Right and Wrong

[Mekanamom]

This is quite true. We can speak warmly and fuzzily of "affirming others" and "giving meaning," but why is that way any better than "getting everything I want at all cost?" Why do we feel obligated to "be nice" or "treat others the way we want to be treated?" Some have posited that it is an evolutionary development. If it is, how does it jive with "survival of the fittest" and the "struggle to survive?" If it is merely a way to survive, then it's not "moral" at all--it is, ironically, self-serving.

 

 

 

Well, the human species is very successful in terms of evolutionary adaptation. We do tend to adapt well. I think that successfully behaving ourselves in groups is an aspect of "survival of the fittest" (those who get along with others are more likely to add to the gene pool, overall.) I think that morality is rather self serving, honestly. You get a reward for doing the "right thing" even when it's hard to do, don't you? You feel good about yourself? Even doing something altruistically... seemingly without benefit to oneself at all... we still get the satisfaction of doing the "right" or "moral" thing, don't we?

 

If we all went around totally depressed and really didn't care what happened to ourselves or others- we wouldn't last very long.

[Julie Herbster]

Now that's where you lost me. Faith means "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". So with a lack of proof one way or the other, if I chose to believe in God that is an act of faith. If I chose not to, that is an absence of faith.

I'm not sure what you believe, so I'm not assuming anything. Let's say that you believe that there is no God. You believe something, right? Your belief is this: there is no God. This belief cannot be proven true rationally. Therefore, this belief is based on...what? Reason? Nope. What other option do you have? Faith. Is there another possible basis that I'm not thinking of? You might just say, "acceptance" or something else. But, either way, it's a no more "rational" view than the one that believes that there is a God. I think this is what Nancypants was getting at.

[Phred]

Don't you see that your condemnation of MY beliefs are hurtful?

Nowwaitadadgumminute.

 

How does my stating that I don't believe what you believe in amount to a condemnation of your beliefs? I have to have just as much of a right to say what I believe don't I? Do you have any idea how hard I work when I'm typing out responses not to hurt you... any of you? But when what you do hurts someone I'll say it. Then you can say what you think and that's called a dialog.

 

Christians are told all of the time they are intolerant, backwards, uneducated because they have faith in something you(the general you) do not. It doesn't harm you for me to believe in God and salvation through Jesus. I don't tell you you have to believe it.

You (the specific you) may not but you (the general you) do. My dd (8) is on my patio crying, surrounded by other kids who've told her she has to believe in God otherwise how can he forgive her? They chased her all the way across three backyards. Yeah, I know... kids. Missionaries at the doorstep. Pamphlets handed out on the street. The second or third question after meeting new people is, "so where do you go to church?" The general "feeling", if you will, is that belief in God is good, non-belief is bad. Try getting elected to office if don't profess to a deep love for Jesus.

 

When I talk to individual people who are Christians I usually have no problem. Family, friends... belief in God doesn't get in the way. It's the movement, when people allow themselves to be subjugated to people like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson...

[Mekanamom]

MILITANT AGNOSTIC

I don't know and you don't either!

 

:lol:

 

 

LOL!!! :lol:

[Julie Herbster]

I think that morality is rather self serving, honestly. You get a reward for doing the "right thing" even when it's hard to do, don't you? You feel good about yourself? Even doing something altruistically... seemingly without benefit to oneself at all... we still get the satisfaction of doing the "right" or "moral" thing, don't we?

These words seem to argue against those (nonbelievers) who insist that morality is the opposite of self-serving...that "treating others as we would be treated" is selfLESSness, pure and simple.

 

The feeling of satisfaction that comes as a result of doing the right thing is IMO an indication that we were created by the one who esablished "rightness"...but then again, that cannot be rationally proved correct or incorrect, just as the evolutionary idea cannot be rationally proved correct or incorrect.

[Tami]

I'm not sure how to answer. No, one does not have to believe in God to be a moral person. I believe that the Creator has left his fingerprints on each human soul. Being made in the image of God, and yet marred by the the Fall, all of humanity has possiblities to do both good and evil. That is my understanding.

[nancypants]

MILITANT AGNOSTIC

I don't know and you don't either!

 

This is funny and makes me laugh whenever I see it. But it also does reveal the fact that the person saying it actually believes he knows (or sees) enough of the whole picture to KNOW for sure that no one can KNOW something for sure. Which is in itself rather funny too. :)

[Julie Herbster]

Gosh, I see it so oppositely... if this world is all there is, then every moment means so much more! If This Is It... Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. For ourselves and for those whose lives we touch. Everything we do matters. It ties in so intricately with right and wrong and how we treat each other.

Would you have a problem with someone who used your ideas with slightly different application/wording, such as the following? "If this world is all there is, than every moment means so much more! If This Is It...Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. I need to make the very most of every minute by getting as much pleasure as possible out of the short time I have here. I want riches. I want popularity. I want it all! It doesn't matter how others are affected. I've only got a little bit of time, and I want to make the most of it for myself!"

 

If you would disagree with someone who held to such a philosophy, on what basis would you do so?

 

If life is meaningless, then "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. No one action has any more value than any other action. Everything is meaningless. It cannot reasonably be otherwise.

[Jenny in Atl]

Would you have a problem with someone who used your ideas with slightly different application/wording, such as the following? "If this world is all there is, than every moment means so much more! If This Is It...Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. I need to make the very most of every minute by getting as much pleasure as possible out of the short time I have here. I want riches. I want popularity. I want it all! It doesn't matter how others are affected. I've only got a little bit of time, and I want to make the most of it for myself!"

 

If you would disagree with someone who held to such a philosophy, on what basis would you do so?

 

If life is meaningless, then "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. No one action has any more value than any other action. Everything is meaningless. It cannot reasonably be otherwise.

 

I would not see a problem with that person as long as they did not hurt others. They could easily get it all by working hard. The one who dies with the most toys wins, right?

 

Except most find this empty; you call it God and others may say there is little value in enriching just oneself and not the world around you. There is no way to logically debate your position because you believe all humans have a little of God's morals in our genes not matter what we believe, all the way back to those first humans on the African Savanna (those who pre-date the Bible), they had God's code too, so there is no escaping it.

 

For you, the only issue is that a good number in this world have just not yet found the true author of their inner moral code. Until then it really does not matter their reasons for being good, for you it will only matter when they find Jesus.

[Phred]

(I should say that I suppose this is directed mostly towards Phred since he posed the original question but it may as well be to anyone else who agrees with his position.)

 

First of all, I do not believe you are dumb. I do not believe you are anymore "evil" than I am. I do not label you as something worse than I label myself. So my thoughts here are not to suggest that I am in any way morally superior to anyone else.

