Times are different and people are different. If Christianity were started today, we'd have an entirely different bible.

Think of Lot. God wanted to save him right? He was the last good guy in Sodom (or Gonorrhea, wherever). But what do we know of Lot? He was willing to give his daughters to a crowd of dudes that wanted to rape the 2 angels that showed up! WTF?! And god sees him as a good guy?

In those days, apparently, it was more important to show great hospitality to a male stranger than the welfare of you children. How times change.

My take on "Man in God's Image" is, possibly, the granting of free will and intelligent thought... or, perhaps, a belief in morality. I don't think any of us would argue that mankind is an essentially moral race - not that everything that man does is moral, but that there are moralities that people follow (of vastly different types).

But that's a personal thought, not necessarily one taught by the Catholic church. Oddly enough, the stuff I quoted in the other thread came from a larger Vatican document specifically talking about "imago Dei" - the Image of God. This is an idea heavily explored in very different directions... there is no agreement among Catholic or Protestant scholars (I don't know much about Judaic or Islamic teachings) for what exactly this means.

+1

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

For what it's worth, they didn't disobey God... he warned them, and they suffered the stated consequences (by literal reading, which is implied by discussing the story to begin with). His warning (Genesis 3:3) "You shall not eat from it, or touch it, or you will die." The implication in reverse is without eating from the tree, Adam and Eve would live forever in Eden.

My thoughts for Original Sin touching us all is pretty straightforward - none of us are in Eden. The casting out of Eden affected each of us.

I won't claim any special veracity for this site, but I have found a bunch of interesting reading at hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org. The site has a bunch of essays on a number of topics and claims to be comprised of authors of pretty wide-ranging backgrounds. Lots of discussions on apparent conflicts in the bible and their resolutions based on ideas of conservative and liberal Christians. I find myself to be much more agreeable to the liberal interpretations.

omnipotent implies omniscient as part of the definition - at least that's what I was always taught. but that's relatively incidental to your point. just one of those things that always compels a reply from me.

Historically, I'm not sure. Recently, this is from Pope Paul VI, 1965:

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."

Reasonable thought.

The standard is "higher" not because of some superiority. It's higher because the religious in this example are claiming that the universe is designed by a higher power that is worthy of worship. If that is the case, then people begin to expect that the world should some how live up to such a scenario. Just as I have a different expectation from a book written by an author to entertain me versus a meaningless jumble of letters.

If the world was not designed by any intelligent being but simply came to be, there's no reason to expect anything of how it works. Does that make sense?

Well, yes. :) I was thinking more of the stories of the saints, and Christians v. Lions in Roman times than Biblical.

Sheesh - didn't mean to take over the thread, but this is what I get for just going through a Multi-Quoting everything I wanted to respond to.

Celeval, thank you.

it depends on your perspective really.

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

Being a programmer I often interpret things in terms of my job.

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs. Within these programs there are people going about their lives; Anyone watching the program with no knowledge of Gods programming might think the people look to be real and independant - however God knows the random number generator inside and out and also setup the universes database, hence to him everything is pre-programmed and he KNOWS there is no freewill or random happenstance in the program and indeed can predict what will happen at any point during the running of the programs (which is a trick I'd love to be able to do ;) ).
(many apologies for the geeky analogy but hopefully it explains the problem with someone knowing exactly what choices will be made at the point at which he creates something - it turns them into automations)

PS - I was also taught that Omnipotent covered everything, where I've used that word consider it to cover all aspects of Gods power/knowledge/prescent - i.e. a being with limitless power who is all knowing and everywhere in all times at once ;)

So god is Will Wright? :D

Speaking of which once I get this crunch out the way I need to give Spore a whirl ;)

Knowledge of a thing to come doesn't necessarily imply influence (or use of influence) over that thing.


And yet, I'd bet you'd love to actually insert actual intelligence and decision making into FM. Realism ftw! If accepting the premise that God is omnipotent, then He can.


No worries. Semantical difference, we all know what we're talking about.

Regarding the origin and creation of the Bible, as an example of a religious text, Wikipedia has it covered pretty well.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

It gives a good sense of the amount of human decision making (and therefore politics) that goes into the creation of a religious text over time.

Shifting a bit...What would be wrong with a person who is atheist running for public office (mayor, state assembly, president)? I ask this, because there are laws (don't know if they are still on the books), that did not allow for atheists to run for public office in certain states. These laws have since been ruled unconstitutional, but, the question still remains.

