—Actually, Apos, I think there’s quite a lot to be said for atheism or generalized deism…as a lifestyle. You can be a good, moral person, lightning isn’t any more likely to strike you than anyone else, and you get to sleep in Sunday mornings.—
There is no “atheist” lifestyle in exactly the same way there is no “non-racedriver” lifestyle. That’s abou as meaningless as talking about the “theist” lifestyle. Theists have only belief in god in common: but that’s such a broad and vauge category that almost no implications about behavior can be drawn from it. Atheists have nothing affirmative in common, so it’s even sillier to draw affirmative conclusions: especially about a common or typical lifestyle.
—Please do think for yourself. If you do so, you won’t fall for the laughable implication that only atheists have the ability to do so.—
I’ll second that.
Atheists are just people. People who happen not to have theist beliefs, but still just basically people. People can be stupid, arrogant, and insulting. But, hopefully, you already knew that.
Thanks again for replying, and I’m writing all the book suggestions down. At the moment I’m kind of short of money so they’ll have to wait, but I do know we have “Mere Christianity” somewhere or other which I’m keeping an eye out for, and in the meanwhile I’m busy reading Lewis’s autobiography.
I know that this is probably going to sound very immature - almost certainly because it is - but while I do greatly appreciate all the advise to keep thinking it over and so forth, and I definitely will, some of it does come over to the more negative side of me as “You’ll understand when you’re older” and while I know you aren’t being patronising, there is a part of me that wonders why I can’t find some answers or at least explanations of peoples’ own POV now. I guess my biggest problem is that I can’t just blindly trust God and presume he knows best, I always have to question.
Anyway:-
But surely the Church, Bible, and foremost God shouldn’t be concerned with what is right in respects to the culture at the time as much what is right full stop? How can it set out to be the most important book for all time otherwise?
Is there a reference to this idea of adapting to the culture actually put down in the Bible, because I’d be interested in reading those verses. Most of the time the Bible seems to be very definite in its condemning. We could extrapolate ideas if it had purely human authors, but I don’t think you can be so easy with the divine.
By saying God has different laws in different times aren’t you making God subject to man rather than the other way around? Where do you draw the line between what was meant for us to take literally and what wasn’t? From all I’ve seen, you can’t, which is why you have so many churches getting so worked up over issues of Gay and Women Priests and so forth (although most of them ignore the silent in church part). I’ve always found it very amusing when my church claims that all you need to do to find out what to do in a situation is read the Bible - because a thousand different people come out with a thousand different interpretations.
As I said before, what Christ said was fairly revolutionary for the time, but it was imaginible. It was not revolutionary for all time, which I felt should be.
(As a side note one thing I’ve never been fully convinced of is Paul’s justification for completely getting rid of the OT law. His argument seems to be “That we’ll never be perfect, so we should stop trying”, which doesn’t really make much sense to me.)
To give an example, my Dad prayed a short prayer (or made an off the cuff comment, or something like that) for a sunny day for a Church barbeque. It rained the whole day, but obviously that wasn’t God’s fault. However if it had been sunny, it would have been.
Even if you take the idea that “God knows best” or whatever, then this is just makes the whole thing pointless in the first place. People always say that they can feel the effects when people are praying for them - but surely if God is loving he would have done it anyway, or is he so childish that he only does it if enough people ask him?
But you praise the artist who made the beautiful painting, not the painting itself. Would you praise a mechanical printer for making a perfect print? No, you wouldn’t because (a) it couldn’t help but make a perfect print and (b) it made no effort.
I think language sometimes confuses this issue - when we say “The play was good” it isn’t us wishing so much good of the play as of all the people who made it. Or to put it another way, isn’t there really two types of praise? There’s the praise for effort, and then there’s just objective factual praise which isn’t really heartfelt praise at all. You can say “That tower is higher than the other” without somehow thinking that the first tower is morally superior. The second type of praise is just a classification, such as the colour or the age. It’s nothing to get emotional about in the least. You can praise a book, I suppose, but your real feeling is towards the author.
Am I starting to get my idea across? I have a feeling that I’m just making it more confusing, as I have a habit to do. I still feel that the simplest analogy is “Who is more worthy of heartfelt praise: the struggling maths student who gets a sum right or the $10 calculator who never fails”.
But surely the second is empty praise? Saying “God is the most good thing ever” is the same as saying “Space is the most black thing ever”. Both (apart from me not using grammar, for some reason) are empty observations, with no real significance. What seperates God from a robot? If you programmed HAL to always do good things and somehow gave it infinite power, would he be just as praiseworthy?
And why on earth (um… heaven… I actually didn’t do that on purpose) not? God is all-loving, people can change, why can’t they kiss and make up, so to speak? It’s not like they’ve haven’t got a lot of time to do it in.