 

The fact is that no mere human can prove beyond any and all shadow of a doubt that there is a God. Anyone who thinks they can is not being reasonable. However, the fact that it cannot be proven beyond all shadow of doubt does not make it an unreasonable assertion. But, I encourage the skeptics to use their own poison on themselves for a moment. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is in fact no God. Try and try but you simply cannot do it, just as I cannot prove to you beyond all doubt that there is. Both sides can give *reasons* -- often strong and compelling reasons (though how compelling they are may depend on the sagacity of the listener) but if there is a God, only He can prove Himself.

Prove there is no flying spaghetti monster. We do not spend time proving negatives. It's silly. I don't need to disprove anything, the burden is upon you to prove that there is a god. And, to me it is an unreasonable assertion. All around us in the universe what I see is a pattern. Simple to complex. Simple to complex. Here you are claiming that the most complex thing we ever could imagine, an omnipotent, omnipresent being that knows not only your thoughts buy my thoughts and everyone's thoughts all at the same time as well as the actions and positions of every animal, every being, every planet, moon, sun, star and rock in the universe... this being would be the most complex thing that could ever possibly be imagined and here it is not at the end of billions of years of evolution but at the start. Simply there. No... that is an unreasonable assertion. To me it can't be. The data alone from one second of the universe would BE the universe.

 

I know you will hate to have this thought thrust at you again and again but you must ultimately come down the the fact that your belief that there is no God is as much an act of faith as the belief that there is one because, like it or not, there are compelling reasons for both arguments, though obvioiusly I believe my reasons are more plausible than yours and you believe yours are more plausible than mine. Don't ask for 100% physical proof for the existence of God though unless you are prepared to give 100% infallible evidence that there is in fact no God.

Yeah, I know you must want it to be that way but in the end it's you that claims something and me that simply claims nothing. So you're on the hook for evidence while I'm just standing here. What exactly do you want me to not prove? That Zeus doesn't exist? Apollo? They're just as not likely as your deity. Why do I not have to not prove them? Don't you see, you're an atheist too. I simply believe in one less god than you do.

 

Ultimately, if this world is all there is then nothing you or I or anyone does or doesn't do ultimately matters in the slightest and if the skeptics are right and the believers are wrong about the existence of God then we are all in the exact same predicament... here on earth basically by cosmic accident, for who knows how long and who knows why and whether we believed something or not while here doesn't matter, neither in fact does whether we do "right" or "wrong" since #1 those terms are so subject to change with time and cultures and #2 there is no ultimate purpose and therefore no ultimate "right" or "wrong" beyond our own subjective feelings/ cultures (and while on that subject who are we to say that one cultural understanding of right and wrong is better than another? Why is our time, for example, superior to the time of the Roman Empire?) /upbringings... so in essence the skeptic should be thrilled to let other people believe there is a God if that's what makes them happy (presuming that it does make them happy though many Christians will readily admit that their belief doesn't mean they feel smiley and cheerful all of the time) because ultimately happiness and "niceness" are all that matters as essentially nothing that happens on this godforsaken planet has any ultimate value at all, neither does human life have any real value since it's just an evolutionary offshoot. Though deep down even the most hardened skeptic will feel at his or her core that something about his or her own life matters... just not how or why.

Oh no... what a total misread of the entire way of thinking. You think if value doesn't come from God then there isn't any at all? Stop for a second... Now, realize that in my way of thinking there is no god and everything is exactly the same as it is. Your kids are still wonderful. So are you. We're wonderful because we've attained intelligence against all odds. Despite natural disasters and asteroids and who knows what else... despite ourselves and the idiots in our past we're here. All those things you've given god credit for... they're still here... there's just no god. "blink" One second you believe, the next you don't. Nothing changes.

 

So really, in a world where there is no ultimate truth, we are every bit as right as you because there is no such thing as right or true. And you are every bit as wrong as us because there is no wrong. If you are comfortable with that arrangement, my hat's off to ya because it seems rather like sand under the waves to me and it doesn't square with reality (ie. that even you who believes in no ultimate right or wrong still deeply feels that some things truly are wrong).

The problem is that you think you have an ultimate truth. You think you can look at me and tell me that this is the way it should be. You think that you're speaking to me the words of a god someplace. That's my problem. You can't keep that to yourself. It truly feels like the kids in the backyard and one of 'em keeps trying to say that "Dad said I couldn't get wet!" At least if we all agreed there was no god we'd all be on equal footing and could discuss things equally. There'd be no Muslim, Christian or Jew to begin with. All this nonsense about Jerusalem... (didja hear a rattle? That's me shaking my head)

 

Try it my way for a minute. No God. No differences based upon religion. You have to decide what's right and what's wrong. You wouldn't do anything differently. You'd love, you'd live... the only thing is, you'd have to be responsible for your own hatreds, for your own decisions. Think about it for a bit. And then think about death. Not some scary trip to a fearful judgment (don't even try to say it's all loving) but death is just that... an end. The curtain comes down, the lights go out and your life ends. It's just unknowing darkness with nothing to be afraid of as you won't know anything.

 

Ok, go back. Did anything change? No... Now think about this. Why doesn't God heal amputees?

 

Lastly, this is a world without ultimate truth. Can you name one?

[Julie Herbster]

I would not see a problem with that person as long as they did not hurt others. They could easily get it all by working hard. The one who dies with the most toys wins, right?

I think you missed the words, "It doesn't matter how others are affected." Why would you not see a problem with that person?

 

Except most find this empty; you call it God and others may say there is little value in enriching just oneself and not the world around you. There is no way to logically debate your position because you believe all humans have a little of God's morals in our genes not matter what we believe, all the way back to those first humans on the African Savanna (those who pre-date the Bible), they had God's code too, so there is no escaping it.

Being a young-earth creationist, I don't believe any humans predated the Bible. And, I don't think all humans have a little of God's morals in their genes. I believe that, as the Bible says, humans are created in the image of God.

[Mekanamom]

These words seem to argue against those (nonbelievers) who insist that morality is the opposite of self-serving...that "treating others as we would be treated" is selfLESSness, pure and simple.

 

The feeling of satisfaction that comes as a result of doing the right thing is IMO an indication that we were created by the one who esablished "rightness"...but then again, that cannot be rationally proved correct or incorrect, just as the evolutionary idea cannot be rationally proved correct or incorrect.

 

Ah- I see that internal feeling of satisfaction of doing the right thing as a result of socialization and conditioning. We feel good when we have done something we've been socialized to do and it has been reinforced in our behavior. We get approval & acceptance. We're social creatures- I'm here on the WTM Board having this discussion because homeschooling using classical methods is accepted and supported here. Plus you all are good conversationalists! I totally get something from each and every one who posts here. That's fairly selfish, but I hope I'm giving something of value too by adding to the conversation. (Which is also pretty selfish, because it makes me feel good if something I post about helps someone else. Or even just makes interesting or entertaining reading, if nothing else. :tongue_smilie:)

 

I believe we can do things that certainly look selfless, but if we feel good about doing it, we're getting a reward of sorts and reinforcing that behavior. Some are more motivated by that type of internal reward than others. Even to the extent of dying for what we believe in.

