Sins and Buddhism

In Islam a sin is a sin. You can't get rid of it. But the only thing that matters is that you feel remorseful for your sin and never do it again.

I don't believe in the concept of 'sin'.MetalGear_Ninty

I don't believe in the concept of 'sin'.MetalGear_Ninty

This pretty much covers it for me too.

If you're talking about immoral actions though I suppose they would always weigh on your conscience to some degree. They can be forgiven by others and repented for by yourself but they're not as easily forgotten about alltogether.

In Buddhism, a sin can never be erased. What done is done. We are like a glass of pure water, when we commit sins, salt is added thus making us salty. We can't retrive the salt, all we can do is to add more water. That's what I learn in a temple and I very much agree with it. I'd just like to know about other religions' point of view on this matter.woonsa

In a way, it is a great antithesis of the traditional Christian view of sin. To re-state ones accountability for their own experience in life is certainly a good thing to do, if required. I think it rather dangerous to offer unlimited forgiveness and total detachment of earthly responsibilities that many Christian soldiers offer.

But I too think "sin" is not a great way to describe our derived sense of collective morality. Also, stirring up floaty analogies can lead to muddy thinking!

[QUOTE="woonsa"]In Buddhism, a sin can never be erased. What done is done. We are like a glass of pure water, when we commit sins, salt is added thus making us salty. We can't retrive the salt, all we can do is to add more water. That's what I learn in a temple and I very much agree with it. I'd just like to know about other religions' point of view on this matter.RationalAtheist

In a way, it is a great antithesis of the traditional Christian view of sin. To re-state ones accountability for their own experience in life is certainly a good thing to do, if required. I think it rather dangerous to offer unlimited forgiveness and total detachment of earthly responsibilities that many Christian soldiers offer.

But I too think "sin" is not a great way to describe our derived sense of collective morality. Also, stirring up floaty analogies can lead to muddy thinking!

I think that the Christian conception of sin tends to be pretty misunderstood, which is certainly not helped by the preachers that tell you that all you have to do is go through some ritualistic motions and all of a sudden everything is OK.  Repentance and love for others is paramount - we are told in no uncertain terms that nothing we have done will be forgiven until we have forgiven everything that has been done to us.  If we do forgive the debts of others, however, and if we feel truly remorseful and ashamed of what we have done in life that has hurt others, then we are told that we are born again, and the past is gone, leaving only the future.

That is, in a nutshell, my reading of the Christian view regarding sin: not that we are not accountable for our sins, but that our accountability extends only until we finally turn from the path that leads us into such sins.  After all, what more value could be gained from holding someone accountable for that which can never be changed and for that which will not be committed again?

Unless of course you wish to reach nirvana and actually remove yourself from all ties to karma and samsara.

Where exactly is the people at your temple pulling this from? Because I'm pretty sure the teachings of the Buddha (specifically the Dhammapada) say that you can escape karma, samsara and suffering (dukkha) if you follow the Middle Way (Eightfold Path).

Even if you are destined for the Narakas (Buddhist Hell realms, more common in Mahayana than Theravada), you can escape the pull of karma by reaching Nirvana. Of course, that could be argued by different people in different ways (some would argue that one cannot reach Nirvana in this life (mostly Theravada and Mahayana), while others would argue that is entirely possible; I personally assume the Buddha would say that it is possible for anyone to achieve enlightenment in this life, since he did it himself, as well as the Arhats he taught).

What denomination is your temple?foxhound_fox

They were teaching students about karma, not escaping it. Because doing so is impossible. The only way to escape karma is to escape the cycle of rebirth (if I remember correctly). 

I think that the Christian conception of sin tends to be pretty misunderstood, which is certainly not helped by the preachers that tell you that all you have to do is go through some ritualistic motions and all of a sudden everything is OK.  Repentance and love for others is paramount - we are told in no uncertain terms that nothing we have done will be forgiven until we have forgiven everything that has been done to us.  If we do forgive the debts of others, however, and if we feel truly remorseful and ashamed of what we have done in life that has hurt others, then we are told that we are born again, and the past is gone, leaving only the future.

That is, in a nutshell, my reading of the Christian view regarding sin: not that we are not accountable for our sins, but that our accountability extends only until we finally turn from the path that leads us into such sins.  After all, what more value could be gained from holding someone accountable for that which can never be changed and for that which will not be committed again?

GabuEx

I think there is value in applying accountability - not least as a warning to others that further enforces the model of accountability. I believe that emotional states of remorse and shame are transient, just like all other human emotions - they come and go. I've heard the promises of many born again Christians come to nothing as they inevitably come to sin again when viewed by the unrealistic standards of their own faith. Also, is it safe to assume that someone will always learn from their own mistakes? 

The notion of sin is rather baffling too. For example, I note the current Mormon church offshoot child protection case in the US, where hundreds of children from a religious group were taken into protective custody to stop them from being groomed for marriage at 12 years old!

In Islam a sin is a sin. You can't get rid of it. But the only thing that matters is that you feel remorseful for your sin and never do it again.

ghoklebutter

Are you forgetting about repentance? Islam rejects blood atonement for sins in favour of genuine repentance. As I understand it, that is how all of the prophets of Islam were sinless at the time of their deaths. If you can't get rid of sin in Islam, how were the prophets sinless?

I think there is value in applying accountability - not least as a warning to others that further enforces the model of accountability. I believe that emotional states of remorse and shame are transient, just like all other human emotions - they come and go. I've heard the promises of many born again Christians come to nothing as they inevitably come to sin again when viewed by the unrealistic standards of their own faith. Also, is it safe to assume that someone will always learn from their own mistakes? 

RationalAtheist

I'm more speaking of that which exists within the heart and which is a matter between a human and God, not of that which exists between humans.  Of course we can never know whether or not someone's repentance is sincere, but at the same time it is not our place to judge, as no one makes it through life unscathed and sinless.  If someone truly does feel remorse and experiences a life-changing epiphany - which does happen in a permanent fashion - then it would seem only destructive to deny the person that chance at redemption purely on the basis of past actions that can never be undone.

It's for this reason, as well, that I strongly maintain that all punishment ought to be only for the purpose of rehabilitation, deterrence, or the protection of society - not because someone "deserves it".

The notion of sin is rather baffling too. For example, I note the current Mormon church offshoot child protection case in the US, where hundreds of children from a religious group were taken into protective custody to stop them from being groomed for marriage at 12 years old!

RationalAtheist

I will not deny for one second that the current view of sin in Christianity is excessively legalistic in its outlook - nobody seems to want to ask why something is a sin; rather, they just say "the Bible says it's a sin" and leave it at that.  It is ridiculously ironic, in my view, the parallels between modern Christianity and the ranks of the Pharisees of Jesus' time.  Both are buried under mounds of tradition that obscure the essential core of the message God wants us to hear; both are filled with men who are more concerned with condemning everyone they don't like than with introspection and sincere love for all; and both are paralyzed in their nigh obsessive adherence to their reading of their sacred text, when it is the heart in which the love of God resides.

"These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men." (Isaiah 29:13)

I'm more speaking of that which exists within the heart and which is a matter between a human and God, not of that which exists between humans.  Of course we can never know whether or not someone's repentance is sincere, but at the same time it is not our place to judge, as no one makes it through life unscathed and sinless.  If someone truly does feel remorse and experiences a life-changing epiphany - which does happen in a permanent fashion - then it would seem only destructive to deny the person that chance at redemption purely on the basis of past actions that can never be undone.

