The Parable of the Absent Parents

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Feb 3, 2020.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    So you claim Jesus was lying in the Bible, and you disregard his words on that topic. That's fine; plenty of people disregard this or that in the Bible for whatever reason. But note that you have now substituted your own personal, secular morality and placed it above the Bible in that case. Great! That's what most sane people do. You've entered the far saner world of secular humanism.
    I did. You claimed that since "the general public are completely unaware of any of [AC Grayling's book]" that it is not consequential. Imagine how foolish you would look if you claimed that since the general public is completely unaware of the Magna Carta, it was inconsequential.

    You then added on " it does not even engender a sense of community" as an additional thought. Again, imagine how foolish you would look if you claimed that since vaccines did not engender a sense of community, they were inconsequential.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." No laws in there. Merely a simple statement of morality, that to get closer to perfect we should have justice, a common defense, a promotion of general welfare, and liberty. Good morals IMO.
     
    Jeeves likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    I wish more Americans subscribed to it!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,236
    Yes. Jame's could be one of them. Have you heard of the God gene?

    Are you from England? Umpteenth time I have only heard in my area of England, pretty interesting

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Exactly. People have been naturally brutal, without ever being taught to do so. People have to be taught to not do whatever they feel like doing, just because they can.
    No, human sacrifice likely started as a means to appease evil spirits, by superstitious people who simply did not understand the natural world any better. It likely was not the scheme of individuals, intentionally inventing things.
    Well, if you believe the Bible was wholly written by men, they were smart enough to teach against human sacrifice.


    You seem to either be ignorant of the New Covenant or viewing the Bible through presentism.

    No, you added the "not consequential" as an obvious straw man.
    Zero mention of how "consequential" it may or may not be. Do better than that.

    Yes, "in order to form a more perfect union" of states under a unified federal government. That's organization, not morality. And the duties of such a government, to protect certain rights, are not morals either. It is tasked with protecting, not granting, such things.

    Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking if you think the thing being perfected there are the justice, welfare, etc. you laughably call "morality". You know, instead of what it actually says, that it's only "to form a more perfect union" between independent states.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Vociferous:

    What's the source of the divine spark in any human? If it's God, then morality comes from God, right?

    Yes I did, in the very post you're replying to. Maybe, in future, try reading the entire post before you reply line by line.

    Men were the source of the morality in the bible, then?

    That's an interesting question.

    One thing to note is that there are lots of religions that don't emphasise the morality of the gods in the same way that the Abrahamic religions do. To pick one example, the ancient Greek and Roman gods were not generally considered to be moral exemplars. To see that, you only need to look at the behaviour of any of the gods in the myths (take Zeus, for instance). The concept of "sin" is a particular focus of Christianity, but it really isn't the focus of many other religions.

    Historically, there have been many secular organisations that have engendered community without any focus on gods.

    What? I was responding to your comments on your own personal experience, there. You said you've never met an adult Christian who was afraid of God enforcing moral rules. I have come across such people, so I suggested that maybe your own experience is an unreliable measure of what exists out there in the wider world. There are people out there who genuinely fear hell, and hell is God's enforcement of his rules, regardless of how much you insist that all the blame falls on the "sinners".

    I don't quite know where that piece of condescension came from. Luckily, my understanding of Christianity is not restricted to what I knew as a child, so you don't need to worry for me on that score.

    Something I said indicates to you that I lack an adult understanding of religion?

    You're trying to insult me by making the empty claim that my understanding has not evolved with age. Is that it?

    Interesting.

    You're saying, then, that God's moral rules have reasons? They aren't just arbitrary expressions of God's will? If that is the case, morality is logically separate from God, is it not?

    I don't see why it's silly. Why is God needed in this process of human beings coming up with a sensible set of moral rules to live by? Can you explain? Are you saying our own rationality is insufficient to arrive at a suitable set of moral rules on our own? Out of interest, have you read any secular moral philosophy?

    It depends a lot on how sophisticated any given adult is, morally speaking. I think there are certainly some religious adults who act morally mainly out of fear, whether it be fear of punishment on Earth or in some kind of post-death punishment.

    No, I don't want to beg off that. I think my parable is worth discussing in the context of God and religion. You don't have to join in if it bothers you.

    Are you saying, then, that God's moral rules (e.g. in the bible) are simply guides to good behaviour? God hopes we will behave properly, but God won't take any particular action if we don't?

    To be fair, the bible has a 2000 year head start over A.C. Grayling. Maybe if you check back 2000 years from now. Who knows what you'll find?