 

Anyway- I'm enjoying reading and learning about all the different perspectives!

[Greta]

You believe something, right? Your belief is this: there is no God.

 

And again, I say it's meaningless to define lack of belief as a belief!

 

But, either way, it's a no more "rational" view than the one that believes that there is a God. I think this is what Nancypants was getting at.

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. It IS more rational in the face of a total lack of evidence that something exists, to assert that it does not exist than to assert that it does. I'm not just talking about God here. It could be anything. You can't prove that I don't have a herd of invisible unicorns in my back yard. But it would be more reasonable to assert that I do not than to assert that I do. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor This is Logic 101 here.

 

That said, I am not saying that I think people who believe in God are unreasonable or irrational. I'm just saying the basis for that belief is faith and NOT reason or rationality. I'm also not addressing the issue of whether faith or reason is more valid or valuable. I'm just saying one is faith, the other is reason, and that's that.

 

ETA: Just for the record, there are things I believe in which require faith and are not rationally based. I believe them wholeheartedly and passionately. But I know the difference between the things I take on faith and the things which I can prove rationally.

[muffinmom]

At least we stop long enough to eat. :D

[Phred]

And again, I say it's meaningless to define lack of belief as a belief!

 

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. It IS more rational in the face of a total lack of evidence that something exists, to assert that it does not exist than to assert that it does. I'm not just talking about God here. It could be anything. You can't prove that I don't have a herd of invisible unicorns in my back yard. But it would be more reasonable to assert that I do not than to assert that I do. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor This is Logic 101 here.

 

That said, I am not saying that I think people who believe in God are unreasonable or irrational. I'm just saying the basis for that belief is faith and NOT reason or rationality. I'm also not addressing the issue of whether faith or reason is more valid or valuable. I'm just saying one is faith, the other is reason, and that's that.

 

ETA: Just for the record, there are things I believe in which require faith and are not rationally based. I believe them wholeheartedly and passionately. But I know the difference between the things I take on faith and the things which I can prove rationally.

Hate to pile on... but what is more logical, to deny all evidence and still just go ahead and believe what you want to anyway? (young earth creationism) or evaluate the evidence... or lack thereof... and draw a conclusion from it?

[nancypants]

And again, I say it's meaningless to define lack of belief as a belief!

 

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. It IS more rational in the face of a total lack of evidence that something exists, to assert that it does not exist than to assert that it does. I'm not just talking about God here. It could be anything. You can't prove that I don't have a herd of invisible unicorns in my back yard. But it would be more reasonable to assert that I do not than to assert that I do. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor This is Logic 101 here.

 

That said, I am not saying that I think people who believe in God are unreasonable or irrational. I'm just saying the basis for that belief is faith and NOT reason or rationality. I'm also not addressing the issue of whether faith or reason is more valid or valuable. I'm just saying one is faith, the other is reason, and that's that.

 

ETA: Just for the record, there are things I believe in which require faith and are not rationally based. I believe them wholeheartedly and passionately. But I know the difference between the things I take on faith and the things which I can prove rationally.

 

 

Again, I'm just going to point you to a very well-written, very respectful recent book by Tim Keller called, "The Reason for God." (or just start by watching his interview at

.) Now you may very well come away from reading it still firmly ensconced in your belief that there is no God, to be sure. That's fine. But perhaps you will see a bit more clearly that your assertion that there is a total lack of evidence, or reason, is really quite an invalid claim. I found that reading it has given me a new level of respect for those with whom I differ because in it, Keller does not demonize the skeptics.

 

Another good book, if for nothing else, merely to sharpen your own perspective on the issue (what better sharpens our own thoughts on a given subject than actually listening to the opposing ideas?) is The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

[Mekanamom]

Would you have a problem with someone who used your ideas with slightly different application/wording, such as the following? "If this world is all there is, than every moment means so much more! If This Is It...Life is no more and no less than what we make it here and now. I need to make the very most of every minute by getting as much pleasure as possible out of the short time I have here. I want riches. I want popularity. I want it all! It doesn't matter how others are affected. I've only got a little bit of time, and I want to make the most of it for myself!"

 

If you would disagree with someone who held to such a philosophy, on what basis would you do so?

 

If life is meaningless, then "right" and "wrong" are meaningless. No one action has any more value than any other action. Everything is meaningless. It cannot reasonably be otherwise.

 

Would I have a problem with it personally? Sure I would- I would find that to be a very shallow, egocentric, unfulfilling and most likely harmful way to live. I would disagree with that philosophy for living on the basis that behavior such as you describe is immature.

 

But I don't think that hedonistic philosophy is the only alternative to a belief in an afterlife or a deity.

 

(ETA: I don't think that seeking riches or popularity or pleasure is inherently shallow, egocentric, unfulfilling, harmful or immature! Just the part about not caring how others are affected along the way. LOL! By all means, make the most of life, just don't hurt others in the process.)

 

I'm not saying that I think it's wrong to have religious beliefs. Who am I to tell anyone what should make your (the general your) life fulfilling and meaningful to you (the general you)? (As long as it doesn't hurt other people or prevent them from fulfilling their own potential.) I'm just saying that I believe this life has meaning with or without an afterlife. If there is no afterlife? I am saying that this life is all the more precious because it's all that we have.

 

If life is meaningless, then "right" and "wrong" are meaningless.

 

Maybe, if it applied to everyone. Some people find meaning in life itself, though. Obviously, If one person finds life meaningless and has no sense of right or wrong, it's not okay for that person to harm others.

[Julie Herbster]

Hate to pile on... but what is more logical, to deny all evidence and still just go ahead and believe what you want to anyway? (young earth creationism) or evaluate the evidence... or lack thereof... and draw a conclusion from it?

We all interpret evidence according to our presuppositions, correct? I, a creationist, don't buy the idea that "all evidence" points to old earth/evolution, because I start with different presuppositions. The evidence says something different to you because you interpret it according your own presuppositions. It's really that simple. Belief in either theory requires faith, since no one was there to observe what actually happened. The average person who has attended American public school has been so steeped in evolutionary philosophy since day one that the above statements seem ridiculous to him...What? Who can say this in the face of the *overwhelming* *scientific* evidence to the contrary??!! Unthinkable! Such a person might be unaware of the many educated and respected scientists (a growing number, I believe) who actually believe in intelligent design.

