“Then you admit he isn't omnipotent? That's the only way your way around it would make any sort of sense.” --> I admit I was a bit unnerved by this comment. “Of course, God is omnipotent,” I thought. “Why would I ever say anything to make him seem otherwise?” So I studied a bit, prayed a bit, and here’s my answer, which I hope will make some “sort of sense.” Yes, God is omnipotent. But he is also all-loving and all-wise. He knows that the way things are is the way they should be. I often fall short of God’s understanding, but I trust Him. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9).
“No offense, but he did a ... poor job of it since FAR more people will supposedly be going to the fiery hell than to heaven. I urge you to look at my hell fire test blog post.” --> Although that is a commonly held belief in Christianity, I am certainly not alone in my belief that far fewer people will be going to “the fiery hell” than to heaven. Your hell fire test blog post was one of the first ones I ever read and was actually one of the original reasons I wanted to comment – because it was so far from my beliefs. I have mentioned this in a previous post less directly when I mentioned people without a knowledge of the gospel and their place in the afterlife. So, here is my own “Hell” blog post:
Hell is the English translation of Hebrew Sheol and corresponds to Greek Hades. In common speech, it denotes the place of the wicked’s torment, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep, narrow valley of Jerusalem into which were offered the children of the idolatrous Jews, as a sacrifice to Moloch (2 Chr. 28:3; 2 Chr. 33:6; Jer. 7:31; Jer. 19:2-6). It was later used as a place for burning the city’s waste (2 Kings 23:10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God.
Two current senses of the word hell are these: One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and the less righteous will abide there until the resurrection, at which time they will go to their assigned glory. In this sense the scriptures speak of spiritual death as hell. Hell, thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory. Statements about an everlasting hell must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of scripture which defines eternal and endless punishment only in that God is eternal and endless.
On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.
By the way, there was a conflict among the spirit children of God in the pre-mortal existence. It’s termed a “war in heaven” by Rev. 12:7 and was fought over how the plan of salvation would work for the forthcoming human family on earth. The issues included agency, how to gain salvation, and who would be Redeemer. The war erupted because a third of the spirits wouldn’t accept Jesus’ appointment as the Savior. Such refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan. It was evident that if given agency, some people would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted everyone who passed through mortality to gain automatic salvation, disregarding individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (Isa. 14:12-20; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4-13). The spirits who thus continued to rebel were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, and thus came the devil and his angels (Rev. 12:9).
“The Bible is chalk full of atrocities. If we don't need it for morals, and morals are natural, then the Bible is useless in this regard.” --> Morals are naturally understood, but not necessarily naturally taught or known. Back to Bobby --yes, if the note were not there and he touched the stove, he would get burned, and he would learn from his mistake. But he would also have a scar that would last for a long time, maybe even the rest of his life. The note on the counter, or the mother telling him, are his chance to prevent that scar.
“You keep forgetting that God is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent... Even so, you would probably agree with me that her kid should be taken away because she's neglectful - who leaves a small child at home with a note and a hot stove? ¶ God? ¶ According to Christian theology, He made everything. This negates any argument you could make on this subject unless you want to agree that God isn't all loving and perhaps he's either evil or like us - a mix of bad and good.” --> I have several thoughts on the matter. First, it does not really matter whether or not God created the stove in the scenario or not, just as it doesn’t matter whether of not the Mother was the one who made the stove hot or not. The point is that the child is warned, and he has the choice whether or not to obey.
Have you ever read the book Jumping Ship? If you haven’t, it doesn’t really matter. I haven’t actually read it either, but I know the basic idea. It’s a parenting book that describes what frequently happens to children from homes of overly strict or overly protective parents. Which is, they get out as fast as they can and turn their lifestyle completely upside down, going from one extreme to the other. The goal of the book is to keep parents from involving themselves too much in their children’s life, warning that if you control every aspect of children’s lives, they will hate you and their lifestyle. If you let them make more of their own choices, they tend to become more responsible and willing to come to you for advice. Basically, I think that is the type of parenting that God does. He gives commandments, tells truth, and then hopes very much that we will learn from our mistakes. That isn’t neglect; it’s wisdom. (And, interestingly enough, it certainly isn’t totalitarianism either.)
“Mom isn't God. God would know what would change my mind and be able to easily do so. Think if that mom could do something she knew would make sure her child was saved from an eternity of stove torment that she would do it? Why?because she loves him and doesn't want to see harm come to him.” --> Of course Mom would try her best to help her children, and God does too. But there is a point at which children have to take the consequences of their own choices. If they don’t, they are being hurt more than helped. I know a Mom right now, an amazing woman who has done her very best. Most of her children have turned out quite well – educated, honest, faithful. There is one, though, who, “jumped ship” once he was on his own. After getting a double full scholarship to college, he dropped out during his freshman year. He lost every job he got because he repeatedly would not show up to work. He lived in an apartment he couldn’t afford because every penny he got was spent on video games and fast food. Then the apartment threatened to kick him out for not paying rent. Eventually he was kicked out of the apartment, and he started getting letters from collection agencies for the rent he never paid and the thousands of debt dollars he had racked up on junk. He turned to his parents for help, promising he would change his life and go back to school and church. Can you guess what they did? If you were this kid’s father, what would you have done? Would you have paid off the thousands in debt in order to keep your kid from going to court or prison?
“There is far more proof of any of these things than there are for any God. Look up the science on smoking, look up statistics on missing school etc.” --> That was exactly my point! DESPITE all the evidence, it does not keep people from ignoring the warnings and making stupid decisions. Why would it be any different for God? If God were the head of the government, on TV everyday, warning us, very present and proven, do you think people would suddenly believe everything he said and always be righteous?
“We agree on something else it seems. However, he is being treated that way because of your religion and that of the other two in the big three.” --> You can blame religion if you want, but I think discrimination is just a natural a human trait. Go to an elementary or junior high school and observe the behavior of people who are yet without strong political or even religious opinions. Still there will be plenty of discrimination, because of friends, height, disabilities, clothing (even glasses), obesity, intelligence or lack thereof. There does not even need to be a reason behind discrimination. Frankly, even if I were atheist, I would be innately disgusted at the thought of homosexuality, and would still vote against it.
“You are stopping them by denying them their right to get married. Your also mixing your religion into politics, weakening the separation of church and state. I don't think you realize how dangerous and damaging this is.” --> Who said marriage was a “right?” If that were so, I could marry anyone I pleased. Government could not discriminate against me and my true love, even if he/she were a family member, or even if I already had multiple spouses. By the way, I think I am clearing up the line between separation of church and state, not blurring it. If marriage ever became the legal norm, can you imagine all the lawsuits that would follow? Any organization or church that prohibited homosexuality or failed to let in gay members would lose its tax deductible status. Any preacher who denied performing the marriage ceremony for a gay couple would be persecuted relentlessly. Not too long ago, I heard on the news the story of a couple who started a small business together. From what I remember: The only rule they had for their photography business was that they would not photograph anything that went against their beliefs. For example, they would not photograph certain clothing or poses. When a gay couple asked for their work, the couple refused their services. The gay couple sued, and the couple lost. They lost their license, their business, and, of course, a un sacco di soldi, i.e. a great deal of money.
