Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm talking about moral relativism

If it has anything to do with "Relativism" it's self-refuting. If you don't think so then it would be "good" for me to murder you if I felt that it were good? That's why there is a fallacy named after it.


Nothing can be true for one person and not true for another. The denial of absolute truth OR morality is profoundly absurd.

Ah, so we live in a thuggish dictatorship where there is only a system of laws that are arbitrarily assigned and absolute punishment is handed out for refusing to acknowledge baseless concepts because the one who set up the system of laws is merely more powerful than us.

Now I understand.

It's called "sovereignty".

Look into it sometime.

@madness, see this post for my one and only response to anything you might say. You'll never get any respect until you learn to give it.

@Not: They keep trying to make the one true God like the Greek and Roman pantheon, don't they. They keep demanding that God sit on the witness stand and answer to their superior justice and mercy and morality, like brats breaking toys their parents bought them because the toys aren't exactly what was demanded. God really is greater than them, and they can't stand it, because they want to be God instead--- just like their "father".

Originally posted by eight bits
Beyond that simple exercise, come on, adj, do the math. Catholics aren't Protestants. Catholics don't think that correct propositional belief will save you anyway.

Correct -- they don't, and that's what sinks you.

For a Roman Catholic, salvation is a matter of whether you are in a state of mortal sin, or just venial sin (we're all pretty much always in a state of venial sin, that's sort of their nod to Protestantism -- only Catholics and, ironically, us Methodists, believe that a person can achieve sanctification and be sinless.) And how do you resolve a state of mortal sin? Through the sacraments, administered by a Roman Catholic priest.

When Pius IX made his decree on the Immaculate Conception in the 1850s, it included the admonition that not only was it Church doctrine, but if you disagreed, it was grounds for excommunication (admittedly, I've never done any research as to whether anyone actually was kicked out for it.) Ergo, if you don't agree with the doctrine, you're out of the Church, the sacraments are no longer available to you, and you will (most likely) die in a state of mortal sin, and that's that.

So, a Catholic who wished to be resolved of a state of mortal sin in, say, 1860 needed to agree with the Papal decree regarding Mary, while a Catholic in 1840 did not, so the rules for salvation changed.

I agree that, pragmatically, one can't say that Catholics who predated Pius weren't saved, but there's a logical piece there that just doesn't work. I'm still waiting to have a long conversation with my Mother-in-Law's priest, who is a young guy, but "pre-Vatican II" conservative and well versed in Catholic theology, but I think I can guess what his reply would be -- St. Augustine may not have known about the Immaculate Conception, but as it is a eternal truth, he could not be said to have disagreed with it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, I help people because they need to be helped. I don't tend to like doing it.

I think that, if you think it through deeply enough, you will understand what I mean. Whether you "like" doing something is not relevant to the point.

Total depravity doesn't mean that we're terrible people (that would be "absolute depravity", a different concept)

I think you have those backwards. Either that or you started using the terms incorrectly in your last few posts.

Not by Reformed Theology, which is what I'm talking about, no, I am using the terms correctly. By that theology, we all suffer from "Total Depravity", but few people from "Absolute Depravity."

It also doesn't mean that you shouldn't still do them, because even though your good deeds do YOU no good, they still result in good for others.

And it also ignores the fact that doing good for others should result in doing good for you.

Well, unless you mistyped this, I guess that you do understand the concept, and agree with it. Above, you seem to be assuming that it is related to "feeling good" or having some sort of tangible benefit, but that's not the case, as you note here.

In fact, if you had bothered to actually read my next post in this same thread, you'd have noticed that I took the same position as awake_and_aware. There is an objective, though not absolute morality.

Unless he's changed his tune very recently, you do not have the same position as Awake_and_Aware, as he does not believe in any objective (never mind absolute) morality -- it's all 100% subjective. Of course, he then goes off and makes statements that refute it (like "killing is wrong") but his stated belief is in subjective morality.

reply to post by SaberTruth

@Not: They keep trying to make the one true God like the Greek and Roman pantheon, don't they. They keep demanding that God sit on the witness stand and answer to their superior justice and mercy and morality, like brats breaking toys their parents bought them because the toys aren't exactly what was demanded. God really is greater than them, and they can't stand it, because they want to be God instead--- just like their "father".

Exactly like him.

