God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Nearly Sane]

Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.

So how is questioning gate keeping?

[torridon]

..
I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.
..

Unfortunately much of the debate degenerates into discussion on issues such as what proof do you have that God exists or how do you know that the passage actually reflects the words of Jesus rather than being mere fabrications etc etc.  I really have no interest in participating in discussions along such lines. For me they are sterile, endless and unrewarding. 

On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.

[Walter]

Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.

'the god' of science
those few words are so revealing about your way of thinking and is so disappointing to any right thinking person . How did you get to this point , when did you loose your critical thinking abilities and was anyone else involved ?

[Walter]

On telling his disciples to go and spread the word, would Jesus have expected them to just give up when challenged to justify their position ? You will convince no-one if you aren't prepared to show your working.

don't hold your breath , torri.

[Sassy]

Just thought I'd ask: would the Christian God be more accepting of a kind atheist than a hateful Christian, or vice versa?

'kind' athiest and an 'hateful' Christian... What kind of comparison do you see in that?

How does either state of being apply to just one or the other?
How do you apply being kind to atheism?
How do you apply being hateful to Christianity.

These are both states which are not mutually exclusive to Atheism or Christianity.
Being kind or hateful can apply to any person and it is not something which applies to either atheism or christianity in it's representation of one or the other.

I see no way of making such a question possible of an answer.

[floo]

'kind' athiest and an 'hateful' Christian... What kind of comparison do you see in that?

How does either state of being apply to just one or the other?
How do you apply being kind to atheism?
How do you apply being hateful to Christianity.

These are both states which are not mutually exclusive to Atheism or Christianity.
Being kind or hateful can apply to any person and it is not something which applies to either atheism or christianity in it's representation of one or the other.

I see no way of making such a question possible of an answer.

There is plenty which is hateful about Christianity especially if you believe in the 'you must be 'saved', or burn in hell', sick dogma!

[Sassy]

There is plenty which is hateful about Christianity especially if you believe in the 'you must be 'saved', or burn in hell', sick dogma!

That is your opinion however it does not answer the questions I actually asked the other person based on what they wrote. Your opinion is that of someone unlearned when it comes to the topic at hand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I am tempted to simply answer to your post by saying that I know they are not contrived propaganda because I know that I know that I know, and to leave it at that.

Lots of people know that they know that they know about countless gods that you think to be false. What makes your "knowing" right and their knowing wrong please?

[floo]

That is your opinion however it does not answer the questions I actually asked the other person based on what they wrote. Your opinion is that of someone unlearned when it comes to the topic at hand.

Compared to the garbage you spout Sass, I think I am reasonably well informed!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

'kind' athiest and an 'hateful' Christian... What kind of comparison do you see in that?

How does either state of being apply to just one or the other?
How do you apply being kind to atheism?
How do you apply being hateful to Christianity.

These are both states which are not mutually exclusive to Atheism or Christianity.
Being kind or hateful can apply to any person and it is not something which applies to either atheism or christianity in it's representation of one or the other.

I see no way of making such a question possible of an answer.

You've missed the point. Two souls present themselves at the pearly gates, and St Peter looks at the first and says, "Well Mr Atheist, not feeling so clever now are we? Now then, let me just check the record...ah, very good. I see that you founded several orphanages, discovered a cure for male pattern baldness and gave away all your money to the poor and needy. Very well done!

OK, now to you Mr Theist – congrats by the way for backing the right horse all along. OK, let me just check the records...

...oh dear oh dear oh dear. It says there that you were a mean spirited son of a *****, stealing from the church collection, knocking the helmets off policemen, never once performing even a simple act of kindness. Tut tut tut...

OK, here's the good news though: it also says here that you Mr Theist "accepted Jesus as your saviour" so you can come right on in (oh, it's a no shoes policy here by the way - helps protect the Axminster you know.)

Right then Mr Atheist, your turn. Sadly, it's not such good news I'm afraid. See, you didn't believe in the salvation offer so I'm afraid it's no non-fattening pizza and endless re-runs of Songs of Praise for you my friend. Toasting fork time it is!"

Hence the question: why would your God arrange things this way rather than on the basis of merit?
 

[Walter]

That is your opinion however it does not answer the questions I actually asked the other person based on what they wrote. Your opinion is that of someone unlearned when it comes to the topic at hand.

unlearned! wow , the springs have just shot out of my irony meter 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SweetPea,

Within the commentary. Anything that goes against 'the god' of science is challenged.

First, science isn't a god because it rests on evidence and not faith.

Second, of course it's challenged - if it wasn't, then we'd have to accept as true any claim at all. Would you really want that?

[ippy]

-
Well, in a more modern version (and nearer to the original, if a bit less poetic),
that bit reads
"....so that everyone who believes in Him will not die, but have eternal life"
and goes onto the next, less quoted, but equally important verse
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn it, but that the world should be saved through Him"
My reading is that it is not God, but man who is supposed to do the 'picking' and receive the consequences of that choice.

