Theology

Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
It wouldn't be dangerous for us as individuals (at least not immediately), but for society in general. If, as you've proposed, everyone ceased believing in objective morality tomorrow, we would probably muddle along just fine for a while. Similarly to how the West has continued to free ride on the accumulated capital of its Christian heritage despite the dechristianization that has been going on for the past 100 years or so. But everything that was built upon that Christian foundation-- liberal democracy, human rights, etc.-- would start to erode. Evil philosophies like eugenics and fascism would begin to take their place, because we'd have traded the idea that "every human being has worth" for "only the strong ought to survive".

We're seeing some of this already, though it's been a more gradual process. I don't see much hope for reversing it.

Uh then how does one explain the treatment of natives and blacks.
 

Walter White

New member
Messages
733
Reaction score
61
Uh then how does one explain the treatment of natives and blacks.

By calling it a great injustice caused by sin. People acting out of their own self interest who dehumanized a group to benefit and gain power. This has happened throughout human history and still does.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
16,084
It wouldn't be dangerous for us as individuals (at least not immediately), but for society in general. If, as you've proposed, everyone ceased believing in objective morality tomorrow, we would probably muddle along just fine for a while. Similarly to how the West has continued to free ride on the accumulated capital of its Christian heritage despite the dechristianization that has been going on for the past 100 years or so. But everything that was built upon that Christian foundation-- liberal democracy, human rights, etc.-- would start to erode. Evil philosophies like eugenics and fascism would begin to take their place, because we'd have traded the idea that "every human being has worth" for "only the strong ought to survive".

We're seeing some of this already, though it's been a more gradual process. I don't see much hope for reversing it.

We'll agree to strongly disagree on that.

I think that your belief that social Darwinism is inevitable without a God to punish us is grossly inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
By calling it a great injustice caused by sin. People acting out of their own self interest who dehumanized a group to benefit and gain power. This has happened throughout human history and still does.

It sounded like the argument was subtract Christianity and look where it takes us... but we didn't value all human life even with a majority of people being Christian.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
16,084
By calling it a great injustice caused by sin. People acting out of their own self interest who dehumanized a group to benefit and gain power. This has happened throughout human history and still does.

So if humans are capable of doing such terrible things with a god in the sky, why does his existence necessarily keep us on the straight and narrow.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
So if humans are capable of doing such terrible things with a god in the sky, why does his existence necessarily keep us on the straight and narrow.

It doesn't. I would argue that knowing right from wrong is partly inborn. That is why almost every society (even before Christianity) had rules and social norms. Some things were almost always taboo (murder, incest, etc). We don't need a God to teach us these things, as most of it is inborn and more and more studies seem to support it.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
16,084
It doesn't. I would argue that knowing right from wrong is partly inborn. That is why almost every society (even before Christianity) had rules and social norms. Some things were almost always taboo (murder, incest, etc). We don't need a God to teach us these things, as most of it is inborn and more and more studies seem to support it.

That's essentially my argument.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution is the result of genetic mutation (completely random) and environmental pressures (not random, but also not a very compelling basis for deciding which humans live and which ones die).[\QUOTE]
Mostly correct but not sure about the environmental pressures statement. Humans are certainly choosing their own selections (which does have moral implications as a cultural issue) and as a group humans are not that genetically diverse (this is a natural issue as a lower diversity is susceptible to environmental selections). To sum up humans are genetically susceptible to evolutionary pressures more so than most other organisms. For reference Africans are the most diverse genetically, the Irish and United Kingdom have the least diversity. Humans have 46 chromosomes......there is a fern that has over 1,000. Also evolution acts at different taxonomic levels. Taxa with diverse genera like insects or oceanic invertebrates are vastly more diverse compared to apes. So with this knowledge what is the moral thing to do? Humans would still have a social construct on which to proceed however aren't we already deciding who lives and who dies to an extent? The current economic and cultural systems are doing that. We also are the only organism that choose to live outside our our natural carrying capacity. To me that is subjectively immoral.

Its result is to ensure that only the most fit survive. It assigns no value to those individuals who aren't strong or smart enough to reproduce (or "contribute" to society).

Compare that to the Christian view which asserts that every human life, regardless of his or her luck in the genetic lottery, is equally valuable. Do you not see how those divergent pictures of morality would end up with vastly different conceptions of justice

It's not about strong or weak either. Protists are extremely small but very successful for billions of years. They are genetically diverse and will survive all but a direct destruction of the planet. They are very important biologically but their importance to us is not even considered.The subjective choice lies wholly with us. I know so many Christians and other religious factions that value life very little in all its glory by virtue of practice and commentary. Ideally I see what you are saying but practically it is not being implemented IMO. I do not agree with eugenics but a knowledge of the facts of evolution are helpful as long as we choose them to be. It's kind of like nuclear power. We can break or we can build. It's our choice based on our cultural values.
 

Walter White

New member
Messages
733
Reaction score
61
It sounded like the argument was subtract Christianity and look where it takes us... but we didn't value all human life even with a majority of people being Christian.