Good luck w/ the first half of your post.

reply to post by adjensen

Unless he's changed his tune very recently, you do not have the same position as Awake_and_Aware, as he does not believe in any objective (never mind absolute) morality -- it's all 100% subjective. Of course, he then goes off and makes statements that refute it (like "killing is wrong") but his stated belief is in subjective morality.

They do assume an absolute moral code/authority when they subject God to theirs. I've seen several posts where they decry Him as unjust, evil, vindictive, and unrighteous.

But I'm not surprised there is no consistency. When your standard is a fallacy, you'll accept anything.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Just because two things have similar names doesn't mean that the whole thing is a fallacy. The relativist fallacy refers to ontological and epistemological issues.

Now, your broad sweeping statement on that is kind of a problem. You're saying that every single statement is objective and also that every objective statement has one and only one answer.

There is an objective standard for morality and there are certain statements for which there are no absolute truth values. Such questions include "Is that a piece of genuine art?" I mean, there's a whole field of philosophy in which the idea of an absolute truth is considered absurd devoted exactly to that sort of question.

Now, for me a piece of art might be genuine while you might not see the value in it. There are shades of gray and colors in this world.

Of course, you'd understand that if you bothered to actually read my posts instead of responding to the whole post...or even to the whole point of what I'm saying instead of ignoring the Euthyphro dilemma.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Oh, so it's a might makes right system. The idea of a sovereign is just a dictatorship. An unjustified one. It also means that there is no objective standard for morality because the absolute sovereign can make any decision and command that it's moral.

reply to post by adjensen


How is the maximizing of human flourishing while minimizing human suffering a subjective morality? Is health subjective?

What Harris has written about in The Moral Landscape has been a brilliant idea for morality. Our morality can be taken from objective, and quite scientific, standards. The crazy thing is that the objective standard is one that allows for multiple paths to the same goal.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus has never proved to be a false prophet. In fact, the Christians who listened to Jesus escaped the Roman's siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Harold Camping wrote a book titled "1994" in 1992 that said Jesus would return in 1994. Harold Camping was proved a false prophet 17 years ago.

Jesus claimed that he would return within the lifetime of at least a few of the people who were following him prior to the purported crucifixion. His prophecy didn't come true. Therefore, false prophet.

But your cognitive dissonance goes way to far. Cue the apologetics gymnastics in 3...2....

reply to post by SaberTruth


I like the irony in a condescending person talking about respect all while participating in a personal attack insinuating false and frankly idiotic things.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Our morality can be taken from objective, and quite scientific, standards. The crazy thing is that the objective standard is one that allows for multiple paths to the same goal.

I don't know why you're arguing with me -- it's Awake_and_Aware who promotes the crazy notion of subjective morality, not me.

reply to post by adjensen


No i don't. I use subjectivity to highlight that different cultures have different social obligations. That people's ideas of right and wrong are completely different from culture to culture, time to time, state to state, tribe to tribe.

Never did i imply an "anything goes" attitude towards morality. Never did i once promote it.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

No i don't. I use subjectivity to highlight that different cultures have different social obligations. That people's ideas of right and wrong are completely different from culture to culture, time to time, state to state, tribe to tribe.

Never did i imply an "anything goes" attitude towards morality. Never did i once promote it.

In a number of conversations that you and I have had, you have very specifically stated that there is no objective morality, that it is purely subjective. This is such a ridiculous notion that I've taken great pains to point out the meaning of those two words and the inherent impossibility and injustice of purely subjective morality. Yet through it all, you've stuck to your guns, I suspect because you think that objective morality somehow requires absolute morality, in spite of my assurances that they are two different things.

In case your memory requires refreshing, here's an example: "Let's just settle it at this, adjensen. You believe in objective morality, i do not - I believe it to be an illusion." (that bit is a little further down the page)

adjensen

Correct -- they don't, and that's what sinks you.

Sinks me, my brother? I'm an aggie, remember? I like to straighten out whose position is what, but that's a separate issue from whether I agree with that position.

Where are you and I in disagreement? Overt dispute with a Roman Catholic doctrine by a Roman Catholic is grounds for excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. Overt penalties, like excommunication, are reserved for overt acts. Adminsitrative sanctions, like excommunication, are applied at the administrators' option.

And, I suppose this reflects the invincible ignorance of my agnosticism, but why would anyone want to belong to a church if they disbelieved what the church taught? (Which still isn't enough to get you excommunicated... my question is why would someone stick around in that case? They can't excommunicate you if you've already left.)

I wasn't worried about St Augustine's views about Mary's immaculate conception. He may in fact have gone overboard on that one, but this is not the thread for that.

