Leftover Legalism vs. Love

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

"What if… just what if people in the world can be brilliant and talented and moral and kind because people honestly have the capacity to be brilliant and talented and moral and kind? What if, whether god(s) made us or not, we’ve advanced enough that even though we have the ability to do horrible things we’ve also managed to create FOR OURSELVES a need and expectation to be good and kind to one another, and to express ourselves in beautiful ways.

“What if we, as a species, honestly have the capacity to find goodness for ourselves? What if we’re growing up?” – Dave Haaz-Baroque

The word religion can trigger resentment because often there is lingering guilt left over even after someone leaves a legalistic system which mangles our understanding of why ‘good’ even matters. The guilt can drive people to be defensive to the attack that “Your atheism means you have no morality… means you are amoral, immoral… for shame!” Such an attack reflects ignorance about ourselves and about God’s love. We all behave amorally/immorally, regardless our relationship with God (or lack thereof). The point is not to be a “moral” person (legalism). The point is love.

I wasn’t particularly motivated to be good after I lost faith (I have since been brought back to faith), but I did and do notice others who have lost faith, or never had faith, saying essentially “We can be good without God.” What exactly does it mean to be “good”? If we create the meaning of “good,” why do we feel obligated to do so if there is no God to judge us? If we grow into it, is it a part of reality that we don’t create? Let’s say that to be good is to love without prerequisite or discrimination. How many people do you know who love like that? If that definition is a creation, what motivates me to follow it, if the poor opinion of others does not motivate me? If that definition is a part of reality we don’t create—then isn’t that part of reality capable of love? Isn’t it God? Can’t His unearnable love motivate mine?

Being neither self-sufficient, nor eternal, we can’t be our own self-sufficient source of eternal moral truth. On our own, apart from God, we adapt love into what it is not (still perhaps calling it love, though it isn’t, or feigning to abandon it altogether, though we cannot… not without that part of ourselves dying). Often, we love from a lack because we are lonely and feel empty, but He loves and helps us to love from abundance because He is completely fulfilled and it is in His nature to pour out unmerited love.

If we think doing good makes us a good, worthy person, we are enslaved and do not understand God’s unmerited love. We cannot buy His love with good works, and works cannot really even be considered ‘good’ if not motivated by unmerited love (of which God is the source).

One criticism of Christianity in general is that there are so many hypocrites who don’t conduct or model their lives according to Christ’s example, either through resembling the world or resembling the legalistic Pharisees. The argument is that Christianity doesn’t work. If it did, every last Christian would be the spitting image of Christ. But only God is ever going to be perfectly good. Christianity is not about being morally superior—it is about an intimate, authentic relationship with our Creator. That we do not become perfect the instant we become a Christian, perfect in the sense of being self-able to overcome every single temptation in a single bound, points to the fact that we are not and never will be self-sufficient and that the point is God’s unmerited love, holding fast to an intimate loving relationship with God from which nothing can separate us – it is He who cleans the slate and is the author and perfector of our faith. C.S. Lewis writes, “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him,” (18; 168).

We are alone with a God who loves us despite what we do, and will motivate us to love others likewise. The reason I was motivated to write this is because I have heard so many non-Christians say, “I can be good without God.” They are still enslaved to the sort of thinking left over from Pharisaical legalism. The goal, the meaning of life, is not to be a good, worthy person—it is to know love. God’s love is not earned—it is free. A Christian seeks to answer, “Which theory best explains the mark God has already forgiven us for missing?” And we won’t be able to keep that love to ourselves. That is the ‘why’ behind this paper: http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com

2

I think there is an issue in the west in which religion (which is to say Christianity, and Protestantism), has no room for ‘growing up’. If you’ve gone to Church for 1 month, you’ve seen and done all there is to see and do, and if it seems simplistic, you either need to stop thinking, or move on. It seems to me that a full-bodied Christianity has tiers of understanding- milk, meat, and other things between.
While I think that you’re right to say that we’re all going to do good and bad things, ‘regardless of our relationship with God’ seems a little strong. In fact, I think that attitude is coming from the legalism you seem to be rejecting- a non-legalistic relationship with God should be ever deepening, to the point that saying it has no impact on the morality of one’s behavior is unthinkable.

