Separation of Church and State

[Winstonm]

since the wages of sin is death and since life is in the blood, there can be no remission (forgivness) of sins without the shedding of blood (death)... however

 

Hi, Jimmy:

 

This is the very point I am arguing. Why is the wages of sin death? Why can there be no remission without blood? If god is all powerful and makes all the rules, then these are his decisions and I say they suck. If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

 

It somewhat gets back to the problems I had with my father and others of closed-minded ilk, who when pressed to explain the logic would fall back on quoting scripture as if it were the holy grail and then say it is a matter of faith - faith, a belief in something without any basis for that belief. Don't atheists have just as much faith? They believe there is no god and they can no more prove that position than someone else can prove the existence of god. They take their stand based on faith.

 

I happen to believe that the old testament is nothing more than a collection of Jewish mythology - a lot of war stories told at night around the campfire while the sheep were asleep. If you notice, in the end the Jews are always the heroes of these stories - is David slaying Goliath that much different from Jason and the argonauts? Isn't the story of Adam and Eve simply the Jewish version of Pandora and her box?

 

My brother, who happens to be a Ph.D. in religion as well as an Army colonel, says that if you read the original old testatment text you will see that it is poetry and not meant to be literal - it is moral poetry.

 

If adam and eve are just a fun story, then we are back to why is it necessary to sacrifice - to kill (let's use the real word) a life in order to save one?

[luke warm]

If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

God had no choice, but not in the sense of a natural law... he is who he is, and his very nature (or attributes) govern all things... since he's perfect in all his attributes, and since he can't deny any of them, he had to honor the fact that adam gave away what God had given adam

 

it's true that Jesus died for all.. but by giving an example of yom kippur i had hoped to explain the importance of faith... salvation is a free gift, but what good is a gift if one refuses to accept it?

 

i obviously disagree with your brother, with all due respect for his intellectual accomplishments.. and you are correct, if the story of adam and eve is *just* a story, and is not the reason for the things you are questioning, it calls into question the necessity for atonement

 

as much as i know you hate to hear it (you and a lot of others :() it does come down to faith... sorry 'bout that

 

There are any number of organized Christian sects that consider large parts of the Bible to be allegory and superstition.

yes, but those are the more intellectual among us... they lean on their own understandings and i'm far too unimaginative to do that

Edited July 18, 2006 by luke warm

[Winstonm]

If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

God had no choice, but not in the sense of a natural law... he is who he is, and his very nature (or attributes) govern all things... since he's perfect in all his attributes, and since he can't deny any of them, he had to honor the fact that adam gave away what God had given adam

 

it's true that Jesus died for all.. but by giving an example of yom kippur i had hoped to explain the importance of faith... salvation is a free gift, but what good is a gift if one refuses to accept it?

 

i obviously disagree with your brother, with all due respect for his intellectual accomplishments.. and you are correct, if the story of adam and eve is *just* a story, and is not the reason for the things you are questioning, it calls into question the necessity for atonement

 

as much as i know you hate to hear it (you and a lot of others :() it does come down to faith... sorry 'bout that

Naw, I don't mind hearing it. Just for the record, I respect your personal beliefs and I respect you as a person. You state your beliefs yet listen when others have contrary ideas. This is how it should be. None of us "knows" for sure.

[Al_U_Card]

"Jesus" or Josueh the Essene ascetic rabbi died in the typical fashion of a Roman seditionist because his creed forbade the Roman "insertion" between Jews and Yahweh. Apocryphal gospels as well as Essene texts demonstrate the level to which the Synod of Nicea went to "create" the universal (Catholic) religion that Constantine could use to cater to the broadest extents of his empire as well as his misguided personal and familial fantasies.

