There is no justice without Christianity

[Donnadogsoth]

What justice is there for the poor, the put-upon, the unjustly imprisoned, the desperate, the murdered? What justice is there for those who suffered any of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? There are three cosmologies to consider when asking whence cometh justice.

 

1.Atheism, or materialism, simply put: there is no justice to be found here. “Justice” is what we call our paltry temporal efforts at exacting revenge upon people who have offended our idiosyncratic senses of fair play, or simply attacked our property. In the end, there is no justice, just apes beating other apes, with no final destination but the grave.

 

2.Pantheism, or Hinduism: the doctrine of reincarnation, that individual souls jump from body to body to body in an endless wheel of lives. Justice here is getting for what one has given. Sounds reasonable, except when we ask, to what end is this game played? Why was it started? And the second question, how can the countless souls stuck at the bottom of the karmic chain ever pass through the bottleneck of enlightened humans to escape the wheel? And if the wheel is perfectly just, why escape it? Hinduism cannot say.

 

3.Monotheism, or Christianity: justice is found in the judgement of souls based on whether they had honestly sought God, and whether they gave what they would receive. The game was started to give gifts to man and glorify God through their communion. Justice's purpose is not merely to give as one got in this life, but to sieve out the hopeless rebels and purify the potential saints, for the sake of escaping the history of the fallen world and contemplating the essence God in the afterlife.

 

Those are our three options: Either a world of nihilism, a world of endless repetition, or a world of historical purpose.

 

Objection: Judaism and Islam are both monotheistic religions of historical purpose. Therefore they should be considered as valid alternatives to Christianity.

Answer:

a.Judaism is completed in a Messiah. It is ironic that a religion so dedicated to finding meaning in the historical reality failed to grasp the total historical zag that is Christianity. What does justice mean in such an oversight?

b.Islam is dominated by Allah, who is lacking in triune structure and therefore is loveless, making man as nothing more than slaves or toys. What does justice mean outside of love?

 

Objection: Polytheism offers a variety of gods who collaborate on the destiny of man.

Answer: Polytheism merely makes religion more superficially interesting. The options of justice remain the same.

[dsayers]

What justice is there for the poor

Humans are born poor. If this is unjust, and you believe there is a god, why aren't you asking God why there's no justice WITH Christianity.

[Donnadogsoth]

That your best shot?

[neeeel]

I dont get it. 

 

If its true, then , I suppose it may be justice for some. I dont see it as justice that I will burn in hell for eternity for not believing. I dont believe its justice even that hitler burn in hell for eternity for what he did.

 

If its false, you get the illusion, or thoughts about justice?

[Donnadogsoth]

I dont get it. 

 

If its true, then , I suppose it may be justice for some. I dont see it as justice that I will burn in hell for eternity for not believing. I dont believe its justice even that hitler burn in hell for eternity for what he did.

 

If its false, you get the illusion, or thoughts about justice?

 

Christianity cuts to the eschatological quick.  Primarily speaking, it does not measure deeds or even virtue, but belief.  Strange, that, eh?  I think so, too. But, let's think about it.  Beliefs rule a man's life.  His virtues will come as a result of what he believes.  And his deeds will flow from his virtues or his lack thereof.  This is all in accord with what Stefan teaches. So belief is the primary thing, in terms of judging a man's worth, even his æternal worth.

 

Why just one life to determine said worth? you may ask. Why not one life? If man has free will, and if God is just, then God will ascertain whether or not if man's opportunities to believe were fair or not, and judge accordingly.

 

And we must be wary of condemning the ancients or the heathens, who, too, are subject to judgement on belief, and who are subject to what the Church terms the Baptism of Desire.  Remember that we are talking not of a superficial assent to a statement of faith, we are talking about a movement of the heart, even towards that which it has no external, explicit experience of.

 

Is Hell too awful to countenance for anyone, even those popularly deemed the worst? If you had the full, complete, fair opportunity to align yourself with that which grants you origin, meaning, morality, and destiny—that from whom you have acquired your life itself and all the good opportunities that life contains, then why should your æternal sentence not reflect that?

 

So, you may underestimate yourself. You may already be a Christian implicitly, in your heart, and find that the explicit expression of Christianity has due to corruption and bowdlerisation jars. Or, contrariwise, you may be secretly in rebellion against God and are using conceptual tactics to deny his legitimacy.

 

If we have a reasonable faith that God is just, then we should work more on ourselves to improve our hearts, and on the world, than we should on God trying to second-guess his authority.

