Are you afraid of death?

[afleitch]

Dying, yes. Death. No.

[afleitch]

Yes, and I hate thinking about it.  I only really ponder it while laying in bed late at night.  There arent really any other thoughts that pop into my head that bother me as much as the thought of death.  I desperately want to believe in an afterlife, anything at all, but I find myself constantly doubting, depite trying my best to be a good Christian.

The thought of there be nothing after death is the worst, even though I know "nothingness" wouldnt bother me because I wouldnt exist to be bothered anyway. 

You didn't exist before you were born. Does that trouble you?

[afleitch]

St Bernard tells us that God the Father did not demand the Son's sacrifice but accepted it when it was offered. The other argument that you seem to be making--that the Atonement was immoral because it prevented sinners from getting what we deserve good and hard--is so repulsive as to not be worth considering.

Generally the rap on the prohibition on divorce is that it's naive, romantic, and unrealistic about what relationships are really like, not that it's (in intent) 'anti-love'.

I think the issue stems from the fact that we, in the first instance, are guilty of an original sin that is not of our own doing. Putting that aside, the remission of sin, which was the shedding of blood through sacrifice (which was cross cultural) is in itself barbaric. And what is essentially being accepted that that is just as true today as it was 'then'; that Jesus' sacrifice matters because sacrifice matters

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

If we are guilty of an arbitrary 'sin' by the creator, then we should stand guilty of it. For we are doing nothing other than what is in accordance with ourselves.

[afleitch]

...

Put a sock in it. I have no idea what's biting you in the ass but while I can accept the lack of comprehension in your posts and writing style, there's no need to go off on one against someone you don't actually know, nor have ever asked to know about them.

[afleitch]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

No. It would be more appropriate to say that saying 'god is good' or 'good flows from god' actually says nothing about the nature of god (or good)

Digging this out from before (because every day is a learning day)

Theistic morality is subjectivist. If things are ‘good’ because god says that they are good then morals are arbitrary. Indeed, they are more arbitrary from a subjectivist perspective than our definition of morality because god (if it is in any way god like) is entirely unbounded by anything that would otherwise constrain us, or alter our path when making decisions.

So it robs ‘good’ from any definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying ‘god is god’. It says nothing meaningful about its actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what it does. So that definition robs not only ‘good of its goodness’, but ‘god of its glory’. Why should there be praise for god if it would be equally praised even if it did the complete opposite? If what is arbitrary replaces what is just or reasonable, then all justice is, if anything, is what is pleasing to god.

So if things have to be ‘good’, then they must be good for another reason, if goodness needs to have value, then it can no more come from god that it can from us.

Saying that morality is actually grounded in god’s nature and expressed in its commands doesn’t avoid this problem. Whatever it was god’s nature to prefer would still be right by definition and still diminish the significance of moral terms. So saying god is good would just be saying that god also accords to its own nature which isn’t really an accomplishment. If it’s nature were different it would still be good. The wider issue is that theistic ethics are essentially ethically subjective; moral statements being made true by the attitude of certain people.

Which I think is what you might have wanted to say.

[afleitch]

afleitch, do you have any sympathy for Moore's ethics? I ask because you're (reasonably) preoccupied with the subjectivity involved in any divine Person defining morals, yet I don't think the steps towards an articulation of a sort of hedonism (in the technical sense of that word) that you've taken in the past (unless I'm confusing you with another poster, or simply misremembering your views? Sorry if I am) really solves this problem.

I believe in the Republic of Heaven.

I do sympathise with G.E Moore, I came across him a little later,which has allowed me to articulate my thoughts with a little less meandering. I think that theistic morality is subjectivist in the sense that I can consider all forms of morality to be subjectivist as the only entities doing the moralising are us, and anything we perceive external to that always comes across as a facsimile of what we would expect an arbiter with human concerns and indulgences to be concerned with (rather than say the 'morality' of a spider that devours it's mate)

And that is fine. Because ultimately the 'problem' with ethics being subjectivist exists only in the minds of those who consider it problematic in the first instance. Likewise, I have similar issues with the idea that ontology must be structured around the dichotomy of 'god v no god' and all concepts in the West (philosophy, the self, justice) subconsciously flow from this dichotomy, despite some eastern cultures developing a functioning ontology devoid of that prerequisite.

I don't consider myself hedonistic, and a quick on search hasn't brought that up, though I think a few other posters have expressed support for classicist hedonism. I have mentioned before I think, that if anything I think that pain is the marker by which we measure pleasure, and sadness how we measure joy and vice versa. Seeking perpetual 'joy', or 'peace' or 'meaning' (never 'find yourself', because you've basically given up on looking) even the spiritual promise of this is both hedonistic in intent and a false promise (because joy will cease being joyful with the removal of fear and pain). But I'm getting all 'buy my book' here so I'll stop.

[afleitch]

All of you get a room.