DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Xzmwskxn** · 02-19-2011, 05:53 AM

Ah, a lapsed Muslim claims a final say on who is or isn't a Christian. Kind of like a bizarro version of the brouhaha over Obama...

Oh really?

From a non-denominational Protestant source:

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/why-cant-I-live-my-life-as-an-agnostic

There are logically only two options: either we have full-bodied theism with life after death where true and ultimate justice is meted out, or we have no meaningful basis for our ethical decisions and actions. If there is no God, all of your ethical conclusions are meaningless. While Kant stopped short of embracing God in more traditional ways, contrary to the understanding of some Kant was a theist. He embraced God through reason in ethics, and insisted that we must live as though there is a God.

In other words, if there is no just God, and morality is flexible. Why be moral at all—if I can be immoral, get away with it, and better my position? Carried to its logical conclusion, immoral behavior, even at its worst, does not matter. As explained by R. C. Sproul, a moral choice without God would be an effect without a cause, which is irrational! The agnostic must ask himself, "Why should I be moral today?"

Put more simply, either God is or God is not. Even atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair recognized that there is no in between on this issue. She said that an agnostic is just an atheist without guts. As put by Phillip Johnson (in his book Reason in the Balance), it may be rational to argue about whether God is real or unreal, but it is clearly irrational to assume that a God who is real can safely be ignored. And put yet another way, "practical atheism" is really the acknowledgement of God, but living life without God.
And from Cardinal Camillo Ruini describing the Papal position:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/125081?eng=y

The reply that Joseph Ratzinger gives to this problem brings us back toward the reality of life: in his judgment, in fact, agnosticism cannot actually be lived out in practice; it is an impracticable program for human life. The reason for this is that the question of God is not only theoretical, but is eminently practical, impacting all areas of life.

In practice, I am, in fact, forced to choose between two alternatives, already identified by Pascal: either to live as if God did not exist, or to live as if God did exist and were the most decisive reality of my existence. This is because God, if He does exist, cannot be an accessory to be removed or added without changing anything, but is instead the origin, meaning and end of the universe, and of man within it.

If I act according to the first alternative, I adopt a de facto position of atheism, and not only of agnosticism; if I decide in favor of the second alternative, I adopt the position of a believer. The question of God is, therefore, unavoidable. It is interesting to note the profound similarity that exists in this regard between the question of man and the question of God: both, because of their supreme importance, must be faced with all the rigor and commitment of our intelligence, but both are always eminently practical questions as well, inevitably connected to our concrete decisions in life.

02-19-2011, 05:53 AM	#24
Xzmwskxn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 478 Senior Member	Ah, a lapsed Muslim claims a final say on who is or isn't a Christian. Kind of like a bizarro version of the brouhaha over Obama... Oh really? From a non-denominational Protestant source: http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/why-cant-I-live-my-life-as-an-agnostic There are logically only two options: either we have full-bodied theism with life after death where true and ultimate justice is meted out, or we have no meaningful basis for our ethical decisions and actions. If there is no God, all of your ethical conclusions are meaningless. While Kant stopped short of embracing God in more traditional ways, contrary to the understanding of some Kant was a theist. He embraced God through reason in ethics, and insisted that we must live as though there is a God. In other words, if there is no just God, and morality is flexible. Why be moral at all—if I can be immoral, get away with it, and better my position? Carried to its logical conclusion, immoral behavior, even at its worst, does not matter. As explained by R. C. Sproul, a moral choice without God would be an effect without a cause, which is irrational! The agnostic must ask himself, "Why should I be moral today?" Put more simply, either God is or God is not. Even atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair recognized that there is no in between on this issue. She said that an agnostic is just an atheist without guts. As put by Phillip Johnson (in his book Reason in the Balance), it may be rational to argue about whether God is real or unreal, but it is clearly irrational to assume that a God who is real can safely be ignored. And put yet another way, "practical atheism" is really the acknowledgement of God, but living life without God. And from Cardinal Camillo Ruini describing the Papal position: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/125081?eng=y The reply that Joseph Ratzinger gives to this problem brings us back toward the reality of life: in his judgment, in fact, agnosticism cannot actually be lived out in practice; it is an impracticable program for human life. The reason for this is that the question of God is not only theoretical, but is eminently practical, impacting all areas of life. In practice, I am, in fact, forced to choose between two alternatives, already identified by Pascal: either to live as if God did not exist, or to live as if God did exist and were the most decisive reality of my existence. This is because God, if He does exist, cannot be an accessory to be removed or added without changing anything, but is instead the origin, meaning and end of the universe, and of man within it. If I act according to the first alternative, I adopt a de facto position of atheism, and not only of agnosticism; if I decide in favor of the second alternative, I adopt the position of a believer. The question of God is, therefore, unavoidable. It is interesting to note the profound similarity that exists in this regard between the question of man and the question of God: both, because of their supreme importance, must be faced with all the rigor and commitment of our intelligence, but both are always eminently practical questions as well, inevitably connected to our concrete decisions in life.
	Quote