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