It is an interesting consideration to point out that being moral for the sake of an eternal reward or punishment removes the chance of the reward being intrinsic.
I think upon observation that what we find “moral” typically derives from traditional definitions relative to imposed laws that are claimed to be mandates from God centuries ago.
With law and morality, they are under constant revision. The laws and morals of this age are considerably different from a century or a millenium ago because of this. Humanity is chipping away from these traditional mandates of God to create their own brand of morality and law much to the dismay of theists and to the delight of non-theists. Theists however are at a loss because until another influencable prophet can impose the will of God, then the mandates of old will be replaced and forgotten by the new. This evolution of morality is inevitable and those traditional impositions are fading away into history just like the traditions before them.
It is still common for people to view morality in terms of infinite reward and infinite punishment, but this view is fading due to a more secular understanding and acceptance of the universe found in science. Science is taking over in terms of defining morality more so than ever. It will continue to do so. People deny this, but it is quite obvious that law (which is a projection of morality) embraces science more so than ever over religion in regards to it’s decision making. This will continue to grow.
[quote
The whole legend of his birth is supposed to tell us that whilst being a godly man, he was born poor and outcast. That is in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah, who said that the servant of the Lord would have “no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” - he would be a pretty common kind of bloke.
Shalom
Bob[/quote]
according to matthew, jesus was an aristocrat, if not a rightful and legitimate king- descended via solomon. matthew states jesus’s family had been fairly well-to-do and jesus himself was born in a house.
so many conflicting veiws ???
More haste, less speed is what I think we should say to many of the other disciplines. There are many issues to address and debate, but do we do them justice and our fellow man a service by pushing them through? I truly believe that speed has been the ruin of many a good idea in the past. And many a decision that seemed reasonable at the time has been regretted later.
Yes, we dismay somewhat, but not for the reasons you have written. The real reason is that the commandments in various forms enjoy recognition around the world, so too the wisdom of many proverbs. Today young people are assuming that things are in need of revision only because the are old. It isn’t the question whether something has proven to be wrong or contraproductive, but whether it is modern or old. It is again the difference between image and character.
you can see that I believe that Religion really is the passing on of knowledge from “God” - the problem is that we just haven’t got enough evidence to describe God in a manner that we could all agree upon. Religion finds things to agree and act on - hopefully in the interest of all human beings, and not just for people living in luxury like us.
The only requirement for the coming Messia was to be a descendant of David and to lead his people to world recognition. The Aristocracy of Israel was found among the priests of the temple. And what it meant to be a descendant of Abraham, Jesus pointed out quite bluntly - it meant having trust in God and his prophecies.
Herod, called “the Great”, was a son of Antipater, an Idumæan and referred to as a “half-Jew” by some. He didn’t find full recognition until the temple project began. Jesus obviously held the respect of the Jews for Herod as “bought” and was appropriately critical of this.
You almost always see things from an interesting angle. Giving morality a reward/punishment system takes a lot away from morality. Bob and i discussed virtue as it’s own reward elsewhere. There is also a thread here called creativity and what blocks it in which monkeys enjoyed art. Then they were rewarded with food for their art and they no longer enjoyed it. no art pour l’art as it were, likewise A lot of people fail to enjoy morality for it’s own sake. For some i imagine they care more for God than their fellow man. Nietzsche once said, “There is too little love for us to be able to afford to give any of it away to imaginary beings.” I think this correct, personally i think whether people believe in God or not is an ancillary consideration when compared to the major consideration of fair treatment of other people on this earth. Religion (as practised, maybe not as taught) often achieves something counter to this.
Good day everyone,
This is a fantastic website, and the best one devoted to philosophy on the internet I’ve discovered thus far.
I would tend to agree with Bob. Christian theology is not as simplistic as some (fundamentalists) would suggest. The notion of redemption through works (ie being good is a ticket through the Pearly Gates, being bad is hellfire and brimstone) is not necessarily the pre-eminent theology. Martin Luther himself severed the Church when he suggested that we were saved by faith alone. For myself, I find the literature of Kierkegaard to be most illuminating in my exploration of the Christian mystery. To me, faith in the most absurd of revelations (to use his expression), makes Christianity the most difficult of religions to truly “believe”. Christ said himself (please excuse the paraphrasing) “Whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal life” has nothing to do whatsoever whether or not one is in fact good or not. Rather, it calls one to place one’s entire existence in a single miracle of ridiculous proportions. It is this, I think, which makes it impossible to truly be a big “C” Christian, rather than a small “c” Christian.