[luke warm]

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

 

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

[DrTodd13]

since the wages of sin is death and since life is in the blood, there can be no remission (forgivness) of sins without the shedding of blood (death)... however

 

Hi, Jimmy:

 

This is the very point I am arguing. Why is the wages of sin death? Why can there be no remission without blood? If god is all powerful and makes all the rules, then these are his decisions and I say they suck. If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

 

It somewhat gets back to the problems I had with my father and others of closed-minded ilk, who when pressed to explain the logic would fall back on quoting scripture as if it were the holy grail and then say it is a matter of faith - faith, a belief in something without any basis for that belief. Don't atheists have just as much faith? They believe there is no god and they can no more prove that position than someone else can prove the existence of god. They take their stand based on faith.

 

I happen to believe that the old testament is nothing more than a collection of Jewish mythology - a lot of war stories told at night around the campfire while the sheep were asleep. If you notice, in the end the Jews are always the heroes of these stories - is David slaying Goliath that much different from Jason and the argonauts? Isn't the story of Adam and Eve simply the Jewish version of Pandora and her box?

 

My brother, who happens to be a Ph.D. in religion as well as an Army colonel, says that if you read the original old testatment text you will see that it is poetry and not meant to be literal - it is moral poetry.

 

If adam and eve are just a fun story, then we are back to why is it necessary to sacrifice - to kill (let's use the real word) a life in order to save one?

First off, God is not all powerful. He does not have the ability to act against his nature. Some things are a physical impossibility even for him. One could make an argument that one of the things that is impossible is for sin to exist in the presence of God. As such, given that sin exists (if right exists then doesn't wrong also have to exist?) then there must be a place outside God's presence where those with sin must go. These statements have a huge number of unstated axioms to which they refer...axioms like God exists, souls are eternal, etc. Everyone's belief system is ultimately based on a set of axioms. Most people don't pay them much thought but somehow something that is self-evident to one person is not self-evident to another. Since all rational argument is built from axioms and we can't prove axioms (otherwise they wouldn't be axioms if you could prove them) and people disagree over axioms, the conclusion is that nothing is provable in an absolute sense. (Of course, I used logic to derive that conclusion and that is also based on axioms so I can't absolutely prove it is right. :blink: ) Only people who agree on the axioms have any chance of proving things to each other. "God does not exist" is an axiom just like God does exist. There is no proof or disproof of the existence of God and that is how He likes it.

 

Other questions like why can Christ's blood hide or erase one's sin so that you can stand in God's presence are more of a mystery revealed through scripture. The other example I gave was a pretty easy one. I could make a stretch and say that to cover sin you'd need something at least as powerful as God covering it so that God wouldn't be able to see it. What is there that is as powerful as God? Only God is as powerful as God but then you end up with how can God cover the sin to hide it from himself. Anyway, I can't come up with a rock solid derivative from God's nature that shows that Christ's sacrifice was necessary. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of faith.

[Winstonm]

Good response Dr. Todd. I certainly accept the concept of evil for without eveil there would be no free choice - if all you had were decisions about which good thing to do next you are not excersising free will. Evil is necessary.

 

However, it gets back to the same issue doesn't it - somewhere in their ancient history the Jewish people instituted the idea of slaughter of a creature in order to atone for sin - most likely this was the idea of a local priest who's brother-in-law just happen to sell lambs. (Or is that just the cynic in me from watching too much Tammy Faye and co.?)

 

No one has been able to explain to me why it became a necessity to slaughter of an animal to atone for sins. Why not cut down a tree? Salt a garden? Squish a spider? And what is the mechanism of specifically blood atonement? Is this a chemistry problem? Is it physics? Or is it more in the nature of legend and mysticism?

 

The bottom line is that without a clear necessity (God had no choice) for this occassional killing spree there would be no need for an ultimate sacrifice.

 

All I am saying is you may be wrong - you can believe it all you want - but simply admit that you may be accepting a fairy tale as your core belief system.

