You’re going to rephrase The Euthyphro Dilemma and call it a “simple question?”
The question is simple. The answer though is something to think about as it challenges our ideas of what we think of as good and what the theist thinks of as the ultimate good in God.
I’m not sure if rebuttal is the right answer to an either\or question but I know where my opinion lies. Good is good independent of any kind of divine mandate. That makes the divine mandate superfluous.
If, by “good,” you mean nice, kind or beneficial - as in “be good” then God commands it because it is good.
If, by “good,” you mean right or beneficial - as in “do the right thing,” then it depends on who defines what “right” is. In that case, I think it is good because God commands it. And if you don’t believe in God, then it is good because someone or something else commanded it. Maybe because you commanded/decided it … I’m not sure what I think about that for someone who doesn’t believe in God. But for those of us who do, I don’t think we get to determine the goodness of anything … it comes from God.
Good is good independent of any kind of divine mandate. That makes the divine mandate superfluous.
I may be reading too much into this, but you’re making the assumption that there is no God, and that “divine mandate” is nothing more than psychological tom-foolery that provides a pretend external moral compass.
If there is no God you’re right … divine mandate is superfluous because it is made up.
But if there is a God, how could divine mandate be superfluous? That’s like saying your boss is superfluous if he commands you to do something you would have done anyway. That’s not superfluous, it’s agreement. It doesn’t make him irrelevant, it makes him an ally.
So it is with God. If he exists, and he probably does, his definition of “good” - whether it is good because he commands it, or he commands it because it is good - is not superfluous. It merely provides definition that you and I either are, or are not, alligned with.
You can be in agreement with God on whether something is good or not, regardless of whether you believe in him. But that doesn’t make him superfluous, just agreeable on that point.
I assume that God could do something bad if he felt like it, otherwise we can do more than God.
Why not ask, “Is something good because Christ did it” or “Did Christ do things because they were good?”
ooh, this is such a juicy little number! WHat a perfect Christmas present.
i myself love a bit of piety, so me and the gods have much in common that way.
Of course Mike is right to say,
It depends on what you mean by “good.”
That is where the question immediately leads, no?
I would like to respond by applying this question to a topical debate, ie the recent shenanigans re. homosexual marriage in California.
From what I understand, homosexuality is considered by some to be similar to paedophilia because both are offensive to God.
This position would seem to equate with the conclusion that “something is good because God commands it.” In other words, there is no point looking to examples of happy homosexual relationships or the effects of homosexual marriage on society as a whole (as has been done by sociologists in the Netherlands). Goodness, and the “badness” of homosexuality, are not defined by anything external to God. And since God finds homosexuality offensive, it cannot be good and should not be endorsed by society.
I think it is ridiculous to liken homosexual attraction and action to paedophilic attraction and action.
This is because i judge human sexual behaviour on the consequences that behaviour has for the individuals involved.
So, i can see with my own eyes, and feel with my own heart, the suffering caused by child sexual abuse. And in the same way, i can see the love that grows between a homosexual couple who are together for the long term.
I guess here i’m defining “goodness” as less human suffering, consequentialism. I’ve never known anyone to end up with post-traumatic stress disorder as the result of a loving, long-term homosexual relationship, but paedophilia, on the other hand, leads to huge amounts of human suffering.
And, like Jason, i’m tempted to say that it doesn’t matter to me whether a g/God mandates the good (eg homosexual marriage) or forbids the bag (eg paedophilia). That won’t make a difference to me, because i’ve already defined them in terms of the consequences for humans.
I like this question because it helped me understand the difference between theists and atheists.
One of the offensive things some Christians do is call atheists arrogant for judging God’s behavior according to their best understanding of good. I don’t think that’s fair - of course an atheist is going to judge anyone’s behavior, including what is said to be God’s behavior, that way. I can’t see how anyone could have a belief that everything God does is good by definition without being a theist.
And in turn, atheists often seem unwilling to accept that of course theists (some theists at least) give God the benefit of the doubt about being good because that’s part of their belief system. Theists who have that belief aren’t going to set it aside just because some atheists think it’s ridiculous.
Martin, I don’t understand the significance of your rephrasing of the question. Isn’t it still the same question?
Helen - since we believe that Christ could sin, I think it follows that his actions needed to be judged to see if they were good or not - hence we could not say in advance that something was good because he did it; they needed to be “checked” against some other standard, as ours do.
God’s ways are not our ways - which is sort of obvious on one level since we have no way to make a universe.
Christ’s ways are also not our ways, which is more of an embarrassment.
Martin, the author of Hebrews says that Jesus never sinned:
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
Do you set that aside as not a reliable statement?
The point of the passage that you quote is that Jesus was capable of sin, yet was without sin.
We can be confident that whatever Jesus did was good.
However, in the statement “(something) is good because Christ did it“, the point is not about whether we can be confident that (something) is good, but rather what makes (something) good.
Helping the sick is not good because Christ did it; it was good before Christ did it.
—-
As long as I have a minute or two to make edits, let me say that I have read some of Jim Wallis’s post and they are so broad, and generally inspiring, and mine are so picky or ‘clever’ or technical… sigh.
Thanks Martin. I agree that when Jesus did good things they were intrinsically good - they didn’t become good just because he did them.
I see Jason’s question come up implicitly when atheists make lists of things Jesus did which they claim are not good. Christians who believe everything Jesus did was good give him the benefit of the doubt and find some way to believe yes, those things too were good. Atheists can freely say, no, they were not. And even if the stories about Jesus in the Bible are true, there’s so little detail and context and the culture is so far removed from ours I don’t see how we can be sure from the stories themselves whether, say, Jesus was rude or not on certain occasions.
I’m glad you had time to read some of Jim Wallis’ writings. It’s the best way to get a sense of where he’s coming from.
Hi everyone. All the best for 2009.
I agree with CD: the question is unanswerable and, for me, it’s also academic. Christians are called to follow what God commends (not commands, it’s a free choice): the question is irrelevant. Non-Christians follow what their own particular worldview commends as good; it becomes what we happen to reason is good. Seren, commendably, defines goodness as the outcome which produces the least human suffering. But who, without the mind of God, can compute the potential for harm or benefit for humankind, who can audit the final outcome of any particular action or view, who can fathom the infinite permutations, judge the myriad spin-offs, see the overall consequences down the ages? I can’t.
If there is no God then, in spite of the imponderables, it’s the best we can do. But if there is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and loving God of the Christians who is, unlike us, able figure these things and know the outcomes, we had best take notice of what He commends.
I like that interpretation Chris. One point though is that a non-Christian is free to take notice of the commendations of the bible and of Christianity. Belief is secondary to recognising a good idea when it presents itself. Don’t kill, don’t steal, respect others, etc are good ideas whether they are divinely inspired or inspired by evolved human pack animal traits.
I’d go further. Even if there is God to ponder the complex variables and make sense of them all we are still left to do the best we can. The guidance that we have is not omniscient because we cannot comprehend omniscience. we are left to make the best of what we have.
Having said that I must agree that the question is only valuable in challenging our assumptions and has no inherent relevance. For me it is meaningless because there is no “God” and there is no absolute definition of “good” that fits every situation. For me the theist’s understanding of God is that it includes “good” but where does this good come from. It is clear for me that good comes from what we do and how we view things. God may therefore do evil simply because we can see the description of Godly actions as not good.
The story of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for me is one of the most horrible commands I can imagine, the orders of a tyrant. For others it is held up as a great virtue that Abraham would trust God so implicitly and respond so powerfully to the test. The good is in the eye of the beholder.
The story of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for me is one of the most horrible commands I can imagine, the orders of a tyrant.
1. This differs from, say, George Bush sending teenagers into Iraq, in that God gave Isaac to Abraham to start with, and will take him back eventually in any case.
2. God did not let Abraham sacrifice Isaac, but provided another offering.
3. I assume that something else was going on that we may not be fully aware of; as in this strange conversation.
This leads to the obvious question: how on earth do we know what she commends?
It seems to me we are left to our own reasoning to figure this out, which is not really any different to being left to our own reasoning to figure out how to live.
