Morality without God?

[InJesusItrust]

Then what do you propose as life’s purpose?

If I were to throw a spanner in the works of your probable answer, that the purpose of life is to seek the specifically Christian conception of God and then to die and go to said God, then there are certain actions carried out by professed believers that are limiting if not actually destructive to the possibilities of life that would pass muster; by the same token, there are arguments you cannot logically make - for example, the idea that innocents go directly to heaven, to unity with your God, means that any abortion fulfils the purpose of our existence with very limited earthly travail. If one can expedite the fulfilment of one’s ultimate purpose, why bother with earthly life at all? Surely death is a mercy (no matter how much we might instinctively try to avoid it) if life is just a way-station on the road to eternal paradise…

Suicide and murder are sins. If loving God is our ultimate purpose, we cannot call sin good.

Is your heart really so closed that you cannot see the logic where the very notions of morality are linked to purpose? Or are you arguing for the sake of it? Do you call a banana good if it has no nutritional value? Or do you call a videogame or movie good if they bore you? Things are made for a reason, and if they do not match their reason we call them “bad”. Same with actions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

If I said that the majority of Catholics in the US have no problem with same sex marriage, you’d accept that as well?

Catholics are not the majority of Christians. Protestants are. A combined effort of all Christian religions would stop this nonsense you are promoting … same-sex marriage. But first there has to be a serious effort to do so. If required, a Constitutional Amendment. By this method Catholics and Protestants and other religious groups can be educated by public debate to detect and expose the secular and atheistic forces that are behind the moral corruption of our society …

A concerted effort might also be made to remove politicians who are all in favor of this corruption under the flag of so-called libertarian freedoms. That would include a number of Catholic politicians who have sold their souls to the devil.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I appreciate the Catholic high regard for marriage. If you make a lifetime committment (whether it is just between the two of you or a formally recognised and/or church sanctioned marriage) then you should not treat it lightly. You should realise that there will be problems and you should do your best to overcome them.

However…if it simply isn’t working, then it should be ended. It serves no useful purpose staying (or being forced to stay if you’re Catholic) in a partnership that neither party wants. Or indeed, if either party wants it to end.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Surely death is a mercy (no matter how much we might instinctively try to avoid it) if life is just a way-station on the road to eternal paradise…

The Catholic Church does not teach that it is better to die in the womb than to live. The Catholic Church is a pro-life institution … unlike the pro-death Planned Parenthood. Most of the Planned Parenthood people don’t even believe in another life … or they would not be spending their lives killing the unborn on the grounds that they will not be held accountable on Judgment Day.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t advocate staying in a job that one doesn’t like.

To be sure.

But if you’ve made a commitment to that job, then you need to get up and get your bum in gear, whether you feel like it or not.

And yet you seem to have an objection to the Catholic Church saying the same thing regarding marriage.

Now, the fact that marriage is a lifetime and a job is “until I formally leave” is a point where the analogy departs.

However, as I stated earlier, the analog is not about the length of time we are committed to an entity…but rather to the fact that you object to the Church making someone do something he doesn’t want to do because he’s made a commitment…while you believe it’s absolutely fine to make someone do something he doesn’t want to do because he’s made a commitment.

See the double standard?

What is your paradigm:
A: It’s wrong to make people stick to their commitments?

OR

B: When someone makes a commitment, it is moral to enjoin upon him to fulfill this commitment regardless of his feelings?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That would require the deity you believe in to be rational - have you actually read the Bible?

As opposed to one who shares your level of rationality?

God = Sair would be okay, but

God > Sair’s ability to comprehend, not okay.

A slug does not understand Einstein, but that doesn’t mean the slug has the final say as to what counts as rational.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski

If I said that the majority of Catholics in the US have no problem with same sex marriage, you’d accept that as well?

Catholics are not the majority of Christians. Protestants are. A combined effort of all Christian religions would stop this nonsense you are promoting … same-sex marriage.

But the majority of all Christians in Australia support gay marriage, so you wouldn’t have a problem with it being allowed here.

