[nicoburns]

One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority. I can somewhat understand people wanting to reach for a supernatural explanation for the creation of the world: I don't personally find "God" a satisfactory explanation, but I also don't really have a better one. But I really struggle to understand why they would then defer to that creator's (supposed) moral teachings. It's really a completely separate belief to the belief of god as a creator, but the two are often combined into one question of whether one "believes in god".

[throw0101b]

> One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority.

Aquinas gave a summary in the 1200s: Article 1. Whether God is good?; Article 2. Whether God is the supreme good?; Article 3. Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone?

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm

The late Michael F. Flynn wrote a decent summary of the argument in his five-part series laying out Aristotle's first way argument about the Unmoved Mover:

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-backgrou...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.h...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-l...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-...

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca...

The Creator also being All-good is in Part IV (Theorem 9).

[I_Am_Nous]

In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad". Catholics throughout history have written about it in depth (sometimes like REALLY in depth).

It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness. Darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God. Therefore, God is good.

Too bad we believers have done such a terrible and easy to criticize job of being Christlike. I can't blame anyone for saying Christianity has too much baggage for them to even want to believe.

[nicoburns]

> It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness

Doesn't that argument apply equally to "badness" (I guess "evil" might be the more idiomatic term): if God made the universe, and the universe has badness in it, then God either created badness too or he IS badness. Therefore, God is bad.

> In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad"

Of course the question is why we ought to believe this as opposed to following our own moral convictions. And from my perhaps cynical perspective, this seems to be what Christians do anyway (moral views vary dramatically within Christianity): they just ascribe their own moral views to God.

[throw0101b]

> Doesn't that argument apply equally to "badness" (I guess "evil" might be the more idiomatic term): if God made the universe, and the universe has badness in it, then God either created badness too or he IS badness.

Aquinas covered this in the 1200s, "Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?":

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2

> Of course the question is why we ought to believe this as opposed to following our own moral convictions.

You say slavery is bad. I say slavery is fine. You can follow your mortal convictions (and not have slaves), and I'll follow mine (and run a cotton plantation). But the two statements are contradictory, so which of us is following the "correct" one?

Of course this assumes that there is an objective moral code—which begs the question on where it would come from.

[I_Am_Nous]

Consider a light source in front of a shutter. The light is the positive, additive energy that flows through the shutter when it is open. If you close the shutter, are you creating darkness? Or is the light just no longer illuminating anything past the shutter? Is a heart which won't let God in dark because it is emanating something, or because it lacks something?

Regarding moral convictions, that one's obviously true. Everyone from Luther to Wesley were interpreting the Bible in new ways after the reformation, so it's no surprise "interpret it yourself" became people's primary strategy.

That said, for a baptized Christian, we receive the Holy Spirit (aka the Paraclete, or counselor). Christians are encouraged to read the Bible so the Holy Spirit can call those verses to mind when they are relevant to something, such as seeing a hungry person and hearing "Feed my lambs" in your heart.

So while having an authority structure is good for some, others don't need it. I described the Bible to my father in law as "the rules of the beach - follow them or you'll get kicked out of the beach. That's enough for some people to never commit grave sin, just knowing the rules. Sometimes it's more complicated than that." The Holy Spirit fills in that gap and helps guide us even when the Bible didn't explicitly say something it couldn't have known like "don't cyberbully people because it's a sin."

Of course from the outside looking in, that just sounds like "your conscience" in some respects, but your conscience affects you after an act, not before it. The Holy Spirit is our guide in this world and is the one who speaks what needs to be said as Jesus told his disciples not to worry about what they are to say to authorities when brought to court, as the Holy Spirit will give them what they should say when they get there.

Obviously people can and do ignore the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean he isn't still helping them.

[pstuart]

I've long had a notion that Christianity should be refactored to be spiritual rather than authoritarian.

It's clear that people are wired for worship (for those of no faith, we have celebrities). I liken it to atomic power, potentially beneficial when properly harnessed, or horribly destructive when weaponized.

[krapp]

>for those of no faith, we have celebrities

No, we don't. I know this is commonly bandied about as a truism but no one actually worships celebrities in the same way, or for the same purpose, as the religious worshiping deity, except maybe serial killers.

[I_Am_Nous]

I believe their point is that humans want an object of devotion in some capacity, religious or otherwise. People LOVE Elon Musk because he's the personality of the microera and while they wouldn't go as far as deifying him, they might consider him better than "regular people".

In theological terms we have an infinite capacity for desire, designed that way by God because we were created to be in communion with him, an infinite being. If you are not "filling the gap" with faith, you'll fill it with something else. If you were created to loudly proclaim the gospel, but lose faith, maybe you loudly proclaim whatever you think the world needs to know about your favorite celebrity.