Wow, how interesting.

ippy

[ekim]

If you "believeth" you're in with a shout; if you don't, you're not. That's the entry rule.

OK, that was from your quote from the words of John.  I was endeavouring to distinguish them from my take on the words of Jesus, which I see as something different and more as his teaching of a method which might convert belief into actuality.

How is our inability to decide what we believe in compatible with something being "freely available", and why in any case would our belief rather than our actions be the determining criterion for an afterlife?

It might depend upon how desperate you are for what the belief offers.  For instance if you were suffering from lack of water in a desert and somebody said, 'I know where there is some freely available water within 5 miles of where we are' would you believe him?  In this case the belief would come first and the action or non action would follow.  I would say that from the Jesus perspective it is more about life in the present 'I have come that you may have life more abundantly'.

No doubt that's your personal belief, but again why would there need to be a "turning towards it" at all rather than just doing lots of good and selfless things? Wouldn't a just god prefer that person over someone less good and less selfless, but who happened to have a specified belief?

It's not about my personal belief but more about my assessment of the Jesus teaching.  I may be completely wrong.  It would be difficult for me to answer a question upon a vague 'good and selfless person' but in the context of this discussion I would say such a person might well be acting from a loving centre in which case they are already where they need to be and belief has become redundant.  The difficulty maybe that there will be many occasions when living circumstances can threaten to knock that person off that centre.  I don't see it as a case of divine judgement attached to a carrot and stick response but more as a human judgement as to what is likely to entice a person to lose balance and fall off 'centre'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

OK, that was from your quote from the words of John.  I was endeavouring to distinguish them from my take on the words of Jesus, which I see as something different and more as his teaching of a method which might convert belief into actuality.

It might but it still leaves the question: why would signing up to a belief be a better way of selecting worthy recipients of an afterlife than judging them by their actions?

It might depend upon how desperate you are for what the belief offers.  For instance if you were suffering from lack of water in a desert and somebody said, 'I know where there is some freely available water within 5 miles of where we are' would you believe him?  In this case the belief would come first and the action or non action would follow.  I would say that from the Jesus perspective it is more about life in the present 'I have come that you may have life more abundantly'.

That fails on several levels:

First, if you want to use that analogy then you’d have to add lots of others telling you to go in different directions for your drink. How would you choose one over the rest?

Second, you’re attempting an argument from consequences. How desperate you are for something to be true tells you nothing about whether it is true. Essentially you’re attempting Pascal’s wager here.

Third, the glass of water would be material and thus investigable. How would I investigate the truth or otherwise of a promise of an immaterial reward? 

It's not about my personal belief but more about my assessment of the Jesus teaching.  I may be completely wrong.  It would be difficult for me to answer a question upon a vague 'good and selfless person' but in the context of this discussion I would say such a person might well be acting from a loving centre in which case they are already where they need to be and belief has become redundant.

Not if the quote form John is to believed – that person is out of the game a priori no matter how good his actions in the here and now. 

The difficulty maybe that there will be many occasions when living circumstances can threaten to knock that person off that centre.  I don't see it as a case of divine judgement attached to a carrot and stick response but more as a human judgement as to what is likely to entice a person to lose balance and fall off 'centre'.

That’s not the difficulty at all. Whether or not that person is “knocked off his centre” the difficulty here is this: when confronted with a non-believer who behaved well and a believer who behaved badly, why would a just god pick the latter over the former?

[Sriram]

Believing in a God instills a sense of fear and obedience (especially in earlier days).   This normally keeps people on the right track most of the time.

It is true that people who have faith do also indulge in many cruel acts, but this is usually a very small minority. In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules  faithfully and therefore also act morally.

[Gordon]

In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules  faithfully and therefore also act morally.

Does following rules faithfully mean the same thing as acting morally?

If so, then it implies that a) the rules are morally sound and, b) the person following them is no longer a moral agent in their own right. This sounds like morality is being defined by authority.



 

[Aruntraveller]

It is true that people indulge in many cruel acts, but this is usually a small minority. In the majority of cases people tend to follow the rules, and therefore act morally.

I have amended that for you, as faithful or faithless, it does not seem to matter when it comes to the way a person behaves.

But I would suggest that your proposal that following the rules leads to acting morally may require a little more work to make it a convincing argument.

Following the rules can lead you into all sorts of problems. I'm pretty sure that in most churches you are supposed to accept the words of your priest, imam, vicar, rabbi  or whatever. But really have you heard some of the rubbish and hatred that some of them come out with. You don't want to be following those rules. That way lies Waco.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Believing in a God instills a sense of fear and obedience (especially in earlier days).   This normally keeps people on the right track most of the time.

