Are Morals Relevant?

[cvanwey]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Actually conviction of sin from the Holy Spirit is a driving force, in regards to Christianity. However, most people (unless they have a "seared" conscience) Christian or not, experience conviction in their conscience knowing when they have done something wrong. But there is a difference between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow, one can be life changing the other might bring temporary change for a time but eventually return to same patterns of behavior. Perhaps the biggest difference though is having justification and being able to account for conceptual realities as "right" and "wrong" and the Holy source from which they flow. What is right and what is wrong and on what basis can one make such ethical judgements, or how would we account for such innate laws, if the God of Christianity does not exist?

 

[cvanwey]

Actually conviction of sin from the Holy Spirit is a driving force, in regards to Christianity. However, most people (unless they have a "seared" conscience) Christian or not, experience conviction in their conscience knowing when they have done something wrong. But there is a difference between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow, one can be life changing the other might bring temporary change for a time but eventually return to same patterns of behavior. Perhaps the biggest difference though is having justification and being able to account for conceptual realities as "right" and "wrong" and the Holy source from which they flow. What is right and what is wrong and on what basis can one make such ethical judgements, or how would we account for such innate laws, if the God of Christianity does not exist?

Thank you for your response. However, I'm not sure if this answered my specific question/request?

If I happen to strive to practice 'ethical' and 'moral' foundations, which appear 'good', but think a resurrection never happened, but it turns out a Jesus resurrection did actually happen, do I go to heaven or hell?

Meaning, I try to be a 'good' person, as much as I can, but don't believe in this specific story. According to the Bible, I fry for eternity, right?

 

[Inkfingers]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

The point is that if you are not doing those good acts through love of God you are doing them through love of self; and so will "rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass" etc if you deem it to your benefit (and are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise, because you are denying that the you are living a life in worship of self).

 

[cvanwey]

The point is that if you are not doing those good acts through love of God you are doing them through love of self; and so will "rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass" etc if you deem it to your benefit (and are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise, because you are denying that the you are living a life in worship of self).

How does not raping, not stealing, not murdering, not lying, and treating others with respect, benefit myself? Especially if one actually wants to do some/all such acts? Which I don't, but I'm just saying...

But I still did not get a clear answer? If I cannot get myself to believe in a resurrection claim, but try to follow a 'moral' architecture, which happens to align with many Christian values, and I care genuinely about others, do I go to heaven or hell postmortem?

 

[Inkfingers]

How does not raping, not stealing, not murdering, not lying, and treating others with respect, benefit myself? Especially if one actually wants to do some/all such acts? Which I don't, but I'm just saying...

Enlightened self-interest - it makes a society that is beneficial to you.

There's nothing wrong in having a nice society, but you have to have it from seeking FIRST the kingdom of heaven otherwise you are only seeking it because it is beneficial (and so will break those standards yourself if you deem it of benefit to yourself).

You have to love truth more than you love yourself.

But I still did not get a clear answer? If I cannot get myself to believe in a resurrection claim, but try to follow a 'moral' architecture, which happens to align with many Christian values, and I care genuinely about others, do I go to heaven or hell postmortem?

Salvation only comes when we surrender to God, as until that point we dwell in the carnal and the carnal is mortal by definition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually conviction of sin from the Holy Spirit is a driving force, in regards to Christianity. However, most people (unless they have a "seared" conscience) Christian or not, experience conviction in their conscience knowing when they have done something wrong. But there is a difference between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow, one can be life changing the other might bring temporary change for a time but eventually return to same patterns of behavior. Perhaps the biggest difference though is having justification and being able to account for conceptual realities as "right" and "wrong" and the Holy source from which they flow. What is right and what is wrong and on what basis can one make such ethical judgements, or how would we account for such innate laws, if the God of Christianity does not exist?

I don't see how "this perceived authority says it's wrong" provides any kind of actual justification for moral values.

When you say that you require justification for a moral judgement, I expect to hear an actual reasoned argument explaining why something is moral or immoral.

"x says so", is not such an argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is that if you are not doing those good acts through love of God you are doing them through love of self; and so will "rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass" etc if you deem it to your benefit

Maybe if you are a psychopath…

 

[DogmaHunter]

Enlightened self-interest - it makes a society that is beneficial to you.

There's nothing wrong in having a nice society, but you have to have it from seeking FIRST the kingdom of heaven otherwise you are only seeking it because it is beneficial (and so will break those standards yourself if you deem it of benefit to yourself).

You have to love truth more than you love yourself.

You seem to be completely ignoring that society is a group of people that depends on cooperation. If you completely ignore the social aspects of a society and only think in selfish terms (completely void of any morality and empathy), then that society will not survive. There will be no cooperation, because you won't be able to trust anyone. It would be total anarchy and you'll inevitably end up alone, unsafe, without social network to fall back on, …

Society as a whole would simply collapse. In fact, not even that. Society simply wouldn't exist in the first place.

What you say makes no sense at all.
Worse then that even... secular democracy proves you wrong completely.


The idea that morality can only exist in the shadow of a god, is simply ridiculous.

 

[Inkfingers]

Maybe if you are a psychopath

Oh really?

