Are Morals Relevant?

[faroukfarouk]

Are you wanting Science to show you why Christian morals and ethics are a good idea ?

It would be ultimately impossible, in a sense, because the believer depends on revelation; whereas the unbeliever likely tries to rely on logic and human wisdom only.

 

[cfyahoo08]

It would be ultimately impossible, in a sense, because the believer depends on revelation; whereas the unbeliever likely tries to rely on logic and human wisdom only.

oh not at all, completely provable IF someone is not blinded by anti-religious bias and has the ability to make conscientious and reasonable conclusions based upon information provided, however with everything people are subjective and have biases and skew things to the outcome they want too often .

 

[faroukfarouk]

oh not at all, completely provable IF someone is not blinded by anti-religious bias and has the ability to make conscientious and reasonable conclusions based upon information provided, however with everything people are subjective and have biases and skew things to the outcome they want too often .

Oh I agree that Christian morals are self-evidently wholesome and beneficial. I was really looking at it from an authority angle, which is where the believer essentially departs from the unbeliever.

 

[cvanwey]

Are you wanting Science to show you why Christian morals and ethics are a good idea ?

My point is that morals are NOT relevant with Christianity, whether one claims they are a 'good' idea or not. Belief is the catalyst. And believe is an amoral concept, and is absent from mortality. As stated prior, if I do not believe a claim, based upon lack in evidence, is that a moral concept? No.

Without first believing in Yahweh/Jesus (according to the Bible), any and all acts pertaining to 'morality' is simply a non sequitur.

 

[cvanwey]

Hi cvanwey

In answer to your question, I don't necessarily believe, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that one goes to hell simply for not believing in Jesus' resurrection. There are plenty of people who have never even heard the name Jesus. God is a fair judge and will do so based on what the person knows or has access to.

If you are interested, there is a good book which weighs the evidence for and against the resurrection. It's called The Jesus Inquest. I found it quite a fair representation of the arguments on both sides. You aren't going to get the true depths of the evidence on a forum like this. Better to read some real books on it.

I'll look into it. Thanks!

 

[cfyahoo08]

My point is that morals are NOT relevant with Christianity, whether one claims they are a 'good' idea or not. Belief is the catalyst. And believe is an amoral concept, and is absent from mortality. As stated prior, if I do not believe a claim, based upon lack in evidence, is that a moral concept? No.

Without first believing in Yahweh/Jesus (according to the Bible), any and all acts pertaining to 'morality' is simply a non sequitur.

NOPE, Try and covet thy neighbors wife or your neighbors Ass and see how that goes for you. Its not only "Moral" its a good idea.

 

[cvanwey]

NOPE, Try and covet thy neighbors wife or your neighbors Ass and see how that goes for you. Its not only "Moral" its a good idea.

All you have just demonstrated thus far, with such an example, is consequentialism.

You have also completely avoided the content of my OP, and even my last response.

 

[cfyahoo08]

All you have just demonstrated thus far, with such an example, is consequentialism.

You have also completely avoided the content of my OP, and even my last response.

And if you want to avoid bad consequences then living a life as a disciple of Christ is a good idea, keeps people from punching you in the face most of the time.

Moral laws are protections they are not restrictions unless you want to view them as such.

 

[cvanwey]

And if you want to avoid bad consequences then living a life as a disciple of Christ is a good idea, keeps people from punching you in the face most of the time.

Moral laws are protections they are not restrictions unless you want to view them as such.

If I use your analogy, this also works for Hinduism. Does this then validate Hinduism as 'true'?

Getting back to my point, which you have avoided at least twice now....

I can attempt to live a 'morally good' life. Which might even parallel the 'golden rule', which was first offered by Confucius ~480 BC.

Let's say 'my moral philosophy' actually parallels many, most, or even most-all principles of Christianity (aside from the first couple commandments - because that would then be a direct contradiction). And yet, I instead don't believe a god exists, or worship a differing god, which happens to offer the same moral principles - (don't cheat, don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, treat others as you want to be treated, etc..). Without accepting Jesus as my specific gateway, would I go to heaven or hell (according to the Bible)????

Thanks

 

[Holoman]

My point is that morals are NOT relevant with Christianity, whether one claims they are a 'good' idea or not. Belief is the catalyst. And believe is an amoral concept, and is absent from mortality. As stated prior, if I do not believe a claim, based upon lack in evidence, is that a moral concept? No.

Without first believing in Yahweh/Jesus (according to the Bible), any and all acts pertaining to 'morality' is simply a non sequitur.