You need to post more often. :slight_smile:

3

One of the things I liked about Buddhism when I was involved in it was the idea that you should seek out a Sangha (a spiritual community), whatever that might mean for you. It was a very eccumenical sentiment. Alternatively, I find much of Christiantity (amongst others) tending to imply: if you’re not in our circle you’re missing out on a fundamental experience. That is, if you do not worship God the Father of Jesus, you are disconnected. Does your analysis hold true of/against Buddhists, for instance? What is the evidence of being motivated by God’s love?

4

Uccisore (and Oughtist), the church I mainly grew up in was very legalistic, and in that sense did not even get the basics, or the milk. Thinking was definitely discouraged, which prevented getting past the milk to the meat (if the milk had ever been digested, which it hadn’t). Since what is “good” is “love” (God’s essential nature, demonstrated in Jesus’ sacrifice)–growing within a community of people who “get that” is essential and fundamental–loving anyone besides yourself and God is impossible in isolation. Within that community you can wrestle through all your questions and issues together. That is the sort of church I go to now. Buddhism is extremely legalistic. “While it starts off with the four noble truths on suffering and its cessation, it then moves to the eightfold path on how to end suffering. But as one enters the eightfold path, there emerge hundreds upon hundreds of other rules to deal with contingencies. / From a simple base of four offenses that result in a loss of one’s discipleship status is built an incredible edifice of ways to restoration. Those who follow Buddha’s teachings are given thirty rules to ward off those pitfalls. But before one even deals with those, there are ninety-two rules that apply to just one of the offenses. There are seventy-five rules for those entering the order. There are rules of discipline to be applied–two hundred and twenty-seven for men, three hundred and eleven for women,” – Zacharias, “Jesus Among Other Gods” p. 87, 89-90 / Thomas Nelson, 2000. More here:
http://jesuschristsonofgodsavior.blogspot.com/2008/01/importance-of-authentic-truth.html

I didn’t say we would do good and bad things regardless our relationship with God as if our relationship has no impact on our behavior–I said it meaning “we are all sinners–believers and nonbelievers alike”–and I was saying it in response to the attack that atheists are necessarily amoral/immoral. We all are, as none of us are God. The context helps understand it:

I go on to say, “That we do not become perfect the instant we become a Christian, perfect in the sense of being self-able to overcome every single temptation in a single bound, points to the fact that we are not and never will be self-sufficient and that the point is God’s unmerited love…”.

I agree completely with you that our relationship with God grows and deepens. There are a few threads I haven’t replied to yet, I am just now reminded of. 'Cause this is getting into ‘faith and works’ and I have a thread on that… which needs tending to. I just have so little time. But, in a nutshell… as our relationship grows and deepens, it affects our character and behavior, we are shaped into His loving image and this is evident (Oughtist) in our loving behavior. But our loving behavior does not make us worthy of His love or of being called ‘good’… because it is coming from our relationship with Him, His forming of us, and He loved (loves) us before all that.

5

Hi Ichthus,
I always thought of Buddhism more as methodist than legalist, at least in so far as there was no judge involved. But as to evidence of being motivated by God’s love, is your position, then, that Christians are more loving than others? Is this empirically evident?

6

Oughtist… we are all made to love. All humans hold expectations (are judges) of how we ought to be treated by others, as evidenced in our feeling wronged when others, who are aware of those expectations, defy them. The expectations, or values, of God’s general revelation in nature are seen in “the striking resemblance of [the] basic ethical principles [of] … the great moral creeds of mankind’s civilizations,” (9; 1; 362 – http://www.theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com). This striking resemblance is due to our common humanity, our sharing the moral sense of love. We do not need to be “Christian” to possess that moral sense… all humans possess it.