Even if you make hell as least a bad as place as you want it to be making it bad at all, and sticking people in there for infinity when you had the power to save them, has no possible purpose and no possible excuse. It’s cruelty on a scale beyond belief, and completely contradicts any “Turn the other cheek” teaching.
I also think you kind of missed one of my points - I find it a shame that according to Christianity the reason people should act good is so that they get the ultimate prize - getting ‘paid’ really reduces the acts of kindness for me (although I’m sure that most people don’t think of it that way, and generally are being kind just for the sake of it).
Why can’t it just be “Be kind” just for the sake of it, and not “Be kind now, and you’ll get repaid reeeeaaaaal good later”.
Although I agree that that’s fairer than the strict Bible line, the problem is there’s no source for it other than common sense. But it really is also unfair, unfortunately. People who lived in the African jungle suddenly get a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card, while others have to take responsibility.
I’m not quite sure how you can “freely and knowingly reject Christianity” either. Surely the only way that is possible is if you believe totally, but decide that you don’t like Christ. I would think that’s a very, very, very small minority - most people who find they don’t like Christ’s teaching end up not believing. (Personally, I would tend to have pity and mercy even for that select few, as I wonder what trauma they would have to have had to reject God, but that goes back to the whole higher morals than God issue).
Anyway, thanks Piaffe for trying. Some of your interpretations did encourage me, even though they didn’t quite get to the heart of the issue. I would like to see your thoughts on evil if you ever have time and inclination.
Finally, I’d just like to say that I completely and utterly respect atheists (well, I respect agnostics slightly more, as I think if you’re going there you might as well cover your back, but y’know…) and their beliefs, and I am in no way insinuating that’s it’s not a valid choice, or even not a good choice.
I take your point that atheists are just people and vary widely in personality and living arrangements, just like other people but…are you saying that atheists aren’t more likely than Christians to have the freedom to sleep in Sunday mornings?
My more serious point is that not having all the extra dogma that constrains one’s life makes one’s life easier.
At age 10 I stopped believing in hell. At age 12 I was a deist. At age 14, agnostic. By age 16, fully atheist. By the age I am now (23), I’m still an athiest, but my philosophy regarding the natural universe and its workings has become far more developed.
At the age of the OP, one’s worldview does indeed start to change. While I personally am convinced there is no god, it might be of worth to a Christian at that age to seek out the Christian philosophers, greaters theologians, etc., as people have recommended. It’s a more intelligent version of the religion that you are demanding at that age. Protestant Christianity is so much about blind faith, dogged resolution, “heartfelt” loyalties and biblical literalism that it has lost the connection with higher thought that used to populate theology.
To the OP I suggest that just taking a look at people who did in fact believe in god and Christ but weren’t faith-based automatons might shake enough thought into you that you’ll come out with faith unscathed.
If you find yourself without any reason to believe in God (and remember, you need a reason to believe in it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) then by all means mark yourself down as atheist. Atheists have as many well thought out philosophies within their ranks as anyone. Once you ditch the idea of God, if you so choose, there is a whole world of consequentialist ethics, realist metaphysics, and various epistemic issues to be debated. It’s intellectual freedom over here, feel free to join us. Still, I get the sense you might wanna start within your own previous belief system, there are good ideas there too that might satisfy you.
MrThompson there are those above who have said (very politely) that your questions are childish. That is true. It is also a compliment.
You no doubt know the story of the Emperor’s new clothes. If you don’t it goes something like this. The Emperor is convinced by some conmen to buy a suit of clothes made out of invisible cloth for a huge price. The conmen say that only stupid and unsophisticated people would fail to appreciate how wonderful the invisible cloth is. No one dares to comment until a child points out the simple truth, namely that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes at all. Here is a link to the whole story.
As you mature, you may or may not decide that it is convenient for you to live with the cognitive dissonance that comes from knowing that the Emperor is nude (or is, at the least, wearing some pretty damn odd clothing), but pretending otherwise for the sake of getting on with those around you etc.
I can appreciate the predictament you find yourself in. You are questioning some of the beliefs you have held since your childhood, and yet you are fearful of the implications of the doubt you have (friends, family, the ultimate scheme of things). The fact of the matter is this: you can solicit all the points of view you want, read all the books you want, argue and debate all you want, but it is still your decision on what you believe and why. You can listen to those who will try to reaffirm your trust in god, and there are those who will try to make you realise “the power of the dark side” (sorry atheists, that’s kinda what we do).
Any way, enough of the pointless rambling. My advice is that you start keping a journal where you write down your doubts and thoughts of what you believe. As you read, ponder, and talk with others, write down your points and their points. By re-reading what you wrote in the past, perhaps you will find that you can/cannot reconcile some of your beliefs with the childhood doctrine you accepted.
