New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
Is Christianity a Cop-Out????
As I have said before I’m not very happy with the term “[tag]Christianity[/tag].” InWorship who has spoken on this before, and calls us Christ followers and I like that. Christianity makes the Christian life sound like a set of ideas I hold in my head. The reality of it is that a Christ follower is a life, not a feeling or a set of ideas. It’s a commitment in response to my God’s prior commitment to me. I’m not getting into the whole predestination issue, but there is a whole lot more to being a Christ follower than saying…”I’m a Christian” or “I believe in [tag]God[/tag]“. [tag]Satan [/tag]himself believes in God…
I didn’t choose Christianity; Christianity persuaded me. My seeking brought me to a way of life…I didn’t choose it as “a religion.” I don’t believe it helps to see Christianity as “a religion.” It was only recently that people began to see Christianity as “a religion” anyway. “Religions” in this culture are more like the pagan religions of the [tag]Roman Empire[/tag] and the Christian faith, through time, refused to take its place among them as an option.
Christianity is a cop-out (also popularly known as “a crutch”)?
Another convenient phrase…
Historically, a Christian’s life doesn’t make much sense as a coping strategy. I’ve heard this said several times now….that it’s just a way to not be accountable…It’s pretty much the opposite as far as I can see.. it’s a different life with a whole different shape, and it’s the opposite of “behavioral adaptation” that someone makes to a life which in turn remains essentially unchanged. The crowds and followers and rich young man in the [tag]Bible [/tag]who drew back were the cop-outs. The onlookers who purposefully distorted what they saw in [tag]Jesus [/tag]to avoid grappling with the presence of the Kingdom are the cop-outs. They didn’t want to pay the cost of discipleship.
Christianity is a life of accountability and a way of healing, spiritually, emotionally and physically, because it acknowledges and addresses the sicknesses that plague both the world as a whole and the relationships and people that make it up.
A lot of people don’t even perceive God as being good….we do in all situations.
God as described in the story of Israel, Jesus, and the Church — God being revealed — is good beyond even the wildest human dreams of goodness. God revealed in the life of Jesus is not only truly just in the way he treats others, but truly merciful both to people who suffer injustice and to the enemies who cause injustice. He forgives the very ones who violently reject him, while showing and healing them of the habits that caused the violence and confusion in the first place.
Having Him in my life is in no way a cop-out…it’s discipleship and commitment regardless of what happens..looking at where things are headed in this world I don’t know how people can live without the hope He brings…
I just couldn’t see having it any other way in my life….
Popularity: 3% [?]
Loading ...
Funny you should post this…I know how annoying it is because I get equally annoyed when Christians say to me that me NOT being a Christian is a cop-out. They think it’s a cop-out because I’m avoiding obeying God or doing the right thing.
I would never assert to you that you being a Christian is a cop-out (I don’t think it is anyway, so why would I say it?)
I hope you in turn won’t ever say that me not being a Christian is a cop-out - and I hope the reason you won’t say it is because you don’t believe it’s a cop-out.
I thought we had this discussion before :d
God’s unimaginable goodness seems an awful lot like Man’s all too often badness.
*cough* Jericho *cough*
I suppose we just look at these things differently.
No Helen….LOl It is just some issues I wanted to address that I had heard on this blog from time to time….I’ve never gotten that kind of thing from you…you understand the heart….smiles!
:)>-
HEY Skep…yes we have…some things are worth repeating??? LOL and yes we obviously look at things differently…but I have alot of respect for you tho as well..
Doesn’t belief in a superior benevolent being that holds the moral zenith automatically act as a crutch? Doesn’t simply having this perfect icon mean that you never have to decide for yourself what is right or wrong because it has already been decided? You simply have to decide if you are acting in accordance with this “benchmark” morality or against it.
On the subject of religion I concede your point regarding the Roman Empire. Today we have faction upon faction of one religion or another. They all seem to disagree on which particular interpretation is the right one. As an Atheist I just get to reject the whole lot.
Question 1, no, question 2, no…there is not one person on the face of this earth who can honestly say in any given day they meet the benchmark. It’s not up to us to decide even for ourselves who is or is not meeting that mark. It’s always about Him…what He did..not us. As an atheist…you will be answering to the same God as us believers one day. Your still my favorite froginess…:d
I disagree, as I suspect that you may have guessed, morals are subjective. They have to be by the very fact that they are not measurable or even consistent. A humanist sets their moral framework based on their actions in regard to themselves and to humanity. A Christian functions in precisely the same way but has the added “crutch” (for want of a better word) of having their personal framework justified by a higher power.
The benchmark of a humanist’s moral code is their own and can be achieved as often as they wish. Similarly if they wish to live to a higher moral code then they need only adjust their benchmark as they see fit. For me the humanist attitude is morally superior. I doubt if you’d agree.
As an example (and I hope not too inflammatory a one) take the issue of homosexuality. To a bible following Christian the issue of homosexuality is clear cut. The Old Testament clearly vilifies it and the New Testament supports this attitude. Various churches have gone on to condemn homosexuals. To a Christian homosexuality is wrong. There may be room to maneuver around the issue by claiming that the actual act is wrong but not the person but in essence gay equals sin.
A humanist has the option of rejecting this dogmatic approach. Why should it be any concern of mine what two people get up to in their bedroom, or any other room for that matter…or out doors even.
