You Sad Pathetic Man...

[Econoline]

I wonder what happens if they choose another God and live a pious and good life serving him/her?

Surely that's got to be worth some brownie points....

See Part 1, Section 1, Commandment 1. There ain't anything worse.

Making the world a better place, even a minutely better place for even a single person for even a brief moment, matters. God says so. And in this case, he is right.

I agree Andrew. If there's a God, then that's the case (IMO). The act of giving water (as you describe it) is intrinsically good - not because I think so but because He does.

But if there is no God (IMO), then "making the world a better place" is as meaningless (IMO) as describing one thing as good and another as evil. Giving a person a drink of water is as meaningful (or meaningless) as hitting them with the cup (IMO).

Just as 'nature' is neither good nor bad, merely IS, so too would all other brute facts BE - unweighted as to goodness or badness (IMO). That is because absent God (IMO) the only standard of what is good or right or meaningful is what some human decides it to be - would not that be the case? And absent God, what some human decides to regard as good (or bad) is as valid or invalid as what some other human may decide. Surely that must be so?

You lost me here, Meade. Unless you're saying that a belief that there can be objective standards of "right" and "wrong" and "making the world a better place" constitutes, ipso facto, a belief in God? I don't think I believe in a god (or an afterlife, or the infallibility of any human--including the humans who wrote the Bible)...but does the belief in the existence of good mean that I'm a theist after all, without knowing it?

[Sean]

I wonder what happens if they choose another God and live a pious and good life serving him/her?

Surely that's got to be worth some brownie points....

See Part 1, Section 1, Commandment 1. There ain't anything worse.

That was actually one of the things that first put me off the whole idea of God as a kid. Why should I worship such a sad, needy, jealous type? Makes him look a bit pathetic IMO...

[Crackpot]

I wonder what happens if they choose another God and live a pious and good life serving him/her?

Surely that's got to be worth some brownie points....

See Part 1, Section 1, Commandment 1. There ain't anything worse.

That was actually one of the things that first put me off the whole idea of God as a kid. Why should I worship such a sad, needy, jealous type? Makes him look a bit pathetic IMO...

How would you react if your son refused to acknowledge you?

[Sean]

It's not about acknowledgment CP... It's about worship. I'd never demand that of him.

[Crackpot]

That's not what you just said. You were basing your "worshipability" on being jealous needy etc....

As to your issues with worshiping in general what do you think that must entail exactly? What about it puts you out?

(Completely edited response due to realizing the original was pure bullshit)

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have asked you and others to explain what belief in an afterlife does for you/means to you/makes your life better and have yet to receive any answer that resonates with me.

Sue - belief in an afterlife per se does nothing for me and does not make my life better. Belief in God does. Just as you stated (early above) as a fact that you know there is no life after death, so too I state as a fact that I know there is (but not because I'm cleverer or better than you or anyone else; I suspect in your case the reverse is true ). However, one of us is wrong, according to the law of non-contradiction. [And by the way I was using 'boast' in the biblical sense - which is also in common use - of "possessing something desirable". Paul says he boasts of his weakness because that magnifies Christ 2Co12:9 and he boasts in the cross of Jesus Gal:14. Sometimes my use of English can confuse, even be archaic and/or pedantic - maybe often].

Eternal life is true for all people, whether they believe it or not. It was true when I didn't believe it. I'm trying to be careful here and not sound haughty or Guin will be all over my case . It's just a matter of where we spend it and who with. (Opens door for Australian humour). It's either going to be with God or without God - and the latter is apparently a very unhappy situation - forever. So one difference this makes to me: I am saddened by disbelief since I am convinced it's a fact that unbelievers are going to spend eternity in something horrible. (Maybe 24/7 listening to Rush Limbaugh?). Therefore, whether Sean agrees with missions or evangelism or not (and there's been a lot of bad examples for sure), I find it necessary to speak about these things at appropriate times and appropriate places. This is not to "force" people to believe anything - because "force" is contrary to Christ - it would be self-defeating.

