|
At the same time, I've known a surprising number of people who send their kids to church to "get some morals" without actually going to church themselves. Apparently it's not just some misguided Christians who feel that morals only come from religion.
Once again, don't let a few "bad apples" spoil your opinion of religion or Christians. Or do all atheists want to be lumped together with the few bad examples of atheists. There are quite a number of "Christians" around that I don't want speaking for me.
At the same time, I've known a surprising number of people who send their kids to church to "get some morals" without actually going to church themselves. Apparently it's not just some misguided Christians who feel that morals only come from religion.
Once again, don't let a few "bad apples" spoil your opinion of religion or Christians. Or do all atheists want to be lumped together with the few bad examples of atheists. There are quite a number of "Christians" around that I don't want speaking for me.
Of course. I was agreeing with Kirth, that, in my experience, it is the people out there declaring their moral superiority that often have the biggest problems themselves. I don't think that is confined to any particular belief system.
|
|
Of course. I was agreeing with Kirth, that, in my experience, it is the people out there declaring their moral superiority that often have the biggest problems themselves. I don't think that is confined to any particular belief system.
I've found that to be true as well. I wonder if there is something psychological about that. It's kind of like when kids in middle school tease people that they actually really like. It's like people think that if they denounce to others what they themselves are secretly doing, then it counters itself. Or something like that.
As I said, long-term empirical usefulness goes a long way. Screw someone over today, and it maybe seems like a good strategy to someone short-sighted, if they get away with it this time. But we live in a society, and in the long term, use of those tactics is always uncovered, and leads to more woe than it's worth. Helping others, on the other hand, reaps dividends far more often than it doesn't
My point goes deeper than that.
What makes "empirical usefulness" a desired outcome?
What makes woe woe?
What makes those dividends worth reaping?
These are the questions that I think are VERY hard to answer without an external moral authority.
What makes good good and bad bad?
Why is murder wrong? If there is no God, and humans are just like any other animal, why is killing a person wrong, but killing another creature alright?
Please do NOT hear me saying I think all atheists are ammoral jerks who go around killing babies.
But I am trying to understand how, without an external moral authority, anyone has the authority to tell someone else their actions are "bad". What makes one persons moral code any better, (or valid if you like), than any others?
But I am trying to understand how, without an external moral authority, anyone has the authority to tell someone else their actions are "bad". What makes one persons moral code any better, (or valid if you like), than any others?
We all have a built-in survival instinct, and dislike of suffering. You can claim those are moral "choices," but they're not; they're flat-out hard-wired in. The strategies I've outlined minimize suffering and needless death by feuding. These strategies have been practiced long enough, by the way, that most people have an internal moral authority and know full well that it's foolish ("bad") to just up and kill one's neighbor. You can claim that God put that knowledge there, or Dawkins can make a case that it was selected for, but in either case, there you have it.
Unprovoked murder is a losing strategy in all societies, no matter what kind of spin you put on it. There is absolutely nothing relative about it; no amount of self-justification on one's part makes it a more successful strategy. One doesn't need someone else to tell him it's "bad." One doesn't need a Bible to tell him that, either, unless there's something wrong with him.
Re: killing animals: one must eat. To do so, plants and/or animals must die. That makes me feel sorry for the plants/animals both, but, like I said, we all have an instinct for self-preservation. The best we can do in this case is not starve, and at the same time avoid killing animals for reasons other than food as much as possible. (P.S. Eating people has too many health risks associated with it, and is best avoided.)
Now, if your claim is that a survival instinct can only be God's work, feel free. But whether God put it there or it is a natural product of selection, it's there, either way.
The way I see it, we all have a deeply seated need to feel we act in a morally acceptable way. We see it in ourselves, we see it in tiny children who claim that "that's no fair!", we see it when people argue. We want to be able to look ourselves in the mirror without feeling shame.
We act toward other people, and see the results of our actions on them. We see their actions toward us, and feel the results in our own lives. And something in our brains tells us that perhaps these processes are exactly the same thing, only with different viewpoints. This something is the mass of neurons in our prefrontal cortex that we call mirror neurons.
There are people who do not feel shame, naturally. We call those people psychopaths, sociopaths, or currently we say that they have an antisocial personality disorder. When examined, what one generally finds is that they have defect or absent mirror neurons.
For the rest of us, this is a process we're always involved in. From the first conscious decisions we make, we want to do right to people in our environment. As we grow older, we seek to refine this sense of right and wrong more or less consciously. Far from being something we're born with, or given by God, it is nevertheless an active process, in which we reevaluate ourselves and our behaviour constantly.
Obviously, not everyone has exactly the same views of right and wrong. This leads to conflict, and reevaluation. Some views we felt were necessary prove less so with more insight. Some things we never cared about loom larger with age. And most interestingly, a very common phenomenon is that when someone finds a sufficiently complete set of moral guidelines, they consider themselves fully taught, and start meeting any criticism with simple denial. Further down the road, people adapt the normal language used regarding morals within their favoured community. After that, it's virtually impossible to debate with such a person, simply because the language barrier is too high.
So which such "complete sets" are there? Well, I would say that each of the utopian ideologies satisfies the bill nicely. So does every religious dogma I have seen. So far the systems of morals that are based on an external authority.
