[quote]pookie wrote:
You’re told about the carrots and sticks, but like God Himself, you’ll never see them.[/quote]
Evidently you have to wait until you’re dead.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
You’re told about the carrots and sticks, but like God Himself, you’ll never see them.
Evidently you have to wait until you’re dead.[/quote]
Ah. Yep, true.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m not clear what you mean here.[/quote]
That Christian morals are no different from morals obtained from any other source.
The vaunted “divine mandate” is simply a label that gets slapped on them to give them an air of superiority. In actuality, you’re as free as anyone to act outside your morals. It’s like thinking your car is better than everyone else’s because the ad said “Built Ford Tough.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m not clear what you mean here.
That Christian morals are no different from morals obtained from any other source.
The vaunted “divine mandate” is simply a label that gets slapped on them to give them an air of superiority. In actuality, you’re as free as anyone to act outside your morals. It’s like thinking your car is better than everyone else’s because the ad said “Built Ford Tough.”
[/quote]
Well, of course I think my belief system is better than anyone else’s, or I wouldn’t follow it. And, if you mean free to act outside of my morals now, without being struck down by lightning on the spot, yeah, I don’t deny that.
Edit: Built Jesus Tough…Hmm, wonder if I can get that on one of my gym shirts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, of course I think my belief system is better than anyone else’s, or I wouldn’t follow it. And, if you mean free to act outside of my morals now, without being struck down by lightening on the spot, yeah, I don’t deny that.[/quote]
There you go.
I’m just amused by someone mentioning his “divinely mandated,” superior morals about 10 times on this thread when he was cheering for a war of extermination between Colombia and Venezuela last week. Is there such a thing as divinely mandated hypocrisy, or is that a purely human foible?
[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
But you are proving my point: you are reading into the text and not reading the text itself. The meaning of the text is derived from the question: Why does it say this and not something else?
That’s bull and you know it. Literature is built upon metaphor, imagery, analogy, etc. The structure of the text speaks as much as the text itself.
You ask why the text says what it says? Fine. Also ask yourself why the curse and the appearance of the bears are in the same verse? If the choice of the words is of paramount importance, then surely the structure of the text is just as important and conveys just as much information. Why are those two actions mentioned in the same verse? Because those two actions, the curse and the coming of the bears, are directly related to one another. Why aren’t the bears mentioned first? Because effect does not precede cause.
Please, go ahead and indict God, if you so choose, but if you use the text, you will be called upon to split such hairs.
Splitting hairs? We’re not arguing over whether the blue sky is best described by “cerulean” vs. “lapis lazuli” here. We’re talking about an action directly followed by an event - in a single verse - and you’re blithely suggesting that the text is to be read as some random occurrence that struck the author’s fancy.
Have you ever convinced anyone with that argument? And if so, could you do it again when they’re awake?
[/quote]
You are entirely too exercised about all this; can’t I be the “devil’s advocate”–on God’s side–as well? Have I put some burr under a saddle.
I agree: if words are important, structure and context is important, too. But you are hanging an argument on causation which is not present in the text. It would have been easy to insert “and God caused bears…” But that is not there.
No,the structure and meaning here, in this chapter, is about the passage of time and the mantle (literally) of prophecy between Elijah (“the Hairy”) and Elisha (“Baldy”). Elisha is seen here working miracles: hitting water with a mantle to make it dry, cursing kids, and bears come, etc. His position as prophet and miracle worker is clear. (And God continues to withdraw from the affairs of men.) Is this not then a reasonable interpretation of the literal words that we read together?
Maybe yes and maybe no. I am not trying to win an argument. I am willing to admit that I do not know, and my vision is expanded; you are set in your vision, and it is straitened.
(Remember, respected friend Pookie, I have no interest whatsoever in changing your mind. I just enjoy this; this is how I learn a great work of literature, at the very least.)
So then, by your logic, and if you must read the scripture literally and simply, and insist on the verity of its direct meaning, as you do in this instance, do you place yourself among the fundamentalists, and do you agree with the Psalmist:
"…the judgments of the Lord are true,
“and righteous altogether.”
(Ps 19:10)?
[quote]1. The hope of reward, or beneficial consequences of his action.