I think you are misunderstanding the requisite for salvation. It is not belief but faith in. Even Satan believes Jesus is God, but what merits salvation is putting your faith in Jesus and submitting to his will. That means following the moral law, which none of us do perfectly which is why we need a saviour. If you have no intention of following the moral law then you have not put your faith in Jesus.

The first and foremost moral commandment is to love God with all you heart, body and mind.

It is impossible for any of us to say whether you go to heaven or hell, that's between you and God, but let me ask you, based on the moral law in your heart, do you really think you are living up to it?

 

[cvanwey]

I think you are misunderstanding the requisite for salvation. It is not belief but faith in. Even Satan believes Jesus is God, but what merits salvation is putting your faith in Jesus and submitting to his will. That means following the moral law, which none of us do perfectly which is why we need a saviour. If you have no intention of following the moral law then you have not put your faith in Jesus.

If you do not first believe a postmortem Jesus even exists, how might one possess 'faith in'? 'Moral law' is subjective, even if applying Christian values.

Without first thinking a postmortem Jesus even exists, 'faith in' becomes irrelevant.

The first and foremost moral commandment is to love God with all you heart, body and mind.

If one does not think a postmortem Jesus exists, this is virtually impossible (or) not applicable.

It is impossible for any of us to say whether you go to heaven or hell, that's between you and God, but let me ask you, based on the moral law in your heart, do you really think you are living up to it?

It does not matter, if Christianity is true. It is well stated that everyone falls short to the glory of God, and that salvation is the answer. Which means, one must surrender themselves. But if the person (me) does not think such an entity even exists, then one cannot have 'faith in.'

Unless by 'faith in' means to pretend to believe it anyways, which is DISHONEST.


Hence, w/o belief, you are doomed, and morals are irrelevant (if such a pronouncement is true).

 

[Holoman]

If you do not first believe a postmortem Jesus even exists, how might one possess 'faith in'? 'Moral law' is subjective, even if applying Christian values.

Without first thinking a postmortem Jesus even exists, 'faith in' becomes irrelevant.



If one does not think a postmortem Jesus exists, this is virtually impossible (or) not applicable.



It does not matter, if Christianity is true. It is well stated that everyone falls short to the glory of God, and that salvation is the answer. Which means, one must surrender themselves. But if the person (me) does not think such an entity even exists, then one cannot have 'faith in.' Hence, w/o belief, you are doomed, and morals are irrelevant (if such a pronouncement is true).

Let me ask you something, would you like Christianity to be true? Would you become a Christian if it was?

 

[cvanwey]

Let me ask you something, would you like Christianity to be true? Would you become a Christian if it was?

How I read the Bible, I hope it is not true (from my interpretation). But if it is true, I would need to honestly reconcile a way, to make sense of it. But I cannot seem to, for many reasons... Meaning, the evidence appears severely lacking, the 'moral laws' appear 'man invented', and nothing in there appears forward thinking or to come from any divine source. This is excluding all the stuff from the OT, which speaks about a 'flood', 'Tower of Babel', etc etc etc...

However, I was raised in it for decades. So it does run deep within me still. It is hard to let go.

So now you can see, w/o first honestly believing, faith is not really possible. Which would mean I'm doomed, as I was brought up to understand, and the Bible also reiterates.

 

[Holoman]

How I read the Bible, I hope it is not true (from my interpretation). But if it is true, I would need to honestly reconcile a way, to make sense of it. But I cannot seem to, for many reasons... Meaning, the evidence appears severely lacking, the 'moral laws' appear 'man invented', and nothing in there appears forward thinking or to come from any divine source. This is excluding all the stuff from the OT, which speaks about a 'flood', 'Tower of Babel', etc etc etc...

However, I was raised in it for decades. So it does run deep within me still. It is hard to let go.

So now you can see, w/o first honestly believing, faith is not really possible. Which would mean I'm doomed, as I was brought up to understand, and the Bible also reiterates.

So just thinking about the New Testament, what parts don't make sense to you, or do you disagree with?

 

[cvanwey]

So just thinking about the New Testament, what parts don't make sense to you, or do you disagree with?

W/O getting off topic, you can address the topic in the 'apologetics' forum in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:6

Where you will see 3 positions thus far:

1. This verse is intended to actually demonstrate 'eyewitness testimony' of a resurrection!
2. This verse was mentioned in passing (as a fact by most he wrote to), as many already believed the resurrection, and should not be used as 'eyewitness' testimony. And to instead use another verse or method.
3. There is no real 'eyewitness' testimony, and you are to instead use 'faith.'