For those of us without such a system, it keeps getting more difficult. We can never lay back and call ourselves fully taught in moral situations. Even if we never find a system of thought that we can completely agree with, we strive toward moral "truth".
The difference is that we KEEP striving, and refuse to defer the issue to a book somewhere.
If what your refer to as 'moral "choices"' are hard-wired, then why do children need explaining to them that it isn't acceptable for them to beat on their brother/sister like that?
Excellent question; I should have explained that the ability to learn which choices are self-defeating is hard-wired (in everyone who isn't a sociopath). We discipline children so that they'll refrain from "wrong" acts long enough to learn for themselves that those acts are indeed not viable. Left on his own, sooner or later the bratty kid you mentioned would almost certainly figure out that having his little sister as a constant enemy is not useful, but we prefer to prevent some of the beatings she'd have to endure while he's figuring that out. People are often slow to learn. Some people are VERY slow to learn, and end up well into adulthood without having figured any of this out. It requires observation.
Re: tyrants, look at the non-benevolent dictatorship of your choice; the tyrant is often deposed, often through murder; before then, he almost invariably promotes suffering in everyone and generates nothing but hatred for himself. Many of these dictators probably are capable of learning that their tactics are self-defeating, but they often don't live long enough... or have generated so much animosity early on that they can't reverse course without being immediately lynched.
There is that 'often'; it does work for some, and I suspect that if we wanted to derail this thread in the direction of a political flame-war, we could name some examples who died in their beds of old age, or who were only removed by outside agencies. I grant that exceptions may not completely disprove a hypothesis, however.
Agreed all around, although the fact that many of the ones are removed by outside agencies still speaks well for those agents' ability to figure out that the situation in country "X" isn't going to work out.
As far as disproving this hypothesis, yeah, I see no simple way to provide enough evidence one way or the other; all we can really do is go from personal experience and observed examples.
|
|
From the first conscious decisions we make, we want to do right to people in our environment. As we grow older, we seek to refine this sense of right and wrong more or less consciously.
Religion aside, I pretty much disagree with the first part of this. I really feel that "morality" is something that is learned and taught.
Watching my children grow up has really given me a sense of this. From the moment my two-year-old looks at me square in the eye, takes a spoonful of Mac 'n' Cheese, holds it over the floor, and dumps it.
I feel that innately, people want to get their way. Morality is learned and/or taught. (Also, I think that intelligence and experience may teach people that one of the best ways to "get what you want" is to help others and get along.)
The testimony of the Bible is that God handed knowledge, language and law to his people. It is historically accurate, and geographically factual. We know all that.
No, we do not.
|
My take on the subject:
My point goes deeper than that.
What makes "empirical usefulness" a desired outcome?
What makes woe woe?
What makes those dividends worth reaping?
These are the questions that I think are VERY hard to answer without an external moral authority.
What makes good good and bad bad?
Why is murder wrong? If there is no God, and humans are just like any other animal, why is killing a person wrong, but killing another creature alright?
This all fits into the category of "things mankind will never know." There are topics and concepts that the human being simply cannot wrap their minds around- just think about it. Why would we have been asking these exact same questions for millennia?
Cool. (Not an atheist, but still appreciated.)
It doesn't. Judging others based on your own personal standards has little benefit. If you need to judge someone, judge them based on theirs. Anyway, that's my stand on the subject.
|
|
Which is more important: Faith in a God or Good acts?
This argument is actually one of the oldest in the christian church. St. Augustine (arguably the father of western christianity) says that no one can go to heaven unless they have faith in God and Christ, but during his lifetime there was much contention over this.
A british monk named Pelagius argued that even if you had faith in God/Christ that if you acted wrongly then you'd never see heaven. If you weren't christian but acted as a good neighbor then God could forgive you your ignorance. His work was deemed heretical.
This has always sort of bugged me that good people, such as the Dalai Lama, would be doomed regardless of how much good they actually did. What is everyone else's take?
This has always sort of bugged me that good people, such as the Dalai Lama, would be doomed regardless of how much good they actually did. What is everyone else's take?
As a Buddhist, rather than a Christian, I'll sit that one out!
|
|
This has always sort of bugged me that good people, such as the Dalai Lama, would be doomed regardless of how much good they actually did. What is everyone else's take?
As a Buddhist, rather than a Christian, I'll sit that one out!
Kirth -- not really related to the question presented, but in my limited research into Buddhism, It seemed like the Dalai Lama subscribed to a different "brand" (denomination?) of Buddhism than most others. Where do you fit in?
Kirth -- not really related to the question presented, but in my limited research into Buddhism, It seemed like the Dalai Lama subscribed to a different "brand" (denomination?) of Buddhism than most others. Where do you fit in?
I personally practice Zen Buddhism, which is like Buddhism after a heavy housecleaning -- austere, extremely anti-dogmatic, and experiential, with no frills or side trips. It's like the passage of the Buddha's message through China stripped it of everything but the basic core and some new Taoist vocabulary.
Tibetan Buddhism has a vast expanse of tradition and mythology and stuff attached to it, some of which is nice cultural baggage, some of which is totally unnecessary, and some of which is (in my opinion) a needless distraction or even outright silly (think of the Dalai Lama as something like the Catholic Pope, in that respect).
