If the Gospel was False... What Then???

[stevevw]

So how are we to know whether some particular action is moral or not? Still

This can be done a number of ways. Remembering that any moral truth should align with all the aspects of reality. We are not only moral beings but rational ones.

Morals should align with nature, our experiences, and the sciences. But not purely determined by the sciences.

Sam Harris's moral landscape goes some way to supporting this. Though he assumes that morality can only be determined by scinece.

But we should be able to work out the moral truth or come pretty close by reasoning this out. Often the disagreements are not really disagreements on the morals but the circumstances or facts around the moral.

I think the most powerful evidence of objective morality is that we live like morality is objective. We demand an objective determination and not a subjective or relative one. We can look back on our lived experineces like they were a test for what is moral and we can derive some moral truths that work and when they are breached they fail us in one way or another. We have tried every angle to get around morals and we have found there is none.

We are born with a sense of morality and it makes sense if God installed morality in our hearts. You could say morality is as much a part of humans as love or eating.

 

[partinobodycular]

This can be done a number of ways. Remembering that any moral truth should align with all the aspects of reality. We are not only moral beings but rational ones.

Morals should align with nature, our experiences, and the sciences. But not purely determined by the sciences.

Sam Harris's moral landscape goes some way to supporting this. Though he assumes that morality can only be determined by scinece.

But we should be able to work out the moral truth or come pretty close by reasoning this out. Often the disagreements are not really disagreements on the morals but the circumstances or facts around the moral.

I think the most powerful evidence of objective morality is that we live like morality is objective. We demand an objective determination and not a subjective or relative one. We can look back on our lived experineces like they were a test for what is moral and we can derive some moral truths that work and when they are breached they fail us in one way or another. We have tried every angle to get around morals and we have found there is none.

We are born with a sense of morality and it makes sense if God installed morality in our hearts. You could say morality is as much a part of humans as love or eating.

At the very real risk of being an obnoxious troll, I'm going to repeat the question.

How are we to know whether some particular action is moral or not?

I understand that it's a situationally complex question, and that the circumstances matter, but if your argument for an objective morality is correct then there must be some overarching quality that distinguishes moral acts from immoral ones.

One could of course simply define immoral acts as those things which go against God's will, but that seems like nothing more than an attempt to provide an objective answer to a question for which you have no objective answer, only unsubstantiated claims.

You readily give us the assurance that objective morality exists, but can give us little beyond that. Hence the question, how are we to know whether some particular action is moral or not?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Hence the question, how are we to know whether some particular action is moral or not?

Can knowledge be an experience ??

Do you experience “knowledge” or “knowing”?

 

[partinobodycular]

Can knowledge be an experience ??

Without a dangerous leap down a semantic rabbit hole... I would say yes.

Do you experience “knowledge” or “knowing”?

Hopefully both, but again there's that ever present rabbit hole.

I assume that there's a point to these questions?

 

[BCP1928]

Can knowledge be an experience ??

Do you experience “knowledge” or “knowing”?

Are you perhaps talking about the voice of conscience?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Without a dangerous leap down a semantic rabbit hole... I would say yes.

Hopefully both, but again there's that ever present rabbit hole.

I assume that there's a point to these questions?

just indulging the thoughts for a moment.

I can "know" im being moral,

but cant prove im actually aligned with goodness.

Anyway - im off (i forgot my point if i had one)

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Are you perhaps talking about the voice of conscience?

I dont know?? maybe??

im just wondering what knowledge is. what is knowledge, and how do you justify it

 

[partinobodycular]

im just wondering what knowledge is. what is knowledge, and how do you justify it

As an epistemological solipsist I've been asking myself this question for over fifty years, and the single most important conclusion that I've come to is... be honest. I know that I'm a conscious self-aware being that experiences a world governed by a set of internally consistent rules, but I have no idea where those rules came from. I don't even know if this world exists beyond the fact that I'm experiencing it, but I treat it as if it does, because what would I be without it?

So here's what I know... I am, and beyond that there's an amazing world that gives context to what I am. And I also know that there are things that I choose to believe, not because I know them to be true, but simply because I know them to be of value... to me. Things like loving my neighbor, doing justly, and loving mercy. Do I choose to believe in God? I choose to believe that if there is a benevolent, all knowing God, then He'll know that I've been true to what I am, and to what I can know. To me, stories in a book are just stories in a book. I can neither know them to be true, nor pretend that they are.

But as I said at the beginning, the most important thing is to be honest. Accept what you know, and accept what you don't.

 

[stevevw]

At the very real risk of being an obnoxious troll, I'm going to repeat the question.

How are we to know whether some particular action is moral or not?

I understand that it's a situationally complex question, and that the circumstances matter, but if your argument for an objective morality is correct then there must be some overarching quality that distinguishes moral acts from immoral ones.

One could of course simply define immoral acts as those things which go against God's will, but that seems like nothing more than an attempt to provide an objective answer to a question for which you have no objective answer, only unsubstantiated claims.

