So God gives you a free pass...

[Katzpur]

Let's say that one day, God comes down and says to you, "Look, I like you, so I'm going to give you a free pass to Heaven. You can do whatever you want, and you'll never be punished for it. Not in this life, not after you die. No matter what you do, you are guaranteed to get into Heaven." And he also proves to you beyond any doubt that he is God. So for the purposes of this thread, take it that it is actually God who is giving you this, not Satan in disguise or anything.

So, if you were given this assurance by God, would you go out and become a killer, thief, rapist, etc?

Of course not. I try to live the kind of life that would please God for the simple reason that I love Him. If He gave me a free license to sin, I still wouldn't have a good reason to.

 

[thau]

The Lord was speaking about Gehenna which is spiritual fires not physical. No where when the word Gehenna is used in the NT is Jesus speaking to the lost. Only to believers.

Eternal punishment is not a phrase attached to believers.

This passage is about the Last Judgment. All souls, all souls, will be judged at that time. That includes those who are banished into eternal punishment.

And if there is any doubt about whose interpretation is best, then you side with the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus established, the Church that gave us the Bible, and the Church whom Jesus referred to when He said "whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven." Without an authority there is chaos and Jesus obviously knew that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What determined what was evil that the laws were based on?

Most of the time, I'd assume popular opinion. But, some of the oldest known sets of laws were determined from bread and butter from kings such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu.

 

[McBell]

Most of the time, I'd assume popular opinion. But, some of the oldest known sets of laws were determined from bread and butter from kings such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu.

So not only laws, but what is good and evil are merely opinion?

 

[nazz]

Eternal punishment is not a phrase attached to believers.

This passage is about the Last Judgment. All souls, all souls, will be judged at that time. That includes those who are banished into eternal punishment.

And if there is any doubt about whose interpretation is best, then you side with the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus established, the Church that gave us the Bible, and the Church whom Jesus referred to when He said "whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven." Without an authority there is chaos and Jesus obviously knew that.

Jesus did not establish the Roman Catholic Church. That would be Paul.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So not only laws, but what is good and evil are merely opinion?

Unless anyone cares to show otherwise.

 

[Me Myself]

Eternal punishment is not a phrase attached to believers.

This passage is about the Last Judgment. All souls, all souls, will be judged at that time. That includes those who are banished into eternal punishment.

And if there is any doubt about whose interpretation is best, then you side with the Catholic Church. The Church Jesus established, the Church that gave us the Bible, and the Church whom Jesus referred to when He said "whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven." Without an authority there is chaos and Jesus obviously knew that.

Or maybe that is precisely the church Jesus prevented against.

We obviously cant know for a fact.

 

[The Bullfrog]

Unless anyone cares to show otherwise.

As long as we follow reason it will lead us down a moral path. Reason is the means by which we arrive at truth in any pursuit. It is only when we lack the needed information to reason correctly or our reasoning is flawed that we concluded something other than true morality. That is of course why ignorance is often called the root of evil.

The evil in the world comes almost always from ignorance, and goodwill can cause as much damage as ill-will if it is not enlightened. People are more often good than bad, though in fact that is not the question. But they are more or less ignorant and this is what one calls vice or virtue, the most appalling vice being the ignorance that thinks it knows everything and which consequently authorizes itself to kill. The murderer's soul is blind, and there is no true goodness or fine love without the greatest possible degree of clear-sightedness.
― Albert Camus, The Plague

 

[The Sum of Awe]

As long as we follow reason it will lead those who follow it down a moral path. Reason is the means by which we arrive at truth in any pursuit. It is only when we lack the needed information to reason correctly or our reasoning is flawed that we concluded something other than true morality. That is of course why ignorance is often called the root of evil.

While I do agree reason is a great source of creating a moral code surrounding specific goals (e.g. people who wish to live a healthy life will have specific morals to themselves, people who wish to live the busy life, etc.).

But can reason determine a specific goal that we should all strive for? If not, then aren't good and evil merely to be determined on whatever the person's goal is, and therefore in the absence of law there would be no societal goals for us to achieve, which brings me to what I'm trying to claim: being that people would not live the same life if such laws were to be taken away.

