Sin: The Dirty Little Word that Trivializes Morality and Warps Ethics
by Chris Barrett
Sin: An immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law.
Considered by whom? Against the divine law of which God?
The many different proponents of an array of religions consider “their” particular “deity” or “divine” as the one with the authority to declare divine laws, and thus define sin or sinful behaviors.
History suggests the dictates of these “divines” is nothing more than the claims of humans from a particular point in each time and culture.
Example: How would you respond to a news flash: “Local SDA Church stones member to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath”? No one would try to justify such actions today, yet why is it we can read about exactly the same thing in the Old Testament and not cringe or question?
Many religious writings are awash with similar examples of “their” “divine” ordaining equally evil behavior in the name of eradicating sin. Some are doing so today. Of course, not all the “gods” agree on what is and is not sin.
The failure common to most every religion is that in the name of dealing with sin, they have behaved in ways we today would call immoral and unethical. I find no reason why an action which is immoral and unethical today should be considered otherwise just because a God/god said it was okay in the past. None.
I am reminded of a classic quote in Part 6 of Dr. Taylor's Blog series summary of Dr. Wilbur’s book:
“The worst atrocities have their source in the zealous pursuit of a sublime ideal that is believed to be so majestic, so magnificent, and so grand, that it is worthy of every sacrifice, every hardship, and every abomination. (Shadia B. Drury in the preface to Terror and Civilization)”
And further:
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” Pascal.
Put simply, while the thrust of these quotes is broader than our topic, how much evil, immoral, and unethical behavior has taken place in the name of dealing with sin?
Now, this blog grew out of discussion about whether suicide is sin.
We need to move beyond the petty, religious propaganda that seeks to describe human behavior in terms of “sin”. Too many are trapped in the mentality of viewing human morality, ethics, and values through the blinkered lens of one particular religious world view or another. We need a bigger perspective.
Breaking free from the mentality of defining human behavior through the lens of “sin”, will free us to see behavior in more neutral terms. Describing human behavior in terms of normal or natural, vs abnormal and unnatural, would open the world view and offer a level playing field.
What is natural for humans has to do with our nature: What we are. This is no different to any animal. All exhibit behaviors that are “natural” for their nature.
Who defines “natural”, “unnatural”, “normal”, and “abnormal”?
We do.
As we have noted, religiously based dictates seem always little removed from their culture. Often expressing the opinion of a limited number of people, or even worse – some charismatic leader. Such dictates are far more likely to get it wrong than would a collective voice of the widest possible analysis of human culture, civilization, needs, desires, successes, failures, norms, and factors contributing to its wellbeing.
What do we do with the psychopath, the sociopath, and the like?
The collective power of human culture leaves no doubt that these behaviors are unnatural and abnormal.
Would you let a lion loose in downtown New York? No. But, say you did, what will you do when you find him in the street eating a pedestrian for dinner, blood running down his mouth with his meal mangled under his claws? Will you arrest him? Put him in solitary confinement? Describe his behavior as “sin”? Will you expect the punishment will change his ways? No, no, no, and no.
A lion is a lion – what he does is natural for him. A sociopath is a sociopath. A rapist is a rapist. What they do may be natural to them. Is it acceptable to human society? No. Is it natural, or normal behavior within what it collectively means to be human? No. Should such be allowed to roam the streets looking for prey? Absolutely not.
Now, we could define their behavior as bad, immoral, etc. etc., but sin? I think not. First it assumes a divine dictate, and both the correct divinity and the correct interpretation and application of its demand. Secondly, and even worse, it oversimplifies the problem. Tell the lion to stop sinning, and see how the situation improves. Give him a 10-year prison sentence and see if he changes his mind and gets a conscience about eating people! Tell the average sociopath to stop sinning and see what good it does. A 10-year sentence may arguably do little better than with the lion.
“Natural” behavior in the wrong place (lion in street) is “unnatural” behavior to those who are in the right place (pedestrian) . You go and sit down for lunch in a lion's cage at the zoo and you are engaging in “natural” behavior in the wrong place. It is “unnatural” and you may well pay the price for it. So should the sociopath, but not necessarily by punishments designed to reform; doing so may in fact be no more possible than altering a lion's nature. We would simply remove the lion from the wrong place where he cannot help but cause destruction. So the sociopath.
The “Golden Rule” is natural, but so is going against the Golden Rule. Both spring from deep wells within the human spirit. Both are expressions of what it means to be human. We can be deeply selfish, yet profoundly giving.
What does seeing the good and bad elements of being human as normal and natural mean to the religious?
If you have to get on your knees and scrape, grovel and beg God for victory, chances are what you are struggling with is natural to you as a human and is not sin. (If what you struggle with is socially unacceptable and harmful to others – face up to it or await the consequences.) If it is normal to human society and behavior – stop losing sleep over it. Enjoy your life, your relationship/s, your body. Do no harm to others, bring them joy if you can. Live life in the best way you're able in the body and mind you have.
Consider a priest trying to be celibate, when doing so is completely unnatural to him, pleading with God for victory, strength, peace of mind, pure thoughts. What a lot of nonsense in God's name. I'm sure you can think of things we SDA's have been told are sinful, harmful, etc. that leave many a young person with the same begging and pleading to overcome things that are natural to being human.
Islam is well known for how it covers up its women. Why? Presumably one reason is so that men are less likely to have a "sinful" thought. Less temptation etc. Two problems: such thoughts are natural. Just as natural as when I see a beautiful flower, and can appreciate its beauty. (note I am not addressing the issue of acting on such thoughts) The same religion is known for its genital mutilation. An evil destruction of something completely natural. All in the name of what? Purity, anti-desire, sensations that are what? Sin?
What a disgrace that people can engage in such oppression and ruin of people's bodies, just because they consider their divine has spoken such obscene demands.
“Sin” is a dirty little word. Delete it. Don't let it warp the sense of values, ethics and morality that are innately yours as a human; innate values that are too easily trashed if one surrenders them to the petty whims of a God, or external authority figure. We need to think in terms that what we are is normal human beings; we need to live and enjoy your life with the freedom that comes from judging everything from the simple perspective of loving life and doing good to others.
Life will not be easy. Ask the bird as it enjoys a worm in the dewy morning light of a tranquil spring garden if life is easy (don't ask the worm). Ask the same bird as he clings to a violently shaking branch, in a howling storm over frozen fields if life is easy.
That is nature.
The bird is what the bird is. You are what you are. You can be no other than what humans are, as the bird can be no other than birds are, or lions what lions are. Like it or not, it is human to have an innate sense of good and bad, better and worse, love and hate, good and evil. Embrace the nature of being human. It will bring you moments of joy and thrill, of terror and fear. It will bring opportunity to love or hate; to do good or bad.
Life will have enough struggles. Do not complicate it with a shred of unnecessary guilt by the potential crushing force of a dirty little word. Be as free as a bird. Spread your wings and fly in the freedom of being natural, normal and fully human.
Note: This blog may lie a long way outside the usual thinking of many people. Comment is welcome, I just ask that if you find any of it confronting, before you comment, let a day pass and read it again before you speak your mind. Perhaps a second reading, built on reflection, will alter your initial impression.
Also, most readers here will be aware of the typical biblical responses or answers that can be offered about sin. While these may be useful, there is perhaps more to gain by actually grappling with issues in real dialogue, rather than “answers” that I fear will be too easily pulled to mind.
Chris, provocative as always. And provocation is good because it causes us to think. You have made some good points in your blog but you have not made clear how society decides what is good and what is bad. You talk about the "collective power of human culture." Where I grew up in Nigeria the collective power of human culture demanded that twins be exposed in the bush until they died. Collkective power determined that slavery was permissible. You also speak of following what is natural in our nature. But it is natural to lie. how do we know that lieing is not good especially when we find how beneficial it can be?
You dismiss any kind of external authority such as religious authority but who becomes the authority now? We have laws to protect the weak from the strong. But who decides what those laws are? Is it simply majority rule? But what if the majority become a tyranny? Is right and wrong simply situational?
To summarize: Who decides what is permissible and what is not? And how do they decide?
God has given humans reasoning ability and morals are timeless PRINCIPLES not affected by cultures who may devise local "laws," contrary to natural morals. Example: how did Cain know he was guilty for murdering his brother? There was no written law, but God did not deprive us of reasoning ability as are animals.
Both the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorial Imperative are the best morals by which to live. "You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong you lack empapthy, not religion."
Government establish civil laws, as well as moral laws. Citizens are told to answer to the civil government "Render unto Caesar." Morals include and are an embodied in ethics. If humans are incapable of believing and practicing in moral reasoning, laws are there to enforce them. Civil and criminal laws are ineffective and impotent without attached penalties.
The Decalogue given to the Isrealites had penalties when any were broken as they had been slaves and had no experience of individual freedom and needed restraint plus the commands given to them by God in very specific detail.
Kant's Categorical Imperative:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
Hi David,
In attempting to keep my blog within size, I deleted a couple of paragraphs that touch on your questions above. Here they are:
"It should not escape our observation that this world is in perhaps its best position ever to examine what it is that will make the human spirit and society thrive. Mass communication and inter cultural awareness is such as never before. Equally impressive is our ability examine human thinking and behavior. Of course, on a side note, it is likely we will not capitalize on this opportunity because intolerance fueled by deep seated human prejudices, prides, tribalism, and in particular religious differences, may be aggravated by the very opportunity being offered. Hence the next decades may see more hostility and fragmentation than illumination and cooperation….
…Some may at this point wonder: what if the “collective” power of culture decided these behaviours were normal/natural? Would you like to live in such a society? No. Nor, I suspect, would most others – there's your collective…so don't panic. Be more concerned about a culture where a large enough number believe they have a God given right to define and deal with sin according to the dictates of their god… and it may not be your God! Which cultures have been most dangerous in history – those with or without god/s?"
I will make observation about your questions more later, in the meantime, you may find it useful to reflect on the history of slavery, its being endemic to all peoples over time, including Judaism and Christian cultures. Who introduced it to the west, and what roles Christianity did and did not play in its propagation and demise.
Hopefully others will feel free to make observations about your points too.
Chris. You write, "Some may at this point wonder: what if the “collective” power of culture decided these behaviours were normal/natural? Would you like to live in such a society? No. Nor, I suspect, would most others – there's your collective…so don't panic. Be more concerned about a culture where a large enough number believe they have a God given right to define and deal with sin according to the dictates of their god… and it may not be your God! Which cultures have been most dangerous in history – those with or without god/s?""
Yes, Christianity has its share of sins and so does Islam. But communism also perputrated some of the worst atrocities too, Just think of Stalin's gulag. So let's be careful not to make religion the key culprit. You still have not answered my question as to who decides what is moral or not. You keep saying the collective and in the paragraph you say, "Some may at this point wonder: what if the “collective” power of culture decided these behaviours were normal/natural? Would you like to live in such a society? No. Nor, I suspect, would most others"
I would suspect that most of us would not want to live under the rule of the Taliban or even the rule of the mullahs of Iran. But the people there have little choice but to follow. It lis true that some have rebelled such as in Libya and Egypt but they still cannot decide what is moral and what is not. And in Syria all kinds of morality are at play. It seems that the collective will is not sufficient to establish what is good and what is not. So I am still waiting for an answer.
A first class blog with much to think about. One small comment: I suspect most of us today would not like to live under a political regime controlled by early Adventist believers including Ellen and James White. I would suspect that late 19th century Battle Creek, Michigan under the Adventists including John Havey Kellogg was a place most of us would wish to leave as quickly as possible..
Especially Kellogg's various enemas.
Being tempted beyond my ability to resist:
Kellogg on politics: "Keep your friends close, and your enemas closer."
James White: "With a friend like Kellogg, who needs an enema?"
Ba-da-bum!
I would greatly enjoy living next to people like Ellen and James White, and Harvey Kellogg vs the worldly liberals who have permeated the SDA churches in the NAD. We as church are on our way to irrelvancy because of continued compromise with the world.
In my view, the fragmentation of Christianity into cult-like sects such as SDA adventism is a feature that detracts from its appeal and subordinates its message to a sort of tribalism. Within adventism there is a pervasive attitude that "we are right and everyone else is wrong." Fortunately, it is not universal among adventists, but it is common. Nor is it unique to adventists. It is also pretty common in JWs, AoG, and some others. Perhaps it only testifies to the tribalistic tendencies of human nature.
We are not on our way to irrelevancy because of compromise. It's because we are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The world doesn't want what we are selling.
Erv. I resonate with what you say but we still have not discovered who decides or how we decide what is moral and what is not. Where is the ultimate authority? Right now Hobby Lobby is facing fines of millions of dollars in a couple of months. When Obamacare kicks in the next segment they have to include in their health care coverage provisions for abortion. The privately owned company owner is opposed to abortion and says he will not provide that coverage yet he cannot afford the fines. But the collective majority has made its decision. For him it is a moral issue. Maybe his only recourse is to sell his company.
We are in the middle of a huge debate on gun laws. Most of the sherrifs in one state have said they will not enforce any new laws that Congress might pass. Do they have the right to oppose the collective majority (assuming some kind of gun laws pass)? For them it is a moral issue, a second ammendment issue.
Please give your ideas.
David,
You ask: "Where is the moral authority?" The mature, rational mind should need no external authority. The question is an inference that without some authority figure, some law, we would be ravenous animals, which no rational person would agree.
If you or I are dependent on any laws: religious, or civil, other than the conscience we innately have from birth, then you are right: such persons must, and need a stern law or a stern father figure to ensure their right behavior.
I ask you: Without the authority you choose, which appears to be the Law found in the Bible, would you be faithful to your wife, would you not hesitate to lie or steal? What prevents you?
Michael Ruse, in a 1985 article co-authored with E. O. Wilson, wrote: “Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate.” Skeptics asks us to be enraged at the lack of moral intervention of God. It is a fair point, found many places in the Bible itself. But the moral outrage regarding the unfairness in the world tell us more than many would want.
It affirms the sinful nature of man, because we don’t lift a finger to do much to help and often the horrors of this planet are because of our selfishness. Our ‘Moral Outrage’ also affirms that ethics are not relative. There is objective good and evil, which means there is a thing called 'sin.'
David,
I have asked in my blog who defines natural, normal and acceptable behavior, and answered that question with "We do."
Pause to consider for a moment: what brought humanity from the savage to civilized? What brought us from the cave to the global community? What brought us from the spear, arrow, boomerang, gun, and bomb to seeking global interaction, cooperation, and peace?
Religion played its part in all of these processes, some good input, some not so good. If you have read Wilburs book you will understand that religion and God are very likely the creation of man: Therefore, and do not miss this point, any ethics, morals, morality, values etc found within relgion are an expression of that which is innate in humanity. They are an extension or expression of what it means to be human, not the determiner of what it means to be human.
Therefore, if the collective "we" set out, in the absence of religion, to determine how we want civilization to be, the net source for ethics, morals, morality etc has not changed anyway.
Chris. I have read Wilbur's book and do not agree with the assumptions with which he interprets the world around him. But that is for that blog. It seems that we are playing with words. You want to get rid of the sin word and replace it with natural and unnatural. And you say that we decide what is natural and what is unnatural. Ok, let's stay with that. What you have not explained is how do we deal with "we" when "we" decide that something which you or I might consider "Unnatural" is "Natural."?
Let's take the issue of abortion in America. The "we" who are Republicans, on the whole, agree that abortion is unnatural. The "we" who are Democrates , on the whole, agree that abortion is natural. So whoever is in power in the moment makes the final decision. Is that how morality is decided? And if it is then morality is a shifting target and the terms natural and unnatural lose any meaning at all.
Laws do not establish morality. Whether abortion is repealed, does not determine whether it is moral or "natural." Laws, as represented in abortion, cannot determine what is moral, only what is legal or illegal.
Morals, as defined at differing times and cultures may shift. Homosexuality may be considered immoral in different cultures and at different times, but has been identified by laws which do not define morals.
Of what use is human conscience if written laws are to define all possible human actions? In addition to the impossibility, humans should be respected as responsible, moral humans; and when they disprove that assumption, there are written laws to explain their errors in judgment.
Chris, I am sensitive to others who might want to comment. I don't want this to be just a conversation between us. So I may not comment for a while and as you said give others a chance.
Something to reflect on in regard to David's last question. Is morality a shifting target?
I would say yes, and, toungue in cheek, thank God it is. In keeping with Irvin Taylors point, who here would want to live under the old Israel of the early Mosaic era? Who would want to live under the regime in Ninevah, (though I'm aware of Jonah 4:1)? I'll leave it to your awareness of history to compare many parts of todays world with times past to know many live in better circumstances where the collective "we" are doing much better.
As for the abortion issue, (no nic we're not going there), I would hazard a guess that much of the debate has underlying religious motivations. Therefore, considerations of "natural", and "unnatural", are probably conflicted and confused by religion – yet again! Seriously, if the Bible did not give indicators that allowed/encouraged people to call abortion sin, would we not long ago have ceased abusing the rights of the woman in this issue?
Perhaps it would be of value to focus on the principles of what I am saying, rather than focussing on limited scope situations, or issues which from any perspective, have no easy answers.
Yes. Chris, "let's focus on the principles you are saying." That is the problem. I cannot identify any principles you are stating. The only principle it seems you are saying is that the collective we decides what is natural and unnatural. But that is not good enough because you have already stated that you would not want to live under certain collective wes. So back to the original question: How to decide which collective we is the right one.
David, how would you answer your question?
As suggested in the blog, the collective we of religion has essentially disqualified itself. And if not, who's "we" would you choose, why, and at what point in history!?
So, outside of religion: how would you answer your own question?
Chris, I am not prepared to go there, yet. Before I discuss an alternative I want us to be clear whether your explanation is the best one. So far it does not seem to be so. You have not been able to answer my questions on which is the best collective we to live under and what do we do when we live under collective wes that we do not agree with. If, those who read this blog agree that so far we have not found a solution to not using the term sin anymore, that we are unable to adequately decide who decides what is natural and unnatural then we will be more ready for another view.
Maybe, you and I should take a break for a while and let some others get into the discussion. I am surprised that Elaine has not jumped in already (smile). Let's see how other people answer.
I agree who is "WE"?
I'm trying to restrain myself ;<)
I think there are at least two possible sources of 'natural' ethics/morality. The first derives from the simple rule, 'treat others as you wish to be treated.' The second devolves from learned communal behaviours which show that there are times when it is advantageous to survival, of the individual and the group, for the individual to bow to the group's requirements. Thomas Hobbes explored this in great detail centuries ago in his work Leviathan. (This is, eg, one argument against the existence of altruism). Hammurabi's code for a civil society shows that morality need not rely on divine revelation. The second half of the decalogue can be described as 'natural morality' deriving from the two processes just described.
What is not natural is John's view of a 'recreated' recipient of the divine essence. 1John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Chris, like J. David, i am at sea in determining your mindset re: morality & sin. Tolerate me a moment.
It seems you are suggesting that if it seems right, or feels good, do it, as it is natural for you. You list
several suppositions that may be natural for the type, but may incur the wrath of the collective.
Many of us are against abortion on demand, unless it is to save the life of the mother. It is considered
infanticide. There are various methods available for avoiding pregnancy, but laxness and laziness, & carelessness, causes millions of infanticides annually. How many Einsteins, Mother Theresas, Pavorattis, Debakeys, George Washingtons, Booker T Washingtons, Churchills, daVincis, etal, are aborted each year as a convenience? Doubt you'll ever get a collective agreement on that issue.
As Elaine, i believe a person is born with a sense of morality, and in a free society it will be displayed in their lives. Fruit of the Spirit. Love thy neighbors and assist them. Live & let live. i'm ok, you're ok.
Obviously there will be bad chromosones, occasionally, that will cause a person to become a serial killer, and that is natural? Doubt any collective would tolerate that abnormal, deviant habit, unless they were cannibals, which you say for them, is natural? i submit it is totally alien to morality.
The collective has always been a reality as tribal units, and forced societies. Doubt there has ever been a collective where universal agreement existed. Therefore morality is that of the individual. Take the small group in these blogs, although we love and tolerate each other, have a lot in common, yet we, we , we could not be a collective. The subject matter here is the Almighty God, and our relation to Him. Chris is questioning, which god? Or if there is many gods a person could choose to follow? Or maybe no god, in which case, dog eat dog is the collective mantra, as it was in the past, and maybe reoccurring in the future. If so, survival of the fittest.
i am rather reclusive, for health reasons, and otherwise. i could never be part of a collective that would determine what is natural or un-natural for another soul. Morality is in the heart of the individual, or perhaps evil spirits dwell there instead. Having studied most of the most popular religious sects, i am a Christian by choice.
Earl, I am simply saying "sin" is a religious word based on the concept of a divine declaration of what is and is not "sin".
On this premise I am saying that we should cease to use "sin" to define the good or bad of actions. Religion, for many reasons, some of which are noted in the blog, should lose its jurisdiction in such matters.
We need instead to address what it means to be human and how to work toward the collective best for humanity from that basis.
I did not say it would be easy, and without its problems.
I challenge readers here to show if there has NOT been an evolution of moral and ethical awareness within human civilization over the last several thousand years. That evolution is visible inside and outside of religous thinking.
I would also challenge readers that the morality, ethics and values prescribed from within Christianity or any other religion are at source the cultural and contextual expression of what is innate within humanity. Hence, all this hu ha about losing our way if we delete "sin" and remove divine dictates from the equation is futile: we would simply be recognizing the real source of values already held – or not held. Doing so would remove the religious clutter from the process.
Chris,
You have begun a conversation that has long been neglected and deserves much more study and this conversation is just the beginning.
First: sin is a religious term and has no place in civil law but is for the churches to define. Sin as used in the Bible is not synymous with moral law.
Second: there has never been a finer, more comprehensive and yet brief definition of morals than the Golden Rule which has been found in dozens of cultures and is an acknowledgement of its superiority to any other standard.
Moral law is natural because it is known by reason, not written in stone or on paper. It is moral because it applies only to moral acts–actions of human beings that involve a free act of the will.
An immoral act violates the natural moral law even if it conforms to the local civil law:
Slavery was immoral and contrary to natural moral law even though practiced since the beginning of history and had the support of civil law in the U.S. until its repeal.
The Nuremburg Laws of Nazi Germany also violated the natural moral law, because they deprived Jews of their citizenship and paved the way for confiscation of personal property, deportation, and doomed many in concentration camps. This is the reason there could be the Nuremburg trials: not because they broke any civil laws, but because they broke moral laws; laws that know no political or geographic boundaries and are timeless.
Legalized racial segregation in South Africa, known as apartheid, defied the natural moral law.
In all these cases, the civil law endorsed, tolerated, or promoted horrible injustices, precisely because the natural moral law was being violated.
A government, a constitution, a law or an amendment doesn't grant personhood. It comes from human nature made in the image and likeness of God.
Great article Chris. There are so many great one-liners here. I may not agree with all of them, but they really do challenge us, which is a good thing. I really appreciate your efforts to get us to rethink what concepts of sin, nature and unnatural really mean. We do seem quick to judge others as sinful and unnatural, without realising many of these concepts are perhaps so absolute as we might like to think, and much more moulded by our own society, culture and family backgrounds.
It makes one wonder what aliens were dramatically different ethical and societal structures would think? I guess some of the more interesting clashes of civilisations here on earth give a little glimpse.
I'll take your advice and dwell on your article because as I said, there really is a lot in here worthy of some great discussions.
"A lion is a lion – what he does is natural for him. A sociopath is a sociopath. A rapist is a rapist. What they do may be natural to them. Is it acceptable to human society? No. Is it natural, or normal behavior within what it collectively means to be human? No. Should such be allowed to roam the streets looking for prey? Absolutely not."
It makes one think. The Decalogue makes a general principle in Ex 20 that thou shalt not kill. And then Moses next command war, which I am pretty sure involved plenty of killing. It is interesting how one man's murderer is another man's war hero – depending upon a certain point of view.
P.S. Sorry, that was about 2 minutes before I posted this comment from the last one.
Chris, you write "I challenge readers here to show if there has NOT been an evolution of moral and ethical awareness within human civilization over the last several thousand years. That evolution is visible inside and outside of religous thinking."
Yes, I challenge your statement. If you had been writing at the end of the 19th century a lot of people would have agreed with you. There was a feeling that utopia was just ahead. Europe had been free from major wars for decades. Great Britian kept the peace around the world. The first world war shattered that optimissm. Since then we have seen more atrocities, more great wars, than at any time in human history. The Bulletlin of the Atomic Scientists have over the years calculated how close we are to doomsday, humankind destroying itself.. In 2012 it set the clock at 11:55 am. Five minutes to go (figuratively speaking). No. Human morality is not evolving. It is devolving.
"Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."
The Hebrew Bible confirms this in multiple ways.
Elaine, I am not sure of the relevance of the ten commandments to this discussion. Chris is trying to show apart from religion what constitutes true morality. Once you bring the Bible into the discussion you open up a whole different discussion. But since you brought up the sixth commandment as translated in the KJV, thou shalt not kill. Be aware that there is not a clear agreement by scholars on the correct translation of the Hebrew Word ratsach. There are ten different Hebrew words translated to kill in the KJV. And in Young's Analytical Concordance this word is translated as to murder or pierce. The much more common words to kill are: harag (22 times), muth (32 times) and nakah (20 times). While Ratsach as used in Ex 20:6 is only used for to kill six times in the KJV. The Word Biblical Commentary has a long explanation of the various uses of this word and concludes with the following: "What is certain is that ratsach describes a killing of human beings forbidden by Yahweh to those who are in covenant with him. The use of such a specialized term in the specific context of the Decalogue leaves the way open for the killing of the Yahweh-war or capital punishment, both of which are of course permitted by the OT, and also sets apart other uses of ratsach by relating them inevitably to the obligations of the covenant with Yahweh." (Exodus, p. 293).
Chris, what is the problem in which word is used to define evil & murder? It is a reality in everyday life on Earth, sometimes in unbelievable numbers. As J. David has stated there are several other words that have been used. i submit murder can be achieved not only by piercing or by strangulation, or blasting apart, but by killing of the spirit. What word would you prefer, just because the word [SIN]is of biblical origin shouldn't eliminate its usage (after all, in the english language, its the most recognizable word for evil thoughts and acts). Do you really think that the word to describe evil, changes or influences in any way, the deed? If there is no God, humanity is in great peril of total annihilation on Earth. And it matters not what has been deemed to be the origen of species, and or its evolution from nothing. Without a god to shape the mindset of humanity, individually, and in collective units, all is VANITY.
David,
Re evolution of morality across time, and Utopia, I'll repaste a previous comment:
"It should not escape our observation that this world is in perhaps its best position ever to examine what it is that will make the human spirit and society thrive. …Of course, … it is likely we will not capitalize on this opportunity because intolerance fueled by deep seated human prejudices, prides, tribalism, and in particular religious differences, may be aggravated by the very opportunity being offered. Hence the next decades may see more hostility and fragmentation than illumination and cooperation…"
I agree, the world is not all in a pretty place, but I would urge you to compare from caveman to now. Even compare the talk of Utopia with the caveman and it seems to me human thinking has changed. Read the Illiad and Odyysey, perhaps the earliest writing exploring free will, morality etc.
Earl, re your comment. Read Elaine's observation about "Morality" above.
The problem with the word sin as opposed to "moral". "ethical" etc is that it is purely the domain of religion. The others are less so and speak to that which is innate within us. "Sin" cannot talk a common language: Which "religion's" definition would/should one use? SDA? Christian? Muslim? etc. The multitutde of meanings and applications "sin" has across human societies clutters up the ability of humanity to hear each other on the big issues. eg How can you talk with a muslim about political, social, and global cooperation when all he sees is your "women dressed sinfully", and that is a bigger issue to him than blowing people up?
No….in respect for what it means to be human, Christians and religious people must sacrifice their favourite word, and talk a common language of the human spirit, not some outdated defintion from some ancient document of their birth or choice! There would be far less guilt throwing and more respect with and for everybody…
To be true moralists, would demand that we flout both religious and civil laws when conscience and laws are not in agreement. While civil laws attempt to enforce moral laws they are second to personal conscience to judge between what is right and wrong.
We must go elsewhere to understand the meaning of morals. Philosophers through the ages have written and spoken a great deal about this topic. But it is less often a subject discussed today on this and similar sites. But it should be as it of more importance than most, if not all the subjects discussed. It is the prime part of human conscience that gives us the freedom to try to understand and determine what is meant by "morals" and how to train our consciences to better aid us in living them.
Chris. Is the world a better place today? Like most statement it must be defined. If you mean do we live longer on average than we did 100 years ago then the answer would be yes. If we mean ready to annihilate itself then no. This is such a subjective question I don't know how we could agree. It all depends on the meaning of "better."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
…no I don't mean do we live longer. No, I don't directly mean ready to annihilate ourselves, though, if "able to annihilate" is a different issue. Ready to invites another topic: The cold war remained a cold war because neither side wanted to be annihilated. Today is a different story when the tools to do so are within reach of those who believe annihilation is a shortcut to glory. Bring in religion and definitions of sin again on that one!
David, look longer term. Look over recorded human history. I am not talking localized examples over a few generations. If you really want to get serious about comparison over real time, compare us to our ancestors over 60,000 years ago, and then tell me humanities sense of morality is not evolving! (you'd be around the time of mitochondrial Eve if I recall right. Probably in Africa mixing it with our more ape-like relatives.
I am happy for others to keep commenting, and personally David, getting into semantics on "better" seems to escape the deeper issues that we could embark on in relation to the value/cost of the word "sin" and the role religion plays in society and culture by its overuse of the word and arrogance built on its "God given right" to declare what is and is not sin.
So… I'll take you back to my question on your question:
How to decide which collective we is the right one?
Outside of religion: how would you answer your own question?
Chris, one of the challenges we all face is getting side tracked. The issue of whether the world is getting better or not is a different issue from the collective we deciding what is natural and unnatural. And you and I cannot agree on the world getting better because we come to that subject with very different assumptions. So let's stay with your original point.
There is no consensus on this blog of how the collective we operates. There is the collective we of socialism and the collective we of capitalism with very different values. Who decides which one is the best? And the use of the word sin. As I understand you (and correct me if I am wrong) you do not believe there is a God. So the term sin has no meaning for you and without a belief in God we cannot discuss the word sin.
The deeper issue is that I believe that you have to have an external authority to decide what is natural and unnatural and you believe that the comnmunity makes that decision. And as we have seen in the comments here so far communities have made all kinds of decisions that you and I would not want to accept. So getting rid of the concept of sin has not made it any easier to find out what is natural and what is unnatural. And, I repeat myself, neither you or others commenting have been able to agree on who the collective we might be and how the collective we decides. So, it seems, to me that we are at a state of futility and we are just going around in circles. I am surprised that not more people have joined this discussion because you are dealing with a very important issue.
If the origin of this blog was to eliminate the word "sin," we must discuss moral and human behavior that is not based on, or concerned by "sin," which is both relative to various religions as well as periods in history (see the Torah).
Humans devise their values and from that establish laws. One of the earliest is Hammarubi's Code, many of the laws later seen in the Decalogue. Neither individual morals or beliefs were addressed, only actions which were illegal.
Can someone make the case for external authority who they will grant to rule between natural or unnatural? Is it possible to have universal agreement on an authority with that much power in the world today with such diverse religious beliefs and practices? Would that be superior to individual, reasoned morals?
Has this pattern been tested before? What was the success? There is no history of a universally accepted moral authority and today it seems more impossible.
Which is why it a fool's errand to propose such an idea that would be accepted world-wide.
A standard that could be more readily accepted would be the Golden Rule and/or Kant's Categorial Imperative. But again, it would not meet with universal agreement. Trying to invent the wheel discovers nothing not revealed ages ago.
Some may find it interesting and relevant to do a google on the "Dalia Lama beyond religion"
There are similar themes echoed in his work. No doubt better elaborated than I.
It is past 10 pm here in Silver Spring, MD I am off to bed see you all in the morning.
One observer has this to say about the Dalai Lama's view:
He "…believes that ethics must ultimately be founded upon a more secular basis, and the reasoning behind his position is twofold.
First, the growth of secular society has rendered the religious option for guidance in moral matters largely irrelevant for a huge percentage of today’s global population. Any solution to the problematic state of our value system that relies upon religion, therefore, simply falls far short of the universality required for a shift in norms to move humanity forward cohesively.
