Hill Giant brings up a really good question. I really didn't have an answer to... I do not know if what Hill Giant was describing is truly a sin. I will let God figure that one out. If someone is gay and is truly seeking God and they feel that they should change, then they should change (and God will provide the means to do so). If they don't feel that they should change, then don't.
As always, Moff, you combine religious thinking with solid good sense. If God has a problem with it, that'll be His prerogative, not anyone else's.
Logically speaking, if we, on Earth, we take a slightly more liberal viewpoint and allow them to get married, there are two possibilities (assuming that there is a God, and that He has any interest at all in the matter): (1) We're right to do so, and God will be happy with our show of tolerance and goodwill; or (2) we'll be wrong to do so, but that's no skin off God's nose, so to speak; He'll fix it in his own way. In neither case is any harm done to anyone on Earth. On the other hand, if we practice intolerance then no matter what the outcome, God is likely to be annoyed at our arrogance and presumtion in usurping His sole right to judge. Also, we deny other people a right that we ourselves claim.
The way I see it, there's no way, from a Christian standpoint (as I understand it) to prohibit gays from marrying without unilaterally claiming to know the mind of God and also claiming the right to judge on His behalf. If I'm missing something, let me know; this is just the way I interpret Scripture (Yes, I have read it, even though I'm not personally a Christian).
|
The way I see it, there's no way, from a Christian standpoint (as I understand it) to prohibit gays from marrying without unilaterally claiming to know the mind of God and also claiming the right to judge on His behalf.
I have mixed feelings on this statement. Allowing or prohibiting gays marrying ends up being a decision made on Capitol Hill. While a lot of parties are making this a religious agenda, there is more going on about this than simple religious interpretations/misinterpretations of the Bible. I will not even pretend to know what all is "at stake" with this, but it isn't necessarily knowing the mind of God.
At some point, this may end up coming down to the "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's". This gets a little sticky when trying to determine when people should fight against political things.
I guess that what I am saying is that with the gays marrying issue, there are some religious issues and some non-religious issues. Since the religious issues are the ones that are being dealt with the loudest, no one knows anything about the non-religious issues as they get buried beneath all the other crap.
What is the justification for why some people have to endure more/are tested more than others?You are exactly right that the baby born blind has not sinned any more than any other new born baby. (Jesus teaches this in Luke 13).
The big answer is that He is God, and we are not, so who are we to talk back to God? This is basically the answer that Job got from God in the book of Job. But to leave it there is unsatisfying and a cop out I reckon, so I'll still give my thoughts...
I agree with Mevers' answers to Kahoolin's questions. I'd just like to reiterate some major points...
Suffering & trials are often the consequences of our personal sin or to a lesser degree - the consequences of someone else's (like Adam and the cursed world). Other trials are allowed by God to teach us. Yes, He wants more than just pass/fail for eternal destination. We are supposed to be approaching holiness (or in some translations, "perfection"). The more trials we tackle and overcome, the closer we should be to a likeness of Christ. Sometimes, even after we learn a lesson God allows us to be tested again (pop quiz!). The Isrealites sinned after being liberated from Egypt and God punished them by having them wander in the desert. But didn't they repent at any point in the next forty years? Sure. But God says in various scriptures that He allowed them to continue to wander in the desert to see if they really loved Him. Actions speak louder than words.There are various New Testament verses that compare our lives to fruit trees (often olive trees). God warns that any branch not producing fruit (often interpreted as nonbelievers but probably more accurately including people who claim to be Christians but aren't Christ-like in their actions/attitudes) will be cut off and thrown in the fire (most likely meaning eternal punishment). Most Christians nod along with that part but the next part says that branches that *do* produce fruit are pruned back so that they will produce even more fruit. So you're pruned if you do, pruned if you don't. In their simplest interpretations, these verses mean people who are blatantly disobedient will suffer and people who are faithfully obedient will still suffer but for a different reason - to "refine" their character. The Bible says we shouldn't be surprised to suffer trials/hardships because 1) Jesus suffered on earth - do we think we deserve better? 2) because our trials mean God loves us, considers us His children (and therefore in need of training & correction) and is trying to develop us into better people - so rejoice!
The other major point I wanted to reiterate is that there indeed are rewards in heaven that only certain people will receive based on how much they endured on earth. Jesus himself spoke of the difficulty in a "rich" person getting to go to heaven. Why would it be more difficult for a rich person than a poor one? Because the rich person has an easy life and probably doesn't feel a "need" for God's help/salvation nor does a rich person have to suffer many of the trials that a poor person faces on a daily basis. A person who is living the easy life, and is blessed with material wealth here on earth, is not only often blind to their sins of pride, greed, etc. but also are actually more morally challenged - power & wealth often lead to corruption.
I think when deciding how to vote on the gay marriage issue, a Christian is almost in a win-win situation. I believe that if a Christian voted against gay marriage because that person believed (rightly or wrongly) that such a union was sinful/dishonoring to God, God would be pleased. OTOH, if a Christian voted for gay marriage because that person believed (rightly or wrongly) that marriage is a Godly institution and/or a political social issue and that gays uniting under a marriage covenant would bring honor to God, then God would be pleased. Win - win! It's all about our attitudes & intentions.
Dammit, how can I have an argument when intelligent, polite people who are agreeing with me? ;-)
I guess that what I am saying is that with the gays marrying issue, there are some religious issues and some non-religious issues. Since the religious issues are the ones that are being dealt with the loudest, no one knows anything about the non-religious issues as they get buried beneath all the other crap.
Here's what I'm getting at: What are the non-religious issues?
There are various New Testament verses that compare our lives to fruit trees (often olive trees). God warns that any branch not producing fruit (often interpreted as nonbelievers but probably more accurately including people who claim to be Christians but aren't Christ-like in their actions/attitudes) will be cut off and thrown in the fire (most likely meaning eternal punishment). Most Christians nod along with that part but the next part says that branches that *do* produce fruit are pruned back so that they will produce even more fruit. So you're pruned if you do, pruned if you don't. In their simplest interpretations, these verses mean people who are blatantly disobedient will suffer and people who are faithfully obedient will still suffer but for a different reason - to "refine" their character. The Bible says we shouldn't be surprised to suffer trials/hardships because 1) Jesus suffered on earth - do we think we deserve better? 2) because our trials mean God loves us, considers us His children (and therefore in need of training & correction) and is trying to develop us into better people - so rejoice!
That, in a roundabout way, is why I've been railing against hedonism. We need to stop seeing suffering as automatically bad or evil. It's the full range of experiences and emotions that makes us humans (or animal or plant, as the case may be).
Sorry for taking so much time off Mevers, I'm here and will answer your question from the last page (and say some other stuff).
