Ramblings on morality, temptation, and religion

[cartman]

Some of the posts recently and other things I've read elsewhere have gotten me thinking. I know, some people say that is a dangerous thing, but I thought I'd let me mind and thoughts wander in this post.

Mainly, the thoughts center around the idea of morality police, or arbitrary standards of decency. There are certain religious groups that want to do away with anything that does not fit a strict moral code. On the surface, it is hard to argue with such a stance. If you live a clean life, then you have a good chance of getting into heaven.

But upon closer inspection, is that really the way to go? If you remove all sources of temptation from life, then your faith and beliefs aren't really challenged. If they aren't challenged, then how do you know if you measure up or not? It would seem that the more sources of temptation that are out there that you can avoid, it would be a better show of faith than if there were no temptations at all. As such, wouldn't it show more faith to have many temptations exist that you can avoid, than try to shut them out completely and thus never be tested?

That leads me to my second musing. Why do people feel the need to try and convince other people that they should get into heaven? No amount of politicking or pleading with mortals will give another mortal the ability to get someone into heaven. That ability rests alone with (insert deity of your choice). So why waste cycles trying to convice other mortals of your piety an holiness, when you should be spending the effort convincing the one who make the decision, (insert diety of your choice)? There is nothing I can do personally to get you into heaven, so why try to convice me you deserve to go? I don't care what you think what my chances are to get into heaven, because I know it is not your call. It is between me and (insert deity of your choice), and no one/nothing else.

Like I stated in the beginning, this is something that has been rattling around in my head for a while, so I apologize if some of it didn't make sense, or if I didn't fully complete some of my ideas. I'd be interested to hear what other's thoughts and ideas on these subjects are as well. We'll see how long this stays civil before descending into the morass threads of these types usually end up.

[Franklinnoble]

The Bible says it's better not to tempt your brother. You don't get points for resisting temptation - we're saved by grace, not by works.

[st.cronin]

I think standards of decency aren't neccesarily based on a religious template - they can come from anywhere on the cultural map.

As for your "second musing" I don't think it's any different than people trying to convince other people that they should try green chile or the tv show 24. There is something in my life which interests or delights me, therefore I desire to talk about it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by cartman

Why do people feel the need to try and convince other people that they should get into heaven? No amount of politicking or pleading with mortals will give another mortal the ability to get someone into heaven. That ability rests alone with (insert deity of your choice). So why waste cycles trying to convice other mortals of your piety an holiness, when you should be spending the effort convincing the one who make the decision, (insert diety of your choice)? There is nothing I can do personally to get you into heaven, so why try to convice me you deserve to go? I don't care what you think what my chances are to get into heaven, because I know it is not your call. It is between me and (insert deity of your choice), and no one/nothing else.

For an agnostic/atheist response to your question, religions, like many other social phenomena, undergo a sort of Lamarckian evolution, where the less fit religions are weeded out. One factor that adds to a religion's fitness is it's ability to increase membership, so religions that have a feature where one tries to convince others to adopt the ways of that religion increase its ability to propogate to the next generation.

st.cronin, I hope nothing in there offended you, as that was not my intention.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The Bible says it's better not to tempt your brother. You don't get points for resisting temptation - we're saved by grace, not by works.

If we aren't saved by works, can we be damned by works? (honest question)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If we aren't saved by works, can we be damned by works? (honest question)

No.

[BrianD]

For the second question, I think people feel the need to convince others about getting into heaven because something that cool should be shared. It is the same reason we tell each other about a sale on the new FM game. Why not let everyone enjoy?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The Bible says it's better not to tempt your brother. You don't get points for resisting temptation - we're saved by grace, not by works.

But if you are not doing the tempting, where is the harm in allowing the temptation to exist? The ones actively tempting are the ones in the wrong according to the Bible. There has to be somethings held up as things and activites to avoid. If there is an attempt to try and remove all temptations, isn't that a try to recreate the Garden of Eden, which can never be reclaimed and is expressly off limits?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No.