Can't speak for Whisky (especially when i think he might be aguing otherwise) but I would argue the difference between social Christianity as religion and individual grace-filled Christianity as real salvation.
 

Walter White

New member
Messages
733
Reaction score
61
I don't get where the distinction takes us.

Sorry i apologize, that was kind of non descriptive. Christianity can be when used as religion, simply just moral law or code. Something Christ warned the pharisees many a time. The moral law is held in the highest esteem by Christ, but as he points out to the expert in the law, it is insufficient unless also paired with grace.

Check out the parable of the good samaritan, Luke 10:25-37. I think the common question none of us want ask is "who is our neighbor?".

Sorry if this doesn't help any more either. Religion can tolerate racism. Grace has no room for it.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
The act of helping someone is not objective in itself. It is subjective initially. Whatever the help is must be done in a manner perceived not only by the helper but the helpee as a good thing. Otherwise it may not be moral, so it could remain subjective. If this act is deemed as a good thing and persists over time, then it can be viewed by the larger group as "objective."

In your example, the priest was helping in a manner he considered to be correct and moral, however the helpee did not. Subjective. Now if the priest continued in this manner, say like in the expansion of the New World, the "civilization" of Old World peoples has been objectively determined to have been a good thing, even though we now have significantly less indigenous peoples that were replaced by a culture that believes the effort was a good and moral thing to do.

The echinacea is a unlucky by-stander due to its lack of a nerve cord and self-awareness. ;)

We have the same perspective of course! I am glad you knew I ked.

But it is too much to assume that the other person did or did not. Here is the point. EVEN THE OTHER PERSON, if he were REALY A DEVOUT CONVERT MAY THINK THAT THE PRIEST WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING! See? This is a really important point.

I assume for the argument, that anything non-human falls further down the chain, and a lower, looser set of moral rules guide that plant-I-cide.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I strongly recommend getting high as shit and (re)reading this thread. Top notch stuff in here.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Sorry i apologize, that was kind of non descriptive. Christianity can be when used as religion, simply just moral law or code. Something Christ warned the pharisees many a time. The moral law is held in the highest esteem by Christ, but as he points out to the expert in the law, it is insufficient unless also paired with grace.

Check out the parable of the good samaritan, Luke 10:25-37. I think the common question none of us want ask is "who is our neighbor?".

Sorry if this doesn't help any more either. Religion can tolerate racism. Grace has no room for it.

It helps me. I am graceful as fuck
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I strongly recommend getting high as shit and (re)reading this thread. Top notch stuff in here.

I don't mess with the weed anymore. Too confusing. The very last time I got high I was playing my acoustic guitar and was like "man I'm kicking some ass!! I'm the new Santana!". Then I paused and was like "maybe I'm just really high". That internal debate (which lasted a good forty five minutes) proved to be too much.
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
I don't mess with the weed anymore. Too confusing. The very last time I got high I was playing my acoustic guitar and was like "man I'm kicking some ass!! I'm the new Santana!". Then I paused and was like "maybe I'm just really high". That internal debate (which lasted a good forty five minutes) proved to be too much.

I bet you play everything from Santana to El Chicano. You know... everything.
 

InKellyWeTrust

Well-known member
Messages
2,955
Reaction score
3,387
I can sum up my thoughts on this thread with a simple, yet astounding verse.

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:12

Logic is a strong tool when applied to areas such as mathematics or philosophy. Knowledge (and the scientific method) is powerful when it concerns the natural world. Language can be influential when scripted by the astute.

None of these, however, when examined alone or in total can account for faith. Faith is fundamental. If one cannot accept the idea of not knowing, one cannot truly believe in anything.
 
Last edited:

NDohio

Well-known member
Messages
5,869
Reaction score
3,060
Grey and Irishog were really starting to touch on some doctrinal discussion that is intriguing to me. It's interesting reading a lot of the information on here that comes from the Catholic perspective as a non-Catholic. This is where the difference comes into play of religion vs Christianity and I think where a lot of people lose their way. When we begin to see some of the rules and doctrine of a church that may be based on human morals, as opposed to be Biblical truth, then I get the questions of whether you are sinning or not.

IMO, for a church to fall under the term of Christianity there area few beliefs that absolutely have to be there - the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is an example. Contraception was brought up earlier. Catholicism does not believe in contraception - all others do. Contraception is not a Biblical concept, it is a Religious one. It is not an absolute in Christianity and carries no weight as being a sin against God if contraception is used.

Even within Biblical concepts there can be disagreements between religions. Take Baptism as an example. Some believe baptism absolutely has to be full emersion(as that is the definition of baptism form the Greek baptismo) and others believe sprinkling over the head is sufficient. The reality is neither. When conversion takes place you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, the act of the water baptism is a symbol, nothing more.

Sorry if this is a little off the topic of attempting to prove there is a God, but some of the questions being asked delve into this side of things. Christianity and religion are not equal and not all sin is against God, but some is against the ________ church where a person worships.

