Is Murder Wrong If There Is No God?

Religion and Secularism
81
Plus, show where the Church ever taught that murder was anything other than gravely immoral?
Bula de CruzadaOh. Well all right then.
82
So this is completely arbitrary. You expressed a problem with groups of people changing morality, but you have no problem with the church changing, because RESSURECTION. Okay then
In every cartoon Wiley Coyote is always killed, but hey, in the next cartoon he is back alive and well. Must be Resurrection.'T's always terrific when someone just openly mocks your religion, let me tell you.
In fact it has a moral message, that even if Wiley Coyote is the "bad guy", always trying to catch the Road Runner, it shows that resurrection is not a result of living a moral life.
Resurrection is not a result of living a moral life, just of living a human life. We'll all rise again, and we'll rise not with these old, stinky bodies, but with new human bodies. We don't know much about them, but we'll look different enough that close friends and family will need a moment or two with us before they recognize who we are. And, apparently we'll be able to fly, because those of us who believe in the RESURRECTION will meet the Returned Lord Jesus in the air, as He descends from clouds. Those who are still alive will be changed, and those who've died will rise from the dead. That's the scene.
83
So this is completely arbitrary. You expressed a problem with groups of people changing morality, but you have no problem with the church changing, because RESSURECTION. Okay then
In every cartoon Wiley Coyote is always killed, but hey, in the next cartoon he is back alive and well. Must be Resurrection.'T's always terrific when someone just openly mocks your religion, let me tell you. Probably about as awesome as being told you are going to burn in hell for eternity.
84
Probably about as awesome as being told you are going to burn in hell for eternity.
Burned me there.
85

'Course, when did I say you’re going to burn for eternity?

