Troylus brought up a good point (in my humble opinion) in a recent discussion about, uhm, shockingly, religion!
When someone who believes in some sort of omnicient, omnipotent authority figure chooses between right and wrong, are they doing it because of right or wrong, or because they fear reprisals from the aforementioned deity?
If you’re on good behavior because of the “fear of God”, then I’d have to admit I’d lose a little respect for you because you’re like a child and a parent. I’ve heard this preached in many sermons, about how we’re not worthy of God and we cannot hope to understand his mind, etc, etc. If that’s what it takes for you to act on the side of good, then by all means because I want everyone to be good, but I wonder why it takes “God” for that to happen…
However, if your good behavior is due to the fact YOU know right from wrong and choose that path, then what’s the difference between you and me, when I choose right from wrong without God in the equation? Who cares WHERE right and wrong come from (human rights, God/Devil, society, etc) as long as you know the difference?
If you were in a bad position in your life and turned it around, I’d rather see you take credit for it than give it to someone else. Because in the end, the decisions you make are made by you, not God or karma or anyone else. Otherwise, if the decisions ARE made by God, how could he be possibly disappointed if you make the wrong one?
My $.02 Weed
It took leaving…
It took leaving religion for me to find this for myself. I find my ethical and moral values are much more firmly planted having discovered that they are an internal force and not an external one.
I’m glad you found that interesting…
Part of my concern with religion is that much of it (not all of it mind you) puts a great deal of emphasis on strict obedience to certain rules of behavior and calls such obedience “morality.” Like you, I don’t think this is much of a problem ordinarily. It doesn’t really matter why a person behaves in a moral fashion, provided that they do.
My concern arises in that such emphasis upon obedience conditions believers not to seek for understanding behind why they do or do not do some things. This makes some of them susceptible to making very poor moral decisions if they have learned only to weigh good from evil based upon that filter of obedience to religious authority.
In other words, if your moral system consists of nothing deeper than “Doing what God (Or God’s appointed spokesmodel) tells me to do”, what pause do you give to a commandment to “Kill the Jews” or something equally heinous?
This valuation that some religions place upon obedience over understanding is a prime reason that I feel non-religious folks who have worked hard to define their systems of morality are done a grave disservice when looked down upon as being morally inferior.
If anything, I think it should be the reverse.
Wandering youth
This brings up a concern that nags me about raising children through teenage years without a “fear of God.” As I see it, spirituality is like a hyper-emotionalism, which positions it well to counter emotional appeals to behave immorally.
If I don’t want my teenage son (who only hypothetically exists by the way–I’m not that old) to sleep around, I can have long reasoned discussions with him about health risks, emotional risks (pleasure bonding and such), etc. But when the juices start flowing, all that stuff’s out the window. Don’t drink and drive? Tough when your teenage friends are calling you a wuss. The list goes on.
Enter God. With a healthy dose of guilt (or pre-emptive guilt, if you will), a young hooligan may veer off such dangerous courses at the last minute. God’s different from a parent, in the sense that you know you’re “caught” every time. Emotional experiences (personal roads to Damascus) can also lock you into a chosen path–hopefully a good one.
Once you mature a bit, you’re ready to act more rationally on a regular basis. Then you can move on, like you did with Santy.
Call it deceptive, but I think there’s some value.
A problem….
There’s no evidence that religious or “God-fearing” kids do fewer immoral things like drinking, smoking, sex and drugs.
Some studies suggest that an over-emphasis on God and religion as the basis for morailty vs. frank and honest education about the dangers, pitfalls, etc can leave kids unprepared to cope rationaly when confronted with the “temptation”.
For starters…
For starters, I will preface this by saying that if I depart from my usual, “can’t we all just get along” line of reasoning on this one, don’t take it too personal-like. And once this is done I fully intend to return to my usual fare of glibly touting socialist agendas that would collapse if ever put into practice in the real world, and making reference to all sorts of sources “that I heard somewhere” without providing any links or research, and always, always making fun of Justin and his stupid hair.
But for whatever reason, this post chafed at me more deeply than I expected. I’m not entirely sure why my feelings are telling me to speak out here, but I’ve found sometimes its best to simply (horror of horrors) trust my gut, even if I don’t have a perfectly logical reason. I have found this often works because I am not a clinical, unfeeling machine, you see. And while I find the phrase “don’t sell yourself short” to be quaint and in some cases beneficial in lending support to another, as a “Religious One” myself I must take umbrage to its use here.