 

To be perfectly frank (although I'm sure this statement will garner many groans and shrieks of "what a freak!"), I'm hazarding a guess that people in the future will look back on this period in history and wonder how people could have bought into Darwinism (evolutionary theory) for so long. Intelligent design has become the "elephant in the living room" for many evolutionary scientists. It's not going away anytime soon. Now, have at me!! :tongue_smilie:

[Julie Herbster]

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. It IS more rational in the face of a total lack of evidence that something exists, to assert that it does not exist than to assert that it does. I'm not just talking about God here. It could be anything. You can't prove that I don't have a herd of invisible unicorns in my back yard. But it would be more reasonable to assert that I do not than to assert that I do. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor This is Logic 101 here.

Let's say that someone told me that your yard was full of unicorns. How would I go about thinking about whether or not this could be true? Well, I have a "presupposition" that you do not have unicorns in your back yard, because I do not believe in the existence of unicorns. Even if you showed me your yard full of unicorns (the evidence), I would call it a visual trick, or a strange cross-breeding of two known animals that resulted in something that sort of resembled a "unicorn." At the very least, I would think my own eyes were playing tricks on me. I would leave unconvinced that you really did have unicorns in your back yard. Why? Because of my strongly held presupposition that unicorns do not exist.

 

Occam's razor seems to deal more with scientific methods and scientific theories than with pure logic, although its author was a logician. Science is the study of things observable. The things I observe in nature (evidence of design, order, beauty which serves no evolutionary purpose, creativity, intricacy, etc.) overwhelmingly support the existence of God. Why? Because of my presupposition that God exists. You see in nature no evidence for a God. Why? Because of your presupposition that there is no God (or your skepticism that there is a God). Can you not see that the presupposition--not the evidence--"comes first?" Everyone interprets evidence in light of his presuppositions.

[genie]

Well crud. I probably should have quickly answered this before heading out, because I'm really exhausted right now.

 

O.K....So why do you now?

 

I watch it because I have no reason not to watch it.

 

Are you "as moral" as you were as a Christian? Why or why not? Or, was there something different about "being a Christian" that informed your views about what is moral and what is not? OR, are you now simply engaging in what you still see as immorality?

 

Basically, the difference between then and now is that I no longer have a list of "rules" from the Bible that I feel I have to follow. I try my best to follow the golden rule, do no harm ideology. No, I do not see myself as now engaging in immorality because I have a different set of guidelines that require no god.

 

I've been wondering, though. The question of morality without the need for a god, is it possibly just a personality thing? I mean, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how some people have said that without a god, their life would be meaningless. Maybe people with that personality really DO need a belief in a god to be a good person? Maybe that's why they adhere so strongly to their religion? They fear the person they would be without it? I'm really trying to wrap my brain around the whole notion, and the best I can come up with is that their brain chemistry (personality) is completely different than mine.

[Greta]

Now you may very well come away from reading it still firmly ensconced in your belief that there is no God, to be sure.

 

Nancy, I didn't see this before I responded to your PM. But hopefully that clarified this point?

[Greta]

Julie, it's late and I'm so tired that I shouldn't be attempting conversation any more. But it seems to me that you just admitted that on the issue of God's existence there is insufficient evidence to overcome skepticism. I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended, but that's sure what it seems like. You're saying the evidence isn't compelling enough to overcome my "presuppositions". So if even people who believe in God think the evidence doesn't stand on its own two feet and requires belief before the evidence is examined, then why should I even bother examining it?

[Julie Herbster]

Julie, it's late and I'm so tired that I shouldn't be attempting conversation any more. But it seems to me that you just admitted that on the issue of God's existence there is insufficient evidence to overcome skepticism. I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended, but that's sure what it seems like. You're saying the evidence isn't compelling enough to overcome my "presuppositions". So if even people who believe in God think the evidence doesn't stand on its own two feet and requires belief before the evidence is examined, then why should I even bother examining it?

No, I'm just saying that people tend to interpret evidence in light of their presuppositions. I believe that if one were to come to the table with a completely open mind (if that is possible), with no presuppositions, the evidence for the existence of God would completely overwhelm the evidence to the contrary. Suggested reading: Mere Christianity (Lewis); The God Who Is There (Schaeffer); He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Schaeffer); The Abolition of Man (Lewis); Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Ankerberg); The Case for Christ (Stroebel); How Should We Then Live? (Schaeffer)

 

People who do not want to believe in God will always find reasons not to.

 

If you're an open-minded skeptic, then technically you haven't arrived at a definite "presupposition," but you're leaning one way, which will color your perception of the evidence at hand.

 

As I said before, this issue is at its core a matter of faith. We can talk evidence (which is colored by presupposition), logic, and whatever else. But, in the end, unless you remain agnostic, you become a believer in something (the "thesis" or the "antithesis"). And, since neither position can be verified logically or scientifically, belief in either position is, by definition, outside the realm of reason. You don't like calling it "faith"...maybe "acceptance beyond reason" would be a better phrase.

 

ETA: I just read today on another board that I frequent that it is a useful exercise to start with a presupposition, as if you believe it to be true, and then work through the evidence from that perspective, defending that presupposition as if in a debate. After doing this with two opposing presuppositions, see which one gives the best answers/explanations of what we observe in the world. Interesting...I remember my parents doing this sort of thing when they were just starting to figure out what they believed. (My dad is an atheist-turned-Christian; my mom has thought through her own Christian beliefs.)

 

And now for a little levity before I retire: Have you heard the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lays awake at night wondering if there is a dog?

[nancypants]

Dear Phred, it's clear that you know that what you believe is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is really quite amazing considering that it's a topic that even some of the greatest secular philosophers still will not draw such final conclusions on. I, unlike you, have doubts and questions and I don't know all of the answers. If I did then I would be God and this conversation would not be happening. :tongue_smilie: Thankfully, I don't have to as I believe, with other reasonable souls, that the universe is in more capable hands than mine. As someone wise once said, "Faith without doubt is like a body without antibodies." My doubts make me look at my faith from all angles, like a diamond... It's not something I expect I will ever put down as "figured out" as you seem to have been able to do. But since you have no doubts, then there is really no real discussion to be had because you know you are right and you leave no room for any other possibility. For your sake, I really hope it works out for you as you hope... and if it does we'll be in that black nothingness together forever as equals just as we are now... except then we will both be inert dirt and have no opinions! :D

 

49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

 

I promise that this is my last word regardless of your response. Thanks for a thought provoking conversation as always.

[Tami]

Well.

I question the whole "Thou shalt not kill"

and then everywhere in the same book they are instructed to kill every man, woman, and child when they pick another people to war against.

 

*snip*

 

Trouble is.....Caine killed Abel and he had already found favor in the eyes of that god with his blood sacrifice of a cow. Any connection to the blood sacrifice of his brother? I don't know. I do know that there are still people who kill in the name of god. And in the past wiped out almost entirely the pagans and midwives and "witches."

 

 

 

Hi Karen,

 

I just wanted to take a moment to respond. If the Old Testament is horrifying to you, what about the horrifying sayings of Jesus. For example:

 

"As for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them here before me." -Parable of Jesus - Luke 19:27

 

John Piper has written an article about some of the questions you have raised HERE.

