Atheists At Catholic Forums

[Savonarola]

CTenorman:

First, you need to evaluate the claims of the church to see if they square with what your rational mind tells you is true. You ought not to believe what you are taught if it is false. There are any number of ways of evaluating the truth of a statement, but Socratic logic can do much to clear up almost any difficulty, if it’s properly applied.

Most people are taught this stuff when they are children and children believe what they are taught because they don’t have other beliefs yet to compare the teachings to. Later, if you are taught something that is false but it matches your beliefs it is going to seem true to you because it matches your beliefs. Socratic reasoning is useful, but as you say, it must be properly applied. You must be willing to ask questions, be open to a truth that does not seem like truth (does not match your beliefs) and then ask more questions, and if needed, rinse, and repeat.

It takes quite some dedication to track down false beliefs. Obviously, being open to the possibility that the beliefs you were given as a child are wrong is a must. Not everyone is willing to do this. When it comes to Catholic beliefs, challenging the ones you hold can bring up a lot of fear. The fear of challenging the beliefs of the faith is taught very early on and it can be very hard to face.

CTenorman:

Giving yourself to God, pursuing the pleasures that he adores (because he knows we adore them even if we have forgotten), we can find true happiness. That Christianity got it right thousands of years before scientific studies could have confirmed what no naturalist/materialist would have suspected is another little hint about God’s existence. Not conclusive, but it’s something to bear in mind all the same.

No, I don’t think the line of thinking within the bulk of the paragraph is at all conclusive. But the main point is the one I would like to address, that pursuiing the pleasures God adores for us (because he knows we actually do adore them as well) will lead to happiness. I actually agree with that statement. It is the interpretation of it that we may differ on.

Above I outlined the difference between fear and true desire. If these true desires are the desires that you think God adores for us then we are in complete agreement. This includes sex and many other things the church has decided God does not adore for us. This is where I say that the church did not get it right 2000 years ago and still has not gotten it right.

The church would have you listen to what they tell you God wants for you. Why not listen to the true desires that God is allowing you to feel right now and decide for yourself? Jesus says in Luke 17:21 “The kingdom of God is within you.” It is not within the church or its teachings. It is within each one of us as individual beloved children of God. It is available now for us to experience because we are here now experiencing a world that God created for us. If we turn our back on this and trust the teachings of the church over our own personal connection with God we have turned the church into a false idol. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with false idols, they just don’t lead to happiness and the ultimate knowledge of one’s connection with God.

Scott, I have enjoyed our discussion quite a bit and must say it is always a pleasure to be able to discuss these kinds of topics with someone like yourself with a different point of view. These posts are getting a bit long so I’m not sure we will be able to continue at this level. Regardless, I have found it interesting and entertaining to read your perspective as well as the perspectives of the other fine people in this forum.

Cheers.

 

[CTenorman]

Hi Savonarola,

Great response, though I agree that we will have to cut down on the length of our replies. I think I can try identifying our primary disagreement from the first part of the exchange, specifically that which makes us happy. I think your position is that whatever we ultimately desire most is what will make us happy. My position (and happily the church’s) is that what we most desire is not always desirable. In other words, outside of the emotions, I have a framework established that I think will bring me pleasure - this we both agree on. Where we differ is that I think this framework can be flawed, whereas I don’t believe you hold that position. I’ll use an extreme situation here to try and highlight my meaning. A serial killer may have an emotional impulse to kill someone. That emotional impulse is then evaluated by the desire-framework that we both agreed on earlier. However, contrary to how we might feel, the killer may decide to kill the person because this will ultimately fulfill their desire-framework best. With your position, you would have to agree that this person had done what was best by fulfilling their desires, even their deepest ones. There are several murderers out there that have killed, enjoyed it, and said they would do it again despite the consequences.

