posted
bev, If God is the only source of pure, unadulterated truth and goodness, why aren't most Christians better in these things than non-Christians? Why are many of them worse?
If the main goal is to develop goodness and truth, becoming a Christian would, in many instances, seem to be contrary to that goal.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: bev, If God is the only source of pure, unadulterated truth and goodness, why aren't most Christians better in these things than non-Christians? Why are many of them worse?
Because Christians don't have exclusive access to God? Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but then what is the point of being a Christian?
edit: They're, on average, more prejudiced, more dishonest, get divorced more, more authoritarian, etc. than atheists and many other religious groups.
If your goal is to not be those things and to promote this in others, Christianity seems like a pretty poor bet. And if the Christian God is the source of all goodness and truth, why is he doing such a bad job with getting it to his followers?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God.
I believe that both of these things are absolutely true, and that believers are kidding themselves when they convince themselves otherwise.
Who would convince themselves otherwise and why?
It sounds so painstakingly stupid on the surface.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, thank you for your response. You mention a lot of concepts that either I agree with already or would agree with if I were more religious. However, I have trouble makings sense of this part about the necessity of faith:
quote: If we accept that an important part of living by faith is not as much a certainty in the existance of God but what kind of ideologies we strive to adhere to, then this life is a test to see if we will choose goodness on our own with a limited understanding…
…if having a perfect knowledge of God removes some of our agency in "seeing what we will do" in struggling to find our own sense of truth and goodness, the "test" is messed up when God pulls back the curtain and says, "Peekaboo!"
But the test includes the threat of eternal spiritual damnation, which we are reminded of constantly throughout the scriptures. It could still be claimed that believers are good because of the threat of punishment.
A more appropriate test to see if a person really is good would be to see how a person were to act if he didn’t believe that God exists or that he won’t be punished, as opposed to seeing whether a person is good because he believes there is a chance of being punished by God.
It’s like me not stealing something even though I know I won’t be caught as opposed to me not stealing something because a camera, which may or may not actually be hooked up, is right above me. The latter scenario doesn’t actually tell whether I’m a good person, only that I don’t want to risk getting caught.
I would say the test is messed up, not when God pulls back the curtain, but when the threat of punishment for disobedience was made.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:bev, If God is the only source of pure, unadulterated truth and goodness, why aren't most Christians better in these things than non-Christians? Why are many of them worse?
If the main goal is to develop goodness and truth, becoming a Christian would, in many instances, seem to be contrary to that goal.
quote:If your goal is to not be those things and to promote this in others, Christianity seems like a pretty poor bet. And if the Christian God is the source of all goodness and truth, why is he doing such a bad job with getting it to his followers?
I don't know exactly, but I don't find it overly surprising.
If people exibit these qualities, can they be said to be Christians? Are they disciples of Christ? Are they actively trying to follow His example? Have they been led astray by their teachers, in spite of good intentions? Have they twisted the meanings of what they've been taught to fit their convenience? Do they use God to justify their behavior?
I look at what the gospel of Jesus Christ actually teaches, and I see goodness. That many "Christians" are no better off than the average person is curious. Have they not taken the message to heart?
Consider that being an atheist often means going against the grain and having to scrutinize oneself and one's behavior. Most people want to see themselves as good. Some people will strive to alter their behavior (repentance) while others will seek to justify their behavior. Does the message, "You are already saved" make people feel justified in their sins? (I believe that this message is an erroneous twisting of the gospel, BTW.) IMO, main thrust of the gospel is personal and continual repentance and scrutiny, as opposed to judging others. First take the beam out of thine own eye.
quote:They're, on average, more prejudiced, more dishonest, get divorced more, more authoritarian, etc. than atheists and many other religious groups.
Can you prove this? Or is this your own subjective observation?
Out of curiosity, what is your theory on why this might be, considering the gospel message encourages one to love their enemy, turn the other cheek, share with all, and in all other ways hold yourself to a higher standard than your neighbor?
Maybe the message is too painful to be popular.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God.
I believe that both of these things are absolutely true, and that believers are kidding themselves when they convince themselves otherwise.
Who would convince themselves otherwise and why?
Anyone who wanted an internally consistent explanation for the scarcity of unambiguous/non-personal miracles.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the test includes the threat of eternal spiritual damnation, which we are reminded of constantly throughout the scriptures. It could still be claimed that believers are good because of the threat of punishment.