Then does it really matter how we handle temptation? Is morality just an earthly construct?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by cartman

But if you are not doing the tempting, where is the harm in allowing the temptation to exist? The ones actively tempting are the ones in the wrong according to the Bible. There has to be somethings held up as things and activites to avoid. If there is an attempt to try and remove all temptations, isn't that a try to recreate the Garden of Eden, which can never be reclaimed and is expressly off limits?

These are actually very interesting questions.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Then does it really matter how we handle temptation? Is morality just an earthly construct?

How we handle temptation is important, because it is what happens in our SOUL that matters, not what we do. What we do can be a reflection of what happens in our soul, as in Greek tragedy, but is not neccesarily so.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

How we handle temptation is important, because it is what happens in our SOUL that matters, not what we do. What we do can be a reflection of what happens in our soul, as in Greek tragedy, but is not neccesarily so.

So giving into temptation isn't bad, but the flaws in our soul that lets us give into the temptation is bad? Is that sort-of what you are saying?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So giving into temptation isn't bad, but the flaws in our soul that lets us give into the temptation is bad? Is that sort-of what you are saying?

I think I would agree with that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by BrianD

For the second question, I think people feel the need to convince others about getting into heaven because something that cool should be shared. It is the same reason we tell each other about a sale on the new FM game. Why not let everyone enjoy?

I agree with this completely. I guess more what I was getting at was those who say "Do as I do, and you will get into heaven. What you are doing now is wrong, and you will never get into heaven." To use your FM example, there isn't one correct way to play the game. You have to play the game the best way you see fit to accomplish whatever your own end goal is, and hope it pleases (insert deity of your choice).

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by cartman

I agree with this completely. I guess more what I was getting at was those who say "Do as I do, and you will get into heaven. What you are doing now is wrong, and you will never get into heaven." To use your FM example, there isn't one correct way to play the game. You have to play the game the best way you see fit to accomplish whatever your own end goal is, and hope it pleases (insert deity of your choice).

On the one hand, they probably think that they are right and are letting you in on the secret. On the other hand, they are probably looking for some validation. If you agree that their way is right, it strengthens their belief that they are right.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by cartman

I agree with this completely. I guess more what I was getting at was those who say "Do as I do, and you will get into heaven. What you are doing now is wrong, and you will never get into heaven."

Those are like the FOF elitists who deride the Madden enthusiasts as "faggotty joystick jokers." Atheists, then, are like Maximum Football fanboys. In the end, they got nothing.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by cartman

But if you are not doing the tempting, where is the harm in allowing the temptation to exist? The ones actively tempting are the ones in the wrong according to the Bible. There has to be somethings held up as things and activites to avoid. If there is an attempt to try and remove all temptations, isn't that a try to recreate the Garden of Eden, which can never be reclaimed and is expressly off limits?

Well, the problem is, we live in a democratic society. We're able to do something about it.

If someone puts a measure on the ballot to legalize prostitution in my hometown, I have the obligation to vote against it - even rally against it - because, technically, I am my own government.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

If someone puts a measure on the ballot to legalize prostitution in my hometown, I have the obligation to vote against it - even rally against it - because, technically, I am my own government.

That doesn't really explain why you want to impose these rules on people through the force of government. Say hypothetically that leglized prostitution has been proven to not be socially harmful, or even to be beneficial (this is a hypothetical mind you, I don't want to debate the merits of legal prostitution), and the only reason to oppose it is a matter of religious belief, why would you want to impose adherence to that religious dictate through government force rather than allow people the freedom of choice while encouraging people to accept and adhere to the values of your religion?

And doesn't this approach of trying to institute religious regulations through government become extremely problematic in pluralistic state? What happens when the beliefs of various religions clash and one of those religions has instituted its beliefs through law? Are the adherents of the other religion expected to disregard their religious beliefs to obey the law or violate the law to adhere to their religious beliefs, or are they just expected to leave the country?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

dola.

Barak Obama recently gave a speech on this topic that captures my thoughts on this topic better than I could hope to state them:

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

There's a lot more to the speech than I excerpted here. It's well worth reading:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06062...ess/index.html

[Edward64]

st.cronin. Specific to your answer that we cannot be damned by our works, this would seem to indicate you believe that once saved, we can not be 'unsaved'.