Let me begin by saying that Paul’s comment makes good sense, as does Troy’s, although I’d be quick to add that your average religious person blends their church’s teachings with their own internal beliefs, which is really no different than blending your own beliefs with what your parents/teachers/friends taught you. The rest of you, however, are totally off base, in some ways more than I’ve ever seen you off base before. And Daniel, knowing the extent of some of our usual disagreements (ie the role of government), you know that’s saying something. 😛
First, Weed,: –> If you were in a bad position in your life and turned it around, I’d rather see you take credit for it than give it to someone else. Because in the end, the decisions you make are made by you, not God or karma or anyone else.
You’re missing the point. I don’t look to God to tell me what to do and have Her make my decisions for me. I look to God because I know damn well what the right thing to do is *and I can’t do it alone.*
People, NO ONE has ever been in a bad place and turned their life around purely through their own merit. No one. We always need help. Often it comes from family, friends, and when all else fails plain dumb luck. To say otherwise is to insinuate to anyone who’s ever loved you that you never needed their support, because you could have handled it on your own. Worse, to then say that having received help on your success somehow cheapens that success (a very American, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps way of looking at it), you’re in effect telling anyone who ever helped you that they actually made your achivements less worthy by lending you aid.
Granted, most days we CAN make it on our own, using the skills that we’ve devloped (skills which were frequently TAUGHT to us… more help there). But there have been some extraordinarily difficult times in my life, however brief, in which I looked for spiritual aid to pull me through because I’d already tried everything else. And I mean everything.
Detractors sometimes say that faith is a crutch. Well, if it’s a choice between using a crutch or falling over completely, I’ll happily take the crutch. Some might say that I’m not giving myself a chance to stand on my own two feet. I say I’ve been here before, I’ve *tried* standing, thank you very much, but I’ve fallen a number of times already and if it’s all the same to you I’d like some assistance.
In the end, I believe I lead a more stable, ultimately more powerful life by accepting my limitations and imperfections than by foolishly striving for absolute perfect independence.
Can a reliance on God be twisted or taken too far? Of course. I’m not here defending the moral choices of little old grannies who give their life savings to Pat Robertson. And if your support network, both internal or external, gives you enough help without needing to rely on a “higher power,” then I’m happy for you. But a) don’t cheapen the moral decisions of those who choose to include God in their support network, and b) don’t pretend that your decisions are yours alone. If *science* has taught us anything, it’s that we can never wholly escape the influence of the world around us.
All that being said, Weed, I see the point you’re driving at, and I do agree with you that a morality based purely on fear is no morality at all, even though I must protest that most religious people’s morality is NOT exclusively fear-driven.
Daniel:
Pardon me for saying so, but exactly where the hell do you get off making sweeping statments like “spirituality is like hyper-emotionalism,” or implying that God’s main purpose is as a tool of guilt and to be compared with dear old “Santy,” and then turn around and imply that because you’ve “moved on” from such immature beliefs you’re the more rational one?
In my mind, in order for a view to be rational it needs to at least *try* to maintain the pretense of being objective. And your last post *dripped* with contempt. It wasn’t an ethical proposition; it was mockery. Its purpose seemed to be not for edification or to work towards any deeper truth, but rather to show off a clever little theory of yours at the expense of a worldview that you find ridiculous.
I say ‘seems to be’ because your intent might truly have been to present a well-reasoned, rational argument. If such is the case let me modify the harshness of my rebuttal and then merely suggest that you failed.
And I’m not trying to say that we’re not allowed to use mockery or show contempt on Barnson.org (and some worldviews ARE ridiculous), but be prepared to be called on it when you do.
A few days ago Matthew gave us a spiritual snapshot of what he believed and why he believed it. Right now I’d like to share my own. Though it’s not as clearly written and eloquent as Matthew’s, I’m sure, it touches on this thread as well as a few other threads floating out there.
I call myself Christian. I call myself so because I believe in something greater than myself, I believe in a deep and *unexplainable* power that moves through all things. I fiercely believe that we are all “children of God,” united by the common bond of humanity. I believe that to forgive the one who persecutes you is one of the most powerful acts you can take in the universe, and that it can also be the most difficult. I believe that the moment you let hatred for *anyone* enter your heart you become a little bit more like the one you hate. I believe in crying out for the poor and the forgotten, knowing that there but for the grace of God (or plain dumb luck) go all the rest of us. I believe that I should sometimes put the good of other people before my own personal benefit. I believe in giving a few bucks to a homeless guy on the street even if there’s a chance he’d waste it on booze simply because I have money that I don’t need, and someone asked for help.
I believe that when you’re living in a world on fire, sometimes all that is asked of you is to simply show some small compassion towards your fellow human beings. And I call myself Christian because I believe that the story of the gospel and the character of Christ reflects these credos. I call myself Christian because the story gives me strength.
