Christians vs. Christians

[Avatar]

Basically, that passage sums up everything I believe about God's law as it is to be applied between the believer and his/her neighbor ("neighbor" in the broad sense, not as in the next house over). Love and your life will show it.

Right, but I'm specifically applying it to the non-believer. God is not the reason that I live my life the way that I do.

I live the way that god, (always positing his existence) would like me to live. I do no unnecessary harm to anyone. Thats the way that I live. The why however, is quite different. I don't live that way because god wants me to, but because I want to.

What I'm asking here is whether the reason you do it, is more important than the fact that you do it?

You seem to imply that wanting to live that way (i.e "the Why") is more important than actually doing so.

If god wants everyone to love each other, (and we assume that he does), why should it bother him that I do it for reasons other than that it being gods command?

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Right, but I'm specifically applying it to the non-believer. God is not the reason that I live my life the way that I do.

Oh, I know...that last point I made was just sorta what came to my mind along the way. What I meant at the beginning, though, is that your motivation for living the way you do still matters. Just because you do not live your life for God does not mean you do not live it the way you do for some other reason...that reason can be a lot of things...family, general love, a desire for peace, etc. In any case, the motivation is what matters first. If you have a motive, whatever it is, your actions will likely follow accordingly.

If god wants everyone to love each other, (and we assume that he does), why should it bother him that I do it for reasons other than that it being gods command?

One thing I must stress is that he doesn't want anyone to obey His command just for the sake of obeying commands. You don't tell a child not to touch a hot stove just for the sake of not touching hot stoves; you tell him that because you love him and don't want him to get burned.

Again, the answer comes down to love. God loves you, and He wants you to love Him. *sigh* I know how much that sounds like a Sunday-school answer, and I guess it kinda is. I'm just not sure how else to put it. Really, though, the Gospel is that simple.

[Avatar]

In any case, the motivation is what matters first. If you have a motive, whatever it is, your actions will likely follow accordingly.

Fair enough, I see your point. Certainly the motivation came first. I made a conscious choice to act in a certain way, for a certain reason. Then I followed up that choice by acting in that way.

One thing I must stress is that he doesn't want anyone to obey His command just for the sake of obeying commands.

But this is almost the essence of my point. I act, on the whole, in the same way that I would if I were obeying his commands, but I do so without the necessity for that command. I don't do it because god said to, or because I fear hell if I don't, I do it anyway. For reasons which are good from my PoV.

Therefore, if I am condemned by god, the only reason for it would be that I didn't do these things because he commanded them, but in spite of the fact that he did so.

If it is the way in which we live that counts, this shouldn't matter to him. What would matter would be that I lived my life in a way which was appropriate.

However, if living that way only counts (toward not being punished) if you are a believer as well, then god is not concerned with what we do, but only with what we believe.

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Well, again, the "way" follows the "why?"...His offer to everyone isn't "Work your way up the ranks by doing 'good deeds' and being 'a good person' and maybe if you keep the scales tipped the right way, you'll get into heaven." What He offers is this: "Love me, and you will enter heaven." One who loves God, obeys His commands, but not for the sake of the commands...it just kinda pours out of gratitude and love. If I told you "I love God" and then went out and lived as though He didn't matter to me, I would be a liar. Plain and simple...so, in a way He is still concerned with actions. But actions for the wrong reasons are meaningless.

I was always known for being a "goodie-goodie"...always. But it was meaningless, and just frustrating before I became a Believer. Sure, I had reasons for being a goodie-goodie, but I just found them to be too shallow after a while...I don't know what your reasons are, or anything like that, but God is my Reason...and He is the only one I found to be adequate.
*sigh* anyway...that's the way I see it.
It's not about laws, it's about grace and love...and a good thing it is, too.

[Avatar]

I hope you'll take no offence, (and nothing you've ever said leads me to believe you will), but to me, it seems that using god as a reason to be "good" (if you want to put it that way) is a shallow one.

However, to me, it doesn't matter why you choose to act the way that you do, what matters is, on the whole, the way that you act, regardless of what you believe. We are responsible only for our own actions. Not our thoughts, or our feelings even, but how we act.

If you wish to give god the credit, then that's up to you. I prefer to take the credit myself. I choose to live that way, I don't have to justify my "good" behaviour. Or explain it, or "blame" it on anything. (If you know what I mean.)

I see what you're saying; "loving god" should cause you to act in a certain way, because of that "love".

My point lies more along the lines of "I don't love god" but I still act in ways which he would (theoretically) approve of. Am I wasting my time? Does the fact that I don't love god mean I shouldn't bother living my life as a "good" person?

You put me on the spot though, mentioning my own reasons. When it all comes down to it, I have to admit that my reason is that I believe that the way I live is right. Morally and ethically, I believe that hurting others unecessarily is "wrong".

Essentially, there may be very little difference between us. We differ only on why you should act in a certain way. I'm not sure that your way requires any more, or less, faith than mine does.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I hope no one minds my intrusion into this ABSOLUTELY fascinating discussion.
Before I make my comment, I want to say 2 things. First of all, this is an incredibly tolerant and interesting debate on religion. Which almost never happens.
Second of all, Avatar, listening to your arguments and responses is like.....a work of art for me. I am a student of philosophy, and of logic, and your reasoning is careful, it doesn't over extend yourself, but beyond that, you have the ability to actively (or passively I suppose) translate the language of others, who believe in things that you don't, into concepts that you can work with. Of course I may be wrong. But either way, 'mad props' to you. The points here are so intricate that I'm almost afraid to get involved!
But not quite.
For Avatar, I have a question, and admittedly a loaded one... you are engaging in talk of 'god'. I put that in quotes not out of disbelief but because I'm referring to the word specifically. When you use the word 'god' what properties do you assign it? In other words, what set of characteristics make up your idea of 'god'?

[Worm of Despite]

I hope no one minds my intrusion into this ABSOLUTELY fascinating discussion.

No, no! Keep intruding! And you're right, this is a very tolerant religion forum. Amazing, ain't it?!

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Alright, here's my next opinion. The delicate one, but I'll put it forward all the same, because it is a very dear one to me... I was once a very adamant christian. Over time, due to personal conclusions, I left the church, and christianity in general, besides as a philosophical practice, looking at Jesus as an ethicist.
From my experience, it is the position of one who acts in accordance to their own personal values, regardless of the existance of god, that takes the greater amount of faith.
Consider: As a christian, you have the option of placing your faith in a variety of directions, to be sure. You can have faith in direct experience with god, or with the bible, or with a tradition of interpretation as with the catholics. However, as an atheist/agnostic, your faith must be spread throughout every facet of your life. If I was able to place my faith in the Bible, I could simply act in accordance with it (although that would be a ridiculously complex practice) and spend my life in devotion to it. The answers would not be provided, but I could devote my attention to finding those answers within it, always knowing that I was spending my devotion in a positive way, in effect finding the Truth. (Caps on that T)
However, once I left my guidebook behind and tried to determine my own spirituality, I was beset by a totally unexpected terror. For the first time, there was a very real possibility that I was wasting my life. There were no answers besides the ones that I found for myself, carved out of my thoughts and others, and tempered by experience.
Before, there was a simple choice Sin:Salvation.
Now there are a myriad of choices, and each major decision that I make requires an enormous amount of personal faith. I have to trust myself, without assurance from anyone or anywhere... when problems arise, there is no recourse for me in the idea if I perservere with virtue I will be rewarded with eternal life. The consequences of my actions become more pressing.
I think it was Sartre that said "When I realized there was no god in the heavens, the great weight of my life was lifted from my shoulders, but what was left, I had to bear alone"
This is just my personal experience. It's also not implying that it is harder to be an atheist than it is a christian, as I wouldn't begin to believe that I was able to make some kind of off hand judgement on that. But from personal experience, I found that I have more faith now than I ever did as a theist.

[[Syl]]

Well put, Jem. I know exactly what you're saying.

[Avatar]

... you are engaging in talk of 'god'. I put that in quotes not out of disbelief but because I'm referring to the word specifically. When you use the word 'god' what properties do you assign it? In other words, what set of characteristics make up your idea of 'god'?

Well, first, thanks for the compliment. And as Frog said, please feel free to join in anywhere. We're always after a new perspective. This place houses the most tolerant and reasonable discussions of religion that I've ever seen or participated in, and it's great fun.

To answer your question, for the purposes of the discussions here, I tend to mean "god" in the christian sense, (seeing as I'm talking to christians). Thus we assume the usual characteristics that christians in general attribute to their god in particular.

I certainly agree with Caer on your second post here, and I think that you make an excellent observation.

However, to play devils advocate for a second, I would guess that "real" christians (and I do differentiate strongly between those who profess faith and those who live it) such as many of those here seem to be, consider their faith to be an integral part of all facets of their lives (as it should be, if they are "true" to their religion).

I certainly agree with you however, especially the point illustrated by the Satre quote. I think Iryssa mentioned religion as a crutch, and to a certain extent, that is how I see it. Not necessarily in a bad way, but in the sense that theists need/want the reassurance that their god offers them. Logic and reason are cold and hard. Faith must exist in isolation from them, or it is not "Faith". Still, one walks however one can.

Welcome aboard.

--Avatar

[matrixman]

Avatar, seeing Nietzsche in your sig reminds me of another quote of his that is germane to this topic:

"The last Christian died on the cross."

That could be seen as either a profound statement or a facetious putdown of Christianity, or I guess any number of other things. But those words do have meaning for me. The spectacle of of "Christians vs. Christians" throughout history, and the spectacle of wars fought and crimes committed in the name of Christianity, tells me that the message of Christ can be interpreted any which way you please, especially since he's obviously no longer around to dispute such interpretations.

I don't usually poke my head in this forum because I don't have the background to discuss theology and philosophy with the members here. But I am a thirtysomething who knows that hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a blaster at your side.


(is booted by Baradakas back into Star Wars forum)

[Avatar]

An excellent, and very thought-provoking quote.

I don't usually poke my head in this forum because I don't have the background to discuss theology and philosophy with the members here.

Nonsense. No background is necessary. An opinion is the only requirement for participation. Some of the best insights can come from people who don't think in these terms, simply because the rest of us have blinded ourselves to what may be obvious, through over-arguing.

Please join us more frequently. We're after every perspective that we can get.

I certainly agree with you about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of christianity, against other christians and non-believers alike. The problem is that everyone (each faction) tends to think that they and they alone have a monopoly on Truth, based on their various interpretations. Unfortunately, barring the return of Jesus, this is unlikely to change.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Baradakas, I wish more people with no backround and no training were more involved in philosophical/spiritual debates. So often in the process that gets people the backround/experience, the person is....well, from a Nietzschie perspective, tainted by the dogmatism of those that they learned from. In fact, Nietzchie's direct attacks against dogmatism are what led me towards my very recent atheism....
When I say atheism, I don't mean that I recently abandoned the idea of a christian god... I left that behind a long time ago. But most recently, I gave up the idea of a Platonic good (read: Platonic God). In other words, I abandoned the idea that if I bent my mind towards it, assuming that it existed, I would eventually reach enlightenment, and no harm could come to me.

As far as christianity being a crutch, I've never had the spirit to attack it as such. If I were to do so...well... Before removing the splinter from your brother's eye, you know, remove the great plank from your own.... (I paraphrase the bible a lot, sorry) I think we all have various ways that we hold ourselves and each other up to get from one end of a day to the other. There are various ways you could refer to these ways, and one of them could be crutch. However, a crutch is a source of support, and strength. I don't really see the shame in it.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Oh, also, Avatar, I don't mean to repeat the question, but is there any way you could give me a list of the attributes that you assign to god. The general christian god has a lot of different faces and attributes. Are you referring to the old man in the sky? Or a non-personal force? I think a lot of problems in christian debate come up in not having equable terms.

[Avatar]

...a crutch is a source of support, and strength. I don't really see the shame in it.

I certainly agree, hence my comments at the end of that post about it being better to walk with a crutch than not at all. (Or something like that-- too lazy to go back and check.)

Oh, also, Avatar, I don't mean to repeat the question, but is there any way you could give me a list of the attributes that you assign to god. The general christian god has a lot of different faces and attributes. Are you referring to the old man in the sky? Or a non-personal force? I think a lot of problems in christian debate come up in not having equable terms.

Don't worry about it, I thought I'd answered you for the purposes of this discussion, but you may have a point.

I agree that a lot of the problems arise from the many many interpretations, that was sort of originally the point of this thread in the first place, to discover how christians differ on these things.

Not being a christian myself, it's not necessarily attributes that I assign to god, especially as I sometimes contest the possession of these attributes by god in the first place.

However, I can certainly give you my point of view, for the purposes of this discussion (in which we assume that god does exist) at least.

I don't really think that christians view god as a non-personal force, so I guess we're going to have to go for the "old man in the sky" type of ideal. Add in omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent, and we're off to a good start.

Next, we could say that god is supposed to be just and merciful, have a divine plan, and require the worship of mortals.

Again, these are not necessarily things I believe true, but I can hypothesise them for our purposes. I would imagine that in general, these are attributes generally ascribed to god by the majority of christians. If anyone can think of of some I've missed, please add them as they occur to you.

Take it Easy
--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Well..."fatherly" is definitely an attribute of God I'd add to that list...
*laugh* this makes me think of a tape I heard once of a preacher...I wish I could remember his name...at any rate, the tape was about ten minutes long, and pretty much all he did was list attributes of God:
"He is the Holy of holies, He is the Prince of peace, He is the Alpha and the Omega, He is clothed in Glory, He is the Rock of Ages. That's my God! He is mighty, He is awesome, He is gracious, He is wise...That's my God! He is the comfort to the widow, He is the father to the orphan, He is the Hope for the hopeless..." and after about ten minutes of that, the preacher finished his "sermon" with "Well...I wish I could describe Him to ya!" *grin* well...that's how I feel

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I'm just curious Iryssa, and by the way, I want you to know that I really respect your opinion and your beliefs, and you express them very well... That last quote, about the preacher, that's excellent! I was, at one time, a very religious person, and I remain intensely spiritual. The same presence of the divine that I felt when my faith was Renewed is still very present in my life, and I recognize that same feeling in your posts. I think when faith is shared it is recognized...

But ANYWAY, I was wondering, you wanted fatherly put on the list, how would you feel about putting motherly on the list as well?
I was always curious about the masculine definition of God.

[Iryssa]

Wow...thanks so much for the compliments *smile* The feelings of respect are most definitely returned

I would agree that "motherly" could go on that list.
I don't really think that God is either male or female as we know it...rather, I think God is, in a way, above being either man or woman...I dunno if that makes sense. Anyway, there is evidence that He has elements of each gender in the description of how the first humans were created:

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them" ~ Genesis 1:27

The male distinction we use for God probably comes from the way men have historically been considered to be leaders over women: it would have seemed more natural for the people of biblical times to refer to their God as being masculine. I, and other Christians, probably refer to God as being male today for the masculine traits He posesses, the way Christ was born male and called God his Father, and, to some extent, out of habit.

[Avatar]

...and, to some extent, out of habit.

You're probably right there, both in your guess about a male-dominated society perpetuating notions of a male god, and in how we are simply in that habit.

Unforunately, habit seems to account for the adherence to many dogmatic precepts, which may or may not actually be part of "gods plan".

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

I don't really know exactly which "dogmatic precepts" you have in mind there, but yeah, you're probably right about a lot of them...As far as calling God male goes, I think it falls under the category of "disputable matters" that Paul was talking about in the passage I posted on the first page of this discussion...as do a lot of the dogmas present in the Christian faith...It's been said before, but none of us has it exactly right, anyway...the best we can do is follow (even practicing those dogmas) with our hearts in the right place.