Religon - a flawed basis for morality?

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

This is a problem with using religion as a basis for morality - there's a lot of wriggle room depending on your (or, likely, someone else's) interpretation.

Isn't that the problem with all bases? Again perhaps you could actually deal with something relating to pre-death?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense.It's nothing about being "born bad". It's about what we've actually done.

What ever happened to original sin and the guy on the cross being tortured and murdered for us and all that?

I advocate neither.

Do you think people should be allowed to mutilate the genitals of their children because of religious edict? It's assault and should be prosecuted as such. Would you concur?

It's relevant to the discussion we're currently having.

No it's not. You keep going on about how God and Christ do this that 'n the other for you when nobody is asking you about it.

I could make the claim that my parents and teachers damaged me psychologically by filling my head with rubbish. I don't because then the issue become about me.

Shouldn't we just stick to the issue instead of personalising it?

Chuck Stone

prinz wrote: »

You mean telling a child that humans aren't perfect? Yeah awful.

Telling a child that 'Jesus died for your sins' is not the same as telling a child that humans aren't perfect. Can you see this or are you just being obtuse? Who says children need to be told that humans aren't perfect anyway?

How many Christian denominations instruct people to circumcise or FGM their children?

Where did I make that claim? Read my post properly please before you try to supplant my words with your thoughts.

prinz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Telling a child that 'Jesus died for your sins' is not the same as telling a child that humans aren't perfect. Can you see this or are you just being obtuse?

Oh I can see that alright, I can also see that you are now conflating two different responses to two different questions.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Where did I make that claim? Read my post properly please before you try to supplant my words with your thoughts.

Is this another one of those instances where we are supposed to be psychic? If you are going to include issues with different religions perhaps you could indicate when you are going from one to another to save confusion.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What ever happened to original sin and the guy on the cross being tortured and murdered for us and all that?

I believe people are responsible for their own sin. Original Sin isn't mentioned in the Bible. What is mentioned in the Bible is that the inclination to sin came as a result of the Fall (Romans 5:12).

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think people should be allowed to mutilate the genitals of their children because of religious edict? It's assault and should be prosecuted as such. Would you concur?

Yes in relation to FGM. Circumcision can have medical benefits.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No it's not. You keep going on about how God and Christ do this that 'n the other for you when nobody is asking you about it.

Yes it was relevant to your post. I'm entitled to respond to your posts as I deem fit. The same is true for you.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I could make the claim that my parents and teachers damaged me psychologically by filling my head with rubbish. I don't because then the issue become about me.

You could but it would be more likely than not hysterical nonsense. As I've told you before if you genuinely believed it were child abuse to teach a child about Christianity you'd have Christian children taken away from their parents by contacting social services.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Shouldn't we just stick to the issue instead of personalising it?

We are sticking to the issue. I'll post as I feel is best.

Chuck Stone

prinz wrote: »

Oh I can see that alright, I can also see that you are now conflating two different responses to two different questions.

Jesus didn't die of natural causes you know; he was tortured and murdered (or so the claim goes). Sins are bad things people do according to religion. Children are told they are born with original sin i.e. as bad people.

Get it now?

Is this another one of those instances where we are supposed to be psychic? If you are going to include issues with different religions perhaps you could indicate when you are going from one to another to save confusion.

Apply a little deductive logic I would suggest. Didn't you know that Christians don't practice circumcision and Muslims and Jews do?

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

Isn't that the problem with all bases?

I think people should come to their own moral positions so wriggle room is fine as long as its your own. When morality is handed down (and interpreted by others on the way) its a bit more dangerous.

prinz wrote: »

Again perhaps you could actually deal with something relating to pre-death?

Not sure what you're getting at - might be mixing me up with my near namesake?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

Yes in relation to FGM. Circumcision can have medical benefits.

Any percieved benfit is totally outweighed by the number of children who end up sick and dead every year from this barbaric proceedure. Boy mutilation okay - girl mutilation bad? What the hell?

You could but it would be more likely than not hysterical nonsense. As I've told you before if you genuinely believed it were child abuse to teach a child about Christianity you'd have Christian children taken away from their parents by contacting social services.

Again, there is a difference between teaching a child about Chritianity and filling their heads with nonsense. I think you will find that it is theists who systematically fill their children's heads with nonsense about people coming back from the dead and omnipresent entities listening to their thoughts etc.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Again, there is a difference between teaching a child about Chritianity and filling their heads with nonsense. I think you will find that it is theists who systematically fill their children's heads with nonsense about people coming back from the dead and omnipresent entities listening to their thoughts etc.