My position however is somewhat different. God, as the author of our souls, ultimately knows what is best for us. He would say to that man “you should not desire those desires.” Those desires ought not to be followed because they will, in the end, destroy the person - there will simply be no soul left. Murders are terrible not only because they hurt the deceased’s family and friends, but because they damage the murderer. The man is not beyond hope however, because he can desire to be different. If he does wish to have properly-ordered desires, he will not immediately stop desiring his old ones. Only through obedience will he truly find happiness, because at first he will not desire what he is doing, and how he is re-shaping his soul. As he becomes a better person, his desires will eventually be brought more in-line with what is ultimately desirable to God, and then he may find that his own desires coincide with God’s. When that happens, he will have true happiness, because he is desiring what he ought to, and its fulfilment enriches the soul instead of destroying it as murder would.

This is why Catholics are so reticent of relativism, saying that whatever is good for you is good period. Our murderer above shows that simply isn’t so, because what we think is good may simply not be good for us. When our desires (often called appetites) are disordered, what tastes good on our tongue may be poison to the body. It is like eating a delicious poison fruit, and then claiming it to be life-sustaining. In fact, I think I remember a tale about something like that…

 

[CTenorman]

To address your comments about purgatory, let’s say this man eventually makes it into Heaven. His journey through purgatory is not punishment, but a natural process, a logical necessity given the nature of heaven and earth. Assuming his desires are still not entirely in proper order, he will still desire some things he ought not to. Thus he cannot attain perfect happiness, whereby we fully love doing the things we ought to desire, thus sating our own desires, and feeding our souls the food they were designed to infinitely grow on. As heaven is perfect happiness for all eternity, he must somehow be changed from the man who cannot attain perfect happiness (where there is a divergence between the desires that will satisfy his soul, and his present desires) to the man who can attain it. The only way this can happen is if he is purified of his disordered desires, it is logically necessary. This purification process is known as Purgatory. The Catholic church does not say how long people suffer for, or even if the process is temporal, it may be instantaneous. But you can see logically how it is necessary. And we also know from our experience on earth that it is very hard and painful to eliminate our bad habits. How much more painful for us will it be when everything bad about us is removed? It is not painful because God wishes it to be so, but because we find it painful letting go of our own desires, even if they are not proper. This is the necessary process of Purgatory, and I think when it is explained with the proper theological background, it seems entirely logical and necessary.

On the other hand, let’s say this man never repents and asks forgiveness. He will continue to desire those things which are harmful to him, and his soul. Eventually, his soul will dwindle to nothing, but God’s hands are tied. The ultimate overriding principle of humanity is free will. If that man decides not to change his ways through obedience, despite this obedience going against his desires, he receives exactly what he desires. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, either people say to God “Thy will be done”, or God says to them “Very well, thy will be done.” You don’t go to hell because you don’t want to, you go there because that’s your greatest desire of all.

Pride is the problem, and here is one way of looking at it (I don’t claim this to be the only way certainly, or even the explanation that is fullest; it is simply the easiest to explain). When you die, God will ask you if you want to follow him. If you say yes, he’ll purify your soul, and you’ll arrive in heaven, loving every eternal second of it. If you don’t follow him, he might just send you off to the same place. But imagine how it will be then! The good that these people love doing, and do for eternity without end, you find repulsive, agonizing, even terrifying. Think of what Jesus said about the kingdom of heaven, and you’ll realize that what Mother Teresa spent her life doing is the faintest taste of what heaven is all about. Imagine then the person who is utterly obsessed with themselves, who cannot conceive of anything but hate (the murderer here remember). They will find heaven not an eternal joy, but an eternal damnation. What is the greatest joy of all the saints in heaven is the unbearable burden of the selfish man. Thus one man’s heaven is another man’s hell; a freely chosen hell.