 

You could be right as well, in which case I am in BIG trouble. :blink:

[Al_U_Card]

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

 

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

[DrTodd13]

At least according to Christian theology, the Jewish sacrifices were forerunners of Christ's sacrifice and pointed to it. The animal sacrifices were symbolic but quite ineffective. The animal sacrifices were oddly designed to illustrate that sacrifice was necessary for atonement of sin but at the same time, animal were an imperfect sacrifice and thus the idea was to get them to look forward to the perfect sacrifice. Anyway, my point here is that Christ's sacrifice was necessary and that the closest non-sinful symbolic sacrifice to foreshadow it was animal sacrifice. This still leaves the question of why was Christ's sacrifice necessary. This is a deeply mystical question for which I can't provide a rational explanation. Others might be able to but I'm not a theologian. Ultimately some things are a matter of faith.

[mike777]

"This still leaves the question of why was Christ's sacrifice necessary. This is a deeply mystical question for which I can't provide a rational explanation. Others might be able to but I'm not a theologian. Ultimately some things are a matter of faith."

 

In common Christian theology....

 

 

 

God is fully Just and full of Grace then:

Sin is so horrible that that death is the only Just sentence. If you accept this and this is a big assumption then

God in Grace(undeserved forgiveness) sent his Only Son(himself) to die a painful death in place of Man. This was a choice God made.

 

All powerful can be a confusing term. God cannot create himself or cannot create something from out of nothing. Nothing comes out of nothing.

 

Now the subject of freewill and the nature of man is another thread.

 

Here is just a typical issue:

If we assume that the nature of man is sinful and we assume that one cannot overcome nature without supernatural invervention, why is Man condemned to death for something he cannot overcome on his own?

[Winstonm]

Sin is so horrible that that death is the only Just sentence.

 

My point exactly - this is the natural Law of actions/consequences to which it seems god must adhere. He may even be the Law. Regardless of whether this Law is separate from god or a part of god is irrelevant. The only relevant part is he must obey it.

 

God in Grace(undeserved forgiveness) sent his Only Son(himself) to die a painful death in place of Man. This was a choice God made.

 

No problems with this either. The ultimate consequence was paid for all of mankind's actions. The Law has been fulfilled. Wasn't it christ himself who said he did not come to destroy the Law but fulfill it? I wonder if it was the Natural Law of actions/consequences of which he spoke?

 

I see no need for belief in this scenario, though. God is just. God sacrfriced so man wouldn't have to. Bingo. Done deal.

 

I personally believe that the higher power is more in keeping with the father figure in story of the prodigal son, in that his love of us never varies regardless of what we do or say, and when we at last come home he will throw a feast - perhaps in the hereafter the atheists, agnostics, non-christians of all time will be introduced to christ, shown how and why everything was necessary, and be given the chance to say thanks. And that is all that will really be necessary because after all the consequences for all our actions have been paid.

 

See, the consequences for evil actions is not fiery hell but it is the very life spent doing evil, missing out of the blessings of doing good, of never finding contentment, never having joy or peace or kindness or warmth in your heart. A life spent in evil is its own consequence.

 

According to other's stated theological arguments, god is perfect love, perfect justice, etc. If god is perfect love, he cannot condemn one to hell. But perfect justice demands it. How to escape this predicament? A perfect sacrifice so even the most evil would be absolved and able to stand in gods presence all the while having the consequences of an evil life be paid in life and not after. Hmmm. A seemingly perfect solution.

[Al_U_Card]

See, the consequences for evil actions is not fiery hell but it is the very life spent doing evil, missing out of the blessings of doing good, of never finding contentment, never having joy or peace or kindness or warmth in your heart. A life spent in evil is its own consequence.

This may be the wisest and most sensible statement that I have read here or anywhere else.

[luke warm]

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

 

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

i have no idea what you're talking about... i simply asked you a couple of questions

[hrothgar]

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

 

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

i have no idea what you're talking about... i simply asked you a couple of questions

My interpretation of Al's point is the following:

 

You, Mike, and DrTodd are all spending a lot of time flailing arround trying to impose human motivations on a supposedly divine being. I'd argue that if something is in fact divine/omnipotent, it is by definition unknowable.

