sighhswolf

I sometimes wonder why it is that we as humans seem to have this need to define the undefinable, to measure the unmeasurable, how do you define
"good conduct" and "good character"?
If I were a cannibal and I ate your child for dinner, would that be acceptable conduct?
Would that mean that my "character" was "bad"?
Would that be an example of poor "behavior"?

I dont understand how you can say that the reasoning behind someones actions/inactions socially.. what is sometimes termed as acceptable conduct or as you put it "good behavior" are irrelevent.

Is it truely irrelevent that a "good christian"
decides to exhibit "good behavior" in anticipation
of some reward? Because that is probably the most prevelent reasoning behind the "good behavior" of christians.
Or is it more relevent when an atheist decides to exhibit what you term as good behavior, because it is a rational thought process that leads to the belief that obeying the social code of conduct, will lead to a more productive and cooperative interaction with his/her fellow humans........and has nothing what-so-ever to do with your god??
I'm afraid I just cant seem to follow your logic,
maybe I'm having a "brain fart"....
Wolf

luvluv

Typhon I don't post and run, but as I've said to others before I don't post on my home computer (busted modem). It's a 15 minute drive out to this computer, I work 8 hours a day (usually) and sometimes I don't feel like making the drive over here.

As to why I feel God prefers character to behavior... that seems to me to be a very reasonable extrapolation from the widely held doctrine of free-will. If God was interested in behaviour only, he would not have given us free will. I don't see why this is a hard concept to grasp.

God seems very interested in our behavior. God is omnipotent. By the very definition of omnipotence, we can assume that God could make us behave. He does not do so however, but constantly tries to plead with us to behave better. We can assume therefore that he wants the changed behavior to come from within us, not be imposed on us. If He wanted it imposed on us, He could have done it.

For MadMorrigan and all you folks who say you don't care about A or B. Are you telling me you have no preference between these scenarios:

A) A child with no internal guidance except an interest in self-gratification and self-preservation. To ensure his behavior, you follow him around 24 hours a day with a handgun. He obeys because he does not want to get shot.

B) Your child has learned lessons in life from your personal example and through the lessons you have taught. He has internalized them and operates on these principles whether in your presence or away from you. He obeys because he has internalized the principles.

You can arrange whatever scenario you want for A. You can make it genetic tampering, bribery, whatever floats your boat. When I'm a parent, I want my kid to obey because of B.

I'm a little weary of going over my doctrine of hell to you folks, because no matter how many times I explain it somebody asks me to explain it again. I will once again state that I feel that hell is not an imposed state, but a natural consequence. I will also say that Hell is not used in the Bible as a coercive measure (apart from the parable of Lazurus and the rich man, I don't believe there is a single description of it in the Bible), though it has been used by many preachers in such a way. The doctrine of Hell as coercion has to be laid at the feet of preachers, not God. And again, warning someone of a consequence of their actions (as God has done in scripture) is not coercion. As I have stated on other threads, were God to show us Hell and use the image of Hell to intimidate us, that would constitute coercion. But he does not. He gives us fair warning, but allows us the freedom to believe his warnings or disbelieve them.

Typhon, if Hell is the natural consequence of a series of wrong choices, then it is right for God to tell us about them. It would be wrong for God to constantly hold Hell over our head and threaten us with it. He has not done that. The difference between Hell as a natural consequence and sticking a gun to someone's head should be obvious. In one case, the parent figure is warning a child about an adverse consequence to an action, no different from telling a child that if he does not look both ways before crossing the street he could be hit by a car. The parent figure would not be using the car as a coercive measure, he would just be trying to protect the child by warning him of the consequences of his actions. But the gun does constitute coercion.

I'll just wrap up by saying that Hell is not mentioned nearly as much in the Bible as you folks make it out to be. It would rank pretty far down the list of major Biblical themes.

Pomp

luvluv,

For MadMorrigan and all you folks who say you don't care about A or B.