If there was some semblance of agreement among theists across time and place as to what God commands I might agree with you that Christians/theists have something other than reason to help them decide what good is.
As it is, i think the epistemological headache of figuring out how one can know whether or not something has been commended by God holds one in a bind.
Sorry Martin, the Isaac story is a distraction. I was just using it to highlight the differences of opinion based on our prior assumptions.
Well said Seren, I’ve often wondered between the difference of “knowing” and “believing” when it comes to religion. I firmly believe that there is no God but I don’t know for sue. I assume the same is true for the Christian except they believe where I don’t.
This leads to the obvious question: how on earth do we know what she commends?
Jason also makes essentially the same point. But we’ve been here before, twice, and recently too (see the ‘how should we vote’ and ’should Christians be held to a higher standard’ debates ). In answering before I said that the essential heart of what Jesus/God in the NT commend are clear. To summarise, yet again (with a bit added that got cut off the end last time): ‘Jesus, an expression of God on earth, as testified to by what he taught, claimed and did, brings, through His death and bodily resurrection, the gift of a renewed life and a restored eternal relationship with God to all who accept his offer of forgiveness and are willing to turn from their self focus, follow him and make Him Lord of their lives. Further, through his Spirit, He requires and empowers His disciples (the Church) to worship God, spread the Gospel and begin to bring in the Kingdom of God by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are. This will be completed when Jesus returns when God will judge the living and the dead’. Jesus could be said to make a summary of the essence of even this brief abstract in Matthew 22 vs 36-40; Mark 12 vs 29-31.
Other Christians may wish to word some phrases differently or add a little, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that the essentials are clear and have always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions.
Now some people posting here may not agree with, let alone practise, all that’s commended (Jason: worshiping God), or consider that issues, which are not primary, or are less clearly commended in scripture, should be primary and clearly commended (Seren: women in leadership). But these are points to take up with God, they don’t detract from the clarity or thrust of the essentials. Further, it’s my experience that following the essentials (especially the knowing and worshiping God commendation) is not only a lifetime of practise, but helps to get other issues in perspective. This leads me to comment on two details of Jason’s response.
One point though is that a non-Christian is free to take notice of the commendations of the bible and of Christianity.
I agree: indeed, I would commend it.
Belief is secondary to recognising a good idea when it presents itself.
I neither believe this nor has it been my personal experience nor is it the testimony of millions of Christians from the disciples and Paul onwards.
the essentials are clear and have always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions.
I understand that you believe the essentials are clear but I believe otherwise. If the essentials are clear why have there been so many church splits? Do you think it’s because everyone who disagrees with you on essentials is wrong? If so how can you be sure of that? They are as sure they are right as you are.
the essentials are clear why have there been so many church splits?
IMO it’s because people make essentials out of preferences.
A lyric to some song I used to know goes like this: “The main thing in life is keeping the main thing the main thing.” Or, as my dad puts it, don’t major on the minors.
I think there are far fewer essentials than people think (or want!) And isn’t it interesting that the things that are “essential” are always the things you happen to have a handle on? How convenient! I suspect there are precious few Christians who would consider something they aren’t on board with an essential.
the essentials are clear and have always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions.
this statement seems to have led to some conversation.
To bring things back around to the thread’s original topic, are the essentials clear because they have always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions? Or have they always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions because they are clear?
(I’m not saying I buy into either their clarity nor their universal acceptance. I’m just saying if I *did* buy into these things, then the above might be an interesting question)
I’m also wondering if there is anything which has “always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions” which we here can agree is altogether obnoxious. Or barring that, what if we loosen the requirement and say merely anything which “was always accepted by all the main Christian traditions up until the year 1900″? That might make it a bit easier (although I somehow doubt it))
One might broaden the question by asking whether there is anything which most of humanity for most of recorded history has generally accepted which we 21st century westerners now find obnoxious, and then ask if “main Christian traditions” bought into the general consensus?
I only ask because a friend of mine who is a historian is always defending stuff that happens in the stories in the Bible by saying that it was forward thinking for the time, and so forth, which is a very reasonable argument, in my opinion. But *if* it’s a reasonable argument, then it seems like it would lead to a lot of candidates for the type of thing I’m speaking of–that is, things we agree are obnoxious which were formerly widely accepted.
The one i find most interesting is usury (lending money to be paid back with interest).
There are very few Christians in the west today who would condemn this practice in any way shape or form, except perhaps to be concerned with very high rates of interest.
But when St Thomas Aquinas wrote (1225-1278) usury was considered a sin. It is clearly condemned in the bible, and in some parts of Europe it was illegal.
In other parts of Europe it was only illegal for Christians, so Jewish people became money lenders, some families very prominent money lenders. After the reformation usury stopped being a sin, Christians started lending for a profit, and we all became rich capitalists. Now most people don’t even realise it was once a sin.
So it’s not just post 1900 that Christian ethics have been thrown up in the air. They have always d/evolved with society.
I understand that you believe the essentials are clear but I believe otherwise. If the essentials are clear why have there been so many church splits?
Mike O’s response hits the nail firmly on the head here. As I said, all main Christian denominations, probably 95%+ of all Christians, accept the essential clear beliefs of the faith. They may have divided on less central issues that they personally believed important. However, usually, the splits have arisen because a major tradition has started to lose their focus on the essentials, sometimes inventing things that aren’t in scripture at all. None of this means that the essentials in NT scripture aren’t clear.
Actually, in the UK, many of the traditions are now returning to focus on the essentials: praise the Lord. For example, and in part answer to Seren on usury, all the Christians I know who lend personally to others do so without interest and, in many cases, without necessarily expecting to get anything back. This doesn’t mean, of course, that money invested in ‘the system’ doesn’t earn Christians interest.
Finally to pick up on what Benjamin asks, the clear thrust of the essential NT message (the one I attempted to summarise above), on ethics or anything else has never changed, just the willingness of Christians, or anyone else, to keep to it.
For example, and in part answer to Seren on usury, all the Christians I know who lend personally to others do so without interest and, in many cases, without necessarily expecting to get anything back.
I know in my case, I don’t lend to people unless I’m willing to never see it again. I may intend for them to pay me back, and I’ll let them pay me back. But if they never do, I personally refuse to hold it against them. I turn it into a gift.
For example, my sister needed new tires for her car. I lent her the money because she wanted to pay me back. I didn’t think she would ever be able to. I made it clear that she didn’t have to because I didn’t want her to feel guilty and I didn’t want it to come between us. But when she did pay me back a little at a time … even though she needed the money more than I did … I accepted it because it made her feel better about herself. You see, either way - paid back or not - my sister and I were going to be fine.
Then again, I’ve never dealt in large sums of money, so not getting it back was never someething worth stressing a relationship over.
IMO on usury, it’s talking about excessive interest, or taking advantage of people. Lending money is a service, and for that reason I see no reason to be paid (interest) for the service you provided. You pay everyone else who serves you, why not the guy who helped you through a tough financial time?
I’m going to just have to wildly disagree with the whole “Most Christians agree, and have always agreed, on the basics/essentials”
Seems to me that even the main Christian teachers/leaders were to some extent disagreeing about things they thought of as essential right from the start.
Martin
If you look at my earlier posts on this subject, which others have quoted, and include my punctuation in your quote, you’ll see that I said it was the denominations ([representing] about 95% of Christians) that accepted the essential clear NT beliefs of the faith. I couldn’t possibly speak for individual Christians. However, my point throughout this subject has been that God’s central and essential commendations in the NT are clear. Lack of clarity on the essentials, which I outlined above, is no excuse for not following them. Whether Christians do so or not is their choice, as I also implied in my answer.
Seems to me that even the main Christian teachers/leaders were to some extent disagreeing about things they thought of as essential right from the start.
I know of no NT writer where the essence of the main points of what they are writing about disagrees with the heart of the NT that I outlined above.
Helen, let me put it another way. My point is intended to be that if they’ve read the NT, and/or if they know the basics of what the orthodox traditions of the Christian faith teach, there’s no excuse for not having clarity about what the essential NT commendations are: there is no question mark in the equation. They are, of course, free to choose whether they believe in or follow any or all of that clarity or something else all together.