    Also, historically, atheism and texts associated with it have been actively suppressed by the religious majority.

    You quoted the wiki page on the Roman Catholic definition of Hell as a state of "self-exclusion" from God.

    The punishment may be internally imposed, as you put it, but we read that it is eternal punishment.

    It seems a little harsh to impose eternal exclusion from God's Divine Magnificence merely for bad choices made in this short human life, don't you think? Is there any coming back from the eternal hell after death, in your opinion, or is it a done deal the moment you die? General opinion, I think, is that the punishment is irrevocable after death. I am wrong?

    Another problem I have with the Catholic hell is this whole "dying in mortal sin" thing. That can sometimes happen by accident, can't it? You miss Confession and then have a sudden heart attack. Then what? Separated from God forever by your own free choice?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    (continued...)

    You might claim the analogy is poor. Let's assume it is, for the sake of argument. You can still answer the "loaded questions" within the context of the scenario that was put, can't you, and ignore the analogy you think is flawed?

    Are these your thoughts on my scenario, then, or is this a hypothetical answer you think somebody might give, were they to consider it?

    I recall that, historically, the Catholics have been rather worried about the divine status of babies who died too soon to be baptised. Was that ever a real problem, in your opinion?

    On the other matter, I am an atheist. According to you, that means I "reject" God, right? Do you think I will go to hell for all eternity as a result? Is there any hope for me? What action would you advise me to take in order to avoid this self-imposed punishment?

    I don't know. The Ten Commandments aren't even clearly labelled as such in the bible. They appear in Exodus, but then we get a whole lot of other laws from God in Deuteronomy, which supposedly came later. It seems very likely to me that the writers of the bible didn't consider the Ten Commandments to be sufficient. What do you think?

    Thanks. I thought so, too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No. Prison is a choice we human beings make. The purposes of prisons have evolved over time. Also, bear in mind that the "natural consequences" for criminals who are caught have been, and still are in some places, many and varied. Thieves used to have their hands cut off, for instance, and Islamic State, for one, still applied that punishment in the name of Allah.

    Is redemption from hell possible after death?

    Like I said, the notion has been watered down somewhat in our modern, more gentle, era.

    It's hardly torture. Practically speaking, I'm obliged to live surrounded by people who self-identify as theists, for the time being. I'm interested to understand out how the majority thinks (or fails to think, as the case might be).

    As a theist, you want to ensure that your own beliefs about God and morality can withstand a little intrusive questioning by unsophisticated atheists like myself, don't you? Without challenge, how will you grow? Do you think you already have all the answers? Are you so sure of your own beliefs?

    How about I point you to one example of self-indentifying Christians who say they are afraid of going to hell?

    Try here:

    https://www.christianforums.com/threads/are-you-afraid-of-going-to-hell.8011603/

    The opening poster there says s/he "can't stop thinking about it", both for him/herself and for others. The second poster says s/he has been "totally paralyzed by the fear of it".

    Interesting, the fourth poster to the thread says "I wonder about people like me, what's going to happen to everybody? I don't know. It's not up to me but it's very terrifying." [my emphasis]

    Clearly that last poster didn't get your memo about self-exclusion from God. Do you care that he or she has this fear?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Our friends over at christianforums have also helpfully provided some bible quotes about hell. For example 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 says that in the end God "will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might."

    Again, this strikes me as a bit different from the self-exclusion from God idea that Vociferous is pushing. It makes it sound like God will take an active hand in the punishment process.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Another Christian source of advice about hell:

    https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-hell-fair.html

    It says this:

    The realities of eternal damnation, eternal hell, and eternal punishment are frightening and disturbing. But it is good that we might, indeed, be terrified. While this may sound grim, there is good news. God loves us (John 3:16) and wants us to be saved from hell (2 Peter 3:9). But because God is also just and righteous, He cannot allow our sin to go unpunished. Someone has to pay for it. In His great mercy and love, God provided His own payment for our sin. He sent His Son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for our sins by dying on the cross for us. Jesus’ death was an infinite death because He is the infinite God/man, paying our infinite sin debt, so that we would not have to pay it in hell for eternity (2 Corinthians 5:21). If we confess our sin and place our faith in Christ, asking for God’s forgiveness based on Christ’s sacrifice, we are saved, forgiven, cleansed, and promised an eternal home in heaven. God loved us so much that He provided the means for our salvation, but if we reject His gift of eternal life, we will face the eternal consequences of that decision.
    That sounds like good news. All I have to do is confess my sin and place my faith in Christ; then I'll get an eternal home in heaven as a reward.

    On the other hand, if I insist on continuing to doubt God, then I'll have to face eternal damnation and punishment.

    Sounds like a threat to me.

    Who here thinks I deserve to go to hell for my unbelief?
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Only if you believe that the divine spark is something separate from you. You know, that self-imposed separation from God we've talked about.
    But if you're the image and breath of God itself, "comes from God" is not all that different from coming from any human aligned with the purposes of God. Just as something taught by your parents isn't all that different from coming from you, as an adult, now understanding why you were taught so.

    If you can't be bothered to support your claims as you make them, that's your problem. Either do better or just ignore irrelevant criticism.

    Sure, men "aligned with the purposes of God." God certainly didn't lay ink to paper (chisel to stone, etc.) as itself.

    The ancient Greek and Roman gods are, generally, no longer relevant. There's no large community built around them, so this seems a pointless diversion, at best.

    Again, don't be coy with your claim of "many secular organisations that have engendered community". Name them. And ones with even half the longevity of religion without being a basic human necessity, like government. And remember, we're talking about moral "rule books" here, according to your own argument.

    And I already said children and new converts are apt to fear hell. So I can only presume your anecdotal argument includes them.
    Even those know that hell is the consequence of their own actions or beliefs. Just as any criminal knows that prison is a consequence of their actions. Both are choices the individual makes. Guilt precedes punishment. The latter does not exist without the former.

    Once you reject religion, you can't really expect your understanding of it, from the inside, to continue to develop. I'm sure your understanding of all the atheist arguments has flourished, but that's often just a recipe for straw men.

    Yes, your obviously flawed straw man OP, especially the fact that you don't recognize it as such.

    No, that was an attempt to empathize, saying I would likely be in your same shoes if I had not come back to theism. I understand the reasons for such rejection, but in prospective see them as, for lack of a better word, immature, as they rely on a rather simple misunderstanding of what religious adults actually believe. I rejected the "because I said so" mentality I perceived in religion too, until I realized that was a mischaracterization. A mischaracterization you have literally repeated in this very thread, describing God primarily by what it "tells you to do".

    And so far, you seem to have arduously avoiding my counterarguments, like the kid being a runaway instead of an orphan or your parents not being defined by just what they "tell you to do". But I, personally, understand how this may be a blind spot for you.
     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    (cont...)

    In my criticism of your OP, I literally said the rules aren't arbitrary nor whim. So not so much "interesting" as, I guess, originally ignored.
    It does not logically follow that something can only be contingent if it is arbitrary. God can have very good reasons, based on the harm the individual's own actions can have on themselves, like substance abuse (as a clear example of self-harming behavior).

    Out of interest, has any secular moral philosophy led any significant percent of the population, over any significant time period, to behave any better?

    No, I'm saying that just as parents can impart wisdom, in lieu of every child having to reinvent the wheel for themselves, so can religion. The initial grasp of that morality goes back to what I said about writing the Bible. The separation between God and men aligned with God's purposes is an artificial distinction. A distinction that people impose on themselves. But anything is easier to learn with a primer.

    You made it sound like you thought most religious adult believe out of fear, where I freely admitted children and new converts are the most likely to. See which one may be a gross generalization?

    It's only worth discussing the fact that it's a complete straw man that depends on ignorance for any value as an analogy. I've mention some ways to make the analogy valid, like the kid being a runaway instead of an orphan, but you haven't seemed interested. The surety with which you mischaracterize the beliefs of others is almost comical in its hubris.

    Again, like the analogy to law, if law enforcement "won't take any particular action", does that mean there are no consequences? Of course not. But legal consequences are often better than vigilante/mob justice. For example, adultery could just be a "sin", or the aggrieved spouse could simply kill both offenders.

    Excuses excuses. Christianity had a significant contemporary following, while the Bible was being written. A following significant enough to supplant several pagan religions in its own time. Where is the contemporary community following Grayling? Is Grayling being "actively suppressed"? Was all secular morality expressly atheistic?

    Yes, self-imposed is usually also self-justified enough to be eternal. You believe you have such good reasons for believing as you do that you will not change your mind. And confirmation bias is usually strong enough to move goalposts as needed, even without realizing it. It's not just "bad choices"; it's a rejection in its entirety.

    Since I'm not a Catholic, nor even a Christian, I don't believe that we only have one life, nor that sins have to be forgiven by another human before death.
     
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No, as long as the pretense of the flawed analogy is maintained, you or someone else is likely to use any answer as an excuse for a gotcha. Then we're just back to hashing out the flaws in the analogy. Might as well skip the gotcha straw men.