Wish I had more time to get into this more - gotta run.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
IMO, for a church to fall under the term of Christianity there are a few beliefs that absolutely have to be there - the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is an example. Contraception was brought up earlier. Catholicism does not believe in contraception - all others do.

It's worth noting that all Christian denominations uniformly condemned contraception use prior to the 20th century. But yes, now the Roman and some Orthodox Churches are virtually alone in prohibiting it.

Contraception is not a Biblical concept, it is a Religious one.

Not true. Luther and Calvin both cited the story of Onan in Genesis as the basis for Protestant opposition to contraception; a stance which all Protestant churches maintained until the Anglican church approved its use under certain circumstances at the Lambeth Conference in 1930.

It is not an absolute in Christianity and carries no weight as being a sin against God if contraception is used.

The first half of sentence is obvious, as the Catholic church is basically alone in maintaining its stance against contraception now. But the second half is a naked assertion of your own religious dogma. Your (presumably Protestant) church may teach as much, but simply stating it doesn't make it so.

When conversion takes place you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, the act of the water baptism is a symbol, nothing more.

Again, this is the Protestant view, and is not representative of Christianity generally. All of the "high" churches hold that the sacraments convey special graces, which would make them much more than merely symbolic rituals.
 

chubler

Active member
Messages
386
Reaction score
34
It's worth noting that all Christian denominations uniformly condemned contraception use prior to the 20th century. But yes, now the Roman and some Orthodox Churches are virtually alone in prohibiting it.

The first half of sentence is obvious, as the Catholic church is basically alone in maintaining its stance against contraception now. But the second half is a naked assertion of your own religious dogma. Your (presumably Protestant) church may teach as much, but simply stating it doesn't make it so.

Again, this is the Protestant view, and is not representative of Christianity generally. All of the "high" churches hold that the sacraments convey special graces, which would make them much more than merely symbolic rituals.

Gonna try to bring all this back to the earlier discussion of objective moral truth and catholic dogma. Ready?

Seems to me there's a bit of confusion around here regarding the precise nature of Catholic dogma, doctrine, and the rules and statements of the Catholic Church in general. Unlike most American Protestant and Evangelical churches, the Roman Catholic Church very rarely makes a definitive theological or moral statement which would be binding on its adherents. It's much closer to a common-law system than most believe. Catholic teaching, known as a whole as doctrine, separates out roughly into these categories:

Dogma: Teachings or articles of faith considered infallible by the grace of the holy spirit. This is extremely limited to points of major theological importance. To be considered "Catholic", you are required to believe and obey dogmas. Examples include the Trinity or Purgatory. (exhaustive list, with Imprimatur: Dogmas of the Catholic Church - Catholic Apologetics)

Canon Law (aka rules or teachings): formal rules, teachings, or positions promulgated by the church. These often include positions on moral issues but are not infallible and are open to change at any time should the Pope or a council of the bishops with the Pope's approval see fit. Catholics are still bound to obey Canon Law, but since the Church does not "guarantee" their truth, there's some leeway for conscientious objection, recognizing the fallibility of the human church.

Theological Opinion: A theologian's opinion on a specific subject, which the Church has not formally spoken on. Often, these will be picked up by larger sections of the church and taught alongside Canon Law. These have no force until recognized.

Every bit of Catholic Teaching starts as an opinion, much like a single ruling in common law. The prohibition of contraception has been officially and formally recognized and encoded in Canon Law, but not as a Dogma. Therefore, a Catholic who firmly believes after prayerful discernment that contraception is morally justified, ie the right thing to do, in his specific situation is not sinning. However, a true discernment of what is right includes admitting to oneself that the Church is far less prone to error than any individual, and an examination of one's true motives for attempting to rationalize the breach of canon law. This is a fundamentally different, more humble cognitive process than one that is made when considering whether to break a secular law.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I don't mess with the weed anymore. Too confusing. The very last time I got high I was playing my acoustic guitar and was like "man I'm kicking some ass!! I'm the new Santana!". Then I paused and was like "maybe I'm just really high". That internal debate (which lasted a good forty five minutes) proved to be too much.

Indica vs Sativa?
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
Before things get way of topic "kush" "indica" "sativa" mean very little at this point in time.

We can move it to the marijuana thread
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Great clarification, chubler.

Every bit of Catholic Teaching starts as an opinion, much like a single ruling in common law. The prohibition of contraception has been officially and formally recognized and encoded in Canon Law, but not as a Dogma. Therefore, a Catholic who firmly believes after prayerful discernment that contraception is morally justified, ie the right thing to do, in his specific situation is not sinning. However, a true discernment of what is right includes admitting to oneself that the Church is far less prone to error than any individual, and an examination of one's true motives for attempting to rationalize the breach of canon law. This is a fundamentally different, more humble cognitive process than one that is made when considering whether to break a secular law.

And I agree with this completely. I just took umbrage with NDinOhio's "just so" assertions that: (1) the prohibition against contraception has no basis in Scripture; and (2) that using contraception is never a sin.
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
What do you have against Rastafarians? Mowie wowie for ev-er-y-bo-dy!

Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church:

I don't know if people are ready for this lol

iframe>
 
Top