Alien's problems with Christianity

[prgmrdave]

In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5747), Alien mentioned some problems he has with Christianity, to wit:

Yesterday @ 02:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126863#post126863)
Alien:

prgmrdave:


Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you with nothing to say. :smile:

I have been told:

1. God is so perfect that He can't stand to be around any sin whatsoever. God defines goodness, so His perfection is kind of given.

2. The tiniest infraction damns us just as much as the worst imaginable crime.

3. We are not perfect and never can be, but that's our fault because Adam and Eve disobeyed Him a long time ago.

4. We will be subjected to eternal torment for failing to meet an impossible standard and this is perfectly fair because God is so just that He can't help punishing sin and a small infraction is quite fairly punished by infinite torment. (Or, according to some versions, there are differential levels of punishment, though all are eternal). (And "torment" may not be flames and devils with toasting forks, but "merely" separation from God).

5. The only way out of this "catch-22" is to accept a substitutionary punishment that God applied to Himself in the shape of Jesus. That gets us off because God then somehow "sees" us "through" Jesus and therefore doesn't see the sin any more.

6. Some Christians say that salvation is available to all, and some say that God has predetermined who He will save and who He won't and yet others say that everyone will be saved (I'm not too sure if I'm correct about this last one, but its my favorite :smile:).

All this is (mostly*) internally consistent, but doesn't jibe with anything that I would consider intuitively reasonable. Or nice (I'm then told that I am not in a position to judge God).

*(I don't get #5 at all).

Betcha wish you hadn't asked now. :smile:

Over to you.

Just chatting, no arguments. Plenty of other places for that :smile:

[Alien]

:huh: I thought you were going to respond ....

[prgmrdave]

That's the idea, yes :smile: Getting there.

[Alien]

Ah. You were noting, while you gathered your thoughts, that you wanted us to just kick the ideas around rather than engage in argument.

That's cool.

[prgmrdave]

Okay.

First of all, I'm looking to share my understanding, which is necessarily predicated on the existence of God. Assuming His non-existence just leads us into the mass population control you mentioned.

Onward:

1. God is so perfect that He can't stand to be around any sin whatsoever. God defines goodness, so His perfection is kind of given.

God defines goodness, because He sets up the moral standard. This doesn't mean His perfection is a given; His perfection comes from not violating the moral standard.

Can He stand to be around sin? After Adam's disobedience, He walked in the garden to talk with Adam. In the person of Jesus, He was around sin for some thirty years. But, no, He will not allow sin into heaven. He is holy, setting Himself apart from that which rejects Him.

2. The tiniest infraction damns us just as much as the worst imaginable crime.

Imperfect is imperfect. If you can get to heaven after you die even if you've broken the law, what's the point of the law?

3. We are not perfect and never can be, but that's our fault because Adam and Eve disobeyed Him a long time ago.

It's not our fault, but rather our nature. Because of Adam's choice, humankind has become to one degree or another self-seeking and self-serving. Sure, most of us are not absolute devoted hedonists, but each of us at some time or other has put our own interests before God's. I do not believe we bear any guilt, however, until the first moment we do something we know is wrong. But sooner or later we do just that; I don't know anyone who has never done wrong, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

This happens because, since Adam, we are no longer born knowing God; we no longer automatically know what is consistent with God's moral standard and what is not. Even after becoming a follower of Christ, this is not automatic knowledge, but we gain the means to get better at it.

4. We will be subjected to eternal torment for failing to meet an impossible standard and this is perfectly fair because God is so just that He can't help punishing sin and a small infraction is quite fairly punished by infinite torment. (Or, according to some versions, there are differential levels of punishment, though all are eternal). (And "torment" may not be flames and devils with toasting forks, but "merely" separation from God).

You're right; the current standard is impossible.

But it didn't start that way. To begin with, the standard was:

"See that one tree? Don't eat its fruit."

That's it. The whole standard. And it was broken. So it was spelled out in more detail. And that was broken, too.

Yes, it's just. If you break the law, you incur the consequences.

Yes, it's fair. Everyone breaking the same law gets the same consequences.

However, I don't know whether the afterlife-without-God involves "mere" separation or actual "torment", either.

5. The only way out of this "catch-22" is to accept a substitutionary punishment that God applied to Himself in the shape of Jesus. That gets us off because God then somehow "sees" us "through" Jesus and therefore doesn't see the sin any more.

Natch, this is the biggie. There is the idea of atonement, where a debt is satisfied, or repaid. Our willful disobediance puts us in a position of moral debt (doesn't a felon do time to "repay his debt to society"?). When we are born, we are morally neutral -- that is, no debt and no surplus. As soon as we willfully disobey, we are in a debt situation, and we stay that way. How many occurrences of staying under the speed limit will erase one speeding ticket? We can't erase the debt by "doing good"; we have to atone for it somehow. In the case of the speeding ticket, we pay money, generally; the government thereafter considers the debt satisfied. The Hebrews atoned with sacrifices; Christ's death is the last atonement, once for all. The thing is that we have the choice whether or not to accept this atonement. All our moral debt, past, present and future, can be covered. So when we die, either our debt is covered, or it is not. It's not about being punished for any sin no matter how small or large, it's about whether or not we accept the atonement offered on our behalf.

6. Some Christians say that salvation is available to all, and some say that God has predetermined who He will save and who He won't and yet others say that everyone will be saved (I'm not too sure if I'm correct about this last one, but its my favorite ).

Yeah, there is disagreement. People disagree about punctuated equilibrium, too :smile: From my point of view, I have the ability to choose. I don't know if God predetermines my choices, or if He just knows what I will choose, but either way it seems to me that I am choosing, and I bet you feel like you're choosing, too, rather than being some kind of puppet.

As far as everyone being saved (universalism), I don't think that's supportable from the Bible. Somewhere, there has to be a choice, or it really doesn't matter.

Whew.

I hope you'll forgive unclarity, imprecision and inconsistency here. I don't pretend to think I've fully answered your questions, but I hope it's a start. Thanks for letting me take a shot at it.

[Homie]

Good points Alien, and good answears brother prgmrdave.

[Alien]

Hi Dave,thanks for the thoughtful response.

First of all, I'm looking to share my understanding, which is necessarily predicated on the existence of God. Assuming His non-existence just leads us into the mass population control you mentioned.

Right. This discussion is about my problems with the Christian world-view, and if there ain't no God, then there ain't no Christianity, so the whole thing becomes moot.

God defines goodness, because He sets up the moral standard. This doesn't mean His perfection is a given; His perfection comes from not violating the moral standard.

Or is He the moral standard (as I have been told)? When I said "given" I meant that God's morality can't be questioned because He defines morality. In other words, "God does x therefore x is moral" as opposed to "x is moral therefore God does x".

Can He stand to be around sin? After Adam's disobedience, He walked in the garden to talk with Adam. In the person of Jesus, He was around sin for some thirty years. But, no, He will not allow sin into heaven. He is holy, setting Himself apart from that which rejects Him.

This seems reasonable. I have been told that God can't be around sin, but I agree that seems to be contradicted by your examples, as well as God's omnipotence.

Imperfect is imperfect. If you can get to heaven after you die even if you've broken the law, what's the point of the law?

If that's the law, I guess you're right, but it still seems odd. Assuming as you said that God doesn't want sin in heaven (His right I guess), what does He mean by sin? Lets consider a hypothetical "almost perfect" person. Lets say he led a perfect life for seventy odd years, except, somewhere in his thirties, he slipped up once and coveted his neighbor's ass. He immediately realised what he had done and determined never to do it again, and he succeeded for the rest of his life. Now, is he a sinner at the time he dies? And if so why can't he suffer a small punishment (What would be fair for coveting an ass? A $10 fine maybe?) and have it forgiven?

It's not our fault, but rather our nature. Because of Adam's choice, humankind has become to one degree or another self-seeking and self-serving. Sure, most of us are not absolute devoted hedonists, but each of us at some time or other has put our own interests before God's. I do not believe we bear any guilt, however, until the first moment we do something we know is wrong. But sooner or later we do just that; I don't know anyone who has never done wrong, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

This happens because, since Adam, we are no longer born knowing God; we no longer automatically know what is consistent with God's moral standard and what is not. Even after becoming a follower of Christ, this is not automatic knowledge, but we gain the means to get better at it.

