quote:

---

"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

---

quote:

---

I think it's true, but I think it's a truth that is hard or impossible for us to apply at all accurately as human beings.

---

quote:

---

I have trouble with this.

---

Can you elaborate?

Keep in mind, please, that I normally don't write long posts until the middle of threads. Sometimes I make acceptions, but that's just the way I normally seem to work.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Not least because I often start threads before i go to bed and don't get a chance to post again in them until I get off of work the next day.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

In my philosophy, it is exactly because we are human beings that it is true.

---

quote:

---

Why do you think it is 'hard or impossible'?

---

Exactly because we are humans. It requires a level of objectivity that I'm not altogether sure a human being is capable of to identify those who are in the position of the well-meaning Calamoran who thought he was serving Tash.

But God, he's got no problem making that call for each of us.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
I have trouble with it because it smacks of universalism. Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion. It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.

Now, a person can become a Christian and yet not immediately apply that label to him/herself. But I believe that sooner or later, the Holy Spirit would show him/her the contradictions and a decision would have to be made. I do not believe that someone can be wholeheartedly committed to a religion that does not recognize Christ and yet still belong to Christ.

One of the few points upon which I disagree with Lewis, and I'm not sure I've explained myself well, but there it is.
 

---

Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
 
I find it interesting that growing up, a rebel atheist I must add, I had always refused to read the Narnia books because I'd heard so much about the Christian allusions. But if that's an example of Lewis' religious philosophy, I might have to read the series now.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
I accept that one comment as proof that Lewis was wrong on this.
 

---

Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
 
All I can say is I think it gives me more reason to want to read those books again.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Christ had a few words to say about that:

quote:

---

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not, sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

---

quote:

---

Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion.

---

quote:

---

I accept that one comment as proof that Lewis was wrong on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:

quote:

---

I accept that one comment as proof that Lewis was wrong on this.

---

You mean that if he can write something that brings an atheist even a little bit closer to the fold, it must be wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
I have trouble with it because it smacks of universalism. Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion. It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.

---

quote:

---

Oh, buy a sense of humour, will you?

---

I suppose this was a joke too, was it?

What a Christian discussion style you have.

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
dh, I think you are missing my point. Aslan is not saying that Tisroc has been saved by his good works. He is saying that Tisroc has served Aslan by his good works. There is a marked distinction; unless you are a Manichaean, even Satan serves God by his works, in some twisted and obscure fashion, right? Now, Tisroc, unlike Satan, is also saved because, at the last moment of his life, he accepts Aslan, as you suggested would happen to any 'in-their-heart-Christian' a few posts back. But that is not relevant to the question of service.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
I don't think this is a salvation by works doctrine either. It's salvation by grace, but you can seek out and find grace without realizing that you are doing so. (Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do not really believe that you can earn salvation.)

-o-

quote:

---

Oh, buy a sense of humour, will you?

---

I suppose this was a joke too, was it?

What a Christian discussion style you have.

---

quote:

---

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
dh, I think you are missing my point. Aslan is not saying that Tisroc has been saved by his good works. He is saying that Tisroc has served Aslan by his good works. There is a marked distinction; unless you are a Manichaean, even Satan serves God by his works, in some twisted and obscure fashion, right? Now, Tisroc, unlike Satan, is also saved because, at the last moment of his life, he accepts Aslan, as you suggested would happen to any 'in-their-heart-Christian' a few posts back. But that is not relevant to the question of service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
I'm sorry you don't like it. I didn't realize getting mildly annoyed was un-christian.

---

I thought lying was.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I saw your razzing smiley. Nonetheless, you were making a point. Your tongue was in your cheek, but you were still indicating that the attractiveness of the quote to someone looking for a "light" Christianity was an indication of a problem you had with it.

Am I wrong?

I responded to what I saw as the underlying message in your tongue-in-cheek post. My response may have been pointed, but I don't think it was rude. (In fact, I believe it was in-kind.) Certainly, it did not deserve the overly harsh--and insulting--response you gave it, suggesting that I "buy a sense of humor." There is nothing wrong with my sense of humor, thank you very much.

(It is an oft-criticized debating tactic here to score points but stick a smiley on the end of it, and then claim, if anybody questions you, that you were just kidding. I'm sure you can think of just who is frequently accused of that very thing.)

I was pretty dumbfounded by your reply. Maybe it's just my sense of humor lacking again. I wonder what the heck I ever did to you. I am not aware of ever having had a negative interaction with you, but suddenly you are jumping all over me and insulting me. If you have a problem with me, come out and tell me what it is. Or don't. I can write you off as simply a jerk. But I'm stunned by your posting style, and disappointed in myself for having misjudged you.

MULTIPLE EDITS to get my feelings exactly right.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Now you guys are just abusing the sanctity of the emoticon.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
I saw your razzing smiley. Nonetheless, you were making a point. Your tongue was in your cheek, but you were still indicating that the attractiveness of the quote to someone looking for a "light" Christianity was an indication of a problem you had with it.

Am I wrong?

I responded to what I saw as the underlying message in your tongue-in-cheek post. My response may have been pointed, but I don't think it was rude. (In fact, I believe it was in-kind.) Certainly, it did not deserve the overly harsh--and insulting--response you gave it, suggesting that I "buy a sense of humor." There is nothing wrong with my sense of humor, thank you very much.

(It is an oft-criticized debating tactic here to score points but stick a smiley on the end of it, and then claim, if anybody questions you, that you were just kidding. I'm sure you can think of just who is frequently accused of that very thing.)

I was pretty dumbfounded by your reply. Maybe it's just my sense of humor lacking again. I wonder what the heck I ever did to you. I am not aware of ever having had a negative interaction with you, but suddenly you are jumping all over me and insulting me. If you have a problem with me, come out and tell me what it is. Or don't. I can write you off as simply a jerk. But I'm stunned by your posting style, and disappointed in myself for having misjudged you.

MULTIPLE EDITS to get my feelings exactly right.

---

Wow. My turn to be stunned. Let me assure you that you are reading way to much into my one little sentence. It really was only a joke. There was no underlying whatsit at all, and I certainly wasn't employing any debating tactic or somesuch thing. All I saw was that I had made what seemed to me to be a light-hearted joke, and then somebody (namely you) was trying to make it into a serious thing and making it say things I hadn't said. That's why I got annoyed.

As for my posting style, well, I'm afraid all I can do is apologize if it seemed ruder than I intended. Perhaps I can work on that. It doesn't change the fact that I am still annoyed by you making such a huge fuss over something that was, really, just a joke. I'm sorry you didn't find it funny.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Not to intrude on a private debate, but....

I think the difference between this passage and "Universalism" is that once the Calormene knows the truth about Aslan and Tash, he knows who he really wants to serve and chooses Aslan. He doesn't try to get away with continuing to serve Tash (or his own self) because "it doesn't matter as long as I'm good". He had been "deceived by his fathers" into worshipping Tash, but when he was presented with the truth he chose to follow it.