OK -- I view instinct (including sex and sexuality) as being a core part of a being, but separate from the "higher mind" (of which I view there being very little with reference to all animals, humans included, but involving such things as reason and intelect. I don't include compassion because, as a "pack animal", compassion is hardwired to some extent into humanity). The higher mind can sometimes be used to overcome the instinct, reason overriding our self-preservation for example, but more often it is two conflicting instincts come to a balance and equilibrium in a consequence, as in compassion being what overrides our self-preservation, enabling us to save that child from the bus or whatever, and our reason telling us "that was beneficial, compassion should be cultivated". One could argue that our reason (to follow God) or our instinct (our innate love for God and wish to follow him) could come into conflict with sexuality and override it, but I personally don't feel that God wants anything special from us (I don't follow any established religion), and am not sure how I feel about "innate love" for my rather abstract feeling. In that way it is difficult for me to find a reason homosexuality could or would need to be overcome. You make a good point with the fact that we do control ourselves with not constantly having sex with whomever we want, but to me that is just our reason telling us "that is unhelpful" and/or our love for another specific person telling us "no one else is necessary". Given the rate of "coming out", I do not see any evidence to show that the gay community as a whole believes what they do is harmful to themselves or others (unhelpful, to use my own phrase), and neither do I.
I am not saying that what you believe is wrong, Mevers. I'm just providing my own position on the matter and trying to provide some food for thought.
(On that note: What did everyone think about my links? Bonobos are interesting, are they not?)
However, on the topic of gay marriage: Marriage is a religious institution, and if a religious official will not perform a same-sex marriage, then that's his/her perrogative. If they will, go for it, but if not, then there is nothing I have to say. I personally don't understand people's (gay or strait) obsession with marriage. If it is part of your religion, go to it and have fun, but otherwise I'm not sure why you would do that (of course, I don't think that the state has the right to provide marriages like that, see "religious institution"). I personally have misgivings about the utility of marriage myself for personal reasons.
|
|
I personally don't understand people's (gay or strait) obsession with marriage.
Really a lot of it boils down to legal ramifications. Should a gay couple be allowed to get joint insurance? File joint taxes? There are other rights issues as well -- again, I'm not really up on it all. On the other side of things -- if a gay couple breaks up, is there a "divorce"? Might one of the party be subject to alimony? etc.
In it's simplest form, being married has benefits (and restrictions) that are WAY outside the "religious institution". In it's current form, simply being homosexual totally excludes them from these benefits (and restrictions -- but I don't ever hear anyone talk about that...).
I personally don't understand people's (gay or strait) obsession with marriage.
Really a lot of it boils down to legal ramifications. Should a gay couple be allowed to get joint insurance? File joint taxes? There are other rights issues as well -- again, I'm not really up on it all. On the other side of things -- if a gay couple breaks up, is there a "divorce"? Might one of the party be subject to alimony? etc.
In it's simplest form, being married has benefits (and restrictions) that are WAY outside the "religious institution". In it's current form, simply being homosexual totally excludes them from these benefits (and restrictions -- but I don't ever hear anyone talk about that...).
These benefits and restrictions you speak of (which I already was aware of in deciding that I don't understand marriage) seem to be money related...
Which still doesn't mean anything to me because this stuff is all government controlled and shouldn't be, if we still look at marriage from its religious origins. Good points though.|
|
These benefits and restrictions you speak of (which I already was aware of in deciding that I don't understand marriage) seem to be money related...
I think that a lot of things, overall, eventually boil down to the issue of money...
One of the other things that I have heard brought up with this is about the issue of adoption (which really isn't money related). I'm just not sure how or why this is an issue.
That, in a roundabout way, is why I've been railing against hedonism. We need to stop seeing suffering as automatically bad or evil. It's the full range of experiences and emotions that makes us humans (or animal or plant, as the case may be).
Yes, all religion is hedonistic. Then again, take away our instinctive reactions of pain=bad/pleasure=good and can you still really be called a human being?
The other major point I wanted to reiterate is that there indeed are rewards in heaven that only certain people will receive based on how much they endured on earth. Jesus himself spoke of the difficulty in a "rich" person getting to go to heaven. Why would it be more difficult for a rich person than a poor one? Because the rich person has an easy life and probably doesn't feel a "need" for God's help/salvation nor does a rich person have to suffer many of the trials that a poor person faces on a daily basis. A person who is living the easy life, and is blessed with material wealth here on earth, is not only often blind to their sins of pride, greed, etc. but also are actually more morally challenged - power & wealth often lead to corruption.
Yes but that parable says it's harder for rich people to get in, not that the crippled and poor are closer to God in heaven once they get there. I just want to know why God does this - why do some people get an easy life (which is actually a curse because it reduces their likelihood of getting into heaven) and some are born into terrible circumstances (which is actually a blessing, as you then have more of a chance to impress God with your fortitude and humility)? And where is the line drawn? If God blesses you with a gentle saintly nature and you go through life not signifcantly troubled by anything, then are you in the back row in heaven because your life on earth was easy?
Seems to me that by this logic God would love repentant sinners the most. So what he really wants from us is for us to constantly break his rules and then sincerely repent. I think the whole thing is confusing and circular. The parable of the prodigal son is one of the major things that turned me away from Christianity when I was a kid, along with the story of Judas.
Yes, all religion is hedonistic.
I wouldn't say that.
Then again, take away our instinctive reactions of pain=bad/pleasure=good and can you still really be called a human being?
1) Suffering is inevitable. Do all you want to reduce it, you can't avoid it.
2) Suffering can be rewarding. Sorry about the platitudes, but it's true: The prize is sweeter if you worked hard for it. Necessity is the mother of invention. Irritation creates pearls.
3) Suffering can be cathartic. Why are rollercoasters and horror movies so popular? Why do you feel better after an intense sob? Our bodies "reward" us for all emotions, not just pleasurable ones.
Not everything in life is or should be pleasurable. As an example, one of my favorite books is 1984; This is a terribly uncomfortable book to read, but it's also well written and applicable.
I'm not arguing for masochism; I'm saying all emotions need to be experienced with temperance and suitability: joy, sadness, love, hate, etc.
Then again, take away our instinctive reactions of pain=bad/pleasure=good and can you still really be called a human being?
1) Suffering is inevitable. Do all you want to reduce it, you can't avoid it.
2) Suffering can be rewarding. Sorry about the platitudes, but it's true: The prize is sweeter if you worked hard for it. Necessity is the mother of invention. Irritation creates pearls.
3) Suffering can be cathartic. Why are rollercoasters and horror movies so popular? Why do you feel better after an intense sob? Our bodies "reward" us for all emotions, not just pleasurable ones.
Not everything in life is or should be pleasurable. As an example, one of my favorite books is 1984; This is a terribly uncomfortable book to read, but it's also well written and applicable.
I'm not arguing for masochism; I'm saying all emotions need to be experienced with temperance and suitability: joy, sadness, love, hate, etc.
I didn't say all rewards are pleasurable, I said all religion is ultimately hedonistic. As far as I can see it's quite simple: people get pleasure from the pursuit of what they think is good for them, and the pursuit of pleasure is hedonism. The problem of masochism is a chimera.
I can't think of any religion where the aim is not to get some sort of reward. It doesn't matter whether the reward comes from suffering or pleasure, it's still a reward, therefore it's pursuit is still hedonistic. Medieval flagellants tortured themselves because they felt it pleased God and so was good for them. The pain gave them pleasure. Part of the pleasure you get from 1984 is because it is fiction, not because it genuinely makes you suffer. You may be uncomfortable but you get something like schadenfreude from your knowledge that you are in no danger. Living 1984 wouldn't be pleasurable, but reading it is. I think hedonism (in many different forms) is our universal response to the world. In a way, it is life itself.