It doesn’t hurt me or anyone I care about. In short it is none of my business. To support that stance there are numerous studies that show that homosexuality is a natural trait just any other human trait such as blue eyes are considered natural. The result of abnormalities in the genetic makeup. So, just as I lack the gene to give my eye the brown pigment, homosexuals lack the chemical brain receptors to make them attracted to the opposite sex. They can no more change sexual preference than I can change eye colour. Besides which I like my eye colour.
I also disagree that I’ll be answering to the same God as you will one day. I’d say that we’ll both be answering to no god, ever. Again I suspect that you reject that idea as strongly as I reject the idea of a final judgment.
Ho hum, c’est la vie. :-??
Well, that was a longer comment that I thought it was going to be. :d
Hover…yes we disagree about pretty much everything….but we have a respect for eachother and that’s a good place to start and come back to….I left you a recipe down on the other blog…it is alot of fun with kiddos….
If you would like me to repeat my stance on these things I would be happy to, but you “I doubt you would agree” statements show that we have been down these roads before….but I’ll go there if ya’ll want me to!<):)
Then why do so many Christians act as if it doesn’t matter if they “sin”? Why do they blow it off with a “Jesus died for my sins so I’m saved”, then? There’s absolutely no accountablity at all in such a belief.
Either following God/Christ/whoever is indeed a life of action, a life that will be examined and will be held to a standard, or it isn’t. Claiming Jesus Christ as your “personal” Lord and Saviour isn’t a get out of jail free card.
Accountability has to mean something real — it has to mean you stand to lose something based on your words and deeds.
So does your salvation hinge on your actions or merely your faith?
Our oldest daughter, in my case step-daughter, is going to be sent to a local parochial (read Roman Catholic) school starting in September 2008. This is something that her father has offered to do for her and she has decided would be good for her future. My wife and I support her decision.
My wife and I had decided that as WE are not Christian we are not raising (indoctrinating) our children in ANY one faith. Our aforementioned daughter is going to be immersed in a environment where she’ll be exposed to all the beauties and horrors of Christian dogma, off which wifey and I have little to no use for.
Libby’s Dad went to parochial school and it’s generally agreed that a higher standard of excellence is imparted and expected at THIS particular school. We all think that this a good thing for Libby as she’s a straight “A” student.
Neither Libby’s Dad nor her grandparents are religious at all, and it’s simply a quality matter to them.
We HAD been concerned about Libby being ‘brainwashed’ by Catholicism until the following conversation:
A few days ago Libby asked us, “What does it mean to be a Catholic?”
My wife responded: “There are people who spend their whole lives trying to answer that one! Honey, you wanna take this one?”
As I was born into and had grown out of Catholicism, I took the reigns and regaled Libby with a quick summation of the birth of Christianity, its politicization in Catholicism, it’s split with Eastern Orthodox and then the birth of Protestantism at The Reformation.
Through all this she had this quizzical look on her face.
“What’s wrong?”, I asked.
She shook her head and said, “So all these different denominations call themselves Christian?”
“Uh-huh.”
“They all differ on dogma and other things?”
“More or less.”
“But they all consider their beliefs right and the others wrong.”
“That’s about right yes.”
“Well which one is right?”
“Each one thinks they have uniques claim to the truth. You’re mother and I feel they all have equal claim to being wrong.”
“But this all stems from the teachings of this guy named Jesus….and they’ve been killing each other for 2000 years, over how to interpret the teachings of the worlds first hippy?”
*Robert busts out laughing here*
“Yes Libby that’s more or less true. But, you’ll get hit with lots of different stuff at this school, you can make up your own mind”
“I don’t think I’m going to be very popular with the religious teachers. I’ll have MANY questions for them.”
Libby then gave me that smile and look that says “wow the world is a crazy place” and she walked away.
From the mouthes of babes indeed!
My wife and I realized that Libby was going to be fine in that school!
R
Hi Toni:
i completely agree with you here….there is no accountability in that belief system…again as you correctly pointed out, no one can know anothers true heart. An alcoholic who struggles with that every day of his life and is a believer may go years relying on God’s strength to help him with his alcoholism, then one day makes a bad choice and gets plastered in a bar. I walk by and see him, and at that point I have two choices. First, I can assume he never was a believer, or second, I see him as a struggling brother who needs my help and prayer. It’s hard. Especially knowing that God IS the only one who can see our hearts. I know that living a life for God is living a life of action, He is definately not boring and holds His children to a high standard. But, also, by the sacrifice He made, and loving Father He is, He is quick to forgive…when there is true repentence. Not just someone who tells Him what He wants to hear so they can continue in their sin with a clean conscience.
The way I see salvation is, in His Word HE states that you are saved by Grace through faith. I was saved because of the faith I have in who He is, AND by what He did for me. The more I get to know Him, the more I want my actions to be in line with what His word says. I have seen some incredible real life Bible stories, people that I looked at and said “Really God?” but then a couple months later I see them and they are powerful on-fire people for Him doin incredible ministry. I try not to discount anyone regardless….it’s very hard for me at times.
@Toni…
I completely agree with what you said. I also think there are two major factors to take into consideration.
1. Most people don’t take their faith very seriously at all.
2. It’s not always easy. As a matter of a fact, for me it’s usually hard. I just try to do the best I can each day keeping the things you said in mind.