And it seems you wouldn’t object if and when the same thing happened in America.

Personally I have no problem with that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But the majority of all Christians in Australia support gay marriage, so you wouldn’t have a problem with it being allowed here.

And it seems you wouldn’t object if and when the same thing happened in America.

Personally I have no problem with that.

Naturally you would have no problem. Without God no one has a valid reason for thinking anything is right or wrong. If there was a national consensus that all people over the age of 60 should be given a " death potion, " you would have no valid reason to object.

God gave us the Ten Commandments not the Ten Suggestions. ( Ted Koppel )

Linus

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**And it seems you wouldn’t object if and when the same thing happened in America. **

Of course I would object. If able, I would lead a movement to change the hearts of Americans back to God instead of the devil.

 

[Bradski]

Let’s refresh our memories on this. I asked:

So for a law to be valid it must be morally acceptable to Christians. Does it have to be Catholic or will any denomination be OK?

You replied:

It has to be based upon the majority, whoever they are.

And you confirmed that that was to be a majority of Christians of all denominations.

A combined effort of all Christian religions…

So for any law to be valid in your eyes it must be morally acceptable to a majority of Christians. If it’s not acceptable to a majority of Christians it is not valid. That much is there in black and white in your quotes above.

Now it’s pretty obvious, and should go without saying, that a majority of Christians does not have to include you. That, in regard to any matter at all, you could be in the minority. So saying, it is quite possible that you will be in the minority at some point when it comes to the matter of Christians accepting the morality of same sex marriage or not.

I’m not saying it will happen, I am exploring the consequences should it happen. If it does happen, then, according to what you have told us, the law will be valid. Irrespective of what you personally believe.

If this is not the case and you would still think the law to be invalid, and please tell me if I’ve got this wrong, then it would come down to your personal opinion. That you would object to the decision.

Of course I would object.

So it might appear from reading your posts that all this talk of ‘a majority of Christians’ is so much bull dust. What you mean is that you would be fine with a majority decision…as long as it agrees with what you want.You have a weird idea of democracy, Charles.

Why not just come out and admit what is so apparent from the above: ‘Laws are only valid if I say so’.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Naturally you would have no problem. Without God no one has a valid reason for thinking anything is right or wrong. If there was a national consensus that all people over the age of 60 should be given a " death potion, " you would have no valid reason to object.

God gave us the Ten Commandments not the Ten Suggestions. ( Ted Koppel )

The ten commandments don’t mention homosexuality. Male homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus though.
Leviticus 18:22:

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13:

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads

I think in modern day times most ignore the part about being put to death. It was considered in Ugandan legistlation though later it was decided that the death penalty would not be a part of anti-homosexuality bill.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
So it might appear from reading your posts that all this talk of ‘a majority of Christians’ is so much bull dust. What you mean is that you would be fine with a majority decision…as long as it agrees with what you want.You have a weird idea of democracy, Charles. **

I believe in Democracy. I also believe that democracies can go wrong. I also believe they can be set right by those who have the courage to fight to set them right. I don’t know why you think that is hypocritical or bulldust.

I think you are making this personal and I’ve about had enough of your bulldust as well.

 

[Linux]

Bradski
**
So it might appear from reading your posts that all this talk of ‘a majority of Christians’ is so much bull dust. What you mean is that you would be fine with a majority decision…as long as it agrees with what you want.You have a weird idea of democracy, Charles. **

I believe in Democracy. I also believe that democracies can go wrong. I also believe they can be set right by those who have the courage to fight to set them right. I don’t know why you think that is hypocritical or bulldust.

I think you are making this personal and I’ve about had enough of your bulldust as well.

I don’t think you know what a real democracy entails. A democracy going right does not mean its going Christian.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t think you know what a real democracy entails. A democracy going right does not mean its going Christian.

Correct. The quality of any democracy is going to depend upon the quality of people that make up the democracy. Essentially, a democracy is rule by mediocrity, it will always be based upon compromise. Unfortunately, where mob mentality or powerful social control techniques are in play, consequences can be even more dire.

