Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

Faith is a major wedge between ethics and suffering - where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religion still maintains that the actions are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy,homosexuality, masturbation). And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance, their causes are deemed to be “good” (withholding funding for family planning in the third world, prosecuting non-violent drug offenders, preventing stem cell research etc).

The inversion of priorities not only squanders resources and victimizes innocent people, it falsifies our ethics. A more reasonable approach to matters of right and wrong is sorely needed.

222

…does this guy have a good moral compass?

223

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…[/quote]

Unless humans were meant to be physical beings, in a physical world, subject to physical laws.[/quote]

what does that even mean…?[/quote]

It means that evolution doesn’t disprove God’s creation of the universe and/or it’s laws, therefore the creation of evolution. And issuing from evolution, the human being.[/quote]

Evolution also doesn’t disprove that the skygod Xenu created us, or that captain picard went back in time and planted the seed which led to evolution taking place throughout history.

Evolution also doesn’t disprove the allah created create us, or that the thirteen headed dog of the lower heavens created us …

What I mean to say is, evolution doesn’t prove that your god created us. It just gives us an explanation (far better suited to the evidence) of how we’ve developed. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

In the original post we were being accused of believing that Adam and Eve lived in Bedrock and the Earth is only 6000 years old.

We weren’t trying to convince you or anyone else that evolution proves a damned thing about God.
[/quote]

nooo I was just trying to understand if you guys thought god created humans - as in we didnt evolve from something else - then Bro Chris said he did believe in the adam/eve story so perhaps that was the confusion…I still think its dubious - we can disprove god creating humans from dust and ribs :wink: but we cant disprove the fact he decided to step in when he thought “humans” were “humans”…ie imo, the story of adam and eve is wrong and with a few inconsistencies whether its symbolic or not…

224

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph.

225

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

This is interesting - Obviously i think, once youre dead…youre dead. But for the sake of the argument what exactly do you think you will be after your human body dies?/and maybe explain how you think it would happen.

My thoughts:

Do we exist in a state of pure energy?? If so - Fire and heat would be no punishment…

If your conscience is transfered to another body, for what purpose do we even live and die? (Not that this is even possible, youd need your old brain to remember anything)

fire away…

226

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Faith is a major wedge between ethics and suffering - where certain actions cause no suffering at all, religion still maintains that the actions are evil and worthy of punishment (sodomy,homosexuality, masturbation). And yet, where suffering and death are found in abundance, their causes are deemed to be “good” (withholding funding for family planning in the third world, prosecuting non-violent drug offenders, preventing stem cell research etc).

The inversion of priorities not only squanders resources and victimizes innocent people, it falsifies our ethics. A more reasonable approach to matters of right and wrong is sorely needed.[/quote]

Sodomy and masturbation are considered evil because it doesn’t allow for the possibility of life. If I was married, I could ride the muddy dirty road all day long as when I nut I nut inside of the holy of holies, then it’s not sodomy. I could pet the dolphin for seven days straight as long as when I bust I bust inside my wife cooter, then it is not masturbation. My wife can give the best blow jobs in the world, but it is not fornication if I dump the load in her vayjayjay. Same thing with homosexual acts (not being homosexual)…I mean that’s so far off the when it comes to normal behavior you’re not even on the same mountain.

Hey now, you might wanna clear up what you’re saying. You gave three things that were distinct, then you went all vague on us. Be clear now.

We give lots of money to family planning, we have counselors and everything all over the world, our family planning is referred to as NFP though. However, no we don’t fund abortion, because we consider it murder since you’re hurting someone. Don’t be vague. Prosecuting non-violent drug offenders? I smoke my fair share of weed, but I don’t smoke it in the U.S. I would be breaking the law, which is morally wrong to do (unless it is an unjust law). Stem cell research, wanna check again? If you’re referring to embryonic stem cell research, yes you got it, buddy! Adult stem cell research, hell naw. We give tons of money to them folks. Hell, I even made a deal with my uncle that he’d match whatever funds I raised for stem cell research (he’s a very conservative Protestant and would not give money to anything that would cause a child to be killed). Put up $20,000 a month ago. Yeah…we don’t give money to stem cell research. Ha!

227

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…[/quote]

Unless humans were meant to be physical beings, in a physical world, subject to physical laws.[/quote]

what does that even mean…?[/quote]

It means that evolution doesn’t disprove God’s creation of the universe and/or it’s laws, therefore the creation of evolution. And issuing from evolution, the human being.[/quote]

Evolution also doesn’t disprove that the skygod Xenu created us, or that captain picard went back in time and planted the seed which led to evolution taking place throughout history.