Robert, my Mom and her eight brothers and sisters were raised Catholic. My Mom is now 80 and still has scars…while I don’t agree with you interpretation of Biblical stance (shocker I know) as I have discussed with you before, I don’t believe in Religion, but relationship. I’m sure she’ll do fine….I wish she would ask the questions tho, of people who know that she can go to God directly…not because another man says they are holier than thou…..:)
@Gods Gal
What’s most important to me and my wife is that she have the confidence and the ability to find her own path.
Whatever that may be.
I’m not worried about her being sucked into dogma or some cult of personality.
She’s as skeptical as I am and that’s ALWAYS a good thing!
Robert
Robert, at least the Catholics acknowledge some true accountability — and acknowledge that all people of all belief systems and people who hold no particular religious beliefs at all have the same opportunities as the Catholics and the Christians. Or at least that’s what the Church teaches — that God and God alone can know these things.
Much of what the Catholic Church makes infinitely more sense — in theory — than non-Catholic Christianity, to me, anyway. I think the Catholic Church has failed miserably as an institution, however, and most Catholics now are either too mindlessly slavish in their devotion to dogma and doctrine and form and paraphernalia, etc., or they are perhaps culturally Catholic but don’t really take the religion itself at all seriously. Very little there there anymore these days, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker’s famous quote. But you’ve gotta give credit where credit is due, and Church teaching on salvation is at least one thing I can be in complete agreement with them on.
Godsgal — so is it once saved, always saved, or can even those who call themselves Christians ultimately lose their salvation based on their actions? If a Christian screws up time after time, or shows no sincerity at all through his or her actions, can salvation be taken away?
*Much of what the Catholic Church teaches…
Can I point something out Robert…I’m not trying to start blog war 20, but I remember not to long ago when if I was told that because my kids believed the way I did and were raised in a Christian home, that I was NOT allowing them to seek out other avenue…which we came to the later understanding that they did…your comment there showed me that you are almost relieved that she is as skeptical as you are…that is the exact feeling I feel knowing my kids are Christ followers. What would you do if she came home and said…Dad, I got saved, I think you need to too….because we did have to deal with that in reverse with one of our children…
Toni: If a Christian is consistantly unrepentant and keeps on in a lifestyle I would have to question if they were truly saved. Then again, I have seen people give their lives to Christ and not walk in His ways for years, then something clicks and they’re off. I don’t believe you can lose your salvation.
@Toni
I have a special place in my heart for Catholicism…I mean this truly.
I see much beauty in their ritual. I like the dualistic reverence for the male (Jesus) and the female (Mary).
Of all the denominations in Christianity I think Catholicism is the one most capable and amenable to change for the better.
So please don’t get think that I HATE Catholicism.
R
Gods Gal said:
That’s a good question.
I doubt that would happen knowing what I do about my adopted daughter. But, of course it is possible.
How would I handle this?
My relief right now is rooted in the idea that my daughter is thinking critically, which is something not enough of our teenagers do.
The fact that NBC is devoting a prime time spot in their line up to “Phenomenon” a train-wreck of a show having to do with psychic powers. Libby sees this and laughs at how credulous her friends are for believing this stuff.
This is not to say that I believe that your children are credulous to Christianity. I am sure they have their convictions as you do.
If Libby comes home and says to me, “Papa I have decided to accept JC as my personal savior.”
My response would be to ask her what brought her to this decision. I’d listen and in the end, if I was convinced that this is a decision that she came to of her own volition I would accept it!
Now, if she decided, wrongly, that it was now HER duty to bring me to what she thinks is a necessary and proper relationship with Christ, then we’d have a problem!
Robert
I agree…and that is exactly what we had to do, I admit it was the hardest thing I’ve done in my life…
No one should be forced into a belief system…it would never work and does never work to try and make it on someone elses apron strings….thanks Robert!
I still see Christianity as a religion. I’ve heard that it’s a relationship with Jesus, but it has all the hallmarks of religion and satisfies none of the criteria for a relationship.
Prayer is one-way communication. Speaking through a book would never suffice between two real life human beings. I know many claim that they get “answers” but, frankly, random events or neuronal misfiring, are not communiques from the divine. I’m sorry, I just don’t think it’s the same thing as having a real, honest-to-goodness chat with a friend/parent/leader.
The demand for proper belief as a prerequisite to this relationship is something only to be found in a religion. As far as I know, no human relationship proceeds on the basis of a set of dogmatic principles. I don’t have to believe some set of notions about my friend’s character to be his friend.
There are rituals and sacrifice - communion, baptism, tithing, and the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus’s own body on the cross. Again, hallmarks of every world religion.
The requirement of faith is also religious. I never have to have faith that my human father exists. He’s plainly in front of my face. I never have to figure out his mysterious motives if he does something horrendously evil. Actually, he never does anything as awful as what god seems to do or willingly allow. If he did, the relationship would drastically change or have to end.
So Christianity is all about accountability, except for God, who is beyond accountability?
And that’s why the Nicene creed and Apostle’s creeds reflect that…Except that they don’t.
Having said all the above, I don’t think Christianity is a cop-out from the problems of life. Faith brings with it its own, mostly self-inflicted, troubles and does not make your problems disappear.
But, one way that it IS a cop-out is that the biggest questions are met with pat answers or a closed door.