I do NOT believe that believers in a historical crucifixion and ressurection go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell. I do NOT believe that the world was created in 7 days and then God threw in a whole bunch of other stuff that pointed towards a different origin theory just to @*#% with scientists 6000 years later. I do NOT believe that all atheists lead less fulfilling, less moral lives. I do NOT believe in a Big Brother waiting to smite me if I have sex out of wedlock, or if I vote for a candidate who favors abortion, or if I suggest that the love between two men or two women can be just as real. And I do NOT believe in foisting my views on people whose life story has had a different plot and tone than my own.
I am by no means unintelligent. I graduated near the top of my class from the College of William and Mary, where I took several courses on philosophical discourse and the humanities in general. As a child my IQ scores were unheard of in my elementary school. I say this not to brag (because ultimately I also believe that intelligence is vastly overrated anyway), but to reassert the fact that I am not some dumb brute who can be easily swayed by a con-artist shaman throwing shadows on the cave wall.
And there are hundreds of thousands like me. People who have strong values that they arrived at through strong paths, even if those paths aren’t always completely explainable. People who marvel everyday at the wonders of scientific discovery and the triumphs of human achievement and then turn around and marvel at how a particluar note on a cello can move them to tears for no reason at all or look up at a clear night sky bestrewn with stars and feel a strange, whispered comfort that no one is truly ever alone. People who thank God for all of the amazing things that science and reason have shown us and who thank God for all the amazing things that will never be explained.
We are not out to get you. We are not out to take your money. We are not out to deny your children the search for truth so that our own belief structure can be reaffirmed. We are not out to make you feel guilty for any decision that you have ever made.
We are truly sorry if others in our religion hurt you so deeply, and if we could prevent such harms from occurring we would. We are not in the least bit interested in calling your beliefs dumb. But we ask that you extend us the same respect.
We are rational and spiritual, practicioners of science and practicioners of faith, and is it too much to ask that, just once in a while, you give us a modicum of credit?
Rowan out.
Spirituality
Okay, so I’ll admit parts of that post were intended to be more inciteful than insightful, and I am duly chastened. But I am suprised that the first thing you jump on is my reference to spirituality as hyper-emotionalism. That’s touched a nerve other times on this blog; however, if I am arguing from an atheist perspective, what do you expect me to call spiritual experiences?
Are there experiences that are extremely significant in people’s lives, complete with feelings (i.e. emotions) that cannot be willfully created? Sure. I’ve had them, and most people I know well enough to have such candid discussions have had them as well. But calling these spiritual immediately implies the existence of the arbitrary–of a “spiritual plane.” If the spiritual plane exists independent of the subjects that experience things, there should be some uniformity to the experience. (In other words, a Mormon would tell you that you have spiritual experiences when learning about things that are true, or when God needs to throw a wrench in your life so that you will espouse true things.) All of my life experience and learning, unfortunately, shows that spiritual experiences are uniform in the sense that just about everyone has them, and random in the sense that they have little to do with a cohesive truth. Even as a believer I noticed that I would feel “spiritual” sometimes during a movie, or at a patriotic event. And while Mormons love to point out that “everyone has some of the truth” as an explanation for why people experience the Spirit in other religions, I have read experiences of people having spiritual confirmations of the Cult of Mao. Where’s the Truth in that?
So, I look at spirituality and say, “what else is an inherently subjective experience, frequently, but not entirely reliably, triggered by external factors?” Answer: emotions.
To expect otherwise from an atheist is to expect them not to be what they claim. They may admit that they can’t explain the nature of a spiritual experience, but they can’t admit it’s driven by a Master Life Force–this would essentially be belief in God, just under a different name. But I don’t speak for every atheist on this blog, so maybe someone’s found another way to put this all together.
Or maybe they’re socially adroit enough to keep their mouths shut ;).
I’ll agree with you
I’ll agree with you completely that spirituality is an emotional experience. And you’re absolutely right, one would be a pretty confused atheist if they thought a spiritual experience was anything but a person’s emotions.
Perhaps what’s happening is that we’re thinking “hyper-emotional” means two different things. To me, hyper-emotional means extreme emotion, emotion taken beyond its usual bounds. It implies a sense of someone “losing control.” I’ll admit there are many instances in which people have taken religious fervor to that dangerous level. But then, there are a number of instances of people taking lust to that level, or passion, or anger. Or patriotism. All I mean to say is that spirtuality does not always hit me on an extreme emotional level. More often than not, it’s usually fairly quiet. It’s emotional, but not always hyperly so.
How about this? Let’s say that a) sprituality is emotional, b) the difference between atheists and believers is that believers link that emotion to an actual higher force, internal or external c) sometimes that emotion, like any other, can be carried to a powerful level of intensity.