I have said that the ten commandments could be called the ten tips - indicating that God is offering us advice, which we would be “smart” to take. Clearly god knows how to command; he can summon reality into existence with a word, and he could “command” us in that sense, which He doesn’t. On the other hand, this life is not just a time-waster, one suspects, and something is going on, probably something we don’t appreciate, since unfortunately, we are not all that “smart”. So I like the word “command” if it only serves to remind us that these are the important ideas, and we ought to pay more attention to them. As Jesus lets us in on, these ideas are just the tip of the iceberg. God has lots more suggestions that will help us, but he was hesitant about losing us at the start, it appears.
Like Jesus said to the Rich Young Ruler who said that he had kept the six commandments all his life: Cool, get rid of your junk, and follow me, and we’ll get you saved yet.
Martin
I’m sorry; by ‘right from the start’ I thought you meant right from the start of Christianity, not over 1000 years after the start. However, I don’t believe either the murder of Tyndale or the inquisitions were about questioning the essentials of NT scripture that I outlined. In Tyndale’s case it was for ‘revealing the essentials’ by translating the Bible and for political reasons. The inquisitions, well I’m not an expert, but political power and worldly authority of the Pope were certainly important features. I don’t doubt that the Church of Christendom (Protestants and Catholics) misused, abused and ‘invented’ scripture for these reasons, but again, and boringly for all our readers, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with the clarity at the heart of the NT message.
At a quick read, I really like your commend v command post, without necessarily committing to all of the details until I’ve thought it through a bit.
Well Helen, as I’m sure you recall, we’ve been here before, under the ‘Should Christians be held to a higher standard’ topic. However, even if we take this passage as implying ‘salvation by works’, it would be unbalanced to allow it to overturn the clear thrust of the NT, which is explicitly stated by the majority of the writers, from the earliest to the latest, and implied by the remainder, that it’s by God’s grace, through faith/belief in and following Jesus, that we are restored to the father (we are saved, we become a new creation), it’s not through our own efforts.
But, as I explained earlier, in the context of the passage and with two other related texts linking faith and works, by no means do we have to take the passage as going against the flow and advocating works alone. However, I hear clearly that you still choose to do so.
I was asking about what you think is ‘essential’, but it is too big a question, and if being burned at the stake over the bible doesn’t involve an essential religious issue, I guess I can’t participate intelligently.
There were denominations that got in trouble with Rome before Luther.
Like the Cathars, a popular docetic Christian “denomination” of which an estimated 200,000-1,000,000 people were massacred under the auspices of the Catholic Church in a crusade between 1209 - 1229, with the stragglers offed periodically & thoroughly, ending in 1321 (when there were no more left).
I was asking about what you think is ‘essential’, but it is too big a question, and if being burned at the stake over the bible doesn’t involve an essential religious issue, I guess I can’t participate intelligently.
As you ask for it, here again is the essential heart of the NT. ‘Jesus, an expression of God on earth, as testified to by what he taught, claimed and did, brings, through His death and bodily resurrection, the gift of a renewed life and a restored eternal relationship with God to all who accept his offer of forgiveness and are willing to turn from their self focus, follow him and make Him Lord of their lives. Further, through his Spirit, He requires and empowers His disciples (the Church) to worship God, spread the Gospel and begin to bring in the Kingdom of God by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are. This will be completed when Jesus returns when God will judge the living and the dead’.
I’m not suggesting that people weren’t martyred for their belief in these essentials (as well as other things): Jesus was the first and 1st cent Christians soon followed and, as above posts show, the Church of Christendom got involved. However, such martyrdom doesn’t question or challenge the point I have always been making here;that these essentials are clearly expressed in the NT. In fact it rather confirms it, if people were prepared to die for them, as Tyndale did. But his work, essential though it was, is not a challenge to the clarity of the essentials in the NT, and his death shows the power of the them.
You ask specifically: is the bread a symbol of Christ’s body, really Christ’s body, or not important? I’m sure it’s important to some Christians, but I don’t find whether it’s transubstantiated or not an essential to our understanding of the clear heart of the NT, as I’ve outlined. It’s more important that Christians take the bread in remembrance, faith and acceptance of what is essential in the NT: that Jesus died to release us into a restored relationship with God, and then that they do something with the renewed life they are reborn to.
Actually I agree with you Chris … except maybe for the “and make Him Lord of their lives”. I don’t remember him saying that, and even saying contrarily “Why do you call me Lord and do not… etc”, so that the previous phrase “follow him” is enough; as in; pick up your cross and follow me.
I know you are not suggesting that we toss the NT and replace it with a holy card with that printed on the back, so I am not sure where that leaves the discussion. I don’t know that the mormons would disagree with any of that, and they are generally regarded as being non-christian where I come from. At the same time, it seems to exclude the Calvinists, with their predestination.
I just saw this quote and thought that it was relevant to the question I first posed.
Is water wet because God made it wet? If so what would water be in a universe NOT created by God? Something other than wet?
When we are good is it because God inspired us to goodness? If so then what is good when it comes without inspiration from God? Not good?
I do think that the actions of religions, positive and negative, are a separate question. Religions form a structure and organisation for faith. They are entirely man made, a point that I think even the most fundamentalist theist would not disagree, and prone to human error as a result. As such they are not useful in answering a question of God given morality, only on faith given morality.
To me, something is essential if *getting it wrong is enough to seperate you from God. I don’t think God would send people to hell (no, I’m not trying to start up the hell topic again!)because they got transubstantiation wrong. Therefore, it’s not essential. I don’t think God would send people to hell because they got speaking in tongues wrong. I don’t think God would send people to hell because they got evolution wrong.
I believe the differences that seperate Christian denominations are non-essentials by default, because none of them are things God would send you to hell for, if you came down on the wrong side of the question.
That begs the question of how wrong do you have to be? Who is more wrong: Richard Dawkins or Fred Phelps?; Gandhi or Torquemada? Non-Christian or Christian? I’m not trying to put Dawkins and Gandhi or Phelps and Torquemada in the same boat. I just want to mention that.
If the “flavour” of Christianity isn’t important then where do you leave Christianity and become something else? Are Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons close enough? What about Muslims or Jews who don’t accept the divinity of Jesus?
Phelps and Torquemada are (were) believers in Christ but I wouldn’t put either of them anywhere near Gandhi in terms of the good that they did. Even near Richard Dawkins as an educator and thinker exceeds the value in terms of good done by a considerable amount. He may have said some negative things about religion but he’s never condemned anyone to hell or called for people to abuse those whose sons have died fighting for their country.
Where does the wrong side of the question lie? How do you know?
Mike, that’s the most blunt i’ve ever heard anyone be about the fact that God, apparently, condemns people to eternal torment for having a wrong idea.
i know you made a list of things God wouldn’t damn people for having the wrong idea on, but presumably you think there are essentials, and i’m guessing they’re equally cerebral. and, golly. i know you didn’t want to start the hell debate, but how can you be so CALM about that??!!
Jason - I tried to make this question about the same form as yours, but you can see it does not contain enough information to be answered:
Is water wet because the environment is at standard temperature and pressure? If so what would water be in a laboratory NOT at standard temperature and pressure? Something other than wet?
Alternately, I could just say (for no reason) water would still be wet.
What answer did you arrive at to the question you posed?
Well Martin, that’s easy. We can adjust temperature and pressure in a laboratory and measure the humidity of the fluid. If we have a definition of “wet” to work from and can agree on it, say 50% humidity, then we can determine when combinations of pressure and temperature make water not wet. From experience I know that water at very low temperatures freezes into a solid and is no longer wet (has low humidity) and at high temperatures boils into a gas that is no longer wet except in a closed environment. Altering the pressure can change the temperature that water boils and freezes with the same results.
I can plot this on a graph. I can show my working to someone else and have them check the results and check my methodology. If I’m particularly interested I can take water to a non laboratory location (the moon for instance), measure the temperature and pressure and test the humidity of my sample.
The laws of physics do not change depending on your belief in them.
Where does the wrong side of the question lie? How do you know?
Good question.
Seren said
Mike, that’s the most blunt i’ve ever heard anyone be about the fact that God, apparently, condemns people to eternal torment for having a wrong idea.