Well, if God or some hgiher power exists, it probably exists outside of time. In that case it could know how all of history will unfold without that meaning that free will isn't in existence.

There's lots of problems beyond this, but I think we can't assume that some higher being is constrained by time the way we are.

Nothing. Why were the laws made? Probably out of a fear that morality came from religion and atheists were immoral. *shrug*

I also want to add props to everyone's patience with my (many) questions.

Still debating if I should get it. They have Spore Evolution or something like that for the iPhone, but, my wife has a monopoly on the iPhone, so I don't think I'll be playing it anytime soon.

I agree, there's nothing wrong at all with an atheist running for public office, however, I think it would be impossible for that candidate to win if the voting populace knew that person was an atheist.

Yes, I do believe those laws were in place because the people who set them up, were thinking that atheists were immoral.

I agree. There is really very little chance that an atheist, who was open about his/her beliefs, would ever be voted into office.

I don't quite get why it's so troubling to people, but it is. Based on some of the questiosn raised in this thread folks do appear to have a hard time conceiving how an atheist views the world, explains things, or makes value judgments. The easy answer to many of these questions, which is probably correct 9 times out of 10, is: Just like you do.

Well said HB. If people would just understand that an atheist means nothing more than not believing in a god or gods. If people understood that, they'd realize that atheists are nothing more than people just trying to eek out a good life just like everyone else.

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

Atheism is no more a philosophy than not liking cheesburgers is a philosophy.

I'm basically signing off of this thread now, since there seems to be little point in participating. It appears highly unlikely that anyone is going to change my mind on this, based on what has been said thus far. Also, after thinking about it a little bit during a drive this afternoon, it is pretty clear to me that I just don't care at all whether there is a God or not. If they do exist, there are simply way too many awful things happening every single day on this planet for me to celebrate a creator that has abandoned its creations to suffer through it. If there isn't one, then good, because it doesn't make any sense to me that a benevolent creator/overseer would let these awful things happen, or that I would need to worship them just for the opportunity to deal with their bullshit.

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

Why do believers always think there is a "way of thinking" with atheists. Its not about measuring good or bad. Atheists have no book to guide us through our lives so all moral issues are subjective.

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

"way of thinking" was for a lack of a better word. I really should have said that most believers think that atheists follow some atheistic way of life, as if we have some head atheists dictating our decisions that are the opposite to what they are taught.
Being an atheists doesnt mean that you believe in anything, just that you dont believe in God. You said:
Originally Posted by st.cronin
I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

How can the idea that God does not exist be "unthinkable" as a philosophy? The existence of God is one of the biggest philosophical arguments of all time.

How is it not when you do not have a moral compass like the bible? What I've been bad at saying in the last few posts is that is that believers treat atheism as a religion, which helps them relate, but leads them to assume other things about atheists.

I simply meant that it was unthinkable to me, because of the philosophical implications - for example, that all moral judgements are relative.

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians. I mean most Christians are in favor of the death penalty. And that pretty much breaks one of those Commandments, right? But it's relative because the guy getting electrocuted killed someone else, so he 'deserved it.' Right?

Einstein pantheism has a summary of what is believed to have been Einsteins take on God if anyones interested ..

I certainly wouldn't say most are in favor of it.

Speaking only of the Catholic church, again, the Church is entirely against it. The Catechism states that "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'"

This is not correct. For a Christian, no moral judgements are relative. There is an absolute right and wrong.

To Einstein, The universe was God. This is supported by the website you provided(I'm not sure how valid this website is). The website says he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God Earlier you described what he side here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”

Others have said that Eintein only said this to appease the masses even though Spinoza's God is quite different than the others.
Here is another quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein “"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ”

I don't mean this as a slight, but this seems to me like an excellent example of belief based on preference (something discussed a bit earlier in this thread). One's apparent discomfort with what one believes to be the logical consequences of there being no god doesn't make god exist.

I think I agree with you about the discomfort part. But is there a distinction to be made between a preference based on something logically proven verses a preference based on feeling? I think disbelieving atheism because of one's discomfort with it may not be valid and would be belief based on preference, but disbelieving atheism because it makes morality subjective would seem valid and not based on preference. Truth is truth whether we prefer it or not.