But atheists still don’t get to use God to keep their kids in line. 😛 I say this to save you some embarassment in front of your future children: your higher power guilt-tripping would come off as amateurish. Save it for the real professionals like us Catholics. We’ve had 2000 years of experience in this field. 🙂
No glossolalia intended
By “hyper” I was referring more to the intensity of the feeling than the nature of its manifestation. Spiritual experiences are powerful and memorable–they are manifestly different from finding $1 on the street or waking up to a sunny day after a week of clouds. They can change a person’s lifestyle instantly and permanently. Of course, all of these things happen on a gradient, so sometimes a more subtle feeling may be assigned to the category of spiritual–I can see that. But an atheist, as we agree, must assign all of this to emotion.
By way of example, in case I’m not explaining myself well enough: two people walk into a Zen garden and sit down. Both feel peaceful. One of them feels peaceful to the point of oneness with the universe, and out of this intense feeling recommits herself to showing love to all creatures, great and small. So the first person felt a feeling, and the second person, I would say, really felt a feeling, and had a lasting change come from it. You, or others, might say she had a spiritual experience. (And, honestly, I might say that too, although we do not agree on the underlying causes.)
I’m interested in following this further: are you suggesting the presence of a “spiritual” emotion, independent of other emotions? My experience (and why I say “hyper” as explained above), is that spiritual experiences tend to be reflected in feelings of love, joy, excitement, etc, rather than some totally unique feeling. Reading your A-B-C’s, it almost seems like you are asserting the latter. (I should allow for negative spiritual experiences as well, I guess–extreme hate, despair, guilt, etc. Enter Satan?)
That’s interesting… I
That’s interesting… I never really thought of whether the “spiritual” emotion is something seperate from the other emotions before. But that is indeed the way it looks like I presented it in my last comment.
I’m actually going to take a slight cop out on this one and say that I think that emotions, by their very amorphous nature, cannot be compartmentalized by language. What we think of anger as frequently is a part of what we think of as love. Passion and lust are sometimes interchangable. Lord knows that having a “spiritual experience” is often associated with joy, or peace, or sometimes great regret.
I guess I’d have to say that trying to define one particular emotion is like looking at a jillion amoebas all flowing into each other and trying to label a specific one. You can get a decent general idea, but ultimately it’s just too much of a muddle to tell.
But, if only for the sake of throwing *something* out there, I’d say that I personally would associate the “spiritual” emotion most frequently with feelings of empathy, peace, delight, awe, love… the good stuff, mostly. I’m hard pressed to think of a powerful feeling of anger or hatred that I’ve had and thought it spiritual, but then, that’s all just in my definition.
Not Sold Short
weed, the problem with the arguments I so often read is that they assume that 1) God does not exist, and 2) Believers make their decisions based on a psychological need for a “God-Figure”.
If that is true, then your post makes sense.. “Why give credit to a God for doing right, when you can take credit yourself?”. You wonder why it takes “God” to make good happen. It doesn’t take “God”.. it takes God (sans quotes).
I believe God is real.. that he is a living, sentient God.. and that out of love, he humbled himself.. and taught us how to live. He said “Go and Do Likewise.” He set the standard for humility and forgiveness and just being good, and then, when we can’t reach it, he says, “That’s cool, dude.. I forgive you”.
So, when I do something Good, yeah I choose to do it, as a favor back to God. I will recieve no gold star, and likewise, no frowny face sticker when I choose to do something that serves myself that may be detrimental to others.
The times in my life that I turned around are marked by very specific “God-based” choices. When I focus more on God, I am a better person as a byproduct.. I think because Christ is a good influence.
Look at it this way.. when i was hanging out with my pal (name changed here) “Johnny”, he smoked and did weed and other pharmaceuticals, and lived slobbily and disrespected his Mom. He was was always in debt, couldn’t hold a job, and it affected me. I became more in debt. i started drinking and smoking all the time. I never did drugs, and I always showed him mom more respect than he did.. but I started showing my own parents less. I was in less debt than him, but mine was worsening. I held jobs better than he did.. but not as well as I used to – Why? because it was influencing me to be around that standard. I was easily achieving the best behavior because the standard was set lower than i would normally set. At the end of the summer, when i moved out, “Johnny” said I had given him a lot to think about and said he was going to try to quit drugs and he was applying to MC – and he said it was my influence.
We tend to look at the standard of the one who is most diligent in trying to do right.. by that standard, we can measure how we’re doing. In my case, I looked at johnny, and said “okay, I’m doing really well”, and stopped trying. in “Johnny’s” case, he looked at me and said “I need to clean up my act”.
My relationship with Christ is like that. I look at his standard and yeah I turn around after I chose not to give to the homeless guy because I say “if Jesus would give up power and wealth and glory for people, I can give up 10 bucks”.. and when I really want to rail against that family member who is unfair to me I say “If get a free pass for the crap I do and say and think, then I can give a free pass here”. Its not guilt, and its not fear, and its not the idea of a reward. Faith means i have nothing to fear and forgiveness means I hold no guilt. I just try (and sometimes fail miserably) to live up to a higher standard than I normally would.