I fundamentally disagree with this. In my mind, our works can certainly damn us.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

dola.

Barak Obama recently gave a speech on this topic that captures my thoughts on this topic better than I could hope to state them:



There's a lot more to the speech than I excerpted here. It's well worth reading:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/06062...ess/index.html

I like this guy.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

Some of the posts recently and other things I've read elsewhere have gotten me thinking. I know, some people say that is a dangerous thing, but I thought I'd let me mind and thoughts wander in this post.

Mainly, the thoughts center around the idea of morality police, or arbitrary standards of decency. There are certain religious groups that want to do away with anything that does not fit a strict moral code. On the surface, it is hard to argue with such a stance. If you live a clean life, then you have a good chance of getting into heaven.

But upon closer inspection, is that really the way to go? If you remove all sources of temptation from life, then your faith and beliefs aren't really challenged. If they aren't challenged, then how do you know if you measure up or not? It would seem that the more sources of temptation that are out there that you can avoid, it would be a better show of faith than if there were no temptations at all. As such, wouldn't it show more faith to have many temptations exist that you can avoid, than try to shut them out completely and thus never be tested?

That leads me to my second musing. Why do people feel the need to try and convince other people that they should get into heaven? No amount of politicking or pleading with mortals will give another mortal the ability to get someone into heaven. That ability rests alone with (insert deity of your choice). So why waste cycles trying to convice other mortals of your piety an holiness, when you should be spending the effort convincing the one who make the decision, (insert diety of your choice)? There is nothing I can do personally to get you into heaven, so why try to convice me you deserve to go? I don't care what you think what my chances are to get into heaven, because I know it is not your call. It is between me and (insert deity of your choice), and no one/nothing else.

Like I stated in the beginning, this is something that has been rattling around in my head for a while, so I apologize if some of it didn't make sense, or if I didn't fully complete some of my ideas. I'd be interested to hear what other's thoughts and ideas on these subjects are as well. We'll see how long this stays civil before descending into the morass threads of these types usually end up.

Nice thoughts. I'm pretty much been questioning the values and stances of religion (and not agreeing with a lot of it) in my last few years. Part me always question the afterlife? Do we have one? What if what we've thought was right was all wrong?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Edward64

st.cronin. Specific to your answer that we cannot be damned by our works, this would seem to indicate you believe that once saved, we can not be 'unsaved'.

I fundamentally disagree with this. In my mind, our works can certainly damn us.

The Bible disagrees with you... I can find the passages addressing this, if you give me a few minutes.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

That doesn't really explain why you want to impose these rules on people through the force of government. Say hypothetically that leglized prostitution has been proven to not be socially harmful, or even to be beneficial (this is a hypothetical mind you, I don't want to debate the merits of legal prostitution), and the only reason to oppose it is a matter of religious belief, why would you want to impose adherence to that religious dictate through government force rather than allow people the freedom of choice while encouraging people to accept and adhere to the values of your religion?

And doesn't this approach of trying to institute religious regulations through government become extremely problematic in pluralistic state? What happens when the beliefs of various religions clash and one of those religions has instituted its beliefs through law? Are the adherents of the other religion expected to disregard their religious beliefs to obey the law or violate the law to adhere to their religious beliefs, or are they just expected to leave the country?

Well, I can't really address that without debating the merits of legal prostitution, since the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. are ALL beneficial to society, and there's no logical way to conclude that violating any of them is NOT harmful to society. God kinda knew what He was doing. I don't think He made rules that weren't practical.

Fundamental Christianity is actually not at all very regimental. You're given guidelines on how to behave towards God, yourself, and your fellow man, but it's not like there's a hard and fast rule about praying 5 times a day when a little buzzer goes off, or anything like that.

The hot-button issues always seem to boil down to selfishness. Abortion is a selfish act. Sex without marriage is a selfish act. Gambling is a selfish act. I don't think you can really argue that a society works better when everyone is allowed to behave selfishly.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Well, I can't really address that without debating the merits of legal prostitution, since the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. are ALL beneficial to society, and there's no logical way to conclude that violating any of them is NOT harmful to society. God kinda knew what He was doing. I don't think He made rules that weren't practical.