For me to believe in a just God, there must be room for those who didn't know anything about Jesus to have a way to be saved. Even if they don't know who Jesus is, but they try to live the best they can according to what truth they know, then eventually they will be brought to know more truth. The kind of person who will accept truth when they receive it (meaning the Savior) is the kind of person who will be saved by Him - even if their understanding only comes at the end of life. (Or even after - yes, I'm LDS.)

The kind of person who DOESN'T try to live according to the truth they have wouldn't accept more truth if it was presented to him. And that's why our works are important - not because they save us, but because they say something about how fully we have faith in the Savior and accept the things He asks us to do. (Or how we WOULD accept those things if we knew them.)
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
A few comments:

Interestingly enough, this character's name, "Emeth", means "truth" in some language... I forget which.

I think this is absolutely indicative of Lewis's Theology. For more, read The Great Divorce, which should, BTW, also address dh's concerns about Universalism and about works based salvation.

Perelandra is more detailed, yes, but it was about 15 years older than The Last Battle, so it wasn't a matter of "the best Lewis could do at the time" but a matter of trying to encapsulate a complex concept in a children's story.

Finally, dkw, I never took Tash to be representative of Allah. The Calormenes are, I think, more representative of Carthage and Baal-worship, but they are NOT directly allegorical at all. I think Mr. Squicky hit it on the head with his reference to the parable of the sheep and the goats, and I think this tale was Lewis's application of that theological point to his story arc.

Edit: in case you couldn't tell, I say "true".
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I will say this, as an atheist... if I'm wrong and there IS a god, I sincerely hope he is the sort of god Lewis seems to intimate he is in this passage. Otherwise I'm going to be in the awkward (and paradoxical) position of telling him to stuff his paradise where the sun don't shine.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Indeed.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think it is true, insofar that people who do their very best to follow the highest will be judged as someone who has done their very best to follow the highest.

However, even still, to gain all that the father has he would need to be baptized because that ordinance had not taken place. He would get a chance to accept it, along with everyone else who had not had the opportunity in life.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Odd as it is to see myself typing this...I think KoM had it right. Everything, even evil, serves God's plan...and he wasn't saved until he accepted Aslan.

So it actually makes sense, at least according to what I was taught as a RC.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
baptism can occur after death? Not questioning your statement, just hadn't ever heard that before
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

All who are truly seeking God will find God, no question about that. "Seek and ye shall find."

However, if one is truly seeking, one will eventually find Christ.

---

It would be nice if that were true. Because there are a lot more truly seeking truth-seekers out there than are currently within the Christian community, and it'd be lovely to think that all these people might not wind up being punished by a bastard God. As David's pointed out, a God who didn't do this would be a despot, and a God not worthy of worship.

-------

smitty, Katie's talking specifically about the Mormon Church, which reconciles their belief that Mormon baptism is essential for salvation with their belief that even people who were never exposed to Mormon doctrine can be saved by permitting Mormons to, in life, perform baptisms for the dead on their behalf -- and largely unrequested -- so that, if they're right about the afterlife, those souls will have the opportunity to be saved.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Wow, I'd never heard that, and it would clear up a lot of issues I've had... most of the sermons I hear are "get baptized now, before it's too late!"
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*nod* The Mormons are rather unique in that approach. Most Christian denominations that believe baptism is required for salvation believe that this baptism must occur before death, and consequently believe that a significant percentage of the human beings who have ever lived are doomed to Hell.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The baptisms are not automatic - the person still needs to accept them after. People don't change fundamentally when they die, so I personally suspect that someone who has the chance in this life and refuses will do the same in the next, but it is good to know that the atonement is available for everyone. Baptism is absolutely necessary, but those who didn't have the chance are not doomed because of that.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Tom, now that you mention it, I do recall that - that's why my Grandma started attending a Mormon church, for a while.

Every church is so different, which is why I'm between churches again. So many little rules in each one that seem to overtake the faith in general.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It's good to know about everything that is out there.
 

---

Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Yeah, it is. I personally don't know if I've been baptized (My mom and dad retreated from organized religion when they ran into problems with "Well, a ____ baptism doesn't count in this church, you need OUR baptism"), but I've never been a part of a church long enough to feel comfortable enough to join... I would like to think that salvation doesn't depend on a particular ritual...
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It is complicated that baptism as it is pragmatically practiced is both a covenant with the Lord to follow and the way to join an organized religion. The Mormons are also one of the churches that believe that baptism must be done with the authority of God, and that authority isn't found in other churches.

Baptism is necessary, but it isn't sufficient in itself. Baptism without that change of heart and repentance and personal renewing is like it never happened. And for whatever reason (to be honest, I'm not entirely clear why), that personal renewal and devotion without baptism isn't sufficient either. That begs the question of sufficient for what, though. A life without baptism isn't sufficient for inheriting everything the father has, but the lack of it isn't going to send anyone to fiery pits.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Way to go, Mr.Squicky!

quote:

---

I'd say that Jesus would consider it true too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
However, even still, to gain all that the father has he would need to be baptized because that ordinance had not taken place. He would get a chance to accept it, along with everyone else who had not had the opportunity in life.

---

quote:

---

Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.

---

There's so many chances!

I see it like back up files on a computer. Even if you don't save yourself, the computer saves for you.



(We've talked about this particular thing before, haven't we? I remember explaining why I wouldn't want people to baptize me.)
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will B:
True or not? I don't know. God didn't tell us. I would like to think it's true.

---

quote:

---

The concept of "surrendering to the will of God" is a pretty deep one, I think... I wish I my thoughts on the subject could do it justice... but I would say that it has very little to do with dictation or subjugation.

---

quote:

---

Hell, if Christ were standing before me after my death, I'd be going, "Yep, divine alright." I thought what you had to accept was that he has the right to tell you how to live your life, to dictate your choices, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Where does it differ in the symptoms?

---

phew... I wish I could just sit and speak from personal experience, here, but I'm afraid my "testimony" would be too jumbled to follow. My ideas on redemption were... hmmm... both radically changed and fulfilled by what I experienced in therapy over the last couple of years. If I could write coherently about it I would have done it already, believe me.

I *will* say this: I think that, among other things, being yourself is essential to following God's will... I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's closer to self-actualization than self-denial.

I'm sorry... if I think of better to say, I'll surely post it.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

I *will* say this: I think that, among other things, being yourself is essential to following God's will... I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's closer self-actualization than self-denial.

---

I like this thought.

(Not that I count, since I'm not Christian at this moment.)

-o-

Like Tom, I have difficulty with the implication that if you haven't found God, you haven't looked. I suspect that most Christians have not devoted as much time to the practice and study of Christianity as I have. I believe in God. I feel a strong yearning to worship in a community, but I can't feel the truth in any community I am familiar with. When I ask people about their beliefs and outlook, I frequently get the assumption that I'm starting from a position of seeking to not believe, or that I have not prayed. (Because, clearly, if I prayed I would come to believe as you do.)
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Thanks, Icky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
I have difficulty with the implication that if you haven't found God, you haven't looked.

