Ever go on a trip with a teenager who is firmly convinced they will not like it? Guess what—it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have a perfectly horrible time.
“Hey, we’re going to ______.”
“Aw, I don’t wanna go! It’s boring. I hate it. Can’t I stay home?”
“Nope. You are going, ‘cause the entire family is going.”
“I won’t have anything to do. Nobody is my age. You guys don’t do anything fun.”
No matter what happens, they are firmly entrenched in not having a good time. If the sun is shining—it is too hot. If the food is plentiful—it is the wrong kind. And if, by some bizarre alignment of the correct stars, they somehow manage to eek out a moment of good time; they will assure you it is in spite of everything you did, and will go immediately back to being miserable.
If you look at an event as being negative, it is easy to find something negative to say about it.
Many Christians hold to the idea of original sin—that since the fall, inherent in humanity is the tendency to be immoral. That it is as part of humanity as hearts, livers and hair. Understand, this is not the claim for the capacity to be immoral, (we all believe that) but rather the overall proclivity to be immoral. This is an important distinction.
As an analogy, imagine having the ability to go right or left, as compared to the proclivity to go right as compared to left. The person with the ability, when reaching a fork in the road, may take a left. At the next fork, however, they may take a right—putting them back in the same direction. Or they may take a series of lefts, realize this was not leading in the way in which they intended, and start taking rights as a correction.
But a person with the proclivity to go right will take a right at the first fork, a right at the second fork, a right at the next fork and the next and the next.
Many Christians view humankind as consisting of the latter situation. Given the choice between a moral and immoral decision, they will make an immoral decision again and again and again. (Since this doesn’t happen in practice, they create the theological doctrine of God’s grace pervasively existing in the universe preventing inevitable self-destruction.)
Just like our teenager, they expect the negative, plan on the negative, and with little surprise—find the negative. I read the blogs, the books, the articles. I listen to the radio programs. Homosexual marriage? One more sign of the impending apocalypse. Movies with violence, sex and drugs? Bad humans, bad! Dancing, sex, crime…all one has to do is watch the evening news and it would confirm your worst fears that humanity is self-imploding.
I’m not saying our world is great. I am not claiming there is no room for improvement. But there is some moral within the world. There are good, beneficial things happening. All is not lost. It is frustrating to constantly read and hear how horrible the world must be, when the person refuses to look for anything positive.
Know what else happens with our teenager? After pointing out some fun things to do, (“I don’t wanna!”) or giving suggestions (“No!”) and being rebuffed, we reach a point of complacency—we don’t care whether they have a good time or not. In the same way, I reach a point of not bothering to point out any moral action, any act of charity to these Christians—it will likewise be rebuffed as, “They must be doing it for selfish reasons” or “It is only because they secretly believe in God.”
What we say is ignored; our reasons disregarded. Do they understand how much insight they give into their own thoughts and motivations?
“If given a chance, and no one knew—you would have an affair.”
“No I wouldn’t. I love my wife, and the guilt would not be worth the small amount of pleasure.”
“Liar. You only say that ‘cause you have to. You have original sin—you want to commit immoral acts.”
“No, I really don’t. I have the ability to make a choice…”
“Yes, and your choice will be immoral. You have a fallen conscience.”
“Actually, I make the choice based upon observation, past experience, upbringing, environment and other factors.”
“And all those factors are corrupt and sinful. You want to sin, sin, sin!”
“Sigh….forget it….”
I am not perfect. I recognize I violate my own moral code—I am certainly violating what some theist thinks their god’s moral code is. But I also recognize I have the choice. And as much as the blame for violating my moral code rests with me, the credit in not doing so does as well. Yet I am constantly saddled with the blame, and never provided any credit.
There is no “common ground.” No point in which we can agree as to what humans are like. If you are viewing us as evil monsters—you cannot find “common ground” in which we are sometimes angels as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"There is no “common ground.” No point in which we can agree as to what humans are like. If you are viewing us as evil monsters—you cannot find “common ground” in which we are sometimes angels as well." (Dagoods)
ReplyDeleteGood point. It is true the original sin theology will lead someone to think - no matter what someone not in the faith does - it comes from an 'evil premise' (Usually they mean 'selfish' by this language).
I tend to disagree with my own faith on his doctrine. I think we all have been born with ability to do 'bad' things - this is fairly obvious in my opinion. However, I also see the ability to do good in each person...the only thing that really makes any difference is what someone 'chooses'.
I am not a big original sin proponent because it doesn't actually make sense in common experience. If anything - the Adam idea - is basically about a person's ability to choose what they shouldn't - or to ignore something because they can. I think that story is pointing to the human conditon of choice - and how it can be a gift or a curse - depending how we want to wield that power.
I am not saying people do do things that are immoral - obviously we all do and need some time to repair those breaches of conduct. But to think everything you do is 'bad' because you do not have the same faith as someone else - to me - seems unreasonable a claim (for someone to make).
I think I've mentioned this before, so forgive me if I repeat my prattle.
ReplyDeleteAs the semi-resident Calvinist, I'd say that the thrust of the Total Depravity doctrine (which is Calvin's version of original sin), as well as Calvin's explanation of the source of Good Works, is an exercise in humility and also a pre-Enlightenment way of explaining human behavior.
Essentially, Total Depravity holds that due to the inherent capacity for sinfulness, and yes, a proclivity toward self-interest (cf. Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory), humankind is naturally capable of doing massive evil and is inherently unable to achieve perfection (redeem itself totally). In other words, humanity is not perfect and we can do awful things with little provocation, so get over yourself.
Calvin's ideas on Good Works (and I don't have my copy of Institutio handy) stemmed from the idea that our impulses to do good in the world are ultimately divine in nature--that our own love is in fact sparked by the Divine love. In spite of our proclivities toward evil behavior (stemming from inherent qualities beyond our control), we also have proclivities toward exemplary behavior (stemming from the spark of Divine love, something entirely beyond our control). Either way, the message is to be humble. Realize you have feet of clay, and understand that even the most saintly behavior does not make you perfect.
I've thought that inadvertently, Calvin struck across what Freud and Jung would express over 300 years later in terms of psychodynamics (Id versus Superego).
"Hey Mountain, you're going to spend the next week at Great Uncle Jim's house."
ReplyDelete"NOOOO!"
"Just kidding, you're going camping with us. Doesn't sounds so bad, now does it?"
:P
Again, forgive me for a little sidebar to societyvs, Dagoods.
ReplyDelete---
Societyvs: I would try to resolve my little tiff with Jim Jordan (who continues to attack me behind my back without telling me) were he to allow me to respond to his attacks. He's enabled comment moderation and filters out all opinions he disagrees with or that he can't lampoon. He's made and continues to make threats against me, told and continued to tell lies about me, and the Flycandler he is now "debating" is not me but some cartoon character he's invented.
---
We now return to our regularly scheduled blog.
I like this analogy. The notion of 'sin nature' is like being trapped in adolescence.
ReplyDeleteThe teen is in that in between place of wanting to call all the shots, but isn't really responsible for their lives yet. They still have mom and dad watching over them and protecting them. They want the benefits of adulthood with none of the cost.
When you have the mentality that you are doomed to be a teen for life, then it's easier to say "that which I would do, that do I not... and that which I would not do, that do I do...." Hey I'm just a 'wretched' teen ager, I need to be 'rescued.' Who will rescue me? Thank God, mom or dad.
Of course, in real life, a good parent knows that part of raising a kid is letting them deal with the consequences of some of their actions, helping them understand that they are in charge of their life. Sorry, I can't bale you out of this one. Hopefully, sooner or later, the kid becomes an adult realizing that there are consequences to their actions and they have a choice. They become 'moms and dads,' adults.
Flycandler,
ReplyDeleteWe have long been able to observe humanity has, within it, the capacity to do moral, immoral and non-moral acts, as well as the tension among those choices. Many religions have provided alternative ideas to reason it out.
Calvin’s idea of total depravity, coupled with good works, is one of many explanations for that tension. So is the concept of Id and Superego
You are right—humans can do awful things. Yet they can do great things as well. In fact, the “great things” we do are far in excess of the awful ones. The problem is that the awful ones make the news. Who points out how airplanes after airplane take off with the networking of a vast system of machinery and humans? It is only the one awful instance reported. Not the 100,000 non-incidents.
You reminded of an old blog entry of mine--Why Does God Get the Good Stuff?
My one (and hopefully only) comment on the Flycandler/Jim Jordan interaction occasionally taking place on my blog:
ReplyDeleteJim Jordan has his own blog. I link to it, and review it almost daily. Jim Jordan has his own focus, own blogroll, and his own rules. I fully and whole-heartedly support each person’s right to dictate the parameters of their own blog. If they want wide-open comments, resulting in spam and “Anonymi”—fine. If they want no comments whatsoever—fine. If they prefer only Christian interaction—I respect their wishes.
One of Jim Jordan’s rules is comment moderation. While I, personally, do not like comment moderation, I respect his choice to do so. Because of my personal taste, and general wariness, I observe blogs with comment moderation with a bit more scrutiny. If I see moderation which I disagree with, or find distasteful, I exercise my own privilege in withdrawing from participating in that blog. I can cite blogs that have comment moderation I participate in; and blogs with comment moderation I do not.
In point of fact, I posted many a comment under Jim Jordan’s moderation policy. To my memory, I do not believe a single comment was moderated out. I do not post on Moral Science Club for reasons other than comment moderation.
Further, I have never, EVER been wedded to the idea of worrying about tangents. I love tangents. Some of the most interesting discussions can take place in areas completely off-topic. I may, on the extremely rare occasion, ask for a scholarly response to a question, but off-topic is fine by me.
Flycandler writes comments I read and respect. I find him extremely knowledgeable in a number of areas, and take what he says with thoughtful contemplation. I consider him an asset to the “comment section” of my blog, and would be disappointed if he disappeared (as so many can on in the internet.)
While I can understand Jim Jordan’s frustration with some of Flycandler’s comments—to me the value of his input far outweighs the adversarial tone. Further, I think there are ways to avoid the controversy—like getting a little thicker skin, or attempting to understand the argument being made by an opposing position, or simply stating, “Whoops. I was wrong on that one.” I also question the use of comment moderation, yet making comments about what was NOT posted. To do that requires a very steady hand.
So if Flycandler and Jim Jordan spat on my blog—I have no problem with it. (At one point, I asked that they take it to Jim Jordan’s blog, but since that is no longer an option, here is as good as place as any.) All part of the interaction of humanity.
Hi Fly, time for me to go off the beaten track in the comment section (lol).
ReplyDeleteI think what is happening between you and Jim has been going on for some period of time - and I may not understand the core of the problem that lies within - but at some point I think the both of you need to have tones with one another that at least seem civil.
In all honesty, I think your comments are great Fly - and the majority of the time I actually agree more with you than Jim. I don't mind Jim's blog either though - and he has never gotten strange with me (he seems decent enough).
I guess I always wonder, like a few months after the first time I noticed this whole confrontation between the two of you - why, as self confessed Christians - the both of you, cannot find a way to make peace on something so small?
That's the part I have a tough time understanding - the fighting part is very human nature and that urge is within all of us. Yet out teachings ask us to 'be peacemakers' and hold a position of 'non-violence' - even unto name-calling.
Now if Jim is inventing you on his site for a antagonist - then my apologies for even saying word one - because that, to me, is looney tunes (creative but not a nice gesture to another blogger).
Dagoods
ReplyDeleteA Mentor of mine gave me a funny saying
"The world is 50% shit, 50% sugar, you choose where you put your focus. But just remember, if you stand in shit long enough it dries around you."
This is hysterically funny. I just popped in to read what my friend Jason/societyvs had written (comments on sidebar).
ReplyDeleteI gave Flycandler free reign on my blog for a long time. The problem was the slander; Jim thought not enough Jews died in the Holocaust, Jim thinks Muslims should all be killed, Jim hates gays, Jim is a racist, Jim is anti-abortion because he paid for two abortions, and, of course, Jim is a pedophile.
Now, those claims don't fall under the heading, "Join the conversation". If Dagoods or Jason had someone like him invading their blog daily with 6+ comments, I'd put my money on comment moderation being employed in under six months. And I wouldn't judge them for it.
I watch Flycandler be civil with everyone else, and, frankly, I'm envious. I think it was our mutual church affiliation, PCUSA. I even offered to leave if he'd stop the harassment.
I have opinions but I don't have enemies. I hold nothing against Flycandler. I even offered to meet him for Happy Hour at the Thinking Man Tavern in Atlanta when I go there. I think that'd be a riot. It's boring to go for a drink with someone you agree on everything with.
So, Flycandler, I'll disable the comment moderation and see if we can try it again. Cheers
Yay! We won Jim over with our good behavior! LOL
ReplyDeleteDagoodS,
ReplyDelete**I reach a point of not bothering to point out any moral action, any act of charity to these Christians—it will likewise be rebuffed as, “They must be doing it for selfish reasons”**
Okay, this is getting creepy. It seems like wherever I go, you're making a point about something I've just read a few days ago.
I just read a defense by a Christian who is essentially stating that Christians should expect non-believers to behave better, *only* because the non-believers feel that such behavior will merit them salvation. That's the only reason.
And I find your statement about what this betrays about their viewpoint very on target. My roommate, myself, and a friend of mine got into a discussion about work, and my friend made the comment about how she doesn't believe people are basically good, and so doesn't have the optimistic view on human nature. She's evangelical.
I am, by her category, unsaved. I am thus part of that humanity that she doesn't feel is good, and thus doesn't really want to do the right thing.
A part of me wanted to ask her why she "risked" becoming friends with me. Isn't she implicity hinting that I would steal from people, hurt people, do all sorts of selfish things if only I could? Steal from her, or try to hurt her?
I mean, essentially, what she's saying is that she sees me as a basically bad person. How do you establish a trusting relationship based on that?
OSS
ReplyDeleteIf youre still friends with her, the bigger question should be, Why do you like someone who thinks youre inherently Bad?
OSS,
ReplyDeleteShe is your 'friend' because she wants you to get saved. Jesus ate with sinners, and the servant is not greater than the master.
now, go do the right thing.
Well, if Jim keeps either (a) outright lying about or (b) wildly mischaracterizing what I say as he did here, we'll see how long it lasts.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, Jim, I never said Jim was a pedophile. Jim said "Jim is a pedophile". It's right there in black and white now!
John T.,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you meant that as a rhetorical comment, but I'll answer, anyway.
You're asking me a question that I've been asking myself for quite some time. Not quite along the lines of "why am I friends with someone who thinks I'm inherently bad?" but more of why am I friends with someone who will think it's a just ending that I end up in hell, given that I'm unsaved.
The whole why am I friends with someone who is bad didn't occur until the conversation about two weeks ago. That's when a subconscious realization smacked me in the face.
But a big part of why I've been friends with her for a while is because I was really naive when I first meet her. I assumed that everyone operated the way I did, to some degree, in that it didn't matter what your belief structure was so long as it helped you be a better person. It's only as I've gotten older that I realize how huge the evangelical/fundamentalist thought structure is, and how it can drive everything else.
There is a part of me that wonders if we'll still be friends in twenty years, especially if we both have kids. The last thing I'd want is for her kids to tell my kids how hell-bound we all are, complete with graphic descriptions.
Paul,
**She is your 'friend' because she wants you to get saved.**
The only thing that prevents me from believing that whole-heartedly is that she does consider me one of her best friends, and she has confided in me a great deal about things that make me think she does consider me a friend. Could all of it just be a front to get me saved? Sure. But she doesn't strike me as that manipulative.
"Many Christians view humankind as consisting of the latter situation. Given the choice between a moral and immoral decision, they will make an immoral decision again and again and again."
ReplyDeleteHow bizarre! I have to be honest ... I've never met a Christian that believes what you described. I know that Reformed folks believe in "Total Depravity", but that doesn't mean "given the choice between a moral and immoral decision, they will make an immoral decision." I don't know any Christians that believe that human beings are as bad as they can possibly be. Indeed, it's one of the points often made by Reformed Christians. "No, no, we're not saying they're incapable of ever making a positive moral choice."
Maybe you have to get out more and quit hanging around with those strange ones. :)
OSS
ReplyDeleteI was just curious, what is it in us when we know someone doesnt like or is in disageement with a fundamenal part of us, yet we still hang around with them. I think it says more about us than them.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI understand in an antiseptic, esoteric, intellectual conversation regarding moral decisions, a Christian will concede humans, on occasion, actually make decisions which align with the Christian’s morality system. For that reason, the whole paragraph (not just the portion cited by you) states:
Many Christians view humankind as consisting of the latter situation. Given the choice between a moral and immoral decision, they will make an immoral decision again and again and again. (Since this doesn’t happen in practice, they create the theological doctrine of God’s grace pervasively existing in the universe preventing inevitable self-destruction.)
While they say it with their lips; do they believe it with their minds? Or, as a Christian might poetically phrase it—they believe it with their heads, yet don’t believe it with their hearts.
Er…unfortunately, Stan, the most convenient example I have of this is……you. Sorry ‘bout that. I wasn’t going to mention it, but you may notice on the same day I posted this blog entry, you repeated your original blog entry, entitled ”Hollow Man.” This initially was a comment/response that grew into a blog entry.
In your blog you describe humans as follows:
Stan: I will do all I have to do to obtain what I deserve. I will manipulate my friends, family, even God to get what I think I should have. There is, after all, no one who is more important than I am.
…
Good is defined not as that which is virtuous or right, but as that which gives me the most pleasure.
In reading the entire blog entry, there is not a single positive element you provide.
It is incomplete, of course, to judge a person’s beliefs by only one blog entry—yet I have noticed over the course of our dealings, again and again, the concept of the degradation and deprivation of humanity that permeates your blogs.
I may be wrong. Do you have link where you state you think humanity, in any moral regard, is getting better? Where you talk of humans capable of making moral decisions absent their own selfishness and apart from your God?
Again, I understand the doctrine declared. I am looking at the belief in practice.
I wrote--I gave Flycandler free reign on my blog for a long time. The problem was the slander; Jim thought not enough Jews died in the Holocaust, Jim thinks Muslims should all be killed, Jim hates gays, Jim is a racist, Jim is anti-abortion because he paid for two abortions, and, of course, Jim is a pedophile.
ReplyDeleteFlycandler responds--I never called Jim a pedopphile.
Thus, Fly admits saying, "Jim thought not enough Jews died in the Holocaust, Jim thinks Muslims should all be killed, Jim hates gays, Jim is a racist, Jim is anti-abortion because he paid for two abortions". That's settled. But I'm a liar because you say you never called me a pedophile. Hmmm. Who do we believe?
For your memory's sake, Fly, you took a remark in my novel about how cute a little 5-year-old character was and said, "Do I smell pedophilia?" In subsequent comments, which I deleted, you were more direct. Again, it is your slander that I can't tolerate on my blog, not you. The civil tone you have on others' blogs is always welcome.
dagoods,
ReplyDeleteJust to let you know, a post about a "Hollow Man" is not an absolute. Indeed, the post says, "Perhaps you know me. Perhaps you are me." In my use of the English language, "perhaps" means "maybe ... maybe not", not "in every case". I wrote the piece awhile back because of a certain mentality I was seeing around me, not because everyone is like that.
Without trying to sound too harsh or offensive, it looks like your own dislike of Christianity in general and Reformed theology in particular drove you to a conclusion that the article didn't intend or support.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI know reading one blog entry is always insufficient to make a determination of anything. It was more the icing on a cake of repeated interactions. However, to be fair, I wondered if you ever wrote anything positive. It is why I asked:
I may be wrong. Do you have link where you state you think humanity, in any moral regard, is getting better? Where you talk of humans capable of making moral decisions absent their own selfishness and apart from your God?
I know you said, “perhaps.” But none of the perhaps’s were positive. Do you have another blog entry where the “perhaps” include humans being as moral as they can be?
Jim, I was referring to your graphic descriptions of a child being raped by a father figure, then your proudly proclaiming that you make your daughter read it. It's disgusting.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you make remarks that are anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, or hypocritical, expect to be called on it.
"Do you have link where you state you think humanity, in any moral regard, is getting better?"
ReplyDeleteWell, now, if I believe that humans, at their core, are inclined to sin, would I believe that humanity would be "getting better" morally? Wouldn't that simply contradict Christianity's claim that "we need a savior" when we could just say, "Don't worry ... it'll get better"? (Reminds of the Monty Python bit: "She turned me into a newt! Well, I got better." "We're sinners at the core! But we'll get better.")
Conversely, it is a standard Christian belief that people who have a relaltionship with God are always in the process of improving morally. (You remember ... we call it "sanctification", as if that makes it any clearer. Sheesh! Christianese ... what a language!) So there would be a particular set of humans who are improving morally even if humanity in general is declining morally. At no point, however, would I think that humans as a whole would "hit bottom" -- be as bad as they possibly could be.
Thank you, Stan. You made the point I was making.
ReplyDeleteTo this type of Christian-thinking, Christians (presumably “true” Christians) improve morally whereas the world (the rest of us) are declining morally.
Yet curiously, it has been my experience when pressed on this, Christians are forced to concede there is no determining difference between the morals of a Christian and non-Christian and must raise the problem of “sin nature” continuing to impact the Christian. Rom. 7:18-20
Be that as it may, under your view, while Christianity has room for improvement, we are in a state of decline. It is little surprise you view the world in such a pessimistic light.
Which is too bad. There is good in the world. Both moral and beneficial. I cannot persuade of this—I know. I was simply surprised how much was there to be found.
Fly, 1. it's a novel 2. I didn't print the raping part; I skipped over it. Remember? 3. I do not make my daughter read anything...other than the Bible.
ReplyDeleteSo, our misunderstanding is understood and our tiff resolved. God bless you.
I'm trying to figure out "It is little surprise you view the world in such a pessimistic light." You, for instance, post almost ("almost"?) exclusively about how bad Christianity is. I don't see a lot of "Christianity is mostly good", nor would I expect to. I don't, however, conclude "Dagoods sees the world in a pessimistic light."
ReplyDeleteI think you are assigning values to me that I don't have. I believe that humans have a sin nature. Therefore, I'm "pessimistic"? Why? And because I believe that, "Christians are forced to concede there is no determining difference between the morals of a Christian and non-Christian." Why? And because I believe that humans have a sin nature, I must believe that all humans are only capable of making bad moral choices? Why?
You have decided, for reasons I don't fully understand, that this is either my explicit or implicit belief. Apparently it's because I don't write a lot of "jolly" stuff on my blog ... you know, as opposed to you and your happy stuff about Christians. Keep in mind, however, that your conclusions about what I believe don't determine what I believe. Keep in mind, also, that the tendency in all humans is to notice the small black spot on the large white sheet. Perhaps you ought not leap to conclusions about what you are sure I believe (e.g., pessimistic outlook, totality of immorality, etc.) when I don't actually believe those things.
Stan,
ReplyDelete**Indeed, it's one of the points often made by Reformed Christians. "No, no, we're not saying they're incapable of ever making a positive moral choice."**
Would you say the non-Christians makes the moral choice because s/he wants to, or because of the point DAgoodS brought up about "they create the theological doctrine of God’s grace pervasively existing in the universe preventing inevitable self-destruction.)" Because what he said was that while there is the idea that humans will always make the bad choices, since we don't see that in practice, then there's theology of God's grace interceding to account for the lack of 100% bad choices.
**You, for instance, post almost ("almost"?) exclusively about how bad Christianity is. I don't see a lot of "Christianity is mostly good", nor would I expect to. I don't, however, conclude "Dagoods sees the world in a pessimistic light."**
But isn't there a difference between saying that someone sees one particular religion in a bad light, and someone else sees all of humanity in a bad light? If I see a statement that says a certain fact about Christians, I'm not going to conclude that the author views the entire world in that way. If I see a statement about the nature of humanity -- they are inclined towards making the wrong choices -- then I am going to conclude that the author sees the entire world that way.
**So there would be a particular set of humans who are improving morally even if humanity in general is declining morally. **
But his entire set of questions dealt with humanity improving their morals apart from God -- are there any posts that reflect that? Since he's not seeing those, I think he would lean more towards the "glass half-empty" view.
onesmallstep,
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing. Christian doctrine teaches "sanctification" -- that due to a relationship with Christ, Christians are changed. They are "being made perfect". They are progressing toward being better people. So to suggest that I take a dim view of all humans would be to ignore this basic Christian doctrine. Second, the fundamental distinctive that is "Christianity" is the Gospel -- the belief that there is an answer to the problem of sin. That's "pessimistic"?
But the primary reason that dagoods seems to think I'm negative about humans is because post about things I think are wrong in this world. That's "pessimistic". Much of what I post is to Christians, urging them to recognize problems and change them. That's "pessimistic"? Imagine a coach yelling at his team. Is he yelling because all he can see is the bad (pessimist) or is he yelling because he sees good things going on and if they can fix these problems they'll be great (optimist)? I wouldn't bother suggesting that people do things better if I didn't think they could.
Direct responses are good, so let's see if I can give some.
Would you say the non-Christians makes the moral choice because s/he wants to, or because of the point DAgoodS brought up about "they create the theological doctrine of God’s grace pervasively existing in the universe preventing inevitable self-destruction.)"
Well, I don't see them as mutually exclusive, so I'd say, "yes". Some because God's grace intervenes, and some because they choose to.
But isn't there a difference between saying that someone sees one particular religion in a bad light, and someone else sees all of humanity in a bad light?
He sees humans as good and Christians as bad. I see Christians as good and humans as bad. The difference? (Please keep in mind that this was an extreme oversimplification.)
Stan,
ReplyDelete**So to suggest that I take a dim view of all humans would be to ignore this basic Christian doctrine.**
This might be part of the problem right here. In this category, you label Christians as human. Yet in your example below -- and yes, you did say it was a simplification -- you say that you see Christians as good and humans as bad. Christians are suddenly in a different category that humans. I somewhat saw that in the idea that there are a particular group of humans improving morally -- the Christians -- yet humans as a whole are declining morally.
**Second, the fundamental distinctive that is "Christianity" is the Gospel -- the belief that there is an answer to the problem of sin. That's "pessimistic"?**
But part of that belief -- at least in a substitionary atonement idea -- has to include the idea that we're all inclined to sin. I believe the Reform idea includes the idea that anything we do -- any iota of good -- is tainted with sin. So no one ever does anything that is 100% good.
**Imagine a coach yelling at his team. Is he yelling because all he can see is the bad (pessimist) or is he yelling because he sees good things going on and if they can fix these problems they'll be great (optimist)?**
As you're alluding to, it depends on what the couch is yelling. But I don't quite agree with your use of the words. It again goes back to DagoodS question -- do you have any posts that reflect a good situation where non-Christians have improved morally? Or are you more inclined to believe that a non-Christian will more often sin than not sin, since we are all inclinded to sin as a whole?
In this case, with the couch yelling, an optimistic view is that things as a whole can get better. There is both praise and advice on how to improve. But a pessimistic view is more of "Here's advice on how to improve, even though on a whole we're all more inclined to go the opposite way."
**Well, I don't see them as mutually exclusive, so I'd say, "yes". Some because God's grace intervenes, and some because they choose to.**
From my experience, not everyone does. A Christian response can be that if you do something bad, it's your fault/you wanted to and God had no involvement, whereas if you do something good, the credit all goes to God, and your involvement becomes minimal. You didn't do that good "seperate" from God, whereas you did do the bad thing seperate from God.
**He sees humans as good and Christians as bad. I see Christians as good and humans as bad. The difference?**
Because you are making a claim about a particular group being good -- the Christians --, and everyone as a whole being bad -- humans. Vice versa, DagoodS is making a claim about a particular group focusing on the negative, not humans as a whole.
But do you have any posts that reflect a group of non-Christians is improving in any moral regard apart from God? I know you said that if you think we're all inclined to sin, it's contradictory to say that we are, hence we have no need for a Savior. But there's a difference between saying that the world is improving morally, and this particular example of morals is improving (like, maybe the whole world in the sense of entertainment is focusing too much on sex and violence, but there's a group of atheists or something actively working to reduce gun violence in a neighborhood through peaceful means, and they are suceeding).
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t really intending this to turn into “Let’s Talk about Stan”. *wink* I hope you don’t feel you are being picked on.
Brief review – I wrote about the Christian belief for the proclivity, the overwhelming tendency of humans, particularly non-Christian humans, to perform immoral rather than moral acts, and how this belief skews the Christian’s view of the world. Leading to a dismal expectation which becomes self-fulfilling.
I conceded Christians realize non-believers occasionally do manage to eek out a moral act or two—hence creating such doctrinal concepts as the pervasive grace of God. (To demonstrate this in your own belief, I will ask what OneSmallStep was getting to: “If God removed all the Christians, and then removed His interacting with the world—do you think the moral decline you see would decrease, stay the same, or increase?” I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts you would say “increase.”)
I must have been unclear, because you took what appears to be an extreme hyperbolic view of what I was saying.
Stan: I don't know any Christians that believe that human beings are as bad as they can possibly be.
I didn’t say that. Or:
Stan: And because I believe that humans have a sin nature, I must believe that all humans are only capable of making bad moral choices? Why?
