How can any believer not be happy / devout?
I don't get it. On the one hand god is greater than anything that can possibly be imagined, nothing can possibly compare to him, his power, his knowledge. He created the universe and everything in it including us and has the power to damn us to eternal torment. On the other hand, theists are claiming that believing in this god is no different from believing in anything else. You believe that smoking can kill you but do it anyway? That's the same as a an omnipotent God telling you that if you do this thing you'll go to Hell and suffer torture for all eternity and you do it anyway... If I believed in god, you can be sure that I'd be making a much greater effort not to commit sins than the majority of theists.
In what way are they the same? Is this some semantic or philosophical issue over what 'belief' and 'same' mean? Why are there some believers more devout than others? Are they wasting time being so devout when they could be yucking it up with the other theists or do most people go to hell?
In what way are they the same? Is this some semantic or philosophical issue over what 'belief' and 'same' mean? Why are there some believers more devout than others? Are they wasting time being so devout when they could be yucking it up with the other theists or do most people go to hell?
This is not that tough. I think you are being intentionally obtuse in some valiant but failed attempt to assert a point. I am out.
It's a really simple question Aaron. If your (imaginary) wife imposed a rule on you (or in any way required a certain behaviour from you), with both good and bad consequences depending on your actions, would it have the same importance to you and would you make no greater effort to follow it than you do with the rules imposed on your behaviour by your god?
Would your belief that certain bahaviours are conducive to a pleasant marriage (should that be desirable to you) be more or less important than your belief that certain behaviors are required of you to avoid spending eternity in Hell because you defied your god?
I don't get it. On the one hand god is greater than anything that can possibly be imagined, nothing can possibly compare to him, his power, his knowledge. He created the universe and everything in it including us and has the power to damn us to eternal torment. On the other hand, theists are claiming that believing in this god is no different from believing in anything else.
I believe this question, or the question of the OP, actually has a fair amount of validity to it. The chances are, if you stopped by a church in the US this last Sunday and listened to the service, you would hear some sort of exhortation towards deeper commitment to religious practice, whether that is in terms of supporting the church, being charitable, forgiving of others, praying more, attending services more often, etc etc.
Or you can open the New Testament and read any number of passages about the singular value of faith. For example that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a hidden treasure that inspires a person to sell all that they have in order to purchase it. Or what good is it to gain the whole world but lose one's soul?
So I don't think the question is entirely ludicrous, and certainly from a Christian perspective faith in God is not supposed to be like other kinds of beliefs. The existence of monasticism as a practice also testifies to this idea.
So I don't think there's an argument about whether Christians should be motivated more by their beliefs to live in a certain way. Christian teaching plainly says they should, but even the most dedicated struggle to do so. So the question is not so much whether or not they should but whether or not a failure to do so is an argument against the actual strength or truth of those beliefs.
And what everyone else is trying to point out is the conclusion only follows if it's generally the case that strongly held beliefs manifest themselves absolutely in people's actions. As OrP said, it's a faulty model of psychology. The question still perhaps supports an abductive argument that says it doesn't seem to make sense for a God to exist, make certain demands, and then not provide the capacity to fulfill them, but that's a different sort of argument from the one being made implicitly by the line of questioning.
And just as a footnote, or as interesting juxtaposition with the parable of the hidden treasure or the pearl of great price: Christian teaching also recognizes this limitation in human nature. The very disciples of Jesus who were with him every day could not watch one hour with him in prayer at Gethsemene. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". There is also an example in the bible of someone who said something very much like "If I believed in god, I would follow his guidance to the letter." Peter said he would never betray Jesus, but then denied him three times that very night, according to the story. The weakness of human will is a central idea in Christian teaching.
Sorry if this is rambly, it's mostly just an excuse to post all the various slightly unrelated thoughts I have on the topic :P
But that analogy is theologically wrong on a large number of levels, thus creating a strawman.
Or nah, I guess people think more along the lines of, "If I'm basically good then I'll get into heaven." They don't think the risk of hell is high if they're not doing any serious sins, so they can do what they want for the most part and still get into heaven. The god people believe in doesn't send people to hell for not being obsessed with religion. Maybe a combination of this and what OrP referred to.
I haven't been following this super closely, and I expect some of this is slightly redundant, so apologies in advance.