Evolution also doesn’t disprove the allah created create us, or that the thirteen headed dog of the lower heavens created us …

What I mean to say is, evolution doesn’t prove that your god created us. It just gives us an explanation (far better suited to the evidence) of how we’ve developed. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

In the original post we were being accused of believing that Adam and Eve lived in Bedrock and the Earth is only 6000 years old.

We weren’t trying to convince you or anyone else that evolution proves a damned thing about God.
[/quote]

nooo I was just trying to understand if you guys thought god created humans - as in we didnt evolve from something else - then Bro Chris said he did believe in the adam/eve story so perhaps that was the confusion…I still think its dubious - we can disprove god creating humans from dust and ribs :wink: but we cant disprove the fact he decided to step in when he thought “humans” were “humans”…ie imo, the story of adam and eve is wrong and with a few inconsistencies whether its symbolic or not…
[/quote]

  1. God created everything, even humans. Whether he created them directly or indirectly does not matter religiously. Scientifically

  2. I never said I believed in the Adam/Eve story, you should stop assuming shit. I never said I believed in the creation story to be true in a historical sense either. I said that I believe in Adam and Eve, now I am not that far into studying evolution (I have the basics down), as I started from the beginning and am tying up loose ends. However, that can mean mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. I do not know yet, I do not have enough evidence. However, the Catholic Church does teach that Adam and Eve were real people (they may not have had the name Adam or Eve). So, even though I do not know when they existed or how they might have became, I do believe they were alive on this planet at one time.

  3. Really? Dust and ribs? Maybe you should stop arguing with Catholics if you don’t know what we believe, we are not believers in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>FUNDAMENTAL LITERALISM!!! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<-------------------------pay attention to what I just said, please. Cortes, Sloth, and I have all said this now. That or you have only argued against Protestants and have just written replies down that you copy in to your text box.

  4. How is the story of Adam and Eve wrong when all the story is supposed to do is teach that 1) that God creates order and 2) there is first sin. I don’t get how you can prove that wrong unless you go into a theological debate.

228

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

This is interesting - Obviously i think, once youre dead…youre dead. But for the sake of the argument what exactly do you think you will be after your human body dies?/and maybe explain how you think it would happen.

My thoughts:

Do we exist in a state of pure energy?? If so - Fire and heat would be no punishment…

If your conscience is transfered to another body, for what purpose do we even live and die? (Not that this is even possible, youd need your old brain to remember anything)

fire away…[/quote]

Read the emphasized part of the passage. Basically Hell ain’t no place to fuck with, and I don’t wish Hell on my worst enemies. I’ve seen a farmer be burned alive, when they found him he had been in so much pain his teeth

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment â?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ?¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ?  Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).

229

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

This is interesting - Obviously i think, once youre dead…youre dead. But for the sake of the argument what exactly do you think you will be after your human body dies?/and maybe explain how you think it would happen.

My thoughts:

Do we exist in a state of pure energy?? If so - Fire and heat would be no punishment…

If your conscience is transfered to another body, for what purpose do we even live and die? (Not that this is even possible, youd need your old brain to remember anything)

fire away…[/quote]

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment â?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ?¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ?  Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh

230

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

This is interesting - Obviously i think, once youre dead…youre dead. But for the sake of the argument what exactly do you think you will be after your human body dies?/and maybe explain how you think it would happen.

My thoughts:

Do we exist in a state of pure energy?? If so - Fire and heat would be no punishment…

If your conscience is transfered to another body, for what purpose do we even live and die? (Not that this is even possible, youd need your old brain to remember anything)

fire away…[/quote]

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment �?�¢?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ???Ã??Ã?¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ???Ã??Ã?  Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh[/quote]

I guess its just like the movies! you will die, then you will see your body on the floor. You will be slightly see-through, then you get called to heaven or hell! or wonder round the earth because you have unfinished bussiness!

problem is that if we (atheists) are wrong, then we get to go “holy sh^t I was wrong there is a god!”
whereas if the beleivers are wrong, they just die, so they never get to find out they are wrong! they die thinking their right!

231

[quote]Rza UK wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

This is interesting - Obviously i think, once youre dead…youre dead. But for the sake of the argument what exactly do you think you will be after your human body dies?/and maybe explain how you think it would happen.