Fundamental Christianity is actually not at all very regimental. You're given guidelines on how to behave towards God, yourself, and your fellow man, but it's not like there's a hard and fast rule about praying 5 times a day when a little buzzer goes off, or anything like that.

The hot-button issues always seem to boil down to selfishness. Abortion is a selfish act. Sex without marriage is a selfish act. Gambling is a selfish act. I don't think you can really argue that a society works better when everyone is allowed to behave selfishly.

This is where I have a struggle with religion in general. Who "decides" it is a selfish act and what defines a selfish act? Some acts may be selfish to some, but not to others.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

This is where I have a struggle with religion in general. Who "decides" it is a selfish act and what defines a selfish act?

Well, I've always found it to be self-evident. But you can't have salvation shoved down your throat - that much I'll agree with. If the government started instituting a system of mandatory Christianity, I'd have a problem with it.

Missionaries spread the word, but the Holy Spirit does the real work. It'll draw you to the Gospel when you're ready. I can't explain it any better than that. It just convicts you. You see the truth in it, and it shows you where you've gone right, and where you've gone wrong.

That's why most Christians don't feel compelled to do good works out of fear of damnation. It's nothing like that. We know we're saved, but we also know we're wretched, and don't deserve it. We do good works out of thanksgiving, and out of a sincere desire to share what we've found with others.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The hot-button issues always seem to boil down to selfishness. Abortion is a selfish act. Sex without marriage is a selfish act. Gambling is a selfish act. I don't think you can really argue that a society works better when everyone is allowed to behave selfishly.

Technically, everyone is living and behaving selfishly, ignorance is no excuse. Capitalism baby; allowing the few to take advantage of the many and less able since the 13th century!

Sad but true. It's just in our nature. Not much that can be done about it, unless someone wants to start a rebellion and make us all sustenance farmers.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

We know we're saved, but we also know we're wretched, and don't deserve it.

We are as the good Lord made us, I guess...

[watravaler]

Outstanding thread...keep it up.

[Edward64]

I agree, great thread.

St. Cronin and Franklinoble. I am sure there are multitudes of passages in the Bible that support your contention about works, here are some that I googled that support mine.

Does God want works to accompany faith? "What good is it my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have good works, is dead..." (Jam. 2:14-26). Jesus said " not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name? Did we not drive out demons in Your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in Your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers.' " (Mt.7:21-23) Jesus said to His disciples "For the Son of Man will come with angels in His father's glory, and he will repay everyone in accordance with his conduct." (Mt. 16:27). Jesus answered the rich young man, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mt. 19:16-19) (Mt. 25:31-46, Dan. 4:24, Rev.14:13, 20:13).


Here's the reference website http://www.transporter.com/Fatherpef...ics/bible.html. Please note, some of this sites text seems questionable to myself ... I am only referring to the site's quote above.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I don't think you can really argue that a society works better when everyone is allowed to behave selfishly.

As someone else pointed out, I take it you don't care much for capitalism or free markets?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

On second thought, don't answer the previous post.. like before, I'd rather not argue the point on what is and is not selfish, or perhaps what is good selfish vs. what is bad selfish. The point is that these things are not at all self-evident. On premarital sex, for example, you will find wide variation on intuitions about the selfishness and morality of it. And on the premise that selfishness is inherently bad, you will likewise find a broad difference of opinion. I'm sure these matters could easily occupy an entire thread, but preferably not this one... In any case they are not self-evident.

So if you would please go back to my first scenario and answer it, accepting the basic premise, I would be very interested to see your reply. I'll repost it here for convenience:

Say hypothetically that leglized prostitution has been proven to not be socially harmful, or even to be beneficial (this is a hypothetical mind you, I don't want to debate the merits of legal prostitution), and the only reason to oppose it is a matter of religious belief, why would you want to impose adherence to that religious dictate through government force rather than allow people the freedom of choice while encouraging people to accept and adhere to the values of your religion?

