Those that condemn are condemned

Forgiveness comes from humans. So does condemnation. We are free. Our tests only come from within.

Aedes
how's it going

If what you say is so. Then what is the point of forgiveness, as in forgiven from what? What value could it have? What would it change if it's from humans?

And what are we free from?

Not bad, how are you doing?

Forgiveness is an interpersonal gesture. It's an offering of rapprochment from one human to another. So the value forgiveness has is always proportional to one person's sense of offense and the other person's sense of guilt.

Divine forgiveness is purely a matter of faith so long as God himself isn't descending from the heavens and telling you in that you're forgiven. This is because one must interpolate one's self into a belief system's general dictates about forgiveness (even including the offering of a confessor) -- there is nothing in theology that offers forgiveness to dpmartin or to aedes specifically.

So one might ask what value divine forgiveness can have if it has no specificity for us -- even if we get beyond the faith required for belief itself, how will we ever know whether we're the object of forgiveness? What are the limits of penance? Does it require becoming a monk? Even then, if you live a life that embodies all divine virtues, i.e. chastity and humility etc, and constantly seek forgiveness, you still can only hope to be forgiven, because there is no specific interchange between you and God in which that offering occurs.

As for freedom, we're free from everything other than our own self-definition. We are subject to God only if we choose to be and have delimited ourselves as such.

Aedes
ok, funny you should mention the lack of teaching in theology on forgiveness.

"Divine forgiveness is purely a matter of faith so long as God himself isn't descending from the heavens and telling you in that you're forgiven."

That is exactly what I am contenting in that Jesus being of the Father descended to, and into, the flesh and telling you in that you're forgiven. An interpersonal gesture of forgiveness between God and man. But the guilty party must accept that he is forgiven or the forgiveness has no effect or benefit to the forgiven. If the guilty party blames the other for his offence, justifying his sense of justice or righteousness (good and evil), he will not within himself believe, he should be, or need be, forgiven.
***
"there is nothing in theology that offers forgiveness to dpmartin or to aedes specifically."

Though I am not that well read in theology as I should, as far as well known theology I would agree, and maybe forgiveness should be. As far as what is proclaimed in the bible, it is all about rapprochement between God and man, on a individual and mankind as a whole basis.
***
"So one might ask what value divine forgiveness can have if it has no specificity for us -- even if we get beyond the faith required for belief itself, how will we ever know whether we're the object of forgiveness? What are the limits of penance? Does it require becoming a monk? Even then, if you live a life that embodies all divine virtues, i.e. chastity and humility etc, and constantly seek forgiveness, you still can only hope to be forgiven, because there is no specific interchange between you and God in which that offering occurs.'

Penance would be something man imposes on man usually within religious organizations or even "being in the dog house" could be penance. There is no reference to such that I can find in the bible. And no it does not require becoming a monk that would be a choice of an individual within such as, the catholic church. "there is no specific interchange between you and God in which that offering occurs", I would differ; yes the offering has occurred. At the cross is the offering made, and verified in Word and deed and resurrection of the flesh to the Right hand of God.

If I may, in the creation God said, made, and saw that it was good. In that He also called and blessed, but of all that was made from the earth, unto man He spoke, and showed man what He gave man. In the history of Abraham to the coming of Christ, God spoke to man and showed man what God gave man.
***
"As for freedom, we're free from everything other than our own self-definition. We are subject to God only if we choose to be and have delimited ourselves as such."

If one's requests are heard by the Almighty and one can hear the Almighty what limitations could there be? For our own self-definition is limited to our own perceptions, without the Knowledge of God. And what freedom is there in that?

I didn't mention it because it's self-evident that we're not individually named in the doctrines of forgiveness expounded by various theologies.


According to that one particular religious tradition, of course, in which you hold strong beliefs.


It's not interpersonal, because humans only ask. If that tradition is true, then if God ever answers it's only after we die. Would you ever make any other kind of a priori post-mortem exchange? Like, for instance, if you loan me $100 I'll pay you back after you've died... I don't mean to be trite, but the point is that all we know as humans is that God's forgiveness can be asked for, or prayed for, or hoped for. But we don't know if that forgiveness ever comes, and we die without ever knowing. If we're lucky, then that forgiveness is granted after we're dead -- but that's a one way road and we have to live this whole life of ours never knowing if God will reciprocate -- if he exists.


Well, it's an individual choice if you don't believe in it, it's doctrinal if you do. Just like God, and just like every other element of faith.


You speak so "factually" of these traditions. In what regard do you hold people who have different belief systems (or who do not ascribe to a religion)? It's hard to discuss philosophy if a single religious tradition is held to be true, when your interlocutors don't necessarily share your beliefs.


So God spoke to Adam and Eve, then Noah, then Abraham, then Moses, then fertilized Mary and briefly inhabited his own son, and then spoke to Mohammed, and then Julian of Norwich, and then Sabbatai Zevi, etc. Whichever one in this tradition you stop with (in my tradition we stop with Moses, but Sabbatai Zevi had a lot of followers himself), the point is that God only spoke to them individually. Not everyone.


The constraints of inherited tradition, of course, and the constraint of living one's life with the hope that your actions will be rewarded after death.


All the freedom in the universe.

Belief in God is an authentic choice that I can rationally and reflectively accept or reject. That gives me more freedom than if I felt compelled to accept him, and it allows me to live my life without the conflicts that faith and tradition can bring when they collide with other aspects of life. But I understand that this differs from your own vantage point, and that's ok.

Look my contention is that in the Kingdom of God there is no religion, but that does not stop those who want use that which was given by God as religious tradition to stand between others and the Living God. They can read books too, and tell those who do not know better a bunch of hooey. The pharisees and other religious leaders at the time of Jesus did the same with what was given by the hand of Moses. That doesn't make what was given by the hand of Moses not true. But by religion or the worldly institution thereof deceived, for the world power and influence they could have. It is no different today.

And when it comes to why bother, to what good is it to run the race of life to not get the prize. To what good is a good record and not win the prize. Reminds me of the new england patriots a perfect record and no prize, the giants less then a perfect record but they have the prize that counts.

Don't mean to gang up here, but I think it's kinda detrimental to try to say that our beliefs are not religious... I agree that Christianity is more than religion, and that true Christianity is not defined by rules and regulations but by seeking and following God (and Jesus). So to us it may feel like saying that Christianity is a religion doesn't do justice to Christianity. But at the same time to say that it's not a religion is not really doing justice to the word "religion". That's my opinion of course, and I don't really disagree with what you're saying in general.

Also, about why bother. I guess I'll play the "devil's advocate" now that I joined the conversation... If you don't believe there is a prize, then to spend your life trying to get it would seem like quite a waste. Obviously I don't agree with that assumtion, but I think it's where a lot of people start...

Does that statment make anyone else feel a bit claustrophobic? Or maybe agoraphobic? Both?

Aren't those opposites?

I was being metaphorical, but I can rephrase it if you'd like... :cool:

Yeah, they're oposites... It was just a quick emotional response to the comment.

On first thought it made me feel claustrophobic- the idea that there was nothing other than this universe, that there was no way out, that we would be trapped within a senseless cause-effect system. On second thgought, it gave me a chill to think of what all that freedom would mean if there were no boundries live within, no moral standard other than what "is", no way of choosing what is good or how to live, nothing to obey... not even anything to defy.

Heh, well, if your emotional response encompasses everything from claustrophobia to agoraphobia, then that includes all possibilities in between as well. If one can take the phobia part out, as I (and many others) can, then you can see how much freedom there is in such a system -- which is the inspirational part of existentialism. If you can't take the phobia out, then you're living in the classic existential crisis, which is exactly what this freedom can create in some people -- and that's the negative part of existentialism, i.e. the nihilistic angle.

Regarding your first thought, I have always protested and will always protest (for as long as you and I engage in philosophical discourse) against your idea of cause and effect. Cause and effect is a rational human projection onto sequential processes, but outside the human mind they have no basis. So insofar as there is only one universe, we're not trapped in some kind of Calvinistic mold where we have no control -- where one thing inevitably leads to the next, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Think about a piano. A piano is a fixed system, right? There is a finite number of keys, a finite dynamic range, and we have a finite number of fingers. And yet a piano can give us everything from Bach's Preludes and Fugues to Chopin's Nocturnes all the way through Elton John and Billy Joel. It's a fixed system with nearly endless possibilities. That is an analogy for us in the universe -- we may have a finite life, and live within the bounds of finite biological and physical parameters -- and yet the possibilities in life are so beyond our scope (especially in advance) that it's really not fair to think of it as being trapped.

Regarding your second thought, we are our own moral standard, and fortunately there happens to be tremendous commonality pan-culturally and pan-geographically. It's not some Darwinian free-for-all. We're in this together, we know we're in this together, we recoil in horror at the same things, and we rejoice at the same things. Well, with enough nuance, that is, for us to still recognize our individuality.

Just to make clear, my comment wasn't any attempt at an argument- it was more just seeing how other people felt. So, thanks for the response.

Another clarifier: The opposites (claustrophobia and agoraphobia) weren't really regarding the same idea, just two different ideas that (for me) stemmed from that one comment. So everything in between isn't really included in what I was feeling...