 

I've always found this type of philosophical exercise quite impractical, though watching the convuted logic does have its amusement value...

[mike777]

To say a divine/omnipotient God is unknowable goes against basic Christian orthodoxy.

In fact quite the opposite is a basic tenet of the religion.

[hrothgar]

To say a divine/omnipotient God is unknowable goes against basic Christian orthodoxy.

In fact quite the opposite is a basic tenet of the religion.

Recall the comment about convulted logic and amusement value?

 

Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is a masterful work of pure reason. However, people have been mocking the futility of debating how many angels could dance on the point of a needle since D'Israeli's day.

 

Regretfully, (from my perspective) all your discussions about the two sided coin of grace/justice seem similarily quixotic...

[DrTodd13]

Is God rational or irrational? Are humans capable of being rational? If God is rational and humans have the capacity to be rational then I don't see why it is impossible to in part understand some of God's motivation and reasoning. Sure, many parts of the divine will be so complicated that they are unknowable to a being of limited mental

capacity. God would not have given us a brain if he had not intended us to use it.

 

There is a difference in trying to use reason to understand God better with respect to the plan of salvation and asking the question of whether people will poop in heaven (which is an issue that Aquinas tried to answer with "reason"). The first is useful and the second is quite futile. With Hrothgar's supreme intellect I'm sure the rest of us seem like cavemen trying to add 2+2 but hey, you have to start somewhere and whether you are a genius or not the exercise is worthwhile given the potential gravity of the topic.

[luke warm]

You, Mike, and DrTodd are all spending a lot of time flailing arround trying to impose human motivations on a supposedly divine being.  I'd argue that if something is in fact divine/omnipotent, it is by definition unknowable.

 

I've always found this type of philosophical exercise quite impractical, though watching the convuted logic does have its amusement value...

well winston asked a question and i simply did my best to answer it... it should not surprise you or anyone else that if a theological question is asked, the answer must of necessity take a theological bent... as amusing as you find "convuted" logic, if a person asks why such-and-such is a part of a particular belief system, certain premises must be granted

 

that still doesn't answer my question re: al's post... he stated some things about Jesus and early christians as if they were facts, which led me to believe he had an understanding of the doctrines to which he referred... so i was simply seeking clarification

 

as far as knowing God goes, he has spent a lot of time trying to get man to that very point... true, one must accept (again) certain premises, and i have no problem doing so... but don't pretend that you come to the discussion with no presuppositions... i freely admit that any attempt by me to defend or define christianity depends on circular reasoning... but no more that opposing worldviews

[Al_U_Card]

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

 

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

i have no idea what you're talking about... i simply asked you a couple of questions

Sorry J. Here is a resource to answer your questions.

 

http://www.essenespirit.com/

 

Don't you just love the internet, where there is information about anything you can conceive of....

 

To paraphrase Stewie on "Family Guy". He is Chinese and His name is actually Hong, Jesus Hong; He doesn't know where they got the Christ name from...." <_<

[Winstonm]

Jimmy, Dr. Todd, and Mike:

 

I just want to make sure you guys know that I am not purposefully disparaging your beliefs - I respect your right to believe as you wish.

 

When I say I could be wrong and you could be right, I am genuinely serious. My purpose in these posts was only to show why I have difficulty in accepting those views as my own. Fair enough?

 

BTW, for a simply interesting read on the concept of actions/consequences and the nature of god's relationship to man, a book entitiled "Through a New Pair of Glasses." is quite a treat.

 

The people I have problems being around are those that answer any question with a quotation from the bible as if that is the only reliable source needed, fear asking themselves these questions, and who close every argument with a blanket statement that you must accept on faith.