On another note, homosexuality is very dangerous, and I’m not talking spiritually right now. It is literally more dangerous than smoking. Homosexuals represented 21% of hepatitis B cases in 1988, and 44% of HIV cases between 2000-2003. They contract syphilis at a rate 300-400% higher than nonhomosexuals. Anal intercourse causes hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, and retained foreign bodies, and creates high risk for anal cancer. Among male homosexuals engaging in oral-anal contact, an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infection exists. Homosexuality is also associated with higher mortality. A major Canadian medical center found the life expectancy at age 20 years for gays and bisexual men was 8-20 years less than that for all men. It’s further estimated that nearly 50% of today’s gay and bisexual 20-year-olds will not reach their 65th birthday.
On top of these personal health risks, anyone with whom these people have sex are at risk of some of these diseases. That shouldn’t matter, too much, right? As long as the sex is exclusive. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily so. Homosexual activity today is associated with reduced behavioral control. We all restrain some sex drives, but those practicing homosexuality have a much-reduced constraint. A 1978 study reported that 75% of male homosexuals had been with 100+ partners; 28%, the largest subcategory, reported 1000+ partners; 79% said that half their partners were strangers; and 79% said that more than half of those partners were men with whom they had sex only once.
[Other arguments, etc]... “I have to say that I'm very disappointed that you have used this line of reasoning that... has been debunked time and time again. I think even you know this deep down inside. That's why you were reluctant to mention it.” -- I’m also sorry my brief reasoning was not satisfactory to you. But frankly I didn’t think it would be. That is the reason why I was reluctant to mention it. It’s such a hot topic that once someone has made up his mind on it, it is virtually impossible to change it. I don’t particularly like to be controversial or argumentative, so I didn’t want to start in on a topic that would be next-to-impossible for us ever to agree on. So I hope we can agree to disagree and move on pretty soon.
“Semantics. It's the same thing.” --> Not at all! You’ve probably heard the saying, “Hate the sin; love the sinner.” That’s not semantics. That’s differentiation. I do not hate gay people, only the idea of what they do.
That's fine. It still doesn't mean your disgust at such behavior should have any bearing on the law. PickLots of things disgust me. I still don't deny them equal rights. --> But I bet most of those disgusting things don’t lower your or someone else’s life expectancy by 8-20 years.
“No it's also taught and reinforced.” --> The Bible definitely does not teach and reinforce stupid or bad behavior. As you say, it “teaches and reinforces moral behavior.”
“If we grew up worshipping the gun and we were supposedly told the gun Gods wanted such and such done, we'd have more of that.” --> But God does not ask for stupid behavior.
“The Bible teaches and reinforces moral behavior. Take those justifications away and people actually have to take responsibility for their own actions.” --> People have to take responsibility for their actions anyway, obviously. The Bible does not control anything, anymore than any idea does. The best example I can think of right now is Darwin. He had ideas that contributed to the belief that some races were inferior to others. That did not make Darwin or his books responsible for the actions of Hitler. Although they, the ideas, were the basis for some of the worst years of the century, they did not teach or reinforce those actions.
“Without the Bible for instance, I could cal you a bigot.” --> You can still call be a bigot. You’re as responsible for your actions as I am for mine.
“With the Bible you're supposedly justified because of your religion.” --> I’m really a bit confused. Justified for what?
“Don't covet someone else’s wife = thought crime. They didn't do it, they are thinking it.” --> You got me. Thoughts can be sinful, too. But what is the punishment of that type of sin? Only, as I said in my last post, the evil that can come from it. It doesn’t say God will cut off someone who thinks a sinful thought. But he can reward for good intentions. But “he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days” (Prov. 28:16).
Wow. That took forever to write, and I definitely don't have time to go back and check for errors. We should probably table some of these topics for a later date. I just wish we could have a one-on-one conversation? Then I wouldn't feel obliged to respond to every tangent, while adding in my own tangents. Haha! Well, it's late. Good night/morning.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Response to Part 2: Homosexuals to Thought Crimes - My Thoughts
“While you may be more liberal in your beliefs (for which I commend you) you are still a part of the problem because you help create an atmosphere where homosexual bigotry is considered to be okay.” --> I don’t know if I have ever before been called liberal in my beliefs. Wow. Just so you know, I try never to create an atmosphere of bigotry, nor do I believe it ever to be okay. I am very close friends with a person who happens to be gay, and it pains me when he tells me about the sometime treatment of others toward him.
“Even if you don't take an active role in voting against gay marriage, it's a half measure and you're still not voting to allow people to live their lives as they say fit even when it has nothing to do with you.” --> As a matter of fact, I am very much against the legalization of gay marriage. But it’s probably not for the reason you think. You say that I should vote to allow people to live their lives as they see fit. In response: I claim the privilege of acting according to my conscience, and I allow others the same privilege. Since homosexual behavior is legal, people can live their lives how they wish. No one is stopping them.
You know what, I just want to get this over. Instead of writing a longer post later, I think I’ll just summarize my views on homosexual marriage here:
1) The only benefits of marriage withheld from gay couples are those that are costly to the state and society.
2) The reason heterosexual marriages have been subsidized in the past is that they serve the state interest by propagating society. Since homosexual couples do nothing to serve this interest, there is no reason for the state to grant them such benefits, unless they serve some other state interest.
3) One might argue that it would better serve the state to recognize gay marriages and then make it easy for gay couples to adopt. But there is plenty of evidence that kids need both a male and female parent for proper development (for example, see David Popenoe’s Life without a Father).
“I'm pretty sure it [the Bible] does [say that homosexuals are an abomination.] --> It never, ever says that. I looked up as many as I could find. It did, however, say that homosexual behavior was an abomination. I looked up “abomination” in the dictionary and got this: “a thing that causes disgust...” If I were to be completely honest, I would have to say that homosexual behavior does exactly that to me. How strange that is to say! It’s so taboo in most cases. I’ve been called a homophobe before. Dictionary def: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” I really resent being called that because of its totally derogatory connotation, especially since I don’t feel my aversion is either extreme or irrational. Also, it is not toward the people that I feel so strongly. Like I said, I have been close friends with gay people. But, I can’t help (and, as a matter of fact, have no desire to help) the feeling that homosexual behavior is completely against nature and common sense. All right, enough said, and probably too much.