It's for this reason, as well, that I strongly maintain that all punishment ought to be only for the purpose of rehabilitation, deterrence, or the protection of society - not because someone "deserves it".

~ 

GabuEx

I'd think it more convincing for one who has sinned greatly to repay their debt in service to those they sinned against, rather than to selfishly take care of their own spiritual purity. If it is not our place to judge, how can we know that someone has had an epiphany? Criminal history shows the flaws in such human judgements. I do know that people do often change the route of their lives, or live with regret, without any recourse to God. Is there technically any difference in their repentance?

I think it also a common psychological process (response to crisis along with prior, newly sought or newly offered religious guidance) for many to focus on a religion in trying to put previous sinful actions into perspective and protect oneself from the guilt and post-sin remorse situation. This is especially true when captured and incarcerated. These can't necessarily be dismissed as false epiphanies, as they may be sincerely held. But as I said earlier; feelings, ways of thinking, awareness and emotions can all be transient. For example, I defy anyone to constantly feel repentant.

I'd think it more convincing for one who has sinned greatly to repay their debt in service to those they sinned against, rather than to selfishly take care of their own spiritual purity.

RationalAtheist

Where did "spiritual purity" come from, and why is it being placed in opposition to community service rather than in tandem to it?  The Bible quite clearly says - or at least I feel it clearly says - that one is to love God by loving their neighbor, by feeding the hungry, by tending to the sick, by giving to the poor.  The idea spread by far too many preachers that one may be a good Christian by pursuing things that benefit no one but themselves is a travesty and a mockery of everything Jesus brought to the world.

Spiritual purity is community service; there is nothing that shows one's love for God more than unconditional love for his creation.

If it is not our place to judge, how can we know that someone has had an epiphany?

RationalAtheist

I think I've miscommunicated, due to the slightly overloaded use of that word.  When I say "judge", I don't mean in the sense of applying discernment to find the truth; I mean in the sense where you look at a person who has done something bad and tell yourself or others that you are much better than that person.

Criminal history shows the flaws in such human judgements.

RationalAtheist

As I said, I'm speaking of that which exists between us and God.  I'm not proposing any specific punitive system; rather, I'm speaking of the principles on which any such system should be based: rehabilitation and protection, not vengeance.  I'm not saying that we should release someone from jail just because they said they were sorry.

I do know that people do often change the route of their lives, or live with regret, without any recourse to God. Is there technically any difference in their repentance?

RationalAtheist

Repentance is the sincere feeling of sorrow and shame and the sincere desire to make amends for what one has done in life.  It itself does not really have anything to do with God.  Is there difference in the repentance of one who does not believe in God and one who does, if both of them experience those sincere feelings?  No, I would not say there is.

I think it also a common psychological process (response to crisis along with prior, newly sought or newly offered religious guidance) for many to focus on a religion in trying to put previous sinful actions into perspective and protect oneself from the guilt and post-sin remorse situation. This is especially true when captured and incarcerated. These can't necessarily be dismissed as false epiphanies, as they may be sincerely held. But as I said earlier; feelings, ways of thinking, awareness and emotions can all be transient. For example, I defy anyone to constantly feel repentant.

RationalAtheist

That's something entirely different.  That's more self-defense - the person is wanting to justify themselves or make themselves feel better, without actually wishing to feel remorse, shame, or guilt and addressing what they had actually done.  That's something selfish you do for yourself, which is worlds apart from repentance.  You can't have repentance without confronting full-on who you are, who you've been, what you have done, and what you think of it.

Of course a person will not feel repentant permanently.  Why would they?  Either they are sincere, and they change, or they are insincere, and they regress right back to where they were.  Repentance is a powerful transformative experience; it's not a permanent state of mind.

Where did "spiritual purity" come from, and why is it being placed in opposition to community service rather than in tandem to it?  The Bible quite clearly says - or at least I feel it clearly says - that one is to love God by loving their neighbor, by feeding the hungry, by tending to the sick, by giving to the poor.  The idea spread by far too many preachers that one may be a good Christian by pursuing things that benefit no one but themselves is a travesty and a mockery of everything Jesus brought to the world.

Spiritual purity is community service; there is nothing that shows one's love for God more than unconditional love for his creation.

GabuEx

Spiritual purity comes from the passages in the bible that say preaching the word of God is better than doing actual work. I'm sure you have a different interpretation though.  I don't see huge groups of Christians devoting their lives to the things you've outlined. Even in the "traditionalists" biblical view, the same charitable acts are outlined, yet most Christians devote their lives to themselves instead.

Surely a fundamental motivator for all Christians is the knowledge that your salvation awaits, given your faith and forgiveness. This ultimate heaven is not some incidental by-product of your faith, but a fundamental and selfish reason for Chrisitan belief, in my eyes.

I'm not sure community service necessarily involves unconditional love, or why it needs to be done for the glory of God, rather than the glory of the community. We have a values system that does associate merit with action, so just as people feeling inferior have a drive to achieve, so people who have achieved can measure their success. 

That's something entirely different.  That's more self-defense - the person is wanting to justify themselves or make themselves feel better, without actually wishing to feel remorse, shame, or guilt and addressing what they had actually done.  That's something selfish you do for yourself, which is worlds apart from repentance.  You can't have repentance without confronting full-on who you are, who you've been, what you have done, and what you think of it.

GabuEx

I disagree about the difference - their situation would drive them to faith, but they would still regard themselves as being totally converted by going through the processes you describe. The added religious study would be a welcome diversion and respite, or a useful pressure-vent for anguish. The issue here for me now is that Christianity draws a line under the sin and moves on, while psychology would focus on resolving the issue by understanding why it happened and what actions could be done to assess and minimise it happening again.

 

Of course a person will not feel repentant permanently.  Why would they?  Either they are sincere, and they change, or they are insincere, and they regress right back to where they were.  Repentance is a powerful transformative experience; it's not a permanent state of mind.

GabuEx

Spiritual purity comes from the passages in the bible that say preaching the word of God is better than doing actual work. I'm sure you have a different interpretation though.

RationalAtheist

What passages are those?

I know of ones like this:

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2:14-17)

That certainly does not seem to advocate a selfish life of self-concern to me.

I don't see huge groups of Christians devoting their lives to the things you've outlined. Even in the "traditionalists" biblical view, the same charitable acts are outlined, yet most Christians devote their lives to themselves instead.

Surely a fundamental motivator for all Christians is the knowledge that your salvation awaits, given your faith and forgiveness. This ultimate heaven is not some incidental by-product of your faith, but a fundamental and selfish reason for Chrisitan belief, in my eyes.

RationalAtheist

I don't doubt the truth of what you say, and what you describe is perhaps the greatest degree of damage done by what I hold as the false doctrine of eternal torment (I really need to post my reply in that thread...).  I'm reminded quite strongly of Jesus' reply to the rich man who basically asked what thing he needed to do to attain aionion life (Matthew 19:16-22).  You can practically see Jesus rolling his eyes when he curtly tells him to obey the commandments, and then tells him - sarcastically, in my reading of it - that he should go and sell everything he owns.  My reading of this is that Jesus is basically telling him that he's fundamentally asked the wrong question.  It's not what you do, but why you do it.  Heaven is not something you buy your way into; it's something you attain once you've finally learned to love as God loves.