My thoughts:

Do we exist in a state of pure energy?? If so - Fire and heat would be no punishment…

If your conscience is transfered to another body, for what purpose do we even live and die? (Not that this is even possible, youd need your old brain to remember anything)

fire away…[/quote]

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment �??�?�¢?? all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1). [Cf. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der HÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?¶lle” in “Romische Quartalschrift” (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.]

However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. “CiviltÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?  Cattolica”, I, 1893, 672).[/quote]

whered you copy paste that jumble from …sigh read the questions again maybe - i didnt want to know about the “pains” of hell and that other shizenhousen you wrote…sigh sigh sigh[/quote]

I guess its just like the movies! you will die, then you will see your body on the floor. You will be slightly see-through, then you get called to heaven or hell! or wonder round the earth because you have unfinished bussiness!

problem is that if we (atheists) are wrong, then we get to go “holy sh^t I was wrong there is a god!”
whereas if the beleivers are wrong, they just die, so they never get to find out they are wrong! they die thinking their right! [/quote]

You never know mate - the pink unicorn could always come to our aid.

232

233

did you know there are roads in heaven! lol!

------- YouTube

234

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
Interesting thread, I’ll have to go through it completely when I return.

I will make a quick comment on one thing, though.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeah, good old Euthyphro. Naturalists/Physicalists (ie the morals derive from evolution crowd) end up getting stuck on his dilemma as well, because if they are right, then damned well anything goes. Thing is, theists have a pretty easy out from the dilemma. I thought of it myself before I ever even read all of the counter-arguments to it. God IS Good. Meaning, the nature of God is Goodness, so it’s a false dilemma. That which we can all agree is morally good (truth, justice, freedom, courage, self-sacrifice, love, etc.) is actually a reflection of the nature of God, himself. Whereas that we consider evil (deception, murder, rape, injustice, selfishness), is actually the result of separation from God. It is, in simplest terms, not-God. [/quote]

Not out of the dilemma yet, just changes how it’s organized.

The new dilemma is then: Is God’s nature the way it is because it is good or is God’s nature good simply because it is God’s nature?

Further, does your God command or perform immoral acts? [You can probably see where I’m going to go with this]

I should have time for a more suitable response when I get back. [/quote]

Good to see you hear anonfactor. I enjoyed your challenging banter on the last 100+ page morality thread.

Anyway I probably should have addressed this before answering all those other posts, but just understand that the other points I just addressed are my context for this answer:

In short, I think this amounts to splitting hairs, or playing with words. The definition of God is Goodness. The purest definition of Goodness is God. There is no separating the two, so there is no logical disconnect.

To look at it another couple of ways: Are we human because we understand right from wrong, or do we understand right from wrong because we are human? Well, what’s generally accepted as true is: both. What words do we use for particularly heinous psychopaths, like child rapist/murderers? Inhuman. Subhuman. Animal. Conversely, we do not expect animals to understand right from wrong, because they are not human. There is no dilemma in this. We certainly have no problem viewing either of these statements without any logical disconnect!

Another one, possibly easier to understand: light. Does it shine because it is light? Or is it light because it shines? When you are trying to find your way out of a dark forest at night, who freakin cares?

There is God and there is separation from God. That’s it.

And I’m out for the night.
[/quote]

I have heard - and read superficially - of this concept of with-god and separation from god. However, my own background - ex-muslim - means that my conception of any afterlife was dominated with a very physical, hot place called hell. Of course, I understand that not everyone views it that way.

And I know many, many christians who view it the same way. However, if you’re one that views it in terms of state (spiritual disconnect from god) I still feel that there is something resembling a punishment going on here. A friend of mine accepts this definition, but adds that the disconnect can last forever.

Do you subscribe to the punished-for-eternity paradigm?[/quote]

I’m Catholic. We believe Hell is very hot and unpleasant, possibly more terrible than it is even possible to imagine. I don’t think this is at odds with what I’ve posted so far.

It seems like punishment because you are a human, viewing it through your mortal, human lens; fogged and warped and distorted by the physical body we inhabit and the physical world in which we reside. And through this lens you presume to judge the actions of God.

If you really believe there is absolutely no God, and all of this just sprang forth from pure nothingness, then that’s one thing. But if you will presume to talk about what God is or does or what He should or shouldn’t do, then you would do well not to forget the above paragraph. [/quote]

This is interesting - Obviously i think, once youre dead…youre dead. But for the sake of the argument what exactly do you think you will be after your human body dies?/and maybe explain how you think it would happen.

