RPG Superstar 2013
|
Even if they both sort of accept something as allegory, or not, the point of the message seems to be different for different people (I recall one highly stimulating discussion of what the Good Samaritan was all about).
Seems clear to me it's about the failure of religious folk of the day to remember to love their neighbors and see people as God sees them.
Of course, there's more - following through on your good deeds, the uselessness of mere religion, the Messiah is not going to conform to your expectations, and more. All good points, and all equally true.
Seems clear to me it's about the failure of religious folk of the day to remember to love their neighbors and see people as God sees them.
The failure (and success) of religion is that religion is very rarely the acting agency. People have pre conceived notions about what right and wrong are and they see religion in that context. Religion tends to be a veneer rather than anything deeply changing. A schmuck is going to be a schmuck no matter what their religion (or lack thereof) and a good person is going to be a good person with or without faith.
|
Seems clear to me it's about the failure of religious folk of the day to remember to love their neighbors and see people as God sees them.
The failure (and success) of religion is that religion is very rarely the acting agency. People have pre conceived notions about what right and wrong are and they see religion in that context. Religion tends to be a veneer rather than anything deeply changing. A schmuck is going to be a schmuck no matter what their religion (or lack thereof) and a good person is going to be a good person with or without faith.
People are rarely so simplistic.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
People are rarely so simplistic.Seems clear to me it's about the failure of religious folk of the day to remember to love their neighbors and see people as God sees them.
The failure (and success) of religion is that religion is very rarely the acting agency. People have pre conceived notions about what right and wrong are and they see religion in that context. Religion tends to be a veneer rather than anything deeply changing. A schmuck is going to be a schmuck no matter what their religion (or lack thereof) and a good person is going to be a good person with or without faith.
Of course, my response was just about the meaning of the passage presented. But I am going to go ahead and disagre with the schmuck thing.
There are saints and schmucks in every walk of life, it is true. But a saving grace can turn a schmuck into a better person. Many former screw-ups find themselves redeemed and with something better to live their lives for once they find religion.
In Christianity, we must also remember that salvation doesn't come from doing good things or no longer being a schmuck. God saves us throught the sacrifice of Jesus, despite our ongoing schmuckitude. So it isn't that a schmuck is going to choose religion (or not) as a conduit for his schmuckitude, it is that we are all schmucks, equally distanced from God by imperfection, and His grace is available for all of us on God's terms. If, as a schmuck with a sin nature, I forsake my faith and just indulge in lechery or hate or whatever, it was me that changed and not Christianity.
Inasmuch as I sometimes struggle with my things, I am very grateful to God that salvation is wholly dependent on Him and not on how good a boy I can be.
|
In a conversation with several friends over the grill the other day (yay, Labor Day Weekend), we naturally (?) began arguing religion (classical, Socratic arguing; no fisticuffs here). The discussion really came down to the standard Russell problem: orbiting teapot gods and airborne penne vs the Man in the Clouds. What's the difference?--and even reasonable believers, of any faith, will usually agree that there is no substantial difference; it's a matter of faith.
All that lead to discussion of a (fantasy) world gradually bereft of supernatural faith and belief. Would there be less crime and violence, as most atheists claim? We weren't really sure, because rational people have irrational moments just like anyone else, and wars are as likely (and more so I think) over resources as over God (as an aside, I often wonder exactly what will happen when either the Middle East dries up or cold fusion is discovered--that region will have lost its leverage against the world, and the world will simply stop caring about it).
I'm trying to condense a few hours of conversation here, but one interesting thought cropped up--nothing new, but not as often spoken of in this thread.
Who's scarier: a fanatic or a maniac? At this time (my life), I find a fanatic far scarier simply because if you strip away the religious aspect, they're indistinguishable from maniacs. Nonetheless, fanatics are oddly respected and very often protected by society and the Rule of Law.
A maniac may be identified, avoided, or incarcerated for his and our safety--and all before they actually injure or kill people. A fanatic is protected and virtually untouchable until after they've murdered.
People are rarely so simplistic.
They're almost always that simplistic. Through a combination of not caring what their holy book says, not knowing what their holy book says, and interpreting their holy book to agree with them by any shoehorn necessary, religion almost becomes a non factor in people's actions. What religion someone picks is almost more descriptive than proscriptive, a liberal chooses a liberal church a conservative chooses a conservative church.
