Swipe to go to another post.
There are some things that would change, but nothing major like "I'm going to start killing people!" or anything like that
While that's a very intelligent question, I would request a little more specificity
Well, what change in factors would there be? Is it that the notion of Heaven/Hell make you act kind for fear of punishment?
Absolutely. There are many things that I would do if they didn't conflict with my religious views. Drinking (in moderation), for example, always sounds like a ton of fun, however I believe it to harm judgement, have negative health effects, etc
Oh, I understand. Thanks, that actually made more sense than I anticipated, I'm glad I asked
But wouldn't alcohol still have negative effects and impair judgment even if it didn't conflict with your religious views? Or am I not getting what you said...? How would the lack of heaven/hell affect your decision to do something that has negative effects?
Yes, but I probably wouldn't care about those effects if my religion didn't ask me not to partake. For example, it makes sense that a religious institution would try to keep people from making clouded decisions
glad to hear you aren't going to kill anyone.
Nothing would change, because I already believe that heaven and hell is right here on earth, and not some place in the sky or under the ground.
The invention of religion (as in whether or not christianity is true, it still would have been created at some point) doesn't really create or define what is right and what is wrong, so much as it just takes humans' instinctual knowledge of good and bad and orders it into a pretty, bullet point format.
Really? Wouldn't you agree that our backgrounds, families, and circumstances all affect what our weltanschuung (worldview.. sorry, have always wanted to use that word) is and ultimately our moral compass. By the logic you have just presented every man can do what is right in its own eyes. That means that there was nothing wrong with that man killing all those precious little children in December; or Hitler's attempt to annihilate millions of Jews, Africans, the handicapped, and any others he did not believe were the fittest to survive, or the rape of young girls, or the "honour" killing of woman. If the definition of right and wrong is simply "humans instinctual knowledge of good and bad" well, we end up with the world as it is today. The more we remove the Biblical foundations that many of our countries have been based upon and replace them with Marxism, rationalism, romanticism, and all the other isms that we have pulled out of our itty-bitty brains, the worse our society will become, and we will ultimately destroy ourselves.
Hate to break it to you, but the Bible was pulled out of the brains of men as well. Part of the reason that the Bible supports genocide. The Bible is no outstanding moral compass; many of the Bible's key moral guidelines (such as the golden rule) have parallels in other religions or can be said to be part of a basic human instinct; certainly nothing unique to the Bible. The only thing you're doing is putting the Bible on a pedestal and claiming that its origins are metaphysical and unchanging; there's nothing particularly remarkable about Biblical morality. And there's no reason why you couldn't do the same for the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita.
No breaking news to me. Nothing I haven't heard before. But the thing is, the Bible wasn't pulled out of the brains of men. It was inspired of God. Sure, the books were written by men, tell the stories of men, and was meant to be read by men, but every word in the Bible is ordained of God. Mulitple people mentioned in the Bible wrote books, but their words are not in the Bible because they were not inspired by God. True, many parallels can be seen with other Holy books, but the MAIN reason for the Bible is unparallel with other books. The Bible was written so that man can know that God sent Jesus Christ to redeem us seeing as we cannot redeem ourselves. All the other messages in God's Word like love, justice, relationships etc. are present in other Holy Books but those books were not inspired by God, the creator and Lord of this universe. And, the reason why a certain moral compass is present in these other books and in the minds of men is because God has made us in His image and so natural laws like committing murder and loving one another are, well, natural for us; but as time progresses and sin becomes more prevalent in society even certain natural laws are lost by some
So if the Bible and Quran contain the exact same moral messages, then why would it make a difference even if the Bible was inspired by God? Clearly this "inspiration" didn't effect the content (regarding morality) of the Bible too much, otherwise these moral messages would not draw similarities with other Holy Books.
"The Bible was written so that man can know that God sent Jesus Christ to redeem us seeing as we cannot redeem ourselves,"
Regardless, whether Jesus Christ came to save us or not, men would still have the same morals and values as men who lived 500 years before the time of Jesus. The coming of Jesus doesn't change a human's definition of what is good or bad. Therefore, if that's the "MAIN difference" then there really isn't much of a difference at all.
I don't think you understand. The Bible is not about moral rules and regulations, its all about Jesus Christ. From Genesis to Revelation. Muslims do not belief in the deity of Christ so... yes, there is a difference. The quran and the Bible are incomparable in fact. Christianity and Islam have two different purposes entirely. Muslims use their works such as prayer etc. to appease Allah. Whereas Christians are saved only through grace, good works do nothing to please God. We live morally and follow the Bible because we are Christians, we aren't Christians because we live morally and follow the Bible.
"Whereas Christians are saved only through grace, good works do nothing to please God."
"We live morally and follow the Bible because we are Christians, we aren't Christians because we live morally and follow the Bible."
Although the Bible is primarily about the Redemption of the world through the works of Jesus, there are clear moral codes that Christians must follow. Also, we may be saved by grace, but in order to obtain that grace, you have to live virtuously. Just because Christ saved us from our sins doesn't mean we can kill people and still get in to Heaven. That's fairly basic knowledge. I don't know where you're getting that God doesn't care about good works.
And besides, this whole post was directed towards the irrelevancy of the existence of a deity or Heaven or Hell, in regards to human morality.
You wrote - "And besides, this whole post was directed towards the irrelevancy of the existence of a deity or Heaven or Hell, in regards to human morality."