Aaargh! Speak for your sodding self, nahtanoj! It’s bad enough that some Christians would try to convince themselves and their fellow travellers that all who are not on their path are evil, without you helping them along.
Mr. Thompson, I’m going to reply as long as you want me to, but I’m afraid my responses are going to have to be rather short. Anyway:
It was actually Lewis from whom I learned of this view (in the part of Mere Christianity in which he talks about chastity). I don’t think that it entails that the law changes over time: then as now, the law is: be respectful while in church. However, what counts as being respectful does change over time/from culture to culture. Suppose that there were a culture where the gesture we know as “flipping the bird” was actually a sign of great respect. It wouldn’t be right to say that everyone in that culture was incredibly rude and disrespecful to each other, even though someone doing the same thing in our culture would be rude and disrespectful. I’d say more, but Lewis puts it better than I can so I’d rather not until you’ve had a chance to read what he says.
2 things: first, I don’t think that Paul’s rejection of OT law means that none of those prescriptions apply anymore; “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love the lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul” entail some of the OT commandments (not to worship idols or other Gods, and not to lie, murder, etc., for example). Second, to me it does make sense to stop trying to do something that is impossible to do, particularly if there is another way to achieve the same end. For example, surely it makes sense to stop trying to fly by flapping your arms and take a plane instead (a trivial example, but I’m not trying to trivialize your point, just don’t have lots of time).
I guess I’d say that God is just as responsible for the rain as he would have been for the sun, if you’d had any, but that blame isn’t an appropriate reaction to the rain because we don’t know everything that he knows (possibly, someone in your area desperately needed the rain for their crops, or it was a dying wish, or something). Blaming God for not granting a request implies that what we requested was the right thing for him to do, which just may not be the case; someone else may have had a greater need that could only be met if what you requested didn’t happen. In regards to why God would want us to ask for things that he could give us anyway: one reason could be that the attitude that we develop by trusting God and asking him for things is an attitude he wants us to develop, because ultimately it is more conducive to our happiness to have that attitude than not. A semi-analogy: I often ask the horses I train to do “scary” things, like step onto a plastic tarp or walk quietly by the scary trash can. I don’t need the horse to walk on the tarp, but I do need the horse to trust me, and a good way to develop that trust is by doing lots of scary things that come out okay. I want the horse’s trust because overall, the horse will be happier if he knows that I can get him safely through scary situations, and because if there were an emergency, I might need the horse to do what I tell him right away for his own safety. The point I’m making is that one can insist on a behavior that isn’t strictly necessary in order to cultivate an attitude that is.
That would be a good analogy if God were a thing made by someone else to do a certain thing and he managed to do what he was designed for without making a royal mess of things. I think the analogy fails because God is a free being who is not operating according to some preexisting program. It seems that your question is motivated by your understanding of praise; you seem to see praise as the kind of thing that is applicable only in situations where the object of praise has had to work hard and overcome obstacles in order to do the thing for which he is praised. I agree that that kind of praise is inapplicable to God; he didn’t have to study for eons to become omniscient, he just is. However, I think that there is another kind of praise that is applicable to God: praise that is applicable in situations where the object of praise has some good quality by nature. Your objection to this kind of praise seems to come from your equating such situations with those in which something has been programmed to be a certain way with no real understanding of what that means. I have two responses: first, this isn’t the case with God: he understands what it is to be loving, powerful, etc., as well as such things can be understood. Second, it is appropriate to praise God but not appropriate to praise the infinite all-good Hal because the reason God has omnibenevolence is different from the reason Hal would have it. HAL would have that property because someone gave it to him; God’s having that property on the other hand is not at all externally determined. Further, God is conscious and isn’t just doing something he was programmed to do; Hal isn’t. This may just be a case where our intuitions differ, but if not (or if you’d like more on this subject) let me know.
But I think that’s just the point: it’s not that there are people in hell who have repented and genuinely want to be with God, but God just arbitrarly says “No! Too late! I gave you your chance and now you just have to live with it! Hahahahaha!” Rather, those in hell are where they want to be. I don’t know if it’s possible for someone to merit damnation and then genuinely repent; I am sure that God is neither arbitrary nor cruel. (Read Lewis’s the Great Divorce.)
This view overlooks the doctrine that a necessary condition for being saved is wanting to be saved. God can’t just make people want things; it’s not his fault that some people choose to reject his offer (in the GD, Lewis suggests that those in hell are continually offered the chance to come to heaven, but that most of them hate it and want to go back. That may be how it is).
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the moral requirements of Christianity. That is, I think that the kind of person we are supposed to be is one who would do the right thing even if there weren’t a reward for doing so; the fact that there is a reward doesn’t negate that kind of goodness. Putting the point another way, if the only reason a person follows Christ is because he’s hoping for a cosmic party, and if he wouldn’t follow Christ if he thought death was just the end of existence, then that person isn’t genuinely following Christ (or so say I). Does the distinction make sense?
