(Relative to my recent, “The Cross That Batman Bears.”)
I would no sooner suggest that an atheist can’t be moral than I would that a bug can’t be creepy a wino can’t be ambitious Batman can’t suffer jock itch any other stupid thing I might say. Of course atheists can live according to an ethos anyone would recognize as moral.
But that they can raises an interesting question. Namely; from whence the atheist’s morality? If you’re religious, you (tend to) think that your morality is an extension of God’s nature; that in endeavoring to be more like God, you assume and evince as much of His nature as you can, and thereby behave and feel more moral. So in that very real sense, the primary source of your morality is outside of yourself.
But what about the atheist? He looks up to the heavens, and sees nothing more (and nothing less!) than atmospheric science.
As the source of their morality, most atheists point toward The Common Good. They are motivated to be moral because they want to do what’s best for others. “Cause the least harm” is their inspiration; they join with the Christian (and everyone else in the world) in wanting to treat others as they themselves want to be treated.
Excellent!
What’s interesting is to think of where and/or how the atheists’ nexus of morality is, or becomes, abstract. Pointing to The Good the atheist points to nothing real, nothing tangible. He points to an idea. What inspires the atheist to be moral — to put the needs of others ahead of his own — is the power of an abstract ideal.
The atheist believes in the truth, power, and compelling goodness of an abstract ideal.
But we Christians are idiots.
*****************************************************************************************************
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 284 comments… read them below or add one }
Newer Comments →
@ DR circa 1:11 PM: You say you disagree with my premise, it being that what we do matters more than why we do it, and then, apparently, you make my case for me. It is precisely BECAUSE we spend so much time and energy debating what's right that I say, chuck it. It is NOT huge or important, so let's stop. Abortion, sex and gay marriage are three perfect examples of issues that sidetrack the "Christian dialogue." If we as Christians spent less time judging others and more time helping them, then perhaps we could also spend less time defending ourselves.
Put another way: I love splitting hairs and playing devil's advocate with ideas intellectual or theological. Let's figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin! But just because questions are fun or sexy doesn't mean they're important. Intellectual pleasure is not the ultimate goal.
PS. I'm a huge fan of yours. That long comment you made on June 16? Epic. But John DID beat you to the punch on the morality of money. Check out his Facebook and blog posts that culminated in "What Am I Gonna Do With You Guys?" Great stuff.
Hey!
Thanks for this. I guess my experience isn't your own, I don't see a lot of debate on why there's been a decision, for example, that gay marriage is "immoral". I see a lot of vague references to Leviticus when pressed to the wall, for many saying "It's in the Bible!" is exactly the response and it's the last card to draw. No further explanation necessary.
Analyzing the whys of this kind of conclusion we've drawn about morality – particularly as it applies to the rights of other people who are not Christian? Those are exactly the types of hairs I want to split. Not because we'll get to the answer, but because debating why causes us to think critically and actually examine our position that, let's face it- a lot of morality is passed down and absorbed within Christian culture. Asking "Why do you think it's OK to own three Mercedes?" is important. Iron sharpens iron and at times, a question asking why is the gentlest form of protest. And if we're not protesting one another constantly, we're in trouble.
Wow, I'm Catholic and just called for protests. I must have a little Luther in me.
Followed from Huffpost. (AdorableHero).
It would seem that this article is just an argument for "We really aren't so different, so get off your high horse and accept that those different than you *are* capable of doing good."
My question is: Do motivations really matter? Isn't it more important that good gets done?
As a (loose) Christian, I think that it is important to guard my heart, to be sure of my own motivations. I don't worry too much about the motivations of others. One of my best online friends is an atheist-leaning agnostic and I consider her "better than me" because she has lots of patience and takes care of mentally challenged kids. Her motivation is not from "on high" – yet I consider her more valauble to the world than I am.
I was just on and off watching a silly online gaming marathon – a group of people playing games from the Legend of Zelda series (I get my Huffpost user handle from that, actually) to entertain people and entice them to donate to the American Cancer Society. The gamers had a live stream of themselves as well and a chatroom and offered to do silly things for people's contributions. Somebody donated a dollar for the father of one of the gamers to "drink 7 year old milk" (a joke among fans of the game series). The man ate a piece of cheese on-camera for a donation-dollar. Would it have been more alturustic if the person donated the buck for no reason rather than to watch a guy eat cheese for a silly joke? Sure, but the fact that the donation happened is what really mattered.
People always bring up the Old Testament in these arguments. Are the stories and laws there *all* the direct word of God, or just Jewish history, or, perhaps, God *trying* to relate to idiot humanity and some things getting lost in translation? I do not know. Atheists and Christians alike seem to forget that Christians are supposed to follow the new covenant, the New Testament – at least to me, that means focusing more upon love than law, and realizing that not a one of us can live up to the law. Love is more important. People, too, love to bring up criticsms of Christian motivation based upon "You're only doing this because you think your God said so" or "You're only doing this for brownie points in Heaven," with the added implication of "I do my good for nothing, therefore I'm better than you and you really are an immoral person." Instead of correcting the sterotype, I'll just ask: *Does it even MATTER?* If a person is "doing good to get on God's good side" isn't it *better* than them not doing good at all?
Amen, brother! And as for the OT, my vote is on "God *trying* to relate to idiot humanity and some things getting lost in translation."
I've come to the idea that people in modern times cannot even hope to really understand the Old Testament. I think the span of years in which it was written and the culture it was written for is something so alien to modern times that we lose a lot of context. Some of the stories and laws that the literalists (both religious fundamentalists and fundamentalist atheists who *wish* religious people were all fundamentalists so they can put them into one little "evil box" sterotype and be done with them) wind up not making a lot of sense in modern times. — They probably made sense back then, in that time and place.
A lot of the weirder laws I tend to think probably related to idolatry practices at the time, which the ancient people were just too stupid or tempted to avoid. *Most* people don't need to be told "don't have sex with animals" in modern times, for instance. Someone mentioned above Jesus confronting people about the certificate of divorce, that it was "because of hard hearts." – To me, that says everything.
It's easy to sit around in modern times and condemn a lot of things spoken of in the Old Testament, but the fact of the matter is that *we weren't there* – we really have no idea of the real context, nor even how much of it was "direct from on high" and how much was just attributed. (I read somewhere that the Jews at the time were big on attribiting everything to God, things both good and evil, such as natural disasters. I could be wrong….)
On the other hand, I see Jesus as – direct-God-relation-to-Man. Maybe he's not just the sacrifice for our sins, but God getting fed up and saying "Hey, alright, you just are not getting it. I'm a comin' down there!"
OK, this went to a weird place. But, regardless of whose illegitimate child I carry and what we name it, I feel obligated to tell you — I have never been nice, quiet, or submissive in my life. I also make a crappy sandwich. If that's what you're looking for, you need a different virgin.
I make an AMAZING sandwich! I'm very proud of my sandwiches. Come over, I'll teach you.
@ DR: You know, if you were any less than a zillion miles away from the New York metropolitan area, I might take you up on that. My theory has been that sandwiches always taste better when they're made by someone else, preferably someone you love.
I can vouch for this. I'm sure it's true.
ok. Lindsay, thanks for being patient with me on my response.
Sometimes I get a little, shall we say, over-zealous. I admit it. It took me a very long time to believe in Jesus’ message, or consider having anything to do with Christianity. All I could see was an incredible amount of hypocracy toward tribal people, the poor and anyone who didn’t go to some church. Whether I acted out of a moral conscience my first 31 years on the planet, or not, is up to God to decide. I didn’t really give it much thought. So I think John was trying to associate ANY moral act with God, whether it be as an abstract ideal (an Athiestic response)?, or conscience effort on the part of a Christian. You can’t blame the man for giving props to God for everything. Like David, we’re just dancing fools when it comes to praising God for all that He’s done for us, including having His only son killed (sacrificed) on a cross to end all sacrifices. He didn’t stay His own people’s hand that time did He? And my soul will praise Him eternally for such love, for such mercy. He is not a sociopath. If that were the case He would’ve fried us like ants in a magnifying glass years ago… 
@ DR and Dennis: My apologies. It may not be Christian. But if anyone is having illegitimate babies because of this blog — I'm having Matthew Tweedell's. All I'm sayin'.
Too late. It's a boy, we're naming it John Shore Jr.
That's funny. I named my son John Shore Sr. We're going to finally provide John with the guidance he needs to be a secure and confident adult male. Just wait 20 years or so, John. Papa's comin'.
~D
That's right. And know that mother will be nice and quiet as I submit to your authority while making you a lovely sandwich.
Ya'll 're crazy. . . . . . no wonder we all get along so well
Forget John Jr., name it Sam Wich.
Ones moral compass is outside of religion. It is with this same moral compass that one determines what is "right" and "wrong" "good" and "bad" in a religion. It doesn't come from it.
Modern morality is not the same as the morality of ancient times, because it has evolved. For example, most countries don't find burning witches as morally acceptable anymore. The bible says it is acceptable, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." if morality that comes from God is the real thing. It is absolute. It is correct then why don't we follow through with burning witches today?
Morals are created by society, philosophy, individual conscience, etc… and religion just attempts to "resell" these values as their own and goes so far as to say these values come from a "higher authority." They do this in a attempt to make these moral values "seem" objective instead of man-made subjective values.