"Because of Adams choice ...." Adam managed to disobey God without this, and he also managed it while he did know God quite intimately. So did Adam's disobedience cause us to be sinful, or was he already that way and we inherited it in the normal way?

Yes, it's just. If you break the law, you incur the consequences.

Yes, it's fair. Everyone breaking the same law gets the same consequences.

But .. but ... the penalty is the same for all crimes. Serial killer, bank robber, jaywalker, spitting on the sidewalk .... eternal life without parole!

Natch, this is the biggie. There is the idea of atonement, where a debt is satisfied, or repaid. Our willful disobediance puts us in a position of moral debt (doesn't a felon do time to "repay his debt to society"?). When we are born, we are morally neutral -- that is, no debt and no surplus. As soon as we willfully disobey, we are in a debt situation, and we stay that way. How many occurrences of staying under the speed limit will erase one speeding ticket? We can't erase the debt by "doing good"; we have to atone for it somehow. In the case of the speeding ticket, we pay money, generally; the government thereafter considers the debt satisfied. The Hebrews atoned with sacrifices; Christ's death is the last atonement, once for all. The thing is that we have the choice whether or not to accept this atonement. All our moral debt, past, present and future, can be covered. So when we die, either our debt is covered, or it is not. It's not about being punished for any sin no matter how small or large, it's about whether or not we accept the atonement offered on our behalf.

But where's our chance to pay a small fine for speeding and have it over and done with? Where's our chance to serve a prison term and "pay our debt" for our felonies? Apparently we can't. The only option we have is to allow someone else to suffer on our behalf. That isn't how the law works. Sure, someone can pay my fine for me, but that's effectively the equivalent of giving me some money. We don't allow an innocent third party to serve a prison term on the felon's behalf, or be executed in his place. Where's the justice in that?

Yeah, there is disagreement. People disagree about punctuated equilibrium, too. From my point of view, I have the ability to choose. I don't know if God predetermines my choices, or if He just knows what I will choose, but either way it seems to me that I am choosing, and I bet you feel like you're choosing, too, rather than being some kind of puppet.

Yup. Lets not get into the whole free will thing. Suffice it to say that I define "free will" as what people mean when they say "free will". :smile:

As far as everyone being saved (universalism), I don't think that's supportable from the Bible. Somewhere, there has to be a choice, or it really doesn't matter.

Dang! I liked that one! :frown:

I hope you'll forgive unclarity, imprecision and inconsistency here. I don't pretend to think I've fully answered your questions, but I hope it's a start. Thanks for letting me take a shot at it.

And a really good start too! Thank you. :thumb:

[johnnybanano]

Posted by prgmrdave on 06-19-2003 03:11 PM:
Natch, this is the biggie. There is the idea of atonement, where a debt is satisfied, or repaid. Our willful disobediance puts us in a position of moral debt (doesn't a felon do time to "repay his debt to society"?). When we are born, we are morally neutral -- that is, no debt and no surplus. As soon as we willfully disobey, we are in a debt situation, and we stay that way. How many occurrences of staying under the speed limit will erase one speeding ticket? We can't erase the debt by "doing good"; we have to atone for it somehow. In the case of the speeding ticket, we pay money, generally; the government thereafter considers the debt satisfied. The Hebrews atoned with sacrifices; Christ's death is the last atonement, once for all. The thing is that we have the choice whether or not to accept this atonement. All our moral debt, past, present and future, can be covered. So when we die, either our debt is covered, or it is not. It's not about being punished for any sin no matter how small or large, it's about whether or not we accept the atonement offered on our behalf.


Fantastic explanation in my opinion. Mind if I use it when explaining atonement to others?


Posted by Alien on 06-20-2003 02:38 PM:
Or is He the moral standard (as I have been told)? When I said "given" I meant that God's morality can't be questioned because He defines morality. In other words, "God does x therefore x is moral" as opposed to "x is moral therefore God does x".


This is pretty trivial, but I happen to believe that God probably is the moral standard. I suppose that's kind of like saying that God is justice instead of saying that God is just.


Posted by Alien on 06-20-2003 02:38 PM:
And if so why can't he suffer a small punishment (What would be fair for coveting an ass? A $10 fine maybe?) and have it forgiven?


You have a point here. I don't understand how people who commit different amounts of sin suffer the same amount of punishment...at least not yet. I am working on it. Nevertheless, a lack of understanding on this one point shouldn't keep you from believing in God. There are many saved and do not understand particular processes. The only thing that one needs to understand is that, if they are covered by the atonement of Christ, then they no longer have to pay the $10 fine.


Posted by Alien on 06-20-2003 02:38 PM:
We don't allow an innocent third party to serve a prison term on the felon's behalf, or be executed in his place. Where's the justice in that?


Exactly, Will C Drotar, I believe it was, made an awesome post on this arguing the divinity of Christ. He said that Jesus had to be God, because it would be unjust for God to impute the punishment of sin on to someone who did not deserve it. Much in the same way it would still be wrong for me to shoot you even if you asked me to do it, it would have been wrong for God to impute the punishment of sin on to Jesus if he was innocent, even if he volunteered. However, the price had to be paid. So God decided that he would pay the price for us. God became man and died, taking on our punishment for us. It was not unjust because it was to God that we owed the punishment so justice was in his hands. It was up to him to decide what would be a just punishment........Wow, I have a feeling that I may have just contradicted myself. That tends to happen a lot. I am going to think and pray about this and I will try to get back on this again.

In the meantime, if your only problems w/ Christianity are trivial issues that many Christians debate amongst themselves, that shouldn't stop you from accepting the atonement that Jesus made from you. You don't have to understand it first. In fact, the Scripture says that you can't.

1 Corinthians 2:14(NIV)
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Hope to have helped,

Love and Respect

[India]

I don't understand how people who commit different amounts of sin suffer the same amount of punishment...at least not yet.

There are degrees of punishment in hell - see http://www.rationalchristianity.net/hell.html#degree

No argument by weblink India. Naughty naughty

[The Laughing Man]

Alien:

But .. but ... the penalty is the same for all crimes. Serial killer, bank robber, jaywalker, spitting on the sidewalk .... eternal life without parole!

Yes, absolutely. Look at it this way: God is eternal and infinitely just, holy, righteous, good, etc. In light of His eternal-ness and infinite attributes, what difference to Him is there in what some humans arbitrarily judge as a "minor crime" compared to a "major crime?"

[prgmrdave]

06-20-2003 @ 12:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=128987#post128987)
Alien:

Or is He the moral standard (as I have been told)? When I said "given" I meant that God's morality can't be questioned because He defines morality. In other words, "God does x therefore x is moral" as opposed to "x is moral therefore God does x".

God's morality certainly can be questioned. We wonder all the time why people do things, and God has absolutely no problem with our being curious about why He does things the way He does, either. Perhaps this isn't the sense you meant it :smile:

Can His morality be doubted? Surely -- we do that all the time, too, when we second-guess people. Again, God has no problem with this. We are supposed to be curious, questioning people, not mindless slaves.

However, I suspect we might be talking about evaluating God's moral standard. We run into trouble here, because in order to evaluate one standard, you have to have another to compare it to. Obviously, if God does something you like, you don't spend much time justifying it or attacking it. But if God does something you don't like, what standard do you appeal to to call it "wrong"? This is where we wind up when trying to follow "x is moral therefore God does x".

Now, the other direction, "God does x therefore x is moral" has been taken by some to be a "might makes right" notion. Well, yeah. Governments do it all the time, passing city ordinances and federal laws. The question is not whether "might makes right" is OK, but whether God is whimsical and capricious with His power and authority. Is He unreliable? Does He act in ways that are at odds with what He has said He will do? Does He mete out consequences to us that are inappropriate to our choices? (This last one can be tough to answer without a pretty broad perspective :smile:)

If that's the law, I guess you're right, but it still seems odd. Assuming as you said that God doesn't want sin in heaven (His right I guess), what does He mean by sin?

Sin boils down to putting your own interests and desires ahead of God's. It's what Adam did in the Garden: "My desire to know good and evil like God overrides His command not to eat from that tree, no matter how good His reasons might have been for commanding it." It's what we do every time we exceed the speed limit: "I'm in a hurry, my wife's gonna kill me if I don't get home soon, nobody's on the road anyway, etc."