[RichardY]

There's a video on Youtube called "Christian Justice", maybe not the most tactful. I don't  find believing in Christ to be forgiveness for sin, though I do think people who believe in Christ can have a certain strength about them, even if some call it fanaticism.

[Boss]

Well, without Christianity there is and has been justice, it just seems to be subjective. People seem to be achieving justice by just knowing what is evil, to jailing, to torture, to death, to riches, to materialism, to legacy etc

You claiming there is no justice without Christianity shows you know what what justice looks like. If, I claim there is no dog, I think I must know what a dog is right? So, what is justice to you? and what is no justice? 

Justice seems to require judgement and from what I recall, judgement is frown upon in Christianity, for only god can judge the living and the dead. At least, thats from what I remember.
 

[Donnadogsoth]

Well, without Christianity there is and has been justice, it just seems to be subjective. People seem to be achieving justice by just knowing what is evil, to jailing, to torture, to death, to riches, to materialism, to legacy etc

 

You claiming there is no justice without Christianity shows you know what what justice looks like. If, I claim there is no dog, I think I must know what a dog is right? So, what is justice to you? and what is no justice? 

 

Justice seems to require judgement and from what I recall, judgement is frown upon in Christianity, for only god can judge the living and the dead. At least, thats from what I remember.

 

 

“[Justice] denotes a sustained or constant willingness to extend to each person what he or she deserves.”--IEP

Thomas Aquinas: Moral Philosophy

 

What a man ultimately deserves depends on his attitude towards beatitude. If he aligns himself with God as his highest happiness, then justice is to give him that. If man rejects this beatitude, then justice is to withhold that.

 

No justice would mean Good never ultimately vanquishes Evil, and never in such a way as to right all the wrongs of history and to profit from the exercise. Atheism doesn't allow for this. Pantheism allows Good no ability to profit and thus Good is cancelled out by Evil, nor is the wheel of karma ever stopped, only reset. Only Christianity allows for Good to profit in its triumphant conflict with Evil whilst righting all wrongs.

 

(Note that Christians are called to refrain from “judging” in the sense that we should not say what each person deserves in an æternal sense. We are not the judge of souls. But, that does not mean Christians should not make judgements on other matters, such as whether or not to cast pearls to swine, or whether one should give all of one's money to the first beggar who asks for it.)

[neeeel]

Christianity cuts to the eschatological quick.  Primarily speaking, it does not measure deeds or even virtue, but belief.  Strange, that, eh?  I think so, too. But, let's think about it.  Beliefs rule a man's life.  His virtues will come as a result of what he believes.  And his deeds will flow from his virtues or his lack thereof.  This is all in accord with what Stefan teaches. So belief is the primary thing, in terms of judging a man's worth, even his æternal worth.

 

Why just one life to determine said worth? you may ask. Why not one life? If man has free will, and if God is just, then God will ascertain whether or not if man's opportunities to believe were fair or not, and judge accordingly.

 

And we must be wary of condemning the ancients or the heathens, who, too, are subject to judgement on belief, and who are subject to what the Church terms the Baptism of Desire.  Remember that we are talking not of a superficial assent to a statement of faith, we are talking about a movement of the heart, even towards that which it has no external, explicit experience of.

 

Is Hell too awful to countenance for anyone, even those popularly deemed the worst? If you had the full, complete, fair opportunity to align yourself with that which grants you origin, meaning, morality, and destiny—that from whom you have acquired your life itself and all the good opportunities that life contains, then why should your æternal sentence not reflect that?

 

So, you may underestimate yourself. You may already be a Christian implicitly, in your heart, and find that the explicit expression of Christianity has due to corruption and bowdlerisation jars. Or, contrariwise, you may be secretly in rebellion against God and are using conceptual tactics to deny his legitimacy.

 

If we have a reasonable faith that God is just, then we should work more on ourselves to improve our hearts, and on the world, than we should on God trying to second-guess his authority.

 

So what you are saying is, its good to believe in something without sufficient proof? And, if you dont believe in something without sufficient proof, then its ok to torture you for the rest of eternity? 

Ok then

[Will Torbald]

What justice is there for the poor, the put-upon, the unjustly imprisoned, the desperate, the murdered? What justice is there for those who suffered any of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? There are three cosmologies to consider when asking whence cometh justice.

 

1.Atheism, or materialism, simply put: there is no justice to be found here. “Justice” is what we call our paltry temporal efforts at exacting revenge upon people who have offended our idiosyncratic senses of fair play, or simply attacked our property. In the end, there is no justice, just apes beating other apes, with no final destination but the grave.