Theist pick and choose what to believe is right and good in the bible according to the moral values of modern times. The moral compass they use to pick and choose what to adhere to in the bible and what not to did not come from the bible they are pondering.
Really thou wouldst suffer a witch to live? I don't know about thee, but if someone is intentionally causing children to come down with fatal illnesses or vexing whole villages with some kind of plague or whatever other sinister deeds evincing a homicidal intent, I can completely understand how the death penalty may be called for. Thou must keep in mind what exactly the word "witch" implies here. If thou happenest to find a real witch somewhere (in original Biblical sense), I would hope that thou wilt not suffer him/her to live; even from a prison cell, they would be able to accomplish their evil deeds, so long as they remain alive.
"…a attempt to make these moral values 'seem' objective instead of man-made subjective values."
Thou art in the wrong here. Ultimately, they're objective. I just finished a lengthy debate a few days ago with an atheist who—IMHO—was perhaps *too* convinced of how easily objectively discernable answers to moral questions are! Anyway, he gave a link to an interesting video on the subject. Thou canst find that conversation starting here: http://johnshore.com/2010/06/14/how-is-convert-yo…
Anyway, it's quite a generalization that thou makest associating all theists with adherence to the Bible. There are very many followers of the Quran, the Hindu Scriptures, the Torah, and many other traditions (some even mostly or entirely oral), as well as many who don't follow any particular one of those at all! And methinks thou dost misunderstand how most spiritually-guided people seek answers to their moral dilemmas. Of course the answers did not come from the Bible—the Bible is not the Creator and Sustainer of the universe! The answers come from the Holy Spirit—the very Spirit which inspired the Bible!
Sweet.
As for steady progression toward a complete understanding:
"They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord." Isaiah 11:9
Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. The bible contains more than 31000 verses, so selecting a single verse out that supports a point seems like cherry picking. Seems the appropriate approach is to consider the character of the bible as a moral model.
31000 verses. Wow. That's a lot.
If I may be so bold to interject for Amelia, she's stating that, eventually, all the crap we think of as "information" will be supplanted by truth.
This seems a bit nit-picky. There's loads of people who take one sentence to represent a broader idea.
Not intentionally nit-picky. In this discussion I have seen the bible used as evidence to support both high and low morality of religion.
The bible (and any other holy book) can be (and is) used for anything and everything. You should know that!
Ok, I used to tell my mom she was off her rocker for quoting anything Paul wrote because he may have been delusional (being stuck in prison for so long and all). But, the book of Isaiah, in it's entirety, speaks to my heart. If you read what he's trying to say perhaps he will speak to yours as well.
Have you ever thought about Creator speaking things into creation? Thus, all of creation is a spoken word/work.
"In the beginning there was the word, and the word became flesh (Jesus)."
I am not trying to use one-liners from the bible, the torah, the quaran, etc. I am remembering things that have spoken to my heart and placing them here before you…
And I'm not trying to accuse you of doing so. I think I read your Isaiah 11 comment in context with some things other people said, and missed your point.
Did Don set me straight?
@JohnB., "Whether you are talking about scope, scale, or sophistication, there is really no comparison between a faith based understanding of morality and the science based understanding of morality. One is steadily progressing toward a goal of complete understanding, and the other stopped progressing 2500 years ago."
(a very cogent response btw)
To which I replied that, “They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.” Isaiah 11:9
I actually tried to combine a faith-based understanding with a science-based understanding in light of being informed that one has "stopped progressing" and the other is moving toward complete understanding (ouch).
So Don kind of had it right, but no one needs to set you straight about your own thoughts, feelings, etc. They're yours and they matter. Hope you hop onboard John's next blog entry about a gun-slinging seminary student (too funny).
I like the comment you made, though I didn't get it at first. Sort of a legato vs staccato meaning. Steady progression vs in the future it will happen.
I'll be around
I like Amelia’s use of the Bible, as opposed to “using it for evidence” I like to use it for inspiration if I can. e.g.”The heavens declare the glory of God, the great vault shows the work of his hands,” Words like these do not define God for me (how blasphemous – to define God) but help me to stand in awe.
Like any text. Christians may believe that there is a Living, Holy Presence embedded within this particular text, but the possibility of a Scripture being used like a quote from Einstein that encapsulates what he understood innovation to be is also a very realistic, pragmatic use of Scripture.
“My religion is kindness.” — The Dalai Lama
This is my code of ethics, plain and simple. Being an atheist, I always substitute the “kindness” for the concept of “God”. It has served me, my family, my friends, and even complete strangers very well. It’s a “religion” that all can understand, and appreciate.
“No act of kindness, however small, is ever wasted.” — Aesop
John, you’re a brave man to open up a discussion on this topic. I usually run screaming in the opposite direction when either religion or politics hit the table!
XOXOXOX <3
I know my life has been enriched a lot by trying to follow the advice of a Stoic philosopher (Seneca, I think) to "never resist a generous impulse."
@Kim
Hi, Kim!
While there are some obvious ways to “do good” and “be good,” without a standard or guidelines from God, good, evil, right and wrong end up kind of mushy and relative. I’ve known people who think that adultery is not wrong as long as they can get away with it and “no one is hurt.” Of course once the betrayal destroys the fabric of the marriage, someone always gets hurt. Or lying… or justifying stealing if one decides one has the right to something because the person possessing it is not deserving. The list goes on… unfortunately most of us humans can’t be depended to always “love your neighbor as yourself” unless they also “love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.” Even then, we are far from perfection!
Of course there are a lot of really nice atheists — because God made us in His image and there is something of Him in all of us…and of course a lot of flawed and foolish Christians (me being one of them).
With apologies to what is a generally miltdly-worded blog, I'm reminded of that great scene in The Big Chill, where two characters are talking (and had to look up the quotes to make sure I got them right):
Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?
I think as a species we are better at rationalizations than almost anything else.
Well…. I am an atheist. I usually just say I’m an agnostic, but that is to avoid hassles from christians. I have enjoyed the same wonderful job and marriage for 13 years, have a wonderful son, great family, and don’t drink, smoke, whore etc… SO from WHENCE comes my ‘morality’…….?
Can I be as ‘moral’ as Abraham, who was about to murder his own child because GOD told him to?
“Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”
Do you know what I would say to God if he suggested I murder my son to win his favor…I would tell him to go f**k himself…..so I am happily immoral by the standards of that faith.
But why bother trying to reach out to the ‘non’ believer? Why not just use the moral solution the bible suggests:
Kill Nonbelievers
“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
I honestly don't care if you become a Christian or not. I really don't, your beliefs are entirely yours to decide, I've not an evangelistic bone in my body. Though I am curious – how open are you to entertaining the notion that what you've offered here isn't the root of what many (if not most) christians believe? It's a serious question.
Lindsay, I hope you don't mind me using your comment as a catalyst for my own.
I actually disagree with the notion that atheist morality (whatever that is) is as abstractly rooted as Christian morality (though with an over 60% divorce rate and the highest suicide rate among teenagers – gay teens from christian homes kill themselves at an alarming rate, reference Christianity Today 2008 – I'm not sure we get to claim any collective high moral road anyway.
But Lindsay's reference to the Bible and the complexities with the OT vs. NT, etc. are symptomatic of a larger issue, which the source of our morality is unseen, complex and rooted within contradiction. On the other hand, atheists (from my limited experience) note that their morality stems from evolution, for one. That treating life and one another respectfully are what people who are evolved and educated do because we are aware of how beneficial that is for society. That love is in part, genetic. And secondly, the "common good" can actually be seen and experienced. Right and wrong are rooted in what is productive for society (good) vs. what is destructive (wrong). So I'd offer that our Christian morality being rooted in the belief that Jesus was the Son of God – a Jesus we can't really prove is the Savior, whose story begins in the Old Testament that is filled with stories of rape, murder, slavery, etc. – is far more abstract than the visible, proven benefits of productive vs. destructive.
So while I see why people are reacting to Lindsey, she raises a very important perspective that thousands of people share.
Thanks for your thoughtful response…I think I agree to a large extent about what you say about evolution, although I think we have evolved toward 'morality' that is to say, we all generally agree that morality is what is conducive to life. And I agree that the teachings of Jesus, (which Atheist and believer alike can benefit from) CAN be separated from the sometimes amoral behavior displayed in the bible. I happen to think to do good because it is right is far superior than to do good for fear of punishment…..I am also interested in your statement about 'proof' that Jesus is a savior, that sounds scientific!
My friend once asked me, "Are you 100% certain that Jesus is the Son of God? Answer me!" to which I replied, "No, of course not. There's no way I could ever prove that."
He was a little stunned – he is an atheist himself and had never received that answer from a Christian. But for me, there's no way to prove that in any kind of practical way, watching people do it gets a little embarrassing.
For me, weighing in all of the factors that lead people to believe something is "true" – logic, genetics, brain science, science itself, history, psychology, philosophy, experience – there's no way to ever claim any God is "true". There's just not. We all choose any number of the filters above to slip on and wear, that filter in (and out) what we believe. And when we decide what we believe, most of the data we're presented with, we'll just sort through our filters until it supports what we believe. At least that's what I believe.
I think that those who claim to be agnostic are perhaps in a place to be the most intellectually honest. For me as someone who does believe in Christ, at the end of the day being able to say "I don't know for sure" has been liberating. I'm no longer in some weird validation debate. I get and accept why others applying their specific filters just can't get there. It makes sense.