LDS in general have a very different view of Hell than the classic view. I believe that all sufferings of "hell" can be chalked up to pain of conscience, remorse, saddness for lost potential and opportunity. I believe we are being warned against an inevitable, natural consequence if we do not repent and humble ourselves and look to God for guidance. (Or if you are an athiest, your sense of Goodness.)
quote:I would say the test is messed up, not when God pulls back the curtain, but when the threat of punishment for disobedience was made.
Again, I believe you are working with erroneous information here.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say the test is messed up, not when God pulls back the curtain, but when the threat of punishment for disobedience was made.
It also works on the flip side - doing things good things to obtain a reward rather than doing good things to be good.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I teach my children that if they practice the piano, they will be good at it. Should I not do that? Then they might not practice piano just for the sheer joy of it.
Again, I don't think it is a matter of promising a cookie, but promising "you will be happier this way."
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, this particular Catholic thinks your version of hell makes a good deal of sense. And, though I know we have some doctrinal differences, I think the rest of your posts on this thread have been pretty nifty, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:LDS in general have a very different view of Hell than the classic view. I believe that all sufferings of "hell" can be chalked up to pain of conscience, remorse, saddness for lost potential and opportunity.
Well, I did insert "spiritual" to include the possibility of damnation of a nonphysical sort.
quote:I believe we are being warned against an inevitable, natural consequence if we do not repent and humble ourselves and look to God for guidance. (Or if you are an athiest, your sense of Goodness.)
If it's primarily a warning, then I would think a truly loving God would do all that he could to help people understand the seriousness of the warning, beginning with proving that he actually exists to give the warning.
If it's a test, I guess I don't really understand how proving his existence invalidates that test. If anything, it would seem to take away the ability to plead ignorance.
quote:Again, I believe you are working with erroneous information here.
That is likely since I'm not too familiar with LDS doctrine. Once again, I appreciate your responses. I'm not merely trying to argue with you, rather, these are some of the issues I've struggled with myself in trying to understand God.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since scripture can at times be fallible and even modern prophets might fail
Would you include some of the laws found in the Bible to be part of the fallible aspect of the scriptures? Because there were some very severe consequences to actions several thousand years ago that that you could do today guilt-free. If those were divine laws, then those were more than just inevitable, natural consequences.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Kate. I greatly respect your opinion.
quote:If it's primarily a warning, then I would think a truly loving God would do all that he could to help people understand the seriousness of the warning, beginning with proving that he actually exists to give the warning.
If it's a test, I guess I don't really understand how proving his existence invalidates that test. If anything, it would seem to take away the ability to plead ignorance.
I can give you several scriptures where pleading ignorance does indeed bring mercy. But there is also a scripture that says no one can be saved in ignorance. That is, we all have to learn in our own due time.
quote:then I would think a truly loving God would do all that he could to help people understand the seriousness of the warning, beginning with proving that he actually exists to give the warning.
Again, here is the test. We've all been given a sense of judgement, and God expects us to use it well.
We've already shown God how we will act when we know He exists. Our scriptures teach that some people didn't pass the first test (they are Satan's followers.) This is the second part of the test. I don't know if the "waiting" portion afterlife (that we happen to believe in) will be a third test of sorts, or merely an extension of this second test.
quote:I'm not merely trying to argue with you, rather, these are some of the issues I've struggled with myself in trying to understand God.
I can appreciate that. If God were as you have described Him, I imagine I wouldn't like Him e either.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: beverly, this particular Catholic thinks your version of hell makes a good deal of sense. And, though I know we have some doctrinal differences, I think the rest of your posts on this thread have been pretty nifty, too.
This 'Charasmatic' (To this day, I really have know idea what that word means in religious terms) finds both your and Beverly's posts very neat, also... Even if he doesn't know how to form a gramatically correct sentence with multiple possesives in the objective case (Or is it the nominative case?)
posted
You know, one reason this debate goes back and forth is because it goes like this:
Fundamentalist: God is like X, Y, Z. Atheist: If your god is like that, then (totally unanswerable argument.) Liberal theist: Yes, but that's a strawman I don't believe in; if God were like that, I wouldn't worship it either. Fundamentalist: (Creeps quietly away, hiding behind liberals.)
All this is in any case irrelevant to the main point: You have no evidence for the existence of your god. Until you do, arguing about its nature is utterly futile.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly: Your post have been very well thought out and stated IMO. Certainly better then anything I could have written given the circumstances.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only been peeking in at out of this thread and have probably missed a page or two in the middle, so was wondering: Has Jay posted anything here other than his original post?
posted
Y'all have been very kind. I was just thinking, it's been a long time since I've engaged in the subject of religion on a forum. I tend to find it a bit exhausting.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I teach my children that if they practice the piano, they will be good at it. Should I not do that? Then they might not practice piano just for the sheer joy of it.
Again, I don't think it is a matter of promising a cookie, but promising "you will be happier this way."
If you show your children examples of playing the piano making someone good, does that take away their agency to freely choose the piano, or their ability to do so joyously?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Y'all have been very kind. I was just thinking, it's been a long time since I've engaged in the subject of religion on a forum. I tend to find it a bit exhausting.
Hah! Just a bit, huh?
But I'm glad no one took my advice (why would they? it was stupid.) The thread only got better and better.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that a "good" use of our sense of judgment must result in the conclusion that God exists is something that bemuses me to no end.
Perhaps it does not come close to proving that God exists, but it is a striking difference when no other organism seems to possess it. Can't chalk it up to having opposable thumbs either.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, now in response to Tom's post, I have a question that I asked in earlier threads that I don't think has ever been properly addressed. Is it not true that evolutionists and atheists in general actively believe that they are either privy to information that we are not, or that they are simply smarter than us? Or is it that there is something wrong with us that prevents us from using our (presumed) equal intelligence to properly analyze and interpret the available information? Or is there another possibility that does not stem from/result in a sense of superiority over those who maintain this ignorant/idiotic/inferior belief in God?
[edit] for clarity (which may seem unlikely, considering the opacity of my post as it stands now.)
[edit(again)] Changed "opaqueness" to "opacity." That's what I meant.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Perhaps it does not come close to proving that God exists, but it is a striking difference when no other organism seems to possess it. Can't chalk it up to having opposable thumbs either.
How do you know dogs don't believe in God? I know mine does. Then again, he thinks it's me...
I hope I understood your post. If my response makes no sense, then that means I did not.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Perhaps it does not come close to proving that God exists, but it is a striking difference when no other organism seems to possess it. Can't chalk it up to having opposable thumbs either.
How do you know dogs don't believe in God? I know mine does. Then again, he thinks it's me...
I hope I understood your post. If my response makes no sense, then that means I did not.
You misunderstood my post. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you mean by a "sense of judgement," but many species of animals are capable of reasoning and problem solving, some animals can pass the "mirror" test of identifying themselves, and a wide variety can learn in the way that humans can learn, if not always to the same extent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I'm not sure what you mean by a "sense of judgement," but many species of animals are capable of reasoning and problem solving, some animals can pass the "mirror" test of identifying themselves, and a wide variety can learn in the way that humans can learn, if not always to the same extent.
Problem solving yes, reasoning I am not so sure of. Self identify; sometimes, discuss or consider different perspectives; no.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I believe that the human mind is an incredibly powerful pattern recognition and simulation device and that wishful thinking, confirmation bias, cultural influences and, yes, even evolutionary artifacts make it very hard for the typical human being to exist in our society and not believe in something beyond what our five senses take in.
That doesn't mean that those beliefs actually accurately describe the existence or nature of any particular entity or force.
So, it's not that I have special knowledge or superior intelligence, but that I am unwilling to accept ambiguous evidence for extraordinary claims and have not personally experienced anything which I could only explain as divine intervention.
Short answer: I believe that atheists are, in general, less credulous. I value skepticism as strongly as Christians appear to value faith.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, fair enough. I don't think everyone who is an atheist actually believse that they are superior in some way. I just know that some of them (cough*Tom*hack*KoM*ahem) do.
But it seems to me that someone must (quite good-naturedly)really make an effort to come up with some way to explain how he understands something about the world that others don't without implying possession of some mental advantage. In fact, the effort usually fails, as it does in your case. You are "unwilling to accept ambiguous evidence for extraordinary claims," but I am willing, it appears. Must be something wrong with me!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you add the short answer in an edit? I may have missed it. My response may have been a bit different otherwise.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I understand something that religious folks do not. However, I am also aware that I could be wrong and that religious folks may have information I do not possess. I choose to continue through life with my own understanding, adjusting it as necessary. I don't feel especially superior.
I think science leads to greater discoveries and greater understanding. But it can't comfort worth a damn, or add meaning. That's not important to me, but it may be to others.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I like about my religion is that it tells me that I would do well not to start think I'm better than others. Not that everyone (myself included) follows this little bit of advice. But at any rate, I do think I am privy to knowledge and experience that non-believers are not, but this is not because of something that I have ever done. I'm just blessed by God and have him to thank.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, when I talked about God expecting us to use our good sense of judgement, I was talking about judging right from wrong, not whether or not God exists. I will never fault someone for being skeptical about God's existance, and I can't believe that God does either. I think it can hinder us, though.
Indeed, this entire time I have been pressing the idea that the search for Good is more important than to know or even believe God exists. But that a belief in God (and naturally an adherence to Good, otherwise it is belief only, not faith) will help us along that path.
I have found in my life that humility and teachability to the spirit as I study the gospel does a great deal to help me draw closer to these ideals. I imagine meditation for an atheist could have similar benefits, but I can't say how much. I think there is something special in the relationship between the seeker and God.
I also do think that an understanding of Christ's atonement (inasmuch as we can understand it) is important. But again, I think it is not absolutely crucial for a person to take this on "faith only" for salvation, so long as they valiantly pursue goodness in their lives. Likewise, those who profess to believe and do not valiantly pursue goodness, will not receive the rewards they hope for, because those rewards are based on obedience to eternal laws (natural consequences, not arbitrary ones.)
Again, I can't stress this enough, belief without "works" is not faith at all and doesn't do a person any good.
Aside: I have recently been thinking that when God refers to Himself, He is simultaneously referring to the reality of the universe and natural law, that there often isn't a useful distinction between one and the other. I have thought that when God refers to Himself, it can be synonymous with "Good" while Satan can be synonymous with "Evil."
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" Is it not true that evolutionists and atheists in general actively believe that they are either privy to information that we are not, or that they are simply smarter than us?"
Evolutionists and scientists are not privy to information that you can't have.
In fact, they freely make it available to look at.
The evidence makes a statement. Just like the evidence of a crime scene, the DNA evidence, fossil evidence, geological evidence, astrological evidence, evidence in the very laws of physics, all state certain things.
It's not arrogance. It's actually being humble enough to accept the evidence, and what it states, even if it disagrees with what you think is so, or should be so.
Seeing people refuse the implications of that evidence makes no sense to us. It's a signal of arrogance, too, at least to me, to refuse what all the evidence says, and instead take a stance not based on the evidence, but merely because of your beliefs and convictions.
If one doesn't look at the evidence, or refuses to look at the evidence, that's not exactly a positive trait. If one outright denies the evidence's implications, and decides to continue to live in a world where the facts don't matter, such a trait seems downright dangerous.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the end, the difference is, a scientist can show you, if you wish to look, tells you what they do not know yet, and makes their methods and evidence clear.
A religion asks for faith, belief without evidence, and raises belief without evidence to a virtue. What a convenient way to escape the need for proof for their claims.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have recently been thinking that when God refers to Himself, He is simultaneously referring to the reality of the universe and natural law....I have thought that when God refers to Himself, it can be synonymous with "Good" while Satan can be synonymous with "Evil."
I think, at the end of the day, this is the sanest form of religion. On the other hand, taken a little further, it ceases to be religion at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte: To say religion offers no evidence for its claim is a pretty sweeping and untrue statement.
Faith without evidence being a virtue? How about pride so strong it renders a body unable to look at the religious with anything but disdain or contempt? As if we have nothing of value. You act as if we should be grateful if you take a step above that stance and offer us sympathy and condescension.
Now you feel you have given religion a sufficient try and found it wanting. I can respect that. I feel I have given religion a sufficient try and found it more then I thought it could be. I see God as somebody who values humility highly, you see that as religion trying to make us all sheep. Your view seems to make you respect theists less then those who share you position. My view requires that I love you just as much as I love a fellow believer.
You atheists can poke and prod and make fun of us all night long, because people who try to share the same banner I do have done horrible things in the name of the God I worship. If I complain you can just cram my complaints down my throat, "Blah Blah Crusades, blah blah Salem Witch Trials, Blah Blah Spanish Inquisition." Yet I am required to treat all of you with respect even love.
Let's say I grant you that Christianity is utterly false. How can you deign to suggest that just because Christianity let you down that therefore all religions that could possibly exist are not worth your time looking into? How can you be so sure that God does not exist or that he might even still have plans for you that don't include organized religion? Are you smart enough to remain unfooled, but humble enough to listen if God communicates with you in an unorthodox way?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet I am required to treat all of you with respect, even love.
My heart bleeds for you. Would you like to point to a post around here which disrespects you, personally, as opposed to your beliefs? I'll make no bones about it: I do not respect your belief, because I think it is false. But that cuts both ways: You likewise do not think I am correct, and therefore do not respect my belief in any usual sense of that word. I understand that you respect my right to have that belief, but this is not the same thing, and besides, that respect is perforce returned. Now we are discussing whether we respect each other personally. Again: Would you like to point out where anybody has dissed you, as a person?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
