Morality versus afterlife

[robvalue]

I'm surprised anyone would continue to worship a being that would order you to kill your loved ones just because it feels like seeing if you would do it.

But then there's the problem of mistakes. The devil turns up disguised as God and tells you to do it. I mean, with gods like that, who needs Devils anyway?

Honestly, I doubt orange really would kill his son based on a hallucination that he was convinced was real. Maybe he would like to think he would because his faith demands it, but I don't think he'd just neck his own little boy. I think he'd more likely grow a newfound scepticism, and come to the conclusion it wasn't really god. Or perhaps be physically unable to do it.

Just my opinion. I hope I'm right.

[miaharun]

I believe in another life, however when i die nothing of "me" will be there in the next life. I won't remember anything, no memories. It will be someone like me, just living a normal life with the good and bad karma that i have done in this life and the beings of the past lives. Most importantly i decide how to act. I make the choices i want and i am responsible for my actions.

[The Grand Nudger]

So something of you does survive and is in that next life.  Your karma...and however many rapes you racked up in this life which karma will subject that poor schmuck to in the "next life". I guess it's a consolation, though...for you at least that it won't be -you- getting raped for what you've done. It's easy to claim that you are responsible for your actions when you also believe that you will not be there to experience the consequences.

Your buddhist faith is a side stepping, victim blaming piece of moral and ethical shit.

[miaharun]

Which is why i always try to do the right thing. So that whoever/whatever is in the next life will benefit. Even if there is no next life i try to do the right thing anyway.

[Old Baby]

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.

For some people the change is immediate.  For some people it isn't.  I prayed the sinners prayer multiple times and I never felt any different when I got done.  It wasn't until years later looking back I realized when and how I came to faith.  It grieves me that there was no one at the time to encourage you.  Sanctification is a life long process and won't be perfected until the resurrection.

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.

What about Paul and the thorn in his side?  He prayed that God would remove it but God responded that His grace is sufficient for him.  Maybe that is the situation for you.  Maybe God was bringing you to trust only in Him and not in yourself.

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.

At the cross Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (Col. 2:14).  The greek word translated here as 'blotted out' is likened to the erasing of a chalk board.  The ordinances that are against us have to do with the law.  One effect of the law is our sin debt to God.  Couple that with 2 Corinthians 5:21 where we are made the righteousness of God.  So God, having completely erased our sin debt and having given us His righteousness, has no reason to accuse us of anything.  This is strictly in the context of salvation (soteriology).  We are still in a process of sanctification (being conformed to the image and likeness of Christ), and in this sense we sin and God is bringing us into Christ's image, but in the legal sense (soteriologically) we are declared righteous (without sin).

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

You're the first to address the question, kudos!

I was in religion since birth.  I'm 36 years old.  I also repented and said the sinners prayer countless times.  I wrote down the dates.  I kept diaries.  I spent entire days doing nothing but studying the bible.  I prayed and tried hard to be the person God wanted me to be.  I never tried to rationalize my shortcomings, knowing that doing so would be silly since God can see through all of that BS.  I did have Christians around me who supported me and encouraged me, and I did the same for them.  I was a good guy who by all appearances was very moral and strong in my convictions.  In the strictest sense, I was actually much more outwardly moral than many of my brethren, e.g. less judgmental, more understanding, etc. 

In spite of all that, I was never able to have the emotional experiences that others had.  I could never testify of that love that surpasses understanding.  I was doing it because I thought it was the ONLY way and praying for God to make me what he wanted me to be.  In spite of all that, I felt nothing.  Nothing.  Nothing.  Nothing but guilt for the sins that I could not overcome and fear that God would say "Depart from me."  I reject the rationale that Satan was to blame, because God is supposed to be all loving and omnipotent.  It's similar to the notion that all-loving forgiving God stood by with his arms folded and watched Satan deceive his children, then disowned them.  It's just a silly, childish notion.

I never said I was asking God to miraculously take away my bad habits or miraculously cure me.  My "bad habits" were just my normal biological urges that I felt very guilty for having.  I did wonder why all my prayers and repenting did not make me one bit stronger to deal with these things.  Resisting was just an act of human will.  I could go sometimes a month resisting my temptations, but then I would succumb to temptation and have to start over from the very beginning with all the guilt that comes along with it.  All the prayer and dedicating my life to God did not leave me any better equipped to deal with my sins.  It was always the same cycle - willing myself to be good, inevitably failing, then repenting while knowing I was going to fail again.

Still, don't think this was my whole reason for not believing.  Realizing that faith and prayer made no difference was only one nail in the coffin for my faith.

[orangebox21]

Orange: You're asking why I'm scared that you'd kill your son if you heard a voice in your head telling you to? I'm scared on behalf of your sons, if you have any, because I have empathy. I'm scared because all it would apparently take is a hallucination you deemed to be "God" telling you murder, and you would. I'm worried that you would totally abdicate all moral responsibility to another agent.

So yes, moral autonomy. And your entire absence of morality in this instance sets off warning lights in my sense of morality. "Moral" has clearly got nothing to do with human wellbeing anymore if anything God tells you to do is "moral". Is there anything you would refuse to do, if he ordered it?

I'm not saying you're objective immoral for holding such a position, because it's a nonsensical concept. I'm subjectively of the opinion that it an amoral way to act, at best.