Absolutely. and well said. Frankly I find doubtful believers a lot more credible than those who are super certain. I don't need to demand proof for EVERYTHING, nor can I be expected to accept things that are not provable as true. So, in the end we just don't know. So let's just stop worrying and enjoy.
"Do you know what I would say to God if he suggested I murder my son to win his favor…I would tell him to go f**k himself….."
You know, that's pretty much what Abraham did, the way I read it. And that's what God expected Him to do to pass the test. And Abraham knew it. Abraham was always haggling—remember Sodom/Gomorrah? He didn't fail to question what he what he heard God saying, daring even to question the ethics of God's own behavior: "Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
He knew what he was doing when he said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." He remembered, of course, that God had explicitly promised him, " …in Isaac shall thy seed be called". Midrash tells us God never considered having Abraham actually kill Isaac. God's nature is consistent; as He says in Hosea 6:6, "…I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings."
What is the point of the story? Anything you think God is commanding you to do that is inconsistent withHis Divine Nature is *not* actually of God! As some rabbis put it, it was really just Abraham's imagination. And to this false God, Abraham defiantly chose disobedience—to the sort of God everybody else around them believed in, this tale being radically progressive in its time for asserting that God would want to *stop* human/child sacrifice, that God is opposed to it, which the prophets still struggled to convince people of for centuries (this story being a specific refutation of sacrifice to Molech being compatible with worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, showing to a people claiming common decent from Isaac, the worth of human life: that if Isaac had been killed, as so nearly he was, they would not be here today—the seed not only of Abraham and Israel, but of the Kingdom, so nearly wiped from the face of the earth), just as the whole Torah, actually, teaches radical humanism in the context in which it arose.
You see, from textual analysis, it seems the way the Elohist likely told it originally, Abraham simply ignored what he had heard as the word of God when he saw the ram he’d expected was to be provided—sans angelic messenger. Of course, it's true to add that an angel *was* there with him, saying those things, etc., if you understand what an angel actually is.
Anyway, the story tell us YHWH does NOT want sacrifice of your children like the other and older Semitic religions require; instead, he's provided rams for us to slaughter! God said to “sacrifice” Isaac, not kill him. One could be every bit as dedicated to the LORD as those who sacrifice their children to Molech without actually having to kill the kids to prove it! That’s just a bunch of BS from the mind of the unenlightened man, not divinity!
Sigh.
Well why not? Just kill us… it is moral…it's in the bible!
John, all snark aside, your post was poking fun at the 'abstract' source of atheist morality, yet when I questioned the biblical source of christian morality you seem remiss to even deign a real response ((sigh)))…is this blog just for christians to talk to each other or what?
A. I didn't poke fun at the source of atheist morality.
B. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 is hardly the source of Biblical morality.
C. "Sigh" was a real response.
D. Look around the blog. You tell me.
Chronicles has been stricken from the Christian bible? News to me! I totally understand the instinct to disavow these inconvenient instances of christian biblical 'morality'… It is an exhausting exercise for christians to have to do that all the time.
Well, the important thing is that you're not being condescendingly smug, sophomorically argumentative, self-righteously judgmental, or so intellectually shallow it'd be embarrassing to a third-grader.
HAHA Absolutely!
My apologies.
Well, that was lovely of you. Thanks.
@lindsay This blog WAS a real response… did you read the end part? Note how the description of atheists' source of morality is eerily similar to how Christians' source of morality is described? I believe his point was that they are not that different.
Also, Christianity by definition means that the new testament trumps the old testament. New covenant and all. Which is why people who quote Leviticus to condemn gay people all the time irk me. I want to beat them over the head with a squeaky bat. I think Jesus would approve of squeaky bats.
Oh, Jesus Sooooo loves squeaky bats! He was just telling me how totally awesome & hilarious it would have been if Peter had started assaulting the guys that came to arrest Him with a squeaky bat, instead of cutting off this one dude's ear with his sword (Jesus wasn't too happy 'bout that)!
Think about how much better war would be if it could be conducted solely with squeaky bats. Everyone would bash the crap out of each other like they were in the SCA only with squeaks, and then laugh and eat dinner together after they were done. Except for the one poor bastard that swallowed a sqeaker. May he rest in peace.
2 Chronicles 15:12-13, they clearly got a bit carried away there. This isn't to be held up as an example of ideal behavior (unless you really want some fanatic to take up this endeavor—‘cause they would; trust me)! Of course, it did lead to a period of peace and prosperity, so it may very well be that, in the end, more lives were saved by this (in an era of near-perpetual tribal warfare) than the number who would actually refuse nominal cooperation on penalty of death.
I think the issue about taking things like Abraham etc out of context from the biblical story and then saying that it is a story about morals is that you miss the point completely with the story. It's not about morals, it's about faith. Plenty of stories in the Bible that are about morals…..how bout start with them next time instead of just picking and choosing and then sticking a label on it
Christine, I'm trying to add to, not subtract from what you said.
The story of Abraham has a "trust in God and he will provide" message. That is a profoundly powerful message, and it should not be removed from any discussion on morality.
When God ordered his chosen to kill the men, women, and children of the opposing faction (except for the virgins – take those as your slaves), that was a profoundly immoral act. None the less, it's still part of the bible, and should be discussed. The message here seems to be "don't f*ck with God's chosen people". Maybe the real lesson here is that my kids know that I will avenge whatever someone does to them in such a way that nobody will ever try anything like that again. That's pretty powerful too.
If one is to consider using the bible as a moral compass, one must consider the entire bible. Can we decide what is good and bad advice from the bible? No, because everyone interprets the text differently; everybody gets something different.
In my opinion, the bible is not a book that is intended to inspire a particular set of morals. It is a book that is intended to inspire a discussion. Hopefully this discussion (aided with other texts) leads to moral behavior.
I know I'm on a slippery slope here, but this touchy feely morality stuff is always that way.
You are proof-texting the passage from Gensis.
You are proof-texting the passage from Genesis.
Some people say our motivation to do "good unto others" is because of a god, but there are several much simpler explanations that do so without calling upon supernatural forces (or having to decide which of those supernatural forces it was). Evidence of compassion between humans predates all religions. We even see evidence of compassion in other species (that presumably have no religions). Isn't compassion the underpinnings of morality? It seems much more reasonable to conclude that since belief in a god or religion is not necessary for morality, morality probably has nothing to do with any specific god or religion.
When I look up to the heavens, I am filled with wonder as I ponder things like the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old, virtually 100% of all the species that have ever lived in this planet are now extinct, and we have observed roughly 0% of space. I think of the nuclear chemistry of the stars – that fusion is busily creating fewer but heaver atoms, and that these stars will eventually explode to make all atoms heavier than iron. And that the very atoms that make up our bodies were created in those processes billions of years ago.
I believe understanding a thing increases appreciation of that thing, and that my understanding of physics, cosmology, biology, ontogeny, and so many other things has probably made me appreciate my life more.
What I've read tells me that moral judgement is measurable and several models can be used to predict moral behavior, so the concept of morality is hardly abstract.
Moral philosophy is it's own specific discipline, and no social scientist would ever call it "nothing real, nothing tangible"; it's quite testable. The regions of the brain that influence morality are generally understood, and chemicals that can contribute to changes in moral character have been identified. We learn more about it all the time, and we should expect a near complete understand to the cellular-level processes that control it within about a decade. So far, It appears to be learned behavior with a bit of biological self preservation and forward thinking thrown in.
Whether you are talking about scope, scale, or sophistication, there is really no comparison between a faith based understanding of morality and the science based understanding of morality. One is steadily progressing toward a goal of complete understanding, and the other stopped progressing 2500 years ago.
Promissory materialism is a really safe bet, if you're fundamental interest is in thinking you're right.
My fundamental interest is "being" right. Thinking I am right doesn't do me any good if I am in wrong. As such, I tend to make my decisions based on facts and data.
I'd gladly use non-material things in my analysis I had any evidence of the non-physical.
I feel so sorry, JohnB, that you've never experienced any evidence of love :_(
I asked my love for a brainscan to show her love to see
It won't be ob-long-gata 'til she proves her love to me…
I see what you are trying to say – feeling can be experienced but there is no evidence to support them. There is an equivalent argument that you cannot see the wind. Still, you can see things blown by the wind, and infer that the wind must exist.
I have evidence of love in the things my kids say and do. Everyone who observes our relationship would say that we love each other, so I have evidence in their smiles. I have experience due to various brain chemicals that change the way I feel. Nobody else gets to experience the feelings, but still all around can see the evidence of the love.
Love is not non-material or non-physical.
JohnB,
Please design us all a LOVE meter. I need to check my family for their levels of LOVE and whether or not they have met satisfactory levels of LOVE.
I have my doubts.
Perhaps you can integrate this into a weather station sort of set-up? Barometric pressure, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, love, etc.
Thank you.
People already measure it.
Measurement of oxytocin levels and functional magnetic resonance imaging of the medial insula can both be used to detect when people are feeling "love".
You are welcome
This reminds me of a recent This American Life episode where the featured fellow would have an incident of narcoleptic paralysis that was triggered by "positive emotion". He'd "feel love" for his wife and have an episode.
I'm not sure I'd say that Love can be measured by science, but our reactions to it certainly seem measurable.
"Love is not non-material…"
Then what kind of a material is love?