    Again, if the analogy were apt, the kid would be a runaway.

    Again, not a Catholic. Most Christian denominations believe in the doctrine of age of accountability.

    No, according to you, that means you reject God. That's literally the definition of your own espoused atheism. Hence the hope should be obvious. I know, it's easier said than done. You likely have most of your adult lifetime wrapped up in justifying your current beliefs. Can you find and acknowledge just one inconsistency with your view?

    I think there's a whole story about Moses bringing them down directly from God that kind of emphasizes them.

    Exactly my point. Without some decent authority or teaching intervening, the "natural" consequences tend to be far worse than prison.

    Depends on what you believe. But there is likely a point of no return, whether at death or beyond.

    Gehenna was actually more gentle, at least in comparison to eternal suffering.

    Then why do you refuse to accept when people tell you how they think? Instead you make up flawed analogies to confirm what you already believe about their thinking.

    Personally, I challenge my own beliefs just fine, which is why these threads are no challenge. Most atheists are unfamiliar with all the well-worn ground they repeatedly tread. I don't go starting threads to challenge atheists, while you repeatedly challenge theists. But I get that you may feel insecure, in a minority.

    No way to know their length of time as a Christian, nor even their denomination or age. You also seem to have glossed over the many posts there dismissing fear of hell.

    Again, I've already said that children and new converts are most likely to fear hell.
     
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,236
    Relevant to what?
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Of course it sounds like a threat to you; that is your presupposition.

    And this is what I mean by letting people you know are wrong set the terms of discussion. You already know they're wrong. What is your purpose, to find the right answer, or just bawl about someone, somewhere in the world, being wrong? Because if the purpose has anything to do with the right answer, there is no reason to stay down in the gutter of dismal, neurotic fantasy.

    It's like the armchair critics who think they're smarter than Einstein: You don't just concede, at the outset, that they're right.

    It sounds like a threat to you because that is how you insist on perceiving it.

    And it's not necessarily that you're wrong, but it's true I'm not going to be quoting Bob the Christian from summer camp thirty-five years ago. The thing is, you're not necessarily wrong, but neither are you necessarily right, because you're letting people you know are wrong set the terms of discussion.

    Remember, consequences exist regardless of will. The people who make a certain type of cheese cracker weren't trying to cause me to bleed; it turns out something in the recipe really set off what turned out to be an adenomal polyp with a blood supply. Nobody was seeking to punish me, but the circumstances of the period involved a certain cause and effect that could be viewed as consequences. If I ate these cheese crackers, the consequence was feeling poorly and passing blood.

    It's not cancer; it's middle age. And people do this sort of thing to themselves all the time. How many "not an alcoholic" friends have you known who drank hard despite expecting a hangover? Dropping booze and coffee in the same week isn't pleasant, but the consequence of consumption was agitating a polyp, not wrecking my liver and kidneys. Running through it with my doctor, he gives me a look when I mention dropping coffee for several days, but he knows the answer to the question; if he says, "Why would you do that?" as if to mean it was medically extraneous, the look I give him tells him beyond doubt, before I speak, there was superficial reason to wonder if I'd finally hurt myself drinking that much coffee. And he knows; his tone is sympathetic. Because the consequence of dropping coffee while feeling so poorly is feeling exponentially worse. He's been through it, too.

    And Bob, the Christian? I probably can't quote him, but having to actually pay attention to American Christianism over the last nigh on forty years because of the danger it presents, that's the thing. People have been through the God-the-meanie discussion, they've already offered myriad alternative pathways. The one that stands out passed sometime in the Nineties, I think, because it's really simple: If all you have to do, in order to get your prize, is walk through a door, there will always be at least one antisocial who refuses to walk through the door. You cannot force him to walk in and get his prize.

    I've heard a few versions over the years, and all it really means is that IHVH isn't God. If God can't save that person, then it means there is something in the Universe that God cannot do. But, in the end, if it's the loving-God notion about John 3.16, which circumstantially requires salvation, pretty much the only thing one can do to not be saved is to flatly refuse. It becomes a question of human free will. And this God thing? Clearly they don't have a handle on it; the one thing we know about their discursive lexicon is that it is not accurate.

    Remember: People are human. If God could explain it to the faithful without human frailty screwing it all up, sure, that would be helpful. But you and I are also aware of why that perfect divine explanation never comes. What we're left with, in the meantime, is human produce. The Holy Book is wrought by human hands; its canon set by human politics. The analysis human, and considers human expressions of human perceptions and understandings.