The toughest questions about morality, ethics, justice, where we came from and where are we going, and on and on all have answers within the Christian viewpoint.
As one individual put it when there was a discussion about the development and history of language:
“We do not need to speculate on these things, the answer is in the scriptures”
He referenced the Tower of Babel story. That’s just a story. Even many Christians don’t take it literally and neither history, liguistics, nor archaeology affirm any such event as described.
Same goes for questions of evolution, cosmology, cosmogeny, and even the tricky question of how consciousness arises from brain chemistry.
There is so much that is side-stepped by accepting the simplified, Biblical account of reality.
Dealing with death is also perturbed. Instead of grappling with the end of life, there’s talk of the future and seeing one another again. From my POV, this is not only false hope, but prevents people from seriously dealing with the issue of death. Even worse, some may feel guilty if they “mourn as those with no hope.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13)
Some mismanage their money because they think god will care for them - per Jesus’s sermon where he points out the lillies of the field or the birds. Jesus also tells us not to store up wealth in this world. But, that’s what savings are!
Also, because Jesus is seen to be coming soon, there’s the expectation that the environment doesn’t really matter.
“Use it up, Jesus will be back soon anyway.” Those believers who do care are cast as “liberals” who put evangelism on the backburner.
btw - I don’t know where everyone here stands. I have no one in particular in mind as I write this. These are just general observations from my own surroundings.
Bill — I agree. I think most people take their belief systems for granted (I’m not sure you can actually say someone takes faith for granted ’cause faith, to me, is something living), or their belief system is merely a cultural inheritance.
It is hard to live any belief system consistantly. But I do think God gives you credit for trying — for what’s in your heart. I don’t think God has much patience for those who play it safe or who think the label they’ve chosen to identify themselves by guarantees them anything.
Godsgal — I agree — some people’s faith can lie dormant for a long time and may be renewed by an extraordinary event in their lives — but I think their hearts were always in the right place. I don’t think people can say one thing and do another on a daily basis and think God is going to be fooled. I think, too, that it’s easy to get lulled into a false sense of security by the whole Christian/saved deal — sometimes inaction can be just as evil as particular actions.
Robert — I think, deep down, every ex-Catholic deeply, deeply loves at least something about the Church. Which is both fascinating and terrible at the same time — why is it that when the Church gets something right, they get it so right, but when they screw up, they screw up monumental levels…?
In the religious sense a “cop out” to me is something that a person falls back on when their brain(?)/logic(?) indicates that a course of action, or a belief , should be the right thing but their “religious” faith tells them it’s wrong.
An example might be if you have a male friend who to your eyes is obviously deeply in love with someone. You are happy for them. They ask you to come to their wedding. Then you find out that the person they love is another man.
You don’t go to their wedding solely because your religion tells you their “love” is wrong, it’s a sin, even though you can see they are deeply in love. That to me that’s a religious “cop out”. Your religious faith trumps your logic.
When I read articles by religious leaders that say being gay is wrong most, if not all of the time, their arguments come down to religious dogma not any logic that I can see.
There are gay ministers. Not all branches of Christianity faith believe that homosexuality is wrong.
Those that do seem to me to argue it’s wrong solely because of their religious dogma. I think that is a cop out.
Toni said:
This is precisely what I saw happening in the Catholic church when I was in my teens.
I was a Boy Scout from 1979 till I left for the Air Force in August of ‘86. A big part of the Boy Scout life is religion and religious teaching. As my Troop was sponsored by the local Catholic church, naturally the religion endoreced was Catholicism.
Every year usually, in May, we went to a Catholic Retreat weekend. Basically a camping a trip on the grounds of a local Seminary. Scouts, Bibles and Franciscan Friars… Oh MY!! (In lieu of recent events this seemed like it would be recipe for disaster!)
Anyhow, we would have religious instruction from various monks.
What was so disconcerting to me was the WIDE variety of acceptance of Catholic dogma among the different friars.
One said you CANNOT take any of the miracles or events that happen contrary to the natural world within the Bible literally. The next day another said the EXACT opposite!
I was fourteen years old and already struggling with the world as revealed to me by science and reason and the one revealed by religion and faith.
For a while I could compartmentalize these disparate views.
I made my confirmation at 16 years old knowing full well that I didn’t believe a word of the crap these people were spewing anymore. I did it for my parents. I knew that my time would come and I vowed that I would NEVER put a child of mine into a similar situation.
As I said I miss the beautiful ritual of Catholicism, especially at Christmas and Easter.
But I can no longer compartmentalize.
So I go my own way…
Robert
@Toni
As a teenager I was a member of the Catholic Church. During my religious instructions there were many times that the priest could not answer my questions but used the “cop out” that it was a mystery that only God knows the answer to.
To me that is just like my parents telling me I am “too young” to understand something.
@Gods Gal
Another “cop out” to me is when a religious leaders answers a question with “That there are some mysteries that God will reveal to the faithful when they die and join him in heaven”.
Well, I suppose one could take the “it’s a mystery” thing as a cop-out, but, let’s face it, a lot of things are indeed a mystery to both relgious and scientific communities. I think it’s better to out and out say “I don’t know” than use that expression, but I don’t think it’s a cop-out if it’s true.