"…or non-physical."
How would you describe the characteristic physical form then?
A love–it is not a physical body of material substance!
This is quite unlike the wind you make comparison with, which is made of a material called air, which takes the form of our atmosphere—wind moves along a physical vector with all the properties of physics: a measurable velocity, kinetic and potential energies, forces, etc. Is that really how you conceive of love? Do you really think that's how love operates?)
So… now you want to equate the immediate feeling/sensation of love with the presence of love itself! I must say, you have no idea what true love is. There's this amazing thing about people, this amazing thing called love, that even when we could totally get away with it and it would be to our advantage to do it, we can choose NOT to screw each other over. Could you consider doing that to those kids you mentioned? Your feelings in that regard—your *caring* for them—is not correlated with oxytocin, which is simply a marker of a feeling of a bonding moment, but is NOT the bond itself! If you are entirely unable to tell the difference between the two, then you fail big time at abstract reasoning; no wonder you don't understand this issue. I'm about an inch away from dropping all love towards you, buddy, since you don't believe in it anyway!!
Can't you tell the difference between your money and electrons that transmit information about it? And if not, how do you relate to this the concept of possession? (That is, in what sense is it *your* money then?)
Who says I don't believe in love. I just don't believe in "love" in the absence of a brain.
I'm not going to argue semantics about whether a feeling is physical or not; I assumed you had understood what I was talking about.
I mentioned that we can measure physiological changes while a person says they are in love. That's only half the story. By stimulating regions of the brain or providing doses of various hormones, we can bring on a feeling of love. This demonstrates a cause and effect relationship.
Yes, this is how I feel. I see no reason to fall for some mysitcal belief structure about the nature of emotions when there is evidence to support something more naturalistic.
Suggesting that I don't understand true love, or that I have never experienced love implies more about you than it does about me.
I don't see a reason to insult you because we have difference of opinion on a topic, but we are two different people…
You fail yet still to differentiate a feeling and a state of being. It is no mere difference of opinion of which we speak.
When I say "I am in love," actually, the only physiological changes observable are those related to that act of speech. Yet when I presently *feel* someone's love… that's another story altogether. And… that doesn't make it real—drugs or hormones making you feel it, doesn't mean that it's real!
It really does seem that you are ignorant of what real love is.
Of course, you're right to give a naturalistic explanation for it. But what does that show? That the orthodox view was right all along!
What sort of "mystical belief structure" do you mean? You either believe it exists, or you don't. You claim you do, but insist upon identifying it consistently not with what it is but with the signs in which it is manifest, wholly sidestepping the inherent logical fallacy!
I'm sure you believe your money exists too, although of course economic values constitute some sort of "mystical belief structure". Yet you refuse even to consider that same fallacy in this context!
I didn’t insult you before, but perhaps you don’t really know what that is either, so allow me to demonstrate: You are brimming with hypocrisy and with your own self-deception you are trying to manipulate us. You surely know that just as important to a naturalistic description of things as *what* they are is *where* they are—there are two classes of information about matter: internal states, and relations to other matter. You cannot ignore the relations among things! It is in this that the existence of dollars is truly realized; it is in this that the existence of love is realized; and it is by this that every other spirit exists as well.
So what, if there would be no love without brains? This is relevant how? Because the simple fact of the matter is that brains exist! And guess what: There was love before there was man. And guess what else… If not for love, you wouldn't exist!
It is a rare man who can see his own arrogance. Blessed are the poor in spirit; they shall inherit the kingdom.
Ahhh John I read the replies mostly to see how you will respond to the jabs at you and I have to tell you right now that I respect you immensely and have no idea how you are brave enough to take all that is thrown at you. May not agree with you always but you have my respect and that keeps me reading and every now and then replying lol
@ Don Rappe: Thank you for your compliment earlier concerning light and heat. I haven't heard that turn of phrase before, but I am flattered that you think it applies to me. (Thanks also to Scott and N&J. I really appreciate it.)
Back to Don. I don't think you are alone in using the name Christian rarely, if at all. I don't volunteer it. It used to be because I wasn't sure I deserved it. For the last few years, it's been because I don't want to be lumped in with all the other people I don't think deserve it. Sick, right? Of course, the result is the Christians with whom I disagree (and yeah, God loves all of us, yada, yada), they get custody of the name. And when someone does take the risk and say, "I'm Christian but I'm different," they get attacked like John for things that he (and He) never said.
Anybody else feel this way?
Totally feeling you on this sentiment!
Just a few days ago, in a discussion thread on my Facebook status, I wrote: "…I don't claim often to be Christian, even though I fully am, because I am as much that as anything else encoding the same Truth—they are not different ways, it seems to me, but different human translations of the One that there is—the ineffable Word."
(Speaking of which, for "Relgious Views" on my FB profile I have "too long to fit on this line"
)
With the understanding of Christianity that some people in other parts of the globe have (such as Eastern Europe) we'd have no problem identifying as Christians with them; as I wrote in an email a while back: "To most of the world, I should have no problem identifying as a Christian. But the spirit of the antichrist has hijacked Christianity in certain circles, leading almost anyone with sufficient humanity and rationality to conclude that it's nothing but superstitious fabrication, and forcing me to distance myself from such 'Christianity'; for in that sense—the sense in which many understand it today—this label does not apply to those who, in actuality, are the *true* Christians. It's no wonder that agnosticism/atheism tends to increase in any given place in the world in direct proportion to the portion of the population identifying with a radical false religion. Then, people take up the causes of Rationalism and Humanism which seem, respectively, meaningless and baseless, when you strip them to their very core. However their synthesis is where true Christianity lies, though it's no surprise that those on the outside who didn't understand this accused early Christians of actually being atheists."
I continue to believe that atheism is, for many, an instinctive adherence to the 1'st commandment. Rejection of all false gods and conceptions of God. There is a reason this commandment is first. For me personally, I must understand God as being Uncreate rather than existing, terms which I understand as being in contrast to each other. I don't find that the work of Christ gives me a pass on this. And a lot of heat and little light is generated by confusing what Christians ought to be with what, in the course of history, those taking this name have done. I try to be cautious in taking the name of "Christian" for myself, trying always to ensure that I will be aligning with the persecuted rather than the persecutors.
Thanks for going further into what you mean by atheism being an instinctive adherence to the first commandment. I have to admit that the first time I heard you(?) make that argument, I was a bit puzzled by it. Now that I have a better understanding, I see your point. And I agree about being cautious in calling oneself a "Christian." Sometimes, I'm not as good at being a Christian as I want to be.
wow. so all tribal people really care about is stealing a goat? I'm Lenape and we never stole a goat. My elders didn't invent a religion where we all sit in a little room either. Sounds like you have a very Romanized-Christian view of who Christ's followers are, too. Generalizing is convenient I suppose. Would you take those precious 52 hours a year and spend them on feeding a homeless person? visiting a terminally-ill child in a hospital? or, just sitting quietly on a hillside, surrounded by your friends and family and saying "thank you, God. I love you, too?"
Yay Lenape! More likely to share a goat then steal it, I bet. I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean by Romanized-Christian. Congratulations to you, your family and your tribe for surviving us.
You are completely right, I am completely wrong.
Thank you for carefully reading what I had to say and taking away the most salient points.
~D
Sounds a little sarcastic to me, so let's put this baby to bed…
If by "most salient points" you mean:
"Religion was something invented by tribal leaders to get people to fight in wars for ideas, rather than the real goal, which is to take somebody's goat."
Or perhaps,
"pray to an invisible guy on a cloud"
Or, finally,
"I have to work hard to be good and to make a difference in the world."
Then we're on the same page. If there were other points in your comment that I missed, please forgive me. And Dennis, I don't need to be right, you don't need to be wrong. I am grateful for the moment to just talk about this deep stuff with you and everyone else on here.
Can I just let you know that Jesus didn't come here to start a new religion, he came here to tell people that God's kingdom is on it's way and if they want to live eternally in it, they have to do some serious repentence for all the hurt the human species has caused to His creation. Oh yeah, this isn't just about how we treat Him, or each other; it's about how we are treating His entire creation (animals, oceans, mountains, the air, etc.). Thanks for taking time out to just consider my thoughts here. I appreciate it.
~Amie
I was, in fact, being ironic, and I apologize.
And let me add, without irony, that to my reckoning you swung and missed three times. But I will consider your thoughts.
("Pray forgive me, my Lord, but I was born to speak all mirth and no matter." Beatrice, "Much Ado About Nothing")
Love and compassion. Morality, for me, is based in those things. Not sure why those are the things that drive my yearning to be moral, but they do.
Those things were imprinted on me by my parents by example, sometimes through counter-point (pain), but somehow they imprinted on me at a very early age to be compassionate and to want to give more to people than I got. I know they got those things from their faith.
Today, I'm a fence-sitter. I don't know if God exists. I'm not even sure it matters. I've learned to embrace ambiguity and run with it. But, while I hate humankind for what it does, I love humankind for what it is. And that makes me want to be a good person. To give as much as I can of myself and show compassion, empathy and love. To defend the defenseless, to share with those with less, to educate those lacking skills and understanding. To NOT be an asshole, though I frequently fail that objective.
And when I'm at my most assholiness, it is when I demand my "fair share" people, especially from those I love. When I resist giving, loving and being compassionate.
Anyway that's from whence my morality originates. Love and compassion. Go figure.
