, not internal religious disputes, at the time. If Christ had opposed King Herod’s rule, for instance, the Romans would have had trouble with him. But the pharisees were just a religious sect who had no strong political ties to Rome.

Revelations was written long after Christ’s death, so that would not have led up to his execution.

Ok. I see what you mean. Within the story he overturns a table at a temple which can be interpreted as starting a riot, through the perspective of the Romans, which would’ve usurped Roman interests, thus making them angry, in my opinion.

There were routine Zealot uprisings though so the Romans would’ve been extra cautious.

 

[Bradski]

Can you provide evidence for this? What people? Reported when?

I’m sorry, I’m not sure exactly what you need. The evidence as such is in the Gospels. Written much later by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in, I think, that order. And they all vary in some way. And Paul, whom we’d think would have described it in some detail, doesn’t mention it at all.

And the gospels are written to show Jesus in a good light. They’re not unbiased accounts of an historical event. They are meant to glorify God and His son. They are meant to convinve people that Christianity was the true religion. A few kind words and a description of Jesus as someone worth listening too was never going to be enough.

The wrote about Him believing he was the Son of God, so why not have Him rise from the dead. It wouldn’t have been out of place in those times. People were uneducated with little undersatnding of how the world worked. Information was gathered and passed on almost entirely orally. And everyone likes to embellish a story in the retelling.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Jesus though within the bible routinely criticized the Pharisees for their loyalty to the Roman imperialist government and then said they were not loyal to the OT. Many times he calls them out for their outward display of their faithfulness which he notes as hypocrisy. In my perspective that would appear as though Jesus would want individuals to oppose the Roman government. Plus in Revelations Jesus talks about dissolving the Roman empire transforming Israel into a sovereign nation.

It appears from this that you are not very familiar with Biblical history. The Pharisees were the spiritual and cultural progeny of the Hasidim, the very orthodox and staunch Jews who followed Mattathias in the Maccabean revolt. They had engaged in military actions against Antiochus Epiphanes and the Seleucids up until less than a hundred years before Christ. They were far froml loyal to the Roman Empire. You seem to be confusing them with the Sadducees, who were political and spiritual conformists and had no qualms abandoning tradition provided there was something to be gained politically. In fact, it was the civil war between these two groups in Palestine that brought about Roman occupation a few decades before Jesus was born.

The Pharisees were far from loyal to the Roman Empire. What Jesus faulted them for was their religious hypocrisy. Their religion was a pretense that bolstered their sense of self-righteousness because they had convinced themselves that following the Law to the letter was all that was required and forgot about the “inner” man and real virtue.

I am not clear to which part of Revelation you are referring, but would be happy to provide an assessment of that.

 

[PRmerger]

How about the fact that he founded an empire and had his son succeed in his stead by which prompted the decline of the Mongolian empire. Plus a number of Roman emperor’s confronted the Khans and even Genghis Khan himself, including Caesar, and the Khans teamed up with the Goths, Vandals, etc. to destroy Rome.

If Genghis Khan didn’t exist how did the Mongolian empire come to be?

LOL!

So no first hand accounts, eh? No proof of his existence that parallels the demand you have for Christ’s existence?

One has to wonder why your standard is so peculiarly high for Jesus’ existence, yet you believe in Genghis Khan’s existence without ever having read a single thing he wrote, nor seen a single artifact, nor studied any archeological sites in which this apparently fictional character was said to have roamed.

It appears as if your objection to evidence for Jesus’ existence is quite otiose.

You cannot deny Jesus’ existence without denying every other historical figure of ancient lore.

If you were at a cocktail party and proferred the above paradigm, you would be dismissed as a fundamentalist. And rightly so. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

We humans are the masters of our own Fate.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Chaos.

We built the world.

But we didn’t create the world. :nope:

We will become immortal one day through technology as in the development of technology is the act of evolution (the whole point of evolution is to develop technology to make life easier.)

Seriously? Immortality through technology?

 

[PRmerger]

I am not saying Jesus didn’t exist.

Excellent.

So now I know you’re not exactly a fundamentalist.

Truly, no reputable scholar, secular, atheist, humanist or believer, denies that a man named Jesus lived.

To deny his existence puts someone in the category of those who deny we landed on the moon, who believe in a 6000 year old earth…and it’s inutile to attempt to dialogue with people like that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m sorry, I’m not sure exactly what you need. The evidence as such is in the Gospels. Written much later by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in, I think, that order. And they all vary in some way. And Paul, whom we’d think would have described it in some detail, doesn’t mention it at all.

What?

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. (1 Cor 15:14)

 

[PRmerger]

The wrote about Him believing he was the Son of God, so why not have Him rise from the dead. It wouldn’t have been out of place in those times. People were uneducated with little undersatnding of how the world worked. Information was gathered and passed on almost entirely orally. And everyone likes to embellish a story in the retelling.

Can you please clarify for me, Bradski: is your position that the disciples lied? or that they misunderstood?

I can’t quite make out what your position is. It appears in the above that you are proclaiming that they lied.

But on other posts you seem to be suggesting that they misunderstood what actually happened.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry, I’m not sure exactly what you need. The evidence as such is in the Gospels. Written much later by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in, I think, that order. And they all vary in some way.

But it appears as if you are saying no one reported Jesus’ resurrection for 40 to 60 years (when the gospels are purported to have been written).

Is this your position?

And Paul, whom we’d think would have described it in some detail, doesn’t mention it at all.

I’m not sure where you heard this, but that’s absolutely not true.

Firstly, why would St. Paul have had to describe it “in some detail” (meaning, I presume, written about it)? Were you aware that St. Paul preached “boldly for the space of three months” in the temple (Acts 19:8)? How can you be sure that he didn’t describe it ‘in some detail" during those 3 months’ preaching? You, of course, know that you’re on a Catholic forum and that Catholics do not believe that everything the apostles proclaimed was put to writ, yes?

 

[tolstoy]

I think you need to step back and define ‘morality’. If you mean something akin to proper treatment of others then, sure, a society can be built on evolutionary principles:. But if you refer to morals as something from outside that define proper behavior then you’re asking a goofy question. “Can people without an absolute compass live without an absolute compass?”

 

[Linux]

I think you need to step back and define ‘morality’. If you mean something akin to proper treatment

What is proper treatment? Isn’t that just an opinion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is proper treatment? Isn’t that just an opinion.

I suspect tolstoy’s point is that for the word “moral” to have meaning it implies something akin to “obligation” which means moral agents are obliged to carry out moral injunctions. So the question he is perplexed by is, “How can something obligatory be merely an opinion?”

To deny the obligatory nature of morals is definitionally incoherent because as soon as a claim is made that morals depend on nothing more than opinion is to render all moral principles optional. What would be the point of claiming willful killing is wrong if that is merely an opinion? It couldn’t be wrong for anyone if they can simply change their opinion on the matter to make it right.

The “opinion” notion of morals makes moral standards nonsensical and meaningless. An obligation cannot logically be optional, by definition, because then it is no longer obligatory. What sense is there in an optional obligation?

 

[tolstoy]

What is proper treatment? Isn’t that just an opinion.

Not in this context. I mean behaviors that promote evolutionary success. Cooperation, close families, some level of fidelity, etc. Stuff that lets you live a long life with lots of DNA spread around.