You mean, what you perceive to be nonsense.

Do you support shutting down churches and taking kids away from their parents as well?

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

It's nothing about being "born bad". It's about what we've actually done.

So, if I was to say, kill a newborn baby. Heck let's go all out, kill every newborn baby. Will those babies go to heaven or hell? If the answer is heaven, why won't you just sacrifice your chance in heaven for the greater good of millions of newborns and kill em all? If the answer is hell, what have those babies done?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

So, if I was to say, kill a newborn baby. Heck let's go all out, kill every newborn baby. Will those babies go to heaven or hell? If the answer is heaven, why won't you just sacrifice your chance in heaven for the greater good of millions of new borns and kill em all? If the answer is hell, what have those babies done?

I don't believe hell. I believe that God is just.

I do believe that the murderer would be liable to God's punishment unless they seriously and truly repented and turned their lives around however.

I don't see where sacrificing any chance of heaven comes into it. Those children have a perfectly good chance of coming to know and believe in the Lord Jesus as far as I see it. If there was any sacrifice to be made it is to share the Gospel with people.

Turtwig

Malty_T wrote: »

So, if I was to say, kill a newborn baby. Heck let's go all out, kill every newborn baby. Will those babies go to heaven or hell? If the answer is heaven, why won't you just sacrifice your chance in heaven for the greater good of millions of newborns and kill em all? If the answer is hell, what have those babies done?

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe hell. I believe that God is just.

I do believe that the murderer would be liable to God's punishment unless they seriously and truly repented and turned their lives around however.

I don't see where sacrificing any chance of heaven comes into it. Those children have a perfectly good chance of coming to know and believe in the Lord Jesus as far as I see it. If there was any sacrifice to be made it is to share the Gospel with people.

Sorry can you clarify this answer.

Are you saying you think these babies will end up in heaven up or hell?

God is just, that is about all I got understood from your post. Sorry.

I'm suggesting that you (or I) should sacrifice our chance to get into heaven by committing a string of mass murders! The rationale being we are saving the kids from hell. One life of eternal punishment to save the souls of potentially millions, sounds almost like a Jesus like sacrifice to me. We'd be saviours!
Of course, if God is going to send those babies to hell there's no point in us killing the babies. Obviously, our only option there would be to share the gospel and hope for the best. Although in that case I would have the question the "justness" of God.

Also, are you saying it's possible for us to kill millions of babies and still get into heaven if we truly repent? In which case you might be right, we mightn't even be sacrificing our chance of heaven and we could save all those millions of people by guaranteeing their entry to the home of the Lord..

philologos

Malty T: You made the question a good deal more complex by bringing in infanticide into it.

I don't believe they will go to hell. I also don't see why infanticide is necessary when it is possible that these children will learn about the Lord Jesus and be saved.

As for repentance. I believe that it is possible for the vilest criminal to turn their lives around. Only God will know in if people have done this in earnest. I have a huge belief that people can be transformed by the Gospel. Paul the Apostle was a mass murderer before he became to know Christ, I don't see how this couldn't be true of anyone else.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

I believe that God is just.

Of course you do. You believe that whatever God decides is just. God could decide to ask you to sacrifice your child and that would be just. God could condemn non believers to an eternity of punishment in hell and you would think it just.

You might as well have said:

I believe that God is God.

philologos

^^ You're right I may as well have said that. However, ultimately I can see God's fairness in the Bible and God's justice. God gives people opportunity after opportunity to acknowledge Him and His standards and they choose to reject it. From the beginning of God's revelation to the Hebrews right to the time of the Apostles proclaiming the risen Christ.

I guess a better answer to Malty T's post would be that I consider it fundamentally immoral to deny anyone the chance to know the Lord in this life as well as in the next. If there were no such thing as an afterlife I would still believe in God because I have come to see first hand how righteous, just, fair and loving He is. I find God a huge inspiration in respect to this finite life that I have on earth. I hope that others can only have that knowledge and understand.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

Paul the Apostle was a mass murderer before he became to know Christ, I don't see how this couldn't be true of anyone else.

wtf! Could some of Paul's victims be condemned to hell because they were prematurely murdered (and could have been eventually been Christians if Paul hadn't murdered them) and Paul gets a top job?