EDIT: Oh, I think I know what you mean now - all events and emotions are "good" in that they are all living human responses. That's what I'm trying to say as well. But religions universally say that some actions/events are to be sought after and some to be avoided. That is the heart of the sacred/profane coin. How's that for a mixed metaphor?:)
I can't think of any religion where the aim is not to get some sort of reward. It doesn't matter whether the reward comes from suffering or pleasure, it's still a reward, therefore it's pursuit is still hedonistic. Medieval flagellants tortured themselves because they felt it pleased God and so was good for them. The pain gave them pleasure. Part of the pleasure you get from 1984 is because it is fiction, not because it genuinely makes you suffer. You may be uncomfortable but you get something like schadenfreude from your knowledge that you are in no danger. Living 1984 wouldn't be pleasurable, but reading it is. I think hedonism (in many different forms) is our universal response to the world. In a way, it is life itself.
Hedonistic? To be fair, I think this is a misuse of the term. What you are expressing is less pursuit of "pleasure", and more stimulus response. Grabbing a hot iron burns. Your response is to drop it. After that you do not pick it up again. If something tastes good, you'll eat it again.
I do not follow my religion for a cookie, or a nice cloud in heaven (right next to Hef's cloud please!). I feel an honest and deep seated connection to it. But the basic tenants of my religion are Worship G-d, and be a good person. There is no reward I will see for doing these things. Are there rewards for doing the "right things"? Sure. As a Jew, mitzvot (deeds, based on acts of kindness and faith) carry with us and out family for 7 generations. Bad deeds for 4 generations. But since I see none or little of the benefits of these acts, is that hedonism? When the Messiah comes and brings the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth, if I'm dead and don't see it... will I care that I missed out? I'm dead, so chances are... No.
Which actions/events are to be avoided? Murder? Lying? Coveting? Rape? Wouldn't a rational human not want to do these things? I know for sure they wouldn't want these done to them. Was there something specific you were referring to?
Sorry for taking so much time off Mevers, I'm here and will answer your question from the last page (and say some other stuff).
.
.
.
Then said a lot of other good stuff
.
.
.
Thanks for the reply clearing up a few things. I suppose it boils down to this, God says homosexualtiy is a misuse of sex (just like any sex outside of marriage), and so it is a wrong use of sex. I know this view is unpopular these days, but it is what the Bible clearly says, and so I believe it.
Gay "marriage" is another issue, although it is related. The main motivation for gay marriage is finanacial really. It makes things like inheritance, insurance, divorce, etc much easier if there is a state sanctioned relationship. As such, I am all in favor of the state sanctioning these relationships. It is not our job to legislate people into heaven (nor is it even possible).
However, I am against the ceremony being called a "marriage" as a marriage is between a man and a women, apart from that, i don't really care what they cll it. However, don't expect me to ever perform or approve of performing such a ceremony in my church. There is a difference between offical sanctioning and cgurch approval, that I think most people in the debate would do well to remember.
However, I am against the ceremony being called a "marriage" as a marriage is between a man and a women, apart from that, i don't really care what they cll it. However, don't expect me to ever perform or approve of performing such a ceremony in my church. There is a difference between offical sanctioning and church approval, that I think most people in the debate would do well to remember.
The problem in the U.S. is that a "civil union" typically does not provide the same financial benefits as a "marriage." If you call it something different, fine, but let it carry the same benefits; don't booby-trap it. Only in Massachussetts can a gay couple get the same benefits as a straight couple, and even then a lot of other states won't recognize that relationship outside of MA. So Church sanction is irrelevant... or at least, it should be. In fact, this issue wouldn't even have a place in the Civil Religious Discussion except that (1) the reason the U.S. laws are anti-gay-rights is that the majority of the churches in the U.S. are anti-gay-rights; and (2) those conservative churches are an exceptionally powerful lobby. Hence, in the U.S. recently, there is a blurred distinction between official sanctioning and church approval, because the former more or less requires the latter. "Most people in the debate" are well aware of the eroding of that distinction, I think.
|
|
I said all religion is ultimately hedonistic. As far as I can see it's quite simple: people get pleasure from the pursuit of what they think is good for them, and the pursuit of pleasure is hedonism.
I am not a Christian because I think that it is or will be "pleasurable". I have never thought that pursuing God is even close to pursuing pleasure.
|
|
The problem in the U.S. is that a "civil union" typically does not provide the same financial benefits as a "marriage." If you call it something different, fine, but let it carry the same benefits; don't booby-trap it. Only in Massachussetts can a gay couple get the same benefits as a straight couple, and even then a lot of other states won't recognize that relationship outside of MA. So Church sanction is irrelevant... or at least, it should be. In fact, this issue wouldn't even have a place in the Civil Religious Discussion except that (1) the reason the U.S. laws are anti-gay-rights is that the majority of the churches in the U.S. are anti-gay-rights; and (2) those conservative churches are an exceptionally powerful lobby. Hence, in the U.S. recently, there is a blurred distinction between official sanctioning and church approval, because the former more or less requires the latter. "Most people in the debate" are well aware of the eroding of that distinction, I think.
Originally this was brought up because of the "Christians think that gays are going to hell" ideas that people have...
When doing a little research into this, it looks like the entire debate surrounds the definition of marriage. As I was reading stuff, it felt like...
"We want to pass a law that cherries are now apples"
"But they're cherries"
"They are fruit, come from trees, they're red,... it's close enough to the same thing."
"But it isn't the same thing -- look, we can make it so that you get them in the same place, they cost the same, they go on sale at the same time"
"But we want them to be apples"
"But they're not apples"
... and so on.
That is really an over-simplification.
Here is the real problem -- Pretty much every law, rule, or what-have-you that has the word "marriage" or any form thereof was written with a man and woman union in mind. I don't know if anyone truly knows the full consequences of calling a same-sex union "marriage" from a legal standpoint. Even calling it something different but then making a global "civil union can be used in place of marriage in all previous laws" gives things the same problems. This seems to leave modifying one law at a time -- cumbersome at best. I think that it will be a long time before any real changes happen because one side is scared and the other side is impatient.
I think that it will be a long time before any real changes happen because one side is scared and the other side is impatient.
Without sarcasm, that's about the best analysis of the situation I've seen, Moff... I think you've hit the heart of what makes this such a "hot-button" issue.
Yes but that parable says it's harder for rich people to get in, not that the crippled and poor are closer to God in heaven once they get there. I just want to know why God does this - why do some people get an easy life (which is actually a curse because it reduces their likelihood of getting into heaven) and some are born into terrible circumstances (which is actually a blessing, as you then have more of a chance to impress God with your fortitude and humility)? And where is the line drawn? If God blesses you with a gentle saintly nature and you go through life not signifcantly troubled by anything, then are you in the back row in heaven because your life on earth was easy?
Seems to me that by this logic God would love repentant sinners the most. So what he really wants from us is for us to constantly break his...
You're right. The Bible says it's harder for rich people to get in, not that those in opposite conditions are closer to God. If I implied this was somehow true, I apologize. My point was that those who suffer have a greater motivation to seek out God as opposed to the rich.
Those who have more, are responsible for more. This is a biblical principle. Like in the Spiderman comics "With great power comes great responsibility".Your example of the person with the gentle nature who is not significantly troubled is still confronted with troubles in life and has successfully overcome them. Said person would not get the "back row" in Heaven - on the contrary, he/she would be richly rewarded for his/her success in dealing with issues while maintaining a meek and humble spirit!
