The atheists best argument?

[Bradski]

What is your objection to the term “threat”?

When the law threatens to jail you for rape or murder, as it threatens all of us, is that not a fair and rational means of discouraging rape and murder for those of us who are rational and value our freedom?

When Jesus threatens us with the fires of hell when we could have the Beatific Vision,
is that not a fair and rational choice we are offered?

Again, what is you objection to the term “threat”?

Do you believe that actions should never have consequences, even disastrous ones?

I personally have no problem with the word. The question should be directed to PR and Peter. They are determined to avoid it.

I’m not sure why. None of you believe there is the slightest chance of you ending up there. No-one does. But just try to find someone who will admit to that.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m not sure why. None of you believe there is the slightest chance of you ending up there. No-one does. But just try to find someone who will admit to that.

I don’t know where you came up with that idea.
I have read quite the opposite here.
It seems more atheists and some Protestants who raise the issue of not being happy in heaven knowing others are in hell, as if they could not possibly find themselves in that condition

Those who earnestly seek God are quite aware of their shortcomings.
FYI near the beginning of the mass, the congregation recites the confiteor:

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers
and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault,
through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary
ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Heaven is a state of communion with Love itself.
To be in heaven entails our having given ourselves back to God our creator.
Sin is that path away from love.
We have no right to heaven, and we ask God for His mercy.
It is God’s will that we become love, and that is why the Second person emptied Himself to be one of us, died and was resurrected.
This that all might know God.

Oh wait, you are an atheist, so you don’t believe in what you know nothing about.
And, that would be because He doesn’t exist right?
And, you know He doesn’t exist because there is no evidence in the small box that is the world-view which excludes Him.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I personally have no problem with the word. The question should be directed to PR and Peter. They are determined to avoid it.

This is from your post #753:

"But notwithstanding that Christians don’t seem to think that eternal damnation is much of a threat in any case, I don’t really think it reflects well on you to suggest that you are a moral person because of the threat of punishment.

‘Watching porn is wrong because of A, B and C and…I might go to hell if I do it’.

That isn’t morality. The last phrase shouldn’t be there. It demeans the person. And if we take it out, then there is no difference between us."

So it appears you do have a problem with the word “threat.”

If I am a moral person, which I often doubt, it seems to me that I am a moral threat not for one reason, as you might think, but for two. Because I love God** and **fear the devil.

And yes, I can chew gum and walk a straight line at the same time.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is from your post #753:

"But notwithstanding that Christians don’t seem to think that eternal damnation is much of a threat in any case, I don’t really think it reflects well on you to suggest that you are a moral person because of the threat of punishment.

‘Watching porn is wrong because of A, B and C and…I might go to hell if I do it’.

That isn’t morality. The last phrase shouldn’t be there. It demeans the person. And if we take it out, then there is no difference between us."

So it appears you do have a problem with the word “threat.”

If I am a moral person, which I often doubt, it seems to me that I am a moral threat not for one reason, as you might think, but for two. Because I love God** and **fear the devil.

And yes, I can chew gum and walk a straight line at the same time.

I think that an objection being raised is that some people will act in such a way, such as not eating a hot dog on a day of abstinence, because of fear of going to hell and suffering eternal and horrific fire and other horrible pains if they disobey.

 

[Bradski]

FYI near the beginning of the mass, the congregation recites the confiteor:

Oh wait, you are an atheist, so you don’t believe in what you know nothing about.

I know the Confiteor off by heart. I can recite it sight unseen. I don’t believe in things I DO know about. What you have suggested is nonsense and somewhat insulting.

So it appears you do have a problem with the word “threat.” If I am a moral person, which I often doubt, it seems to me that I am a moral threat not for one reason, as you might think, but for two. Because I love God** and **fear the devil.

But not hell, apparently.

This is pretty straightforward. Either the prospect of hell has no meaningful effect on you or any other Christian (that is my belief) OR it does has an effect in which case at least a part of why you do the right things, as far as you are concerned, is a reflection of the fear you feel of punishment.

 

[Bradski]

By “match[ing] social mores and attitudes” you create the association, but then you go on to assume that trying “to fit in” is the cause of the moral or ethical beliefs that ALL people have. Now it may be true that some people do find their morals and attitudes in precisely that way, but – just as with developments in other realms of human endeavor – it may also be true that creative thinkers and moral agents go about assessing the current social situation – the “social mores and attitudes” that do exist – and find it wanting.

You are confusing the hard wired emotions that we feel with morality itself. The first is fixed. Everyone feels them, always have and presumably always will. The second isn’t. What triggers the emotions is the cause of moral thinking, but just because you feel embarrassed or proud about something doesn’t mean that others will as well. As I have said before and as you have kindly pointed out above, morality isn’t fixed and can be said to be constantly developing. To use a trite example, it wasn’t that long ago that a person may have felt shame if someone knew that they were gay. Or someone might have been embarrassed to discover a friend was gay. Now we know better. Now those feelings have mostly disappeared and our sense of morality as far a gay friends are concerned have changed.