Thought
I am a former Mormon, now nonreligious, married to a devout Mormon.
This has, as you can guess, led to some really pointed discussions in our family.
We just finished speaking about this blog posting in bed a few minutes ago, and I felt compelled to get up and comment. The things which have made our marriage hold together these last three years, despite wildly divergent beliefs, is a desire to maintain our relationship, and an ability to be pluralistic regarding our beliefs.
What’s pluralism? It’s the ability to accept others regardless of how crazy we think they are. The fact is, each one of us is alone. Hopelessly, painfully alone in our own heads. Nobody can ever share that experience, and you have no way of knowing that anyone else on the planet feels like you do.
I have to take it on (I hesitate to use the word) faith that you are capable of loving me back as a friend as deeply as I care for you.
That’s a hell of a leap.
I like to think of all of us here as friends. Some more than one generation removed from each other, to be sure. Perhaps acquaintance is more the word for many of us. And yet, there’s trust given, and trust received, in sharing your most precious ideas and ideals with others.
Let’s be careful how we respect those ideas and ideals. Respect doesn’t imply homage or meaningless self-deprecation, but it does imply decorum and sensitivity to how our words affect others.
One thing I’ve learned over this last decade of hanging out on the Internet, is that the heart doesn’t know the difference between a relationship lived virtually online, and a relationship person-to-person. Words have power to create and destroy, to forge friendships or foment resentment.
One day, I’d love to be able to really peek inside someone else’s brain and see how they think. In the meantime, I can only do so through words.
Thanks for sharing what’s most important to you with me.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
The Rest of the Story
When I wrote this blog, it was after a spirited discussion with some co-workers about the recent ID decision that morhped/descended/twisted into a religious one.
While everyone on this blog is well-spoken, polite, and respetful, I can say that the discussion I had at work (of all places) was not. In a nutshell, I’m going to hell because I don’t believe the Bible is law and Jesus is coming back for me.
My post did take the form of one speaking “down” slightly to believers, and that was wrong. I did try to keep it respectful but some of the emotion of my earlier discussions bled through. I apologize to the members of this blog because you don’t deserve to be talked down to, no matter what.
However, I don’t either, and I was spoken to like a wayward child by co-worker, and a superior at that. So forgive me if I responded in kind on the blog.
With that being said, let’s speak of the dichotomy of man. I have a logical side, and an emotional side. My emotional side would like nothing more than to believe in God. My logical side simply cannot find any reason to allow that. In my life, I’ve found following my logical side leads me to better places in the end than my emotional side.
However, I have found I cannot supress my emotional side completely, be it when I stare at the stars with my 3-year-old or watch my wife from acress the room. To go through life simply following logic would be a waste of a life. Logic may be the lines of the picture, but emotion is the color that makes it beautiful. You have to know what you’re doing to color outside the lines otherwise you get a big mess of a picture.
Rowan, I think if we were to hang out in person, we’d either kill each other or be best friends. I agree and disagree with your statement about doing it by yourself. Yes, no man can do it by himself. However, when it comes down to it, you and you alone are responsible for your actions. There will come a time when you ARE alone, and thet decisions you make in that moment define you more than anything else. The people who love you cannot be there all the time, and in the end you have to make decisions yourself.
Perhaps the appeal of God is that he IS there all the time. No matter where you are, if you believe in God, he’s right there waiting to help. If you don’t believe, then when you’re down in the gutter, you have no one else but yourself to help.
The point of distinction there in how you make that choice. I feel if you make that choice that YOU will not be down anymore, that YOU will get help, then that’s different from feeling like GOD lifted you up, he brought you back. Is it a big difference? No. If God lays down the same code of ethics that I arrive at in a logical manner, then if we both foloow them there’s isn’t a big difference.
My personal opinion is that the way Christian religions are taught, God plays the role of parent, and we the children. So when you make that decision to put your life in God’s hands, you’re reverting to the role of child. Can you be a child to God and an adult to everyone else? Yes.
So what’s my problem, you ask? It’s that those who believe in God can’t seem to acknowledge that those who believe in the same code of ethics without God in the equation might be just as moral, just as good. I feel that in the world today, I am constantly being attacked for not believing in God. This blog is a haven from that, but anywhere else I am to be ashamed that I’m not in church praising God.
Justin, you’ve never tried to convert me or tell me I’m a heathen, so I apologize to you for anything this blog might have done to offend you. You are the black sheep of this blog undeservedly, and you take it well.