You say that God loves the repentant sinner best. Not necessarily true. The Bible is clear "To obey is better than sacrifice..." 1 Sam 15:22 (Old Testament quote but a principle expressed throughout the Bible). God would much prefer us to obey the first time rather than disobey and then repent.
A person starts off with a certain challenge - our poor person in the example may have a physical disability and our rich example person does not but may instead have a moral challenge. If either one is successful, God will bless them (they will have a reward in heaven) and may also reward them on earth. Once one is successful in one area, God allows another challenge. It's sorta like an obstacle course. You have to overcome one thing before moving on. Now, assuming both people (rich and poor) are Christians and will go to heaven, how far each individual proceeded through the challenges will determine the amount of their heavenly reward. Maybe, even though he was already blessed with material wealth, the rich Christian overcame the temptations of pride and greed and corruption. He/She gets treasure in Heaven. Maybe, even though he was already burdened with poverty & physical disability, the poor Christian struggled throughout his life with a self-pitying attitude. He/She had the opportunity for treasure in Heaven but missed out - in Heaven, he/she *still* won't be as "rich" as the successful rich guy.
On a side note, I'm guessing that the reason you felt offended by the story of the prodigal son was because the "good" son is rebuked at the end. At least that's the part of the story that always used to bother me. I felt like the "good" son's complaints were legitimate and he kinda got the short end of the stick. I finally came to realize that ultimately the "good" son's problem was his attitude. If he had complained to his father but also rejoiced at his brother's return, he likely would've been rewarded. It wasn't wrong that he became angry at what he viewed was unfair treatment. His actions became wrong when, in his anger, he refused to enter the house and take part in the celebration. The proper translation of the original wording is closer to meaning "refused to 'join' the family". The "good" brother refused to forgive the prodigal son, refused to rejoice in his return, refused to take part in the family activity, refused even to obey his father when instructed to join the celebration. The good son claimed that he had never disobeyed his father's orders but he is already demonstrating that this isn't true since Luke 15:28 says that the father "pleaded" with him but the hard-working son stubbornly refused.
Anyway, that's my opinion on that particular parable. Jesus spoke on several different occassions about how "obedient" Christians shouldn't feel resentment toward God for rewarding less obedient Christians. God's generosity to others isn't really our business. Our business is making sure we're maintaining the proper attitude. Another example of this is when Jesus was telling Peter about the horrible death he(Peter) would suffer and Peter demanded - what about John? Jesus replied What business is it of yours if God allows John to live forever? The point of this rebuke was unfortunately largely lost on the disciples who then started rumors that John was going to live forever (which was *not* what Jesus said). Jesus was trying to tell Peter to mind his own business; that John's fate had nothing to do with what Peter himself was destined to suffer. When we confront children with a disobedient action, they often try to defer blame by pointing out someone else's similar failing. Parents recognize that someone else's disobedience has no bearing on the particular child being corrected (thus the popular saying about the Empire State building or a bridge).
"We want to pass a law that cherries are now apples"
"But they're cherries"
"They are fruit, come from trees, they're red,... it's close enough to the same thing."
"But it isn't the same thing -- look, we can make it so that you get them in the same place, they cost the same, they go on sale at the same time"
"But we want them to be apples"
"But they're not apples"
... and so on.That is really an over-simplification.
...
...one side is scared and the other side is impatient
I second Kirth's motion. Your cherries-v.-apples is a good metaphor. Over-simplification, maybe, but true none-the-less. And with your scared-vs-impatient you've summed up the issue very well. For once, I won't babble on for 300 more words. I leave it to you, Moff.
Your cherries-v.-apples is a good metaphor. Over-simplification, maybe, but true none-the-less.
"We want to pass a law that cherries are now apples"
"But they're cherries"
I think the issue is that, to continue the metaphor, apples are 65 cents a pound and cherries are $175 each and have pits besides. If you could call them both "fruit" and price them similarly, but then sell them in different departments (apples are in the bin next to the watermelons; cherries are sold along with tomatoes and such) then everyone on both sides of the issue might be a lot happier.
|
|
I think the issue is that, to continue the metaphor, ...
I want to emphasize that the metaphor was strictly because of how I was feeling due to what I was reading. Just about everything I found seemed to focus on the definition and the term "marriage". It didn't focus (much) on rights or the law or fairness or religion, etc. It kind of felt like people forgot what the debate was truly about in the first place.
Again, that was just the impression that I got from researching this stuff -- I really don't think it is all that good of a metaphor for the same-sex marriage debate.
On a side note, I'm guessing that the reason you felt offended by the story of the prodigal son was because the "good" son is rebuked at the end. At least that's the part of the story that always used to bother me. I felt like the "good" son's complaints were legitimate and he kinda got the short end of the stick.
Actually no, I was more offended by the fact that the parents forgave the prodigal son so readily when the good son had worked hard and been obedient his whole life. It offended my sense of justice. My beef was with the parents forgiving the prodigal in the first place, not that they rebuked the good son at the end.
Morals are funny things. Even as a small child I had a very strong sense of justice that was more in line with pagan mythology. I don't know where it came from, because it didn't tally with Christian notions and my family is catholic. Once my Catholic education started I found that what I intuitively thought of as right and wrong were at odds with what I was learning at school. I clearly remember reading and discussing that story (the prodigal son) in 4th grade, which would have been when I was 10. When the teacher said "the parents are like God, forgiving people no matter what they do if they're really sorry" I could tell this was supposed to make me love God, but it didn't. I thought if God was powerful he should be consistent and punish people who disobeyed him.
Likewise with the Judas story. I clearly remember this conversation, a year later in grade 5:
Me: "Did Judas go to hell?"
Teacher: "Yes, but not because of what he did to Jesus. He went to hell because he killed himself."
Me: "But doesn't God forgive everyone?"
Teacher: "God can't forgive people who take their own lives, no matter why they do it."
Me: "OK." (Thinking: It was very brave of Judas to do such a scary thing to show God he was sorry, and God sent him to hell?)
My Catholicism didn't last more than a year or so after that, though it was many years before I was able to admit to others that I wasn't a Christian. Now I am at the stage where I follow my own nose no matter what, and even if I knew for a fact that God was real I would still not be a Christian. I don't think it's in me. My sense of justice has always been different and I think Christianity is unfair. Of course, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but they are all pretty much at odds with my moral compass.
If God is real then this is the way He made me. Maybe it's like Primus and the Modrons, some of them are deliberately programmed to go rogue for some inscrutable reason...
|
|
Likewise with the Judas story. I clearly remember this conversation, a year later in grade 5:
Me: "Did Judas go to hell?"
Teacher: "Yes, but not because of what he did to Jesus. He went to hell because he killed himself."
Me: "But doesn't God forgive everyone?"
Teacher: "God can't forgive people who take their own lives, no matter why they do it."
Me: "OK." (Thinking: It was very brave of Judas to do such a scary thing to show God he was sorry, and God sent him to hell?)
I was wondering what was wrong with the Judas story.
This is such a Catholic belief. I really don't feel that I believe it. Here is what they believe in a rather general sense --
You confess your sins and they are forgiven. As you sin, you continue to confess and you continue to be forgiven. (Generally, you confess to a priest.) The problem is that they feel that suicide is a sin since it is killing someone. (I guess that I feel the same way about this.) In any event, if someone kills themself, they never get an opportunity to request forgiveness and so the scales are tipped to one side and they go to hell.