 

I'm fine with this. I find the desire for justice to be psychologically corrosive. I think prisons are not meant for punishment, but about keeping dangerous people outside of society - but I don't care if that means justice or not.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm fine with this. I find the desire for justice to be psychologically corrosive. I think prisons are not meant for punishment, but about keeping dangerous people outside of society - but I don't care if that means justice or not.

 

Interesting, Will, because I agree with you in terms of the human justice system.  Its concern should be neutralisation, not retribution.

[Nathan Metric]

1.Atheism, or materialism, simply put: there is no justice to be found here. “Justice” is what we call our paltry temporal efforts at exacting revenge upon people who have offended our idiosyncratic senses of fair play, or simply attacked our property. In the end, there is no justice, just apes beating other apes, with no final destination but the grave.

 

2.Pantheism, or Hinduism: the doctrine of reincarnation, that individual souls jump from body to body to body in an endless wheel of lives. Justice here is getting for what one has given. Sounds reasonable, except when we ask, to what end is this game played? Why was it started? And the second question, how can the countless souls stuck at the bottom of the karmic chain ever pass through the bottleneck of enlightened humans to escape the wheel? And if the wheel is perfectly just, why escape it? Hinduism cannot say.

 

3.Monotheism, or Christianity: justice is found in the judgement of souls based on whether they had honestly sought God, and whether they gave what they would receive. The game was started to give gifts to man and glorify God through their communion. Justice's purpose is not merely to give as one got in this life, but to sieve out the hopeless rebels and purify the potential saints, for the sake of escaping the history of the fallen world and contemplating the essence God in the afterlife.

 

1)Presupposing that is impossible for atheist societies to have an objective morality. You have done nothing to prove this.

 

2)I agree that there is something quite nihilistic about the belief in reincarnation.

 

3))How exactly does God judge souls if there is no objective morality in the universe without him? Is it arbitrary? If his judgement are all arbitrary then where is the justice in that? If his judgements are not arbitrary then why would you conclude that the intellectually honest atheist must be a nihilist?

[Donnadogsoth]

1)Presupposing that is impossible for atheist societies to have an objective morality. You have done nothing to prove this.

 

2)I agree that there is something quite nihilistic about the belief in reincarnation.

 

3))How exactly does God judge souls if there is no objective morality in the universe without him? Is it arbitrary? If his judgement are all arbitrary then where is the justice in that? If his judgements are not arbitrary then why would you conclude that the intellectually honest atheist must be a nihilist?

 

1. Subjective, objective, hyperjective, it makes no difference.  Most of the injustices for most people across of most of history will not be remedied, beyond which everyone dies in the end.  Ergo, there is no ultimate justice in Atheism.

3. God himself is the standard.  What God possesses, he is.  So God has goodness and is goodness.  Whatever he decides must therefore be good.  To be clear:  we get our best standard of justice from God's justice, and it is just because that is the nature of God; without God there is no hyperjective standard, just varying levels of impotent objective and subjective standards.

[Nathan Metric]

1)And your point is.....what exactly? That we ought to pretend like the world is perfectly just somehow?

 

2)If God himself is the standard for judging people then there isn't actually any justice. Just a bunch of arbitrary dictates, rewards and punishments. Justice must be universal in order to to be real justice. The concept of justice must transcend God for it to be real justice. Morality by definition is universal. If it ain't universal it ain't morality. It's just arbitrary slave regulations.

 

God contradicts himself so any universal morality that transcend God would render God immoral. So you either have to to admit a)Morality is universal and God is immoral or b)There simply is no such thing as justice with God.

[Donnadogsoth]

1)And your point is.....what exactly? That we ought to pretend like the world is perfectly just somehow?

 

2)If God himself is the standard for judging people then there isn't actually any justice. Just a bunch of arbitrary dictates, rewards and punishments. Justice must be universal in order to to be real justice. The concept of justice must transcend God for it to be real justice. Morality by definition is universal. If it ain't universal it ain't morality. It's just arbitrary slave regulations.

 

God contradicts himself so any universal morality that transcend God would render God immoral. So you either have to to admit a)Morality is universal and God is immoral or b)There simply is no such thing as justice with God.

 

1.“Ought” is always part of an IF/THEN couple. IF an Atheist wants to keep his options option in taking advantage of all that life offers THEN he should discard any obligation to be just.

