Bree

Is there any religion which places accountability for one's actions squarely on the person in question?

For example, some Christians believe that you are not accountable for some of your actions - God tends to work "mysteriously" through a person and at that point and time you are not yourself and therefore can't be held accountable for anything you say or do. Other Christians believe that they must act according to God's teachings in the Bible, even if that means breaking a modern law, and therefore aren't accountable for the consequences of those actions.

I was particularly struck by <Billy> in the RRP Etc. - he seems to believe that he can't be held to what he says here, because it is God's work. Is this indeed an idea validated by the Bible and/or Christian doctrine?

I wish I could do whatever I wanted, when I wanted, and then have to answer to no one but an invisible sky faerie. What a life.

ManM

I'm a Christian, and I have never heard anything about escaping accountability. I thought the whole point of the heaven/hell imagery was to drive it home that people were going to be accountable for their actions.

Bree

Yes - but you can commit atrocities in the name of Jesus and still be all right.

For example, one church in my area feels it is fine to vandalise property on our college campus. They spray paint "baby killer" on rows and rows of vehicles parked outside the Women's Resource Centre (which, oddly enough, is a haven for women who have been sexually abused). Yet when arrested they simply say they were doing God's work as directed specifically by Him.

On a less-drastic level some Christians see nothing wrong with harming people emotionally. It's fine to berate a woman living "in sin" with a man until she breaks down emotionally, because that's God finally working in her life, right?

It's in these ways that Fundies are quite often not accountable for their actions.

ManM

Bree,
And don't you think they will see exactly how much harm they did in the day of judgement?

Bree

Who is to say that they are NOT hearing the voice of God, or that they are NOT being influenced by the Holy Spirit? What prevents God from gently nudging these people in these kinds of directions?

Furthermore - how do you know when God speaks to your "heart" - is it different for everyone? The same?

ManM

I am skeptical about the current "God speaking to my heart" stuff. It seems to me a justification for these people to do as they will. In all of the old Christian mystical literature, the touch of God in the heart is described as fire or light, depending on your internal state. If you are sinful, you feel burning from your conscience. If you are not, you contemplate the divine light with joy. These are just symbols for subjective states that cannot really be communicated. I have no experience with these states, so all I can rely on are the metaphors. Furthermore, monks struggled their entire lives in hard asceticism to prepare themselves for this divine touch. It wasn't easy and did not just plop down upon them one day during a sermon. The metaphor does cover many possible experiences, so I do not know anything about the similarities between different people.

Given the historical accounts of what it takes to experience God in the heart, I sincerely doubt people today know what they are talking about. Furthermore, the people who did experience God were usually easy to pick out. They were humble, simple, honest, and regarded themselves as the only ones worthy of hell. They judged no one but themselves. How many Christians today who "have accepted Jesus into their hearts" act in this manner? How could one who talks with God bear rotten fruit?

Using historical accounts as my criteria, I believe I am justified in asserting that God is not speaking to these people. When the truth is revealed at the judgement, we will know for sure whether it was their doing or the will of God, and then we will know who to hold accountable.

David Bowden

Very good questions, Bree. I certainly wonder, when I hear people testify concerning God's still, small voice, exactly where that voice originates. I've heard such testimony from conservative Protestant pastors and from Catholic and Protestant laypeople alike. And the literature from other religions is pretty clear about God speaking, and all of these seem to be qualitatively about the same sort of experience.

I suspect that it is a matter of conditioning - trained in church and by becoming immersed in Christian (or whatever religion's) fellowship, dogma and media, converts come to see the world in a certain way, and they interpret their own reshaped thinking processes as the 'voice' of God. This could be just as true for ascetic monks as for next-door-neighbor evangelicals.

Some denominations/religions just don't encourage the practice as much, but any such experience generally falls within your denomination's expectations. Exceptions would be cases where the hearer of God's voice becomes, due to the unorthodox message he thinks he's heard from God, a heretic to his earlier faith, and founds his/her own tradition. Paul the apostle, Joseph Smith of the Mormons, and Mohammed would be examples of this latter, 'creative' sort who believe they hear God's clear voice but who disagree with their predecessors doctrinally.

When I read Paul's NT letters, I cannot help but wonder how much of his understanding of Judaism's God and Messiah were conditioned/warped by exposure to Greek philosophy and pagan mystery religion. (Paul's hometown of Tarsus was, in his day, a primary center of Mithraism, which taught a crucified and resurrected lord, and carried much of Christianity's teaching and practices long before the time of Jesus; and in the NT Paul shows at least some familiarity with Greek philosophy.)

If we credit Paul with even a little imaginative ability, then it is not hard to accept the notion that his interactions with God/Christ were in fact self-generated, not at all unlike modern charismatic experiences.

Again, I suspect it is largely a matter of conditioning, of internalizing religious concepts and articulating them or playing them out without understanding one's own part in the process.

People who buy into the possibility of such a 'gift' seem to feel entirely justified in saying things or in carrying out actions in the name of their God - because for all they know it really is God's voice in their head. They do not know how to tell the difference between God's voice and their own minds' regurgitations. This subjectivity renders all claims to such 'divine inspiration' completely suspect, in my opinion - and to be consistent I have to apply that suspicion to the writers of 'canonical' books as well, making me a hard skeptic of anybody who claims to speak for God or in God's name.

A person without internal safeguards against self-justifying actions also seems to me to be a very dangerous person, at least potentially, and those who follow them blindly disturb me also, as willing servants of someone whose devotion to his own imaginings is mightier than his devotion to reason or social convention. Society is too often stuck with whatever such people think is God's will, be it whipping people in temples, poisoning subways, or crashing planes into skyscrapers.

With no objective way of telling the difference between inspired action and lunacy, I feel it's best to keep myself, and anyone I care about, as far away from such people and their meeting-places as I can.

-Wanderer

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

owlafaye

Bree...rational people do not accept irrationality to guide their lives.

When you folks seek guidance from "God" you shift that "little voice" you know? the one in everyone's head?...the "inner voice" of Bree?...you "shift" it's source to God...It is you Bree, telling you what to do.

God is used to shift blame for your atrocious little life.