Very few "religious wars" have anything to do with religion. The only things i can think of that were actually religiously motivated was the cathar crusade. Even the (regular?) crusades had at least a 50 50 mix of religion and "we need to conquer them before they conquer us"
Usually its just something extra to stir the pot. Same thing in someone's every day life.
it is that we are all schmucks, equally distanced from God by imperfection
Sorry, this simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I've never sentenced 13 million people to die,tortured people for disagreeing with me, scammed an old lady out of her house, crashed a nations economy for fun and profit, or told someone crawling out of the rubble of a natural disaster "HA! That's for not believing in god sucka!"
Even if you can argue god's good is infinitely good +30 good is a lot closer to it than -9,000.Who's scarier: a fanatic or a maniac? At this time (my life), I find a fanatic far scarier simply because if you strip away the religious aspect, they're indistinguishable from maniacs. Nonetheless, fanatics are oddly respected and very often protected by society and the Rule of Law.
Maniac: Rar! I have an axe
Me: Me too! RAR!
Fanatic: I'm going to kill you!
Me: You and what army of brain washed fanatical followers?
Fanatic: Reveals army of brain washed fanatical followers.
Me: Crap.
The only real difference between the two is the PR campaign.
...even reasonable believers, of any faith, will usually agree that there is no substantial difference; it's a matter of faith.
I'd agree, but be careful: An obvious corollary is that most belief is not a matter of reason. I've been called a bigot here for less.
|
|
...even reasonable believers, of any faith, will usually agree that there is no substantial difference; it's a matter of faith.
I'd agree, but be careful: An obvious corollary is that most belief is not a matter of reason. I've been called a bigot here for less.
I agree completely: you have to suspend your disbelief to believe, and the only way to suspend disbelief is to suspend logic and reason. Nonetheless, there's nothing that keeps a believer from exercising reason, from logically analyzing a thing, but consciously deciding to believe against that analysis. Thus, for example, a devout Christian could agree with the reasoning behind the Teapot, recognize its value, but quite easily say, in effect, "It's an interesting thought experiment, but it changes nothing for me: Christ is the Redeemer, not your floating chinaware."
I know absolutely some people will be offended by everything I just wrote, but it's very rationally inoffensive and benign: you'd have to want to be offended.
There are saints and schmucks in every walk of life, it is true. But a saving grace can turn a schmuck into a better person. Many former screw-ups find themselves redeemed and with something better to live their lives for once they find religion.
Without question -- I know some examples personally. However, there are also people who reach a crisis point, make it past, and turn their lives around -- and do it without finding religion. And again, I know some examples personally. So it's possible that religion helps some people to do something that others do with the help of friends and family, self-realization, or any of a number of other factors.
If you don't believe in an afterlife, in God, etc, sure - people can come back from terrible misdeeds or incredible misfortune with humility, hard work and accountability to a group of supporters. I would argue first, that's the system God designed in us for overcoming adversirty, so there's going to be some level of success pursuing those things. Certainly people who don't work hard at personal growth but make half-hearted claims about faith don't much get anywhere.
Since I do believe in Creator, and in a sin nature and redemption, I'd argue that there has to be both external hard work and support, and internal faith and supplication to the will of God.
As regards the linear scale for how good or bad we are, BNW, I don't think God sees it that way. God designed us to be perfect and worship him. He designed us with eternal natures. To him, a mortal life here is not as important as an eternal life overall. To Him, he thinks about Steve or Kirth from birth to eternity, and suffering of injustice during the brief mortal period doesn't mean the same thing. To us, a few years in a tough marriage or a bad month at work is torture.
Similarly, our willful separation feom God is what matters to Him. Sure, if one of us is ordering genocide, God judges that more harshly and its impact on the world is more severe than if one guy believes but can't remain in control of his lechery, or another guy pads his expense account. And the Bible is pretty clear there are varying degrees of punishment or reward based on those decisions while we live. But the path to forgiveness is equally short (or long, sometimes) regardless of our sins. A mass murderer might have to stay in prison to satisfy mortal justice, but his redemption is no more difficult (to God) than yours or mine. Chrsit died once for all sins, and God is not willing that any should be punished but that all enjoy eternal life.