Second, the cosmopolitan nature of contemporary society demands such universality for the efficacy of its values even in the absence of a trend towards secularization. At a point in history when group inclusion remained relatively isolated and stable over time, adherence to the ethical system espoused by one particular tradition or another may have offered sufficient guidance to societies. The constant flux and ever-changing face of a globalized world, however, necessitates a far more comprehensive system capable of simultaneously catering to a great diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. Simply put, this system of values must be found applicable to both the religious and the non-religious alike." patheos.com
The Dalai Lamai is one of the most trusted and erudite universal figure who is respected by all people. Who has been able to affect as many as he has with his wisdom? Those words are true and reflect the only possible way to initiate human values with the least opposition.
David,
I need to respond to this: "As I understand you (and correct me if I am wrong) you do not believe there is a God. So the term sin has no meaning for you and without a belief in God we cannot discuss the word sin."
Wrong. I do not say there is no God.
I am not saying delete the word sin because there is not a God, but because the term is too conflicted and cluttered with as many definitions and applications as there are religious groups. Read very carefully the summary of the Dalai Lama's view above to grasp this.
Next, I would say that our inability to discuss sin per se is not the issue. It is your inability to discuss morality apart from religion. Can you think beyond religion? You refer to the wes of socialism and capitalism etc, to illustrate how wes don't work. These are all blinkered examples. The we is Humanity!
The Dalai Lama's latest book, Beyond Religion is a blueprint for all those who yearn for a life of spiritual fulfillment as they work for a better world. It is his new model for mutual respect and understanding – rooted in our shared humanity – between religious believers and non-believers. In other words, he transcends the inevitable arguments that will ensue on the trivial level of sin and the myriad of definitions given to it, and goes beyond it to our shared humanity – with its innate sense of morality.
Chris, i believe WE is one. If one is searching for a role model who demonstrates a morality that is above 99% of Earth's inhabitants, then i believe it would start with Mother Theresa, not that she was religious, but that her sole purpose in life was serving others, a true rendition of the Golden Rule (Elaine's wisdom). Should the world (WE) tune in to her sacrificial example, a mighty army would be formed that would lead all to a life of love thy neighbor. This would be true moral socialism. Tho it be a moralist dream, it aint gonna happen in a trillion years with todays humanoids. The Dalai Lama has travelled the world teaching his message of tolerance & love, spending millions of dollars donated to his lifestyle. Mother Theresa has raised millions of dollars and giving it all to humanity. The Key to WE is a dream, never to exist.
Mother Teresa? mmm for every million spent on the poor how many more millions went into building the Catholic empire? That is an untold story…
Chris, the Catholic empire riches are in second place to the British Empire riches. Its my understanding that Mother Theresa was not very popular with the Catholic hierarchy, because she didn't send her ingatherings to Rome, but utilized every dollar on the god forsaken.
Good Night Chris.
Chris
I have a few questions, some have been asked by David but here goes?
1. Who is the collective 'WE'' that decides what is unnatural and what is natural?
2. Is the decision of the collective "WE" always moral?
3. Is the idea that morality be decided by an objective ''WE", moral?
4. Is there an atheistic, objective, transcendant moraltiy that is independant of time, area and culture?
Tapiwa,
1. Humanity
2. No.
3. Yes. (in principle, though the outcomes may not always be – see 2.)
4. There is, imho, a morality as objective as it is to be human which is independent of time area and culture but is neither independent of nor transcendant to human nature and reality.
That's my shoot on it…love to hear others..
Chris
1. Humanity has never at any point in time agreed on anything ever! Especially on the issue of morality!
2.Agree
3. Agnostic
4. Disagree but I would like Chris to show us some of the tenents or principles of this atheistic, objective morality that every human should subscribe to.
Chris. I am glad to read that you do not say there is no God. That means either there is a God or the possibility of a God. That being so shouldn't He be involved in the discussion? God is far superior to us and should have the last word. He must have revealed himself in some way. If he has not then it would just be the same as there being no God. That is my first point.
And you are right about me not escaping my religious world view. And we have discussed this on another thread. All of us have a world view which filters everything we think. You are not escaping your culture your assumptions either. This is why finding agreement is so difficult, why the world is such a mess, why the United Nations only has a limited view. You don't seem to like examples but abstract arguements mean little until they become concrete. Ex. Part of the reason the United Nations cannot act on Syria is because Russia has a different world view than the West and so blocks any Security Council action.
And despite the words about the Dalai Lama they are still only words. We still do not have any ultimate principle to guide us as to what is natural or unnatural. Even the golden rule cannot be enough because some people enjoy pain (massochists) and so since they enjoy pain they want to inflict pain on others. That is how they interpret the golden rule. So be careful of how you "accuse" me of being wrapped in my own way and remember that you are the same also. The challenge is that there is no true objectivity. We cannot escape who we are. Hopefully though dialog we can make some changes in our views. I notice that you keep appealing to others to help you out in finding a universal we who can determine natural and unnatural. So far we have all come up blank.
And you are partly right on the use of the word sin. If we followed the Bible meaning maybe we could agree. The Hebrew word chata means "to miss the mark."
Chris,
Did you see the SBS series from Richard Dawkins, including episode 2 on sin, which seems especially relevant to this article. If you haven't, you can view it here (if you live in Australia):
http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/1127
Dawkins makes some interesting points similar to you.
Maybe we should all go back and read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He discusses the question that Chris raises. He shows that within humans there is a natural law that points to what is good and wrong and it is universal. He calls it the Law of Human Nature or the Moral Law. He also shows that this law is different from all other laws such as gravitation or mathematics. There is no choice involved. You either obey or suffer the consequences. But with the Moral Law there is an "ought" factor. You know you should do something right, play fair, but you do not. How do you know that you should play fair? And why do you often not play fair? He posits an intelligence behind the universe that leads us to this "ought" position. I believe he makes a very good case. But you have to read quite a bit as he develops his argument.
By introducing God into this thread which was supposed to be non-religious and deleting sin, it digresses from the stated intention of this particular thread. Whose god would be universally accepted? Most Christians are content with their God as all sufficient, but all the world is not Christian and never will be.
"despite the words about the Dalai Lama they are still only words."
The exact same thing can be said of the God of the Bible, or any other gods. It is difficult for a life-time Christian to get out of that paradigm and relate to the majority of the world that is unChristian. This is why the Dalai Lama is so highly respected. While he is said to be Buddhist, Buddhism is not a reigion but a way of life.
The Golden Rule is not linked to any particular religious belief system but includes all who desire to live in a world where there is fair play and people abide peaceably by respecting others and not trying to change them by force of will or by physical means.
No one has stated that there is a superior standard of the Golden Rule and I await that idea.
Chris, i believe your subject matter is D.O.A. All collectives always develop a hierarchy that takes advantage of the sheeple within. i believe any collective code or belief is a religion, moral or else. Religion, as we are involved with is led by a Spirit GOD. Atheism is a godless religion. I believe non-militant atheists can display the Golden Rule in their life, I've known one.
Annihilation has been in vogue in every age, by those under the banner of being God led, & also in all atheistic godless collectives. All Earthly Christian collectives, as well as atheistic groups have all been eventually led by corrupt hierarchys, the end result being dictatorial demand rule, as the ultimate power corrupts absolutely, and the greatest power on Earth is control of the masses. Many have placed their faith in the UNITED NATIONS, as the ultimate arbiter of the moral & ethical regulations & decrees that humanity must measure up to. The UNITED NATIONS has gained massive power in the past 20 years, and its directives are starting to bite hard globally. CAVEAT EMPTOR, you may reap the destructive whirlwind of evil the world has ever know, once the POWER is held by few hands (massive power and ultimate control given to the BEAST). There will be no MORAL policy here, no GOLDEN RULE. BEWARE WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Stephen, no, I have not seen it – must do so, thanks for the pointer.
David, "God is far superior to us and should have the last word." As Elaine has reminded us: Who's God? Who's final word?
Re world views: World Views change. Compare individual or collective WV of the writer of the Illiad, or a citizen in that era, with that of a person today living in France where over 33% are atheist. WV change is glacial, but it happens. I am an example of how research, questioning, finding answers, and being willing to follow evidence can do so.
Re Lewis, as much as I love his work, the power of his theme still leaves the assumption of a God behind human morality a possible non sequitur.
Elaine, yes, the golden rule. I don't think it will be trumped.
Tapiwa, you would like to see this "objective" morality. There is much power in what David has alluded to in Lewis's "ought", or "law of human nature". Combine that with Elaine's reminder about the Golden Rule, and what do you have?
The Golden Rule. Expand it a little and I'll quote myself: "..a morality as objective as it is to be human which is independent of time area and culture but is neither independent of nor transcendant to human nature and reality."
Occams Razor would suggest there is no need to load religious baggage onto that morality.
It is almost impossible for some to apply Occam's razor to such subjects that are are infused with due to our heritage, religious paradigm, and the Judeo-Christian world view that colors most of the first world. We humans have difficulty with simplicity. We want and need specifics as though we are afraid of exercising our own God-given reasoning.
Think of the brevity of Lincoln's Gettysburg address, the greatest example of
how a few, simple words have conveyed a message for all time.
Stephen, I have now watched that SBS video. I would highly recommend it.
Perhaps David, Earl and Tapiwa would be better not to watch it.
Yes, not for the faint-hearted. I like to be challenged myself though.
Stephen and Chris, I logged onto the website that Stephen listed and it said "This content is not currently available." Perhpas it is because l live in the US. However, I am watching a video series from the Great Courses–Science and Mathematics. It is called "The Science Wars: What scientists know and how they know it." There are sixteen lectures by Dr.Stephen Goldman, who is the Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor in the Humanities at Lehigh University, where he has taught for almost 30 years. I have just finished lecture two "Competing Visions of the Scientific Method," and have found that there is NO consensus on exactly how science knows. One of the interesting points he made in this lecture is this one. I have developed theory A that predicts that X will turn red. X turns red therefore my theory is correct. Not so says Dr Goldman that is an illogical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent or Confirming the Antecedent. He promies in later lectures to give examples where a theory that predicted certain results that happend was later shown to be in invalid theory.
Yes, it is an Australian link, sorry. I suspect one can view it on the BBC presumably?
By the way, I am not introducing science to be awarkward. As I am learning from viewing this course there are two very different ways at looking at science or at philosophy and that is the challenge on this blog. As is often the case the assumptions with which we come to the subject color how we view it. Most of us would love to espouse Francis Bacon's concept that we all come to the discussion with a blank slate. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The "idols of the mind" to state his words continue to divide us.
It feels to me, Chris, as if you want to disempower the moral authority of religion by invalidating one of its basic moral category – sin. You construct a caricature of Christianity drawn from 3,500 years of religious history, and gleefully tie it to your whipping post – The Goddess of Reason. Yet you know that every culture and civilization in human history has had "sin"-equivalent categories to produce guilt, shame, and conformity. You fail to consider that alternative moral authorities have historically proven at least as prone to perpetrate evil in the name of their moral categories – "basic human rights," "social justice," "fairness," "equality," "the common good," etc.
Do you also want to eliminate "evil" from our vocabulary? How about "bad?" Why? How is it that you arrive at the implicit conclusion that religion is pathological rather than normal, and that its vocabulary therefore warps and distorts anything more significant than your personal sense of right and wrong? The notion that one's personal values, morals and ethics are "innate" begs many questions about freedom and volition, turning commonly understood meanings of those terms on end. Nietszche and Darwin would find your "naturalistic" morality highly oxymoronic and risible.
It seems to me, Chris that much of your perspective relies on the fallacy of presentism. You have the tumidity to judge history through lenses that are of necessity blind to not only the ethos of the culture being judged, but are also blind to the shortcomings and failures of contemporary moral priorities. You appear oblivious to the reality that no non-religious traditions have demonstrated the capacity for self-criticism and growth that has characterized Judeo-Christian religions. And you further refuse David Newman's invitation to acknowledge and deal with the challenge that the monstrous evil of the 20th Century, committed by "sin – less" ideologies of communism and fascism, poses to your assault on "sin" as a legitimate moral category. Please identify what non-religious cultures or civilizations in history have avoided the moral and ethical failures that you ascribe to the "sin" vocabulary of religion. Your case against religion could more persuasively be made against politics. Why don't we eliminate politics and politicians from human culture? After all, look at all the evil and misery that have been caused by politicians throughout history!
Is the moral outrage of anti-religious ideologues, who bully and shame political, social, and economic "sinners" with judgment-laden epithets like "ignorant," "unpatriotic," "immoral," "uncaring," etc., any less palpable or destructive than the moral sentiments of those who rely on the Wesleyan quadrilateral, rather than the one-legged stool of reason, to reach moral conclusions and transmit cultural values?
You argue that using terms like normal/abnormal and natural/unnatural would open our world view and level the playing field. As Orwell presciently demonstrated in 1984, the same vocabulary which "opens up the playing field" has a way of being used to construct barbed wire fences around the playing field. The moral prophets of one generation morph into the thought police of the next generation. Just as terms like "sin" and "evil" have been misused and abused, so terms like "abnormal" and "unnatural" been misused and abused to justify re-education camps, mental hospitals, and human rights commisions to sanctions and oppress those who buck the prevailing winds of reason and "science." I fear, Chris, that your quest to purge society of the imperfect symbols and beliefs of voluntary religious faith will open the door to the devils of moral anarchy and tyranny.
Do you really think it is a good thing to have your beliefs and behavior shamed and coerced by the politicized, "no-sin" "enlightened standards of an evolving society," as determined and imposed by the moral druids of secular culture? Why is that better than having them shamed by voluntary faith organizations that proclaim, without political authority, their belief that God has much to say about immorality; that if His followers have called immorality sin – literally, missing the mark – why shouldn't they?
“Various forms of gnosticism have been built on the heresy that Truth is to be found on the pathway of knowledge, rather than in covenant relationship with a living God. This "truth" was the first lie; it has persisted throughout human history; and it will be the last lie.”
Well said Nathan.
My take on this blog is that it makes perfect sense to me, from either a humanist or atheistic perspective; both of which I respect.
From a Christian perspective however, this blog is antithetical to everything Jesus was about. If there was, or is, no sin, then Jesus was on a needless mission.
Stephen,
That Jesus chose to come and perform a mission essential to our salvation is the ultimate mystery of God. How can a finite and sin-filled mind comprehend such love? No, we cannot understand it but only choose to be amazed and transformed by it.
Chris, your psychologist mind is probably laughing out loud, recognising that suggesting the three of us
not watch the SBS video, would send us scrambling to be the first to view it. Unfortunately as David
said, its not available now.
Earl,
Yes, I laughed till I cried! Shame about that darn link:)
Nathan,
Thank you for your input, though I think you could have used more objectivity and less hostility in your phrasing.
I'll just make one point to each paragraph as a courtesy to you
1. Sin is a distinctly religious word, please read again the definition given. Thus some of the "equivalent" words you offer are in fact disimilar in that they do not directly point to a "divine" source.
"You fail to consider that alternative moral authorities have historically proven at least as prone to perpetrate evil in the name of their moral categories ." mmm "at least as prone". So that justifies the former doing so?
2. "How is it that you arrive at the implicit conclusion that religion is pathological rather than normal, its vocabulary therefore warps and distorts anything more significant than your personal sense of right and wrong?"
Do you not know anything about what drives, motivates, and justifies the immoral actions of militant religionists? My personal sense of right and wrong? I am not a lone voice on a lone island. Just google "is the catholic church a force for good in the world" on Youtube – see that answer…
3. Presentism. mmm, to suggest Christianityand Judaism have had the ability to self assess is presentism par excellence. Have any self criticisms and changes taken place in either example without first feeling external pressure to do so? Doubtfull. ps I have not refused David's questions, we have beaten that turf up before. Tiring.
4. "one legged stool of reason". Love the reasoning that carried you to such a lofty conclusion. Welcome to the seat! ah, but reason is only good if it is yours?
5. Moral anarchy..see the SBS link Stephen posted.
6. Why is listening to the moral druids (whomever that may be!) better than having them shamed by those who believe that God has much to say about immorality? And why shouldn't they?
Nathan, the God you worship is THE God you worship by chance of birth. Right? What are the odds that if you were born in Iran you would worship a different God, or at least in a radically different way. You would be defending Islam, married to a woman in a burka, saying Friday prayers, and believing it is sinful for a woman to be showing more than her face. You would consider it fine to stone your wife if she strayed, kill your daughters if they lost their virginity…need I go on?
If you can convincingly demonstrate which God has the right to impose morality, and which morality… then your statement is fine. If you cannot it is self defeating, and is precisely why they shouldn't.
Here is the Richard Dawkins doco on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHhSYyvI-5k&list=PLB4uoi02B2hPwxZsIP3yPmBGKxwHZ3USu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHhSYyvI-5k
It is called,
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life, Richard Dawkins
I believe it is episode 2 that especially deals with the notion 'sin', where many of the concepts raised by Chris are also raised by Dawkins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHhSYyvI-5k
I'll leave it to everyone else to judge whether in Chris's case great minds think alike.
The weakness of the premise of this blog is that it is built on a generalization or assumption–all religions are bad (or whatever word you want to us that indicates they are more harmful than helpful). Let's say, for the say of argument, that this generalization is correct. Then the opposite is no religion. Are we then better off with no religion. We have a great example in the views of Karl Marx. He described religion as the "opiate of the masses" and developed a philosophy that excluded God. From that arose communism and the ruling ethnic in Russia. I doubt that anyone reading this blog would rather have lived in Russia under Stalin or even in Russia under Putin
Yes, religion is not perfect but to quote Winston Church concerning democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government but considering the alternatives.
Instead of lumping all religion together why not try and distinguish among them? Which religion tries to care for its people more than any other religion? Which religion has promted more art, more science, etc.?These, I believe would be more helpful discussion than following the logical fallacy of hasty generalizations.
I agree that non-religious societies are hardly better than religious societies, as those atheist regimes demonstrated. But are religious societies better than non-religious societies? In the Dawkins' documentary (link provided above), it noted that the US states with the highest rate of pornography use per capita are Utah and Mississippi – two of the most conservative Christian states in the Union!
Dawkins and his guest ask the obvious question – if religious societies aren't actually more moral, what are they for? In fact, he further makes the point that as the world becomes less religious, the homocide, rape, child abuse and even death-through-war rates have much declined, despite increased media hype suggesting the opposite.
Obviously I am religious and support religion, and I do agree with the point about the danger of generalisations – but the problem is all round. As an Australian, I don't much like Winston Churchill, and give his love for the colonial domination of others, I don't hold much weight to his statements. His form of democracy is the vote of the white, enfranchised landed class.
In the satanic bible morality is encapsulated in the following phrase “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
It is strange but many of the sentiments expressed here seem to echo this phrase.
Satanists and the Satanic Bible fascinate me. No, they don't worship the actual devil – they are actually atheists. Rather, they really embrace the ancient Greek philosophy of Hedonism.
In my mind, if alturism and morality are genetic adaptions, which appears to be the argument of Richard Dawkins (per the doco link above) and perhaps Chris, then are we mad to be slaves to those genes? Dawkins himself in the book The Selfish Gene notes that human beings alone can ignore our genetic instructions, which we do every time we use contraception. The question is – should we?
Satanists in many respect embrace a philosophy which says we should ignore our genetic tendencies towards alturism. I really don't know if they are completely mad, or the most enlightened person on earth. I suppose if I didn't believe in God, I might think the latter.
Not sure if it has already been said, but it is careful not to conflate two separate issues:
1. Is there morality inherent to human beings? I would say there is, and in many ways there is no real difference between religious and non-religous people in adhering to that inherent morality. The Bible itself teaches this in Rom 2. In many respects, non-religious people are probably more moral than religious. I would think that would be the case in say Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, where if I were a woman, I would rather a secular non-believing husband than a hardcore observant Muslim.
2. What is the source of that inherent morality in human beings? Atheists obviously don't believe that 'anything goes' if there is no God to punish us in hell for doing the wrong thing. Rather, they believe human morality, based on empathy, is an evolutionary adaption that helps humanity survive and then pass on its genes to the next generation. Religious people believe the source of inherent morality derive from a deity, and not limited to mere genetic adaption.
3. Is there an absolute morality? To me, if morality or empathy is just a genetic trick, in-built into us, then it really isn't absolute. A psychopath isn't really evil – he or she is actually the most enlightened, because they don't conform to the genetic trickery which we all otherwise sucumb.
Peter,
Having personally suffered the arrow of being called a follower and ambassador of the enemy myself in this forum, I was and remain disinclined to associate another’s perspective with that of the adversary of our souls; because of the Golden Rule.
You are right in that it has always been the devil’s creed that everyone “does whatever they want to do, period.”
No lack of words being expended but other than exploring many ideas has anything been changed?
Religion is simply another philosophy: like humanism, communism, Buddhism, Agnostisicm and others unmentioned. One is either born into a subset of these or becomes convinced that they will provide the best philosophical ideas by which to live. To claim superiority is only subjective, as some, but not all of those mentioned have caused millions of deaths and misery, which any student of history can confirm.
Morals developed within and not from strong external forces are the only ones that are chosen by one's own conscience, given free will. But then, there arises another question: Who has free will and is free to exercise that will? For most of our recorded history, few people were free to choose. Slavery was practiced from the beginning; cultures dictated approved behavior; and many were physically forced to act against their conscience. When humans are free to make life and death decisions. life wins. The commonly used story of the oncoming train and several people on the track and your child on the adjoing one raises such questions.
Only when an individul is truly free can he make moral choices based on his own conscience.
I disagree with you, Timo. I think Chris is in fact taking issue with all religion, at least to the extent that he defines religion as positing a transcendent divine authority. As I loosely define religion – a system of beliefs and practices through which one seeks and finds ultimate meaning and truth – Chris cannot escape religion, and in fact simply uses his own religion as a higher authority to denigrate the religious faith of others.
I have a question, Chris: I think it is your belief that the characteristics and will of the divine are nothing but human projections. You believe religion to be delusional – a reflection of psycho/social pathology – "abnormal". Your religion of science and reason with its a priori naturalistic foundations has revealed that Truth to you. It seems to follow that, in your moral universe, where morality is defined by what is "normal" and "natural", you have two choices – at least if your morality is to have any potency: Either Christians are willfully immoral by persisting in "abnormal" beliefs and practices, and should therefore be punished and eradicated; or Christians are simply defective – by nature or nurture – and need to be re-educated, psychologically treated, or compassionately removed from the general population. Are these false choices? Please explain.
What kinder, gentler moral judgments than "sin" does your secular morality offer to misguided Christians who trust God to separate the wheat from the tares, but are a bit apprehensive about the possibility that folks like you think identifying and separating is a job for science and reason? You fear a straw man that has no power over you – Christian sin-labelers. In order to reify that straw man, you have to resurrect hundreds and thousands of years of dead history. I fear contemporary, flesh and blood, secular, no-sin moralists, whose utopian fantasies would make them gods of this world; whose moral judgments use talismanic science and behavioral research to re-lay the foundations of Babel and gain power over my behavior, thoughts, and speech. I realize, as you point out, that the word "sin" points to a divine source for morality, Chris. But I would like you to explain how the language of moralists who don't use the word "sin" leads to makes a positive difference.
Primitive Western secularism is in its infancy. Its cubist morality and repressive tolerance deems licentiousness moral because it is "natural," and considers worship of the Christian God immoral because it is "unnatural," though it is certainly normal. Secular morality denies that it is religious, and therefore its morality is not only fair game for politics, but is a political imperative, as we see in Communist states and increasingly in moralistic, parenteral Western countries. One thing is certain: In the temporal world, you are far safer being under the sin judgments of the God of contemporary Christianity than under the moral judgments of humanists with political power, regardless of the words they use as moral proxies for sin.
Nathan,
"Either Christians are willfully immoral by persisting in "abnormal" beliefs and practices, and should therefore be punished and eradicated; or Christians are simply defective – by nature or nurture – and need to be re-educated, psychologically treated, or compassionately removed from the general population. Are these false choices? Please explain."
Absolutely false. Christians and Christianity can be, and have, highly moral and ethical people. Along the lines of what Timo pointed out, I am talking about the word "sin". You know very well Christians can label all sorts of things as "sin", or "sinfull". That list can vary across persuasions. Have you never experienced a Christian who in defense of a standard, or dealing with a sin, or sinner, has acted in ways that are unethical, immoral, evil? Your country is rife with examples.
The role "God" plays in this is not his existence or non existence. It is giving licence to their actions because they believe they have a "God given right" to defend against "sin"/evil, as defined by their God.
If, repeat, if, these people were to move beyond using "sin" and their "god given right" to justify their behavior, and instead allowed their innate compassion, empathy, kindness, respect to speak – would they do as they do?
The SBS doc Stephen brought to attention shares a powerful story about "otherization". An SS soldier was forced by circumstances to take the hand of a little girl he was "disposing of". The father compassion and empathy kicked in and over rode his otherization. Christians' ability to "otherize" because of "sin" is shocking.
Your second premise is equally false. We are probably all defective by nurture in some way. It is only to the degree that we fail to permit the interactions with society, education, and learning to make us into better people that these become an issue. There will always be some within and without Christianity who need to be re-educated, treated, or locked up for their safety or that of the community. The only connection this has to Christianity is that we would do better in identifying and dealing with socially unacceptable behaviors (abnormal) if we were to ditch the word sin. Look at how gays were treated a generation ago to illustrate how religious definitions screwed that one up. pardon pun. Can anyone demonstrate that it is NOT Christianities view on "sin" that drives the anti abortion mantra? Doubtfull.
Cheers
Chris writes: "If, repeat, if, these people were to move beyond using "sin" and their "god given right" to justify their behavior, and instead allowed their innate compassion, empathy, kindness, respect to speak – would they do as they do?" But this is an assumption that people have an "innate compassion, empathy, kindness, respect."
Richard Dawkins, whom I seldom agree with but in this case I do, has this to say about human nature in the Selfish Gene, "Be warned that, if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do."
Dawkins says we are born selfish, which is also the view of the Bible. It seems that you Chris, feel that we are not born selfish and just some good education can rectify things (unless you have some kind of pathology). I submit that the history of this world points more in the direction of selfishness than altruism.
No David, it is not an assupmtion – it is based on observation of human nature.
Did you not note this in the blog?
"The “Golden Rule” is natural, but so is going against the Golden Rule. Both spring from deep wells within the human spirit. Both are expressions of what it means to be human. We can be deeply selfish, yet profoundly giving."
If you manage to watch the SBS doc, you will see that Dawkins does not dismiss the existence of innate empathy. The quote you use must be seen in its context. There is the dark side to human nature. Born selfish? Yes. Born with an ability to have empathy? Yes. Every creature on earth is born with an innate desire to defend/protect its life. Humans, as with many other creatures, but with greater intellectual ability, can reason that defending and protecting life is best acheived through social structure, and the golden rule can find a home even in a nature born selfish! The empathy, my freind, is not an assumption, any more than it is to say humans are born selfish. Putting God as the source of empathy, and the devil as the source of selfishness – those are the assumptions.
Chris. I profoundly disagree. In our previous dialogs we have had the same issue. It seems to me that you are always saying that I am the one with the assumptions and you have the facts. You are unwilling to admit that you also operate from assumptions. You operate under a false assumption that empathy negates selfishness. Selfishess is looking out for my interests first. Even when I show empathy it will be with calculated selfishness. What am I going to get out of this? Now this is not a deliberate thought. But if we are selfish then selfishness must color all our actions and even when we act altruistically it is because we will receive some benefit. People will think well of us, for example. In other words you do not stop being selfish just because you might show show some empathy. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot split the person into half being selfish, for example, and half being altruisitic. What is the base, the foundation, colors everything we do. So are we bascially selfish or altruistic. Dawkins says we are basically selfish. If that is true then everything we do is motivated by what is in it for me. As I said already. You cannot have it both ways.
"Selfishness" is a word used for personal protection of our autonomy. We see infants who are intent only on their self interest; but out it we humans would not have survived. But good parenting trains a child to restrain those acts and be fair with others. This usually results in a mature individual who is no longer driven by instant gratification and respects himself and others. I am reminded of this again when I watch my 18-mo.-old great granchild learning how to be unselfish and share, which he quickly understands when shown.
If we do not respect ourselves we cannot expect it from others. Masochists are not independent, reasoning humans so they should not be considered as having the ability to respect others.
Could it be that we assume selfishness is more often demonstrated than altruism? The media is always eager to point out the former and less ready to publish about the other. I believe that the majority of people care about others and are not bent on always "getting" and not giving. They leave quiet, unnoticed lives, but surely we know more of them than the other, which may foster a false picture.
i am personally unable to accept the mantra of KILL, MURDER, DESTROY, ANNIHILATE, WIPE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. This theme has been the most egregious and vile practice on Earth since the dawn of history. It violently sickens me. i can't tolerate it.It breaks my heart to observe it daily.
i submit that hierarchies of all large groups, governments, organizations, churches etc etc are corrupt. Knowing their reputation by observation over 80 years, and studying their actions, since the dawn of history, i cannot accept them as my justification for moral leadership. i have studied most all isms, and have chosen the Lord Jesus Christ as my one & only authority for morality. i do not trust any other than He who said Love your God with all mind, and be good to your neighbor. i will not seek morality from any other source, or a description of morality from a atheistic source. i believe that morality is in the heart of the individual, and has never been observed in hierarchical groups, or collectives. Those who have murdered under a Christian banner, were not Christ like, and not Christian at all, because Jesus Christ said, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".
I can't claim to enter this conversation without acknowledging my belief in the Christain God, so I cannot be objective. Neither believer or nonbeliever can be objective. People who devote time and even their lives to studying something come to believe that the object of their fascination is the key to understanding everything.
Anyway here are my thoughts concerning some of the comments thus far.
The one possible concept of the blog just might be the overuse of the word "sin" as it is owned by religions. Aethistic countries may use some other term. Secular society may use another. Granted the word "sin" may be a turn-off for one seeking a transcendent loving divine authority. It has certainly been twisted by human religious authorities over the ages and made to fit anything they didn't like but disregard in anything that helped their self-serving natures.
No doubt much of religion is toxic, but so is the mindset of any human group. Humans are twisted or "bent" as one evangelist puts it. Everything they touch seems to turn to ash. It was not long after the early church that organized religion twisted much of Christ's ministry and message. It became human-centered and led by politics and love for power and control. But there was always a remnant both inside and outside the organized church. For that reason you will find most healing ministry, welfare, and other services came within the confines of a belief system.
The footsteps of God are found in most belief systems to one extent or another as they deal with relationships, so both Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama are spiritual leaders in some sense. I suspect there are many more people like them who haven't had as great publicity.
To believe in a good God leads me to believe in an evil adversary. Obviously his first target is the church. BTW toxic religion can be found within the same church/denomination/faith, though some are more open to it than others by virtue of control and denial of religious liberty.
The commandments of God I believe had to exist long before Mt. Sinai as we find them inferred from the beginning. Despite Hammarubi or other sources that scholars give credit to, the moral code had a history long before Babylon or Israel and date to some long-lost original source. This seems like common sense.
I suspect the world would have blown itself up by this time if it were not for a God. Remember the Cuban crisis? Recent information now available tells it was only the decision of one Russian officer that kept us from WW III.
The doctrine of sin is surely one of the richest, most beautiful, and most profound doctrines in Christianity. Logic, reason, and yes – even religion – can be used, and have been used, to make the good, the true and the beautiful appear as evil, false, and ugly – sometimes by the defenders of God, and sometimes by His foes.
Hopefully, we who embrace Christian SDA faith will not be bullied by this blog into timidity or apologies for one of the cornerstones of Biblical teaching. Chris seems to think that, because there is some truth in his caricature of Christianity (the Serpent's deception); because some Christians have used, and may still use, the concept of "sin" to destroy lives, all Christians who use the term are somehow guilty, and therefore should purge the word from their vocabulary. This fallacy of composition is lamentably common among Christianity's detractors. If we agree, as Chris seems to, that all moral categories and judgments can be and have been used to justify all manner of dastardly actions, then we have to conclude that the problem is not with the vocabulary of Christianity, but with the human heart and mind. Surely, Chris, you are not suggesting that non-Christians are more empathetic, compassionate and kind than Christians? That would make for an interesting blog.