That’s not quite what I meant. What I meant was, the African jungle-dweller can be “saved” without calling the being he prays to “Jesus Christ.” However, he could fail to be saved by being a horrible person. Sort of like at the end of The Last Battle (the last Narnia book, by Lewis (sheesh, I sound like a Lewis fanatic…))., when Aslan says that the service the enemy soldier did to Tash was service to Aslan.
Well, I’m not sure what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for freely/knowingly rejecting him either. However, it makes sense to me that you wouldn’t be held responsible for rejecting Christianity either by mistake or because you couldn’t help it. I think an example of the former case would be someone who (mistakenly) identifiess Christianity with what he hears about abortion-clinic-bombing-giving-Christians-a-bad-name-morons, and rejects that. What I’d say is that one can reject that lunacy without rejecting Christianity, even if one thinks they are the same (I don’t know exactly how this would go). An example of the latter would be the case you’ve mentioned, of people who reject Christianity because of some trauma. I’d argue that their rejection is not free, because given the trauma, they just were not able to accept it. It doesn’t make sense to hold someone responsible for not doing something they couldn’t do, so I’m pretty sure that either 1. God doesn’t hold them responsible, or 2. even though it seems otherwise to me, they really could have accepted Christianity otherwise.
Whew–my apologies to the innocent bystanders who have had to read this rather rambling and incoherent Presentation of Piaffe’s Views. Mr. Thompson, I’d be happy to inflict more of the same on you, if you could be more specific on what you want to know about my views on evil.
Further recommended reading: chapter 4 and the last chapter of G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, Does God have a Nature by Plantinga (you may have to go to a university library for the latter; it might also be more technical than you care for).
I believed in God when I was a youngin, though never forced to go to church or believe in anything. I discarded God when I was 12. Now, at 27, I’ve developed my own spirituality through psychedelic mushrooms, meditation and various literature (the Bible included).
Allow me to briefly touch on the questions you raised. A homophobic God that would not condemn slavery is obviously a creation of power-hungry men. I consider prayer a form of meditation. Thoughts manifest into reality. Praise…? I need to look no further than a human eyeball or a caterpillar or even a piece of dirt to feel the urge to praise Life in all of its wonder! We humans do enough judging of ourselves and each other. And as for evil, how would you know there is light if there is no dark?
I firmly believe that everyone must find their own way. Nobody’s way is indentical. I don’t think my way is better than anyone else’s and I don’t try to convert anyone to it. That said, I can recommend some wonderful books that helped me understand life: “The Tao of Pooh” by Benjamin Hoff, “Conversations With God” by Neil Donald Walsch, and “Another Roadside Attraction” by Tom Robbins. Take your time and know that it takes experience and maturity to even crack the surface. I gots a loooooong way to go! No one has all of the answers (except for maybe Cecil). So, now that you have a maxed out library card, get readin’!
Be well,
Gavin
Whatever gets you through the night. - John Lennon
—are you saying that atheists aren’t more likely than Christians to have the freedom to sleep in Sunday mornings?—
Christians have just as much freedom to sleep in as anyone. They often CHOOSE not to sleep in, in order to do something they value, in exactly the same way I choose not to sleep in, in order to do things I value. They value different things than I, to be sure, but that’s no reason to single them out.
And plenty of Christians sleep in on Sunday mornings.
—My more serious point is that not having all the extra dogma that constrains one’s life makes one’s life easier.—
Maybe, maybe not. Some people feel that they need dogma and guidance: that their life is much easier with it. It can be, paradoxically, very freeing for them.
There is a poem, My Easy God is Gone, which may be of interest to you and some others. After reading it, stop and remember that there is one line that says:
that is different from saying “I have no God - it doesn’t matter”.
Also, I suggest that you read “The Christian Agnostic” by Leslie Weatherhead. He was the minister at the largest Methodist Church in England, many years ago. He covers many of the points you have and what he has to say is not what is expected.
I would also recommend any book by Joseph Campbell for you and gavinelder since they would be right down his alley.
One thing I’d like to comment on myself. Jesus said that you should not pray in front of others, so as to make yourself look good. He said it was better to go into a closet and pray. If you use the Lord’s Prayer as a guide then you can’t go too wrong. I personally think that “May not mine, but Thine will be done.” says all that needs to be said. Certainly, be careful about what you pray for.
Thanks, I would have replied sooner, but I’ve been on a week’s holiday. On the other hand, I did manage to read through Mere Christianity, so I have done some homework, so to speak.
I remember reading something on the subject, so I’ll have to search for it again tomorrow. I don’t think it convinced me, anyway, as I simply don’t see any evidence for the view from the NT itself. Being respectful may be a minor point, but there are other matters which surely are timeless and do not depend on culture - therefore, the NT’s view should be seen as such. I would count slavery among those.