So I guess for me the question becomes whether, in the atheist framework, morality is subjective or it is not subjective. And as far as I can discern, morality is subjective in an atheistic framework. Until I am convinced otherwise, that is a true statement that has no bearing on my preferences. I can feel good about it and prefer it or I can feel uncomfortable about it and not prefer it. But my preferences do not change whether it is or isn't truth.

I wouldn't argue that morality is necessarily subjective for atheists. If there's any sort of moral code - be it a religious one, or a secular one - used as a set of rules, then that tosses that out a bit. One could argue that the basis for Christian morality is a combination of the Ten Commandments and Jesus' addition to love your neighbor as yourself. An atheist could follow those same rules without the necessity of a religious belief structure around it... similarly, "While it harms done, do as you will", or any of the variety of moral structures.

Yes, I agree with that...


...but I don't see how you can put this statement right next to it. "Disbelieving atheism" just means believing that god's existence is true. (Right?) How can you reach that conclusion just by deciding that you don't like what atheism leads to in some respect, without betraying your statement I quoted above?

If you believe just because of a hunch or a feeling or an inspiration, I get that. It doesn't have any persuasive value, but there's nothing for another person to really criticize from a logical perspective.

What I genuinely don't understand is trying to defend what you believe to be true based on your personal preferences of what you wish to be true. Saying that you believe in god because that avoids an uncomfortable moral relativism (a conclusion I reject, incidentally) just doesn't hold any sway with most nonbelievers... what bearing could that possibly have on what is actually true?

Yeah in retrospect using his quote in that way wasn't the brightest decision - I used it because its a catchy quote without realising that it'd be taken as meaning that Einstein believed that God was personal.

Spinoza's God as I believe it is pretty much the same thing, the main difference being 'semantics' I think Spinoza's definition tends to indicate that its 'nature' rather than the universe being God - but the general gist of both (as I understand it) is that God isn't a personal God at all.

Morality for aetheists (and society in general imho) is mainly based upon what the members of a society believe is ultimately good for the society they live within.

That is if something is seen as harmful to society then its considered immoral.

Examples of this can be easily found - random murder for instance harms society by making people scared and removing productive members of society, however soldiers are not seen as immoral because they're acting on the intent of society as a whole.

Religious morals are set by the scripture/beliefs of individual religions and are often the cause of friction within a society because there is normally very limited flexibility within them for change.

Thus within most societies today homosexuals are generally accepted because their actions are harmless to the overall population and indeed help reduce the problems of over population on the planet (I've actually conjectured with friends that in the future its possible that homosexuality will be openly encouraged by goverments for this reason).

However some religions have a problem with homosexuality because its against the tenets of the religions involved.

The problem with the inflexibility of religion is that it ignores the fact that the world has changed hugely since the tenets were originally drawn up and the reasoning behind some of the laws may no longer be valid.

For instance the Jewish reasoning for not eating pork is scriptural, however its been frequently conjectured that at that point in history it would have been dangerous to eat pork because of problems with storing it (and so that might have been the reason for the scripture). This situation has altered but the law remains intact.

Similarly homosexuality it could be conceived was discouraged because reproduction was imperative in a religion thriving because of the high death rates/low life spans at the time when religions were conceived - however again today the opposite (ie. population explosion) is more of a concern generally.

NB> The above of course relies upon the obvious 'human' reasons for the religious laws being the true ones, but does bring to light possible problems with religions not updating themselves .... especially as within at least one (Christianity) they have in the past updated themselves (ie. the changes between the old and new testament) in lines with society.

"[God] does not play dice." was Einstein's response to quantum theory, which he didn't buy into. He wasn't making a statement about what God knows or that the future is predetermined or for any other religious or philosophical reason. He was just making a catchy phrase to mock quantum theory.

I think that's painting with too wide a brush. If you take atheists to be the sum of all people who don't believe in God, then I don't think you can say that even most of them subscribe to the same general idea of morality.

I do agree with your points about social morality, though; and I think that can apply to religious as well. While much of my morality is based on the Catholic faith, it's not wholly so - societal norms have an influence as well. To use your example, I have no problem with homosexuality.

This is what I see as a HUGE problem with Christianity. If what you say is true then no Christian actually has their own morals, they simply follow blindly with whatever morality was dictated to them.

Without considering your moral dilemmas for yourself and making a your own informed decision you lose the very essence of who you are. You are not a free person choosing your path in life, you become nothing more than an automaton regurgitating someone else's philosophy.