Athletes are stronger than those who do not work out. One could argue that they are also built better than those who do not work out. And different athletes excell at different things. But those who do not work out still have the capability to become strong–even if it isn’t as strong as an athlete. Similarly, those who have a relationship with God will be at different levels of spiritual growth and it will be evident in their loving behavior. For some people, prosocial, loving behavior comes more easily to them than to others (even without a relationship with God)–in a sense, they are built better. But that doesn’t matter. All that matters is love. Think of the widow’s mite–she barely had anything to give, but she gave it all, and so it was worth more than the pocket change of the wealthy. Think of the workers who came late but were paid the same as the workers who worked all day–it doesn’t matter how much work you do–what matters is that you are there to receive what God has to give.

7

Please don’t take this as sarcastic, as it truly isn’t meant to be; it just goes to my point quicker than I can otherwise put it: In terms of spiritual olympics, who’s going to get the gold medal, Pope Benedict or the Dalai Lama? I’m not saying I know. It might even be a photo finish. But I’d put my money on the lama.

If all that matters is love, is faith in God not secondary? Perhaps, in many cases, even an unneccessary confuser of issues?

8

Icthus

Ya, it’s a difficult issue. On the one hand, it’s true that both the Christian and the atheist are going to sin, sure. I’m still trying to figure out how to express that, while still leaving room for the obvious fact that the Church produces saints (indeed, that’s the function). You have to tie it back in with God Himself, or else you get questions like this:

Oughtist

So either the Christian doesn’t mean the same thing by ‘love’ as Oughtist is thinking of, or we have to back off the statement to some degree. What matters is participation in the life of Christ!

9

I can definitely go there, Uccisore. But I would want to add to the pot, and make as many virtuous role models as possible my reference points, not worship any of them (to save myself the deeper conundrums of contradictions), and get out there and do something as close to my best as practical… I’d also want to open up my belief to the scrutiny of others, and risk exposing the err of my perspective (pretty much always a good thing, I think)…

10

I think that moral exemplars and objects of worship can be seen as entirely different classes. The Greco-Roman tradition is filled with gods who were quite sincerely worshiped but they were not taken as moral exemplars; indeed, many Roman intellectuals were rather embarrassed by the gods they worshiped and Christianity and other mystery religions offered a nice escape route. I can also think my dad is a fantastic human being and strive to be like him without worshiping him. This can apply to more distal figures as well. I can hold Confucius as a fantastic moral exemplar, not only without worshiping him but also while recognizing that he was dead wrong on certain issues. He was, after all, human (ditto for my dad).

Indeed, I’d argue that these are normally dishes best served separately. That which I worship is necessarily beyond me, otherwise why would I worship it? On the other hand, that which I seek to emulate ought be something I can attain, even if attainment is so far away that it is unrealistic to expect that I would ever reach it. It’s the difference between saying, “I’d like to climb a ladder to the moon” and “I’d like to climb Mount Everest”. No matter how hard I try, I’ll never be able to do the former but if I really dedicated myself to it, it is reasonable to think I might be able to climb Mount Everest no matter how unlikely it may be as to whether or not I actually do it.

The Christian tradition is strange that way, since their god is both human and divine. It is pretty neat, actually, how they combine the two elements. How they reconcile those elements is certainly neat to watch.

As for having as many exemplars as possible, I think such a pluralistic view is actually rather dangerous. Back when the printing press was first invented, a philosopher living then named Zhu Xi said that it was a terrible thing. At first he loved it, of course. More books for everybody! What could be better? But ultimately he decided that so much access to so much information leads to knowledge that is a mile wide and an inch deep. Rather than spending time to memorize just a few texts, everybody was flitting about reading not just those texts, but their commentaries, other texts, and all sorts of nonsense. The study wasn’t focused and it lead to a lower quality of student. I think the same sort of situation exists with moral exemplars. A handful for some cardinal virtues I get, that is useful. But if that number gets too large, any behavior becomes acceptable because surely one of those exemplars would have allowed for it. And at that point, why bother trying to pretend it is about self-cultivation and instead just call it like it is: a post-hoc justification. That isn’t without place, but people ought be honest with themselves and others when they do it.