---

ooh... "if you seek, you shall find" is a maxim I live by, but I never meant it the way you take it here... to me it's a matter of hope that all will indeed end well and a reassurance that God will not turn away anyone who is genuinely looking for the truth... as illustrated wonderfully by Mr. Lewis, to bring us full circle.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I can tell you that, based on what men claim about him in the various books they say he inspired them to write, I'm not all that inspired to given up my own (admittedly illusory) volition in order to form part of whatever wild plan he's got in store for me.

However

As you will note in my other posts elsewhere, I do think it is a sweet and beautiful thing to feel you're part of something vast and mysterious. I totally respect those of you who feel this way. I just... can't or don't or whatever.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I disagree very much with Jim-Me's assertion that one follows God by living according to the dictates of one's self.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
C'mon, Katie. Be agnostic. Join us. It's just a little bitty baby step....
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
So do I. Vehemently. It's basically saying "If it feels good to you, do it, and if you're sincere about it you'll get into heaven in the end. So everybody, do whatever you want!" Very popular sort of theory, because everybody can concentrate on what they themselves want other than what God wants.

Unfortunately, as they will (or should) teach you in any philosophy class, truth is not dependant on whether or not you feel good about it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
DH, seriously, I'm very glad I don't believe in your God. I always get the impression that I wouldn't like Him very much at all.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
I get the impression that you already don't like him very much.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If I thought He existed, I'd dislike Him. Yeah.

I mean, really, all else aside, doesn't it bug you that you ascribe all these highly less-than-good attributes to God? At some point, don't you stop and go "I would most definitely not buy a Christmas card for this deity, so I'm a little concerned about the whole 'worshipping Him' part?"
 

---

Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
 
What Tom said x 1000.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

Someone who sees God clearly would want to behave in ways pleasing to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

Someone who sees God clearly would want to behave in ways pleasing to God.

---

I disagree with this pretty strongly. If God is actually pretty much like the entity that many Christians worship, I plan on rejecting him when I see him in the afterlife. I will not worship or surrend my will to a deity that appears evil to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Bowles:
I'm not all that inspired to given up my own (admittedly illusory) volition in order to form part of whatever wild plan he's got in store for me.

---

... and I'm not willing to give it up as an illusion, which is one of the pillars of my theism-- I take a real will as a first principle.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I think Katharina and dh both have a very distorted view of what I meant by that.... but since I'm not able to articulate myself on the subject, I can hardly blame them, can I?

Suffice it to say that I do *not* mean merely "living by the dictates of one's self", much less just doing whatever you feel like and ending up in heaven.

Asserting that truth feels good and will set you free is *not* the same as asserting that whatever feels good or has the least rules is true.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Aw, Tom, stop fighting it. When he said "If you lose your life for my sake, you will find it.", he wasn't kidding around.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

Someone who sees God clearly would want to behave in ways pleasing to God.

---

I disagree with this pretty strongly. If God is actually pretty much like the entity that many Christians worship, I plan on rejecting him when I see him in the afterlife. I will not worship or surrend my will to a deity that appears evil to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Will B:
True or not? I don't know. God didn't tell us. I would like to think it's true.

---

See Squick's post.

---

quote:

---

If your version of god cannot see fit to have mercy ...

---

quote:

---

It will be rather too late once you're dead to speak of accepting or rejecting.

---

quote:

---

I disagree very much with Jim-Me's assertion that one follows God by living according to the dictates of one's self.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Jim,
If it helps, I completely understood what you were saying. You sound like you're skating periluously close to Pelagianism, though.

---

I'm relieved to hear that I'm skating close to anything... I had no idea I was making enough sense to be heretical

and Catholics are supposed to be "semi-pelagians" anyhow (seriously, that's a common charge that Protestants bring against modern Catholics)
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I mean, really, all else aside, doesn't it bug you that you ascribe all these highly less-than-good attributes to God?

---

quote:

---

What does your morality derive from if you reject God?

---

My take on about six thousand years of accumulated philosophy and theology.

Which is really what most theists derive their morality from, too, although they won't admit it. *grin*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It makes me sad that you don't respect theists' experience as much as they respect yours.
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

Jesus laid out, clearly, the essentials of salvation. That is, doing good works to others because, as you do good works to others, you are actually doing them to him, even if you don't know it...I don't see it as ambiguous in that passage that people who did good works but didn't know or follow Jesus would get salvation.

---

quote:

---

DH, seriously, I'm very glad I don't believe in your God. I always get the impression that I wouldn't like Him very much at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

What does your morality derive from if you reject God?

---

My take on about six thousand years of accumulated philosophy and theology.

---

quote:

---

"This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I don't agree with your paraphrase - I think you're adding stuff to bring it more in line with you could believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:
My point Squick, and maybe I didn't make it effectively with John, is that the NT is peppered with statements by Christ and the apostles about what we must do to be saved. To say this parable enumerates all the requirements seems to neglect a lot of other scripture.

---

quote:

---

When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".

Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I've got a pretty comprehensive knowledge of scripture. Perhaps you could point out these other instances where you think Jesus talked about salvation that contradict the ideas that he laid out in that parable. I think that might be interesting.

---

quote:

---

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
Those two statements are in no way equivalent.

---

quote:

---

That doesn't quite get me there. What basis do you have for accepting some ideas/beliefs/actions as good and rejecting others? For example what aspects of dh's view of God do you believe were less-than-good and why? Is it logical or is it just your feeling on the matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:

quote:

---

When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".

Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.

---

Those two statements are in no way equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
Those two statements are in no way equivalent.

---

Hello. I'd like you to meet my friends, mr. example and mr. metaphor.

"How do you do?"


Edit:

I'm actually saying that they are, in many ways, equivalent. I'm not saying that they involve equivalent levels of grace or are equally sacramental, but I am saying that being "saved" is a lot like letting go of egos to become more sane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
I have trouble with it because it smacks of universalism. Basically, that salvation is available outside of Christ, or that one can belong to Christ without knowing it while simultaneously completely embracing a different religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.

---

quote:

---

When we give in to God, grace restores us to that place of subordinate divinity and we receive our birthright as "sons of God".

Or, in more secular terms, when you let go of false egos and live in reality, you become a lot more peaceful and a lot less susceptible to compulsive, or even impulsive behaviors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Matthew, 5:39, KJV :

quote:

---

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

---

---

quote:

---

It makes me sad that you don't respect theists' experience as much as they respect yours

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:What you are attempting is simply impossible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:
While I agree with what Lewis wrote, I think it's prone to misinterpretation. I don't believe anyone could be saved without eventually recognizing that Christ is God. Thus a noble and good non-Christian would still have to admit to the truth of Christ's divinity before being saved, just as Tisroc had to recognize Aslan as the source of all good and reject Tash. I don't think it's an automatic, rather that it is a choice.