If this is true it totally discounts your ability to carry an argument, because its not you making the choices, its some scribe 2000 years ago who made your mind up for you. you're credibility in any discussion thereby becomes tainted and less in almost any discussion you join. Its frustrating for those of us who don't follow a dogma because no matter how hard we try and put faith in your arguments and opinions we have to factor in that its not YOUR argument or opinion. it invalidates you to a very large extent.

Again just to remind everyone reading this, it is MY PoV, i don't mean to imply this opinion fits to anyone beyond myself.

I'd disagree with this on two stances:

* Firstly no one is born into a religion, everyone gets to choose whether they subscribe to a religion or not. As such if they disagree vehemently with a religions morals they can opt out - thus every Christian has chosen the morals dictated within that religion.
* Every believer of a faith has a unique belief in it, that is ask two christians to describe what Jesus looked like and generally you'll get slightly different answers. In a similar manner what believers believe is moral differs slightly depending upon the person.

I don't personally think you can take any group of people and say they subscribe to the same set of morals regardless of whether they're religious or not.

For instance if you ask a large group of christians about abortion you'll find some find it abhorrant and others believe it should be available as an option.

I think the best 'set' of morals you can come up with is societal morality - that is the set of morals which are generally acceptable to specific groups of people within the world.

Within that group of people generally some will differ upon specific aspects of morality but they will normally be bound by the overlying societal code.

For instance while many people in America are pro-life only a small minority of these take action to try and physically prevent abortion because they accept the overlying societal moral code for the group as over-riding their own feelings on the matter.

I think you're probably right that the Christian doesn't have their own morals. Many, like Cronin seems to be, see that as a good thing. If we all did whatever we wanted to do, personally or as a society, and called what we did right, it seems there would be chaos.

The point above falls into the problem cited earlier in this thread. Why is the religious person slotted into the deterministic framework and the atheist into some presumable position of free agency? This argument isn't plausible. On what basis do you claim your arguments are your arguments? Did you step out of a vacuum for as long as you have lived right into this thread with thoughts, ideas and language that came from you and you alone? Obviously not. Does it taint your credibility to have been influenced this way? I don't think so. You have chosen to believe certain things in the same way the religious person has chosen to believe certain things. You have either come to some conclusions independently (insofar as this is possible) or you have believed on the basis of what some authority has told you. Unless you have lived in a vacuum from birth. I just don't see a problem with religious arguments being invalidated by the notion that they are someone else's arguments. All of our arguments are shaped by others to some extent. It's unavoidable simply because we have to use language.

Understood, but I think I could go further with my argument - that a totally subjective world doesn't even allow for truth/falsehood. I have not really developed this argument here, and am not really prepared to, but I have given it some private thought over the years.

I think maybe you're not seeing the direction I was talking from here.

If you adopt a religion, you are stating that you accept THAT religions moral code, As cronin says a christian has no moral grey area, their morals are dictated to them in black and white, good/bad, saintly/sinful. My argument is that based on Cronin's affirmation that there is no subjective morality for a christian, then he isn;t truly choosing his morality, no christian can according to that statement, they are following whatever is dictated by the faith they ascribe to.

I see what you were saying but its not really applicable to the argument I was making.

Your second point is pretty much the same problem, I'm not saying they aren't choosing to be christian, I am saying that by choosing to be christian they are giving up their choice to decide each point on its merits, to weigh any situation and decide what best fits it. They're giving up that ability in lieue of whatever doctrine is dictated.

Now there are always those in any religion who still DO choose for themselves and weigh their choices and make their own decisions, I'm not debating that, I am simply responding to SC's statement of having no ability to discern right/wrong for himself as a Christian. Religion dictates these things according to his statement with no room for subjective or even Objective reasoning. I just find that oppressive and controlling.

As Telle mentioned in a conversation we had Friday night, the definition of heretic is "Free thinker" and if your religion condemns heretics then perhaps one should consider the definition and the reasons for such a condemnation.

I actually disagree with this to a certain degree. Using the Catholic Church as the example - there are differences between the teachings of the church and the tenets of the faith. By choosing to be Catholic, I'm accepting the tenets of the faith, and that morality - again, Ten Commandments, Do Unto Others, etc. - as ones that I should strive for. There is a lot that the Church teaches that is not a basis for the Catholic faith, that can impact morality... teachings on abortion, homosexuality, gender issues are three that come up often in discussion. The fact that I agree with the church on some of it and disagree on others has no impact on my faith.


Dude, what?