Democracy is not an ideal form of government, though the hope is that opposing factions will ameliorate the extremes, but, again, where social controls exist, either overtly or covertly, even that hope presumes too much.

 

[Bradski]

It (a morally valid law) has to be based upon the majority…

Therefore…

I believe in Democracy.

But…

I also believe that democracies can go wrong.

So we come full circle. A morally valid law is OK if it’s democratically agreed upon as long as they aren’t wrong in coming to that agreement. And you are the only arbiter of whether they are wrong or not.

Maybe Peter can follow up with his ideas on this.

Correct. The quality of any democracy is going to depend upon the quality of people that make up the democracy.

Well Charles had carte blanche on choosing who makes these decisions and he chose a majority of Christians. Are you suggesting that it has to be a majority of Christians who agree with your interpretation of morality?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Of course I would object. If able, I would lead a movement to change the hearts of Americans back to God instead of the devil.

Why not do that now?

 

[John_Savage]

Here’s a question: If altruism is natural and rational, then why are today’s more secular, science-based millennial, more selfish (maybe we should let them know that nature demands that they give more):

thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/02/08/factchecker-are-millennials-more-self-sacrificing-and-community-minded-than-previous-generations/

As Twenge explains in a May 2012 Atlantic article, “You can’t really conclude anything about generational difference if you have data from only one generation.” Twenge’s work does not have this limitation: She uses two massive, nationally representative samples—one million high-schoolers and nine million college respondents—comparing Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials at the same age. Her data draw from what respondents said about themselves.

Her 2012 article published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that, “For the most part, Millennials continued the downward trend in concern for others begun by Gen X. In sum, Millennials generally score lower than previous generations in concern for others . . .” (1)

Twenge explains that most of the items on the social/community concern measures she examined declined “faster or just as fast” for Millennials compared to Gen Xers, than between Boomers and Gen Xers.

Millennials were less likely to think about social problems, make efforts to conserve natural resources, be interested in or participate in government, voting, contacting their representatives, participate in demonstrations or boycotts or giving money to political causes. The decline in environmental concern and action are markedly steep. Remarkably, three times as many Millennials said they “made no personal effort at all to help the environment” compared to Gen Xers, (15% vs. 5%). (2)

Millennials did show increased levels of community volunteering. However, Twenge explains that this most likely resulted from high schools being much more likely to encourage community volunteerism through school-organized programs. Only 9% of schools did so in 1984, while 46% did in 1999.

 

[Bradski]

Here’s a question: If altruism is natural and rational, then why are today’s more secular, science-based millennial, more selfish?

You might just as well ask: If altruism is natural and rational, how come nobody helped the tramp outside the office today?

Just because everyone walked past him doesn’t mean that each person wouldn’t act in an altruistic way at some time and in some situations. There may be general trends in society at any given moment and in any given culture, but that doesn’t deny the role that altruism plays.

Anyway, being generally selfish doesn’t prevent you from acting altruitically at times just as being a miserable sob most of the time doesn’t mean you don’t enjoy moments in life.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

Well Charles had carte blanche on choosing who makes these decisions and he chose a majority of Christians. Are you suggesting that it has to be a majority of Christians who agree with your interpretation of morality?

Adolf Hitler 11 million deaths attributed to him. He said:

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Josef Stalin 43 million deaths attributed to him. He said:

“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao Zedong 40-70 million deaths attributed to him. He said:
“Religion is poison.”

You will notice that each of these men is opposed to religion. You will notice that each of these men was a human monster.

This is what will happen to America if the monsters take over.

**Thinking:
Why not do that now? **

I am too old and decrepit to do much about it. But the Catholic Church is not too old, and is doing something about it.The last two popes have called for a campaign to evangelize the world, including the evangelization of Catholics who have lost their way. I may not live to see this brought to fruition, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen without me.

 

[Bradski]

Charles, just a heads up, mate. There’s a thread you’re involved with that’s missing the comments above. Looks like you posted it in the wrong place as it has nothing to do with anything that’s been discussed recently.