11 
Well, it would be difficult for you to worship someone as an atheist/agnostic, I suppose!  Nevertheless, the relationship between Christ and the Christian is something more than a role-model, I think, though it certainly is that. I have role models in my life, and one of the differences between them and Jesus is that I don't need to have any sort of active relationship with them in order for them to be role-models, and also, my role-models are somewhat defined by who I am- because I aim to be a philosopher, my role-models are philosophers, public speakers, writers and such. I reckon the role-models of an aspiring soldier or mortician would be altogether different. Jesus, though, is the perfection of humanity, so He's a sort of universal role model, at the very least. There's a few of those out there (though obviously I think none with His divine qualities), and they tend to be religious figures. 
 As far as opening your beliefs to scrutiny, that's sort of an odd thing to bring up, did someone suggest or imply otherwise?  Anyway, I think that's project-based.  For me, it's extremely important to keep my beliefs open to scrutiny all the time. But I don't see why that would be important for a Christian firefighter (or a Buddhist one or whatever).
12

Hello Uccisore, Oughtist and Xunzian.

Oughtist, Everyone gets a gold medal who will accept one. The gold medal is God’s love. Accepting it is faith. Then we do this cheesy team relay race where we keep passing off batons just for the heck of it, and we all win. I hope that answers your question. :smiley:

Uccisore… how do you define ‘saint’? God tells us where to cast the net ‘cause He knows where the fish are… and we listen to Him… and He takes care of the rest. We don’t produce saints… we just go fishing. Of course it is all about God, about love. Not just any ol’ love however you/I/etc. feel like defining it.

Love is ultimate. It is by grace we have been saved, through faith. If it were not for grace (God’s unmerited love)–there would be nothing for us to have faith in. And you could also say faith is an expression of love. So love is primary. Whether we say “love” is primary or “participation in the life of Christ” (they are synonymous, if I catch your meaning) is primary–it still helps to define what we mean by that…

– Oughtist

The part in bold is definitely a good thing. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘pot’. I think it is good to have virtuous role models (the whole idea of ‘discipleship’) if you and they have God’s understanding of virtue. If you do, there will be no (important) contradictions, and you will avoid the ‘post-hoc justification’ stuff Xunzian wisely pointed out. You don’t want too many, because you can’t really develop solid relationships (required for discipleship) with a whole bunch of people. Home bible studies are great for developing close friendships of this type. Wanting to do your best is a good thing to want if you realize ‘best’ is ‘love the way God loves’ and that you can’t achieve it apart from God’s motivating you.

Xunzian, I thought it was interesting how you pointed out sometimes people worship gods who are not moral exemplars. It is understandably embarrassing to worship a God who is not good, not love. I think folks worthy of being considered exemplars (of discipling others) are those who worship a God who is love, and allow God to love through them, and shape their character into His. Of course we will never attain God’s perfect virtue, but the point is to know His love–we’ll never be God. This all makes me want to review my virtue thread, lol… make sure it’s still accurate.

13

Thanks for continuing to help me temper my atheism, Ichthus… whether that means making it more sedate or stronger, or both, perhaps we shall see… May I, in turn, risk the presumption of hoping I temper your pride in your faith in God the same way?

So, not to beat the Buddhism thing too extensively, but, say the Dalai Lama graciously receives his gold medal and says to God, “Thank you very much, Yahweh. May we, too, race sometime?” For he knows the Christian god by first name, as he does many gods, being well travelled in the God Realm. I speculate here, of course. But I suggest you do, too.

Or think of it this way. You are very fortunate to have found a spiritual group with and through whom you are apparently provided a genuine experience of agape. Say, for whatever the reason, one of the members of your group comes to lose their faith, not in the experience of your group, but in the existence of God. Say that person was open about it, and felt that at least for the interim there was virtually no possibility of regaining it. My suggestion would be that the ideal conception of such a group would be one that ensured conditions of inclusion, resisted feelings of pity or the need to reconstitute the person’s faith, but rather went on by embracing the person’s ability to recognize the authenticity of the group experience in and of itself. Would the dialogue of the group be altered by such a scenario? Or rather, would the group expression of love be limited by the semantic of Faith?

I would hope, as an example to set for the future (where, I suspect, non-belief rises as an aspect of global inter-acculturation), that such a group would not be affected by the legalism (?) of professing faith in god, but rather in the genuine expression of love per se.