Lets consider a hypothetical "almost perfect" person. Lets say he led a perfect life for seventy odd years, except, somewhere in his thirties, he slipped up once and coveted his neighbor's ass. He immediately realised what he had done and determined never to do it again, and he succeeded for the rest of his life. Now, is he a sinner at the time he dies? And if so why can't he suffer a small punishment (What would be fair for coveting an ass? A $10 fine maybe?) and have it forgiven?

It's not the action that's important, it's the state of heart that leads to the action. All it took was one time for this man to show that he's as capable as the rest of us of putting his own desires ahead of God's willingness to provide for his needs.

"Because of Adams choice ...." Adam managed to disobey God without this, and he also managed it while he did know God quite intimately. So did Adam's disobedience cause us to be sinful, or was he already that way and we inherited it in the normal way?

I think this is an interesting idea. There definitely seems to be a difference in Adam's choice versus ours. You bring up a good point in that Adam didn't have the "excuse" of a self-seeking nature -- so he got one. But as Jim Eisele is fond of pointing out, it's definitely Adam's choice that caused us to have a self-seeking nature.

But .. but ... the penalty is the same for all crimes. Serial killer, bank robber, jaywalker, spitting on the sidewalk .... eternal life without parole!

It isn't the action that's being judged, it's the heart. In the end, the question is, what did we do with the knowledge we had of God? Did we accept it and seek to learn more? Did we reject it out of hand? The "crime" is the same in all cases -- seeking self instead of God. Some pursue self more diligently than others, and there is some indication that the afterlife-ly consequences might be different.

But where's our chance to pay a small fine for speeding and have it over and done with? Where's our chance to serve a prison term and "pay our debt" for our felonies?

Because paying the debt this way doesn't change the fundamental nature we have to seek our own interests/desires instead of God's. Fines and prison terms exist not to sadistically inflict pain and discomfort on us, but to teach us that choices have consequences, and good choices have better consequences than bad choices.

Apparently we can't. The only option we have is to allow someone else to suffer on our behalf. That isn't how the law works. Sure, someone can pay my fine for me, but that's effectively the equivalent of giving me some money. We don't allow an innocent third party to serve a prison term on the felon's behalf, or be executed in his place. Where's the justice in that?

There is nothing to say we couldn't pass a law allowing one person to serve time on another's behalf, but beyond that, there is no innocent third party. Certainly, there would be people who had not committed the felon's particular crime, but they have their own mistakes to account for. And .

The criminal justice system is about teaching us to take responsibility for our actions (sez Adam: "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." :doh:), and so thinking ahead about consequences and making right choices. It's not about changing who we fundamentally are.

Thanks for keeping me questioning! :smile:

[Alien]

johnnybanano: Exactly, Will C Drotar, I believe it was, made an awesome post on this arguing the divinity of Christ. He said that Jesus had to be God, because it would be unjust for God to impute the punishment of sin on to someone who did not deserve it. Much in the same way it would still be wrong for me to shoot you even if you asked me to do it, it would have been wrong for God to impute the punishment of sin on to Jesus if he was innocent, even if he volunteered. However, the price had to be paid. So God decided that he would pay the price for us. God became man and died, taking on our punishment for us. It was not unjust because it was to God that we owed the punishment so justice was in his hands. It was up to him to decide what would be a just punishment........Wow, I have a feeling that I may have just contradicted myself. That tends to happen a lot. I am going to think and pray about this and I will try to get back on this again.

"The price had to be paid". The sinner owes the "price" to God. The only two parties involved are the sinner and God, so, as you say it is wrong to involve a third party. For the sinner to pay is perfectly straightforward and understandable. Once we move beyond this, it gets more complicated. If we are talking about a debt that is analogous to a fine or a civil debt then God is just paying Himself, which nets out to a zero movement of "money", which is the equivalent of simple forgiveness (that is, God simply forgives the debt, He doesn't need to take money out of His bank account then put it back again). If we are talking about a punishment that is applied to someone, like a prison sentence or some kind of corporal punishment, then it gets more complicated. What do we compare God to in this case? The judge? A human judge is a third party that simply applies the law. It would be as wrong for a judge to punish himself as for him to punish some innocent third party. The victim? God can't be hurt by sin, but maybe we can say He is offended by it. We still wouldn't punish the victim, that would be worse than punishing a third party. Is the analogy "society"? We often say that a criminal "pays his debt to society". I'm not sure that is any different from "victim".

To sum up, if I have committed a crime, then in justice, the only person that can pay the "price" is me. That's what I've gotten out of my ramblings anyway. The only alternative is simple forgiveness. The judge/creditor/victim can certainly demand something as a condition of such forgiveness, repentance being an obvious example. But God's punishing Himself doesn't seem to add anything to this.

(Before challenging my use of "money", "bank account", "judge", "victim", etc, please realise that I am thrashing around with human analogies, in an attempt to make sense of this. If it doesn't make sense in human terms, then maybe we need to retreat to "we can't understand God's motivations", but that simply ends the discussion, and we need to stop pretending that there is a justification for this that can be stated in human terms.)

In the meantime, if your only problems w/ Christianity are trivial issues that many Christians debate amongst themselves, that shouldn't stop you from accepting the atonement that Jesus made from you. You don't have to understand it first. In fact, the Scripture says that you can't.

Unfortunately, these are not my only problems. The biggie is, of course, that I don't believe there is a God in the first place. So, this might be more accurately titled "What Alien's problems with Christianity might be if he believed in God and believed that God was as Christians claim Him to be". :smile: That said, I don't consider that these questions should be considered to be trivial by a Christian. How can you worship a God when you have a sneaking feeling that He is unjust and/or unreasonable? I would certainly want to resolve these issues to my own satisfaction if I were a Christian.

[Alien]

Jinx72: Yes, absolutely. Look at it this way: God is eternal and infinitely just, holy, righteous, good, etc. In light of His eternal-ness and infinite attributes, what difference to Him is there in what some humans arbitrarily judge as a "minor crime" compared to a "major crime?"

Hi Jinx,

Are you saying that we are so dumb compared to God that we should just button it and do as we are told? If so, we really can't discuss anything. We can't even decide for ourselves that He is "eternal and infinitely just, holy, righteous, good, etc". We can only accept that He tells us that He is all those things.

What difference to Him? As much as He wants to make of it, I suppose. If He thinks I am wrong then no doubt He will ignore what I think.

Human judgements about the relative seriousness of crimes are not "arbitrary" though. Laws and punishments have been worked out over centuries with certain aims in mind, and refined as they either work or don't work to achieve those ends. When I note that jaywalking is considered to be minor and serial killing is considered to be major by our carefully thought out and tested system of law, but God thinks they are just the same, then yeah, I'm going to question it!

[Alien]

Hi Dave,

I was replying to a couple of other posts as yours came in, so there may be some overlap. :smile:

prgmrdave: However, I suspect we might be talking about evaluating God's moral standard. We run into trouble here, because in order to evaluate one standard, you have to have another to compare it to. Obviously, if God does something you like, you don't spend much time justifying it or attacking it. But if God does something you don't like, what standard do you appeal to to call it "wrong"? This is where we wind up when trying to follow "x is moral therefore God does x".

Yup, thats what I'm talking about.

I'm hesitant about getting into the well worn discussion about subjective versus objective morality, but as it applies here I'll give my opinion. There is a basic subjective element to all moral systems. It is what the proponent considers to be "good"*. This applies to God just as much as it does to us. Once this basis is established, all moral rules that follow can be considered objective, in the sense that they can be externally evaluated for how well they (if followed) cause "goodness" to come about. God, by virtue of His omniscience, must be much better at formulating the rules than we are. His omniscience cannot make his determination of "goodness" any more objective than anyone else's, as it is determined by His nature, just as our's is (in other words, there is nothing external to God that he can know about "goodness"). In short, He behaves according to His nature and so do we.

So, I would say that neither God nor I have an external standard to appeal to. As a matter of fact, this applies whether I agree with God's actions or not. Obviously if I agree I don't have a lot to think about, but the principle is the same.

*(You can do a mental test to discover your own subjective basis for morality. Take anything you consider to be morally right or wrong, like unselfishness or murder. Ask yourself what makes that good or bad. When you have the answer to that, ask what makes that good or bad. Keep going until you are forced to say "Well, that's just how I feel". The last reason is your subjective moral basis. It could be something like "It's bad to hurt others". Don't give up too easily, though. There's often an underlying reason for what seems at first to be the final answer. :smile:).