The doctrine of sin gives us a realistic bearing on who we are and where we are in relation to God. It is the basis for forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption, and salvation. It tells us that, even though all our righteousness is as filthy rags, we are loved beyond comprehension by our Creator, Redeemer, and Savior. It tells us we are not defined by our genetic material, but are free to choose right or wrong, and free to accept or reject the gift of salvation. Perhaps this is why study after study has shown observant "sin-obsessed" Christians to be the most generous, prosperous, self-reliant, healthy, law-abiding, happy identity group in America. Praise God for helping us to see and understand the reality of sin and evil! And thank you, Chris, for reminding us, though I know that was not your intent, of how integral the concept of sin is to our Christian identity.
Nathan,
I was going to leave your post without comment, but there is one point that I cannot leave to provide other readers the wrong message.
I am not saying "that all moral categories and judgements can be and have been used to justify all manner of dastardly actions". True, I would not disagree with that point, but in this context it is not what I am saying. Once again, I am saying that the concept of sin, as the transgression against a divine law is the source of much evil, or dastardly actions, because it gives people a sense of authority and right to condemn others on the basis of knowing what is and is not sin. You for one have totally failed to offer me any reasons why one person's divine or definition of sin should hold sway over that of another. ie my point about your God being by dint of birth, not choice and if you were born in Iran…what then? Which God then? Which morality? etc. I am just repeating these to reinforce my point, not to continue the debate…the points have been made.
As for the rest, well, if all else fails, bring in the personal testimony. Cannot be argued against:)
Thanks for your perspective
"The concept of sin, as the transgression of a divine law, is the source of much evil, or dastardly actions, because it gives people a sense of authority and right to condemn others on the basis of knowing what is and is not sin."
Okay, Chris. So tell me. Would it be any less true to observe that the concepts of injustice and unfairness, as transgressions of human rights, are the source of much evil, or dastardly actions, because they give people a sense of authority and right to condemn others on the basis of knowing what is and is not just or fair?
I have no interest in debating the reality or nature of my God with you. Nor do I have any interest in trying to force my God on you, despite your desire to strip away the contents and language of my faith. The fact that different circumstances of birth and geography may have led me to a different religion, or no religion, does not in any way negate or attenuate the call of God on my life. I am accountable to ultimate reality as it has been transmitted to me and processed by me. The fact that a cactus might have been born a rhododendren does not alter the conditions which are necessary for its survival and growth.
I have not argued that Christians' definition of sin should hold sway over anyone. Do some Christians feel strongly that their definition of sin should hold sway over others? Sure. Do non-Christians feel strongly that their definition of justice should hold sway over others? Absolutely! So what is your point? Secular moral categories, like the Christian moral category of "sin," give people a sense of authority and right to condemn others on the basis of knowing what is and is not right or good.
What I have argued is that the ultimate reality by which I reach moral conclusions is no more dangerous or onerous than the ultimate reality by which you reach moral conclusions. In fact, where there is separation of religion from the state, religious moral categories certainly are a weaker political force than than non-religious moral categories, and thus less dangerous.
Why not tell us that "Christ," like "sin" is a "dirty little word?" Or are you saving that for a follow-up blog? How might you put it? Oh yes, I have it! "Delete Him. Don't let Him warp the sense of values, morality and ethics that are innately yours as a human." After all, how much evil has been done in His name? And all that nonsense about miracles, a virgin birth, atonement for sin, resurrection, second coming! Why waste your time, Chris, hacking away at the branches of Christianity when the chain saw you wield is more than adequate to cut off the trunk of this infested, rotten tree of religion, and the implications of your thesis demands nothing less?
mmm…?? I was just reflecting on your rather creative imagery of chain saws and rotten trees. A rather unfortunate similirity occurred to me. The difference was, he laid an axe to the tree. He said it was rotten, infested with pride, religiosity, arrogance; called the devil their father; felled the tree and left it desolate…
Is it a horrible possibility that the essence of the Jesus character actually set out to sweep away the trappings of religiosity; par it down to the simple golden rule? Why do things like "he who is without sin cast the first stone…", and "judge not that you be not judged" come to mind.
Is it possible that when we can come to the place where we call the doctrine of sin rich, beautiful and profound, that we have in fact cluttered the simple message of Jesus. Could we have in fact caused it to become so overgrown, that when we try to hack away the burden, we are accused of cutting down the tree?
Jesus message was one to change, grow, listen to the heart, not docrtine, law, condenmation, sin. I grant that shades of meaning and terminology may suffer a major pruning: But, if in fact we were to delete the word sin, and look deep inside for the commonality of innate desires shared by humanity, could we not still, perhaps even with more freedom, uphold the golden rule? And, that is what he was about anyway.
Stephen reminded us that solid research demonstates a demise in religion can be shown to result in a decrease in porn and some other crime rates! Does not that support my last point in my last paragraph?
If you seriously look at history and how the canon grew, you will find the virgin birth, the miracles, the magic may be significant accretions.
Could it be that the real reason we enjoy debating about sin is that we love it more than Jesus?
Of course. Isn't that what Paul says in Rom 7?
Chris. You keep mentioning the Golden Rule as the essence of everything. But it is meaningless unless you also include HOW to apply it. A really selfish person will apply it in ways a less selfish person will. A massochist will apply it to inflict pain on someone because they enjoy pain. A person in a country where there are no laws about alcohol wants a 10 year old to give them alcohol and then will give alcohol to the child because they are doing what they want the child to do to them. I could cite hundres of examples where the Golden Rule will not work. So please quit using this mantra until you explain how it works. Love is also a great principle but until I know how to apply it, it is meaningless.
David,
You are saying something similar to what I have suggested on various occasions.
The Golden Rule is an ethical standard; but it is based on the principle of loving others as you love yourself.
You simply cannot love other people like that without loving God first and foremost.
As Nathan suggests, it would be a waste of time to argue God’s existence. That’s why I maintain that this blog makes sense from either a humanistic or an atheistic perspective; but is antithetical to everything Jesus Christ was about.
I wonder if Chris agrees with this particular assessment.
Did Christ add the coda to the Golden Rule explaining that it applied only to "reasonable, responsible, mentally stable individuals? Should that have been necessary? Even civil laws are written with the expectation of rational interpretation.
Christians find great difficulty in most any discussion without inserting "sin." The essayists' purpose was to start a discussion of ethics and morality absent the concept of "sin." Apparently, without that word, discussions of morals and ethics is a major challenge because of their position that all actions fall into either the two categories of "evil" or "good,
and right and wrong are separated in the same way.
History records events without the absolute need to label them as retrospective reflection may offer greater evaluation. Was the biblical flood an evil directed by God from whom "all blessings flow" or is it attributed to the devil, wholly unknown at that time? Was David's act of numbering Israel "evil" and directed by Satan, or by God and was good? What, if any, were the ethical or moral principles involved?
Christians have no reluctance at calling out sin, certain of those pronouncements. Are they equally consistent at categorizing what is good without using the word "sin"? Is there universal acceptance of what is "good" and all else is "evil"? Is it possible in a world of many belief systems to agree on morality? Is this what the essayist is questioning?
Perhaps those who are seeking definition of HOW the golden rule would be applied or used can help me out before I offer suggestions.
How is it applied under "your" system?
(for Stephen, who suggests love God first – how exactly is that achieved, and how then is it applied?)
It occurs to me Chris, that perhaps the most important question ever asked is this one that you have just asked; how we can learn to love God.
My belief is that it begins and ends with deciding that we want to and believing that He exists and that He rewards those who seek to know Him through the Person of Jesus Christ. This I believe is simply orthodox Christianity.
God’s grace is certainly sufficient to make up the difference between what we want to do and what we actually do. The lifelong process of closing that gap is what we know to be ‘sanctification.’
Chris, the greatest commandment to love God with all your being, and love your neighbor, by sharing your faith & testimony in Jesus with your neighbor and doing no harm to your neighbor. Yes, the author is the Christ, Himself, and dwelling in our individual hearts. On this hangs all the law & the prophets.
Earl, let me get this right. You are saying that the how is to have Christ dwelling in the heart? Are you then saying that the effect of that will be loving God, sharing your faith and testimony etc?
Chris,
I can appreciate how difficult it is to keep up with a volley of questions; but I am not the one who asked how the Golden Rule is applied. That would be Brother Newman.
I maintain that it is based on the Christian principle of loving other people as you love yourself, which is beyond the capacity of (sinful) men to do; unless they are empowered by God’s Spirit.
Of course, you may disagree with this. For all I know, you may believe that it’s 'normal' for someone, somewhere, to love all others as they do themselves, making implementation of the Golden Rule possible.
Thanks Stephen, yes, I realize that. That is why I put yours in brackets, as a reference back to your point about the golden rule.
Btw Stephen, I take it your answer to how, is by God's Spirit, because otherwise it is beyond the capacity of sinful humans. OK. I will await David's view before I go further. tks
Stephen Foster has nailed the truth. This blog only makes sense from an anti-Christian perspective. To argue to Christians that they should abandon a concept that is woven throughout their sacred text, on the grounds that sin connotes a divine authority whom they believe is the Alpha and Omega of that sacred text, is jaw dropping to say the least. It's a bit like telling parents they ought to drop the word obedience in dealing with their children because it has negative associations, connoting parental authority.
Yes of course, it's possible that, if you strip away whatever you don't like from the Biblical accounts of Christ and His followers, you can find whatever essence you want. And if I strip away whatever I want of the historical accounts of Adolf Hitler, I might find that he wasn't really anti-semitic. His basic message was very simple – fairness and justice for the German people.
Jesus had much to say about the reality of sin. And what was the First Commandment? – "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength and mind." I suppose you would want us to do away with that command, Chris, as it obviously leads people to use divine authority to influence others? The nice thing about deconstructionism is that you can take it wherever you want. You can condemn the use of the word sin – because the concept relies on divine authority – by appealing to the very divine authority (Christ) who claimed that He came to earth to redeem and save us from sin. You can take pieces of information and beliefs and, like a cubist painting, put them back together any way you wish, and call the result truth, because it reflects your innate desires and values.
I know you are generally a rational, logical guy, Chris. But in this blog, and in your attempts to defend your thesis, you have demonstrated a nonpareil capacity for mental contortionism, and an anti-Christian bias that I find not only disappointing, but totally at odds with the stated mission and purpose of Adventist Today..
"If you have to get on your knees and scrape, grovel and beg God for victory, chances are what you are struggling with is natural to you as a human and is not sin. (If what you struggle with is socially unacceptable and harmful to others – face up to it or await the consequences.)"
To "scrape, grovel and beg God" for help, to simply "face up to" whatever one struggles with that might be harmful to others (or to oneself) could be expressed in this way only by one who has never done so, who has never cried out, "Father, help me!", one who has never seen himself/herself as he/she really is, who surely has never felt deeply the pain he/she might have caused another, nor felt the regret of omission. I will be forever grateful to God not to be controlled or molded by all that is "natural to me as a human," not to be as I would have been!
PS Forever grateful to God not to have been the kind of parent I would have been!
"…to get on your knees and scrape, grovel and beg God for victory,…"
Perhaps it can only be expressed in such a way precisely because I have indeed done so…have indeed cried out "father help me!".
I've been mostly lurking here for the past few days after having surgery on my left wrist that makes typing a painful experience. What strikes me is how few comments reflect having any experience with claiming and experiencing the victory in Christ that is available to us if we will only reach out and grab ahold of it. We're hearing the chorus of the struggling with their endless dissections of defeat instead of the celebrations of victory that could give them hope. If my wrist could stand the strain without driving me to another dose of narcotic pain killers I would gladly share how God has given me victory on the chance it would give a struggler hope. But I'm going to have to leave that to someone else today. That's the challenge. Any takers?
Nathan, in response to your point above, may I remind you that it is only as a consequence of the weavings of this thread that the focus has been brought directly to Christianity.
From the blog:
"We need to move beyond the petty, religious propaganda that seeks to describe human behavior in terms of “sin”. Too many are trapped in the mentality of viewing human morality, ethics, and values through the blinkered lens of one particular religious world view or another. We need a bigger perspective."
The ultimate target of the blog was religion per se. Yes, this is Atoday. Yes it is Christian, and by default that will be how readers take it here, but the target was intended to be much wider.
If you think it out of place here…may I suggest that being an SDA today should come with an awareness of the culture and climate within which one lives out there faith. Unless your faith is cloistered it should have suffered not a witt from being tested against one possible way of thinking about the realities of life, sin, and social culture.
Chris, i was taught the Golden Rule by my Mother at a very early age. i knew God must be LOVE, as my Mom was love, never once did i hear her speak ill of anyone. My Mom's faith was unshakable. All four of her children knew her to be a saint, on Earth. As a single Mother working for 13 cents an hour, during the 1930's depression years, working 10-12 hours a day,walking 3 miles each way in winter darkness, each day, wading across a creek in icy water after a storm washed out the bridge. Not dating or remarrying until after her youngest was 18 years of age. Constantly helping
neighbors who were having a hard time feeding their families, offering them hope and courage. This
Mother of mine had a heart of gold. Her children knew about God because she was love on Earth to all. What made her one in a million, perhaps? The indwelling Holy Spirit.
Cool. The world is a better place because of mums like that….
If anyone is interested in a look into a religious entities view of "sin" plays out in society, there is a link below.
If you can stand watching it long enough, At about the 11 min 40 second mark, note the Muslim ladies question to the radical Muslim dressed in white: "who gives you the right…?".
It is such a real life example of this "sin" issue, and the force with which it is being played out in many places.
It has the heading "Should we tolerate the intollerant?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=jfxNG_TM8J4
David Newman,
This ones just for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSw6wPEKjmo
This one is just for Nathan…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGuVZmUVwcM
And I promise no more links for a while… they can be annoying, but these are short, powerful, on topic and will confront some of the key issues we've been talking about here….
Chris, thank you for the link. Dawkins does not believe in an absolute morality because religion has created terrible moralities like stoning someone to death for breaking the Sabbath. He believes that religion including Christianity has brought more evil than secularism. Points:
1. It is not fair to lump all religions together. Christianity is the only world religion that teaches that a god came to this earth, lived as a human being while still being fully divine, died, gave his life for his people, rose, and returned to heaven, and everyone who believes in him will live for ever. Second, the heart of Christianity is love. Jesus made it clear that the first commandment was to love God fully, and the second, to love each other. He also warned us that wolves in sheep's clothing would infiltrate his church. Third, the Bible is a divine human book, telling life as it is. It does not hide the bad and the cruel and the injustice. Fourth, God in the OT has to be looked at through the lens of the cross, through Israel under a theocracy. It is easy to point out the seeming cruel things that God ordered and if that is the only part we believe then I would not want to worship that God either. But in the cross I find out who God really is and that He loves me with a love that I cannot even begin to dream of.
2. Dawkins and others like to concentrate on things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, to show how terrible Christianity is. Yes, Christians have done some terrible things. But that is to quote Dawkins hims, we are born with a selfish gene. When that gene holds sway all kinds of terrible things happen.
3. But what Dawkins left out is how Christianity as it matured, and it took centuries, has led out in some of the greatest social reforms this world has seen. It was Wilberforce and his evangelical followers who finally got Parliament to abolish slavery (not the humaniists). It was John Woolman, a Quaker who got the Society of Friends to abolish slavery thirty years before the civil war in America. It was Christians who were at the forefront of abolishing slavery in the US (although there were Christians on both sides of the issue).
4. One of the greatest contributions that Christianity has made is in education. At the time of the Reformation it was the Protestants who began to teach the people to read, to start schools, because how could you read the Bible if you could not read? All the Ivy League schools in the US began as Christian institutions. to educate people.
5. What Dawkins does not want to admit is what society looks like without the Christian influence, without Christian morality. Here is some of the record.
The simple fact of history is that the greatest evil has always resulted from denial of God, not pursuit of Him. Dennis Prager has noted, "In this century alone, more innocent people have been murdered, tortured, and enslaved by secular ideologies–nazism and communism–than by all religions in history."
Grab an older copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and turn to the category "Judicial," sub-heading "Crimes: Mass Killings." You'll find that carnage of unimaginable proportions resulted not from religion, but from institutionalized atheism.
Guinness reports, "The greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against another is the 26.3 million Chinese killed during the regime of Mao Zedong between 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed…the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32.25 and 61.7 million." In the USSR, Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated that state repression and terrorism took over 66 million lives from 1917 to 1959 under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. The worst per capita genocide happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. According to Guinness, "More than one third of the eight million Khmers were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979." The greatest evil does not result from people zealous for God.
It results when people are convinced there is no God to whom they must answer.
Chris, you want to get rid of the word sin. Sin is simply missing the mark, not being what God wants us to be. This is what He wants us to be.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. (1 Cor 13:4-8). I can only be that kind of person with God's help. I cannot in my only "selfish gene" rise above myself by myself. I am a Christain because God so loved the world that He sent his only son to die for me so that anyone who simply believes in him will have eternal life. Then God through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, to the degree I allow him tow work in my life, matures me from a selfish person to a loving person who wants to help others become loving people as well.
Thank you for this post, David, and others!
David,
You wrote:
"It is easy to point out the seeming cruel things that God ordered and if that is the only part we believe then I would not want to worship that God either."
Not liking such a god as described in the OT, are there several gods, or does someone design a god that he can worship? If the god of the OT is so discomforting, where do you go to create a god deserving of your worship?
The NT writers created the transformation of Jesus to God with a more than a century of a gradual process; and in that process, they made him into a palatable god with no identification with the god the Hebrews describred.
The real question: who gets to decide the god he will worship? Can it be a do-it-yourself project morphing the Hebrew god into Jesus as the real god finally revealed? Who is to say that Jesus, and the Father have not undergone a major transformation even from the first century and that a thousand years from now he will be unrecognizable as the god of the Hebrews?
The Bible writers created God, the Muslims create their god; the Christians have created a different god; and the Hebrews have several branches, all with their own views. This makes Christianity a difficult proposition for those educated in Christianity's history to accept any one particular belief; each one claiming to be the only true belief. Why shouldn't an agnostic reject them all?An impossible burden for someone to want to carry.
David, you've made my day. thanks for your blessed witness.
One more short comment this time. Dawkins on the panel does not want to live under a Christian defined morality. He suggested that an atheistic led morality was much better. Hmm. We do have examples of what that kind of life would be like. I imagine that Dawkins much prefers to live in England than in Russia or China who espouse no religion. Or during the time of the French revolution which was founded on atheism and practiced some of the greatest excesses known to humans. Dawkins doesn't bring up those examples of his ideology.
You really wonder David if we are forgetting history. Did we fight the war in vain?
Thank you, David, for bringing us back once again to the reality that Chris persistently refuses to address: Naturalistic moral precepts are no more likely to get in right – in fact they have proven in practice to be far more cruel and destructive – than moral principles based on belief in a supernatural Diety who defines and condemns sin. Chris's arguments rely on at least three elementary and obvious fallacies: 1) The fallacy of Composition; 2) the Correlation Equals Causation fallacy; and 3) the fallacy of Presentism. Only when he is willing to relinquish those fallacies is meaningful dialogue possible. But then, if he was prepared to relinquish those fallacies, he would have no ground to stand on, and the whole point of this blog would collapse.
Something tells me Chris that we are talking about two different things. By “we” I mean you and those who have expressed reservation about your take on “sin.”
This goes to what I’ve suggested about it making sense from a humanistic or atheistic perspective; but not Christian at all.
I agree with you to the extent that varying sectarian concepts of sin have and do lead to all manner of injustices in society (or civilization); and that in the ordering society it is generally better to reference accepted societal or civilized behavioral norms than it is to reference an arbitrary concept or definition of sin.
This does not lessen the reality of what sin is; or what it means. Your blog and subsequent comments are seemingly attempting to ignore the reality, and/or minimize the awfulness, and the effects, of sin.
"Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."
Anyone who depends on either civil or religious laws to determine what is right has turned over his moral conscience to authorities. However, it does not free him from personal responsibility and there is great danger in deferring to either to determine what is right or wrong. Most humans, given even minimal parental instruction between those two opposites, will have developed a moral compass for determining his course throughout life. No substitution of moral or civil laws should ever take precedence over human conscience.
Yes, at lits heart Sin is not about doing. It is an absence of being. The Jewish leaders loved to argue over which was the greatest of the commandments. They would rank them in order. But when they asked Jesus the same question he referred them to a relationship rather than a behavior. The heart of Christianity is a relationship with the surpreme being of the universe. No other religion teaches that. In addition I cannot do this by myself. I cannot even establish this relationship by myself. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be born again. The Christian now has two natures (that war against each other as Romans 7 explains). The nature we feed the most will be the strongest but even the feeding needs the help of God. So sin is really the absence of a relationship with Jesus Christ. We are born in rebellion and God wants us to be loyal to Him. We are born and just like babies have to grow so do Christians. And part of the challelnge is that chronological age has nothing to do with born again age or relationship with God age. Babies do lots of things we do not agree with. Baby Christians will do lots of things that more mature Christians will not do. But we are not saved by our behavior but whether our will is on the side of Jesus or not. A baby is just as much a human as a person 20 years old. So Christians range across the whole maturity spectrum.
And until a person is born again they can never understand this perspective. It is beyond them. If it were not for Jesus I would not be the person who I am today. It is because of Jesus that I am learning to be more loving, more gracious, more accepting, more tolerant, more willing to help others. And notice I said "more." I am on a journey and have not reached the full level of maturity that Jesus wants.
SIN in captial levels is rebellion against God. sin in small levels are all the wrong things I do because I am growing from being a baby to being a fully mature person. We are not lost because of sins. We are lost because of SIN. Enough said. It is easy for me to get carried away.
Perhaps it can only be expressed in such a way precisely because I have indeed done so…have indeed cried out "father help me!".
Yes, CB25 (Chris), I can understand that. It's one of the hardest tests of faith, of belief in God, to turn to Him for help, and He seems not to answer, seems not to be there. And as we see the pain and cruelty in the world around us. So much we have to put "on the back burner" until some day we see more clearly why God did not step in.
Why do some find it impossible to discuss morality without sin and their personal religious belief? Religion does not define morality. It exists outside any humanly created system. Nor is the Christian religion the only one as there are others where morality may, or may not be described differently.
Eleain:
The answer is simple. It is just as Nate has reminded us. This is a Christian website so we will discuss things from a Christian perspective. It is actually impossible to discuss morality without bringing religious beleif. This blog has already demonstrated the impossibility of coming up with an ethic that will benefit society without a religious motif. Again, would you rather live under Russian rule or American rule (imperfect as American rule often is). One dishonors religion the other honors it.
Actually David I prefer to think that the American version of the rule of law does not honor religion; but purposefully does not dishonor it either. Rather it is neutral toward religion while acknowledging (and honoring) its citizens’ right to freely practice it, according to the dictates of conscience.
Saudi Arabia and Iran purportedly honor religion.
Elaine. You wrote
"The NT writers created the transformation of Jesus to God with a more than a century of a gradual process; and in that process, they made him into a palatable god with no identification with the god the Hebrews describred." That is your opinion not a fact. Most scholars agree that the synoptic gospels were written before 60 AD less than 30 years after the death of Jesus. Jesus himself said that he had come to remove the misconceptions that people had developed over the character of God. If we want to know who the real God is all we have to do is look at the life of Jesus. How Jesus lived and treated people is what God is. Christianity at its heart is an experiential religion. If you have not experienced the Holy Spirit transforming you to be more like Jesus then you cannot know what Christianity is. Facts have their plece but without experiencing the God of the universe those facts have no meaning. After all, it was the Jewish leaders who had the facts about the coming Messiah but because they did not have a personal experience with God they put to death their Messiah.
Christianity is sometimes called a "revealed" religion. You cannot know God unless he first comes to you. And I believe that he does come to every person in this world. They choose whether to accept him or not.
Here is an analogy that I think fits. If you have never been in love there is no way you can understand the experience of someone in love no matter how they try and describe the experience. Or, I describe the wonders of Ben and Jerry's ice cream but it really has no meaning until you experience the taste. And the Bible says the same thing, " Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.
Psalm 34:7-9.
You remind us of something very important, David. Sin is not a matter of what we do. Morality is a matter of what we do. Sin is, at its deepest level, a matter orienting oneself mental and emotionally away from God. Physical and behavioral manifestations (immoral behavior) are simply the natural, inevitable outgrowth and product that reflect what has previously occured inwardly – separation from God, through distrust or outright rebellion.
I have engaged Chris on the superficial level where he sees sin primarily in terms of religiously imposed morality, as opposed to morality arrived at by "science" and "reason." While many Christians may view sin as a violation of God's moral laws, those who live under the New Covenant prefer, I think, to view sin as that which stands in the way of God writing His laws on our hearts and minds where, as Chris desires, our innate desires, values and morals can be consonant with God's divine laws.
Some have questioned the concept of the "indwelling Holy Spirit". If you have bared all to God, opening your heart completely, realizing you are lower than the lowest, chief of sinners; that it was you that forced the thorns into His head; it was you who pounded the nails into His hands and feet; it was you who spit on Him; it was you who mocked & ridiculed Him; it was you who gambled at the foot of His cross; it was you who pierced his side with a thrust of the spear; you were the thief on the adjoining tree who said "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thou kingdom". And Jesus said "truly I say to you, thou shall be with me".
When one, who by faith, has emptied his soul of vanity, realizing that without Jesus in their hearts, they are totally lost, body and soul in total darkness, if you cry out, Jesus, Saviour, forgive me, save me, truly, i didn't understand it was i who caused your sacrifice, shedding your precious Holy blood.
And God will say to you, truly, truly, truly, I say to you, you will be with me, forever and ever, and God the Holy Spirit, enters your heart with gladness and joy, I've wooed you and awaited you for so long, I couldn't bear to lose you, WELCOME, WELCOME, blessed of My Father, you were lost, now know for a surety, in confidence, you are ransomed, you are rescued, you are SAVED.
Praise GOD our ALMIGHTY FATHER, praise GOD JESUS, praise GOD the HOLY SPIRIT.
Can YOU, make that confession, TODAY? Must YOU, make that confession, TODAY?
YES, YES, YES. This is the MOMENT. Tomorrow may never come, for you. Once you've accepted Jesus, in your heart, you WILL know it. It will THRILL your soul. Every moment you seek the Holy Spirit, you will recognize His presence (not just imagine it as some have suggested), and you are at peace when the response is "IAM HERE" PRAISE GOD the LIGHT, of all that there is. COME TO JESUS, TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Earl,
There was a time in my life when I could have, and probably did, write as you have, and done as you have done.
Today, my response hovers between deep sadness that any fellow human can see him or herself in such derogatory terms and in so desperate a position, and utter repulsion at the warped thinking to which I was held captive for so long.
Can you imagine a radical muslim, prostrate on his mat, chanting out to Allah, expressing in essence exactly the same thing as he seeks power to follow God's will, and then arising from his mat with a thrill of power and conviction in his heart as he goes off to stone his daughter who had committed adultery?
Can you now imagine that same person, years have passed. Now he has opened his eyes to the deception, the illusion, (thanks Drs Wilbur & Taylor for that word), the arrogance and evil of radical islam. He reads a testimony like that above and hovers between deep sadness and utter repulstion.
No, I didn't stone anybody, but the power of the deception within my thinking was no less imprisoning.
Today? Oh, how I wish many readers here could open their lives to accepting themselves as fully and beautifully human. Stop judging themselves and others through the lens of sin, brokeness and worthlessness, to become free to love and respect others as fully and beautifully human.
Thank God I am FREE Today!!!!!!!!!!!
David,
If it is impossible to discuss morals only as a religious directive, what can we possibly offer to the world that is fast becoming agnostic, or atheist? Do morals exist only in religion? And only the Christian religion can be discussed here when morality is the topic? What about the Islamic religion, or the Mormons; are they immoral because they are not Christians and thus have no part in understanding morals?
As one of the editors, you may certainly refuse posting privileges of anyone, but as you and all know, Christianity is not either believed or practiced identically by all who claim the name. Both Chris and Earl are at opposite ends on this topic and we would lose their insight if they, too, lost their privileges of posting based on your belief that morality cannot be discussed
absent religious belief.
How have right and wrong been taught absent religion, as they have in nearly all cultures? That is possible only if "religion" replaces a way of thinking, as in Buddhism, Daoism, and Hinduism: all who had the Golden Rule in their local understanding.
Thomas Aquinas posited that we all are given "natural law" as our birth heritage and are known to all. These principles do not change and cannot be abolished from the human heart. This is corresponds to scripture that the "Law is written in our hearts."
Of course, it can be argued if it was God that put morals in our hearts, but not religion: God is above and beyond religion which is always instituted by man.
Elaine,
I was reading through the thread again this morning re Davids question of how. I could not help thinking if he really read only your replies, the question was answered. We all seem to be talking past each other too much.
Your question in the opening pargraph above about morals in other religions was where I was going to go re the how that David, Earl and Stephen offered me. Their answers all hung around Jesus, God, or the Spirit in the heart. It left everybody else in no man's land with no basis for morality!
Not only is Jesus hard to defend from history, but to claim he is the only way is exclusivist to the extreme, and a position most only take by fortune of birth, not valid study.
Chris,
Are you bailing out on your own blog? Did you read where I partially agreed with what I understand you to be saying in the blog’s thesis?
I agree with you to the extent that varying sectarian concepts of sin have and do lead to all manner of injustices in society (or civilization); and that in the ordering society it is generally better to reference accepted societal or civilized behavioral norms than it is to reference an arbitrary concept or definition of sin.
The fact is this blog simply has nothing to do with Christianity; that’s all. It sounds like you are acknowledging this.
* ”…and that in the ordering of society it’s generally better to reference accepted societal or civilized behavioral norms than …”
Stephen, yes, I did read that point you made. And, no, I'm not bailing it, it just seems much is going in circles.
Now, re your point. If going beyond religion to a deeper level of morality has nothing to do with Christianity, then we would have no problem. The problem seems to be that the Christian economy is built on a foundation of "sin" theology. If that imho false emphasis is going to get in the way of finding deeper reasons within the human spirit for morality – then the problem remains, just as it would if a muslim held radical beliefs in their system, and clung to definitions of sin, and resultant actions, that were morally indefensible.
In my opinion, the reason that this appears to be going in circles is because it is unclear as to whether this is a venue in which Christ and Christianity can be reinvented, or not.
Personally, I choose not to accept any proposed reinvention of God, Christ, Christianity, Protestantism, or Seventh-day Adventism. (I am a conservative.)
To the extent that you're acknowledging that your blog is in no way representative of anything to do with Christ or Christianity, I have no problem with it; as Jesus died to save us all from the penalty of sin, and to free us from the power of sin.
Elaine, my but we do come up with some interesting assumptions. Who said anything about denying people access to this site or this blog? The only people we bar are those who post dreadfully imflamatory statements and attack people personally,
Regarding the exclusivity of Christianity. Yes, you have hit it on the head. Jesus Himself said "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 16:6. Now Jesus is either a liar or deluded in making that statement or He is telling the truth. If he is a liar or deluded then there is no point being a Christian. If he is correct then it is the Christian's privilege to share how following Jesus gives us eternal life. We do not condemn others for thinking and believing differently. And I do not say that you cannot find eternal life outside of Christianity. Jesus is the light that lights everyone who comes into the world (John 1:9). Now in our postmodern world people do not like to hear this. But as I wrote Jesus is either true, or a liar, or deluded. You take your choice.
…or maybe the Jesus who has been invented over time has little to do with the Jesus of the original script.
Chris. You have a point. Many of us have made Jesus in our image. The Sermon on the Mount is one of the clearest expressions of who Jesus is.
The record of history reveal the failure of religion as the source of morals. Repeition of that model does not enhance the proposition that religion is the source of morality.
Chris, by ethnicity, area of birth, claim of a god, or atheistic belief, Elaine has stated she believes all persons are born with some moral ethics. i believe it also (barring mental defects of birth).
Then each subject is perhaps forever stamped by the culture of their adolecence. No question, the Christian experience, specifically the NEW COVENANT of God, equated as the Golden Rule, places
greater value and freedom than all other religions. We shouldn't suggest that all Islamics or other religious are lost, as God judges each person, aside from their voiced or coerced or state religion. Islam has radicals as do all religions. God knows the heart of man "you shall know them by their fruits".
However, Hagar, the concubine slave, & her son Ismael, were exiled by Abraham, and probably because of this, we have the religion Islam.
If Jesus is not the LIGHT of the world and the exclusive WAY, then we here have been debating an empty folder, and all is vanity.