2. The avoidance of punishment, or negative consequences of his action.
3. Because doing good is good to do.
At the risk of committing a reductio ad absurdum, I will state that all morality derives from these three motivations: get the carrot, avoid the stick, and just because. [/quote]
#3 and “just because” are not the same thing.
- Acting out of hope of reward is mercenary - not moral.
- Acting out of fear of punishment is drudgery - not moral
- What is good, why is it good, and why is “good” the thing to do? How is it derived?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, of course I think my belief system is better than anyone else’s, or I wouldn’t follow it. And, if you mean free to act outside of my morals now, without being struck down by lightening on the spot, yeah, I don’t deny that.
There you go.
I’m just amused by someone mentioning his “divinely mandated,” superior morals about 10 times on this thread when he was cheering for a war of extermination between Colombia and Venezuela last week. Is there such a thing as divinely mandated hypocrisy, or is that a purely human foible?
[/quote]
Pookie, as a Christian myself, I understand your problem with seeing a Christian cheering on war. I know who you’re speaking of, and even considered trying to politely disagree. I probably should have, but, well there are some folks who are bit…confrontational (as in cussing another out). And I’d rather just limit my contact, if you understand.
Oh, and you’ll find many of us are ‘hypocrites.’ I’ve been a hypocrite and I’ve committed a number of wrongs. And, I’m sure I’ll continue to miss the mark, fall short, and flat out be in the wrong many times before I’m pushing up daisies. I’m still human after all. All I can do is try to recognize where I’ve erred and correct myself.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, of course I think my belief system is better than anyone else’s, or I wouldn’t follow it. And, if you mean free to act outside of my morals now, without being struck down by lightening on the spot, yeah, I don’t deny that.
There you go.
I’m just amused by someone mentioning his “divinely mandated,” superior morals about 10 times on this thread when he was cheering for a war of extermination between Colombia and Venezuela last week. Is there such a thing as divinely mandated hypocrisy, or is that a purely human foible?
[/quote]
More “argument by outrage.”
What basis are you using for criticizing any of my behavior? Show it to me, that I my rectify my behavior. Last I checked, I asked you for a working definition of human nature, and an explanation of how human preferences make moral imperatives.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
- Acting out of hope of reward is mercenary - not moral.
- Acting out of fear of punishment is drudgery - not moral
- What is good, why is it good, and why is “good” the thing to do? How is it derived?[/quote]
By your standards, then,
- Everyone who acts in the hope of eternal salvation (reward) is a mercenary, and thus immoral.
- Everyone who acts out of fear of eternal damnation (punishment) is a drudge, and thus immoral.
There must be a hell of a lot of immoral Christians.
That leaves Number 3. Do you dispute that doing good is good to do? Do you need Jesus to tell you what is good and what isn’t, or isn’t it self-evident?
I believe that anyone, from every culture, and from every religion (or absence thereof), who is neither a child, a moron, or a sociopath, can distinguish good from evil (ironic that in Judeo-Christian tradition, the act which gave mankind the power to do this is referred to as “the original sin”). If an action generally produces beneficial results, it is good. If an action generally produces harmful results, it is bad.
Consistently doing that which produces beneficial results allows you to win friends and influence people, plus it gives you a warm bubbly feeling inside. Therefore we do it.
Hmmm. As far as images go, more like this icon. The artist is Tatiana Romanova-Grant.
Edit: Not that I’m ungrateful for your effort!
[quote]1. Everyone who acts in the hope of eternal salvation (reward) is a mercenary, and thus immoral.
2. Everyone who acts out of fear of eternal damnation (punishment) is a drudge, and thus immoral.
There must be a hell of a lot of immoral Christians.
[/quote]
You’ve misrepresented the Bible’s position on man. The Bible states that man is a fallen creature and condemned to hell already, whether or not he attempts to do good. It also states that man sins from his youth, and even though he may try to do good, he will still screw up, thus leaving him afoul of God’s law. God is righteous and punishes lawbreakers. Therefore there is no carrot, and only stick apart from the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The righteousness of Christ is only found through the Holy Spirit causing you to believe, thus faith is not a work.
Since I’m a Christian theist, I can’t give an answer an atheist will accept. You’ve already ruled out my philosophical framework. Therefore, I’m asking for yours.
