# Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300 "2006-02-27T12:50:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/321 "2006-03-22T23:19:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > How can an essence be juddged? Since I supported his statement as perfectly accurate, I feel obliged to respond at least for myself. What I told Cosmosdan applies here. The essence is revealed by the aesthetic. Those who value goodness pursue it, and the road they’re on leads to God. Those who value evil pursue it, and the road they’re on leads away from God. Therefore, we judge ourselves merely by pursuing what we treasure. As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/322 "2006-03-23T00:40:29Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Certainly, choices bring consequences. But this choice is a choice of aesthetics, not ethics. Our Lord’s whole ministry was about fulfilling dead and stale rules with His own actual meaning; that is, giving value to the ethical principles. It really isn’t a matter of doing right or wrong, but a matter of valuing goodness over evil. And the essence of goodness is edification. His word edifies, and those who value it are built up, made new, increased. Those who hold it worthless are destroyed, but only because they do not value edification. They value destruction. Yeah… I see that. That brings me to something else that began to dawn on me a few years ago and has been developing ever since. > [@](#): > > John 4:23-25 (NIV) > 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." This is one of my favorite verses and I think expresses what you’re talking about here. His word is that living spirit that speaks to us from within. You have expresses that as well. Our ability to hear, listen and follow isn’t always constant. What we sense as true will change as we invite, open and surrender, and then have the courage to follow. We understand what love and truth require of us gradually as we surrender. So, if we are true to ourselves in our heart of hearts we are on the path of goodness and edification. Who can judge that but ourselves and God, and as you said God does not judge. IMHO neither God or Christ condemn us for those choices but we, through denial and suppression of that call, or acceptance and surrender {which are unique for each of us} set the dynamics in motion. Does that make sense? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/323 "2006-03-23T00:58:16Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > Great verses **cosmosdan**. Do we hold children to the same level of ethics that we do adults? Of course not. They can not understand that some things are not acceptable. As they mature, more and more of the ethical construct is revealed to them. But what if someone was somehow prevented from achieving that maturity? Many mentally handicapped people can only understand ethics at a basic level. Yet we still affirm them when they make decisions that we see as being good. > > So it is with what C S Lewis called our nature (read that: essence). Where is the line drawn between deeds and ability to commit deeds? Someone who is mentally handicapped may not understand giving money to charity but sharing some of their food with a person is just as noble an act, even if it is seemingly insignificant in the world. A psychopath can not help what he is. But he makes decisions based on what he values, although how those decisions manifest themselves after his brain interprets them may not be viewed as moral. Of course. I see what you are saying and I agree. It still puzzles me in dealing with degrees and appropriate response. Do we excuse the damage done by alcoholics in calling it a disease? How do we respond in defense of ourselves to abhorrent behavior and still walk a path of peace and forgiveness? We are called to be transformed IMHO. What are the boundaries of that transformation within a lifetime? I suppose that’s off subject. > [@](#): > > As an aside, I just got your name. My mind insisted on dropping the second ‘s’. I thought it was a play on cosmonaut(sp?), which I thought was pretty cool 🙂 Perhaps you have explained something that’s been puzzling me. Posters very often drop the second S in responding to me. There must be something about my screen name that prompts the mind to do that for some. Funny. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/324 "2006-03-23T01:51:20Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > How can an essence be juddged? How can one discern an essence except through actions and the reporting of the person of his inner state (which may be unreliable.) We can try to fool the person into revealing his inner state through psychological tests. We can determine physiologically that the person is somehow forced by body chemistry into violent acts, say. But none of this lets us morally judge him, except through his interactions with others. This is what I was trying to get at. The NT does speak clearly about actions. Jesus refers to fruits of the spirit. When Jesus was questioned about the source of his own actions he replied. “can’t you tell by what’s being done? Can’t you tell acts of compassion and mercy when you see them?” The true motive behind the actions aren’t always easy to judge but as a society we must try to discern them. I think the nature of our judgement as a culture plays a big role in setting the path for our society. How much do we expect of ourselves and those around us? How much do we excuse? > [@](#): > > As an example, consider the murderers on death row for whom people try