 

Take care,

Tami

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I have been thinking about your last question. I think a Christian would say that these are ultimate truths:

 

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to take what does not belong to you.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to confine one's own sexual practices to marriage, of the opposite sex.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to take another person's life.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to be envious of another's possessions.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to honor your parents.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to testify falsely against someone.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to consider all people as worthy of as much honor and respect as you are.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. (You can just put mind, if you choose. ;-)

 

Notice I used the words *to choose.* There are probably more statements of choice that I could make that I would consider truths, but that is good enough for now.

 

Truth is a tricky thing. Jesus recognized man's search for truth in philosophy. He made the bold statement, "I am the truth, the way, the light." In that one sentence he addressed all the major philosophies of the age. Christians choose to put their trust in that statement, as ridiculous as it sounds. They have examined the teachings of Christ and have said, "It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to follow Jesus's example." Deviation from that example is not Christianity, it is simply humanity .

 

For a Christian, even if death turns out to be nothing more than unknowing darkness it will still always be right, and never be wrong, to choose to follow the words and example of Jesus. We would like to keep the freedom to make that choice.

[Julie Herbster]

I watch it because I have no reason not to watch it.

 

Basically, the difference between then and now is that I no longer have a list of "rules" from the Bible that I feel I have to follow. I try my best to follow the golden rule, do no harm ideology. No, I do not see myself as now engaging in immorality because I have a different set of guidelines that require no god.

Genie, this is what you said about Grey's Anatomy in a previous post:

all the other less-than-moral behavior...<<snip>>...Is there one single redeeming character quality in that show?...<<snip>>...show full of extra- and pre-marital sex, deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies

You have claimed to be a "moral person." You say that this show contains a lot of "less-than-moral behavior," yet you enjoy watching it? I don't understand how you are any more consistent in this than the Christians who like the show. Apparently, you too think that at least some of these things are immoral in that they harm people (deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies). How are you, a moral person, justified in "delighting in" these things, to use your own wording? It appears you have set a double standard...It's OK for you (atheist, but "moral") to enjoy this show, but it's not OK for Christians to do so.

 

I have not watched this show, but if it is as you say ("no redeeming qualities"), then it would seem that anyone who is "moral" by your definition would not enjoy watching it. Why, do you think, do you enjoy it?

[Storm Bay]

Hi Karen,

 

I just wanted to take a moment to respond. If the Old Testament is horrifying to you, what about the horrifying sayings of Jesus. For example:

 

"As for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them here before me." -Parable of Jesus - Luke 19:27

Take care,

Tami

 

Just to bring up a few salient points about the use of parables. A parable is a legitimate figure of speech that generally makes one main point, and to quote one line out of a parable and imply that it teaches doctrine or makes the point that Jesus was trying to make is incorrect. Effective parables use examples from the culture/world around the people they are being spoken to, and these aren't necessarily doctrinal customs or practices. To take more than one lesson from most parables is poor scholarship. For more information on this, you may wish to read the book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger. I've given a few quotes, but to get a better idea, you may wish to not only read the entire description but then study them.

 

Here's a quote from p. 751 on Parabola; or Parable; i.e. Continued Simile. Comparison by continued Resemblance:

 

"Parabola. a placing beside for the purpose of comparison, from para beside and dallein to throw or cast.

 

"The classical use of the word was for one of the subdivisions of paradeigma, an example, vizl, a presentation of an analogous cases by way of illustrations."

 

further down the page:

"In the New Testament instances of the word, it is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing, in every detail, the idea of a comparison."

 

and further (I'm skipping some as it's way too long) on p. 752

 

"One word of caution, however, we must give: and that is concerning the object of parables. The common idea is that they are intended to make things clear and plain. Hence every young minister and Sunday-school teacher turns to parables as though they were the simplest things in the world. Whereas they were spoken so that trugh might be veiled...Hence they are among the most difficult portions of God's Word."

 

Types:

 

"I PARADEIGMA

 

1. Persons without words.

2. Words without persons.

3. Both persons and words.

 

II. PARABOLA or PARABLE.

 

1. Icon Simile forming a complete image.

2. Homoen Simile founded on certain points only.

3. Epagoge Argument from induction."

 

An example of one of the most poorly understood parables in Western society is the one of the "Unjust Steward." If you study just what a steward was in that society, etc, and read carefully, you'll see he was ALLEGED to be unjust, and, in the end, was operating ethically and within his rights and authority as a steward. Bishop K.C. Pillai of India did some helpful work on this, as have others.

[nmoira]

Apparently, you too think that at least some of these things are immoral in that they harm people (deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies). How are you, a moral person, justified in "delighting in" these things, to use your own wording? It appears you have set a double standard...It's OK for you (atheist, but "moral") to enjoy this show, but it's not OK for Christians to do so.

 

I have not watched this show, but if it is as you say ("no redeeming qualities"), then it would seem that anyone who is "moral" by your definition would not enjoy watching it. Why, do you think, do you enjoy it?

Not genie... but it's a TV show, not real life. What precisely is the worry? The temptation to become a jerk and cheat on your partner? I'm willing to bet that genie can watch the show without feeling the need to run out an emulate the behavior she sees on it, just as I can watch Buffy and not feel the need to carry a wooden stake in my purse. :)

[Storm Bay]

 

I've been wondering, though. The question of morality without the need for a god, is it possibly just a personality thing? I mean, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how some people have said that without a god, their life would be meaningless. Maybe people with that personality really DO need a belief in a god to be a good person? Maybe that's why they adhere so strongly to their religion? They fear the person they would be without it? I'm really trying to wrap my brain around the whole notion, and the best I can come up with is that their brain chemistry (personality) is completely different than mine.

 

Not necessarily. I had a stong sense of ethics and morality when I was an agnostic, and my strong beliefs now are based on very different things than this. There was a gradual transformation in these categories as I studied the Bible, to be sure, but it was not why I turned to it. I covered that in a previous post.

 

I don't think it's simply brain chemistry, but I do agree that not everyone has a desire to believe in any god. However, I think that it's too easy to try and lump people into groups on both sides of the coin. I suspect that the reasons for believing or skepticism vary just as people vary. I also think that it's extremely difficult to understand the other side if you haven't been in it yourself. Sometimes we can get understanding from people who have been on both sides, such as Dr. Rebecca Keller who was an atheist through and through until grad school, but I'm not sure if that will help if you are skeptical or not, quite frankly. Another atheist turned Christian is John Schoenheit who cowrote One God, One Lord--he was a philosophy major in college. However, none of this would convince my sister to have faith, so I don't know if it would help you understand or not.

[Greta]

I'm sorry it has taken me awhile to reply. This thread has gotten so huge that I'm having a hard time navigating it, and I "lost" this part of the conversation for awhile!