I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote, because I don’t think anything could be farther from the truth!
i know you made a list of things God wouldn’t damn people for having the wrong idea on, but presumably you think there are essentials, and i’m guessing they’re equally cerebral. and, golly. i know you didn’t want to start the hell debate, but how can you be so CALM about that??!!
I don’t think anything cerebral can condemn you to hell. A person can be spiritually right with God, and cerebrally very wrong, and still be right with God. I think over time the cerebral would tend to conform to the spiritual, but there are a zillion inputs out there and being wrong on any of them will not condemn you to hell IMO.
I mean, I understand that I can be forgiven for anything if I am sincere in my belief and seek forgiveness. Literally anything. It’s a very nice idea but hardly a basis for good moral behaviour. On the other hand unholy abominations include those wicked individuals who sow two crops together, wear clothing of two materials or eat seafood. Wicked, naughty, bad people.
OK, no more straw men.
But seriously Barabbas was a bandit (John 18:40) and a notorious prisoner (Luke 23:19) so was, presumably, quite a nasty chap. He was freed by Pilate and the TV dramatisations always show him as asking for and being granted forgiveness. I don’t think this is in the bible though but if were he would surely be granted it.
The expectation is that a convert to Christianity is forgiven of all their wrongs by virtue of God’s divine grace. Have I got this right? Can’t I, like some Catholic stereotypes, do all the wrong I like and then ask forgiveness? Where is the moral imperative in that?
Jason - I think you didn’t understand my point. It was not that you do not have more information about water to answer the question, it was that you need that other information to answer the question. We are not communicating I see.
How about the other question I asked, which was “What answer did you arrive at to the question you posed?” which was:
When we are good is it because God inspired us to goodness? If so then what is good when it comes without inspiration from God? Not good?
Q: Did you decide “Good”, or “Not Good” or “Not enough information”?
I understood you to mean “Not Good”, but I wondered.
—–
Re: “humidity of the fluid” Humidity is a property of the air, not the water. I don’t understand what 50% humidity has to do with “wet”.
re: hell
Seren - was there a discussion previously about hell that I should be looking up? Can you post a link if so?
(I thought someone said: I don’t want to bring “hell” up again. oh - that was Mike)
I assume that you are more uncomfortable with a god who allows anyone he made to go to hell, rather than the exact rationale by which he allows it. A bad idea seems potentially as bad as a bad act, since it is often only one’s limited power the keeps a bad idea from becoming a bad act: the powerful often do bad things, and the weak would have done them if they could have.
When we are good is it because God inspired us to goodness? If so then what is good when it comes without inspiration from God? Not good?
For me “good” is a moral question. Moral questions pertain to human choices when it comes to human beings. I can give money to charity, I can feed the starving, etc. These are “good” acts. God, by definition not human, doesn’t come into the equation at all. Unfortunately that leaves the second half of your question redundant.
Re: humidity. I was looking for a term related to “wetness” and humidity covered it well enough. 100% humidity being “wet”. I hope I wasn’t too confusing.
Jason -
Are hot dogs kosher because Hebrew National makes them kosher? If so, what would hot dogs be if Hebrew National didn’t make them? Something other than kosher?
The expectation is that a convert to Christianity is forgiven of all their wrongs by virtue of God’s divine grace. Have I got this right? Can’t I, like some Catholic stereotypes, do all the wrong I like and then ask forgiveness? Where is the moral imperative in that?
You can. But God is not a fool. If you’re not repentant and asking forgiveness, somehow I think that would be like saying “forgive me” and “screw you” to God at the same time. If you’re trying and failing, that’s one thing. if you’re not even trying to follow god, that’s something else altogether.
Doesn’t the question really point out that we have different ways of thinking about “good” and about “god(s)”?
Are we asking about to what extent “good” is hierarchically, top-down defined?
Well Helen, as I’m sure you recall, we’ve been here before, under the ‘Should Christians be held to a higher standard’ topic. However, even if we take this passage as implying ‘salvation by works’, it would be unbalanced to allow it to overturn the clear thrust of the NT, which is explicitly stated by the majority of the writers, from the earliest to the latest, and implied by the remainder, that it’s by God’s grace, through faith/belief in and following Jesus, that we are restored to the father (we are saved, we become a new creation), it’s not through our own efforts.
But, as I explained earlier, in the context of the passage and with two other related texts linking faith and works, by no means do we have to take the passage as going against the flow and advocating works alone. However, I hear clearly that you still choose to do so.
Chris. Wow! Just reading that makes it incredibly clear to me that it might be more useful to say “I consider x,y, and z to be the essential characteristics of good, God, Christianity, etc.” than it is to say “The essentials are clear and agreed upon by all”.
Hope that makes sense. Perhaps there’s more of a story, and a opening to questions/conversation, in the latter.
Regarding the hell topic, this is something I always found troubling. The idea of “god” being either not powerful or not kind enough to arrange things so people don’t end up in hell makes that particular “god” seem fairly superfluous to me. I mean to say we can arrange things that shittily ourselves, thank you very much. To me “god” ought to be able to arrange the grand scale of things at least measurably better than we manage to. Otherwise he/she is kind of pointless, at best.
Mike
Even I would forgive someone who saw the error of his ways. At least I think I would. But God can show us the error of our ways - actually something I don’t look forward to, ignorance being bliss etc etc - so … what where does that leave things?
I guess, Mike, what you are talking about is someone who has a vague idea of his errors, but is still chained by love to them - which is us probably.
Jason
I don’t know what we are talking about.
If you want to email me and explain it to me you can (guginom@yahoo.com)
What is the second part of my question?
When we are good is it because God inspired us to goodness?
I’ve mentioned that I believe that goodness is a moral question relevant to human moral choices.
If so then what is good when it comes without inspiration from God? Not good?
As I don’t agree with the first premise this point is moot. I’ll expand on it though for clarity. It is irrelevant where your inspiration for acting in a “good” manner comes from as long as you actually act “good”. Good inspired by a God (or Ganesha, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc) belief is good. This is just the same as good inspired by poetry, the smile on a child’s face, a fond memory or anything else that inspires you. Good is good in the actions that you do, not in the thoughts or inspirations for action. I hope that gives an idea of where I’m coming from without any more confusion.
A lot of words under the bridge since I last responded, but just to pick up on three points.
Seren said
This also ignores the fact that not all Christian traditions give the written text as much primacy as Evangelicals.
No, it doesn’t ignore the fact. Because, true though the fact is, that some of the main denominations do not, these days, give the text primacy, this has not yet led any of the main traditions to change their basic beliefs which, in essence, still follow the clear thrust of scripture that I outlined.
Martin said
I don’t know that the mormons would disagree with any of that, and they are generally regarded as being non-christian where I come from. At the same time, it seems to exclude the Calvinists, with their predestination.
If Mormons fully agree with and accept these essentials, without diluting the central role of Jesus with the other stuff they’ve added, then praise the Lord. Calvinists may add to it, as many denominations do, but this doesn’t mean they reject the essentials that I outlined.
To whom it may concern
The Hellfire and Damnation topic, under the ‘Recent Discussions’ section on this site, covers most of the issues that have been raised in recent posts, especially about what scripture actually says on the subject, as opposed to what many people, including quite a few Christians, wrongly think it says (see comment 7 in that topic for details).
Oh, and whilst on the subject of ‘where we’ve recently been before’, we’ve also done Jason’s goodness/wrongdoing and judging people like Torquemada, Ghandi, Hitler and others under the same subject of ‘Hellfire and Damnation’ (see comments 15-18).
Jason also asked
where do you leave Christianity and become something else?
To make a practical response, say in order to help individual Christians decide whether we could work with someone in spreading the Gospel or having them in leadership roles in our fellowships, I would suggest that it’s when they say that they reject any of the essentials that I keep banging on about. But I would also recommend that this should be a process of discussion rather than a sudden decision or any edict from on high. As to whether they are ultimately part of God’s family, well scripture tells us only God can decide that, or the individual, by rejecting His offer.
Comment by: cognitive dissident
1You’re going to rephrase The Euthyphro Dilemma and call it a “simple question?”
