I think its very easy to explain from a mainstream view. God judges what you do with what you have.
Morality in the brain is different from morality from god. If you all your life do everything good, but do it only because it is the easiest thing for you to do have no better chance at salvation than someone who did bad things their whole life because it was the easiest thing for them to do.
Revtim:
Thank you. I will try to purge my remarks from any personal interpretations.
Asmodean:
Without further comment, let me just say that, for some reason, your excellent observation reminded me of some stories told by Jesus:
Now the tax collectors and “sinners” were all gathering around to hear him. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
Then Jesus told them this parable:
"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, `Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’
"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
"Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, `Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’
“In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, `Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.
"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
"When he came to his senses, he said, `How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’
"So he got up and went to his father. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
"The son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
"But the father said to his servants, `Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. Your brother has come,' he replied, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him.
"But he answered his father, `Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
“My son,' the father said, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
…what does any of that have to do with the topic?
Well, as I just said, Jab, Asmodean’s excellent observation reminded me of the stories. There was the brother who all his life had done good, and the brother who lost everything but went on and did the best he could. The father loved both.
Near as I can tell, what this parable says is that God is not fair, and that even in heaven the bad kid gets the most attention. So, bringing this back to the OP, that means that people who become damaged in the moral centers of their brains will get a better deal in the sweet by and by.
What would you have done, Johnny, when your lost son came back home? What do you think would have been “fair”?
If you think it’s fair for the bad kid to be treated better, then I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you.
This reminds me of Mark Twain’s brilliantly funny short story, Letter From The Recording Angel. The story takes a lopsided look at the argument that it is easy for a good person to do good, but it is much more difficult for a non-good person to do the same, and therefore the non-good person who does good is more worthy of reward/praise than the good person.
If you have not read it, I strongly recommend this short piece as some of the funniest writing in the Twain repertory. Unfortunately I could not find it on-line, although I found pretty much everything else Twain ever wrote.
The story is a report from the office of the recording angel in heaven, who is writing in a very formal bureaucratic style to inform a detestable wealthy miser that he not only has been granted access to heaven, and some of his wishes and prayer are granted, but his name has even been placed in a volume dedicated to outstanding deeds of goodness. The reason? The miser sent one of his starving relatives a small sum of money when she wrote asking him for help. The money was hopelessly insufficient and the miser was very wealthy, but heaven noted that something, no matter how small, was sent. The upper echelons of heaven were thoroughly surprised that such a foul being could actually be capable of any good, no matter how miniscule, and they were forced by their own sliding-scale system to reward him with the greatest rewards.
Twain’s conclusion seems to be that some of the things we believe, and some of the things we concoct in favour of our beliefs, present some serious problems. Likewise, I can’t imagine why a good deed from an evil person, with a long history of evil deeds, should be rewarded more than a good deed from a good person, with a long history of other good deeds.
The son who stayed home had always enjoyed his father’s prosperity. I pity the child who, upon returning home after running away, encounters a parent who says, “You soundrel! You’re going to pay for your indiscretion.” Personally, I am thankful that God’s Love is like that of the parent who delights in his son’s return, and I am disappointed to learn that forgiveness and love are not part of a morality theory that is derived from empathy.
The scoundrel son who returns home may be granted understanding, forgiveness, and perhaps even parental love, but certainly not a reward for being a model son. The reward will go to the son who stayed home throughout the years, nursing his dying father and supporting his ailing mother while the scoundrel was having fun being an anarchist on tour with the Sex Pistols.
It’s ridiculous to think that any moral system would deliberately reward evil (indirectly yes, but not directly). I’ve seen quite a few Christians become emotional over this topic, and I can’t really understand why. Forgiveness and acceptance (of anything) do not warrant a reward. Moral systems reserve rewards for those who do good.
That’s what Twain was poking fun at in Letter From The Recording Angel, which I urge everyone who has not already done so to read.
He wasn’t given a reward; he was given a celebration. The father was happy in the same way that a shephard was happy to find his one lost sheep, or a widow was happy to find her one lost coin. This is not a difficult thing to understand, and twisting it into something sinister merely looks silly.
I think the atheists should stick to assailing what they perceive as biblical contradictions, and lay off pretending that they can assail a father’s love for his lost son. It won’t fly, and only damages their better arguments by making them appear obstinate.
And the good, loyal son understandably becomes jealous if no one ever throws a celebration in his honor.
“‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”
Please tell me that not all atheists fail to understand this. Please. I beg you. Someone?
Please tell me that all Christians manage to understand this.
Who should be rewarded/celebrated more, the person who always does good, or the person who does evil and then in the end does good?