 

[psychoslice]

Whatever god gives you there is always a catch, be careful.

 

[The Bullfrog]

While I do agree reason is a great source of creating a moral code surrounding specific goals (e.g. people who wish to live a healthy life will have specific morals to themselves, people who wish to live the busy life, etc.).

But can reason determine a specific goal that we should all strive for? If not, then aren't good and evil merely to be determined on whatever the person's goal is, and therefore in the absence of law there would be no societal goals for us to achieve, which brings me to what I'm trying to claim: being that people would not live the same life if such laws were to be taken away.

Morality is about living a just life, telling us what is good and what is evil. How do you relate this to living a healthy life or living a busy life?

 

[McBell]

Morality is about living a just life, telling us what is good and what is evil. How do you relate this to living a healthy life or living a busy life?

Just life?
Based on what?
Who gets to decide what is and what is not just?

 

[Tiberius]

Of course not. I try to live the kind of life that would please God for the simple reason that I love Him. If He gave me a free license to sin, I still wouldn't have a good reason to.

Wouldn't you wonder why he gave you this free pass? Wouldn't you think that maybe he wanted you to do it? Why wouldn't you do what God wants you to do?

 

[The Bullfrog]

Let me see if I can clarify, The Sum of Awe.

You bring up the notion of goals. The goal of morality it to help us live an ethical life. When we live an ethical life we live to our best potential and live in harmony with others.

You suggested a healthy diet as an example. This is one I can relate to as a vegetarian.

We shall attempt to determine if a Vegetarian diet is ethical or not. So that we may see how reason can help us in making moral decisions about our life. (I'll keep it brief and simple)

--
First a look at the individual:

Is it better to do oneself harm or to protect against harm to oneself?

I will conclude that it is better for one to protect against harm to oneself. If you reason otherwise let me know.

We'll keep this brief and focus on a single benefit of the diet.

Vegetarians are about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat-eaters

So a vegetarian diet protects the body from harm.

Now the whole:

What is good for the whole is good for individual. When you do service to the whole you do service to yourself.

For the good of the whole: Is it better to only take what food you need or to take an excess and in doing so deprive others of their food?

Food

Raising animals for food is grossly inefficient, because while animals eat large quantities of grain, soybeans, oats, and corn, they only produce comparatively small amounts of meat, dairy products, or eggs in return. This is why more than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals.

It takes up to 13 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms must be fed up to 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce 1 pound of farmed fish flesh.

Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources | Animals Used for Food | The Issues | PETA

So a vegetarian diet leaves more food for the whole.

Then there is the emotional aspect which without reason would become lost.

Compassion is emphatic in nature. Meaning that when we cause other's pain will feel it as well. Since we already determined that causing ourselves pain is not rational this is something we want to avoid. Like reason, the greater our capacity for compassion the closer to true our ethics are. In ethics reason is guided by compassion and compassion is guided by reason. You can not reaching truth in morality without a balance of of the two.

Foie gras producers shove pipes down ducks’ throats to force feed them far more than they would ever eat. The force feeding can cause bruises, lacerations, and sores. The duck’s livers may grow to ten times the normal size.

Force-Fed Animals : The Humane Society of the United States

Our compassion allows us to see the cruelty in that, by allowing us to relate to the pain and suffering. Our reason tells us there are better ways to get our food, ways that are not so cruel.

So a vegetarian diet is not cruel to entities which can experience pain and suffering.

 

[thau]

Or maybe that is precisely the church Jesus prevented against.

We obviously cant know for a fact.

"We?"

It appears to me there is a large contingent of so-called scholars out there who will do anything or say anything to try to convince themselves that there is no evidence for the one true God and the one true Church. And I strongly suspect so they can go on with their lustful and hedonistic ways with impunity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Let me see if I can clarify, The Sum of Awe.

You bring up the notion of goals. The goal of morality it to help us live an ethical life. When we live an ethical life we live to our best potential and live in harmony with others.

You suggested a healthy diet as an example. This is one I can relate to as a vegetarian.