 

2.God's justice is that which is the best possible justice. Without God we return to 1 or 2. With God we have the embodiment of justice, the universality of which is seen in the Crucifixion.

[WasatchMan]

What justice is there in creating a make believe system that applies justice only after you are dead and nobody can ever know if it truly is applied?

[Nathan Metric]

1)Ought is always part of an if/then clause. Not true. Morality by definition is universal. There are oughts that are not conditional. For example, You ought to pursue the truth is an unconditional universal ethic.

 

2)Speaking Gibberish. There are only two options: A)God determines what right and wrong are or b)Justice is universal. If A is the case there there isn't actually such a thing as justice. Justice in order to be justice must be universal. If B) is the case then you can't say Atheists are automatically doomed to nihilism in the absence of faith because justice is something that can be theoretically grasped by all.

[Donnadogsoth]

1)Ought is always part of an if/then clause. Not true. Morality by definition is universal. There are oughts that are not conditional. For example, You ought to pursue the truth is an unconditional universal ethic.

 

2)Speaking Gibberish. There are only two options: A)God determines what right and wrong are or b)Justice is universal. If A is the case there there isn't actually such a thing as justice. Justice in order to be justice must be universal. If B) is the case then you can't say Atheists are automatically doomed to nihilism in the absence of faith because justice is something that can be theoretically grasped by all.

 

1.“You ought to pursue the truth”--why?  IF one wants to benefit, whether directly or indirectly through a benefit to others whom one loves or should love, THEN one ought to pursue the truth.  There is always a benefit question.  If morality has no benefit, even that of one gaining the satisfaction of having done the right thing by benefitting others, then saying one “ought” to be moral is empty.  It would be akin to worshipping an evil God who will give his worshippers nothing good in return for their worship.

2.Vain fetishisation of the word “justice”. What is just is merely God's will, which coincides with our best interest, giving each what he deserves.  If justice doesn't coincide with our best interest, it's hardly justice, is it?  Ergo, God's will is just, which is giving to each what  he deserves.

[Nathan Metric]

1)NO. You should do what is ethical regardless of your self-interest. That is what genuinely ethical behavior is: an unconditional good will.

It doesn't matter how much sexual pleasure you experience, how much wealth you accumulated, how much power to won over others, how popular you got or how many pleasant memories you have. There is no guarantee that any of those things will survive death. Death is inevitable, unknown and absolute. Life is fleeting. Only Death is Real. The more meaningful life is to a man the meaningless death is. The only thing death can't take away from a man is the honorable end. Honor is forever.

 

THAT is why I need no other reason to act ethically. Self-interest in and of itself is empty and futile.

 

2)Justice = universally preferable states of being. By that definition God cannot have a monopoly on justice.

[Donnadogsoth]

1)NO. You should do what is ethical regardless of your self-interest. That is what genuinely ethical behavior is: an unconditional good will.

It doesn't matter how much sexual pleasure you experience, how much wealth you accumulated, how much power to won over others, how popular you got or how many pleasant memories you have. There is no guarantee that any of those things will survive death. Death is inevitable, unknown and absolute. Life is fleeting. Only Death is Real. The more meaningful life is to a man the meaningless death is. The only thing death can't take away from a man is the honorable end. Honor is forever.

 

THAT is why I need no other reason to act ethically. Self-interest in and of itself is empty and futile.

 

2)Justice = universally preferable states of being. By that definition God cannot have a monopoly on justice.

 

1.Then you're saying honour is your benefit.  If justice brought you no honour why would you pursue justice?  In case this is unclear, I am not being flip or facile here, I am pointing out that all human activity is done for some sort of reward.  Even don Quixote himself, who performed the most dangerous and beneficial deeds for his fellow men and women, did so for the sake of a reward of the heart, the satisfaction of virtue.  Without his heart, don Quixote is inconceivable--to have no reward whatsoever for one's efforts?  Not possible, even for the insane.

2.God created man who partakes of universally preferable states of being, which are in accord with God's nature.  Without God, there is no ultimate justice, no created world, and no standards.  How did he decide to create the world he did?  He created it according to his own nature, which human observers call "just".

[Nathan Metric]

1)By definition pursuing justice increases one's honor. Honor is synonymous with virtue. And no honor is not just an idea in one's head. Honor is universal. Honor exists even after death.

 

2)Oh so you're admiting that God doesn't not have a monopoly on justice. Thx you. That's all we need you to admit.

[Donnadogsoth]

1)By definition pursuing justice increases one's honor. Honor is synonymous with virtue. And no honor is not just an idea in one's head. Honor is universal. Honor exists even after death.