Don Whitt: "Love and compassion. Morality, for me, is based in those things."
Indeed.
Love. Compassion.Empahthy. Kindness. All these to me are not abstract.
Good post, Don.
Thank you, Julia.
It's entirely possible for atheists to be twisted and immoral. it's entirely possible for Christians to be just and good.
The dichotomy comes when someone applies the notion of Christianity to behavior.
Those Catholic priests who molest little boys are Christians. They have the added bonus that they will be forgiven if they're truly repentant and will enter the kingdom of heaven.
Near as I can tell, I walk the narrow path and commit nothing that would be considered a sin, except for the one that says I have to go to a little room with a bunch of people and pray to an invisible guy on a cloud somewhere that he will send me riches as a reward for my faith. No matter what happens, it's God's will, and he works in mysterious ways, and the good shall suffer and the wicked prosper and it's all part of some plan beyond the ken of mortals.
Sounds like a load of horse flops to me. Religion was something invented by tribal leaders to get people to fight in wars for ideas, rather than the real goal, which is to take somebody's goat.
For believing that, I am unrepentant, and, for that, I will burn in hell for all eternity.
Or not.
What I will avoid is 52 hours per year plus travel and expense sitting and listening to a goat-thieving child molester tell me what he thinks God thinks. I don't know about an afterlife, but that right there sounds like an eternity of suffering.
Life would be simpler if I believed in an afterlife and that God would forgive. Instead, I have to work hard to be good and to make a difference in the world in which we live today. Sucks to be an atheist.
~D
I'm a christian – a Catholic even – and I think Dennis nailed it with this comment. That we've got all of these escape hatches for our crappy behavior. It's this kind of feedback an atheist gave me that absolutely changed my life for the better and I'll never be able to look at things the same way again. It made my experience of faith a lot stronger as well.
Christians have claimed moral high ground for years, some of the most evil, unscrupulous, cowardly and destructive things on record have been done in the name of Jesus – and when we're caught, we use repentance as a back up. All the while, those of us who aren't perhaps as evil are focused on defending our own corner of the Christian tent, wanting to make sure the world knows we're not one of the "bad" Christians.
No wonder people are just sick of us. We claim a higher morality, we fail miserably, we give ourselves excuses for it with bumper stickers saying "I'm not perfect, just forgiven" and the cycle continues. And all the while, the rest of the world takes responsibility for when they screw up. They admit it. They don't blame it on "sin", and they just try to repair it. AA is actually the best model of a Christian church I can think of. Your Higher Power is your own business – the only reason you're gathering together is to hold one another accountable for not hurting yourself or other people through things you have chosen to be dependent upon and now own you.
In other words, Dennis, have my Christian babies.
"And all the while, the rest of the world takes responsibility for when they screw up. They admit it."
No they don't. At least not all of them. Yes, we Christians are capable of using our religion as a cheap way to run away from responsibility–but that's a human characteristic. We can all find cheap excuses to run away from responsibility when we want to.
The point being "the rest of the world" don't have our type of crutch. Evasion of responsibility is certainly a universal trait, we agree on that. Where Christians part ways is pulling God into the mix, diminishing repentance and absolution into waving a magic "I'm sorry, see me crying?" flag when we're caught.
Okay, I see your point.
I don't get the church thing either. Can someone tell me what the advantage of meeting in groups is? Too often it's like a gifted student being stuck in a remedial class: you may learn something, but the lesson is usually geared to the lowest common denominator. That still doesn't justify describing all church leaders as child molesters, though (which, of course, you know.)
Sorry, that should have been marked @ Dennis Dawson.
If it’s the “right” group–which is not to say the most “biblically correct” but one in which you, personally, feel God’s presence, loved and welcomed by your fellow believers, and spiritually challenged in general–it can help you grow enormously as a Christian (or whatever other path you’re exploring) and give you opportunities to express your faith through mission in fellowship with other believers. At least, this has been my experience.
@ Kim de Geus: I think your code of conduct is perfect, and as close as we get to a universal truth. Call yourself what you want, I hope you and I are on the same side. (I also completely agree with you about John. He IS brave. He has a real talent for getting people to open up about what they believe, when, like you said, we usually run for the exit as soon as religion comes up. He does it every day, creatively and tirelessly.)
@Old Stuff: why do you, as an Athiest, act morally?
For whatever it's worth, I'd challenge this. John is just one who will challenge how you present something. He welcomes participation, but he's also someone who expects respectful dialogue and will absolutely cop to being disrespectful himself if it's pointed out to him. I tangled with John myself as I was getting to know him, and if you read his other stuff, you'll see that he is intentionally creating a space where Atheists can find a bit of refuge as well as a voice. But like any reasonable person, he expects everyone here to care about this stuff enough to have an actual conversation about it. And sarcasm, one dimensional "Christians want to murder people" and similar jabs don't often represent people who want to really talk to one another (though as a sarcastic kindred spirit, they are so fun!)
Fair enough, but for what it is worth, I ONLY talked about God ordering murder, not christians.
Ha – noted! Oh Lindsay – the Laverne to my Shirley.
"But why bother trying to reach out to the ‘non’ believer? Why not just use the moral solution the bible suggests:
Kill Nonbelievers"
Now, Lindsay, that sounds like the worst kind of evangelism to me, which would mean that you were writing about Christians killing non-believers. just sayin'.
Listen. This is the last I'll say on this, but if you're coming to the conversation table, consider that those of you who want to snark, jab and approach Christians in a sweeping one dimensional wave are equally as exhausting as those Christians who are constantly after you to tell you that God has a plan for your life, and it's not the one you're living.
I've been on this forum for about a week. And I've seen John as well as others called sheep, fools, idiots, etc. He's creating a space here where he wants to have some serious, substantial dialogue and to constantly be faced with the kind of arrogant personal rhetoric several atheists offer to him and others here is exhausting. Why would anyone expect him to sign up for that?
Let's do this – I'll take responsibility for the christians in my tent who won't give out condoms in the Sudan. You take a little responsibility for the atheists who come here on the attack who've absolutely nothing of substance to offer and who are only here to make sure we all know how idiotic we appear to be to the rest of the "rational" world. But let's leave the Johns of the world out of it who are doing their best to create a space where we can educate one another, get to know one another a little bit better than we are and walk away a bit more enlightened from each other's perspective.
Old Stuff/Not Old Stuff: You changing your screen name doesn't change your IP address, which is how these things are filtered. I have no idea how, when, or why you ended up on my modify list. But I've removed you from it; you can now comment freely–under any screen name. Try not to make me regret it.
1) So how does reciprocal altruism explain Jesus asking us to be non-violent even toward our enemies, to the point of death, not just our "in-group?"
2) Minorities are "grossly" over-represented in prison populations which makes me question the validity of prison statistics as a measurement of morality in the US (and they don't always catch the bad guy).
3) So you're an Athiest. Hi. I love God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and guess what? I love you, too. What's so "wrong" about that? Thomas Jefferson went through an awful lot so I will not bust on his quote…
Reciprocal Altruism works at any level if you have the intellectual imagination to recognize our evolved in-group behavior. …and I consider in-group behavior to be more of a bad thing…merely an evolutionary vestige that helps a species propagate. If you start to think that all humanity (or all living things) are your in-group…then everything is pretty cool. That level of in-group thinking is NOT innate in us. We big-brained apes are able to contemplate and recognize our in-group behavior and move past it. This, though, is moving to far afield from "who is more foolish" question of Johns post, so I won't go farther.
Atheist under-representation in prisons cannot be compared to the over-representation of minorities. There are complex societal factors (education, poverty, racism, etc), but the numbers are not even comparable. Even if there were 10 times the number of atheists in prison, they would STILL be grossly under-represented. The over representation of minorities in prison is real but nowhere near the disparity of atheists. …and isn't it easily argued that minority over-representation correlates with education and poverty?
Here's the thing. The atheistic standpoint (to my knowledge) is not rewarded in prison. In fact, admitting to atheism could even lead to discrimination by the authorities–after all, anyone who admits to being a "Godless atheist" must be pretty bad indeed.
On the other hand, claiming Christianity in particular (and, possibly a religious orientation in general–I'm not sure about this, which is why I'm putting it in parenthesis) is something that is (at least somewhat) rewarded in the prison system. Because Christians are called to serve in the prisons, there are whole ministries dedicated to visiting prisoners, holding prison bible-studies, offering help to those who have been imprisoned and their families, etc. And because much of Christianity is built on the notion of repentant sinners (that is, sinners who seek to change their ways), the Christians who serve in prisons are highly open to helping prisoners who claim the faith.
So, a cynical person of any faith whatsoever, or lack-of-faith, could claim Christianity in order to experience whatever benefits might be forthcoming as a result. I'm not saying that's always the case. I'm saying that it could happen.
It was my understanding that Muslims get the most benefits in prison and therefore many inmates are becoming Muslims to gain these additional privledges. Also, "Godless Atheist" is redundant.
Yes, "Godless Atheist" is redundant. Thus, the quotation marks.
Not, "Thus, the quotation marks," because you did not use the quotation marks to place emphasis on the redundancy. You used them to place emphasis on the title, which is quite different than placing emphasis on the redunancy of the title.