We shall attempt to determine if a Vegetarian diet is ethical or not. So that we may see how reason can help us in making moral decisions about our life. (I'll keep it brief and simple)

--
First a look at the individual:

Is it better to do oneself harm or to protect against harm to oneself?

I will conclude that it is better for one to protect against harm to oneself. If you reason otherwise let me know.

We'll keep this brief and focus on a single benefit of the diet.



So a vegetarian diet protects the body from harm.

Now the whole:

What is good for the whole is good for individual. When you do service to the whole you do service to yourself.

For the good of the whole: Is it better to only take what food you need or to take an excess and in doing so deprive others of their food?




So a vegetarian diet leaves more food for the whole.

Then there is the emotional aspect which without reason would become lost.

Compassion is emphatic in nature. Meaning that when we cause other's pain will feel it as well. Since we already determined that causing ourselves pain is not rational this is something we want to avoid. Like reason, the greater our capacity for compassion the closer to true our ethics are. In ethics reason is guided by compassion and compassion is guided by reason. You can not reaching truth in morality without a balance of of the two.



Our compassion allows us to see the cruelty in that, by allowing us to relate to the pain and suffering. Our reason tells us there are better ways to get our food, ways that are not so cruel.

So a vegetarian diet is not cruel to entities which can experience pain and suffering.

But what dictates that being cruel to entities is wrong? I think there's a fair amount of people to disagree with that, in fact there are many systems run today in which not only animals are treated with cruelty, but also humans.

Chinese labor camps, for example, are no myth. The Chinese government do not feel bad for it, and most people who buy Chinese products (which is quite hard not to do) would say "out of sight, out of mind".

Also, what is to say that we should not harm the body? I'm sure Johnny Knoxville would disagree (but then again what sort of person would be asking Johnny Knoxville for moral lessons? ) There are a lot of people modernly who are more than apathetic about their general health, smokers for example, along with alcohol users, in which neither is illegal.

You could say that there is nobody that would intentionally harm themselves though, for the sake of being unhealthy (although I could see people doing that for money or ascetic religious reasons in modern world too, I sort of do agree with Gary Jules when he said this was a mad world) but that's not the point. There are people who could look at x-ray pictures of their shot liver and shrug it off and continue getting drunk all of thanksgiving break. My claim then being; it's not necessarily better to protect yourself against harm than giving harm to yourself, another example of who might disagree are people who practice mortification of the flesh, people who self-harm (such as cutting), etc.

The fact that people would disagree means that there is reason otherwise. While I personally prefer self protection (but then again I'm not the best for health myself) rather than self harming, I would not say that self protection is the best for everyone, because some people think otherwise.

 

[Katzpur]

Wouldn't you wonder why he gave you this free pass? Wouldn't you think that maybe he wanted you to do it? Why wouldn't you do what God wants you to do?

Oh, the questions people ask.

 

[The Bullfrog]

But what dictates that being cruel to entities is wrong? I think there's a fair amount of people to disagree with that, in fact there are many systems run today in which not only animals are treated with cruelty, but also humans.

Chinese labor camps, for example, are no myth. The Chinese government do not feel bad for it, and most people who buy Chinese products (which is quite hard not to do) would say "out of sight, out of mind".

Also, what is to say that we should not harm the body? I'm sure Johnny Knoxville would disagree (but then again what sort of person would be asking Johnny Knoxville for moral lessons? ) There are a lot of people modernly who are more than apathetic about their general health, smokers for example, along with alcohol users, in which neither is illegal.

You could say that there is nobody that would intentionally harm themselves though, for the sake of being unhealthy (although I could see people doing that for money or ascetic religious reasons in modern world too, I sort of do agree with Gary Jules when he said this was a mad world) but that's not the point. There are people who could look at x-ray pictures of their shot liver and shrug it off and continue getting drunk all of thanksgiving break. My claim then being; it's not necessarily better to protect yourself against harm than giving harm to yourself, another example of who might disagree are people who practice mortification of the flesh, people who self-harm (such as cutting), etc.