Elaine and Chris, with all the negativity about religion I notice that given several opportunities to declare whether you would rather live in a country that lives under atheistic principles or a country that still lives, however poorly, under religious principles you have remained silent. Both Australia and the US live under religious principles with the US in its pledge of allegiance citing God and on its coins citing God. It seems that you would still rather live under the religion you seem to despise than live in a country without religion. In other wordsm if religion is so bad why do you still want to benefit from it? I am wondering what is the real point of this discussion if no example of an alternative country in which to live is cited. It becomes academic. I am not saying this to be a smart ass I am just puzzled by the hostility without alternatives.
I am now off to bed. see you in the morning.
David,
Good morning..
I have ignored the question because it was a no brainer. I'm very happy in Australia atm. The only thing that would wreck it would be an influx of radical muslims, or conservative Christian Americans, especially into the political system.
I just discovered yesterday that in New South Wales, the state I live in, the Premier made a deal during the state election with Fred Nile, a conservative, do gooder Christian defender of the faith. The deal was that "ethics" classes in schools would not be advertised to students, unless they had first pulled out of religion classes. In other words, it was to shore up religion in schools and "hide" ethics classes, which are non religious.
Fred Nile was found to have piles of porn in computers in his party office. Said it was research purposes needed to understand the culture they were fighting against. Really!!
David. Have a read of these two links, and take careful note when you see USA come up:
http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/29/eight_of_the_best_countries_to_be_an_atheist/
Discussions such as this one sometimes throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. We would do well to remember that Satan is quick to turn religious firebrands into offensive stereotypes so that people who are searching for the peace and joy God provides will be turned away from seeking Him.
David,
I would much rather live in a humanistic or atheistic society than in Iran or Saudi Arabia; wouldn’t you?
Isn’t Chris saying that we prefer America as a happenstance of birth, and nothing more? To that extent he may be right.
I can't speak for Chris, an Australian, but I am very happy the because the U.S. has freedom from religion that the U.S. guarantees. It is a mischaracterization to say that a nation inevitably has either atheisitic or religious principles. It is because neither are the fondation of the U.S. but a nation unlike any other that is a melting pot of many different peoples and their religious beliefs who are all free to practice them. This alternative represents the U.S. tolerance of all religions. It is not living under any religion but all religions given equal respect without preference.
Yes, the U.S was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but the founders were careful to write "Creator" and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Deists. In 1831 an Episcopal minister complained: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitariansm."
John Adams wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out: This would be the best of all posible worlds, if there were no religion in it:"
Benjamin Franklin: "Lightouses are more helpful than churches." The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
George Washington: "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." And unlike many of later presidents, he never once mentioned Christ in his extensive correspondence and requested no ritual and no prayer on his deathbed, and had a Freemason funeral service.
They were all emphatic in their animosity to religion or churches incorporated in the U.S. government.
Elaine,
You have what appears to be quite a collection of anti-religious quotes from the heroes of American history. I find your use of cherry-picked quotes curious rather curious for how you claim them as having meanings considerably different from when they were penned. Of the Founders you quoted, only Jefferson was not considered an active member of a church at the time of the American Revolution. The role of the church in society was a big issue in the American Revolution because the Anglican Church was the state church of England, the king was the head of church and he was not afraid of using the clerical authority of the church to achieve his political purposes. Church membership in good standing was required if person was to be of nobility, be a military officer or be appointed to public office.
Churches often played powerful roles in America after the Revolution. One reason the role of the church was not a major topic in the Articles of Confederation was because Massachsetts had an official state-recognized church (the Christian Church, or Disciples of Christ). That church still held major official influence in Massachsetts, Connecticut and New York until the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Massachsets almost did not ratify the Bill of Rights because doing so meant having to amend their state constitution to remove the church from its' official role.
While the Founders were against an official state church in America in the manner as the Anglican Church, to claim they held animosity toward religion is simply not factual. Franklin was well known for his use of cynical remarks and almost-venemous satire. While your quote from him is accurate, his meaning is not understood until you see that he was making a point about the need to make decisions using more inputs than faith alone. While his personal history could lead a person to conclude that faith in God played no role in his life that would be incorrect because he used his personal fortune to support numerous religious and faith-based charitable causes. For example, he established the first system of not-for-profit hospitals in America with the specific purpose of ministering to the poor in the manner of Christ. He also supported he building of many churches and faith-based schools.
Chris. You have still ignored my question. I too agree with you that I would not want to live under radical muslims or radical Christians. But that was not my point. You seem to be advocating a religionless society, where sin is not spoken of, as the best kind of society because religion is at the root of so much evil. So, I suggested a society where we could see the results of your philosophy, Russia, and simply asked if you would like to live under that culture. It seems you would not. So I am at a loss to understand the benefit of your philosophy. Where is an example of your philosophy at work that is beneficial to the society?
Chris. You have still ignored my question. I too agree with you that I would not want to live under radical muslims or radical Christians. But that was not my point. You seem to be advocating a religionless society, where sin is not spoken of, as the best kind of society because religion is at the root of so much evil. So, I suggested a society where we could see the results of your philosophy, Russia, and simply asked if you would like to live under that culture. It seems you would not. So I am at a loss to understand the benefit of your philosophy. Where is an example of your philosophy at work that is beneficial to the society?
Chris, I have looked up the first URL you cited: http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime. This is a report of an article by Gregory Paul printed in the Journal of Religion and Society. The link you cited leaves out this very important statement that Paul makes in his introduction to his paper. "This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research." He is trying to prove that murder rates and crime and abortion are much less in non Christian countries and the US has the worst rates and calls itself the most Christian.
All writers, like you and me, have a bias. We cannot write without a bias, so it is first important to know the bias. Gregoary Paul is a fervent evolutionist and anti-Christian crusader. The Journal has apologized for listing him as a social scientist which he is not. He is is an illustrator of dinosaurs. After making that disclaimer he then tries to prove that living in a Christian society is wrose than living in a secular society.
NBC News published a very thoughtful critique of this paper. See http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10351693/#.UREqXmfkrn0. The reported quoted George Gallup, George H. Gallup Jr. — of the Gallup Poll — concluded that “it is important to challenge Paul’s assertion forthrightly, because the casual, non-research-minded reader might easily accept his conclusion as entirely plausible on the face of it.”
And the report indicated that you have to be very careful how you use statistics for we know that conclusions can be drawn that are not valid. So to make things easier I am not going to continue to harp on where you should live or which society is best. We should stick with the topic "sin." I know that words change over time and that a word is only a symbol for a thought or intention in the mind. So I could live without that word if we could find a good alternative that would still cover what the bible says about good and bad.
David,
I suggest that we first define "sin" so that everyone agrees on its meaning before we can pursue further.
Such polls as mentioned above cannot show causes, a very difficult conclusion. But coorelation certainly has merit and should not be dismissed for bias. Should all polls be considered biased without merit? You have blamed the messenger for his personal beliefs, indicating that any poll he takes must be questionable. Shooting the messenger is the oldest blame game around. That's equivalent to dismissing David's Psalms because he was a murderer and alduterer.
The SDA church in its "Genesis Study" should be read without bias toward the individual producing it.
BTW, other polls have had similar findings: The "religious" red states have more violence than the blues with fewer claiming religious affiliation or attendance. That is only coorelation; everyone is free to make his own conclusions.
RE: "“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” Pascal."
————
I have taken the liberty of rephrasing this quote as follows [emphasis mine]: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from secular provision.” – 22oct1844.
Secular provision can grant society as a whole or as individuals the legal right to commit atrocities similar to what religion is accused of. For example: The father stoning his daughter according to Islamic Sharia laws can be compared to legal abortion provisioned by the secular state. Both sides believe they are right and are achieving good and not evil.
The blog noticeably raises the matter of evil (like in the quote mentioned above) and also makes references to 'good and evil' and 'good and bad'. In addition we see words like evil, immoral, unethical, normal and abnormal in terms of behavior traits. What criteria or basis therefore is used here to distinguish immoral from moral; good from bad; good from evil; normal from abnormal; ethical from unethical? Is it animal instinct, hormones, emotions, consensus, environment, cultural norms, laws, rules, parental authority, hierarchy, government, academic prowess, innate consciousness, psychological or biological development, science, evolution, perception, acumen or jurisprudence?
On what grounds therefore can any form of morality be based on without a Moral Law to distinguish right from wrong? Without establishing the basis of morality, the attempt to define morality on any grounds will only prove futile in my opinion. A Law Giver has to be involved when any form of morality is concerned, be it secular or religious. Man on his own cannot fully distinguish and establish what constitutes right and wrong; and we definitely need help from outside of ourselves to determine this. I therefore posit God.
You are misusing "secular" (worldly, non-religious). In your example, the father stoning his daughter is ruled by Sharia law which is an Islamic religious law, just as Judeo-Christians use the Decalogue. It is a terrible practice, but no less terrible than the Israelite Law that condemned adulterers and sabbath breakers to be stoned. The father is obeying his religious law coming from the same god that Christians worship; just as the same God of the Israelites who also ordered stoning for many sins.
If God is to be the Law Giver, should we stone people today? After all it was His law, wasn't it? If we do not know that killing someone is not wrong, we are morally bankrupt to depend on a god to inform us. That is what natural moral law is: knowing right from wrong and not relying on external rules, even from God.
Do we prosecute people (like the Nazis after the Holcaust) because they broke laws? That was not possible as they were obeying their nation's laws. But they were breaking the natural, moral law that all rational human beings have.
All we need to do is treat others as we would like to be treated. Due consideration of others is a fine basis for ethics and morality. One can accept and implement this standard of respect and conduct whether or not he believes it is God-given.
Of course you are Joe, but why is that??
Darrel, I don't understand your question.
Elaine, Chris defined sin in his first line, "Sin: An immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law." He is restating 1 John 3:4. And since it is in the bible that we find the word sin it is to the Bble that we go for its definition. And I think that Chris has summarized it quite well.
David, re Communism. We have been there before.
But, in line with your point above. You have answered the question for me. No, I would not like to live under any regime, be it radical muslim, radical christian, radical atheist, or radical Russian ideology – whatever you want to call it. Radical rulerships tend to move away from balance, and should not be used to condemn the concept of due consideration of others as a fine basis for ethics and morality. (Thanks Joe)
Elaine has covered the survey/good bad country topic well.
Oct 22,
You say: "For example: The father stoning his daughter according to Islamic Sharia laws can be compared to legal abortion provisioned by the secular state. Both sides believe they are right and are achieving good and not evil. "
Elaine made a good point about this a few days ago. Here's one line from it:
"An immoral act violates the natural moral law even if it conforms to the local civil law."
Your comparison is fine, but misses the bigger point: Religious definitions of what is and is not sin should not be the decider of which of these two actions is or is not morally and ethically acceptable.
Let me say that again another way: Religion should not decide in either case. The natural, innate sense of morality that humans possess should. And, the more that innate sense of value and giving due consideration to ones neighbor is left free from the clutter of ideologies, religious or otherwise, the clearer will be its vision.
Of course, if a secular state decides either is OK, then one is still hopefully free to leave the stones on the ground. The issue re abortion, it is one of choice in your country. The Chinese one is different because force is involved, and that experiment is backfiring with more and more moral pressure on their policy. Radical ideologies tend to self right over time. Human nature will eventually win out.
And, then you state: "Man on his own cannot fully distinguish and establish what constitutes right and wrong; and we definitely need help from outside of ourselves to determine this. I therefore posit God.
mmm. For major repetition: You are now going to show us why "your God" is The God? Why "your God's Morality is The morality". Seriously, let me ask you a question put by an Islamic woman in a link above: "What gives you the right…?" The answer, if one is honest is simple. Nobody. It is an impossible position to defend outside of blatant religious arrogance.
Not all Christians are Christian
The challenge in discussions like this is to refrain from generalizations. There are at least three kinds of Christians.
1. Those who make a profession of being a Christian but have never surrendered their life to the Lordship of Jesus.
Jesus warned against these kinds of people. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” ( Matthew 7:15).
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Matthew 7: 21-23.
Paul when he was leaving Ephesus warned, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).
It is mainly these people masquerading as Christians who give Christianity such a bad name. However, the second group can be misunderstood.
2. Those who are Christians but are still babies, still very immature.
Paul when writing to the church at Corinth had to deal with a lot issues there. He wrote,
“Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?” (1 Corinthians 3:1-4).
The Bible has a lot to say about this kind of Christian. A baby is just as much a member of the human race as an adult. But, we take the actions of babies very differently from the actions of adults. It is much more difficult to make this discernment among Christians. But the fact remains that there are a lot of baby Christians who mess up all the time yet they are still Christians saved by God’s grace.
3. Those who are mature Christians. These are the people Paul talks about when writing to the church at Ephesus, “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:16-19).
This is what God wants us to become and then Paul elaborates on this in the next chapter, “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Ephesians 4:11-16).
This third group is a very small part of the 1 billion who call themselves Christians. And Jesus said that only a few will follow this path. “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:4).
If we do not distinguish between these three groups then, yes, we will come to the wrong conclusions about what it means to be a Christian.
The blog to me fronts permissiveness as a normal acceptable trait found in humanity, which doesn’t need fixing – and suggests it is in harmony with what constitutes the Golden Rule. It also strongly suggests that it supersedes the positive aspects of religion and the morality associated with it, together with the accountability for our actions. This hardly defines the sentiments expressed in Matt 7:12 which speak of the Golden Rule in terms of the law and the prophets.
By purposefully downplaying sin we erode our obligation to a higher authority than ourselves and pat our humanism on the back. This view offers no tangible answers to our existence, origins and cycle of life and death. Humanism rejects God by denying the existence of sin and therefore moral law. By denying sin we deny God.
“Sin not only shuts us away from God, but destroys in the human soul both the desire and the capacity for knowing Him.” {Ed 28.3} – Ellen White
Oct22….so once again….which obligation to which higher authority? Who decides which are the positive aspects of religion? Who decides which morality is associated with it? (which IT?)
God?
Man doesn't have the capacity and the capability of accurately defining morality. Human moralists are subject to their own interpretation of morality and left on their own they will never get it right. Absolute morality lies outside of us. It does not lie within us neither can it be realized on our own as you suggest. The Hare Krishna folk use a similar line of argument by saying that we should shut preconceived external revelation or beliefs and search for god within ourselves which they say will eventually lead us to 'god realization' which can be achieved by chanting daily mantras and through meditation. You suggest similarly that we shut out religion and leave our development of morality to our innate consciousness that will eventually lead to an ‘acceptable’ standard of morality.
John Lennon's song 'Imagine' suggests this line of thought also. No religion, no heaven, no hell will bring peace? Societies that cast out God will quickly spiral into a worsened state of immorality and not better.
If it all boils down to an evolutionary process as a key ingredient in making morality happen as I somehow suspect you allude to then we’re back to the same question of how do we define what is right and what is wrong?
RE: "The natural, innate sense of morality that humans possess should." – cb25
RE: "And, the more that innate sense of value and giving due consideration to ones neighbor is left free from the clutter of ideologies, religious or otherwise, the clearer will be its vision." – cb25
—————
How can we be sure that the natural, innate sense of morality is the right and not the wrong? That we should do to others as we would want them to do to us? On what basis can we say that this is the correct interpretation of good as opposed to evil? Where or from whom does this natural, innate sense of morality get the thumbs up? Is the natural, innate sense of morality absolute? If not (or if it is) then on what basis can we determine this?
How is an 'innate sense of value and giving due consideration to ones neighbor' associated to what is good if there is no existing knowledge of what is good nor evil?
Do we just assume that what we are doing is right?
It may be natural to desire some absolute standard against which one can measure the righteousness of one's own behavior, or even more likely, to measure the correctness of the behavior of others. It can be unsettling to suspect that we are caught up in a game without rules, or, at best, rules that change or are not equally applicable. But there is a sense in which that is exactly the situation we are in. What is "wrong" sometimes, is not always so. I can understand why people would wish to foster the illusion in themselves and others that we live in a world in which absolute laws are always the same and always in effect. But, if you really believe the message of Jesus, it seems you would have to ease up on that–especially since he advocated the golden rule. And he was, by no means alone in doing so. It is widely recognized as an elegant standard of conduct.
We embrace the concept that it is our ethical obligation to treat others as we would like to be treated, not as an absolute, but as a pragmatic standard that can inform a constructive lifestyle.
There does not need to be a threat of eternal torment as a punishment for failure or a promise of paradise as a reward or bribe for doing the right thing. Doing the "right thing" is its own reward. We get to use our own brains to decide how to behave.
When we fail to do as well as we should, we take a lesson and do better the next time. You know, it really is not so hard to live a constructive life, once you get past that guilt and shame.
When we fail to do as well as we should, we take a lesson and do better the next time. You know, it really is not so hard to live a constructive life, once you get past that guilt and shame.
Some statements seem so shallow. Not every Christian is consumed by shame and guilt. To care how one's words affect another, especially our children, is to feel real sorrow and regret when they have been harsh and impatient ("natural to me as a human"). That, for example, is a far cry from shame and guilt. A different heart weight entirely.
You're right, Ned. Not every Christian is consumed by guilt and shame. In fact, there is a good deal of research demonstrating that active Christians are happier, more prosperous, and healthier than non-religious people. Furthermore, guilt and shame can serve a very salutary purpose. Growing up on industrial strength Adventism, Iwas no stranger to guilt. But deeply embedded in me since childhood was the reality that I was deeply loved and valued by my mother and by my God. Knowing that I am a sinner hasn't made it at all difficult for me to live a constructive life; and it has made it far easier for me to love and forgive others.
Will someone help me understand how "The Golden Rule" seems to have such talismanic power over some of the commenters? I'm quite fond of its touchy/feely quality, but I don't see how it serves to constrain or motivate behavior. As words, it's nothing but an empty slogan – certainly not a substantive argument or meaningful moral code.
Besides, like most moral values embraced by anti-religionists, The Golden Rule was given to them by religious people. Those who want to decapitate "Love the Lord thy God…" from "Love your neighbor as yourself…" only underscore, by ommission, their indebtedness to religion.
Well said Nathan. I also see a fundamental flaw in character when a person wishes to attribute to his or her strong intellect the ability to see the wisdom of the golden rule, instead of attributing one’s intellect and moral aptitude to God as gracious gifts. This discussion has been about Human Pride verses humility and gratefulness.
"I'm quite fond of its touchy/feely quality, but I don't see how it works to constrain or motivate behavior," says Nathan.
"I also see a fundamental flaw in character when a person wishes to attribute to his or her strong intellect the ability to see the wisdom of the golden rule…," says Darrel.
It seems to me that for the golden rule to work as an ethical guide or moral compass there must be adequate self knowledge and awareness of one's own feelings and motivations, and some empathy for the feelings and motivations of others.
This is not to say that one must be an intellectual giant to exercise due consideration or some degree of empathy. To the contrary, people like Frans deWaal make a strong case for such abilities even in nonhumans. But, of course, we are all aware that there are people who are "psychopaths," or have psychopathic tendencies. They may be brilliant in other ways but they lack empathy or, in some cases, seem to lack a sense of right or wrong. They apparently were not blessed with the gracious gift of moral aptitude, even if they were gifted intellectually. I imagine such people would not find the golden rule made much sense to them as a way of deciding how to treat others. It might seem entirely empty to them, rather than serving as a method used many times every day as they interact with other people–and even as a guide to humane behavior toward nonhuman animals.
One of the cool things about committing to treat others as one wishes to be treated is that the principle promotes knowledge of self and understanding of others. The better one knows one's self and others, the more accurately considerate (and moral and ethical) one can be. If one's faith in God reinforces the commitment or ability treat others with due consideration, that is just great, as far as I'm concerned.
So, a serious deficiency in the golden rule as a moral guide is that some people just do not get it, and perhaps, through no fault of their own. For some of those who don't get the point of treating others as they would like to be treated, parental, institutional, governmental, or other authoritarian guidance may be essential–but for those whose inclination is toward oppositional and defiant behavior, that is not likely to work very well either.
For someone to look outside herself for final moral authority is daily demonstrated by those who claim God, or Allah, and then murder, rape and kill with impunity. This was the method for the Israelites, and current extremeists in Islam. That is why it cannot be the arbiter for morals.
This needs repeating:
"You don't need religious or civil authority to have morals.
If you can't determine right from wrong it is because you lack empathy."
Let me cut through it here to ask: if there is no Creator God and we are here
by completely material causes, as advanced rocks, if you will, then is there the any true meaning to what we call ethics or morality????
i believe there is one (only ONE) type of Christian. The one whose heart has been shattered, by recognition, that they personally have caused the sacrifice of Jesus. It is the work of the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) to convict the heart of man, that his ego, his rebellion, has caused the Saviours death.
God so loved His world, that He gave Himself (in the person of Jesus), and YOU, if you truly believe in His vicarious sacrifice for you, shall not perish, but will live forever. Each soul, who truly absolutely, believes this, will receive the indwelling of God, the Holy Spirit, who will NEVER leave you, and continually lead you, and teach you knowledge, wisdom, truth, moment by moment, in what to speak, how to act, how to respond to every situation you encounter, and how to love. If your sojourn on this present phase of Earth's history, post acceptance of God's grace, is only one minute or a hundred years, your soul will live forever. It will not be necessary for you to earn your stripes over a long life, working your way to righteousness, YOU CAN NOT EARN IT. The transformation occurrs instantly when you, by FAITH, believe and accept. Jesus has already paid your ransom, and given you HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. By accepting, GOD enters into His abode with you.
I'm sure no one has been claiming that we are "advanced rocks." There is no reason for any of us to deny what we really are. Evidence or beliefs may be brought forward to help us understand who we are and how we got here, and, of course, that debate is in progress.
We can see in nature that offspring of many species maintain proximity to their mothers, sometimes through their entire lives, and that mothers defend their offspring from possible harm. We see cohesive groups of animals, and sometimes animals nuzzling, embracing, and grooming one another. There is no question that filial socioemotional bonds develop in many animals including humans. These are what we think of as positive and constructive interactions. One could brand them as trivial "touchy/feely" characteristics, but we would err if we underestimated the importance of these processes in sustaining health and happiness.
We also see plenty of examples in nature of interactions that do not work out so well for some of the interactors. When the lion attacks and kills the zebra, that does not work out so well for the zebra. When the wild chimpanzee mother goes crazy and eats her own infant or that of another mother, that is pretty unfortunate for the victims, and it really does not provide real benefits to anyone.
For whatever reason, many humans are able to look at other people and at nature in general and see that some patterns of behavior are disruptive and harmful, even painful, and that others are pleasant and warm and nurturing, "all touchy/feely" warm and sustaining. We have labeled our ability to sense the pain and pleasure in others as "empathy."
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you pinch a monkey he will probably bite you. Being gentle to cats or dogs tends to get them to stay around and be gentle back to you. Same thing with other people. If you are cruel to them the chances increase that they will hurt you back. We see these dynamics when people or other animals fight. Now, if fighting and hurting others gives you enough pleasure that you are willing to endure the consequences of pain or injury inflicted on you in return, you may well develop a combative life style.
Or, you may decide that how you feel when someone sticks a spear in you might be the same way they feel if you do the same to them. Sometimes you can't afford the luxury of fighting. Sometimes cooperating, even with someone you feel like hitting, turns out to be critical to the survival of you and your would be adversary.
When you are able to sense the different consequences of how you interact with others, when you are able to predict what actions are most likely to minimize your own pain and maximize your own pleasure, you are beginning to distinguish between negative and destructive behavior and positive and constructive behavior. Even this self-serving "reciprocal altruism" leads to "due consideration" and treating others as you wish to be treated.
Whether one wishes to believe the Creator God designed us this way or not, it seems to me that we are equipped with at least some rudimentary talent for exercising value judgements that amount to bases of ethical or moral choices. Beyond that, we can discuss–and likely will, endlessly–what it means to make decisions and have preferences for some values over others.
Darrel,
I think most here have enough wisdom to realize the futility of debating whether in fact life is any mroe than a dream. So I will ignore those possibilities in my reply to your question:
"Is there any true meaning to ehtics or morality?"
Consider:
Do you understand pain? Do you know when you are sick? Do you experience tiredness?
Can you quantify suffering – your own or someone elses? Can you quantify pain – your own or someone elses? Can you determine whether someone is starving or just hungry?
Do you understand Joy? Happiness? Sadness? Peace? Hope? Beauty? Music? Sound? Wind in the trees?
Have you ever experienced fear? Terror? …I could go on….
Now, look back through that list and you will find even our animal comrades can experience some or most of these in similar ways to some degree or another.
Tell me, Is there any true meaning to the things in this list? I would say absolutely yes.
Here's my point. Ethics and morality are are words we use to describe the potential interaction within, and between one another as we live. Their meaning is just as real as the things in that list.
If I can understand pain, I can understand the immorality of inflicting it unfairly on another. If I can understand starvation, I can understand the ethic of sharing. And so it goes with every other human experience.
Of course they have meaning.
The ethics of treating others as we wish to be treated has been learned since first there were humans. This is how most parents instruct their children so they will "do the right thing" first, simply because parents are superior and the ones who care for them. This becomes a natural way of life if this instruction has been done well. In situations where children have no early ethical guidelines, we see the results daily in criminal activity and violence; however, they know their actions are wrong but they have never learned to constrain them. This is where civil laws are needed; for all others, the natural law is effective.
Do any who have been commenting on this thread believe that only the external authority, be it God or the civil authorities, have kept them from committing immoral acts?
"Do any who have been commenting on this thread believe that only the external authority, be it God or the civil authorities, have kept them from committing immoral acts?"
Great question.
I would suggest that people who can answer yes to that have lots in common with people who can commit immoral acts in their efforts to eradicate sin on God's behalf. Both are symptomatic of people who may not have learned to be responsive to their own, internal sense of values, right, wrong, morality etc.
Thank you Chris and Elaine. I am happy that you are having difficulty understanding the reason behind my question regarding the necessity of God for ethics existence. You are both strongly ethical people, so which makes it difficult to see the philosophical point I am making. Even if God did not exist you would be ethical. For me that very fact demonstrates the necessity of the Creator God. For if God were not, you or I would not have such an ethical conscience. Not unless our ethics were simply expedient socially–self-pride or tribal status. If this is the depth of our ethics, then that can be explained by evolution.
Darrel, it is abundantly clear that for you, all evidence points to God, whether or not others see it that way.
That is because you begin with God and do not admit any information into consciousness that is contrary to what you already believe.
That style of thinking is not unusual, and it is the kind of thinking that is ground into young adventists. Some accept it, while others react against it.
I am not claiming to know that there is no Creator God. I have no interest in trying to convert anyone to atheism. All I'm saying is that if one opens up to thinking critically about evidence, one rather quickly finds that the evidence does not point to the "facts" we were taught in SDA academies and colleges. Some of what we were taught turns out to be not merely unsubstantiated, but utterly inaccurate by many orders of magnitude.
These unfounded assertions about all morality and ethics necessarily being implanted by God are more of the same old story that is told over and over to help convince young adventists (or other young Christians) that they are superior to everyone else. It is part of the indoctrination. It is part of the brainwashing regime.
Joe and Chris,
It is obvious that the position that morality is not dependent on belief in God is an impenetrable belief system to any other possible concept. I bid adieu to this discussion.
Elaine,
Puzzled.. 🙂 I used to believe that morality was dependent on belief in God. I do hope my belief that this is not the case, has not become impenetrable!
Be funny if I'm sitting here thinking certain others have a closed mind, when in fact it is me!
On the good side, obviously my former belief was not impenetrable, so there is hope I remain open.
If I've read you right? Or did you accidentally add the word "not"?
Chris,
You're right and that's the first mistake I've made this year ;<)
Yes, this is probably a mis-type, it isn't consistent with her earlier statements.
"…if one opens up to thinking critically about evidence, one rather quickly finds that the evidence does not point to the 'facts' we were taught in SDA academies and colleges."
That's your testimony, Joe. I was taught to think critically in Adventist schools. And my learning didn't stop there. I still believe some of the things I was taught. Some things I don't believe. And I can assure you, I was taught a variety of perspectives on most topics – not just one. Again, you prefer generalities to specifics, and you prefer to dwell in a past that is no more. Tell me, what is being taught at Adventist schools today that is untrue? Please be specific.
I can certainly point to all kinds of politically correct nonsense that is being taught as fact in high schools and colleges today. Isn't that the way it has always been, Joe? Truth for one generation is either proven untrue by the next generation or turns out to be inadequate for the next generation. I always smile and shake my head at your default non-argument: "if you don't agree with me, you aren't thinking critically." It is so puerile and condescending! Yet you have no reticence about accusing Christians of thinking they are superior to everyone else.
"…unfounded assertions about all morality and ethics necessarily being implanted by God are more of the same old story told over and over to help convince young Adventists…that they are superior to everyone else."
So are the statements I have highlighted specimens of the golden rule in practice – accuse those whose values differ from yours of being close-minded ideologues, who want to poison the minds of young people? I'm not saying it's wrong or immoral of you to state your opinion. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is for you golden rule worshippers to piously wrap yourselves in the transparent cloak of empthy and compassion, and then go out and bash Christians for believing that God is the supreme source of true morality.
BTW, I have not argued that morality is dependent on belief in God. I have simply argued that morality that claims to be founded in secular revelation is no less dogmatic and coercive than morality that claims to be founded on divine revelation. Each is regularly used as either a trump card for the golden rule or as a rationalization to make the golden rule mean whatever one wants it to mean.
Rightly or wrongly, communities and societies want to protect their health and well-being. That means their morality is sometimes legislated. I have over and over asked Chris to explain how secular morality imposed by the state is superior to religious morality imposed by the state. He has not done so for obvious reasons – Communism, Fascism, and The Reign of Terror. History demonstrates that you can't eliminate, or even mitigate, sin and evil by purging those words from the vocabulary of Christians.
Nathan, I'll leave Joe to the core of your address above as it is to him.
But, you say I have not explained how secular morality imposed by the state is superior to religious morality imposed by the state. You then suggest I have not done so, (thought I had) because of Communism, Fascism etc.
You are confusing examples where secular ideologies, or political entities were imposed upon the people. Are these clear examples of secular morality being imposed by the state? I think not. To refer back to what I said to David earlier, they are examples of radical positions.
If you want to see secular morality, go to some countries where atheism is the norm. Please, for the sake of my sanity, stop using extreme examples that don't even directly relate to the issue.
So why, Chris, do you refuse to grant that those who want to use "sin" as an excuse for jihad – or simply for the dastardly purpose of making you feel guilty – are simply radicals? I didn't know it was that easy. Why not concede that your attempts to draw cause and effect conclusions from correlation are merely misguided examples of radical positions, which are a temptation for all humans, regardless of their ultimate beliefs?
So your question should be: Are religious people more prone to radical behavior than non-religious people? The radical ideologies of Western civilization have not grown out of Christianity. Marxism, the common ideology behind communism, fascism, and their secular tributaries, has been, and continues to be, advanced by mainstream intellectuals who repudiate God and Christianity. Mere coincidence? I don't think so. The fundamentals of those ideologies are alive and thriving in American classrooms. I know. My kids were indoctrinated with "warm/fuzzy" Marxism at La Sierra, and even by some of their academy teachers. People who believe in God, sin, and freedom are far from perfect. But they have been the greatest force for peace, prosperity, and freedom in the history of civilization. Radical ideologies are the natural outgrowth of beliefs that reject the constraining influence of external authority or tradition, just as surely as the unconstrained belief that an individual or group has the authority to act or speak as the vicar of God on earth leads to radicalism.
We see from Hollywood the moral fallout and warped values of an unfettered imagination guided only by human sentiment and creativity. The uptick in pretentious, intellectually vacuous "group hugs" among politicians, academicians and empty-headed celebrities warn that we will increasingly be reaping the consequences of mainstreamed Godless radicalism.
"For if God were not, you or I would not have such an ethical conscience.
Why not?
"For if God were not, you or I would not have such an ethical conscience.
Why not?
Because Chris the evolution's position on this is very sound I believe: “
"The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass—a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck.” Richard Rorty ”Untruth and Consequences,” The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36.
Or why would an up-standing evolutionist disagree with Michael Ruse???
Given full blown evolution, what is he saying that does not make sense???
“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1
Disagreement among people who claim expertise in evolutionary biology is quite common, in part, because the extent of their knowledge and understanding differs, and also because what we read that they have written may well only be their opinion or may be variously speculative or a mixture.
