(January 6, 2016 at 1:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

Are you asking me how I would act if there were no consequences in the afterlife for breaking God's law? Or are you asking me if there was no God and no afterlife would I continue to follow a morality from a god I knew didn't exist?

(January 6, 2016 at 1:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

Duplicate?

(January 6, 2016 at 11:54 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 1:21 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is a question for anyone who thinks morality "comes from God".

If you knew there was no afterlife, that you're dead and gone no matter what happens in this life, would you continue to follow "morality from God"? Or would you then ignore it, and decide for yourself how to act?

Thanks

Are you asking me how I would act if there were no consequences in the afterlife for breaking God's law? Or are you asking me if there was no God and no afterlife would I continue to follow a morality from a god I knew didn't exist?

I'll answer that. If there is a God and he will exact neither reward nor punishment in this life or after this life, would it matter to you if you broke God's law? Would your answer change if you found God's law personally morally repugnant?

Heck, while we're at it, supposing you found God's law morally repugnant and there was a punishment for failing to follow it, and eternal life if you did follow it, would you follow it? Make it really morally regugnant, like that you must kill your only son in a particularly horrible way.

Jenny's additional question is interesting!

The question in the OP is to suppose that God does exist, that you have what you consider to be his judgements for what is moral and what is not, yet you've found out there will be no afterlife. Man made a mistake and invented that concept, say.

So he is still offering to guide you through this life, but your actions in this life will only have repercussions within this life. After that, you don't exist anymore.

Do you still follow his guidance, or not?

(January 6, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I will answer as someone who recently believed.  

The answer is no.

My primary reason for following God was self preservation, i.e. fear of Hell.

I'm not going to say that I didn't consider God's rules to be truly moral.  I did.  I just failed time and time again to live up to that standard.  Had I learned that there would ultimately be no consequences for my "dirty thoughts", I would never have put so much pressure on myself to be what I couldn't be.  Instead, I would have probably rationalized God's standard as his way of just showing us how hopelessly corrupt we are and how tolerant and longsuffering He is for letting us be that way.

You were not far from the kingdom of heaven.  You were recognizing exactly what the law is intended to show, your sin (Galatians 3)  You were also right to conclude that God's standard is his way of showing us how hopelessly corrupt we are and how tolerant and  longsuffering He is for letting us be that way.  For whatever reason your process ended there and you never came to understand that the way to achieve the righteousness you sought is through the cross (2 Cor. 5:21)  

---

(January 7, 2016 at 1:52 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 11:54 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are you asking me how I would act if there were no consequences in the afterlife for breaking God's law?  Or are you asking me if there was no God and no afterlife would I continue to follow a morality from a god I knew didn't exist?

I'll answer that.  If there is a God and he will exact neither reward nor punishment in this life or after this life, would it matter to you if you broke God's law?

 
Yes it would still matter to me.

(January 7, 2016 at 1:52 am)Jenny A Wrote: Would your answer change if you found God's law personally morally repugnant?

No, it would still matter to me if I broke God's law.

(January 7, 2016 at 1:52 am)Jenny A Wrote: Heck, while we're at it, supposing you found God's law morally repugnant and there was a punishment for failing to follow it, and eternal life if you did follow it, would you follow it?

Yes.  Be careful when you draw logical inferences from my response.

(January 7, 2016 at 1:52 am)Jenny A Wrote: Make it really morally regugnant, like that you must kill your only son in a particularly horrible way.

Have you not read that Abraham considered that God is able to raise someone from the dead?

---

(January 7, 2016 at 5:24 am)robvalue Wrote: Jenny's additional question is interesting!

The question in the OP is to suppose that God does exist, that you have what you consider to be his judgements for what is moral and what is not, yet you've found out there will be no afterlife. Man made a mistake and invented that concept, say.

So he is still offering to guide you through this life, but your actions in this life will only have repercussions within this life. After that, you don't exist anymore.

Do you still follow his guidance, or not?

Yes.

OK, thanks for the straight answer

I'm a little scared that it sounds like you'd kill your son on command, and then would expect god to resurrect him.

If that wasn't what you were going for, then I don't know what you meant.

(January 7, 2016 at 1:32 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I will answer as someone who recently believed.  

The answer is no.

My primary reason for following God was self preservation, i.e. fear of Hell.

I'm not going to say that I didn't consider God's rules to be truly moral.  I did.  I just failed time and time again to live up to that standard.  Had I learned that there would ultimately be no consequences for my "dirty thoughts", I would never have put so much pressure on myself to be what I couldn't be.  Instead, I would have probably rationalized God's standard as his way of just showing us how hopelessly corrupt we are and how tolerant and longsuffering He is for letting us be that way.