In the larger picture, there are two main schools of Buddhism, Mahayana ("great vehicle") and Theravada; Zen is a technically a sect of the Mahayana school, whereas Tibetan Buddhism is a fairly bizarre (to my mind) mix of Mahayana thought along with Therevada and other stuff.
Thank-you. Interesting to exchange points of debate with you. :)
Thank you as well; interesting and well-thought-out posts, all. I would be wise to follow your example, and lurk more and post less, but I seem to be a slow learner...
What is everyone else's take?
I have a hard time believing in a caring compassionate god that would only appear to a select few and tell them what he wanted. Since god is all knowing, he knows some people are going to doubt. So he is setting them up for failure. And the poor saps who never got the message (outside of missionary range), sucks to be you.
I would be wise to follow your example, and lurk more and post less...
Even more important, in my opinion, is to talk less and listen more in real life.
And I mean truly listen.
Even more important, in my opinion, is to talk less and listen more in real life. And I mean truly listen.
Do I know you IRL? Just curious...
I mean the royal You. I do not think we know each other.
|
|
As a Buddhist, rather than a Christian, I'll sit that one out!
I'm not meaning to be exclusively pointing this out from a Judeo-Christian perspective either. I just want to know how people feel or think about good deeds in a religious context.
In case you're curious, I'm pretty much agnostic and my girlfriend is a Daoist (former presbyterian).
Not to ramble, but once my girlfriend told me a story about how she babysat for her old neighbor's little girls. One day they asked her what religion she was. She told them that she was a presbyterian (at the time), and they began to cry because they thought that she'd go to hell.
So, if you need another example then I guess that my girlfriend could fit the bill.
|
|
So what would be "good enough"?
That's part of the question actually. I just want to know if good deeds seem important.
"Seem important"? Good deeds are certainly important for Christians. At the very least there's the "Whatever you do to/for the least of these you are doing to Me" concept.
The "problem" is that it is separate from what Christians feel about "salvation". And this is where a lot of hard feelings come into play. People who are not Christian seem to feel that all "God" is is some great judge who keep sending people to Hell. While the truth is that there is a lot more written about being saved and salvation than true condemnation. There is no "good enough". Most (all?) other religions seem to have some form of ambiguous concept of doing good for some end result. Christianity right from the beginning says that none of us is good enough to get into perfection. Christ's sacrifice has taken care of that for us. It truly is a gift/grace concept that seems to be difficult for many to understand.
From this, the next "logical" question becomes -- So what about all the people who never got this message, etc. I did my best to answer that difficult question about 20 pages back. In a nutshell, it's presumptuous to assume that God hasn't thought about that. So assuming that He did think about it, the question becomes why didn't he let us in on his master plan -- which is a very different question. (And I find I'm getting off topic...)
The answer to your question is in Ephesians 2:8-10. It says that we are saved through grace and not by works. But it also says that because of what Christ has done for us, we should certainly be doing our best to make the world a better place.
So -- are good deeds important? Yes, but not for salvation. Which I think, psychologically is a better way to go. Otherwise, actions are more likely based on fear rather than on love.
So assuming that He did think about it, the question becomes why didn't he let us in on his master plan -- which is a very different question. (And I find I'm getting off topic...)
I will happily jump off topic with you, Moff.
“God works in mysterious ways” has never been a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a con man’s trick to me. When I examine things about the bible which do not make sense to me, I think “Is it more likely this is all true and simply beyond my capability of understanding or was it all made up and simply riddled with human error?”
I agree that it is all about faith. I could never prove the bible is a complete work of fiction any more than you can prove is was divinely inspired. For me, it comes down to which seems more reasonable.
So -- are good deeds important? Yes, but not for salvation. Which I think, psychologically is a better way to go. Otherwise, actions are more likely based on fear rather than on love.
I'd think that, if grace alone was sufficient for salvation, you'd have people (and I've seen plenty of this, BTW) performing manifestly evil acts but still smugly self-righteous regarding their own salvation. "Well, all people are sinners," they rationalize, "but I repent." Then they go and do it again. Or, they use what I think of as the Lott Excuse: "Well, lots of people are worse than me! At least I'm trying! [kind of]"
If grace is a state of closeness with God, you'd think that good deeds would go hand in hand with that. A person who, for example, cheats on their significant other would have to stop and say, "you know what, that was hardly an act of virtue; apparently I haven't accepted Jesus quite as much as I thought." But instead, all too often, I hear, "Well, I've accepted Jesus, and I [at least pretend to] feel bad about it now, so I'm still going to heaven and you heathens will burn forever!"
In other words... although I can't presonally speak for the Christian perspective, as I understand things, consistent good deeds (and lack of evil ones) AND grace would both be needed: the former as by-product of the latter.
|
|
In other words... although I can't presonally speak for the Christian perspective, as I understand things, consistent good deeds (and lack of evil ones) AND grace would both be needed: the former as by-product of the latter.