Now it is quite possible that a person will hide his homophobia (used in the strict sense of the word) because they don’t want to be rejected by the majority of society.

No, what you are describing is how morals – or, as an analogy, contagious diseases – MIGHT be passed on, but it goes nowhere in terms of explaining why there are morals – or diseases – to begin with.

I hope that the above clears that misunderstanding.

People may “try to fit in” mindlessly but that does not even touch upon the question that many reasonable people will ask: Should I try to fit in to the particular way in which my culture is doing things or is there something fundamentally wrong with that way and should it be changed?

We all try to fit in to some extent. But it is to be recommended that you should on occasion consider all options. Precisely to avoid ‘going with the flow’. I’m sure you can hear the echo of your parents’ words: ‘Oh, so you want to do that just because all your friends are doing it’. So if you manage to step outside and try to see things from a different perspective, you might find yourself swimming upstream.

As I said above, this is how society changes. Something that you did without compunction is now something that is shameful. Things that were acceptable would now embarrass you. If they didn’t, you might still be doing them. But once you start feeling shame and embarrassment, it it’s a good sign that any advance in our moral character is leaving you behind.

Even in – or especially in – modern secular culture, there are frequently alternate sides taken on virtually every position – say, for example, promiscuous behaviour. Any particular person’s level of pride or shame concerning their sexual behaviour is not going to depend upon what others think because what others think is all over the map. It will come down to your own conscience AND if you are an autonomous moral being you will have arrived at your moral position NOT based upon feelings of pride or shame but from thoughtful and sound moral judgement.

Again, just because you have these felling doesn’t necessarily mean that they are an accurate reflection of what you should be doing. Again, these feelings are nor morality itself. If you admitted to having sex before you were married, you might feel a sense of shame. I wouldn’t. So now we can objectively look at the circumstances and make a decision if there is indeed a situation where it is right for one and not for the other, or fine in one situation and not in another or whether it is right or wrong in all situations.

 

[Bradski]

That determination might make you feel ashamed when you fail to live up to the standards you know to be true and honourable when you do, but the feelings do not determine your moral position – unless of course you are a sycophant with regard to the society around you.

They are a very good guide to what you believe you should be doing. It’s effectively your conscience. No-one feels shame in doing something that they believe to be right (whether it is right or not). And it’s a guide that has got us where we are today (start another thread if you want to argue if that’s a good thing or not).

And your assumption is that individuals in Weimar Germany couldn’t help themselves with regard to falling into taking on the attitudes of the Nazi regime, but you living in a more “enlightened” culture today could and would. Sounds like chronological or, at least, cultural ethical snobbery to me.

Time has nothing to do with it, but culture does. Try to think of it in these terms:

Presumably you remember black-face comedians in the not too distant past. There used to be very long running variety programme in the UK called ‘The Black and White Minstrel Show’. The name itself will give you an idea of the content. Growing up in the era in which it was shown, nobody I knew had the slightest cause for concern. Just good Saturday night entertainment. We all went with the flow. But if you knew then what you know now, then transported back to 70’s UK and you would squirm with shame at watching this: youtube.com/watch?v=m1RuOrWo_P0

OK – light entertainment and genocide are not compatible, but I’m sure you see the point which I am making.

It may be true that somewhere down the line the good for society will align with making it the most sociable one, but only if the individuals making up that society have a common view of the good.

That’s where reasonable discussions come into it. Questioning the status quo. Not accepting argumentum ad populum et verucundiam

 

[PRmerger]

I personally have no problem with the word. The question should be directed to PR and Peter. They are determined to avoid it.

Well, first I would just like to know the answer to my question I posed earlier.

Would you consider it a threat if someone told you: hey, I wouldn’t get on that elevator. There’s something wrong with it when you go up.

(NB: very busy lately so I may have missed it if you already answered. If so, please direct me to your post).

 

[inocente]

So it appears you do have a problem with the word “threat.”

If I am a moral person, which I often doubt, it seems to me that I am a moral threat not for one reason, as you might think, but for two. Because I love God** and **fear the devil.

You can’t be a threat and at the same time be moral. Synonyms of threat are blackmail, hazard, intimidation, menace, etc. To threaten means expressing intent to inflict pain, harm, or punishment. No one can morally threaten another.

And no Christian should fear the devil. We all have power over him, and he has none over us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8

 

[tonyrey]

You can’t be a threat and at the same time be moral. Synonyms of threat are blackmail, hazard, intimidation, menace, etc. To threaten means expressing intent to inflict pain, harm, or punishment. No one can morally threaten another.

Christ’s warnings about Hell pose a threat to those who ignore or reject His teaching. The punishment is not inflicted by God but self-inflicted.

And no Christian should fear the devil. We all have power over him, and he has none over us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8

The prospect of damnation inevitably leads to an element of fear but

“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love” (1 John 4:17-18).

 

[inocente]

Christ’s warnings about Hell pose a threat to those who ignore or reject His teaching. The punishment is not inflicted by God but self-inflicted.

A warning isn’t a threat - see earlier posts using the example of warning the bridge is out ahead.