Oh yes, and by pot, I mean Whatever Gets You Through the Night! (s’alright!!)…

Worship, I think, is well worth discussion. But for practical purposes I toss it aside for the present. I think a plurality of objects of worship might well be dangerous, but not moral exemplars. I get your point, but I have a much more watered down sense of moral exemplar in mind here. On my best days, when my life is turned up on high, I see everyone around me as an exemplar. Everyone fighting the good fight. Everyone living. Everyone in context, and me too. Exemplifying myself. On my worst days, the crowd narrows, and maybe then I might only hang on to a few… my parents (excellent Christians whose faith has certainly served them well in extremely trying times, though perhaps has put them into some unnecessarily trying times as well); my wife; maybe even Jesus, too, though not so much any more (on the worst days, anyhow, He just doesn’t come to mind)…

Have you watched “Rescue Me”? After the first dubious 15 minutes of the first episode, it tells a great tale of firefighter belief systems. I take your point, though. Some need to hide their beliefs in order to maintain their group identities.

14

It is precisely that fickle variation that I think that moral exemplars ought guide against. That is precisely what virtue ethics is trying to moderate, and when that isn’t moderated, virtue ethics fails spectacularly. I mean, sure, there are always people around us with good traits we ought emulate. Likewise, there are bad people around us with traits we ought avoid – and often these are the very same people. But I think that cultivating virtue often works best by choosing an exemplar whose strengths and flaws mirror your own. Where they excelled, you can focus your energies on being like them and where they failed, you can try to avoid. To me that is the whole point of it.

15

Help me out here, Xunzian. Does virtue ethics turn on exemplars or on a more existential indicator? Or is there a debate here? I ask both because I’ve been out of circulation theory-wise for a while, and because I suspect that for whatever reason I’m less able than some to think in terms of particular personal heros (which I certainly don’t see as a strength, but I’m not convinced it’s necessarily a weakness). Perhaps this also relates to my more specific issues about the existence of God–I just can’t sustain the thought of God as a personal entity.

16

I suppose it depends on the particular epistemology of the virtue ethicist. Though I will say that existentialism is pretty firmly rooted in modernity, whereas virtue ethics does its best to be pre-modern, so the interface between those two propositions is somewhat complex. Since I’ve got some love for both virtue ethics and existentialism, I think there is room for both . . . but I also like nice, concrete examples. Let’s take the virtue of courage, for example. I think most virtue ethicists can agree that courage ought be seen as a virtue, so let’s assume for the moment that courage is ‘good’. To me, that statement detached from any broader narrative is nothing but trouble. The hijackers on 9/11 were certainly courageous, as were Japanese Kamikaze pilots. But is that the sort of ‘courage’ we want to cultivate as a virtue? If I may cite a source that you are free not to recognize, consider the words of Confucius on this matter:

“Disorder” can also be rendered as “brigandage”, and I think that both encapsulate what unbridled courage can mean. If we take ‘courage’ (or any of the others) to mean an existential status as opposed to a more concrete concept we can try and follow, what is to prevent us from passing that tipping point? In that quotation, Confucius tried to illustrate that all virtues work that way. Now, his major point is the unity of the virtues and the Doctrine of the Mean, something I whole-heartedly embrace, but both of those serve to contextualize our perception of the virtues. The suicide bomber and the college grad in Teach For America are both courageous, if anything, the suicide bomber is considerably more courageous. But when it is framed like that, it should be obvious that there is more to courage than mere courage.

So then the next question is: how do we tell those things apart? When does ‘courage’ become ‘brigandage’, and when does ‘prudence’ become ‘cowardice’? Those represent some hardcore shades of grey. Especially when you actually take the person in question (especially if it is you!) into account. Are you, by disposition, more given to impulsiveness that could been seen as ‘courage’ or are you more reserved in a manner that could be seen as ‘timid’? There is no right or wrong answer, provided it is honest. But as soon as you’ve got an answer, you can look to people with similar dispositions and learn from them. That is actually one of the problems I have with Christianity, especially modern Christianity. It is a sort of “one size fits all” philosophy, where everyone should strive to emulate Jesus. That is all well-and-good, but where are Jesus’ strengths? Where are his weaknesses? Which strengths do he and I share that I might learn from his successes? Which weaknesses do he and I share, so that I might learn from his mistakes? Saints go a long way towards fixing this problem, but even amongst sects that still venerate them, people seem more inclined to see them as a stepping stone as opposed to a guiding narrative.