 

Thanks so much for clarifying, and it's so great that we both came to a clearer understanding of the other's pov.

 

:001_smile:

[genie]

Genie, this is what you said about Grey's Anatomy in a previous post:

You have claimed to be a "moral person." You say that this show contains a lot of "less-than-moral behavior," yet you enjoy watching it? I don't understand how you are any more consistent in this than the Christians who like the show. Apparently, you too think that at least some of these things are immoral in that they harm people (deception, attempted suicide, divorce, and lies). How are you, a moral person, justified in "delighting in" these things, to use your own wording? It appears you have set a double standard...It's OK for you (atheist, but "moral") to enjoy this show, but it's not OK for Christians to do so.

 

I have not watched this show, but if it is as you say ("no redeeming qualities"), then it would seem that anyone who is "moral" by your definition would not enjoy watching it. Why, do you think, do you enjoy it?

 

I'm pretty sure I have already addressed this, but maybe it required some reading between the lines. I will try to spell it out a little more clearly for you, but also try to keep it as simple as possible. Christians have a bigger list of rules to follow (contained in the Bible) than non-Christians do. One of those being along the lines of "be in the world, but not of the world." Watching shows like Grey's Anatomy, in my opinion, crosses that line for Christians.

 

As a non-Christian, I have a much shorter list: Treat people the way I would want to be treated. Plain and simple. By watching a fictional tv show about characters behaving in "immoral" ways I am in no way harming anyone.

 

So, no, there really is no double standard. People should simply follow the rules they choose for their life. It's not at all inconsistent of me to expect Christians to follow the rules they chose, even when that means they ought not do some of the things I can freely do.

[genie]

... just as I can watch Buffy and not feel the need to carry a wooden stake in my purse. :)

 

Really? Cuz I admit I had quite a hankering for that big ol' scythe Buffy found and used against Caleb. And I have, at times, requested that my husband address me as Glorificus, in the manner of her servants.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Not genie... but it's a TV show, not real life. What precisely is the worry? The temptation to become a jerk and cheat on your partner? I'm willing to bet that genie can watch the show without feeling the need to run out an emulate the behavior she sees on it, just as I can watch Buffy and not feel the need to carry a wooden stake in my purse. :)

 

It probably comes down to a comfort level. I'm not comfortable watching Grease, for example. I don't have a problem with other people watching it, but I can't. It goes against my conscience. (And I've seen it more than twice, and could probably sing parts of some of the songs.) Over the years, I've developed an aversion to the themes it celebrates with song and dance. Others have, I know, no such hangups with the content. (I suppose with Gray's Anatomy it would depend on whether the show celebrated such things as adultery, etc, or if the hurt and consequences of such behavior was also explored in equal depth with the pleasure.)

 

Much the same could be said with participating on this message board -- and I'm talking about the general board here, not the specific boards. The Christian bible says, "Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you." And some would consider some of the friendships formed on the board as constituting an unequal yoke. (Lest anyone think I need a theology lesson, I am fully aware of some of the various interpretations of levels of involvement that these verses have. ;)) Some would have discomfort because they would consider dissenting opinions, particularly kind and well-reasoned opinions, to be a sowing of tares among the wheat of the Word in their minds and simply would not post here. Their comfort level with associating with worldly opinions and ideas and interpretations -- or even liberal interpretations -- just can't be managed without avoiding it all together. (And then there's me, who quotes scripture often -- even Satan can do that, it's said. :D People aren't likely running out and abandoning their faith just because they share the board and laugh and commiserate with and are annoyed for and by me.) They would worry that untruth delivered "craftily" could sow doubt and be used to start a slippery slope away from God.

 

Others find the exercise of refining their beliefs to be worth the "danger." Others don't see it as danger to their faith at all. Others see it as fulfillment of the Great Commission and are here at least partly in an attempt to rescue the perishing.

 

I feel little need to do some of the things other posters on this board do that my conscience cries against just because I read about them daily occasionally. I imagine it is the same for watching this or that show or another.

[nmoira]

 

Really? Cuz I admit I had quite a hankering for that big ol' scythe Buffy found and used against Caleb. And I have, at times, requested that my husband address me as Glorificus, in the manner of her servants.

Nah, my passion was Spike... but I'm pretty sure DH is safe from the worry of my hooking up with the undead. :)

[Jenny in Atl]

I always find those who are weakest in their faith/beliefs are the ones to most loudly defend them. I also find it interesting to hear what others think and I ask questions to gain understanding. I'm sorry if I have said anything in this or other threads that have cause harm or pain.

[nmoira]

It probably comes down to a comfort level.

True, and, since we're talking about entertainment, if something makes us uncomfortable, we're unlikely to be entertained by it.

 

I'm not comfortable watching Grease, for example. I don't have a problem with other people watching it, but I can't. It goes against my conscience.

It's funny you chose Grease. It's also a movie I refuse to watch because I can't get past my anger at her changing into something she wasn't. She gave up herself, and for what?

[genie]

I also think that it's extremely difficult to understand the other side if you haven't been in it yourself. Sometimes we can get understanding from people who have been on both sides, such as Dr. Rebecca Keller who was an atheist through and through until grad school, but I'm not sure if that will help if you are skeptical or not, quite frankly. Another atheist turned Christian is John Schoenheit who cowrote One God, One Lord--he was a philosophy major in college. However, none of this would convince my sister to have faith, so I don't know if it would help you understand or not.

 

Hmmm. I was going right along with you fine in this paragraph until I got to the end and realized you were talking about me. See, I thought you were referring to the people who say they would find life meaningless without a god, and that they would understand better if they had experienced it (life without a belief in a god) themselves. But you see, I was staunchly on the Christian side for many years of my life. I understand it very well. But even when I was a Christian, if you had asked me what my life would be like if I were to discover there were no god, it would have never occurred to me to say that life would be meaningless. That outlook is what I don't understand, and it is what made me consider it as possibly being a personality/brain chemistry difference.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I always find those who are weakest in their faith/beliefs are the ones to most loudly defend them. I also find it interesting to hear what others think and I ask questions to gain understanding. I'm sorry if I have said anything in this or other threads that have cause harm or pain.

 

I agree on all points. I post and read to gain and participate in that greater understanding that you speak of.

[Mekanamom]

I have been thinking about your last question. I think a Christian would say that these are ultimate truths:

 

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to take what does not belong to you.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to confine one's own sexual practices to marriage, of the opposite sex.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to take another person's life.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to be envious of another's possessions.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to honor your parents.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose not to testify falsely against someone.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to consider all people as worthy of as much honor and respect as you are.

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. (You can just put mind, if you choose. ;-)

 

Notice I used the words *to choose.* There are probably more statements of choice that I could make that I would consider truths, but that is good enough for now.