[krapp]

Like a lot of religious people, you seem to assume that anyone who doesn't believe in God, as you understand God, has some void in their life they are desperate to fill. The truth is, there are such people both within Christianity and without, and religion can be as much an addiction as heroin, and relationships with God, for those who believe, can be as parasocial as with any celebrity.

Nevertheless, many irreligious people are nonetheless perfectly happy, self-actualized and fulfilled without any religion whatsoever.

[I_Am_Nous]

I agree with everything you said :) part of the reason this is a common belief (the God shaped hole in our heart as it's sometimes called) is because we Christians have internalized what we believe to be truths - God created us, God wants to be in communion with us, God is spirit but we are body/soul composites so our body can be used to serve in this material world while our soul is in communion with God spiritually.

As you said, many Christians struggle with depression (waves I'm on Zoloft lol) and their hearts are "filled" so what's the deal? Well, our hearts are only as full as we want them to be. Many Christians are more attached to the world than God. They'll stay up late for a football game, but ask them to stay up late praying and most of them will laugh. Also, as we believe we are body/soul composites there can be various modes depending on our Christian journey.

Our soul can be full while we are suffering martyrdom. Our soul can be barren (usually called dryness) while our body has never felt better. Life is a journey home to be with God, and sometimes we need to practice things like patience when we are tired or grumpy.

From Gods perspective, if a soul is incapable of receiving the gospel and they die without being baptized, he still wants to save that soul. Would a viable strategy be to give them a good life in spite of their ignorance, which they will see the full picture of after death, and they accept God? They won't feel the lack of God because it wouldn't help bring them closer to God.

[nicoburns]

> I believe their point is that humans want an object of devotion in some capacity, religious or otherwise

Perhaps that's true. But for many people that's their friends, family and community rather than some kind of idol. And it's certainly not true that everyone feels the need to proclaim loudly about something (I do, but that's another matter!)

[I_Am_Nous]

Very true, one of the best traits about humans is that we try to have families to practice love! My "proclaimer" example was intended to show how someone could be given desires and skills for a certain purpose but they choose against Gods will and use their same desire and skill for worldly purposes. Alternate example would be someone intended to invent gene therapy for something but they instead work on bioweapons cuz it pays better.

[pstuart]

I was being mildly flippant, but my point is that we want to "look up".

And of course celebrities don't threaten you with eternal torture if you don't love them and do what they say, so it's definitely a bit more lighthearted engagement.

[I_Am_Nous]

The main concern there would be vital information being watered down or skipped over, but that bird flew the coop 500 years ago during the Protestant Reformation when people developed their own theologies and decided what was important for themselves, and then taught others.

Plus, it's not like the Reformation happened out of nowhere. The Catholic Church made lots of mistakes and awful decisions for a long time before people had enough.

I'm Catholic, and my favorite devotion is Divine Mercy. One of the teachings of the devotion (direct from Jesus, according to Sister Faustina) is that what hurts him the most is when people can't accept his mercy after death. They believe their sins are greater than his mercy (which is infinite) and they send themselves to hell as a result.

Jesus wants to be merciful to all, but he also said (Matthew 5:6, Matthew 18:21-35) that those who are merciful are the ones who receive mercy.

So if everyone walked around being merciful and forgiving one another, we'd certainly be a lot better off!

[pstuart]

I can't accept Christ's mercy after I die because I'll be dead and won't exist anymore.

I'm glad that you find solace and meaning in your faith, but you may be too close to it to realize that the Church exists to control you, not to bring you salvation.

It's a personal choice, and I respect that, but my original point is that there's an undercurrent of war to remove this choice and that gets ignored by people such as yourself because you already live in such a world and you like it.

The analogy I like to use is this: imagine if there was a revolution and somehow muslim evangelicals took charge of the government and put the state under Sharia Law. This has happened in other countries, it's not pure fantasy.

Now think about if you'd like to live in that society. I can guess what the answer might be.

[troupe]

Perhaps the reason the two things are conflated is because there is an assumption that if you knew God exists, your choice wouldn't be to choose to reject doing what he commands. But as you point out that, that is an assumption that isn't necessarily true.

[gary_0]

Especially once you throw the Problem of Evil in there ("Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?")

But monotheistic religion is so bothered with God being an ultimate moral authority (beyond just being omnipotent) that it must perform some scary mental gymnastics to reconcile this, which usually goes thusly: evil and suffering are part of God's Plan. Evil serves some purpose that will be revealed in heaven or whatever, so its existence can be tolerated (when it would be inconvenient not to).

That's a dangerous place to be. Children slowly dying of cancer, or being murdered in war, for example, can't matter on some ultimate moral level because God allowed it to happen, and anyways they're all happy in heaven now. Any horrifying thing can be handwaved away by religion as not mattering, because otherwise that would mean God messed up.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thinking, either. Political ideology or secular morality can also condone unspeakable things "for the greater good" or because "that's just the way it is". I really think it shouldn't be some bizarre stance that all uncommon suffering is unequivocally bad, but here we are.