 

[CTenorman]

As for determining what we ought to desire, I think the beatitudes are a good place to start. And I agree that physical pleasures ought to be enjoyed. The small pleasures, when proper, are the greatest of all. Catholics are not against sex, chocolate, music, or anything else provided it is just. There are three things required in making a thing just:

1. The object chosen
2. The Intention
3. The circumstances of the action.

The thing itself chosen must be just. Thus, desiring to have biochemical weapons of mass destruction is never moral. The intention also is critical, as intending to use nuclear arms to prevent a war is very different from intending to use them to annihilate a country. Finally, the circumstances of the action are the thing most people forget today. Sex with your wife is not just acceptable, it’s fantastic. Where people get the idea that Catholics don’t like sex I’ll never know. Should I be fortunate enough to get married some day, it is right at the top of the list of things to enjoy. But if I’m doing it with a prostitute on the street, those circumstances are not moral, thus the act is not moral, and will not bring me to true happiness, as that is derived when the purpose of eternity becomes our own purpose (as discussed above). Or, let’s say you wish to have sex with your wife, not because you love her, and want to give something to her, but because you want to take something from her, or even show your dominance over her. #1 and 3 are satisfied, but the intention is bad, and thus the act is not moral.

So, to sum up, I think physical pleasures can be good, even excellent. But, they are only so when they are moral. When they are not moral, they may provide passing pleasure, but will damage your soul, and will draw you away from true happiness.

I don’t have time to fully address your point about forgiveness, and this is one area where I am not well educated. However, the first thing to remember is that it is not simply called the sacrament of forgiveness, but of conversion, of confession, of penance, and of reconciliation. When we look at what forgiveness means with regard to God, we have to view the meaning in reference to these other qualities. Terms are not fixed, and if the church defines them differently than secular society, we must work with the Church’s definitions. Thus, looking at those other words there, I don’t think anger enters into it. But, we certainly have wronged someone, and we need to make it up to them. However, it is not to God that we owe something (to him we owe everything), but to the people we have hurt. Catholics see the members of the church as making up the body of Christ. Thus, when I sin, I have hurt the church through either a direct action against someone else (sin of commission), or by not doing things I ought to have because I was partially disabled by sin (sin of omission). As these people are the body of Christ, it is through him that we can forgive these other people, by doing something to make up for what we have done. Obviously that is not the primary reason that we have the sacrifice of penance and reconciliation, as its main goal is to bring our souls back to the state they ought to be in, to help correct the damage we caused to them by our sinful action. Thus a rosary assigned as penance is designed to correct your soul, not punish you, and the fruit of that prayer will help correct the damage you have done to the body of Christ, the children of God.

I know you addressed more points, but I need to get to sleep. Hopefully you can identify what points I have not covered so that I can try to examine them next time. And for you Catholics out there, I’m still in the RCIA, and if I’m making any theological mistakes, please let me know. Which reminds me, I’m still relatively new to Catholicism, so I’m not trying to conform reality to what I grew up with - it is reality that seems conformed to Catholicism. Take care,

Scott

 

[CTenorman]

I’ve already spotted my first mistake, but I can’t correct it now. The circumstances of the action only make a good thing better, or a bad thing worse. Sorry, you’ll have to adjust the meaning of my paragraph there accordingly.

 

[Savonarola]

Scott,

Thanks again for taking the time to share your understandings. I can apprecieate how much time these posts take so I will try to remain relatively brief.

In your first example of someone following a desire to murder I again must point out that this is usually done out of desperation, not desire. As I said earlier, getting to know your own emotions and not following those based on fear, anger, desperation, etc. is all important. These are not true desires. Its really just that simple. If that doesn’t resonate with you then perhaps we will just leave it at that.

You speak of morals and what is just and what is right but all you are really doing is parroting back the teachings of Christian thinking. The logic is circular. For example, you say the church is right in not allowing sex with a prostitute because that style of sex is immoral. The reason you think it is immoral in the first place is because that is what has been taught to you since you were very young. The problem is that the source of those original teachings was the church or some similar religious code. Again, this is what I was talking about in my previous post about something appearing to be true because it matches your beliefs.

