Perchance

Seebs, thanks for your response!

On the transcendence/immanence issue, I've heard three opinions: that God is totally one or the other, or that God is both. The "totally immanent" option seems to be confined mostly to some Neopagan religions which, for example, believe that the earth and the universe are divine or Goddess.

I suppose I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a God that is truly transcendant- or "alien," as I've heard other critiques put it. If he/she/it is totally outside of human experience, then how can we attribute emotions such as love or qualities such as goodness to it? What we understand as love or goodness may be something else entirely.

I've heard this argument the other way- that what seem to be acts of evil may be acts of good in a great plan we can't comprehend- but, for some reason, rarely this way, that what seem to be acts of good might be acts of evil. Gee, I wonder why? .

Hmmm. Again, interesting definition. I do think it is possible to know that one is fallible- after all, one is human!- and still be proud, though. I also think a lot of humility is false because some people act as if they can entirely get rid of their pride, which I don't believe for a moment.


Agreed. I tend to focus more on pride because humility has a much better reputation, and I like to root for the underdog .

I would argue pride is also what makes a person able to create a beautiful novel and claim credit for it himself or herself, while humility is what makes some people thank their spouses, their pets, their children, their families, their cousins to the ninth degree, and the particles of dust on their knees for it until you start thinking that all those things actually wrote the book .

Thanks again for your answers.

-Perchance.

seebs

Heh. I have no idea whether hell is literal or not; I suspect it isn't, simply because the description matches *so* perfectly the emotional responses I've seen in people who are really consistently opposed to any kind of morality.

I don't know what to make of the "OT atrocities".

As to predetermination, whether that's predetermination or foreknowledge is an entire *branch* of theology; a clear opinion on the issue is probably beyond me, so I just cheerfully assume I have free will, because, well, what point is there in thinking oftherwise?

Well, for one thing, I tend to assume that comparison with a thing which people at the time believed does not imply that the belief is correct, only that it's a good frame of reference for communication.

Also, once again, note that there's a whole branch of theology devoted to questions like this. I personally refrain from having an opinion about the Second Coming. I know people who believe that the events referred to were a reasonable description of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD or so, and that people have not understood this correctly. I don't need an opinion on this issue to get on with my life, so I don't have one.

If I understand what you're saying, it's saying "since the flood was literal, the message to the audience was the the second coming would be literal"... but that's silly! The audience had no reason to even bring up the *question* of "literal" vs. "allegory". Instead, I'd suspect that the second coming would have *qualities* similar to those ascribed to the Flood - whether or not the Flood ever happened.

If I say "uranium is radioactive - you know, like the spider in the old spiderman comics", I'm not implying that old spiderman comics are science, or that uranium's radioactivity is pretty much just a silly origin story. I'm comparing a thing to the qualities attributed to a thing people know of as having those qualities.

Everyone's so quick to say what a "true" Christian has to believe. I'm not nearly so convinced. I see people as writing within the limits of their knowledge, to try to get a message across.

Opera Nut

Yeah, seebs, we have atheists, agnostics, monotheists and polytheists and even pagans in the UU church.

Furthermore, we don't throw out "sinners".

We really DO welcome everyone, unlike Christians who tend to labor under the illusion that they love and accept everybody -- even those awful, evil sinners they worry so much about. In fact, I was married in 1984 by a gay minister, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School (founded by those liberal Congregationalists), who is still in his post as the chief minister of a large metropolitan congregation. Do I care who he sleeps with? No, it's none of my business.
(((What a concept--minding your own business!))))

The UU church was merged from two different denominations of the 19th century -- the Unitarians, who believed in one god, and the Universalists, who believed in Universal Salvation for everyone. Members of both denominatins were active in the abolition of slavery movement and women's rights movement, speaking against the injustice of slavery while the Christians of the time accepted it as part of the "natural order" as set out in the Bible. UUs have always been active in social justice movements.

seebs

True enough. However, at some point, you gotta punt and go with your senses.

Because most people shy away from the possibility that there's a guy out there somewhere visibly giving money to the poor solely so he'll be well-thought of when he runs for the senate in 10 years, hoping to cash in on bribes.

I think the key to understanding the Christian idea of "pride as a sin" or "humility as a virtue" is that not all things which the English word "pride" could denote are included in the theological concept. Basically, all virtues and vices are terms of art. "Gluttony", as a sin, includes excessive pickiness about a small amount of food, not just the desire for too much food. Lust is not the same thing as sexual desire. "Pride" is the belief that you're just fine on your own and don't need God, and that you're extra-special-important. Note that many atheists, although they don't believe in God, are not detectably guilty of "pride"; they simply don't have the implicit framework, so accusing them of not giving God credit is meaningless.

I agree that taking some ownership of your successes is a good thing. I think that the ideal state is one where, apart from a sense of accomplishment, you don't necessarily value your own works above similar works by others.

seebs

I think it depends a lot on the church. My UU friend is an agnostic, and he goes to a UU church fairly far from his house, because the one near his house has too many people who are intolerant of theists.

Perchance

Ineresting definition of pride. I would argue that I have the first- that I am fine on my own and don't need God- but not the second- I tend to regard what I do as equally important as what others do, no more and no less.

I suppose, if I apply this definition, one reason I dislike "humility" is that I've seen so much pride in the guise of humility. In the college where I spent my undergraduate years, other people gushed at and bowed at the feet of those who did "charity work," as if feeding someone in a soup kitchen were more important than writing a novel.

I don't think it is.

Again, I would argue that I do value the works of others. It's the impression that the works of others should somehow be seen as more important than one's own- or that events which are called "miracles" should be seen as more important than ordinary human effort- that I detest.

-Perchance.

Fastfalcon

Hello, seebs. Boy, you teach me a lot about Christianity in your posts. Learning something new every day. My faith is growing like a flower. What is your take on the end times stuff, like Matt 24, 1 Cor 15:51-58, 1 Thess 4:6-17? I take them pretty literal.

seebs

I have no opinion. I have seen convincing arguments for preterism (the belief that these referred to events around the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD), I've seen arguments that the people "taken" will be the believers, I've seen arguments that the people "taken" will be everyone else.

I don't have enough information to develop an informed opinion, and it's none of my business; in the end, the rules for my daily life do not change, and I don't think God wants me to spend a lot of time fretting about stuff like that, so I ignore it.

seebs

Exactly! That "this is so important" attitude is *pride*.

As to the God issue, well, that presupposes faith. If you believed in God, you might well be inclined to think that He had something to do with the opportunities and resources you had.

I tend to think of human effort, when well directed, as a kind of minor miracle. But yeah, I get offended when people talk about some arguably-miraculous thing as though it's a lot more important than plain old determination, courage, or love. I'll back a mother who somehow gets her kids out of a burning house against a faith healer any day.

Perchance

In my case, hearing people in my classes the day of September 11th say that the rescue of survivors was "a miracle of God," and that "everyone who was in the WTC should thank God they escaped" fanned my anger to a brief, white heat. No one was giving thought to the fact that it was humans who dug the survivors out of the pile, or that the people who survived often did so by luck and cleverness rather than any demonstrable act of God.

Sorry. That irritates me.

-Perchance.