You readily give us the assurance that objective morality exists, but can give us little beyond that. Hence the question, how are we to know whether some particular action is moral or not?

Ultimately there is no single and provable source of morality we can measure like the objective world. If God is the moral lawgiver or some aliens far away how can we ever know that. How do you measure God.

So we can only find bits of the truth. The signs that morality has a truth basis. One is that nature should align as this aligns with Gods creation. Another is rationality as God made us rational creatures.

So we could for example know that Gods moral truth for say marriage should stand up rationally and within the sciences as being the truth of how humans should live regarding marriage.

That doesn't necessarily prove God is the moral truth. But it does align with His laws and thats all that is important in this thread. We are not trying to prove God but show how His morals laws stand up.

 

[partinobodycular]

So we could for example know that Gods moral truth for say marriage should stand up rationally and within the sciences as being the truth of how humans should live regarding marriage.

Well there's another few hours of writing that you're never gonna see.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty (1 Corinthians 15:14).

If the Gospel were false, Stoicism and Confucian-Daoist philosophy represent humanity’s best hope for an ordered, virtuous, and meaningful life. They echo Jesus’ ethical teachings through natural reason and lived experience, offering guidance rooted in the sovereignty of God and the idea that God has ordered a moral universe. Stoicism offers virtue (arete/virtus) as the highest good, mastering control over our emotions (cultivate the healthy ones and learn how to tame the negative ones), rational thinking as a remedy to overthinking (those logismoi that bother us all... Evagrius Ponticus is a great writer on this), and surrender to the Divine Logos that orders all things. Confucianism and Daoism offer us moral cultivation through virtuous living, an ordered universe (The Five Relationships for example), an example that man can live up to, namely, the Junzi (Gentleman/Noble Man) and the Zhenren (True Person), and acceptance of the will of Tian (Heaven) regardless of whatever the outcomes may be. If Christ was not raised from the dead, His ethical framework would not be unimportant. But... Christ is the Son of God risen in three days as foretold by the Prophets. Christ is the fulfillment of all things. But hypothetically if He wasn't, man still must strive to do the good; We would either give into nihilism or relativism.

The only one who can answer that is a person who is not a true believer because believers know better.

 

[partinobodycular]

The only one who can answer that is a person who is not a true believer because believers know better.

Says everyone who has ever disagreed with something... ever.

 

[stevevw]

Well there's another few hours of writing that you're never gonna see.

Oh just when things were getting interesting. Why ask the question if you don't want the answer and to engage in discussing the answer. If I knew that I could have done what you did and not answered your question. If we both play that game then we would not have engaged at all.

 

[Meowzltov]

I don't consider Catholics as a denomination but rather 'the universal church' as it was used by Ignatius in 110AD.

Very Catholic of you.

No I have not been to the Emergent Church and I did not know it was Catholic based.

It's not Catholic based. It spans across denominations and among those who identify with no denomination at. But yes, it has a very strong Catholic Wing. You might peruse Fr. Richard Rohr's Center for Active Contemplation. cac.org

The church I attend doesn't belong to any denomination. Its a local church that is part of a meal service for the homeless and needy. On sundays there is a service with a meal afterwards. Which is not compulsory for the needy but some come along.

I have a family member who regularly attends a similar house church. He's the one who explained Emergent Church to me. He began volunteering decades ago at this local Catholic Worker, helping to provide meals, shelter, clothing, showers, and emergency assistance to the poor and homeless. He was not the only non-Catholic to become part of that particular family. They really have become quite a strong community, and I think he is very lucky.

 

[stevevw]

Very Catholic of you.

Lol and very universal.

It's not Catholic based. It spans across denominations and among those who identify with no denomination at. But yes, it has a very strong Catholic Wing. You might peruse Fr. Richard Rohr's Center for Active Contemplation. cac.org

Ok well that sounds like the small house church I go to. I like to try different churches. But I am thinking more on which church as I think ultimately you have to find one that aligns with the beliefs and the teachings.

Thre are some many denominations now its like another new one is opening up every year like a retail shop. With all the news on another church being busted for some impropriety it makes you weary of scrutinizing whether a church is following the teachings properly.

I have a family member who regularly attends a similar house church. He's the one who explained Emergent Church to me. He began volunteering decades ago at this local Catholic Worker, helping to provide meals, shelter, clothing, showers, and emergency assistance to the poor and homeless. He was not the only non-Catholic to become part of that particular family. They really have become quite a strong community, and I think he is very lucky.

I have also been volunteering for years and its a great way to meet good people helping the community. I also work in the industry and I know of St Vinnies and the Salvos especially St Vinnies who are great and we often turn to them.

If it wasn't for the Salvo's and St Vinnies and also some smaller churches I think things would really fall apart. I hear of some a coupleof people from a local church going around giving tents out to the homeless. That is Christianity at work.

Your right these organisations and people form a great positive community and gives meaning and hope where there is none.