What I do love about Catholicism is that (besides the whole Galileo thing), the Church doesn’t put itself and its teachings at odds with science — there’s room for compatibility between a Catholic explanation and a scientific one — evolution being the most obvious example.
But, yes, Catholic education has been dismal at times — may still be. You still can’t beat the Jesuits for a good education, though.
I completely agree and undertand with most of what all of you are saying. As I have come to know each person here, I realize that my previous thinking about Atheists has been blown completely out of the water, and my opinion was due to my lumping ALL atheists into one catagory based on my experiences with a few. That was wrong. By the same token, not all Christians live their lives by some of the standards listed here which is what I hope you guys will see through me and other Xtians on this blog.
I’m gonna go through some of this and just give some input…you guys are all great…all i can do share my beliefs and what I’ve learned..I am in no way judging or condmning someone else’s…I’ll start with Ben’s…my answer to you is HUH? Could you explain a little more of what you’re meaning here? Thanks
Polly:
I know, but again, not where I come from…they are big on accountability regardless on your position in the church.
From a believers point of view, this is the reason for living in the first place. It is alot harder for me to try to wrap my head around the fact that this is all there is than not. I take death very seriously, my Mother-In-Law who has been my mom for 15 years is in the process of dying right now. She is a very strong believer, and take my word for it..we are taking it very seriously.
I agree, and this drives me crazy, Jesus saves and so should we…it’s just not understanding what He is really saying here…good points Polly, we agree on alot of this stuff…for different reasons but I understand your frustration.
Total agreement here Toni, these are not things that I have never struggled with in my own walk. I was blessed by friends who caught hold of my blessed assurance and got me back in the right direction…the longer I walk with Him, the stronger I become because of who He is, not me.
@Toni
You are right. There are some things that people of religious faith believe only God can understand. If in trying to answer a question they say “I don’t know. It’s one of Gods mysteries.” That isn’t a cop out.
It’s only a cop out if they use this answer whenever the get stuck with a difficult question.
@Toni
“a lot of things are indeed a mystery to both relgious and scientific communities”
What draws me to science is that a theory is an idea that best fits the evidence. It isn’t the only possible answer.
What draws me away from religion is the concept that dogma is the “one true idea”, no matter what the evidence may suggets.
Ok, I’m going to show my total density factor here…what the heck is this dogma I read about all the time?????:-?
Gods Gal said
Dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (from Merriam Webster)
So literal interpretation of Genesis could be considered a dogma.
R
“Dogma”
It’s a movie starring Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Chris Rock.
But, more relevant to our conversations here on FC, it means:
(From Merriam-Webster Online)
c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
So what if there is both actual, parable and stuff you don’t know what to make of is it still considered dogma? I really am asking a question here…and what if Christians feel that there is adequate grounds for their belief? Is it still fair to label it dogma?
“what if Christians feel that there is adequate grounds for their belief? Is it still fair to label it dogma?”
I like the definition from Wikipedia:
“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Also:
“Dogma is belief held by a religion to be authoritative, infallible, or required of followers of a particular religion.”
For Protestant’s I think their “dogma” would be their “cardinal doctrines”, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc.htm .
Gods Gal said:
Something you don’t understand or have questions about…I wouldn’t consider that dogma.
You heard about that woman in the UK who refused a blood transfusion because of her belief that the bible prohibits “the eating of blood”. That belief is a ‘dogma’.
Dogma is inflexible and most times is contrary to logic and reason.
If you feel that you have good reasons for what you choose to believe it isn’t dogma to you and, we could argue about what constitutes adequate grounds. To my mind something becomes dogma when another person feels that he/she needs to convince or compel others to agree, in the face of evidence to the contrary!
Dogmas tend to be rigid and inflexible critters!!
Hope that helps a little!
Robert
Well, I suppose one would have to do more than feel there are adequate grounds for the belief — one would have to offer some kind of scholarly approach — translation/language study, historical context, a body of previously published interpretation/thought in order for the ground upon which the belief is based to be considered “adequate”. Still, that doesn’t necessarily make it right — nor is dogma always based on wrong interpretation or thought.
Dogmatic implies an inflexibility, an unwillingness to reconsider a position.
It’s also meant to be accepted without question or disagreement. It’s authoratative in a bad way, not in a truly encouraging, uplifting way. It’s burdensome rather than freeing (not that there isn’t, in a weirdly paradoxical way, freedom in law).
So a belief isn’t necessarily dogmatic, nor is the Bible necessarily dogmatic. Actually, the Pharisees were dogmatic in their approach, and Christ wasn’t too keen on those fellas, ya know? Dogma implies a legalistic attitude, which Christ supposedly came to free us from.
I think dogma has more to do with the organized, institutionalized expression of religion. You’ll usually find that dogmatic doctrine tends to serve the organization and the humans that make it up rather than God.
Oh…that’s all over the place…sorry. Hope there’s some sense in there somewhere.
Thank you, that term really was foreign to me….thanks Ed for those definitions…
Robert: You amaze me….in your trying to explain to me what it means you actually wrote how I feel…LOL There are certain truths about the Bible that I suppose are dogmatic for that definition…yet others are flexible to interpretation, not only by us, but everyone…that’s why I have a need to consult The Big Guy on certain matters and believe what He shows me. If I limit myself to man’s interpretation…it is just too limited…I’d rather go to the source…
Toni: Thank you! Regardless of you felt it was all over the place I actually understood what you wrote…LOL your last two paragraphs are extactly why I don’t consider my beleifs to be dogmatic.
ahhhh i love learning!
