What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.

Fear of force? And yet elsewhere you or someone like you will be complaining that God allows bad things to happen.....so what is it you are scared of exactly?

However I think your point could lead to fruitful discussion.

[Shaker]

Fear of force?

Precisely.

And yet elsewhere you or someone like you will be complaining that God allows bad things to happen.....

Only in the context of a discussion with those who believe in gods. Atheists don't.

so what is it you are scared of exactly?

Nothing.

However I think your point could lead to fruitful discussion.

Let's hope so.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Hope, Stephen Taylor came to this forum specifically to ask you for your evidence. There's a lovely shiny thread there just for you to give us all the evidence you want. Then all this arguing will cease as we'll all know where to go.

Why didn't you?

I have revived it so that he doesn't need to search to hard to find it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Precisely.

No explanations Shaker so you cannot have anything to argue for.

So in you having nothing,I will say that fear of force is inappropriate in Christianity at least. When someone is convinced of their encounter with God they have the choice to follow or not.The choice to be regenerated or transformed is predicated on, as Isaiah puts it ,being undone. They are convinced of where they stand morally with God and they respond according to that position. That is not fear of force but a fear of missing the truth of their new reality.

What you propose is to choose to reject because for whatever reasons you hate God as he is preferring to roll out an alternative realty of your own without taking into account the fundamental dishonesty of that position.

And that IS something which should be feared.

[Shaker]

No explanations Shaker so you cannot have anything to argue for.

So in you having nothing,I will say that fear of force is inappropriate in Christianity at least. When someone is convinced of their encounter with God they have the choice to follow or not.The choice to be regenerated or transformed is predicated on, as Isaiah puts it ,being undone. They are convinced of where they stand morally with God and they respond according to that position. That is not fear of force but a fear of missing the truth of their new reality.

What you propose is to choose to reject because for whatever reasons you hate God as he is preferring to roll out an alternative realty of your own without taking into account the fundamental dishonesty of that position.

And that IS something which should be feared.

So much typing, so little sense.

[Hope]

Quite apart from the Euthyphro dilemma to which you quite rightly draw attention, there's the more fundamental point that even if by some means or another we could come to know God as the ground of morality, why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.

And where does argumentum ad baculum come into the teachings of Christ or any of the other New Testament writings, Shakes.  I appreciate that history has shown certain national governments and denominations have felt it right to instruct their citizens/adherents to follow this or that way of thinking - and, of course, that isn't unique to the Church - but where does it appear in the underlying source material?

[Hope]

So much typing, so little sense.

But you have still not explained where argumentum ad baculum fits into the picture.  All you've done is thrown the concept into the mix, with no explanation or supporting evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So much typing, so little sense.

So little typing from Shaker, no sense whatsoever.

Fear of Force is part of your Caricature.

[Rhiannon]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad. That isn't supposed to frighten us?

[Shaker]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad. That isn't supposed to frighten us?

... where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, allegedly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But you have still not explained where argumentum ad baculum fits into the picture.  All you've done is thrown the concept into the mix, with no explanation or supporting evidence.

Romans 13:1-4:

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

And guess who gets to decide what constitutes "good" and "evil". The schtick here is this: these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you.

Now substitute "God" for "Fat Tony Angelino", "Pete "Sleeps wit' da fishes" deCiccio" or similar and you'll see the model.

[Shaker]

Should have been Tony Soprano, bluey - Tony Angelino was the singing dustman with a speech impediment in Only Fools and Horses 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad.

.................as there would be if one had a winning ticket to the lottery and then thrown the ticket away.

[Rhiannon]

Should have been Tony Soprano, bluey - Tony Angelino was the singing dustman with a speech impediment in Only Fools and Horses 

So there'll be cwying and gnashing of teeth then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Should have been Tony Soprano, bluey - Tony Angelino was the singing dustman with a speech impediment in Only Fools and Horses 

You lookin' at me? YOU LOOKIN' AT ME???

Nah, relax - I'm just bustin' ya chops here. Tony Soprano it is then 

[Shaker]

So there'll be cwying and gnashing of teeth then.

Pwecisely cowwect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there'll be cwying and gnashing of teeth then.

You plonker, Wodney.

[Hope]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad. That isn't supposed to frighten us?

I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment.  Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?

[Brownie]

What happens if you are old and have lost all your teeth?

[Shaker]

I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment.  Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?

And where's the evidence of this 'is' in 'telling it like it is', exactly?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment.  Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?

What would the disappointment be?

[Hope]

Hope,

Romans 13:1-4:

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."

And guess who gets to decide what constitutes "good" and "evil". The schtick here is this: these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you.

Except that the 'shtick here isn't "these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you".  It's "these are my rules, you break my rules and this is what you will lead yourself into'. 

Notice also that Romans, like all the other New Testament epistles - regardless of author, is written to Christians.  None of them were written to non-believers.  As I'm sure you can appreciate, if one has freely chosen to follow a certain path (which is likely what the vast majority of the readers of the epistles would have done), and then choose to leave that path or allow yourself to be led off it, then whatever that second decision leads to is not the fault of the person who created the path.

Technically, as Paul points out earlier in Romans 'There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through him Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death'. Romans 8: 1,2

If, having once chosen to live under the Spirit, one returns in whatever way to living under the law then that law controls your life and the consequences of the law control your future.  Remember that, unless there is a law against a given behaviour, it is not illegal - it is the law that defines what is right and wrong. 

Now substitute "God" for "Fat Tony Angelino", "Pete "Sleeps wit' da fishes" deCiccio" or similar and you'll see the model.

Except that you don't see the model, as it is a false analogy.

So, I am still awaiting an explanation of how the idea of argumentum ad baculum fits the picture.

[Hope]

What would the disappointment be?

Not being in relationship with one's creator.  Since you don't believe in the concept, I'm not sure that it would apply to you. 

[Hope]

What happens if you are old and have lost all your teeth?

Quite agree - and it doesn't have to be about old-age.  There are plenty of youngsters who have lost many of their teeth through poor diet, over-exuberant playing and fighting, etc.  I haven't been able to gnash my teeth for donkey's years!!

[floo]

Not being in relationship with one's creator.  Since you don't believe in the concept, I'm not sure that it would apply to you. 

How can you have a relationship with an entity which you can't see, hear or touch?