 

My problem with faith is the inception of faith - is it your own or is it simply handed down from father to son, mother to daughter? One who has looked at both sides of the argument, weighed carefully whether there is or is not a god and then decides for himself there is no god takes a leap of faith that he is right. Those that believe because they were dragged to church 3 times a weak as children and never broke from that mold are not believers IMO but brainwashees. Their faith is not in what they believe rather it is faith in their teachers, that their teachers are right, and the ones before them were right and so on.

 

Few, it seems, of certain persuassions are willing to debate logic - they fall back on mystical statements like "it's a matter of faith" or "it god's will" or "it's a mystery". These types of answers smack of mysticism.

 

Here is another question to which I can find no logical answer. If we asssume as others have said that god is perfect justice and perfect love and therefore cannot tolerate sin in his presence, thereby necessitating sacrifice to cleanse the heathen, what happened to all those people who lived and died in pre-sacrificial times? It would seem there are few logical answers to this puzzler: 1) They weren't really people so they don't count. 2) They lived at the wrong time, original sin stained them, so through no fault of their own except time of birth they are condemned to hell. 3) Sacrifice really isn't a necessity - in pre-sacrificial times god had other methods of washing clean the heathen. 4) The concept of original sin and sacrificial salvation are nothing more than Jewish mythology.

 

That is my problem with religions that have blame and judgement as part of their creed - there is no time continuum that makes sense.

[mike777]

It is difficult for me to think of any mainstream or even nonmainstream religion that does not have Judgement as a big focus.

 

I note even in a secular society, judges/juries pass Judgement on others.

We even use Judgement in Bridge!

 

Judgement is used to moderate the behavior in others and ourselves.

You seem to argue against this?

[DrTodd13]

My problem with faith is the inception of faith - is it your own or is it simply handed down from father to son, mother to daughter? One who has looked at both sides of the argument, weighed carefully whether there is or is not a god and then decides for himself there is no god takes a leap of faith that he is right. Those that believe because they were dragged to church 3 times a weak as children and never broke from that mold are not believers IMO but brainwashees. Their faith is not in what they believe rather it is faith in their teachers, that their teachers are right, and the ones before them were right and so on.

 

Few, it seems, of certain persuassions are willing to debate logic - they fall back on mystical statements like "it's a matter of faith" or "it god's will" or "it's a mystery". These types of answers smack of mysticism.

 

Here is another question to which I can find no logical answer. If we asssume as others have said that god is perfect justice and perfect love and therefore cannot tolerate sin in his presence, thereby necessitating sacrifice to cleanse the heathen, what happened to all those people who lived and died in pre-sacrificial times? It would seem there are few logical answers to this puzzler: 1) They weren't really people so they don't count. 2) They lived at the wrong time, original sin stained them, so through no fault of their own except time of birth they are condemned to hell. 3) Sacrifice really isn't a necessity - in pre-sacrificial times god had other methods of washing clean the heathen. 4) The concept of original sin and sacrificial salvation are nothing more than Jewish mythology.

 

That is my problem with religions that have blame and judgement as part of their creed - there is no time continuum that makes sense.

I haven't had a problem with your comments. On to your questions.

 

Here's my theory anyway. If in ancient times, two groups of people both believed in a single benevolent creator God, realized their own inadequacies and placed their faith in God then they go to "Abraham's bosom" which is essentially the good half of Hades. ("Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.") This part of Hades was opened by Jesus during his time dead and then those people could be in God's presence. So, their sin kept them from God's presence until a time when Jesus' blood was available to hide their sins from God. It doesn't matter if these two groups called God by different names so long as he had the same characteristics. If one put faith in a malevolent God and the other in a benevolent God then I'd say they aren't putting their faith in the same God or if people placed faith in their own goodness to earn salvation then they won't get it. This is not a particular problem theologically. The real problem is can people be saved today the same way they were then. Can someone put their faith in a benevolent God with all of God's good characteristics but reject Jesus and still go to Heaven? If they haven't heard of Jesus then I think perhaps the answer is still yes.