I really haven't ever seen any evidence Biblically for this belief and if someone has some I would be interested in seeing it.
Hedonistic? To be fair, I think this is a misuse of the term. What you are expressing is less pursuit of "pleasure", and more stimulus response. Grabbing a hot iron burns. Your response is to drop it. After that you do not pick it up again. If something tastes good, you'll eat it again.
Hmm, OK. My definition is bad.
I do not follow my religion for a cookie, or a nice cloud in heaven (right next to Hef's cloud please!). I feel an honest and deep seated connection to it. But the basic tenants of my religion are Worship G-d, and be a good person. There is no reward I will see for doing these things. Are there rewards for doing the "right things"? Sure. As a Jew, mitzvot (deeds, based on acts of kindness and faith) carry with us and out family for 7 generations. Bad deeds for 4 generations. But since I see none or little of the benefits of these acts, is that hedonism?...
...Which actions/events are to be avoided? Murder? Lying? Coveting? Rape? Wouldn't a rational human not want to do these things? I know for sure they wouldn't want these done to them. Was there something specific you were referring to?
no, I suppose it's not hedonism if you get no direct pleasure. But (correct me if I'm wrong) what you are saying is that you follow Judaism because your family does and you think that it's important to uphold tradition?
I would say that making life easier and more pleasant for members of your family/tribe/nation/species makes life easier for yourself. I think we covered this a while back when I said that most of the basic ethics of co-operation in most cultures seem built in to people, perhaps through natural selection. The ones who didn't play well with others died out. The mitzvot are a codification of this. So pleasure for everyone around you brings pleasure to you. This is why i say it's all hedonistic. I admit that this is a very broad definition of hedonism though and thus not useful, so how about I say "being good to others in your group and following the religion of your group is advantageous to you as an individual?"
So I take back what I said about all religions being hedonistic. They are however, all pursued for advantage, whether your own or your group's (which are really the same thing). Otherwise you wouldn't do it.
Of course, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but they are all pretty much at odds with my moral compass.
I guess that sort of refutes the "morals are impossible without Christianity" that I hear a lot of.
Of course, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but they are all pretty much at odds with my moral compass.I guess that sort of refutes the "morals are impossible without Christianity" that I hear a lot of.
Unless they mean correct morals are impossible without Christianity, in which case they can go ahead and call my morals wrong. And I can ignore them :)
On the marriage thing, if what Moff says is true and there are a whole slew of laws working under the assumption that marriage is between a male and a female, then those laws probably make other assumptions as well, such as that the man is the money-maker or the woman is the primary child-rearer. Seeing as those concepts are also out of date wouldn't now be a good time to go in and demolish all the old laws? I mean families where the wife or both parents work are quite common, and children are raised more often by schools or day care as much as parents.
I think the current marriage laws are beginning to disadvantage the average person, or at least will soon, and when that happens change is only a matter of time. Then the gays can jump on the bandwagon and get their rights.
And then in 100 years time people will realize that marriage is now just a business partnership and it will go back to being a religious thing only. Which is where I think it should be personally. I don't see why you need to have an enshrined legal relationship if you don't believe in God. Why not just make vows in front of your friends and have the marriage as good as everyone's word, take all the finance stuff out of the equation? Likewise I think a religious marriage ceremony should have no legal force whatsoever.
Actually no, I was more offended by the fact that the parents forgave the prodigal son so readily when the good son had worked hard and been obedient his whole life. It offended my sense of justice. My beef was with the parents forgiving the prodigal in the first place, not that they rebuked the good son at the end.
Morals are funny things. Even as a small child I had a very strong sense of justice that was more in line with pagan mythology. I don't know where it came from, because it didn't tally with Christian notions and my family is catholic. Once my Catholic education started I found that what I intuitively thought of as right and wrong were at odds with what I was learning at school. I clearly remember reading and discussing that story (the prodigal son) in 4th grade, which would have been when I was 10. When the teacher said "the parents are like God, forgiving people no matter what they do if they're really sorry" I could tell this was supposed to make me love God, but it didn't. I thought if God was powerful he should be consistent and punish people who disobeyed him.
Likewise with the Judas story. I clearly remember this conversation, a year later in grade 5:
Me: "Did Judas go to hell?"
Teacher: "Yes, but not because of what he did to Jesus. He went to hell because he killed himself."
Me: "But doesn't God forgive everyone?"
Teacher: "God can't forgive people who take their own lives, no matter why they do it."
Me: "OK." (Thinking: It was very brave of Judas to do such a scary thing to show God he was sorry, and God sent him to hell?)My Catholicism didn't last more than a year or so after that, though it was many years before I was able to admit to others that I wasn't a Christian. Now I am at the stage where I follow my own nose no matter what, and even if I knew for a fact that God was real I would still not be a Christian. I don't think it's in me. My sense of justice has always been different and I think Christianity is unfair. Of course, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but they are all pretty much at odds with my moral compass.
If God is real then this is the way He made me. Maybe it's like Primus and the Modrons, some of them are deliberately programmed to go rogue for some inscrutable reason...
I completely get your reasons for being disatisfied with the answers you got, quite frankly they are a load of hogwash that have more to do with Catholic Theology than what the Bible actually teaches.
I find it very interesting that you disregarded Chrisianity (or at least Catholicism) becasue you were dissattisfied with the Justice of God.
The Bible clearly teached that God is Just. (It is all over the Bible. Here are the first few I found using a search for "Justice" Psalm 9, 11, 33, 36, Acts 17 among many many others). God is perfectly Just. He will punich wickedness. He will punish Evil.
But, He will punish them according to HIS standard, not ours. And so, ALL of us, every single one, are facing the horror of experiencing God's wrath for our sin.
But (and there is always a but, it is I think my favourite word in the entire Bible). But, he is also a God of Mercy. He will show mercy to those who love Him. He will show mercy to those who repent.
Quite rightly, it is hard to reconcile God's Justice and Mercy. How can He be both Just (punish wrong doing), and Merciful (forgive sinners)? This is the Fantastic news of the Cross. God, in His son, the man Jesus Christ takes that punishment we deserve on himself, so that we can be saved. It is at the Cross, where we see the Mercy and the Justice of God come together in the death of Jesus.
Jesus dies on the Cross as a Man, dieing the death we all deserve, taking the punishment from God that we deserve, so we can be saved.
But he also dies as God the Son. In Jesus death on the Cross, God takes the punishment we deserve on HIMSELF, so we might be spared.
I am trully sorry you think God is not Just. I am glad that God is Just. I am glad that those who do evil will have to face the consequences of their actions.
But I also rejoice that we have a loving merciful God, who died on the cross, so that I do not need to face the punishment and wrath my sins deserve.
As for the story of the Prodigal son, I can understand your offence at teh ready acceptance of the returing son. But that is sort of the point. We need to see that we have treated God just like the prodigal son did, and yet he still loves us so much that he welcomes us with open arms when we return. But the parable doesnt tell us everyhting about God. It is meant to illustrate God's love. And it does that well. But we need to not push it furhter than Jesus intended it to go. It was not meant to be a complete account of God, merely an illustration of His love.
