board77

Cerin, the traditional view of a loving parent punishing their child does not work when applied to God. The purpose of punishment is to teach a lesson in order to guide us in the right direction. Since God's punishment is eternal, once it is given there is no lesson to be learned and no hope of going in the right direction. Because it has no ultimate purpose, I don't really consider it punishment. Punishment minus a purpose is no longer punishment, imo, it's just abuse.

Yes, yovargas. That is why I have continually rejected the notion that the consequences of our actions (including a theoretical ultimate rejection of God) are a punishment.


Lord Morningstar, I haven't seen that before. What are the origins?


Btw, I have joined the Constitutional Committee and the session has started, so I will probably have less time to continue with this thread.

:):)

Cerin wrote:

Yes, yovargas. That is why I have continually rejected the notion that the consequences of our actions (including a theoretical ultimate rejection of God) are a punishment.

God causes you to be cooked in hell for eternity for breaking the laws that he set and failing to take the appropriate penance. I don’t see how that’s not punishment.

Cerin wrote:

Lord Morningstar, I haven't seen that before. What are the origins?

I wrote it and posted in on TORC once. The ‘ypu’ve’ was generic (‘you all’).

Cerin wrote:

Btw, I have joined the Constitutional Committee and the session has started, so I will probably have less time to continue with this thread.

So have I, but given my voting record in the last committee I’m likely to be kicked off pretty soon .

L_M, I hadn't seen it before. You pretty much summed it all up.

And when I got to this part...

She was a good tenant who seemed to live by the rules, but when I broached the subject of the landlord to her she confessed that she did not really think he existed. I was incredulous, and when I asked how the houses could have got here, she showed me books about people called builders who had apparently built the houses in the neighbourhood, and also laid the roads and gardens.

...I had to fall over laughing.

The LidlessEyes,

I talked to my Buddhist daughter last night. She says attainment isn't quite it, at least to her. Attainment implies an objective and for her it is seeking, or the journey, that is important. That may be a symptom of her inexperience and the idea of attainment may become important when she matures within Buddhism.

She also believes a person can follow both Buddhism and another religion and not be conflicted. This may work with Christianity because it focuses on God as a being and Buddhism doesn't consider God in that way.

Lord_M, I have never read that before. It's very good and quite captures the doubter's thought process, doesn't it?

I find it absurd, not to use a stronger word, that anyone can claim to be certain of what God might require.

To be certain of God's existence is impossible: a person can achieve an elevated level of Hope, but beyond that, nothing can be known. That degree of Hope can be called Faith, I suppose, but whatever else it is, it is not certainty.

If one achieves Faith, what kind of leap of Faith is required to assert knowledge of God's will and desire? All we have is a lot of words, mostly by men, mostly from very long ago, and that's it.

There are nearly as many versions of God and his Rules as there are believers. One is as valid as another. If that's sufficient to organize your life around, fine. But to go about the world interfering with the beliefs of others speaks of cultural arrogance so great it astounds me.

Those who believe in God should be able to say to themselves: God knows and can deal with it herself.

vison wrote:

Lord_M, I have never read that before. It's very good and quite captures the doubter's thought process, doesn't it?

What, you want me to compliment my own writing?

LM wrote:

God causes you to be cooked in hell for eternity for breaking the laws that he set and failing to take the appropriate penance. I don’t see how that’s not punishment.

[quote"ME"]Because it has no ultimate purpose, I don't really consider it punishment. Punishment minus a purpose is no longer punishment, imo, it's just abuse.
[/quote]

IMO. What would you call it Cerin? Hopefully not the "it's the natural consequences of our actions" argument, because that doesn't make sense either...

LM wrote:

So have I, but given my voting record in the last committee I’m likely to be kicked off pretty soon

You can be kicked off? Why? What's wrong with your voting record?

yovargas wrote:

LM wrote:

So have I, but given my voting record in the last committee I’m likely to be kicked off pretty soon

You can be kicked off? Why? What's wrong with your voting record?

Not such much the way that I voted, but the way that I often failed to vote

I hope Lord M. is kidding! Till now he hasn't missed more votes than the average committee member.

We need to watch quorums and simple majorities so I need to know who's around and intending to vote as opposed to being on vacation or something. Most people are really good about sending me PM's when they're going to be offline.

Jn

Lord_Morningstar wrote:

vison wrote:

Lord_M, I have never read that before. It's very good and quite captures the doubter's thought process, doesn't it?

What, you want me to compliment my own writing?

You wrote it? It's excellent, Lord_M.

I regard you as my Antipodean Boy, you know. I am going to take an Almost Maternal pride in that essay of yours!!!!

A Friendly Pride, then, if you don't like Almost Maternal.

I've been away, and I think some of the discussion has regressed back from where it was... I do so hate repeating myself .

I'll try to catch up tomorrow...

IdylleSeethes wrote:

An example of the second type is the Jewish idea of kosher, which I think made perfect sense in the context in which it originated, but isn't too applicable to the modern world.

You do not know your peril, Idylle. I could write a great long essay on the applicability of kashrut to modern Jewish observance.

There are some purely practical reasons for kashrut, among them the insistence on humane treatment of animals, and possibly some health benefits from the diet that encourages unlimited servings of fruits and vegetables while limiting animal products.

Most importantly, though, kashrut is a way of bringing holiness into mundane. IMO, it's one of the ways in which Judaism reconciles our dual nature as both physical and spiritual beings. It takes eating, a purely physical act, and makes it a reminder of the Source of All Life. It also places certain restrictions on which foods can be consumed when - but within that hedge, one can enjoy the pleasures of good food without any guilt.

I do know what you mean - it is very much possible to ignore all that and focus on observing the minute rules in what I would consider an unnecessary detail, but that would be missing the point, IMO.