to get a pardon because the person reformed. Some people might say that even if the guy turned into a saint there is no reason not to kill him, but most people oppose leniency because they don’t trust him. Maybe God knows, we don’t. And I don’t think there really is a moral essence to find. I believe in forgiveness but not in being stupid. I do wonder where the balance lies. We have an obligation to protect citizens so we do the best we can at making those type of judgement calls. I believe someone truly repentant wants to make restitution as much as possible. A lot of that has been weeded out of our justice system. In the case certain crimes restitution is impossible and the issue of recurrence becomes the main concern. I do think we can offer those paying their debt to society a chance to do something positive. Even if we decide they have forfeited their right to total freedom we can still treat them with compassion. We do judge and will continue to do so. That is part of our exercise of wisdom, compassion, mercy, but also justice. I think we experience this in small ways in our day to day lives and relationships. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/325 "2006-03-23T01:56:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’ve often said that the atheist who loves is closer to God than the theist who does not. In the end, all the labels and all the brains knotted up by them fall away, and we are left with naked spirits. That’s when we discover who our brothers and sisters are. Amen to that 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/326 "2006-03-23T08:07:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Since I supported his statement as perfectly accurate, I feel obliged to respond at least for myself. What I told Cosmosdan applies here. The essence is revealed by the aesthetic. Those who value goodness pursue it, and the road they’re on leads to God. Those who value evil pursue it, and the road they’re on leads away from God. Therefore, we judge ourselves merely by pursuing what we treasure. As Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” Well, this I agree with - using God metaphorically, of course. It’s too bad the signposts on this road aren’t better, since I’m sure some who think they’re on one road are actually on another - and repent and regret it when they can finally see their destination. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/327 "2006-03-23T11:59:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > This is one of my favorite verses and I think expresses what you’re talking about here. His word is that living spirit that speaks to us from within. You have expresses that as well. Our ability to hear, listen and follow isn’t always constant. What we sense as true will change as we invite, open and surrender, and then have the courage to follow. We understand what love and truth require of us gradually as we surrender. So, if we are true to ourselves in our heart of hearts we are on the path of goodness and edification. > > Who can judge that but ourselves and God, and as you said God does not judge. > IMHO neither God or Christ condemn us for those choices but we, through denial and suppression of that call, or acceptance and surrender {which are unique for each of us} set the dynamics in motion. > > Does that make sense? Yes. Very much so. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/328 "2006-03-23T12:04:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, this I agree with - using God metaphorically, of course. It’s too bad the signposts on this road aren’t better, since I’m sure some who think they’re on one road are actually on another - and repent and regret it when they can finally see their destination. Could be. The beauty of it is that we don’t have to worry about their road. We’ll judge no one but ourselves. If we are following what we treasure above all else, then we’re on the right road. Not everyone values edification or the agent Who facilitates it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/329 "2006-03-23T13:12:27Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, this I agree with - using God metaphorically, of course. It’s too bad the signposts on this road aren’t better, since I’m sure some who think they’re on one road are actually on another - and repent and regret it when they can finally see their destination. You’re quite right. Jesus talked about that in the NT as well. Actions were the gauge he asked us to use rather than religious ceremony, words, or class structure. I think finding our way is part of the process. That’s why we should be cautious when judging others. I wonder if the problem is the signposts not being clear or our stubborn refusal to heed them. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/330 "2006-03-23T13:12:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s unfortunate because it means you misquoted me deliberately. Ordinarilly, I would report such a thing, but in your case, I’m increasingly given to believing that you simply can’t help it. On the remote chance that there’s any getting through to you at all, “cannot **NOT** ” means “must”. You got the whole thing completely backwards. I didn’t miss quote you at all, I wrote down on paper your direct translation of essence,I referto your post#274. As for Tristram Shandy I do not believe he was infallible.He can be wrong as both you and I can be. Are you saying Cannot, means Must? If I cannot go back to being 12 again does that mean I must? You sound like a very intelligent person,and I believe you want essence to be,with out being in existence. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/331 "2006-03-23T13:21:46Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I didn’t miss quote you at all, I wrote down on paper your direct translation of essence,I referto your post#274. > As for Tristram Shandy I do not believe he was infallible.He can be wrong as both you and I can be. > > Are you saying Cannot, means Must? If I cannot go back to being 12 again does that mean I must? > > You sound like a very intelligent person,and I believe you want essence to be,with out being in existence. > > Monavis Sorry the post # was 265. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/332 "2006-03-23T13:27:46Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I didn’t miss quote you at all, I wrote down on paper your direct translation of essence,I referto your post#274. > As for Tristram Shandy I do not believe he was infallible.He can be wrong as both you and I can be. > > Are you saying Cannot, means Must? If I cannot go back to being 12 again does that mean I must? > > You sound like a very intelligent person,and I believe you want essence to be,with out being in existence. > > Monavis **Lib** just bolded it for you and you still can’t see it. The term was cannot **not** be. A second not…see. So the term _cannot not_ be means **must**. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/333 "2006-03-23T13:27:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I believe that our discussion began with a listing of definitions, which you seemed to appreciate. I’ll add a couple more. > > Essence: that which a thing, if it is to be, cannot not be. > > Perception: the subjective recognition of that which is familiar about a thing. > > Now take the moon. To a poet, it is the goddess Selene. To an astronomer, it is a satellite. To a man lost at night, it is the dim light of hope. Though it is essentially the collapse of a probability distribution, it nevertheless is perceived as many different things. That is the nature of the amoral fabric of existence around us — the universe. It is a mis-en-scene which men perceive as real, and within which we act out our moral play. I apologize I will admit you said" cannot not be",but if essence is a thing then you must admit it exists or it is non-existent so existence must proceed essence. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/334 "2006-03-23T15:59:59Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I apologize I will admit you said" cannot not be",but if essence is a thing then you must admit it exists or it is non-existent so existence must proceed essence. I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense. Let A be essence. Let B be existence. You’re saying that A -\> (B OR NOT B) -\> B -\> A. It is an assertion with no fewer than four logical knots: tautology, circularity, begging the question, and confirmation of the antecedant. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/335 "2006-03-24T11:45:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m afraid that doesn’t make sense. Let A be essence. Let B be existence. You’re saying that A -\> (B OR NOT B) -\> B -\> A. It is an assertion with no fewer than four logical knots: tautology, circularity, begging the question, and confirmation of the antecedant. I still disagree, it doesn’t make sense to me to say essence doesn’t exist as I understand your meaning; it means it may become something.An idea for an invention may become something ,yet again it may not. And an idea requires a mind( or something first) whether it is real or imaginary. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/336 "2006-03-24T12:10:44Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I still disagree, it doesn’t make sense to me to say essence doesn’t exist as I understand your meaning; it means it may become something.An idea for an invention may become something ,yet again it may not. And an idea requires a mind( or something first) whether it is real or imaginary. What idea? Why are you going on about ideas? I’m reminded of record writing on the old C-64. The 8 kilohertz processor was too fast for the 78 rpm outboard disk drive, and so to write a record to a file reliably, you had to issue a position command twice, just in case the first one got missed. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/337 "2006-03-24T12:46:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What idea? Why are you going on about ideas? I’m reminded of record writing on the old C-64. The 8 kilohertz processor was too fast for the 78 rpm outboard disk drive, and so to write a record to a file reliably, you had to issue a position command twice, just in case the first one got missed. It seems to me that you are using essence to mean an idea or thought that came before existence. what something will( or may) become is not yet in existence. Even if it will come into existence it still cannot be something until it exists. As an example of what I mean, Your parents or grandparents may have hoped for the day you would be conceived,but until then you were non existent. Had another sperm met a different ova you would not be, but someone different would have taken your place,depending on if your parents procreated with each other or some one else at that moment you were conceived. Monavis. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/338 "2006-03-24T15:52:57Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > It seems to me that you are using essence to mean an idea or thought that came before existence. Well, of course not. Here’s what I explained before, and let me try again in more detail because you do seem honestly to be attempting to get this. Maybe it will make more sense this time. If nothing else, even if you disagree with me, I’d like for you to understand what I am in fact saying. I think that there are two stumbling blocks for you. One obstacle that I think is throwing you off is the confusion of two things: (1) a statement that is a copula, and (2) a statement that is an existential claim. Let me illustrate these for you. (1) Copula a. John is our town drunk. b. God is love. c. Socrates is a character in Plato’s dialogs. (2) Existential a. John is an alchoholic. b. God is omnibenevolent. c. Socrates is a figment of Plato’s imagination. The copula statements are statements of identity. They are equivalent to the statement A is B. The existential statements are claims about the nature of something’s existence. They are equivalent to A exists as B. The reason it is important to make the distinction is because English uses “to be” (I am, you are, he is, etc.) for _both_. When we say that essence is this or that, we do not mean to make an existential statement because essence does not exist. And this brings me to the second obstacle. You seem to be dead set against the notion that a thing may be spoken of _without_ existing. You’re commiting an error called “substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition”. In other words, by negating a thing, you are asserting its possibility. That’s the exact problem with hard atheism. While “it is possible that God does not exist” is a legitimate (though misguided, in my opinion) existential statement, its cousin, “it is not possible that God exists” is not. It is the same error. Denying the modal possibility confirms the existential possibility — that is, the “not” moved from “exist” to “possible”. Leaving two “nots” certainly doesn’t help for obvious reasons. We can (and do all the time) speak of things that do not exist. Your tendency to somehow impune those things as something less than existing things is nothing more than a bias. What you do is keep expressing that bias, but you do not argue it. If you think that a thing must exist to have significance, then you should explain why — just as I have explained to a fare-thee-well the opposite, that existence is trivial and essence is all that matters. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/339 "2006-03-24T18:10:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > (1) Copula > > a. John is our town drunk. > > b. God is love. > > c. Socrates is a character in Plato’s dialogs. > > (2) Existential > > a. John is an alchoholic. > > b. God is omnibenevolent. > > c. Socrates is a figment of Plato’s imagination. Let’s look at these statements. First of all, I absolutely agree that the concept of something can precede its existence - except in some unusual cases. However, I think the way the cases above are written might be confusing to some, due to the limitations of English and Lib’s desire to not be as wordy as I like to be. 🙂 **John is our town drunk** / **John is an alcoholic** Clearly, John is not identical with “our town drunk” forever. Thus it should be rewritten “John is currently our town drunk.” But “town drunk” is a tag for a certtain set of characteristics. So, I think this should really be rewritten as “the tag of our town drunk currently applies to John.” It is possible that there are two town drunks, so “John and Frank are our town drunks” seems perfectly valid - which shows that John does not have to be uniquely equivalent to “our town drunk.” “John is an alcoholic” means both that John is an element of the set of alcoholics, and that the characteristic “alcoholic” applies to John. Saying John exists as an alcoholic just doesn’t seem right to me, since it seems to imply an exclusivity that isn’t there. John exists as other things also, such as a husband. Now, how would you categorize the sentence “Jake Barnes is an alcoholic?” **God is love** /\*\* God is omniscient\*\*. I think this is a better example, since if I get Lib’s view correctly (which I hope I do after all this time) his definition of god involves god being identified with love, so the statement makes sense. For the second, some people think omniscience is a required characteristic of god, so it makes no sense to say [non-God] is omniscient, or God is not omniscient. The statement is true by definition, and God is the only element in the set of omniscient beings. In the third example, the first statement is verifiable, the second is not. Besides that, I’m not sure of the difference. A character may or may not be an existent person, but even a character supposedly a person is not the same as that person, as any reader of historical fiction knows. A character is expressed as words on a page, or images on the screen, while a figment is expressed as some set of states in the brain. Are these really all that different? So, a great set of examples. I was just about to declare this thread over, but I got drawn back in. Curse you! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/340 "2006-03-24T18:55:27Z")
Those criticisms and clarifications seem valid to me, Voyager. I appreciate your taking the time to share them. Regarding the difference in number (3), the copula identifies Socrates the dialogian as opposed to say, Socrates our neighbor’s cat. The existential claim makes an assertion about the nature of Socrates’ existence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=18)