You were not far from the kingdom of heaven.  You were recognizing exactly what the law is intended to show, your sin (Galatians 3)  You were also right to conclude that God's standard is his way of showing us how hopelessly corrupt we are and how tolerant and  longsuffering He is for letting us be that way.  For whatever reason your process ended there and you never came to understand that the way to achieve the righteousness you sought is through the cross (2 Cor. 5:21)  

I actually understand all that, including that the way to be forgiven was through the cross.  The fact is that I repented and "accepted Jesus" many times but nothing happened.  I did everything I knew to do but I never received any additional strength to be a righteous person.  Perhaps I was more righteous in some ways, that is the ways that it was easy for me to emulate (WWJD and all that), but I could never conquer my normal biological sexual desires and I never felt any supernatural force helping me with that.  Yes, that "force" was there to saddle me with all the guilt for my failures, but it was strangely absent when I was fighting the urges themselves.

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 1:32 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: You were not far from the kingdom of heaven.  You were recognizing exactly what the law is intended to show, your sin (Galatians 3)  You were also right to conclude that God's standard is his way of showing us how hopelessly corrupt we are and how tolerant and  longsuffering He is for letting us be that way.  For whatever reason your process ended there and you never came to understand that the way to achieve the righteousness you sought is through the cross (2 Cor. 5:21)  

I actually understand all that, including that the way to be forgiven was through the cross.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.  From the post it appeared you were solely looking to your 'performance' as a Christian to determine the state of your salvation.

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: The fact is that I repented and "accepted Jesus" many times but nothing happened.

Could you please explain what you mean by the phrase "nothing happened?"  What were you expecting to happen?

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I did everything I knew to do but I never received any additional strength to be a righteous person.

 
Could you expand on this a bit more if you're comfortable?  Do you mean that no one from the Church helped you through your struggles?  Or that you weren't suddenly free from all temptation and immoral desires?

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: Perhaps I was more righteous in some ways, that is the ways that it was easy for me to emulate (WWJD and all that), but I could never conquer my normal biological sexual desires and I never felt any supernatural force helping me with that.

Christians will still struggle with sin, certainly I still do.  While temptations have less appeal than they used to, no person will conquer sin entirely until the resurrection.  

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: Yes, that "force" was there to saddle me with all the guilt for my failures, but it was strangely absent when I was fighting the urges themselves.

That would be the accuser.  Because there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, if you were feeling guilty for your failures it wasn't God who was accusing you (or it was possible you weren't in Christ).

(January 8, 2016 at 12:08 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I actually understand all that, including that the way to be forgiven was through the cross.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.  From the post it appeared you were solely looking to your 'performance' as a Christian to determine the state of your salvation.

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: The fact is that I repented and "accepted Jesus" many times but nothing happened.

Could you please explain what you mean by the phrase "nothing happened?"  What were you expecting to happen?

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: I did everything I knew to do but I never received any additional strength to be a righteous person.

 
Could you expand on this a bit more if you're comfortable?  Do you mean that no one from the Church helped you through your struggles?  Or that you weren't suddenly free from all temptation and immoral desires?

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: Perhaps I was more righteous in some ways, that is the ways that it was easy for me to emulate (WWJD and all that), but I could never conquer my normal biological sexual desires and I never felt any supernatural force helping me with that.

Christians will still struggle with sin, certainly I still do.  While temptations have less appeal than they used to, no person will conquer sin entirely until the resurrection.  

(January 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Old Baby Wrote: Yes, that "force" was there to saddle me with all the guilt for my failures, but it was strangely absent when I was fighting the urges themselves.

That would be the accuser.  Because there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, if you were feeling guilty for your failures it wasn't God who was accusing you (or it was possible you weren't in Christ).

1. When I say "nothing happened", I mean that I never had the awesome salvation stories that others did.  I heard other people testifying about when they got saved.  Many of them could pinpoint it to a particular date and could talk about all the immediate evidence of this great change that took place in their lives afterward.  For me, I never felt a single thing different.  I was sincere and convinced it was true and wanted to live a life for God, but nothing ever took place to make me any different when I got up than I was when I knelt down.

2. When I say that I never received any additional strength, that's exactly what I meant.  I saw other people kicking bad habits and forgiving their enemies and getting new positive attitudes, but I never felt any change.  Yes, I could give myself a fresh outlook and a better attitude.  I could try hard to kick habits and pray and agonize over my sins, but that's all that happened.  I never felt any additional power to be any different than I was before.  It was all human will.

3. You're suggesting it was the "accuser" aka Satan who made me feel guilty for my sins, not God.  Even as a believer, I never understood this.  God hates sin.  Satan loves sin.  Why would Satan make me feel bad about sinning?  Why would God be the one saying "Don't worry about your sin because my son took care of that."  It makes no sense and always seemed to be a perversion of scripture to me.  I think it's entirely more likely that my guilt was a result of the conditioning of my conscience to accept that sin as defined by the bible is a moral crime.

P.S. To address your signature... yes, I would.

Most people just follow their hearts and heads and use religion to justify it.

However we are born with a conscience which can decide it ourselves so IDK