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

wtf! Could some of Paul's victims be condemned to hell because they were prematurely murdered (and could have been eventually been Christians if Paul hadn't murdered them) and Paul gets a top job?

As far as we know on a Biblical level Paul was responsible for martyring Christians. That's why his conversion is so incredible. He adopted the very ideology of those whom he hated for so long.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

You mean, what you perceive to be nonsense.

Do you support shutting down churches and taking kids away from their parents as well?

I don't think you should cite perception as misguiding me. If people were a little more perceptive then they'd question the nonsense theists allow to affect their minds.

I think it would be of great benefit to mankind if we could expunge ourselves of baseless superstitions of all sorts. And no, I wouldn't like to see all of it being done by force.

It's a bit like parents who over-feed their children. They don't really mean to make them fat and unhealthy but they are.

How do we tackle such a problem? By reasoned debate, education and encouraging critical thought in our kids and peers - we out-grow it.

As for geneital mutilation - I think it should be out-lawed and just called out for what it is i.e. adult-on-child assault. I'd have no problem telling a Muslim or Jew my stance on such barbarism and if there were a referendum on it I would vote to have it out-lawed and would canvass for it if I thought people would listen.

philologos

I'm saying that it is your opinion. You can state as much as you like that I've bought into nonsense and so on, but it makes equally little sense for you to do this unless you can tell me why you think it is nonsense.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

As far as we know on a Biblical level Paul was responsible for martyring Christians. That's why his conversion is so incredible. He adopted the very ideology of those whom he hated for so long.

So they were likely destined for Heaven anyway - lucky break.
But there could have been some of his victims that were destined for hell at the point of their murder, who might later have turned things around and have been saved. Paul might have robbed them not only of their life, but of their chance of salvation. God's justice is arbitrary.

philologos

How is God's justice arbitrary? - Paul accepted Christ, Christ paid for His sins as much as He paid for mine. Paul is still a sinner. I am still a sinner. Christ has given us a chance to start afresh. Paul used this freedom that He had in Christ to restore his relationship with God as I also aim to do.

The problem if we reject this is we also reject the forgiveness that Christ offered us at least from a Christian perspective.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

How is God's justice arbitrary? - Paul accepted Christ, Christ paid for His sins as much as He paid for mine. Paul is still a sinner. I am still a sinner. Christ has given us a chance to start afresh. Paul used this freedom that He had in Christ to restore his relationship with God as I also aim to do.

The victims of Paul, possibly condemned to hell as they were prematurely killed before they may have earned their place in heaven.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

The victims of Paul, possibly condemned to hell as they were prematurely killed before they may have earned their place in heaven.

The victims of Paul as far as we know were Christians. What do you mean "earned their place in heaven" by the way?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that it is your opinion.

And ducks float on water. Well spotted. Would you like me to adopt the opinion of a third party?

tell me why you think it is nonsense.

Off the top of my head with a few beers in me..

People coming back from the dead.
Guys doing stuff which defies physics (parting the sea - water to wine)
Thought without matter.
Omnipresence.
Virgin births.

Total nonsense.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

The victims of Paul as far as we know were Christians. What do you mean "earned their place in heaven" by the way?

I mean that at a particular point in time, if they died, they would have been admitted to heaven.

For example, as an atheist, I haven't earned my place in heaven. If I die now, I will be destined for hell. If I live longer, I just might accept Jesus as my saviour and I just might make it to heaven.

But if Paul (or someone else) kills me now, my chance is extinguished. My eternal future depends not on me nor on God, but on some random murderer.

philologos

I don't believe anyone "earns heaven". Rather they accept it. As far as I'm concerned I don't deserve to be forgiven because I've very clearly done what is wrong in my life, but because of God's love and Christ's crucifixion and resurrection I have a second shot to put things right with God, if I accept it. It's a free gift from God to all who are willing to accept the gift of mercy and grace. That's the good news that Christians talk about.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Off the top of my head with a few beers in me..

People coming back from the dead.
Guys doing stuff which defies physics (parting the sea - water to wine)
Thought without matter.
Omnipresence.
Virgin births.

Total nonsense.