Since when are quotation marks used to place emphasis, on personal titles? I always thought they were used to set aside wording that came from the mind/mouth of another. (In fact, that's how thou even appearest to use them.) So to me it was clear that Diana was simply mimicking a commonly used phrase (don't believe me–google it), and the quotation marks indicate that she is distancing herself from this construction, for obvious reasons like thou didst mention.
Thank you, Matthew.
Matthew, time to go back to school okay, because quotation marks are used for many reasons, not only to "set aside wording that came from the mind/mouth of another. " (Don't believe me, Google it, or even better yet, here you go – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark) Furthermore, her comment, "Yes, 'Godless Atheist' is redundant. THUS, the quotation marks," suggested she used quotations not because she was "simply mimicking a commonly used phrase" but because of the redundancy, which simply wasn't the case as even you have pointed out. Thank you for proving my point.
If only we knew someone who wrote a book on punctuation …
Darling, dearest Travis:
I never implied that I was an English Major. Nor have I ever claimed to be author of a book on punctuation (nods to John Shore.) Yes, I did mean "Godless Atheist" the way Matthew thought I did, which is why I thanked him. When you made a point of bringing up the redundancy as if I didn't know it was a redundant term, I thought you were the one who didn't get the fact that I was quoting a term I've heard used many times. Clearly I underestimated your intelligence. My "Thus, the quotation marks," was my attempt to explain my use of the redundancy. Clearly, it was not an acceptable attempt. I do apologize for the misunderstanding. What would it take for me to redeem myself in your eyes?
It is also incorrect.
It is certainly the most popular spin on the study to say that virtually 100% of atheists falsely claim a religious affiliation on their way into prison. I wouldn't deny that some do do just that, but the fact that it is…like I said… virtually 100% of atheists doing so (which is the the premise of the argument) seems like special pleading. …and I pretty much dismiss any argument that relies on special pleading. I need to see the evidence of such before I buy into it.
On the flip-side…if one falsely claims an affiliation to avoid discrimination/retribution; then that simply brings up the specter of religious intolerance on the part of believers (at least in this example). …and that is no more flattering to religion that the conventional interpretation of the study.
On the other flip-side…if one falsely claims an affiliation to receive time off and better food; then I guess that might be a prudent move. I don't know who gets more free-time perks, but I think the Christians would get the better food hands-down (in my experience)
so, in your experience, have you had to deny your personal beliefs thinking it would get you better food in the big house? (yes, I do have one eyebrow raised)
that was meant for OS, btw. sorry.
I have never had to deny my personal beliefs for preferential treatment in prison…and wouldn’t expect to have to. I do mutely state my beliefs at times…at city council meetings I am recognizably silent during for “under god” during the Pledge of Allegiance. One time I testified as an expert witness in county court and was taken aback when the oath ended in “…so help you God”. I thought that wen’t out years ago. Since I had a client and a courtroom waiting, I didn’t make a stink over it and just said “I do” (but it cheesed me off). ["under God" was added to the Pledge in the 50's to thumb our nose at the "Godless Atheist" Communists]
I have a large circle of friends and more and more of them know my position on religion. Combining an Oregon Pinot Noir and an intellectual discussion on religion is one of the more fun evenings I can imagine.
@ Old Stuff: All right! This is the heresy I thought we'd be getting worked up over today! Although my read on it was more, it's no dumber to do good because of God than it is to do so because of an intellectual ideal.
Well we atheists (some of us anyway) are not happy with abstract ideas and pursue them with rigor to make them less abstract. A casual read of your essay would suggest your position is that, while the Christian framework for morality is attributed to your unsupported god, the atheist morality rests wholly with a similarly unsupported abstraction. But this is not the case.
Is it your intention to say that morality of both the Christian and atheist come from God but the atheist is unaware of that source?
Don't know if John would be irritated by my answering your question…especially if he didn't agree with my answer…but yes.
I personally believe that regardless of whether or not one believes in God…God believes in us.
As Jennie put it up the thread, we are ALL made in the image of God and the letters of God's Law that used to languish on cold tablets of stone, are now hewn in the warm fleshly tables of our hearts. The Spirit can work from the outside of the Atheist or from within the Believer. While many Christians would probably argue that only faith can awaken the human heart to the knowledge of TRUE goodness…I believe that we ALL (believers and non believers) carry the conscience of the Creator. Albeit, free will still allows us the ability to ignore or wax cold that conscience. The fact that HR departments and lawyers exist within the church community should attest to that.
So then how would you explain the core traits of morality in other species? It seems that you SEE morality and ASSUME that your particular deity is responsible. The atheist sees morality and actually looks for the source.
I agree. The Christian (at least today's christian) often feels like they are betraying the God we love and believe to be the source of what is good vs. evil when we broaden our consideration set. It can't be denied that Christians are dismissive of science to a large degree, perhaps because it makes us uncomfortable. But to look at the morality of elephants, for example, that don't leave one of their sick and dying herd behind. One could look at that and attach "Wow, how loving and good is that". Christians may look at that and only conclude that elephants do that because they are designed by God. But Atheists can look at that and see the evolutionary benefit that comes with elephants holding on to that instinct.
As Christians* get more comfortable with science and not see it as such a threat to faith, I wonder what these conversations will look like.
*acknowledging disclaimer that I'm stereotyping, not all Christians are dismissive of science, etc.
Even if theistic believers acknowledge that fact* and still attributed it to their god; it certainly would go a long way in deflating the argument that humans are unique and separate from other life forms. The fact is entirely consistent with us being merely another point on the continuum of evolved life.
*(and woefully few believers are aware of that fact or acknowledge it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals#… <a href="http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf” target=”_blank”>http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf
Even if theistic believers acknowledge that fact* and still attributed it to their god; it certainly would go a long way in deflating the argument that humans are unique and separate from other life forms.>>>
A very wise friend of mine recently reminded me that emotional maturity is being able to feel a number of feelings about one particular thing at any given time. Perhaps this applies to thinking as well. The continuum of "animal life" as we've evolved is clear. What we as people who are religious will do with that information when we've no ability to attack it any longer remains to be seen. I can only speak for myself, but the differentiator between human and monkey will always remain the ability to be ironic, and accessorize.*
*Oh no she didn't!
That's genuinely funny DR!
It may seem pedantic, to use it as a pertinent example of muddled thinking of some religious thinkers…we don't actually know that no monkeys know irony or use symbolic thought. The problem is the ASSUMPTION that other higher primates don't know irony. Of course you weren't making a serious point…but thanks for the turn of phrase.
I am intrigued by irony actually – why we use it, what it means. But that's because I'm a nerd and think about these things.
As I wrote that, I wondered if those who are teaching apes how to communicate could develop some kind of process where by which they could actually identify if apes are able to experience irony, humor, etc. I'm sure that's in process somewhere in the world.
I'm completely fascinated by the more altruistic traits of animals in general and am always looking for things to read along those lines, so keep it coming!
For starts, I would pick up any of Frans de Waal's works. He is a preeminent primatologist and listed (for what it is worth) as one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people a little while back.
From what I have read and seen, I think it is pretty clear that, at least, higher primates do know humor.
A while back I saw a good talk on ted.com by Robert Sapolsky. As a result, I thumbed through his "A Primate's Memoir". Funny read, and he makes extremely interesting observations.
You can get a sense for his style at this talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniq…
Since half of humanity doesn't seem to understand irony *cough*Alanis*cough*, I would have difficulty believing that other primates do, since what I've read indicates that most of them have the mental capacity of toddlers (unless I'm remembering wrong). Schadenfreude, yeah, I can see them having that… LOTS of toddlers display that none too subtly! XD
You had to bring her up.
I'm sorry, the devil made me do it.
Of course! Who else?
Thanks for the thoughtful response, I appreciate it. I understand what you are saying about Christ himself….But with all due respect IS that who the followers of Christ REALLY are? Are Christians followers of the bible or not? Did God really demand death, rape, murder, or not? Didn't the heavenly father demand Abraham kill his son, the STAYED his hand after 'testing' him. Am I to blame if I choose to see that as the behavior of a sociopath and not a deity? John reacted with hostility at my questioning (I am solely to blame for my snarky tone) but still my questions were not answered. Thanks for taking the time to take my post seriously enough to answer with respect.
This is largely an inadequate response to the points you raise, Lindsay (which are excellent points and ones I still struggle with as a quasi-believer), but I'm reminded of Matthew 19, where Jesus attempts to explain an apparent contradiction between the Old Testament and what Jesus just taught:
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
So, apparently there was some allowance for humanity's earlier, more primitive moral sensibilities? I don't have an answer, just find it interesting, as you do.
I think these are some of the most common questions someone who lives in America (assuming you do) who has to live by rule and laws largely dictated by a Christian majority but who doesn't believe in God wants to ask and we should be prepared to answer
The majority of Christians in America believe in Sola Scriptura, the Bible being the exclusive authority of Truth. So the questions re: why Christians believes one way vs. the other are frequently answered, "Because it's in the Bible". And that's it. That's it! And a lot of people expect you to just accept that as being enough, and if you don't see that well then tough shit.
And those who read the OT with its WTF stories about slavery and rape and murder and vengeance and ask, "Seriously? Is this the root of what you believe?" Don't get good answers and are forced to conclude that we're playing Wheel of Fortune with the Bible, only selecting the good words and just leaving out the rest.
Communication is often great at just clarifying the problem and that's all I can offer here. I don't have any good answers for you, except to say it seems perfectly reasonable that these conclusions are drawn.