And doesn't this approach of trying to institute religious regulations through government become extremely problematic in pluralistic state? What happens when the beliefs of various religions clash and one of those religions has instituted its beliefs through law? Are the adherents of the other religion expected to disregard their religious beliefs to obey the law or violate the law to adhere to their religious beliefs, or are they just expected to leave the country?

[revrew]

Mojo, regarding above post:

The first hypothetical paragraph runs into the following problem: most religions equate immoral with socially or personally harmful (so long as the deity is seen as good and/or philanthropic). To "prove" otherwise is to "prove" a tenet of the religion as wrong. Believers must then either ammend that tenet or discount the study that "proved" it. A fundamentalist of any religion, by definition, would discount the study. Put simply, many would say, "It's harmful, whether you so-called 'proved' it or not."

The second paragraph poses a historical dilemma. A government of the people is based upon a social contract (i.e. constitution) and the people's willingness to abide by that contract. But what do you do when the terms of that contract have changed through time, against the will of the people who agreed to it? Such is the case with the U.S. Constitution, especially on the subject of separation of church and state. Though our first ammendment was created with the intent of keeping government out of the church's affairs, time (through the Supreme Court) has switched that intent around. Though the nation was founded with a largely homogenous religous base, the constitution being a contract among brothers of largely similar viewpoint...we have become an increasingly pluralistic society. If we looked at today's government and asked the founding fathers to sign the constitution that governs it, many would likely refuse. Likewise, many today who still hold to the religious worldview of those founding fathers feel as though parties within the country have arrested the social contract and corrupted it to their own ends.

Your paragraph, "doesn't this approach of trying to institute religious regulations through government become extremely problematic in a pluralistic state," should really be turned around: namely, "Doesn't the approach of maintaining the government's religious foundations become extremely problematic as the state grows increasingly pluralistic?" And the answer is yes. Some would say, "Throw out the base to govern the pluralism" (see Sen. Obama's comments above). Others say, "We agreed to the base, it is the thread that binds us together, it's the country we've created and want to live in; make the pluralistic adapt."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Well, I can't really address that without debating the merits of legal prostitution, since the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, etc. are ALL beneficial to society, and there's no logical way to conclude that violating any of them is NOT harmful to society. God kinda knew what He was doing. I don't think He made rules that weren't practical.

I'll give you that the Ten Commadments seem pretty practical. Most of them, at least. The Golden Rule, most definitely. But there are dozens upon dozens of "rules" in the Bible that are the antithesis of practical.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

The hot-button issues always seem to boil down to selfishness. Abortion is a selfish act. Sex without marriage is a selfish act. Gambling is a selfish act. I don't think you can really argue that a society works better when everyone is allowed to behave selfishly.

Over generalize much? Sure, there are times when all of the acts noted above are done for selfish reasons, but there are also a number of times when they are done for reasons far greater and much more complicated than simple selfishness.

[TheGreatestManAlive]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree, great thread.

St. Cronin and Franklinoble. I am sure there are multitudes of passages in the Bible that support your contention about works, here are some that I googled that support mine.

Does God want works to accompany faith? "What good is it my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have good works, is dead..." (Jam. 2:14-26). Jesus said " not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name? Did we not drive out demons in Your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in Your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me you evildoers.' " (Mt.7:21-23) Jesus said to His disciples "For the Son of Man will come with angels in His father's glory, and he will repay everyone in accordance with his conduct." (Mt. 16:27). Jesus answered the rich young man, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mt. 19:16-19) (Mt. 25:31-46, Dan. 4:24, Rev.14:13, 20:13).


Here's the reference website http://www.transporter.com/Fatherpef...ics/bible.html. Please note, some of this sites text seems questionable to myself ... I am only referring to the site's quote above.

Just thought I'd chime in on this one. The crux of the passages above, and therefore the whole issue, is whether or not the works cause the faith or evidence it. The easiest way to answer that is not only the context of those passages but Ephesians 2: 8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

The paradox, as some see it, is that one set of passages will seem to suggest works and the other faith. The difference is that one set is setting for evidentiary support that your faith is real and the other setting forth causitive support for the source of your faith. Different yet intricately related aspects of what is Biblical faith. The above passage includes a touch of synecdoche as it shows that part of the reason for being saved is to do good works.