Now, the other direction, "God does x therefore x is moral" has been taken by some to be a "might makes right" notion. Well, yeah. Governments do it all the time, passing city ordinances and federal laws. The question is not whether "might makes right" is OK, but whether God is whimsical and capricious with His power and authority. Is He unreliable? Does He act in ways that are at odds with what He has said He will do? Does He mete out consequences to us that are inappropriate to our choices? (This last one can be tough to answer without a pretty broad perspective :smile:)

Might does not make right. It does enforce compliance. I would say that the absence of capriciousness does not imply "right". A human dictator could have some thoroughly nasty rules, be perfectly up front about them and apply them consistently. Your last point goes to the question of whether it is fair to mete out eternal punishment for minor sins. Do you think it is?

Sin boils down to putting your own interests and desires ahead of God's.

Why is that wrong?

It's not the action that's important, it's the state of heart that leads to the action. All it took was one time for this man to show that he's as capable as the rest of us of putting his own desires ahead of God's willingness to provide for his needs.

But this hypothetical almost-perfect man has changed the state of his heart. He noted his sin and determined never to repeat it. He spent the rest of his life without sinning. He will never sin again because he remembers that one time. He has improved himself as a result of his one lapse. I repeat, is he still a sinner in the eyes of God? Does he get into heaven?

(Its like the guy that got sand kicked in his face. He went and pumped iron and now he's big and strong. Do you judge his strength by how it was when he was a kickee?)

Because paying the debt this way doesn't change the fundamental nature we have to seek our own interests/desires instead of God's.

It seems that we are being punished for what we are rather than what we do. I would be less concerned if there was a level of effort that could be rewarded with heaven. But there isn't.

Fines and prison terms exist not to sadistically inflict pain and discomfort on us, but to teach us that choices have consequences, and good choices have better consequences than bad choices.

Yes. Human punishment (ideally) aims at reform. Do you see any element of reform in the concept of hell?

There is nothing to say we couldn't pass a law allowing one person to serve time on another's behalf, but beyond that, there is no innocent third party. Certainly, there would be people who had not committed the felon's particular crime, but they have their own mistakes to account for.

I would say that such a law would be unconstitutional, but thats as maybe. Aren't we talking about Jesus, though, who was innocent?

The criminal justice system is about teaching us to take responsibility for our actions (sez Adam: "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." ), and so thinking ahead about consequences and making right choices. It's not about changing who we fundamentally are.

I'm confused. I thought you were talking about reform when you spoke of teaching us that good choices have better consequences than bad choices. That's what re-form means, changing our nature. And we can do it, albeit imperfectly.

Thanks for keeping me questioning! :smile:

You are most welcome! Thank you for taking your time on what must be very basic stuff. :smile:

[prgmrdave]

Hi, Alien--

As we go forward, I need to point out that at this point, I am trying to help you understand (what I see as) the Christian point of view. At the moment, I am not really trying to justify it, nor am I trying to convince you that it should be your worldview, too. (Not that I will become upset if it does, of course! :smile) So none of the shoulds or should-nots that appear here ought to be taken as applying to you, necessarily. With that out of the way:

06-25-2003 @ 01:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132539#post132539)
Alien:

I'm hesitant about getting into the well worn discussion about subjective versus objective morality, but as it applies here I'll give my opinion. There is a basic subjective element to all moral systems. It is what the proponent considers to be "good"*. This applies to God just as much as it does to us. Once this basis is established, all moral rules that follow can be considered objective, in the sense that they can be externally evaluated for how well they (if followed) cause "goodness" to come about. God, by virtue of His omniscience, must be much better at formulating the rules than we are. His omniscience cannot make his determination of "goodness" any more objective than anyone else's, as it is determined by His nature, just as our's is (in other words, there is nothing external to God that he can know about "goodness"). In short, He behaves according to His nature and so do we.

Is God, therefore, incapable of perfectly knowing His own nature? If He knows His own nature perfectly, how is this different from an objective morality?

So, I would say that neither God nor I have an external standard to appeal to. As a matter of fact, this applies whether I agree with God's actions or not. Obviously if I agree I don't have a lot to think about, but the principle is the same.[/quote]

You surely have external standards to appeal to. Mine, for example :teeth: What I say, goes. :teeth: Seriously, I can make a list of what is "right" and what is "wrong", and you can follow it, or not. That list is external to you. You can also follow (or not) the city government's right-and-wrong list, the state's, the nation's, or God's. Those all are external to you. (Yes, once you decide to follow a standard, a subjective interpretation begins to apply. But that doesn't make the standard subjective, because it means what its author wants it to mean regardless of how you interpret it.)

*(You can do a mental test to discover your own subjective basis for morality. Take anything you consider to be morally right or wrong, like unselfishness or murder. Ask yourself what makes that good or bad. When you have the answer to that, ask what makes that good or bad. Keep going until you are forced to say "Well, that's just how I feel". The last reason is your subjective moral basis. It could be something like "It's bad to hurt others". Don't give up too easily, though. There's often an underlying reason for what seems at first to be the final answer. :smile:).

Might does not make right. It does enforce compliance. I would say that the absence of capriciousness does not imply "right". A human dictator could have some thoroughly nasty rules, be perfectly up front about them and apply them consistently. Your last point goes to the question of whether it is fair to mete out eternal punishment for minor sins. Do you think it is?

"Fair" is an unfair word to use :smile:, because fairness is dependent on a subjective point of view. (OT: I've never heard any of my children say, "Hey, I got candy and he didn't! That's not fair! :smile:) It doesn't matter whether it's fair until we know whether or not it's right.

We're still talking about "is x moral because God does x" vs. "Does God do x because x is moral." This is also known as Euthyphro (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html)'s Dilemma, and I'm still working through answers to it. For the purpose of our discussion, I will submit that I believe that no standard external to God is required for His commands to be moral. I'll be able to discuss this more as I learn more.

Why is [placing my own desires ahead of God's] wrong?

It's wrong because it makes God out to be less than fully-capable of seeing to my needs. It's me saying, "I know better than God does what's best for me," or else, "I know what I'm supposed to do, but that's less fun/less convenient/etc. than what I want to do, so I'm going to do what I want."

But this hypothetical almost-perfect man has changed the state of his heart. He noted his sin and determined never to repeat it. He spent the rest of his life without sinning. He will never sin again because he remembers that one time. He has improved himself as a result of his one lapse. I repeat, is he still a sinner in the eyes of God? Does he get into heaven?

Adam was a man who began his life fully connected, spiritually, with God. His choice to disobey changed his nature and ours. We come into existence spiritually stillborn as a result of that choice. What you are describing is a man who has spiritually resurrected himself. If such a thing were hypothetically possible, then, yes, he would get into heaven. But we don't believe this is possible. Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by Me," and Paul said, "[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

(Its like the guy that got sand kicked in his face. He went and pumped iron and now he's big and strong. Do you judge his strength by how it was when he was a kickee?)

No, but I think the parallel between physical strength and moral strength is a little stretched.

It seems that we are being punished for what we are rather than what we do. I would be less concerned if there was a level of effort that could be rewarded with heaven. But there isn't.

Suppose there were such a level. What would happen with people incapable of meeting the level, for physical, psychological, or spiritual reasons? But I think you know what I believe the level of effort is.

Human punishment (ideally) aims at reform. Do you see any element of reform in the concept of hell?

No, because human punishment already has that aim.

I would say that such a law would be unconstitutional, but thats as maybe. Aren't we talking about Jesus, though, who was innocent?

:smile: It almost sounds as if you're making Jesus' atonement unconstitutional...

I'm confused. I thought you were talking about reform when you spoke of teaching us that good choices have better consequences than bad choices. That's what re-form means, changing our nature. And we can do it, albeit imperfectly.

I'd say that what we learn from the consequences of our choices changes our habits, but not our nature, which I think is borne out by your statement that we can't change our nature (or habits) perfectly.

Thank you for taking your time on what must be very basic stuff. :smile:

Some of this is not at all basic, such as the question of the grounding of God's morality. I appreciate the stretching, very much! :smile:

[Alien]

Hi Dave,

As we go forward, I need to point out that at this point, I am trying to help you understand (what I see as) the Christian point of view. At the moment, I am not really trying to justify it, nor am I trying to convince you that it should be your worldview, too. (Not that I will become upset if it does, of course! :smile) So none of the shoulds or should-nots that appear here ought to be taken as applying to you, necessarily. With that out of the way:

Understood.