These things only become nonsense when we assume that God doesn't exist. If God does exist there is no reason why He would be bound by the laws of physics that He Himself created.

dvpower

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe anyone "earns heaven". Rather they accept it. As far as I'm concerned I don't deserve to be forgiven because I've very clearly done what is wrong in my life, but because of God's love and Christ's crucifixion and resurrection I have a second shot to put things right with God, if I accept it. It's a free gift from God to all who are willing to accept the gift of mercy and grace. That's the good news that Christians talk about.

Try
' engage in discussion
Catch ex As Exception
' revert to safe ground
EndTry

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

These things only become nonsense when we assume that God doesn't exist.

Assuming a negative?

If God does exist there is no reason why He would be bound by the laws of physics that He Himself created.

Why not?

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Assuming a negative?

Absolutely. It's about as possible as assuming a positive.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why not?

If God created the universe and if He knows every intricate detail about it there is no reason to believe that God couldn't manipulate the laws of the universe. It doesn't mean that I have to deny science either because it isn't claimed to be a natural event.

Chuck Stone

If God created the universe and if He knows every intricate detail about it there is no reason to believe that God couldn't manipulate the laws of the universe.

LOL.

It doesn't mean that I have to deny science either because it isn't claimed to be a natural event.

Oh dear me how convienient (sp?). And that's where we get the word supernatural from is it not?

su·per·nat·u·ral

[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl]
–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity.

In other words completely irrelevant to everyday reality.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

^^ You're right I may as well have said that. However, ultimately I can see God's fairness in the Bible and God's justice.

But anytime anything that looks ridiculously unfair (such as God ordering his soldiers to butcher entire civilisations), the answer is always Well God decides what is right or wrong, fair or unfair.

So how can you see God's fairness in the Bible? You take the bits you agre with and use them to support your position, and then explain away the bits you don't agree with as something that cannot be used against God.

Or to put it another way, do you accept that someone can read the Old Testament and see God's spectacular unfairness and injustice? If the answer is no you can't because we cannot judge God then what are you doing when you say you see God's justice and fairness in the Bible if not judging God?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

But anytime anything that looks ridiculously unfair (such as God ordering his soldiers to butcher entire civilisations), the answer is always Well God decides what is right or wrong, fair or unfair.

Giving people centuries and centuries chance to turn around before punishment is fair. The same occurred to the Israelites after they had disregarded God.

Wicknight wrote: »

So how can you see God's fairness in the Bible? You take the bits you agre with and use them to support your position, and then explain away the bits you don't agree with as something that cannot be used against God.

I don't believe I do explain things away, rather I aim to put things into their correct context. I aim to consider the whole Bible and I read the Old Testament as well as the New Testament on a regular basis.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or to put it another way, do you accept that someone can read the Old Testament and see God's spectacular unfairness and injustice? If the answer is no you can't because we cannot judge God then what are you doing when you say you see God's justice and fairness in the Bible if not judging God?

Only if they don't consider the full narrative or consider what has occurred up until that point.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

LOL.

I'm glad that you find my posts at least humorous. I don't see why it is so difficult to believe that God can perform miracles if He is the Creator. If not I understand fully your "LOL".

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh dear me how convienient (sp?). And that's where we get the word supernatural from is it not?

Not at all. Science observes the regular laws of the universe. As the philosopher David Hume noted we think that the sun will rise each morning but it could be the case that it wouldn't rise tomorrow. On the basis of our experience and what we've observed it's incredibly improbable, but it could nonetheless happen.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In other words completely irrelevant to everyday reality.

I don't see how you draw that conclusion. If God exists, I couldn't think of anything more relevant to reality.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Right, my mind reading skills are obviously a bit off today, hence the confusion. How silly of me to ask for clarification.

Givge it a rest, Prinz. You went down your own cul de sac without asking for directions first. Dont blame me.

prinz wrote: »

As I have explained as has Jakkass from his point of view sins = bad. None of the Christian churches that I'm aware of teaches that people should (I notice the shift away from 'may' back to 'should' here) go to hell.

And as i explaned already, the should/may distinction is irrelevent. It is equally abhorrent that I may go to hell for a thought crime as it is that I should go to hell for a thought crime.

Do you believe it is just that I may go to hell for a thought crime?

prinz wrote: »

You have no idea, yet you know what interpretations "many of them give" and are able to tell me that I am at odds with them in mine? .....and you tell me to 'take a step back'.