So I guess I'd say that good works alone are not a guarantee of salvation; they must be accompanied by an acceptance of Christ. That acceptance may come early or late, but must come before a person can be saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
It makes me sad that you don't respect theists' experience as much as they respect yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:What you are attempting is simply impossible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Yes, those who didn't have an opportunity to get baptized during this life will have the chance to accept in the next. The baptism is done for them by proxy here, after they have died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
The ends may be something of the same for your brain, but on involves surrending to the Lord and he giving you yourself, and the other is discovering yourself on your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I'm kind of glad that Lisa's post keeps getting repeated as it bears repeating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
starLisa, I believe that's a violation of the user agreement. If you can't bring yourself to respect other people's religion, then stay out of the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silent E:
Up until now I have given starLisa the benefit of the doubt. I will no longer do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I won't argue with you, dear. Find someone else to throw yourself against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Are you really suggesting that it's likely Jesus didn't live 2K years ago, starLisa? I'm sensing another bears and minks moment coming if you are...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
Sheesh. Save me from your "salvation". [/QB]

---

quote:

---

We don't believe that people basically suck. So we don't see a need for "salvation". If you do something wrong, you cop to it, regret it, and commit not to do it again. That's what God wants of us. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I won't argue with you, dear. Find someone else to throw yourself against.

---

Was this directed at me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Lisa,

You do know I was serious, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papa Janitor:
This thread is going the wrong way. Please repent (as in, turn and head in another direction), or the thread will be locked.

--PJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
Me, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
Sheesh. Save me from your "salvation".

---

Lisa, you're rude. And periods should go inside quotation marks when finishing a sentance.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:

quote:

---

We don't believe that people basically suck. So we don't see a need for "salvation". If you do something wrong, you cop to it, regret it, and commit not to do it again. That's what God wants of us.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:
I don't believe people basically suck. I still see a need for "salvation." When you do something wrong, copping to it, regretting it and commiting not to do it again are all integral; but they are collectively insufficient for making a full restitution. Thus the need for a Savior.

---

quote:

---

So I guess I'd say that good works alone are not a guarantee of salvation; they must be accompanied by an acceptance of Christ. That acceptance may come early or late, but must come before a person can be saved.

Sheesh. Save me from your "salvation". We don't believe that people basically suck. So we don't see a need for "salvation". If you do something wrong, you cop to it, regret it, and commit not to do it again. That's what God wants of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim-Me:
A few comments:

Interestingly enough, this character's name, "Emeth", means "truth" in some language... I forget which.

---

quote:

---

It's different elsewhere, like in the UK.

---

Ha, from now on I'm putting my punctuation inside dialogue quotes and outside other quotes, because I like it that way. Examples:

Farah said, "I haven't started cooking the turkey."
I can't understand how you would call that a "turkey".


 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

This thread was started about a quote from a book intentionally full of Christian symbolism that was written by a Christian author. Coming in and telling people that Jesus never existed and if he did you didn't like what he said is kind of silly considering the first post of the thread and the fact that Aslan represents Him. It also really adds nothing to the discussion and just ends up derailing it . I think that's why your words and manner of posting are being singled out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
No, rude would be if I were to point out that someone rudely correcting my grammar probably shouldn't misspell words while doing so. It's "sentence".
[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I was talking about what's necessary to get right with God. I should have added that before you do that, you have to make it right with the person or person's you harmed. Restitution. If you hurt someone and try to just repent to God, God doesn't accept it. No "absolution" can help if you don't make restitution to the victim. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
Lisa: how are they relegating you to a horrible damnation you don't believe in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Lisa,
This thread was started about a quote from a book intentionally full of Christian symbolism that was written by a Christian author. Coming in and telling people that Jesus never existed and if he did you didn't like what he said is kind of silly considering the first post of the thread and the fact that Aslan represents Him. It also really adds nothing to the discussion and just ends up derailing it . I think that's why your words and manner of posting are being singled out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
Lisa: how are they relegating you to a horrible damnation you don't believe in?

---

quote:

---

1. The discussion is over, because you are insulting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
It was directed at starLisa. I would never, ever call JM dear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dh:
It also seems to open the door to "works righteousness," or salvation by works. A person can be a muslim or buddhist or whatever and be very kind and do lots of good things, but it would bring him no closer to salvation. You don't belong to Christ by giving him "service", but by accepting his free gift to you.

---

<shudder> I honestly don't get how you can accept something like that. The idea that you worship someone who insists, first and foremost, on you joining his club, and only incidentally worries about you being a good person. Think how you'd relate to an earthly group that demanded such a thing.

---

And, I can respond to this, because it voices a very widespread misunderstanding of the concept of salvation by faith.

It's not about joining a club. Nor does being saved by faith exempt you from doing good works. The point is that, no matter how many good works you do, you will never be good. Whereas, if you are transformed by God's saving grace through faith in Jesus Christ, good works will naturally follow. Not immediately, and slowly at first, but they will gradually increase. As James said in his epistle, faith without works is dead. But a good tree can only produce good fruit.

That is the concept of salvation by grace. Good works do not produce salvation. Rather, salvation produces good works.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
KoM, you should do this comedy routine more often, I like you better like this.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Then from whence do good works flow when someone is not "saved"?
 

---

Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
Or bad works from someone who is saved?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I sense the approach of a 'No True Scotsman' argument.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
And why can't it be a combination of the two? Grace AND good works?
 

---

Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
 
Read the Cost of Discipleship by Bonhoeffer for the a tremendous explanation of from where the desire to good works flows.

mackillian: My answer may not satisfy you, but the entire book of Romans makes it pretty clear that Christain salvation comes through grace alone, without reference to works.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I don't mean any disrespect by this, but I have a huge backlog of books waiting to be read. Books I sought out because I was interested in them. Do you seriously expect me to seek this book out, or are you just trying to end the conversation? Because I doubt highly that I will ever read this book out.

Can you give a "nutshell" answer?

(Honestly, I have no problem with the belief that you cannot earn salvation through your good works. My Catholic education already taught me this. What I object to is the belief that you must specifically be baptized into one of a limited number of specific Christian denominations, and profess faith in Christ, during your lifetime.)

I have prayed and sought an answer, and the Spirit tells me this belief is mistaken.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I thought there were also mentions of good works as well. I mean, somewhere in there.

From the studies I've had, I think it's a combination of grace and good works.
 

---

Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
 
I try and avoid giving nutshell answers regarding theological issues because I am not qualified to do so. However, Bonhoeffer's essential argument is that Grace, while freely given, is "costly" in that those who truly believe and are saved by grace will know of the tremendous gift they have been given. Therefore, they well desire to sacrifice all in order to follow the Lord and party of this sacrifice will be to do good works, though they might be difficult to do and may result in pain rather than pleasure.

The money quote from the book would probably be:

"The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who left all to follow Christ. Such a man knows that the call to discipleship is a gift of grace, and that the call is inseparable from grace" Cost, p.55


Thats a very short and simple summary. Somebody else may be able to do better.