I do not believe that giving people a set of rote instructions that they may follow purely because they want to go to heaven was ever the purpose of Jesus' teachings.  Humans will, however, always try to go for the path of least resistance - it happened to the Pharisees, and now it's happening to Christians all over again.  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes.

I'm not sure community service necessarily involves unconditional love, or why it needs to be done for the glory of God, rather than the glory of the community. We have a values system that does associate merit with action, so just as people feeling inferior have a drive to achieve, so people who have achieved can measure their success. 

RationalAtheist

Personally, I think that unconditional love is really the only sort of love that exists - anything else is nothing more than the appreciation for what someone else does for you, which as Jesus said is something that even the lowest of the low express.  Community service does not necessarily involve unconditional love, but I believe that if it doesn't, then it's tainted to the core (at least in the eyes of God), and the one doing it has utterly missed the point.  It's not for oneself that one ought to do such things, but for others.

As for doing something for the glory of God, I don't think that we necessarily must do things consciously in that respect.  As I quoted before, it is certainly possible (and very easy, in fact) for people to honor God with their lips but have their hearts be far from him.  What matters is not your actions or your words, but the heart from which they come.  Talk is cheap, as they say.  When we do things in love, we do them for God.

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" (Matthew 15:17-20)

I disagree about the difference - their situation would drive them to faith, but they would still regard themselves as being totally converted by going through the processes you describe. The added religious study would be a welcome diversion and respite, or a useful pressure-vent for anguish. The issue here for me now is that Christianity draws a line under the sin and moves on, while psychology would focus on resolving the issue by understanding why it happened and what actions could be done to assess and minimise it happening again.

RationalAtheist

I don't really agree that Christianity does that at all.  Whenever asked about what is most important, "love" is always the answer.  Anyone who does something that hurts another is one who is not acting out of love, which therefore makes the ultimate problem the fact that the person does not sufficiently love.  Although the Bible certainly does present a sizable number of things that people ought not to do, the underlying reason why they ought not to do them is precisely this.  I do not believe that people are intended to just follow a rote checklist of things and then expect themselves to be A-OK, when the absolute #1 thing that Jesus always said was to love one another.

Transformative experiences are not always permanent either. People can still be sincere while changing their perspectives. Guilt comes in "pangs" (mine does, anyway) and doubt is a human condition. People have transformative experiences over many different things - some good and some bad and to various degrees. I don't really think there is a permanent state of mind. But I guess we can agree that if one changes their future actions positively, as a result of the reflection of their past behaviour, they have done some sort of repentance for their sin.

RationalAtheist

Well, if transformative experiences aren't permanent, then I would not particularly call them transformative experiences at all.  I've seen many people who wake up with a massive hangover, and resolve that they will never drink again.  The next weekend, of course, they are indeed drinking again, because nothing really changed at all.  I think that a truly transformative experience is one where the person's fundamental desires in life begin to change - the person doesn't merely intellectually know what he should be doing; he also begins to actually desire to do it.  As long as your urges and desires in life remain the same, I don't think it could be said that you've undergone any sort of fundamentally transformative experience.  You perhaps have acknowledged that there is a problem in your life, but it still has yet to change.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Spiritual purity comes from the passages in the bible that say preaching the word of God is better than doing actual work. I'm sure you have a different interpretation though.

GabuEx

What passages are those?

I know of ones like this:

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2:14-17)

That certainly does not seem to advocate a selfish life of self-concern to me.

I don't see huge groups of Christians devoting their lives to the things you've outlined. Even in the "traditionalists" biblical view, the same charitable acts are outlined, yet most Christians devote their lives to themselves instead.

Surely a fundamental motivator for all Christians is the knowledge that your salvation awaits, given your faith and forgiveness. This ultimate heaven is not some incidental by-product of your faith, but a fundamental and selfish reason for Chrisitan belief, in my eyes.

RationalAtheist

I don't doubt the truth of what you say, and what you describe is perhaps the greatest degree of damage done by what I hold as the false doctrine of eternal torment (I really need to post my reply in that thread...).  I'm reminded quite strongly of Jesus' reply to the rich man who basically asked what thing he needed to do to attain aionion life (Matthew 19:16-22).  You can practically see Jesus rolling his eyes when he curtly tells him to obey the commandments, and then tells him - sarcastically, in my reading of it - that he should go and sell everything he owns.  My reading of this is that Jesus is basically telling him that he's fundamentally asked the wrong question.  It's not what you do, but why you do it.  Heaven is not something you buy your way into; it's something you attain once you've finally learned to love as God loves.

I do not believe that giving people a set of rote instructions that they may follow purely because they want to go to heaven was ever the purpose of Jesus' teachings.  Humans will, however, always try to go for the path of least resistance - it happened to the Pharisees, and now it's happening to Christians all over again.  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes.

I'm not sure community service necessarily involves unconditional love, or why it needs to be done for the glory of God, rather than the glory of the community. We have a values system that does associate merit with action, so just as people feeling inferior have a drive to achieve, so people who have achieved can measure their success. 

RationalAtheist

Personally, I think that unconditional love is really the only sort of love that exists - anything else is nothing more than the appreciation for what someone else does for you, which as Jesus said is something that even the lowest of the low express.  Community service does not necessarily involve unconditional love, but I believe that if it doesn't, then it's tainted to the core (at least in the eyes of God), and the one doing it has utterly missed the point.  It's not for oneself that one ought to do such things, but for others.

As for doing something for the glory of God, I don't think that we necessarily must do things consciously in that respect.  As I quoted before, it is certainly possible (and very easy, in fact) for people to honor God with their lips but have their hearts be far from him.  What matters is not your actions or your words, but the heart from which they come.  Talk is cheap, as they say.  When we do things in love, we do them for God.

"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" (Matthew 15:17-20)

I disagree about the difference - their situation would drive them to faith, but they would still regard themselves as being totally converted by going through the processes you describe. The added religious study would be a welcome diversion and respite, or a useful pressure-vent for anguish. The issue here for me now is that Christianity draws a line under the sin and moves on, while psychology would focus on resolving the issue by understanding why it happened and what actions could be done to assess and minimise it happening again.

RationalAtheist

I don't really agree that Christianity does that at all.  Whenever asked about what is most important, "love" is always the answer.  Anyone who does something that hurts another is one who is not acting out of love, which therefore makes the ultimate problem the fact that the person does not sufficiently love.  Although the Bible certainly does present a sizable number of things that people ought not to do, the underlying reason why they ought not to do them is precisely this.  I do not believe that people are intended to just follow a rote checklist of things and then expect themselves to be A-OK, when the absolute #1 thing that Jesus always said was to love one another.

Transformative experiences are not always permanent either. People can still be sincere while changing their perspectives. Guilt comes in "pangs" (mine does, anyway) and doubt is a human condition. People have transformative experiences over many different things - some good and some bad and to various degrees. I don't really think there is a permanent state of mind. But I guess we can agree that if one changes their future actions positively, as a result of the reflection of their past behaviour, they have done some sort of repentance for their sin.

RationalAtheist

Well, if transformative experiences aren't permanent, then I would not particularly call them transformative experiences at all.  I've seen many people who wake up with a massive hangover, and resolve that they will never drink again.  The next weekend, of course, they are indeed drinking again, because nothing really changed at all.  I think that a truly transformative experience is one where the person's fundamental desires in life begin to change - the person doesn't merely intellectually know what he should be doing; he also begins to actually desire to do it.  As long as your urges and desires in life remain the same, I don't think it could be said that you've undergone any sort of fundamentally transformative experience.  You perhaps have acknowledged that there is a problem in your life, but it still has yet to change.

Please spare me the ordeal of finding bible passages that state prayer is better than good deeds. That's the great thing about the way the bible's structured - all sides can pick out bite sized pieces to suit their cause. I'm feeling too lazy to trawl through the BBU for something suitable. Insist and I will though!

I'm not sure about your definition of love, but am reasonably sure that anything practiced by humans must have some limits. That rules out unconditional stuff. Love is tough enough to define, but adding unconditionality turns the definition into a swiss cheese. If that's the #1 thing Jesus offers, it'd be something you'd have to be damned sure about and not something that's evidenced well in God's supposed children.

The fundamental Christian motivator I mentioned specifically excluded hell - it is all about the glory of salvation and the comfy, selfish knowledge that you have been saved and will have a great time in heaven. How many Christians would there be if there was no promise of a glorious afterlife?

I know of people having a transformative experience as a result of a bad situation. They sunk into an oblivion of alcohol for fifteen years. They climbed out two years ago, after another transfomative experience, to rebuild their lives. So I concur precisely with your definition of a such experiences, but suggest that they are not one shot deals, and that people can and do re-model their lives more often.

Please spare me the ordeal of finding bible passages that state prayer is better than good deeds. That's the great thing about the way the bible's structured - all sides can pick out bite sized pieces to suit their cause. I'm feeling too lazy to trawl through the BBU for something suitable. Insist and I will though!

RationalAtheist

I apologize if my question seemed like a challenge - I honestly was just curious what you were referring to, because I honestly am not sure, and it's difficult to reply to something if I don't particularly know what you're specifically speaking of.

You don't have to if you don't want to, but I can't exactly comment if you don't. :P

I'm not sure about your definition of love, but am reasonably sure that anything practiced by humans must have some limits. That rules out unconditional stuff. Love is tough enough to define, but adding unconditionality turns the definition into a swiss cheese. If that's the #1 thing Jesus offers, it'd be something you'd have to be damned sure about and not something that's evidenced well in God's supposed children.

RationalAtheist

Well, of course it's not evidenced very well in humans. If it was a commonplace thing, then we wouldn't exactly need someone to come along and tell us about it.  I don't know if true unconditional love is truly attainable by humans on Earth, but I would certainly consider it a worthwhile goal towards which to strive.  Love that is conditional on the receipt of something is, as I said, something that I would consider to be scarcely love at all, and is certainly not something that is by any means reliable or comforting.  If someone will only love you as long as you give them something, then what is it that they truly love: you, or what you provide?  It's for this reason that I don't consider conditional love to be truly the love of one's neighbor at all.

As long as we only love someone conditional on their giving us what we desire, then we are selfish to the core, and are really acting no better than the lowest sinner in that regard.  It's only once we finally begin to love and care for others simply because they are, rather than because of what we may gain from them, that we begin to see the light.

The fundamental Christian motivator I mentioned specifically excluded hell - it is all about the glory of salvation and the comfy, selfish knowledge that you have been saved and will have a great time in heaven. How many Christians would there be if there was no promise of a glorious afterlife?

RationalAtheist

I know you didn't mention hell, but I see no reason to believe that people would be as obsessed with heaven as they are today if it were the case that everyone will end up there.  I think that the reason why people are so concerned with their own salvation is because they think it a very real possibility that they might lose it and end up damned to hell for all eternity.  If they either knew that they would get it or knew that they wouldn't get it, I have no doubt that it would not be as much a focus for them.

I don't know how many Christians there would be if there were no promise of a glorious afterlife.  But I know that I would still be one.  I don't even really care about the afterlife; I feel that the life Jesus speaks of is one that provides the most fulfilling life here on Earth as well.  If God sees fit to grant me further life when I die, then so much the better, but I neither expect nor demand any such thing.  I certainly have done nothing to truly deserve such a thing.

I know of people having a transformative experience as a result of a bad situation. They sunk into an oblivion of alcohol for fifteen years. They climbed out two years ago, after another transfomative experience, to rebuild their lives. So I concur precisely with your definition of a such experiences, but suggest that they are not one shot deals, and that people can and do re-model their lives more often.

RationalAtheist

Well, we can go back and forth about the specific details of what truly constitutes a transformative experience, but I'm just outlining what I am personally talking about when I use the term: I'm speaking of an experience that fundamentally changes a person's desires or goals in life, such that from that day on they not only wish to act differently, but also begin to act in that way as well.

I apologize if my question seemed like a challenge - I honestly was just curious what you were referring to, because I honestly am not sure, and it's difficult to reply to something if I don't particularly know what you're specifically speaking of.

You don't have to if you don't want to, but I can't exactly comment if you don't. :P

Well, of course it's not evidenced very well in humans. If it was a commonplace thing, then we wouldn't exactly need someone to come along and tell us about it. I don't know if true unconditional love is truly attainable by humans on Earth, but I would certainly consider it a worthwhile goal towards which to strive. Love that is conditional on the receipt of something is, as I said, something that I would consider to be scarcely love at all, and is certainly not something that is by any means reliable or comforting. If someone will only love you as long as you give them something, then what is it that they truly love: you, or what you provide? It's for this reason that I don't consider conditional love to be truly the love of one's neighbor at all.

As long as we only love someone conditional on their giving us what we desire, then we are selfish to the core, and are really acting no better than the lowest sinner in that regard. It's only once we finally begin to love and care for others simply because they are, rather than because of what we may gain from them, that we begin to see the light.

I know you didn't mention hell, but I see no reason to believe that people would be as obsessed with heaven as they are today if it were the case that everyone will end up there. I think that the reason why people are so concerned with their own salvation is because they think it a very real possibility that they might lose it and end up damned to hell for all eternity. If they either knew that they would get it or knew that they wouldn't get it, I have no doubt that it would not be as much a focus for them.

I don't know how many Christians there would be if there were no promise of a glorious afterlife. But I know that I would still be one. I don't even really care about the afterlife; I feel that the life Jesus speaks of is one that provides the most fulfilling life here on Earth as well. If God sees fit to grant me further life when I die, then so much the better, but I neither expect nor demand any such thing. I certainly have done nothing to truly deserve such a thing.

Well, we can go back and forth about the specific details of what truly constitutes a transformative experience, but I'm just outlining what I am personally talking about when I use the term: I'm speaking of an experience that fundamentally changes a person's desires or goals in life, such that from that day on they not only wish to act differently, but also begin to act in that way as well.

GabuEx

Sorry 'tis I who should apologise for not presenting my case at the time - I do find it fairly odious looking through the bible! The main verse I was thinking of was Ephesians 2:8-10

"8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

It's backed up somewhat Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 , although other verses do conflict.

I think it better to reach attainable goals, than set expectations that you know you'll never reach. I also wouldn't define love as a process of trade, rather trust. Your description of giving and receiving is all part of the condition of love, but you leave out important other aspects of trust, respect, reliance and humour. The light you speak of is the light of human love, rather than any divine intervention - as the number of failed loving relationships will attest, when the light burns out.

I find your views on knowledge of salvation curious. Why do you think fundamentalist Christians often preach to the glory of them being saved and sinners being damned? Obviously heaven's the big goal of the belief - even you say you don't expect to get in there - which leads me to infer you hold heaven in very high regard.

I'm totally agreeing with you on your definition of transformative experiences, but suggest people can have more of them in their lifetimes than perhaps you think they can. I wonder if you restrict the definition of a "transformative experience" within a religious domain, rather than philosophical or life changes that I refer to as being equally profound.

Sorry 'tis I who should apologise for not presenting my case at the time - I do find it fairly odious looking through the bible! The main verse I was thinking of was Ephesians 2:8-10

"8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

It's backed up somewhat Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 , although other verses do conflict.

RationalAtheist

Ah, OK, now I know what you're speaking of.

Well, I obviously can't prove that the interpretation you're speaking of is wrong, but I can at least provide the way I read them.  Essentially, I think that this is actually pretty similar to the time when the rich man asks Jesus what good thing he can do to go to heaven, and Jesus basically says "nothing" - the reason, of course, being what I said: you don't buy your way into heaven; rather, it is a state of being you attain when you finally come to love as God loves.  What Ephesians 2:8-10 is saying is not that you shouldn't do good things, but rather that you shouldn't do them and then boast about how righteous you are in an attempt to get to heaven.  If you do, then your words have betrayed your true intentions, and have laid bare the fact that you were never acting out of love at all, but rather purely out of the selfish desire to go to heaven.

In truth, the Bible actually speaks against attempts on the part of humans to do things in an attempt to get to heaven. This, however, does not stop humans from trying to do so all the same and then trying to wring a justification for their behavior out of the Bible, of course.

A lot of these verses speak of "faith", but I think the question ought to be asked: what faith?  The obvious stock answer is, "Well, faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, of course."  But this is more reading into the text what one already believed to be present than actually reading what the text says.  Some (and in many cases almost all) translations render it as "faith in Christ", but this is not actually true the Greek at all.  When the Greek says "faith __ Christ", the missing word is actually more appropriately of, not in.  It is not our faith that is being spoken of, but rather the faith of Jesus.  It was Jesus who loved the world; it was not the world who loved Jesus.

I think it better to reach attainable goals, than set expectations that you know you'll never reach.

RationalAtheist

Well, I don't actually agree with your implicit assertion that the two are mutually exclusive.  I think that it would actually be very wise both to set goals that may or may not be actually attainable, and then to set more realistic goals that take one closer to that ultimate end.  The danger in setting only small goals, while having no big one in mind, is twofold: first, the goals are more likely to be disorganized, and second, that one may well stop oneself when one feels that one has done "enough", when in fact there is so much more that can always be done, no matter how much one has already done.  I don't think it is good for any human being to become complacent in their current state in life, and I think that setting only small goals that you will eventually attain will almost guarantee that that will happen if you don't have anything larger in the back of your mind towards which you work.

 

I also wouldn't define love as a process of trade, rather trust. Your description of giving and receiving is all part of the condition of love, but you leave out important other aspects of trust, respect, reliance and humour. The light you speak of is the light of human love, rather than any divine intervention - as the number of failed loving relationships will attest, when the light burns out.

RationalAtheist

Well, I think that, perhaps, we should back up a little and address precisely what I'm speaking of when I speak of love.  I think that I may have incorrectly given the sense that, when I speak of love, I am speaking of the way in which one acts towards another.  This is not really quite correct; rather, it is more correct to say that I am speaking of the motivator behind one's actions towards another.  If someone is your best friend, and another is one who hates your guts, I think it's quite clear that it would be rather foolhardy to act in precisely the same way towards both of them.

That doesn't mean that you can't love both of them, though.  At its core, to love another person, in terms of what I'm speaking of, simply means to care about their well-being and to wish only the best for them.  Someone who loves another does not hate, holds no grudges, remembers no debts, and is always ready to do what needs to be done to help that person come to the light.  If circumstances change, then the way in which one interacts with another may well change - and you may well need to even protect yourself from that person - but what ought not to change is this fundamental principle that one should never hate, nor hold grudges or debts, nor be unwilling to help someone.  Do what you must, but do it only if love guides you to do it.  If the only reason why you like someone or are willing to help that person is because they can provide you with material benefit, then I would maintain that you are not one who loves that person at all.

I think that 1 Corinthians 13, which is on this topic, is perhaps one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

 

I find your views on knowledge of salvation curious. Why do you think fundamentalist Christians often preach to the glory of them being saved and sinners being damned? Obviously heaven's the big goal of the belief - even you say you don't expect to get in there - which leads me to infer you hold heaven in very high regard.

RationalAtheist

I would not consider it a "goal" at all, at least not for me.  It's obviously a place that would be nice to be, but that doesn't make it a "goal".  To say that it's one's goal is to say that the things that one does are tailored specifically to attain that goal, which is just not true.  Like I said, I don't even really care.  If it happens, it happens; if it doesn't, it doesn't.  Not my concern.

As for why I think that fundamentalist Christians preach about the glory of heaven and the damned sinners and such like, well, that's basically exactly what I said: this obsession comes more from the belief that one can lose one's salvation than the belief in the existence of heaven.  If people believed that we would all eventually end up in communion with God, then what sense would it make to devote one's life to trying to get there?  It would make about as much sense to do that than to devote one's day to trying to make the sun come up in the morning.

As I said, I believe that the Bible effectively says two things: that all will eventually be reconciled to God, but that one will not be reconciled to God until one comes to love as God loves us.  And that's really not something that someone can have as a goal that their actions may be tailored towards - the moment that someone does something for a goal that is not love, they will fail in this goal as well.

  

I'm totally agreeing with you on your definition of transformative experiences, but suggest people can have more of them in their lifetimes than perhaps you think they can. I wonder if you restrict the definition of a "transformative experience" within a religious domain, rather than philosophical or life changes that I refer to as being equally profound.

RationalAtheist

No, I'm not restricting it in that way, nor am I asserting that someone can only have one in their lifetime.  As I've said before, I tend to diverge rather strongly from orthodox thought in terms of what God truly wants.  I believe that, ultimately, what God desires is for us to love and to be loved.  The incredible degree of misguided structure that humans have placed on top of that - which most certainly did not exist in the early days of Christianity - is just staggering.

Ah, OK, now I know what you're speaking of.

Well, I obviously can't prove that the interpretation you're speaking of is wrong, but I can at least provide the way I read them. Essentially, I think that this is actually pretty similar to the time when the rich man asks Jesus what good thing he can do to go to heaven, and Jesus basically says "nothing" - the reason, of course, being what I said: you don't buy your way into heaven; rather, it is a state of being you attain when you finally come to love as God loves. What Ephesians 2:8-10 is saying is not that you shouldn't do good things, but rather that you shouldn't do them and then boast about how righteous you are in an attempt to get to heaven. If you do, then your words have betrayed your true intentions, and have laid bare the fact that you were never acting out of love at all, but rather purely out of the selfish desire to go to heaven.

In truth, the Bible actually speaks against attempts on the part of humans to do things in an attempt to get to heaven. This, however, does not stop humans from trying to do so all the same and then trying to wring a justification for their behavior out of the Bible, of course.

A lot of these verses speak of "faith", but I think the question ought to be asked: what faith? The obvious stock answer is, "Well, faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, of course." But this is more reading into the text what one already believed to be present than actually reading what the text says. Some (and in many cases almost all) translations render it as "faith in Christ", but this is not actually true the Greek at all. When the Greek says "faith __ Christ", the missing word is actually more appropriately of, not in. It is not ourfaith that is being spoken of, but rather the faith of Jesus. It was Jesus who loved the world; it was not the world who loved Jesus.

Well, I don't actually agree with your implicit assertion that the two are mutually exclusive. I think that it would actually be very wise both to set goals that may or may not be actually attainable, and then to set more realistic goals that take one closer to that ultimate end. The danger in setting only small goals, while having no big one in mind, is twofold: first, the goals are more likely to be disorganized, and second, that one may well stop oneself when one feels that one has done "enough", when in fact there is so much more that can always be done, no matter how much one has already done. I don't think it is good for any human being to become complacent in their current state in life, and I think that setting only small goals that you will eventually attain will almost guarantee that that will happen if you don't have anything larger in the back of your mind towards which you work.

Well, I think that, perhaps, we should back up a little and address precisely what I'm speaking of when I speak of love. I think that I may have incorrectly given the sense that, when I speak of love, I am speaking of the way in which one acts towards another. This is not really quite correct; rather, it is more correct to say that I am speaking of the motivator behind one's actions towards another. If someone is your best friend, and another is one who hates your guts, I think it's quite clear that it would be rather foolhardy to act in precisely the same way towards both of them.

That doesn't mean that you can't love both of them, though. At its core, to love another person, in terms of what I'm speaking of, simply means to care about their well-being and to wish only the best for them. Someone who loves another does not hate, holds no grudges, remembers no debts, and is always ready to do what needs to be done to help that person come to the light. If circumstances change, then the way in which one interacts with another may well change - and you may well need to even protect yourself from that person - but what ought not to change is this fundamental principle that one should never hate, nor hold grudges or debts, nor be unwilling to help someone. Do what you must, but do it only if love guides you to do it. If the only reason why you like someone or are willing to help that person is because they can provide you with material benefit, then I would maintain that you are not one who loves that person at all.

I think that 1 Corinthians 13, which is on this topic, is perhaps one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible:

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

I would not consider it a "goal" at all, at least not for me. It's obviously a place that would be nice to be, but that doesn't make it a "goal". To say that it's one's goal is to say that the things that one does are tailored specifically to attain that goal, which is just not true. Like I said, I don't even really care. If it happens, it happens; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Not my concern.

As for why I think that fundamentalist Christians preach about the glory of heaven and the damned sinners and such like, well, that's basically exactly what I said: this obsession comes more from the belief that one can lose one's salvation than the belief in the existence of heaven. If people believed that we would all eventually end up in communion with God, then what sense would it make to devote one's life to trying to get there? It would make about as much sense to do that than to devote one's day to trying to make the sun come up in the morning.

As I said, I believe that the Bible effectively says two things: that all will eventually be reconciled to God, but that one will not be reconciled to God until one comes to love as God loves us. And that's really not something that someone can have as a goal that their actions may be tailored towards - the moment that someone does something for a goal that is not love, they will fail in this goal as well.

No, I'm not restricting it in that way, nor am I asserting that someone can only have one in their lifetime. As I've said before, I tend to diverge rather strongly from orthodox thought in terms of what God truly wants. I believe that, ultimately, what God desires is for us to love and to be loved. The incredible degree of misguided structure that humans have placed on top of that - which most certainly did not exist in the early days of Christianity - is just staggering.

GabuEx

My reading of that Ephesians verse is that good works are a divine gift, so faith is paramount. The other verses in the bible that "big up" evangelism amount to the same doctrine. It does not say don't do good things - it says faith alone is enough. From that, its easy to derive the prospect that bad or non-Christians will not get into heaven by not having faith in or of Christ.

I've got to disagree entirely about goals. Attainable goals may be complex. Attainable goals may be difficult and unrealistic. However unrealistic they are, they are not unattainable; by their definition. Unattainable goals are mutually exclusive, since humans are incapeable of reaching any "absolute" or "unconditional" consciousness, regardless of how desirable it may seem to some. This leads to the prospect that you will never achieve this state of "unconditional being" and will continually sin as your consciousness continues to naturally processes the world around you. One outcome from this arrangement is a "spiral of faith": On sinning, you try and be more unconditional, which leads to more sin, which leads to trying harder, etc.

The bible verses you quote do nothing to nail down what love is for me - but they do go a ways to saying what love is not. The apparent simplicity that you boil the bible down to belie it's length and huge variety of tone and content. If what you say is true, no wonder this premise is lost in a book that underlines the faith. I'd have serious concerns over how love can be defined and interpreted - or if "love" and "love of God" can ever be extracated.

What is not true about saying people specifically do things to attain the goal of being a Christian? In pure psychological terms, its exactly what people do - even the most righteous Christians. You think heaven will be a nice place, but are seriously not bothered about what happens to you after you die? Since I think you've been so honest with me previously, I sense a disconnect here about your desire; that you cover in your expressed indifference over a lack of control.

There is plenty of justification for believing in a compassionate God. I personally believe that Christianity may increase if your beliefs were more widely held within the doctrine. I think the point of believing in a benevolent and loving God could empower people to be more self critical and less judgemental (the carrot has proven to be a better incentive than a stick). There is much sense for a popularisation of your point of view of Christianity, not least in the "cost of admission" coming down to an affordable price!

These early days of Christianity - what dates are you referring to? There is a fascinating 6 part BBC series on the History of Christianity on UK TV at the moment. It shows an incredible amount of structure built into Christianity from the very start.

My reading of that Ephesians verse is that good works are a divine gift, so faith is paramount. The other verses in the bible that "big up" evangelism amount to the same doctrine. It does not say don't do good things - it says faith alone is enough. From that, its easy to derive the prospect that bad or non-Christians will not get into heaven by not having faith in or of Christ.

RationalAtheist

It's easy... if one was to only read Ephesians 2:8, misunderstand what "faith" means, and then act as though the rest of the package doesn't even exist.  Which many do, but I would assume you would agree that to do so is not exactly the proper way to read the books in the Bible, considering that they were written as cohesive and concurrent letters, not as individual verses.  For example, if all we need to do is have faith, and if good works don't matter, then why does it say only two verses later that we were "created ... to do good works" (Ephesians 2:10)?

What this is saying, or at least what I believe this is saying, is really that one should not boast about their status or think themselves better than another.  If someone just sits there and sings empty praises to God, then I think it would be rather difficult to claim that that person has anything at all, except perhaps an oversized ego.  This is much in line with a parable that Jesus gave at one point in time:

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

I've got to disagree entirely about goals. Attainable goals may be complex. Attainable goals may be difficult and unrealistic. However unrealistic they are, they are not unattainable; by their definition. Unattainable goals are mutually exclusive, since humans are incapeable of reaching any "absolute" or "unconditional" consciousness, regardless of how desirable it may seem to some. This leads to the prospect that you will never achieve this state of "unconditional being" and will continually sin as your consciousness continues to naturally processes the world around you. One outcome from this arrangement is a "spiral of faith": On sinning, you try and be more unconditional, which leads to more sin, which leads to trying harder, etc.

RationalAtheist

Attainable goals may be complex, yes, but I would still consider it insufficient only to set goals that you know you can attain.  Once you've attained it, then what?  You either then stay complacent where you are, or you set another goal.  But where does this new goal come from, if you don't have a broader, more life-defining goal?

If you don't want to call it a goal because you feel that goals should be attainable, then call them principles or ideals, or something like that - the main idea is just to have something that forms the foundations for what you do and what you aim towards in life, rather than being aimless.

The bible verses you quote do nothing to nail down what love is for me - but they do go a ways to saying what love is not. The apparent simplicity that you boil the bible down to belie it's length and huge variety of tone and content. If what you say is true, no wonder this premise is lost in a book that underlines the faith. I'd have serious concerns over how love can be defined and interpreted - or if "love" and "love of God" can ever be extracated.

RationalAtheist

You're correct in that the Bible does not truly nail down precisely what love is in any sort of scientifically rigorous fashion, but to be honest I think that this is largely because explaining love to one who does not know what it is is a bit like explaining color to someone who has never seen it before.  No matter how meticulous the explanation gets, it will still never replicate what one receives when one experiences it for themselves.  It is, ultimately, something that one must feel, not be taught.  Someone either loves or someone does not; if someone does not, I'm not going to be able to teach them how to feel empathy and compassion for others.  I can teach them the motions that one who loves might go through, certainly, but going through those motions in no way means that that person truly loves.

And yes, the Bible is long and has a huge variety of tone and content, but what did Jesus say when asked what is the most important commandment in the law?  He responded that it is to love God and to love one's neighbor, and that all of the law and prophets hangs on this command.

I'm going to make a confession that is one of the things that I am sure would cause many or even most Christians to declare me a heretic and not a Christian: I am at most unsure (and generally doubtful) of whether or not I believe that the Bible as we have it today is the divinely inspired word of God from cover to cover, and indeed I do not believe that the writers of the New Testament even claimed as such.  There are really only two verses in the New Testament that would seem to make this assertion: one (2 Timothy 3:16) refers to "scripture", but that word is used universally in the New Testament to refer to the Old Testament; and the other (2 Peter 3:16) comes from a letter that has inspired almost universal agreement among scholars that the one who wrote it is not the one claimed in the letter to have written it.  At one point (1 Corinthians 7:12), Paul even explicitly says that something is not the Lord speaking, which makes me doubly doubtful about the doctrine of divine inspiration.

I tend to regard the Bible more as a collection of writings compiled by humans and written by humans.  I view the Old Testament as largely a collection of stories intended to convey messages, not as a literal historical account.   I view the central figure of the New Testament as a great man whose words carry great truth and wisdom, and about whose teachings many wrote with earnest and thoughtful love in their hearts.  We err, I think, when we assume that if they are not divinely inspired, then they are worthless and that we ought not spend any time on them.  But we equally err, I think, when we obsessively hang on every single word of these writings and refuse to even go to the supermarket before we consult with what they say.  The love of God exists in our hearts, not in the pages of a book.

Was Jesus divine?  Was he resurrected after his crucifixion?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I don't claim to know with any certainty the answers to such questions, but I also don't consider such questions of paramount importance, myself.  Perhaps they might be if one were selfish and were following Jesus only because one believes that in doing so will bring about self-gain, but Jesus' teachings center around how one ought to live, not what one ought to believe.

What is not true about saying people specifically do things to attain the goal of being a Christian? In pure psychological terms, its exactly what people do - even the most righteous Christians. You think heaven will be a nice place, but are seriously not bothered about what happens to you after you die? Since I think you've been so honest with me previously, I sense a disconnect here about your desire; that you cover in your expressed indifference over a lack of control.

RationalAtheist

Of course I'm bothered by it.  I don't think anyone who appreciates their time on Earth could truthfully claim that they're not.  I enjoy life on Earth, and I would like to believe that life could continue after our time on Earth.  And I obviously would additionally like to believe that I will see those I love again after they die.  But at the same time, getting to such a place is, nonetheless, not my ultimate goal.  If I made that my goal in life, then I would have to abandon my goals here on Earth, and what good then would that be?  If I could continue to live after my death, then so much the better - and I would certainly not turn it down - but I do not want to lose my reason to enjoy life in my pursuit of life.

I personally feel that the best thing that one can do is to lead a loving life on Earth, and to do what one can to live in peace and to bring light to others, because as you do that, so too will your own life become enlightened and happy.  Living this life solely for the next only makes you die with no reason to continue.  If the only way I can attain further life after I die is to become like the Jerry Falwells or Pat Robertsons of the world, then I would much prefer my eighty years on Earth to an eternity of that.

In short, yes, I would obviously like to continue living after death.  But I am not prepared to sacrifice that which I believe in to attain that.  If it is not something that one may attain as a side benefit or as an inevitability, and if it instead requires a concerted, selfish effort on the part of each individual to achieve it, then I don't want it.  I am uninterested in gaining life while losing my soul.

 

There is plenty of justification for believing in a compassionate God. I personally believe that Christianity may increase if your beliefs were more widely held within the doctrine. I think the point of believing in a benevolent and loving God could empower people to be more self critical and less judgemental (the carrot has proven to be a better incentive than a stick). There is much sense for a popularisation of your point of view of Christianity, not least in the "cost of admission" coming down to an affordable price!

RationalAtheist

I don't really have much to say in response to this other than "yes".  I think you pretty much understand exactly where I'm coming from.  If Jesus were here today, I do not think that those he would rebuke would be those who most think he would rebuke.  The ones whom he loved most were the sinners and the outcasts in the world, instructing everyone to be humble, generous, and kind.  I fear we have utterly lost sight (or perhaps we never even had sight) of the ultimate point of it all.  It's much easier, after all, to urge the world to change while not lifting a single finger oneself than to conclude that it is one's own self that instead ought to change.  Perhaps the hardest thing in the world is to admit one's own error - and I certainly do not say this as if to exclude myself from the group of those to whom this applies.

These early days of Christianity - what dates are you referring to? There is a fascinating 6 part BBC series on the History of Christianity on UK TV at the moment. It shows an incredible amount of structure built into Christianity from the very start.

RationalAtheist

The first one or two hundred years or so.  What I'm mainly talking about is the vast structure of priests, bishops, and so forth, where a small group of people are tasked with the job of understanding the word of God and then to tell everyone else about it, and for everyone else to accept it as laypersons who just do not understand God as the holy men do.  This reached its absolute pinnacle of absurdity in the middle ages when people were quite literally burned at the stake simply for having the intention to bring the Bible into people's native languages rather than forcing everyone to read Latin.  There is no concept that I am aware of in the entire New Testament of the laity as separate from the clergy, nor any such ritual as the ordination of a priest or bishop.

In short, I do not believe that we were ever intended to have the approach that is so prevalent today in which everything is filtered, so to speak, through humans before they reach the masses.  We are all children of God; God is not our great-great grandparent with many degrees of separation between us and him.

It's easy... if one was to only read Ephesians 2:8, misunderstand what "faith" means, and then act as though the rest of the package doesn't even exist.  Which many do, but I would assume you would agree that to do so is not exactly the proper way to read the books in the Bible, considering that they were written as cohesive and concurrent letters, not as individual verses.  For example, if all we need to do is have faith, and if good works don't matter, then why does it say only two verses later that we were "created ... to do good works" (Ephesians 2:10)?

What this is saying, or at least what I believe this is saying, is really that one should not boast about their status or think themselves better than another.  If someone just sits there and sings empty praises to God, then I think it would be rather difficult to claim that that person has anything at all, except perhaps an oversized ego.  This is much in line with a parable that Jesus gave at one point in time:

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)

 

Attainable goals may be complex, yes, but I would still consider it insufficient only to set goals that you know you can attain.  Once you've attained it, then what?  You either then stay complacent where you are, or you set another goal.  But where does this new goal come from, if you don't have a broader, more life-defining goal?