I subject all statements to critical evaluation, and I seldom if ever agree with everything anyone says. This is, of course, partly because I do not know all of what others know, and partly because I sometimes have some more recent, or at least different, information than they had available to them. Also, there is a tendency by some writers to state opinion or speculation as if it were absolute fact. While it gives an impression of strength and authority, the apparent level of confidence may not be valid.
So, it doesn't take long for me to start disagreeing with Michael Ruse. The red flag starts to rise when he starts out with an indication that the position of "the modern evolutionist" is such and such. No matter what the "such and such" is, the generalization is likely to be inaccurate. And it seems to me that almost everything he says is arguable, even for those who probably mostly agree with his evolutionary perspective.
My feeling is that what he might be meaning to say is that the abilities to consider options, assign relative values, sense and anticipate responses of others, make choices, and act on them, are neurobiologically based and have had sufficient adaptive value to contribute to survival. But it seems to me that the mechanism is probably pretty complicated, and enables choice among all sorts of options–some of which might be considered by others to be moral and some immoral or amoral.
I'm suggesting that there is probably a choice mechanism involving neurological circuitry (probably involving cingulate and insular cortex) that enables consideration and choice of options. My guess is that individual differences in the neural substrates of this mechanism are far more variable than is morphology of the hands and feet and teeth. A wide range of potential options remains within the repertoire. Utterly selfish and exploitive choices have not been selected out. Neither have relatively "moral" options.
So part of the question some evolutionary psychologists might ask is why both "moral" and "immoral" patterns of behavior persist, and what have been the positive and negative survival values of each? Given the array of behavioral possibilities and contexts, coming up with simple answers that are also satisfyingly comprehensive is not so easy, but that doesn't keep people from trying. When they do, the explanations are often pretty speculative and need to be held very gently.
Darrel,
Ok, let's take your line for a moment.
Please run through that list of human experiences I gave earlier. What depth of meaning can you give to them? ie, pain, suffering, hunger, joy, peace, etc etc
Tell me: Which of the list I gave, (and it could be added to) is NOT an aid to human survival and reproduction?
Now, for goodness sake, think carefully about what your guru is saying. He says "morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Let's say it again: "….no less than are hands…feet…teeth. Are feet illusory? Are teeth imaginary? Are the things in my list illusory? NO!!
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
There is one that follows directly after your guru's above statement. Here it is: "..Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
Not only is he conflating morality and ethics, but he is making a statement that does not follow from the logic of his previous assertion!
"…Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,..any deeper meaning is illusory."
ah, yeah, got it: just as illusory as my hands, feet, teeth, pain, joy, hunger, thirst….
He gives objective, concrete examples, and then uses them to demonstrate…what? That ethics/morality is/are illusory? How in God's name did the first statement prove the second?
Darrel, all the things I listed, plus my teeth, pretty darn meaningful and have significant depth in my experience. Have someone come stomp on your toe…it is not illusory! Nor are the values, ethics and morals you may choose to draw upon to tell the dim witt what you think of him/her.
It not about what an individual believes. Of course I think you know that.
It not about what an individual believes. Of course I think you know that.
I saw a man walking stark naked earlier today on the side walk of a busy street. He was quite content and wasn't trying to impose his birthday suite fashion on others who passed by. They (and I) were quite concerned that a carefree stroll in a birthday suite wasn't a 'normal' activity in this environment and strongly suggested getting him clothed or off the street asap. Nudists may think differently and say that the naked man was within his right as a human being to exercise such permissive behaviour. After all he didn't harm anyone and I can undoubtedly say that he would not have objected one bit to others doing the same. What would be the basis for us to distinguish whether the man's act was unethical or immoral or that it was just his humanness within him that compelled him to walk in the bliss of nakedness and enjoy the good feeling and possible pleasure it gave him. Who decides? It was a hot day after all.
The 'morality' posited in this blog is to me based solely on a humanist worldview of allowing our hormones and resulting effects of our senses call the shots in how we accept what is good – or bad for that matter. This differs vastly from the morality of the religious kind which is based on principle rather than the often wildcard dictates of an innate conscience which is undoubtedly swayed by outside influences. Thus the man-made golden rule shoots itself in the foot only because it is self-driven and selfish in nature – being more akin to the 'you scratch my back – I scratch yours' as opposed to the 'do unto others' approach which religions like Christianity are based on. Our consciences weren't given to us as a license to make our own moral principles but to help us walk in the principles of the paths of righteousness which are designed by the Giver of Life.
(The unofficial 'nudist' I saw today obviously had issues and was picked up by the cops as a result of his unacceptable behaviour). I do remember that a few years ago there was a group of men and women who braved the winter cold during a photo shoot where they took pictures of them lying naked on a New York street. They call it art of course. The point is that the 'I'm good – you're good', 'I'm ok – you're ok' ethic is based on accepting permissive behavioral traits as good without a basis to define if it is actually good or if it is evil. There is no real moral principle or code inside of humanity that can get this right – even if we try by consensus, indoctrination or brainwashing.
Example: Some of the commenters on these blogs who subscribe to the 'I'm ok – you're ok' golden rule have a proven track record of going off in a tangent and snapping at others every now and then and then later apologise for their temporary lapse of better judgement. Now if ‘golden rule’ was the order of the day as per innate consciousness then it must be evident that it is workable. Where then is the evidence? The tyranny of an atheist like Stalin will prove quite the contrary. Oh, I forgot – he is an extreme case – but then again – who calls the shots? To me it differs vastly from [Matt 7:12] and the permissiveness entrenched in it is surely very wishy-washy and variably banal at best.
I must confess that I know little to nothing about the SDA educational system of today. I am pretty much ignorant of it–as I am of many things. One source of comments here seems to think I am some sort of "elitist," while I think no one who actually knows me would have that opinion of me. Oh well. One can just read the many comments from that source and form an opinion of which of us is most given to intellectual snobbery. One of my favorites is the recent assertion:
"My kids were indoctrinated with…Marxism at La Sierra…."
Does this ring true to anyone? Of course, I do not know what goes on at La Sierra. But, seriously? Consider the source….
22oct and Nathan,
In response to you about extreme or radical and what is the difference between a radical ideology and the use of the word sin within religion?
Simple. The arrogance and judgmentalism, or guilt and over emphasis on behaviour (de-humanization) created by "sin" doctrines/beliefs operate on the personal level. ie Whether one lives in the best or worst society politically or collectively may have little to do with the negative effect of a "sin" dominant personal thinking.
The radical religious form of this is where the evil power of such thinking has moved mainstream. To be feared just as much as any other radicalized ideology.
On the personal level, sin is a dirty little word that trivializes morality and warps ethics. On the larger, radicalized political level, it is no less a dirty word that can, has, and is being used to justify all kinds of evils.
"Radical ideologies are the natural outgrowth of beliefs that reject the constraining influence of external authority or tradition"
Natural outgrowth?
I'd morphe that to:
Radical ideologies are the natural outgrowth of beliefs that reject the constraining influence of the innate human values of respect, empathy, and community.
It may be worth noting at this point that human nature is very tribal. Ideologies and religion have a unique power to exploit this. Human evolution is perhaps at a cross roads where we have the ability to collectively and globally see the value of moving beyond the "tribe" think. Religion creates tribes!
Will we be able to move above this innate and powerful force? It depends which values are able to rise above the forces at play. Like I said early in this thread, we are at a unique place in history to do so, but religion, followed by racial/ethnicity issues, may well be the forces that derail the progress.
Ah, Chris. You've identified the fundamental issue about which we disagree. I do not believe that respect, empathy, and community, of themselves, exert meaningful constraint on behavior. They mean whatever the user of those terms wants them to mean and, when in conflict, those values can be prioritized, defined, and manipulated in any way that fits the agenda of the user. They are important values, and I am aware of no religion that rejects the importance of respect, empathy and community. But those values do not come with any objective moral triggers or a moral North Star by which you can prioritize them or impose them on those whom you think are radicals. The only absolute value for you is "Ye shall have no god above the gods of humanism."
Ok. If all humanity is inborn with a streak of morality, however marginal, it can be transformed in adolescence by parental & environmental influences. As the Eli/Sons narrative. The "Greatest Generation", in abhorrence of two world wars, i submit, became enablers, molycoddling, of the Baby Boomer generation, who in turn continued the enabling with greater influence as the "open, feel good fuzzy society gained momentum", to be followed by the Viet Nam war atrocities, being aired daily on the boob tube. These enabling and protective influences from birth, haven't prepared the younger generations to mature, and have created generations of people who are unable to cope, in life & death situations. At the onset of WWII, ie: Pearl Harbor, that terrible day of Dec.7,1941, which will live in infamy, the children did not suffer the onslaught of phychiatrists moaning & groaning about how hard it was for us to cope, with the terrible disasters happening every day. Babies, young people, & oldsters, were dying in those days, because of infections, ordinary colds, flu, consumption (tuberculosis), etc. No anti-biotics then, & medical ignorance prevailed. We knew about death, the longevity age being approx 50 years. We were going to funerals often (a popular pastime in the 30's & 40's).
This molycoddling is continuing with the newer generations, the constant hands on of the soccer moms, in total control of their youngsters, delaying individual responsibility, personhood, & stand alone mentality. Add to this, those parents & temporary cohabitors, who aren't fit for todays world,
having many children who are then totally neglected, and forced to survive on their own, almost from birth, with personalities warped forever from the parents loose living, booze & drug usage, and society is paying the price. i submit these immoral conditions are caused by secular lifestyles, not from families where God is worshipped.
Oh those good old days of depression, prohibition and mob violence, lynchings, and the Christian Ku Klux Klan! Today's kids just don't know what they are missing!
Yeah Joe,
Those "Good Old Days" are always viewed retrospectively with the naivete of childhood. Ask their mothers and fathers how "good" it was to work 12-hour days, no overtime, no health insurance, no Social Security or Medicare, sickness could be a death sentence with high infant mortality. Not to leave unmentioned (which you didn't) but the "drug wars" then was against the bottlegging which proved very profitable for some like the Kennedy family. Corruption in politics we no better nor worse than today. But no guns or cars then cause the number of death seen each year due to "progress."
Maybe Leibnez was right: "This is the best of all possible worlds"?
Chris, i am quite confused. The two of us appear to be on opposite sides of the volley ball net. 🙂
i definitely am a believer of OEC, as a result of scientific study of geology. As to whether God used "evolution", time, morphing into kinds or types, i know not, and will not speculate. However, i do believe kinds & types were original in God's creative actions.
RE: "Religion creates tribes!" – cb25
————–
Really? I think that Religion changes lives and brings them into harmony with its code of morals and ethics. It is secular culture, together with its entrenched humanism bias, that creates tribes. Cultural Adventism is one of the more recent tribes to evolve.
Long live the Adventist tribe….!
"Beliefs" cannot be classified as either right or wrong; they just are. They can be changed, however, with learning new information. What one does with that information can adapt or change his personal beliefs, just as a child believes in Santa Claus, but new information can change that childhood belief, not by destroying it, but realizing it was a myth or metaphor explaining the meaning of Christmas to children: gifts.
Earl,
If you believe in OEC, I wonder whether your views on morality and sin etc are actually on the other end of the volley ball net from OEC?
Do you see what I mean? I have to confess your statements confuse me too at times because of this. OEC and the hardline morality/spirituality connections you seem to make are a little out of sync.
Now, as for me and OEC. Let me rattle a few cages here…I would probably define it as Old Earth Evolution. I do not say there is no God, but in saying there may be a God, I would refuse to define what, who or how that God IS. I point blank refuse to describe God in ways which are immediately contradicted by careful observation of how this world and life is.
I have had and continue to have experiences I cannot explain. Whether one defines them as "spiritual" or whatever is a personal choice. What I will not do is create or accept a God that fits nicely into those "gaps", but is contradictory to all other verifiable evidence! To do so would be nothing more than the credulity that drove our ancestors to atribute everything that could not be explained to the gods.
I see the myriad definitions of sin, and the array of shapes religion takes, as the result of the evolution of ideas around these aspects of human experience. Science is shrinking the gaps into which we can poke a god. Or is that from which we can pull a god (rabbit)?
The sooner Christianity and religion in general accepts that and moves towards absolute personalization of spiritual experience the better. By absolute personal, I mean that. NOBODY should seek to determine spirituality, religious views, sin, morality, etc for another on the basis of religious or spiritual experience.
I have to smile at times when people here talk about the Holy Spirit leading each person individually. If we took that really seriously – we would be back where I am!
Chris, if we are to "move towards absolute personalization of spiritual experience" . . . . and "NOBODY should seek to determine spirituality, religious views, sin, morality, etc for another on the basis of religious or spiritual experience" is it still OK that we share our views or how far does this censorship go?
If I understand your question right, and I'm not sure I do, here's what I would say.
Religion or religious belief today, in its multitude of shapes and shades, is the result of millennia of "shared views".
Beginning with the first of our ancestors that can be properly called human, we began an attempt to make sense of the world and the way the human mind and experience interacted with it. That making sense has been shared across the growth of human civilization, and a process of addition, subtraction, change, shades of meaning, new interpretations, new combinations, and ideas has evolved religion to its shape today. Ideas grow and become dogma, experiences are passed on and become sacred, and so it goes.
IF, we today want to talk about "spirituality" within the honest context of our scientific understanding of the world…great, but we may need to strip it back to the raw data, not to interpretations of data cluttered by the dust covered pages of any "sacred" writings. Sure, they can inform us on others experiences, as they saw them, but we would be foolish to believe any thing more authoritative or sacred because it is gray haired, or dusted with age. Age may in fact be nothing more than warning it is primitive and to be treated with caution!
You anti -SDA, anti-Christian bashers need to go to church and do some clinical research to find out what Christians are really like. You howl when science is judged by the statements and behavior of high profile scientists like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Schnieder, John Holdren, James Hansen, Steven Chu, etc. You are quick to accuse those who critique scientific consensus of being uninformed. You think it perfectly rational and logical to judge religion by things that happened in the name of religion hundreds and thousands of years ago. You would be indignant if the same fallacies were applied to science that you apply to Christianity – overgeneralization, causation fallacies, fallacies of composition, presentism, mind projection fallacies, psychologist's fallacies – and of course the favorite: thought-terminating cliches.
You readily and proudly admit to a very limited knowledge of actual people who embrace Christianity, because you have closed your minds and hearts to religion and are no longer part of a faith community. So why do you speak so authoritatively about a reality of which you are largely unaware? And even if you are aware of a particular brand of Christianity, why do you insist that all Christians share in qualities and beliefs that you find odious in the brand that you are aware of?
wow Nathan, where did you dredge up that pent up angst? 40 yrs of legal experience I guess:) I cannot resist the saying "argument weak – shout loud."
cheers
With all due respect Mr cb25 your blog has done its fair bit of shouting too.
Hear, hear!!
Actually 22 and Peter, you are welcome to make your point, but I personally do not accept that I have shouted (been overly aggressive with my words). Yes, I've expressed my frustration a bit, but honestly. Do you really think Nathan's rant above is acceptable? I don't.
He makes statements and claims about people who most certainly do not fit me, and I think anybody else here. I may get shot for this, but if it were not that he is part of the AT team (I think), such diatribe imho should have ceased/been called to account long ago. It seems no secret to me that Nathan's ability with his words exceeds his ability to speak with respect. Sorry, Nathan, but that's my assesssment of the kind of thing you've written above, and at too many other times.
I, and others may be way off in our thinking as you see it, but we are all to some degree or another representative of either a culture, experience or view of what it means to be Adventist Today. I said the other day, and I will say it again: if your faith is only safe in a monastry, then, is it perhaps better not to come here than to try to drive away those that make you uncomfortable?
To those who prefer to consider all life forms to be of accidental origen, devoid of intelligent design, and no progressive nature to be something it was not, at any phase of its climb up the ladder to a higher form, and to acquire intelligence in the mankind evolutionary track, that gave it dominance over all other life forms, is beyond any possibility of my logical observation. Survival of the fittest requires the annihilation or utter subduction of the unfittest. How can morality be possible in this evolutionary athmosphere of dog eat dog. Mankind would be no better than the other tooth & claw creatures.
We have in the lifetime of many of us here, observed, what happens when secular society, controlled by egocentric maniacs, and atheistic dictators running amok, have caused the catastrophic murder of
untold millions (billions?), and the injury & misery of further untold millions, just since the year of 1900; The Ottomans; Britain & all of Western Europe colonialism/Africa; Marxism (Lenin/Bolsheviks; Communism (Stalin); Germany/West Europe,USA; Japan/(Bushido/USA); Naziism/(Hitler); East Germany/Stazi Communism; Asia, Korea, Viet Nam, China/Mao, Cambodia/Khmer Rouge,Pol Pot; Zimbabwe/Mugabe; South Africa/Apartheid; Arab Nations/Israel,USA,Nato; Iran; Afghanistan/ Russia; Iraq/Iran; Iraq/USA;
Which of these Secular or Christian (in name only) or other so called religious nations, would you prefer to draw your morality from?
In reference to above, re: my narration of greatest generation, (i did not coin the description) Baby
Boomers, Gen X, etal, i offered no comparison between the 1930's-1940's and the more recent times.
Living in the South during those earlier decades, i was well aware of lynching, segregation, Jim Crow laws, whites indignities to Blacks, Latinos, Italians, dumb Irish (i'm one), Rebels etc etc. As just in the last couple of days i spoke, of the harsh reality of the Depression, as it impacted my family. As God has stated, mans heart is evil continually, yes it is. If mankind is to survive this Earth, they must have the super natural power of Jesus Christ, residing in their soul.
OK. The norms of local culture & laws have determined what is acceptable. i submit there is definitely
a morality inborn, even marginally, that speak to a person, the value of right & wrong public acts, that
are considered "good/ evil; Being a Christian, i am appalled at public displays of nudity, male or female, public demonstrations, riots, church burnings, lynching, occupy,etc. You may consider the motivation of those who participate in such activities to be a normal outlet for their energies, beliefs, and not lawlessness. i submit most of the above are anti Golden Rule. Persons who disrobe in "public places" (not a norn anywhere, i believe) are exhibiting a nature of "EYE can do anything EYE want, up yours dude; It can cause riots with injuries, and disruptions that is not "love thy neighbor inspired".
Recall back in 1962, Mario Savio sat nude in his classes at Univ of Cal/Berkeley. He created a ruckus as people followed him all over campus, catcalling filthy language, elbowing and causing hurt to some unable to get out of the way. He was exhibiting his individual right to free speech/actions, and Campus police, & Berkeley police were fearful of challenging him. This was followed by the orgies of "free sex" and narcotic antics of the Haight-Asbury neighborhoods, sit ins and love ins, nothing denied or held back, public displays of " in your face" charley. The USA, which previously had a norm of public respect & decorum, changed almost overnight, with public media exposes of language,pornography, gangsterism, bloody depictions of deadly murders, showing all the gore of wholesale use of knives, chainsaws, razors, automatic guns and exotic weapons, nothing denied or held back. Children were able to access this inhuman 24/7 exposure, when left alone, had tvs in their bedrooms, experiences in group home parties, and some families letting the near infants spinning the dials, as a method of baby sitting. The USA is now receiving the result of this experience of secular "morality".
The chickens are returning home to roost.The Baby Boomers & Gen X, warped progeny of vulnerable psyches, nurtured & enabled by the Greatest Generation, are now the victims of the lack of wise parenting.
Hello, the above is a narrative i had written earlier today. It disapeared from my page. NOW i have just located it, and present it for posting.
Joe, i find it difficult to reference any person or group, who steal, cheat, murder, envy, covet, who refer to themselves as Christians, are liars, and there is no truth in them.
Ah, dear friends. Life is complicated, isn't it? I'm afraid we all engage in some stereotyping and overgeneralization and over simplification, but it seems to me that there is some value in trying to express what we think and feel. Part of how I feel, as well as why I feel that way, is surely a consequence of the way I was raised, and an important part of that was adventism, at home, in church, and at school.
And yet, I cannot claim to know what everyone else raised adventist experienced. My situation was pretty unusual. I lived much of my childhood on a remote ranch in coastal northern California. Our routine certainly included SDA elements, with much preparation prior to Friday evening sundown, with quiet vespers-like worship, and a Sabbath School in our home, singing from the Church Hymnal, study of the SS Quarterly, reading about missions, etc., but no sermons (sometimes a reading from EGW and/or R & H). We had a piano before we had electric power, and, on the ranch, we never got indoor plumbing. There were difficulties and struggles, but, somehow, we got through them–and one of the ways we got through was by my mother taking work in town as an SDA school teacher.
Eventually, there was a terrible car accident, and total financial collapse, due, in part to inadequate insurance (Dad felt buying insurance indicated a lack of faith in God's protection). Our good friend and family physician who was SDA surely provided much care without charge, as was usual during my childhood. We always had helpful SDA physician friends. But hospital bills and attorney fees ate up all the family assets. I recall the days when the car and truck were repossessed, and when the ranch was sold just to settle the bills. My parents divorced. Mom continued to work as an SDA teacher and I went to SDA schools, always working as a janitor or teachers aide to pay my way. I struggled with teenaged angst, of course. Who didn't. And in the summers I worked long hours in a service station for 55 to 65 cents an hour. I was fortunate to have jobs, and, I think, maybe fortunate to have needed those jobs.
I recall when I lived in a small town about 20 miles from the academy I attended that there were town punks who delighted in bullying me. Not fun. But, then, there were also bullys at the academy who were equally obnoxious (TGM III was also a victim of such bullying, from some of the same people at academy). And on beyond academy we went off to PUC and more SDA immersion. I was still living with financial poverty, but many people at PUC were friendly, supportive, and very helpful. I'm glad I had that experience.
All this is just to say, my SDA upbringing was intensive and remains an important part of my background. Regardless of what I have said here, or have been characterized as saying, it is not my intention to deny the SDA influence on me or to engage in "SDA bashing." I try to temper my remarks and to avoid being offensive. Clearly, I do not always succeed. I regret when I have jumped to conclusions or have over generalized beyond my own experience. I appreciate very much the comments of Earl, Chris, Elaine, Erv, Preston, Ella, Stephen (both), John, David L., and some others who seem to me to be honestly searching for (and finding) truth. I value your tolerance of me in your space, and I will strive to be duly considerate.
Warm wishes to you all.
I just came across this post and wish to say a few things here:
Dr Erwin
If you do see this message from me, please note Sir that I am more of an outsider here than one such as yourself. I can't speak for AToday but from what I have gathered I can undoubtedly say that you would be a much preferred candidate here on this website for a number of reasons as opposed to me. My posting name itself isn't very popular I know but those of us with more traditional SDA views are more unwelcome (noticeably) than one such as you. Perhaps I might mention that hosting on a public domain and using the Adventist name will obviously attract many out there from other parts of the world who are different in their culture and form of expressing their positions. This has often being misunderstood here which is why it should have probably been better if it stressed that it was American Adventism in the spotlight here. This brings me to my next point. I can also see that right within the context of an American culture there is so much difference of views and opinions. However, there's no need for us to make this bitter experiences. I for one just like you and many others here have tramped a few toes but only when in the thick of things I suppose and not bent on intentional disrespect or insult as some accuse and label. I myself would not want to post on this particular forum were it not for the Adventist name used here. I also have a gut feeling that some have been deleted or banned for much less than what transpired here but the fact that no-one has been nailed on this particular thread shows that it is kosher stuff thus far. Even though you haven't mentioned my 'name' as a one of those whose comments you appreciate, (of which I don't mind and I never expected you to), I wish to express the customary SDA politeness usually bestowed on those 'seeking' and from a traditional perspective you would at least qualify for the love, respect and welcome shown to all of God's children, including ex-SDA's. Cheers. Your fellow ‘ageing primate’… 22oct1844
Chris, if you look on the AToday website "AboutUs" page, you will see the first guiding principle of Adventist Today – "We always seeks to build the Kingdom of God"
It is evident from those guiding principles that the site is intended to be a forum for Adventist Christians, who are not afraid to look critically at their faith and at the institutional church, to share and debate ideas germane to Adventist Christians. I see myself as fundamentally part of a religious faith community.
When you say in your blog, "Sin is a dirty little word. Delete in." – and then follow that up with the assertion that use of the word "sin" warps one's natural, innate sense of values, morals, and ethics, by surrendering them to the petty whims of a God – that feels to me like a rant, like a diatribe against not just my faith, but basic Christian faith in a real, personal God. Most of what you have posted since has been in an attempt to underscore and reinforce your radical argument, rather than qualify or soften it.
When you attack my family, the core elements of its faith, and its Raison d'etre, I feel personally attacked. I do not treat fallacious reasoning and non sequiturs with respect, especially when they come from intelligent people whom I believe know exactly what they are doing. Was Jesus being respectful when He called the Jewish intelligentsia "whitewashed sepulchres," and "den of vipers," and told them they were of their father, the Devil? No, I do not think such name calling belongs on this website. Nor am I suggesting that you deserve such epithets. It is an analogy! But neither do I think all ideas deserve to be treated with respect, particularly when they constitute an overt repudiation of what I understand this website to stand for – namely, the Kingdom of God.
As a former adventist Christian, I have enjoyed getting to know some people here who share the foundational background with which I was reared. I had the impression that my rearing history qualified me to communicate with others on this site. But I had not carefully read the "About Us" principles until Mr. Schilt urged Chris to look at that page. Now, having done so, I realize that this page is not intended for me or comments like mine. I'm a little embarrassed. Along the way I had begun to feel that Mr. Schilt was merely being defensive, closed-minded, and kind of obnoxious. Now I see that he was just being protective of his faith community, and that, under the stated intention of AToday, this is a forum for Adventist Christians. No wonder my comments were so often unwelcome! I apologize for poking my nose in where I am not welcome, and will move on to other persuits. I especially apologize to Nathan for comments that seem to have been so abrasive and unacceptable to him.
Just a parting shot, though. My memory of adventism from when I was SDA was that it seemed exceptionally insular and xenophobic, largely uninterested in the world outside its wall except to attempt to convert others to its own "truth." What I have sometimes suggested is an attitude of "we are correct and everyone else is wrong." Reading Nate's comments and the AToday guiding principles reinforces that impression.
As in the past, I hope some readers of AToday will contact me privately. Some of you have become my good friends, so something of value has come from finding this site. I wish you well.
agingapes AT gmail
Nathan,
Thank you for the reminder. However, I would suggest there are many shades of meaning in the materail you noted. Not least of which is interpretation of key terminology. For example, what is the Kindom of God and how is it best advanced?
I am on an extreme end, granted, but for example, take Dr Jack Hoen. He believes he is advancing the kindgom of God. I'm reminded of the principle in a point I read in the link Dr Taylor posted in his blog re the 2013 Evolution Weekend:
"….given the centrality of evolution to the scientific enterprise, when the theory of evolution is summarily dismissed, the very nature of science is called into question and our educational system is undermined in a dangerous manner."
Replace the word "educational" with "religious" and you get the principle. Which positions are in fact advancing the Kingdom?
From the AT principles I note:
I do respect that I am well outside the usual boundaries, but I am a voice within a world where you have to live your faith. If there is indeed reason to believe, such belief should not suffer negatively from rubbing shoulders with such as me and others on here.
I would, respectfully restate my point from yesterday:
"I, and others may be way off in our thinking as you see it, but we are all to some degree or another representative of either a culture, experience or view of what it means to be Adventist Today. I said the other day, and I will say it again: if your faith is only safe in a monastry, then, is it perhaps better not to come here than to try to drive away those that make you uncomfortable?"
IF in fact the AT team believe this is a mistaken interpretation – I will appreciate hearing that fact and respect it with my final departure.
Cheers
hmmmm, i am almost speechless……i don't believe any of us came to evangelize. It's been a great learning experience for me, never before sharing the most important subject of the ages. We are all influenced by our early years, experiences indelibly etched forever in our on board computers. Like Joe, my early years were deprived of creature comforts. Living in rustic rented houses, without indoor plumbing, electricity, toliet, water. Coal oil lamps, wood stove, no heating, floors with cracks wide enough to see through, corrugated tin roof etc, rent $4. month; you get the picture. We walked every where, 2 miles to school each way, 1 mile to church, which ever one was nearest. We had worship at home every Saturday night. Each of us 4 kids, having lessons assigned by Mom, including a verse or psalm to memorize, and singing, "Just As I Am with but one plea, thy blood was shed for me". "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, serve the Lord with gladness, come before His presence with singing"; "The Lord is my shepard, i shall not want, tho i walk through the valley of death, i will fear no evil for thou art with me, HE RESTORES MY SOUL". i fell in love with God at an early age.I've trusted Him, and i've kept my guardians busy.
They say a cat has 9 lives; i can count 5 times i've narrowly escaped serious injury or death (there could have been others i don't know about). There is no fear, when my Lord is near.
i've very much enjoyed your presence here, Joe and Chris, and consider you friends. Although we have differences in our beliefs, i have learned from you, and i say thanks for tolerating me, with mine.
Btw, i thoroughly enjoy all on board here, and have been priveledged for your knowledge & wisdom.
Generally, i am homebound, and you are my friendship partners. Thanks.
Earl,
I can relate somewhat to your early years–one is living in a house that I didn't want to bring my friends home to–I was ashamed of it. It was very old–first my father remodeled it and then years later, my husband totally remodeled it. This ugly duckling of a farm building "evolved" into, if not a swan, a comfortable home. There is a metaphor here somewhere!
Actually, Earl, you had a very rich upbringing and inherited a faith that still blesses.
I don't really agree with much of the thrust of what Chris is saying. However, I think it is really refreshing to have some of our basic assumptions challenged. In this case, the challenge re what is or is not 'sin' exactly, as well as what is or is not 'natural' or 'unnatural' exactly?
For example, the Jewish faith and Eastern Orthodox groups seem to play down any notion of original sin, total depravity and some of the more warped views that flows from that view of the world – including celibacy as cited by Chris. As a casual observation, the adherents to these groups seem, on the whole, a little more balanced to me.
By contrast, it was the Latin Church that really emphasised the dangers of sin, original sin and the dangers of the flesh. It is the Roman Catholic Church in particular that is now seeing the fruits of that in its clerical abuse scandals.
The irony is that the Protestant denominations largely accepted whole the Catholic understanding of sin. The other true irony is that the liberal Evangelical wing of Adventism which seems ready to also accept original sin and such notions. It is our conservative Historic wing of Adventism which seems most similar to the Jewish and Eastern Orthodox view of sin.
Even if I strongly disagree with Chris, I am glad he has challenged me to reexamine something I would otherwise just take for granted. AToday provides something in challenging me that the official SDA propaganda can never provide.
Stephen, I think all the "sin" perspectives that you touch on are worthy topics of discussion. But none of them are the subject of Chris' blog. I respect your intelligence, depth, and breadth of knowledge. So I find it difficult to accept that Chris has said anything that you have not heard or read many times. Have you really been challenged?
But for Hitler's Concentration camps, we would never have read the profound insights of Victor Frankel. I'm sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenges Jews to defend their right to exist as a nation. Some "challenges" are not worthy of consideration, notwithstanding Nietzche's observation that that which does not kill us makes us stronger. I agree with you that AToday provides a very healthy alternative to official SDA propaganda. But belief in a Diety and the doctrine of "sin" are hardly mere SDA propaganda, and I know you did not mean to imply that they were. It seems to me, however, that that is precisely what Chris is contending, and I find that claim more insulting than challenging.
I'm actually okay with taking some things for granted. How receptive do you think Chris would be to an argument by me that it's important to teach religion and philosophy in science classes because the narrow, rigid mindset of the scientific method led to the atomic bomb and all kinds of other technological horrors? Chris would quite rightly be indignant at the suggestion that his resistance to admission of religion into the science classroom indicates a science so fragile that it cannot exist outside the cloistered, controlled environment of a laboratory.
'I agree with you that AToday provides a very healthy alternative to official SDA propaganda. But belief in a Diety and the doctrine of "sin" are hardly mere SDA propaganda, and I know you did not mean to imply that they were. It seems to me, however, that that is precisely what Chris is contending, and I find that claim more insulting than challenging.'
I do understand your point Nathan, because I have made it several times myself (with much opposition against me at the time), as Stephen Foster recounts below. Whether Chris is doing that in this instance, in effect denying theism, which seems somewhat absurd on a Christian website, I am not sure to be honest.
What parts again do you think point to a promotion of atheism in the article?