Again, I explicitly didn’t say that. I did not say Christians believed humans were ONLY capable of making immoral decisions. Again, I stated they recognized humans COULD make moral decisions, and attempted to account for it.
I conceded that. And, in looking up some articles, realized I may have conceded too much. You referred to your Reform Theology. Since that label can be as broad as “Christianity,” I figured I would narrow it down to your blog and where you would link me to what you (presumably) believe. I found numerous articles. I will only quote three:
John Fram puts it succinctly:
Total Depravity: Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation. Here
Jonathan Edwards gets to the heart of the matter:
They have no goodness in them. Rom. 7:18, “In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.” They have no principle that disposes them to anything that is good. Natural men have no higher principle in their hearts than self-love. And herein they do not excel the devils. The devils love themselves, and love their own happiness, and are afraid of their own misery. And they go no further. Here
Or This:
The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of Jesus. If a drunkard, he may abstain from drink for utilitarian purposes, but he cannot do it out of love for God. All of his common virtues or good works have a fatal defect in that his motives which prompt them are not to glorify God, — a defect so vital that it throws any element of goodness as to man wholly into the shade. It matters not how good the works may be in themselves, for so long as the doer of them is out of harmony with God, none of his works are spiritually acceptable. Furthermore, the good works of the unregenerate have no stable foundation, for his nature is still unchanged; and as naturally and as certainly as the washed sow returns to her wallowing in the mire, so he sooner or later returns to his evil ways Here
Hmmm…seems they aren’t keen on saying humans can do anything which constitutes “moral” within their worldview!
The only reason you came up, Stan, was that I found it amusingly ironic when you said you had never met a Christian who was like I described, when I obtained the idea from…well…your posts. Now I see that the Reform Theology you hold to goes even farther than what I was saying, in not allowing any moral deeds on the part of humanity!
Now, you may claim this isn’t your belief—but there comes a point when I question why you would assume a label if you don’t hold to the beliefs? Why refer to Reform Theology when you don’t believe Reform Theology?
And now you turn it on me. Am I equally pessimistic about Christianity? This is fair—if we are going to point a finger in your direction, we should be willing to have the same finger pointed at us.
I am pessimistic about Christianity. The reason I don’t write anything beneficial about Christianity is that I don’t find anything beneficial about it! First, primary and foremost—It is wrong. Absolutely, geocentric, flat-earth, alien-snatching wrong. As I have written before, I hold honesty as one of the highest virtues—so it should be little surprise I hold dishonesty with such distaste.
The few beneficial items I could possibly squeeze out of Christianity would be available under any theistic system (charity, social gathering, placebo effect that someone knows what is going on, etc.) Frankly, such benefits are equally available under non-theism as well (I have discovered) but I realize the concept of God is so firmly fixed within our society, to remove it may cause more harm than good.
The detriments of Christianity far outweigh the benefits. The fact (as I point out in this blog) many Christians find us non-believers to be broken monsters is horrendous. Sadly, many of the same Christians find their fellow believers to be almost as broken. (You said it yourself; you write as many blogs over what Christians do incorrectly as non-Christians.)
And of course, going back to square one, the fact it is premised on a non-existent creature creates huge potentials for abuse. Since there is no Christian God, any person can say whatever they choose to say about what this God wants or does not, and there is no entity to counter it.
However, I would ask you to be careful not to translate my dislike for Christianity to include dislike for Christians. OneSmallStep is quite correct—there is a difference between opposing a belief, and considering the other person incapable of committing a moral act.
Let me demonstrate. I will number your quotes to emphasize the point:
1. “You, for instance, post almost (‘almost’?) exclusively about how bad Christianity is.” True.
2. “I don't see a lot of ‘Christianity is mostly good’… True
3. “I don't, however, conclude ‘Dagoods sees the world in a pessimistic light.’ [emphasis added]
Do you see how your third statement does NOT follow from the previous two? You switched from “you talk about how bad Christianity is” and “You don’t write ‘Christianity is mostly good’” to “I don’t conclude you see the world in a pessimistic light.”
Why should you? The conclusion doesn’t follow the first two statements! What would follow the first two statements is that I see Christianity in a pessimistic light. I do!
Like saying”
1. You post how bad Democrats are.
2. You don’t post how Democrats are good.
3. I don’t conclude “You see Republicans in a pessimistic light.”
The conclusion doesn’t follow!
Stan: Keep in mind, however, that your conclusions about what I believe don't determine what I believe.
True. But also keep in mind what you saying is communicating something about what you believe. Simply following it up with, “Oh, I don’t believe it” is…unconvincing.
Stan: He sees humans as good and Christians as bad. I see Christians as good and humans as bad. The difference?
The difference is that the first sentence is patently false. I do NOT see Christians as bad; I see Christianity as bad. I see Christians and humans as both being humans. Some good. Some bad. Again, as you point out—Christians are as incapable of immorality as non-Christians. Otherwise, why have so many blogs about Christians needing to change?
I see the belief of Christianity as wrong. In the same way, if you told me you thought the sun traveled around the earth—I would equally find such belief as wrong. Does that make you, as a human, “bad”? Of course not! It makes you mistaken—not immoral! I see no difference, morals-wise, between Christians and non-Christians. Both divorce at the same rate. Both embezzle. Both lie, cheat, steal, gossip, fight, are gluttons, proud, unloving, unforgiving and uncharitable.
I see persons attempting to justify what they want to find as moral or immoral by attributing it to a God—but this is only rationalization. In the end, it is the person’s own morality. They are moral or immoral on their own.
Yeah, I did say it was an extreme (I emphasized "extreme") oversimplification. (It was already a long comment.)
ReplyDeleteI have been careful to use the term "moral". "Can humans make good moral choices?" Yes. That is a fundamentally different question than the one addressed by dagoods' list of Reformed writers. They are answering "Can humans be good?" That's not the same thing. Making a good moral choice and being good aren't the same thing.
And I am bound by my belief that the Bible is correct. It says, "There is none good, no, not one." Now I can choose to paint people in a positive light and ignore the Bible, or I can choose to believe what it says ... and I end up with the "pessimist" label. What's a body to do?
I've been arguing that humans can make positive moral choices. I will also argue that humans are sinful at their core. These are not contradictory. (I don't think anyone has argued that they are ... at least not yet.) So I agree with the Reformed writers you called up that say that there is none good, but that doesn't mean (they didn't say) that people can't make positive moral choices. That simply says that the positive moral choices people make do not free them from being sinners. There is a difference between making a good choice and being good. (I'm sure that popular perceptions of Christianity have largely obscured that distinction, so I'm not particularly optimistic that it will be understood or accepted.)
It all seems a product of vague terms. As dagoods knows, I have a problem with vague terms, so perhaps I'll just leave it alone and let you all go on with your arguments. I'm pretty sure that the goal is not to carefully examine the views and arguments and come to a conclusion. The conclusions have already been reached. I do need to say to onesmallstep, however, that I don't really care what the couch is yelling. (Sorry ... couldn't resist. It was a humorous misspelling.)
**"Can humans make good moral choices?" Yes. That is a fundamentally different question than the one addressed by dagoods' list of Reformed writers. They are answering "Can humans be good?" That's not the same thing.
ReplyDelete**Making a good moral choice and being good aren't the same thing.**
Perhaps the question should be what drives the good moral choice. In the case of this example, the person doesn't have an affair because it would hurt his wife and the cost simply wouldn't be worth it. I would define both of those as good reasons for making said choice. Now, we could argue that the idea of the guilt not being worth it is a selfish choice -- the person doesn't have an affair because he doesn't want to feel guilty.