Quick drive by comment - I have to go out the door - so I have to type this quickly. Hope it makes sense:
Salvation is a combination of grace, faith and obedience. In the end, there is nothing one can do to earn salvation. But we are still expected to do right because 1) its the right thing to do, 2) it shows a heart that desires to truly conform to God's plan, 3) it is the natural result of being born again into a life of righteousness (Romans 6). The same passage that says we are saved by grace through faith in Ephesians continues to say that we are created in Christ Jesus for good works. Paul also reminds us God cannot be decieved. A man reaps what he sows. One of the requirements for salvation is repentance - a desire to change from the old ways that condemned us. Jesus says in Luke 13:3 that unless a man repents he will be condemned. so both righteousness and grace are needed and in point of fact Paul writes to Titus that the Grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness.
Paul also reminds us God cannot be decieved. A man reaps what he sows. One of the requirements for salvation is repentance - a desire to change from the old ways that condemned us. Jesus says in Luke 13:3 that unless a man repents he will be condemned.
Evidently you look at this the same way I do, that repeated evildoing followed by periods of swift "repentence" doesn't cut the mustard. Alas, that more self-proclaimed "Christians" don't see it that way; they use the "all men are sinners" and "infinite mercy" as a priori excuses for wrongdoing, then turn around and say "But I repent! Jesus, save me!" I'd assume there comes a point (like, immediately) when God knows most of these people are full of nonsense, and are just going to turn around and do it again -- even if they kid themselves otherwise.
|
|
Paul also reminds us God cannot be decieved. A man reaps what he sows. One of the requirements for salvation is repentance - a desire to change from the old ways that condemned us. Jesus says in Luke 13:3 that unless a man repents he will be condemned.Evidently you look at this the same way I do, that repeated evildoing followed by periods of swift "repentence" doesn't cut the mustard. Alas, that more self-proclaimed "Christians" don't see it that way; they use the "all men are sinners" and "infinite mercy" as a priori excuses for wrongdoing, then turn around and say "But I repent! Jesus, save me!" I'd assume there comes a point (like, immediately) when God knows most of these people are full of nonsense, and are just going to turn around and do it again -- even if they kid themselves otherwise.
I used to joke about the "pile of Jesus" left in R&D when all of the most annoyingly vocal "jailhouse converts" went home. Most of them were back in six months or so on a violation. I'd always ask them, "Um, what happened? Didn't you find Jesus here? Did you lose him at the gate??".
I know, occasionally, it happens that someone in prison legitimately finds religion and tries to do right, but take it from me, 99% of them are BS-ing. Keep that in mind when some hustler behind bars claims to have "found God", looking for sympathy from a parole board or a pardon commission...
|
|
[Evidently you look at this the same way I do, that repeated evildoing followed by periods of swift "repentence" doesn't cut the mustard. Alas, that more self-proclaimed "Christians" don't see it that way; they use the "all men are sinners" and "infinite mercy" as a priori excuses for wrongdoing, then turn around and say "But I repent! Jesus, save me!" I'd assume there comes a point (like, immediately) when God knows most of these people are full of nonsense, and are just going to turn around and do it again -- even if they kid themselves otherwise.
They're really missing the point of most of the Bible. They're not understanding what they should be doing and they really don't understand what "repentance" truly means. The Bible's pretty clear on this stuff. For example --
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
|
|
They're really missing the point of most of the Bible. They're not understanding what they should be doing and they really don't understand what "repentance" truly means. The Bible's pretty clear on this stuff. For example --
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
I'm impressed you'd see things this way. All too often I hear similar things to Kirth, people who really do think they're filled with faith but are otherwise idle or sometimes worse by actively working against it. I had a personal experience where the parents of one of my friends were fairly strong christians (at least in their opinion) who thought that the WIC program was useless. In case its not clear, WIC is the most successful program in history meant to provide for the needs of ailing families (specifically for infants). Its kind of a WTF moment when you first realize that what they're saying and doing are polar opposites.
I see you espouse a philosophy of both faith and action, but is either one more important in your opinion? The passage from James seems to indicate to me that you must show your faith to have it. Is that the intent?
|
|
They're really missing the point of most of the Bible. They're not understanding what they should be doing and they really don't understand what "repentance" truly means. The Bible's pretty clear on this stuff. For example --
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.I'm impressed you'd see things this way. All too often I hear similar things to Kirth, people who really do think they're filled with faith but are otherwise idle or sometimes worse by actively working against it. I had a personal experience where the parents of one of my friends were fairly strong christians (at least in their opinion) who thought that the WIC program was useless. In case its not clear, WIC is the most successful program in history meant to provide for the needs of ailing families (specifically for infants). Its kind of a WTF moment when you first realize that what they're saying and doing are polar opposites.
I see you espouse a philosophy of both faith and action, but is either one more important in your opinion? The passage from James seems to indicate to me that you must show your faith to have it. Is that the intent?
I would point out that it is possible to be a good Christian, be all in favor of helping the poor and still think that this is not the role or place of government. There is a difference between a person volunteering to do good for others with their own money and the government deciding who and when help should be given.
As to faith and action, as James says, I'll show you my faith through my actions. Faith without works is a worthless sort of faith. Or as James said, it is dead. On the other hand, actions apart from faith have no spiritual benefit. In point of fact, I would say that the Bible teaches it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reason and while others might benefit, you won't (c.f. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3; Matthew 6:1-18).
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
Jimmy there is my kind of guy! I can get behind that.
|
|
I see you espouse a philosophy of both faith and action, but is either one more important in your opinion? The passage from James seems to indicate to me that you must show your faith to have it. Is that the intent?