But the list is otherwise vast, as to my reasons for doubt.

Thanks

 

[Holoman]

W/O getting off topic, you can address the topic in the 'apologetics' forum in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:6

Where you will see 3 positions thus far:

1. This verse is intended to actually demonstrate 'eyewitness testimony' of a resurrection!
2. This verse was mentioned in passing (as a fact by most he wrote to), as many already believed the resurrection, and should not be used as 'eyewitness' testimony. And to instead use another verse or method.
3. There is no real 'eyewitness' testimony, and you are to instead use 'faith.'

But the list is otherwise vast, as to my reasons for doubt.

Thanks

I can't seem to post in that forum but I don't see a problem with the verse. It is just a passing comment and has no moral or theological significance. If you want the real testimony then the gospels are the recorded testimony of those around at the time. I've always considered Luke to be highly reliable as he spoke to many of the eye witnesses firsthand.

But with regards to morality in Christianity, who we put our faith in or believe in is a choice. If you want to follow Christian morality and the teachings of Jesus, why not take the extra step and choose to also believe he was who he said he was.

 

[cvanwey]

I can't seem to post in that forum but I don't see a problem with the verse. It is just a passing comment and has no moral or theological significance. If you want the real testimony then the gospels are the recorded testimony of those around at the time. I've always considered Luke to be highly reliable as he spoke to many of the eye witnesses firsthand.

Okay, so you are in the option 2) camp.... Seems that most are, thus far, in this forum/website. You need to request permission to post in that forum.

But with regards to morality in Christianity, who we put our faith in or believe in is a choice. If you want to follow Christian morality and the teachings of Jesus, why not take the extra step and choose to also believe he was who he said he was.

Because I need to first belief Jesus (postmortem) actually exists, verses humans instead writing stuff to paper (whom may happen to share some of my own 'moral values')

 

[Sopranino Player]

From a wannabe Universalist Romans 10:9 New International Version
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Holoman]

Because I need to first belief Jesus (postmortem) actually exists, verses humans instead writing stuff to paper (whom may happen to share some of my own 'moral values')

You sound like you want to be forced to believe it without any doubt. You are demanding a level of evidence that is impossible for a historical event 2000 years ago.

Compare what we have on Jesus to Alexander the Great for example. We have a similar number of independent records, but Alexander has no surviving contemporary documents. The earliest source is 200 years after his death. Yet historians can determine a lot from these sources and paint a pretty accurate picture of history.

My question to you would be, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, why did the Christian religion spawn so soon after his death, with so many people believing that he had in fact risen? Why did the apostles go to their deaths defending the claim when they would know first hand if it was true or not?

 

[cvanwey]

Compare what we have on Jesus to Alexander the Great for example. We have a similar number of independent records, but Alexander has no surviving contemporary documents. The earliest source is 200 years after his death. Yet historians can determine a lot from these sources and paint a pretty accurate picture of history.

It's one thing to demonstrate or provide evidence for someone living, fighting, and dying, it's a completely other thing altogether to believe he is the son of Zeus. So why do you not accept the claim that Alexander is the son of Zeus, while still accepting most other Alexander claims? (Rhetorical question really)

The same goes for Jesus, and a resurrection claim.

My question to you would be, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, why did the Christian religion spawn so soon after his death, with so many people believing that he had in fact risen?

So I guess this means the Roswell myth is not myth at all? Had the Roswell event happened before modern science was present to test and disprove the claim, then it may still be in circulation today.


How might one actually disprove a resurrection event 2K years ago, where one is required to visualize the event in real time for it to be validated?

On another note, when I was in eighth grade, I was friends with twins. They were moving away. One of my other friends was not aware they were moving. Me not thinking it through, I decided to play a practical joke on this friend. I told the twins to keep it a secret that they were moving. After the twins moved, I told my friend that they died in a car accident. Yes, this is horrible, and I regretted it later on. I obviously did not think that one through.


However, by the end of the day, I was walking home from school about 3 hours later. I heard a group of kids behind me discussing, in graphic detail, many events which happened to these twins in the 'car accident'. My initial story was quite generic. In a few hours time, a very elaborate story had ensued. This school comprised of about 1,200 students.


The resurrection story developed over years, decades, and centuries. You don't think there was ample time for such lore to develop?

Why did the apostles go to their deaths defending the claim when they would know first hand if it was true or not?

(http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/):

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'


a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.


b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary


c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

D) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true. Faith is belief in place of, or instead of, evidence. Please also remember we do not even have the original manuscripts.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.