I believe this question, or the question of the OP, actually has a fair amount of validity to it. The chances are, if you stopped by a church in the US this last Sunday and listened to the service, you would hear some sort of exhortation towards deeper commitment to religious practice, whether that is in terms of supporting the church, being charitable, forgiving of others, praying more, attending services more often, etc etc.
Or you can open the New Testament and read any number of passages about the singular value of faith. For example that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a hidden treasure that inspires a person to sell all that they have in order to purchase it. Or what good is it to gain the whole world but lose one's soul?
So I don't think the question is entirely ludicrous, and certainly from a Christian perspective faith in God is not supposed to be like other kinds of beliefs. The existence of monasticism as a practice also testifies to this idea.
So I don't think there's an argument about whether Christians should be motivated more by their beliefs to live in a certain way. Christian teaching plainly says they should, but even the most dedicated struggle to do so. So the question is not so much whether or not they should but whether or not a failure to do so is an argument against the actual strength or truth of those beliefs.
And what everyone else is trying to point out is the conclusion only follows if it's generally the case that strongly held beliefs manifest themselves absolutely in people's actions. As OrP said, it's a faulty model of psychology. The question still perhaps supports an abductive argument that says it doesn't seem to make sense for a God to exist, make certain demands, and then not provide the capacity to fulfill them, but that's a different sort of argument from the one being made implicitly by the line of questioning.
And just as a footnote, or as interesting juxtaposition with the parable of the hidden treasure or the pearl of great price: Christian teaching also recognizes this limitation in human nature. The very disciples of Jesus who were with him every day could not watch one hour with him in prayer at Gethsemene. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". There is also an example in the bible of someone who said something very much like "If I believed in god, I would follow his guidance to the letter." Peter said he would never betray Jesus, but then denied him three times that very night, according to the story. The weakness of human will is a central idea in Christian teaching.
Sorry if this is rambly, it's mostly just an excuse to post all the various slightly unrelated thoughts I have on the topic :P
I believe this question, or the question of the OP, actually has a fair amount of validity to it. The chances are, if you stopped by a church in the US this last Sunday and listened to the service, you would hear some sort of exhortation towards deeper commitment to religious practice, whether that is in terms of supporting the church, being charitable, forgiving of others, praying more, attending services more often, etc etc.
Or you can open the New Testament and read any number of passages about the singular value of faith. For example that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a hidden treasure that inspires a person to sell all that they have in order to purchase it. Or what good is it to gain the whole world but lose one's soul?
So I don't think the question is entirely ludicrous, and certainly from a Christian perspective faith in God is not supposed to be like other kinds of beliefs. The existence of monasticism as a practice also testifies to this idea.
So I don't think there's an argument about whether Christians should be motivated more by their beliefs to live in a certain way. Christian teaching plainly says they should, but even the most dedicated struggle to do so. So the question is not so much whether or not they should but whether or not a failure to do so is an argument against the actual strength or truth of those beliefs.
And what everyone else is trying to point out is the conclusion only follows if it's generally the case that strongly held beliefs manifest themselves absolutely in people's actions. As OrP said, it's a faulty model of psychology. The question still perhaps supports an abductive argument that says it doesn't seem to make sense for a God to exist, make certain demands, and then not provide the capacity to fulfill them, but that's a different sort of argument from the one being made implicitly by the line of questioning.
And just as a footnote, or as interesting juxtaposition with the parable of the hidden treasure or the pearl of great price: Christian teaching also recognizes this limitation in human nature. The very disciples of Jesus who were with him every day could not watch one hour with him in prayer at Gethsemene. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". There is also an example in the bible of someone who said something very much like "If I believed in god, I would follow his guidance to the letter." Peter said he would never betray Jesus, but then denied him three times that very night, according to the story. The weakness of human will is a central idea in Christian teaching.
Sorry if this is rambly, it's mostly just an excuse to post all the various slightly unrelated thoughts I have on the topic :P
wp
Your wife asks something of you that directly contradicts and requires you to clearly ignore and break the "rules" set forth by your God. Is there a conflict? What do you choose to do?
That's not really what I asked and I think you know this. I'm trying to ascertain whether or not there are some beliefs that you hold and consider more important than other of your beliefs.