But what about hurting his wife? That's a selfless choice.
So if someone says that people can make a good moral choice, and yet is still inherently sinful ... then what drives the good choice? I mentioned this before, but I believe the Reformed doctrine says that any good act a person commits is still tainted with sin? No one can commit a 100% good act?
Because it seems that the writers DagoodS are quoting are saying that humans can't even make a good moral choice based on how God defines good. Hence, is the choice they make really good or moral? Maybe if just evaluating the choice in itself -- the decision to not have an affair. That is a good moral choice. But if the motivation gets examined, and it's because of self-love, then is the choice still good? I mean, one quote says, "Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation."
He says that the person can't do anything really good, and the fallen man has no goodness, even in deed. Yet the people are still making a good moral choice?
**That simply says that the positive moral choices people make do not free them from being sinners. **
I can never keep this oen straight, but are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners? Because if it's the former, then if we get labled sinners due to the fact that we sin, why can't that work vice versa and we're good when we do good?
If it's the latter, and we simply are sinners by default, then can any of us do anything that is 100% pure good?
**I do need to say to onesmallstep, however, that I don't really care what the couch is yelling. (Sorry ... couldn't resist. It was a humorous misspelling.)**
Well, I don't know ... I would think we'd care much more if a couch was yelling, since that would be a supernatural event. :)
Stan: I've been arguing that humans can make positive moral choices. I will also argue that humans are sinful at their core.
ReplyDeleteI know. But there has been no reason to argue. Because this is exactly what I said in the blog entry. It is why I can’t figure out why you are “arguing” when you seem to be saying the same thing I claimed all along.
The problem I will emphasize, is that Christians claim we can (on occasion) make a moral [as compared to immoral] choice, they see us with a tendency to make immoral decisions. Given the chance. The same reason you see non-Christians on a constant moral decline. A one-way trip towards worseville.
I disagree with that outlook.
Stan: So I agree with the Reformed writers you called up that say that there is none good, but that doesn't mean (they didn't say) that people can't make positive moral choices.
Actually they DID say that. Did you read the quotes? Let me pick out a few sentences:
…they cannot do anything really good,…
…fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed.
They have no goodness in them.
Natural men have no higher principle in their hearts than self-love.
…and as certainly as the washed sow returns to her wallowing in the mire, so he sooner or later returns to his evil way
They do a certain form of double-speak which looks like, “Oh, that heathen can perform an act that they call ‘good,”—but since it does not conform to our requirement of what ‘good’ must be, we can snicker up our sleeves at how they think it is ‘good’ but we know it really isn’t.”
You see, here's what happened. it looked like dagoods was arguing "Christians believe that humans only have the capacity to sin." He used the word "proclivity" and suggested that people with a "proclivity" will always go that way. That was what I was reacting against.
ReplyDeleteWhen we get to the question of "moral" versus "good", you have to understand that "good" is a relative term. A "good dog" and a "good man" are obviously not the same thing. They don't meet the same standard. So when Reformed folks refer to the fact that positive moral choices are not "good", they are referring to God's standard, not Man's. That's where the problem seems to be. When those Reformed folks said "they cannot do anything really good" (as per an example there), you read "they cannot make a positive moral choice" and I read "even their positive moral choices do not measure up to God's standard of good." What we have here is a failure to communicate.
(And, seriously, dagoods, I am really sorry for the horrendous examples you seem to have had to endure when it comes to Christians. They appear to be brainless, cruel-hearted, arrogant individuals. They can't think and they don't care a fig about anyone at all. How you could say, "I would ask you to be careful not to translate my dislike for Christianity to include dislike for Christians" is beyond me. I am simply glad that you don't conclude that all Christians aren't "geocentric, flat-earth, alien-snatching", "snicker up our sleeves at how they think it is 'good' but we know it really isn’t" people. At least, I hope you don't.)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI should let this go. In case any lurkers remain, I ought to point out the problem here. This is a double-speak that may be sufficient for a Sunday School of like-minded individuals, but upon inspection falls apart like tissue in the rain.
There are two problems here. First, the switching back and forth on the definition of the word “good” and second, even if this meant “good” as in God’s standard, it still leaves us with the same problem I was addressing in the blog entry—a view of the world that is both morally declining AND “not good” according to God’s standard.
As to the first problem—the use of the term “good.” The word “good” has a variety of meanings, primarily we use it to claim something is beneficial or that something is moral. [A quick side note, we use the word “moral” both to include an entire system, AND to differentiate it from an action that is immoral or non-moral. I am using the term “moral” to differentiate from non-moral or immoral actions.] What the word “good” means is dependent on context. We can normally figure it out.
If I tell you “Good job on building that shed”—you understand this is a compliment on doing a comparative job that was sufficient and beneficial. If I tell you “Helping little old ladies across the street is good”—you equally understand this is a moral determination.
“Good Job. B+”
“Good vs. Evil.”
In each of those situations, because of context, we can determine what the intention of the word “good” means. Now look at the quotes from the Reformers.
The second quote refers to all acts being of “self-love.” An immoral act. The third quote indicates while they may do “good” for a time, they will return to “evil.” Clearly a comparison of “good” (moral) vs. Evil (immoral). The Author is most certainly NOT saying, “They will do acts that are performed well, and will return to putting together sheds in a slip-shod fashion.”
I only picked a few out of the dozens of articles. Do you have a single article that indicates the authors think the word “good” as in “humans cannot do good” is referring to beneficial or sufficient acts?
Here’s another quote. From the most famous “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning, that would presently kindle and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God's restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isa. 57:20. For the present, God restrains their wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further;" but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked men live here, it is like fire pent up by God's restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.
Here
Look at the words used. “Wicked.” “Carnal.” “Corrupt.” When the word “good” is used in comparison—does it really mean “beneficial”? Or, within the context, does it mean “moral.”?
The second problem is that even if you did want to claim this term “good” meant some comparison as to a God standard—how does that help you argument? Isn’t your God the determinate for what is moral? Isn’t your God the determinate for what is beneficial, sufficient, helpful? What possible act can be “good” in that it is beneficial, but not moral, under your God’s determinate?
Isn’t your God the absolute standard for morality? Is it also the absolute standard for what is beneficial as compared to what is harmful?
Stan: So when Reformed folks refer to the fact that positive moral choices are not "good", they are referring to God's standard, not Man's.
Right, but aren’t Christian’s supposed to have “God’s standards”? In fact, any Christian holding to absolute morality would claim “God’s standards” are the ONLY standards to have. So when the Reformer refer to acts which are “not good” (and they think they are “not good” under God’s standard) don’t the Reformers equally hold them to be “not good”?
Stan: …I read "even their positive moral choices do not measure up to God's standard of good."
Exactly. You see us in a moral decline AND what beneficial acts we do, do not measure up to your God’s standard of “good.” Regardless of what definition of “good” we use. If we don’t measure up to your God’s standard of “good”—is it not equally true we do not measure up to your standard as well? Or can you have a different standard of good than your God’s?
The quote I did from John Frame (I notice I inadvertently dropped the “e” from his last name) spells out the continuing trouble nicely:
Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed.
"I should let this go."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I keep trying, and you keep necessitating an additional clarification. :) At least it can be done in a friendly manner (although judgment calls like "upon inspection falls apart like tissue in the rain" aren't really very friendly, now, are they?).
You define "good" as "sufficient and beneficial". I don't. The term is too broad and entirely relative to the context. "Good dog" is a dog acted in a manner that was correct for the dog. "A good dollar bill" (as opposed to a counterfeit dollar bill) would be a dollar bill that was real. "Good teeth" refers to teeth that are in excellent condition. A person who has a "good background" refers to someone who has been educated and has values. Someone with "good credit" suggests financial soundness. A "good friend" is not defined by being "sufficient and beneficial" or "moral". A "good Democrat" would be a loyal Democrat, regardless of how moral he or she might be or how sufficient or beneficial he or she might be to the party.
"Good deeds" would be moral deeds in relation to human choices. They're relative ... better than, say, "bad deeds". In the list of choices of things we do or not do, there are better choices than others. It is better if I, say, choose not to steal than if I choose to steal. Why I choose not to steal is another question. You see, if I say, "The reason I choose not to steal isn't a good reason" and choose, then, to steal, I haven't improved my moral choice. On the other hand, given two people who choose not to steal ("good moral choice"), one might do so because he doesn't want to get caught and the other might do so out of deep concern for others. Both, then, are "good" in that they didn't steal, but one is better than the other in why they made the correct moral choice. All relative, you see.
In comparison among humans, we have a standard of morality. "Do this; don't do that." Everyone knows that Christianity has these "rules" (and equate it with the moral code of most religions). If you do these things, it's better than if you don't. You would have made a "good moral choice." In comparison among humans, if you choose to do these things regardless of why, they are good moral choices ... in comparison among humans.
Ultimately, though, there is only one, valid, "good" motivation for making these choices from the perspective of the Creator. The only finally good motivation is "from God and for God". Since He is the center of the Universe, the Cause, the "Alpha and the Omega", everything ought to be done by His power for His glory. That makes the actions "good".
Obviously someone who is at war with God, even though they might make "good moral choices" -- choices that among humans are good -- they wouldn't be doing so for reasons that God finds ultimately good. So they would not, in the final analysis, by the standard God applies, be ultimately "good".
Bottom line, though, here's the deal. Since "God does not exist" and "It is not possible to have a rational religion" and other certainties you hold, there is no explanation suitable for you. (No, those aren't direct quotes; they're simply expressions of my understanding of what you believe.) So ... I'm certainly willing to let it go if you are. I don't claim to have trumped your logic and proven you wrong. Neither do I acquiesce and say you're right. We can part on the topic without feeling like one of us lost. Deal?
**Obviously someone who is at war with God, even though they might make "good moral choices" -- choices that among humans are good -- they wouldn't be doing so for reasons that God finds ultimately good. **
ReplyDeleteCan it truly be said, then, that a non-Christian can make a good moral choice? Surely the Christian's definition of good would match God's, in that the choice is only good or moral if it goes along with God's glory and such.
So we can say that people are capable of making good moral choices -- and do -- based on a human definition of the word. But to a Christian, that's not actually a good action, as it's done done for God's glory. We can say that people have made a good moral choice based on human values, but aren't Christians not supposed to use human values in the first place?
And if something isn't done for God's glory, but done for another purpose, I assume that action is a sin of some sort.
So when I see that no Christian believes that people are capable of moral action is actually a caricature, I'm not sure how, since the action is only truly good and moral if it has God as the center.
Can it truly be said, then, that a non-Christian can make a good moral choice?
ReplyDeleteSince this cannot end well, I will make this my last comment. You see, there is a sharp disconnect in use of terms here. This is basically how it goes:
Skeptic: "Christians teach that if you don't believe what they believe you cannot be good."
Counter: "Wait ... what, exactly, do you mean by 'good'?"
Skeptic: "You know. 'Good'! When you are kind to people and faithful to your spouse and so on."
Counter: "Well, no, that's not what Christians teach. We believe that anyone can be good."
Skeptic: "Oh, yeah? Well you believe that no one meets God's standards so no one is good!"
Counter: "Now you're changing terminology in mid-stream."
Skeptic: "See? You don't have a good answer."
First, if we cannot agree on a definition of "good", is it fair to disagree with Christians about their use of the term?
Second, if you don't really care what God's definition of "good" is, what difference does it make how Christians use it?
One other important point. I gave a Reformed perspective on the topic. You have to realize that the majority of Christianity would sharply disagree with that view. They think that anyone at any time can be good ... even by God's definition. They simply believe that no one can be good (even by God's definition) all the time. So it isn't Christianity who is at fault here for believing that God has a different standard than people have; it is mine. I tried to communicate in your terms. My mistake. I communicated a minority viewpoint. My mistake. Please accept my apology and return to your comfortable skepticism.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAs you said your comment was your last, I'll understand if there's no follow-up to this particular comment.
I agree with you in the disconnect on the use of terms, which is exactly what I asked you if we could truly say a Christian makes a good choice, since the only definition of good a Christian would use is the same as what God uses. Based on how I'm understanding your worldview -- and you're free to argue that I'm not at all ;) -- I don't see how you can label non-Christian doing something good. I can see how you can say that a non-Christians is perfectly capable of not stealing, not murdering, not commiting adultery. But I don't see how you can label any of those actions as for the glory of God.
So how I would say this, as the SKeptic, is as follows:
"There is a line of thought out there that says all non-Christians only do actions out of self-love, and while they might do the "right" actions, there is no goodness or righteousness attached to said actions. The non-Christian committed such action from selfishness. And the tendency of the non-Christians is to want to make the non-moral choices."
Essentially, whatever choice I decide to make, it always has sin attached to it. Every choice I make may even be because of sin, and not becaues I want to do something non-sinful. Any choice I make is not making me a better person. In fact, I'm not becoming a better person, period, based this particular perspective.
So I'm seeing the core argument as being that non-Christians are driven more towards immorality, and I would see you supporting that statement if you think that humanity as a whole is in moral decline.
I feel like this hasn't actually addressed the dialogue you provided, but everytime I read it, I don't feel as though that's the discussion any of us were having.
**First, if we cannot agree on a definition of "good", is it fair to disagree with Christians about their use of the term?**
There is a difference between defining "good" in seperate fashions, and failing to understand the other person. To my knowledge, I understand how you define good. An action that is God-focused, for God's glory.
And the disagreement comes from the fact not in how the word "good" is used, but in the sense that I don't think we can see that playing out in every single non-Christian's life. That every choice they all make is something God will never see as God -- and I know you're holding the minority view, so many Christians would in fact think we can do choices deemed as "good" by God.
**Second, if you don't really care what God's definition of "good" is, what difference does it make how Christians use it?**
I'm uncertain as to where I indicated I didn't care about God's standard/absolute standard of good. I do try to live by biblical princples, such as the Sermon on the Mount. I aim for the fruit of the Spirit, and so forth.
But as to the difference in how Christians use it -- it comes down to communication purposes, and just a basic worldview.
Or maybe it just really boils down to a problem you previously mentioned: ((When those Reformed folks said "they cannot do anything really good" (as per an example there), you read "they cannot make a positive moral choice" and I read "even their positive moral choices do not measure up to God's standard of good."**
It would come down to why their choices don't measure up to God's standard. Perhaps you're even talking about the same thing. From what I read, I would hold that we can't in fact make positive moral choices based on the Reformed quotes, because those choices are -- based on their viewpoint -- driven by sin/selfishness in some way. So someone can choose to not cheat on his wife simply because he doesn't want other people to think he's a bad person. That wouldn't be the most moral reason to not have an affair.
To you, while the choice is a "good" one, it doesn't measure up to God's standard becaues it's not done by his power for his glory. So while someone can choose not to cheat on his wife because he doesn't want to hurt his wife, if the choice isn't involving God in some fashion, it wouldn't qualify as a "good" action.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI know there are many uses of the word “good.” It is why I use the term “moral” instead to make the differentiation.
It seems you are saying what I said in my original blog. In fact, it now appears, as a Reformer, you go even farther than I did. (Making the statement about how you didn’t know any Christians like that, and I was thinking you were like that rather prophetic.)
It would appear under your definition of “moral” which must encompass pleasing God—it is impossible for a non-believer to commit a moral act.
Rather than use the word “good” to avoid any confusion, to make sure I am not mis-stating you I have two questions:
1) Is your “standard” of morality different than your God’s?
2) Under your God’s standard of morality—can a non-believer commit an act that is moral (as compared to acts which are non-moral or immoral)?
You won't let it alone, will you? I tried to explain my failure to communicate. I tried to let it go. I acknowledged my mistakes. And you won't let it go.
ReplyDeleteOkay, it still boils down to a communication breakdown.
Moral: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct." According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, morality is "a code of conduct put forward by a society." It is a code of conduct. It refers to the manner in which we conduct ourselves.
When I referred to "good", I referred to the entirety. Motivation is a factor in "good". "Morality" is determined by conduct, not motivation. Allow me to illustrate. Two people standing by a river see a child fall in. One, inspired by the fact that he might get his name in the papers, jumps in to save the child. The other, aware that he doesn't have the proper motivation, does not. Which one committed the moral act? That was what I understood you to mean by "moral". That is what I meant by "moral".
I believe that humans (Christians and not) are capable of making choices that are considered by society to be moral. They are able to give to charity, remain faithful to their spouse, and so on. They can choose to behave morally by society's standards.
I do not believe that all humans are capable of making good choices when it comes to selection of electronic components ("electronics society"), the proper buffer solution for DNA extraction ("forensics society"), or arguing the law ("legal society"). Varying societies have various standards. We weren't talking about them. We were talking about people -- society in general.
Do humans meet God's standards without help? I think I've already answered that. No. But here's the thing that confuses me. Why would humans who don't care about God (or, more accurately, actively deny His existence) care at all if they meet His standard or if someone who believes in Him thinks so?
Stan,
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to use a word in a way unlike anyone else—why would it be a surprise there is complete miscommunication? If I choose to define “Moose Colon” as being “strawberry cream cheese” yet no one else does; should I be surprised at the shock when offering to put some moose colon on a person’s bagel? Of course not.
I am unaware of any other paper or philosopher who makes your definitional distinction of:
1. Moral: conduct.
2. Good: conduct with intention.
This, in fact, adds a fifth (5th) category in the distinction of actions of morality. We have “good,” “moral,” “non-moral,” “amoral” and “immoral.” It is unclear as to whether you would add an opposite number of “bad” for a sixth (6th) category as well.
No one else does this. For some articles demonstrating intention IS a part of morality decisions see Here and Here Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, when discussing various positions on morality, indicate the philosopher’s position on how intent impacts morality. See Here
Again—do you have any articles or papers or somewhere for me to read that any philosopher adds this category of “good,” in addition to “moral” (and “non-moral, amoral and immoral”) by removing intent from “moral’?
Using your analogy of saving a drowning person. Assume Person A jumps in to save the victim. Person B jumps in to drown the victim. Person C jumps in to go swimming, ignorant of the victim.
While all three persons perform the same conduct—jump in water—we recognize the morality impact on there intention in going in the water. There is a difference in the intention to save, the intention to kill and the intention to cool off. One is moral, one is immoral and one is amoral.
As I see it, I wrote a blog on how many Christians find that non-believers have a propensity to do immoral acts, and that pessimistic belief impacts how the Christians view the world in general. I was willing to concede the recognition non-believers, on occasion, CAN do moral acts.
You responded this was bizarre, and you didn’t know any Christians like that, referring to the Reformed theology you believe. Upon looking up reformed writers (obtained from a link on your blog) I found I was conceding too much. They DON’T allow for a non-believer to commit an occasional moral act.
The authors use the words “carnal” and “evil” and “wicked” and “corrupt” as a synonym for “immoral” and use the word “good” as a synonym for “moral.” Since this is contrary to your first comment (turns out to not be so bizarre after all—the Reformed Theology to which you subscribe says this very thing) you have attempted to differentiate the word “good” as synonymously used by the authors and the word “moral” as I used it.
Are you attempting to extricate yourself from the fact there ARE numerous Christians who believe we non-Christians will never commit a moral act? They just use the synonym “good.”? If I re-wrote my entire blog entry and used the word “good” instead of moral—the same point is made.
So now, it would seem, you think we cannot commit any “good” act. Oh, we can love our wife—it is just with the wrong intention, so it is not “good.” We can give selflessly—still not “good.” Prior to being a Christian, if I gave $100 to Hurricane Disaster Relief Fund—it was not “good.” Believe there is a God, give the same $100—it is “good.” Now, deconverted, same $100—no longer “good.” Despite the fact my intention was to help others in all three situations, according to your view, it is only “good” if I am helping others to please God.
Worse, this creates a morality system in which any act can become “good,” based upon the intention of the person doing the act. Is murder immoral? Whoops, a human tells you it would “please God” to murder--and it becomes “good”!! (Numbers 31)
I am tired as can be from a long day of work, and all I want to do is go to bed. My wife asks for a back-rub. I give her one. Is it “good”? Depends—if I do it as a Christian to please God—yes. If I do it as a non-Christian to please my wife—it is not. At best it is only “moral” in your scheme, or “non-moral” in every other philosopher’s scheme.
Stan: Why would humans who don't care about God (or, more accurately, actively deny His existence) care at all if they meet His standard or if someone who believes in Him thinks so?
You don’t believe Allah, as portrayed by Islam, exists. Does it impact you how followers of Allah believe others meet Allah’s standards? Of course!
You view us non-believers as completely unable of committing a “good” act. (I will use your vernacular.) Every single gift we give, every act of love, every apparent non-selfish act we do, every thing we attempt and do to benefit others is not “good” to you.
You don’t think this has an impact in how we interact? On how you view us? On how you view the world in general? You see it in moral decline—because of us. This is clearly not viewing us in a positive light.
This permeates your writing. It screams out from our conversations.
I don’t care how or what you think your God requires you to do in the privacy of your own home. When, however, your God—your non-existent, human-made creature—requires you to view me in an incorrect light and you act upon that—I become a bit fussy.
I would rather you be faithful to your wife than not. I would rather you be kind to people than not. I would rather you come home dead tired and give your wife the back rub she needs than not. I would rather you jump in and save the kid than either of your other two options. I would commend you for those things. I would consider it much better than the alternatives. It would be better for you. It would be better for everyone. And I believe that you are capable of doing all of those things, for which I would be very glad.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that this classifies me as "pessimistic". Truth be told, most of what I write is to Christians, asking them to improve. That's "pessimistic." Regardless of how many "good things" you can do (by any standard), no one is perfect. I fear that this requires remediation, and I still hope that you end up in heaven. That's "pessimistic." If I have suggested in any of my writing that "no one can do anything that anyone would consider good", then stop reading my blog -- I'm a lousy communicator.