On a side note, Bonhoeffer himself is an example of living his idea. He sacrificed much in his time, opposing the Nazis especially.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Thank you.

I see how that answers the question "Why would someone who is saved do good works if the good works are not necessary to his salvation?"

I think you may also be answering the question "Why do allegedly saved people sometimes lead evil lives?"

I don't think you have answered the question "Why do allegedly unsaved people sometimes live extremely good lives?"
 

---

Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
 
My answer to the third question lies in the theory of the natural law, that right and wrong are, in essence, imprinted on the hearts and minds of all people. Somewhere inside everyone, deeply buried/repressed in some people, is the inclination for good that comes from being created in God's image. Our daily lives are merely a battle between that natural law and our sinful nature. Grace of the costly variety is one reason to choose the natural law more often; other people may have other reasons, conscious or unconscious, for doing so.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Okay. I can grok that.

I guess then it's a completely separate issue, but I find highly unsatisfactory the idea that a good person can honestly seek out God, remain unconvinced by His promotional materials, and be condemned to some variation on Hell.

(Someone will likely come along and argue that being unconvinced is, ipso facto, evidence that the search was insincere. It has happened before, both online and in e-mails I have received in response to my posts seeking out God. I find this unbelievably offensive, but these people will not care, since they view me as unsaved anyway. Oh, well.)

[ December 06, 2005, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
That last bit was uncalled for, Icky.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Sorry. Better now?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yes. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
In discussions like these, I like to bring good ol' James (2:18-24) into it:

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

When discussing which was more important, faith or works, C.S. Lewis said it was akin to asking which blade of the scissor was more important.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
You know, this thread was just above the "Favorite B Movies" thread, and I guess I'm sleepy, and I just looked and parsed it as "Favorite Hatrack Theists."

I just had to click to come in and complain about the blatant popularity thread . . .
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taalcon:

When discussing which was more important, faith or works, C.S. Lewis said it was akin to asking which blade of the scissor was more important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
The point is you can't join the club unless you ARE a good person. Alternatively, joining the club will help you become a better person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Being good isn't incidental to being Christian. It's fundamental. I'm sorry you were ever given a different impression.

---

quote:

---

Again, I think you're misunderstanding Icarus's point and/or fudging definitions. I have to assume by "Christian" in this sentence you are implying "real Christian" as opposed to "Christian poser" of which there are legion. I think Icarus's point is why do you have to be "Christian" at all? And if Christian, why "Mormon" or "Baptist"? Why can't a good person (and for the Mormons let's assume he met, listened to and rejected the missionaries and the Book of Mormon) be convinced of the rightness of his own religion, live a life which by all non-partisan standards is a good life, and still be counted worthy of all of theoretical God's blessings after his death?

Icarus, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to me to be what you are asking.

---

quote:

---

Being good isn't incidental to being Christian. It's fundamental. I'm sorry you were ever given a different impression.

---

Maybe a better choice of words might be 'believing you are good'.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I think even beyond the salvation through works question (keeping this in a Christian context for convenience, not because I am one), the fundamental question that Lewis' quote raises is, when someone prays, who do they pray to and who answers? Surely even without the Bible, someone can pray and communicate with the divine and thus be transfigured? Further, even though they pray to something of a different name, who answers? If a Christian prays to God or Jesus, who answers? How do you determine false from true?

I think a lot of Christians would say that they know whether their responses are true inasmuch as they do not contradict the Bible, but as has already been pointed out, many people read the Bible differently, so that is not a truly objective standard. Further, it might be asked whether God can't seem to work outside what would commonly be considered Biblical principles, i.e. Abraham and Isaac.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no objective standard. In the end, it is the individual who must decide for herself whether or not what she believes she hears is 'true'.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Some more questions.

quote:

---

A profound Confession of faith:

How shall I call upon my God, my God and my Lord, when by the very act of calling upon him I would be calling him into myself?? Is there any place within me into which my God might come? How should the God who made heaven and earth come into me? Is there any room in me for you, Lord, my God? Even heaven and earth, which you have made and in which you have made me - can they even contain you? Since nothing that exists would exist without you, does it follow that whatever exists does in some way contain you? But if this is so, how can I, who am one of these existing things, ask you to come into me, wehn I would not exist at all unless you were already in me? Not yet am I in hell, after all, but even if I were, you would be there too; for if I descend to the underworld, you are there. No, my God, I would not exist, I would not be at all, were you not in me. Or should I say, rather, that I should not exist if I were not in you, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things? Yes, Lord, that is the truth, that is indeed the truth. To what place can I invite you, then, since I am in you? Or where could you come from, in order to come into me? To what place outside heaven and earth could I travel, so that my God could come to me there, the God who said, I fill heaven and earth??

So then, if you fill heaven and earth, does that mean that heaven and earth contain you? Or, since clearly they cannot hold you, is there something of you left over when you have filled them? Once heaven and earth are full, where would that remaining part of you overflow? Or perhaps you have no need to be contained by anything, but rather contain everything yourself, becasue whatever you fill you contain, even as you fill it? The vessels which are full of you do not lend you stability, because even if they break you will not be spilt. And when you pour yourself out over us, you do not lie there spilt but raise us up; you are not scattered, but gather us together. Yet all those things which you fill, you fill with the whole of yourself. Should we suppose, then, that because all things are incapable of containing the whole of you, they hold only a part of you, and all of them the same part? Or does each thing hold a different part, greater things larger parts, and lesser things smaller parts? Does it even make sense to speak of larger or smaller parts of you? Are you not everywhere in your whole being, while there is nothing whatever that can hold you entirely?

---

quote:

---

I remain convinced that God is far more interested in people living good lives and helping those living with them and around them for the sake of doing good, than He is with anything else, no matter how important that 'else' may be.

---

quote:

---

The point is that, no matter how many good works you do, you will never be good.

---

quote:

---

I must assume by "club" you mean "the saved" because you can't be meaning a specific church or denomination (or even major religion)

---

Well I COULD be meaning that, but I'm not.

quote:

---

Again, I think you're misunderstanding Icarus's point and/or fudging definitions

---

quote:

---

why do you have to be "Christian" at all? ... Why can't a good person (and for the Mormons let's assume he met, listened to and rejected the missionaries and the Book of Mormon) be convinced of the rightness of his own religion, live a life which by all non-partisan standards is a good life, and still be counted worthy of all of theoretical God's blessings after his death?

---

quote:

---

Maybe a better choice of words might be 'believing you are good'.

---

quote:

---

Were I a theist, I'd believe this too. The sad thing is, nearly every religion is as much, if not more, about dividing, sorting, and setting apart as it is about welcoming, gathering, and including.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:


It's all up to God.

And we should be pretty glad about that. It means we can concentrate on things we have a capacity to understand and act upon.

---

I could not agree more. I can safely say that I used to be very exclusionary in my view of religions and the process of being saved. Since gaining a little more experience in the world and seeing the fundamental everyday goodness present in most populations I find it very hard to believe that any religion espousing exclusive rights to exaltation sharing my belief in a loving God. I don't believe God will condemn anyone with love for their fellow man in their heart, even if such love were uncultivated and lay dormant.