Your wife asks something of you that directly contradicts and requires you to clearly ignore and break the "rules" set forth by your God. Is there a conflict? What do you choose to do?
Your wife asks something of you that directly contradicts and requires you to clearly ignore and break the "rules" set forth by your God. Is there a conflict? What do you choose to do?
I'll anticipate that the question will be answered this time and go straight to question two: 'If so, one of them has to be the most important, which is it?'
As OrP said, it's a faulty model of psychology. The question still perhaps supports an abductive argument that says it doesn't seem to make sense for a God to exist, make certain demands, and then not provide the capacity to fulfill them, but that's a different sort of argument from the one being made implicitly by the line of questioning.
And just as a footnote, or as interesting juxtaposition with the parable of the hidden treasure or the pearl of great price: Christian teaching also recognizes this limitation in human nature. The very disciples of Jesus who were with him every day could not watch one hour with him in prayer at Gethsemene. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". There is also an example in the bible of someone who said something very much like "If I believed in god, I would follow his guidance to the letter." Peter said he would never betray Jesus, but then denied him three times that very night, according to the story. The weakness of human will is a central idea in Christian teaching.
Denying Christ, to avoid crucifixion, is not the same kind failing as the type of sinful pleasures that risk eternal damnation and yet are regularly partaken of by theists. The latter should be easily avoided if the believer truly believes that they risk an eternity in Hell, no?
I'm a very occasional smoker, despite knowing and truly believing that smoking can kill you in very unpleasant ways, but I don't really believe that it's going to happen to me. If you told, hands down no doubt at all that smoking WILL give me cancer, I wouldn't smoke and it would be an easy decision. And all we're talking about here is a few months maybe of suffering which is nothing when compared to the eternity of torment that Christianity promises for sinners.
If you told, hands down no doubt at all that smoking WILL give me cancer, I wouldn't smoke and it would be an easy decision.
Or maybe you think you would have no difficulty actually quitting. Perhaps that is true, I don't know you at all, but I would say there are good reasons to suspect that you are mistaken. Physical addiction is not particularly sensitive to anyone's beliefs about how likely smoking is to kill them, even if some have an easier time of it than others.
Not all behavior is physically addictive in the way that cigarettes are, but many of the kinds of habits that a Christian would ideally like to change have that kind of weight or inertia attached to them, if perhaps not all at the same level. In the eastern Christian tradition they call them "passions", which is a way of distinguishing between the idea of a long-standing and difficult to break habit from some individual sinful occasion. For example it says that to be angry with your brother without a cause is a sin. One can decide they do not wish to act in anger but not actually have complete emotional control. It may be a struggle over a long time to gain that kind of control and maturity. Many passions are of this sort. Much of human thinking and behavior is this way. It's not completely rational or explicitly controlled by our conscious wishes. If you can look at your own habits and thoughts and say that you never react in a way that is not in total accordance with your idea of how you ought to act, than I think you are rather unique in that regard.
Ok, I tried to use your 'wife' analogy but it isn't really helping me so I'll just come right out with the question, only this time I'll add a question mark so you're clear that it's a question. 'Do you have any beliefs that are more important to you than any other of your beliefs?'
I'll anticipate that the question will be answered this time and go straight to question two: 'If so, one of them has to be the most important, which is it?'
Your model of human behavior is almost certainly flawed.
at the risk of being overly nitty, it may be an easy decision and yet not be easy to actually follow through on that decision. A believer may decide to radically change their former habits of thinking, speaking, and behaving, but it's not necessarily easy to actually do so.
Or maybe you think you would have no difficulty actually quitting. Perhaps that is true, I don't know you at all, but I would say there are good reasons to suspect that you are mistaken. Physical addiction is not particularly sensitive to anyone's beliefs about how likely smoking is to kill them, even if some have an easier time of it than others.
Not all behavior is physically addictive in the way that cigarettes are, but many of the kinds of habits that a Christian would ideally like to change have that kind of weight or inertia attached to them, if perhaps not all at the same level. In the eastern Christian tradition they call them "passions", which is a way of distinguishing between the idea of a long-standing and difficult to break habit from some individual sinful occasion. For example it says that to be angry with your brother without a cause is a sin. One can decide they do not wish to act in anger but not actually have complete emotional control. It may be a struggle over a long time to gain that kind of control and maturity. Many passions are of this sort. Much of human thinking and behavior is this way. It's not completely rational or explicitly controlled by our conscious wishes. If you can look at your own habits and thoughts and say that you never react in a way that is not in total accordance with your idea of how you ought to act, than I think you are rather unique in that regard.