“I take everyone on an individual basis. However, there is no denying that the Christian belief structure has - and continues too - reinforce such stupid behavior while having the added bonus of supposedly being sanctioned by God.” --> I don’t think Christianity has reinforced stupid behavior. Rather, I think people use a misinterpretation of Christianity to excuse the way they would have behaved anyway. That’s like saying that because Hitler tried to kill out an entire race of people that he believed was inferior to his own, Darwin thinking reinforced holocaust behavior. Just because someone takes an idea and twists it so that he can use it as an excuse for his own behavior does not mean the idea is necessarily wrong or evil. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “Guns don’t people. People kill people.” Guns are just the excuse. In the same way, Christianity doesn’t reinforce stupid behavior. It’s just the excuse.
“Parents can't punish you for thought crimes. God supposedly can.” --> I am currently reading a book called 1984. It has the term “thought crimes,” and it is very troubling. I haven’t gotten far enough into the book to recommend it, but have you read it? Anyway, as soon as I read that term “thought crimes,” I felt automatic repulsion. Fortunately, 1984 is not real life, not even spiritual real life. Here are my thoughts on “thought crimes.”
1) I searched a bit in the Bible and found no evidence for the idea that God punishes for “thought crimes.” I found a couple scriptures to which you might have been referring, but I hope you take careful note of the wording. For example, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be IN DANGER of the judgment” (Matt. 5:22, emphasis, of course, added). That is, he needs to be careful. I think the reason for this is not so much thought itself, which can be only imperfectly controlled. Rather, it is the habitual thoughts, the ones we go back to when there is nothing else to think about. Those are the ones that lead to actions. Hence Jeremiah 6:19: “Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts.” The evil is not a punishment for thoughts. Rather, the evil is the fruit of the thoughts.
2) A thought, according to my dictionary, is “an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind.” An intention, by the same dictionary, is ”a thing intended; an aim or plan.” And a desire is “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.” I believe that we are not judged by our thoughts, the random ideas that seem sometimes to spontaneously appear in our heads. Rather, it is what we do with those thoughts. Our desires and intentions that determine what happens next. This makes complete sense to me. Let me tell you a story (completely fabricated, I promise):
Take a kid who walks into a store and sees a candy bar. He thinks to himself, “You know what, I could stick that candy bar in my pocket and walk out of here without anyone even noticing.” He considers it for a fraction of a second, but it is too weird an idea for him to act on it.
He shrugs and walks away. Later on, the kid sees the same kind of candy bar. Immediately his brain jumps back to the experience. It’s THEN that he has two choices. First, he can toss the thought back out of his head. Once he does, he’ll be less likely to think of the experience again next time he sees the candy bar, and if he continues tossing the thought as soon as it comes, he’ll gradually forget it. Second, he can start pondering the idea he had. Still without any intention of ever stealing, he begins formulating a plan. He considers the different stores, ones that are busier or less busy. He considers the different sizes of pockets he has, and he judges candy bars by how small or flat they are. Soon he has a foolproof plan but still has no intention ever of acting on it.
Then one day, something happens. It could be anything. Maybe it’s something as simple as a seemingly irresistible desire for chocolate. Maybe a peer says something that sounds vaguely like a challenge to steal something. Maybe a friend mentions that he has always wanted to try a particular candy bar but doesn't have money.
No matter what it is, suddenly the stars aline. The kid feels as if fate is smiling favorably on him. The opportunity is there. He has motive and ability. It’s like a puzzle, and the last piece needed to complete it is his simply acting on something he has thought about doing dozens of times already. So what happens next? “Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” (Proverbs 1:31).
P.S. Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? It’s an amazing book that I hadn’t thought about it for a while, but its plot came to mind as I was writing that story. It actually follows a very similar line in its first couple chapters. Only the crime is not stealing a candy bar; it’s murder.
5) Although we never punish based on desires alone, humans also assign judgment based on intentions. For example, if you really like your neighbor’s car, you haven’t broken any laws of man. But if you drive away in it, you have committed a wrong that can be punished under the law. To allot the proper punishment, the law needs to try to figure out your intent. If you simply intended to borrow the car, you might not be guilty of a crime. If you intended to use it and return it shortly, knowing full-well that the owner would not allow it, it was a minor crime. If you intended to keep the car permanently, it’s a major crime. To choose among these various alternatives, a judge or jury would attempt to determine your state of mind.
“I hope I've adequately explained my position without offending you.” --> You were perfect. No offense. Thanks.
“Even if you don't take an active role in voting against gay marriage, it's a half measure and you're still not voting to allow people to live their lives as they say fit even when it has nothing to do with you.” --> As a matter of fact, I am very much against the legalization of gay marriage. But it’s probably not for the reason you think. You say that I should vote to allow people to live their lives as they see fit. In response: I claim the privilege of acting according to my conscience, and I allow others the same privilege. Since homosexual behavior is legal, people can live their lives how they wish. No one is stopping them.
You know what, I just want to get this over. Instead of writing a longer post later, I think I’ll just summarize my views on homosexual marriage here:
1) The only benefits of marriage withheld from gay couples are those that are costly to the state and society.
2) The reason heterosexual marriages have been subsidized in the past is that they serve the state interest by propagating society. Since homosexual couples do nothing to serve this interest, there is no reason for the state to grant them such benefits, unless they serve some other state interest.
3) One might argue that it would better serve the state to recognize gay marriages and then make it easy for gay couples to adopt. But there is plenty of evidence that kids need both a male and female parent for proper development (for example, see David Popenoe’s Life without a Father).
“I'm pretty sure it [the Bible] does [say that homosexuals are an abomination.] --> It never, ever says that. I looked up as many as I could find. It did, however, say that homosexual behavior was an abomination. I looked up “abomination” in the dictionary and got this: “a thing that causes disgust...” If I were to be completely honest, I would have to say that homosexual behavior does exactly that to me. How strange that is to say! It’s so taboo in most cases. I’ve been called a homophobe before. Dictionary def: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” I really resent being called that because of its totally derogatory connotation, especially since I don’t feel my aversion is either extreme or irrational. Also, it is not toward the people that I feel so strongly. Like I said, I have been close friends with gay people. But, I can’t help (and, as a matter of fact, have no desire to help) the feeling that homosexual behavior is completely against nature and common sense. All right, enough said, and probably too much.
“I take everyone on an individual basis. However, there is no denying that the Christian belief structure has - and continues too - reinforce such stupid behavior while having the added bonus of supposedly being sanctioned by God.” --> I don’t think Christianity has reinforced stupid behavior. Rather, I think people use a misinterpretation of Christianity to excuse the way they would have behaved anyway. That’s like saying that because Hitler tried to kill out an entire race of people that he believed was inferior to his own, Darwin thinking reinforced holocaust behavior. Just because someone takes an idea and twists it so that he can use it as an excuse for his own behavior does not mean the idea is necessarily wrong or evil. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “Guns don’t people. People kill people.” Guns are just the excuse. In the same way, Christianity doesn’t reinforce stupid behavior. It’s just the excuse.
“Parents can't punish you for thought crimes. God supposedly can.” --> I am currently reading a book called 1984. It has the term “thought crimes,” and it is very troubling. I haven’t gotten far enough into the book to recommend it, but have you read it? Anyway, as soon as I read that term “thought crimes,” I felt automatic repulsion. Fortunately, 1984 is not real life, not even spiritual real life. Here are my thoughts on “thought crimes.”
1) I searched a bit in the Bible and found no evidence for the idea that God punishes for “thought crimes.” I found a couple scriptures to which you might have been referring, but I hope you take careful note of the wording. For example, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be IN DANGER of the judgment” (Matt. 5:22, emphasis, of course, added). That is, he needs to be careful. I think the reason for this is not so much thought itself, which can be only imperfectly controlled. Rather, it is the habitual thoughts, the ones we go back to when there is nothing else to think about. Those are the ones that lead to actions. Hence Jeremiah 6:19: “Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts.” The evil is not a punishment for thoughts. Rather, the evil is the fruit of the thoughts.
2) A thought, according to my dictionary, is “an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind.” An intention, by the same dictionary, is ”a thing intended; an aim or plan.” And a desire is “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.” I believe that we are not judged by our thoughts, the random ideas that seem sometimes to spontaneously appear in our heads. Rather, it is what we do with those thoughts. Our desires and intentions that determine what happens next. This makes complete sense to me. Let me tell you a story (completely fabricated, I promise):
Take a kid who walks into a store and sees a candy bar. He thinks to himself, “You know what, I could stick that candy bar in my pocket and walk out of here without anyone even noticing.” He considers it for a fraction of a second, but it is too weird an idea for him to act on it.
He shrugs and walks away. Later on, the kid sees the same kind of candy bar. Immediately his brain jumps back to the experience. It’s THEN that he has two choices. First, he can toss the thought back out of his head. Once he does, he’ll be less likely to think of the experience again next time he sees the candy bar, and if he continues tossing the thought as soon as it comes, he’ll gradually forget it. Second, he can start pondering the idea he had. Still without any intention of ever stealing, he begins formulating a plan. He considers the different stores, ones that are busier or less busy. He considers the different sizes of pockets he has, and he judges candy bars by how small or flat they are. Soon he has a foolproof plan but still has no intention ever of acting on it.
Then one day, something happens. It could be anything. Maybe it’s something as simple as a seemingly irresistible desire for chocolate. Maybe a peer says something that sounds vaguely like a challenge to steal something. Maybe a friend mentions that he has always wanted to try a particular candy bar but doesn't have money.
No matter what it is, suddenly the stars aline. The kid feels as if fate is smiling favorably on him. The opportunity is there. He has motive and ability. It’s like a puzzle, and the last piece needed to complete it is his simply acting on something he has thought about doing dozens of times already. So what happens next? “Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” (Proverbs 1:31).
P.S. Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? It’s an amazing book that I hadn’t thought about it for a while, but its plot came to mind as I was writing that story. It actually follows a very similar line in its first couple chapters. Only the crime is not stealing a candy bar; it’s murder.
5) Although we never punish based on desires alone, humans also assign judgment based on intentions. For example, if you really like your neighbor’s car, you haven’t broken any laws of man. But if you drive away in it, you have committed a wrong that can be punished under the law. To allot the proper punishment, the law needs to try to figure out your intent. If you simply intended to borrow the car, you might not be guilty of a crime. If you intended to use it and return it shortly, knowing full-well that the owner would not allow it, it was a minor crime. If you intended to keep the car permanently, it’s a major crime. To choose among these various alternatives, a judge or jury would attempt to determine your state of mind.
“I hope I've adequately explained my position without offending you.” --> You were perfect. No offense. Thanks.
Response to Part 1: Stoves and Stuff
Another long post. I think I'll break it up, as you did your comments. Again, I'll just respond to what you have said.
“I will do my very best to be as sensitive to your belief structure as I can.” --> It is much appreciated.
“Without this sacrifice we supposedly would go to hell. This makes it a requirement from a supposedly all-loving God who requires a sacrifice to forgive. If He was truly all-loving, he would not need to have a blood sacrifice. And on top of this, He supposedly made the rules.” --> Yes, without sacrifice, there would be no way for us to progress. But where does it say God made that rule? “Doth God pervert judgment or doth the Almighty pervert justice?” (Job 8:3). No, he does not. As I said in my last post, I think God, like the rest of us, works around the natural laws of a universe in which choices and consequences are two sides of the same coin. In other words, he created this plan in order to satisfy justice. He came up with a plan that would make it possible for as many of his children as possible to learn how to make their own choices without having to suffer eternal consequences when they make the wrong ones. Seen in that light, the death of Jesus Christ was the most merciful act...ever.
“...many Christians feel you need the Bible to be moral.” --> That’s bologna, in my opinion, even if you equate morals with ethics. I mean, you can go to a completely isolated society with zero Bible background and find families loving each other, friends sticking together, and bullies being punished. Of course, you seem to be of the same opinion, so I don’t need to worry about this anyway. I’m glad we agree on something. :)
“By admitting that morals do not come from the Bible, it takes that off the table... except as a study of how ancient man perceived the world.” --> Well, not necessarily. If the Bible, as far as it is correctly translated, is true, it is far more valuable to us than other books (philosophy, history, etc...), which are true only as far as their authors understood.
“The flaw in this scenario is that the stove is real and can be proven. God can't." --> God’s not the oven, so it doesn’t really matter whether or not we can prove whether the oven is real. Before you say Bobby can prove Mommy’s real, let me change the scenario a bit. Let’s say Bobby comes down one morning and finds a note by the stove that says, “Don’t touch this stove, or you’ll get burned.” Now Bobby can’t prove whether it was written by a calculating sibling or a loving parent, or whether it was written last week or a couple minutes ago. It’s just -- there.
“The parent also didn't make the rules. They were already present and they are just informing the parent what the unavoidable outcome would be if they touch the hot stove. On the other hand, God created the stove with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves because he didn't provide any proof of his existence. Very sloppy work on Gods part and shows that He either isn't omniscient or is just inept.” --> I guess where I differ is that I don’t think God made the oven. He just happens to know what will happen if someone touches it. So to rephrase your objection the way I believe it: The mom didn’t make the rules. She was already present and, because she loved her kid, she told him the unavoidable outcome of touching the stove. But even in this scenario, the mom knew there was a chance the kid could touch the stove. In the same way, God did not choose the consequence of sin. He just knew it was one of the natural laws of the universe that sins are tied to eternal consequences. But he loved his children too much to keep them from learning to make responsible choices. Therefore, he has granted them bodies and sent them to earth to learn how to make choices. But, because he loves them, he warns them of the consequences of sin in the hope that they will listen to him and not make stupid decisions.