As I said before, you don’t trust your own connection with God but you trust the church instead. You let the church tell you what God wants for you instead of trusting your own desires that were given to you directly by God. I know the church teaches you not to trust in your own self (created by God) and your desires (created by God) and to me that is very, very suspect.

---

I have really just been repeating what I spoke of in my previous post so I would like to point out what I believe is at the heart of our differences in thinking. It is a belief that has been at the heart of all of the great philosophies and religions. It is the question of whether you believe that man, at his (or her) core, is basically good or evil.

The church teaches that man is born sinful and needs to be purified, corrected, improved, and brought up to God’s specifications. You seem to ascribe to this viewpoint and even equate man’s inner desires with murder and damage. You speak of the need for Purgatory, God’s judgement of us, and controling our desires.

I believe that we are perfect already and need no improvement or purification. We are children of God, created in perfection by a perfect and loving God. If God wanted to bring us up to different specifications then he would have created us that way. He is not incompetent in this area but knows exactly what he is doing. He loves us exactly the way we are because we are just as he desired us to be, perfect and good in every way. Why would he create us any differently?

I believe that this difference in beliefs accounts for the other differences we have discussed and also accounts for why you are such a firm believer in the church while I left it early on. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong on this.

As always, I appreciate the sincere nature of your posts and the thought you put into your writing. I have found it to be a healthy challenge to my beliefs and enjoyable as well.

 

[Neithan]

Savonarola:

In your first example of someone following a desire to murder I again must point out that this is usually done out of desperation, not desire. As I said earlier, getting to know your own emotions and not following those based on fear, anger, desperation, etc. is all important. These are not true desires. Its really just that simple. If that doesn’t resonate with you then perhaps we will just leave it at that.

The key word above is usually–I agree, murder is usually a desperate thing, but there are cases, such as the one CTenorman used as an example (Serial Killers) where people will actually murder because they genuinely enjoy it. They feel a violent compulsion as strong as a psychologically normal person’s sexual compulsion–a
compulsion to kill. Killing ‘fulfills’ this desire, and it is a true desire. Serial Killers are happy when they murder.
You seem to be implying that absolute, objective happiness can be reached in this life if we follow ‘what our hearts truly desire’–but the fact is that what one person’s heart truly desires can mean quite literally the stopping of another person’s.
There must be some absolute norm, some standard, by which we can measure right and wrong–this is morality, or Natural Law. While God has written this on our hearts, our sinful condition impedes our ability to follow it without His Grace. Original Sin is the most vividly exemplified teaching of the Church. If one denies it–they are simply denying an obvious reality! Human beings do not always behave as they should. We are clearly *not *perfect. Not anymore, anyway.

Acting out of fear never works well and fear is a very strong emotion as we all know. It often screams very loudly but sometimes is very subtle. Giving in to the fear can release the anxiety and make you temprorarily “happier” but, of course, it is just temporarily sidestepping the unhappiness of the fear. It can take a lot of self honesty to admit that something you “want” is actually something you are afraid of not having. Or that something you “don’t want” is really something you are afraid of. It makes all the difference.

This is pretty convoluted. Basically, fear is a good thing–it keeps us from doing things that may cause us harm; but when left unchecked it can control our lives (not good). Fear and desire always accompany one another: you desire something, and necessarily fear not having it. I don’t understand what kind of ‘self honesty’ can convince you that you truly desire something and are not afraid of not having it–huh? Fear should never be the only motivator, but it is always involved somehow. Whether positively (fear something and avoid it) or negatively (desire something and fear not having it).

Your ‘emotional framework’ or the reality you’ve constructed for yourself seems to be based on a skewed perception of human desire and its relationship with fear. You seem to deny that ‘true desires’ are often distorted and fear always accompanies desire in some fashion–which of course would explain the rift with Church doctrine.

As I said before, you don’t trust your own connection with God but you trust the church instead. You let the church tell you what God wants for you instead of trusting your own desires that were given to you directly by God. I know the church teaches you not to trust in your own self (created by God) and your desires (created by God) and to me that is very, very suspect.