My point was simply that his writing is not error-free, by later lights, and this did not affect the Roman Church's estimate of his having been saved. I only went with that because I thought you would agree that Augustine sometimes erred based on your other posts.

So, to hell with that, let's go to the canons. Excommunication is for knowing acts (check canon 1323, specification 2), not for retrospective application.

www.vatican.va...

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I've never claimed to be a relativist. Like Sam Harris, i think morality can be science if we just accept that the essence of morality is to prevent all individual forms of human suffering.

Health is something that is aimed for in the medical profession. Why can't morality be something that is aimed for in a civilisation which promotes love and solidarity? Each person having their own individual needs - A moral landscape, just because i talk about subjectivism doesn't mean i can reason killing, or murder into my moral position.

Thanks for being a pleasant (loving thy enemy) "Christian" again, dude. 22:26pm here in the U.K - Rapture's nearly here; Harold Camping's predictions look pretty legit; he's an "expert" in the bible, afterall.

Doesn't stop me from believing objective morality is an illusion. Morality is not as as clear cut as "right" and "wrong" - It's a moral landscape.

It's hard to account for everyone's version of "good" when many disagree about certain hypotheticals:-

You are at a train track and see five people tied to the track ahead. A switch is in front of you which will divert the train, but as you look down you see a man is strapped to that track and will be killed. Is it permissible to flip the switch and save the five people at the expense of one?

If you are like most people, you said yes.

Now imagine in order to save the five people, you have to push a stranger in front of the train to stop it. You know for certain it would stop the train in time to save the five people tied to the tracks. Is it permissible to push the man and save the five people at the expense of one?

You probably said no. But the results are the same — the only difference is the method (passive vs. impassive). But in both cases you sacrifice one life to save five.

So why do we see one as moral and the other as immoral?

reply to post by adjensen


You've never asked my moral position, you've never asked what my opinion was on the best approach to building towards a civilisation of solidarity, and i've never promoted an "anything goes" attitude towards human relationships.

Originally posted by eight bits
adjensen

Correct -- they don't, and that's what sinks you.

Sinks me, my brother? I'm an aggie, remember? I like to straighten out whose position is what, but that's a separate issue from whether I agree with that position.

Sorry, the "you" in that sentence is the empirical "random person", not you personally. A better way to put it would be "Yes, Roman Catholics rely on acts, not simple faith, for salvation, so if one is Catholic, but not allowed to participate in the acts, one is denied salvation."

And, I suppose this reflects the invincible ignorance of my agnosticism, but why would anyone want to belong to a church if they disbelieved what the church taught? (Which still isn't enough to get you excommunicated... my question is why would someone stick around in that case? They can't excommunicate you if you've already left.)

Well, I would again put myself out as an example. Before, during and even after my marriage, I have considered conversion to Catholicism for a variety of reasons. I agree with a lot of the theology, I generally prefer Catholic Mass to Methodist services, and it's just been something that's been niggling at me for much of my adult life.

However, I do not "get" the whole Mariology bit. There is nothing, apart from proclamations of men, to say that Mary was born without sin, remained a virgin all of her life, was assumed into heaven, and installed as the Queen thereof. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't -- in my mind, none of that matters for salvation anyway, but I don't believe it, and in order to convert to Catholicism, I would either need to be convinced (somewhat unlikely) or just lie to the priest and say that I do believe it (which I would never do.)

So, it's something that's important to Catholics, to the extent that the Pope made his decree (and resulted in the subsequent "Papal Infallibility" decree, which I'm also not super keen on,) but it's something that doesn't seem to be important for anything other than the veneration of Mary, which isn't an aspect of salvation.

That leaves me stuck in the place of being attracted to the Church but, essentially, barred from joining, for a reason that I view as irrelevant. I will wait to see what the conservative priest has to say, but his only chance will be convincing me that I'm in error on my view of Mary.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by adjensen

 

You've never asked my moral position, you've never asked what my opinion was on the best approach to building towards a civilisation of solidarity, and i've never promoted an "anything goes" attitude towards human relationships.

What are you talking about? There's a voluminous back and forth in that thread, and others, of you citing reasons that you believe morality is not objective. You flat out, clearly said so in the quote of yours that I included.

I'm not accusing you of immorality (which I assume your "anything goes attitude" comments are directed to,) and never have, I'm asking whether you've changed your tune since we had that discussion earlier this year, and accepted that morality is objective, not subjective.