The problem with morality by autonomy is that it is inconsistent.  Moral autonomy states that what I decide is moral is moral and what you decide is moral is moral.  When we agree on defining a specific act as immoral, then that morality is universal (at least between the two of us).  When we disagree on a specific act as immoral, then autonomy is the standard that judges what is moral.  The standard of autonomy is whatever the individual has determined is moral and since the determination is different in this instance, morality is not universal.  Therefore, if the moral autonomist is consistent, he/she could only say, I would never do that [specific act] because it is immoral for me, but if you have decided that it is moral to do that [specific act] then do it, and good for you to act morally.  So when you write above:  "your entire absence of morality in this instance," you are not acting consistent with moral autonomy, rather you are operating as if there is a universally applicable morality that corrects my moral autonomy.  That is not autonomy.  It is from your worldview [moral autonomy] not mine that a person can justify any of his/her actions as moral because morality is what each individual has determined it to be.

So, Orange, you're not done talking about exterminating people...you'd simply rather take it up with someone else?  This is a common "misconception" regarding moral utilitarianism.  It does not play calculus -with- human lives..it plays calculus -in service- of human lives.  That you see extermination within the definition has nothing to do with the definition, or with moral utilitarianism, and everything to do with you.  There is no amount of change we could make which would prevent you from seeing boogeymen.  

Glad that's been cleared up......are we done talking about exterminating people now...........?

Do you have a reference for an official position regarding moral utilitarianism to support the claim that there are no circumstances in which the taking of human life is justified ?  If you have one I'm happy to concede.

If utilitarianism is based upon maximizing happiness then it logically follows that there is a situation in which the taking of human life is morally justified.  There are three states of happiness; happy (a positive happiness value), unhappiness (a negative happiness value), and neutral (zero happiness value).  If a person's life is a net sum negative happiness value how does your moral system not justify the killing of that person?  A person who is dead would have a zero happiness value.  Zero is greater than a negative number.  It's simple math.  So, in my understanding, utilitarianism teaches the taking of human life is justified under the previous conditions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you have a reference for an official position regarding moral utilitarianism to support the claim that there are no circumstances in which the taking of human life is justified ?  If you have one I'm happy to concede.

Why should I be required to provide you with references for a claim which I have not made?  Don't be a dipshit.....I know you're better than this.  

If utilitarianism is based upon maximizing happiness then it logically follows that there is a situation in which the taking of human life is morally justified.

Genocide, your example, being one of them..in your estimation? Perhaps you could offer a scenario in which genocide is justified by the well-being of sentient entities. It;s your contention...provide such an example...I'd like to see what your trigger is, precisely where you'd lose it and go gestapo on us. I'm gonna stay home on that day, in that situation..if it ever occurs. I don't want to take the chance that you're there and newly converted to your version of moral utilitarianism.

There are three states of happiness; happy (a positive happiness value), unhappiness (a negative happiness value), and neutral (zero happiness value).  If a person's life is a net sum negative happiness value how does your moral system not justify the killing of that person?  A person who is dead would have a zero happiness value.  Zero is greater than a negative number.  It's simple math.  So, in my understanding, utilitarianism teaches the taking of human life is justified under the previous conditions.

We've already discussed your "understanding".  Like I said...altering the definition of moral utilitarianism would not stop you from seeing boogeymen.

[GrandizerII]

The problem with morality by autonomy is that it is inconsistent.  Moral autonomy states that what I decide is moral is moral and what you decide is moral is moral.  When we agree on defining a specific act as immoral, then that morality is universal (at least between the two of us).  When we disagree on a specific act as immoral, then autonomy is the standard that judges what is moral.  The standard of autonomy is whatever the individual has determined is moral and since the determination is different in this instance, morality is not universal.  Therefore, if the moral autonomist is consistent, he/she could only say, I would never do that [specific act] because it is immoral for me, but if you have decided that it is moral to do that [specific act] then do it, and good for you to act morally.

Uh, no, it doesn't have to be that way. If someone adopts a moral standard that strongly clashes with my own, I don't need to all of a sudden agree that his standard is good or even better than mine. Otherwise, I'd adopt his standard instead.

[The Grand Nudger]

As an example of the above...for you Orange.  I accept that you feel that your christianity is moral, is good - or that a christian worldview offers morality.  I think it is the exact opposite, fundamentally and inescapably immoral.  

My acknowledging that you have exercised your moral autonomy in deciding to accept the morals of christianity - or indeed christianity-as-moral, does not change my moral assessment of christianity or it's morals. This, more than anything, is why I'm not a christian -it's not even an issue of belief. I couldn't...in good conscience, cash the christian check. This doesn't stop me from observing or acknowledging that others have differing moral assessments..and even different standards for morality.

[RoadRunner79]

The thing is, I "can do whatever I want as long as I don't get caught" too.

As many people have said, I rape, murder and steal just as much as I want to. The amount I want to happens to be zero.

Some people may actually want to do them. Even so, wanting to and doing them are two different things. But if believing in God is literally all that stops you suddenly becoming a borderline psycopath (people in general) then by all means keep believing. I just don't personally believe that most people who think this way would really act how they predict without a god belief. I don't think I've ever heard of a mentally sound person leaving religion and then going nuts. All the stories I've heard are quite the opposite.

I just want to clarify, but I do not think that is the argument at all, at least not one that I am making.   I do think that non-believers do show, that they hold to objective moral values (even without belief in God).   So therefore if one no longer identifies as a believer, or never was, they can still behave morally.  In fact, I would say that a basic inane sense of morality is instilled in all of us.   It is difficult to get away from; and even the most adamant moral relativist is going to become quite objective, when the wrong is done against him.

Is it only a lack of desire that keeps you from raping, murdering, and stealing? If you did desire to could your belief or personal preference, make these things moral?