[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Bringing the OP a bit further, it is not just following God, but coming to God and saying I don’t want to do it my own way, I don’t want to be my own god, I want you as my God and I would like you to take me as your person. This is the free will decision, the one God gives us to make.
It is acknowledgment that the serpent’s idea that eat of this and you will be ‘as God’ to be a really bad idea.
[/QUOTE]
This seems to do the best job at conveying the xian notion of what it means to ‘give your life to god’; specifically, that you’ll continuously check-in with him on each of your free will forks in the road and do what you understand god wants you to do rather than what you want to do.
Of course, in my view, that’s known as a ‘conscience’ and hardly needs fancy pants in the sky. :rolleyes: But that’s another thread.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Someone has to explain to me exactly why god would want to give us free will. Or why he bothered to create us at all. If he could choose to control us completely,why didn’t he? And what was the purpose for creating us? Boredom? Does he get a sadistic charge out of watching us fuck up, or get sick or murdered? Is it a kick for him to see children grow up in poverty and disease? What exactly was the goal here? Anyone?
[/QUOTE]
Bottom line: nobody’s provided a coherent answer if you push the question back far enough to original intentions before the narrative of the bible begins.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Imagine i’m walking along and I find a lovely big bit of cake. Simplify it down and let’s say I have three “wants”; I want to eat it, I want to share it out, and I want to *not * eat it. One of those things will be the thing I *most * want, and so i’ll do that. Let’s say I most want to share it out with some friends; that’s what my self will is.
Now let’s say a religious person comes along. He has the same list of wants, but his religion says no cake. His want of “Don’t eat it” is much higher now than mine would be, because he has a basic want of “Do what my god says”. He has the same level of “I want cake” and “Share the cake” that I do, but he also has that come into play. So he doesn’t eat it.
What I see this argument as being about is whether the religious person’s self will is “share the cake” - what he would do if he did not choose to follow his god’s plan - or to not eat the cake, because following his god’s plan is incorporated or a part of his wants in general. I would argue that the religious person’s self will includes that want to follow god; and so he isn’t overruling his self will anymore than I as an athiest am overruling my self will to not eat the cake. That’s something I want, but it isn’t my self will, my primal choice. We are both doing exactly what we want to do the most, what our self will wants us to do.
I think the “giving up” of onself for others is sort of a sidetrack. I’m not arguing that saying “i’m going to give money to charity and help people, because my god wants me to” is a bad thing. It isn’t, it’s very good. I’m just saying that that’s what you want to do also. After all, if it wasn’t what you wanted, you wouldn’t do it unless you were forced to - hence “against your will”. I think you certainly can choose to server others. But you’re still serving yourself as well, because you want to serve others. It’s not selfless because because you’re still doing exactly what you want to do, you just happen to be doing what someone wants you to do, too.
[/QUOTE]
That last paragraph is a succinct encapsulation of why religion isn’t necessary, IMO.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t think we disagree. It’s just a matter of what terminology is used. I read a great book called How Can I Help" about the nature of helping others that explored the idea {among others} that sometimes our desire is to be labeled helper so much that we aren’t really concerned or tuned in to what the people we are “helping” really need. In general unselfish would be sharing of our time and material wealth with others. Selfless would be placing the needs of others above our own. Give the cake to others and have none even though you’re hungry. Thats not always the smart thing to do. I think if we see ourselves and others as equal parts of the whole we seek to find a balance between caring for ourselves and caring for others.
I think it’s much more than superficially trying to obey certain rules when you would rather do something else. If you want to eat the cake but share it because your congregation members are looking then what you want, is their approval. You might even share it to impress those you share it with and then that becomes your true goal. It’s about the true motives of the heart and what moves us. Jesus said to value the eternal things. The more we truly see and feel our connection to others the more our true motives, and what we value changes.
I see your point and don’t disagree. Perhaps it’s aligning our vision and understanding so that while we retain our our will it is also God’s will.
I think most believers would see this as an ongoing lifetime effort.
[/quote]
I agree… I think we’re just differing in terms of definitions and terminology, like you say. I don’t think there can be “true” selflessness, in the sense that people will always gain a benefit from choosing sacrifice, even if all that benefit is is that they wanted to do it. Certainly people can be more selfish than others, because there’s pretty much no end to the amount of benefit some people are willing to take for little sacrifice. I just think, in the end, it’s a scale that goes from greedy horrible bastard on one end to noble, giving person - but a person who still gets enjoyment from doing as they do - on the other. And a religious person or an atheist could be anywhere on that line.
My point originally was just to try and understand or disagree with the idea that a person who chooses to serve a god “gives up” their own choices and allows that god to take control of them (as they understand them). Certainly someone can follow a god, and that may easily be a good thing, but at no point do they or even can they do something they don’t want to. They don’t subordinate self will, I guess is my point, or at least they don’t subordinate it any more than anyone else does. Seeking to become one with others is after all at it’s very beginning a personal decision.