I think you've misunderstood the problem. This line of discussion began, I believe, when I asked you several questions:

You responded:

MadMordigan and a number of others, including myself, answered that no, we really don't see any good reason to prefer A to B, and wondered why Yahweh would. Your latest response:

Are you telling me you have no preference between these scenarios:

A) A child with no internal guidance except an interest in self-gratification and self-preservation. To ensure his behavior, you follow him around 24 hours a day with a handgun. He obeys because he does not want to get shot.

B) Your child has learned lessons in life from your personal example and through the lessons you have taught. He has internalized them and operates on these principles whether in your presence or away from you. He obeys because he has internalized the principles.

This misses the point. In my original question, A and B had identical emotion, mental, and, if you wish, spiritual makeups. In other words, what most of us would call their "characters" were exactly the same. The only difference is that one of them (A in my original question, B in your latest response) has that character due to life experience while the other (B in my original question, no corresponding individual in your latest response) was simply born/created with that character.

You have changed ths situation significantly, in that your hypothetcial individual A does not, by any means, have the same mental or emotional makeup as your hypothetical individual B. You have changed the question from "Why does Yahweh like it that A has character X because of the experience of A's life more than Yahweh likes it that B has character X because B was created that way?" to "Why does Yahweh like A, who is a complete ass less than Yahweh likes B, who is a nice guy?"

Edited because I really do know the difference between "more" and "less," I swear.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Pomp

Typhon,

Thank you for the welcome. I'm a "long time fan, first time listener of the show." Actually, I've posted here before, long ago in the murky past, under the nick of "Avenzoar." And no, I'm not a Christian, nor have I ever been, though I'm soaked in Christian theology and teachings up to "here," pickled almost.

I must have been confusing you with someone else then. At any rate, I've enjoyed your posts so far. I've found them to be very well thought out as well as m quite civil. Keep it up!

luvluv

Pompous, well I think I misunderstood (or misread) your previous post.

I don't think B has any character at all, nothing constrains him at all except some immediate factor determining his behavior (be it a gun or genetics). His character really isn't "His", he behaves a certain way because of outside influences, including being "created" that way.

But am I correct in thinking that if science found a way to perfect an "obedience gene" such that your children would be "created" without the ability to disobey you, you would prefer that to the old fashioned way? Or would you simply have no preference? And would you have a problem if your parents created you thusly, without the ability to disobey them?

My nephew's got a baseball game so I'll respond to this later tonight or tommorow. Peace.

ex-preacher

Obsessed might be a better word.

<strong> Not so. There is no god. Even if there were, the concept of omnipotence is ultimately contradictory to free will. Pick one.

<strong> Except for those times when he tries to get us to behave badly (see Old Testament).

<strong> And he plans to eventually, according to most Christians.

<strong> Sounds a lot like the threat of hell in Christian theology. You need to add the promise of a really incredible reward (analogous to heaven).

<strong> A good humanist!

<strong> Welcome to the world of rationality and responsibility apart from ghosts and gods!

<strong> Please forgive us. You see, every Christian that comes through here has a different concept of hell. To further confuse us, each of these Christian claims to represent True Christianity and possesses the correct interpretation. Of course, all these conflicting views have plenty of support in the Bible. You’ve got it easy – all you have to remember is that none of us believe in hell.

<strong> Feelings – oh, oh, oh, feelings!

<strong> Read and weep:

“Anyone who says “You fool” will be in danger of the fires of hell” (Jesus – Matt 5:22)

“If your right eye [later, the right hand] causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for the whole body to go into hell” (Jesus – Matt 5:29, 30)

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Jesus – Matt 7:19)

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.” (Jesus – Matt 10:28)

“But I tell you it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” (Jesus speaking to Jews who did not respond to his message, Matt 11:21-24)

“But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.” (Jesus – Matt 12:36)

“The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it.” (Jesus – Matt 12:41)

“First collect the weeds [sinners] and tie them in bundles to be burned.” (Jesus – Matt 13:30)

“They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Jesus – Matt 13:42)

“The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Jesus – Matt 13:50)