@ Big Dog Frog,
“I disagree, as I suspect that you may have guessed, morals are subjective.”
yah, but…
“decide for yourself what is right or wrong ”
square peg….ngnngnn….round hole……nnnggg
@Jason I dislike absolutes and dictates from higher authorities which is why I think that it is important to define your own morality and stick to it. However most people stick to their own culture’s moral framework. Some things are considered awful in western culture but acceptable in an eastern culture. An example would be the eating of puppies. Cute little puppies with big eyes and floppy ears. To me this is no more wrong than eating a pig or a cow. It is subjective and if you want to eat Fido then why should I judge you?
Yes, but it eating puppies considered immoral or just gross by Westerners? There’s a difference between morality and cultural offensiveness.
I don’t think morality should be dictated by a human authoratative body, but I think there is such a thing as natural law, and I think most of us recognize this and create organized societies based on this.
Subjective morality is something that comes from humans. If you have everyone deciding for him or her self what is moral, you have chaos. If you allow a governing body to decide what is moral, you have the authoratative decree to behave a certain way that you claim you loathe. So…what to do?
Anyway, you do allow some authoratative enforcement of morality, and I’m sure you’re grateful for it — murder, theft, rape, etc., are crimes and are prosecutable. That’s a good thing. I don’t want morality to become so subjective that the morality of murder is left up to the individual.
@Toni, isn’t morality dictated by a human authoritative body just another way of expressing the law? After all the law is really a minimum standard of behaviour in society.
The way I see subjective morality isn’t chaos. Individuals and society consider such acts as murder as immoral. Rape similarly has a moral repugnance. I don’t want to go into the whole issue of women as property in biblical times and the OT Law on being forced to marry their rapist. Clearly they morals of the iron age are not the morals of the current age.
Theft is only immoral if you place an attachment on material possessions. They were some societies, such as some native American tribes, where theft was unknown simply because ownership was unknown. What you left behind was for anyone to use. What you carried with you was yours.
Clearly the morality of individuals should have some boundaries. Within those boundaries I think that we should be free to decide what our personal limits are. Society wants to prevent murder in order to remain cohesive and functional. Yet killing a fellow human being is permitted in some situations and even called for in certain cultures given sufficient reason.
Wouldn’t you rather have a society where the individuals have decided that killing is wrong than one where the law lords dictate that killing is wrong? I’d certainly feel safer in the former Utopian ideal. It is through education and openness that a moral code is passed to individuals not through dictates. At least in my opinion.
Well, why is killing immoral, or rape? Why? Sez who? Morally repugnant to whom?
Rape is a mandate under certain circumstances in some cultures. As is killing, as you point out. Theft may mean different things in different cultures.
So if a society decides that retaliation rape is a legit form of justice, then the people have spoken, the people have decided — who are we to question it, eh?
If organized underground societies decide murder and corruption and theft are the way to go, who are the rest of us to poke our noses in with our big moral dictates, right? The Mafia and Russian organized crime and Asian organized crime should be left alone to make their own decisions about morality, right?
If there is no higher authority to which we all answer to equally and with equal accountability, then there is no point to morality at all. If we’re here for 80-90 years, and then we’re nothing when we die, who cares what any of us do? The strongest will survive, the richer and bigger and more powerful you are, the better for you, and screw the weak and stupid and incompetent, right? Society doesn’t need stupid, weak, incompetent people anyway. What good are they — dead weight is all they are. The sick and elderly? Euthanasia. Saves us all a lot of money and time. Less than perfect babies? Murder ‘em in the womb — no need to bring them into the world. Cull the herds, survival of the fittest…if I decide that’s moral, who is any other individual to say it’s not? At least any other individual who’s less powerful or less well-armed than I am.
That’s the problem with all this subjectivity. Why is your subjective take any more valid than the next guy’s?
Hiya frogalicious,
Thanks for more details.
Firstly, your answer doesn’t really speak to the dichotomy in your thinking on this matter which you somewhat unconsciously illustrated.
As well,
“Individuals and society consider such acts as murder as immoral.”
I am certain that we can find hundreds of significant exceptions to this. Are they wrong? For instance, those who criticize either Cortez or(and, hopefully!) Montezuma, on what basis do we pass moral judgment?
Secondly, how about eating you (whether you like it or not ala cultures in which human sacrifice and consumption were normative, if not accepted practice)? I would think you would want a say in the matter, but why would allowing you a say be a virtue? Because of our enthocentric perspective? Would it take a majority vote to make such a behavior moral? Why would the 49% be ignored, that is, what is it, other than mob rules, that makes the point of view of the minority wrong?
Exactly, disobeying an unjust law is a perfect example of taking a stance against a dictate that doesn’t fit within your personal moral framework.
What is the difference between an unjust hereditary monarchy or dictatorial government and a mafia? It’s just an organization pushing their rules onto less organised groups and on individuals.
OK, because that never happens at the moment. Babies are never aborted because they have a hair lip or a club foot, are they?
Obviously it isn’t. Surely though it is more important to have a moral code of your own than to simply drift along accepting someone elses?
Ah, the crux of the matter. Judging the actions of another can only be done on the basis of a person’s individual moral code. Without a personal morality the only reaction to distant events is indifference. People are tortured in Guantanamo but most of the world doesn’t care. Mass rapes in Burundi are ignored. Gas the Kurds, who cares…at least until you need some oil.
As long as I was dead first you’re welcome to have a nibble. It’s either you or the bugs so I’m snack food either way.
Absolutely it’s my ethnocentric perspective. I cannot avoid that. I can only take it into account.
Not wrong. Perhaps less valid. The minority may have just as valid a view. Perhaps even more so when the issue concerns them. Should the majority automatically override the opinions of the minority? Certainly not. No more than a vocal minority should override the opinions of the silent majority. Surely there is room enough for all?
Hiya magesterialfrog,
That was great stuff, very illustrative, thanks,
“Perhaps less valid. The minority may have just as valid a view.”
valid?
“Should the majority automatically override the opinions of the minority? Certainly not. No more than a vocal minority should override the opinions of the silent majority.”
But of course the majority will override. Legistation and ajudication are not dialectic, they draw lines. This cannot be avoided.
Should?
There will never be “room for all” when one person’s rights end where another’s end.
Here, in the US, we have a constitution that delineates our “inalienable” rights — where do these rights come from?
If there is no god, no divine creator, nothing greater than ourselves, who says these rights are inalienable — are part of who we are?
I don’t want a group of men to create a moral code and shove it down my throat — I’ve seen the moral code the liberal feminest crowd wants to shove down my throat and my daughters’ throats — no thanks. But I do recognize that there is a natural moral code that we are meant to live by and when we don’t, bad stuff happens not only to us, but to those around us.
I think there’s a right way to live and that those values are put in our hearts, if you will, by something greater than us.
Anyway, by your own definition, if morality is purely subjective, then everyone’s right and no one’s wrong. You can’t complain when someone steals your car because that person may be acting just as morally as you are when you do something kind such as shovel your elderly neighbor’s walk. If there is no higher authority — no higher source for morality, who are you to criticize another man’s morality, even if it means you lose your car?
Toni, do you believe that someone who steals a car thinks that it is the right thing to do? Or do they know it is wrong and do it anyway?
My opinion is that our morality is taught to us by our parents and peers and we conform to them by experience and by testing our boundaries. However it is only by choosing to embrace those morals that we ever really live by them.
I am aware of the dichotomy of a personal moral framework that is imposed on us. I think that morals are a result of upbringing and do not come from any higher power. Some basic human morality may be the result of genetics. We are a social animal after all.
If morality is based on upbringing, than a kid living in Newark, raised by kids who were drug addicts and thieves, probably does think it’s okay to steal. I’ve seen the attitude myself — I’ve even seen it among wealthy, advantaged people. Hey, the insurace will cover it, hey, it’s a write off for the company, hey, everyone cheats on their taxes, etc…
Also, if morality is taught by parents and peers, then where’s the personal accountability? Who are we to say someone is wrong if they were raised by parents with bad morals? Again, there’s no standard, no higher calling here, no sense of purpose.
How would anyone “know” something is wrong if there isn’t universal moral code coming from something outside the human experience?
Most morality is based on self-sacrifice and compassion - these are not two attributes that do much for either survival of the individual or the species. If morality was genetic, there’d be a purpose to it, either for survival of the individual or of the species.
There’s no getting around the fact that if morals are subjective, we have no right to say anyone is wrong. We have anarchy, chaos and destruction. And if we do recognize that there is at least the most basic of universal moral codes, we have to ask where that comes from.
Toni, what about survival of the group? Individuals within a group work together to achieve a common goal. Wolves do it, Mearcats do it, penguins do it. Individuals will go without sleep, food or water to protect the group. They will get their turn to rest, eat and drink when another member of the group relieves them. This ensures that the group is better protected than individuals operating independently.
I’m saying that our moral codes have evolved from this simple form of cooperation. They are not “God given” rules.
Morality is subjective but human cultures have many distinct similarities to their morals. Don’t kill members of the group. don’t take something from members of the group. Look out for members of the group. Beyond that I’m afraid the rest are simply made up. Sometimes they are accepted by individuals and sometimes not.
To my moral framework it is wrong to kill. I can say to another individual that killing is wrong. Hopefully they will agree with me and we’ll form a nice little community that works to prevent killing. We’ll even plant a shrubbery. What happens when the community is attacked? Does the group who say killing is wrong refuse to defend itself? No. We put aside our moral code for the situation to justify our actions. Killing is wrong but we had to defend ourselves.
The same can be said for your insurance thief. I’m sure that they use justifications to swindle a few extra bucks out of the insurance company. “We’ve been paying for it for years and we’ve never used it.” or “Everyone does it.”
What happens to a person who has a stronger personal moral code who says “No, killing is wrong and your justifications don’t change that.”? Do we have anarchy and chaos because one person refuses to fight and takes a “no killing” stance.
Thing with humans is we don’t need “the group”. Technology has surpassed the need for communal solidarity. Selfishness is at an all time high. There is a very definite lack of recognition of something greater, some higher code of behavior these days.
Sure, people will spout off on all sorts of high-sounding concepts and supposedly altruistic goals, but nine times out of ten, the real motivation is what they’re going to get out of it all for themselves — you even see this in religion — my salvation, my personal lord and savior, my personal holiness, my journey to sainthood.
When people stop recognizing a greater authority, a greater purpose, something outside of the human experience that is bigger than all this ridiculous, childish, materialistic, shallow people-stuff, they turn into selfish bastards.
It’s people who understand that there is a higher power, that honor really means something, who have a moral code that doesn’t shift with the trends and doesn’t merely serve their own needs. They don’t need to be coerced into good behavior by “the group”, and they maintain their moral code even when it doesn’t seem to matter or make a difference.
You raise a fair point. We don’t need an appendix either but we’re born with one. The group instinct remains whether we need it or not. However I’d agree that a lack of community is certainly a contributing factor to the decline of morality. With no-one to reinforce “good” behaviour or punish undesirable behaviour we’re left with individuals of no moral character.
How then is religion a superior model for moral behaviour? Surely the community should be the focus. Religion merely being one factor that ties communities together.
Oh, I’m totally anti-organized religion, so I’m with you there — I think organized religion is only useful as a model for how things can get really screwed up really fast. Organized religion pretends to be about community, but it’s really about control and oppression. No arguments from me there.
We do have individuals of moral character. Just lots less of them than we used to. They’re the people who quietly go about being good people without looking for a big payoff for themselves at the end. They do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, not because it will earn them something, or because they fear punishment if they don’t do it, or because it gets them attention.
Is a child born with a moral code? Does a child “feel bad” the first time it harms someone else?
If the answer is yes this implies that they are born with some instinctive moral compass.
If the answer is no that to me means we get our moral code by learning what is acceptable behavior in the group we belong to. We learn what is the best way to obtain status.
My guess is that group dynamics are pretty much the same everywhere. With some social groups the best what to survive is to obtain power, dominance over the members of the group. Other societies have develope more cooperative codes of behavior.
My guess is that groups that rely on more cooperative behavior will be the ones that survive . At least I hope that is the case.
All the past societies that I have read about believed that god(s) existed. It seems to me that gods are created to explain the unexplainable.
My guess is that as we are better able to understand, through observation and experimentation, what is causing something(?) to happen societies will turn away from believing in gods.
The only caveat is that we want to believe there is life after death. This may ensure that myths of the after life will all ways be a part of our belief systems.
“If the answer is no that to me means we get our moral code by learning what is acceptable behavior in the group we belong to. We learn what is the best way to obtain status.”
Which means that there is no moral code, just contemporary tastes and preferences.
no right.
no wrong.
“I can say to another individual that killing is wrong. Hopefully they will agree with me and we’ll form a nice little community that works to prevent killing”
I’m sorry frogomatic, but this is hilarious.
Thanks Jason but the funny was supposed to be the bit about the shrubbery.
Also if you don’t think that a child has no innate moral code then you’ve never seen one pull the legs off an insect. Evil little sods. :((
@Ed, why would a life after death be considered such a great thing? I’d say that it is simply a learned response to the idea of death coupled with a natural fear of the unknown.
Froggoestoeleven,
“Also if you don’t think that a child has no innate moral code then you’ve never seen one pull the legs off an insect. Evil little sods”
I do so love agreeing with you.
But I was more referring to your happy place in which such measures are effective and meaningful.
@Hover,
“why would a life after death be considered such a great thing? I’d say that it is simply a learned response to the idea of death coupled with a natural fear of the unknown.”
That is a very good answer.
I guess myths of an after life exist because people understand that they cannot avoid death so they create an alternative.
They want to continue to enjoy the experience of living so they create a place called heaven where they think they can.
@Jason,
“Which means that there is no moral code, just contemporary tastes and preferences.
no right.
no wrong.”
That is pretty much what I mean. The “right way” is the behavior that will best ensure your survival. By helping people you are creating a support system. The more people you harm the harder it will be to survive.
The word “moral” is such a subjective word I don’t think it is that useful in describing human behavior.
I believe that the best way to build a society that will survive is to create a system where people cooperate. Cooperative effort is how we humans have survived in the first place.
I think natural selection will result in the survival of those social systems that emphasize cooperation.
I think we humans will evolve to the point where human behaviors such as war will become extinct.
@Jason, I’m afraid that you’ll need to be more specific. Perhaps I’m simply being obtuse but I think that you’re aiming at something.
The alternative being that we wipe each other out and give the cockroaches a shot.
@Hover,
I made the statement you are referring to.
“I think we humans will evolve to the point where human behaviors such as war will become extinct.”
I am not sure if you are addressing your question to me or Jason.
If you are addressing the question to me:
I think humans are continuing to evolve. As we evolve so will the societies we create. I think evolution will favor those societies that use cooperation in resolving disputes rather than violence, wars.
Disputes between nations will be resolved by negotiations instead of by wars.
Increasing international trade will mean economic competition instead of an arms race.
I realize this a leap of faith but I put my faith in humanity. I have seen enough progress in my short 65 years to have some confidence this will happen.
It might take another 5,000 or 100,000 years, just the blink of an eye in the scale of time, but I think one day war will be eliminated as a way of resolving disputes.
Thanks Ed, I knew it was you. Just poor editing on my part.
For what’s it’s worth I’d love to see such a world. If we don’t blow each other up over oil, religion, politics or land then we may have a chance at your Utopia. If technology continues to advance at it’s current rate we may even be around to see it. :))
That was supposed to be a grinning smiley :d rather than a laughing one :))