I’m not sure everyone would agree with having Mother Teresa in there, but I get your point. I do think selflessness in grades can exist, but only in terms of good deeds and giving to others and the like, not through giving up your own will.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
That last paragraph is a succinct encapsulation of why religion isn’t necessary, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that i’d go that far. Certainly a person who follows God giving to charity is still acting as per their own will, but following a religion may alter that will in the first place. Religious people in general do seem to be more charitable (I don’t have stats at hand, though). I’m not entirely sure religion is a good thing, but I think if it went away magically tomorrow a lot of charitable endeavours would fold. I don’t know that that would count as necessary.. but I guess it depends on your definition.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I agree… I think we’re just differing in terms of definitions and terminology, like you say. I don’t think there can be “true” selflessness, in the sense that people will always gain a benefit from choosing sacrifice, even if all that benefit is is that they wanted to do it. Certainly people can be more selfish than others, because there’s pretty much no end to the amount of benefit some people are willing to take for little sacrifice. I just think, in the end, it’s a scale that goes from greedy horrible bastard on one end to noble, giving person - but a person who still gets enjoyment from doing as they do - on the other. And a religious person or an atheist could be anywhere on that line.
My point originally was just to try and understand or disagree with the idea that a person who chooses to serve a god “gives up” their own choices and allows that god to take control of them (as they understand them). Certainly someone can follow a god, and that may easily be a good thing, but at no point do they or even can they do something they don’t want to. They don’t subordinate self will, I guess is my point, or at least they don’t subordinate it any more than anyone else does. Seeking to become one with others is after all at it’s very beginning a personal decision. I’m not sure everyone would agree with having Mother Teresa in there, but I get your point. I do think selflessness in grades can exist, but only in terms of good deeds and giving to others and the like, not through giving up your own will.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. That’s why I personally get very uncomfortable and nervous when people use the language I mentioned above. They get a strong feeling or an intuition and they are to eager call it being led to do God’s will. Then if it doesn’t work out well it’s probably because the others were resisting God rather than them possibly being mistaken. Even if someone is trying to follow their perception of god’s will I’d rather they recognize the choice and the responsibility is fully theirs.
I think the whole question of whether religion is necessary or more good than bad is a moot point. We can’t answer those questions with any reasonable degree of certainty so it becomes personal preference and speculation. Good for internet message boards I guess.
[QUOTE=9thFloor.]
This seems to do the best job at conveying the xian notion of what it means to ‘give your life to god’; specifically, that you’ll continuously check-in with him on each of your free will forks in the road and do what you understand god wants you to do rather than what you want to do.
Of course, in my view, that’s known as a ‘conscience’ and hardly needs fancy pants in the sky. But that’s another thread.
[/QUOTE]
Some comments about your response. One thing you tend to realize is when such a fork in the road appears, a major intersection where you have to chose your paths from the choices offered by God, Flesh, and Satan.
Following God is not following conscience however, conscience is best viewed as how to navigate between major forks in the road - or how well you stay inside your lane of travel. Basically the steering wheel with your limited view as the driver, while God is the GPS (tied into traffic control and the weather station).
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
So, the question is: if you indeed ask God to actively manage your life, are you not refusing the gift of free will-sort of regressing to the state of man before the fall? And isn’t that what God had in mind all along (humans capable of sin, freely choosing God’s way instead)? Help me make sense of this! Is abrogating free will an act of love or of selfishness?
[/QUOTE]
Regardless of what you believe, as a practical matter how exactly does one give God control over their life? IDoes God help me choose a career path? How does God assist me in paying my rent? Do I sit in my appartment and wait for whatever opportunities God chooses to send my way?
[QUOTE=msmith537]
Regardless of what you believe, as a practical matter how exactly does one give God control over their life? IDoes God help me choose a career path? How does God assist me in paying my rent? Do I sit in my appartment and wait for whatever opportunities God chooses to send my way?
[/QUOTE]
Evidently. Why don’t you try it for two or three months and then get back to us on how it went.
So. . . Free Will is a Hobson’s Choice Theology? “Feel free to do whatever you want, as long as it’s what I want”? A Free Will with one correct answer isn’t a Free Will at all, is it? More like an invitation to error? Why did God bother? Why make us fallible and toss us in a rat-maze trap set up to fail? The ‘he’s a good dad and wants us to grow up for ourselves’ metaphor is crap because dads are generally not infallible, omnipotent demiurges, but rather humans who make other humans and don’t have a lot of choice in the design specifications.
(Actually, I see Kalhoun has preceded me in wondering what sort of sadistic point there is to this.)
Our natural tendency, as imperfect human beings, is to choose mostly less-than-good things. We tend to prefer to spend our time being gluttonous and lustful and watching TV, rather than, say, reading Shakespeare and feeding the hungry–even though watching TV doesn’t make us as happy as feeding the hungry usually does.