 

2)Oh so you're admiting that God doesn't not have a monopoly on justice. Thx you. That's all we need you to admit.

 

1.So, the IF is "one ought to pursue truth" and the THEN is that one will increase one's honour.  No?

2.Does God have a monopoly on any universal principle?  He created the principles, after his will.

[shirgall]

A lot of Christians voting for collectivists here...

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

[Nathan Metric]

1 It's not just if you value honor then be ethical. It's more complicated than that. I'm saying living a life in the pursuit of honor is the only meaningful way to live. The only meaningful death is the honorable one. You are still under the delusion that the selfish life is some kind of rational choice, but if you really think about the fleeting nature of life and the true nature of death you will realize that self-interest ain't all it's cracked up to be. In the long run all self-interest is empty and futile. So my argument is three-hold. A)There is such a thing as objective morality B)If you value honor you should be ethical and C)There is no rational reason to live a non-virtious life since all self-interest is pointless in the long run.

 

2If God "creates" moral principles then they are not actually moral principles. They are arbitrary dictates. In order for a rule to be a moral one it has to not be dependent upon subjective whim. If all morality is subjective then there isn't actually such a thing as justice. You calling God "just" is a completely meaningless claim unless justice is universal.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 It's not just if you value honor then be ethical. It's more complicated than that. I'm saying living a life in the pursuit of honor is the only meaningful way to live. The only meaningful death is the honorable one. You are still under the delusion that the selfish life is some kind of rational choice, but if you really think about the fleeting nature of life and the true nature of death you will realize that self-interest ain't all it's cracked up to be. In the long run all self-interest is empty and futile. So my argument is three-hold. A)There is such a thing as objective morality B)If you value honor you should be ethical and C)There is no rational reason to live a non-virtious life since all self-interest is pointless in the long run.

 

2If God "creates" moral principles then they are not actually moral principles. They are arbitrary dictates. In order for a rule to be a moral one it has to not be dependent upon subjective whim. If all morality is subjective then there isn't actually such a thing as justice. You calling God "just" is a completely meaningless claim unless justice is universal.

 

1.If “living a life in the pursuit of honour is the only meaningful way to live,” that's tantamount to saying that living such a life--dying such a death--rewards one with meaning. So one is still getting something out of the deal, rather than nothing. You are proposing a rarefied reward but it is a reward nonetheless. To your a-b-c:

a.There is objective morality in the same sense that there are objective laws of physics.

b.Honour offers a reward of meaning.

c.Only meaning is worth pursuing in the long run.

 

2.Saying “If God "creates" moral principles then they are not actually moral principles,” is like saying “If God creates physical principles then they are not actually physical principles." We might be underestimating God. Whether it's called Nature or it's called God the principles of the universe, moral and physical, require some kind of foundation. I think God is the more sensible one. That this makes morality or justice “arbitrary” is moot. The principles remain regardless of their source.

[Nathan Metric]

1)So what? Living a life of honor is vastly different than living a life purely in self-interest. There is zero equivalence. See what you Christians do is you follow your self-interest and God merely manipulates your self-interest. That isn't genuinely virtuous living. God gives you an external reason to pursue virtue when virtue should be the end itself.

 

2So what your theory really amounts to is "There are no divine commands without Christianity" and has nothing to do with what people typically think of as justice. in order for a state to be "justice" it must be a universally preferable one. Meaning it is a state that preferable for non-subjective reasons. Here is what you actaully believe. 1)You believe the concept of justice is subjective and 2)You believe God's subjective will is more powerful than yours so therefore you bend your self-interest to God's self-interest. That is just Christian nihilism. You are guilty of the same nihilism you accuse atheists of. The only difference is your nihilism is manipulated by the threat of the divine. 

[Donnadogsoth]

1)So what? Living a life of honor is vastly different than living a life purely in self-interest. There is zero equivalence. See what you Christians do is you follow your self-interest and God merely manipulates your self-interest. That isn't genuinely virtuous living. God gives you an external reason to pursue virtue when virtue should be the end itself.

 

2So what your theory really amounts to is "There are no divine commands without Christianity" and has nothing to do with what people typically think of as justice. in order for a state to be "justice" it must be a universally preferable one. Meaning it is a state that preferable for non-subjective reasons. Here is what you actaully believe. 1)You believe the concept of justice is subjective and 2)You believe God's subjective will is more powerful than yours so therefore you bend your self-interest to God's self-interest. That is just Christian nihilism. You are guilty of the same nihilism you accuse atheists of. The only difference is your nihilism is manipulated by the threat of the divine. 