Well, yes, but this just agrees with my whole point about how Xity seems to change itself it to the times.
According to Xity its impossible to be sinless full stop, but we shouldn’t stop trying. Why doesn’t that extend to the OT laws?
But I never see people praising God for the rain, which surely they should do in that case. By this logic we should never praise him for doing anything specific, because we don’t know exactly we’re praising him for it.
Yes, good arguments, but you seem to just be agreeing that prayer is pointless (except to the extent it furthers your own relationship with God).
Uh, yes he is. God = good. God = incapable of being bad. I would call that a program.
Good, we agree.
But that’s a completely different sort of praise which in my opinion deserves a different word. It’s cold, it’s not personal. It’s not something which makes us think the object of the praise is in any way morally superior.
It’s not so much the understanding (although I would argue against that as well if it wasn’t 5 AM in the morning) as it is the fact that it is incapable of being anything different.
I’m not seeing the difference, I’m afraid. If God is all good he was incapable of choosing otherwise, which to me is something externally determined.
I’ve heard this argument many times, and it still doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense to me. Nobody would want hell instead of paradise when they get there. And if apparently they’ll like it when they get there, then it can’t be that bad - which would rather contradict Jesus’ sayings (such as the chopping off of eyes and hands thing).
It is his fault if he doesn’t tell them the facts properly.
Fair enough. I like this idea, and the way that CSL expressed it - it’s just a pity that I don’t find any biblical support.
I think the African person still has a distinct advantage if only he has to be good, rather than believe the doctrine as well. And what about the whole rather fundamental “I am the Truth, Way and the Life” thing - while I liked that scene, it seems to me to go against much of Jesus’ message.
Again, you seem to me to be giving out the “Get Out of Jail Free” cards. I’d be interested if you’d explain to me how anyone could knowingly reject Christianity.
Uh… I don’t know, just the basics - Why so much? etc. and preferably in more detail than “Because they eat the fruit”.
On my proposed view on laws being constant but ways of following them varying:
What do you mean by evidence from the NT itself? Granted, nowhere does it say, “and this is how thou shalt understand the moral prescriptions contained herein, amen,” but neither (as I recall) does it indicate that this would be wrong. As I see it, God gave us reason; we’re expected to use it. If there’s an understanding of a claim made in the NT that accords with one’s convictions and doesn’t contradict anything fundamental to Christianity, then one should go ahead and understand it that way until one finds a better understanding, if one does.
I take it part of your objection is that the view I’ve suggested does’t work for slavery. I have some ideas as to why you’d think that, but it would help if you could be more specific so I can respond to what you actually think as opposed to what I think you might think (is the objection that Paul’s statement that slaves should obey their masters cannot be interpreted other than literally? That a person who would not object to slavery cannot be taken seriously as a moral guide?).
on rejection of OT principles…
It wasn’t meant to be in agreement with that point; I think either you misunderstood or I wasn’t clear. First, the principles in the OT had nothing to do with Christianity, which didn’t begin to exist until Christ’s death (or perhaps during his life; it depends how you define it). So it’s not as though Christianity once said, “you must sacrifice a young lamb blahblahblah” and then retracted it.
Perhaps your point is that the fact that “God’s people” (the Jews) having once been required to sacrifice/whatever, and now not being required to do so, implies that right and wrong change over time? If so, then I don’t think that’s the right understanding. Before Christ’s death, it was necessary to make other sacrifices to atone/purify/whatever (no disrespect intended, I just don’t really know). However, Christ’s death itself achieved the purposes that sacrifice was meant to achieve, and did so permanently. So, there is no longer a need to sacrifice. Therefore, it’s still the case that “it is right to sacrifice in circumstances C,” but C no longer obtains.
On the other hand, perhaps your point is that if what the right thing to do is varies from circumstances to circumstances, then right itself varies from circumstances to circumstances. In that case, I’d refer you to my earlier point that it’s possible for it to be always right to X, but for the way in which one X’s to vary over time.
Good point; my statement was too broad. I guess I’d say this: the OT laws such that the reason for following them still applies, are entailed by the “new” laws (the ones I mentioned). The ones that aren’t so entailed (ritual washing of hands, whatever) are discarded because the reason for following them no longer applies. That is, there’s no longer a need to purify oneself by ritual washing because one has already been purified by Christ’s death. Does that help?
Maybe they should, and just don’t because, after all, they’re human. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about my failure to praise God for things I didn’t really want; I have (what I see as) more important issues to work on.