And while I might rank as morally better than some (maybe just the mass murderers), I do not rank as morally better than others. So I am grateful for God's reconciliation. Without it, and without it being on his terms, I'd be screwed.
Since I do believe in Creator, and in a sin nature and redemption, I'd argue that there has to be both external hard work and support, and internal faith and supplication to the will of God.
If this were true then either
1) Atheists couldn't turn their life around or
2) God is helping the atheists anyway.
1 is patently false. 2 makes god indistinguishable from god doing nothing at all and people changing their lives through their own power.
As regards the linear scale for how good or bad we are, BNW, I don't think God sees it that way. God designed us to be perfect and worship him.
So 12 billion attempts, and at most 1 success, and that was when he played the game himself while looking at the cheat codes.
He designed us with eternal natures. To him, a mortal life here is not as important as an eternal life overall. To Him, he thinks about Steve or Kirth from birth to eternity, and suffering of injustice during the brief mortal period doesn't mean the same thing. To us, a few years in a tough marriage or a bad month at work is torture.
If life was this meaningless, why bother with it in the first place?
And while I might rank as morally better than some (maybe just the mass murderers), I do not rank as morally better than others. So I am grateful for God's reconciliation.
If you're doing that badly, do something different. You are what you do. Do something else and change.
Without it, and without it being on his terms, I'd be screwed.
Of course you're screwed. The being described in the bible is not just or fair by any reasoning except a circular definition.
|
|
Someone told me, today, that she read an article linking Islam to 666.
To which I pointed out that it seems throughout history when the US had an enemy, there were people in the Religious Reich figuring out some arguement for why that enemy was the antichrist.
This was followed up by 15 minutes of listening to this person complain about me being critical whenever she talks about her faith.
This is my life.
For bonus points, point out that originally the number of the Beast was considered to be 616, not 666.
EDIT: For double bonus geek points, what is the number of the mainstream Marvel universe in their universal cataloguing system? Which, at least, explains OMD.
If you don't believe in an afterlife, in God, etc, sure - people can come back from terrible misdeeds or incredible misfortune with humility, hard work and accountability to a group of supporters. I would argue first, that's the system God designed in us for overcoming adversity, so there's going to be some level of success pursuing those things.
So, if they do it through faith, it's because of God. If they do it without faith, it's because of God. That's a fairly neat, hermetically-sealed universe you inhabit. Personally, I'd find it stifling, rather than comforting, but to each their own.
many things
I think you misunderstand me. My point is about grace and eternity, not about people picking up the pieces of their life or aspiring to a higher moral standard. It's absolutely true there are many good people who do not accept Christ as their savior. That doesn't mitigate their need to. I am not saying an atheist cannot improve himself, turn his life around when it sucks, or anything like that. I am saying the soul is dead for anyone that doesn't believe. That siritual reconciliation is impossible without Christ.
As regards the cheat code comment, you have it backwards. God, already perfect by definition, assumed a form that is fully divine and fully mortal. We are the flawed ones. It isn't that God is the aberration, we are. And his journey to save the world was to allow us a path to reconciliation. Since nothing can separate us from the love of God, and since the Bible is clear Christ died once for all sin, our choice is to accept God's gift of grace and pledge ourselves to him, or to remain separate. My original point was that the level of one's sin does not make it easier or harder to be saved.
I didn't say life was meaningless. I said our perspective is different from God's. And God creates because He is a Creator. Now, if you want to debate why experiment with mortality and free will, I am not the authority in question. Ask God. Milton wrote that it was so Lucifer would heap damnation on himself. I think maybe that's a good point. But if not, why would I write a song? Why do we love our kids instead of just teach them to fight and hunt?
We all have a responsibility to be as moral and obedient to God as we can. THat does not erase our sin nature. That doesn't mean we can acheive perfection. Again, the deck isn't stacked against us - mankind chose and chooses sin. Sin entered the world and it has not been the same since. We do change. We do try to break bad habits or sublimate, say the desire to cheat on taxes or take some dill weed out to the parking lot to teach him a lesson, to a higher sensibility. But we aren't talking about being the best person we can be. We are talking about God's avenue for salvation from our sin, no matter how slight or excusable we think that sin is.