DR I'm not sure that the "majority" of Christians believe in "Sola Scriptura". I go to a very progressive methodist church where we have a lot of questions – great discussions and mostly are pretty sure, to quote Marcus Borg, that "most of the stuff in the Bible probably never happened, but it's all absolutely true."
We are a critical thinking lot – and don't think we're all that uncommon amongst Christians as a whole, at least in the NorthWest.
do you not find it hard then Scott to answer questions raised about things like sacrifice, rape etc in OT if at the end of the day it didn't actually happen? And if it didn't happen then how exactly is it all true? Seems a tad oxymoronish to me
Nope – not difficult at all – I suspect that many of those incidents are really metaphors or mythology – pointing at some kind of greater Truth than the literal one.
Jesus told parables about Farmers, or the prodigal Son – was there an actual farmer, or an actual son? Maybe yes, but most likely not – does that make the story "untrue"? Of course not, because it points to a greater truth than the literal interpretation.
Was Mary a literal virgin? Probably not – was she an "innocent" in an archetypal or metaphorical sense? Most certainly – so on the literal level the story isn't true, but on the bigger-picture – archetypal level the story is true.
Did the corpse of Jesus reanimate (sort of like a zombie)? Probably not. Did his followers experience him "alive" and with them again, although in a whole new, and heretofore indescribable way? Very possibly.
Check out anything by Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan if you want to know more about this – and I also recommend the Integral Spirituality Studies of Ken Wilber, and the Stages of Adult Faith Development by Dr. Ken Fowler. Web searches will produce a wealth of information about these cool authors.
With all due respect, I think the numbers disagree (though debating generalizations that hold a probability of being generally true is a bit silly). By and large, Protestants make up the majority of Christians in America (see link below) and while some may entertain Prima Scriptura, Solo Scriptura seems to still be squarely on the books. I use this as a reference. Wikipedia, the source of everything that's true. I guess that makes me Solo Wiki. That sounds like a Star Wars figure.
Where was I? Oh right.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't those who are an exception to the rule, particularly those who hail from the great Northwest (go Huskies!). Though I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the Christians who make the biggest splash on our TV screens, our political debates and elsewhere – or are just evangelistic in nature – are approaching the world with anything but a Solo Scriptura point of view.
"Though I’d be hard-pressed to believe that the Christians who make the biggest splash on our TV screens, our political debates and elsewhere – or are just evangelistic in nature – are approaching the world with anything but a Solo Scriptura point of view."
It's possible to believe that we are approaching the world in a particular way, when in fact we're not.
Christians (at least, those of us who are Protestants) are told that we should base our faith solely on the scriptures–not adding in any information that didn't come from the scriptures. Because we want to do what we are told and be right with God, we can delude ourselves into believing that we are basing our faith solely on the scriptures, when, in fact, we are influenced by everything that happens to us–we don't live in a rubber room in which the only influence is scripture, no matter how much we want to pretend that it is so.
So, any time someone claims that they are approaching the world from a "Solo Scriptura" point of view, I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.
Gee, I hope this comment is on point. I'd be really embarrassed if I completely misunderstood you.
This certainly aligns and is such a breath of fresh air. As one who is prima scriptura who's had (no less than) a hundred conversations with Evangelical Christians who suggest that being prima scriptura is "watering down" the Gospel, it's bewildering to hear that as they embrace the idea of the Trinity which isn't spelled out in Scripture at all. It was an idea that was passed down through oral tradition. So it makes me a little crazy when my feet are held to the Bible fire by people who are doing just as you suggest.
I don't mean to disparage anyone, I agree 1000% that those who do so have every intent in the world of living an obedient life. But to be honest? I'm getting a little tired of those of us who focus so hard on our intent and not enough on the impact of the decisions we make. Whether a bullet is accidentally shot or shot on purpose, the wound needs healing. Throughout history, Christians have used the Bible to justify all kinds of things – keeping blacks out of white churches. giving "teachers" a pass who swindle thousands of dollars from innocents and hide child molesters. If we don't start paying attention to the impact we're having with fundamental humility, we'll neuter the Gospel and render it meaningless. If we haven't already. So this is a big deal to me.
"I’m getting a little tired of those of us who focus so hard on our intent and not enough on the impact of the decisions we make. Whether a bullet is accidentally shot or shot on purpose, the wound needs healing. Throughout history, Christians have used the Bible to justify all kinds of things – keeping blacks out of white churches. giving “teachers” a pass who swindle thousands of dollars from innocents and hide child molesters. If we don’t start paying attention to the impact we’re having with fundamental humility, we’ll neuter the Gospel and render it meaningless. If we haven’t already. So this is a big deal to me." Yes. I totally agree with you on this. I feel much the same way.
I know I come across abrasively and I'm speaking to the worst case scenario. I've no idea how many fit my generalization as I St. Joan of Arc it up. I have really high expectations for Christians – perhaps too high at times. So I appreciate the check and balance you and others provide.
Thanks. I too tend to have really high expectations of Christians–probably because I self-identify as Christian and so I take it all more personally than I do with other faiths or non-faiths.
(I need to turn off the subscription to these comments, I'm way too neurotic about replying to things).
Yes! This is exactly my experience. But I know I can make things way too simplistic as well.
Darn right, DR, that this is a big deal!
Darn right, Diana, to take it with a grain of salt: There is no such thing as sola scriptura!
Why? Because the Bible doesn't have fingers, basically—by itself, it can point to nothing. In order to interpret the Bible, you have to figure out what Biblical passages are referring to, to find out what it all really means.
Many who claim sola scriptura unfortunately never make an effort to do this in any consistent and reasonable manner, thinking that they don't need to take into consideration anything outside the Bible, while nevertheless subconsciously bringing their extra-biblical prejudices—their bias in how they view the world, based on experiences from their own life having nothing to do with the lives of the people in the Bible—to their reading of the Scripture!
If you want *sola* scriptura, then you cannot assume any particular relationship of concepts in your own experience–things in the world around you–to what is written in the Scripture. But in that case the entire Scripture is rendered meaningless and has no practical application for one's life whatsoever. You've got to have the fingers: you've got to seek the real meaning of things written there; you've got to use reason; you've got to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit inspired it, only the Holy Spirit can interpret it for you. It is logically impossible to hold that scripture is the sole interpreter of scripture–as adherents of sola scriptura claim–and result with any understanding making any reference to anything in the world outside the edges of those sheets of paper that make up the Bible.
Truth is far bigger than the Bible!!
Everyone knows it. To deny it is to deceive oneself, and this is exactly what many of those whom people look up to and trust as spiritual leaders too often do, to their delusion, walking the wrong way down the paths of righteousness, having sold out to their own human weaknesses, before beckoning others to follow—people just looking for some light of truth, trying to do what is right by God—whom they manipulate into being the sort that would throw their children into the fire to Molech (at least, if they are gay, anyway) (see my interpretation of the Binding of Isaac, above)! We’d never allow doctors who don’t go about the practice of medicine in a rational manner. Is it any wonder that so many (particularly among the well-educated) should abandon religion altogether?
@Lindsay1972, if you're quoting the OT to support your theory on murderous chistians, perhaps you would like to read Jeremiah 8:8. and please think of Jesus as a human being who actually healed every person who asked him for help, he NEVER advocated death, Lindsay. He cried over people because he knew what was coming. He begged them to think about their choices. He flipped out on Peter and healed the soldier who was taking him to his trial when Peter chopped off the guy's ear with a sword. There is a difference between Romanized Christians and the early Jewish christians that is paramount to understanding who followers of Christ really are. And for the record, I would never kill someone because of their beliefs because I love my Heavenly Father and He asks us NOT to kill each other. It has ALWAYS been a choice.. Now that's love, baby.
Ah, just once I want to be fast enough to get into the conversation before it goes off the rails.
The earlier comments are fascinating. Everyone is justifying why they lead moral lives: Tanager's common sense, made up of twin motivations guilt and self-interest; Scott's belief that we are all interconnected, all One Self; N&J's rather beautiful description of doing good being the only thing that matters in an otherwise existentialist void; the less beautiful but probably more traditional schematic of Frank's carrot-and-stick appeal to our Adam selves. For my own part, I think I behave morally, when I do, because it is what God the Father expects from me — which is easily the least creative/justifiable and probably indicative of psychological issues more than anything.
But what we all seem to be missing is what, I think, was John's point. Lindsay, I don't think John was poking fun at atheists' morality based on abstract concepts. I think he was saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that it matters less WHY we act in a moral way and more that we DO.
I call the entity I try to serve God. Not comfortable with that? Call it Truth, Fate, the Greater Good, Justice, the Jungian pattern, or any one of a hundred other words. Make the reason as abstract as you want. Live the most moral, most loving, most truthful life you can and attribute it to whomever you want. You won't hurt God's feelings. He doesn't need to get the credit on the playbill — being God, He has more important things on His mind.
Lindsay, I'm sorry you have been hassled for your beliefs. Shame on them. But John, and, hopefully, his groupies, aren't doing that.
FYI, the easiest way to describe Christianity is that Jesus changed the rules. Because of Him, we are no longer subjected to the petulance and contradictions of the OT. We get a simplified set of rules (love God, love others as you love yourself) and we get the bonus of His death removing all the guilt we would otherwise be carrying around.