I guess you mean something like, I shouldn’t praise him for letting me find my lost wallet because the reason that happened may have had nothing to do with me (maybe the guy who would have taken it would have used it to get drunk and would have gone home and beaten his wife, and God let me find it in order to prevent that event). I guess I don’t see the force of that response. It seems to me entirely appropriate to thank/praise someone for doing something for you, even if for all you know, they had an independent reason to do so.
By “pointless,” I assume you mean “doesn’t make the thing prayed for any more or less likely to occur?” That’s a hard one. In some cases, it makes sense that God might do or not do something in accordance with prayer, so as to better reinforce the habit of praying. But that’s hard to accept in cases like someone’s mother recovering from cancer, for example–it just doesn’t seem right that God would let her recover only if someone prayed for it. I just don’t know what to think here; I can’t think of a principle that includes all the instances I think should be included and excludes the ones I think should be excluded. Maybe someday I will, or maybe not, but right now, I put that issue in the category of “stuff I don’t quite understand, and will have to ask God about when I see him (assuming I do).”
Re my claim, “I think the analogy fails because God is a free being who is not operating according to some preexisting program.”
Huh? I’m not following you here; are you arguing that any property (or perhaps just any moral property) a being has is equivalent to a “program” that governs that being’s actions? Or just that being such that it is impossible that it acts a certain way is equivalent to being programmed (that is, externally determined) not to act that way? In some cases, sure: suppose I make a being with a certain nature, and that nature is such that it’s impossible for the being to act in a certain way. Then in a sense that being has been externally determined not to act in that way, even though it is the being’s nature and not (say) some mind-control techniques that determine its actions, because the nature the being has was determined by something external (me). But no one created God, or caused him to have a certain nature, or in any way, shape, or form determined what he would and would not do.
It isn’t as though it’s impossible for God to do evil in the sense that if he tried, he’d fail (in which case I’d see the force of your objection). Rather, it’s that no matter how things had gone, God wouldn’t have tried to do evil. A rough analogy is a person who, no matter how much you try to bribe him or threaten him, won’t [insert really bad thing here], and isn’t even tempted. In a loose sense (loose because there probably is some situation you could put him in in which he’d do it), it’s impossible for that person to do the bad thing, not because he doesn’t know how or lacks the power, but because he doesn’t choose to do it in any of the possible situations you put him in. Would you still say that person doesn’t deserve any sort of moral praise? (I can say more about possibility and impossibility if this isn’t clear).
Well of course not, if they perceive them as hell and paradise; the point being that they don’t perceive them that way.
It’s not that they’ll like it. They’ll probably be quite unhappy. It’s that they wouldn’t prefer heaven. (Read the Great Divorce; it provides (what I see as) a good example of this kind of situation.)
re: “it’s not God’s fault that some people don’t choose salvation”
But on my view, if the person doesn’t understand the facts, that’s taken into consideration in evaluating their choice (see below).
Regarding my statement, “I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the moral requirements of Christianity. That is, I think that the kind of person we are supposed to be is one who would do the right thing even if there weren’t a reward for doing so; the fact that there is a reward doesn’t negate that kind of goodness. Putting the
point another way, if the only reason a person follows Christ is because he’s hoping for a cosmic party, and if he wouldn’t follow Christ if he thought death
was just the end of existence, then that person isn’t genuinely following Christ (or so say I). Does the distinction make sense?”
But lack of explicit support for an idea is not the same as rejection of the idea.
The Catholic catechism puts it rather well; there’s more to it than just ‘being good.’ The idea is that there are situations where it’s possible to be in a state of grace even if you don’t get the doctrine right. You might look at it as everyone’s having to do the same thing, but some people knowing the story behind it.
Can you explain more? I don’t really get your meaning from what you said.
Like this: you have an accurate (enough) understanding of what Christianity is (what it says you have to believe, what you have to do if you’re a Christian), and you reject it. I think that if I were to reject Christianity, it would be a knowing rejection; I don’t have C. confused with radical fundamentalism, for example (of course, maybe I’m wrong about my own understanding. Who knows).
More detail? Sure-it was because they ate an apple. (Sorry…very sorry…in my line of work, you develop a tendency to make really stupid jokes).
Seriously, I don’t really know why there’s so much evil. I see lots of instances where I think, “surely it was possible for God to have created a world where that didn’t happen, and nothing worse did.” There’s lots I don’t understand. I do, however, believe that all the evil there is is “moral” evil-a result of the action of some free being or other. I’m not sure how direct I think the connection is; Plantinga’s view (in Nature of Necessity) seems plausible, but I haven’t thought about it enough yet to say more than that. I also believe that I don’t know everything about the world, and that my own views on what things are evil may be mistaken in some areas (some, I’m pretty sure about). These beliefs allow me to believe that there is some reason or other for all the incomprehensible instances of evil I see, even though it doesn’t seem that way to me.
Was that kind of what you were looking for?