The fact that people would disagree means that there is reason otherwise. While I personally prefer self protection (but then again I'm not the best for health myself) rather than self harming, I would not say that self protection is the best for everyone, because some people think otherwise.

"But what dictates that being cruel to entities is wrong?"

Contingent causality, the same thing that dictates everything else in existence. Why would we ever assume morality could escape this? Moral truth is the same as any other truth. I understand that it is a bit harder to grasp as it is subjective in nature. But the difference in subjective and objective is merely classification, to causality there is no difference.

Contingent causality tells us there is an optimal moral truth out there. Causality made us emotional, made us emphatic, made us intellectual, and this is the contingent state on which causality will cause the moral truth to emerge. By use of human intellect, human emotion and knowledge of the human mind we can reveal that truth. Since morality is not just about what is best for the individual but what is best for the whole and the individual then that is the point we are looking for. Would you really tell me that there is no best for the individual and the whole? That no optimal middle ground can be reached?

You tell me about labor camps, I would question why you would look to evil men and women for moral guidance. Clearly they already got it wrong.

You talk about personal choice, I would only point out that while we may be able to perceive self-destructive behavior in others we likewise have a moral duty to up hold liberty and the freedom of individuals in as much as we can. We are looking for that optimal middle ground again.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

"But what dictates that being cruel to entities is wrong?"

Contingent causality, the same thing that dictates everything else in existence. Why would we ever assume morality could escape this? Moral truth is the same as any other truth. I understand that it is a bit harder to grasp as it is subjective in nature. But the difference in subjective and objective is merely classification, to causality there is no difference.

Contingent causality tells us there is an optimal moral truth out there. Causality made us emotional, made us emphatic, made us intellectual, and this is the contingent state on which causality will cause the moral truth to emerge. By use of human intellect, human emotion and knowledge of the human mind we can reveal that truth. Since morality is not just about what is best for the individual but what is best for the whole and the individual then that is the point we are looking for. Would you really tell me that there is no best for the individual and the whole? That no optimal middle ground can be reached?

What is best for the individual depends on what the individual wants, and what is best for the whole depends on what the goal of the whole is, right?

You tell me about labor camps, I would question why you would look to evil men and women for moral guidance. Clearly they already got it wrong.

But to themselves it is not evil. How do we know that they are evil and we are good? What if our moral outlook is evil and their's is right?

You talk about personal choice, I would only point out that while we may be able to perceive self-destructive behavior in others we likewise have a moral duty to up hold liberty and the freedom of individuals in as much as we can. We are looking for that optimal middle ground again.

Why do we have any moral duty? What assigns this duty? And what if Fascism is right, and our moral duty is to bring specific order to society?

 

[m.ramdeen]

Tiberius
Let's say that one day, God comes down and says to you, "Look, I like you, so I'm going to give you a free pass to Heaven. You can do whatever you want, and you'll never be punished for it. Not in this life, not after you die. No matter what you do, you are guaranteed to get into Heaven." And he also proves to you beyond any doubt that he is God. So for the purposes of this thread, take it that it is actually God who is giving you this, not Satan in disguise or anything.

So, if you were given this assurance by God, would you go out and become a killer, thief, rapist, etc?

Did you have to end the question with killer, rapist, thief? I think you coulda gotten a lot more responses if you just said something like:

would you feel free to live daily life from moral pressures

So if I were to answer your original question..... the answer was gonna be no.
In this scenario I could being a killer, rapist thief, scammer, pedophile, homosexual, etc. and still get into heaven, no probs there. The problem comes in with the repercussions, cuz duh.... I'm still on earth.
I might get thrown in prison, or get looked down upon in society... basically daily life would just be unbearable. And if thats not a good enough reason then I'll just say my conscience would just be buzzing to stop me from committing any crimes / drastically altering lifestyle :no:

Maybe what could take place is I just start going out to parties at night and hooking up with prostitutes and driving on roads like a bada## . Cuz in the back of my head, my moral compass would be pointing south engaging in these activities, but at least I would enjoy myself while doing them and not worry about the endgame :yes:

Remember, that's just me.... does not apply to anybody else :beach: