Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Thanks for the info, Ruinel. Remember, you guys need to make allowances for my advanced age - I sometimes forget things!

I've been thinking about the two issues more, and I can see ways that they're interrelated. But I don't want to combine them unless it's OK with Hobbit, because I think he was next in line.

What I'd like to do is quote Hobbit's post and start the discussion on some of the points in it, then start the discussion on Ruinel's question as we're waiting for some responses from Hobbit, who is very busy with school stuff until June 18th.

Oh, and as far as my schedule - I'll be at all-day end-of-school parties on Monday, then 2 graduations on Tuesday, so I won't be able to start anything until Wednesday. Then I'll be camping for a week starting on June 20th.

It might take some time to cover these topics, with people's summer schedules, but hopefully we'll all stick around, and we can be thinking about them while we're away from the Moot on vacation or whatever.

[Agalayth]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You still believe in God, right, TDL?

It's a tough question. I sort of believe in God, and I sort of don't. Basically, I'm a very confused person.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Ah, but if I may quickly interject, you miss a crucial detail. You see, you cannot treat heaven and hell as seperate things that are 'tacked on' to whether you accept or reject God, nor is the idea of hell an 'or else' proposition. It is hard to explain, but what God is saying to you is this:

"Come to me, and join me for eternity- this is heaven. Reject me, and be seperated from me for eternity- this is hell. All that is Good comes from me, and in my love I will give to you freely, but there is no good thing apart from me, and apart from me is everlasting suffering. Now choose."

*typed during a church service. ]:-)

Okay. Perhaps I've spent too much time on Dante's Inferno (). Maybe I'm just not understanding this...God says come to me freely or be apart from me which is the equivelent of everlasting suffering. Why? Why is it that to be apart from God is everlasting suffering? Why is God all that is good?

Well, I suppose I do understand. It makes sense, in a sort of a way, and the more relevant thing is, I don't like it. Or...maybe not the more relevant to you...Okay, well, I understand it. The point, then, is, I guess that's one of the reasons why I don't like Christianity, and why I'm not a Christian. I don't like those choices, and I don't like what all that implies. I like having more options. I think it's silly to be so limiting. However, that does not take away my respect for people who do believe that. What does lessen my respect for them, however, is when people try to convert me, and tell me I can still be saved, etc. I still find that offensive, even if it is part of their belief, because it's not respectful of the beliefs of others.

Thank you for answering my questions, Rian and Wayfarer.

[HOBBIT]

sure, but unlike other people I know, it doesn't take forever for me to reply

[GrayMouser]

Uh-oh, analogy time.

Say you have two separate societies with different legal systems.

One society is a monarchy- the Laws are issued in the King's name, the King's peace is on everyone in the land, and the King is a just and benevolent ruler who loves his people dearly and wants the best for them.

There is only one penalty for law-breakers in this land- life imprisonment without parole in a very harsh penal colony: a Devil's Island type place with no contact or possibility of parole.

The justification for applying such a strict penalty to all levels of crime, from the minor to the most heinous, is that the law-breaker is not being punished for the specifics of the crime, but for his rejection of the King's rule, which is for not only his own good but everyone else's- by even a minor violation the criminal is rejecting the very fabric of the Law, rejecting the King and the good that the King has established.

One exception- this society has a perfect lie-detector: if the offender can show between the commission of the crime and his sentencing that he has repented (truly repented, you can't fool the machine) not only his individual crime but especially his rejection of the King's will, he will be totally pardoned.

Oh, he may face some sanctions from his neighbors, or voluntarily choose to do community service, but as far as the King's courts go, he is totally free, no matter how terrible the crime.

But after the sentencing, there is no hope of rehabilitation- you had your chance, you blew it.

[GrayMouser]

Continued;

The second society judges on the nature of the crime- harsher penalties for worse crimes, mitigating or aggravating circumstances taken into account- and has a wide degree of penal institutions, from minimum to maximum.

Punishment is certainly part of the system here- even the minimum security prisons are not fun places, while the maximum prisons are just as harsh as the Devil's Island in the first society- but the punishment is adjusted to fit the crime, and the ultimate goal is rehabilitation.

This society believes that, given enough time, everybody can be rehabilitated, even for the worst of crimes. For murder for example, you'll get, say, 30 years without parole in Devil's Island, but you won't be cut off- you'll be encouraged to repent and reform, and when you've seved your sentence, you'll get another chance.

But, "Do the Crime, Do the Time"- no Royal pardons here; you're being punished for the harm you actually did, though repentence and restitution will be taken into consideration in mitigating your sentence.

So, which society is more just?

The first one is of course the Christian view of Heaven and Hell (actually make that Protestant; Catholics have Purgatory for minor offenders ); the second is closer to the Buddhist view of karma and the cycle of rebirth- Hell, yes, but not Eternal Damnation- you keep on trying for a thousand ages of sinning and punishment until you learn better.

So, any comments? Have I summed up the Christian view fairly?

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
....So, any comments? Have I summed up the Christian view fairly?

(Oy, THREE end-of-school pool parties today - chlorine fumes wafting about in my head ... Doritos and hot dogs churning in my stomach ... but must...post...at...least...once...in...Offshoot... or...Hobbit...will...say...I...take...forever....t o...reply...)

(oh, he already said that...)

I would disagree on 2 points - the same penalty and the no chance of rehab ... but will elaborate tomorrow.... *takes aspirin and Tums*

(But must find Hobbit's post first...he posted before GrayM ... groan ...too many Doritos...)

(hold on, looking back thru thread....)

ok, it's here, and the one right after it; right?

Well, how about if I begin with: do you believe that there is an absolute truth about the state of being of things (whether or not we know it)? IOW, that it can be said that it is EITHER true or not true (if we had a way of knowing) that the God of the Bible exists?

[GrayMouser]

Relax, Rian, don't bust a blood vessel- you don't have to answer every post.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I could probably be accused of spamming, but I'm answering Rian's question just for fun. Even though she probably knows. And she wasn't asking me. I'm just bored, so sue me

No absolute truth!

GreyMouser...probably no surprise here but I think the second one is more just. Me stating my opinion for no reason again. Oh well.

I had more to say in response to Rian's posts, but they were pages ago and now we're getting on to new stuff, so I'll just wait for Rian to reply again. Eek, pool parties sound scary

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Relax, Rian, don't bust a blood vessel- you don't have to answer every post.

Yeah, I was a bit tense there (altho I was trying to be funny by writing it like a dramatic comic book!). But *big sigh of relief* 2 graduations finished today! We're off for the summer! Yay! (sends sympathy to Hobbit, who still has another week )

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
[B]Uh-oh...I smell a long post coming! A few of them, actually.

Buahahaha!
Hey, I actually did it in only 1 post, plus one little teensy one after where I requoted your original question! Wonders will never cease....

Yes, curse them! Rather unavoidable. Well, I'll find my way around them somehow!

You say things like this quite often, EG, and I think that indicates that you really DO realize (but try to avoid ) that right and wrong exist. Even if we don't agree on exact details, there are still things that you consider to just be wrong, IOW, and not only because it's bad for society... 'Fess up, now!

But what about hurting someone for the gain of everybody?

Same thing, as it still benefits the 'you' involved in the scenario. Or to look at it in another way, the only VALID way to hurt someone is for their good - things like necessary surgery, or telling your 6 year old that he can't walk a mile to his friend's house on a busy road and he'll have to wait until you can drive him, etc.

But I don't think "just plain wrong" is a reason. Why is it wrong? What makes it wrong? What is wrong, and who gets to define wrong? I'm guessing (though NOT putting words in your mouth) that you'll say something along the lines of "God defines right and wrong" or "it's in the Bible." (But less simplified. Of course. ) However, that doesn't work for a lot of people.

I was using "plain wrong" to indicate that a wrong is still a wrong, apart from society. There is something inherently wrong in murder, for instance, apart from its bad effect on society.

But you're right, too, "just plain wrong" is NOT a valid reason. And you may put those words in my mouth - yes, God defines right and wrong, whether you like it or not - again, we're back to "is there an absolute truth"..... and there, it looks like we differ.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Uh-oh, analogy time.

Hey, I like analogies!
(I'll do my typical 'add numbers for reference...)

Say you have two separate societies with different legal systems.

(1) One society is a monarchy- the Laws are issued in the King's name, the King's peace is on everyone in the land, and the King is a just and benevolent ruler who loves his people dearly and wants the best for them.

(2) There is only one penalty for law-breakers in this land- life imprisonment without parole in a very harsh penal colony: a Devil's Island type place with no contact or possibility of parole.

(3) The justification for applying such a strict penalty to all levels of crime, from the minor to the most heinous, is that the law-breaker is not being punished for the specifics of the crime, but for his rejection of the King's rule, which is for not only his own good but everyone else's- by even a minor violation the criminal is rejecting the very fabric of the Law, rejecting the King and the good that the King has established.

1 - good analogy - incomplete, IMHO, as it is man-centered, but should be sufficient for this example.

2 - Well, you're overlooking (it appears) that the people break the law (if they're like us!) MANY times DAILY for YEARS before they're thrown into prison, but I think we can overlook that.

Also, an objection as to the apparent "same level" of punishment implied by your use of "one penalty" - in Matthew 11 it talks about how it will be "more bearable" for some cities than others on the day of judgement, so I think that implies degrees of punishment.

3 - good points about that it's not ONLY about the effect that evil actions have on people - that it's also a rejection of the King - which means a rejection of the person's right and proper place as a subject - and only in that proper place will the person experience true joy. This is a critically important point, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
4) One exception- this society has a perfect lie-detector: if the offender can show between the commission of the crime and his sentencing that he has repented (truly repented, you can't fool the machine) not only his individual crime but especially his rejection of the King's will, he will be totally pardoned.

(5) Oh, he may face some sanctions from his neighbors, or voluntarily choose to do community service, but as far as the King's courts go, he is totally free, no matter how terrible the crime.

(6) But after the sentencing, there is no hope of rehabilitation- you had your chance, you blew it.

4,5 - yes, good.

6 - Now my objection here turns on your use of "hope" - if you're using it the way I think you are using it, then that implies that there exists a possibility that a person, after he/she has been sentenced, will repent of their rebellion and disobedience and wish to acknowledge the King's proper authority and position and his/her own proper position as a subject in obedience to the Kings' beneficial laws, but will still NOT be let out of prison.

IMO, Christian doctrine says that that possibility does NOT exist after a person is in hell.

But if you're using 'no hope' in the sense of 'there is 0 probability that the person will want to repent', then I agree.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Buahahaha!
Hey, I actually did it in only 1 post, plus one little teensy one after where I requoted your original question! Wonders will never cease....

Amazing! Congrats

You say things like this quite often, EG, and I think that indicates that you really DO realize (but try to avoid ) that right and wrong exist. Even if we don't agree on exact details, there are still things that you consider to just be wrong, IOW, and not only because it's bad for society... 'Fess up, now!

Perhaps it does. Okay, but I think I've got myself an explanation now. That feels wrong to us because that is the norm in our society. It's the way we're brought up, and the way our society has evolved. Morals exist, but not independant of the human mind. There, now I don't have to curse the presence of morals anymore!

(Getting sidetracked: This always got to me in my philosophy class, when we were discussing positivism versus natural law theory. My tendency was to lean toward natural law theory, not because I believe that morals and therefore law is handed down from god, but because I consider morals to be the product of human society, standards, etc, and so I said that in that sense law comes in part from morals. However, everything my prof said about positivism also sounded right. It got quite confusing, and I got rather frustrated and eventually wrote next to the question I was supposed to turn in: So where do morals come from?! His answer: THAT is something philosophers have debated for centuries! Anyway. Back to topic...)

Same thing, as it still benefits the 'you' involved in the scenario. Or to look at it in another way, the only VALID way to hurt someone is for their good - things like necessary surgery, or telling your 6 year old that he can't walk a mile to his friend's house on a busy road and he'll have to wait until you can drive him, etc.

Fair enough. I would agree with that, though for different reasons (see stated above.)

1. I was using "plain wrong" to indicate that a wrong is still a wrong, apart from society. There is something inherently wrong in murder, for instance, apart from its bad effect on society.

2. But you're right, too, "just plain wrong" is NOT a valid reason. And you may put those words in my mouth - yes, God defines right and wrong, whether you like it or not - again, we're back to "is there an absolute truth"..... and there, it looks like we differ.

1. We think it is wrong because, in my view, society has trained us to think of murder as horribly wrong. You've seen my explanation above, I'll actually not repeat myself for once

2. Agree to disagree
Okay, but I find your wording...well, I guess I'm just going to get all whiny and so on, but it's true, it bothers me: (feel free to ignore me if this sounds too whiny/immature/whatever) by saying "whether you like it or not," well, I understand that this is what you believe, but when you say it that way it again would seem that you are pushing your beliefs on me...well, maybe not that extreme, but, well...fne, you just seem so strong in your convictions that it is...gah. I give up, I'll just quote Nietzche: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies to truth than lies." And I'll leave it at that. My objecting to your wording is merely starting up that absolute vs. multiple truth debate again. Oh well. And it's not like I'm offended, it's just that I keep noticing that.

[Rían]

Re absolute truth - EG (and others) - what do you think of these statements:
(in the first sentence, "He" is God (of course! ) and "them", "they" are humans)

from The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis
The place for which He designs them in His scheme of things is the place they are made for. When they reach it their nature is fulfilled and their happiness attained .... When we want to be something other than the thing God wants us to be, we must be wanting what, in fact, will not make us happy. Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted.... God wills our good, and our good is to love Him (with that responsive love proper to creatures) and to love Him we must know Him: and if we know Him, we shall in fact fall on our faces. If we do not, that only shows that what we are trying to love is not yet God - though it may be the nearest approximation to God which our thought and fantasy can attain...That is, whether we like it or not, God intends to give us what we need, not what we now think we want.

Yet perhaps even this view falls short of the truth. It is not simply that God has arbitrarily made us such that He is our only good. Rather God is the only good of all creatures: and by necessity, each must find its good in that kind and degree of the fruition of God which is proper to its nature....God...gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. To be God - to be like God and to share His goodness in creaturely response - to be miserable - these are the only three alternatives. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows - the only food that any possible universe ever can grow - then we must starve eternally.

(bolded emphasis mine)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Amazing! Congrats

(hee hee!)

Perhaps it does. Okay, but I think I've got myself an explanation now. That feels wrong to us because that is the norm in our society. It's the way we're brought up, and the way our society has evolved. Morals exist, but not independant of the human mind. There, now I don't have to curse the presence of morals anymore!

Riiiiiiiight......

Okay, but I find your wording...well, I guess I'm just going to get all whiny and so on, but it's true, it bothers me: (feel free to ignore me if this sounds too whiny/immature/whatever) by saying "whether you like it or not," well, I understand that this is what you believe, but when you say it that way it again would seem that you are pushing your beliefs on me...well, maybe not that extreme, but, well...fne, you just seem so strong in your convictions that it is...gah. I give up, I'll just quote Nietzche: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies to truth than lies." And I'll leave it at that. My objecting to your wording is merely starting up that absolute vs. multiple truth debate again. Oh well. And it's not like I'm offended, it's just that I keep noticing that.

Yeah, it's very bothersome to think about absolute truths, and that God is God whether we like it or not....we rather like to think we're God.... and I feel the same way as you do, except being a Christian - well, it's like you being new to a school where there's a really strict principal and the kids tell you "don't goof off here, he's really strict!", and hey, you're a kid! so you have a natural irritation/buggedness/whatever 'cause you like to break rules sometimes. But I have been at the school for several years and know the principal well, and yes, he's strict, but oh how wonderfully kind and loving and wise he is, and I'm SO glad he's strict because all his rules are always for the best, and he joins us at meals and PE and just various places around campus whenever we need him to help us or to just be a friend, and when he disciplines, it's done with love and concern, and it was so awful at the other school where the principle didn't enforce anything, or the one before that where the principal was strict but didn't give a rip about the kids, etc. etc.

And re Nietzche - is that true for ALL convictions, or just ones arrived at w/o careful thought and evaluation? I think that is an overgeneralization, don't you?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Riiiiiiiight......

Well, it's what I think! I should hope I don't sound that way when I'm talking about your beliefs, but do tell me if I do!

Yeah, it's very bothersome to think about absolute truths, and that God is God whether we like it or not....we rather like to think we're God.... and I feel the same way as you do, except being a Christian - well, it's like you being new to a school where there's a really strict principal and the kids tell you "don't goof off here, he's really strict!", and hey, you're a kid! so you have a natural irritation/buggedness/whatever 'cause you like to break rules sometimes. But I have been at the school for several years and know the principal well, and yes, he's strict, but oh how wonderfully kind and loving and wise he is, and I'm SO glad he's strict because all his rules are always for the best, and he joins us at meals and PE and just various places around campus whenever we need him to help us or to just be a friend, and when he disciplines, it's done with love and concern, and it was so awful at the other school where the principle didn't enforce anything, or the one before that where the principal was strict but didn't give a rip about the kids, etc. etc.

Again, you've come up with a good analogy for explaining how you see God, and the general Christian view. However, wonderful explanation though it is, it does not give reason to believe that it is the absolute truth. I can see why you believe it, and the reason I don't believe it is because, aside from general disagreement, I have a problem with its exclusionary nature. I don't like the idea of a certain set of people being right and everyone else being wrong. Furthermore, I tend to give a lot more credit to humans. Perhaps more than they deserve? But that's not the point. We both know VERY well now that we disagree on this point. Sorry, it's just that I find the idea of absolute truth to be so scary...eh, that's alright.

And re Nietzche - is that true for ALL convictions, or just ones arrived at w/o careful thought and evaluation? I think that is an overgeneralization, don't you?

Well, I think it is a generalization, but not an overgeneralization necessarily. I'll think more on it and get back to you, eh?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Re absolute truth - EG (and others) - what do you think of these statements...

Well, I think it is a nice belief to have, I suppose, but I most definitely cannot accept it as the absolute truth. And were it the Absolute Truth, and if I die only to find out that I'm not at Fiddler's Green but that I was wrong all along, I'll gladly take the consequences of the third choice: misery, eternal "starvation."

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
4,5 - yes, good.

6 - Now my objection here turns on your use of "hope" - if you're using it the way I think you are using it, then that implies that there exists a possibility that a person, after he/she has been sentenced, will repent of their rebellion and disobedience and wish to acknowledge the King's proper authority and position and his/her own proper position as a subject in obedience to the Kings' beneficial laws, but will still NOT be let out of prison.

IMO, Christian doctrine says that that possibility does NOT exist after a person is in hell.

But if you're using 'no hope' in the sense of 'there is 0 probability that the person will want to repent', then I agree.

Hmmmm, getting into deep waters here but as I understand it one of the reasons for the terrible anguish of the damned is that they do finally realise the wisdom and goodness of God, and know that it was their own wickedness in rejecting it that caused them to be there.

They're not just saying "Boy, this hurts, I wish I had been good," they realise fully and clearly the heinous nature of their sins, the worst of which is they pain they have caused the Lord by their rejection of His Love, and they do repent- but too late.

I thought the idea of the sinner proudly holding to his sin and defying God was just a part of Romantic imagery.

( And I think Lewis was being somewhat of a heretic with his speculations that the damned lose some of their individuality and awareness- I mean, that's the point, isn't it?)

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Well, it's what I think! I should hope I don't sound that way when I'm talking about your beliefs, but do tell me if I do!

I'm sorry if I offended you - I was teasing you because you yourself have joked about it many times (how you think morals are only related to the good of society, but then you think that perhaps there is more to it, like in the LeGuin story), and there was a big smilie after "There, now I don't have to curse the presence of morals anymore!" so I thought you were kinda joking about it. But I'll take your statement seriously now. I'm very sorry I misunderstood you.

Again, you've come up with a good analogy for explaining how you see God, and the general Christian view. However, wonderful explanation though it is, it does not give reason to believe that it is the absolute truth.

You're right, I've not given any reasons WHY I think it's the absolute truth, I've just been talking about the concept of absolute truth and how, if there ARE absolute truths, they would look in the Christian worldview.

I wanted to discuss why I think there IS absolute truth, before discussing why I think the Bible expresses the absolute truth. IOW, why bother saying that I think the Bible expresses the absolute truth unless I can say that I think absolute truth exists?

Since it was your question, are you ready to leave the hell topic, or do you have any more thoughts/questions?

And were it the Absolute Truth, and if I die only to find out that I'm not at Fiddler's Green but that I was wrong all along, I'll gladly take the consequences of the third choice: misery, eternal "starvation."

But why "gladly"?