Look, I realize words can mean different things, and I think there is a lot of room to discuss what it means to be an SDA Christian. After all, I do not subscribe to many SDA doctrines – YEC or YLC, Remnancy, traditional views of The Spirit of Prophecy, Investigative Judgment, or the distinction between clean and unclean meat (though I refuse to eat "unclean" meat and shellfish). And I am sure I am not a traditional Adventist when it comes to many other F.B.s, such as the SDA view of the role of the Papcy in end time events. I am by no means a fundamentalist, much as you would love to cubby hole me.
But I do bristle when commenters, and especially blog writers, challenge belief in a personal transcendent God, because it seems to me that belief in divine authority should be presupposed on a website that says its mission is to build the Kingdom of God. I am more than comfortable with robust discussions about what God calls us to, and the extent to which that call is special (like "eating shellfish is an abomination") or universal (like "thou shalt not steal"). I'm perfectly fine with Elaine arguing that the SDA Sabbath was a special call to the Hebrews rather than a binding command to all God's followers.
However, I find it jaw-dropping that you seem to feel your blog is consistent with building the Kingdom of God – since, you argue, that term is subject to interpretation – and yet you think "empathy," "respect," "community," and The Golden Rule have sufficient objective content to be meaningful moral concepts to define behavioral standards. If there are no meaningful constraints on how we define a mission – building the Kingdom of God – then what is the point of having a mission statement?
You seem to conclude, Chris, that, because I take strong exception to the canard that my faith leads to warped values, my faith is only safe in a monastery. Again, you resort to the fallacy of false choices to insulate your opinions from vigorous criticism. Let me ask you a very straightforward question – one that I suspect your iconoclastic proclivities will resist: Since you think that the concept of building The Kingdom of God is vague and subject to interpretation, how would you define that term in a way to make your blog, and your defense of its thesis, consistent with that mission?
The notion that those of us who have a deep Christian faith are somehow cloistered or unfamiliar with anti-Christian perspectives is truly risible. I am fairly well read, and quite familiar with all the secular arguments against God and Christianity. I flirted with them in college, and outgrew them. They seem shallow, circular, and angry to me. And I have found over the years that most Adventists who jumped on the anti-religion bandwagon seem to have a lot of adolescent anger issues over their religious heritage.
So I find it rich that you think my faith must have a cloistered monastery to survive. It doesn't. Let me offer what I see as a more felicitous metaphor: You shouldn't conclude, from the fact that I don't want the dog to urinate on my living room carpet, that I'm OCD, not mature enough to handle dogs, or that there must be something wrong with my carpet.
I find it interesting, and somewhat amusing, that Nathan has expressed some of the same frustration that Stephen Ferguson had expressed months ago regarding the basic premises or assumptions of Christianity from which conversations in this forum are largely presumed to emanate.
I find it even more interesting that had some of our more conservative friends said the exact same thing…well, never mind.
Indeed, this is larger than mere Adventism. The larger point is that I doubt that Chris’s view of sin would have evoked such righteous indignation from Nathan if Chris would, perhaps in the interest of intellectual integrity, but dare to admit the obvious—that his view of sin is simply antithetical to any version of Christianity.
From a humanistic perspective, it is sound. From that perspective there is no controversy.
'I find it interesting, and somewhat amusing, that Nathan has expressed some of the same frustration that Stephen Ferguson had expressed months ago regarding the basic premises or assumptions of Christianity from which conversations in this forum are largely presumed to emanate.'
Yes that is very true.
My main gripe at the time was that in order to have a meaningful discussion on a Christian forum, we need to share some basic assumptions, which doesn't mean of course the 28 FBs but rather a shared belief in God, Jesus and the Bible. My concern at the time was that constantly rebutting statements with 'but God doesn't exist' or 'God is just a figment of the human imagination' or 'I choose not to accept that particular Bible verse because I don't believe in the authority of the Bible, but I'll quote back to you the ones that help my argument' isn't very relevant or helpful.
Every forum has a purpose and so discussing Star Trek on a Star Wars website, or Basketball on a Football-fan forum, whilst interesting, would probably not be that relevant, appropriate or just plain useful. Whether Chris' article in a Christian forum is about as useful as discussing Star Trek on a Star Wars website – I'll leave to others. I personally don't have a problem with it but I do know where Nathan is coming from too – as I made this point several times a few months ago, as Stephen Foster observes.
Really good points, Stephen and Stephen. You express my feelings clearly and precisely. Somewhere here – maybe it was you, Stephen Ferguson – someone asked how the article promotes atheism. I don't think I ever accused Chris of being atheistic. I'm not that dumb. I'm sure he wishes I had acccused him of that. Accusing the anti-religion crowd of being atheistic or lacking a moral base is red meat for them. What I have said, and do believe, is that his position is incompatible with belief in a personal transcendent God. His position, as STephen Foster recognizes, is quite consistent with Deism.
I consider myself quite broad-minded for an SDA Christian. I have no interest in defining who is and is not a sinner. That is for God. And I don't want AToday to develop a Kingdom of God filter to decide what blogs and comments build or undermine the Kingdom. But I believe, if that concept of Christianity and the Kingdom of God is to have any meaning at all, there must be some common recognition that certain ideas are not just extreme, but aren't even in the ballpark.
We may not agree on the precise frame in which a computerized morphing of Presiden Lincoln into President Obama is no longer President Lincoln. But we can all agree that the final image is definitely not President Lincoln. The first thing Chris does to try and morph the Kingdom to fit his ideological mold is to change upper case Kingdom into lower case kingdom; then, he questions whether there really is a kingdom of God; and then he says, if there is, it is naturalistic. In any rational world, anywhere besides the Mad Hatter's tea party, that does not remotely Christianity's Kingdom of God. in fact, it is wholly antithetical to that Kingdom.
Chris is right below. I do not know all the answers; nor do I pretend to. But sometimes, with exptremists, it is very easy to tell precisely when they are attacking the heart of faith and Christianity, as opposed to simply questioning some of the tenets. There are indeed an array of religious and Christian persuasions to be discussed. But Chris believes those which posit a personal revelatory diety who transcends the natural world are warpers of morals and values. And yes, stained as the carpet of Christianity may be, I still get very protective when someone thinks it's okay to wee all over the carpet.
Nathan,
Take a careful look at Lk 17:21. Where and what is the kingdom? Lk 4:18 is also worth consideration re Jesus stated mission.
As I have noted, I am at an extreme end, well outside the boundaries. I did not directly claim to be building the kingdom. I did suggest people like Jack as examples of an unpopular view, but which does seek to do so with that end.
Having said that, I do not say I am not building either. If one could distil the Jesus message down to the bones, beneath all the clutter, I suspect it is a message of peace with God and oneself, life to the full, absolute assurance. Near zero focus on sin, sinners, and guilt loading of people.
I suspect that whatever, or wherever, the kindgom of God is, it will have to do with building people up, not burdening them down. The heart of the matter is a matter of the heart. If people took my blog theme to heart, they will find peace with themselves, others, and God in whatever way they believe him to be. That is my experience. Absolute peace with being human, normal, loving and living life.
Is the kingdom of God within me? Yes, if there is such, I believe in God to the degree of the evidence he has given me in the world around me, and that is all a just God would ask.
Now as for your piddling pooch! The analogy fails. You, and I, and everyone else knows precisely what a dog is, what his urine will do to your carpet, and where in fact he should do his business.
You, and I, and everyone else do NOT know precisely all the answers to the kind of questions presented in the blog, nor for that matter a multitude of others. The array of religious persuasions are enough to tell you that there is massive room for discussion about such matters. One mans piddle is another man's dog (or was that god)
If indeed your faith is so clear cut as to be comparable to the certainty about dog wee and carpet, then there is little point challenging it, and certainly no point exposing it to nonsense from the likes of me!
Isn't sin by another name still sin? Apparantly some don't think so.
Sin is a religious term. It cannot be prosecuted in civil courts or any secular instituions. As we all know, sin has various definitions. Today, the papers reported an Amish man who was convicted of a "hate crime" by breaking into someone's home and shaving off his beard and other crimes. He did this in the name of "sin" against his religious beliefs. Other religions categorize sin according to their particular beliefs; just as Adventists consider working on sabbath a sin, but most Christians do not. So is it truly a universal sin, or just as defined by some religions?
I'm agreeing with you. "Sin" is merely a term that means different things to different people. If you called it something else, it would still be biblical sin in some sense. But the term has been misused, and we need to keep that in mind when somone calls an insignifcant mistake a sin. I don't know for sure, but aren't there different Hebrew words for sin?
I've heard it said that any mistake is a sin and they are all equal. I think that is a travesty–murder is not the same as a trivial inappropriate remark of no consequence. There are different levels of misbehavior, and they all begin in the mind.
As I have read the more than 200 posts on this blog I have been struck by what seems an undeisputable fact–No one has changed their mind despite the "evidence" each side has presented. And when any kind of "facts" are given that a person disagress with whether from the evolutionist or religious point of view they are dismissied as opinion or limted perspective. It seems that we have an infinite ability to rationalize our point of view. So perhaps a more helpful blog would be to discuss why we find it so easy to rationalize.
Further, one side believes that nothing created something, that non design can produce design, that non living material can produce living material, that non intelligence can produce intelligence.
The other side belives that there is a God who created this universe, who does intervene in the lives of humans, that miracles do occur, that there is a purpose for life.
Both viewpoints require faith. The questions is Which viewpoint requires the most faith?
Timo,
You raise questions which often are not even addressed. Why should some branches of science, particularly medicine, not be based on subjective faith while many other branches are rejected in favor of subjective faith? It's a paradox that those who depend on faith for their beliefs should answer, and answers from those who depend on objective evidence would allow readers to compare the two diparate views.
Why do otherwise well-education individuals defer to faith rather than evidence when discussing earth sciences; yet eagerly accept evidence in the medical discoveries? While non-scientists are insufficiently knowledgeable in these disciplines, the reasons for adopting either views are apparently not the same.
David,
You express consternation that "evidence" does not change minds here. You then state this:
(1) "Further, one side believes that nothing created something, that non design can produce design, that non living material can produce living material, that non intelligence can produce intelligence.
(2)The other side belives that there is a God who created this universe, who does intervene in the lives of humans, that miracles do occur, that there is a purpose for life.
Both viewpoints require faith. The questions is Which viewpoint requires the most faith?"
First: Evidence and faith are not the same. Note Elaine's point.
Secondly, your point I've listed (1), for how long, and how often, are you going to confuse abiogenesis with evolution???? Every aspect you list there is directly to do with the process, point, time prior to which evolution as a theory does its work. Yes, it does posit some theories how non living became living, but the process of evolution is to do with the development of life over time. Abiogenesis is a point in time about which it is difficult to gather evidence. The process of evolution has massive data backing up its claims. (and you try to infer from your point about abiogenesis that evolution depends on faith?!)
Now, please note: In (1) you make no points about any aspect AFTER non living became living. Then, in (2) you have 4 points in your sentence. Two of them relate to "NOW", (intervention and miracles). something about which is is absolutely possible to gather evidence! A third, purpose, is general, but also primarily post abiogenesis, and is an interpretation/assertion based on the other points.
Then, on this false comparison, you assert that both need faith! Well, yes, there is an element of "faith" in assertions science makes about how non living became living – have you ever wonedered why assertions about such are tentative and or theorized? Hence, it is not faith in the same domain as the faith about (2) because those statements of faith about intervention etc are stated as fact. Is it not an incredible irony, that they are in fact the things about which we could, if we chose to gather it, harvest direct, current, contemporary, real, objective evidence?
IF you want to make a fair comparison, in keeping with Elaine's point, go to a hospital and choose two patients in the emergency department. Remove one from medical care and have them revert to prayer. Leave the other one on scientifically demonstrated, life saving, practical, objectifiable medical care. One is relying on faith, one is not. I'll leave it to you to decide which one, because based on your comparison above, you will not be able to decide.
Yes, that's blunt, but it is no wonder no minds have been changed, if none of us are going to think these things through.
Chris, is it just possible that two people who have thought things through very carefully will not change their minds, and will still have strong and fundamental differences, even after a thorough airing? Not only have I not changed my mind one whit. What I perceive to be the weaknesses of your arguments, and the fallacies you and your choir have used to advance them, makes me even more settled in my opinions.
It would be naive for either you or I to think that we will persuade one another. My only reason for even responding to your points is a concern that some readers, who don't even comment, might be seduced by your arguments into thinking that you are suggesting something less radical than a complete repudiation of Christianity in particular, and religiously revealed truth in general. I have had the relatively easy job of pointing out the inconsistencies, contradictions and fallacious thinking by which your argument has been defended. You can't expect minds to change without evidence and logic to support your position.
I know you see things exactly the opposite. But hopefully, you are open-minded enough to realize that rethinking and rehashing old, tired arguments (I readily concede that mine have been no fresher than yours) is unlikely to change minds – nor should it. My main goal in comments here has not so much been to show that you are wrong, although I obviously think you are, but to make sure that everyone understands this blog for what it is – an attack on God and Christianity.
OK, Nathan, with regard to logic and arguments.
You tell me honestly. My assessment of and response to David above. Am I or am I not correct?
Simple. Yes or no will be fine.
If it is "no", then at some point I'd be interested in why, but will certainly take that as a serious reason to evaluate again where I have failed in my thinking. If I am wrong, I can accept that.
btw re "It would be naive for either you or I to think that we will persuade one another.'
I am naive!
Well, Chris, you should know that it is much easier to ask a yes or no question than for either of us to answer it with a simple yes or no. I do not consider myself qualified to comment on scientific evidence or conclusions as such. In general however, I would answer "Yes, I think you are correct." Your belief system does not require faith; David's and mine does.
Of course I am using "faith" in a very special sense. I believe life lived without faith is impoverished and self-referential. So I don't view faith, as you and David seemed to be, at least in that exchange, as a crutch – as a sort of substitute for evidence. I think the evidence for a life of faith comes primarily from its power to transform lives – not from the natural world. Though I think there is abundant evidence in the natural world to raise strong doubts about belief in naturalism.
Sin is the word Chris zeroed in on, but what has stood out to me in blog and posts has been the core difference between those who believe we have within our own human nature the ability to fully determine how to “be” and the ability “to be it and do it” if we so choose and those who believe our own human ability to understand how to “be” and to “be it and do it” falls short at best (no matter what culture or how educated) and is in need of divine power – a difference so basic that to change ones mind would be a complete change of direction.
So if a few Tarzan's and some Jane's are thrown into the jungle as babies (and if they survive at all) then they should be able to develop a good workable standard of moral code without the influence of Religion, Holy Books, Revelation, Secular Government, Atheism and so forth. My problem is not primarily whether this can be achieved or not but rather: "How will they distinguish a right and wrong?" That doesn't seem to be dealt with here in this blog for some reason yet it should be a key factor in making it a viable or credible argument. In fact this is similar to evolution’s silence as to the origins of right and wrong – good and bad – or the general acceptance of a distinguishing factor that governs morality. Morality denotes intelligence, rationalisation and accountability. How does that come about from an 'arrival of the fittest' or 'survival of the fittest' 'dog eat dog' jungle 'law' natural process? Answer: It can't as there is no evidence of it actually working.
Would our civilization have survived if the people had not determined right from wrong simply by living together? Humans living in groups, large or small developed their own rules and standards without outside assistance. To posit that it could not have been accomplished defies that fact that it WAS done. Where is there evidence that a superior force set down the rules for such a group? Had they been ruled by "survival of the fittest" they would have been lost to history after a few short years.
Would our civilization have survived if the people had not determined right from wrong simply by living together?
—————
I say No. In fact I would say that we would not survive without a code of data as a basis to determine right from wrong.
22. you say "no" to Elaine's question. I'd love to know how the great number of tribal groups/civilizations that had no religious revelations to code into holy books of "oughts" survived.
Can't think of any? American Indians. Australian Aborigines. Aztecs. Mayans. Papua New Guineans. Jungle tribes of the Amazon. Oh, and yes, China and Japan. Oh, and what about the land into which Israel arose? No holy writings. Just a bunch of mythological stories ready for Moses to plagiarize!
Chris,
The answer to your question is found in the Bible of all places:
laffal,
There is probably room for discussion about what he means by "law written on hearts", but I love the "naturlalistic" drift of the verse: Humans (Gentiles) who do not have the law (code of data) can by nature determine what is right and wrong! We could debate the "how" regarding the law being written, but it is blindingly clear, that it is not through access to a code of data as 22 would have us believe.
I would say it is innate in the heart of humanity that we deep down (conscience) know what is good, kind, noble, nice vs what is bad, unkind, ignoble, bad, evil etc.
It is this that has enabled tribes and civilizations to survive in the absence of coded data that some feel is indispensable to the survival of humans.
If we want to say this is the result of the Spirit of God. Fine, but let's take that to its obvious conclusion. In this case nobody needs to be a policeman for "sin". We all know what is right and wrong anyway! The verse actually undermines need for the very code from which it came (Bible) in defining "sin".
No Chris, and herein is the hidden flaw of your premise in my view. Ironically, you might have avoided this detection if, rather than arguing that Romans 2:14-15 obviates the need for a code defining sin, you had overtly admitted that your take on sin is, in concept/essence, anti-Christian.
Now your thesis, if I understand correctly, is that sin itself does not exist. Sin is defined by the codifying of that which God’s Spirit has written in the human heart. You say that “it is innate in the heart of humanity that we deep down (conscience) know what is good, kind, noble, nice vs. what is bad, unkind, ignoble, bad, evil etc.,” and I agree. James 4:17 tells us that sin is in violation of that which we know to be good—and this (sin) is that for which we account.
That is to say that we account for sin if we reject the gift of God holding Himself accountable for it. Sin is a Judeo-Christian concept of accountability. We are accountable to law enforcement only if we reject the fact we have received pardon, by rejecting the Pardoner Himself.
I think you see how your thesis is Christian anti-thesis; just admit it. It’s ‘only’ a matter of intellectual integrity.
Chris. communication through writing is so difficult. You missed my point entirely. I am not here to rehash the so called evidence for evolution, especially as it is no longer taking place on the macro level. So please be careful how you talk about evidence.
The point I was trying to make was all about first causes.. That both sides live by faith. I did not intend to talk about the history of evollution. I will repeat myself. It takes faith to beliecve in a God for which I see lots of evidence for a God (design, changed lives that I have witnessed, people like former atheist CS Lewis becomoming a believer in God, etc). There is a whole set of evidence that most people ignore. Polanyi called it tacit knowledge such as the mother's ability to recognize her baby out of thousands without any scientific knowledge, or a person riding a bicycle wlithout ever having to study and understand the mathematical formula behind it.
But I digress. You slip around my main points with expressions such as "there is an element of "faith" in assertions science makes about how non living became living" "An element of faith?" Wow, it is much more than an element of faith it is the whole ball of wax. Without that faith you are sunk. You do not want to face up to flirst causes as matters of faith but they are because you cannot defend them by science.
You see evidence afterwards for evolution. I see evidence afterwards for God. It is your faith that discounts design as evidence for God. It is my faith that sees evidence for God in design. I see a whole lot of evidence. If you want to interpret that evidence differently from me that is your choice but my interpretation is just as valid as yours. And the way we decide is where we place our faith. That is all I was trying to say.
OK, sorry if I totally missed that, but if you are talking about first causes, and do not want to bring in "evidence" for evolution post abiogenesis, then to be fair you should not bring in "evidence" from your observations from a faith perspective either. ie things you have "witnessed". I still think you jumped from one set of issues to another and conflated their evidence or lack thereof as you saw it.
Now, back to both viewpoints require faith.
"The question is Which viewpoint requires the most faith?" It seems to be the one that you want answered."
If first causes are indeed the whole ball of wax, and you do not want to allow post cause evidence from evolution, because it is open to interpretation. Then, you have to play fair. No post evidence from you either.
You say I cannot defend first causes by science. I disagree, but I digress! Let's take your angle and leave science out of it.
Which takes more faith?
Let me reshape your point to reflect the philosophical reality of both "sides".
You:
"Further, one side believes that nothing created something, that non design can produce design, that non living material can produce living material, that non intelligence can produce intelligence."
and
"The other side believes that there is a God who created this universe,"
God? So you believe that God came out of nothing, non design produced a designer, non living material produced living material, non intelligence produced intelligence.
Yes, I know the old arguments for God being "uncaused" etc etc, but they are religious interpretations, not philosophically defendable arguments. We have been here before too.
Which takes more faith, to believe that a universe with life within it, on a relatively simple level began from nothing, OR, that a creative, omnipotent, omnscient, omnipresent, being of incredibibly superior intelligence, and creative power, etc just came from nothing.
Please don't tell me He has always just been. That also takes more faith than to believe this universe or a series of them has just always been.
I do not deny God's possible reality, but I will put to you that it takes more faith to support the abiogenesis of a God like that than the "little" universe I see! (little in comparison to the God said to be required to produce it)
For those who see evidence for God, there must first be an idea of a god, as Chris very ably explained in the post above that seeing evidence for God must be taught and believed as millions see the same world and see no evidence for a god.
We choose our beliefs, and we also choose faith as an explanation for our observations. The majority of the world do not see God as a designer of this earth; it is not a universal belief. And because those who have spent their entire career and study in the field of scientific endeavor they have far more evidence for their positions.
There can be no absolute, irrefutable evidence for a god, it is all subjective belief. But there are few claims made by scientists of their findings, as they usually "rule out" what can be the most compelling evidence, and confirmed by many others in their professions. Faith is a religious concept; it is not used in science but may in their private religious life. It is much easier to comparmentalize one's work when it is far removed from the religiously employed who have made a life's study of theological systems and concepts.
Just as when we need emotional and physical help we seek out those in that profession; when we seek spiritual guidance, the pastor and Bible scholar is sought. They are two distinct and very disparate areas and usually collide when attempts to blend them.
Applied science has been a great gift to mankind in the sense of creature comforts; the wheel, guns, printing press, TNT, electricity, machines, trains, autos, aircraft, atom splitting, satellites, computers, giant leap in medical knowledge, eradication of many diseases, advances in many disciplines of technology & education, the human genome, DNA, and the greatest gift, outside of the surety of knowing how it all began, i believe, is the internet, the INFORMATION AGE for mankind, perhaps for the masses to finally know, even the origen of species. It is truly amazing to me that most all the above listed inventions & discoveries have come to be in the past100 years. Besides creature comforts, isn't it ironical that these life changing beneficial tools have also provided for man to annihilate the greatest number of humans in the shortest period of time, causing great terror and misery for those who escaped the carnage.
Having given credit to applied sciences, by empiracle verifiable replication, i submit that the items listed above did evolve with the increase of knowledge. A BIG HOWEVER, though, for those in the higher Scientific discliplines, to extrapolate backwards, to state unequivocably, that all life forms, all space reality of billions and trillions of galaxies, suns, planets, dark holes, matter etc etc, that extends infinitely in all directions, with no boundaries, can be cited to have happened without a master designer, is all Theory. Likewise, a creator, we refer to as DIVINE, scientists can say, there is no god, you can't prove it, there is no scientific evidence. Friends, let us claim our faith in the belief we strongly hold, and let there not be ridicule or suspicion that those holding opposite beliefs are insane.
And let us not state about each other, we know their hearts, and or what phase of belief in either position they may hold, perhaps yet to be fully realized.
American Indians. Australian Aborigines. Aztecs. Mayans. Papua New Guineans. Jungle tribes of the Amazon. Oh, and yes, China and Japan.
———————–
Ok, so these people groups above are 'evidence' of moral realisation from within themselves through humanistic means and innate consciences, golden rule and all. However, the problem with that is that even among these groups we do find some religious affiliation of sorts and such practices as cannibalism, human sacrifice, child sacrifice, sun worship, idol worship, intertribal violence, gross cruelty and murder, thieving, robbery, rape, honour killings and suicidal tendencies, nudity, slavery, torture and a host of other major sadistic tendencies and customs. Was there right and wrong in all of this or is it all part of the golden rule rollout?
Is the 'dog eat dog' mentality a normal golden rule tendency? I say no. Morality and ethics as we know it has to come from somewhere else and not from within humanity itself I would say. If the human conscience is a major player on its own in discovering morality and ethics then it is a highly volatile entity in terms of the 'survival of the fittest' and 'dog eat dog' rubric.
I agree with you that there was a semblance of religion among those listed, but you have to admit, few bear more than faint resemblance to the Bible, particularly the NT. Perhaps there is much stronger resembalnce with OT, its picture of a bloodthristy, vindictive side to God.
That list of negative human behaviors can virtually all be found in the OT.
"If the human conscience is a major player on its own in discovering morality and ethics then it is a highly volatile entity in terms of the 'survival of the fittest' and 'dog eat dog' rubric."
Yes. It has been a bloody, volatile, conflicted, sometimes wonderful, sometimes tragic evolution from primitive man to our civilization. A civilization where the collective weight of human thought and hope is towards a better future of respect for human rights and good will toward one another. A position humanity perhaps globally has never been at before.
It is light years removed from the religious tribalism of OT Israel as they strove to forge out an identity by destruction of neighbors under the guidance of a vengefull God.
Of course, as I have noted, and been disagreed with, it is religion that can in the relative blink of an eye, undo all that progress and take us back to dog eat dog, survival of the fittest (religion). As can any other radical ideology that trashes the human spirits desire for wellbeing.
This world would be at peace in the absence of religious, ideological or ethnic tribalism.
In other words, if we could come to the place where we genuinely saw ourselves as of the same "tribe", the human tribe, with all the other illusory barriers removed.
Chris. ou are putting words in my mouth. I never said that nothinbg caused God. Let's p[ut it another way. As finite belings it is impossible for us to comprehend infinity. We try, we stumble. For example. The universe is expanding, it is observed. Expanding to where? What is it expaninding into? Whatl is beyond it? Whatl was there before it began to exzpand?
The two options again. Gods has always been. Sometyhing out of which the universe came has always been. Which takes more faith?
"Faith" is not a dirty word, and I am sure, David, that you don't want to regard it as inferior to sensory data. But it feels a bit that way. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that faith is simply how we settle on things we want to believe, even if those beliefs are not supported by objective evidence.
Why not reject all objective evidence and simply settle on faith? Why compare the lack of concrete evidence as erroneous? Just because the universe is expanding does not require a definitive point at which it ceaes expanding to dismiss the evidence that has been objectively seen. There does not have to be limitations. Asking such questions as "expanding to where?" or "what is expanding into" cannot be a denial of the evidence. Just because there are unanswered questions does not negate the truth of what has been discovered.
Are there limitations to faith? How far can it be expanded? The lack of answers never implies there should be no questions; without questions humans would merely function as animals from instinct. Curiosity is a distinct human gift. There will always be unanswered questions; for religion, there will always be answers that should never be questioned.
David,
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I clearly stated I was going to reshape your statement. In doing so I was attempting to show that if you applied the same logic to God, as you did to the universe re cause/beggining. There should be no difference in how it was expressed.
You say.."The other side believes that there is a God who created this universe,"
I then ask God? My point being. OK, if yoiu address the cause of one, (universe) you must address the cause of the other. Yes, I know all the "uncaused" stuff about God. This sentence of mine, repasted below, was how it would read if you were fair and addressed both questions without the presuppositions of Christian excuses about uncaused, etc.
"…God came out of nothing, non design produced a designer, non living material produced living material, non intelligence produced intelligence."
I just replaced "univers" with "God", and you don't like the outcome. Of course, because philosophically it puts your questions and points on a level playing field, and Occams razor suggests the simplest answer is the correct one. That leaves those of us who would introduce a God, and thus more complexity, on the back foot.
Chris:
BINGO! If the paradigm is applied to science it must also be applied to faith. Neither can claim to have the final and last word. But while science is never static but always exploring, faith is unimpressed with new discoveries as believers need no evidence. Where is the desire to explore and question the unknown when God is the explanation for it all? And if it is believed that God limited the age of this earth, no possible evidence that could contradict with that postion would be considered.
This is so wrong, Elaine. With the God idea there is so much to be explored, discovered, and enjoyed in science and theology. In fact belief makes it more beautiful and wonderous. And expressing thankfulness to a Creator can be a liberating, even ecstatic experience. We can learn from science the wonderful things a Creator is capable of, and wonder at the expanse of the cosmos and what is in it. It is a joy to speculate and imagine the other universes and how it all came about and the love involved. Scientists do a lot of speculation (such as multiverses/the string theory) and so can the theologian/believer.
Perhaps the real Truth in a belief system will be its influence on the believer.
Chris, this conversation is incredible. We have disagreed on everything so far. All I am trying to do is to find one thing we can agree on. And what do you do? You multiply words instead of dealing with what I consider a simple question. I had thought that if we went back to the equivalent of first causes we could come to some agreement since there is no scientific proof of first cause. I tried to make it very simple. As far as I know there are two viewpoints which I have tried to explain. 1. God has always existed. 2. Energy (or whatever you want to call it) has always existed. In 1 God created the universe. In 2. Energy created the universe, not God. Obviously, we are here so something began it all. How can I make it more simple? Or is there no way we can find common ground so conversation is fruitless?
Nathan, I hear your point. I believe there is lots of evidence for faith in God. Some want to say that there is only one kind of evidence, the so called scientific method. But there is another set of parameters that people accept as accurate and objective and which cannot be subject to the scientific method. I have mentioned tacit knowledge before which philosophers consider just as accurate and I have given examples before. Here is another one. At the Olympics when deciding who gets the gold medal in figure skating nine judges, I believe, give a score between 0 and ten on how well the skater performed their routine. There is seldom a time when all judges give the same score. So the top score and the lowest score are tossed out and the average of the other scores are taken and the person with the average highest score wins. Here is a subjective analysis that is considered objective when evaluating the skater. No one argues that you cannot decide the best skater because there is no scientific method to evaluate. It is recognized that there are two ways of knowing. I believe that we can evaluate spiritual faith in the same way and find lots of evidence for spiritual things. After all, one of the great minds of the 20th century CS Lewis find enough concrete evidence to move from non belief in God to a fervent belief in God that he wrote much about.
David,
Sorry to frustrate you, but I thought I did join you on going back to first cause. That is, until you assert that "God has always existed". On what basis do you say that?
I am trying to "join" you on your view that there is "no scientific proof for first cause", by saying OK, then lets look at it philosophically from a level playing field.
But, you are the one who cannot do that, because you import a commonly held "view"/ belief, that God is without cause, but then make it unfair by saying the universe has to have a cause?
If you really want to follow your line, simply tell me: Why must God always have existed and the universe or its precedent not always have existed?
In other words, why must one require a cause and the other not?
Chris,
If God did not always exist, then God would not exist… no need to try and explain that. That is what qualifies Him / Them as God. Maybe this is where David's statement on the need for faith when taking into account creation vs evolution comes into play.
Chris You write "But, you are the one who cannot do that, because you import a commonly held "view"/ belief, that God is without cause, but then make it unfair by saying the universe has to have a cause?"
That statement is FALSE. I never said that in my last post. I don"t know how I make myself more clear. Let me try once again. View 1. God has always existed. View 2. Energy (or whatever you want to call it) has always existed. Is that clear?
David,
Sorry, I missed that in all your 1's and 2's. OK. So, now I think I've got that.
You agree then that neither God nor the universe (or its anticedent) require a cause?
Laffal,
If you are meaning that one of the qualifying characteristics required to "call" Him/Them God is that it/He/them has always existed, your statement "If God did not always exist, then God would not exist", is a fair statement built on the requirement for that characteristic to be met. I presume this is what you mean?
However, in line with the discussion we are tyring to have about cause, what stops us making the same statement about the universe or its anticedent?
For example: "If the universe or its anticedent has not always existed, the universe would not exist."
Attributing the characteristic of "having always existed" to God, as opposed to attributing it to the universe or its anticedent, is purely arbitrary. In other words, it is philoshically indefensible to insist on it for one and not allow it for the other.
It is no different than the old problem of insisting on a designer (cause) for the universe, but refusing to admit that a God, who is "required" to design the universe, does not need a designer (cause). One can ONLY defend such a position from within the framework of an a priori theistic position. Such a position has no right to declare itself unbiased in its assessment of the question of God's existence or reality because it starts at the belief that He is, rather than from objective analysis of the evidence and philosophical evaluations.
Chris,
It is no different than the old problem of insisting on a designer (cause) for the universe, but refusing to admit that a God, who is "required" to design the universe, does not need a designer (cause).