17

Thanks Xunzian. I continue, nonetheless, to have a problem with my understanding of virtue ethics that I think is related to the issue of legalism and faith in god.

My line of work requires notable amounts of patience, and I am commended on a regular basis for having a great deal of this virtue. Truth be told, though, much of the time I feel that what I am being lauded for is as much a result of my vast reserves of ability to procrastinate. Within myself, then, I witness what I identify as a vice having a functionally virtuous outcome. So, just as I am able to allow things to unfold of themselves (patience), I’m also often unable to intervene when I see possibilities for intervention.

Reality usually forces me to act at some point, and things get done. Apparently very well. Thus, though, I’m stuck in an existential (I want to say phenomenological) quandry in regards to evaluating the virtues of my ethic. Just as it is actually very hard to be deliberately lazy, so too perhaps procrastination may not in the end be a bad thing. That, as you imply, context rules the day. I’m aware of the christian 7 sins/virtues split in this regard, but don’t see enough sympathy for the devil in their account. (Does this also relate to being a drunken master?)

Similarly with the issue of relating motivation-to-love with having faith in god. I’m just as inclined to see my atheism as something which actually unencumbers my ability to proceed in a loving way. Viewed, then, as a vice by a theist, it is understandably very hard to reconcile the thought.

I have no doubt, though, that my self-appraisal is rife with inadequacy (or is that just my low self-esteem nagging?)…

18

– Oughtist

Well. It is God’s love that saved me, not my faith (by grace, through faith). I was drowning in mud and I took the hand He held out to me. I don’t mean to come off sounding prideful (do I? what did I say?). I do appreciate a reasoned discussion that helps temper worthy beliefs, smooth away the … what’s that word … I heard it on this sword-making documentary and I can’t remember it. Anyway. I welcome it. Maybe you will have to give up that old sword and replace it with a stronger, eternal One. Just keep defining words for me, so I can keep up. :laughing:

If he receives the gold medal, he discards all the medals that contradict it, including Buddhism and “the god realm” if your speculations are accurate, if he is capable of understanding the contradictions and truly values what God would give. If you understand that the race is us loving eachother, then you know the answer to your question (to anyone who asks) is “always.” For there is no race of which He is not the governing principle (Logos/Word).

Do you mean would they credit the source of love to some other source than God? No. Maybe I’m not understanding your question. Folks are welcome to come to church or home group and listen and question without believing, if that is what you are getting at.

Does not compute. In other words… (upside down question mark) Que?

You’re saying we can be good without God, in other words. See original post. Now, if what you are saying is “I want to be good and love people, but I don’t have faith. I feel like what you are saying, if I totally bought that faith comes before loving, is a mental-block to my being good and loving.” In that case, love the only way you know how. Like I said, all humans are capable of love (but the way the world loves is a mere pointer to eternal love). Do not let your doubts hinder your loving. Keep seeking and never settle until you find truth.

Your voice is similar to another ILP member. Way to get out o’ that one. I guess I’ll let ya.

On the virtue discussion… In a nutshell, it’s actually the virtue ‘courageous’ when the intent is to love (not to get God’s love, but motivated from it). It’s not actually the virtue ‘courageous’ when the intent isn’t love, isn’t motivated by God’s love (perhaps is an attempt to earn God’s un-earnable love, or become known as a good person, or do something unloving, etcetera).

19

And I think that the situation you’ve just described helps illustrate why virtue ethics is distinct from consequentialist and deontological ethics. I know I am always tempted to see virtue ethics as a sort of half-way house between those two systems, encompassing the best of both. Ultimately, that isn’t what virtue ethics is about. It isn’t about some abstracted ‘duty’, nor is it about what the results of an action were, but rather the context that any given action finds itself in. What is the mindset that gives rise to the action and does the action-mindset fit the situation? In this case, I’d say you’ve taken your natural endowment and managed to turn what could be a vice into a virtue through your application of it. That is something to be lauded!