Recall that some things you find illogical can still be true. At a certain point, raising taxes decreases revenues. Taking a hit I don't deserve at work might buy me favor in the long run with someone I don't want a rivalry with. Calling humanity different from all other creatures might be called a special plea, but then it's still true. If God's rule is all that matters, if every knee will one day bow and every tongue confess Jesus as lord and savior, then God's forgiveness and justice are both circular (because a sovereign God is indeed just by definition) and true.
Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated.
That's it.
I think everyone can agree.
|
|
Once again, I'm finding the current discussion to be not one I really wish to engage in.
However, something has been brought up here a number of times. (Even kind of hinted at in the current discussion.) My wife is reading a book right now that addresses much of this. I'm not going to say it's right. (I actually haven't done more than thumb through it yet -- but I'm definately going to read it.) And I'm probably not going to discuss it here. But I thought that some of you might like to check it out to see its take on a lot of this. (Actually, I really only wanted to let a few people know about it -- namely CF, but I haven't seen him around much recently -- hopefully he's still lurking.)
The title pretty well says it all. It's only 88 pages, so it should be a pretty quick read for most of you.
Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated. That's it. I think everyone can agree.
I used to think so. But then I realized something:
Which leads me to believe I'd be better off if they treated me as they don't like to be treated, and vice versa.
That's one simple example, but I think we can come up with a lot more of them without too much effort.
|
|
Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated. That's it. I think everyone can agree.I used to think so. But then I realized something:
I, personally, become enraged when people lie to me to "spare my feelings" or whatever.
Most other people become extremely hurt, defensive, and angry if I tell them anything they don't want to hear.
Ha. I think you're unique though. In a number of ways.
Still looking forward to that beer.
I've never looked at an egg and thought is was a f@*+ing brain!
|
|
BTW, I suspect most people would claim to agree with the two points you recognize. Most don't want to be lied to to spare their feelings and most get hurt, defensive and angry when told something they don't want to hear. I certainly recognize that in myself.
I really disagree with this. I've just seen FAR too often where people go just nuts if you don't agree with what they feel is "right". This extends far beyond the religious. Politics, work, religion, driving on the road, etc. I really feel that there are far too many people out there that only really want to hear what they already "know" or "believe" to be "true". (Whatever that might be.)
I'll try not to lie to you and will tell you when you're being an ass. (Nicely, of course.)
I think I'm done being hurt and angry. I might defend my position, but I don't think that's what you are talking about. But I'll always listen to what you have to say -- but I'm not necessarily going to agree. Still looking forward to that beer.
Me, too, Moff. One of the reasons I consider you a friend is precisely because you're not afraid to tell me when I'm being an ass. I appreciate that more than I can tell you.
|
Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated. That's it. I think everyone can agree.I used to think so. But then I realized something:
I, personally, become enraged when people lie to me to "spare my feelings" or whatever.
Most other people become extremely hurt, defensive, and angry if I tell them anything they don't want to hear.
Which is why my compass is guided by a second maxim besides the Golden Rule.
Primum non nocere.
Which is why my compass is guided by a second maxim besides the Golden Rule.
Primum non nocere.
Yeah, I agree. Personally, I try to minimize the net aggregate amount of suffering. I've found that lying now, while potentially sparing someone's feelings in the short term, more often has far more negative long-term consequences for both parties, so I try not to do it, ever, if I can help it. (That doesn't mean I'm stupid enough tell my wife point-blank that she doesn't look good in a certain outfit; one can still sin by ommission, as it were.)
I am saying the soul is dead for anyone that doesn't believe. That siritual reconciliation is impossible without Christ.
There is simply no reason to believe this any more than there is to believe one need sto die fighting in order to get to Valhalla. Given the vast number of religions out there, without some mechanism for narrowing down the pool your chances of being correct are rather slim.
As regards the cheat code comment, you have it backwards. God, already perfect by definition, assumed a form that is fully divine and fully mortal.
A meaningless statement designed to sound impossible in order to sound impressive and deep.
We are the flawed ones.
