Originally posted by SamZED
Makes me wonder. If we accept that one can show figuritive love of God by being a decent human being (while actually hating the concept of a diety) how well will he/she rank compared to someone who literally loves and praises God and is just as good.
Originally posted by SamZED
I actually don't believe most people who say that they only do good thanks to the Bible teachings and who claim that it is the source of their morality. It's safe to say that most of them won't go aroung killing and stealing if they were to lose their faith tomorrow. At the same time (I think it was Hitchens who said it, but I could be wrong, also i'm paraphrasing) If a person is good out of fear of punishment then he's not good at all. So you wouldn't really be ruining them, more like exposing.
Somehow these observations feel as if they belonged together in a "quality of faith" kind of way. I mean, if you believe in God and expect him to keep his promise of a "prize" then you'd be somewhat less selfless than someone who does it without hoping for anything specific. I think any decent human being would understand that being good is a reward on itself (besides any possibility/impossibility of salvation). In the other hand no true believer should consider himself "saved" by default.
We could also imagine the example of a natural empath that does good because he is always willing to help others and is never tempted to harm them. Would the lack of temptation diminish the quality of his actions? I'd feel inclined to expect some "quality of doubt" in any good person, as it goes to hand to faith in general (not just in the religious sense).
They are interesting questions and I think they are great grounds for deep fiction -I actually conceived a small novel with a similar take, now that I think of it-, but in practice moralists will tell you that morality is a social value and religions will tell you that making good deeds is not a competition, so the logic of what's better doesn't seem relevant in context.
Originally posted by SamZED
Also, what would be considered "decent" in God's eyes. Jesus' example is more clear in that regard. But looking at overall depiction of God in the Bible it's harder to tell.
Indeed. I think that sort of explains why Christianity works in the context of Jesus being God. Without that added authority his ability to essentially working like an explanation/reinvention of the Scripture would be impeded. So the morality would be closer to judaism, I guess.
This reminds me of a comicbook that I read the other week: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rabbi%27s_Cat_(comics)
If you read it you will probably find some familiar arguments regarding religious bias.
Originally posted by SamZED
That brings me back to your earlier question when you asked why would I want to be in proximity of God. If seperation means hell, then I'd rather be saved. Actually I'd rather choose an option C if it was available but I don't think it is according to the religion. So yeah, comes down to whether God would want to a bunch of atheist around asking him annoying questions. Also, there's a loophole for sociopaths if you have to be consient of the evil you do.😄.
I honestly have no idea what would be the logic to redeem or condeem a mentally ill person. Even the Church agreeds that you cannot just Yell "he's possessed by DA DEVIIIIIL!!" like the good ol' times <--- honestly pretty terrifying times.
People who die are supposed to keep their memories and personalities in either Heaven or Hell, so I honestly have no idea how social interaction is supposed to work. Heck, I barely know how social interaction works on Earth XD
Originally posted by SamZED
Can you elaborate a little on the trap appearing in the Gospel?
So basically the jewish authorities wanted to give Jesus shit because he was popular helping people and didn't spend enough time doing religious things. They wanted him to admit that God came before anything else (so he aknowledge them as superior) or else deny it (thus getting a way to attack him for heresy), in the Bible this is effectively depicted as a trap.
Lawyer: Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Emphasis is mine
Jesus insists on how this "second commandment" is similar to the first one and cites them on equal ground. There he is in fact implying the First forcibly leads to the Second. The context here is to cite scripture to a Lawyer who is aware of Kal wa-ḥomer arguments.
Oddly enough, a number of translations won't communicate Jesus's emphasis on the similarity of his arguments purposely pushing the "second commandment" as just that: second in importance. But in the content of the Scripture that doesn't make sense: Jesus doesn't win the argument unless he disproves the binary nature of the choice he's been given by the lawyer who tried to set him up from the beginning.
Originally posted by SamZED
And in regards to your doctor analogy. He clearly did more good than evil, there's no denyig it, but overall I still wouldn't consider him a good person if he chooses to slap kids when he has no reason to and has all the power to stop himself. Also, when it comes to God (a perfect supreme being) our expectation is supposed to be much higher by comparison. Unless we say that he is not perfect. Which I don't know if we can according to Christianity.
I'm not sure if literal perfection is not nonsensical in a "I'm the best winner and the best loser at the same time" kind of way. But that's more of a footnote, God as described by the Church is the closest you can be to nonsense without losing the essence of meaning. That actually sounds like a mathematical equation now that I think of it.
I'm going to make an educated guess on how evil things come from God. One of the attributes that is often taken as the main godly attributes is Pure Actuality. This means that God effectively does stuff instead of just "potentially" do stuff. The possibility of anything is preceded by the godly action of it, so to speak. So you can imagine that God works like an eternally moving engine that does good things. How can evil happen then?
I can think of two ways: consequentiality and potentiality. Consequentiality: God does something good, but the effects of that action carry some ill effects (as if you produced a medicine that saves a lot of people but make a select few sick). Potentiality: God does something good, but we cannot reach it's perfect potential (we produce the medicine but we have no way of giving it only to the people that will get cured). The action is complete (the medicine is made), perfect in pure actuality but we are left with unwanted consequences. Sort of how a shadow is cast by light, non-actions from God are potentially catastrophic.