Your evaluation of the Church is reactionary, and not objective, which is probably what caused your distorted perspective of her. CTenorman is coming from the same position as me (a convert, not a cradle Catholic);

CTenorman:

I’m not trying to conform reality to what I grew up with - it is reality that seems conformed to Catholicism.

Succinctly stated. We are not obeying the Church simply because we are told that she teaches truth, but have come from our own experiences to find that she teaches it. Natural Law is written in us at birth, we don’t construct it as we go along, and Christ built His Church to help us find the Way through this clouded, sinful mess that the Fall has left us in.

(Continued)

 

[Neithan]

Savonarola:

It is a belief that has been at the heart of all of the great philosophies and religions. It is the question of whether you believe that man, at his (or her) core, is basically good or evil.

Here we come to distinguish between Protestantism and Catholicism. The former has taught from its origins that Man is wholly evil, totally depraved, and that nothing he does or is can possibly be pleasing to God. The Church has ever defended orthodoxy against heresy and always maintained that Man is essentially good, lovable and pleasing to God–but (after the Fall) damaged, imperfect, and in need of Divine Aid.
If we weren’t loving and basically good, God would not have sacrificed His Son; but if we were perfect already, God would not have demanded such a sacrifice in the first place.

God is not incompetent and He created us perfectly, but He gave us .Free Will You have to respect the awesome power of this gift to see that its consequences (all evil and sin, the fall and our subsequent imperfection) do not and can not in any way take away from the goodness of either this gift itself or its Giver. Its exercise is the very purpose of creation.

:twocents:

Peace

 

[Savonarola]

Neithan,

Welcome to the conversation and thanks for sharing your views.

You seem to confuse fear and desire. If you are unable to recognize the difference then little of what I say will make any sense. You also believe that fear is good and necessary. I do not. Although I once shared your view to some extent, I have come to know the nature of fear and it’s consequences much more clearly since then. If you haven’t shared similar experiences with this then, again, little of what I have said will make any sense.

Whether God gave us an evil nature or it somehow came with the territory of free will is just a matter of semantics. If you are not evil at your core then the free actions that flow from your being will not be either. God created both our soul and our free will and I don’t think he screwed it up and then needed a huge correction mechanism (life, judgement, etc.) to make up for his mistake. If you must make a distinction between the two then let me say that I don’t think our actions are evil and I believe our desires can be trusted. This, I believe, is the basis for our differences in thinking.

If you believe man’s actions are potentially evil and dangerous then you will see evidence of it all around you and you will feel a need for some control mechanism to keep the evil actions in check. In this case the control mechanisms is fear.

If you believe man’s actions are good and the full extent of the free will that God gave us is allowable then you will be able to allow yourself and others to live in freedom without the confines of fear. I think our fellow thread-member Atreyu said it best:

Atreyu:

I can well understand that anybody whose life is ruled by fear, would not be very happy at all!

 

[Neithan]

Savonarola:

You seem to confuse fear and desire. If you are unable to recognize the difference then little of what I say will make any sense.

Could you elaborate a little on my error? How am I confusing fear and desire? They are opposites, as I understand it.

• If you haven’t shared similar experiences with this then, again, little of what I have said will make any sense.*

This is a little unfair: we should stick with objectives, or else any discussion can simply be dismissed due to a lack of similar subjective experiences. What exactly is fear, objectively speaking, in your perspective? Are you implying that life should be lived totally without any sort of fear? Is this even possible?

God created both our soul and our free will and I don’t think he screwed it up and then needed a huge correction mechanism (life, judgement, etc.) to make up for his mistake.

God didn’t make a mistake, Adam did. God created us with the allowance that we can act contrary to His Will–this is the power which He has given us; the ability to make mistakes. God forgives us for any and every mistake (sin) and provides us the means (grace) to correct them. This whole process is the greatest good–as without free will there would be no such thing as ‘good’ (or evil) at all.