I had no idea what your religon was when I made that comment. I love the way you try and claim all of these little pointless petty victories, but put your foot in your mouth each time!!:D

prinz wrote: »

Note, free choice and self-exclusion. It is not a punishment to be imposed on us, but a condition we choose for ourselves. Nobody is being damned.. from my point of view (you know not being dead and that) if anyone ends up in 'hell' it is because they choose that state not because they have been damned to it against their will.

Oh please. I have a choice to accept god; if I dont, I go to hell.:(

Do you really think that is a free choice?. Think about it Prinz. I vaguely rememebr you were a law student at one point in time. Please try and use the critical faculties you were taught in order to come to a conclusion on this.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Giving people centuries and centuries chance to turn around before punishment is fair. The same occurred to the Israelites after they had disregarded God.

And butchering children because their parents worshipped the wrong god?

philologos wrote: »

Only if they don't consider the full narrative or consider what has occurred up until that point.

What occurred up until that point that makes it fair?

Imagine that Barrack Obama decided that because the Libyan leader Gaddafi was stubbornly refusing to give up power he was going to send in his special forces to kill every single first born child in Libya. Would that be fair?

Is it just to kill children to punish their parents, or even just punish the unelected King of their parents?

I suspect you don't see fairness in these acts at all, but compartmentalize these acts as God knows best I shouldn't judge

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I'm glad that you find my posts at least humorous. I don't see why it is so difficult to believe that God can perform miracles if He is the Creator. If not I understand fully your "LOL".

'Ifs' and 'buts' candy and nuts.

Not at all. Science observes the regular laws of the universe. As the philosopher David Hume noted we think that the sun will rise each morning but it could be the case that it wouldn't rise tomorrow. On the basis of our experience and what we've observed it's incredibly improbable, but it could nonetheless happen.

Want to put some money on the fact that the Sun will come up? Let's give our opinions some real-world weight. No?

I don't see how you draw that conclusion. If God exists, I couldn't think of anything more relevant to reality.

Ifs.

D.L.R.

The sooner this fetid cult called the Irish Catholic church is finally banished from our shores the better. Bring back the snakes, I say.

Future generations will look back agog at this insane and criminally vicious 'church' that had Ireland enthralled during its first century of freedom, all while committing the gravest of crimes against the innocent with impunity. Institutionalised child rape. Crimes any morally upstanding atheist or agnostic would never dream of committing in their darkest hour.

The Irish Catholic church preaching moral values? F*** off. Each time I see a priest's crimes exposed, my heart sings. Not for the victims suffering, but for the light it shines on this darkest and seediest of "religions", another nail in the coffin of roman cultism in Ireland.

Buddhism, Taoism - those doctrines at least give honour to the word "Religion" and "faith". Catholicism, and all the Abrahimic faiths really, can't be taken seriously by any thinking person.

But hey, worship whichever sky fairy cult you like, just don't expect me to give a crap or give you any special deference, and certainly don't expect me to yield any taxes to you.

What you can expect is ridicule and vehement opposition.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

I've told nozzferrahhtoo that I'm going to revise my reasons that I've already given and I'm going to do so.

Is there a mailing list I can subscribe to where you will inform me/us when you do this? I would hate to miss it. Maybe you can take names and notes and send out a general invitation to us all with a link to where you do it.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Morality as far as I see it is based on God Himself. What God regards as good ultimately is good, and what God regards as evil is ultimately evil.

One wonders if its opinion is fixed in anyway. I have always felt a strong connection with the tom waits lyric which I will quote from memory as best I can: "Theres no such thing as the devil... thats just god when he is drunk"

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Givge it a rest, Prinz. You went down your own cul de sac without asking for directions first. Dont blame me.

I asked for directions. I asked you a simpl question. What organisation were you referring to. You chose not to answer.

drkpower wrote: »

I had no idea what your religon was when I made that comment. I love the way you try and claim all of these little pointless petty victories, but put your foot in your mouth each time!!:D

So now you are just pulling claims out of your ass and refusing to back them up? My denomination is irrelevant to the question I asked. You made a claim, I asked you to back up your claim.

drkpower wrote: »

Do you really think that is a free choice?. Think about it Prinz. I vaguely rememebr you were a law student at one point in time. Please try and use the critical faculties you were taught in order to come to a conclusion on this.

I have the free choice to put a gun to my temple and pull the trigger. If I do there's a good chance I will die. Is it still a free choice? Is a choice only free if there are no negative consequences to any possible outcome?