[/QUOTE]
I certainly mean no personal offense to you dangermom, but I find that statement so fundamentally disturbing, I’m not sure even where to begin. It shows such a completely dim and dismal view of humanity on the whole that it boggles my mind. I will willingly admit that we have baser desires, but to assume that we are that totally self-serving that without some higher power coercing us in to being something other that complete scumbags speaks of a horrid, horrid species.
If THAT is the kind of thought that a Christian god wants us to have over ourselves, it is no wonder to me that people stray from the “light.” Frankly, that is far more dark than I can manage on my own.
Reading this thread makes me very, very happy that I don’t think so poorly of myself or of others.
*Diana Wynne Jones’ YA novel Crown of Dalemark, if you want to go read it. But it’s the culminating book in a quartet; read the others first.
[/QUOTE]
Diana Wynne Jones was a big favorite of my kids, so I may have to look for this for the youngest guy. So thanks for that.
Other than that, I think grammar homework is the worst possible example of homework that has to be done in order to advance. Better to read the mysteries or Diana Wynne Jones or–well, almost anything–to see how grammar rules are applied, or not, in the real world.
[QUOTE=capybara]
So. . . Free Will is a Hobson’s Choice Theology? “Feel free to do whatever you want, as long as it’s what I want”? A Free Will with one correct answer isn’t a Free Will at all, is it? More like an invitation to error? Why did God bother? Why make us fallible and toss us in a rat-maze trap set up to fail? The ‘he’s a good dad and wants us to grow up for ourselves’ metaphor is crap because dads are generally not infallible, omnipotent demiurges, but rather humans who make other humans and don’t have a lot of choice in the design specifications.
(Actually, I see Kalhoun has preceded me in wondering what sort of sadistic point there is to this.)
[/QUOTE]
Like it or not, the fact that there is no purpose we can fully identify or comprehend does not mean there is no purpose.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
True. Inability to understand also doesn’t prove that there is a purpose, so we’re back at nowhere.
[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. We’re back to where believing there is a purpose and exploring the that possibility, or believing it’s all random and there is no purpose, are both valid beliefs for an individual to hold. Being too sure of either position is inappropriate.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
or believing it’s all random and there is no purpose
[/QUOTE]
These are two very different issues. No “purpose” does not necessitate “random”. Sometimes systems have internal structure. Existence of laws of physics, for example, does not necessitate a teleological trajectory. Because the burned toast reminds us of a rainbow doesn’t mean someone made it that way, but it also isn’t ‘random’. Unpurposive, perhaps. But it’s not all or nothing.
[QUOTE=capybara]
These are two very different issues. No “purpose” does not necessitate “random”. Sometimes systems have internal structure. Existence of laws of physics, for example, does not necessitate a teleological trajectory. Because the burned toast reminds us of a rainbow doesn’t mean someone made it that way, but it also isn’t ‘random’. Unpurposive, perhaps. But it’s not all or nothing.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Not exactly. We’re back to where believing there is a purpose and exploring the that possibility, or believing it’s all random and there is no purpose, are both valid beliefs for an individual to hold. Being too sure of either position is inappropriate.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=capybara]
These are two very different issues. No “purpose” does not necessitate “random”. Sometimes systems have internal structure. Existence of laws of physics, for example, does not necessitate a teleological trajectory. Because the burned toast reminds us of a rainbow doesn’t mean someone made it that way, but it also isn’t ‘random’. Unpurposive, perhaps. But it’s not all or nothing.
[/QUOTE]
Care to expand on that? I’d like to see where you take that.
[QUOTE=Auntbeast]
I certainly mean no personal offense to you dangermom, but I find that statement so fundamentally disturbing, I’m not sure even where to begin. It shows such a completely dim and dismal view of humanity on the whole that it boggles my mind. I will willingly admit that we have baser desires, but to assume that we are that totally self-serving that without some higher power coercing us in to being something other that complete scumbags speaks of a horrid, horrid species.
If THAT is the kind of thought that a Christian god wants us to have over ourselves, it is no wonder to me that people stray from the “light.” Frankly, that is far more dark than I can manage on my own.
Reading this thread makes me very, very happy that I don’t think so poorly of myself or of others.
[/QUOTE]
We are not fundamentally flawed, we are basically good people who have purpose and meaning to our lives through our relationship with a God that loves us all and wants us to be happy and enjoy our life. Some see only darkness and negativity, others see the light and positiveness, it is a simple choice. Chose the light and love or chose the darkness and fear. It is your choice.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
We are not fundamentally flawed, we are basically good people who have purpose and meaning to our lives through our relationship with a God that loves us all and wants us to be happy and enjoy our life…
[/QUOTE]
I think we are both. That every person is flawed is a matter of fact. Any self-reflective person will admit their imperfections & character weaknesses. It is the basic goodness of people that is a matter of faith.