“God created the stove with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves” --> First, I don’t think God created the stove. But also, of course he knew that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves! Even in the scenario above, the mother knows Bobby might just touch the stove. She hopes he won’t, but she knows he might. That doesn’t mean she’s going to chain him in a corner so that he can’t touch it. If she did that, he’d never learn to trust her or to make good decisions. In the same way, God told Adam that he was not to eat of one of the trees in Eden, yet he allowed Adam the chance to choose because he valued Adam’s agency more than anything else.
“...with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves because he didn't provide any proof of his existence.” --> It’s true, even were I the best lawyer on the planet, I could never provide enough proof of God’s existence to convince everyone in the world that God exists. But even if I could, what difference would it make? In my mini-parable, even if Bobby’s mom were right there, standing next to him, telling him that he should not touch the stove, there is still a very real possibility that he would touch it. In the same way, even though there are warnings on cigarette packs, people still smoke. Even though there are speed limit postings, people still speed, even when they are in no hurry. Even though parents tell their children to do their best in school, students still skip classes and fail classes. And there are consequences for all those actions.
“I will do my very best to be as sensitive to your belief structure as I can.” --> It is much appreciated.
“Without this sacrifice we supposedly would go to hell. This makes it a requirement from a supposedly all-loving God who requires a sacrifice to forgive. If He was truly all-loving, he would not need to have a blood sacrifice. And on top of this, He supposedly made the rules.” --> Yes, without sacrifice, there would be no way for us to progress. But where does it say God made that rule? “Doth God pervert judgment or doth the Almighty pervert justice?” (Job 8:3). No, he does not. As I said in my last post, I think God, like the rest of us, works around the natural laws of a universe in which choices and consequences are two sides of the same coin. In other words, he created this plan in order to satisfy justice. He came up with a plan that would make it possible for as many of his children as possible to learn how to make their own choices without having to suffer eternal consequences when they make the wrong ones. Seen in that light, the death of Jesus Christ was the most merciful act...ever.
“...many Christians feel you need the Bible to be moral.” --> That’s bologna, in my opinion, even if you equate morals with ethics. I mean, you can go to a completely isolated society with zero Bible background and find families loving each other, friends sticking together, and bullies being punished. Of course, you seem to be of the same opinion, so I don’t need to worry about this anyway. I’m glad we agree on something. :)
“By admitting that morals do not come from the Bible, it takes that off the table... except as a study of how ancient man perceived the world.” --> Well, not necessarily. If the Bible, as far as it is correctly translated, is true, it is far more valuable to us than other books (philosophy, history, etc...), which are true only as far as their authors understood.
“The flaw in this scenario is that the stove is real and can be proven. God can't." --> God’s not the oven, so it doesn’t really matter whether or not we can prove whether the oven is real. Before you say Bobby can prove Mommy’s real, let me change the scenario a bit. Let’s say Bobby comes down one morning and finds a note by the stove that says, “Don’t touch this stove, or you’ll get burned.” Now Bobby can’t prove whether it was written by a calculating sibling or a loving parent, or whether it was written last week or a couple minutes ago. It’s just -- there.
“The parent also didn't make the rules. They were already present and they are just informing the parent what the unavoidable outcome would be if they touch the hot stove. On the other hand, God created the stove with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves because he didn't provide any proof of his existence. Very sloppy work on Gods part and shows that He either isn't omniscient or is just inept.” --> I guess where I differ is that I don’t think God made the oven. He just happens to know what will happen if someone touches it. So to rephrase your objection the way I believe it: The mom didn’t make the rules. She was already present and, because she loved her kid, she told him the unavoidable outcome of touching the stove. But even in this scenario, the mom knew there was a chance the kid could touch the stove. In the same way, God did not choose the consequence of sin. He just knew it was one of the natural laws of the universe that sins are tied to eternal consequences. But he loved his children too much to keep them from learning to make responsible choices. Therefore, he has granted them bodies and sent them to earth to learn how to make choices. But, because he loves them, he warns them of the consequences of sin in the hope that they will listen to him and not make stupid decisions.
“God created the stove with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves” --> First, I don’t think God created the stove. But also, of course he knew that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves! Even in the scenario above, the mother knows Bobby might just touch the stove. She hopes he won’t, but she knows he might. That doesn’t mean she’s going to chain him in a corner so that he can’t touch it. If she did that, he’d never learn to trust her or to make good decisions. In the same way, God told Adam that he was not to eat of one of the trees in Eden, yet he allowed Adam the chance to choose because he valued Adam’s agency more than anything else.
“...with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves because he didn't provide any proof of his existence.” --> It’s true, even were I the best lawyer on the planet, I could never provide enough proof of God’s existence to convince everyone in the world that God exists. But even if I could, what difference would it make? In my mini-parable, even if Bobby’s mom were right there, standing next to him, telling him that he should not touch the stove, there is still a very real possibility that he would touch it. In the same way, even though there are warnings on cigarette packs, people still smoke. Even though there are speed limit postings, people still speed, even when they are in no hurry. Even though parents tell their children to do their best in school, students still skip classes and fail classes. And there are consequences for all those actions.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Re: Totalitarianism Comment, among many other things
As afore said, I wrote quite a lengthy response last night but could not recover it afterward. I didn’t make a back-up copy like usual. After praying about it, and I think I have a pretty good idea why it’s gone, though. I’ll be a little more careful today.
Wow. It’s crazy how much there is to say and how little time there is to say it. There are a dozens of things to say that need to be cut down into cohesive comment. I won’t feel as guilty writing it as a blog post, though, instead of a comment.
So, I think the best thing to do this time is just to respond to each of your points in the same order you wrote them.
“Hi SE,” --> Hi. :)
“I would add Jesus to that mix... I don't believe he was the son of God” --> That’s your privilege. By the way, please be sensitive if we go any more deeply into the subject of Christ. I respect your beliefs and will try never to be offensive, and I hope you’ll do the same for me. I know you are separated personally and emotionally from these topics, but they are the very threads that hold my soul together, so be gentle. :) Thanks.
“or that a God would require him to die horribly for our sins.” --> Where does it ever say that God required Jesus “to die horribly for our sins” in the Bible? If memory serves, that is not what happened at all. Rather, Jesus chose to die. He had ample opportunity to get out of it, but he chose not to.
“What moral teaching is found in the Bible that couldn't be found by an atheist like me?” --> I didn’t really understand the question, and it confused me for a while last night. Now I think I understand what you’re saying, but correct me if I’m wrong. Are you asking me if I think that there are morals in the Bible that cannot be found somewhere else? If that’s the question, my answer is no. I mean, maybe – maybe there are a couple. But I can’t think of any at this moment, and I don’t really want to rack my brains for any. I don’t know where you got that that’s what I believed. Or maybe I completely misinterpreted the question. Where did it come from?