I will be honest in that inside, I do take pride in that I can be good without needing the fear of God. However, I acknowledge that choosing right because you use God as your compass and not authority figure is no different that me using a code of ethics. but you had to deviate from the teachings of you religion to get to that point, as I had to leave religion totally to get to that point. And I rant against religion, as have others, not the members of this board.
My $.02 Weed
Convert now, you’re a heathen.
Just Kidding.
I don’t feel like the black sheep, and I invite the spirited discussions – they make me smarter (and I need it, whew!).
I don’t think people who believe in God are better people. I think if you try to do good and you do good, then you’ve done good, and good for you. Same kinda goes for me a lot of the time.
My faith is based on the idea that we are all about the same and we’re all a little bit F***ed up. No one is perfect, and Crhistians that try to sell themselves that way need to take a step back.
I wish I could collect the rants I’ve thrown at this blog against the “Drive By Christians” who post anaonymously that you’re going to hell. Matt’s read them. I do stand in judgement of one patricular group – and that’s other Christians.
I agree with Rowan, Christians get a bad rap.. most of us ar enormal people who do our best to serve God and will be excited to tell you what we believe – but can talk about other stuff too. Most of us won’t ever push our faith on you (see: Panera Caramel Lattes – you really should try them, they’re really good, if not, cool – lets watch us some Kong!), but will be your friend and go to bat for you the same way no matter what you believe.
The group I stand in judgement of are people who do threaten and who do try to drag you kicking and screaming into our faith. In the Bible, theres a story of Christ telling someone what they needed to do to follow him, and when the person walked away sad because they didn’t want that, Jesus didn’t say “HEY, WHAT’S WRONG GIRLY MAN? YOU WANNA GO TO HELL??”.
I really do think there’s a Jesus up there, and I really do think His way makes sense and all I need to do is present what it is – and if people want to go another way, that’s their choice and I respect it. Either way, my responsibility ends at the presentation.
And finally, I’m not a big fan of religion either. I’m into jesus, and I’m into what the Bible says, and I’m into Churches that are a little more decentralized and take their stuff from there and dont get into a lot of other stuff (why I left the Catholic church, among other reasons) – so yeah, not a big religion fan myself.
Wow… that’s funny. I
Wow… that’s funny. 🙂 I gotta say, Justin, if Jesus had said things like “What’s the matter, girly man?” that would have made the Bible a MUCH more interesting read.
None of that wussy “I am here to die for your sins” crap. Just a strong, clear “I am here to PUMP (thunder clap) YOU UP!”
Rock on
Man, looks like I’ve missed all the interesting discussions lately. Damn you law school!
For the record, there’s no reason why a person can’t simultaneously believe in God and comparative morality. Just because I believe in something outside myself doesn’t mean that I look to that something to tell me what to do and how to do it. But then, I’ve got a totally wacked theology. 😉
As for the internal vs. external dichotomy, I agree with Weed that we are ultimately responsible for our own decisions, regardless of their consequences. While Troylus was right (was it Troylus who said this?) that most people who turn their lives around do it with someone’s help, the final responsibility rests with the individual. I always come back to a quote from “The Charge of the Goddess”: “If that which you seek, you find not within yourself, you will never find it without.”
— Ben
good things
I hadn’t read the last few posts of this blog until now. It was pretty neat to hear (using figuratively) the way this one progressed. It didn’t seem to “degenerate,” but rather it seemed to rise up to a higher level as it continued.
The things here, written from the hearts (or spirits?) of each person, touched my spiritual side.
I do want to appologize for any previous posts of mine on this site that may have sounded cocky or arrogant. I want to discuss things with you all in a peaceful, respectful manner.
As I said before, I am here to talk about God, to talk about spiritual things, to talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ. And yes, my desire is to “convert” you if you’ll be converted. What else would you expect from a believer?
But I don’t ask that you blindly just jump on the bandwagon. I’m a logical person too. Things need to make sense to me before I’ll accept them. So, I understand others feeling the same way.
As one particular post above mentioned, we present what we believe and give people the chance to choose. I guess my posts here (including future) constitute my presentation.
I hope we can have some enlightening discussions that would benefit all.
Already, I’ve been enlightened to see evidence that you have good qualities that would please God (even those with the label “atheist”).
emilt
What else would you expect
What else would you expect from a believer? I’m sure you didn’t intend to pigeon-hole yourself but you did anyway. I don’t expect any single thing from anyone simply because they match a given demographic, honestly. I have known a lot of “believers”. Some try to convert me. Some pity me. Others respect me greatly and show a real interest in what I have to say. So, to answer your question. Nothing, in particular. You have made personally clear that your intent would be to convert. Frankly, that position bugs the crap out of me. I think it shows that you are willing to talk but not listen. I think it says that you have motives other than being friendly and participating in a diverse community.