 

Here is part of the reason I came to believe. I gather most people that do not believe in the existence of God also do not believe in the immortality of the soul. I think that is a reasonable thing to believe. If you want to believe in pure naturalistic terms then the soul and immortality seem like silly concepts. So, given the choice between believing that my life will be short (80 years is short in cosmic terms), unimportant, fragile, and lacking a higher purpose versus believing that I am immortal (in terms of the soul) and having a higher purpose, I choose to believe the latter because personally I can't imagine a life that would make me happy if I had the former belief system. If I believed this was all that there was then load me up on the debauchery. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that any amount of debauchery would make me forget my ultimate and soon-to-come demise. The utter uselessness and insignificance of life according to naturalistic explanations lead me to be happier by believing there is immortality and higher purpose. I don't believe I am deluding myself but even if I am, I am happier this way than the opposite and I'm not hurting anyone so who is anyone to complain?

[Winstonm]

It is difficult for me to think of any mainstream or even nonmainstream religion that does not have Judgement as a big focus.

 

I note even in a secular society, judges/juries pass Judgement on others.

We even use Judgement in Bridge!

 

Judgement is used to moderate the behavior in others and ourselves.

You seem to argue against this?

Not only do I argue against judgement but think it is the universal catalyst for all evil.

 

And I agree - I cannot find an organized religion that does not have judgementalness as part of its doctrine and creed; hence, I find all organized religions odious. And in my experience I have found the most severely judgemental people are those who were raised in a strict faith - and still believe in it. Judgementalness is saying that what someone else is doing is wrong, as in homosexuality is wrong or non-christians will burn. What judgemental is saying in essence is, I am right - that is arrogance.

 

See, I happen to think that god is more flexible than that - love is not constrained and it is not an emotion. Love is a decision coupled with actions. You do not have to like or feel good toward someone to love them - as long as you act in love toward them. And that is the province of choice, not emotion. God chooses to love perfectly therefore cannot judge - judgementalness is antipathy to love. However, there must be a cause and effect for action. That is why I believe in actions/consequences, and they have nothing to do with god - unless he created the law. But if all actions have consequences already built in, then god does not have to judge - nor should he.

 

The only part of my beliefs that requires faith is the belief in a higher power, and after due deliberation and analysis I came to the conclusion that there was indeed a power higher than myself. The rest of my belief system can be logically explained - or so it seems to me. And it wasn't something handed down to me through generations, but something I went out looking for and attained by study and trial and error, of adopting what was logical and consistent and tossing aside what was not.

 

However, I am not against god or good or spirituality. What I am firmly against is man telling me what they think I should do to please god. That is all an organized religion is, after all, an orginization that imposes its beliefs and interpretations on its members. Do you know of any religion that encourages its memeber to question doctrine, to challenge the truthfulness of what they are taught, to do anything really other than "accept on faith" that what they are being told is true?

 

What are the two strongest base emotions in humans? Fear of loss and desire for gain. What do orgainized religions sell? Fear of loss (judgement and fiery hell) and desire for gain (heaven and eternal rapture.) And to win this prize all ya gotta do is believe in what I'm telling you...just like Jim Jones told his followers...and David Koresh....and the reverand Sun Myung Moon...and any of a host of others.... It's my way or the die way. Pick your poison.

 

So to get back onto the original thread, this is the very reason I am so strongly in favor of separation of church and state: judgementalness of churches and the arrogance that their view is the only one that matters.

[mike777]

"But if all actions have consequences already built in, then god does not have to judge - nor should he."

 

 

I do not understand, who builds in the consequences?

 

Are there degrees of Murder, if so but no one passes judgement on what degree?

How do we know what degree of consequence is called for and who calls for it?

Who enforces it? What if I disagree? Who do I appeal to?

 

To get back to the originial question, if we do not use our religion to teach us right from wrong what do we use and is not that just another religion and why is the alternative source right and our religion wrong?

 

Again I just get back to elections matter.

 

Note a seperate issue is whether our representative should vote her conscious or simply take a poll of their constituents and vote their wishes?