Merriam-Webster: a dissenter from established religious dogma, one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

Dictionary.com: a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church; anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle

http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index...view_unit/3344 gives the etymology, and somewhere around the 2nd century, it's had the meaning of a false or sacreligious belief.

freethinker is listed as a synonym on dictionary.com for the third definition ("anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle"), but for that matter, so is dissenter and skeptic... other synonyms are backslider, recreant, and protestant. So, not so much.

By choosing to be CHRISTIAN, you are accepting the tenets of the faith, etc. etc.

By choosing (a word I'm not comfortable with, because most people don't really choose - they are taught that what their parents are is the "correct" religion) to be CATHOLIC you are to a bigger degree than Christians choosing to accept the views of the Pope and his Catholic church cronies. Isn't that the most significant difference between Catholic/Christian?

I freely admit to taking what she said at face value on the definition. I would assume the synonym was used as a catch phrase somewhere. my bad for not researching myself.

To your first part comment I can only say again that I am only arguing the completeness of SC's statement. As you say as a catholic you follow the morality of the faith, not necessarily the morality of the church. Those are indeed seperate things in situations pertaining to , say, abortion, however you also listed Homosexuality, which your FAITH states is a sin and therefore a moral wrong. based on SC's statement I have to believe then that you also believe its wrong if you state that you are a christian. Do I not?

Its not your stance I'm trying to dig into here, I'm simply and apparently badly (grin) trying to show SC's statement of a black and white christian morality as a grande generalization and mostly a wrong one at that.

Everyone has a choice, even Christians. Proven by your own statements above. I applaud you for that.

Cronin, can you see what I'm trying to get at here? I'm not saying the WAY either of you believe is wrong, but I think I've raised some real question about your statement on Christian morality. I apologize to you both for being so Obtuse about things and not taking more time to be clear and concise.

Not so. Being a Christian means attempting to align your will with the will of God. This is not a blind or automatic process.


I don't see how you have come close to that. To be a Christian, and probably to be any kind of Theist, means that if you disagree with God, you are wrong and God is right. That is all I was saying.

It's a minor point, but the quote you posted does NOT say that the Church is entirely against it. It says that "it does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

It goes on to say that these situations "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

So that is not entirely against it as you say.

I would.

GALLUP POLL: Who Supports the Death Penalty? | Death Penalty Information Center


Religious Preference

Protestants are somewhat more likely to endorse capital punishment than are Catholics and far more likely than those with no religious preference. More than 7 in 10 Protestants (71%) support the death penalty, while 66% of Catholics support it. Fifty-seven percent of those with no religious preference favor the death penalty for murder.




And based on this, I don't know how st.cronin can say Christians' morals aren't relative.

I also find it very interesting there that Protestants and Catholics are far more likely to be in favor of the death penalty that those with No Religious Preference.

The "Golden Rule" is far, far from being unique to Christianity. You can find the same idea in almost every major religion and in all sorts of ehtical and philsophical thinkings. It's a very basic ehtical/moral concept. (See: Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions)

Religious teachings did not create morality and ethics, they sprouted from these basic concepts and became a valuable way to teach and enforce them.

Just based on how similar so many different religious teachings of ethics and morals are is pretty strong evidence that the chicken (morals/ethics) came well before the egg (religion).

I really think that at their core, most people - religious and non-religious alike - have very similar ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Sure, there is some stuff on the fringes where people will disagree, but, outside a few outliers, the vast majority of people are basically working from the same foundation.

Also, regarding my statements regarding the fact that religious people also are moral relativists, I would point to the fact that some/many of the guidelines set forth in the books of the Bible are largely ignored today.

Preachers and many religious people often pick and choose which of these guidelines they follow. People often point to Leviticus as proof that homosexuality is an abomination. But they fail to take seriously the rest of the guidelines from that book - most of which are ridiculous in this day and age.

This picking and choosing from the bible also smacks of relativism to me.

No, by choosing to be Catholic, I'm accepting the tenets of the Catholic faith. Christianity is a catch-all for a lot of flavors. The only common difference between Catholicism and the variety of other Christian faiths in the Church (by definition) and acceptance of the pope as the inheritor of Peter's role as the rock of the church. However, differences between Catholicism and various other faiths are all over... the additional reverence given to Mary, the transsubstantiation during the Mass, the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation, etc.