As for Judas, I am offfended by your teachers explanation. Assuming Judas is in Hell (A fair assumption I feel, but we don't and can't know for sure), like anyone else, he is there becasue he rejected God and sought to live his own way. I like the contrast between Peter and Judas. Both denied and rejected Christ. But Peter sought forgiveness, while Judas killed himself. If Judas had sought forgiveness, God would have forgiven him.
Roman Catholic teaching is that those who commit suicide have comitted a sin that they are then unable to confess, and so can not be forgiven from. It is a wicked, evil teaching that completely distorts the Biblical message. When I am washed clean by the blood of the lamb, i am forgiven for every sin I have ever done, or ever will do, regardless of whether I confess it or not.
Of course, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but they are all pretty much at odds with my moral compass.I guess that sort of refutes the "morals are impossible without Christianity" that I hear a lot of.
I'm not sure if you are directing this at me or not.
Firstly, I agree that those who say the claim "morality is impossible without Chrisitanity" is complete rubbish.
But I would like to restate (not to reopen a can of worms we dealt with a number of pages back), that without some "higher power" I don't see how it is possible to have an OBJECTIE basis for morality.
Of course, there are many different interpretations of Christianity, but they are all pretty much at odds with my moral compass.I guess that sort of refutes the "morals are impossible without Christianity" that I hear a lot of.Unless they mean correct morals are impossible without Christianity, in which case they can go ahead and call my morals wrong. And I can ignore them :)
On the marriage thing, if what Moff says is true and there are a whole slew of laws working under the assumption that marriage is between a male and a female, then those laws probably make other assumptions as well, such as that the man is the money-maker or the woman is the primary child-rearer. Seeing as those concepts are also out of date wouldn't now be a good time to go in and demolish all the old laws? I mean families where the wife or both parents work are quite common, and children are raised more often by schools or day care as much as parents.
I think the current marriage laws are beginning to disadvantage the average person, or at least will soon, and when that happens change is only a matter of time. Then the gays can jump on the bandwagon and get their rights.
And then in 100 years time people will realize that marriage is now just a business partnership and it will go back to being a religious thing only. Which is where I think it should be personally. I don't see why you need to have an enshrined legal relationship if you don't believe in God. Why not just make vows in front of your friends and have the marriage as good as everyone's word, take all the finance stuff out of the equation? Likewise I think a religious marriage ceremony should have no legal force whatsoever.
This sounds rather like the system in France. But if I recall correctly, they don't recognise a marriage performed in a church at all. So if you want to get married win a Church, it doesn't "count" until you have also had the required civil ceremnoy as well.
Personally, I would love for things to go the way you are suggesting, then a marriage in a church wil lactually mean somehting again. I greatly dislike the ease with which we can dissolve a marriage these days. Sure, in some cases they need to be resolved (domestic violence etc), but I wish they weren't so easy to get out of when the only issue is that you have got tired of each other.
But I would like to restate (not to reopen a can of worms we dealt with a number of pages back), that without some "higher power" I don't see how it is possible to have an OBJECTIE basis for morality.
You may well be right about that, but it doesn't help the arguments of religious folk much - in order for a higher power to be the source of objective authority that power first has to be universally recognized, which none of them are. Unless a power is universally recognized it's authority is not objective.
I like the sound of that French marriage system. The way it is now marriage is not really anything. No one seems sure whether it is a legal (and therefore secular) contract or a religious one. To me the two main things when making ethical legislation should be clarity and consistency, two things which are lacking in the common understanding of marriage. I mean what IS it, legally speaking? What is it meant to uphold? Family? God? What are those things, legally speaking? Too many questions...
You may well be right about that, but it doesn't help the arguments of religious folk much - in order for a higher power to be the source of objective authority that power first has to be universally recognized, which none of them are. Unless a power is universally recognized it's authority is not objective.But I would like to restate (not to reopen a can of worms we dealt with a number of pages back), that without some "higher power" I don't see how it is possible to have an OBJECTIVE basis for morality.
Not quite. To be objective, the authority does not need to be recognised, it needs to exist. However, for everyone to repect the claim to authority (and morals etc that go with it), they do need to recognise and acknowledge the authority. It is a subtle difference.
God exists. He says adultery is wrong. I don't care if the entire world disagrees with me and doesn't acknowledge God. He is still there, and adultery is still wrong. Now, if the entire world disagrees with me, it is probabaly a good sign that i need to seriously think baout my position, but God's standards exist whether or not people believe and follow them.
I like the sound of that French marriage system. The way it is now marriage is not really anything. No one seems sure whether it is a legal (and therefore secular) contract or a religious one. To me the two main things when making ethical legislation should be clarity and consistency, two things which are lacking in the common understanding of marriage. I mean what IS it, legally speaking? What is it meant to uphold? Family? God? What are those things, legally speaking? Too many questions...
I agree with you here. The church I attended last year (before I moved to Sydney), was a nice big old sandstone building. We would regualrly have 20 or more couple a year who owuld want to get married in our church, but who unashamedly were not religious at all. Much better if we can get the whole area cleared up and set our clearly what is legal, what is financial, wht is spiritual, what is relational etc.
But I would like to restate (not to reopen a can of worms we dealt with a number of pages back), that without some "higher power" I don't see how it is possible to have an OBJECTIvE basis for morality.
I agree; I just don't see why that "higher power" has to be supernatural, inerrant, and/or immutable.
To be objective, the authority does not need to be recognised, it needs to exist. God exists. I don't care if the entire world disagrees with me and doesn't acknowledge God.
But your belief in--and conception of--God is entirely subjective. Which is not a bad thing; faith is not an objective matter, nor should be, or it becomes simple mechanics rather than a religious experience.
We're learning on these boards that there are an almost limitless number of ways to interpret the Bible, and the God therein. And that's not even including non-Christian conceptions of God, or of non-God. I can't see that there is any "objectivity" about it, without falling back on the position that you define your opinion as "objective," and everyone else's as "subjective" (except in specific instances in which they happen to agree with you). Maybe a "Biblical morality" would be a better definition, or "higher morality" inasfar as you believe your version to be more valid than others. (Not trying to be sarcastic here--my quibble in this case is with the term "objective" and the premise presupposing it, not with anything else you've said.)
An "objective" basis should be the same for all observers. I'd almost want to propose that anything manifestly causing harm or suffering to others, without preventing more of the same in the observable future, would be "evil," and that the reverse is "good." I'll hasten to add that this definition is NOT in any way better than the one you propose--after all, it's my opinion--but if it's accepted, morality does come closer to an objective standard (it's still not there, because you could claim that chopping off an arm causes no harm, and I'd be hard pressed to refute you, because the victim is not actually dead, and won't die if you apply proper medical care).
Actually no, I was more offended by the fact that the parents forgave the prodigal son so readily when the good son had worked hard and been obedient his whole life...
Likewise with the Judas story...
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying your position. I can't say that I agree with it, obviously, but you've explained your beliefs and I've no right to argue them. I will say, in the kindest implication possible, that your view of justice without room for mercy seems a bit harsh to me. It seems that if God should just punish everyone who disobeys without mercy, then there would be no reason for Jesus to die on the cross or for salvation to exist - after all, the Bible is clear that ALL have sinned and deserve God's full wrath as punishment. That life without hope seems illogical to me (and doesn't reflect well on an omniscient God either).