"Is either more important...?" I don't know that I can answer that. They really go hand in hand. I don't know that there is really an "importance" placed on either one.
I really feel sorry for the people that you and Kirth (and I for that matter) have frequently come in contact with. They are blind in their faith and I fear that they will be surprised in the end...
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
One thing to consider is that often times there are a good number of Christian organizations/denominations that are doing the "Good Work" but you would never know it. For example: I am currently part of the Covenant denomination. The denomination sets aside large pools of money for global emergencies. We have among the highest percentage of money actually reaching the cause (something like 98%). When something happens, they contact people who live in the area and figure out the best use of the money. They then come up with a plan and follow through from beginning to end. Which is typically long after it's gone from the news. One example was the tsunami that hit India. They were filtering money through for rebuilding and health and whatever else needed to be done for two years. But you most likely never heard about it. Because that wasn't the goal. The goal was to help people in need. It wasn't to be known. One of our current campaigns is towards ending slavery worldwide. This is a huge deal that will take an incredibly long time to end -- if it's even possible. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. But you won't see us in the news. And I don't think that you should. It is simply the right thing to do.
All I'm really trying to say is that while there are (quite) a number of people who really don't get the message of Christ yet think they do, there are quite a number of people who really do -- they just don't advertise it. It's just the right thing to do and it's what being a Christian is really about.
(Time to get off of my soap box. It's just a double-edged sword. If you advertise the great things that you do, you're not being humble about it. If you don't advertise, then people don't necessarily know what you really are doing.)
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My own personal religion (secular, doubt-based, pluralistic, syncretism) rejects the notion that anyone, anywhere has a monopoly on truth. (That which could be described as being omniscient can't rightly be called an "anyone".)
You misunderstand. I don't accuse religions of hubris. Not all of them anyway. I am saying that 12 Christians might agree that Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and then diverge on other beliefs based on their studies and background. In that sense, each of them acknowledges a shared set of beliefs, but then feels they have a slight stronger grasp than anyone else.
Some Christians have this useless, theological hubris, sure. But my point was that every religion feels it has a handle on the truth more than the others, whether they are similar or not. Even your belief (or non-belief) subtly maintains that claim. After all, if you believe I am wrong in my theology, you are making the claim that you know something I don't. In that exchange, we might be good friends, but one of us is incorrect. One of us has a monopoly on truth over the other.
I am curious, why would you reject the notion that anyone has a grasp on the truth. Is it because you don't believe there is a truth? Or because you don't consider its pursuit worthwhile?
|
|
So assuming that He did think about it, the question becomes why didn't he let us in on his master plan -- which is a very different question. (And I find I'm getting off topic...)
“God works in mysterious ways” has never been a good enough answer for me. It sounds like a con man’s trick to me. When I examine things about the bible which do not make sense to me, I think “Is it more likely this is all true and simply beyond my capability of understanding or was it all made up and simply riddled with human error?”
I agree that it is all about faith. I could never prove the bible is a complete work of fiction any more than you can prove is was divinely inspired. For me, it comes down to which seems more reasonable.
You're right. I also really have never liked the "mysterious ways" cop-out answer. It's not really meant to be a "con man's trick", however. It simply amounts to "I really don't know."
Here are a couple of thoughts directly about what we are talking about.
I did a lot of research and "soul searching" on this whole thing (and again, I posted a long post quite a while back). Every conclusion that I ended up coming back to suggested to me that what God wants every individual to have is a choice in the matter. The God that I know and read about through the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is not one that would condemn people just because they were born in this family or that family or on some remote island, etc. Because they wouldn't have had a choice about it and that is contradictory to what I believe and understand. So how or when is this choice made? I really don't know. I feel that most of the time it is in this life. We (you and I) have both made our respected choices. But then you and I have had more information to go on than others. So what about them? So, here again, we get into the "mysterious ways" which is code for "I don't know". It could be a vision or dream or some other miracle. It could simply be coming to some spiritual conclusion because of how perfect and wonderful nature is (as is loosely implied in Romans). There could be something more metaphysical with regards to the afterlife based on a passage in 1 Peter. It is most likely different with different people. But in the end, you're right. I really don't know and I simply have faith that God has it all worked out.
Ok, so that was a long "thought".
The other "thought" is that, the way I see it, there really isn't a "good" answer. Either 1) He tells us not to worry about it that He's got it covered or 2) He tells us that he doesn't have it covered and that anyone that doesn't get the message will burn forever in Hell. Neither one is really a "good" answer. In the first case, it takes the responsiblity away from us. And in many cases takes away the whole freedom of choice concept. And in the latter case, it implies that God lost control. I believe that there are times when not providing an answer is better than giving us an "answer" to everything. It's not wrong for us to figure out things for ourselves. The Bible doesn't have to provide an answer to everything -- it is there to help guide us in the right direction as well.
A little preachy but hope that helps a little in understanding my thoughts (random as they may be).
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I see you espouse a philosophy of both faith and action, but is either one more important in your opinion? The passage from James seems to indicate to me that you must show your faith to have it. Is that the intent?