And I'm not required to accept the views of the Pope, my local Bishop, or any other priests of my parish - excluding those rare occurances of papal infallibility - any more than any random Christian is required to accept the views of his or her local pastor.

Fair enough.


Reasonable. I disagree with it being black and white as well as a general rule (although there are certain situations where it would be).

Eh, ok, 99.44% against it.


Ok, reasonable numbers. I thought it would be less than that.

Sorry... to be more clear, in my statement I meant Jesus added that to the Ten Commandments to become a part of Christian morality. I am under no impression that he started it. :)

To me, it's an argument to not take the Bible literally. :) Going back to one of the earlier posts, I think - any reading and interpretation of the Bible (or any other hundred- or thousand- year old documents) necessarily need to take into account the time of writing.

Ok, you can't have this both ways. Either A: You choose to follow a faith and adopt its morality and teachings as your own, therefore you are choosing to believe and follow whatever teachings and morals that particular belief has developed over the centuries, IE they are NOT your own, they are someone elses and are being dictated to you through that faith.

Or B: You choose your own moral code based on what you feel is right/wrong with the advisement of your faith and its teachings.

Which is it? If as you say its a black and white situation where you either agre with god or not then its A and you are not making your own choices/decisions, if its B then its not truly a black and white situation, you filter God's will through your own shades of grey.

I understand what you are saying, but you're ignoring the real question.

Personally I think there are a LOT of A types out there, the fundemental Right wing of the world are A types, Black and white with no grounds for understanding or compassion. Good over bad, right over wrong, no matter how fuzzy the boundaries.

There are also many many B types, those are generally the theistics that are able to have calm rational discourse about their belifs because instead of just adoptong what was taught to them they decided to think it through for themselves and make their decisions based on what they feel is right and wrong, with their theistic beliefs as a guideline, not specifically a line in the sand.

I think the point is more subtle than that. It's not a question of taking the bible literally or not, it's a question of choosing to take certain passages of the bible or certain interpretations of passages in the bible and using those passages or interpretations as the foundation of your morals/ethics, while choosing to ignore the dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other passages/interpretations in doing so.

There is a choice being made to place value on some of what's in the bible and to place no value on other teachings, which, based on a plain reading of the text would seem equally as important.

I think a missing piece in this argument is that it applies if God's desire/commandment is clear. Much of Christian morality is based on interpretation, which is the third piece.

This may be an important point I never brought up (since I just assumed most were this way) I grew up Baptist and they believe every frickin' word of the bible is absolutely the word of god and, therefore, true. There is no choosing which parts to take or not take literally.

Do even Baptists take that hard a stance on literalness? I thought there were enough outright contradictions in the Bible that even literalists had to pick a few places where a figurative interpretation was necessary to maintain consistency.

The church I went to did. The pastor loved diving into the Greek to squeeze out the minutiae.

I have never seen this question as one of whether or not the text is taken literally, but rather whether it is intended to be taken literally. Those are two very different notions. The notion of literal or figurative has nothing to do with truth, but rather about how one interprets. It's unfortunate that literal/true get conflated in these discussions.

There would certainly be those religious who take the entire text as true, but you would be hard pressed to find one who takes every word literally. Only a second or third grade educated person would be tempted to make that move (and even then...). If religious people take every single word of the Bible literally, they deserve all the grief they get from doing so.

You are correct on that to a point, but in relation to the real topic here that Cronin asserts that a Christian doesn't have a choice on moral issues, its either good or bad, no shades of grey, is not really affected by this as in my post I'm already connecting the teaching (read interpretations) of the church as being the dictated "this is good, this is evil".

Every tiny sliver of a denomination has their own set of theistic values, what makes them all the same overall is that the base value set is all from the same place. Christianity. And this can even go further to include any religion or denomination of a religion.

You have two real options. You either take the moral code dictated to you by the doctrine of your choice, or you create your OWN moral code using whatever moral measuring sticks you want to to come up with it. this would include using your faith as a guideline. Not taking it as truth mind you, but more as an advising point.

If as St Cronin affirms, Christians do NOT have a choice in whether something is good or bad, then is it truly THEIR choice? I say it is not, since they are not making that choice from their own brain, they are simply choosing to adopt someone elses measuring stick of good and evil.

You seem to be suggesting that not having a choice is somehow a problem. But I'm not sure what the problem is. Unless a person somehow comes up with their own measuring stick of good and evil in a cultural and social vacuum (something I don't see as possible), they cannot help but adopt someone else's measuring stick of good and evil. It might be their culture's, their peer group's, their work network's, their teacher's, etc. and they might choose different sticks at different times of life, but there doesn't seem to be much of a problem in listening to what others have to say and working from there.