It is a tricky situation, since you do not know the effort the two people have put into their respective goodness. It is often implicitly assumed that those who always do good are “naturally” good, and thus it requires no effort, while the evil who turn to good do so only after a great and courageous effort. However, it is possible that the good son strove mightily to stay by his father’s side and always do the right thing despite great temptation to do evil, while the prodigal son succumbed to far lesser temptation and only turned back to his father when the money ran out. I would certainly be sympathetic to the good son’s complaint if this were the case.
Of course, we cannot know how much effort either son put into their respective goodness. But I think it is too often that we take for granted those who do good without complaint or faltering (though I think to a certain degree good–or evil–does often become easier the more habituated you get to it, and to change often takes more effort than to continue in your path). It’s human nature to celebrate the more unlikely occurance more than the one you’re used to, but it’s not exactly “fair” to do so. I think the father should have praised and celebrated his good son as well. Either way, both his sons were “alive”, whether one was dead and then alive or other one never died. His dismissive response to the efforts of the good son was wrong, and indeed may drive the good son to evil. Celebrate the prodigal son, yes…but also celebrate those people who have refused to do evil at all. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the prodigal son gets the praise, and then doesn’t this just encourage people to complain and not be good all the time because they only way they will get any recognition is to do so?
It is, however, a good conversion ploy to tell people that the person who converts is praised more/equal to a person who has always believed and done good. It is a good way to get people to change their ways to praise them extravagantly when they make the tiniest step in the direction you desire. It is not a terribly good way to get people to maintain their goodness/belief, but once people are “set” into anything, be it goodness, evil or religion, it often takes a more effort to make them alter their ways than it does to get them to continue. So once you “have” someone it is frequently more efficient to focus on gaining more people than by paying attention to the ones you “have”. Parents don’t pay more attention to “problem” children because they (the parents) are evil and stupid, but because the good children are more likely to stay good and the “bad” child takes more effort to make “good”. You shore up the cracks in the dam, not the parts that are strong. However, our inherent sense of fairness tend to object at the “bad” people getting more attention than those who do good without aid, regardness of how practical such behavior may be. So the father’s response I see as a good tactic to keep the prodigal son “good”, but his actions towards the good son may drive him off (though it may take a bit of effort to overcome the son’s habitual goodness). His celebrating the prodigal son was fine. His dismissing of the “good” son was efficient, perhaps, but unfair and may very well backfire.
[Edited by Gaudere on 05-17-2001 at 12:13 AM]
Gaudere summarized the argument that Twain was poking fun at. I don’t have much to add there, but I would emphasize Gaudere’s comment that “It is, however, a good conversion ploy to tell people that the person who converts is praised more/equal to a person who has always believed and done good.”
It may be a good conversion ploy, but it is not very good sense, especially in the long run. Imagine if the justice system worked like that.
Talk about appearing obstinate. Firstly, your statement implies that there are only athesists debating against you here–massively wrong assumption. Secondly, you are mischaracterizing the argument when you state that “atheists” are trying to assail fatherly love. Thirdly, while speaking emotionally and firing off quotes from scripture may all be very dramatic, those who don’t subscribe to your flavour of religion and who therefore cut straight to the chase will find little substance in your words!
OK, maybe it’s just another butterfly, but, I have to say this.
Jesus is not going to divide the love up among us fairly. The rewards of the just, and the unjust will be measured out with joy, and love, each overflowing. God is not fair. Fair is a human limit. God will not love us equally. Equality is a mathematical concept, unrelated to human or divine qualities. God shall give us love in overwhelming abundance for all eternity. You won’t be measuring it to compare it to the bad people’s share. You will be sharing it too! Everyone will be giving love, even those poor tortured souls who were so wounded in life that they could not give love. There won’t be rationing!
You will get so much love, that all you can do with it is pour it out all over every soul you can reach. It certainly won’t be fair. Fair is no where near good enough! Please don’t seek fairness. Don’t settle for justice. You would have to give up the eternal glory of the final supremacy of love, and have nothing but fairness and equality, to hold onto. The sinners, (That’s us, by the way.) and the saints will be together. The prodigals will be returned, and the lost found. Every heart will be lifted up, and every joy unfettered. Fair? You have joy unbounded, and eternal bliss, and you want to count your change? Are you paying attention?
Lots of bad guys get good deals. And you, you too get loved and cherished, and held up in glory before the hosts of heaven. Get over your stingy self, and embrace your enemy. The strife is over!
If you ask for fair, you are refusing the offer of infinite and eternal love, which is hardly fair repayment for your pitiful life. It is so far beyond what I have earned that I shall weep with rejoicing that the all-powerful hand of God has held justice and fairness back from ravaging me. Avoiding fairness is kinda the point, ya see?