If you believe man’s actions are good and the full extent of the free will that God gave us is allowable then you will be able to allow yourself and others to live in freedom without the confines of fear.

Are you denying the existence of any sort of evil act?
Are you saying that everything that occurs, the full extent of our free will (murder, rape etc.) is good? So in actual fact, in your worldview there is no such thing as good or evil?
If you don’t believe in the existence of evil then what is fear? Isn’t that evil? Is that the only evil?

If we are perfect in your opinion, then why do we fear? Doesn’t our fearfulness (since you opine that fear restrains us from good desires) reveal that we are imperfect?

 

[Atreyu]

Hey Sav have you seen Donnie Darko? If not then I highly recommend it

Oh, and yes it is relevant to this conversation

 

[Savonarola]

Neithan, you have raised some excellent questions.

Neithan:

Could you elaborate a little on my error? How am I confusing fear and desire? They are opposites, as I understand it.

I will try. Here is a quote you gave previously:

*"Fear and desire always accompany one another: you desire something, and necessarily fear not having it. I don’t understand what kind of ‘self honesty’ can convince you that you truly desire something and are not afraid of not having it–huh? Fear should never be the only motivator, but it is always involved somehow. Whether positively (fear something and avoid it) or negatively (desire something and fear not having it). "
*

Fear and desire do not always accompany one another. The fear of not having something is not the same as desire although it is commonly mistaken for that. For example, you may desire an ice cream cone but if you don’t get one its no problem. This is a simple desire. On the other hand, you may want more money but not being able to have it is a big problem. This is an example of a fear of not having money. That is not to say that there may not also be a true desire to have more money but the fear of not having it exists separately.

Neithan:

This is a little unfair: we should stick with objectives, or else any discussion can simply be dismissed due to a lack of similar subjective experiences. What exactly is fear, objectively speaking, in your perspective? Are you implying that life should be lived totally without any sort of fear? Is this even possible?

Sorry if it sounds unfair. Sometimes if you have no experiences to support a certain understanding then words alone won’t do. That said, I will do my best with words.

In my experience, fear is always based on some thought or feeling that is, at its core, untrue. However, because is seems so true, it can cause you to avoid living life if you let it. Fear blocks things including love and the support of the world around you.

I am not saying how anyone should live their life. Let that be the choice of each individual. I am saying that it is possible to live life with no fear if you choose to. I know people that live life with no fear and they are the happiest most loving people I have ever met. The thing that makes it impossible to live without fear is the belief that you need to have fear in your life, a belief you and others have stated in this thread. If you believe this you will not allow yourself to live without it.

Neithan:

God didn’t make a mistake, Adam did. God created us with the allowance that we can act contrary to His Will–this is the power which He has given us; the ability to make mistakes. God forgives us for any and every mistake (sin) and provides us the means (grace) to correct them. This whole process is the greatest good–as without free will there would be no such thing as ‘good’ (or evil) at all.

I believe we do act according to God’s will by acting according to our own. This is why he created us this way. The story of Adam and Eve is a figurative one. I understand it to represent the creation of man in perfection and then the mistaken identity of man as being imperfect (the fall). God has no problems with mistake making. It is not “wrong”. As in any productive learning environment, mistakes are part of the process and people learn from them. They are not to be punished but supported. I believe God has no problem with our mistakes. Nothing to forgive.

Neithan:

Are you denying the existence of any sort of evil act?
Are you saying that everything that occurs, the full extent of our free will (murder, rape etc.) is good? So in actual fact, in your worldview there is no such thing as good or evil?
If you don’t believe in the existence of evil then what is fear? Isn’t that evil? Is that the only evil?

Your association of fear and evil is an excellent one in my opinion. I believe the story of evil, like the story of Adam and Eve, is also a figurative one. I think that evil is indeed meant to represent fear. Outside of this association I see no reality in the concept of evil at all. So to answer your question, I do believe that there is no such thing as good and evil. In the end there is only fear and love. And once past the fear there is only love.

I don’t think God has any problems with the existence of fear (evil, if you will) since he is the one that created it in the first place. It may not serve you or others well to act out of fear but that is learned soon enough by allowing yourself to make the mistake and see what comes of it. Sometimes this is the only way to really understand what comes of certain things. Like I said earlier, if you have no experience to support an understanding then words alone won’t do.

(cont.)

 

[Savonarola]

Neithan:

If we are perfect in your opinion, then why do we fear? Doesn’t our fearfulness (since you opine that fear restrains us from good desires) reveal that we are imperfect?

We fear becuase we are mistaken about who we truly are and what our true association with God is (the fall of Adam and Eve). Mistakes do not at all detract from the perfection of our being. As I said before, mistakes are not bad or wrong. It is just Christianity that portrays them that way.

Think of young children. They are perfect and beautiful beings who are constantly making mistakes. Learning to walk is an exercise in mistake making. So is learning to talk, read, play, etc. God designed us as creatures with mistake making as an integral part of our growth process. It wouldn’t show the greatest understanding to look at a child learning to walk and think, “there is something wrong with this one. He cannot walk right and is doing it wrong. He is imperfect and must be punished.”

I think of God more as a loving parent who is encouraging, friendly, gentle, and supportive, not judgemental or punishing. He allows us our own experience and mistakes so we can enjoy them, learn from them, and see for ourselves what they bring. He knows that no matter what, in the end it will all be okay because that is exactly the way he designed things to be.

 

[Savonarola]

Atreyu:

Hey Sav have you seen Donnie Darko? If not then I highly recommend it

Oh, and yes it is relevant to this conversation

Atreyu, I have not seen it but will check it out. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Atreyu]

Think of young children. They are perfect and beautiful beings who are constantly making mistakes. Learning to walk is an exercise in mistake making. So is learning to talk, read, play, etc. God designed us as creatures with mistake making as an integral part of our growth process. It wouldn’t show the greatest understanding to look at a child learning to walk and think, “there is something wrong with this one. He cannot walk right and is doing it wrong. He is imperfect and must be punished.”

Yeah this is a good example, but what about the child who knows that something is wrong, yet he does it anyway? Would you punish this child; even if it is only to make the child look at himself and make him see that it is wrong?

 

[Rhubarb]

I’m here because religion is an interesting topic from a historical point of view.

 

[cheddarsox]

Savonarola:

I think of God more as a loving parent who is encouraging, friendly, gentle, and supportive, not judgemental or punishing. He allows us our own experience and mistakes so we can enjoy them, learn from them, and see for ourselves what they bring. He knows that no matter what, in the end it will all be okay because that is exactly the way he designed things to be.

Savonarola,

I understand what you are saying here, and spiritually, I agree for the most part, but have one question. Because humans are not only spiritual, but physical as well, does any of this apply to the biological application of fear as well?

There is a practical level at which fear is useful because it helps us stay alive.

I am curious how others here perceive the link between physical and spiritual.

Thanks,

cheddar

 

[Neithan]

Savonarola:

Fear and desire do not always accompany one another. The fear of not having something is not the same as desire although it is commonly mistaken for that. For example, you may desire an ice cream cone but if you don’t get one its no problem. This is a simple desire. On the other hand, you may want more money but not being able to have it is a big problem. This is an example of a fear of not having money. That is not to say that there may not also be a true desire to have more money but the fear of not having it exists separately.

If you desire an ice cream cone but are not afraid of *not *having it (i.e. you would not be disappointed without it) then isn’t that just a matter of degree? You don’t really fear not having it because you don’t *really strongly *desire it? Many of us strongly desire money, and isn’t there always an associated fear whenever there is a *strong *desire?

I am not saying how anyone should live their life. Let that be the choice of each individual. I am saying that it is possible to live life with no fear if you choose to. I know people that live life with no fear and they are the happiest most loving people I have ever met. The thing that makes it impossible to live without fear is the belief that you need to have fear in your life, a belief you and others have stated in this thread. If you believe this you will not allow yourself to live without it.

