Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
It all just sounds deliberately vague almost as if they are clutching at straws!
It sounds not unlike any other ethical system where you apply a value to each example...including our own Western Morality.
I'm not really following you on this. I think the fact that it's so difficult to put forward your argument is somewhat indicative that it's more self sustaining than of substance.
Sorry
Did they? Or are the basic Christian principles basically just the basic principles required for a community to function? The same principles that existed long before the Christian god was invented. I would also suggest that our ethical stance has developed much more since we have effectively turned away from god and adopted a more humanistic approach.
However they tend to be somewhat better defined than a 2000 year old book written by numerous authors with differing aims.
Which is why Christianity is not an idealised example of DCT. Besides William of Ockham and others have responded to Plato, particularly within Scholasticism and the concept of Divine Simplicity. It is not quite as simple as it might seem.
A humanistic approach first defined in Christianity. And what you say is the basic argument, however there is some debate over whether our ethics (particularly personally) have evolved or devolved in the last century or so, as Peter Hitchens mentioned in the quote I gave yesterday.
Are they, most of them are derived from Christian Ethics in the first place, simply because Christian morality has been the defining morality in Western Culture. You also make the mistake that many do in thinking that The Bible is the only source for Christian Ethical Principles, it is only one source. There is a whole branch of Theology dedicated to this, not just Bible Study.
Last edited:
Alternatively a humanistic approach despite Christianity.
Personally I would say that our morality has most certainly improved, we have a much better human rights record now than at any previous point in our history. We are eroding long standing prejudices and treating more people ethically than at any other point in our history. We would probably advance even quicker if we stopped paying attention to organisations still willing to discriminate due to gender and sexual preference.
No doubt if you are a staunchly Conservative Christian you will see things as getting worse as it is now less acceptable to practice your own prejudices and respect in your God has declined.
It all comes back to he same source and is all rendered pretty meaningless if the Christian god isn't real. Ditching medieval superstition in our law making and ethical thoughts should be considered a good thing.
EDIT:
In short, Christian ethics should be treated like anything else, man made, keep the good bits and disregard the rubbish.
Last edited:
I haven't read the whole thread but I don't think this has been claimed by anyone.
I certainly don't know any religious people who hold the view you mention. I would suggest that the claim is simply "without God objective moral duties and values do not exist".
And you have defined 'objective' as, 'unchanging', and that if it is not 'unchanging', it isn't morality. So... You have done exactly what RDM described.
I'm saying that if morality is really objective then it has to be unchanging.
I'm not saying that subjective morality doesn't exist.
You have consistently implied that only objective morality is real morality and that only God can give us objective morality.
That would only work if it was not for the history of Humanism within Christianity and the works of Justin the Martyr who expressed the value of classical ethical ideas and culture, this was confirmed and formed part of the Christian Theology from the 2nd Century is is also the basis for modern Secular Humanism.
I agree we are on a legal level (in Western Europe) in regard to certain defined examples, Human legal rights and so on, however I would be a little more pushed to demonstrate that when you look at how ethics are determined in a broader sense, the argument between the Hitchens about the ethics involved in the Invasion of Iraq after 9/11 for example, or the rise in antisocial behaviour and the degradation of basic manners and so on.....ethical egoism and utilitarianism are common forms of applied ethics, particularly individually. I don't think it is quite a clear cut as stating categorically ethics have improved, particularly since WWI.
I am not even a Christian, let alone a conservative one and I can see the truth in what Peter Hitchens is referring to on a general level.
I don't think it is meaningless if it gives a structured ethical system that informs and benefits society as a whole..if it were destructive then I would agree with you, I do not agree that it is.
You are preaching to the choir here as I am an advocate of Secular Law Making, but that is not the basis of the debate, which is not about whether individuals can be moral with or without God, but about Universal Morality and how we create authoritative structures to maintain that morality. Peter Hitchens suggests that without God then we are sooner or later caught out fiddling with it to suit our personal benefit and with God you are less likely to ignore the basic Universal principles as set out. I am not sure that it is entirely relevant in a society with a consistent strong rule of law, but I can see the truth of it in countries where there is no such social protections. God doesn't have to exist for this to be relevant, the people it applies to only have to think he does and that the consequences of their actions will be judged by such ethical principles.
Last edited:
Yes. Why?
Not sure that is really necessary...better to explain to him why you think objective morality sans God is extant and relevant.....
Anything but suggest a basis for objective morality.
Incredible. Well, I have finally discovered something more pointless than trying to get with one of my Swedish friends, and it's having a conversation with ringo.
That isn't helpful. At least quote me something you've suggested as a basis for objectively moral values and duties.