Who do you think committed the war crimes in the Balkan civil war? Or Rwanda?

 

[Inkfingers]

You seem to be completely ignoring that society is a group of people that depends on cooperation.

No, I'm pointing out that if you are moral because it makes a better society for you...if you can get away with being immoral and draw benefits from it you will.

 

[Strathos]

Why should anything you do in your finite life on earth entitle you to eternal life?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Thank you for your response. However, I'm not sure if this answered my specific question/request?

If I happen to strive to practice 'ethical' and 'moral' foundations, which appear 'good', but think a resurrection never happened, but it turns out a Jesus resurrection did actually happen, do I go to heaven or hell?

Meaning, I try to be a 'good' person, as much as I can, but don't believe in this specific story. According to the Bible, I fry for eternity, right?

Eternal salvation isn't for "good" people; it's for forgiven people. The wide path is littered with works-based religions -- Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist, Islam. Choose the narrow path.

 

[ananda]

Even if I attempt to abide by 'good' moral standings, to the best of my abilities... Meaning, don't kill, rape, steal, lie, murder, trespass, be kind to others, etc...

But I do not believe in a risen Jesus, because one cannot choose what to believe; and my needed evidence for belief appears lacking.... According to Christian theology, I will rot in hell.

So tell me how morals are actually even relevant, in regards to Christianity? It appears belief is the only driving source.

Thanks

In the forms of Christianity I was part of (when I was in Christianity), there seemed to exist a mental conflict: on one hand, we should be good, but on the other hand, we can't strive to be too good because that would be denying Jesus' gift of grace.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh really?

Who do you think committed the war crimes in the Balkan civil war? Or Rwanda?

I fail to see how this is a relevant response to what was being talked about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, I'm pointing out that if you are moral because it makes a better society for you...if you can get away with being immoral and draw benefits from it you will.

I'm not moral because it makes a better society for me. I try to act morally because it makes for a better society for everyone.

So why do try to be moral? To avoid punishment? Or to get eternal bliss as reward? Because your perceived authority tells you to? Tell me, why do you observe moral values?

 

[Inkfingers]

I fail to see how this is a relevant response to what was being talked about.

I'm pointing out how ordinary people, not psychopaths, commit mass atrocities.

I could recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's lecture on how most people think they would have been Schindler but most of us would have been the camp guards...

Everyone claims to be moral, but when it comes down to it atrocities are committed by the masses not simply the few.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm pointing out how ordinary people, not psychopaths, commit mass atrocities.

Sure. Regardless of them being religious or not, I might add.
Or even literally inspired by their religion.

There's this saying :
"Good men will do good things.
Bad men will do bad things.
For good men to do bad things, you require religion"

It's a bit over-the-top off course, but there certainly is a core of truth there.
Take islamic terrorists, to take an easy example we likely can agree on.

In their eyes, they are fighting the good fight. They are the good guys. The attrocities they commit, they think it's good and moral and for the glory of the god they believe in.

That's what that saying is about. Religion has the power to take otherwise perfectly decent men, and turn them into monsters.

More accuratly put: dogmatic ideology has the power to do that.

This is why I value reason and argumentation as justification for morality.
You're actually required to have a reason other then "my authority says so".

I could recommend you listen to Jordan Peterson's lecture on how most people think they would have been Schindler but most of us would have been the camp guards…
Everyone claims to be moral, but when it comes down to it atrocities are committed by the masses not simply the few.

If you say so.
Not sure why this is relevant. It's not like the non-religious has a monopoly on committing attrocities.

I sure didn't commit any attrocities nore do I plan to. And I'm an atheist.
So yea.

 

[Inkfingers]

Sure. Regardless of them being religious or not, I might add.
Or even literally inspired by their religion.

There's this saying :
"Good men will do good things.
Bad men will do bad things.
For good men to do bad things, you require religion"

If you believe that, why do you spend so much time on a religious forum?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thank you for your response. However, I'm not sure if this answered my specific question/request?

If I happen to strive to practice 'ethical' and 'moral' foundations, which appear 'good', but think a resurrection never happened, but it turns out a Jesus resurrection did actually happen, do I go to heaven or hell?

Meaning, I try to be a 'good' person, as much as I can, but don't believe in this specific story. According to the Bible, I fry for eternity, right?

I think you're an intelligent person and already know the answers and framing the questions in jest. I also think you're attempting to ignore my previous post. Let me put it another way, IF God does not exist, the word "good" is not relevant, not in any meaningful sense, might be a personal convention, a way of contrasting one behavior as opposed to another, but there would be no absolute unchanging measure outside of one's own existence. Among other things your questions assume you are good enough simply by comparing yourself to a limited subset of others (look see I am a better person than these hypocritical Christians), and you have to assume an absolute unchanging standard to do this.

If you want specific answers, I recommend going to the source and reading what the Scripture have to say about nonbelievers, unbelief, even doubt. Here again, I think you already have and know, but framing the questions in an irreverent haughty manner (fry), but I suppose it should be expected when one does not believe. Sorry but just calling them as I see them, maybe I am wrong about the attitude, if so I apologize. I do think you're an intelligent person.