“You also mention how the Bible tells us how to live... It's outdated and doesn't allow for the changing of the times.” --> I don’t remember saying that the Bible “tells us how to live,” but, if I did, I hope that’s not how I worded it. I think what I meant was that it shows us how to live, shows us the best way. See, I don’t think of the Bible like a rule book so much as a book of truths.... Let me see if I can explain what I mean.
If you look up “law” in the dictionary, you’ll find three main definitions.
1) “the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.”
2) “a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics.”
3) “the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.”
Of course, the third definition was made just for the Bible, but since it doesn’t tell us much, let’s ignore it for a moment.
From what I can tell, the first definition seems to be what you think of the Bible as: a set of rules about how to live, with overly-harsh punishments for disobedience. (And in this case the rules are allegedly levied by an omnipotent and omniscient being, so there is absolutely no way to get out of it.)
I don’t really think of the Bible that way. If I did, it would make seem to portray God as a control monster. “I’ll give you two choices, but you have to choose option two if you don’t to burn for the rest of eternity.” Sound familiar?
Instead, I think of the laws of the Bible like the second definition: facts about natural phenomena that always occur. If this is the case, as I believe it is, God is no longer the Narcissistic control freak. Instead, he’s a loving parent warning us against things that always have and always will happen.
Consider the difference between these two. They’re a bit silly, but I hope they’ll make my point:
Parent: Bobby, don’t touch the stove, or you’ll be burned.
Bobby: She’ll burn me if I touch the stove?! She’s so mean! I wish she weren’t around so I could touch anything I liked. If she weren’t around to see me touch it, then I could get away with touching it and not get burned.
OR
Parent: Bobby, don’t touch the stove, or you’ll be burned.
Bobby: Mommy’s so kind. I’m glad she warned me about the stove. Otherwise I might have touched it and burned myself.
Yeah, those examples sound even worse now than they did in my head. But you can see the difference? It’s not in what the parent says or the outcome of the situation. It’s just the way the kid sees it. That, I think, is the main difference in our understandings. You see God as the author of the laws and the punishments. I believe that the laws given in the Bible are as natural and immutable as any other laws of the universe. God did not create them anymore than we create matter. He just tells us of what is in store for us depending on how we act. In which case, the Bible cannot be “outdated” ever, anymore than gravity or F=ma can be outdated. All right...moving on.
“Let's take homosexual marriage as an example.” --> Of course, that’s just asking for trouble. But I guess, since it has come up, I can give you a couple of my thoughts. They’ll mostly just be my opinions, not speaking on behalf of anyone in my church. In fact, I don’t even know if I should go here. Ugh. I guess I will, but please don’t judge me or my church. This is just conversation, and these are just my opinions.... Actually, I think that’s going too far off topic. I’ll probably make another blog post out of it later. It’ll take too long right now. In short, I don’t think the commandments against homosexuality are outdated. On the contrary, I think they are absolutely as valid today as ever.
“I think if it weren't for the Bible it would be legal by now.” --> I’m guessing you mean in the U.S. Isn’t it already in Canada?
“I think the Bible has led to many people believing that homosexuals are somehow evil for being who they are naturally.” --> I agree that many people have come to believe that. I am not one of those people, but that does not mean I condone homosexuality at all. If a someone is attracted to people of the same gender but doesn’t act on those feelings, he or she has not sinned.
“We have scientific proof that they're not an 'abomination' ” --> That’s probably paraphrasing a bit, isn’t it? I’ve never read a study proving that. Then again, I don’t believe that they’re an “abomination” anyway. Nor should I. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that homosexuals are an abomination.
“...beliefs that are clearly flawed” --> It’s really hard for me to pass over this right now, but, like I said before, I hope to get into this more deeply in a later post.
“This has led to generations of homosexuals being oppressed and in some countries, killed.” --> I don’t know how to respond to this. I certainly do not condone such acts, and it makes me sick to think of its happening. But I hope you don’t attribute such atrocities to the wrong sources. Heterosexual Bible-believer ≠ homocidal or even homophobe, anymore than Muslim = terrorist.
“I...think a lot of people use these strongly held beliefs to gain power and money.” --> Unfortunately, yes. There’s a saying around here that goes something like, “The Church is true even when its members aren’t.” However, I think, or I hope, that for the vast majority, those who claim religion actually do believe in it. Sadly, some will do anything to satiate their greed.
“I also find it frightening to be told how to love, who to love, what to love, who to friend etc. That seems a lot like totalitarianism to me. And really, at the heart of many religions lurks totalitarianism. Even God in the Bible is described in those terms because he supposedly can see all and punish you for your very thoughts. If that isn't classified as thought crimes, I don't know what is.” --> I think I covered this above, but I just want to say it again. I don’t think of God as totalitarian anymore than I think of parents that way. I think any good parent will probably give their kids the same kinds of advice mentioned above, about love, friendship, etc... God warns and guides in the same way as does a loving parent.
“I enjoy our conversations very much and appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts. Have a great day. :)” --> Likewise!
P.S. This was the first time, I think, that your comment was longer than mine. I guess I’ve made up for it now.
Wow. It’s crazy how much there is to say and how little time there is to say it. There are a dozens of things to say that need to be cut down into cohesive comment. I won’t feel as guilty writing it as a blog post, though, instead of a comment.
So, I think the best thing to do this time is just to respond to each of your points in the same order you wrote them.
“Hi SE,” --> Hi. :)
“I would add Jesus to that mix... I don't believe he was the son of God” --> That’s your privilege. By the way, please be sensitive if we go any more deeply into the subject of Christ. I respect your beliefs and will try never to be offensive, and I hope you’ll do the same for me. I know you are separated personally and emotionally from these topics, but they are the very threads that hold my soul together, so be gentle. :) Thanks.
“or that a God would require him to die horribly for our sins.” --> Where does it ever say that God required Jesus “to die horribly for our sins” in the Bible? If memory serves, that is not what happened at all. Rather, Jesus chose to die. He had ample opportunity to get out of it, but he chose not to.
“What moral teaching is found in the Bible that couldn't be found by an atheist like me?” --> I didn’t really understand the question, and it confused me for a while last night. Now I think I understand what you’re saying, but correct me if I’m wrong. Are you asking me if I think that there are morals in the Bible that cannot be found somewhere else? If that’s the question, my answer is no. I mean, maybe – maybe there are a couple. But I can’t think of any at this moment, and I don’t really want to rack my brains for any. I don’t know where you got that that’s what I believed. Or maybe I completely misinterpreted the question. Where did it come from?