With the Judas story, it was wise, IMO, for the person who brought up the comparison to Peter. Peter screwed up several times throughout his time with Jesus on earth, the biggest example probably that of his triple denial following Jesus' arrest. But Peter was a vocal & "active" believer in Jesus before each sin and repentant after each sin. We see no evidence of either of these states in Judas. When forming your conclusions about Judas and his behavior/fate, did you factor in the scriptures that Judas was characterized from the beginning by selfish and "unChristian" behavior even before his betrayal of Christ? There is evidence that Judas was not really a "Christian" at all, but rather, one of these people who follows along without inner faith. Peter acknowledged early on that he believed Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, etc. The few verses that specifically mention Judas as an individual mention only that he argued with Christ, was embezzling money as the official treasurer, rebuked Jesus's acts of forgiveness, and - most infamously - agreed to betray Jesus for a small profit. He may have felt sorry after committing the act (as evidenced by his attempts to return the money) but still rushed out to kill himself rather than pray or seek forgiveness in any similar way. Just something to consider before feeling too much pity for Judas.
Maybe a "Biblical morality" would be a better definition...An "objective" basis should be the same for all observers...
I agree. The term "Biblical morality" is more accurate and a better representation of what is being compared here. There are probably some morals that all reasonable people can agree on and others that different groups would disagree completely with. The "higher" (and I cringe to use that word but can't think of a different one) morality demonstrated by Christ is impossible to achieve without God. "General" morality (again, not the best adjective) is possible without faith/belief in any significant authority.
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying your position. I can't say that I agree with it, obviously, but you've explained your beliefs and I've no right to argue them. I will say, in the kindest implication possible, that your view of justice without room for mercy seems a bit harsh to me.
Well, I was a 10 year old with two siblings! And I was one of those annoying kids who always demanded equal treatment for everyone no matter what. That was my honest response to the story and having the correct interpretation explained to me didn't really change my mind then or now - you can't help which arguments persuade you and which don't.
It seems that if God should just punish everyone who disobeys without mercy, then there would be no reason for Jesus to die on the cross or for salvation to exist - after all, the Bible is clear that ALL have sinned and deserve God's full wrath as punishment. That life without hope seems illogical to me (and doesn't reflect well on an omniscient God either).
Precisely. Which is why I am not a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. I also found it hard to believe as a child that everyone had sinned and deserved God's wrath automatically. That was another thing I thought of as unfair. And it seems to me that a God who wasn't fair wasn't God. That may not be unassailable logic, but like I said I was 10. The basic premise of the whole shebang just doesn't gel with me and never really has.
With the Judas story...
No, I didn't factor any of that in. I essentially had a gut response that suicide = the ultimate apology and God threw it away. Judas (and all humans) are essentially powerless in the face of God, and Judas did (to me as a kid) the scariest thing a person could do to show remorse, and God cast him into supernatural damnation. The other main feature of my sense of justice as a kid was sympathy for the underdog an extreme dislike of bullies and powerful people who abused their power. I was like that even before the bashing incident I talked about earlier (in fact all of this was before then). In pre-school in England during the Falklands war my teacher called my parents in because the class was asked to draw pictures of the war, and I drew an Argentine ship sinking a British one. My parents had to explain to the teacher that they weren't traitors, I just felt sorry for the Argentinians because the news always made out that England was thrashing them!
The Judas story made God out to be a bully in my eyes, whether that was a "correct" interpretation or not.
I have respect for any person of principle, Christians included, but what I respect in the case of Christians is their commitment to their belief, not the belief itself which as I said before is just not for me. Some people like chocolate ice-cream and some like strawberry I guess :)
...Precisely. Which is why I am not a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. I also found it hard to believe as a child that everyone had sinned and deserved God's wrath automatically. That was another thing I thought of as unfair. And it seems to me that a God who wasn't fair wasn't God. That may not be unassailable logic, but like I said I was 10. The basic premise of the whole shebang just doesn't gel with me and never really has.
Thank you for explaining your viewpoint. I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. I was thinking later (after posting my last post) that it would probably be better from your point of view if you didn't believe God existed at all. Then it occured to me that maybe you didn't. *Do* you believe that an all-powerful God exists? I can't remember if you've stated earlier if you were Buddhist or an athiest or what. I apologize for forgetting where you stand. This entire thread is so complex that it's hard for me to keep track of everyone. Anyway, thanks again for bringing me up to speed on your beliefs.
Well I usually characterize myself as a non-theist, which I guess is an agnostic in theory and an atheist in practice. I think deities may very well exist but I think it's none of my business if they do and it doesn't affect my life either way. I won't bother them if they don't bother me ;)
A good way to illustrate my feelings on the matter is the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. I can't remember if I've already mentioned it here but to paraphrase, a man is shot by a poisoned arrow, and his family rushes him to a doctor, but the man refuses to accept any treatment until he has found out who shot him, why, what sort of bow they used, who sold them the poison, etc. While he is asking all of these quesions the poison takes effect and he dies. The Buddha was saying that speculating on things like the existence of deities and what their wishes might be, or what happens after death is a bit piointless when we have life to worry about. We're here and so we should deal with the situation without being distracted by things that frankly might not be real.
On another note, I have gone into quite a bit of detail as to why I believe/don't believe what I do, and some of the atheists like Sexi Golem have likewise given events in their lives which turned them from religion. Kirth has told us how he came to be a Buddhist. Would any of the Christians like to tell us what made you a Christian assuming you weren't raised as one, or what keeps you one if you were?
On another note, I have gone into quite a bit of detail as to why I believe/don't believe what I do, and some of the atheists like Sexi Golem have likewise given events in their lives which turned them from religion. Kirth has told us how he came to be a Buddhist. Would any of the Christians like to tell us what made you a Christian assuming you weren't raised as one, or what keeps you one if you were?
I grew up in a Christian home. My parents are both Christian, and I grew up going to church and sunday school every week, and even went to Boys Brigade (Think Christian Boy Scouts). I always knew the gospel. I always knew that we can't save ourselves. That we are completely reliant on Jesus death on the Cross on our behalf. If you asked me a question about the Bible, there was a fair chance i would know the answer (at least what you would expect a child to know). But it never really felt like it was "mine". I always felt like I was my parents kind, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, as I got older, and finished High School, I started going out on Saturday nights, so early morning church was out, and playing soccer on Sundays and going for a few drinks after the game, so Sunday night Chruch was also out, so I stopped going. But all the stuff I elarnt from Sunday School, that God made the World, that Jesus died on the corss to save sinners, that we are saved only through what Jesus haas done, all that stuff kept quietly and slowly churning away in the back of my head.
Anyway, after highschool, i headed to university to study IT, but I dropped out after a year, and ended up getting a job as a laborer in a Abboitour (sp? - Slaughter House). Anyway, after about 12 (maybe 18?)months or so of this, I distinctly remember thinking "This sucks. I'm not doing this for the next 40 years. I'm going back to uni to get a "real" job". So i started the process of returning to university.
This involved travelling to a scholarship interview about an hour and a half away (a town called Leeton for those who know Country NSW). ON the way there and back, I had a good chat with my Mum about what exactly I was thinking about Christianity.