You surely have external standards to appeal to. Mine, for example :teeth: What I say, goes.:teeth:

Well then, expect an Email from me everytime I have to make a moral decision! I hope you can reply quickly, as some of these will be quite urgent. :teeth:

Seriously, I can make a list of what is "right" and what is "wrong", and you can follow it, or not. That list is external to you. You can also follow (or not) the city government's right-and-wrong list, the state's, the nation's, or God's. Those all are external to you. (Yes, once you decide to follow a standard, a subjective interpretation begins to apply. But that doesn't make the standard subjective, because it means what its author wants it to mean regardless of how you interpret it.)

I think you have misunderstood what I mean by "external" as applied to an objective morality. A subjective morality would be one which is defined by a person's thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. In other words, things that are "internal" to the person and dependant only on those feelings. Two people can have different subjective moralities and there is no logical conflict because they are both "right" in the sense that each morality correctly reflects how its possessor feels. Writing one of them down doesn't make it objective, it just records it.

So what would an objective morality be? Let's take an example of something that certainly is objective, gravity. I can form any opinion in my mind that I wish about how gravity operates, but the objective fact of gravity is unaltered. I can decide that I can float in the air, but if I step off a cliff I still end up at the bottom of the cliff, not floating in the air. So, for an objective morality we would be looking for something that can refute or confirm our ideas about morality by reference to something external to our feelings, as we did with gravity. I'm not sure what this might be. Being punished by society or God is not the example I am looking for, as that is simply someone more powerful enforcing their/His morality on us.

Is God, therefore, incapable of perfectly knowing His own nature? If He knows His own nature perfectly, how is this different from an objective morality?

I'm sure God knows His own nature perfectly. In principle, we could know our natures perfectly too, though in practice we don't. This does not produce objectivity, however, which can be easily demonstrated. Imagine two beings that knew their own natures perfectly, but their moralities differed. They could both write or state their moralities and these would be different. As we can't have two different objective moralities, then knowing one's own nature perfectly does not equate to an objective morality.


"Fair" is an unfair word to use , because fairness is dependent on a subjective point of view. (OT: I've never heard any of my children say, "Hey, I got candy and he didn't! That's not fair! ) It doesn't matter whether it's fair until we know whether or not it's right.

OK. Is it right then?

We're still talking about "is x moral because God does x" vs. "Does God do x because x is moral." This is also known as Euthyphro's Dilemma, and I'm still working through answers to it. For the purpose of our discussion, I will submit that I believe that no standard external to God is required for His commands to be moral. I'll be able to discuss this more as I learn more.

God's standards are certainly subjectively moral (to Him). I await your argument for why they are objectively moral, if that's where you are going. :smile:

What you are describing is a man who has spiritually resurrected himself. If such a thing were hypothetically possible, then, yes, he would get into heaven.

Ah, good, that's what I was getting at. This whole line of discussion started when you said: "There is the idea of atonement, where a debt is satisfied, or repaid. Our willful disobediance puts us in a position of moral debt (doesn't a felon do time to "repay his debt to society"?). When we are born, we are morally neutral -- that is, no debt and no surplus. As soon as we willfully disobey, we are in a debt situation, and we stay that way. How many occurrences of staying under the speed limit will erase one speeding ticket? We can't erase the debt by "doing good"; we have to atone for it somehow." It seems that we have agreed that there is at least one way that atonement can be avoided, that being a successful change of character by the sinner.

Suppose there were such a level. What would happen with people incapable of meeting the level, for physical, psychological, or spiritual reasons? But I think you know what I believe the level of effort is.

I guess I mean a reasonably attainable level, based on how we are. I would perhaps ask for some help from God for those that couldn't make it.

I asked: Human punishment (ideally) aims at reform. Do you see any element of reform in the concept of hell?
And you replied: No, because human punishment already has that aim.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

I'd say that what we learn from the consequences of our choices changes our habits, but not our nature, which I think is borne out by your statement that we can't change our nature (or habits) perfectly.

But can we change them at all? Habits, certainly. Nature? It depends what you mean by nature I guess. If you repent of some tendency to do something wrong and thereafter never (or to a lesser degree) do that thing, then has your nature changed? We only have your actions to judge you by. Does it matter what we call it? I don't know.

Some of this is not at all basic, such as the question of the grounding of God's morality. I appreciate the stretching, very much!:smile:

And I'm enjoying this discussion very much. :cheers:

[prgmrdave]

Hi, Alien--

06-30-2003 @ 12:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136050#post136050)
Alien:

Well then, expect an Email from me everytime I have to make a moral decision! I hope you can reply quickly, as some of these will be quite urgent. :teeth:

As long as you're OK with the decisions I make, given that I make them based on what I see as an external, objective moral standard. :teeth: More below:

I think you have misunderstood what I mean by "external" as applied to an objective morality. A subjective morality would be one which is defined by a person's thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. In other words, things that are "internal" to the person and dependant only on those feelings. Two people can have different subjective moralities and there is no logical conflict because they are both "right" in the sense that each morality correctly reflects how its possessor feels. Writing one of them down doesn't make it objective, it just records it.

Writing one of them down (mine, natch :smile:) surely makes it objective, because the piece of paper is immune to my feelings. If I change my mind, the words on the paper do not maintain synchronization.

So what would an objective morality be? Let's take an example of something that certainly is objective, gravity. I can form any opinion in my mind that I wish about how gravity operates, but the objective fact of gravity is unaltered. I can decide that I can float in the air, but if I step off a cliff I still end up at the bottom of the cliff, not floating in the air. So, for an objective morality we would be looking for something that can refute or confirm our ideas about morality by reference to something external to our feelings, as we did with gravity. I'm not sure what this might be. Being punished by society or God is not the example I am looking for, as that is simply someone more powerful enforcing their/His morality on us.

And the piece of paper, along with the words recorded thereupon, are objective -- they exist regardless of our feelings and perceptions.

From your/my point of view, governments' laws are objective. No feelings one way or the other can sway the fact of their existence. Sure, they can be changed, but then the new laws are factually, objectively extant.

I'm sure God knows His own nature perfectly. In principle, we could know our natures perfectly too, though in practice we don't. This does not produce objectivity, however, which can be easily demonstrated. Imagine two beings that knew their own natures perfectly, but their moralities differed. They could both write or state their moralities and these would be different. As we can't have two different objective moralities, then knowing one's own nature perfectly does not equate to an objective morality.

If I understand your definition of subjective, we ceertainly can have two different objective moralities, as long as each is not subject to our own thoughts/feelings/etc. I grant that this does not establish that knowing one's own nature perfectly equates to an objective morality.

But beyond that, you appear to be looking for an absolute morality. Why? I think it is so that you can be certain that a given action is irrefutably evaluated correctly. I think an absolutely objective moral standard (one that is external to and uninfluenced by the feelings of any conceivable being) is either impossible (infinite regression) or unnecessary (it being sufficient that God's moral standard for us, wheresoever it derives, is external to and therefore objective with respect to each of us humans).

OK. Is [meting out eternal punishment for minor sins] right then?

:teeth: Not going there. Clearly, we need to agree on a common moral standard (yours, mine, TIPU's, or God's) before we can agree whether it's right or not.

God's standards are certainly subjectively moral (to Him). I await your argument for why they are objectively moral, if that's where you are going. :smile:

As God's standards are external to us and uninfluenced by our thoughts and feelings, to us they are objective.

Ah, good, that's what I was getting at. This whole line of discussion started when you said: "There is the idea of atonement, where a debt is satisfied, or repaid. Our willful disobediance puts us in a position of moral debt (doesn't a felon do time to "repay his debt to society"?). When we are born, we are morally neutral -- that is, no debt and no surplus. As soon as we willfully disobey, we are in a debt situation, and we stay that way. How many occurrences of staying under the speed limit will erase one speeding ticket? We can't erase the debt by "doing good"; we have to atone for it somehow." It seems that we have agreed that there is at least one way that atonement can be avoided, that being a successful change of character by the sinner.

And the Christian view is that such a change in nature is impossible. We don't hold that Christ's atonement was only for those unable to make it on their own; rather, that all have sinned [put self before God] and fall short of the glory of God.

I guess I mean a reasonably attainable level, based on how we are. I would perhaps ask for some help from God for those that couldn't make it.

In Christianity, there is a level of effort (so to speak) that is rewarded with heaven -- I put forth this effort when I acknowledged that I'm incapable of saving myself and accepted Christ's atonement on my behalf.

Could you explain what you mean by [human punishment already having the aim of reform]?

God allows us to experience the consequences of our decisions while we are still alive (i.e. alive on the earth). Once we've died, there's no more opportunity to learn from our mistakes and change the way we behave.

But can we change them at all? Habits, certainly. Nature? It depends what you mean by nature I guess. If you repent of some tendency to do something wrong and thereafter never (or to a lesser degree) do that thing, then has your nature changed? We only have your actions to judge you by. Does it matter what we call it? I don't know.

Suppose I break the speed limit one time. I then repent, saying I will never ever do it again, not even a little bit. Can I really be sure that there is no circumstance anywhere that would result in my (a) desiring to break the speed limit and (b) following through with that desire?

Make a list of everything you've ever done that goes against God's moral standard. (If you do this, I will, too, and that's a promise :thumb:) Now declare that you will not only never do any of them ever again, but you will also not break the moral standard in any other way. Are you sure that no circumstance ever would cause you to break the moral standard?

This sounds like an impossible task, to me. You have mentioned in other places having a problem with all the guilt a Christian must feel for breaking God's standards. Yeah, the feeling is there. But I know that because of Christ's atonement, my failures are not held against me any longer. Whatever wrong I have done or might do, Christ has already atoned for, leaving me free to correct my bad habits and deepen my knowledge of and relationship with my Father. That's why I have the verse I do in my signature.

And I'm enjoying this discussion very much. :cheers:

As am I. I'm looking forward to your reply; thanks for being patient for mine.

[Alien]

Hi Dave,

(I think I'm starting to argue certain points rather than just kick them around and note what you say about your Christian viewpoint, so I'm dropping lines of discussion where you have made clear statements that I understand.)

But beyond that, you appear to be looking for an absolute morality. Why? I think it is so that you can be certain that a given action is irrefutably evaluated correctly. I think an absolutely objective moral standard (one that is external to and uninfluenced by the feelings of any conceivable being) is either impossible (infinite regression) or unnecessary (it being sufficient that God's moral standard for us, wheresoever it derives, is external to and therefore objective with respect to each of us humans).

We seem to be wanting to use different words here, so rather than pursue it further, I'll accept your use of "absolute morality" as what I'm referring to. And seriously, I thought that God's morality was considered to be that (absolute) by Christians. I agree that such a thing is impossible (but why infinite regression?). That said, why is it sufficient that God's morality is external to us? By the same token, my morality is external to Him and yours is to mine and everyone's is to everyone else. So why should we choose God's morality over yours or mine or anyone else's?

In Christianity, there is a level of effort (so to speak) that is rewarded with heaven -- I put forth this effort when I acknowledged that I'm incapable of saving myself and accepted Christ's atonement on my behalf.

I used to think that was the easy option. Well, I still think its easier than living up to God's standards :smile: but its not like a "get out of jail free" card, is it? I've been discussing this with a friend lately and in the process I've tried to imagine what it would take for me to do that. I'll list the stumbling blocks:

1. Because I think God's standard is unreasonably high (indeed impossible) for us, I can't generate a lot of guilt about not meeting it. Oh, I feel guilty about some things I have done, where I have broken my own moral rules, but otherwise it seems like asking a chihuahau to jump a ten foot wall, then expecting it to feel guilty when it can't. In other words I find it difficult to see myself as a hopeless sinner.

2. The next kind of follows - repentance for things that I don't feel all that bad about. Difficult.

3. As I've mentioned, I have a problem with the concept of substitutionary atonement. I almost want to say to Jesus: "Thanks a lot for what you did, but I never asked you to do it and I sort of wish you hadn't because I think its unfair to you to be punished for what I did".

All in all, its not easy to become a Christian, I've decided! :smile:

This sounds like an impossible task, to me. You have mentioned in other places having a problem with all the guilt a Christian must feel for breaking God's standards. Yeah, the feeling is there. But I know that because of Christ's atonement, my failures are not held against me any longer. Whatever wrong I have done or might do, Christ has already atoned for, leaving me free to correct my bad habits and deepen my knowledge of and relationship with my Father. That's why I have the verse I do in my signature.

Of course its impossible, I can't remember everything I've done for a start, and would have problems categorising them correctly even if I did. Your point is made though.

What I said about having a problem with guilt was, as far as I remember, what I have said above - I would have a problem feeling particularly guilty about most of the things I've done. I guess Christians just hold themselves to a higher standard than I do. :smile:

As am I. I'm looking forward to your reply; thanks for being patient for mine.

Take your time. I've gotten very busy at work lately and haven't been responding as quickly myself. Also, feel free to say if you think we're coming to the end of this.

Tony

[India]

1. Because I think God's standard is unreasonably high (indeed impossible) for us, I can't generate a lot of guilt about not meeting it. Oh, I feel guilty about some things I have done, where I have broken my own moral rules, but otherwise it seems like asking a chihuahau to jump a ten foot wall, then expecting it to feel guilty when it can't. In other words I find it difficult to see myself as a hopeless sinner.

2. The next kind of follows - repentance for things that I don't feel all that bad about. Difficult.


My experience has been that the guilt and repentance part comes later. To become a Christian, of course you have to accept that you have sins you can't make up for yourself and you need God's forgiveness. But for me, it's been as I've drawn closer to God and learned more about his standard that I've become more aware of things I've done that were wrong.

All I'm saying is, it's not necessary for you to feel guilty about everything you've done wrong before you become a Christian, or even to agree 100% with God's standard. You'll learn more about morality as you draw closer to God and learn from him.

[prgmrdave]

Hi, Alien--

07-05-2003 @ 12:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140213#post140213)
Alien:

Hi Dave,

(I think I'm starting to argue certain points rather than just kick them around and note what you say about your Christian viewpoint, so I'm dropping lines of discussion where you have made clear statements that I understand.)

Sounds good. And feel free to bring them up again if something new occurs to you.

We seem to be wanting to use different words here, so rather than pursue it further, I'll accept your use of "absolute morality" as what I'm referring to. And seriously, I thought that God's morality was considered to be that (absolute) by Christians. I agree that such a thing is impossible (but why infinite regression?).

Any meaningful moral standard is grounded, that is, that is, there is some authority that sets it in place. Sans God, to have an "absolute" objective moral standard is impossible, because any given moral standard is itself subject to moral evaluation.

That said, why is it sufficient that God's morality is external to us? By the same token, my morality is external to Him and yours is to mine and everyone's is to everyone else.

Is your morality external to God's? Presupposing the Christian God's existence, are you sure that your moral standard is immune to His thoughts/feelings? :smile: But the rest I agree with. Your morality is external to mine; I cannot change your morality merely by how I think or feel, so I could consider your morality objective with respect to me.

And by that token, God's morality is external to you and me, and is thus objective with respect to you and me. Absoluteness is a bit more elusive; I am still working out how God's morality can be considered absolute without merely being an expression of power.

So why should we choose God's morality over yours or mine or anyone else's?

If you're not interested in the Christian afterlife, no reason at all, I suppose. To a Christian, it's because God is the only one who sees the big picture in the biggest sense possible, and thus knows what actions really do bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. That's the "trust" part of "trusting in God": voluntarily and consciously choosing to believe that His perspective gives Him the ability to let you know what's best for you to do, even when you don't understand why, yourself. Don't choose my morality (notwithstanding what I said before :teeth:); I don't know enough about you and your situations to give you the guaranteed right answers.

I used to think that was the easy option. Well, I still think its easier than living up to God's standards :smile: but its not like a "get out of jail free" card, is it?

It's easy to say, "Jesus, I trust you." It's not easy to do, especially in Western individualistic culture. It means to give up the notion that you're in charge of your live, and exchange it for the notion that you're a caretaker, because Someone else is in charge. It's a difficult habit to break, even after one becomes a Christian. God's grace is free, but it isn't cheap.

I've been discussing this with a friend lately and in the process I've tried to imagine what it would take for me to do that. I'll list the stumbling blocks:

1. Because I think God's standard is unreasonably high (indeed impossible) for us, I can't generate a lot of guilt about not meeting it. Oh, I feel guilty about some things I have done, where I have broken my own moral rules, but otherwise it seems like asking a chihuahau to jump a ten foot wall, then expecting it to feel guilty when it can't. In other words I find it difficult to see myself as a hopeless sinner.