“You also mention how the Bible tells us how to live... It's outdated and doesn't allow for the changing of the times.” --> I don’t remember saying that the Bible “tells us how to live,” but, if I did, I hope that’s not how I worded it. I think what I meant was that it shows us how to live, shows us the best way. See, I don’t think of the Bible like a rule book so much as a book of truths.... Let me see if I can explain what I mean.
If you look up “law” in the dictionary, you’ll find three main definitions.
1) “the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.”
2) “a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present: the second law of thermodynamics.”
3) “the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.”
Of course, the third definition was made just for the Bible, but since it doesn’t tell us much, let’s ignore it for a moment.
From what I can tell, the first definition seems to be what you think of the Bible as: a set of rules about how to live, with overly-harsh punishments for disobedience. (And in this case the rules are allegedly levied by an omnipotent and omniscient being, so there is absolutely no way to get out of it.)
I don’t really think of the Bible that way. If I did, it would make seem to portray God as a control monster. “I’ll give you two choices, but you have to choose option two if you don’t to burn for the rest of eternity.” Sound familiar?
Instead, I think of the laws of the Bible like the second definition: facts about natural phenomena that always occur. If this is the case, as I believe it is, God is no longer the Narcissistic control freak. Instead, he’s a loving parent warning us against things that always have and always will happen.
Consider the difference between these two. They’re a bit silly, but I hope they’ll make my point:
Parent: Bobby, don’t touch the stove, or you’ll be burned.
Bobby: She’ll burn me if I touch the stove?! She’s so mean! I wish she weren’t around so I could touch anything I liked. If she weren’t around to see me touch it, then I could get away with touching it and not get burned.
OR
Parent: Bobby, don’t touch the stove, or you’ll be burned.
Bobby: Mommy’s so kind. I’m glad she warned me about the stove. Otherwise I might have touched it and burned myself.
Yeah, those examples sound even worse now than they did in my head. But you can see the difference? It’s not in what the parent says or the outcome of the situation. It’s just the way the kid sees it. That, I think, is the main difference in our understandings. You see God as the author of the laws and the punishments. I believe that the laws given in the Bible are as natural and immutable as any other laws of the universe. God did not create them anymore than we create matter. He just tells us of what is in store for us depending on how we act. In which case, the Bible cannot be “outdated” ever, anymore than gravity or F=ma can be outdated. All right...moving on.
“Let's take homosexual marriage as an example.” --> Of course, that’s just asking for trouble. But I guess, since it has come up, I can give you a couple of my thoughts. They’ll mostly just be my opinions, not speaking on behalf of anyone in my church. In fact, I don’t even know if I should go here. Ugh. I guess I will, but please don’t judge me or my church. This is just conversation, and these are just my opinions.... Actually, I think that’s going too far off topic. I’ll probably make another blog post out of it later. It’ll take too long right now. In short, I don’t think the commandments against homosexuality are outdated. On the contrary, I think they are absolutely as valid today as ever.
“I think if it weren't for the Bible it would be legal by now.” --> I’m guessing you mean in the U.S. Isn’t it already in Canada?
“I think the Bible has led to many people believing that homosexuals are somehow evil for being who they are naturally.” --> I agree that many people have come to believe that. I am not one of those people, but that does not mean I condone homosexuality at all. If a someone is attracted to people of the same gender but doesn’t act on those feelings, he or she has not sinned.
“We have scientific proof that they're not an 'abomination' ” --> That’s probably paraphrasing a bit, isn’t it? I’ve never read a study proving that. Then again, I don’t believe that they’re an “abomination” anyway. Nor should I. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that homosexuals are an abomination.
“...beliefs that are clearly flawed” --> It’s really hard for me to pass over this right now, but, like I said before, I hope to get into this more deeply in a later post.
“This has led to generations of homosexuals being oppressed and in some countries, killed.” --> I don’t know how to respond to this. I certainly do not condone such acts, and it makes me sick to think of its happening. But I hope you don’t attribute such atrocities to the wrong sources. Heterosexual Bible-believer ≠ homocidal or even homophobe, anymore than Muslim = terrorist.
“I...think a lot of people use these strongly held beliefs to gain power and money.” --> Unfortunately, yes. There’s a saying around here that goes something like, “The Church is true even when its members aren’t.” However, I think, or I hope, that for the vast majority, those who claim religion actually do believe in it. Sadly, some will do anything to satiate their greed.
“I also find it frightening to be told how to love, who to love, what to love, who to friend etc. That seems a lot like totalitarianism to me. And really, at the heart of many religions lurks totalitarianism. Even God in the Bible is described in those terms because he supposedly can see all and punish you for your very thoughts. If that isn't classified as thought crimes, I don't know what is.” --> I think I covered this above, but I just want to say it again. I don’t think of God as totalitarian anymore than I think of parents that way. I think any good parent will probably give their kids the same kinds of advice mentioned above, about love, friendship, etc... God warns and guides in the same way as does a loving parent.
“I enjoy our conversations very much and appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts. Have a great day. :)” --> Likewise!
P.S. This was the first time, I think, that your comment was longer than mine. I guess I’ve made up for it now.
Main Concepts of Religion
C.A.:
Thanks for continuing to read my comments. I always look forward to your responses.
I agree that most people do appreciate the same things. (I think we have a lot more than that in common, if we'd allow ourselves to see it.) Also, I would argue that those things are the main concepts of religion, not magic trees or fiery burning pits. And while I agree one doesn't "need" religion in order to value truth, friends, love, etc., it teaches us truth, where to find it, what it does for us; it shows us how a true friend acts, who to have as our friends, whom we are to befriend; it gives us the true meaning of love, tells us whom to love, tells us how to love, tells us how we act when we do love. How about a couple scriptures? You can skip them if you want. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come" (John 16:13). "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother" (Prov. 18:24). "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).
I have so many other thoughts, but I don't have time to write them all right now, and I'm sure you don't have the time to read them. But I do have a couple last thoughts on your comment. First, I want to say again that, in my opinion, those aforementioned values are the main concepts of religion, not magic trees. I could spend hours discussing the atonement, but it is too sacred to me to mention lightly right now. Lastly, I definitely don't know everything, but I really believe that there is no chance an all-loving God created a hell for people like you. First, I don't believe that God created Hell. Rather, if people who do end up in hell, they have created it for themselves. Secondly, I don't believe that you would ever end up there, unless you're not at all who I think you are.
All right, I guess that had better be all for now. Hope to talk more later.
S.E.
Thanks for continuing to read my comments. I always look forward to your responses.