There, I think I was fairly restrained. LOL

IS wrote:

For the RCC, it was a case of losing your gloves/soul. I'm not sure what the penalties are for violating kosher rules, but I know some strict observers.

Before I go any further, I now must admit that I do not keep a kosher kitchen, and though I avoid eating non-kosher foods, I am not terribly strict about it. The consequence? Some of my friends won't eat at my house.

That is typical of Judaism in that the enforcement of rules is largely community-based. What will God do about my kitchen? I don't know.

Cerin wrote:

I propose ATMB, according to my beliefs.

Love it!

Cerin wrote:

We're talking about a child obeying his parent and not walking into the street, even though he wants very much to walk into the street and get his ball. We're also talking about the unfortunate case of the child who disobeys and walks into the street, and gets run over by a truck. His getting run over is not punishment for disobeying, it is the consequence of disobeying.

I've seen God called by many names, but a truck was not one of them.

Seriously, though, to continue your parable, what would you think of the mother of that unfortunate child if she found her little girl bleeding on the pavement and began kicking and hitting her for the disobedience. Or even if she just walked away from the injured child, shrugging and saying "Well, this is the consequence of your choice." Wouldn't a loving parent instead try to heal the wounds, no matter how blatant the disobedience has been?

hal, sorry if the thread took a different path from what you intended. I think you made your position very clear, but I would always love to hear more from you on the subject.

As long as God the creator is regarded as some kind of parental being, with a consuming interest in its creatures (creatures are what a creator creates, you see), the idea of God as a judge simply follows logically from that viewpoint.

Certain believers, like the God they imagine, get around all the logical difficulties (and there are myriad logical difficulties) by playing the "you must have faith!" or "we cannot know God's mind!" cards.

God as a Creator I can quite readily imagine, the metaphor is pleasing and poetic. But the God of the Rule Book (or Rule Books) is a bizarre and displeasing construct, betraying all the prejudices of its creators.

What a Creator would want with my adulation and worship I cannot fathom. If I'm missing the boat, so be it. The directions should have been plainer.

vison wrote:

What a Creator would want with my adulation and worship I cannot fathom. If I'm missing the boat, so be it. The directions should have been plainer.

Maybe putting the cart before the horse? Expressions of love and devotion grow out of a healthy relationship. They can become ritualized and empty, but perhaps that isn't the ideal. If the love for God is a living feeling, the urge to express love and gratitude is a natural one, just as it would be in a healthy human relationship.

By this theory, God isn't demanding our worship; he's wishing us to have the kind of close and living relationship with him in which these expressions are natural. They are a side product, not the goal.

In the spirit of this thread, the Passover seder I attended Saturday night was devoted entirely to a discussion of "how Christians believe what they believe, and what faith is, anyway." It wasn't snarky, but rather really wondering (as we have been here). And no, I didn't start the conversation!

Unfortunately what the seder lacked was a genuine dyed-in-the-wool believer in Christ (though the Shiksa Contingent [rename and reclaim!] [in other words, I'm one of 'em] was large), so we never settled the question.

As (I have to say) also happened (or didn't happen) here. I'm still not clear on how our representative Christians got to feeling certain about the specifics of Christianity -- or even which of those specifics they feel confident is true, as the rest of us might feel confident about the things we believe (whatever those might be). Not just the allegorical or figurative truth we feel in excellent stories of various sorts, but the "true truth" that carries us in practical ways through our lives. (Though of course this "true truth" is itself unsettled by modern physics in all sorts of peculiar ways.)

Frelga,

Thanks, very helpful.


Teremia,

Very deserving of a discussion, but not today. Cerin

Teremia wrote:

As (I have to say) also happened (or didn't happen) here. I'm still not clear on how our representative Christians got to feeling certain about the specifics of Christianity -- or even which of those specifics they feel confident is true, as the rest of us might feel confident about the things we believe (whatever those might be).

Teremia, I don't have time right now to re-read your posts in the thread, so please forgive me if what I ask is answered elsewhere. I thought it might be helpful if you could answer your own question with respect to your own beliefs. That is, if there are things you feel certain about with respect to Judaism, how did you get to feeling certain about them? If there is nothing you feel certain about, then what is the basis for your religious observance?

I would have loved to be at that seder.

Hi Cerin! But I'm not Jewish at all! I'm a Quaker. The Jews I know (and/or am married to) range quite widely in their degree of observance, but as far as I can tell, not a one of them "believes" much -- not even in God. It may seem rather odd to be scrupulous about, say, not eating legumes or grains during Passover while not believing in God, but in my experience there's quite a subset of Jews doing just that at this time of year.

Not to mention praying! And here I fit in pretty well, since I pray all the time, though I don't seem able to believe in the addressee of prayer.

My own spiritual beliefs follow in the footsteps of George Fox (earliest Quaker) (though alas he would find me quite the limping follower, I'm afraid, in many respects): Walk cheerfully over the earth, answering to that of God in every one; whereby in them ye may be a blessing, and make the witness of God in them to bless you....

I am more able to believe in "that of God in every one" than in a human-like God exterior to human beings. I think that by reflecting the light (or Light) in the people around us, the light itself increases, in us and between us. We can serve as witness (or reflector) of the other person's own witness of God, even if the other person cannot him- or herself directly see God. Do you see what I mean? I don't see God as standing outside of human relations; but there is some sweet way in which we can say to the people we love, "look, in your face I see reflected the light of God!" and they say to us, "and I see that in you!" (and that is a blessing)

Wow, Teremia, we cross-posted there, and what a beautiful post! The long answer I just created did not address your concerns, I see now. I was talking about having faith in general, and I think you are already there.

I very much admire the Quaker religion, btw. I love your quote!