It’s true that “perfect love casteth out fear” (1 John 4:18), but this type of fear which I believe you are referring to is angst or anxiety–definitely an impediment to happiness. I am not saying that one needs to have this kind of fear in their life (in fact, we must strive to rid ourselves of it). I’m saying that fear is present when there is truly strong desire in a negative way–and this is good, because it adds to the motivation for that strong desire. Essentially, fear keeps us from doing evil. But I fear that this whole argument won’t make sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in the existence of evil actions (contrary to God’s will).

God has no problems with mistake making. It is not “wrong”. As in any productive learning environment, mistakes are part of the process and people learn from them. They are not to be punished but supported. I believe God has no problem with our mistakes. Nothing to forgive.

While I do agree that mistakes are part of the growing process in life–I also know from plain experience that not everyone learns from their mistakes, unfortunately. If a murderer or rapist continues to have disordered desires and acts on them… is this not contrary to God’s will? Does He really approve of unrepentant murderers and rapists?

So to answer your question, I do believe that there is no such thing as good and evil. In the end there is only fear and love. And once past the fear there is only love.

Again I agree that love must be our aim, and positive fear (anxiety) must be ‘cast out,’ but even in loving, fear is present negatively–the more we love the world and other people the more we fear to do them harm. This is good because the fear in this case is healthy and it only strengthens love. If you strongly love your spouse, don’t you fear causing them pain? Or is causing someone pain/suffering a good thing too, in your worldview? How do you view pleasure and pain in relation to love and fear? Isn’t it true that fear can often help us avoid pain?

It may not serve you or others well to act out of fear but that is learned soon enough by allowing yourself to make the mistake and see what comes of it.

Again I agree insofar as acting out of fear is a bad thing, fear should never be a positive motivator, but to reiterate: isn’t fear present in love as a negative motivator? Do you agree that acting out of love is often reinforced by fearing what might be called acts of hate? How do you view hate in relation to love and fear?
If fear is the only evil, is hatred a good thing, too?

Mistakes do not at all detract from the perfection of our being. As I said before, mistakes are not bad or wrong. It is just Christianity that portrays them that way.

Sure, not all mistakes detract from our perfection… but doesn’t the very fact that we make them imply that we are not yet perfect? Even admitting that we do not know who we truly are–isn’t that a sign of imperfection?
Would you agree that our goal in life is to *become *perfect? Is it possible to fail?

(Continued)

 

[Neithan]

Think of young children. They are perfect and beautiful beings who are constantly making mistakes. Learning to walk is an exercise in mistake making. So is learning to talk, read, play, etc. …]
He is imperfect and must be punished."

In what way are children perfect? Even if one may argue that they are morally perfect (innocent), aren’t they imperfect in other ways? For example, don’t children clearly display an imperfect knowledge and wisdom? Why do they need to learn if they are already perfect? Why do any of us need to learn anything if we are perfect? I think perhaps I don’t understand your definition of ‘perfect.’

About that last sentence–are you saying that punishment has no beneficial effects? Should a parent simply allow their child to grow and learn without any ‘correction’ at all? Do you think a child without parental guidance (a teacher to discern right from wrong) would be happier than others?

I’m curious about how your total lack of distinction between good and evil action plays out: are you against the justice system entirely? Do you agree with the existence of police officers, prisons, courts, lawyers, judges etc. In short–do you agree with the idea of “law” in any sense whatsoever?

 

[axolotl]

AnAtheist:

The idea came up after the 30years war (1618-48), when Catholic and protestant forces devasted half of Europe largely because they couldn’t agree whether to follow the director’s cut or the shortened version of the Bible.

A case could also be made for 11th century, during Pope Gregory VII spats with Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. The pope thought the church church should control itself, and not be contolled by kings. It was during this time that the College of Cardinals was created, suggested by pre-pope Gregory, and he was the first pope elected in this manner.