I would be happy to celebrate in YOUR diversity if you are willing to also accept mine. Without the requirement on my part to change so your goals can be fulfilled. It is a dangerous game in any relationship to concentrate on changing the other party.
Already, I’ve been enlightened to see evidence that you have good qualities that would please God.
That is what I would call taking God’s name in vain. Vanity is the act of doing something not required. To take someone’s name means to speak as a representative of that person or on behalf of that party. What you have done here is stood in proxy of God and passed judgment in his stead. And for no good reason, it seems, than to assert that you have his ear, can hear his words, and that others cannot.
I personally believe that if there is a God, he is capable of speaking to me plainly in a way that needs no human intervention to be understood. In other words. That’s a very backhanded compliment.
I’m not sure how this is all coming off from me but I can say, the idea of being preached to or being the target of attempted conversion makes my stomach turn. It really does.
EDIT: Spelling
Thanks, Paul
It bugged the **** out of me when I saw a post titled “Battle Call” in which you (emilt) said that you wanted to go to battle to convert me into believing your religion, and then wrote later in the exact same thread: “I hope no one considers anything I’ve said as shoving my beliefs on anyone.”
I don’t like posting on religious threads, but I’m thankful to Paul for writing the above, and wanted to second his gesture.
Lead by example
I think Paul put it well, and I third his emotion 😉
Everyone here has been through their own trials and tribulations with religion and belief, and we’ve all arrived where we are with a lot of thought and work. We know you mean well by your standards when you try to convert us, but like Matt has said, “Been there, Done that.”
I’ll state now: If God wants me, then send me an unmistakable sign. My father is about to die of terminal cancer. Make him well for one year. If God does that, I’m a believer.
And don’t tell me God doesn’t work that way, because it seems like he did in the Bible. But now when science can verify, he’s misteriously absent from his miracles….hmm.
Dicussions are welcome. Preaching is the next door down.
My $.02 Weed
sorry
I’m sorry to hear about your father.
I’ll pray for him.
emilt
A good idea
In cases like this, where you and weed have disgreed on religion, it is perhaps wiser not to mention that you will pray for his father. Certainly do.. and I’m sure the sentiment is appreciated and is given benevolently, but be sure it isn’t misconstrued as “driving a point home”.
Emilt, I’m glad youre here and you will acclimate I hope.. but remember, here its all about the people first, and then the ideas. You are welcome to our group of friends, as long as you treat us as a group of friends and not a mission.
That being said, I second your motion about Weed’s dad. it sucks and my hopes go out to his family.
____________________________________________________ Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Imagine this…
I assume we all, at one point, believed in Santa Claus. We even once defended his existence to the other kids on the playground, the non-believers. But now, we don’t.
Imagine now that you are at lunch with some friends. As you sit in the restaurant, enjoying your meal, a man comes to the table, listens for a few minutes then begins turning ever subject mentioned into an opportunity to convince you all that Santa is real.
You’d have no part of it. Right?
For many of us here, religion in general, and for some, Mormonism in specific, is just like Santa. We once believed, defended, hoped, prayed, even sat on the lap of the proverbial man. Now, we don’t. And we can’t go back.
Could you believe in Santa again? Ever? Even if all the children in the world looked into your eyes and testified that they KNOW he is real? No. And you wouldn’t want to waste your or their time in the exercise.
Santa’s not real?!…. Curse
Santa’s not real?!….
Curse you and your ereodite, nihilistic brand of intellectualism, Paul. You just have to suck the joy out of everything, don’t you? 😛
Which is why..
I’m likely not going to tech my kids about santa..
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Good luck with that
Good luck with that, buddy. When your kid is the only one in his class not getting presents from Santa, you might change your mind.
Just sayin’.
— Ben
Trickier than it sounds
It’s not that you “teach your kids” about Santa as much as they seem to just learn it. My wife and I do not affirm the existence of Santa to our kids any more than we affirm anything else they pretend. (We don’t put out cookies for “Him” to eat; we openly discuss the details behind purchasing gifts that came from Santa, etc.) We’re disengaged enough that my parents think I’m evil. But that doesn’t mean Santa hasn’t already carved out a special spot in their minds.
I don’t know where you are in the child-raising scale, but if you’re pre-baby, let me share a key observation with you: kids have very little basis on which to decide between fact and fiction. Most of the books you read them present totally fictitious scenarios, but they have no way of knowing that. It’s not like after Toy Story you turn to them and say, “let’s have a chat about how inanimate objects could never come to life like that.” You don’t finish Curious George and then talk about how a monkey would never get his leg set in a human hospital. (You do, if you want some rest, spend a lot of time talking about how monsters are not real. Alternatively you read books about friendly monsters, and then you don’t bother discussing that they’re pretend.)