I agree that most people do appreciate the same things. (I think we have a lot more than that in common, if we'd allow ourselves to see it.) Also, I would argue that those things are the main concepts of religion, not magic trees or fiery burning pits. And while I agree one doesn't "need" religion in order to value truth, friends, love, etc., it teaches us truth, where to find it, what it does for us; it shows us how a true friend acts, who to have as our friends, whom we are to befriend; it gives us the true meaning of love, tells us whom to love, tells us how to love, tells us how we act when we do love. How about a couple scriptures? You can skip them if you want. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come" (John 16:13). "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother" (Prov. 18:24). "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).
I have so many other thoughts, but I don't have time to write them all right now, and I'm sure you don't have the time to read them. But I do have a couple last thoughts on your comment. First, I want to say again that, in my opinion, those aforementioned values are the main concepts of religion, not magic trees. I could spend hours discussing the atonement, but it is too sacred to me to mention lightly right now. Lastly, I definitely don't know everything, but I really believe that there is no chance an all-loving God created a hell for people like you. First, I don't believe that God created Hell. Rather, if people who do end up in hell, they have created it for themselves. Secondly, I don't believe that you would ever end up there, unless you're not at all who I think you are.
All right, I guess that had better be all for now. Hope to talk more later.
S.E.
Re: The only thing with that...
C.A.
It's hard to respond to that, but I'll try.
First, despite the disbelief you claim, and despite the religious details you dispute, you seem to value many of the same things we "religious" people do. Friends, truth, happiness, freedom, family - I've seen these things in your blogs.
I can only say this next thing because you have already told me that you don't take things personally,... but really I don't think you have as much knowledge as you think you have. Don't laugh.
See, we hear all the time that the first step to knowledge is to know our own ignorance. And we know that the most closed-minded person is probably the one who experience the least amount of learning. In looking for a quote that says it better, I happened on this verse. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it seems to fit: "And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8:2).
I don't know you very well at all, obviously, so I can't say how you ended up where you are with the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) that you have, but I honestly think that if you did as much study of scriptures as someone who was thoroughly convinced of their truth, you wouldn't be able to help seeing new things in them.
Luke 12:47-48
" And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
I know I find new things all the time, things that further convince me of the truth I have. And instead of surrendering to the doubts I have sometimes, I search for answers to the questions I have. Then when I find them, I get to experience that satisfaction, and the strengthening effect it has on my faith.
I guess my point is that, I don't think you reject nearly as much as you think you do. And the things you do reject...well, I honestly believe you don't understand them fully. In order to merit the endless torment (the idea of which you so abhor), you would need to know the truth AS TRUTH and then reject it. And very few people have known the truth that well. As perfect a knowledge as I sometimes feel I have, I know it is not perfect enough to condemn me if I rejected it.
Anyway, I've got to run, and I don't have time to proofread.
S.E.
It's hard to respond to that, but I'll try.
First, despite the disbelief you claim, and despite the religious details you dispute, you seem to value many of the same things we "religious" people do. Friends, truth, happiness, freedom, family - I've seen these things in your blogs.
I can only say this next thing because you have already told me that you don't take things personally,... but really I don't think you have as much knowledge as you think you have. Don't laugh.
See, we hear all the time that the first step to knowledge is to know our own ignorance. And we know that the most closed-minded person is probably the one who experience the least amount of learning. In looking for a quote that says it better, I happened on this verse. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it seems to fit: "And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8:2).
I don't know you very well at all, obviously, so I can't say how you ended up where you are with the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) that you have, but I honestly think that if you did as much study of scriptures as someone who was thoroughly convinced of their truth, you wouldn't be able to help seeing new things in them.
Luke 12:47-48
" And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
I know I find new things all the time, things that further convince me of the truth I have. And instead of surrendering to the doubts I have sometimes, I search for answers to the questions I have. Then when I find them, I get to experience that satisfaction, and the strengthening effect it has on my faith.
I guess my point is that, I don't think you reject nearly as much as you think you do. And the things you do reject...well, I honestly believe you don't understand them fully. In order to merit the endless torment (the idea of which you so abhor), you would need to know the truth AS TRUTH and then reject it. And very few people have known the truth that well. As perfect a knowledge as I sometimes feel I have, I know it is not perfect enough to condemn me if I rejected it.
Anyway, I've got to run, and I don't have time to proofread.
S.E.
Re: Are Atheists and Agnostics Immoral?
In response to Canadian Atheist's blog post "Are Athiests and Agnostics Immoral?" found at http://canadian-atheist.blogspot.com/2012/02/for-thousands-of-years-religious.html?showComment=1331530185324#c5758410998724470321
Just a couple thoughts:
Religious ≠ moral.
Moral ≠ peaceful.
The activities of a state ≠ reflections on the beliefs of its citizens, necessarily.
However, I absolutely agree with your thesis: that atheist ≠ immoral. And I love that last quote so much!
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
And, whether it matters to you or not, I think Christian doctrine backs you up on this, too. The Lord has said that those who die without knowledge of the gospel, who would have received it, will be heirs of the kingdom. And, yes, I think that means moral agnostics. However, he condemned the "religious" people of his time for their hypocrisy. "Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness" (Luke 11:39).
It made me feel sick to read a story – I believe it was one of yours – of a Christian person who said he would have done the most awful thing (I can't remember the exact circumstances) except that he believed in Hell. That, in my opinion, is not morality at all. It is simply fear of punishment, which is great for governments, but not so great for the health of a soul.
I am so grateful for all the amazing people who have gone before in history, no matter their religious beliefs. I have many heroes among them. The people I admire are not necessarily so much those who know truth and try their best to live by it. Rather, I respect and appreciate the people who do not know the truth but are actively seeking it and are nevertheless trying to live their lives the best they know how. In that sense, there are people outside my faith whom I revere more profoundly than many who claim my faith.
Just a couple thoughts:
Religious ≠ moral.
Moral ≠ peaceful.
The activities of a state ≠ reflections on the beliefs of its citizens, necessarily.
However, I absolutely agree with your thesis: that atheist ≠ immoral. And I love that last quote so much!
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
And, whether it matters to you or not, I think Christian doctrine backs you up on this, too. The Lord has said that those who die without knowledge of the gospel, who would have received it, will be heirs of the kingdom. And, yes, I think that means moral agnostics. However, he condemned the "religious" people of his time for their hypocrisy. "Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness" (Luke 11:39).
It made me feel sick to read a story – I believe it was one of yours – of a Christian person who said he would have done the most awful thing (I can't remember the exact circumstances) except that he believed in Hell. That, in my opinion, is not morality at all. It is simply fear of punishment, which is great for governments, but not so great for the health of a soul.
I am so grateful for all the amazing people who have gone before in history, no matter their religious beliefs. I have many heroes among them. The people I admire are not necessarily so much those who know truth and try their best to live by it. Rather, I respect and appreciate the people who do not know the truth but are actively seeking it and are nevertheless trying to live their lives the best they know how. In that sense, there are people outside my faith whom I revere more profoundly than many who claim my faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)