 

Truth is a tricky thing. Jesus recognized man's search for truth in philosophy. He made the bold statement, "I am the truth, the way, the light." In that one sentence he addressed all the major philosophies of the age. Christians choose to put their trust in that statement, as ridiculous as it sounds. They have examined the teachings of Christ and have said, "It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to follow Jesus's example." Deviation from that example is not Christianity, it is simply humanity .

 

For a Christian, even if death turns out to be nothing more than unknowing darkness it will still always be right, and never be wrong, to choose to follow the words and example of Jesus. We would like to keep the freedom to make that choice.

 

Virginia Dawn, I don't know what your feelings are on the gay marriage issue. So this is not directed at you personally... and I know that I'm taking what you're saying out of context too, since you're answering a question about ultimate truth and not about gay marriage.

 

But nowhere in the above list does it say:

 

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to limit other people's choices.

 

I don't know what other Christian religions teach, but in my youth, I was taught that in the pre-existence, Satan loved the world and all its people nearly as much as Jesus did. He wanted to spare all of us any pain or suffering, so he proposed that we would all have no choice but to love and obey God. Everything would be perfect, just like Heaven.

 

And Jesus argued for choice and faith instead (free agency), and he won the argument... but 1/3 of all the angels in Heaven liked Satan's idea better and left with him.

 

So... I simply can't help making the comparison- when (some, certainly not all) Christians feel they must legislate how everyone should behave no matter what their beliefs are... (basically taking away free agency)... well... it sounds familiar. Even if the justification behind it is Love.

 

I'm agnostic now- so it's not like I'm taking what I was taught in church as literal truth... but it's an interesting lesson behind that story. Is that same story taught in other Christian religions?

 

And like I said... I am not pointing any fingers here... I most certainly would not want to take away any person's freedom to personally follow Christ's example. Like you indicated, it comes down to having choices. :) And I would agree; living your life the way you see fit -as long as it doesn't hurt others- is a life well lived and time well spent.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Hmmm. I was going right along with you fine in this paragraph until I got to the end and realized you were talking about me. See, I thought you were referring to the people who say they would find life meaningless without a god, and that they would understand better if they had experienced it (life without a belief in a god) themselves. But you see, I was staunchly on the Christian side for many years of my life. I understand it very well. But even when I was a Christian, if you had asked me what my life would be like if I were to discover there were no god, it would have never occurred to me to say that life would be meaningless. That outlook is what I don't understand, and it is what made me consider it as possibly being a personality/brain chemistry difference.

 

Another part I'll never understand are those who say that if there was no god, they would just go out and do anything they wanted, to whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. That they would never want anyone telling them what to do, that they would chafe against government, that if something didn't benefit them, they would not have anything to do with it. Worse, they say that *I* am this way.

 

I don't get that. I mean, I'm a creature who loves comfort and life and the easy way, sure. But I'm definitely able to see that hardship and sacrifice (even of life) and difficulty can work a greater good and am willing to engage in such a life when it's called for. But not because a deity compels me to do so. Love compels me, life compels me, civilization compels me, delayed greater gratification compels me, respect for my fellow man compels me.

[genie]

Another part I'll never understand are those who say that if there was no god, they would just go out and do anything they wanted, to whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. That they would never want anyone telling them what to do, that they would chafe against government, that if something didn't benefit them, they would not have anything to do with it. Worse, they say that *I* am this way.

 

 

Thanks for reminding me of this view. It was one that had been spinning around in my cerebral vortex (;)) as I was contemplating the personality thing.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

cerebral vortex

 

I am so totally stealing that. :lol:

[Greta]

People who do not want to believe in God will always find reasons not to.

 

Do you think that atheists and agnostics are operating from a position of not "wanting" to believe there is a God? I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that is certainly not the case for me. I would dearly love to believe there is a benevolent being running the show. I can't imagine anything more comforting or sublime. But wanting it to be true doesn't make it true.

[Alice]

Do I believe that only theists make good moral choices? No, of course not!

 

Do I believe that ethics requires an appeal to a god? I'm agnostic on this one. In theory, I'm not opposed to the idea that a philosophically persuasive ethics can be built without reference to a god or some absolute truth or being, but I haven't seen it done well. (I'm talking about philosophical systems, here, not individuals.)

 

But the way your questions are constructed seems to imply that people who appeal to their deities for their ethics are doing so because they can't think up a better excuse. It really doesn't work that way for people of faith. I don't "need a god to tell [me] what is right and wrong." I don't subscribe to a god because that god is a philosophical necessity. I've met God. I've experienced God. God is as real as the sun. Do you "appeal" to the existence of the sun to justify your choice to rise in the morning and go to bed at night? Or do you just look at it and know it's there, and live according to its rhythms?

 

Through Holy Scripture, through other people, through creation, through the traditions that form me even without my knowing it, through my experiences of suffering and loss, and through experiences of joy and contentment, I've met God. It is not that I run across random ethical dilemmas, during which I call upon an otherwise abstract or absent deity. It's that knowing God allows me to see the world in such a way that moral decisions are possible. It's not that I go on about my daily life, and when I run across a moral dilemma I run to consult the Bible. It's that the Bible gives light such that I can see my daily life in a new way, in a way that corresponds to reality. And because of that light, I make certain moral commitments.

 

So, yes, my "ethics" are completely and ineluctably tied to my relationship with God. I can't do ethics any other way than by relating it to God, because there is nothing that is not related to God, who is the creator of all.

 

And, though this may be offensive to atheists, I don't, actually, believe that they can be moral without God. I just don't mean that the same way that you do. They can make moral decisions without philosophically relating them to a god, but I believe that their ability to do what is good comes from God, whether or not they can name God as the author of their goodness.

 

I really don't know how to fit that into your poll. How do you think I should answer?

 

 

What she said. :D

 

ETA: I realized after I posted this that there were 20 pages of responses. I was on vacation and missed this thread until today. I realized posting a quote from page 1 may seem odd now. I didn't read the rest of the replies, so don't know if there was discussion on this point. I still love PariSarah's post though. :)

[muffinmom]

Another part I'll never understand are those who say that if there was no god, they would just go out and do anything they wanted, to whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. That they would never want anyone telling them what to do, that they would chafe against government, that if something didn't benefit them, they would not have anything to do with it. Worse, they say that *I* am this way.

 

I don't get that. I mean, I'm a creature who loves comfort and life and the easy way, sure. But I'm definitely able to see that hardship and sacrifice (even of life) and difficulty can work a greater good and am willing to engage in such a life when it's called for. But not because a deity compels me to do so. Love compels me, life compels me, civilization compels me, delayed greater gratification compels me, respect for my fellow man compels me.

 

If you are referring to my earlier post, that's not exactly what I was saying. I think you have dramatized and personalized my comments (if in fact that is what you are referring to.)