My thoughts:

Do we exist in a state of pure energy?? If so - Fire and heat would be no punishment…

If your conscience is transfered to another body, for what purpose do we even live and die? (Not that this is even possible, youd need your old brain to remember anything)

fire away…[/quote]

Short answer: I don’t know.

Again though, you are focusing too much on the physical and the literal. Neither God nor souls are physical beings, they are spiritual beings. Being such, I assume that Hell is as metaphysical as our souls. However, so far as I know, no one knows “where” it is.

The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know. St. Chrysostom reminds us: “We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it” (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674). St. Augustine says: “It is my opinion that the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation”, (City of God XX.16).

The Bible, indeed Jesus himself, numerous times, does indeed state that Hell is real, however.

235

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…perhaps i’m simply a better person than you?

I kid, but is it really necessary to trot out Nazis again and again?

Repeat a lie over and over again and people will start to believe it’s true.

The dehumanisation of Jews began long before the Endlosung. IOW, they prepped the germans to think of Jews as subhuman. I kill mosquitos without a shred of guilt. I can’t imagine thinking the same about another human being, but many a nazi did.

The most important aspect of my way of living is honesty. Clear, unrelenting and bold honesty. Without that, you’re right; it would just be a go-with-the-flow kind of thing. Wishywashy.

You’ve made me change how i format my posts. Don’t know how, but i’ll keep it this way.[/quote]

In Sloth’s defense, eph, using Nazis as examples in a moral relativity argument is extremely relevant, as they are a perfect study: A society only a few years removed from us, that virtually everyone, in every society in the whole world, can agree was fucking evil. Argue this or argue that, but it’s pretty hard for anyone to say that they actually feel, deep down, that the Nazis were just going with their own feelings, doing what was right for their particular situation and society at the time.

I just got done watching the Russian film “Come and See,” and had my eyes opened to a heretofore unknown aspect of the pure, absolute evil that the Nazis embodied. Ever seen it? There’s a long scene where they load an entire Belorussian village, basically peasants, men, women, little boys and girls, babies, all, into a wooden church house. They tell the adults that they can leave through the side windows, but they will have to leave their children inside. After shooting round after round into the farmhouse, laughing maniacally, they set the entire thing on fire, burning up every last person remaining inside. One woman is “allowed” to escape. She brings her toddler, but they throw the child back into the window, drag her away by her hair and rape her repeatedly. At the end of the movie, we learn that this happened some 628 times.

Now, again, can any one of you tell me that it just happens to be because of the particular environment that you were raised in that you happen to find this morally repugnant? Can you think of any excuse for this?

No, using Nazis in internet debates may be cliched, but when the example calls for some pure, unadulterated, absolutely Satanic evil, the Nazis are your go-to guys every time. [/quote]

Without excusing anyone from acts against humanity you cannot discuss these issues without context. Why were the Germans able to do the things they did? Because they were primed to believe they were Ubermenschen.

After WW1 Germany was in shambles. Deep economic depression, hyperinflation, starvation and disease were a fact of life during the '20s and early '30s. The Germans were at their weakest, lowest point in their history. Then Hitler came to power. He promised them better times, and with foreign financial support he started to transform Germany, from the hellhole it was, back to it’s old glory.

Not only did he give them food, work, housing and money, he also gave them back their pride. Combine a charismatic leader with kept promises, and new sense of nationality that says you’re better than anyone else and, most importantly, give you a bad guy; when someone picks you up from the gutter like that, you tend to believe him.

This all hinges on beliefs: the belief that you are better, and the belief that others who are inferiour to you were the cause of your misery. This is the underlying cause of one of the largest atrocity in human history, and it has nothing to do with morality being relative.

As far as the Nazis were concerned, their belief in German rightousness was absolute.

[/quote]

Huh?

How does any of this somehow remove the act from the realm of morality? Are you talking about separating intentions and acts? Because you can’t. Just because the intention was a mistaken one is no excuse for the act.

In fact, what you are posting is, so far as I can tell, in almost exact agreement with the point Sloth was originally making when he brought this topic up. He specifically gave an example of a guard who saw (eventually) what he was doing as “right.”

I think I am missing your point or something here.