So, to me, a person who does not believe in God yet makes kindly contributions to individuals and society is (and I don't mean this as an insult) rather in the case of "assisting" passengers on the stricken Titanic by telling them to stay in their cabin below and serving them delicious drinks as the ship is not, actually, to the very best of their belief, sinking at all. I don't mean that you or anyone else purposely hurts others - it's an analogy and they are always fraught with difficulty.

Now, that people who DON'T believe DO make kindly (wonderful) contributions to individuals and society is obviously true. I think what we are really discussing is the motivation for why such things have real value. Thats a word often used in South Africa to mean "explain"; 'motivate your answer' say the exam papers.

Econo suggested it:

You lost me here, Meade. Unless you're saying that a belief that there can be objective standards of "right" and "wrong" and "making the world a better place" constitutes, ipso facto, a belief in God? I don't think I believe in a god (or an afterlife, or the infallibility of any human--including the humans who wrote the Bible)...but does the belief in the existence of good mean that I'm a theist after all, without knowing it?

Surely it's the case that an objective good can only arise not from within us but from without? Else, each of us would be declaring ourselves a little god, able to determine right from wrong, good from bad, value from non-value and since we all differ in our view of at least some of these things, such ideas are subjective instead. I am sure someone would be happy to suggest that my ideas of right and wrong etc are as subjective as anyone else's. But only at the cost of agreeing that there is no objective standard of right or wrong - and if there is no objective standard, then in any real sense of the word it is meaningless to offer a glass of water to a thirsty person. Econo may not be a "theist... without knowing it" but is recognizing that the source of meaning is not humanity.

Hopefully I've managed my words better on this occasion
Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

I do things for others (Sandy clean up, etc). I do them because I think they need to be done. It makes me feel better. Call it selfish or whatever. Thos people needed help and I gave it. I am not one who believes in a single higher power although I know there is something out there that has a more power than me. Heck, any star, any black hole, the ocean can burn/crush me in an instant. I do these things because sooner or later, I will need help. And by helping, I believe I will recieve help when I need it. I do unto others........

[Sean]

That's not what you just said. You were basing your "worshipability" on being jealous needy etc....

As to your issues with worshiping in general what do you think that must entail exactly? What about it puts you out?

(Completely edited response due to realizing the original was pure bullshit)

I said that such a being was unworthy of my worship. You compared it to 'acknowledgment' which is a completely different thing.

Worshipping in general involves praising, glorifying and generally raising above all others. My opinion is that any being who demands this is undeserving of it. I am closer to worshipping Keith Richards than God.

[Gob]

[christian reply] Well what you have to realise Sean,is that when it says in the bible that you should worship god, it doesn't mean that you should "worship" god, but that you should do other things which don't exactly mean worship, but just that you should sort of worship god in ways that don't mean that you are "worshiping" him, just generally being nice to him in a grovelling way. The bible really means you should behave just like I do and think the way I do and behave as I think you should behave. It's all about my views really.[/christian reply]

[Crackpot]

Gob got it about right (minus the smarmy condescention). That amounts to giving God the respect shklee's due. Some love to go overboard with these and encourage others the same I don't find it necessary.

You see if God is what he claims to be and did what he claims to have done.. it it too much to acknowledge that? If you were in Gods shoes wouldn't it piss you off if those things done by you were being co-opted by a guy with a funny hairdo and a big hat? To me it is just recognizing what God has done and moving on with my life no bending knee no big and showy displays of self deprecation a la Wayne and Garth. (though the mood may strike me some day I'm just not holding my breath) To tell you the truth that was a big reason I lost interest in the catholic Church huge emphasis on the actions and the pageantry little reflection on the reasons for it.

I was really down on all of those artificial shows of devotion until a friend of mine converted from Paganism to Orthodox Christian. (she was the Parishes first adult convert ever) but to her coming from a perspective of ritual and recognizing the purpose in the rights (they're for our benefit not Gods.) Something the RCC (In my experience) completely overlooked and taught it directly from an obedience standpoint. I don't know about you but "stand there and be reverent" doesn't seem to be a good initiate contact with the divine.

[Lord Jim]

Gob got it about right (minus the smarmy condescention)

Hmmm....

If I take that out of the post, I don't see a whole lot of words left....

[Sean]

Actually CP, what you call smarmy condescension I would call hitting the nail on the head. You are after all telling me that your definition of worship is right (even though it doesn't tally with the very definition of the word) and that others' (Catholics') is wrong. This is a good example of the kind of thing that puts me right off all forms of religion. I do not wish to be that kind of person.

[Crackpot]

Not really I don't call mine right I call mine that works for me. being taught the shut up and do it form of worship in my childhood left me feeling just the way you do. Why would a "God" need that? (answer: he doesn't but I wouldn't expect much from him while crediting someone else for his work. ) In fact the whole point of telling you the story of my pagan friend was that it showed me how when used in proper context ritual can be a wonderful and powerful thing. Do I have a exhaustive view on Catholic teaching methods? No these flow primarily from my Home Church which was headed by a first class ass and the few others in the immediate region. Now over the past 20 years of life I've encountered Catholic churches that l have felt surprisingly at home with. But at this point there is too much water under that bridge and too many doctrinal points of contention to go back.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Surely it's the case that an objective good can only arise not from within us but from without? Else, each of us would be declaring ourselves a little god, able to determine right from wrong, good from bad, value from non-value and since we all differ in our view of at least some of these things, such ideas are subjective instead.

I am sure someone would be happy to suggest that my ideas of right and wrong etc are as subjective as anyone else's. But only at the cost of agreeing that there is no objective standard of right or wrong - and if there is no objective standard, then in any real sense of the word it is meaningless to [say that it is 'good' to] offer a glass of water to a thirsty person. If the good is subjective, then another's opinion that the same action is 'bad' is equally as valid and correct. When two opposite and contradictory positions are declared to be equal, 'meaning' has lost all meaning.

I need to correct/amplify my statement above (in bold) and then ask Sean and Gob if they are willing to offer a serious answer instead of red herrings about worship and a description of unbelief ("It's all about my views really") disguised as a christian response


Meade

[Gob]

A serious answer to which question Meade?

[MajGenl.Meade]

A. Unless my eyes deceive me (another philosophical dispute that!) there's a question mark in the quoted section - 1st sentence actually. The balance is the motivation for that question.

B. alternatively


The challenge is not to answer "yes" or "no" but to motivate (i.e. explain) why your answer is correct in terms other than "because I say so".

[[However, I suppose when I think about it the answer "because I say so" would actually be confirmation that meanings (such as 'good') arise only from within you and me and that my idea of what is right and wrong is as valid (or not valid) as your own. And you therefore agree that right and wrong are not objective but only subjective. In which case I conclude that the term "meaningful life" is just a noise that we happen to make from time to time since it could equally be applied to absolutely contradictory actions. This para is only conjecture as to what one particular response might imply]].

Meade

[Gob]

Surely it's the case that an objective good can only arise not from within us but from without?

Define "objective good"?

[MajGenl.Meade]

My first attempt at catching a herring (and subject to correction):

An objective good is that which, in and of itself, is right and good regardless of who and how many people think it is?

(The word "good" here is a single example of many words that could go there.

Keep it in context though - let's not start arguing about "right" and "good". The discussion (I believe) is whether life can be "meaningful" absent God. I assume that by "meaningful" other people suggest the ideas of goodness, righteousness, fitness, value, great worth, etc. in a positive sense

Of course, if "meaningful" encompasses any and all actions regardless of effect - that is, pouring water on a burning person is as "meaningful" as pouring on petrol - there's nothing to discuss. Again, if all things in nature are defined as the total of all things that have, do and will exist, then no-one could reasonably argue with that definition, including me.

Meade

[Joe Guy]

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain.

Pain is the pain we go through all the time. You're born in pain. Pain is what we are in most of the time, and I think that the bigger the pain, the more God you look for."

[RayThom]

OK, everyone, a show of hands. Who here has shifted their religious beliefs, or lack of same, to the opposite side... in full or in part? C'mon... hands, people. Please, dear God, I pray to you to give me the guidance to endure such utter bullshit.

"Pater, ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quod faciunt."



God is a concept by which we measure our... tomes. (The more God... the more tome.)