Whether or not fear and obedience does that is moot, but how would you know what the “right track” is as opposed to whatever the doctrines of the god of choice happen to be? 

It is true that people who have faith do also indulge in many cruel acts, but this is usually a very small minority.

But some would argue that oftentimes the tenets of religious faiths define and mandate those “cruel acts” – the treatment of homosexuals for example.

In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules  faithfully and therefore also act morally.

Wow, that “therefore” is a mother of a non sequitur. How on earth did you get from following the rules of a religion to acting morally? What if the rules themselves are immoral?

[Robbie]

Anyone can be hateful (or hate-full) or kindly at given times in their lives. People change. Their personal ideology has little to do with it tho' if they have strong ethics or religion they will have highly developed consciences.
Christians - to which this was specifically addresssed- cannot honestly answer the question in the opening post; we will all have met both and know which we prefer. We cherish and forgive and then look at times in our lives when we've been less than good. But we are not God who sees us in our entirety. If posters don't believe in God they'll say that's a cop out but i don't think so, there are lots of non-religious people who will give others the benefit of the doubt even without thinking of eternal life. Think of those who work for people in prison.

Answer: we don't know,we do our best and believe everyone has good in them however obscured.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

Anyone can be hateful (or hate-full) or kindly at given times in their lives. People change. Their personal ideology has little to do with it tho' if they have strong ethics or religion they will have highly developed consciences.
Christians - to which this was specifically addresssed- cannot honestly answer the question in the opening post; we will all have met both and know which we prefer. We cherish and forgive and then look at times in our lives when we've been less than good. But we are not God who sees us in our entirety. If posters don't believe in God they'll say that's a cop out but i don't think so, there are lots of non-religious people who will give others the benefit of the doubt even without thinking of eternal life. Think of those who work for people in prison.

Answer: we don't know,we do our best and believe everyone has good in them however obscured.

But the question concerns your take on a god who sets the entry test by what someone believes rather than by what they do.

"It's a mystery" is a cop out - I'm just asking for you opinion based on the reasoning available to you.   

[Sriram]

Blue, Gordon, Trent...

What Morality is ..is not what we are discussing here.  Whether there is any absolute basis for Morality that would apply to all people is a separate discussion.....which we could have some other time.

Morality changes with time and community. It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements.  Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values.  So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.

I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority.  Its a simple parental system.  God is the eternal father.

Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community).   This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.

[Aruntraveller]

Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....

Do they - you have hard evidence for this?

From a personal viewpoint and Blue alluded to this earlier - as a member of a minority that was unfairly discriminated against in the past partly on the basis of religious thought I find your attachment to this idea strange. Indeed some religious people have in the past used religion as a moral point in the argument for slavery - not all but some. Also religion has long been used as a way of subjugating women.

You say it's a simple parental system. What if Jack the Ripper is the father and Myra Hindley is the mother?

Oh and you mention the way society was managed before civil courts and secular law enforcement. You may think that those bygone days were some sort of halcyon period, I think if you look at it more detail you will find bloody, unjust and distinctly uncivil approaches to keeping the peace.

[Walter]

Blue, Gordon, Trent...

What Morality is ..is not what we are discussing here.  Whether there is any absolute basis for Morality that would apply to all people is a separate discussion.....which we could have some other time.

Morality changes with time and community. It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements.  Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values.  So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.

I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority.  Its a simple parental system.  God is the eternal father.

Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community).   This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.

stay away from young minds . You are dangerous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What Morality is ..is not what we are discussing here.  Whether there is any absolute basis for Morality that would apply to all people is a separate discussion.....which we could have some other time.

Morality changes with time and community. It is based on tradition, culture and social requirements.  Different communities across the world could have different moral values. Even within one religion like Christianity or Hinduism, different groups could have different moral values.  So...I am not defining what Morality is in this discussion.

I am saying that once a group develops its moral values and behavioral norms, the best method of enforcing it is through authority.  Its a simple parental system.  God is the eternal father.

Once people believe that God is the all knowing father and He commands them to behave in certain ways then, that faith leads to fear which leads to respect which leads to obedience and which leads to moral behavior (as defined by that community).   This is the way society was managed before the days of civil courts and secular law enforcement system. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But that's not what you said. What you actually said was:

In the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules  faithfully and therefore also act morally.

What you're saying now is effectively just, "in the majority of cases, the faithful tend to follow the rules faithfully and therefore follow the rules faithfully".

Even today most people behave themselves only because of fear of law enforcement....not because they have some innate moral wisdom.

That's a huge claim, and almost certainly wrong. Our and many other species are inherently altruistic for good evolutionary reasons - co-operation, sharing, solidarity etc better ensure the success of the genome and these behaviours have over time become encoded as moral rules. Indeed there's some evidence that people will behave less morally well when, for example, they think they'll be let of the hook by making the right incantations and propitiations to their celestial headmaster.