“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off . . . for it is better to enter life maimed than to have two hands or two feet and thrown into eternal fire.” (Jesus – Matt 18:7-9)

“In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured . . . This is how my heavenly father will treat each of you unless you forgive.” (Jesus – Matt 18:34-35)

“Tie him hand and foot and throw him outside into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Jesus – Matt 22:13-14)

“And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth . . . all this will come upon this generation” (Jesus – Matt 23:35-36)

“The master will come on a day when he does not expect him . . . He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Jesus – Matt 24:50-51)

“And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be [you guessed it] weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Jesus – Matt 25:30)

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Jesus – Matt 25:46

“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that does not believe shall be damned.” (Jesus – Mark 16:16)


<strong> No, let’s put it where it belongs – at the feet of Jesus, at least the version of him in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

<strong> How’s this for fair warning: give me all your money or you will burn for all eternity. Is that coercion? Who invented hell anyway? Is God supposed to be warning us about something that he invented? Sorry, that’s coercion.

<strong> Gun to the head is a perfect analogy to threat of hell.

<strong> You should spend more time reading the Bible and less time on the internet. You are correct in the sense that hell is almost completely absent from the Old Testament, John, and Paul’s writings. They didn’t seem to have even heard about it. But it dominates Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic gospels. Or is that part of the Bible that you choose to ignore?

DRFseven

It is coercion when the consequence is IMPOSED BY THE PERSON WHO WARNS!!! That's like saying the thug who warns you'll be beaten to a pulp if you don't pay him off is not being coercive; what a joke!

DRFseven

Luvluv, you've ignored my pointing out that free will does not exist for a god to give us. Since people are finally starting to understand that fact, what is going to happen to the God concept when one of the basic tenets, the doctrine of free will, is demolished?

Pomp

luvluv,

I don't think B has any character at all, nothing constrains him at all except some immediate factor determining his behavior (be it a gun or genetics). His character really isn't "His", he behaves a certain way because of outside influences, including being "created" that way.

I disagree, for a number of reasons, but I don't think that's important. I'm primarily interested in a good reason why Yahweh would prefer A to B. Saying that A has "character," in the nonstandard sense in which you're using the word, while B does not is not good reason for Yahweh to prefer A to B unless you can give some good reason for Yahweh to prefer character to no character.

Of course, Yahweh needs no communicable reason to prefer A to B. It could be an arbitrary personal preference on his part but, unless there is some such reason, we will view his preference in the same light as we would view a preference on his part for saving light haired people as opposed to dark haired people.

But am I correct in thinking that if science found a way to perfect an "obedience gene" such that your children would be "created" without the ability to disobey you, you would prefer that to the old fashioned way? Or would you simply have no preference? And would you have a problem if your parents created you thusly, without the ability to disobey them?

The issue, for me, is not obedience. I would actually prefer that any children I might have not obey me slavishly. I am much more interested in what we might call that child's "character" in the more usual sense of "mental and emotional makeup." I see no reason, however, to prefer a child who is born a selfish ass and has to learn how to function as a pleasant human being to a child who is simply born a pleasant human being. According to you, Yahweh seems to disagree with me, and I am curious as to why you seem to think that.

sighhswolf

You should spend more time reading the Bible and less time on the internet. You are correct in the sense that hell is almost completely absent from the Old Testament, John, and Paul’s writings. They didn’t seem to have even heard about it. But it dominates Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic gospels. Or is that part of the Bible that you choose to ignore?

It is the part most all of those who call themselves christian choose to ignore. Jesus'
specifically speaks of hell , a word not used by Jews normally, and a concept not generally recognized by the Rabbinic authorities.
" The son of man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity;
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew and Mark
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:
it is better for thee to enter into life maimed,
than having two hands to go into HELL, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

The concept of the Jews set aside a place called sheol, and many christians misinterpret this reference to the grave, as hell.
Hell is a christian doctrine, not a Hebrew concept
and certainly not Jewish in origin.
Wolf