Or maybe you think you would have no difficulty actually quitting. Perhaps that is true, I don't know you at all, but I would say there are good reasons to suspect that you are mistaken. Physical addiction is not particularly sensitive to anyone's beliefs about how likely smoking is to kill them, even if some have an easier time of it than others.
Not all behavior is physically addictive in the way that cigarettes are, but many of the kinds of habits that a Christian would ideally like to change have that kind of weight or inertia attached to them, if perhaps not all at the same level. In the eastern Christian tradition they call them "passions", which is a way of distinguishing between the idea of a long-standing and difficult to break habit from some individual sinful occasion. For example it says that to be angry with your brother without a cause is a sin. One can decide they do not wish to act in anger but not actually have complete emotional control. It may be a struggle over a long time to gain that kind of control and maturity. Many passions are of this sort. Much of human thinking and behavior is this way. It's not completely rational or explicitly controlled by our conscious wishes. If you can look at your own habits and thoughts and say that you never react in a way that is not in total accordance with your idea of how you ought to act, than I think you are rather unique in that regard.
My point, is that given a great enough incentive, and I don't think they get much bigger for a believer than whether or not you experience eternal bliss in heaven or eternal torment in Hell, it should be easier to act accordingly and in particular with regard to those very minor and easy to avoid 'sins of pleasure'. Frankly, MToM seems like a post hoc or special pleading type of deal to me.
Also, this raises all sorts of questions for me about who actually does get into heaven and who goes to Hell and if no one is perfect then there must be a threshold so what is it, etc etc?
this is very pertinent and you should have hit on it earlier. your posts the whole way through have taken it as a given that a person believes they will go to hell for eternity every time they sin, but this isn't so. most will probably believe they "have a chance" even if they do sin repeatedly. indeed christianity teaches that everyone has a chance if they repent etc. so this idea of you "snap calling" a perfect, sin-free life and sticking to it (which christians are taught is impossible anyway) is pretty much bollocks.
There are people who are told hands down that they won't be able to see their children again if they can't stay clean and sober. Many of those people fail to stay clean and sober, and don't see their children again. It's such an easy decision. Yet they don't do it AND they have the immediacy of feeling the consequences of their failure AND they don't like it.
In any case, there are also plenty of people who do sober up because not losing their children is a convincing incentive.
lol, I guess we have something in common then. Seriously, who's 'model' isn't flawed? You think you have it all sussed out and people are transparent to you?
lol, I guess we have something in common then. Seriously, who's 'model' isn't flawed? You think you have it all sussed out and people are transparent to you?
I'm not proposing that I have a model of human behavior, you are. You're the one who declared that his behavior would be perfect if he were a believer. Your model for human behavior came right at the start of this thread:
Originally Posted by you
One obvious explanation is that it's not actually true and that deep down inside, most people know that.
This model is wrong and stupid.
Oh Aaron, it's becoming very tedious and unpleasant to discuss anything with you. You just make stuff up and insult me all the time. I don't have a 'model', I just went along with your phrasing, I never used the word 'perfect', You bring up drunk parents putting alcohol before their kids and when I point out that some go sober to keep their kids you accuse me of 'cherry picking'... I mean it's just lawz all the way. I can't take you seriously at the moment. I've put you on ignore and I'm taking a break from you.
That's okay. I don't think anyone has taken you seriously here in a long time. I know I haven't.
Lol.
1) I'm sure I'd still have imperfect impulses and impure thoughts, but I wouldn't act on them and I'd redirect my attention to pure thoughts. (I know, easier said than done and there's no way to perform this experiment now but w/e.)
2) If "perfect behavior" simply equals "obeying X set of commands" then the word "perfect" doesn't have as strong a meaning. Obviously I myself wouldn't be perfect, but I'd behave "perfectly" for a human. I agree that being perfect would mean being superhuman which I am not.
3) It's much easier to follow X set of rules when you're not following them for them. For instance if the only reason I don't do Z is because I know God says Z is a sin, then that's not as hard as not knowing Z is a sin and still choosing not to do Z. If Z is indeed a sin and doing Z = imperfection, then it takes more "perfection" to have never heard the commandments and still not perform action Z (to just naturally not have any inclination to do Z, or to have the inclination but still see whatever wisdom there is in resisting the urge).
4) In my environments, I wouldn't have many temptations to sin in the first place, so it would be easier for me than a lot of other people*. For instance I said that I'd probably be in a monastery by now, or on my way to getting into one. Chances are the other monks wouldn't be doing things to piss me off and there wouldn't be many bad temptations around me in a monastery, so I feel like it would be pretty easy not to sin there.
(*Though I guess Christians believe everyone gets tested equally hard, regardless of environment?)
Note: I'm not implying by #3 that "well-behaved" atheists are "more perfect" than well-behaved believers (especially since I don't believe in an objective morality or a such thing as better/worse behavior). You can substitute "knowing Z is a sin" with "having X set of principles for whatever nonreligious reasons", so that to obey X set of principles still doesn't require that you be free of anti-Z impulses.
Edit -- furthermore, I feel like there must be some "perfect-behaving" people in the world. Maybe some monks, pastors, nuns, imams, gurus etc. (I would include priests but lol...). How much sinning could Mother Theresa have been doing in her later years?
I also think I'd behave "perfectly" if I were still a believer (though I'm not extending my own behavior to model human behavior). And that's not as arrogant as it sounds (lol), here's why.
1) I'm sure I'd still have imperfect impulses and impure thoughts, but I wouldn't act on them and I'd redirect my attention to pure thoughts. (I know, easier said than done and there's no way to perform this experiment now but w/e.)
1) I'm sure I'd still have imperfect impulses and impure thoughts, but I wouldn't act on them and I'd redirect my attention to pure thoughts. (I know, easier said than done and there's no way to perform this experiment now but w/e.)
2) If "perfect behavior" simply equals "obeying X set of commands" then the word "perfect" doesn't have as strong a meaning. Obviously I myself wouldn't be perfect, but I'd behave "perfectly" for a human. I agree that being perfect would mean being superhuman which I am not.
3) It's much easier to follow X set of rules when you're not following them for them. For instance if the only reason I don't do Z is because I know God says Z is a sin, then that's not as hard as not knowing Z is a sin and still choosing not to do Z. If Z is indeed a sin and doing Z = imperfection, then it takes more "perfection" to have never heard the commandments and still not perform action Z (to just naturally not have any inclination to do Z, or to have the inclination but still see whatever wisdom there is in resisting the urge).
4) In my environments, I wouldn't have many temptations to sin in the first place, so it would be easier for me than a lot of other people*. For instance I said that I'd probably be in a monastery by now, or on my way to getting into one. Chances are the other monks wouldn't be doing things to piss me off and there wouldn't be many bad temptations around me in a monastery, so I feel like it would be pretty easy not to sin there.
(*Though I guess Christians believe everyone gets tested equally hard, regardless of environment?)
(*Though I guess Christians believe everyone gets tested equally hard, regardless of environment?)
At this point, you've got a really awkward theology of sin. It appears that you are using "sin" as only a restrictive list of behaviors. It does not appear, given how you've constructed your argument, that you are using "sin" in a way that does not include a failure to behave in a certain manner. "Not getting angry" is a lot different from "Being at peace" or the even stronger "Behaving in a manner that brings peace to others."
Edit -- furthermore, I feel like there must be some "perfect-behaving" people in the world. Maybe some monks, pastors, nuns, imams, gurus etc. (I would include priests but lol...). How much sinning could Mother Theresa have been doing in her later years?
In general, you ought to go on these speculations less often. You haven't actually produced anything useful here.
if i still played basketball, i'd be dominating the nba by now because i'd spend every spare second training and studying the game and wouldn't allow myself to be anything less than better than lebron james.
kinda what some people on here are saying isn't it?
kinda what some people on here are saying isn't it?
No time to respond to much now but can't disagree with that quote lol.