 

1.We have a disconnect here.  Seeking to live a life of honour is still doing it for something.  It's not doing it for nothing, which would be irrational.  That makes it an IF/THEN proposition.  Otherwise you are being "virtuous" for no reason, not even to have the satisfaction of having been virtuous.  God's reward to the faithful is akin to the reward of sex in a marriage.  Only a pretty debased or emotionally stunted person is going to get married merely so he can have sex.  But sex is a natural peripheral reward for people who engage in the sacrament of matrimony for the sake of uniting in love with their betrothed.

 

2.I believe God's will is not just stronger, but wiser, more merciful, and more just than my own.  Therefore I bend my will to his because he knows the best path I should take.  It is not nihilism to follow a leader.

[Nathan Metric]

1)Okay, so the moralist acts morally because he wants the satisfaction of being virtuous and he wants to be in the possession of virtue after death. Fine. So what? How is this in anyway equivalent to doing what is right because it gives you the reward of sex or money, or fame or power? I see no equivalence whatsoever.

 

2)How do you know it is wiser? "Wisdom" is meaningless concept with morality.

What would make you think he is more merciful? He clearly is not. All human punishments are finite. God's punishments are infinite.

How do you know he is just? "Justice" is a meaningless concept unless a universal ethic exists.

 

It is not nihilism to follow a leader, but the reason you follow this leader is because of your nihilism. The real philosophical foundation for religious belief is nihilism. Not moral objectivism.

[neeeel]

he wants to be in the possession of virtue after death. 

 

What?

[Donnadogsoth]

1)Okay, so the moralist acts morally because he wants the satisfaction of being virtuous and he wants to be in the possession of virtue after death. Fine. So what? How is this in anyway equivalent to doing what is right because it gives you the reward of sex or money, or fame or power? I see no equivalence whatsoever.

 

2)How do you know it is wiser? "Wisdom" is meaningless concept with morality.

What would make you think he is more merciful? He clearly is not. All human punishments are finite. God's punishments are infinite.

How do you know he is just? "Justice" is a meaningless concept unless a universal ethic exists.

 

It is not nihilism to follow a leader, but the reason you follow this leader is because of your nihilism. The real philosophical foundation for religious belief is nihilism. Not moral objectivism.

 

1.You've agreed that morality is an IF/THEN statement, which was my point. I'll agree then that morality is not the same as lust for sex, money, fame, or power, in that morality is a function of the higher self, the intellect subsuming the appetites, whereas lust for sex, money, etc., is a function of the base appetites or lower self subsuming the intellect. Justice is when the intellect is in charge.

 

2.If we accept that Man, as the creative species, is both a) made in the image of God, and b) fallen, then we can sift out and extrapolate to God Man's ideal nature. That would be wisdom, mercy, justice—in a word, love--omnipotent, omniscient love. This exemplar of love therefore is what we rightfully worship, emulate, and obey, as seen in the case study of Jesus Christ. I think you disagree with both points a and b, and that's why you resist accepting this exemplar.  

[Nathan Metric]

1)Well no I do not think it is a just a matter of preference. I think the preference for the virtuous life is the only sane preference to hold. Self-interest in the traditional sense is illogical and futile in the long run.

 

2) I reject that the claims "God is just" and "God is good" have any meaning without an external universal ethic. There is a nihilism at the root of all religious belief.

[Donnadogsoth]

1)Well no I do not think it is a just a matter of preference. I think the preference for the virtuous life is the only sane preference to hold. Self-interest in the traditional sense is illogical and futile in the long run.

 

2) I reject that the claims "God is just" and "God is good" have any meaning without an external universal ethic. There is a nihilism at the root of all religious belief.

 

1. Well, some people prefer to be insane!  Different brain chemicals, I guess.

EDIT:  But Christians do not live and die for honour, unless it is God's honour:  they follow the popular Christmas song in "being good for goodness' sake".

 

2. I, for my part, hold that "just" and "good" have no ultimate meaning without a Creator who exemplifies them.

[Nathan Metric]

Some people prefer to be insane. So what? Is that supposed to prove all preferences are equally subjective or equally objective?

[Donnadogsoth]

Some people prefer to be insane. So what? Is that supposed to prove all preferences are equally subjective or equally objective?

 

If God exists, there exists a moral magnetic pole, so to speak, by which to orient ourselves.  Denying that orientation would be a species of madness.