Elizabeth – thank you – that was beautifully written. It doesn't matter WHY we're moral, as much as that we ARE. Yes – perhaps that was John's point (although, I suspect, not a conscious one). Funny how that works. The Spirit at work….(or play, in this case).
And you're so right, no matter what, I doubt we'll hurt God's feelings…Perfect!
Thank you for your insight.
Gosh I disagree. I think why we are moral is huge and really important to talk about because it seems like those of us who are Christian are far more focused on *what* morality is – what it looks like, what it sounds like and who we vote in that supports it – vs. *whys* behind the what. The public Christian dialogue is often reduced to the morality of abortion, gay marriage, when we have sex, how much money it's ok to have (uh oh – yes, I suggested that money is actually a moral issue) – but when we try to have a thoughtful conversation as to why one position in any one of those topics is the "more moral" position. there is often a vague "Because it's in the Bible". Which at best is absolutely frustrating for those who want to have a well-rounded discussion about it and at worst. a little lazy.
Beautiful post.
I associate Elizabeth's way of understanding God (or the symbol God) with my own. (It must be very profound then
Still, I might understand the work of the Christ differently. I do appreciate the way her comment emphasizes light over heat.
Actually I am extremely impressed by the READERS of this blog, who have been painstakingly polite and thoughtful…
You are awesome, I hope you stay.
Both of you are awesome! DR love your blog and Lindsay, your honesty is totally appreciated in this forum. Thanks for putting up with mine.
Interesting, from the title, John, I thought you might comment on how Christians and Atheists (capital A, and not agnostics) are alike in the strength of their diametrically opposed beliefs.
This topic is even more interesting: so many different explanations for what many traditions might call the "divine spark" in each of us.
Now, evolutionary psychologists would say that this altruistic streak that seems to run in most (non-pathological) people appears to be a highly-developed social adaptation that increases the odds of one's own progeny surviving to pass along their genetic heritage. The more people help each other in some sort of organized social network, the higher the chances that each and all of them survive. Those who evidenced at least a tendency towards altruism tended to survive because the group looked after them and they survived to pass along those genetic traits (and memes?) that reinforce that survival.
A religionist (or at least spiritualist) would see the hand of God in all of this.
So, the question remains: Are we altruistic because God made us that way? Or are we altruistic because the natural progression of evolutionary imperatives ensured our descendants tended to be? Both sides have good arguments to make.
Or, as I believe, God set things up to ensure that this natural progression of evolutionary imperative somehow would manifest itself in humans? Is this the real "divine spark?"
Ah, I love this stuff….
Me too – thanks John!
Well, not quite, Argybargy. Many of the same genes that are in you are in your brothers and sister, your cousins, your entire ethnic group; in fact even the entire human race is genetically not to far from being identical. So genes that would favor your willingness to sacrifice your life so that those near and dear to you might live are quite likely to survive not because you would be cared for, but even because you would die.
That's a common mistake though in the interpretation of natural selection. The book in which that term "meme" that you used was coined–The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins–was in fact written to counter this and other errors. (While not exactly the greatest philosopher or theologian–"The God Delusion" is on my list of books not to bother reading anytime soon, as I've heard the arguments already and they themselves are biased to the point of apparent delusion–Dawkins does know a thing or two about evolutionary biology.)
(I should probably make it clear though that it's probably good that The God Delusion was written, since there are in fact many whose notion of God *is* more or less delusional. That is, I think there are some who actually believe in the straw man that Dawkins builds his straw-man arguments against. But perhaps more effective at countering them than writing a book that they aren't going to read would be to evangelize the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
Been reading for a few weeks, first time commenting. As a lead-in, I'd say I don't consider myself an atheist, nor am I a Christian. I'm spiritual, but I don't know what that means for me, with my not-sure-I-believe-in-God-ness, and my issues with Religion (with a capital R). I'm probably closest to Jewish at this point in life, but who knows.
Anyway, I feel like, for me, it's a case of, we're all in this together. We are all living and loving and suffering, and that it's cruel to cause anybody to suffer more than they already are by your own self. (Perhaps a bit of Buddhism thrown in there for good measure?) If there's no reason to be kind and moral, then, well, there's no reason NOT to. I'm not really making any sense. And so it is I resort to other people's words, even if they're from a cheesy television show. And though it's not how I feel 100%, it says it better than I could say:
" In the greater scheme, in the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win. [...] If there's no great glorious end to all this, if … nothing we do matters … then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. [...] All I want to do is help. I want to help because I don't think people should suffer as they do, because if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world."
(ETA: I meant to include that that quote is from the TV series Angel.)
Cool!
Hmmm…not sure about this. My desire to be "moral" (on the occasions that it happens) comes more from a recognition that we are all One Self (more in the Buddhist model, but feel free to insert the "Christ Self" here if the language is important to you). What I do to others (or don't do) – I do or don't do to my Self. (note the capitalization).
I am NOT "moral" (I kind of shudder at that word) because my morality is an "extension of God's nature", and couldn't even conceive of framing it that way. My seminary training (Roman Catholic) has well taught me that "God" (as portrayed in The Book – with a special emphasis on the OT) is as far from "moral" in any human sense of the word as possible. Perhaps there is a bigger picture to God's various smitings, duplicities and outbursts of childish temper than the human reader can understand.
Likewise, current day "Christians" are not often the paragons of morality we would like to think we are. What's the current payout from the Roman Catholic churches "moral worldview"? How many billion? Aren't the boy scouts mostly organized through Christian churches? Lots of morality there….
First – "belief" is a non experiential way of knowing. So table that for a minute. Perhaps atheists experience the reality of playing nicely in the sandbox with others. Things always work better in a "win-win" environment. Helping others "feels" better. The benefits of "helping" are an archetypal overlay that we respond to at our deepest levels of humanity – it's like an instinctual knowing that we are deeply, deeply connected.
But to be motivated because of some conceptual "abstract being" – out there – is a little like being "good" so Santa brings presents. I have different feelings about Christians who do good for love of doing good than I do of those who do good out of fear of being condemned to an eternity of WWF reruns (or some other existential hell).
Some Christians are deluded fools – but, like my crazy uncle Mortimer – we love them anyway.
Any and every visible effort a christian makes is about the law being applied to our old adams in the form of either sweet carrot or threatening stick. This is not about sanctification or being a christian.
Sanctification merely is, just like Justification. It is the new birth, It requires no effort.
Pagans and christians are in exactly the same boat here John.
Martin Luther: "Life is Mortification." This is true.
Well….it could be argued that the atheist's morality – and, incidentally, that of Christians (at least the *formation* of the Christian's morality, if they became a Christian later in life) – has its genesis in common sense. Unless we're sociopaths, we figure this stuff out. Well, even if we are sociopaths we can figure it out., we just might not live what we've learned. Say little Johnny Atheist is playing with his friend Timmy, whom he like a lot. He yanks the Power Ranger Timmy's playing happily with away and says "Mine! You can't play with that!" and Timmy starts to cry. Perhaps at first Johnny doesn't really care about this, but then it starts to gel in his little gimme brain: Timmy is his friend, he likes Timmy, Timmy is now crying and has actually stuck his tongue out at him and gone into the other room. Two things have happened: Johnny is regretting his action because he has a vague sense of guilt over apparently hurting his friend, plus he has suffered consequences: now there's no one to play with.
A variety of this same lesson plays itself out over and over again during Johnny's formative years. He learns to think about how he'd feel if he were on the receiving end of bad treatment, and he learns that often the results of his poor behavior aren't so hot on his end, either.
He may say he's "moral" but in the end he's simply decided it's better for him to behave morally. Granted, at times he may make sacrifices that only benefit him as being "a good deed," and the only reward may be the satisfaction that he's done the right thing. I don't know if it's "The Good" that motivates the atheist, or at least not solely. The Golden Rule resonates in most human beings because we love and enjoy love – hey, what do you love more than love? (whatever it is, consider getting rid of it, especially if it's your iPhone) We care about love and it motivates us to good.
I'm totally rambling. Oh well. At least I had to think this morning
So Athiests are blessedly inconsistent. Just as are christians.
It is helpful to follow St Paul´s example here and remember that there are two persons that take up real estate in each believer/christian: Old adam who continues in the believer just as before he was born again in his baptism, and then that completely NEW creation that is Christ-in-us.
The old adam died in our baptism, but it turns out he is an excellent swimmer!
The New man. So when we talk about believers we should always wonder if we are taking to the pagan , old adam, part of the believer or the new believer as a little Christ, or christ-ian.
There are actually two parts to earthly, visible, right-eousness and Old Adam of both believer and pagan are driven by the carrot and stick, reward/promise and threat of the Law in the same identical way:
1) Self-restraint/discipline. Christians call this Mortification (deathing) of the Flesh/Old Adam.
2) Love. Christians say that love is always something done. An act.
Either one without the other is not love.
Buddhists "do no harm" or self-flagilation or fasting or.. like we christians LOVE to do, work on the mortification of OTHERS, that does not lead directly outward towards our own love towards others is not what God wants of us this says.
Mortification without love is God-vectored sacrifice. God wants mercy, which is always and only horizontally vectored. Love is the fulfillment of the Law, not sacrifice or suffering.
And , of course, from personal experience, we all know that "love" that does not bear some mark of self-restraint does not end up actually being love. it is about me,I and myself and not other-oriented.
Newer Comments →