Theists have been unable to answer it for 2400 years, at least according to everything I’ve read…have you seen a worthwhile rebuttal anywhere?
Comment by: Jason
2The question is simple. The answer though is something to think about as it challenges our ideas of what we think of as good and what the theist thinks of as the ultimate good in God.
I’m not sure if rebuttal is the right answer to an either\or question but I know where my opinion lies. Good is good independent of any kind of divine mandate. That makes the divine mandate superfluous.
Comment by: Mike O
3Yes. And yes.
It depends on what you mean by “good.”
If, by “good,” you mean nice, kind or beneficial - as in “be good” then God commands it because it is good.
If, by “good,” you mean right or beneficial - as in “do the right thing,” then it depends on who defines what “right” is. In that case, I think it is good because God commands it. And if you don’t believe in God, then it is good because someone or something else commanded it. Maybe because you commanded/decided it … I’m not sure what I think about that for someone who doesn’t believe in God. But for those of us who do, I don’t think we get to determine the goodness of anything … it comes from God.
I may be reading too much into this, but you’re making the assumption that there is no God, and that “divine mandate” is nothing more than psychological tom-foolery that provides a pretend external moral compass.
If there is no God you’re right … divine mandate is superfluous because it is made up.
But if there is a God, how could divine mandate be superfluous? That’s like saying your boss is superfluous if he commands you to do something you would have done anyway. That’s not superfluous, it’s agreement. It doesn’t make him irrelevant, it makes him an ally.
So it is with God. If he exists, and he probably does, his definition of “good” - whether it is good because he commands it, or he commands it because it is good - is not superfluous. It merely provides definition that you and I either are, or are not, alligned with.
You can be in agreement with God on whether something is good or not, regardless of whether you believe in him. But that doesn’t make him superfluous, just agreeable on that point.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
4I assume that God could do something bad if he felt like it, otherwise we can do more than God.
Why not ask, “Is something good because Christ did it” or “Did Christ do things because they were good?”
Comment by: Seren
5ooh, this is such a juicy little number! WHat a perfect Christmas present.
i myself love a bit of piety, so me and the gods have much in common that way.
Of course Mike is right to say,
That is where the question immediately leads, no?
I would like to respond by applying this question to a topical debate, ie the recent shenanigans re. homosexual marriage in California.
From what I understand, homosexuality is considered by some to be similar to paedophilia because both are offensive to God.
This position would seem to equate with the conclusion that “something is good because God commands it.” In other words, there is no point looking to examples of happy homosexual relationships or the effects of homosexual marriage on society as a whole (as has been done by sociologists in the Netherlands). Goodness, and the “badness” of homosexuality, are not defined by anything external to God. And since God finds homosexuality offensive, it cannot be good and should not be endorsed by society.
Comment by: Seren
6I think it is ridiculous to liken homosexual attraction and action to paedophilic attraction and action.
This is because i judge human sexual behaviour on the consequences that behaviour has for the individuals involved.
So, i can see with my own eyes, and feel with my own heart, the suffering caused by child sexual abuse. And in the same way, i can see the love that grows between a homosexual couple who are together for the long term.
I guess here i’m defining “goodness” as less human suffering, consequentialism. I’ve never known anyone to end up with post-traumatic stress disorder as the result of a loving, long-term homosexual relationship, but paedophilia, on the other hand, leads to huge amounts of human suffering.
And, like Jason, i’m tempted to say that it doesn’t matter to me whether a g/God mandates the good (eg homosexual marriage) or forbids the bag (eg paedophilia). That won’t make a difference to me, because i’ve already defined them in terms of the consequences for humans.
hope i’m still making sense - long response here.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
7I like this question because it helped me understand the difference between theists and atheists.
One of the offensive things some Christians do is call atheists arrogant for judging God’s behavior according to their best understanding of good. I don’t think that’s fair - of course an atheist is going to judge anyone’s behavior, including what is said to be God’s behavior, that way. I can’t see how anyone could have a belief that everything God does is good by definition without being a theist.
And in turn, atheists often seem unwilling to accept that of course theists (some theists at least) give God the benefit of the doubt about being good because that’s part of their belief system. Theists who have that belief aren’t going to set it aside just because some atheists think it’s ridiculous.
Martin, I don’t understand the significance of your rephrasing of the question. Isn’t it still the same question?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
8Good point about down stream suffering, and abuse of power, of course.
re: similar and, at the same time, not similar
Not so much “similar because” as “similar in that”.
Similar in one way.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
9Helen - since we believe that Christ could sin, I think it follows that his actions needed to be judged to see if they were good or not - hence we could not say in advance that something was good because he did it; they needed to be “checked” against some other standard, as ours do.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
10God’s ways are not our ways - which is sort of obvious on one level since we have no way to make a universe.
Christ’s ways are also not our ways, which is more of an embarrassment.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
11Martin, the author of Hebrews says that Jesus never sinned:
Do you set that aside as not a reliable statement?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
12The point of the passage that you quote is that Jesus was capable of sin, yet was without sin.
We can be confident that whatever Jesus did was good.
However, in the statement “(something) is good because Christ did it“, the point is not about whether we can be confident that (something) is good, but rather what makes (something) good.
Helping the sick is not good because Christ did it; it was good before Christ did it.
—-
As long as I have a minute or two to make edits, let me say that I have read some of Jim Wallis’s post and they are so broad, and generally inspiring, and mine are so picky or ‘clever’ or technical… sigh.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
13Thanks Martin. I agree that when Jesus did good things they were intrinsically good - they didn’t become good just because he did them.
I see Jason’s question come up implicitly when atheists make lists of things Jesus did which they claim are not good. Christians who believe everything Jesus did was good give him the benefit of the doubt and find some way to believe yes, those things too were good. Atheists can freely say, no, they were not. And even if the stories about Jesus in the Bible are true, there’s so little detail and context and the culture is so far removed from ours I don’t see how we can be sure from the stories themselves whether, say, Jesus was rude or not on certain occasions.
I’m glad you had time to read some of Jim Wallis’ writings. It’s the best way to get a sense of where he’s coming from.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
14Re: rudeness
I assume that many people found Jesus rude and obnoxious. His followers were no better.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
15Re:rudeness
I was trying to change the link to this verse, which is much funnier, but the comment was held up for moderation.
Comment by: Chris C
16Hi everyone. All the best for 2009.
I agree with CD: the question is unanswerable and, for me, it’s also academic. Christians are called to follow what God commends (not commands, it’s a free choice): the question is irrelevant. Non-Christians follow what their own particular worldview commends as good; it becomes what we happen to reason is good. Seren, commendably, defines goodness as the outcome which produces the least human suffering. But who, without the mind of God, can compute the potential for harm or benefit for humankind, who can audit the final outcome of any particular action or view, who can fathom the infinite permutations, judge the myriad spin-offs, see the overall consequences down the ages? I can’t.
If there is no God then, in spite of the imponderables, it’s the best we can do. But if there is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and loving God of the Christians who is, unlike us, able figure these things and know the outcomes, we had best take notice of what He commends.
Comment by: Jason
17I like that interpretation Chris. One point though is that a non-Christian is free to take notice of the commendations of the bible and of Christianity. Belief is secondary to recognising a good idea when it presents itself. Don’t kill, don’t steal, respect others, etc are good ideas whether they are divinely inspired or inspired by evolved human pack animal traits.
I’d go further. Even if there is God to ponder the complex variables and make sense of them all we are still left to do the best we can. The guidance that we have is not omniscient because we cannot comprehend omniscience. we are left to make the best of what we have.
Having said that I must agree that the question is only valuable in challenging our assumptions and has no inherent relevance. For me it is meaningless because there is no “God” and there is no absolute definition of “good” that fits every situation. For me the theist’s understanding of God is that it includes “good” but where does this good come from. It is clear for me that good comes from what we do and how we view things. God may therefore do evil simply because we can see the description of Godly actions as not good.
The story of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for me is one of the most horrible commands I can imagine, the orders of a tyrant. For others it is held up as a great virtue that Abraham would trust God so implicitly and respond so powerfully to the test. The good is in the eye of the beholder.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
18Let me comment on the Isaac story.