Luther discovered that the jewish discussion at the time of Christ was about the reason for the occupation of Israel by the Romans. Some schools of thought said that it was because the people were lacking in piety and were impious. Some Pharisees adopted a behaviour whereby people were meant to be made aware that they were a holy nation. They overly obeyed the law and made a show of everything to do with their religion.
Christ was in opposition to this, although he had a clear affinity to much pharisee teaching. He went about looking for trust or faith in God, arguing that Abraham didn’t have a law to abide by and yet is declared righteous for trusting God. At the same time, he declared that the law was the guideline for holy living and always would be.
“the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him” (Psalm 34:8 )
If more Christians were like Christ the World would be a different place. Also, i think Jesus’ role as a political reactionary and revolutionary is typically underplayed. The Pharisees and Sadducees were getting rich.
If that is what you think of Christianity then you have never gotten it, and never understood the meaning of grace.
It is for freedom that Jesus have set us free. [Gal 5:1]
What we do or do not do don’t count for brownie points for heaven, not that they are of any value at all in the first place. Somewhere in the bible it is written that our righteousness are as filthy rags. Dont bet on your deeds nor think them more highly than what they truly are. If heaven is your due reward than indeed it is sheer impossibility.
So God in his goodness and love introduced the new covenant, the covenant of grace, to replace the covenant of works, ie the covenant of rewards and punishment.
What we are set free from is precisely this deadening system/covenant of rewards and punishment. Instead we get heaven for “free” right now, solely on the basis of what Christ have done for us.
Just consider this: If Jesus is sinless, could he have died? Yet he died! How? But for the FACT that he indeed took on him the sins of the world. So now your faith is rested not a blind belief but rationally on a fact and a truth that all your sins have been paid for.
But not only that we can also believe that death is not the end of things for there is the ressurrection! and again it is not fantasy or a theory but a historical FACT and a truth. If you are to dispute the historical fact then you should also question how you ever know anything in the past at all or anything you read in the papers or hear in the news everyday.
So now why do you do good works at all since it doesn’t count for heaven?
Well, in theory at least, you can go on murdering and committing all sort of injustices and selfishness, and you will still go to heaven. But then is this consistent with the knowledge of the goodness, mercy and grace of God? For if you have truly known God this theory is a false one.
Is it only something that is logically derived from some premise? But how do you prove the truth of the premises? Being self evident is certainly no proof for truth.
And have you not heard of Goedel’s incompleteness theorem which says that even in a system that is logically consistent you cannot prove all FACTS in that system. Take a simple example: Prove the truth or otherwise of this statement: I am a liar.
How do you prove that Alexander the Great once existed and that he indeed great as claimed?
How does the judge in court proved that it was the front car that reversed and hit the car at the rear?
How do you prove that black hole exists? Or that there will not be some theory another day that shows all that we think we know today is all wrong.
So what is a FACT, philosophically speaking that is?
The Bible says that people go to Heaven by the grace of God, apart from good works. People can’t earn their way into heaven, and therefore, Christianity isn’t based on a punishment/reward system.
By the way, just because Jesus was sinless and therefore didn’t die because of his own sin doesn’t mean that he is immune to all forms of sin. The point is that he wasn’t responsible for his own death (because he kept God’s commandments) but he was killed by people who were sinners. He died because of sin, but not because of his own sin.
So then we simply cross-apply all arguments to faith itself. It makes it much easier to believe in something, if you get eternal bliss by doing so. And it makes it much harder to disreguard something, if it says that you will go to hell forever if you do. Wheather you like it or not, there is no escaping a system of punishement/reward, in a religion that has heaven and hell.
Yes, but that does not automatically means that you are sent to hell as punishment.
Look at it this way: If there is light and there is darkness, and you choose to remain in darkness, can you blame anyone if you stumble, fall and walk in circles in the dark?
If you are drowning and I offered you a hand which you reject did I then condemn you to drown or did you condemn yourself?
Also imagine Heaven and Hell are two destinations, clearly marked, at a fork junction, and you took the Hell road. Again is going to Hell a punishment or merely a logical outcome of your stubborness? For all you need to do to take the Heaven road is to believe in Jesus Christ, but for your stubborness, you refused. Have you not judged yourself precisely by taking the Hell road.
The judgment is this, not whether you did good deeds or not, but whether you believe Jesus Christ or not, and whether you rejected his grace and mercy or not.
well nehi
i was raised christian and i am now so far distanced from it that it is completely absurd
what i was taught was simple
believe that christ died for your sins and that is your ticket to the most beautiful neighborhood in the universe for all eternity
that line of crap led me to my theory that satan wrote the holey buy-bull
so that people would think there is no need to seek enlightenment
of course there is no satan
thats just “god” when “he” is drunk
personally i hate the christian approach to life
the whole “i am right and that is all” attitude
of course islam and judaism like to do that as well
i think the past is a lie
all true religious thought only occurs in the “now”
not in the past or the future
all information from “god” comes from within and no where else.
I think there is a difference in believing someone for what he or she did, or in the acts themselves, rather than the actor, and merely believing someone. The latter is a larger thing. The ticket to heaven is to believe in Christ.
This is an interesting point. Immediately the question is how do you know it is? and even if so, are all the past a lie, eg your birth date and your parents? Or only some past are lies, just as some things you read or hear in the media are lies? And then the issue returns back to the question, how do you know a lie, or a truth for that matter?
But why the internal notion of such an absurd, intangible and unintelligible concept as “god” itself? Why not something founded in something evidentially more certain and discernible?
chanbengchin
what is your definition of heaven? what is your definition of christ?
while we are at it what is your definition of beleive?
for me its simple
christ = the buddha nature
heaven= the state you are in when you become self realized
belief= a personal absolute truth
hell= the state you are in when you are spiritually lost
god=the transcendent energy that binds all things
so the “ticket to heaven” (in my view) is to become self aware.
as for “the past is a lie”
i say that because it doesnt need to be proven, just learned from
i dont remember being born, so i cant tell you my recollection.
the person i assume is my mother has her take on the story and so does my so called father and i’m sure the hospital staff does too.
i use my naval as proof in the now.
history books are not written by the people who lived it.
its written by people who researched other peoples books.
not even jesus wrote a book on his own life.
all we have are the interpretations written by his friends long after his death. (at least thats what i read)
as for the past being true, prove it.
you can show me books and photos and witnesses and quotes but what will that actually prove?
if you want to close your mind to the present and worship a kind hearted jew that was executed 2000 years ago, be my guest.
but openning yourself up to this moment is a doorway to eternity.
love and respect
kasey
p.s.
even you use “quotes” when you type the word “god”
[/quote]
Just as you believe what you believe, you can define whatever you want to define.
The issue rather is the question: what is heaven?
And for that you need to ask those who knows what is heaven.
But who can claimed to know what is heaven?
And I think there can only be two categories of evidence acceptable:The first is someone who have been to heaven and have come to earth to tell us about it
and the second is someone who been revealed heaven by the one who have been or is in heaven.The second category albeit is not as strong as the former but nonetheless acceptable under certain conditions, such as the hearsay witness can be reasonable judged not a liar, and his witness corroborated by other witnesses of similar quality too.
For the first category of witness I know of only one person in the whole history of mankind who have claimed to have come from heaven, namely Jesus Christ. While Jesus was on earth, it was recorded that he said:
Jesus also gave some glimpse of what heaven is later on, in the revelations of the end times to the apostle John, namely in the context of promises/encouragement to those “who overcomes”:
We certainly cannot understand completely what heaven is even with these revelations. It is all metaphorial, like “Father’s house”, or “temple of my God” or “throne”.
But somehow the imagery do find an accord in my spirit, or like someone reaching out and touching my heart and quenched its deepest longing. Particularly for me is the image of being given a new name. It is as if I can finally realised who am I, my identity, and true self, the one I was made to be, for all my life, for all eternity. It is a name indeed “known only to me”.
Now the learned apostle Paul have this to say about the kind of beings we will be transformed into in heaven:
So you can know something to be true of the past, even if you have no “recollections” or other forms of direct evidence of these past events.
But there is a problem here: How can you take the navel as valid evidence of being born? For you may have learnt of this correlation in the past, perhaps from direct observations, or someone’s tale, but since it is past it cannot be true.
So therefore you cannot know whether you were actually born as a human baby, even with a navel. You could well be an alien baby. But then that was the past and a lie and perhaps unknowable too.
What I am saying here is that to know the truth in the present you need to depend on past truths or else it is an impossibility.
Or unless you are saying only the past that you directly experienced and can remember are true. All else are lies. And you do not even entertain the possibility that they may be true. But if you can know the past, surely others can too. And can you not know of the past truths from the witness of others and their witness of other witnesses?