I'd like to take a stab. Of course, from the outside it might be impossible to say whether someone is really a Christian. Can I honestly say that decades ago, Robert Tilton did not perhaps believe with his heart, and become a greedy, deceptive charlatan much later?
But the Bible - and you are wise to look into the book of James - gives us a pretty good idea who we can trust. I think that's important. In the early church, these 'Christians' would float into town professing to have wisdom from Paul or the Disciples. They would demand that someone pay them for their expenses, buy them clothes so they fit in locally, and might even get it on with the prostitutes of a neighboring temple (after all..when in Thessalonica...).
James made two great statements in his book. Faith without works is dead, and you can know that you have eternal life through Jesus. I believe in this way, a person can know to trus ttheir faith, and a person can know when someone is not living a faith they claim.
Now...a person with a genuine faith can be dead for a little while. I was so angry at God a few years ago I wouldn't be caught in a conversation like this. I judged people for having more than me because I fewlt I was a honest guy. I told my wife that God had the sovereignty to stop keeping His promises to me, and had apparently taken advantage of that. Lord forgive me, but I was mean, cynical and blasphemous. I was very wrong, and I knew it, but I was mad and that's where I aimed my confusion and disappointment. Clearly, my faith was dead, evidenced by the fact I had no joy, no witness, no love for the people around me, and wrote off the idea of being nice to people.
Enough whining, I just wanted to be sure and use myself as an example rather than speaking hypothetically. Now, my hope is entirely placed in Christ. And I am not minding my language or saying prayers with my kids at night just to get back into God's graces. I realized I never left said graces. The hope and happiness and (rather incompetent) pursuit of holiness are byproducts of a faith that was resurrected when I confessed and broke down in front of God. My tithe is a byproduct of faith. I don't talk to anyone about it, I don't try to control where it goes, other than during the normal course of voting on church business when that stuff comes up. I pray God can turn the tiny amount of money I choose to give up into food, Bibles (maybe even rifles...who knows) for thousands who need the Gospel and need economic and religious freedom. If I can be accused of any good works, they come from a heart that believes, as distinct from thinking that those acts are performed in exchange for a commuted sentence.
I think James, Ephesians and more are clear, we are not saved by being good people, but a genuine faith will make us better people. If we profess a faith and do not have a changed life or an expressed obedience, we might not be changed.
Now can we tell on the outside? Likely not. Anyone looking into my life three years ago would not have thought I was a Christian, but I have been a Christian for going on 23 years. In my heart I knew I believed something I couldn't reconcile with the world around me, and I gave up. Every person is different. If a football player gets suspended for smoking pot, then gets photographed hitting on a hooker before the Superbowl, then gets arrested outside a club, I am unlikely to believe he is a Christian, but I get that he might be. If he has those behaviors but says to the microphone after the game "I mean, I just give God all the glory, you know?" I am certainly cynical, but it's not for me to say. The Bible demands purity and goodness, and I'd be comfortabel telling said player "Can a Christian be getting drunk at these clubs all the time?" But ultimately, whether a dead faith was ever any faith at all is between him and God.
I know that I jumped in and likely missed the early discussion, but I am a big fan of the book of James, and I think the conversation about works and faith is important. After all, a lot of folks don't get the point of being sabved on God's terms. It can't be about goodness, because we can't become what God made us to be without reconciliation. The entire old Testament is a series of illustrations about coming to God on His terms and not ours. One rule, ten rules, judges, kings, religious leaders, etc.
None of us deserve heaven, but by grace we can be saved through faith, and not by the good things we do, because some of you are clearly better than me. Instead it is the gift of God through his son. (paraphrase)
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I have a hard time believing in a caring compassionate god that would only appear to a select few and tell them what he wanted. Since god is all knowing, he knows some people are going to doubt. So he is setting them up for failure. And the poor saps who never got the message (outside of missionary range), sucks to be you.
I think many times we look at God through our perspective and then dismiss anyhting that doesn't make sense. But then maybe the perspective is off.
If there is a sovereign God that created the universe, any theology that maximizes Him and minimizes us would be a good start. If you belive as Milton says, that God them gives men free will and let's Lucifer get involved so he can heap damnation on himself, then the soverignty of God, and his plan to reconcile creation to him is important to consider.
So..I was made to be perfect, but then I chose to separate myself from God and pursue choices outside of his plan for me. Now I am an honest guy, a good guy. But I can't be perfect. I don't intend to make God into something we can all understand, but as a simple example, if you've ever painted a miniature, and discovered it had flaws - even little ones - you'll know yu always know what they are. The gap where it's pinned is too big. The pupils are off and look ghetto, there's a bit of painted flash or whatnot. Even if it's a better model than most, the flaws are there and you'll always know it. It's not perfect. If you have a perfectionist nature, you can't stand it.
I do not. My models are always terrible. Just poorly painted vehicles for my plan to roll a lot of d6s, really. But you get my drift.
So God makes a plan to reconcile himself to us. He says 'you deserve to be scrapped, but I don't want that. I'll scrap a perfect model and in that process, you'll be reconciled to me.'
Therefore, you have to accept your salvation on God's terms. The Hebrews had to follow a process to spare their first-born from the death that God sent to Egypt. The Bible syas that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. We have to do it God's way. What other way would there be? And who's making the rules here, anyway? Certainly not us. THat's like criminals writng their own sentences. Before long, they're acquiting themselves instead "I'm not hurting anyone else."