Herein lies the rub… since all that we have is what man has to say about the history of all things, in the simpliest of terms, there is really no concrete evidence to emperically prove anything in terms of origins / cause… all we are really left to work with is faith in whatever record we ascribe to… the Bible or any / every other means of outlining the origin of all things.
As for your stated equation, if the God of the Bible can "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host… For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm", how does one obtain an "objective analysis of the evidence"? I guess it would be as easy to say, "you can take it, or leave it." For those of us who hold to the Bible as the only accurate record of origins, to accept the fact that there is a God has the power to speak and receive instintaneous results is not explainable in any terms, nor by any means…there is no other model from which to compare God to. In other words, how can we prove that there has / has not been a being (Them) that has no beginning / end? Again, faith alone is the only way / means to determine what view of origins / cause we choose to follow and advocate… which includes… SIN.
And yes, I do accept the premise, "If God did not always exist, then God would not exist."
Chris, yes, Obviously, I believe one view is correct and the other one is false. And those who dismiss my view would accept the other view as correct.
David,
OK, that takes us back to your question: Which requires more faith?
Let me go back to your point one more time:
Further, one side believes that nothing created something, that non design can produce design, that non living material can produce living material, that non intelligence can produce intelligence."
and
"The other side believes that there is a God who created this universe,"
Yes, I get which one you go for, but without looking at the follow on evidence for either side, which one philosophically is most likely to be true?
Well, Occams razor has a sharp edge and would say the simplest. You and I now agree (not sure how many others would) that the universe or its anticedent requires no cause. Therefore, why is God "required" to be a cause for the universe, as implied in your points above?
Is not an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnisicient God more complex, and therefore less likely to just exist than the universe, which for all intents and purposes appears to be none of these things!?
David,
Something else that could be worth noting here is the use of the word faith. When all is said and done, I probably would not even apply it to the question of beginnings and causes.
The reason is that, where there is an absence of evidence for something, I believe it is more sensible to not draw a conclusion. We can posit some theories etc, sure, but to make declarations about such things is suspect imho.
As we have discussed at length before, the solution is to take either view as a tentative starting point, and then apply a posteriori methods to the ascending chain of data available. I say ascending in the sense that the more one moves forward in time, the greater the evidence will be.
Having done this, one is then in a position to ask the first question last: Which of these two starting hypotheses fits the evidence best?
You will recall from discussions before that I do not see the Bible as permissible evidence in this approach, because it is neither scientific nor verifiable in its claims.
A simple question I have often felt like asking here on AT is this: How on earth did a simple little word like faith (in the invisible) come to have so much power in the human mind that it could trash the evidence of the visible and real?!
Hey, perhaps there is a new blog title: "Faith, that dirty little word that trivializes reality, and warps thinking"!
Chris,
Your statement:
"The reason is that, where there is an absence of evidence for something, I believe it is more sensible to not draw a conclusion. We can posit some theories etc, sure, but to make declarations about such things is suspect imho."
That is the only reasonable manner in which rational discussions can take place. It is unproductive and a waste of time when one party declares at the beginning that faith must be given equal weight in all arguments. That is not a level playing field to accept for a debate, which is why a discussion between two opposing positions is virtually impossible.
Your position has been made clear, and it appears that David is unwilling to begin with a clear slate. One cannot argue when faith is always introduced.
Theological premises are too ephemeral and cannot be exact as they have different meanings for each individual.
This has been interesting to observe as it reveals the minds of both the scientist and the religious believer.
Great idea for a blog: "Faith, that dirty little word that trivializes reality, and warps thinking"!
…then maybe not… it would really get on the carpet!
Chris, I love you so much, I really do. You seem very determined to find as little point of agreement as you can. Then you write Well, Occams razor has a sharp edge and would say the simplest. You and I now agree (not sure how many others would) that the universe or its anticedent requires no cause. Therefore, why is God "required" to be a cause for the universe, as implied in your points above?
Is not an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnisicient God more complex, and therefore less likely to just exist than the universe, which for all intents and purposes appears to be none of these things!?"
I don't agree with your analysis. You see, we have never agreed on the rules for our discussion. We have tried this in the past and could not agree. Therefore we will go on talking past each other for ever because you are on wave length 91.9 and I am on wavelength 91.1. In another post you dismiss the bible as having any value. However, it is primarily through the Bible that I know about God. Without the Bible we never know about sin, Satan, Jesus, how he died for me, that there is a future life and that the second law of thermodynamics does not mean the death of the univere. but since the bible has no authority for you I cannot use it.
I appreciate your commitment to your position. If God does not convict you I certainlly cannot. but again since we play by different rules we will never have a good game together.
Oh dear, yes, and so goes our circle:)
Never mind, it has been interesting again to share views. It is sooo tempting to take you up (again) on that Bible one, but we have been there too.
No doubt we will start at a different place next time, but…probably end up at the same sticking points because they are foundational to the differing premises we each attempt to start with. Each of us thinks our own has the most integrity I guess, and until that is up for examination we will go nowhere.
Cheers
Friends, one truth we all can agree on (is it possible?), NO ONE can prove whether God and the universe, SPACE, are eternal, and God created everything, that is, to the evolutionists and atheist. And the opposing group can not prove how the universe, SPACE and all living things came to be, to the Christian, whose belief is by faith, which has no scientific paramaters for testing scientifically.
Chris, it may be a simple question, to ask, which belief is the most logical & rational to believe? When it appears that you believe yours is, fait accompli, all over, no contest. Whoaaaa, just a minute, the Christian who believes that it was the eternal All Mighty God, Master Designer, who created the infinite design of utter complexity. Consider the complexity of the human Genome, and the genome of all living forms. Each molecule with millions of computers, with dimensions of nano, femto, atto, zepto, yocto, to infinity. It is utterly beyond mankind's thinking power to grasp it, when all around us we see obsolescence and failure in even simple forms of man's manufacture, and yet man with many different bodily functions & senses, & also mobility with movable joints and interacting shock absorbers, connective tissues, of bones and muscle, blood of life, and synergy that enables it all to function so beautifully by it's great computer, which controls all the limitless smaller computers. And this living breathing master designed species, lives for upwards of 120 years, without any major organ failing. Man is such a magnificent observable creature, that many of us find it impossible to believe it all derived from a simple one cell creature, that with time and it naturally selected its next stage of
development until we find the man of 2013.
Earl,
We have been here before too:)
My view is not fait accompli. I am completely open to evidence.
As for design. I have said before, even if I take your glowing review of the magnificence of man as a pointer to the designer. Without resorting to the Bible, there is nothing observable in nature to point you more than a quivering step towards evidence for anything like the God of the Bible.
I think it is beyond doubt that the ID person begins and ends their pursuit with the Bible. Using science to defend a designer is just an excuse to lead back to the Bible. If it was not an excuse, they would honestly allow science to inform them about other aspects of nature and man that do not fit the Bible picture. They also would have no reason to describe God in the way they do.
So, while I sympathize with your description. It is, at the end of the day, an argument from incredulity, and an attempt to shore up faith by selective science. And, even that science selected is very suspect in interpretation!
I can enjoy the beauties of nature, but there is no humanly way to be absolutely certain if there is someone behind it and more particularly, that it is only the god of the Bible. That is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
If your child is born with a heart defect. Who is responsible? Scientists can point to a stage of development that was not normal, but that does not answer the question of why.
One of the challenges is the non recognition of two branches of knowledge equally valid. Chris and Elaine and some others major in the rational side of knowledge and that is very important. But what is forgotten is the relational side of knowledge which is just as true and valid. Our minds are made up of different sections with one part processing the objective thinking part while another part processes the subjective aspect of life.. Enjoying a magnificent sunset cannot be tested by scientifc theory or fact. Falling in love is true but not subject to scientific analysis. Art appreciation is true and valid . But again not subject to the analytic side of our brain. Relationships come under this category. Quantum mechanics illustrate that sometimes the two aspects of knowledge come together. The observer in relationship with the particle determines its position. Faith is part of the subjective side of knowledge and cannot be measured by analytic means. Yet it is not blind. For those who want to see there is plenty plenty of evidence for God. Evidence, not absolute proof..
David,
Yes, it's me again:) Hi.
Your statements about falling in love, appreciation of art etc not being subject to scientific analysis. There is massive amounts of study into the brain, neuroscience, etc and the answer is that these things are indeed subject to scientific study. Very much so.
You simply cannot make the distinction you are trying to make. It is true that both areas you speak of have validity, but that validity is not stand alone. You admit this by reaching back into the rational to apply the "plenty ..of evidence", as you see it.
These discussions are useless because you refuse to play by the rules of reason and reasonable logic and cling to the subjective – when it suits you, and objective when it suits too.
The relational is not forgotten.
In a discussion such as this the methods should be agreed upon: either logic or subjective means will be used. They are incompatible in such discussions as has been repeatedly shown. Shifting between the two when convenient is self-destructive and ends all hope for further comments.
David,
Some time ago I came across a website that really captured and addressed this issue. I've found it again, and I think it is worth your reading.
The guy is comparing theism and atheism, but the points he makes are solid and relevant to our frequent failure in discussion.
Here's the link:
http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2012/03/23/understanding-reason-and-faith/
Chris & Elaine, i do appreciate your rational positions of what you consider evidence of theory of origins. my 12/5 working life consisted of designing physical structures and mechanical products, and also sales training of personnel, then general management of a profitable business over a 40 year span.
It required precise elements of knowledge & discipline in each of the parts involved, to create the synergy for it to be profitable in each one of those 40 years. i am a believer that insists on planning, in precision, & action. To me that would be a description of intelligent designing, which permits reaching a desired goal.
So, to me, ID, is mandatory in any successful pursuit. In my life experience, i have not observed any plan, endeavour, or manufacture, that has been successful without ID. Nothing good happens by accident of nature, or otherwise, to my belief system. Therefore, i believe in a master plan that accommodates infinite complexity. i believe in supernatural happenings, as nothing should be excluded from consideration, under the sun, and through out eternity. Having offered the foregoing, i wish not to play the trump card that can't be proved, pro or con, because if my thesis proves incorrect it will cause me no angst, as i have experienced a reality of LOVE and friends, which has been worth the journey. Although i would love to witness the Lord coming in glory.
Chris, yes, I read the link. The author does not make any case for his contrast of faith and reason. Let me point you to another website: (of course we can do this all day long), The author states: "There is no conflict between religion properly understood, and reason; they are in fact mutually exclusive. Reason is simply the ability to see, understand and accept self-evident material truth which is physically observable and which can often be expressed mathematically, i.e.: reason is science. Religion is not based on reason or science; it is based on faith in the eternal God of creation — a belief which is undiscoverable by scientific observation (reason); a belief based on that which is unobservable and un-testable; a belief which is beyond the discovery of reason and science. Likewise, atheism is not based on scientific reasoning; it is based on faith that the universe is eternal; a belief which is also undiscoverable by scientific observation (reason); a belief based on that which is unobservable and un-testable; a belief which is beyond the discovery of reason and science. It should go without saying that nobody was or could be there (other than God) at the beginning of anything (the universe) whose origin stretches back into the eternal (infinite) past — an eternal universe presumably composed of an infinite series of Big Bangs"
see the full article at http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/110420
David,
I cannot speak for Chris, but how much verbiage would not have been wasted if there had been an understanding expressed in the quoted statements from an unidentified website:
"Religion is not based on reason or science."
Elaine, the website is not unidentified. I listed it in my post. All I was trying to say is that both the belief in God and non belief in God stand on the same premise.
David, I read the link. Cherry should stay with his day job.
Now, please help me. I am trying to determine where in this thread we began trying to prove theism vs atheism?
I know we were looking at the cause issue, beginning of universe, anticedents etc, but your last points and Cherry are both pitting atheism against theism, you are moving the goal posts big time. No one is defending atheism!
Also, would you please read your own source carefuly. It is riddled with contradictions.
Here is just one example that contradicts the purpose to which you put the source:
Defining faith: "…Where revelation comes into its own is where reason cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith."
I won't argue his "proper" atm, but let me ask you a question:
How many assertions does religious faith make which indeed ARE contradicted by reason/science? It is bad enough making assertions that are NOT confirmed, or confirmable. ie God of gaps, but it is utterly frustrating the endless assertions which blatantly contradict reason, observation and science.
Again, IF religous people would limit their faith claims to that which science does not contradict, they may get a heap less flack from the thinking community.
They live in denial of the very point Cherry makes. The rest of his article is full of non sequiters, and nonsense statements anyway.
cb25 says: "No one is defending atheism!"
———
The premise of the blog to me promotes naturalism together with humanism and posits that religion is a dangerous illusion. You are I would say pitting atheism against theism – even if unknowingly.
At least it is clear that you promote atheism as a much more viable option as opposed to theism. Sin after all is a word related to theism. Your position in my opinion leans heavily on the atheist side of the divide.
There is common ground between the two however: both groups are sinful in nature – although, one group won't admit it. Theism finds the answers to the 'sin' problem in God. The blog looks to man for morality by purposefully (and defiantly?) excluding God and sin: therefore – atheism it is. If not then at least good old fashioned agnosticism which isn't too far away.
As an aside, I think that agnosticism is just a 'guise' atheists use to muster support and sympathy from 1] those who doubt belief in God and 2] those they wish to indoctrinate. (Darwin's tactic).
From my post earlier in this thread:
"I do not say there is no God, but in saying there may be a God, I would refuse to define what, who or how that God IS. I point blank refuse to describe God in ways which are immediately contradicted by careful observation of how this world and life is".
If you read that carefully, and then read the quote from David's source, below, you will see that my position is actually upholding that very description of "faith":
Here it is, Where revelation comes into its own is where reason cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith.
I do not promote atheism, I just refuse to take faith where it IS contradicted by reason!!
Most here should not need reminding that where science and reason do not reach is a shrinking landscape.
Atheism is the 'belief or theory' that God does not exist. Saying that there may be a God is saying that God may not exist either. Definition of God is irrelevant at this point. Either He does or He doesn't exist.
The apparent contradiction of life as we know it and the God that Christianity portrays can quickly find meaning at the Cross – but you have already given sin the boot without tracing its roots and the means of escape which God has provided with its eventual total eradication. Hence having no hope in God but casting your lot with man. I'm afraid the Bible isn't in line with this position [Ps 118:8, 146:3, 34:8, 56:11; Jer 17:5, 7] but obviously you question this too. The moralist, the humanist, the agnostic and the atheist look to man. The Christian looks to God and point their fellow sinners to Him who is able to keep us from falling. In this regard sin isn't as trivial and little (although dirty perhaps) but pivotal in exposing our deep need of a Saviour.
22, I could take you on any Bible study you want, use any greek or hebrew you want, and within the context of the Bible – "prove" any SDA doctrine you want.
I did not do my study for nothing.
Meaning at the Cross? I've preached precisely that in many a sermon.
I now believe the Gospel of Mark was written as an anti epic/rewrite of The Odyssey. Reseting the hero, Jesus in a better light with a "new" morality. This figure, possibly based on a person named Jesus who lived some time before, became the source for the other gospels. Accretions, "believers", and exagerations soon followed, and what began as a story reshaped became "fact".
Read the Odyssey. See how Odysseus was a carpenter. Built his home around an olive tree. Had a scar on his leg, went on a long journey, returned home to find his house overtaken by scoundrels, recognized in a "foodwashing" activity. Has a showdown with the evil doers, comes off victorious, is helped by the gods through storms. Note feasts, banquets, similar patterns.
In addition to this. Outside the NT, what historical evidence is there? Apart from indirect references with similarity in names, Christian's etc, there is NOT one thing substantial to give credibility to the events of the NT. None.
If it were a true event, and God was behind it all, don't you think he would be a little more interested in leaving some footprints that the average person will find convincing? How was I fool enough, for so long, to convince myself that it had to be believed on faith? Pure faith, with not one shred of historically valid data. That kind of faith would believe anything. The only preconditions to belief are credulity, desperation for hope and meaning, or birth into the "right" belief structure.
I used to think we could at least uphold Calvary…until I actually looked at the reality. There are no eye witness, contemporary writers. All are up to decades after the event. Just enough time for an anti epic to take on a life of its own, and become a blend of myth and imagination. Growing out of a Roman culture of mythology, and magic, what else could one expect. It's a product of its time.
So, no doubt this will horrify, and inform readers here, and I wish I could say otherwise, but as yet, my search for reality behind the NT is fruitless…
If evidence turns up, I will be the first to rejoice in its discovery, but until then (oops, that has hymn feel to it!) I don't think even God would ask someone to believe on the scanty evidence available!
btw…sin? mmm A dirty little word made sacred with the years of use by generations of religious fans. Each generation and group adding their own unique twists. Longevity of use does not render sacred ot true.
Chris, you are right. This blog began as a discussion on sin not thesim v atheism. However, since sin is a religious word it is easy to see how we got into the theism v atheism debate. I apologise for getting us off track although 22oct1844 is also correct that you cannot discuss sin without presupposing a God.
So, let's deal with something more fundamental that you might consider for a new blog. Faith and Reason. How do they work? Together? Separately? There we can discuss what is the real issue. If we don't reach agreement here we will never reach agreement on anything religious.
David,
I don't have any objection to discussing atheism vs theism, though it is OT. My gripe was that you brought in a quote, supposedly to do with faith and premises of such, that was lifted from a context dealing with atheism vs theism.
Re faith as a blog title. Did you not like my idea of "Faith, the dirty little word that…"?
We'll see what comes of these ideas.
Aren't faith and reason oxymorons?
To have one without the other encourages oxymorons without the oxy part
I'm truly sorry to hear that you've lost your faith in Jesus Christ and believe otherwise. What made you change? Are you convinced that you have the truth in your current position or are you still in the 'until that day' phase? As you know, after the 'until that day' line in the hymn, comes a 'God calls me home' part which indicates that time is of the essence and faith in Jesus Christ is our only hope in this messed up world. I don't mean to preach to a fine ex-preacher as yourself and one who is obviously much smarter than I am, however, I do hope you will find the answers you're looking for while time lasts. Was it a sudden enlightenment causing your disbelief or a gradual one? It is highly unlikely that someone preaching Christ and the Cross would just walk out after church one day and reject Him entirely. I do hope that some of the discussions on this website (and others) didn't drive you further away. My prayers are with you, if you don't mind. Peace.
22,
Thanks for the note and concern:)
My changes began "within" the framework of the Bible. ie. As I studied doctrines, one by one they were found wanting. I re-shaped my thinking at each step. It did begin to get difficult in my ministry, but it was health that took me out.
After leaving ministry, questions I had put to the back burner came fore. Some years ago, a well meaning member, for whom I had once been minister, asked my opinion on a series of Veith CD's. Creation/Translation stuff.
The translation stuff was utter BS, and the creation stuff made such outlandish claims, some of which I knew were wrong, I decided to open up exploring the questions I had filed away. I discovered so much in researching what Veith had said, that I could no longer ignore it. I also discovered, utterly new to me, though probably not others, the geology of the Dead Sea area, and salt domes in general. While there are heaps of other ways to come at it, those were the final straws. I could no longer deny old earht, old life.
I did come here for two reasons, one to share ideas, and two, to see if there were indeed answers I was missing. For better or worse, my experience here has only reinforced the realization there are no answers. At least not the ones I hoped for.
If you read Andy's latest blog, you should begin to get a feel of this kind of journey. I think it is one that more would take if intellectual honesty were not held captive to the pressures to conform. Whether work, career, family, or tradition. It is not easy to follow where evidence leads, but I always did that with theology, so I could not justify doing otherwise with other credible information.
If you don't know about salt domes, not sure if you read my posts on these last year. Go to oldearthmygod.com and you will see what I mean.
Do I have the truth? No. I think we at best approximate our thinking to the evidence that best explains things, knowledge changes and so should our understandings. We may seek truth, but it is a goal, not a destination as us SDA's so often think it is.
"My changes began "within" the framework of the Bible. ie. As I studied doctrines, one by one they were found wanting."
————–
Dear cb25
If I'm not bothering you too much, can you please give one example perhaps of what you mean by 'they were found wanting'?
22,
Investigative judgment/1844 for one. An honest reading of Hebrews does not leave room for all the "imported" meanings we bring in from Daniel.
On a side note on Daniel 7. Take a look some time at the similarity of Hebrew and Aramaic words used to describe the "drawing near" of the Ancient of Days and Son of Man etc. Compare those with Daniel being thrown in the lions den/consipirators thrown in and eaten before the got near the floor.
Also check in 7 who rides what and comes from where to where. Then compare who is on the chariot with whom EGW says is on it!
Other doctrines. Inspiration. Spiritual Gifts. State of Dead (biblically speaking)….etc etc.
I have issues with this column. If we are to take your description of "sin" as a "dirty little word," then our view of God is damaged, for He uses the word much more than any of us ever have. He has defined sin and warned us about sin throughout the Bible. It is God who has instructed us to pray for His forgiveness and His victory over sin. It is God who defines “natural”, “unnatural”, “normal”, and “abnormal," not us.
If we depend upon our perceptions of right and wrong, natural and unnatural, moral and immoral, to guide our behavior, we will be forever turning from God and will lose our chance at eternal life. The thoughts presented in this column are simply Satan's words as seen in the garden when he told Eve that she defined what was good for her.
This column is dangerous and anyone who takes any of it seriously is turning their back on God and His truth as revealed in His Word. That is why the writer says, "Also, most readers here will be aware of the typical biblical responses or answers that can be offered about sin. While these may be useful, there is perhaps more to gain by actually grappling with issues in real dialogue, rather than “answers” that I fear will be too easily pulled to mind," because the Biblical answers prove the writer's position as against all that we as God's people should support and live.
Our only response to this as God's people is to denounce this thinking as against the will of God.
Sin is a religious term and morality is a term used to define ethics and our relationships with others. Morals cannot be dependent on a biblical definition of sin, as there were and are many things called "sin" in the Bible which are not immoral or unethical. Adventists who believe in the Jewish sabbath believe it is sinning not to obey it; your Christian neighbor who does not adopt the sabbath is not sinning. Which is why "sin" cannot be applied to everyone.
Christianity is an ethical belief declared by Christ as the greatest command to "love one another." The Ten Commandments defined sins in the first four with relationship only to God and were not universally applicable to all. Morality is obedience to the Golden Rule which can be applied to anyone, anywhere, and at any time. Sin was ignoring the proper offering; not observance of the feast days; picking up sticks on sabbaath. None of these are immoral, and are sins only by those who observe the Jewish Torah, not Christians. Cain killed his brother, a very immoral act, but God had never given a command not to kill before then, and it had not been categorized as sin, but is innate in humans, given by God, not by any specific command "Thou shall not kill."
The definition of "right" and "wrong" are relative to the circumstances.
Sin, the essence of treating others with contempt, wishing them harm & death, harshness by eye, words, actions, unforgiving etc etc; you know, the hate & disgust felt toward others. i believe this describes immorality and applies to every living creature. Now if the word "SIN" offends you, coin your own word to describe the above list of circumstances of humans treatment of humans. It is a worldwide & neighborhood happening every instant 24/7. This description is "Humanity" speaking, yea or nay of religions speaking. Humanity? The highest achieving life form. What should that speak to our responsibility.
i submit that not knowing is no excuse, and therefore the people who have hate & harm in their heart are not guilty of doing wrong, is pure ignorance & bushwai. As the you tube depictions demonstate, the brainwashing of babies & children is occurring all over the world, and the immoral parents & teachers are passing on their guilt to the precious treasure of humanity. Is there an escape from these modern day barbarian actions? Some have chosen to accept the life of Jesus Christ as role model, and the Golden Rule as their way of life. It gives us PEACE, just as others here have stated, they have peace with their current belief system. Maranatha to each of you.
"I consider myself quite broad-minded for an SDA Christian. I have no interest in defining who is and is not a sinner. That is for God. And I don't want AToday to develop a Kingdom of God filter to decide what blogs and comments build or undermine the Kingdom. But I believe, if that concept of Christianity and the Kingdom of God is to have any meaning at all, there must be some common recognition that certain ideas are not just extreme, but aren't even in the ballpark."
Nate Schilt, The Decider
I have just watched two short YouTube vids that provide a chilling example of religious people doing evil for God.
Perhaps rsowersby may like to watch them and then tell me who is doing the devils work. These people are sick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj5BL-tVIpM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHn6LoO-ro
Nathan, read my critique of Barrett's article called <a href="http://advindicate.com/?p=2775">The immorality of moral relativity</a>. You may agree with it based on some of your comments I've read.
Hmm… it appears hyperlinks are not allowed on this forum, so here is the link without the html tags:
http://advindicate.com/?p=2775
Summary of my thoughts on Barrett's article:
I, for one, do not support allegations that Chris Barrett is deceitful or desperately wicked or is urging that any of us should follow such a course. The trouble, I'm afraid, is that we often cannot handle the truth, even though we are advised in scripture that we will know the truth and the truth will make us free. That seems to me to be an important part of the message of Jesus.
The history of Christianity does not afford us reasons for a source of morals. The Christian religion is commonly called an "ethical religion" because it honors and respects the individual, which is the ideal Christ presented. Sadly, in only a few short decades, Christianity became both the persecuted and persecutor. Looking to any religion as a source of morals neglects the show the intolerance that denies human respect. Morals should never be decided by a religion but by respect for the other which is too often antithetical to religious believers.
Elaine, I agree that morals should not be decided on by a religion. God is the ultimate arbiter of objective moral values.
Shane,
Welcome to the real world of Adventism; may you find a refreshing breeze of thinking and respect here, that appears absent on your usual haunt.
You err in your response to my blog.
You have analysed it completely through one lense – The Bible. Why don't you now set out to do so through the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, or perhaps any of the other near 50 sacred books of the East?
In reality, your entire article demonstrates your religious arrogance because you just assume Your god, Your truth, Your interpretation, Your faith. (all deliberately lower case to show who really is the Big "I" in them) is THE correct one.
May I suggest you thank Your god for your lucky birth into a place or culture that gave you such a gift. Who knows, you could just as stridently been defending the Vedas!
Now, as for your logic. Here is one that illustrates your narrow perspective hinders your reading:
"Barrett abandons the biblical definition of sin in favor of Oxford Dictionary’s definition, which says sin is an “immoral act considered to be a transgression against a divine law.” This definition presupposes moral relativity and the existence of multiple gods, which is the opposite of what the Bible teaches." bold added
And what pray tell is the "Biblical definition"? Of course, Sin is the transgression of the Law! Hang on, read that again. Oops, says almost the same thing as my dictionary definition, for which I abandoned the biblical definition. Shane, the dictionary definition is built on the biblical or religious one.
As for how the dictionary definition presupposes moral relativity and multiple gods. Well, I have no idea from the world of logic.
Anyway, apart from all that, thank you for drawing attention to my blog on your turf, just maybe some soul desperate for a breath of fresh air in the midst of legalistic stuffiness will leave its barren hills, come over here and find some!
Chris, you're right about the lense with which I analyzed your article, and the reason for that was stated in my article. The Bible, inspired by God, is authoritative and foundational in explaining the existence of objective moral values and human nature. The other texts that you have mentioned are not inspired by God and thus are not authoritative or foundational in explaining OMV etc.
You say my article demonstrates religious arrogance because it assumes the God of the Bible is the correct one. Why is it arrogant to think the God of the Bible is the only one, or correct one? And I just don't assume, I think the weight of evidence is in favor of my premise, which I can't believe I'm debating with another Adventist? You are a Seventh-day Adventist? Besides you obviously believe the collective voice (another form of moral relativism) is the correct way to go, so how are you any less arrogant?
I think you may be right about the dictionary definition being based on the biblical definition, but as I pointed out in my article there are some problems with the definitions presuppositions, which differ from the biblical one.
I'm always happy to point out error, so it was my pleasure.
Shane,
Each religion/faith/belief system judges their "sacred"writings from their own perspective. More often than not, using their source of authority in a circular fashion to prove its own authority and hence the validity of their position.
You state regarding the Bible as the only correct one: "I think the weight of evidence is in favor of my premise,"
What kind of evidence are you speaking of? Internal, circular, self claim, subjectively affirmed evidence? If you are, then you really need to address my point about your luck in being born where you were.
Or, are you speaking of external evidence which can, in an unbiased, and fair manner, compare all "sacred" writings and their claims? If you are doing this, I would be most interested in what historical data you have which coroborates the validity of the Bible. Particularly the NT, which has no eye witness writers, and absolutely zero reference from unbiased historical observers, or contemporary historians. The passing references, that can, with great imagination, be applied to Christus, Jesus, or Christians, don't cast a shred of credibility on the actual content of the NT.
If you have chosen the Bible as the correct one, after having examined both its internal AND external validity against the backdrop of all others, then, sure, your position is not a priori and taking such an informed stand would not be arrogant.
How do I know this is probably not the case, and that rather, your presentation smacks of arrogance? Because, anyone, repeat, anyone, who has evaluated the raft of religious writings, their claims, their counter claims, their interpretations, their conflcting morality and values, their different takes on "sin", etc etc, will no longer present any religious position with an air of certaintly. As you do!
I certainly do not have all the anwers, but I am willing to follow evidence where it leads.
It seems to be a fact in religious circles that certainty and noise in defending the faith are often in inverse proportion to the breadth and depth of knowledge about the bigger picture.
Chris,
I agree with everything you wrote but your explanation is so much better. Why is it impossible for someone to realize that their heritage: birth, parents, and place of birth are the only reason they have the certitude they assume? It is something about which they had no choice and yet speak as if it is something they have accepted after having rejected all other possibilities. The circular reasoning: "The Bible is inspired because it claims to be inspired," is only one of the many examples used to support opinion.
Chris, my article does not address the validity of the Bible as an authoritative source of truth–it assumes the Bible's authority. I was primarily focused on demonstrating how your arguments were not based on a biblical worldview, which I find disappointing given you're writing for an alleged Adventist publication and perhaps claim membership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If you had written for a secular publication and I was aware you were secular in your beliefs as well, I wouldn't have thought twice about your article, but since neither of those are true, I was compelled to reveal your misrepresentation of Christianity, particularly the SDA faith.
Moral relativity is untenable and self-refuting. While many people claim to believe in MR, they would not want to live in a society where that was the accepted philosophy. Your whole mechanism for determining morality is relative and ultimately is useless in informing us in matters of what is right or wrong, but merely preference.
Elaine, I never made the claim the Bible is inspired because it claims to be, though I am aware others have made that argument.
Shane,
I apologize if I misread your statement:
"The Bible, inspired by God, is authoritative and foundational in explaining the existence of objective moral values and human nature."
Shane: "I was primarily focused on demonstrating how your arguments were not based on a biblical worldview,.."
Yes, I made that clear in the blog:
"We need to move beyond the petty, religious propaganda that seeks to describe human behavior in terms of “sin”. Too many are trapped in the mentality of viewing human morality, ethics, and values through the blinkered lens of one particular religious world view or another. We need a bigger perspective."
You just happen to use the blinkered lens of the Bible to shape your particular world view. Thus, you did not need to demonstrate what I made clear!
Hence, your second reason is more valid:
"I was compelled to reveal your misrepresentation of Christianity, particularly the SDA faith."
However, this leaves the gaping hole in your arguments. First you admit you assume the Bible's authority. This only works for you because your readers are primarily equally indoctrinated or brainwashed. It is most likely an indefensible position otherwise.
Secondly, while I may appear to you, and most others, to misrepresent Christianity and SDAism, it does not mean I am wrong. The only "evidence" you gave, or were able to give, to demonstrate I was/am wrong, is from the Bible, which is simply assumed correct. You are building your house on cards, and the one that the Bible is The Authoritative one, among many that are not, as you claim by default, is a long way up from the foundation where you should begin a sound argument!
Well, we've both said our peace. Further words will just be waisted.
Shane,
Before you make your getaway, I think you should pause to reflect on this:
"Barrett’s self-indulgent view suggests there is no need to ask God for victory over sin. Chances are what you’re feeling guilty about, that still small voice of conscience, should be ignored. So why not stop by the porn shop or liquor store for some harmless joy? "
Are you not aware that porn use is higher among Christians in the USA, than among non Christians? The majority of the population consider porn detrimental. Seems one does not have to be a Christian to know that….and if one is a Christian, is less likely to practice what they know!
Porn damages relationships.
Are you not aware that the liquor store has potential to harm? One does not need to be a Christian to know that.
So, my self indulgent view does not grovel in guilt before God for being human, but neither does it promote the attitude you accuse it of.