    "God loved us so much", runs the platitude, "that He provided the means for our salvation, but if we reject His gift of eternal life, we will face the eternal consequences of that decision." To the one, we can flip 'twixt circumstance and punishment, but, to the other, we still come back to the limitations of God, and that's what they're afraid of. Running 'round the withered mulberry bush might seem like good exercise, but it's a tight circle, and that's why the ritual is so dizzying.

    As it is, the platitude is pretty polished, and polished pretty, but it contains a logical failure in the context of a monotheistic godhead, which leads in its turn to the question of why salvation is necessary in the first place. If an angel moves too fast to see, because the alternative is being perfectly happy standing still for eternity, then perhaps we should not be surprised if the faithful haven't gotten around to the point that salvation is necessary because God needed a planet to suffer a horde of retarded sentience.

    And that last is easy enough to reconcile with science: Nature is not extraneous. Our consideration is not a question of if we could have or even should have evolved differently. Rather, this is how we evolved, full stop. If something else was supposed to happen, it would have; if we should have evolved differently, we would have. Our grotesque humanity often seems unique because we have a vote in our pretense of dignity and whether we intend to suffer the rain or drought, but the natural circumstances demanding such decisions are what they are.

    But, really, there is the answer. To the other, imagine the psychiatric, and even anthropological impact. Imagine the rattle and shock running through humanity as Abramists finally come to realize that if God loves them so much, it is because he needed them to suffer existential retardation for reasons that, no, we do not need to know, and, furthermore, aren't smart enough to comprehend, anyway.

    †​

    Once upon a time, I knew this guy who was a big animal-rights advocate, but kind of a one-trick pony, so to speak. His big thing was apparently a principle of equivalence, but he could only really apply it in one direction, like an accusation. Other implications confused him, as near as I could tell, to the point that he would occasionally deny what he had just said.

    I recall this in part because it's been a long time since anyone asked me if the insects aren't pretty enough, but neither is my point to remind them to ask an agyraphagic orb spider.

    Rather, imagine a "snowflake" God, in His Heaven, head in Hands, perceiving the inflicted suffering—not just of His beloved humanity, but of every organism that suffers, be it the veal calf, the bibb lettuce gasping and dying on your plate, every stalk of grass torn up by hungry sheep, and, really, given God's presence and perspicacity, can we really rule out microbes—and muttering to Himself, "I Am that I Am, but what have I done!"

    †​

    It is entirely possible that, for whatever God's actual purpose, It needed that human beings should fulfill the station we do. But the effort of dealing with such possibilities really taxes the faithful. One of the problems of acknowledging the possibility of necessary retarded sentience is the idea of humans calling ourselves retarded.

    For the faithful, the way out of that neurotic trap is to comprehend God differently. For the most part of its existence, Christendom has largely been an identity cult. Variable-interval, variable-response conditioning remains the most effective, which in turn might as well describe the vicissitudes of the human endeavor, so it's kind of built into the faith.

    For the critic, then, the way through is to demand and compel that different comprehension; this is done by attending the record and arguing back toward more logical assertions of reality.

    Well, okay, I suppose that depends on the point of criticism.

    †​

    If the point is just to run around the mulberry bush and take satisfaction pretending to outpace what one disdains, then, sure, playing word games with frailty and fallibility is a great way to perpetuate whatever problem one purports to perceive and disdain.

    Attending the danger means more than simply running around in circles and patting myself on the back for thinking I'm faster than the slowest example I could find. Taking satisfaction in this sort of rhetorical slappy-fighting only reinforces the fears expressed by the faithful. In this context, yes, pay attention to the behavioral economy you're engaging. And, also, when in history has supercilious, solipsistic two-bitting ever actually worked toward what useful end?

    To wit—

    —it kind of depends on which hell you're referring to. Lake of fire? That was already determined before the world began, and if your persistent unbelief about someone else's neurotic complex is the reason, well, that, too, was to some degree foreordained. Annihilation, i.e., end of existence and lack of eternal life? There are soteriological pathways by which that would be entirely up to you.

    Meanwhile, consider the simplistic theology you are relaying. What do you think your would-be parable, or jellybean caricatures, actually accomplish in a market sector that believes such superficial, self-disrupting, religion? Do you really think the way you go about this will change their minds? Or is reciprocal cruelty, browbeating them in to silence and submission and surrender, your purpose?

    The one thing you don't accomplish by posturing yourself as dumber than they are is changing their minds to see things your way. That kind of idiocy only works if you're giving them more of what they already want.
     

Share This Page