If you don't want to call it a goal because you feel that goals should be attainable, then call them principles or ideals, or something like that - the main idea is just to have something that forms the foundations for what you do and what you aim towards in life, rather than being aimless.

 

You're correct in that the Bible does not truly nail down precisely what love is in any sort of scientifically rigorous fashion, but to be honest I think that this is largely because explaining love to one who does not know what it is is a bit like explaining color to someone who has never seen it before.  No matter how meticulous the explanation gets, it will still never replicate what one receives when one experiences it for themselves.  It is, ultimately, something that one must feel, not be taught.  Someone either loves or someone does not; if someone does not, I'm not going to be able to teach them how to feel empathy and compassion for others.  I can teach them the motions that one who loves might go through, certainly, but going through those motions in no way means that that person truly loves.

And yes, the Bible is long and has a huge variety of tone and content, but what did Jesus say when asked what is the most important commandment in the law?  He responded that it is to love God and to love one's neighbor, and that all of the law and prophets hangs on this command.

I'm going to make a confession that is one of the things that I am sure would cause many or even most Christians to declare me a heretic and not a Christian: I am at most unsure (and generally doubtful) of whether or not I believe that the Bible as we have it today is the divinely inspired word of God from cover to cover, and indeed I do not believe that the writers of the New Testament even claimed as such.  There are really only two verses in the New Testament that would seem to make this assertion: one (2 Timothy 3:16) refers to "scripture", but that word is used universally in the New Testament to refer to the Old Testament; and the other (2 Peter 3:16) comes from a letter that has inspired almost universal agreement among scholars that the one who wrote it is not the one claimed in the letter to have written it.  At one point (1 Corinthians 7:12), Paul even explicitly says that something is not the Lord speaking, which makes me doubly doubtful about the doctrine of divine inspiration.

I tend to regard the Bible more as a collection of writings compiled by humans and written by humans.  I view the Old Testament as largely a collection of stories intended to convey messages, not as a literal historical account.   I view the central figure of the New Testament as a great man whose words carry great truth and wisdom, and about whose teachings many wrote with earnest and thoughtful love in their hearts.  We err, I think, when we assume that if they are not divinely inspired, then they are worthless and that we ought not spend any time on them.  But we equally err, I think, when we obsessively hang on every single word of these writings and refuse to even go to the supermarket before we consult with what they say.  The love of God exists in our hearts, not in the pages of a book.

Was Jesus divine?  Was he resurrected after his crucifixion?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I don't claim to know with any certainty the answers to such questions, but I also don't consider such questions of paramount importance, myself.  Perhaps they might be if one were selfish and were following Jesus only because one believes that in doing so will bring about self-gain, but Jesus' teachings center around how one ought to live, not what one ought to believe.

  

Of course I'm bothered by it.  I don't think anyone who appreciates their time on Earth could truthfully claim that they're not.  I enjoy life on Earth, and I would like to believe that life could continue after our time on Earth.  And I obviously would additionally like to believe that I will see those I love again after they die.  But at the same time, getting to such a place is, nonetheless, not my ultimate goal.  If I made that my goal in life, then I would have to abandon my goals here on Earth, and what good then would that be?  If I could continue to live after my death, then so much the better - and I would certainly not turn it down - but I do not want to lose my reason to enjoy life in my pursuit of life.

I personally feel that the best thing that one can do is to lead a loving life on Earth, and to do what one can to live in peace and to bring light to others, because as you do that, so too will your own life become enlightened and happy.  Living this life solely for the next only makes you die with no reason to continue.  If the only way I can attain further life after I die is to become like the Jerry Falwells or Pat Robertsons of the world, then I would much prefer my eighty years on Earth to an eternity of that.

In short, yes, I would obviously like to continue living after death.  But I am not prepared to sacrifice that which I believe in to attain that.  If it is not something that one may attain as a side benefit or as an inevitability, and if it instead requires a concerted, selfish effort on the part of each individual to achieve it, then I don't want it.  I am uninterested in gaining life while losing my soul.

 

I don't really have much to say in response to this other than "yes".  I think you pretty much understand exactly where I'm coming from.  If Jesus were here today, I do not think that those he would rebuke would be those who most think he would rebuke.  The ones whom he loved most were the sinners and the outcasts in the world, instructing everyone to be humble, generous, and kind.  I fear we have utterly lost sight (or perhaps we never even had sight) of the ultimate point of it all.  It's much easier, after all, to urge the world to change while not lifting a single finger oneself than to conclude that it is one's own self that instead ought to change.  Perhaps the hardest thing in the world is to admit one's own error - and I certainly do not say this as if to exclude myself from the group of those to whom this applies.

 

The first one or two hundred years or so.  What I'm mainly talking about is the vast structure of priests, bishops, and so forth, where a small group of people are tasked with the job of understanding the word of God and then to tell everyone else about it, and for everyone else to accept it as laypersons who just do not understand God as the holy men do.  This reached its absolute pinnacle of absurdity in the middle ages when people were quite literally burned at the stake simply for having the intention to bring the Bible into people's native languages rather than forcing everyone to read Latin.  There is no concept that I am aware of in the entire New Testament of the laity as separate from the clergy, nor any such ritual as the ordination of a priest or bishop.

In short, I do not believe that we were ever intended to have the approach that is so prevalent today in which everything is filtered, so to speak, through humans before they reach the masses.  We are all children of God; God is not our great-great grandparent with many degrees of separation between us and him.

GabuEx

I thought I got Ephesians 2:8-10 inclusive in my interpretation!

Just because people can attain goals - it does not mean that they will. I think we are talking at cross-purposes in defining and reaching goals and human desires within the human condition. All I'm suggesting is that asking the impossible is not as good as trying to understand your limits, when defining personal objectives. 

Early Christianity was built on top of the previous religion - the oldest church in Rome is built right on top of a temple to Mithras. The early Eastern Christians used heavy symbology, ceremony and added music to worship and previous ritual. Once again, I agree about the needless heirachy and religious employees (and some of their comfortable and well-paid jobs for life). Why does the Church of England have 16 Billion quid invested in shares right now, for example?

The concept of love alone can be sepatated from a notion of a particlar God, since people of different and no faiths say they have experienced it.

Just because people can attain goals - it does not mean that they will. I think we are talking at cross-purposes in defining and reaching goals and human desires within the human condition. All I'm suggesting is that asking the impossible is not as good as trying to understand your limits, when defining personal objectives. 

RationalAtheist

At this point I kind of think we're just arguing semantics.  All that I am saying is that people should have principles or ideals that provide their compulsions in life, rather than aimlessly defining goals with no higher purpose or greater direction.  It's not the end that is important, but rather the journey in its direction that improves one.

Early Christianity was built on top of the previous religion - the oldest church in Rome is built right on top of a temple to Mithras. The early Eastern Christians used heavy symbology, ceremony and added music to worship and previous ritual. Once again, I agree about the needless heirachy and religious employees (and some of their comfortable and well-paid jobs for life). Why does the Church of England have 16 Billion quid invested in shares right now, for example?

RationalAtheist

I have nothing to say but agreement.

The concept of love alone can be sepatated from a notion of a particlar God, since people of different and no faiths say they have experienced it.

RationalAtheist

Never once argued otherwise.