Just for clarification, MY point was that what the Nazis did, the acts, are pretty well universally agreed to be immoral. You’ll have to find some way to excuse (and thereby condone) those acts if you want to argue otherwise.

236

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

So, does it go both ways? Can you think of a situation in which discriminating against another group would be “right?” I’m not talking about protecting oneself, because I am pretty sure that is not what the nightclub owner had in mind. What I mean is, since it’s all relative, is it possible there is place or a time or a state that would allow for blatant discrimination against another group? Another race?

[/quote]

…i see no problem with being intolerant of intolerance. The easy way out of blaming others for my problems, that’s not me. But i don’t think that a system that allows for certain freedoms should have those freedoms used against itself, in order to bring it down. I can’t think of another scenario, to be honest…[/quote]

So, if we define intolerance here as: denying rights or privileges to a certain group of people based upon strictly superficial reasons (different color of skin, for instance) and for no other reason, may I then assume you believe that intolerance is wrong in any case?

Maybe I’m working too hard recently, but I’m having trouble understanding both of your last posts. If you could clarify I’d appreciate it.

237

[quote]Cortes wrote:
In fact, what you are posting is, so far as I can tell, in almost exact agreement with the point Sloth was originally making when he brought this topic up. He specifically gave an example of a guard who saw (eventually) what he was doing as “right.”

[/quote]

Spot on. The wrong becomes the right, and the right becomes the wrong. If you master the guilt associated with certain actions and thoughts, or lacked it in the first place, shooting the deatch camp prisoner is now the moral thing to do, while sneaking him some extra gruel is the wrong thing.

Now, the moral relativist standing outside of all of this might say “Those actions committed by them FEELS wrong, to me.” But one aware of his moral relativism must then admit that his feelings have betrayed him. There is no right or wrong, just different opinions.

Consider a self-aware moral relativist, and shining beacon of the aryan by all apearances, living within such a society (as Nazi Germany). His own position is secure, as far as not being put on a train and sent off to a camp. However, the actions of his leaders are coming to light, and he finds himself feeling repulsed, even FEELING guilty (not the he actually can be) for his passiveness in the face of the evil (feelings and opinion) being committed in his country. But, this is a person aware of moral relativism. An honest, true-believing moral relativist. He understands that he is only experiencing FEELINGS of right and wrong, moral and immoral, and good and evil. Intellectually he KNOWS such things don’t exist Intellectually he KNOWS (not feels) these actions are no more immoral than they are moral.

Being aware of this, and a true believer, he understands that he need only to kick back, become acclimated to his new world, and as the guilt and the upset FFELINGS diminish, so too the immorality of it all. Attend enough rallies, and the bad even becomes the good. Understanding all of this ahead of time, the guilt is already diminishing, the day looks a little brighter, and maybe he ought to report the nature of his neighbor’s heritage. Why, when safe from persecution yourself, risk life and limb to right a wrong that doesn’t actually exist. Maybe it was time for a new outlook anyways, right?

238

We seem to be touching on similar topics in multiple threads.

I’ll just point out that you don’t have to be a moral relativist if you don’t believe in supernatural beings. You can still have a clearly defined set of values without needing to believe those values are dictated by some higher power. You might believe those values are consistent with the natural laws of the universe, for example. Or you might believe they are worth pursuing for their own sake, and indeed that doing so is more admirable than when it is for an extrinsic selfish desire for divine rewards.

239

[quote]forlife wrote:
We seem to be touching on similar topics in multiple threads.

I’ll just point out that you don’t have to be a moral relativist if you don’t believe in supernatural beings. You can still have a clearly defined set of values without needing to believe those values are dictated by some higher power. You might believe those values are consistent with the natural laws of the universe, for example. Or you might believe they are worth pursuing for their own sake, and indeed that doing so is more admirable than when it is for an extrinsic selfish desire for divine rewards.[/quote]

But it is in fact mans nature to want those selfish rewards either in the hereafter or in the here and now. And in fact some create their own system (as you have mentioned) not based on any long standing dogma, in order to carry on with activities that they find pleasurable in the here and now. Selfish is selfish whether it be for a lusting of the hereafter or a lusting in the here and now.

240

I guess it depends how you define selfishness. Is it selfish to give your life to save the life of your child, or even the life of a stranger? People have done this because they valued others equally or even more than they valued themselves. Doing it for the promise of a heavenly reward is more selfish, IMO, than doing it for the sake of the act itself,