That's a false premise.
So if there was no god what would you do that you don't do now? Steal, rape, murder, own things?
If there were no God, I wouldn't exist - none of us would.
Clearly nothing is clear about religions, we don't even know each word is correct as there have been so many writings and rewriting of every religeous text.
People that need a rule book on how to behave and a fear of hell to keep them from misbehaving are the most frightening people alive, because they only have to lose that faith then other people suffer. I would rather live with people who have empathy and compassion and believe in their hearts the right way to treat others.
There would still be people who believe in a heaven and a hell, regardless of the concreteness of the proof, right? And these people would still need to be laughed at, right? So no, I would not change my behavior.
They need to be laughed at? Is that part of your moral code too?
You have just as much proof that Hell doesn't exist, as a Christian has that it does exist.
A portion of my moral construct/weltanschauung is based on biblical concepts. That part at least would change.
why? lots of people get inspiration from fiction books and science fiction all the time and i think they are still valid concepts.
Regardless of the source(s) for one's construct or worldview, if any part of it is nullified one must reorder or, at the very least, reassess the construct based on new information. The particulars (e.g., a Judeo-Christian source or a scientific/fantastical one) are irrelevant.
If I build X on Y foundation, and you remove Y, then I must found X on a different criterion or set of criteria, no? I mean, the only alternative is to completely abandon X.
And THAT, of course, is the real issue. The not-so-clandestine agenda on the part of secularists/atheists to UNDERMINE a culture's moral underpinnings and replace them with, essentially, nothing.
the problem is all things are founded on y. y is just a unknown principal we assume to be true in order to advance the idea to different levels. all ideas have to incorporate a certain number of y's to build x.
That would be fine, more or less, if those who actively seek to undermine Y were to offer Z alternatives. They typically do not. They typically seek to eliminate Y and replace it with nothing.
Like them or not, religions serve a vital function in society. They provide the cultural 'cement (in the form of a more or less universal moral center)' which binds cultures together. Destroying the cement-especially without replacing it with a newer/better/different variety-destroys the society.
So. . .if you've ever wondered why people were so vehemently opposed to moral relativism, secular humanism, atheism or generally libertine attitudes toward pretty much any social issue, this might be the reason. Most people will scarcely be able to verbalize it, but they know, deep down in their gut, that an anything-goes mentality is socially suicidal.
why do we need to replace y with z. all that religion seeks to attain is a house in the sky perhaps without uor foundations of y x will ascend and we will find y was just an anchor in the first place.
Because Y serves a purpose which is critically necessary for social cohesion and survival. A culture without a mutually agreeable moral center doesn't last long.
they seem to be the exception in every category when it comes to how successful societies work.
OK, well, in this case you can throw out everything I've said and join. . .wait for it. . .
i already have and odds are so have you 3 in five people a direct decedents of mongols.
i would treat people better.
how would take to long to write down but why is easier to explain. the law of supply and demand and the principal on uncertain quantity. knowing that their is an exact finite amount of life makes it more valuable.
not one whit !
My mnoral structure isn't built on any set of rules set down by a greater power, but by understanding what does and does not hurt me - therefore what does and does not hurt others. stick to being guided by empathy and you'll do just fine.
It wouldn't change how I treated others in the slightest
I have no proof it exists so I just live as good a life as I can. The bible isn't the reason i do anything.
It definitely wouldn't. I do not do things to "Earn" Heaven or "avoid" Hell. However, I am not sure how long I'd wanna live knowing I am just headed for eternal oblivion.
My behavior would not change one bit because I do not live life based on a heaven or hell. Religious books, The Bible, Quoran, etc are subject to interpretation and that is the bad part. An eye for an eye or turn the other cheek??? I do think the the ten commandments are pretty good rules though.
Agree. I believe in reincarnation.
My actions are not based on fear of punishment or hope of a reward.
Better believe it brother. :)
Science is anything that can be measured. Spirit is anything that can not be measured. Science is powered by logic and evidence. Spirit is powered by believing and wisdom. No connection. Stop trying to prove or disprove spiritual things with science.
Wouldn't change a single thing brother. :)
There is no "natural goodness" which becomes the basis of a "natural morality" within a "natural theology." "There is none good, no not one" (Rom. 3:12). "No one is good, except God alone" (Luke 18:19). When mankind thinks that he can know "good" and define "good" from his own perspective alone, he ends up calling "evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20), and Isaiah pronounces a woe upon those who are thus "wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight." (Isa. 5:21).
Glad you have something to comfort your mind
I don't believe you Vic. You are constantly trying to instigate believers to dis-belief. Satan's work.
I don't want you to disbelieve, I want you to understand that morality does not require a god.
Then you might be dissuaded of your misbelief that godless means evil.
Of course that's what you want me to 'understand'. That's what Satan would want me to understand!
It's not true of course. Throughout history, as belief in God declined so to the morality of the culture declined. People left to their own devices decay morally.
There will always be consequences for our actions as long as we're alive.
I already don't believe in heaven or hell in a traditional sense. I believe in the possibility of some kind of mystical union with the divine, but it's not a "reward" per se, but a result.
Actions demonstrate their morality in the real world. The golden rule is not an arbitrary rule doled out to keep people in line; it's the reality of our actions. The same can be said for karma and other similar concepts. You reap what you sew. It's not a rule that could be taken away, it's an inescapable reality.
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2017. Icons by DryIcons.