I haven’t sat my children down and said, “you know, Santa’s just pretend,” but I haven’t done that with Cinderella either. Maybe some other parents have figured out a better way to do this, but these are just my observations on the state of “toddler education.”
Well..
When it ocmes down to it, we will probably do what my wife’s parents did which is to say “Santa is a pretend guy we mention on Christmas, like Frosty or Rudolph. Some other kids think he’s real, so don’t ruin it for them.”
As opposed to My mom who wouldn’t admit it until I was 14. So thats the plan, I guess. And we’re talking 3-5 not, 1-2..
(Although my kids will grow up thinking Optimus Prime is real)
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Nooooooooooo!
Optimus Prime’s not real?!….
Curse you and your ereodite, nihilistic brand of intellectualism, Justin. You just have to suck the joy out of everything, don’t you?
What you’ll find
What you’ll find is that when you have a 2-year-old, sometimes the only way you can get him to behave is “Santa’s watching you.”
I guess that you could use “Jesus is watching you”, but Santa’s the best we’ve got. 🙂
— Ben
a significant difference
The two things you are comparing here are not quite in the same category.
In general, those who let us believe in Santa, eventually recanted their story. There would be no point in going back to that story that nearly everyone (other than the children) agrees is basically a myth. Then again, we do have historical knowledge (St. Nicholas, etc.) about true events that apparently developed into the Santa Claus story.
But those who’ve told us about God, in general, have not recanted their claim. If Santa Claus is based partly on some truth, how much more likely is it that the claims of God’s existence are true?
(An important note: I am talking mainly of the existence and reality of God here. I’m not so focused on “religion” or “Mormonism” necessarily. It seems when I talk of God, several people here take that to somehow imply I’m talking of the LDS church. Yes, my view of God is colored by my belief and upbringing in the LDS church. But my knowledge of God’s existence comes from my own experiences and also from accounts repeated by others of various faiths. That fact–that God lives–is the thing I most strongly believe in regarding spiritual things.)
emilt
Preceding arguments…
First off, any metaphor will inevitably fall apart when taken too far.
Secondly, Paul’s argument could apply to any of a number of mythical deities: Zeus, Thor, or ancient gods who are no longer worshipped.
I expect the Christian god, in a thousand years, to not remotely resemble the Christian god of today.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
And I expect..
God will remain who he is. Although.. either by God or by Man, the human race as we know it will be extinct in 1000 years
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Maybe this is why…
Maybe this is why I’m a nonbeliever. To think that, despite everything we try to do, we’re doomed to failure is a horrible, depressing outlook that I refuse to believe. I think we can improve the world. Even if there is a large “adjustment” of the human population due to war, disease, famine, or whatever, we can find ways to overcome it through superior science and brainpower.
We just need to get off this one rock we live on right now. Any first-year system administrator knows that the first ingredient of a fault-tolerant system is to have multiple redundant ways of getting the job done. Right now, one big asteroid strike could render our rock uninhabitable. I’m optimistic enough to think that we’ll make significant strides along this road during my lifetime.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
… to Explore Strange new Worlds…
I’d like to think it too.. but even if I exctract my religious beliefs.. I think that mankind simply cannot handle the science we have.
I think that we will ourselves render the earth uninhabitable within 150 years. Look at the last hundred.. Weve almost tripled the population, we’re running out of resources, third world tyrranical theocracies are getting nukes, and are willing to use them..
The fact is we are to short sighted. I am reminded of the TNG episode “The inner light” – I think we are looking at our own destruction and worrying more about economy and politics and power to realize “crap!!”
How to save us? (Again, exctracting the rleigious discussion)
1) I agree with matt.. let us spread to other places
2) Beter fuels, less pollution.. tree hugger stuff
3) Stop nuclear proliferation
4) Take a preventitive stance on pandemics
5) Fund humanitarian causes in Africa and the Middle east designed to improve education and building infrastructure.
6) Population control.. at least in terms of educating. People should understand that it is ecologically irresponsible to have large numbers of kids. I don’t think mandatory numbers or prejudice against a third child should be instituted.. but tax breaks should stop at two, and be rescinded after three.. Its simple Math.. if on average every two humans creates three humans.. then approx every 25 years you can multiply the population by 1.5 – That means in 2030 we’re looking at 9 billion and by 2055 we’re looking at 13.5 billion. Scary.
So thats all. Im a peissimist
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Good response… closing thread
Because I’m certain this post will cause LOTS of responses, I’m closing the thread to further input. I think this would be an excellent topic to explore in a new post: is the rising population, pollution, and risk of nuclear proliferation something to worry about? Why or why not? What should we do about it?
—
Matthew P. Barnson