Not sure how the Christian notion of sin relates to my condition. I can broadly agree with the seven deadly sins and many other Christian positions, but I am quite happily a cradle atheist. I will say, I think that you are viewing the ‘sins’ from the context of ‘duty’, particularly as ‘absolute duty’ which is devoid of context. And that is precisely the sort of situation that virtue ethics tries to avoid. For example, I don’t think there is any shame in being piss off when someone is exhibiting bad behavior. The Christians in the thread are free to correct me, but since the thread has a Christian flavor I may as well use their exemplar, but for example Jesus was quite angry with the money-changers in the Temple yet that doesn’t seem to be in violation of the Christian proscription on wrath – much less the Jesus with a sword-tongue killing people in Revelations! So just as there is more to courage than courage, so too is there more to anger than anger. The context really matters. That is the whole point!

I think atheists have a much easier time with virtue ethics, actually. While virtue-epistemology and other rarefied philosophical concerns are certainly more difficult from the position of an atheist (I’ll cede those positions); atheists don’t have the problem of why ‘others’ are more virtuous than members of our in-group. For example, Christians have to explain why someone like Ted Haggard, who solicits male prostitutes and has a sweet tooth for meth, is better than someone like Gandhi because one is Christian and the other isn’t. Or, the can cede that particular notion and say that virtue is independent of religion, but then that begs the question, “Why Christianity?” Especially if they are going to tie it back to some of those larger questions.

Hey man, it’s all about the Mean. But I will say that a low self-esteem gives rise to a self-correcting nature. So while a low self-esteem does deviate from the mean, erring on the side of low self-esteem is more likely to realize the mean than high self-esteem. All other things being equal, of course. But it sounds like you’ve found a great way to take advantage of both your strengths and deficiencies while serving others. What more can someone ask for? Sounds like a resounding success to me.

20

Thanks again Xunzian… I’ll let that mellow in my mind for a bit…

Hi Ichthus,

Could just be me. When I interlocute with a committed theist, I have trouble getting past the thought that they view themselves as sitting in the catbird seat. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that you are an obnoxious example of that, but, if pride were a cologne, I at very least smell something…

I am glad for your spiritual resuscitation, and seek something of the same insofar as I perceive it for myself (though I’m by no means drowning, and have certain reservations about the nature of life-solutions which arise out of desperate circumstances).

It would not surprise you, I suppose, that when I read “the hand He held out to me”, I envision you refer to a person, complete with gender, who faces you and relates (at least in part) in terms of language; and that, well, I have grave difficulties swallowing that. If the celestial mask were taken off, and you were thus referring to something on the order of an aspect of physis– say access to a psychological state which provides you great inner strength – well, then, we would have much with which to compare experiences (I’ve had a few strange moments in my life, which I’ve put on my neural shelf for later consideration, but haven’t radically changed my life on the basis of them). But the personal God thing just seems to be one of those ear-wreck-on-sigh-labelled-iff-errances that ain’t gonna go away…

Now, if, rather than “He” you could allow “It”, such that he (the Dalai Lama) were thuswise experiencing the full splendors of Nirvana (or whatever), I could comprehend somewhat… But as to your earlier comparison of ability to love with athletics, I still hold out the issue. Let me restate it:

Take a random sample of (you choose the non-christian group this time, but please no strawmen) and a random sample of christians. Is the motivation-to-love which is contingent to faith in the christian god in any way analogous to the effects of a steroid (or, okay, a supervitamin), such that the christian group prove to be more adept at loving than the non-christian group?

As to the “does not compute” stuff, does it make more sense now?

As to the pot thing, first, now I’m curious who you’re comparing me to (I’m only just getting sensitive to the demographics of this site, and as a first-time blogger I have to say it’s fascinating…); second, my original intent was simply the idea of where you deposit your ante (not that I’d suggest we turn our metaphor into that of a poker game… unless you’re up for that, of course 8-[ )