As I result of that conversation, I remember a bit later coming to the conclusion that, Yes, I did believe the Gospel. I did believe that Jesus died on the Corss to save sinners. But I also realised that meant He died on the Cross for MY sins. And if He died for me, then He was my LORD, and so I owed him my whole life. I like to describe my "conversion" as a bregrudging acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus.
Anyway, by this stage, it was about time to head to Univeristy (no, I didn't get the scholarship), which involed moving to Wollongong, about 4 hours away from home. I decided that since I was already making one significant change in my life, this would be a good time to actually check out Christianity as an adult, for myself, and seriously see what it meant for me. So Id ecided to get stuck into it once I got to Wollongong.
Anyway, my brother, who had already moved to Wollongong 2 years earlier, found me a place to live with two other guys from the church He was at, and I started going to church, attending Bible study, and got involved in the Christian group at University. I think I worked out at one stage I was spending some time nearly evry day studying the Bible with someone or some group.
Anyway, that was a great time, that God used to teach me heaps about himself, and about what it means to follow him. Since then, I have aonly continued to grow more and more in love and knowledge of Him as i seek to daily live my life for Him.
If you were to ask me why I am still a Christian, It is probabaly becasue I know that I can not save myself. I am a terrible sinner, TOTALLY reliant on God's Grace to save me. And He tells me that if I trust Him, He will save me, and He has given me no reason to doubt His word so far, so why would I?
On another note, I find that God, as revealed i nthe Bible makes the most sense of the world around us, and why things are the way they are. This doesn;t neccesarily keep me a Chrisitan, but it does give me confidence that I can continue to trust God.
no, I suppose it's not hedonism if you get no direct pleasure. But (correct me if I'm wrong) what you are saying is that you follow Judaism because your family does and you think that it's important to uphold tradition?
Consider yourself corrected then.
I would say that making life easier and more pleasant for members of your family/tribe/nation/species makes life easier for yourself. I think we covered this a while back when I said that most of the basic ethics of co-operation in most cultures seem built in to people, perhaps through natural selection. The ones who didn't play well with others died out. The mitzvot are a codification of this. So pleasure for everyone around you brings pleasure to you. This is why i say it's all hedonistic. I admit that this is a very broad definition of hedonism though and thus not useful, so how about I say "being good to...
If you're syaing this I can guarantee you aren't Jewish and have never dealt with a jewish Mother. :P
I follow my religion because of the deep ties to my family and the deep connection I feel when I practise it. it is not pleasure in any way shape or form that I feel. it is a sense of completeness and rightness about the things that I do. Even if I find Jesus somewhere, Judaisim allways considers me a Jew, becuase my mother ir Jewish, I was became Bar Mitzvah and Confirmed. It's different from Christianity in that it traces back my family to biblical days. It's literally in my blood. I dabbled around with other religions and ideas, but what seemed right most of all was Judaism.
ALL societies encourage cooperation within it. Anyone who cannot exist peacefully within a society is expelled for obvious reasons. In the days of hunter/gatherers these weak links had to be severed for survival's sake. So in a way, yes. However, the 10 Commandments are there to set the rules for society. There's a more spiritual aspect to the Mitzvot, so it in essence becomes something more. Just wanted to clarify.
Precisely. Which is why I am not a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. I also found it hard to believe as a child that everyone had sinned and deserved God's wrath automatically. That was another thing I thought of as unfair. And it seems to me that a God who wasn't fair wasn't God. That may not be unassailable logic, but like I said I was 10. The basic premise of the whole shebang just doesn't gel with me and never really has.
You need to look into the religions a LOT more. Islam and Judaism do NOT believe in original sin. Everyone starts life clean and fresh, and G-d Loves you. Not sure where you got that.
With the Judas story...No, I didn't factor any of that in. I essentially had a gut response that suicide = the ultimate apology and God threw it away. Judas (and all humans) are essentially powerless in the face of God, and Judas did (to me as a kid) the scariest thing a person could do to show remorse, and God cast him into supernatural damnation. The other main feature of my sense of justice as a kid was sympathy for the underdog an extreme dislike of bullies and powerful people who abused their power. I was like that...
You are looking at it with the wrong mindset. During the time it happened, it had been a long standing tradition that suicide was a very bad act. One condemned by G-d for ANY reason. Viewed with modern sensibilities, one could see it as a final act of apology or guilt. But in context it was a final act of self damnation and he would have known it.
You are looking at it with the wrong mindset. During the time it happened, it had been a long standing tradition that suicide was a very bad act. One condemned by G-d for ANY reason. Viewed with modern sensibilities, one could see it as a final act of apology or guilt. But in context it was a final act of self damnation and he would have known it.
Of course, if morals are contextual, then the whole "inerrancy of Scripture" thing goes right out the window...
I greatly dislike the ease with which we can dissolve a marriage these days.
This is exactly one of the reasons I mistrust the practice. If mariage is a permenant and holy bond between people, why do we have laws that make it possable to remove? (Although, on the easy note: My parents took about five or six years to finalize their divorce. This may have been just the conduct of the lawyers though, I haven't heard nice things about those specific ones involved...)
Sure, in some cases they need to be resolved (domestic violence etc), but I wish they weren't so easy to get out of when the only issue is that you have got tired of each other.
And we come to reason #2 I mistrust mariage: Getting tired of each other without resulting in violence can be just as damaging. One of my earliest memeories is of my parents fighting over how and why a hairbrush was in the car. I think that my parents' divorce kept me from becoming more maladjusted than my genes already made me; living with that sort of hostility for 18 years may have warped my view of love and partnership.
There are probably some morals that all reasonable people can agree on
Here's some food for thought: There is a polynesian tribe that I've read about (the name escapes me right now) where it is considered good reason to be suspicious of everyone. All a person's neighbors are practicioners of black magic. The common response to a good turn is "and if you now poison me how will I repay you?"
This may seem to have no bearing at all on your statement, but I am not debating "morality" but rather "reasonable". It may seem to you and I that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that our neighbors have no wish to poison us, but that would be crazy talk to the people above. Reason is about as subjective as religion.
On another note, I have gone into quite a bit of detail as to why I believe/don't believe what I do, and some of the atheists like Sexi Golem have likewise given events in their lives which turned them from religion. Kirth has told us how he came to be a Buddhist. Would any of the Christians like to tell us what made you a Christian assuming you weren't raised as one, or what keeps you one if you were?
My own personal faith (I'm not Christian, but figured that I should reiterate my stuff for record's sake), is the result of first the sort of questioning that led you and Sexi away from Christianity, and experimenting with atheism and buddhism for a while (in that order -- sorry Kirth, Buddhism is a great philosophy but too dogmatic for my taste), and then realized that I still believed in god, but not in the same way as everyone else seemed to. It's very difficult to describe, sort of an energy/drive/connection I get in certain circumstances, I guess I decided to call it god. My personal ethics stems from a "higher power" of humanity as a whole, rather than god, as I'm not quite sure what to make of him/her/it just yet, hasn't really told me anything yet outside of just feelings of wellbeing and connectivity.
Sorry Kirth, Buddhism is a great philosophy but too dogmatic for my taste
I'd be interested in what you studied; one of the great things for me about the Buddha's teachings is the total lack of dogmatism, and even flagrant attacks on it: "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher'." A dogmatic Buddhist is like a satanic Christian--sure, there are some, but they're sort of missing the whole point.
My karma ran over your dogma.