You might view it that way but I've given reasons why it's not like that at all. When I was still christian, I wasn't sinning much. But I was only 11-12 and my group of friends didn't get into trouble, so again see #4, it has been pretty easy for me personally not to "sin" due to my lucky environment. But if we must use completely exaggerated analogies, it's more like saying I was already in the NBA, retired at age 24 and telling you now that had I not retired I'd still be in the NBA at age 34. (Like it's as hard to behave well as it is to be a professional athlete...)
Also understand that now as an atheist, I don't think there's even a such thing as "behaving well", so it's not like I think any of this is something to be proud / egotistical about. I don't view behavior as an accomplishment, hence I'm not bragging or saying any of this with pride. I'm mostly just saying that if I'm programmed to follow X commands, I'll follow X commands. I am just a brain and a brain is nothing but a machine. I'm just not as easy for others to program anymore
Originally Posted by hainesty
if i still played basketball, i'd be dominating the nba by now because i'd spend every spare second training and studying the game and wouldn't allow myself to be anything less than better than lebron james.
kinda what some people on here are saying isn't it?
kinda what some people on here are saying isn't it?
Also understand that now as an atheist, I don't think there's even a such thing as "behaving well", so it's not like I think any of this is something to be proud / egotistical about. I don't view behavior as an accomplishment, hence I'm not bragging or saying any of this with pride. I'm mostly just saying that if I'm programmed to follow X commands, I'll follow X commands. I am just a brain and a brain is nothing but a machine. I'm just not as easy for others to program anymore
You might view it that way but I've given reasons why it's not like that at all. When I was still christian, I wasn't sinning much. But I was only 11-12 and my group of friends didn't get into trouble, so again see #4, it has been pretty easy for me personally not to "sin" due to my lucky environment.
But if we must use completely exaggerated analogies, it's more like saying I was already in the NBA, retired at age 24 and telling you now that had I not retired I'd still be in the NBA at age 34.
Also understand that now as an atheist, I don't think there's even a such thing as "behaving well", so it's not like I think any of this is something to be proud / egotistical about. I don't view behavior as an accomplishment, hence I'm not bragging or saying any of this with pride. I'm mostly just saying that if I'm programmed to follow X commands, I'll follow X commands. I am just a brain and a brain is nothing but a machine. I'm just not as easy for others to program anymore
Didn't know that, I thought they played much longer. Guess I'm thinking of a few outliers. I definitely would have used different numbers in my analogy had I known.
I don't feel like arguing this anymore. The only point I was trying to make is not that I'm awesome, but that imo people overestimate the difficulty, all because some book says it's impossible.
I did want to comment on your Mother Theresa remark though. Yes, she'd have disagreed with me, but that's because she would have felt immodest agreeing with me, whether or not she really was on a non-sinning streak. She probably had the same idea that it was sooo impossible, and might not have even realized if she was already achieving it.
But I'll give ground, chances are I was underestimating. So my final answer is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Also, I wasn't saying I wouldn't slip ever, I was saying it would be very infrequently.
Now, unrelated to my OP but I'm curious and thread is bout done anyway.
If everyone doesn't get tested equally, then getting into heaven/hell is partly a matter of luck? That can't be the official theology?
edit -- or does God grade on a curve?
I don't feel like arguing this anymore. The only point I was trying to make is not that I'm awesome, but that imo people overestimate the difficulty, all because some book says it's impossible.
I did want to comment on your Mother Theresa remark though. Yes, she'd have disagreed with me, but that's because she would have felt immodest agreeing with me, whether or not she really was on a non-sinning streak. She probably had the same idea that it was sooo impossible, and might not have even realized if she was already achieving it.
But I'll give ground, chances are I was underestimating. So my final answer is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Also, I wasn't saying I wouldn't slip ever, I was saying it would be very infrequently.
Now, unrelated to my OP but I'm curious and thread is bout done anyway.
Originally Posted by me
But I was only 11-12 and my group of friends didn't get into trouble, so again see #4, it has been pretty easy for me personally not to "sin" due to my lucky environment.
Originally Posted by you
LOL
Originally Posted by me
(*Though I guess Christians believe everyone gets tested equally hard, regardless of environment?)
Originally Posted by you
* is not consistent with a broad range of Christian perspectives... probably all of them.
edit -- or does God grade on a curve?
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE