Moral Guidance

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

I still think it's a bit much to condemn all humans that will ever exist on the basis two eat one of god's apples. You wouldn't encourage your children to carry on your contempt and pass it down to their children forever and ever because a neighbour eat a biscuit you liked when you had them over for tea one evening.

If the entry of sin in to existence was confined to what you describe I might even agree with you

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused sin to enter in to creation. By what they did Adam and Eve they allowed Satan to try to influence each and every person who was ever created.

hinault

Harika wrote: »

The word of god or a 2000 year old book. Depends on yourself.

Try to be a bit more specific than that.

Harika

hinault wrote: »

Try to be a bit more specific than that.

How specific do you want it to be?

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

The teaching upon the existence of Limbo was not a moral teaching.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

There is no teaching upon the existence of Limbo in the New Testament. Scripture is silent upon the eternal fate of those babies not baptised who die.

What about genocide and slavery? Are they still fine with your version of a moral god?

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused sin to enter in to creation. By what they did Adam and Eve they allowed Satan to try to influence each and every person who was ever created.

A loving, all-powerful god would surely have fixed the flaw in humans and punished Satan. Why hasn't he stopped Satan getting up to mischief?

hinault

Harika wrote: »

How specific do you want it to be?

More specific than trying to claim that Church teaching on Limbo was moral teaching.

Did you both to read the link that I provided twice earlier?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Harika

hinault wrote: »

More specific than trying to claim that Church teaching on Limbo was moral teaching.

Did you both to read the link that I provided twice earlier?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Because all conventional textbooks on Catholic Moral Theology, basing themselves on the Council of Florence, teach that parents sin grievously by needlessly delaying Baptism of their newborns, as it endangers the infant's salvation. Father Prummer's Handbook of Moral Theology teaches, "Children of Catholic parents should be baptized at the earliest possible moment. Leo XIII fiercely condemned the postponing of Baptism of children";

Mark Tapley

Its difficult to reconcile the do unto others, good samaritan stuff with the do as I say or I will damn you to eternal suffering creed of a belligerent god.
I would not look to the catholic church for guidance on how to tie my shoelaces, not only are they not a benign organisation but overall have a negative impact on society.
All these priests wearing black , has it not occurred to them that they might be the bad guys.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

If the entry of sin in to existence was confined to what you describe I might even agree with you

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused sin to enter in to creation. By what they did Adam and Eve they allowed Satan to try to influence each and every person who was ever created.

But Adam and Eve would have been brand new people with little to no experience in anything. They wouldn't have known about good things and bad things. It's a bit like expecting a child to just know not to talk to strangers and then punishing them and all their offspring for all eternity because they took bad advise from someone they didn't know they shouldn't be listening to.

Andrewf20

hinault wrote: »

Essentially.

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused The Fall thereby allowing sin and everything that has subsequently derived from sin, to enter existence.

And how is that moral? - to place original sin on people who have absolutely no control over the actions of Adam and Eve.

I dont know of any civil society which enacts such a barbaric idea.

Andrewf20

SW wrote: »

murder is an illegal killing, so by definition it's always prohibited.

Killing however is fine if (a) you're God or (b) it's in self-defence.

Also - can I kill a thug who is about to kill a family? etc etc

Frank Bullitt

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused sin to enter in to creation

So we are all sinners, because a talking snake made 2 people who probably didn't exist, eat an apple in a place that probably doesn't exist.

And that somehow is the basis for your argument on morality.

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

Kiwi in IE

Safehands wrote: »

With the departure of organised religions from our society, where do our young people go for moral guidance?

Personally I believe that teaching children how to think for themselves about what is right/wrong/good/bad from an ethical perspective based on harm reduction is far superior to religious morals based on the concept of 'sin'.

I want my child to think about his actions in terms of consequence to other people, creatures and the environment. I want him to learn to choose to do the right thing based on a desire to avoid causing harm to others. I think that good ethical values make a good person, where this is not always the case with good religious morals.

I do not want my child's value system to be based on an avoidance of punishment to himself (hell), and on what God supposedly wants according to what is written in a 3000 year old book.

It amazes me when religious people assume that non religious people have no ability to distinguish right from wrong without religion. I think the opposite. Doing what is perceived to be right from a religious perspective based on gaining the approval of a god and avoidance of punishment to ones self, is not in my opinion, a good basis for ones value system.

smacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Personally I believe that teaching children how to think for themselves about what is right/wrong/good/bad from an ethical perspective based on harm reduction is far superior to religious morals based on the concept of 'sin'.

I just tell mine 'be nice, be kind, listen, speak your mind and enjoy yourselves'. Seems to work ok. I'm not convinced that a morality framed around the abstract boundaries of good and evil is that useful. I think for kids the notion of being inconsiderate relates much better to their many minor misdemeanours than being bad or evil. The reason is simply that being kind or unkind demand another person as context, whereas good and evil are confusing and often meaningless abstracts.

antiskeptic

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Personally I believe that teaching children how to think for themselves about what is right/wrong/good/bad from an ethical perspective based on harm reduction is far superior to religious morals based on the concept of 'sin'.

Harm reduction (as you would define it) is but a subset of harm reduction as a Christian would define it. The Christian moral system would include much of yours .. and then some.

I do not want my child's value system to be based on an avoidance of punishment to himself (hell), and on what God supposedly wants according to what is written in a 3000 year old book.

Do you suppose the core elements of your moral system younger than 3000 years old? Or would you instead suppose them applicable and relevant from the start of time to it's end?

It amazes me when non-religious people assume that because something is old that it somehow is rendered irrelevant.

It amazes me when religious people assume that non religious people have no ability to distinguish right from wrong without religion.

Christianity would suppose you in possession of a God-given (read: calibrated) conscience. Which is why so much of your morality would align with my morality.

RecordStraight

antiskeptic wrote: »

It amazes me when non-religious people assume that because something is old that it somehow is rendered irrelevant.

And it amazes me when religious people think that morality only came along with the religion they happened to be born into.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused sin to enter in to creation. By what they did Adam and Eve they allowed Satan to try to influence each and every person who was ever created.

You speak as if you actually believe that Adam and Eve were real people. They were not.

antiskeptic

RecordStraight wrote: »

And it amazes me when religious people think that morality only came along with the religion they happened to be born into.

I don't identify with Roman Catholicism (the religion I was born into). To my mind it has more in common with Islam than Christianity. Indeed, very many atheists on this forum (who were born into that same religion) hold a similar view - Christianity (because that's what the religion of their birth told them*) says 'be good or go to Hell':

Although presumably not Irish, Kiwi repeats the drumbeat view of Christianity as held by atheists on this forum

Kiwi wrote:

I do not want my child's value system to be based on an avoidance of punishment to himself (hell)

-


You could say I was born-again into my 'religion'. Kind of like you being born-again into atheism.



*as if stepping out of RC means they step into a vacuum of influence.

RecordStraight

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't identify with Roman Catholicism (the religion I was born into). To my mind it has more in common with Islam than Christianity. Indeed, very many atheists on this forum (who were born into that same religion) hold a similar view - Christianity (according to the religion of their birth) says 'be good or go to Hell':

"I do not want my child's value system to be based on an avoidance of punishment to himself (hell)"

So...you're a Christian, a branch of which you were born into? Ok.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You could say I was born-again into my 'religion'. Kind of like you being born-again into atheism.

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

antiskeptic

RecordStraight wrote: »

So...you're a Christian, a branch of which you were born into? Ok.

What part of 'RC essentially Islam' do you not understand?

Edit: for what it's worth: I was in church about 10 times in my life (up to 18 - after which another 20 or so for weddings and funerals). I bunked off confesssion before my confirmation. I left school with as much knowledge of Christianity as I did Irish (Ta/Nil) - proof positive that exposure not equal learning. Christianity had something to do with Jesus on a cross, Easter, Christmas, babe in a manger, Pontius Pilate, Gold, Frankincense and Mirrors (:)) and rather nice smelly smoke from that thing they waved around in Church. This "religion of your birth" gig is assumed far too strong in my own case.

What makes you think I'm an atheist?

Apols if you're not

RecordStraight

antiskeptic wrote: »

What part of 'RC essentially Islam' do you not understand?

All of it, I'd have to say. And I imagine many Catholics would find that quite offensive. Perhaps like saying that 'Born again Christians are essentially Mormons', or somesuch.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apols if you're not

Fair enough.

antiskeptic

RecordStraight wrote: »

All of it, I'd have to say. And I imagine many Catholics would find that quite offensive.

Be that as it may. Whilst there are doubtless many Christians within the Roman Catholic church, it would be despite of rather than because of Church Central Tenets that this is so.

RC strikes me as being opposite Christianity in so many ways - not least the fact that you've to work your way to salvation. Take the physical church itself: large domineering buildings with degrees of separation between God (locked up in a box at the head of the church, altar rail blocking the way, stairs to climb) and the common people. With a priesthood to liase between God and man. A complete facsimile of the OT temple arrangement - where right standing with God came from what you did and how you behaved and you following the rules and regs.

Christ(ianity) changed all that.

This core point seems somehow lost on RC. And Islam

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

You speak as if you actually believe that Adam and Eve were real people. They were not.

Prove that they were not real people.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

Prove that they were not real people.

So do you also believe in talking snakes?

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

Prove that they were not real people.

Is there any evidence anywhere, that they or the garden of Eden ever existed?

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

Prove that they were not real people.

explain the process in the way that a scientist would understand it how this would have happened that humanity sprany from 2 people without contradicting evolution and our genetic heritage?

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

But Adam and Eve would have been brand new people with little to no experience in anything. They wouldn't have known about good things and bad things. It's a bit like expecting a child to just know not to talk to strangers and then punishing them and all their offspring for all eternity because they took bad advise from someone they didn't know they shouldn't be listening to.

Genesis tells that God instructed that man had dominion over everything that was created. God commanded that man could do whatever he wished except "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat"

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

Genesis tells that God instructed that man had dominion over everything that was created. God commanded that man could do whatever he wished except "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat"

The Genesis account of creation is not true.

Delirium

Safehands wrote: »

The Genesis account of creation is not true.

MOD NOTE

Please keep to the topic.

Please also remember that Christian posters do not have to defend their faith. The quoted text is not appropriate outside of the Creationism or atheism superthreads.

Thanks for your attention.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Genesis tells that God instructed that man had dominion over everything that was created. God commanded that man could do whatever he wished except "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat"

But how would Adam and Eve know it's wrong to eat of the tree, as they hadn't eaten of the tree? They didn't know the difference between right and wrong.