There are several other passages that suggest the evidentiary items are not just what we do, but even why we do them. The most prominent and broadsweeping is I John 5:13 that says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life." What things had been written thusfar? 5+ chapters of basic how and why Christianity.

Excellent thread. Thank you to everyone for an intelligent discussion of this important topic regardless of where you fall on it.

[Warhammer]

We are only able to enter heaven through the grace of God. If we are faithful followers of God, we will perform good works. If we are not faithful followers, then we will not.

It is possible to proclaim faith, but not back it up by works. However, is the person really a man of faith? No.

However, even though straying from God repeatedly with no remorse will bar heaven to them, no amount of good works will gain entry for anyone. It is only through God's Will and Grace that he will be allowed to enter.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm just glad revrew decided to contribute here. He's much wiser than I am when it comes to Biblical knowledge.

[Raiders Army]

This is a great thread. For the most part, I think religion is a product of groupthink. Unfortunately, no one has any hard proof that there is a God (or Gods) nor can anyone prove there is a Heaven or Hell.

All acts are inherently selfish and people act in their own interests. I think that when a person's acts intrude on other people's rights their acts are "bad" selfish. That's the litmus test for me.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

This is a great thread. For the most part, I think religion is a product of groupthink. Unfortunately, no one has any hard proof that there is a God (or Gods) nor can anyone prove there is a Heaven or Hell.

Agreed on this being a good thread. As for the notion of proof, it seems to hinge on what counts as proof. If one only accepts scientific proof, then it will be considerably more difficult to 'prove' the existence of a deity than with other kinds of proof. If one accepts logical proofs, then there seems to be a whole lot more room for proof to exist.

So the key issue for me involves what counts as proof, how we define legitimate and illegitimate proof with these sorts of questions.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

All acts are inherently selfish and people act in their own interests. I think that when a person's acts intrude on other people's rights their acts are "bad" selfish. That's the litmus test for me.

I see your point, but the question of what does and doesn't constitute a "right" is, in itself, a moral question, dependent on a person's worldview. For example, one might see polygamy as a right between consenting adults based on a certain worldview, while another may see it as a violation of women's rights based on another worldview. Or, more practically, the whole question of abortion. Mom's right to chose vs. baby's right to live. The point is simply, you can't speak of rights without necessarily referring to a (conscious or subconscious) moral framework.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'm just glad revrew decided to contribute here. He's much wiser than I am when it comes to Biblical knowledge.

I don't know about wiser in biblical knowledge, but perhaps in grammatical knowledge--"biblical" isn't capitalized

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by revrew

I don't know about wiser in biblical knowledge, but perhaps in grammatical knowledge--"biblical" isn't capitalized

Doh!

Maybe I should retain Storycraft Communications to edit my posts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

We are only able to enter heaven through the grace of God. If we are faithful followers of God, we will perform good works. If we are not faithful followers, then we will not.

It is possible to proclaim faith, but not back it up by works. However, is the person really a man of faith? No.

However, even though straying from God repeatedly with no remorse will bar heaven to them, no amount of good works will gain entry for anyone. It is only through God's Will and Grace that he will be allowed to enter.

Warhammer. Surely there are cases where someone was saved as a teenager and much later in life, did 'straying from God repeatedly with no remorse'.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Thanks for your post, I think it was very helpful.

Originally Posted by revrew

The first hypothetical paragraph runs into the following problem: most religions equate immoral with socially or personally harmful (so long as the deity is seen as good and/or philanthropic). To "prove" otherwise is to "prove" a tenet of the religion as wrong. Believers must then either ammend that tenet or discount the study that "proved" it. A fundamentalist of any religion, by definition, would discount the study. Put simply, many would say, "It's harmful, whether you so-called 'proved' it or not."

I think from a descriptive perspective you are entirely correct. Unfortunately, as the Obama talk points out, this approach is antithetical to pluralistic democracy. There is no room for deliberation, compromise, or moderation in positions like this. There is also a certain arrogance in assuming infallibility in the face of contrary data. I find that to be troublesome for the American approach to government...

Though the nation was founded with a largely homogenous religous base, the constitution being a contract among brothers of largely similar viewpoint...