So I'm having trouble seeing the obstacle here. I believe we all have choices, but none of us simply chooses. There's more going on than our isolated selves making isolated, independent decisions. And there's nothing wrong with that for the religious or the atheist.

It appears I disagree with St. Cronin, then, as I do think that a large number of moral questions aren't black and white, even within the Church; and thereby the rest of the argument doesn't make sense to me.

You all are missing the point. If two Christians disagree on something, one of them is right, and one of them is wrong. That is what is meant by saying there are no shades of grey.

Who decides which one is right and which one is wrong? God?

Yes, exactly.

Well, that's the rub, aint it?

Maybe the answer needs to embrace the paradox more, like so many other tenants of faith.


For example:

There are things that are always wrong, except sometimes when they are not.

I have an individual relationship with something that is universal

I believe in someone that is fully god and man. And he was born to a virgin.

The more obey the more i may suffer.

If most Christians are fine with the last 3 then i don't see what's so hard in accepting the first claim.

I am surprised, although in retrospect I don't know why, that there is so much talk about christianity in a thread about atheism.

Just to throw my 2 cents in, I will say that to me all religions seem pretty much equally unlikely to be true and most border on the absurd. People once worshipped the sun and the wind. As people evolved, so did their beliefs. For me, the pinnacle of human development is the point where we can all look at the universe through eyes not hindered by archaic beliefs based on myths, legends and "holy" documents.

But that is just me stating my position without intent to insult.

The obstacle was Cronin's orinal statement that for a christian there are no relative moral choices, everything is either right or wrong.

That is the question we're debating. Let me use a VERy simplistic example, and I will freely admit its off the top of my head so bear with me.

For a christian, stealing is a sin. Therefore Stealing is Wrong. Lets also assume if it is wrong, it is also Evil. So we have a benchmark of Stealing == Sin/Wrong/Evil.

St. Cronin and i are strolling through market square in boston, as we wander through the crowds we both see an young boy steal some fruit from a vendor.

St. Cronin's position is "That is wrong, period." based on his earlier assertion.

I say "No, that depends on why he's stealing, there are always circumstances to every dilemma. if the boy and his family are destitute and starving, I see no wrong in taking a few parcels of food to eat. I'd go so far as to say as long as he isn't doing large amounts of wholesale harm to anyone he would be fine taking things from food to clothing etc."

this is what I'm debating here. There are ALWAYS shades of grey, no matter your theistic belief system. if you're not making those decisions for yourself, who is making them for you? Do you think God is going to punish the little boy for surviving in whatever manner he can?

This is where you are confused about what I am saying. My "position" doesn't matter at all. The young boy's act is either right or wrong - I may think I know which it is, but it is only God whose opinion counts.

Were we both atheists, we might both be able to mount plausible arguments about whether the act was right or wrong ... but would either of us actually be right?

No, because the terms "right" and "wrong" are subjective - not black and white. We base our opinions on social norms and our own personal morals, so one atheist might think it's wrong because it's stealing someone else's property (a basic principle and pretty much the origin of "law"), where as the next atheist might tend to sympathise with the kid, who may be too poor to afford the food he is stealing.

I'd much rather that situation than simply saying "I feel it's wrong, but who knows, maybe God thinks it's OK. I'll never know for sure because all I can do is try and interpret the Bible, which is the only guide I've got as to His plan, as best I can, but because I'm just human I don't know if my interpretation is correct.". That's a very unsatisfying way to think, IMO.

To be fair, it's the same reason that atheism gets talked about so much in religious threads. :D


I hear you. You may have read it already, but I found it very refreshing reading Hitchens' _The Portable Atheist_ because it shows that there have been some like-minded folks with the same issues as us going back a long time in history.

Taken the assumption for the purpose of this example, but I disagree - wrong is not necessarily evil. We can get into a discussion of mortal v. venial sin here, but as was pointed out above, the title of the thread is Atheism and not Catholicism. :)


There absolutely are shades of gray, both in the Christian/Catholic morality, in the Church, and (I believe) in God's eyes. To go Old Testament for a change, you have "Thou shalt not kill", but you also have "There is an appointed time for everything [...] a time to kill and a time to heal".