[Winstonm]

I do not understand, who builds in the consequences?

 

Are there degrees of Murder, if so but no one passes judgement on what degree?

How do we know what degree of consequence is called for and who calls for it?

Who enforces it? What if I disagree? Who do I appeal to?

 

First, let me explain that I believe there is a substantial difference in saying "What you did was wrong" verses saying "What you did was illegal", although many confuse the two. Mankind can certainly create and enforce laws - what mankind should not do is enforce moral judgements.

 

I do not accept the concept of "right or wrong", as shocking as that may seem. In my views, murder is not an immoral act but an illegal act. Do murderers ever get away with murder? Sure they do, but they have to live their lives in constant fear of being caught. What if they are arrested but cleared of the crime? Then they have to live with the guilt of what they have done. What if they have no conscience and no sense of guilt? Then they have to live their life with no feelings, no emotions, no love, no kindness - the consequences for pathological murderers. Here is a related question - somewhat like the tree falling in the forest with no one around. Would it have been immoral for Adam to have murdered Eve? There were no commandments at that time, no society to harm, no laws to break. Would it have been wrong? Or would it have been an act that had dire consequences? Adam would have been left alone in the world with no companionship, no love, no sex, no children - right out of a Twilight Zone episode. Would god have punished him or would the consequences have already taken card of that? If god is constant, he didn't change the rules just because the world population grew. What would have been right and proper with Adam would still be right and proper today, would it not? Even according to the legend, when Adam and Eve screwed up god didn't tell them they were wrong - instead, he just explained the consequences for their actions - you can't live in the forest anymore, you have to wear clothes, and you'll be cursed with teenagers in your house in about 14 years. (Had they known what that last meant, Adam and Eve may well have elected suicide.) :P

 

The reason I say there is no morality is that morality requires judgement - one person deciding what is right or wrong for another person to do. We have no rights outside of our own lives - we cannot change another's behavior no matter how hard we try to control them. The only person we have control over is ourselves. I cannot say why Mr. X murdered Mr. Y. I have not lived every second of Mr. X's life, which would be required to understand. If a second after Mr. X murdered Mr. Y., Mr. X himself had a MI and expired and was immediately taken before god, would god turn his back? No, he could not. Love is a choice. God made the choice to love Mr. X, regardless of Mr. X's actions. So if god cannot turn away Mr. X, what absolved his "sin"? The only thing that could have absolved this "sin" was consequence - Mr. X's consequence was his coronary arteries blocked, most likely due to the adrenaline rush of his actions, and he expired. There is no one set of consequences for each action - but actions have consequences. Who is to say what is the worse concequence for a particular individual - sending them to the gas chamber or to life in prison? It depends on the individual, wouldn't you think?

 

There but for the grace of god go I - haven't we all heard this? We look at some heinous act commited and shudder about how gruesome it is - but what we don't know is what it is like to be the perpetrator - to have lived his life. Do you think sociopaths become that way by choice? Had you been born into his life, with his emotional makeup, with his ability to self-protect, would you or I have done any differently? I think not.

 

We can view acts as cruel, senseless, or horrid, but we cannot say they are wrong. They are nothing but acts and as such have consequences - and those consequences may be different for each person. Injecting a lethal combination of drugs into a sentenced killer is not a consequence - it is punishement. The one who injects that drug has a consequence for his actions, living his life knowing he took another life because he chose the job. We really don't know what the consequences were for the killer - perhaps for this killer it was simply enough to be caught and have his freedom deprived - or the wait in knowledge of how he was to die.

 

Morality is judgement. It is not moral "rules" that have inspired mankind to better himself - in fact, more horrid crimes have commited in the name of religion (read judgement/morality) than any other single cause. What has bettered mankind is the knowledge that certain actions lead to better consequences than other actions, that for a life of serenity it works best to live and let live - and not judge.

 

At least, that is my opinion. You are welcome to yours. :D