Fundamentally I see life as a school which ends in graduation to the afterlife. Our actions in this life define us and will affect our entrance in to the next life only through our predispositions towards learning and growing. I believe narrow beliefs and subjective definitions regarding who should or should not be saved will only lead to a “post graduatory” hindrance of the individual passing such judgments.

I say this not because I believe God will reject them, but more because I believe it will take them longer to align themselves with the new truths of a situation which is currently incomprehensible to our finite selves.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
wrt posthumous baptism, I don't find the idea offensive at all. In fact, your reasoning makes perfect sense to me. I hereby officially give any LDS present permission to baptize me after my death.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Were I a theist, I'd believe this too. The sad thing is, nearly every religion is as much, if not more, about dividing, sorting, and setting apart as it is about welcoming, gathering, and including.

---

There is a very good reason for this, in my opinion. I think that one of the most important issues generally left out of debates on religion is that of culture. Culture is a nebulous term which can include many things, but at its heart the culture of a people is defined by their morality. What human behaviors are right and wrong, why they are so and what is done to reward those who adhere and punish those who do not are the fundamental defining characteristics of any people.

Another obvious fact is that culture may be reinforced or dilluted based on how those outside the culture are allowed to interact. Clearly, while the extremes are easy to visualize- extreme xenophobia on the one hand an anarchy on the other- there is plenty of room for different balances to be struck in between. It should be obvious, however, that the more xenophobic a culture is, the less likely it is to change quickly while the more welcoming a culture is to other cultures, the more likely that it will change quickly.

This is where religion comes in. If one believes that one's morality is divinely ordained, one will obviously be reluctant to allow that morality to change much or quickly, unless there are certain provisos within that morality which allow it to do so.

While several of you have spoken about how a religion should include everybody, the rejoinder is that any religion which does so will change quite rapidly into something very different from what it was before. What most religions do, instead of unquestioningly embracing all comers, is to require that new adherents embrace at least a given subset of the religious culture, composed generally of the core values plus certain cultural traits which are not religious or moral in nature.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
I've certainly never suggested that a religion should accept all comers unquestioningly. I fully understand why religion is about dividing, sorting, and setting apart as much as it is about welcoming, gathering, and including. I think it's inherent in the nature of religion built upon ambiguous scripture and/or questionable mythology. Although I understand why this is so, it doesn't stop it from being a sad thing.

Spirituality is like a field of stars. Humans are built with the inherent ability (if not the actual need) to find patterns in chaos. If God created humans and left such an ambiguous array of spiritual artifacts, he'd have to be a fool not to expect that some men of good will would look at the stars and see a crab and other men of good will would look at the same stars and see a man.

Add to that the absolute knowledge that humans can be manipulative, deceitful, and power hungry and that religion itself is immensely susceptible to being used as a tool for great evil and suffering, and it seems almost like the creator of this universe, if he cares about us at all, intended that many many men of good will and kind, true hearts, would never find or accept any of the historically defined "paths to him." That such a being would create this situation and then punish his hapless creations for not stumbling on the right path, or recognizing it if they do stumble on it, makes him the worst kind of monster in my view. I prefer to believe God does not exist than that he does and is a monster.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Wow. I am agreeing with Rakeesh. The divisions do have more to do with humanity than with God. I have often said that there are two kinds of religion, one that gives us and excuse to think we are more special than other folks, and one that calls us to find the divine in all of God's children. I try to wholeheartedly embrace the second one. Karl, I will welcome, gather, and include you in whatever way you want.

The Catholic Church has even gone so far as to say that one does not have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. Which is huge for us as change is not exactly our best thing!

I think, like Bob, that God can save whomever he wants. Further I think that God wants to save everybody. And since God is pretty smart, I am confident that he has worked out a plan that is better and more just and more loving than whatever we are likely to think of.

And Rakeesh, here I must disagree with you. Your assumptions in your post to Lisa seem to assume that because most of us are doing ballet (perhaps in my case, modern dance?) that tap dancers should adapt themselves to us. I would contend that as the majority, we ballerina's have the larger obligation to be inclusive.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
(at kmbboots)
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Awww...
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Jim,
kat's doing her nasty sniping thing at you because you're in a vulnerable place right now. If history holds true she won't apologize or back off and most people aren't going to tell her to unless her nastiness gets really blatant. The best you can do is ignore her. You're in a difficult spot right now. You don't need to borrow that trouble.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Squicky
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Squicky, that's not needed. Come on.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
Karl- I wonder what that "punishment" really consists of.

I expect that heaven or hell are pretty much like earth, with one important difference. Here on earth it is possible to evade consequence, for a time. One may lie, cheat and steal without being caught at it. While the social consequences of such behavior can be escaped, the consequences to the character of the person who engages in them cannot.

I reckon that both heaven and hell are simply places where there is no artificality to hide who you are. One cannot manipulate the system to pretend to be what one is not. Thus those who have built for themselves a foul and despicable character are punished merely by being what they are. The natural consequences of their actions are their punishment rather than some coercive force imposed from outside.

To take the idea further, surely if there is a God and if he requires a certain code of conduct, such a code is composed of natural rather than arbitrary laws. This view may be imposed on a reading of the Christian scriptures by asking oneself as one reads "How may this existing community be taken from their current set of beliefs to one which builds a stronger community with the values taught by Christ?"

The ten commandments may be easily understood in this way. The strictures about holding to God ensure that the goals of the community remain fixed by not adopting the values of a different community. The strictures against adultery, murder, theft etc. are clearly necessary for harmonious coexistence. Others address designation of authority, care for the elderly and so on.

Now to tie this idea up- if there truly is a code of behavior mandated by natural law then religion as such is not explicitly required for man to find it out. While explicit declarations are good guideposts, simply by living one may discover the truth of the necessity of most religious laws of behavior, in the same way that obvious natural laws such as gravity are applicable to all men whether an individual understands the principle behind it or not.

Thus when a man passes from this world into the next, whether or not he was explicitly taught a specifc religious doctrine, judgment by a universal code of morals is just.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Jim doesn't deserve that. Even if he weren't a long-time poster with many contributions to the forum, if he were a newcomer, he wouldn't deserve that. And he shouldn't have to be the one fighting against it, either.

Also, I really don't like bullies or passive-aggressive nastiness.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I don't like this discussion reopened. If it is, I could explain why someone who has met me and knows where I live threatening to arrive in person and deliver an intimidating guesture with sexual overtones is so incredibly creepy.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
To address the real discussion winding its way amidst the melodrama, I really like discussing philosophy with you Jacare. You are one of the theists I most respect. [edit: You're also one of the Hatrackers I most respect. Didn't want that to sound like a left-handed compliment. ]

quote:

---

Thus when a man passes from this world into the next, whether or not he was explicitly taught a specifc religious doctrine, judgment by a universal code of morals is just.

---

quote:

---

Now to tie this idea up- if there truly is a code of behavior mandated by natural law then religion as such is not explicitly required for man to find it out. While explicit declarations are good guideposts, simply by living one may discover the truth of the necessity of most religious laws of behavior, in the same way that obvious natural laws such as gravity are applicable to all men whether an individual understands the principle behind it or not.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible to define right and wrong objectively (without God)? My feeling is it's not possible

---

Since no one has done it, I'd say that it's a fact.

We (meaning, I hasten to add, heterogenous groups) can approach a consensus morality easiest and best without appeals to God, as this thread underlines.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

I really like discussing philosophy with you Jacare. You are one of the theists I most respect.

---

quote:

---

Yes. I agree with this. The debate then is what this universal code consists of and what has simply been lumped in as "universal" by man. My point is that there is no completely rational way to arrive at any agreement on this. Every "thus sayeth the Lord" requires a hugh leap of faith, and faith by its very nature is so completely unreliable in any verifiable way.

---

quote:

---

Remove the word "religious" from "laws of behavior", and I agree with this thought very much. This is sort of what I've been trying to work through myself in threads like "Toward an Objective Morality", etc. Were God to require this, and only this, from his creations, then he would be a God I could respect and worship.

---

quote:

---

The veil of ignorance is the idea that aspects of a system can be judged against a standard that assumes that when people set up the rules, they didn't know what role they'd take within the system. Assuming a competent group of people setting things up, this gives a purportedly objective measure of the fairness of a system.

---

quote:

---

By refusing to take part in a given ritual, for example, one is demonstrating that one does not believe that the group which requires the ritual in fact knows what the true natural laws are, or alternatively one is indicating that one does not wish to be part of the community which the religious ritual helps to define.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Incidentally, can one define an objective morality in the presence of a god? If moral is whatever the god says, then you end up with a variant of might-is-right.

---

quote:

---

It's also possible that by refusing the ritual (say, of baptism) one is indicating that one does not believe that all the obligations the ritual signifies acceptance of are indeed [/i]natural laws[/i]. For instance, I might agree that the Mormons (for instance) know all the "natural laws", but also believe that they have added quite a few unnatural laws and declared them to be natural (or at least required regardless of their nature). I might refuse the rituals of the Mormons not because I do not want community with them, but because I cannot commit to the (perceived) unnatural additions.

---

quote:

---

Storm/Tom, do you think that there are any moral universals, such as "killing is bad"?

---

quote:

---

What's wrong with that, Storm, is that compromise has not historically been the choice among humans when one group has significantly more power than another. You imply this yourself with the "when we have to" that follows "compromise". When a group of humans doesn't have to compromise (that is, when they have sufficient power to refuse compromise at the expense of the other side of any disagreement) they historically don't, leading to all manner of atrocities. The best way we have found to avoid this "Might makes right" philosophy is the rule of law based on a foundation of agreed-upon morality coupled with a system that allows for change in these laws as that common morality is further defined.

---

quote:

---

rule of law based on a foundation of agreed-upon morality coupled with a system that allows for change in these laws as that common morality is further defined.

---

quote:

---

The quest for a natural morality is born of a hope that mankind might find a morality that can be agreed upon by all. The need is probably debateable, after all, we don't really have one now and we're getting along OK. However, the value of one should be self evident. If we can discover an Objective Morality or a Natural Morality, or truely a Universal Common Morality, we could end most of the strife in the world.

---

quote:

---

SS- I would think that the reason why we cannot do as you suggest is apparent. One of the primary reasons for the existence of modern government is to protect its citizens from threats to their security. Morality is what defines what a threat consists of. As a simple example, in our society currently most people would consider attempts by a pedophile to have sex with their children to be a threat. The government protects people from this threat by locking pedophiles up and tracking them when they are released.
Imagine a society where pedophilia is culturally acceptable. How will it peacefully coexist with a society such as our own? The coercive power of the government will either be used to support pedophilia or to punish it. Compromise is problematic at best.

---

quote:

---

Compromise is much more possible and likely when the gap between beliefs is small. As that gap grows (which is inevitable as more and more differing cultures are embraced) compromise becomes more and more difficult.

---

Space and resources force compromise. When you and I are in a room and there's only so much food, oxygen and other resources to go around, we will compromise if we don't kill each other. That's just the nature of the beast. And before you say anything,'objective morality' wouldn't keep one of us from killing the other. It's only our consciences that prevent that.


However, hapilly, we live in a society where groups can basically retreat to their own spaces and do their own thing. To a large degree, we don't all live in the same room, so there is no need, most of the time, for compromise between groups.

People are naturally gregarious and group oriented. Understanding that there isn't an objective morality certainly doesn't mean that people won't choose to live in certain groups, deciding that their precepts and rules are best.

So, one group might view paedophila as bad, and another might view it as wrong. The groups themselves will work out what is right and wrong and, further, because there is more than one morality, each group can look at the other and compare what it is doing and profit from the different experiences of the other--different experiences that are made possible by society being heterogenous. That's why I think a free market of ideas springing from a variety of different experiences serves society best.

Those who believe in Objective morality deny the free market of ideas because, again, they deny the validity of certain other ideas.

'Paedophilia' perfectly illustrates this. On this board, everyone can agree in theory to the idea that some paedophilia is bad, but after a moment's discussion, it becomes clear that people disagree about what paedophilia means, believe that some of it is worst than other kinds, or that people disagree entirely whether paedophilia, in some instances,is bad at all.

Objective morality doesn't exist in the real world. It's a fantasy.

Edited to be a little more polite.

[ December 07, 2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I prefer to think of a structural morality. That is, the structure of the world is fixed in such a way that there is a "best" morality. Or course, that's one of the basic assumptions that goes along with being a scientifically oriented humanist.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Yeah, let me hasten to add that there are a large number of similiarities, bioligical and whatnot, that often make it so that the 'best' course of action isn't that hard to determine.

I'm not saying that people are completely different, just that there exists differences between all people.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Barring an extremely obvious, explicit, and universal divine revelation, any “objective” morality that gains broad acceptance is going to be agreed on by people coming to consensus on what the objective principles are. Which is to say, it will be (in effect) a consensual morality.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Storm,
The "the subjective is objective" and J.S. Mills On Liberty both are guides to morality that explicitly make not having everyone do the same thing an important part of the system. I think you're oversimplifiying morality to insist that this is precluded by having a shared system.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

No it's not. *points to America* *points to board*

---

quote:

---

Yes Jacare, but you've got an extreme view of the "culture war" you want to have. Most people don't share this view.

---

quote:

---

The "the subjective is objective" and J.S. Mills On Liberty both are guides to morality that explicitly make not having everyone do the same thing an important part of the system. I think you're oversimplifiying morality to insist that this is precluded by having a shared system.

---

quote:

---

I think you're oversimplifiying morality to insist that this is precluded by having a shared system.

---

quote:

---

I find it ironic that you would use either the US or Hatrack as examples of successful compromise for widely varying beliefs. I would say that the US is an example of the capacity to compromise when there is only a small gap between beliefs while at the same time serving as a sterling example of the difficulties of compromise when the gap is wider.

---

Compromise is often difficult.

I don't know what qualifies as small gaps in belief and large gaps in belief. It's pretty subjetive, wouldn't you say?

Actually, I hypothesize that belief is often a product of environment, and given that most people in the U.S. live in the same environment, they're going to hover around the same basic beliefs.

Why is it ironic that I point to Hatrack and the U.S. as examples of succesful compromise? It seems to me that they show quite well that people who don't have the same set of values can be friends and get along together.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Perhaps you are forgetting my plans to send all the theists here to re-education camps in Siberia as soon as I come to power? Just because I don't froth at the mouth doesn't mean I'm not mad. Conversely, I can plot the utter destruction of people's cultures, beliefs and lives without getting rude about it.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, if you're going to have a despot, I guess it's better to have one that says 'please' and 'thank you' before he screws with you than one who doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't know what qualifies as small gaps in belief and large gaps in belief. It's pretty subjetive, wouldn't you say?

Actually, I hypothesize that belief is often a product of environment, and given that most people in the U.S. live in the same environment, they're going to hover around the same basic beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Why is it ironic that I point to Hatrack and the U.S. as examples of succesful compromise? It seems to me that they show quite well that people who don't have the same set of values can be friends and get along together.

---

quote:

---

I would agree that what I termed "small gaps" and "large gaps" is pretty subjective. I would also agree that belief is often a product of environment, but I would say that the US can by no means be considered a single environment. Again, the difficulty here arises in which particular subgroup gets to use the coercive power of the government to enforce their views.

---

quote:

---

quote: Why is it ironic that I point to Hatrack and the U.S. as examples of succesful compromise? It seems to me that they show quite well that people who don't have the same set of values can be friends and get along together.

To address Hatrack first- what this site illustrates is that people who communicate often can come to see the opposition as people and therefore cease fighting when the argument gets too heated. I don't believe that Hatrack illustrates compromise because in the first place nothing is at stake. If you don't see things my way, what of it? You don't have any power over policy decisions, so I lose nothing by not debating abortion to the bitter end or what have you.

---

Not to be snarky at all, but if you haven't learned anything from people who don't believe as you do, and come to understand where they are coming from, and modified your own thinking, then maybe you haven't been listening.

I am constantly suprised when I hear things like this on this forum and on Ornery. How can you be on either forum and interact with people and not change as a person, gain in understanding in issues, modify your position? I honestly do not get it. I know Hatrack has had a profound effect on me.

quote:

---

As far as the US goes- it represents my viewpoints perfectly. When people agree on most issues they are willing to compromise. When the differences are great and the core values are at stake, things are different. The election of 1800, crises in 1820, 1850, bleeding Kansas, the civil war, or in more recent times abortion, homosexual marriage, separation of church and state. These are not matters of compromise; in these cases one side amasses political power and forces to the other side to bend to its will. After a time people may come to agree with the fait accompli, but surely this is not compromise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"The "golden rule" standard can also be used to some extent to determine morality: "Do unto others and you'd have them do unto you." This method of course, also has it's failings because we as humans are all inherently different and we all want different things,"

This is one of the reasons I prefer the Judaic formulation of the golden rule... "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." That way, if you screw something up, its normally an error of omission, rather then comission.

---

quote:

---

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

---

quote:

---

I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful.

---

But we do it all the time. Parents take their children to get shots; we think we're helping them, and they think we're helping the doctor torture them. Likewise whenever someone wants something that is harmful to them, and we have to make a judgement as to what is the best way to help them. We can't always do what they want us to do; sometimes we have to do what we think is best for them, what we would want done for us, even if it's not what the other person wants right now.

Edited to add that I guess the golden rule only works if you really want what's best for others. If you're a drug addict, for example, and the thing you'd want most in the world is drugs, you oughtn't to be applying the "golden rule" and giving drugs to others.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
" PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness."

I agree. But not everyone wants the same kindness. For example, and this is a trivial example, I left my tea mug on the coffee table when I went to bed last night. This morning, it is in the dishwasher. Its my mess, I want to clean it up, but my roommate, by being kind, took that opportunity from me. Which annoys me.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Would you want your roommate to be annoyed with you if you did something you thought helpful?

At first I thought I was joking, but now I don't think I am. Mostly.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:

quote:

---

I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful.

---

But we do it all the time. Parents take their children to get shots;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:
we think we're helping them, and they think we're helping the doctor torture them. Likewise whenever someone wants something that is harmful to them, and we have to make a judgement as to what is the best way to help them. We can't always do what they want us to do; sometimes we have to do what we think is best for them, what we would want done for us, even if it's not what the other person wants right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:
Edited to add that I guess the golden rule only works if you really want what's best for others. If you're a drug addict, for example, and the thing you'd want most in the world is drugs, you oughtn't to be applying the "golden rule" and giving drugs to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
>> I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful. But the "do unto others" formulation not only permits this, but claims it to be a "Golden Rule".<<

Here's the full text:

quote:

---

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

---

I think this rebutts your critiscism, sL, PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
" PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness."

I agree. But not everyone wants the same kindness. For example, and this is a trivial example, I left my tea mug on the coffee table when I went to bed last night. This morning, it is in the dishwasher. Its my mess, I want to clean it up, but my roommate, by being kind, took that opportunity from me. Which annoys me.

---

quote:

---

But I also think that not doing something that is wanted is less of a moral issue then doing something that is unwanted

---

quote:

---

Well, he KNOWS that it annoys me when he cleans up my stuff if I leave it out. But in general, no. But person A is much less likely to be annoyed if he does not tell person B how to treat him, and B doesn't do something that A wants B to do, then if person A does not tell person B how to treat him, and then person B does something A doesn't want done. In general.

---

I think the larger point isn't that you did something wrong, but that at some level, there will always be annoyance experienced by one human being that was caused by another, and sometimes all we can change is who experiences it.

I have no idea about your roommate situation, but is it possible that the presence of the cup annoyed him, and that putting it away lessened his total annoyance?

I'm not really trying to get at roommate relations - there's something bigger that's dancing just out of reach of my exam and paper addled brain. Ah, well.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Feel free to divert the thread, I say.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
>>there's something bigger that's dancing just out of reach of my exam and paper addled brain.<<

That would be my RPG campaign, right?


 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"I think the larger point isn't that you did something wrong, but that at some level, there will always be annoyance experienced by one human being that was caused by another, and sometimes all we can change is who experiences it."

Perhaps. I happen to think that errors of omission are generally less offensive then errors of comission, and as such, I think that the "do not" phrasing is a better rule of thumb then the "do unto" phrasing.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
So is leaving your dirty dishes around the apartment an error of comission, or is failing to pick up your dirty dishes an error of omission?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
oooooh.... leave it to the preacher to find the shades of grey...
 

---