So..I'll try to cut short here. As humans, it makes sense to us at some point that a really loving God would give us a do-over. But then we aren't perfect, and we aren't our creator. If there is salvation, it must be on God's terms. So God sets it up in a way that someone pays the price for us, and moves throughout history so we'll know what that method is. We could say he's not a loving God, but the He, who was still perfect demonstrated his love toward us in that while we were still trying to do things our way, Christ dies for us.
Now..as to the people who might never hear the Gospel even one time. I don't think it's our responsibility to work that out. God knows hearts. The Bible says every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Maybe the first time those folks will encounter Jesus will be when they look right at him. Maybe God doesn't allow the rapture until He has been preched to everyone in the world.
Doesn't matter. I know the gospel. I am without excuse, and after beliving, I am commanded to go into the whole world and tell the other beggars where to find bread.
You're right. A glib "God works in mysterious ways." Isn't good enough. I think more correctly, the responsibly reply is "I can't tell you about that. What I can tell you is that we have both heard and God wants us to accept.
I hope some of us getting pretty in depth isn't offputting. Real Christianity is very experiential. I don't think we can get it in impersonal philosophical talk. I think this is one of my favorite extended conversations on these boards ever.
Honestly, Moff, I find you less ‘preachy’ than most Christians I encounter.
Steven, the miniature painting analogy is seriously flawed. You make mistakes in your creation because you are not perfect. A perfect being should be capable of making perfect beings. Are we imperfect because god is imperfect or because he chose to make us imperfect? If it was his choice, why is he so mad at us for making us this way?
Free will? The all powerful, all knowing god gave us free will knowing we would do bad and then he gets mad at us for doing it. If a product has a flaw, I have to put some of the blame on the manufacturer.
Why does god need to make a sacrifice to forgive us for being imperfect? He can simply forgive us. Or maybe he should just make us perfect and save himself a lot of heartache.
I understand the point you are trying to make. It is god’s plan and as it comes from a supreme being, we simpletons can not possibly hope to understand. I simply refuse to accept that.
I am not going to blindly follow anyone. If I blindly followed David Koresh, you would call me crazy. How is they any different?
|
|
Free will? The all powerful, all knowing god gave us free will knowing we would do bad and then he gets mad at us for doing it. If a product has a flaw, I have to put some of the blame on the manufacturer.
Here is the conondrum of free will. If you have free will you have to have the ability to make the wrong choices. Your anger at a God that would get mad at His own creation would have more weight if God had not also provided an easy way to make us better. It seems to me that God wanted a race that would have the ability to choose to serve Him. Knowing that this free will would also make us weak, He planned out a way for us to choose to be forgiven. All you have to do is decide that you want to be forgiven and the plan is there.
As a parent, I know that my kids are still learning to do things right. I prefer them to learn things on their own and make the right decision without being forced. However, when they have messed up and I then patiently explain to them how to do it better, I do admit to getting angry when they refuse to accept the lesson and make the same mistake repeatedly, ignoring me.
The anger of God is not just because men sin. Its because so many men sin and then refuse to accept that they could do better and should do better. It is because, after He has given them a plan to be saved, they scoff at it and refuse to believe they need it.
Why does god need to make a sacrifice to forgive us for being imperfect? He can simply forgive us. Or maybe he should just make us perfect and save himself a lot of heartache.
You are getting into really deep theological grounds when you start discussing the need for atonement and the way in which God did it. To try and keep things simple there are a number of explanations for why God would deliver salvation in the way that He did, rather than just forgive everyone.
1) God wanted men to understand that sin has consequences. One cannot just do the wrong things without the expectation that bad things will follow.
2) God wants men to choose to be saved. There are certain characteristics that He desires in His children and His plan ensures that the saved meet those criteria. Faith, humility and love are among the chief of these characteristics.
3) God wanted to demonstrate the lengths to which He was willing to go for those who would accept Him.
The atonement of Christ and the plan of salvation accomplishes these things. If you want deeper more meaningful explanations, they exists as well but whole books have been written on the subject.
Ah, I see. I am bad because I question god’s authority. This is like trying to slip past the guard by telling him the general sent you and how very displeased the general will be when he finds out you were delayed.
I can not believe god has a plan for me because I do not believe in god. Of course his plan does not make sense to me because it does not exist. Since we can not put intent behind something which does not exist, we must hide it behind mythical comprehension. If the Bible was god’s medium through which to tell us what he wanted (another pointless dog and pony show since he should just tell us) you would think it would be a little more clear and provide explanations.
You can say the Bible is clear and does provide explanations, but considering all the wars fought and the differing branches of Christianity, I believe it obviously needed a better editor. If I am all powerful, I think I could create a book in which no one had any doubt as to my meaning. Then again, I would skip the book altogether and simply show myself, but then I am not so I can not. Curious that.
1) God wanted men to understand that sin has consequences. One cannot just do the wrong things without the expectation that bad things will follow.
Seems pretty reasonable. Why not simply plant that understanding in our imperfect heads?
2) God wants men to choose to be saved. There are certain characteristics that He desires in His children and His plan ensures that the saved meet those criteria. Faith, humility and love are among the chief of these characteristics.
Again, why not program that into your creation from the beginning? Or does god enjoy punishing the beings he made bad?
3) God wanted to demonstrate the lengths to which He was willing to go for those who would accept Him.
And yet again, he could have simply put that knowledge into us to begin with. What’s more, did he really go through any lengths? How difficult is anything for the all powerful? God knows exactly what it would take for me to accept him. Considering his power base, I do not see how he could not accomplish it. So…it should pretty much be a done deal.
What’s that? God does not like to be tested? He should not have made me so testy then. Or could it be because there really is not a god and therefore testing him is prone to failure, we better come up with a good explanation for this dilemma?
The atonement of Christ and the plan of salvation accomplishes these things.
If you believe the resurrection story. Otherwise, it appears to be a clever story used to steal followers away from Judism.
|
|
I'm not going to argue with you courtfool but I do wonder whether you have actually read the Bible. Its not that confusing. Most of the 'wars' fought over the Bible have little to do with the Bible and in my opinionmost of the religious arguments over the Bible have more to do with one individual or another thinking they can ignore this or that section of the Bible.
I did want to comment on just one thing though...
Again, why not program that into your creation from the beginning? Or does god enjoy punishing the beings he made bad?
If God programed us we would be robots, not autonomous individuals. To repeat, free-will must mean the freedom to make bad choices. If God wants us to choose the right path of our own free will then making it impossible to choose the wrong path would be counterproductive.
Likewise if God created us bad, unable to choose good, we still would not have free-will.
I don't believe that God creates us bad. He creates us innocent, without stain or blemish but also needing instruction. He does not want to punish. He wants to love us. He wants us, in turn, to love him. Likewise, He does not create us mature, even as adults our lives are a growth process, as we continue to mature and grow in understanding. I think that a large part of what God desires from us is wrapped up in this process of growth.
While I accept the wrath of God as a reality, my relationship with him is not built on wrath. I accept what Solomon wrote, "For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights." Men can insist on thinking of God as a tyrant out to punish but I understand that He is a Father who desires us to become the absolute best we can be. As a father myself, I can greatly sympathize with this desire.
I'm not going to argue with you courtfool...
I apologize if I am coming off argumentative.
I thank everyone for their contribution to this thread.
|
|
I'm not going to argue with you courtfool...I apologize if I am coming off argumentative.
I thank everyone for their contribution to this thread.
I don't know if you were arguementative or not. Online posting makes it hard to tell. :)
I do think that the key to a civil religious discussion in this sort of environment is to figure out how to make your points without attacking the beliefs of the other persons. I hope I have done that. But some of your points (attacking the Bible) make me want to rebutt much more strongly and so my comment of not arguing was as much to myself as to you. :)
But some of your points (attacking the Bible) make me want to rebut much more strongly and so my comment of not arguing was as much to myself as to you.
I agree, it's exceptionally difficult to moderate one's take on others' postings... especially when one party sincerely believes the book under discussion is the revealed Word of God, and the other just as sincerely believes it's a charlatan's ruse. Maybe the best we can do is that (polite) attacks on objects and ideas are OK, but attacks on people here are not? In any case, I'm enjoying reading all of the posts.
I admit, I am ‘attacking’ the Bible, but not out of malice.
How can it not be malice? Why am I ‘attacking’?
Christian faith is based on the Bible. It is the truth. I assert that it is not. There may be truth in the Bible, but each piece must be judged on its own merit. Just because something comes out of the bible does not mean that it is true and that I must obey it.
This is a significantly different paradigm. “…because it is written in the Bible.” does not have the same weight for me. It is as if someone says, “…my cousin’s sister’s brother once knew a guy…”
I am attacking the Bible in the same way others attack my lack of belief in the Bible. I understand that the Bible is sacred to you, and I can respect that. But I keep hearing, “You are wrong because the Bible says so.” So I respond with, “The Bible is wrong…or, at least, highly suspect.”
Let me try another analogy (which I am sure will completely fail, but they are sure fun). Say you write down on a piece of paper that the Pathfinder RPG is the greatest RPG in the world. To which I say, “Um, no.” You respond, “Did you even read the piece of paper?”
Can you see how I might be insulted? Any guess what I might say next? Is it logical that I would question the validity of this piece of paper? Could that be perceived as an attack?
I tend to be sarcastic and enjoying using humor to make a point. So I concede I may not be making my points in the most mature way. I apologize to you and anyone else I may have offended. I will try to use less sarcasm and humor in the future, but I am not making any promises.
I admit I have not read the Bible cover to cover. I have never read the Torah, Qur’an, Vedas, Upanishads, Dharma, Kitáb-i-Aqdas or Book of Mormon. Why should I show preference for the Bible?
Whenever I have read parts of the Bible it has made little sense to me unless I put it in the context of being written by man in an attempt to explain things not yet understood. When I put it in that light, it makes perfect sense. One could even say I have an experience similar to others who say they are touched by the spirit. An “Ah ha!” moment. All the pieces fit together.
Why do bad things happen to good people? Because there is no god.
Why does Genesis seem to contract evolution? Because the Bible was written by man who had no concept of evolution yet.
Why is the holy trinity such a wonky concept? Because it was the best explanation the early Christian church could come up with without violating the ten commandments.