I'm not sure that's true. As Obama also pointed out, this country, while overwhelmingly Christian, had serious sectarian divisions at our founding. And while sectarian divisions are not such a biggie today, a great deal of blood was shed in Europe over these sectarian divides, and that violence played no small role in driving colonists to America. Weariness over state-based religious conflict (the Thirty Years War) was also crucial in shaping the religiously tolerant and rationalist Enlightenment thinking (see John Locke) that inspired the colonials. The founders had this history close in mind when they made religious freedom a key tenet of American government. We have more different religions in the U.S. now, but I would venture fewer serious sectarian clashes.

If we looked at today's government and asked the founding fathers to sign the constitution that governs it, many would likely refuse. Likewise, many today who still hold to the religious worldview of those founding fathers feel as though parties within the country have arrested the social contract and corrupted it to their own ends.

More ink has been spilled on the topic of the religious beliefs of the founders than any sane person would want to read, but I believe, like Solecismic, that many of them would be unable to be elected to public office today due to the lack of orthodoxy of their vague deist beliefs.

"Doesn't the approach of maintaining the government's religious foundations become extremely problematic as the state grows increasingly pluralistic?" And the answer is yes. Some would say, "Throw out the base to govern the pluralism" (see Sen. Obama's comments above). Others say, "We agreed to the base, it is the thread that binds us together, it's the country we've created and want to live in; make the pluralistic adapt."

a) I would be curious to know what the religious foundations of the government are, in some more specific sense, the "base" as you refer to it. Is not our government's religious base, at least as it appears the constitution comprised of free exercise, non-establishment, and no religious tests for office? If there is any base that binds us together, I would tend to think that it would be the principles of liberty and democracy enshrined in our founding documents...

b) I think it's misleading to say "make the pluralistic adapt". In reality you're saying make everyone who does not subscribe to the state religion adapt. And if you are arguing that this is a position that the founding fathers would support, I'm afraid you are mistaken. They lived in that society. The Church of England was an instrument of state power, and those who were not members of it were indeed forced to adapt. The colonials fought a war to be free of it, and wrote in quite explicit language in the Constitution that their new government was supposed to be different.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Agreed on this being a good thread. As for the notion of proof, it seems to hinge on what counts as proof. If one only accepts scientific proof, then it will be considerably more difficult to 'prove' the existence of a deity than with other kinds of proof. If one accepts logical proofs, then there seems to be a whole lot more room for proof to exist.

So the key issue for me involves what counts as proof, how we define legitimate and illegitimate proof with these sorts of questions.

And thus, those who are truly damned, above all others, (in a Christian world) are those who are predisposed to science and scientific explanations. Even though those "gifts" were seemingly given by God himself.

[TheGreatestManAlive]

Originally Posted by revrew

I don't know about wiser in biblical knowledge, but perhaps in grammatical knowledge--"biblical" isn't capitalized

If I were to turn in a paper in one of my religion classes that didn't capitalize Biblical, I would at least get a note reminding me to do so and would probably lose a point.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by revrew

I see your point, but the question of what does and doesn't constitute a "right" is, in itself, a moral question, dependent on a person's worldview. For example, one might see polygamy as a right between consenting adults based on a certain worldview, while another may see it as a violation of women's rights based on another worldview. Or, more practically, the whole question of abortion. Mom's right to chose vs. baby's right to live. The point is simply, you can't speak of rights without necessarily referring to a (conscious or subconscious) moral framework.

Totally true. I guess I'm assuming the regular U.S. Constitutional rights. I had a great conversation with my new officemate and he was talking about how different cultures view things. In some cultures it's okay to have polygamy; in others it is not condoned. I'm sorry but I'll revisit this thread when I'm totally sober because I think I'm not making sense at this point.

[Schmidty]

I just noticed this thread.

For the sake of my own sanity, and my fellow FOFCers nerves, I am going to try to stay totally out of it.

I think most of you know where I stand.

[Bonegavel]

Food for thought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Food for thought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Pen and paper and speadsheets is such a boring way of determining the existence of God. I'm waiting for Maximum-Deity.