1. This differs from, say, George Bush sending teenagers into Iraq, in that God gave Isaac to Abraham to start with, and will take him back eventually in any case.
2. God did not let Abraham sacrifice Isaac, but provided another offering.
3. I assume that something else was going on that we may not be fully aware of; as in this strange conversation.
Comment by: Seren
19Chris C:
This leads to the obvious question: how on earth do we know what she commends?
It seems to me we are left to our own reasoning to figure this out, which is not really any different to being left to our own reasoning to figure out how to live.
If there was some semblance of agreement among theists across time and place as to what God commands I might agree with you that Christians/theists have something other than reason to help them decide what good is.
As it is, i think the epistemological headache of figuring out how one can know whether or not something has been commended by God holds one in a bind.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
20Seren, you put that really well.
Comment by: Jason
21Sorry Martin, the Isaac story is a distraction. I was just using it to highlight the differences of opinion based on our prior assumptions.
Well said Seren, I’ve often wondered between the difference of “knowing” and “believing” when it comes to religion. I firmly believe that there is no God but I don’t know for sue. I assume the same is true for the Christian except they believe where I don’t.
Comment by: Chris C
22Seren said
Jason also makes essentially the same point. But we’ve been here before, twice, and recently too (see the ‘how should we vote’ and ’should Christians be held to a higher standard’ debates ). In answering before I said that the essential heart of what Jesus/God in the NT commend are clear. To summarise, yet again (with a bit added that got cut off the end last time): ‘Jesus, an expression of God on earth, as testified to by what he taught, claimed and did, brings, through His death and bodily resurrection, the gift of a renewed life and a restored eternal relationship with God to all who accept his offer of forgiveness and are willing to turn from their self focus, follow him and make Him Lord of their lives. Further, through his Spirit, He requires and empowers His disciples (the Church) to worship God, spread the Gospel and begin to bring in the Kingdom of God by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are. This will be completed when Jesus returns when God will judge the living and the dead’. Jesus could be said to make a summary of the essence of even this brief abstract in Matthew 22 vs 36-40; Mark 12 vs 29-31.
Other Christians may wish to word some phrases differently or add a little, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that the essentials are clear and have always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions.
Now some people posting here may not agree with, let alone practise, all that’s commended (Jason: worshiping God), or consider that issues, which are not primary, or are less clearly commended in scripture, should be primary and clearly commended (Seren: women in leadership). But these are points to take up with God, they don’t detract from the clarity or thrust of the essentials. Further, it’s my experience that following the essentials (especially the knowing and worshiping God commendation) is not only a lifetime of practise, but helps to get other issues in perspective. This leads me to comment on two details of Jason’s response.
I agree: indeed, I would commend it.
I neither believe this nor has it been my personal experience nor is it the testimony of millions of Christians from the disciples and Paul onwards.
Comment by: Seren
23Now I want Jason to explain what he meant about belief there, and Chris to explain why he doesn’t agree. The conversation is getting away from me!!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
24Chris wrote:
I understand that you believe the essentials are clear but I believe otherwise. If the essentials are clear why have there been so many church splits? Do you think it’s because everyone who disagrees with you on essentials is wrong? If so how can you be sure of that? They are as sure they are right as you are.
Comment by: Mike O
25IMO it’s because people make essentials out of preferences.
A lyric to some song I used to know goes like this: “The main thing in life is keeping the main thing the main thing.” Or, as my dad puts it, don’t major on the minors.
I think there are far fewer essentials than people think (or want!) And isn’t it interesting that the things that are “essential” are always the things you happen to have a handle on? How convenient! I suspect there are precious few Christians who would consider something they aren’t on board with an essential.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
26Fascinating conversation, all.
this statement seems to have led to some conversation.
To bring things back around to the thread’s original topic, are the essentials clear because they have always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions? Or have they always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions because they are clear?
(I’m not saying I buy into either their clarity nor their universal acceptance. I’m just saying if I *did* buy into these things, then the above might be an interesting question)
I’m also wondering if there is anything which has “always been accepted by all the main Christian traditions” which we here can agree is altogether obnoxious. Or barring that, what if we loosen the requirement and say merely anything which “was always accepted by all the main Christian traditions up until the year 1900″? That might make it a bit easier (although I somehow doubt it))
One might broaden the question by asking whether there is anything which most of humanity for most of recorded history has generally accepted which we 21st century westerners now find obnoxious, and then ask if “main Christian traditions” bought into the general consensus?
I only ask because a friend of mine who is a historian is always defending stuff that happens in the stories in the Bible by saying that it was forward thinking for the time, and so forth, which is a very reasonable argument, in my opinion. But *if* it’s a reasonable argument, then it seems like it would lead to a lot of candidates for the type of thing I’m speaking of–that is, things we agree are obnoxious which were formerly widely accepted.
Comment by: Seren
27The one i find most interesting is usury (lending money to be paid back with interest).
There are very few Christians in the west today who would condemn this practice in any way shape or form, except perhaps to be concerned with very high rates of interest.
But when St Thomas Aquinas wrote (1225-1278) usury was considered a sin. It is clearly condemned in the bible, and in some parts of Europe it was illegal.
In other parts of Europe it was only illegal for Christians, so Jewish people became money lenders, some families very prominent money lenders. After the reformation usury stopped being a sin, Christians started lending for a profit, and we all became rich capitalists. Now most people don’t even realise it was once a sin.
So it’s not just post 1900 that Christian ethics have been thrown up in the air. They have always d/evolved with society.
Comment by: Chris C
28Helen said
Mike O’s response hits the nail firmly on the head here. As I said, all main Christian denominations, probably 95%+ of all Christians, accept the essential clear beliefs of the faith. They may have divided on less central issues that they personally believed important. However, usually, the splits have arisen because a major tradition has started to lose their focus on the essentials, sometimes inventing things that aren’t in scripture at all. None of this means that the essentials in NT scripture aren’t clear.
Actually, in the UK, many of the traditions are now returning to focus on the essentials: praise the Lord. For example, and in part answer to Seren on usury, all the Christians I know who lend personally to others do so without interest and, in many cases, without necessarily expecting to get anything back. This doesn’t mean, of course, that money invested in ‘the system’ doesn’t earn Christians interest.
Finally to pick up on what Benjamin asks, the clear thrust of the essential NT message (the one I attempted to summarise above), on ethics or anything else has never changed, just the willingness of Christians, or anyone else, to keep to it.
Comment by: Mike O
29I know in my case, I don’t lend to people unless I’m willing to never see it again. I may intend for them to pay me back, and I’ll let them pay me back. But if they never do, I personally refuse to hold it against them. I turn it into a gift.
For example, my sister needed new tires for her car. I lent her the money because she wanted to pay me back. I didn’t think she would ever be able to. I made it clear that she didn’t have to because I didn’t want her to feel guilty and I didn’t want it to come between us. But when she did pay me back a little at a time … even though she needed the money more than I did … I accepted it because it made her feel better about herself. You see, either way - paid back or not - my sister and I were going to be fine.
Then again, I’ve never dealt in large sums of money, so not getting it back was never someething worth stressing a relationship over.
IMO on usury, it’s talking about excessive interest, or taking advantage of people. Lending money is a service, and for that reason I see no reason to be paid (interest) for the service you provided. You pay everyone else who serves you, why not the guy who helped you through a tough financial time?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
30Seren: re usury: good reminder!
hmmm… Like “help the poor”?
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
31I’m going to just have to wildly disagree with the whole “Most Christians agree, and have always agreed, on the basics/essentials”
Seems to me that even the main Christian teachers/leaders were to some extent disagreeing about things they thought of as essential right from the start.
Comment by: Chris C
32Martin
If you look at my earlier posts on this subject, which others have quoted, and include my punctuation in your quote, you’ll see that I said it was the denominations ([representing] about 95% of Christians) that accepted the essential clear NT beliefs of the faith. I couldn’t possibly speak for individual Christians. However, my point throughout this subject has been that God’s central and essential commendations in the NT are clear. Lack of clarity on the essentials, which I outlined above, is no excuse for not following them. Whether Christians do so or not is their choice, as I also implied in my answer.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
33Chris C wrote:
Actually it’s impossible to follow anything you don’t have clarity on.