This probably will be my last contribution here until September (that is, I hope it will be; I desperately need the time for other things), but I’ll check this thread then and if you’d like me to continue discussing these things with you then, just say so.
I was raised in the dusty musty Episcopal Church. Through my teen years I fell into atheism, later agnosticism in college, later still it was Deism.
I’m now a Christian at age 37 - have been for about 5 years now. I think that the best faith is the faith that is achieved through questions, investigation, and thought. Being born into faith is the easy way and some are happy with that. Finding faith through investigation, I think, can lead to better - more thoughful - and maybe more useful faith.
Anyway - the SDMB is heavy with atheists - I thought I’d put another word for the Christians.
Three book recommendations:
The Case for Christ and The Case For Faith both by Lee Strobel & Letters from a Skeptic by Gregory Boyd. They’re very good for the intellectual seeker.
A comment about God’s will, prayer, & evil - kind of wrapped up altogether.
One gift of God is free will. If we didn’t have free will, then we would be little robots, chanting praises to God in unison - just making sound without meaning. So that we aren’t little robots, we’re gifted with our own will. This free will allows us to do things that God would approve of - or conversely, do things that God would disapprove of.
When questions occur - like “Why does God allow this to happen?” or “Why didn’t God prevent this horrible thing”. I look at and remember that not every bad thing that is occurring is the will of God. Not every evil that persists is because “every top has to have a bottom”. Some bad things happen because people have free will and that gift can be misused.
Other wishes for God’s intervention are often in violation of the basic rules we live by. A person falling from a bridge may pray for God to stop his fall but he’ll hit the ground anyway. It’s not that God didn’t want to save him, it’s just that air that is thin enough to breathe is thin enough to fall through. Wishing that God holds back the rain for a picnic is all well and good - although somewhat selfish. But this may just show that another point to be made is that sometimes God says, “no”.
Blaming Satan for all the bad things and praising God for all the good is a nice simple faith. Wrong, IMHO, but it works for some.
Having somebody close die and saying “God works in mysterious ways” is a nice platitude. The death may be from caused by the will of God (they may be purpose you can’t fathom); the death could be caused by the free will of another person; maybe it was just part of the natural rules.
To say one more thing about prayer. We recite the Lord’s Prayer too fast in most churches. Look at it, it’s all that needs to be said to the Lord daily.
Praise to You (God)
Your Kingdom will come.
I wish Your will to be done.
Please give me my basic needs
Forgive me for bad things I have done.
I will try to forgive those that have done bad to me.
Please help keep me from straying into sinful temptations.
Please keep evil from happening to me.
Everything is Yours.
It’s all here - Praise for God, a recognition of his role, requests for protection & provision. There’s nothing in here about preventing rain or requests for income enough to by a widescreen TV.
A favorite book of mine describes a faithful woman walking along the highway and finding herself wishing for God to send a flaming chariot to carry her. She chides herself afterward for her foolishness, saying “God sends strength, not taxi cabs.”.
When I find myself praying, I often ask myself - am I asking for strength or taxi cabs?
I asked myself that often when my new son was on a respirator in the hospital. My most frequent prayer was for strength for me and my new son. I also prayed for God’s will to be done. I was always aware that sometimes God answers, “no”.
For the record, the doctors were astounded on the extraordinary speed of his recovery. The skeptic would say that was the result of normal variation for his condition, I see the hand of God and the power of prayer.
Prayer, to address a previous poster’s comments, should be voiced - although the Bible warns us to not do it as a show for others. I love my wife and she knows that - it’s important to her that I tell her every now and then - even though she already knows.
I love my God - I need to let him know about that every now and then, too. A relationship needs to be maintained. We humans do that by communicating.
I wish you luck in your spiritual search. I hope your search for the truth will lead you back to Christianity with a strengthened resolve.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. The building may be too tall to see the top but I can see the foundation and enough of the walls to know that it stands.
Firstly the only one who has ever proven to me that God exists is God himself. I believe Jesus is Lord and I walk in faith, in action, actively responding to God in faith and he has blessed my life over and over again in that relationship with Him, in His Love, Him whom I consider my Father. My beliefs are from my mind, my faith from my spirit…
I believe all information as we see it, with our human perspective is incomplete or else we could explain everything with no opposing theories at all.
I also believe God is truly omnipotent…All powerful…so neither you nor me, nor the forces of the Universe can manipulate or define what he can or can not do or say or demonstrate as Truth…despite our logic and the proof we can produce from our limited and incomplete theories, however impressive they are and I really admit that science for example is very impressive… so is engineering, so is creative art, so is athletics.
So let me try and answer at least the first question? or is it really a statement or a professing of your beliefs?