As India indicated, you're not really expected to feel guilt. From my point of view, you feel what guilt you do because God created us with the ability to tell right from wrong. After one becomes a Christian, then the Holy Spirit works within to bring about a greater sense of right vs. wrong, and maybe guilt is part of that. The term for it is "conviction". But becoming a Christian isn't about what you feel, it's about what you know.

2. The next kind of follows - repentance for things that I don't feel all that bad about. Difficult.

It does follow :smile:: both in the way you meant it, and in the sense that repentance follows conviction.

3. As I've mentioned, I have a problem with the concept of substitutionary atonement. I almost want to say to Jesus: "Thanks a lot for what you did, but I never asked you to do it and I sort of wish you hadn't because I think its unfair to you to be punished for what I did".

Well, how could you have asked Him, when He died and rose nearly two thousand years before you were born? :smile: I don't think He really sought anyone's permission... I guess you can call it unfair, but is it really "fair" for me to send you a nice bottle of wine for Christmas? Gifts by their nature are unfair, or they wouldn't be gifts.

Going back to our discussion on how man's nature changed, I can't see how I'd make it into God's presence without Jesus' atonement. What would stop me, with my fallen nature, from continuing to disobey God into eternity, once I was in heaven? I mean, this is part of why Adam and Eve lost the lease to Eden, I don't think God has in mind to set up another situation where man could live forever knowing good and evil (I mean that in the same way Adam found out: knowing it experientially). However much I struggle with it day to day (and I do), it's because I've allowed Jesus to take my place and be my Lord that I know I will someday be free not only from the all the consequences of my wrong choices but the desire to do wrong at all.

All in all, its not easy to become a Christian, I've decided! :smile:

You and I and the Bible (Matthew 7:13-14 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=mt+7:14&version=nas&context=1)) are in agreement here!

Of course its impossible, I can't remember everything I've done for a start, and would have problems categorising them correctly even if I did. Your point is made though.

What I said about having a problem with guilt was, as far as I remember, what I have said above - I would have a problem feeling particularly guilty about most of the things I've done. I guess Christians just hold themselves to a higher standard than I do. :smile:

God isn't trying to make you feel guilty right now. There are more important things on His mind. Anyhow, I'm sure there are Christians who hold themselves to a higher standard than you do, and there are Christians who do not. There are Christians who feel that God's grace allows them the liberty to pursue whatsoever activities come to mind. And I'm sure there are Christians who are not experiencing all the joy God has in store, to the degree that they can't/won't completely let God be in charge. I know it's hard for me.

Also, feel free to say if you think we're coming to the end of this.

Tony

I'm happy to keep scribblin' as long as you have questions I think I can answer!

david

[Alien]

Hi Dave, sorry this took so long ---- they're making me actually do things at work now, so I don't have so much spare time. That doesn't seem right!

Any meaningful moral standard is grounded, that is, that is, there is some authority that sets it in place. Sans God, to have an "absolute" objective moral standard is impossible, because any given moral standard is itself subject to moral evaluation.

I see. But why is God's moral standard not subject to evaluation?

Is your morality external to God's? Presupposing the Christian God's existence, are you sure that your moral standard is immune to His thoughts/feelings? But the rest I agree with. Your morality is external to mine; I cannot change your morality merely by how I think or feel, so I could consider your morality objective with respect to me.

And by that token, God's morality is external to you and me, and is thus objective with respect to you and me.

Immune to God's thoughts and feelings? Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean He can alter my morality? (Obviously He can, but I'm not sure how that affects what we are saying). And yes, your, my and God's moralities are all external to each other and thus all objective to each other by your definition. I'm still looking for a reason for God's morality to be necessarily better than yours or mine.

Absoluteness is a bit more elusive; I am still working out how God's morality can be considered absolute without merely being an expression of power.

And here we have the dilemma. We have to consider God's morality to be absolute (using your definition again) in order to say that it automatically overrides all of ours. You are rightly troubled by the "might makes right" implication, as am I. Let me know if you work it out. :smile:

Me:So why should we choose God's morality over yours or mine or anyone else's?

You: If you're not interested in the Christian afterlife, no reason at all, I suppose. To a Christian, it's because God is the only one who sees the big picture in the biggest sense possible, and thus knows what actions really do bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. That's the "trust" part of "trusting in God": voluntarily and consciously choosing to believe that His perspective gives Him the ability to let you know what's best for you to do, even when you don't understand why, yourself.

That's fine, so long as you realise that what you are really trusting is that His definition of "good" corresponds reasonably closely to yours. Seeing the big picture and all that is pretty much a given if you believe that God is more capable than you. He doesn't really have to be omnipotent or even close, just much cleverer than us will do. Its just common sense to choose the solution arrived at by the most intelligent and knowledgable person in the group, all other things being equal, right? What's critical, though, is that He and we agree on what is good. If we don't, He could be quite sincere in saying "I want what's good for you" and that "good" could be quite different from anything we would consider to be good.

As India indicated, you're not really expected to feel guilt. From my point of view, you feel what guilt you do because God created us with the ability to tell right from wrong. After one becomes a Christian, then the Holy Spirit works within to bring about a greater sense of right vs. wrong, and maybe guilt is part of that. The term for it is "conviction". But becoming a Christian isn't about what you feel, it's about what you know.

OK. That's contarary to what I'd believed about Christianity (and there's a lot of stuff that supports my impression -- "Amazing grace ... that saved a wretch like me") but if both India and you say so, then I accept it. If you mean something like "I know I could be better than I am and I would like to be, please help me", then it feels much better to me.

Well, how could you have asked Him, when He died and rose nearly two thousand years before you were born? :smile: I don't think He really sought anyone's permission... I guess you can call it unfair, but is it really "fair" for me to send you a nice bottle of wine for Christmas? Gifts by their nature are unfair, or they wouldn't be gifts.

You may be missing the point. I think its unfair (maybe unjust would be a better word) to Jesus to have to suffer for my sins. I should suffer for my sins not someone else.

Going back to our discussion on how man's nature changed, I can't see how I'd make it into God's presence without Jesus' atonement. What would stop me, with my fallen nature, from continuing to disobey God into eternity, once I was in heaven? I mean, this is part of why Adam and Eve lost the lease to Eden, I don't think God has in mind to set up another situation where man could live forever knowing good and evil (I mean that in the same way Adam found out: knowing it experientially). However much I struggle with it day to day (and I do), it's because I've allowed Jesus to take my place and be my Lord that I know I will someday be free not only from the all the consequences of my wrong choices but the desire to do wrong at all.

See KingDavid's reply to a similar question in our Tennis Court thread. (I'd point to the post if I knew how, its the last one from him). You seem to disagree on the question of our capability to sin in heaven. Are you saying that we will be changed so we will be incapable of sin in heaven? Or revert to the pre-fall ignorance of good and evil? (I'm not totally sure what that means, btw).

(Before you reply, I'll let you off the hook a bit by noting that just about every Christian I've discussed this with has admitted that he/she didn't really know with any certainty how such things will be in heaven, and I see no reason to expect them, or you, to know. :smile:)

And I'm sure there are Christians who are not experiencing all the joy God has in store, to the degree that they can't/won't completely let God be in charge. I know it's hard for me.

That would be hard for me too. :smile:

Tony

[Algesan]

3. As I've mentioned, I have a problem with the concept of substitutionary atonement. I almost want to say to Jesus: "Thanks a lot for what you did, but I never asked you to do it and I sort of wish you hadn't because I think its unfair to you to be punished for what I did".

It is totally unfair, but..... Parents give up for their children all the time and is that considered unfair to the parents? Or is it a joy and/or duty that the parents have to perform? Especially since the most enduring description I find of the type of relationship between God and man from the Bible is that of parent to child.

[Paul]

06-19-2003 @ 10:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127829#post127829)
prgmrdave:

In this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5747), Alien mentioned some problems he has with Christianity, to wit:

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave you with nothing to say.

I have been told:

1. God is so perfect that He can't stand to be around any sin whatsoever. God defines goodness, so His perfection is kind of given.