If god intended us to be perfect, and none of us are perfect, then his design failed to achieve its stated intent twelve billion times with NO successes. That isn't flawless, that is a major screw up.
It isn't that God is the aberration, we are. And his journey to save the world was to allow us a path to reconciliation. Since nothing can separate us from the love of God, and since the Bible is clear Christ died once for all sin, our choice is to accept God's gift of grace and pledge ourselves to him, or to remain separate. My original point was that the level of one's sin does not make it easier or harder to be saved.
Have you ever taken the time to see how utterly random that sounds? An all powerful god wants perfect people. He somehow makes flawed people instead. In order to fix this he has to impregnate a virgin with his son, who is himself, who for some reason needs to be "sacrificed", but its ok because he'll come back from the dead and he knows that. In fact, he knows he's god all along.
It sounds nonsensical, like a lot of old legends (or comics), because its being cobbled together from different sources. Jewish society was very syncretic at the time, being stuck between the roman empire and greek sources of learning merging over an old layer of jewish religion and mysticism. Its no surprise that different accounts of jesus read more like a Jewish messiah, a Greek hero with a following , or a social reformer.
I didn't say life was meaningless. I said our perspective is different from God's. And God creates because He is a Creator. Now, if you want to debate why experiment with mortality and free will, I am not the authority in question. Ask God.
Oddly enough that's been about as effective as SETI.I think its a bit of a cheat to build up and argument to the point that it breaks and then say "we know this IS the case but we have no idea why"
Again, the deck isn't stacked against us - mankind chose and chooses sin.
... Ok, so in 12 billion hands there hasn't been a single winner, and you don't think that the game is just a little bit rigged?
Of course the deck is stacked against people. People are biologically predisposed towards anger, hatred, and sex.. by a body allegedly designed by a being who doesn't even wanting us THINKING of such things.
Sin entered the world and it has not been the same since. We do change. We do try to break bad habits or sublimate, say the desire to cheat on taxes or take some dill weed out to the parking...
Recall that some things you find illogical can still be true
Illogical? Yes. That does however put a higher burden of proof on you for your claims Christianity doesn't do well with evidence based arguments.
Have you ever taken the time to see how utterly random that sounds?
To be fair, I don't think he ever claimed it sounded logical to outsiders. All religions are full of stuff that, to a non-member, sounds like a tripped-out mishmash of 100% random BS -- and usually none of the members see a big problem with any of it, because that's totally not the point (if I understand them correctly). From what I gather from adherents, it's the way it makes them feel about their personal place in the overall scheme of things (as promulgated therein) that counts.
But this doesn't really match the theology.
-Actually this is one place that the biology and the religion aren't incompatible. THe bible is chock full of quotes about man's inherent proclivity towards sin.
2 Piter 1:
Ephesians 2
Romans 6:6
If God made people, he made them imperfect - for the same reason storytellers do - because imperfect people are more interesting.
As for Kirth's objection to the Golden Rule, I don't believe that the fact that people get upset when they hear the truth means that its not good for them to hear the truth. I do think that withholding the truth because we're afraid of how others will react is a mistake. "Beware those who would withhold the truth from you, for in their hearts they think they are your better".
And so you agree with my objection to the Golden Rule -- because for those people to "treat me as they would like to be treated" would mean that they should lie to me all the time (which they do, and which you and I seem to agree they shouldn't).
I question whether they'd really prefer not to hear the truth - regardless of what they claim.
I tend to equate a reaction of anger, defensiveness, closing off of communication, and/or retaliation as "not wanting to hear it." I'm not in the business of claiming to know what people "really" want better than they themselves know it -- I'll leave that to the self-proclaimed prophets out there; there seem to be enough of them.
It is manifestly impossible to prove the existence of an omnipotent being who wishes to remain concealed. God will always be completely untestable.
In other words, god exists outside of the boundaries of logic because he cannot exist within them. Some (myself included) consider that to be the practical end of the matter. Others consider it a shortcoming of logic. ;)
I question whether they'd really prefer not to hear the truth - regardless of what they claim.I tend to equate a reaction of anger, defensiveness, closing off of communication, and/or retaliation as "not wanting to hear it." I'm not in the business of claiming to know what people "really" want better than they themselves know it -- I'll leave that to the self-proclaimed prophets out there; there seem to be enough of them.