What’s the answer to this math problem?
2+?=
No one can do it unless they know what the question mark represents.
Similarly, no-one can follow commendations which are a question mark to them.
Comment by: Chris C
34Benjamin
See my answer to Martin.
You also said
I know of no NT writer where the essence of the main points of what they are writing about disagrees with the heart of the NT that I outlined above.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
35The Inquisition was a disagreement, on basics one hopes, and the burning of Tyndale at the stake was likewise serious.
Comment by: Chris C
36Helen, let me put it another way. My point is intended to be that if they’ve read the NT, and/or if they know the basics of what the orthodox traditions of the Christian faith teach, there’s no excuse for not having clarity about what the essential NT commendations are: there is no question mark in the equation. They are, of course, free to choose whether they believe in or follow any or all of that clarity or something else all together.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
37command vs commend
I have said that the ten commandments could be called the ten tips - indicating that God is offering us advice, which we would be “smart” to take. Clearly god knows how to command; he can summon reality into existence with a word, and he could “command” us in that sense, which He doesn’t. On the other hand, this life is not just a time-waster, one suspects, and something is going on, probably something we don’t appreciate, since unfortunately, we are not all that “smart”. So I like the word “command” if it only serves to remind us that these are the important ideas, and we ought to pay more attention to them. As Jesus lets us in on, these ideas are just the tip of the iceberg. God has lots more suggestions that will help us, but he was hesitant about losing us at the start, it appears.
Like Jesus said to the Rich Young Ruler who said that he had kept the six commandments all his life: Cool, get rid of your junk, and follow me, and we’ll get you saved yet.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
38Chris C wrote:
I have
I do
Well, I don’t have clarity because to me (for example) Matthew 25:31-46 seriously contradicts other passages about how to get to heaven.
Comment by: Chris C
39Martin
I’m sorry; by ‘right from the start’ I thought you meant right from the start of Christianity, not over 1000 years after the start. However, I don’t believe either the murder of Tyndale or the inquisitions were about questioning the essentials of NT scripture that I outlined. In Tyndale’s case it was for ‘revealing the essentials’ by translating the Bible and for political reasons. The inquisitions, well I’m not an expert, but political power and worldly authority of the Pope were certainly important features. I don’t doubt that the Church of Christendom (Protestants and Catholics) misused, abused and ‘invented’ scripture for these reasons, but again, and boringly for all our readers, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with the clarity at the heart of the NT message.
At a quick read, I really like your commend v command post, without necessarily committing to all of the details until I’ve thought it through a bit.
Comment by: Chris C
40Well Helen, as I’m sure you recall, we’ve been here before, under the ‘Should Christians be held to a higher standard’ topic. However, even if we take this passage as implying ‘salvation by works’, it would be unbalanced to allow it to overturn the clear thrust of the NT, which is explicitly stated by the majority of the writers, from the earliest to the latest, and implied by the remainder, that it’s by God’s grace, through faith/belief in and following Jesus, that we are restored to the father (we are saved, we become a new creation), it’s not through our own efforts.
But, as I explained earlier, in the context of the passage and with two other related texts linking faith and works, by no means do we have to take the passage as going against the flow and advocating works alone. However, I hear clearly that you still choose to do so.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
41RE:right from the start
That was Benjamin.
but ok: is the bread a symbol of Christ’s body, really Christ’s body, or not important?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
42I was asking about what you think is ‘essential’, but it is too big a question, and if being burned at the stake over the bible doesn’t involve an essential religious issue, I guess I can’t participate intelligently.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
43There were denominations that got in trouble with Rome before Luther.
Comment by: Eliza
44Like the Cathars, a popular docetic Christian “denomination” of which an estimated 200,000-1,000,000 people were massacred under the auspices of the Catholic Church in a crusade between 1209 - 1229, with the stragglers offed periodically & thoroughly, ending in 1321 (when there were no more left).
Comment by: Martin Gugino
45:-) hi5 (is that wrong?)
Comment by: Chris C
46Hi Martin
As you ask for it, here again is the essential heart of the NT. ‘Jesus, an expression of God on earth, as testified to by what he taught, claimed and did, brings, through His death and bodily resurrection, the gift of a renewed life and a restored eternal relationship with God to all who accept his offer of forgiveness and are willing to turn from their self focus, follow him and make Him Lord of their lives. Further, through his Spirit, He requires and empowers His disciples (the Church) to worship God, spread the Gospel and begin to bring in the Kingdom of God by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are. This will be completed when Jesus returns when God will judge the living and the dead’.
I’m not suggesting that people weren’t martyred for their belief in these essentials (as well as other things): Jesus was the first and 1st cent Christians soon followed and, as above posts show, the Church of Christendom got involved. However, such martyrdom doesn’t question or challenge the point I have always been making here; that these essentials are clearly expressed in the NT. In fact it rather confirms it, if people were prepared to die for them, as Tyndale did. But his work, essential though it was, is not a challenge to the clarity of the essentials in the NT, and his death shows the power of the them.
You ask specifically: is the bread a symbol of Christ’s body, really Christ’s body, or not important? I’m sure it’s important to some Christians, but I don’t find whether it’s transubstantiated or not an essential to our understanding of the clear heart of the NT, as I’ve outlined. It’s more important that Christians take the bread in remembrance, faith and acceptance of what is essential in the NT: that Jesus died to release us into a restored relationship with God, and then that they do something with the renewed life they are reborn to.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
47Actually I agree with you Chris … except maybe for the “and make Him Lord of their lives”. I don’t remember him saying that, and even saying contrarily “Why do you call me Lord and do not… etc”, so that the previous phrase “follow him” is enough; as in; pick up your cross and follow me.
I know you are not suggesting that we toss the NT and replace it with a holy card with that printed on the back, so I am not sure where that leaves the discussion. I don’t know that the mormons would disagree with any of that, and they are generally regarded as being non-christian where I come from. At the same time, it seems to exclude the Calvinists, with their predestination.
Comment by: Seren
48Chris: This also ignores the fact that not all Christian traditions give the written text as much primacy as Evangelicals.
Comment by: Jason
49I just saw this quote and thought that it was relevant to the question I first posed.
When we are good is it because God inspired us to goodness? If so then what is good when it comes without inspiration from God? Not good?
I do think that the actions of religions, positive and negative, are a separate question. Religions form a structure and organisation for faith. They are entirely man made, a point that I think even the most fundamentalist theist would not disagree, and prone to human error as a result. As such they are not useful in answering a question of God given morality, only on faith given morality.
Comment by: Mike O
50To me, something is essential if *getting it wrong is enough to seperate you from God. I don’t think God would send people to hell (no, I’m not trying to start up the hell topic again!)because they got transubstantiation wrong. Therefore, it’s not essential. I don’t think God would send people to hell because they got speaking in tongues wrong. I don’t think God would send people to hell because they got evolution wrong.
I believe the differences that seperate Christian denominations are non-essentials by default, because none of them are things God would send you to hell for, if you came down on the wrong side of the question.
Comment by: Jason
51That begs the question of how wrong do you have to be? Who is more wrong: Richard Dawkins or Fred Phelps?; Gandhi or Torquemada? Non-Christian or Christian? I’m not trying to put Dawkins and Gandhi or Phelps and Torquemada in the same boat. I just want to mention that.
If the “flavour” of Christianity isn’t important then where do you leave Christianity and become something else? Are Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons close enough? What about Muslims or Jews who don’t accept the divinity of Jesus?
Phelps and Torquemada are (were) believers in Christ but I wouldn’t put either of them anywhere near Gandhi in terms of the good that they did. Even near Richard Dawkins as an educator and thinker exceeds the value in terms of good done by a considerable amount. He may have said some negative things about religion but he’s never condemned anyone to hell or called for people to abuse those whose sons have died fighting for their country.
Where does the wrong side of the question lie? How do you know?
Comment by: Seren
52Mike, that’s the most blunt i’ve ever heard anyone be about the fact that God, apparently, condemns people to eternal torment for having a wrong idea.
i know you made a list of things God wouldn’t damn people for having the wrong idea on, but presumably you think there are essentials, and i’m guessing they’re equally cerebral. and, golly. i know you didn’t want to start the hell debate, but how can you be so CALM about that??!!