I shared a personal testimony in the prayer thread started by Queen in this Q&A forum that might be helpful. Sin is horrific. If we were to see the true and full nature of sin we would be more scared of it than anything else. The scriptures speak of the seraphim (a choir of angels) as the "burning ones"; they are aflame with love. God is infinitely aflame with love and so were a sinner to approach Him, that is, be in His actual unmediated presence, he would be burned up and reduced to nothing just as a droplet of water might evaporate when thrown into a fire. St Therese of Lisieux once had a mystical experience which she had difficulty describing but she said it was like fire. If you don't have this love burning in your heart, this may be difficult to comprehend.

2. The tiniest infraction damns us just as much as the worst imaginable crime.

Well that's not true. First there's the issue of mortal or deadly sin versus non-deadly sin that St John mentions in his epistle in 1 John 5. Now read that together with Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10. Now it is true that the tiniest infraction makes you fall short of the glory of God and thus would by itself make you unable to be in God's unmediated presence in Heaven as explained above. And there's also the issue of God's justice. But that doesn't mean that all sins are going to be punished equally in Hell. Not at all. For we read in many places in scripture such as Hebrews 10 that God will punish with right judgment:

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

And this diversity of punishment is mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels also.

We are not perfect and never can be, but that's our fault because Adam and Eve disobeyed Him a long time ago.

Yet Jesus says: Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It's not that God punished you as an individual with original sin, but that He punished all of us as a family descended from Adam. So God punished Adam in his descendants. We see a remotely similar reasoning involved in some contemporary political discussions concerning reparations for slavert and so forth. So this concept is not completely alien to us.

But note that in Genesis 3:15, God promises a redemption, to be accomplished by the woman and the seed who are at emniity with the dragon (Satan) and his seed respectively. The seed of the woman (Jesus Christ) will crush the dragon and his seed and the dragon will lay at his heel.

When we are justified through faith by God who ministers to us the sacrament of baptism (or even sometimes before that particular moment should we have a living faith, a faith formed by love), we are perfect. All sin in our soul -- original and personal -- is obliterated. It is burned by the holiness of God and God's own love is poured into our hearts and we are a new creature in Christ and should we die at that moment, we would go immediately into the unmediated presence of God without any need for purification (whether it be an instant, a day, or a year -- no need for it here). But we still suffer from the effects of original sin -- our intellects don't operate flawlessly, our hearts are prone to become distracted, and our passions are prone to become unruly. And so because of this, it is inevitable that we will sin from time to time in our Christian walk. But St Paul says that he is confident that God will complete the good work He began in us. And so we struggle, we run the race, we may even stumble; but it is God who brings light out of darkness, whose wind blows over the waters, and who will after we die purify us of any imperfect attitudes we might have so that we might then see Him face to face, as He is, and be happy with Him forever.

4. We will be subjected to eternal torment for failing to meet an impossible standard and this is perfectly fair because God is so just that He can't help punishing sin and a small infraction is quite fairly punished by infinite torment. (Or, according to some versions, there are differential levels of punishment, though all are eternal). (And "torment" may not be flames and devils with toasting forks, but "merely" separation from God).

Well I think those who speak of it as merely speparation from God are mistaken. There will be fire there and it will not be pleasant!

I think infants who die without baptism will not suffer forever. I think that they may suffer mildy but that God in his mercy will rescue them from the kingdom of Satan and give them eventually some kind of beatitude -- perhaps not the beatitude of Heaven, but a true beatitude, perhaps similar to that which Adam and Eve enjoyed with God in the Garden.

But you are right to say that the standard -- perfection -- is impossible for us to attain on our own. That's why we ought to moved to approach God through faith rather than through our works which we present to Him for our works are as dirty rags in the sight of the Holy One of Israel. We approach God, believing in His promises. God has promised to give us grace ministered by Him through the sacrament of baptism. And so if we believing in His promises and intent on assuming the duties of the Christian life, receive the sacrament of baptism, God Himself will raise our soul so that we may love Him for his own sake and have a faith that proceeds from love. But the faith is the foundation for without faith it is impossible to please God. How can we love someone whom we do not believe?

The only way out of this "catch-22" is to accept a substitutionary punishment that God applied to Himself in the shape of Jesus. That gets us off because God then somehow "sees" us "through" Jesus and therefore doesn't see the sin any more.

I would read St Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. It's probably available online for free.

EDIT: But to summarize, I wouldn't call Anselm's position "substitutionary punishment." Anselm held that by man's sin man, or the family of Adam, owed God reparation. Man is called to give God His due as a family. But since the offense was infinite given that the one offended is Infinite, no created human person could give God his due on behalf of the whole family. So that's why God the Son became man. He became a member of the family of Adam and as a member of our family gave to God what we as a family owe Him and being the Son of God, He was able to give God infinite reparation. And so now we as family have made true reparation and God chooses to forgive us and shower us with graces.

So it's really a family affair if you will for Anselm. Incidently he notes that the angels couldn't be redeemed in this way because they don't come in families. Unlike us who are called to give God his due as a family, the angels are each their own species and so are called to give God his due as individuals.

Some Christians say that salvation is available to all, and some say that God has predetermined who He will save and who He won't and yet others say that everyone will be saved (I'm not too sure if I'm correct about this last one, but its my favorite ).

Well within Catholicism, there's a diversity of views wrt to predestination and/or grace versus freedom -- Thomism, Molinism, Augustinianism. Congruism, and Syncretism (not to be confused with the heresy). SO I wouldn't worry about that aspect. If you're going to bother with it, bother with it after you become a Christian. As for whether "everyone will be saved," I think it's pretty clear from the scriptures that the Devil and his angels will never attain supernatural beatitude and ditto for Judas. I think as long as you recognize that you would remain within the pale of orthodoxy -- though there will be some, including Catholics, who disagree with me here.

All this is (mostly*) internally consistent, but doesn't jibe with anything that I would consider intuitively reasonable. Or nice (I'm then told that I am not in a position to judge God).

As one who has some background in philosophy and who has taken a set theory course in a philosphy department (taught by a mathematics PhD who now has a philosophy PhD also), I can assure you that there are internally consistent understandings of Christianity. That's not to say that every understanding is consistent.

[AcousticJS]

You may be missing the point. I think its unfair (maybe unjust would be a better word) to Jesus to have to suffer for my sins. I should suffer for my sins not someone else.

I've thought this about the atonement before, and it was resolved for me when I realised a couple of things:

1) Jesus is God, therefore Him taking the punishment is God taking the punishment - the only One who could legitimately pay the price apart from myself. Only trouble is, for me to pay the price would mean eternal separation from Him which He didn't want. By Jesus dying, this solved God's problem of how to accept rebellious creatures whom He loves and still wants to know as children.

2) Jesus chose to come to earth and die. From all eternity, the Son agreed with His Father and the Holy Spirit that if things went belly-up here on earth, He would become a human and pay the price to redeem the people He had made and the plan behind it all.

Actually, you seem to have grasped it pretty well. It was unfair for Jesus to pay your sins, but that is why it is grace. This is why God's ways are far above ours - He satisfies the payment Himself so that we can know Him.

But I feel I'm just starting to reiterate stuff you probably already know, so I'll shut up :nc:

God bless
Jon

[mc21]

LOL! I don't believe any of that. Do not look at yourself in terms of the body but look at yourself in terms of the soul . Adam and Eve might of been our biological parents from the beginning but they certainly were not the parent's of our souls. There is only one parent of the soul and that is God.

God loves us no matter what. He does not curse but he blesses. He does not hate but he loves... Life on earth is not easy. God knows this. But its when we find God through redemption for our sins that he really forgives. Of course you can live your whole live in good but no one is w/out sin, no one. And i'm not saying natural sin. But we can make the world a less sinful place if we all combine our free will to help each other. The world can even be a sinless place if each person just followed each of the 10 Commandments. They're not hard to follow. Our morals that we have grown up with point us to follow it but so many people choose not to... Its not until people shed away their ego and idealism that we can start to spread good. And as always, forgive others and you will be forgiven...

Believe in miracles because they do happen. God takes care of those who believe in him and *ask* for his help and also have *faith* that he will help him. Because if you don't have faith then its like shooting darts. You're lucky if you hit the bull's eye. People want instant gratification but fail to see the benefits of things happening later. Its not easy, I know. We must be patient though. Some of us need to learn things before we can achieve them right away simply because we're not ready for them. And its those lessons that will make us better people for achieving our dreams.


Blessings and Happy Holidays!