Tris
Tris, that’s a little too indeterminate. Under this florally-described system, if I understood the post correctly, no matter how evil you are you come out with infinite reward. For the majority of people religion is a matter of indoctrination and not choice, so there is no moral decision in being Christian, even assuming that Christianity worked like that (which to my knowledge it doesn’t). To begin with, I don’t think this is the point Libertarian was making. But what strikes me as strange is: Inevitable unconditional infinite reward for everyone at all?
If everything put forward by Tris is true according to scripture, I would imagine Christianity to be rather a laissez-faire religion, where everyone does what the heck they want and ends up with maximum “overflowing” reward. Can’t get laid? Go forth and rape to your heart’s content, for there will be no consequence from the divine. Someone annoyed you? Smite him dead in righteous annoyance, for there is nothing to fear from God. Need cash? Sell your soul to the devil now–since you’re going to reap overflowing rewards anyway, it’s practically free money!
All jokes aside, I do not remember Christianity exhorting this kind of extreme liberalism, nor could it possibly have worked at any time in history. Certainly this is not the view that I have heard most Christians take, so perhaps you are explaining the point of view of a particular branch or schism?
I’ll try to ask my friend the archbishop next time I see him, but I am fairly certain that he will tell me that God imposes upon humans a moral system, and that every moral system has rewards and punishments (although I’ll agree that the Bible is not always 100% clear on this).
Sinner? I’m no sinner! I don’t think Christianity states that being human necessarily means being a sinner.
Naturally, my interest here is in Gaudere’s response to this, and I can conclude only that we are reading two very different stories, reminding me of the metaphor we discussed in the old Atheist Religion thread about the beautiful fountain.
Dismissiveness
“So his father went out and pleaded with him.”
Pleaded with him. His father left the celebration that he was hosting, went outside to where his son was sulking, and pleaded with him. That might evoke dismissal for you, but for me it evokes a loving father who took very seriously the complaint of his son. You make it sound like the father heard about his son’s complaint and responded, “fuck him.”
Recognition for the good son
“‘My son,’ the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.”
Always. Everything. What more recognition can there possibly be than the unmitigated declaration that you have never done wrong and that not one thing that I own is ever to be denied you?
Conversion ploy
“‘But we had to celebrate and be glad…’”
This one breaks my heart, and probably explains why we are reading two different stories. You are reading a story about conversion that is told by an Amway recruiter. I am reading a story about celebration that is told by Love Himself.
Backfire
“[The prodigal son] longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.”
The good son elected to stay on the luxurious palace grounds and avail himself every day of a staff of servants and plenty to eat, a decision hardly requiring a Herculean effort. I consider his reaction abberant. Were I he, the scene my father would have viewed through the window would have been my throwing the beautiful robe around the shoulders of my lost and beloved brother, and ordering the staff to kill the fattened calf. I would hold him and cry. I would kiss him and lovingly wash his feet. I would listen in fascination to his stories. I would be the most drunk man in the whole house that evening at the celebration. My brother was dead, and now he is alive.
Abe,
You give your heart to Christ, if you wish. That means you join into the spirit of love. You can’t go rape at will. You can’t refuse to give your coat to anyone who is cold. Money is trivial, and certainly not worth stealing. You don’t feel that way because you want to win the prize. You want more than any other thing to Be the change you want the world to know. Whether you believe that you are saved by Grace, or saved by works, in either case you must know in your heart that good is simply better than evil. This is not tricky stuff.
The reason to avoid cruelty is not because God is watching you, the reason is that cruelty destroys your spirit. The purpose of kindness is not being seen by God to be worthy of salvation, but because kindness nurtures the spirit of the giver. It’s not about philosophy, it’s about growing in your heart.
No, not everyone gets eternal bliss, and infinite love. Not everyone will take love, even in small doses. Some people want fairness, and vengeance, and petty rules. The are afraid that if they give away their hearts they will have lost something. Some people want things, and power over things, and power over people. They love the world, and they love their place in it. That is their choice, and their “punishment” is that they get it. And the world will perish, as do all things but the greatest of things. Only love survives.
In the human spirit is that spark that can be eternal. God loves that spirit, and it can grow and survive with Him. How do you do it? You love Him. You love every soul you meet. You love yourself, because each of us is the child of God. Together we can walk the endless reaches of infinity. Alone, we will wither and die. Love is the thing that can bind us together. Nothing else is enough. So, God became a man, and Jesus is my Savior. It happens in your heart. LOOK THERE.