Sorry I took such a long time to respond.
Ok. But what about if I want to get rich from the drug trade? Or be a pimp? Or get rich from child labour? Or even slavery today? A fair bit of the activities involved in these endeavors are not certainly not good in either of our opinions. As for the social benefits of being helpful and kind to others, you could lead a double life and get the best of both worlds. S
Never. I'm not that way by nature. That being said, there are people who can kill others without caring that much (such as slavemasters in the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries). Also, I could have engaged in things like stealing without much guilt (though I cant do that now due to Christianity).
I think that :
-threatening to beat your children like that is wrong
.
That being said, the one who has the "deeper, better understanding of morality" is the one who understands what oughts and ought nots are. God has given humanity purpose and our commandment to fulfill that purpose is to love one another (therefore, the commandment is an ought). You ought to do something because you have a duty to Christ, which entails a duty towards others (or "do to others as you would have them do to you"). Since the second child is following that rule, he appears to have a "deeper, better understanding of morality." We will be shut out of his presence if we do not obey but we should obey not due to punishment, but because we have a duty (i.e. we ought to be good)
Finally, here's a couple videos on hell that show what it is like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q5v...F40C5A0CF5C113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbIv...iM4GLw&index=2
Originally posted by Enjolras
View Post
Is the only reason you are good because you think God is watching you? Would you immediately resort to murder the moment you thought there was no God?
Imagine you go out to a nice restaurant and notice 2 other tables. At one, the father excuses himself go to to the restroom. He warns the kids to behave while he's gone or he will beat the daylights out of them when he returns. At the other table, the father excuses himself as well, but instead of threatening punishment he tells the children to be considerate of others in the same way they would like to be treated themselves. Both sets of children obey.
Let me ask, which of these sets of children has a deeper, better understanding of morality?
Let me ask, which of these sets of children has a deeper, better understanding of morality?
-threatening to beat your children like that is wrong
.
That being said, the one who has the "deeper, better understanding of morality" is the one who understands what oughts and ought nots are. God has given humanity purpose and our commandment to fulfill that purpose is to love one another (therefore, the commandment is an ought). You ought to do something because you have a duty to Christ, which entails a duty towards others (or "do to others as you would have them do to you"). Since the second child is following that rule, he appears to have a "deeper, better understanding of morality." We will be shut out of his presence if we do not obey but we should obey not due to punishment, but because we have a duty (i.e. we ought to be good)
Finally, here's a couple videos on hell that show what it is like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q5v...F40C5A0CF5C113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbIv...iM4GLw&index=2
Comment