Anyhow... The fear part might be a bit of an overstatemnt, though if I actually thought that the natural universe was all there is, I'd have somethings to work through... I also don't think that we are "cause-driven", though if I thought that I was simply the byproduct of a senseless cause-effect universe, I'd probably have at least a subtle shift in how I see a whole lot of life- which would probalby lead me to blame the universe for my problems rather than take responsibility. Maybe others are "good enough" not to do that, but I don't think I would be.



The idea of society being the moral standard would be horrific to me. That would mean that in a society that though human sacrifice was good, then I have no reference by which to say that it wasn't. If society changed such that openly killing or exploiting some group of minorities was good, I would have to decide that I was the one that was wrong- and then change to agree with society. Yet there is a certain moral standard that can be seen accross cultures, though it is probably much less coherent than we would expect- there have been (and still are) people and cultures that rejoice in persecution, human and animal suffering, deceit, selfishness, pride, and just about everything else that we would consider horrific. And there have been cultures (and still are) that look down on humilty, compassion, honesty, gentelness, and all the things that we should rejoice in. The only "moral" that seems to me to be everywhere, always, is that people want what they think is good for "me".

(Warning: all the following will be opinion, no offence intended to anyone)

From my inter-personal/cultural experiences, my limited understanding of history, and simply knowing myself, I think that people "on their own" have a very low moral standard. It is most simply wanting good (comfort, peace, security, etc.) for "me", and possibly those that are close to "me".

But I think that there exists a higher moral standard, which in some way is more-than-human (at least the animal part of human), more than natural (survival of the fittest), and more than cultural (which changes with time). I think that some people have partially grasped it at different times throughout history- like Confusious, Ghandi, Budha, and others. I think that the "Golden rule" is at the center of it (though it is not all of it IMO). And once people are exposed to real morality, they can recognize it and integrate it into their society.

Personally, I think that God has given us the best understanding of morality through His direct interactions with the Jewish people, and then in the form of Himeslf as man (Jesus). The simplest and highest moral (people to people) that He taught is to "Love your neighbor as yourself". One interesting thing I've been thinking about recently is that this command assumes the existence of that "universal moral" (wanting good for "me"), and uses it as a model rather than attempting to get rid of it altogether.

Just some thoughts... I'm sure they're not universally shared, and thats OK with me.

Here is a verse that I read (and tried a few times). To me, it had a mysterious healing power. Don't know who is the author.



I think it has to do with the power of the spoken word, i.e. the spoken word creates what it bespeaks. Also, I think the instruction was to repeat it a few times until it sank in.

It is the moral standard, though, because in real life we are the ones who judge ourselves. We appeal to higher authorities (be they elders, or traditions, or gods, or God, or laws) to justify our judgements, but so long as we are the ones doing the judging we set the moral standard (and this includes human interpretation of religion to infer 'divine' morality).

I needn't remind you that the foundational moment of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition was God's demand that Abraham sacrifice his son. Given the variety of ways in which Abraham's religion now manifests, all these thousands of years later, one could EASILY imagine a Jewish or Christian tradition in which human sacrifice is considered good.


You'd be surprised at how universal our moral standards are (and even extend to nonhuman primates insofar as we can study this in them), and how in disparate cultures people seem to have much the same moral standards -- and just back-rationalize them into their cultural tradition. This is a very cool article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I wouldn't attribute very much "high morality" to Confucious, who was more a champion of etiquette and respect of elders than anything else. Nor would I attribute it to Siddhartha Gautama (the Supreme Buddha and founder of Buddhism) either, whose philosophy was barely moral. The closest he got to it was in the Eightfold Path, which includes a few guidelines that are like a watered down Ten Commandments. Gandhi lived it, but then again he was more analagous to Martin Luther King Jr than any truly religious figure.

Which is something that people believe anyway. And I've seen this among the many Muslim and animist (sort of like Pagan) people I've met in Africa in the work I've done there. These people are generous and kind beyond anything you can imagine, and they have nothing -- and yet they will still invite you in and share their food with them. Empathy is one of the most innate human social instincts.

Yes, the command assumes it. But that assumption is a retroactive moralization based on basic human empathy as it gets incorporated into religious doctrine.

I really hope you aren't going to try to base any kind of absolute (or even subjective but usefull) morality on (1) the individual, (2) the 51% majority, or (3) the ones in power. All of them shift, and leave no way for us to say that the Gladiator games of Rome were wrong, that cultural abuse and mistreatment of women is wrong, that minority slavery is wrong, that genocide is wrong, that the crudsades were wrong, or anything else for that matter. To say that all of these are only wrong "to me" or "to us" would make for a very disgusting (and IMO wrong) view of life. And for what it's worth, even though empathy is a common part of humanity, it is by no means universal- very little of the injustices I mentioned above have anything to do with empathy. Intead, some of them have to do (like the gladiator games) have to do with the enjoyment of someone else's suffering, which is the very opposite of empathy.


I'll agree that this often (usually) apears to be the case.

But that does not mean that morality itself is ours to create. I read most of that article (skimmed some of it cause I'm busy, but I might go back to it sometime). If I understood it right, it as much as made the point I just made for me...

"Whatever grammar guides people's moral judgments can't be all that universal. Anyone who stayed awake through Anthropology 101 can offer many other examples/"
"The only other option is that moral truths exist in some abstract Platonic realm, there for us to discover, perhaps in the same way that mathematical truths (according to most mathematicians) are there for us to discover."

That is essentially what I said previously, but I attributed their existence to a moral God rather than simply saying "they exist", but without any real meaning or authority. And I said people to a degree can recognize them and live by them (again, the article posed no threat here).

For what it's worth, the article was very interesting, but more entertaining than enlightening from my perspective. In the end it didn't seem to say much other than that people are trying hard to find some other standard besides God to justify what they know to be true, and it's apperantly rather difficult. Also, a lot of it just "missed the mark" for me personally, especially in those scenerios where they assume I think one is ok and one isn't. I just don't fit their preconceptions.

One thing I think they really missed is that morality is a matter of the heart, not of the end result. Jesus claimed that a poor widow who gave away her last few pennies had given more than the all of the huge gifts of the wealthy- not because she had caused "more" good (like the assumtion of the first page of the article), but because she had given all she had. I don't personally know Bill Gates, and I really don't have anything against him, and I am happy that he has given so much to help others. But until he gives so much that it actually affects his lifestyle, it is hard to say that his giving is more "moral" than Mother Terresa, who lived her whole life among the poor and sick.

Also, the whole idea of fitting morality into evolution is neither surprising nor meaningful to me. I have already figured out the simple equation of evolution-world view: If anything exists that you want to find a reason for, all you have to do is find some way in which the trait is useful, and with a few leaps and twists of mental gymnastics, you have a believable story that claims that evolution created it. Whether true or not, most of these stories are not objective and don't phase me to much anymore, partly because I can see them coming at this point.

And though many "believable" stories like this can be contrived, the one thing they never can touch (and by scientific definition can't touch) is the "why". Why should authoritave morality be part of the sensless universe in which we live? Any answers that simply try to explain how we came to understand them, and then contentedly stops right there, just don't work for me, nor do I think they will ever work for much of humanity.


I have no interest in saying that morality is only found in Christendom. It is not. And some of the most unspeakable attrocities have hapened under the guise of "Christianity". Morality is a standard to which all people can stand or fall, regardless of what they have been taught (though I think the standard is actually raised for those who have been taught it).


Haha, Ok, that's a bit of a stretch... Yes, taken boldly out of context, you might be able to say that, but it would be a work of grave ignorance or downright deceit. Let's take a quick look at the context... According to the story, God is essentially re-introducing Himself to humanity through Abraham, and humanity has created all sorts of contorted ideas about gods and sacrifice, etc. In the minds of early cannanites, the gods wanted you to show your commitment to them through sacrifice, and the greatest sacrifice was to kill your own child on an altar to them. This particular example showed that this God did indeed want the commitment of those who would follow him, but that He was not interested in human sacrifice. Nowhere else does God ask for a human sacrifice- in fact it is often recorded that He detests such practice, and that He punishes those who do such things. And if you follow Jewish history- even when they degenerate to the poin of sacrficing their children to other gods- they never sacrifice a human to God. Also, to say that this was the "foundational moment" would be overkill IMO, though as you can see I don't think the story is overly problematic itself.

I feel that the entire idea of condemnation is of the devil, and was made to have people feel afraid of free thinking, open-mindedness, other cultures, and people in general. Gods grace is transcendental and perfect, no one can go to hell in gods world because jesus died for all sins (and if you disagree with that you are a demon, unless you don't believe in god at all, in which case don't even mind my writing). "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen". So if you look at it with an open unresentful mind, most every one has faith in jesus because everyone says that jesus was a great man (things hoped for) and anyone who believes in something sees him as divine (evidence of things not seen) so in essence all will be saved. This is the essence of the word salvation. Yes, some (emphasis on some) people deserve a stint in hell. But certainly not an eternity because mercy and justice go hand in hand. Jesus wasn't messing around with an in club out club eternal damnation scheme. He wasn't a divine teenager (no offense), and if justice and mercy don't go hand in hand then god belongs in hell. I say this not out of anger at god but in anger at extreme views. Who are we to say anyone goes to hell? I know i cant change anyone but i hope i can incur some people embrace at least some form of faith and compassion for others.