What is the agreed upon definition of “beneficial” and what “results” are we after here? You’re arguing for a teleological ethics.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve misrepresented the Bible’s position on man. [/quote]
Not at all. I’ve simply carried your pronouncements on reward and punishment to their logical conclusions. What other motivation to obey God’s laws is there, if not the expectation of the reward of salvation or the hope of avoiding the punishment of Hell?
Perhaps, but as I said, I’m not an atheist. Just give an answer to the above.
You’re mistaking me for Pookie. I haven’t ruled out your philosophical framework, just chosen to follow my own.[/quote]
I’ve given it. Man’s morality is derived from self-interest.
If there were an “agreed-upon” definition we wouldn’t be having this debate. And anyway, why talk about morality at all, if having faith in Christ trumps leading a moral life anyway?
[quote]Not at all. I’ve simply carried your pronouncements on reward and punishment to their logical conclusions. What other motivation to obey God’s laws is there, if not the expectation of the reward of salvation or the hope of avoiding the punishment of Hell?
[/quote]
For the Christian, there is every incentive to follow the Bible’s commands. For the non-Christian, there is none. Non-Christians stand condemned whether or not they make any effort to lead a moral life as the Bible describes it. It is only through Christ that one becomes acceptable to God, for all sin. If you don’t believe in Christ, you might as well live life the way you want.
Yes, but you’ve passed moral judgments on God’s actions as described in the Bible, therefore you must be using something as a standard of “good.” I want to know what it is.
Well, you also stated in #3 above that man acts just because things are good. If his morality is derived from self-interest, any actions he prefers are good. If I decide to shoot someone and take their car, I’ve decided it’s in my self interest - therefore it’s good.
Actually, you haven’t been arguing any one thing consistently. You’ve switched between an attempt at a philosophical (normative) argument, to a sociological argument back to a normative argument (3 above) and now back to a sociological(descriptive) argument (man’s morality derived from self-interest).
If you’re arguing that faith in Christ leads to antinomianism, you’re afoul of what the Bible claims:
[quote]Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey�??whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord.[/quote]
But you’ve made moral claims about the Bible, so I think it germane to discuss morality.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
For the Christian, there is every incentive to follow the Bible’s commands. [/quote]
That’s what I keep asking, and you keep not answering. What incentive, if not the promise of salvation, the avoidance of damnation, or the sheer pleasure of leading a moral life?
There is always plenty of incentive to lead a moral life, whether one calls himself a Christian or not.
So you say. I guess we’ll see, won’t we?
And yet the Old Testament is full of men who were evidently acceptable to God, even in the absence of Christ. Noah was “blameless” in the eyes of the Lord. Of course, the Lord hadn’t given mankind the Law yet, so one wonders by what moral standard the other people on earth were being judged.
Elijah was apparently so acceptable that he didn’t even have to die, he was just swooped up into the presence of God. Moses must have been pretty acceptable too, since he was there with Elijah on the mountain talking with Jesus during the transfiguration. Surely these men were not all without sin, because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” but their lives must have been judged “moral” by some non-Christian standard.
Would you live any differently if you didn’t believe in Christ? If not, why not? If so, this implies that you are currently making sacrifices in order to be a Christian. One more time: what is your incentive for making these sacrifices, if not for A) the hope of salvation, B) the fear of damnation, and/or C) the pleasure of doing good?
Good, by my estimation, is that which produces a beneficial result. Nothing beneficial resulted from the mauling of the children. 2nd Kings doesn’t tell us that the people of Bethel became more respectful of God’s prophets from then on, nor that Elisha’s injured pride was assuaged, nor even that the bears enjoyed a hearty meal. It was a non-benevolent act of God, used as an exemplar to counter the claim that the definition of God must always include benevolence.
The idea of reciprocity is all about self-interest. You don’t shoot me and take my car because, despite the short-term reward you may gain, you run the risk of judicial punishment, or of my friends shooting you and taking your car to avenge me. The action of shooting me and stealing my car are furthermore harmful, not beneficial (at least not to me, and probably not to you either in the long term), and therefore can hardly be called “good.”
Sorry if I seem inconsistent. My statements are at least as consistent to me as your Bible must be to you. Let’s see if I can tie it all together.
Man wants to live, he wants to be free, he wants to be happy, and he wants to acquire property. His various actions are a function of these desires.
The moral man knows that if he acts to the detriment of his neighbor, he will probably suffer negative consequences, either revenge, punishment, or simply ill will. He also knows that if his actions benefit his neighbor, he himself will benefit. The benefit may be in the form of material reciprocation, the good will of his neighbor, or (at very least) the satisfaction of having done a good turn for someone else.
In other words, I believe that the moral man acts in expectation of positive results, the avoidance of negative results, and the satisfaction of doing good. And that his motivations are the same no matter what his religion, or lack thereof.
That’s as germane as it gets this evening.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
electric_eales wrote:
Looking at it like you do though, even our jobs are really micro-religious institutions. Cause see, a job usually has a big boss (the Pope), the lesser bosses (bishops) bad employees (the sinners), fired employees (the excommunicated), employees of the month (saints), and yes, even those who’ve died carrying out their job duties (the martyrs). So, all human productivity is the result of religion! [/quote]
Thanks for that man, I always wondered what those little stars meant on the McDonalds employee’s badges, so know I know, cheers 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
(ironic that in Judeo-Christian tradition, the act which gave mankind the power to do this is referred to as “the original sin”).[/quote]
I realize this was just an aside, so I won’t dwell on it too much. However: before the fall, man was able to distinguish between true and false. After the fall, his ability to do so was diminished, and he instead could only distinguish between “fine” and “base” (rather than “good” and “evil”). Man, therefore, lost his capacity to know, and was given common opinion in its stead. There was, therefore, no profit to the fall.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I agree: if words are important, structure and context is important, too. But you are hanging an argument on causation which is not present in the text. It would have been easy to insert “and God caused bears…” But that is not there.[/quote]
If I write: “I start my car; and back out of my driveway.” Would you argue that I’m now in the street on foot? After all, I did not explicitly mention that I was backing my car out of the driveway. I could have started my car, stepped out, and then walked backwards until I was in the street. It would have been easy to insert “…back MY CAR out of my driveway” but that is not there. Yet the meaning remains clear.
You also seem to be using a new tact: That Elisha is working miracles and that his curse brings forth the bears, thereby shifting the responsibility of the carnage from God to Elisha. But who can perform miracles, and enact curses - especially in the name of the LORD - without said LORD’s assent?
As for me being a literal fundamentalist, don’t worry. I understand that story as a fable to be told to small children to insure they respect adults and especially clergy. It just doesn’t mesh with the later story of God being all-loving and all-good.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
There was, therefore, no profit to the fall.[/quote]
I don’t know. Adam seemed to have gained the ability to hide from an omniscient God.
Genesis 3:9 - And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
What basis are you using for criticizing any of my behavior? Show it to me, that I my rectify my behavior.[/quote]
Your very own. As a Christian, you should - by definition - be trying to pattern your life upon Jesus, the Christ. That’s where the very term “Christian” comes from. Are you not a pupil and follower of Christ?
While I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus - I’m quite doubtful of even his historical existence - I still find that many of the moral teachings attributed to him are good and extremely valid. His teachings also happen to be public knowledge, so that even non-Christians can easily inform themselves of what he thought.
Being therefore aware of what Jesus thought and knowing furthermore that you claim it to be of paramount important to live your life in accordance to his teachings, I am amused by contrasting the way you wish to portray yourself morally, and posts such as “Columbia needs to stomp Venezuela until there’s no more Venezuelan military to stomp.”
Will you now rectify your behavior, or will Wrath and Pride cause you to argue the correctness of wishing for the death of 700,000 people?
I know what you asked. You’re simply unable to accept the answers. You’ve already made up your mind that we couldn’t possibly provide valid answers, and you’re sticking to that belief like wet on water.
I even tried to do it slowly, one step at a time, so that you could follow; and even then you dishonestly contradict yourself between two posts.
In one you concede that there can be such a thing as a common human nature, a common human experience; and later on retort that we can have no common values because your world view is anthetical to mine.
Varqanir - who has the patience of a saint - tried the more concise, succinct approach; and there too you disingenuously ignore the argument in favor of asking definitions of definitions. Like a 5 year old who asks “why?” of every answer provided, you know that you can avoid acknowledging any point made through the endless word games.
“What’s ‘good’” Good is actions that are beneficial. “What’s ‘beneficial’?” Were we to explain that beneficial is “to promote well-being” I have no doubt that you’d then ask us to define “well-being.”