There is also the idea - untouched on so far - of forgiveness being key. The most famous examples are the unnamed adultress in John ("He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her"), and the two criminals crucified on either side of Him ("Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.").

For an atheist, that's true - for a theist, it isn't. That's what I've been trying to illustrate.

Which makes it seem to atheists all the more absurd when folks claim that morality is derived from religion. These "shades of grey" are straight out contradictions that can be used to either support peace or killing, depending on "interpretation".

Surely he could have come forward and clarify his position a little bit sometime over the past 2,000 years (less if your Islamic)? Especially when his book was being used as justification to commit some of history's (even recent history's) most terrible events.

Yes, but then you are no better off than the atheist in your argument. You can say something is wrong or right based on your interpretation, but are you really wrong or right? You don't have any more idea than the atheist. That's not black or white either - no more so than the atheist who believes his opinion is correct or false or black or white for his own personal, non-religious reasons.

I am not saying that its easier to be theist or atheist to make correct judgements. I am simply trying to point out what I think are the foundational differences.

I don't think this particular point is a foundational difference however. In neither the case of the atheist nor the theist can you be sure that you are correct, nor that there actually is a correct stance on something. All you can do is rely on your own judgement. This is far from black or white. As Celeval points out, not even the bible treats things as black or white. If the bible disagrees with itself (to use Celeval's example, thou shall not kill, though may kill under certain conditions), is part of the bible wrong and another part right?

How can this be explained outside of using personal judgement?

You could say that the difference is that to a theist there does exist a definitive right or wrong answer to each problem where as to the atheist perhaps there isn't such an answer that can be derived from any sort of higher authority than your own morality. Sure. But if there is an answer yet no way to know what that answer is with any certainty - especially considering the potential harm that being wrong could cause to yourself after you die - doesn't that make it all but useless, not to mention incredibly unfair and cruel?

One might say that Jesus' life and the New Testament was the clarification, given that the Old Testament quotes range from 900bc - 200bc depending on which researchers you believe (and the ten commandments part being a part of oral history well before that).

But what did it clarify? The topics we are discussing right now have been discussed for the past 2,000 years! :)

I imagine questions like these are why there are such things as PhDs in divinity. :lol:

My personal take? Intent matters. Specific to Catholicism now... I mentioned mortal and venial sin above. The quick definition is that a mortal sin is where the supposed penalty is what is brought up a lot in these discussions - Go to Hell, do not pass Go, etc. A mortal sin must meet three characteristics: it must be a grave sin to begin with (murder, adultery, etc.), one must have full knowledge of the sin (i.e. you know it's a sin, and it's "against God's law"), and it must have complete consent ("...a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.").

In the example of the theft of the food above... it's likely that it would fail at least two of those tests (gravity, and complete consent - assuming the boy truly felt he had no choice).

Clarification: the Go to Hell portion of mortal sin is implied assuming that the person dies with that sin - unforgiven - on his/her soul. It's not automatic and permanent. :)

I think a problem with some of the above debate is that the world of Christianity is not homogeneous. In particular the Catholic and Protestant faiths are significantly different. They share the same starting point but that's about it.

A Catholic has a rigid set of rules he should acknowledge. The Catholic believer essentially has a contract with the Church - the Church will do the hard yards in studying and interpreting the bible and lay down the rules. The Catholic believer will accept those rules and abide by them.

The essence of Protestantism is a "protest" against this very idea of dogma. A Protestant demands the right to create his own relationship with God. This will include some cherry-picking of handed-down dogma mixed with his own interpretations. The trigger for Protestantism was the cheap publication of the bible that came with Gutenberg printing that made the bible available to many more than the select few Catholic clergy. Many of these new readers disliked the Catholic interpretations and broke with the Church setting up their own (hence the many Protestant churches).

So, whereas Catholics have a fixed "black and white" set of principles set by the Church, Protestants share the subjectivity that comes from individual interpretation and opinion.

As someone who was raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod), and later became a Catholic (Wife is Catholic), I must be experiencing a different type of Catholic Church. I find the above statements completely untrue and have never once ever been told what to believe or how to act in the 13 years that I have attended mass.

I find the Catholic mass surprisingly refreshing and much more relaxing that the more stringent Lutheran services that I attended while growing up. Given a choice, I would clearly opt to be a Catholic over being a Lutheran any day. I have nothing against the Lutheran Church, but I enjoy being a Catholic much more.

-Cork