What might possibly have been an interesting thread ruined by muppetry.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

......out of your ass ...... muppetry.....

Temper Prinz, temper.:pac: I dont have time to humour your attempts to spoil for a fight. Next time, when I say 'take it up with another poster', you can take that to mean that what I am disputing is what the other poster said, and is not an invitation for you to get involved. Take it as a learning point and move on.

prinz wrote: »

I have the free choice to put a gun to my temple and pull the trigger. If I do there's a good chance I will die. Is it still a free choice? Is a choice only free if there are no negative consequences to any possible outcome?.

:DIs that the best comparison you could mak to another entity punishing you for all eternity if you do not believe that that other entity exists?
Do you see anything fundamentally flawed with your analogy?
Would you like to try again? Surely you can do better?

Back to the fundamental question: Do you believe it is right to base a system of morals on teachings that say that it is just that a good person may suffer eternal pain for nothing other than not believing in a particular entity?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Temper Prinz, temper.:pac: I dont have time to humour your attempts to spoil for a fight. Next time, when I say 'take it up with another poster', you can take that to mean that what I am disputing is what the other poster said, and is not an invitation for you to get involved. Take it as a learning point and move on.

...and here was I thinking it was a discussion board for all users. Perhaps you should use the PM function next time?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

...and here was I thinking it was a discussion board for all users. Perhaps you should use the PM function next time?

Do you have anything on the substance Prinz, or do you want to endlessy rake over this?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Do you have anything on the substance Prinz, or do you want to endlessy rake over this?

You mean trying to encourage something approaching a discussion that might have been fruitful? Like this which I posted a number of pages ago..

If someone believes that after they die they are going to hop on a giant meatball and float on up to the flying spaghetti monster next to the pink unicorn and chocolate teapot that information alone is not enough to qualify or disqualify their moral outlook on life before death. I'd much prefer to base it any opinion on their morals on what they believe with regard to how they conduct themselves, and how they view and interact with other people.

The theology of the afterlife is best left for another discussion unless it impacts directly upon someone's behaviour before death. As most Christian denominations assume that everyone is a sinner, that even though we are sinners we have been saved if that's what we want then I don't believe many live their lives based on a reward/punishment post-death basis, but rather by the guidelines we have inherited on how we should live our lives for the benefit of ourselves and those we live with in this life it would be far more beneficial in terms of this thread to discuss those instructions if needs be.

Unfortunately it was ignored by certain posters intent on focusing on something else/grinding whatever the axe of the day is. Like I pointed out a discussion on what may or may not happen to any of us after death is best left to the Christianity forum as it is irrelevant to this one in the grand scheme of things.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Like this..

It was ignored by certain posters intent on focusing on something else.

It was probably ignored because it is really just a lot of motherhood and apple pie. Sounds good but doesnt recognise the, eh, not-so-nice 'guidelines' that god has given you.

So, what I would like to know is whether you believe it is right to base a system of morals on teachings that say that it is just that a good person may suffer eternal pain for nothing other than not believing in a particular entity?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

So, what I would like to know is whether you believe it is right to base a system of morals on teachings that say that it is just that a good person may suffer eternal pain for nothing other than not believing in a particular entity?

...we've already been over that. Lack of belief alone during your lifetime is not enough to damn you post death according to the major Christian denominations. Anything that may/may not happen after death (to the faithful as well as everybody else, as you seem to often forget) really is irrelevant to this topic and a waste of time as an avenue for discussion.

Dawkins forbid we might move away from the grinding noise though.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

...we've already been over that. Lack of belief alone during your lifetime is not enough to damn you post death according to the major Christian denominations. .

Didnt you say that 'self-exclusion' is a justification for hell?

If you are saying that a lack of belief, in no circumstances, warrants a trip to hell, perhaps you might outline what sins do warrant a trip to hell, according to your god, so that we can determine whether his teachings are a good or flawed basis for morality?

prinz wrote: »

Anything that may/may not happen after death (to the faithful as well as everybody else, as you seem to often forget) really is irrelevant to this topic and a waste of time as an avenue for discussion..

Wtf...?!!:pac:
What your god believes is a just punishment, whether in life or after life, is directly relevant to whether we should use that god's views as the basis for a system of morality.

If he believes something utterly reprehensible, surely it can allow us to draw conclusion as toi his credibility and suitability as a moral leader?

(are you sure you studied law, Prinz....?)