Is the gist of your disagreement with the golden rule that it would be a mistake to assume others wish to be treated as you wish to be?
Consider, if I tell the parents of a 13 year old that their daughter is having sex, they may well get angry, defensive, closed off from communication, etc. But, if I don't tell them and, months later, their daughter is pregnant, do you think they'd appreciate that I didn't tell them?
The phrase "damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes to mind. :P
Is the gist of your disagreement with the golden rule that it would be a mistake to assume others wish to be treated as you wish to be?
That, and the fact that I can easily see outcomes from following the Golden Rule which are sharply at odds with my major guideline of minimizing suffering.
Consider, if I tell the parents of a 13 year old that their daughter is having sex, they may well get angry, defensive, closed off from communication, etc. But, if I don't tell them and, months later, their daughter is pregnant, do you think they'd appreciate that I didn't tell them?
Some would not appreciate it at all -- the ones who are already so far in denial they can't hear it; the ones who would (possibly justifiably) indicate that it's none of your business, etc. More importantly, you're now imparting to yourself oracular powers: somehow in the past, you looked into the future and saw the pregnancy would definitely occur, and saw that the parents would be oh-so appreciative, and that everything would be better by telling them. That's as opposed to looking into the future, seeing that telling them causes her to feel betrayed and that everyone was in a conspiracy against her, and she ends up jumping off a bridge.
OK, here's an easier one: Bob is a masochist who feels that he's worthless and wants it proven all the time, so he gets himself into situations where he's hurt and/or degraded. Obviously, he should hurt and/or degrade everyone around him, too, right? And before you turn around and say "he doesn't know what he really wants," consider this -- what empowers you to be the judge of what everyone "really" wants? That way lies a True Scotsman argument just waiting to happen.
Kirth, it strikes me that your concern is rather like questioning a non-murder policy...after all, how do I know that any given person isn't suicidal? :P
Kirth, it strikes me that your concern is rather like questioning a non-murder policy...after all, how do I know that any given person isn't suicidal? :P
I'm not in any way questioning the non-murder policy. I'm pointing out the fact that the Golden Rule, by iteself, does not lead to a non-murder policy, and is therefore not all that useful a rule, taken by iteself.
Overall, I find that claiming a one-sentence homily can solve all your problems is usually wrong. The most useful book of folk sayings I ever saw had them arranged two to a page; for example:
"Many hands make light work /
Too many cooks spoil the broth."
Basically showing how conventional wisdom from one saying is totally opposite to conventional wisdom from the other.
I'm not in any way questioning the non-murder policy. I'm pointing out the fact that the Golden Rule, by iteself, does not lead to a non-murder policy, and is therefore not the be-all and end-all of useful rules.
I guess I don't see how the Golden Rule's failure to be useful to the mentally ill makes it any less practical for the vast majority of people (perhaps I need to read between the lines, eh? :P). Plus even if we could develop an all-inclusive rule, why would we expect the mentally ill to follow it?
I find that claiming a one-sentence homily can solve all your problems is usually wrong.
Agreed, but is someone making that claim? I certainly didn't intend to. I often find it useful to stop and think about how I may want to be treated in a situation.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but it doesn't seem to have any practical application.
The application is this: I think ethics are important enough that they shouldn't be trusted to an 11-word homily. That maybe it's useful to really think things through sometimes, and see how things end up in real life when you do different things, instead of blindly trusting too-easily-misleading folk sayings.
There are any number of people who are in no way mentally ill who follow the Golden Rule much to my regret. Witness all the people who are very glad that someone got them to join the One True Church (whichever ones they each belong to), and now can't wait to use the machinery of government to make sure that everyone else is "saved" as well.
EDIT: A negative statement, as Comrade Insect alludes below, helps alleviate this problem, but doesn't solve it. There's no substitute for life experience and hard thinking about it.
The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.
I think ethics are important enough that they shouldn't be trusted to an 11-word homily. That maybe it's useful to really think things through sometimes, and see how things end up in real life when you do different things, instead of blindly trusting too-easily-misleading folk sayings.
Forgive me, that seems so obvious as to go without saying (really; not trying to be a smart-ass). Was someone arguing to the contrary?