 

I'm not saying that no one would ever do any good or make any good choices. We all make good and bad choices, some more lopsided in one direction than others. Just that our general propensity is to serve ourselves (and sometimes this is even disguised as people-pleasing--it appears unselfish, but ultimately has a payoff of some sort).

 

But I ask you, where do you think this love that compels you (or any of us) comes from? The respect, the self-sacrifice that you have learned? I would say that it comes from God in you, because we were created in His likeness, which is what He himself claims. God can be in you and directing you without you knowing it or acknowledging it.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Virginia Dawn, I don't know what your feelings are on the gay marriage issue. So this is not directed at you personally... and I know that I'm taking what you're saying out of context too, since you're answering a question about ultimate truth and not about gay marriage.

 

But nowhere in the above list does it say:

 

It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to limit other people's choices.

 

I don't know what other Christian religions teach, but in my youth, I was taught that in the pre-existence, Satan loved the world and all its people nearly as much as Jesus did. He wanted to spare all of us any pain or suffering, so he proposed that we would all have no choice but to love and obey God. Everything would be perfect, just like Heaven.

 

And Jesus argued for choice and faith instead (free agency), and he won the argument... but 1/3 of all the angels in Heaven liked Satan's idea better and left with him.

 

So... I simply can't help making the comparison- when (some, certainly not all) Christians feel they must legislate how everyone should behave no matter what their beliefs are... (basically taking away free agency)... well... it sounds familiar. Even if the justification behind it is Love.

 

I'm agnostic now- so it's not like I'm taking what I was taught in church as literal truth... but it's an interesting lesson behind that story. Is that same story taught in other Christian religions?

 

And like I said... I am not pointing any fingers here... I most certainly would not want to take away any person's freedom to personally follow Christ's example. Like you indicated, it comes down to having choices. :) And I would agree; living your life the way you see fit -as long as it doesn't hurt others- is a life well lived and time well spent.

 

I have never heard that story and have read most of the Bible, yet I've never come across the story of "Satan's fall" told in that manner. It is my understanding that Satan wanted to set himself up as equal to God, and that was his "sin." To tell the truth, I've never delved much into that particular subject.

 

I will say that I do not consider "It is always right, and never wrong, to choose to limit other people's choices " to be an ultimate truth. I'm tempted to say, "of course", but I guess nothing should be assumed.

 

If our nation was a voluntary theocracy, that is people chose to identify with it as Christians, and they had the choice to leave, then I would say that some choices could be reasonably limited. Just as choices within certain groups that meet together are naturally limited. But even so, limiting choice can be a scary thing. I am actually thankful our nation is not a theocracy.

 

As far as our government and marriage (I didn't even open the marriage thread). I personally think that assigning a definition to marriage does not come within the jurisidiction of the Federal government, but the states. I would not support a marriage ammendment to the constitution, even though I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

 

I took no offense at your post, it was very well thought out. :001_smile:

[Storm Bay]

I don't know what other Christian religions teach, but in my youth, I was taught that in the pre-existence, Satan loved the world and all its people nearly as much as Jesus did. He wanted to spare all of us any pain or suffering, so he proposed that we would all have no choice but to love and obey God. Everything would be perfect, just like Heaven.

 

And Jesus argued for choice and faith instead (free agency), and he won the argument... but 1/3 of all the angels in Heaven liked Satan's idea better and left with him.

.

 

FYI, not all Christians have been taught this, as this doesn't appear in the Bible. I only read of this concept for the first time in 2008, in fact. While I do believe God gave us free will, I don't think that it was a group decision. My understanding is that Lucifer rebelled because he wanted to be like the most high God and that Jesus didn't exist until Mary conceived. To clarify, my understanding from scripture is that there were angels before Genesis 1:2 ff, but not people, and that Jesus, although perfect due to his conception and choice to obey, was a man, the Messiah.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

If you are referring to my earlier post, that's not exactly what I was saying. I think you have dramatized and personalized my comments (if in fact that is what you are referring to.)

 

I'm not saying that no one would ever do any good or make any good choices. We all make good and bad choices, some more lopsided in one direction than others. Just that our general propensity is to serve ourselves (and sometimes this is even disguised as people-pleasing--it appears unselfish, but ultimately has a payoff of some sort).

 

But I ask you, where do you think this love that compels you (or any of us) comes from? The respect, the self-sacrifice that you have learned? I would say that it comes from God in you, because we were created in His likeness, which is what He himself claims. God can be in you and directing you without you knowing it or acknowledging it.

 

Sorry, muffinmom. All the posts were running together, and while I should have gone back and found all the quotes to make sure I was acknowledging who said what, it's all a bit confusing as to where specific ideas originated at this point. Rest assured I didn't have you personally in mind. In fact, I refrained from answering your last post so that you could have the last word in our exchange.

 

I guess your last paragraph -- well, yeah, that's personal, I think. For you to say that whether I like it or not, believe or not, your view is correct is slightly insulting.

 

If I said to you that I feel that whether you know or acknowledge or accept it or not, you are deluded in your irrational belief in an Imaginary Being that guides your every thought and action and motivation, and that all your emotions and desires are a result of eons of evolution and socialization and [ETA that your religious beliefs are] a desire to take the easy way out... well, you might be insulted and take it personally. And when you speak of our overtones of pride and arrogance and inability to reckon morally without a Biblical compass, that, I'm afraid, is a little bit personal. And I'm not seeing how a strong-ish reaction would not be a surprise.

 

When you continue to say "This is how it is, and if you will only seek with an open heart, you would know it," it becomes somewhat of a dig in my side. Even though -- please know -- that I completely realize you say these things with a heart of compassion and because you believe my eternal destiny hangs on whether I accept or reject what you have to say.

 

I haven't been hurt or injured or let down by religious people any more than I have by non-religious ones, so, to answer another sentiment in another post, no worries there. But I don't have belief. *shrug* And that's just how it is. I could lie and say I have some (which would be a *highly* convenient and self-serving thing to do given my circumstances), but the cognitive dissonance would be too overwhelming.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

This is a fascinating story - thank you for sharing it.

 

My faith (Judaism) doesn't have an equivalent for the Xtian Satan, but we do have discussions about whether it would have been better for us to have been created purely as neshamos (souls) and never to have had physical bodies and free choice - in some ways that would be better, we would not have the possibility of failing or becoming more distant from G-d, but, so my tradition holds, the very struggle for closeness to G-d this world/life provides gives us the opportunity for our neshamos, so to speak, to end up even closer to HaKadosh Baruch Hu. [Drastic oversimplifications here - sorry.]

 

It is so interesting to see a roughly analogous discussion from your tradition!

 

Eliana, your post has me curious. What does Judaism make of the story of Job? My concordance says that Satan in what we call the Old Testament means "the adversary." There is also a reference to Satan in Zechariah 3.

 

Some quick looking for things I thought meant Satan are surprising me, I'd like to hear your take on it.