“Christianity” IMO only comes from God if it is led by His Holy Spirit…The Spirit of Christ Jesus. If it is not (led by the Holy Spirit that is) than really it is a religion that has taken on the name “Christian”. I have been a child of God for about 22 years now…These watermarks are as consistent as they have always been without twisting and contorting what the Scripture actuallys says about them.
For instance slavery in ancient Israel was not a lifelong bondage. It only became a bondage when they where forced into slavery by the Egyptians of that time…Slavery according to God’s Law at that time was more comparable to a contracted job today. Once the contract was complete you where free.
God is not homophobic and neither is the scripture…People are homophobic. The Bible tends to define certain activity as sin and condemns the sin but always provides the faith and the love to overcome the sin.
If your definition of homophobia or slavery is different than mine or the Scripture…that doesn’t make it right.
Sin is something according to Scripture that we all have to face…and according to what I have learned from his Word He dealt and faced our sin for us, ALL OF US…including slaves and homosexuals. God never condemns to prove he is God. God always provides Life in place of death to prove He is God.
[qoute]Blaming Satan for all the bad things and praising God for all the good is a nice simple faith. Wrong, IMHO, but it works for some.
[/quote]
I agree we cannot blame Satan for every bad thing that happens…but IMHO not recognizing that we as men have a mortal and spirititual enemy is a very grave mistake. Satan, as evidenced by Adam and Eve, Job, and the temptation of Jesus in the desert plays a very big part of how men choose to live their lives. Satan will outright contradict the intention, faithfulness and love of God.
It is like going to War blind in one eye, and being beaten badly time and again because we fail to recognize that we have a supposed ally that is really our worst enemy, next to our own fallen nature.
Now I know to some that the idea that principalities and powers of darkness exist and are bent on turning you from truly having a relationship with God is frowned upon and seen as simple minded and unintelligent. It really is not…although some do have a very superficial understanding of spiritual warfare.
Praising God period, in Spirit and in Truth is supposed to be a simple act of faith, a gift of faith. You can only worship God if you have his Holy Spirit. Jesus said unless you partake of Him you have no Life or Spirit in you. The Apostle Paul said unless you have the Spirit of God living in you and you in Him you are not a child of God.
Many like Mr. Thompson here find praising God, which is not in an of itself worshipping God, not so simple. But Jesus said unless you become like a little child you cannot see the Kingdom of God.
Jesus also said those who worship God must worship him in Spirit and in Truth.
From what I have learned in the Word, active Faith, grounded in Love, responding to God in confidence, that he will perform that which He has promised, is true worship. That is how Jesus walked while here, constantly in fellowship with his Father and in his Love and his power and in His Spirit. If you don’t have His Spirit you cannot worship God…you do not have the ability to.
I have a feeling Mr. Thompson has run into too many people who think that worshiping God is going to church and singing songs…putting on your church face…giving time, money and praying at the alter. Those things are a form of worship if done in Truth and Spirit and in Faith and Love…but if I can come to church and not change who and what I was before I entered and then leave just as honestly as I left, walking in faith and in the Holy Spirit, then you are truly worshipping God.
I agree that there are far too many people playing church. I don’t mean to sound negative but sometimes we have to face reality despite how negative it can be.
If you are seeking God or an understanding of how people can say there is a God or that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life…then I submit you are only really responding to his call on your life. Jesus said no man can come to Him unless the Father draws him…
Not meaning to sound preachy Mr. Thompson only responding to the OP…because I am a Christian, a living Child of God.
You talk about ‘rejecting’ Christianity as if it’s a choice, like ‘rejecting’ an extra bar of chocolate or a date. As far as I can tell, you may mean the word ‘reject’ in one of two ways:
(1) Thinking that it’s not true. This is the sense in which I think I ‘reject’ Christianity. But surely this kind of rejection is not a choice, or a decision? If I am factually in error, and am unconvinced by the evidence for Christianity, surely that is just an innocent mistake like getting the capitals of Europe wrong? How is this a ‘choice’ which I can be ‘held responsible for’?
(2) Deciding that it is true, but ‘rejecting’ it and deciding to sin anyway and actively disobey what you consider to be “God’s” will. Surely no sane person would do this? If I didn’t think Christianity was a fairy tale for grown-ups (no offence intended, just trying to be vivid!), and if I suspected that God existed, I would have to be a complete idiot not to follow what I believed to be his words.
I don’t mean to be unduly strident, but this is one of my main peeves with (some) Christians: they act as if everyone knows it’s true really, but makes some decision to ‘reject’ it.
Unless of coarse porn_star_luke it is not something that we are convinced of by our intellects but something that is revealed to us at specific moments in our lives by God.
Jesus also used the metaphor of darkness verses light or blindness versus seeing. If I am in a room where there is no light and can’t see my condition I am blind only because there is no light. But if someone comes along (God) and shines light in the room I can see now who I am really…I either will stay in the light by choice or I will reject the light because of what I see.