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

If you are saying that a lack of belief, in no circumstances, warrants a trip to hell, perhaps you might outline what sins do warrant a trip to hell, according to your god, so that we can determine whether his teachings are a good or flawed basis for morality?

..and we're back to a theological discussion best suited elsewhere.

drkpower wrote: »

Wtf...?!!:pac: What your god believes is a just punishment, whether in life or after life, is directly relevant to whether we should use that god's views as the basis for a system of morality.

Not really. As you'd be so eager to point out anywhere else none of us know exactly what happens after death. Maybe absolutely nothing. Maybe we return to dirt and recycle our atoms or whatever. Now let's say in that eventuality somebody has been a good faithful Christian for example and has lived up to the moral teachings of Jesus (on how Christians should live their lives-not worry about their deaths) all his life. What he believed would happen after death doesn't pan out. Does that negate his life, ethics or his moral outlook? Has he lived a moral life?

drkpower wrote: »

If he believes something utterly reprehensible, surely it can allow us to draw conclusion as toi his credibility and suitability as a moral leader?

If he believes something utterly reprehensible. Saying 'I'm not 100% sure what happens after death' is not exactly reprehensible, is it? Saying 'let's say you are given absolute certainty on the existense of God, and Giod wants you to join him or return to nothingness..... if you choose nothingness that's what you get' is not reprehensible. That's the free choice you are so concerned about. What do you want the religions to say? They go to God-heaven and non-believers go to atheist heaven? Wouldn't that be taken as just as big an insult to non-believers... with a similar absence of 'free choice'?

drkpower wrote: »

(are you sure you studied law, Prinz....?)

Why the small font?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

..and we're back to a theological discussion best suited elsewhere.

No, it is suited to here because we get to see what it is your religon teaches - and in a discussion on whether religon is a flawed basis for morality, that is directly relevant.

prinz wrote: »

..Not really. As you'd be so eager to point out anywhere else none of us know exactly what happens after death. .

If he believes something utterly reprehensible. Saying 'I'm not 100% sure what happens after death' is not exactly reprehensible, is it?

Of course we dont. But someone's views as to whether I will suffer eternal pain in the afterlife is directly relevant to a determination of whether that person's views are a suitable basis for morality. You do see that, dont you?

Saying I may suffer for eternity after death is pretty reprehensible, yes. Just because they might be wrong doesnt change the moral worthiness of the assertion.

Anyway, what about that list of what your god says justifies a trip to hell? That really is central to the question of whether your god should be the basis for a system oif morality, but you are havent provided the list yet.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

No, it is suited to here because we get to see what it is your religon teaches - and in a discussion on whether religon is a flawed basis for morality, that is directly relevant..

I'm looking at morality as a sense of personal conduct, behaviour, actions, intentions, what influences decisions etc in this world. When it comes to Christianity what may or may not happen after death we are not sure about, but have faith in. However what may/may not happen to Joe Bloggs after death in no way affects my moral outlook in making everyday decisions. Christianity in general does at times, and Christianity in general teaches us to take care of ourselves and others in the here and now and leave the judging of souls after death to a higher power. So no, the outcome of an unrepentent sinner who refuses God after death has no relevance whatsoever to my moral attitude on a daily basis, directly or indirectly.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course we dont. But someone's views as to whether I will suffer eternal pain in the afterlife is directly relevant to a determination of whether that person's views are a suitable basis for morality. You do see that, dont you?..

A suitable basis for who? For you maybe not. Then again the thread isn't about picking one basis for morality to fit everyone and nobody has tried to argue in specific terms that one moral basis must be imposed upon everyone else.

drkpower wrote: »

Saying I may suffer for eternity after death is pretty reprehensible, yes. Just because they might be wrong doesnt change the moral worthiness of the assertion...

I may suffer for eternity after death. I may go into nothingness in the sense of before one is born. I may end up in the land of milk and honey. Do any of the possibilities negatively affect my moral compass while I'm alive? In my opinion, no.

drkpower wrote: »

Anyway, what about that list of what your god says justifies a trip to hell? That really is central to the question of whether your god should be the basis for a system oif morality, but you are havent provided the list yet.

While there are generally accepted sins which put your spiritual wellbeing in danger I don't know of any list which sentences anyone to hell for eternity.

drkpower wrote: »

That really is central to the question of whether your god should be the basis for a system oif morality.

It isn't.