Perhaps you could explain why porn and some other abuses are worse inside Churches?
btw…I should pick you up on another serious error.
In the same context you say: "…Chances are what you’re feeling guilty about, that still small voice of conscience, should be ignored."
Actually, no. The conscience is a powerful element of the human psyche. It IS highly susceptible to being twisted, and confused, and in this sense Christian/religious harping on "sin" is potentially destructive, as per the drift of the blog. However, the conscience is probably the "link" to our innate sense of what is good, bad, evil, kind, unkind, and so on, and in this sense it should absolutely not be ignored.
Religious people who do evil things in the name of their religion/god will have ignored their consciences to do so. So, in effect, I am saying the dirty little word "sin", can make one at risk of ignoring the conscience, and that we should not do so. The opposite of what you accuse me of.
However, it is true in the context, I talk about scraping and grovelling before God. That is to demonstrate a conscience burdened and twisted by paranoia over "sin". Many of which may not be wrong, but that is not saying ignore your conscience. It is saying get it uncluttered from religious expectations that deny your natural humanity and may lead you to be guilt ridden and hung up over unimportant issues!
Shane represents an all too common perception: those who leave Adventism have left morality behind and are now enjoying the freedom of being able to sleep around, smoke, drink alcohol and coffee, and live a hedonistic life. Yes, I have heard it too many times not to know that it is repeated even in SDA publications.
I now live life free to follow my conscience and no longer burdened by the list of behaviors, listed as "sins" condemned by the church which often constrict even innocent pleasures.
The two video clip links which cb25 says provide 'chilling evidence' of 'religious people doing evil for God' are relatively extreme and hardly a concrete case to debunk God. I should remind him that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung among others weren't driven by religion: they were secular extremists who didn’t just talk or indoctrinate – they were the epitome of evil. That lady speaking to those kids may not be everybody’s cup of tea but what we see in that clip pales in comparison to the likes of these secular despots. What about state sponsored child culling or state sponsored evolution theory indoctrination? Are those not evils? To me – they are.
Both clips I would say are attempts to rigorously discredit any form of religion by portraying religion in a bad light so as to muster support against it. I thought cb25’s blog wasn’t focusing on extremists but I suppose he meant he only wasn’t focusing on the non-religious kind.
I couldn't help but notice the extreme obscenity and vulgarity coming from the anti-religious commenters on the video links; but perhaps the moral evolution of Atheists and Humanists has come to fruition as obscenity, vulgarity and depravity are quite a common part of Secularism and Atheism.
Morality supersedes the permissiveness of humanism. Christian morality is based on righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ. It is a religion for sinners. It accepts that all humanity (including our humanist and moralist friends) has a sinful nature and espouses our dire need of a Saviour who is Christ the Lord. Many who struggle with sin come into the ranks of this religion seeking salvation in Christ. They come to Christ for forgiveness and to receive victory over sinful living. It is incorrect to imply that Christianity condones filthy sexual depravity like porn when it emphatically and diametrically opposes it. It is the permissiveness of secular culture that aids and abets such depravity. Pluralism may have certain spin-offs but it doesn’t erode the morality associated with religion. It is secularism and the permissiveness associated with it that erodes morality. It is the same that entices society into the vices of sinful living. Unfortunately those Christians who are wavering in their faith are trapped by these vices giving rise to the atheist, agnostic, humanist and secularist pouncing on them and crying – loooook at the baaaad in Christians – whilst ignoring or excusing theirs.
cb25 mentions: "However, it is true in the context, I talk about scraping and grovelling before God."
————
I disagree. I think that it is all about scraping and grovelling in sin. It is God in Christ Jesus that lifts us up and sets us free from the failed attempts of humanity's grovelling – at the feet of secularism and atheism – trying to save itself.
I would like to add that the premise if this blog, in my opinion, promotes, justifies, and excuses a hedonistic basis for morality and ethics whilst using 'sin' as a mere distraction in order to divert attention away from the dangers of a permissive society where public opinion is the arbiter that governs morality. A culturally driven agenda like this can only lead to further moral decay and is to me even more dangerous than the eccentrics of religious legalism.
22,
"…society where public opinion is the arbiter that governs morality."
Show me any religious group, society, culture, where morality has not been the result of the collective "opinion".
Moses morality, suposedly direct from God, was little removed from much of his culture. It was eclectic. Have you not ever noticed that across the millennia religious morality is always barely removed from its larger context?
The only difference in practice between the morality I am suggesting, is that it removes the ability of religious nut cases to exert authority over people's actions by defining what is and is not "sin", and attempts to take the widest possible input into what is best for the human society, culture and wellbeing.
What Moses said in his day may have served well in his time, but do we still take note of how to shave beards, not to seathe a kid in its mothers milk, and much of the other nonsense?!
If you want to subscribe to an outdated book for your morality and risk having your ethics and morals warped by such, that's fine, but you must also allow the muslim the same freedom when he defines you as an infidel and believes he has a god given right to deal with sin. Sin as so clearly defined in his book!
"Sin" as being defined by religion, with "god given" authority, must end within human society, or it will be the catalyst for endless destruction and misery, and the control of others. Don't be fooled by the Arab Spring, a monster of religious intollerance and evil could well be born out of it, because religious extremists may well hijack its cause. Especially if we in the west continue to ignore the dark side of religious freedom. Which for too many is freedom to believe all kinds of BS and to believe they have the right to impose that on others in the name of God!
Christians sacrificing their favourite word, in favor of a more democratic, collective, thought out basis for morality and ethics, may ultimately be a small price to pay compared to the outcome of failing to do so.
It feels to me, Chris, like you have created a Procrustean bed for religion which defies the reality that all religions are not equal; all religions are not destructive; and all religions do not aspire to be instruments of political coercion and control. Religion evolves, just as progressivism has evolved from its dalliances with racist eugenics, fascism and communism. You cannot historically separate religious morality from its larger context, because throughout most of history, religion has been the dominant feature of culture.
"Religious nut cases" are extremists. As I recall, you earlier refused to deal with the reality of sin-rejecting totalitarian regimes on the grounds that they are extremists. The morality you suggest opens the door to secular extremists while closing the door on religious extremists. You ominously express skepticism about religious freedom, without acknowledging that the dark side of what you call religious freedom is not freedom at all. Rather it is political religion. It is concentrated political power that we should fear, whether that power is concentrated in religion, in an aristocracy, in corporate cronyism, in populist collectivism, in an educated elite, or in any other centralized source of power.
Instead of selectively reaching into a distant past to condemn the doctrine of "sin" by its extremist misuses and abuses, why don't you deal with mainstream 21st Century Christianity, and point out how contemporary understandings of sin, forgiveness, and salvation are warping minds and hearts of observant Christians. I'm tired of being battered with straw man arguments that paint a Picassoesque picture of "sin" to which no one in my immediate or extended faith community would subscribe.
In a representative democracy, religion, family, and local community are intermediary institutions that should never be sacrificed to the coerciveness of a democratic, collective morality and ethics, or to any other political power. Because in the end, it is only these voluntary institutions that maintain the necessary tension between the forces of tyranny and the forces of anarchy.
Chris,
Is this an acknowledgement that your view of sin is antithetical to Christianity, and to the Christian perspective of sin?
Since it appears somewhat difficult to overtly acknowledge this, perhaps you can comment on Romans 2:14-15 in relation to James 4:17.
Stephen,
If you read my last comment to Shane above about conscience, it may help.
Re James. "The one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, is denying his conscience and it is wrong."
If more people followed their consciences the world would be a more ethical and moral place. The complication to that is the warping of consicences. You may not have followed the link to the little, Muslim child saying the Jews are "pigs" etc, the other day. Can you imagine how screwed up that child's conscience will be by the time she is 20? (yes, any ideology can do the same. As Nathan would be quick to point out)
I know plenty of SDA's who will lie and cheat in the defence of "truth"! Consciences long ago seared to death by "justified" hate for "sin".
btw…antithetical to Christianity? Probably as we know it today. Antithetical to the core of Jesus' teachings before the myriad accretions? Perhaps not.
How is it not antithetical to the core of Jesus’ teaching since Jesus taught us that He was sent by God to save humanity (John 3:16, 17) from what Isaiah (Isaiah 59:2) and Paul (Roman 6:23) tell us is/was a bad situation?
Sin caused Jesus to pay a price. How was this not Jesus’ core mission, which is inseparable from His core message?
Man, why can’t you simply acknowledge that your blog’s thesis is antithetical to Christianity?
"Instead of selectively reaching into a distant past to condemn the doctrine of "sin" by its extremist misuses and abuses, why don't you deal with mainstream 21st Century Christianity, and point out how contemporary understandings of sin, forgiveness, and salvation are warping minds and hearts of observant Christians. "
The contemporary examples would be plentifull. Try Church Board meetings if you can't think of any. Need I mention the Vatican? Go deep inside the personal experience with most every Christian, and I will dare you not to find issues, concerns, guilt, uncertainty. All which can detract from the joy of life. Warped? Yes, too many times. And, please, don't try to tell me that views on sin and God given right to identify it don't impact on the lives of other members in churches. Man, it ranges from pantry detectives, sabbath cops, EGW clubs, (to hit over the head version) and on and on..
…and if you are left in any doubt.. just tune into 3 All Bad News channel.
The last paragraph in bold? Well, yes, I wonder how the "religion" bit is playing out in the tension between anarchy and tyranny in Syria? I submit that the issues would be easier solved without religion in the mix. Less deaths, better outcomes.
oh, Nathan, have you ever been in an SDA church where worship styles were "sinfull", "evil", "of the Devil"? (at least in the eyes of some!) Never seen how "observant" Christians can treat each other over it?
Stephen Foster: "Sin caused Jesus to pay a price. How was this not Jesus’ core mission, which is inseparable from His core message?"
Indeed, why did Jesus come? What was His mission?
Is this a re-run of the first major theological dispute of the early Church of the 'proto-orthodox' group (descendant of Pauline and Johannine communities) vs the Gnostics? The Gnostics claimed that the major importance of Jesus was in His teachings, not His death. In fact, Gnostics commonly claimed Jesus did not even die on the Cross, but it was actually Simon of Cyrene (like something out of the Life of Brian). Then again, the Gnostics certainly had a very poor view of the world, something akin to sin, and in fact seeing every aspect of our reality, including matter and flesh itself, as inherently corrupt.
Does not the existence of disputes "early" in the "Church" demonstrate the likelihood of the very "accretions" I speak of?
If I recall right there are suggestions that in Mark the word son (of man) was not even capitalized until hundreds of years later.
The NT you read today is the result of a myriad accretions and the work of the "believers" who won each successive theological or "tradition"/al war/dispute.
“The NT you read today is the result of a myriad accretions and the work of the “believers” who won each successive theological or “tradition”/al war/dispute” Hi Chris, where is the evidence for this statement? How do you know Jesus and Paul were not correct in their teachings against the religions of the day, Jewish or Gnostic, or whatever?
Both heresy and orthodoxy are decided by the most powerful, and that becomes the doctrine of the church.
Chris,
Approximately the same time has now elapsed since Jimmy Carter was elected U.S. President as between Jesus’ crucifixion and the authorship of the Gospel According to Mark. In other words, Mark’s gospel was not about ancient history at the time of its writing; so while the mission and message(s) of Jesus were not contemporaneous events, it wasn’t like revisiting the history of the American Revolution or the Civil War.
Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane, His execution and His resurrection are all recounted in Mark. Sin is therefore not a result/matter of some revisionist accretion—from the Bible, anyway.
I press you on this because it is vitally important. Why don’t you simply acknowledge the completely obvious about your blog—that it is antithetical to Christian theology?
Stephen,
Yes, I guess it had not long slipped off the late night news on Rome Chanel:)
The point being that we cannot compare information transmission in our day and age with that era.
However, you are correct about "sin" bieng present in Mark. The story was written for its context. Just as there is "sin", so there is "hell fire". Mark 9:47. Both are examples of the story being put in terms that make sense to his readers.
"Jesus" view of hell is reflective of the Oddyseus' experience. He went down the the underworld as part of his journey. While there he met two "sinners", one pushing a massive stone/boulder, the other constantly hungering and thirsting, but unable to quench his thirst. Jesus is crucified between two theives (transgressors/sinners) (actually "bandits" I think in greek)
Jesus agony, the garden, etc all have similarities to the Odyssey.
I think I can still extract Jesus "love your neighbor" and some pretty valuable contributions to "theology" from Jesus without subscribing to the "sin" theology that screws up the joy of too many Christians, and gives too many others licence for evil.
I suppose I must take this as an acknowledgement of the self-evident reality that this blog represents Christian antithesis.
(Loving your neighbor is a theoretical philosophy that is only theoretically possible—without God.)
..can you please explain that last line?
btw… while you are at it: can you please explain what the antithesis of "sin" is?
Chris,
The message of Jesus was not love your neighbor! The message of Jesus was love for God with all your being and love for your neighbor as you love yourself; because God loves us.
Love your neighbor is a nice sounding philosophy that in isolation, as you have extracted it, is merely a theoretical abstraction. It is really indistinguishable from, or not much more than, a shibboleth or slogan.
You are supposedly an evidence guy, right? What is the evidence of anyone ever loving other people as they love themselves, outside of some sort of spiritual context? We’re not talking about being nice to others, but agape love for everyone else.
Your blog is not about the antithesis of sin, which in my opinion is obedience to the Holy Spirit; so I do not know what you mean, otherwise.
Yes, I used "love neighbor" as a tag for the whole line.
Re agape love. I would suggest that, outside of the subjective nature of such a judgement, to the degree it is seen or likely – it may be observed anywhere.
I heard a split second of a speech by Martin Luther King on the radio today. It was the words "It should be self evident that all men are equall". It struck me "self evident". Yes. The human spirit and consience are a shared trait that is independent of religion.
Antithesis to Christianity and sin etc. The conscience is not to be ignored. It is to be followed. I submit it can be better followed especially in the absence of screwed up religious thinking. Thus the outcome of my thesis is not antithetical to the aim of Christianity. Doing good to others. Now, yes, you want to remind me to tag God in that. Fine, to the degree one finds evidence for his existence, worship to Him will not take away from the conscience – as long as we don't set out to "define" religion, faith, actions, should, should nots etc. over again.
If you shave down Jesus teaching: what else are you left with that matters, but love God and others? All the clap trap of Paul about in Adam all die, and what I pointed out above, are not to be found in the Gospels. Full stop, and even they are not nearly original etc. .
Chris,
The message of Jesus was not love your neighbor! The message of Jesus was love for God with all your being and love for your neighbor as you love yourself; because God loves us.
Love your neighbor is a nice sounding philosophy that in isolation, as you have extracted it, is merely a theoretical abstraction. It is really indistinguishable from, or not much more than, a shibboleth or slogan.
You are supposedly an evidence guy, right? What is the evidence of anyone ever loving other people as they love themselves, outside of some sort of spiritual context? We’re not talking about being nice to others, but agape love for everyone else.
Your blog is not about the antithesis of sin, which in my opinion is obedience to the Holy Spirit; so I do not know what you mean, otherwise.
Sin is the one great message of Christianity; much more than Love; although "perfect love casts out fear" sin and the fear of hell had been the motivator for Christians almost from the beginning. Sin is whatever the church or individual makes it, and there is no lack of ingenuity in doing just that.
If perfect love out casts out all fear, and the love of God is what saves us from the penalty and power of sin—so that we have nothing to fear—how can sin be “the one great message of Christianity,” Elaine?
Stephen,
What "is" is not the same what "should be." Yes, love should always be the central message of Christianity but history shows that is not how it has been presented for much of its history. The fear of hell for committing sin has always been essential to Christianity. Read Dante's "Divine Comedy" to see how Christianity was believed during the 12th and 13th centuries. Also, the earlier fathers of the church: Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine all emphasized the fearfulness of sin and the consequences: so fearful that several castrated themselves to prevent sexual sins–the most tempting.
Elaine,
I see your point. What has been emphasized can, and has, distorted understanding.
Stephen, while you are answering the two questions above, consider this:
* There is no evidence that the current form of Mark is that of 70 AD "version". The earliest versions that reflect what we have is hundreds of years later
* There is no evidence that our modern (picked by Catholic priests in the 4th century) gospels existed in their current form before 150 AD.
* Even in their current form: None of the Gospels mention Christ as a substitute, the sin-bearer, or the one who would put sin away by the sacrifice of Himself.
* There is no concept of a new creation
* Not a word is mentioned about Christ becoming our Righteousness, or how He was delivered up on account of our trespasses and raised for our justificaton.
* Not a word is mentioned about the Body of Christ.
* There is nothing about the great ministry of Jesus at the right hand of the Father, of His being a mediator, intercessor, advocate, High Priest, or Lord.
Mark is not the entire New Testament. If I am not mistaken, Paul’s epistles were written before the Gospel According to Mark. I accept that you do not accept the Bible as authoritative (in fact, I have sought to demonstrate that your thesis opposes Christian theology); so what is your point or objective with these points?
my point is accretions. What is, and is not a part of "Jesus" teachings is not so clear.
Per cb25: " Even in their current form: None of the Gospels mention Christ as a substitute, the sin-bearer, or the one who would put sin away by the sacrifice of Himself."
Per the gospel of John:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29.
Yes, I should have omitted John. Of course, being a later one, does not help. It is also John's proclamation. Not Jesus directly, nor does it reflect Mark.
Isn't that like saying, "There is no evidence . . . beside that smoking gun?"
Let me remind you something I said to Stephen above:
He accuses me of presenting the antithesis to Christianity in my objection to the word "sin".
Even the earliest gospel, Mark, is of very uncertian reliability. However, lets grant that it is a fair reflection of the Jesus story. What then? I see it as an anti epic, with little or no fact in history.
The smoking gun is not a clear picture!
The concept of "sin" and Jesus relation to it, the gospel etc gathered data with each passing decade in writing and transmission.
I simply say, sin is a dirty little word that can warp conscience. As I said to Stephen: The conscience is not to be ignored. It is to be followed. I submit it can be better followed especially in the absence of screwed up religious thinking. Thus the outcome of my thesis is not antithetical to the aim of Christianity: Doing good to others. To the degree one finds evidence for Gods existence, worship to Him will not take away from the conscience – as long as we don't set out to "define" religion, faith, actions, should, should nots etc. over again.
I agree with Elaine, sin is too much the big thing in Christianity, and I don't see that reflected in the essence of Jesus to any such degree.
If you shave down Jesus teaching, to the smoking gun!: what else are you left with that matters, but love God and others? All the clap trap of Paul about in Adam all die, and what I pointed out above, are not to be found in the Gospels.
How then do you define what it is to "not love God and others"?
As Elaine will undoubtedly be eager to inform you, Chris; she believes that Paul was the founder of the Christian religion. You have some more explaining to do.
In any case, Christian theology is explained throughout the New Testament at least; and throughout the synoptic gospels, and certainly throughout John’s gospel.
Matthew 1:21 tells us what Jesus’ mission was in relation to sin.
In Mark 14:62 Jesus Himself declared that He is the Christ who will be seen “coming in the clouds of heaven.”
In Luke 17:26-29 Jesus confirms His belief (or the truth) of The Flood narrative.
John 3:16-21 explains Jesus’ His mission and God’s intent, within the context of sin. (That is Jesus Himself speaking to Nicodemus.)
With respect Chris, you should further explain; but dismissing part of the New Testament to disprove the Christian religion isn’t optimal.
You guys can go on and on with this or that text on sin, what is and is not the Christian message etc. You are losing sight of a key premise underlying my blog:
"History suggests the dictates of these “divines” is nothing more than the claims of humans from a particular point in each time and culture."
Which Book? which God? Which definition of "sin"? Which version of the Jesus story? and so on.
If you guys really want to argue against my theme from the Bible, as we have begun doing. First go ahead and demonstrrate why the Bible. Explain why it is not the luck of your birth or culture that has you defending its version of "truth", "sin", "good news", etc and not some other.
I would explain most your verses above as accretions. Even if they are not, I would explain them in context of culture and myth. I find, and as yet, you guys give me no historical data, verifiable evidence, non subjective reason to put the Bible above others – and here we are arguing over which verse I have or have not taken note of and how it fits in!
Before you invoke the NT – YOU show me why the Christian religion IS optimal. Particularly in its current form! oops …which form? That is not to say there are not things within it I should, could and would take as of great value. Just as I suspect there are in other religious material.
At the end of the day, a collective, human, "self evident"/innate, morality and ethic will be wiser and better, if it takes into account the best of all human understanding.
Getting rid of the word sin, and building instead on our common humanity, without the conflict, rivalry, and "tribalism" too easily caused by "religion", would be a good start… There are or course, other "tribalistic" ideologies that would be a good next…
For sake of discussion Chris, your blog may, theoretically, be totally on the money. Theoretically, it isn’t necessarily erroneous or flawed.
Fortunately it is obvious that Christian theology is derived from the Bible (hence our reliance on New Testament texts); and that your thesis is antithetical to Christianity (which doesn’t necessarily make it erroneous or flawed).
Unfortunately Chris, you are having some difficulty in readily admitting to these two realities.
Stephen, which Christian theology do you subscribe to? Which do you not? Have fun with Hell. Have fun with trinity. Have fun with state of death/dead. Have fun with rapture…..etc. I don't subscribe to sin theology. Why do you to that and not other things? All interpretation and emphasis.
Let me say again. Living by ones conscience, can and does, as for the gentiles of Romans fame, result in ethical and moral living. Which is precisely the outcome you want: the antithesis of sin(full living!)
It does so without burdening people down with guilt, shame, and this "such a worm as I mentality) and allows them to live life to the full – meeting the golden rule. It also removes the ability/right of people to judge others actions..At the end of the day, I suspect that is what Jesus was all about, and so should Christianity be. So, you may say I start out antithetical to Christianity, but it ends up same place without the burdens of sin stuff with its guilt and judgmentalism.
And all that says nothing about you showing me why your God, and why your bible etc
Chris, I agree that the message of Jesus was mainly about "getting a life" and living fully (or, if you wish, "more abundantly")–and not consuming all one's days obsessing about sin.
Here’s the difference, the doctrines of hell and of the Trinity and of the state of the dead or of death, or of anything else in the Bible, are disputed in terms of emphasis, interpretation, or applicability; but Christians believe that Jesus was the Christ who came to save humanity from the penalty of disobedience to God known as sin; and that He did so by dying on a cross, and was resurrected on a Sunday morning.
Any suggestion that there is no such thing as sin is therefore not Christian.
Besides being unbiblical, obsessing about sin is unhealthy; but so is denying its existence. (Then again, that represents a Christian perspective.)
Chris, how about the nut cases ie: Jim Jones, Koresh, the group trying to latch on to the passing Hale-Bop, the Mormon traditionalists with old men raping and taking as wives 13 year olds, resultan incest, etc. How can you exclude these cases from rational morality?
Earl, I am not sure I get your point?
Perhaps you can explain how you see that religion is or is not involved in these examples. As soon as you mention Jones, Koresh, and Mormons, I think of religiously motived/shaped behavior. Therefore, the absence of good moral and ethical behavior actually becomes an example of what I am talking about. ie where religion gives licence to do wrong because a particular action is not identified as "sin" by the believer/interpreter/perpetrator.
I don't know otherwise how your question is relevant, nor how it mitigates against what I have said. Seems rather that it illustrates its truth?
Morality in non religious societies? Does history record any that have ever existed? You can speculate about centuries before 1900 A.D. but what have we witnessed in 1st person observations since. Stalinist Russia, Hitler Germany, Soviet domination after WWII, Stazi E.Germany, Mao China, etc etc. These regimes all headed by atheiest heads, under coercion & fear, turned brother against brother for survival. Most all became accusers of their brethren.
Earl, we have covered most of those, if we need to revisit them sometime, fine. I would like to understand your point from above first, if I may?
….re your last questions. The UN gets bad press from SDA's, but you would do well to do some research on why it was set up, it goals and aims. No one questions the horrors of those extreme/radical ideologies you speak of.
Here's a link or two to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Elaine says, "Sin is the one great message of Christianity…"
Is this an objective statement, Elaine, or a subjective belief? Tell me, if sin is the one great message of Christianity, and if it's so terrible, why do observant Christians excel in happiness, prosperity, industriousness, charity, respect for the law, and respect for private rights? Why has the sin-obsessed, predominantly Christian, nation of America been a "city on a hill," a "beacon of light," for most of the world for nearly 150 years? Is it not curious that the most sin-obsessed folks in America today seem to be secularists who are preoccupied with deconstructing American exceptionalism and saddling us with moral responsibility for a caricaturized, somber, oppressive American past, that should leave us riddled with guilt, shame, and self-doubt. They tell us that we should not love America as it was or as it is, but only as it can be once it is purged of immoral, counter-collectivist elements, and opens itself to expiation and redemption through surrender to the moral authority of the secular druids of culture, academia and political power?
How many Christians do you know, Elaine, who read Origen, Tertullian and Augustine as authorities? How many Christians do you know who actually fought in the Crusades? Was their pessimistic view of life and human nature unwarranted by the reality of the world in which they lived? Was it not mirrored in other cultures? Is it just possible that they understood something you do not about the discipline and moral priorities necessary to sustain life and order in a hostile, chaotic world that you cannot begin to imagine? No, God forbid that you should be denied your omniscient, affluent, isolated perch from which you survey, and pass judgment on, history!
I'm afraid you and Chris are going to have to find another common denominator besides "sin" to make your slander against Christianity hold. If you would but open your eyes to a reality beyond your ideological blinders, you would see that every fault you find with Christianity is a fault common to humanity. And every wrong perpetrated by Christians in the name of God has been, and is being, perpetrated by atheists in the name of some higher good. What you cannot credibly deny, though you perfervidly insist on doing so, is that Christianity has evolved over the centuries. In general, by recognizing human nature for what it is; by recognizing evil for what it is; and by striving to understand our relationship with the Creator, Christians have exhibited a remarkable capacity for self-criticism and moral development.
As a very new moral force in history, atheism got off to a wretched start in the 20th Century, and has shown a greater capacity for self-parody, nihilism, crepitude, and death than for self-criticism and growth. (Interestingly, Communism is a belief system glorifying spiritual death; militant Islam has become a belief system that glorifies physical death. Perhaps that is why secular morality in America finds it far easier to raise its moral voice to condemn Christianity and Western culture than to condemn Islamic fundamentalism.) But according to Chris, the evils of atheist moral authorities don't count because 20th Century implementers of communist and fascist morality, though heroes to progressives while alive, can be discounted and erased in hindsight, by those same progressives, as extremists.
Chris will only count extremists as perhaps characteristic of a belief system or moral ideology if they are religious. Hence, the hypothesized, sin-obsessed torture chambers of church board meetings (I'm sure Chris has attended lots of those recently) are of greater negative moral consequence than the holodomors, holocausts, mass starvations, mass executions, and gulags presided over by atheist enforcers of "sinless" morality. These horrors have been condoned and ignored by the useful idiots presiding over university classrooms, the journalistic enablers of revolutionaries, and empty-headed, pot-smoking moral idealists imagining no heaven, wearing flowers, and chanting "peace and justice." That, my friends, is what ideologies and cultures purged of "sin" look like – a large collection of extremists. Somehow, football stadiums filled with sinful "Promise Keepers" strike me as more conducive to the common weal than Woodstock festivals or Occupy Wall Street mobs populated with self-indulgent, do-it-yourself moralists.
I believe it is generally considered poor form in science to select out only those data points that support a preconceived theory. Isn't it interesting that, when it comes to history, the humanities, and soft sciences, progressives find such a process di riguer?
I completely agree with Nathan. Chris and Elaine's assetions are completely preferential and are riddled with intellectual dishonesty. That for people who are big on reason and logic the onus is on them to employ it once in a while!
Tapiwa,
Why don't you and Nathan address yourselves to the several points I made above about the total absence of "sin/redemption/priest" theology in the Gospels, particularly Mark?
The tirade of Nathan's well…. I'll await Elaine's response,
Chris, i tend to disassociate nutcases & groups led by such, from morality. All groups that have a common theme, to me, are religious, whether belief is in social worldly endeavours, a loving god, their leader is god, Satan is god, Kilroy is god, etc etc. In that all human creatures are religious even if they believe they themselves are god.
At the end of WWII, in 1946, the United Nations was formed in San Francisco. It was to carry on from the earlier League of Nations, with the same rationale, to gain control of all nations into ONE WORLD ORDER. The naivete of the masses to belief the UN is the saviour of the world, rather than, in truth, they are the enslaver of the World, is allowing the noose to tighten around their necks. i believe the UN is the tool of Satan.
United was
Earl,
When I was deep inside Adventist prophecy "think", along with Prophecy Seminars, Revelation Seminars, Jesus Seminars, etc I took seminars on The New World Order. I knew every facet of the UN etc that mattered to my case. Knew precisely how it fitted into the prophetic picture! ahh yes, Keys of This Blood. Pipim books, Douglas books. EGW, and more EGW…. What on earth was I thinking?!
Trouble is I thought I thought but didn't know I didn't think: You see, one can become an expert in trivia to the point that the trivia shapes and colors thier entire world (view). Everything is seen through that lense and what does not fit is, well, simply not true nor relevant. I was completely under the spell of confirmation bias and my indoctrination in the SDA world view.
There remains are myriad of things I don't know; I don't even know what I don't know! But one thing I now do: I will evaluate anything and everything I can get my hands on. The wider ones knowledge, the more likely one is to be able to correctly shape their thinking. I so regret that my background caused me to fear knowledge, learning and questioning outside of my "truth".
UN a tool of the Devil? I urge you, widen your research, take off the "prophetic" lenses. As for the devil… Since I started looking for him, I discovered he is not so easy to find either! Somebody told me he was hangin around and I just believed them…
An old friend once told me that, "if you walk with the devil you'll never meet him."
And if you walk with God?
On a serious note: The devil is in the detail, and if you look for the detail there is none.
Chris, i have always been a loner. i have not become a student of prophecy.i do not view the world through others eyes or witness. i am a observer of human nature. When i refer to Satan, i am actually referring to what i consider evil, in all its forms, human and or spiritual beings. of which, yes, i believe they exist. i have experienced abject horrible evil personally, several times. i have also experienced geniune expressions and acts of love, many times. Evil/love, are at opposite ends of the rainbow. There is both evil & love in this world; i believe the origins of both have a father. Have you considered the bible may be a cruel hoax of the father of evil? Love is a dimension of indescribable freedom and confidence. i was not born into SDAism or fed the SDA pablum from birth. i never accepted the BS you say you have escaped from, and now you search every atom of every subject to the nth-h-h-tha degree. Have you become so inured to doubt that you have hardened your heart, and have gone beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit, God? i hope not.
Earlier in the thread cb25 brought our attention to a video clip of a Christian woman speaking to some kids. I admit she was rather loud. She did not however use vulgarity or threaten them with any physical violence. Again, I admit she was loud. However, I recently saw a video clip showing some American prison inmates screaming wildly at juvenile delinquents. They were vulgar and threatened violence towards these delinquent kids who were forced into complying with this exercise, all courtesy of the secular police and prison services. The delinquents were forced to undergo this ordeal and I assume it was done in their best interests. (Please note that I have no objection to them trying to scare and warn these delinquents against choosing to do crime and also of the consequences they would face if they landed in jail). The prison inmates definitely weren’t Christian counsellors I might add. This is done by the secular authorities who forced them to go through this exercise in order to straighten them out. The secular authorities have other systems in place which force evolution down the throats of the same kids. Isn’t that sick or what?
Another example of forcing children against their best wishes is when they have to go in for their state stipulated vaccinations (inoculations). Most kids don't like it but it is done anyway based on the premise that it is in their best interests. So why pick on the Christian woman giving the kids a pep talk and insist that religion, because of this, is very bad. That is a strawman if ever there was one. Also, comparing Islam with Christianity (the second video clip) in order to discredit religion is like comparing apples with oranges – which is another strawman in my opinion.
What is sin exactly?
I was reading something today about how one of the early Church Fathers preferred to express Christology and atonement theory in terms of a focus on Christ coming and dying because we are mortal, rather than focusing on the intracacies of what sin is exactly.
Regardless of how we define sin, whether a state (as in original sin) or an action, the fact is we all die. Christ came to conquor death, which is caused by something. If you want to use another term to describe why we die, instead of 'sin', then that is fine with me.