*The prospect of damnation inevitably leads to an element of fear but

“Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love” (1 John 4:17-18).*

Apt quote, but Charles didn’t say he fears damnation, he said “I … fear the devil”. (In any case, not sure why a Christian would fear damnation either, if he has faith in salvation through Christ.)

 

[PRmerger]

In any case, not sure why a Christian would fear damnation either, if he has faith in salvation through Christ.)

Because of free will.

 

[inocente]

(In any case, not sure why a Christian would fear damnation either, if he has faith in salvation through Christ.)

Because of free will.

Faith is only possible with free will.

 

[tonyrey]

Christ’s warnings about Hell pose a threat to those who ignore or reject His teaching. The punishment is not inflicted by God but self-inflicted.

Threat:

•                             : a statement saying **you will be harmed **if you do not do what someone wants you to do

•                             : someone or **something that could cause trouble, harm, **etc.

•                             : the possibility that **something bad or harmful could happen**
  
  
   - Merriam-Webster

NB In Hell the punishment is self-inflicted. In other words you or I can be our own worst enemy. God isn’t responsible for our sins or our ultimate destiny. If He were responsible Jesus wouldn’t have warned us of the danger of pride, selfishness and lack of compassion.

Apt quote, but Charles didn’t say he fears damnation, he said “I … fear the devil”. (In any case, not sure why a Christian would fear damnation either, if he has faith in salvation through Christ.)

Faith in salvation through Christ doesn’t entail absolute confidence in ourselves. Faith alone is not enough. We are guilty of presumption if we take it for granted we shall go to heaven just because we claim to believe…

 

[inocente]

Threat:

•                             : a statement saying **you will be harmed **if you do not do what someone wants you to do

•                             : someone or **something that could cause trouble, harm, **etc.

•                             : the possibility that **something bad or harmful could happen**
  
  
   - Merriam-Webster

NB In Hell the punishment is self-inflicted. In other words you or I can be our own worst enemy. God isn’t responsible for our sins or our ultimate destiny. If He were responsible Jesus wouldn’t have warned us of the danger of pride, selfishness and lack of compassion.

I think probably the CCC does not state that Christ’s warnings are threats, so don’t see the problem.

Faith in salvation through Christ doesn’t entail absolute confidence in ourselves. Faith alone is not enough. We are guilty of presumption if we take it for granted we shall go to heaven just because we claim to believe…

Let’s not get bogged down in detail. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3

 

[fred_conty]

Apt quote, but Charles didn’t say he fears damnation, he said “I … fear the devil”. (In any case, not sure why a Christian would fear damnation either, if he has faith in salvation through Christ.).

“once saved always saved” is not a part of the Catholic creed.

Catholics believe that an un-baptized person cannot be saved using his own efforts by doing good works. Because faith is a gift and not earned. But after receiving the gift of faith by being baptized, salvation cannot be kept unless the words of Christ are kept … “If you love me keep my commandments”. St. Paul has several lists of sins that violate that love and excludes one from Christ’s kingdom.

So initially we are not saved by our good works, but later we cannot be saved without them.

So that is why a Christian would fear damnation, by violating Christ’s command in a serious way.

Psalm 50
Turn your face away from my sins and wipe out all my transgressions; create a pure heart in me, God, put a steadfast spirit into me.

 

[Cheiron]

Christ’s warnings about Hell pose a threat to those who ignore or reject His teaching. The punishment is not inflicted by God but self-inflicted.

What! If this is true, then I’ve been deceived for years! I’ve been told that if I don’t obey God’s rules, then God is the one who will throw me in the fiery depths of hell. If however, I’m responsible for my own punishment, then I will simply choose not to punish myself with hell.

 

[fred_conty]

What! If this is true, then I’ve been deceived for years! I’ve been told that if I don’t obey God’s rules, then God is the one who will throw me in the fiery depths of hell. If however, I’m responsible for my own punishment, then I will simply choose not to punish myself with hell.

“self inflicted” is another way of saying “consequences”.

When someone is late in filing taxes, there are consequences that must be paid for filling late. And it could be said that we are at fault and noone else, and that it was “self inflicted” because the taxes should have been done on time.

Psalm 33
The eyes of the Lord are on the just and his ears hear their cries…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Matthew 25
The Judgment of the Nations.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

It’s clear from all this that whether you view the words of Christ as a** threat **or a warning, there is no merit in saying you have faith if you do not follow through with works. We have a reason to fear the fires of hell prepared for the devil and his followers.

If only Adam and Eve had feared the Serpent and trusted God’s **threat/warning **of what would happen if they ate the forbidden fruit.

 

[Cheiron]

“self inflicted” is another way of saying “consequences”.

When someone is late in filing taxes, there are consequences that must be paid for filling late. And it could be said that we are at fault and noone else, and that it was “self inflicted” because the taxes should have been done on time.

Thank you. This is an essential matter to me, because I think eternal hellfire is an immoral punishment. If God punishes people with eternal hellfire, He is, in my opinion, immoral.