86
So this is completely arbitrary. You expressed a problem with groups of people changing morality, but you have no problem with the church changing, because RESSURECTION. Okay then
In every cartoon Wiley Coyote is always killed, but hey, in the next cartoon he is back alive and well. Must be Resurrection.'T's always terrific when someone just openly mocks your religion, let me tell you. Probably about as awesome as being told you are going to burn in hell for eternity. Yes, such as my wife experienced when she was told by a really devout Christian in front of about ten people that she was the Anti-Christ, because she is a Democrat. You have to stand in awe of such hypocrisy and hubris.
87
Yes, such as my wife experienced when she was told by a really devout Christian in front of about ten people that she was the Anti-Christ, because she is a Democrat. You have to stand in awe of such hypocrisy and hubris.
Yes, that was me.
88
Because I believe in the RESURRECTION,
Wow that sounds really cool. I've been having less and less urrections as I've grown older. A resurrection sounds like something my wife and I could look forward to and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg for Cialis. I bet it's OK if it lasts longer than 4 hours too.
89
Because I believe in the RESURRECTION,
Wow that sounds really cool. I've been having less and less urrections as I've grown older. A resurrection sounds like something my wife and I could look forward to and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg for Cialis. I bet it's OK if it lasts longer than 4 hours too.Yeah I watched South Park too.
90
Because I believe in the RESURRECTION,
Wow that sounds really cool. I've been having less and less urrections as I've grown older. A resurrection sounds like something my wife and I could look forward to and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg for Cialis. I bet it's OK if it lasts longer than 4 hours too. But that would be called RESURGENCE, no?.... ;-P
91
Ah, a nihilist! While it's true that morality is a made up concept, I don't think it's a question of moral relativism. That would imply that morals are completely random. Society does by and large come to a certain consensus about what is moral behavior and what isn't.
I'm a Christian, not a nihilist. I am unaware that moral relativism implies randomness. Society coming to consensus about morals is moral relativism. At least, that's what I meant by moral relativism. If that's improper definition, mea culpa.I beg your pardon. I wasn't trying to put you in a category, I was just trying to figure out why you decided to chose that particular screen name. Okay, we're on the same page as far as society's consensus on what morality means. To me, "moral relativism" means something a little different. If, for example, a group of people in the next town decided that slavery was okay and that murder was okay, then we would be have no cause to say that they were wrong. Their consensus is just their consensus, just as morally right as ours is. In other words, morality is relative. But that's not true. Once we decide upon a consensus, it becomes the standard by which we judge all such cultures, not just our own. I believe I have found the answer to your original question about the nihilist implication.
Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of ancient religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and resurrects. The death and resurrection of Jesus, an example of resurrection, is the central focus of Christianity.
As a religious concept, it is used in two distinct respects: a belief in the resurrection of individual souls that is current and ongoing (Christian idealism, realized eschatology), or else a belief in a singular resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. The resurrection of the dead is a standard eschatological belief in the Abrahamic religions.
The Rapture?
92
Probably about as awesome as being told you are going to burn in hell for eternity.
Burned me there. An even bigger clown than i thought. You are happy to reject redemption and burn in hell ( a place peace loving mild and meek sweet baby jesus invented). Ha ha ha
93
'Course, when did I say you're going to burn for eternity?
You said you were Catholic]
94
Okay, we're on the same page as far as society's consensus on what morality means. To me, "moral relativism" means something a little different. If, for example, a group of people in the next town decided that slavery was okay and that murder was okay, then we would be have no cause to say that they were wrong. Their consensus is just their consensus, just as morally right as ours is. In other words, morality is relative. But that's not true. Once we decide upon a consensus, it becomes the standard by which we judge all such cultures, not just our own.
And that's what I meant by moral relativism, because it's based upon public opinion and not upon some objective standard. For millennia, slavery wasn't considered immoral at all, and now it is.I'm not sure which part you're agreeing with. Morality isn't just "public opinion", because God knows (if you'll pardon the expression) that can change back and forth with the wind. It's the consensus of society we're talking about. As you said, for thousands of years slavery was considered perfectly moral. The Catholic Church even said that it was moral. Then the Catholic Church changed its mind along with the rest of society. You said that the Catholic Church was what you considered your moral authority, but isn't that just the consensus arrived at by the fathers of the Church? "Moral Relativism" means that all moral judgments are the same. You can't say which is "right" or "wrong". This is obviously not true, because in practice we DO make such judgments. A more neutral example might be homosexual marriage. When the federal law passed giving homosexuals the right to marry, for "liberals" it became the new moral consensus. If some future administration tries to rescind that law, we would see it as a step backward. On the other hand, for "conservatives" the opposite is true. They see the law as a step backward, and rescinding it would be restoring the correct moral consensus. Both sides think they are right. Neither is willing to shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well. Morals are relative, after all."
95
'Course, when did I say you're going to burn for eternity?
You said you were Catholic]'Did not.
96
I believe I have found the answer to your original question about the nihilist implication.
Resurrection is the concept of coming back to life after death. In a number of ancient religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and resurrects. The death and resurrection of Jesus, an example of resurrection, is the central focus of Christianity.
As a religious concept, it is used in two distinct respects: a belief in the resurrection of individual souls that is current and ongoing (Christian idealism, realized eschatology), or else a belief in a singular resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. The resurrection of the dead is a standard eschatological belief in the Abrahamic religions.
The Rapture?
I don't get whatever it is you're trying to say.
97
Probably about as awesome as being told you are going to burn in hell for eternity.
Burned me there. An even bigger clown than i thought. You are happy to reject redemption and burn in hell ( a place peace loving mild and meek sweet baby jesus invented). Ha ha haBurned me there.
98
I'm not sure which part you're agreeing with. Morality isn't just "public opinion", because God knows (if you'll pardon the expression) that can change back and forth with the wind. It's the consensus of society we're talking about. As you said, for thousands of years slavery was considered perfectly moral. The Catholic Church even said that it was moral. Then the Catholic Church changed its mind along with the rest of society. You said that the Catholic Church was what you considered your moral authority, but isn't that just the consensus arrived at by the fathers of the Church? "Moral Relativism" means that all moral judgments are the same. You can't say which is "right" or "wrong". This is obviously not true, because in practice we DO make such judgments. A more neutral example might be homosexual marriage. When the federal law passed giving homosexuals the right to marry, for "liberals" it became the new moral consensus. If some future administration tries to rescind that law, we would see it as a step backward. On the other hand, for "conservatives" the opposite is true. They see the law as a step backward, and rescinding it would be restoring the correct moral consensus. Both sides think they are right. Neither is willing to shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well. Morals are relative, after all."
So you're just saying that what's legal is moral, and what's illegal is immoral then, right?
99
'Course, when did I say you're going to burn for eternity?
You said you were Catholic]'Did not. I'm not going to go searching for posts where you said things and argue semantics. You've been defending the Catholic dogma for a week now. Maybe you didn't specifically say "I am Catholic" but you said something about following or accepting the Catholic leadership did you not? Instead of being obstinate and obtuse, how about stating yourself clearly.
100
So you're just saying that what's legal is moral, and what's illegal is immoral then, right?
I'm sure Advotacus can answer for himself, but no, that's not what he said. "Legal" is defined within boundaries and changes over time. There were some pretty immoral things that were legal in Europe in recent centuries, and we've already mentioned slavery was legal. Not to mention it is currently legal to execute people for being gay in some countries. The current system of nations keeps the world from descending into chaos, but forces us into accepting these atrocities to a certain extent. "Moral" assumes a more universal standard. The fact that we can't all agree on what is or isn't moral doesn't mean such standards don't exist or aren't obtainable. "Legal" requires a structure for enforcement. It should be based on universal standards, but often it is not. "Moral" requires some sort of standard that can be described. How you enforce it is secondary to judging it. My preference is logic, which includes our emotions as well as the needs of the planet and future generations.