Comment by: Martin Gugino
53Jason - I tried to make this question about the same form as yours, but you can see it does not contain enough information to be answered:
Is water wet because the environment is at standard temperature and pressure? If so what would water be in a laboratory NOT at standard temperature and pressure? Something other than wet?
Alternately, I could just say (for no reason) water would still be wet.
What answer did you arrive at to the question you posed?
Comment by: Jason
54Well Martin, that’s easy. We can adjust temperature and pressure in a laboratory and measure the humidity of the fluid. If we have a definition of “wet” to work from and can agree on it, say 50% humidity, then we can determine when combinations of pressure and temperature make water not wet. From experience I know that water at very low temperatures freezes into a solid and is no longer wet (has low humidity) and at high temperatures boils into a gas that is no longer wet except in a closed environment. Altering the pressure can change the temperature that water boils and freezes with the same results.
I can plot this on a graph. I can show my working to someone else and have them check the results and check my methodology. If I’m particularly interested I can take water to a non laboratory location (the moon for instance), measure the temperature and pressure and test the humidity of my sample.
The laws of physics do not change depending on your belief in them.
Comment by: Mike O
55Jason said
Good question.
Seren said
I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote, because I don’t think anything could be farther from the truth!
I don’t think anything cerebral can condemn you to hell. A person can be spiritually right with God, and cerebrally very wrong, and still be right with God. I think over time the cerebral would tend to conform to the spiritual, but there are a zillion inputs out there and being wrong on any of them will not condemn you to hell IMO.
Comment by: Jason
56Mike wrote:
I thought so. :) Do you have an answer?
I mean, I understand that I can be forgiven for anything if I am sincere in my belief and seek forgiveness. Literally anything. It’s a very nice idea but hardly a basis for good moral behaviour. On the other hand unholy abominations include those wicked individuals who sow two crops together, wear clothing of two materials or eat seafood. Wicked, naughty, bad people.
OK, no more straw men.
But seriously Barabbas was a bandit (John 18:40) and a notorious prisoner (Luke 23:19) so was, presumably, quite a nasty chap. He was freed by Pilate and the TV dramatisations always show him as asking for and being granted forgiveness. I don’t think this is in the bible though but if were he would surely be granted it.
The expectation is that a convert to Christianity is forgiven of all their wrongs by virtue of God’s divine grace. Have I got this right? Can’t I, like some Catholic stereotypes, do all the wrong I like and then ask forgiveness? Where is the moral imperative in that?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
57Jason - I think you didn’t understand my point. It was not that you do not have more information about water to answer the question, it was that you need that other information to answer the question. We are not communicating I see.
How about the other question I asked, which was “What answer did you arrive at to the question you posed?” which was:
Q: Did you decide “Good”, or “Not Good” or “Not enough information”?
I understood you to mean “Not Good”, but I wondered.
—–
Re: “humidity of the fluid”
Humidity is a property of the air, not the water. I don’t understand what 50% humidity has to do with “wet”.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
58re: hell
Seren - was there a discussion previously about hell that I should be looking up? Can you post a link if so?
(I thought someone said: I don’t want to bring “hell” up again. oh - that was Mike)
I assume that you are more uncomfortable with a god who allows anyone he made to go to hell, rather than the exact rationale by which he allows it. A bad idea seems potentially as bad as a bad act, since it is often only one’s limited power the keeps a bad idea from becoming a bad act: the powerful often do bad things, and the weak would have done them if they could have.
Comment by: Jason
59Martin, sorry, I was being too literal.
For me “good” is a moral question. Moral questions pertain to human choices when it comes to human beings. I can give money to charity, I can feed the starving, etc. These are “good” acts. God, by definition not human, doesn’t come into the equation at all. Unfortunately that leaves the second half of your question redundant.
Re: humidity. I was looking for a term related to “wetness” and humidity covered it well enough. 100% humidity being “wet”. I hope I wasn’t too confusing.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
60Jason -
Are hot dogs kosher because Hebrew National makes them kosher? If so, what would hot dogs be if Hebrew National didn’t make them? Something other than kosher?
Comment by: Mike O
61You can. But God is not a fool. If you’re not repentant and asking forgiveness, somehow I think that would be like saying “forgive me” and “screw you” to God at the same time. If you’re trying and failing, that’s one thing. if you’re not even trying to follow god, that’s something else altogether.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
62Doesn’t the question really point out that we have different ways of thinking about “good” and about “god(s)”?
Are we asking about to what extent “good” is hierarchically, top-down defined?
Chris. Wow! Just reading that makes it incredibly clear to me that it might be more useful to say “I consider x,y, and z to be the essential characteristics of good, God, Christianity, etc.” than it is to say “The essentials are clear and agreed upon by all”.
Hope that makes sense. Perhaps there’s more of a story, and a opening to questions/conversation, in the latter.
Regarding the hell topic, this is something I always found troubling. The idea of “god” being either not powerful or not kind enough to arrange things so people don’t end up in hell makes that particular “god” seem fairly superfluous to me. I mean to say we can arrange things that shittily ourselves, thank you very much. To me “god” ought to be able to arrange the grand scale of things at least measurably better than we manage to. Otherwise he/she is kind of pointless, at best.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
63Mike
Even I would forgive someone who saw the error of his ways. At least I think I would. But God can show us the error of our ways - actually something I don’t look forward to, ignorance being bliss etc etc - so … what where does that leave things?
I guess, Mike, what you are talking about is someone who has a vague idea of his errors, but is still chained by love to them - which is us probably.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
64Jason
I don’t know what we are talking about.
If you want to email me and explain it to me you can (guginom@yahoo.com)
What is the second part of my question?
Comment by: Jason
65I’ve mentioned that I believe that goodness is a moral question relevant to human moral choices.
As I don’t agree with the first premise this point is moot. I’ll expand on it though for clarity. It is irrelevant where your inspiration for acting in a “good” manner comes from as long as you actually act “good”. Good inspired by a God (or Ganesha, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc) belief is good. This is just the same as good inspired by poetry, the smile on a child’s face, a fond memory or anything else that inspires you. Good is good in the actions that you do, not in the thoughts or inspirations for action. I hope that gives an idea of where I’m coming from without any more confusion.
Comment by: Chris C
66A lot of words under the bridge since I last responded, but just to pick up on three points.
Seren said
No, it doesn’t ignore the fact. Because, true though the fact is, that some of the main denominations do not, these days, give the text primacy, this has not yet led any of the main traditions to change their basic beliefs which, in essence, still follow the clear thrust of scripture that I outlined.
Martin said
If Mormons fully agree with and accept these essentials, without diluting the central role of Jesus with the other stuff they’ve added, then praise the Lord. Calvinists may add to it, as many denominations do, but this doesn’t mean they reject the essentials that I outlined.
To whom it may concern
The Hellfire and Damnation topic, under the ‘Recent Discussions’ section on this site, covers most of the issues that have been raised in recent posts, especially about what scripture actually says on the subject, as opposed to what many people, including quite a few Christians, wrongly think it says (see comment 7 in that topic for details).
Comment by: Chris C
67Oh, and whilst on the subject of ‘where we’ve recently been before’, we’ve also done Jason’s goodness/wrongdoing and judging people like Torquemada, Ghandi, Hitler and others under the same subject of ‘Hellfire and Damnation’ (see comments 15-18).
Jason also asked
To make a practical response, say in order to help individual Christians decide whether we could work with someone in spreading the Gospel or having them in leadership roles in our fellowships, I would suggest that it’s when they say that they reject any of the essentials that I keep banging on about. But I would also recommend that this should be a process of discussion rather than a sudden decision or any edict from on high. As to whether they are ultimately part of God’s family, well scripture tells us only God can decide that, or the individual, by rejecting His offer.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
68I’m out.
Comment by: Seren
69i’m exhausted.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
70I’m Benjamin =p
Comment by: Dacey
71Commenting usually isnt my thing, but ive spent an hour on the site, so thanks for the info