Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts

Where Did the Notion the Gods Care About Our Morals Come From?

I am of the tentative opinion the notion the gods care about our morals was invented by our ancestors precisely 15 minutes after they elevated from among themselves the world's first priest:
ANCESTORS: "Now that we have made you the highest among us, the intermediary between us and our gods, O Priest, tell us what me must do."

PRIEST: "You must sharpen your pointy sticks for we must soon war upon the nation of the Amourites, because men with men and women with women of that nation have fornicated with each other."

ANCESTORS [embarrassed]:  "Ummm...are you sure it's wrong for same sex couples to fornicate with each other?  I mean, we ourselves have been....."

PRIEST: "Of course it's wrong!"

ANCESTORS: "But why?  Why is it wrong?"

PRIEST: "Well, I don't actually...[suddenly has an idea]...Wait! It's because the gods forbid us to fornicate with the same sex.  Yes!  That's it!  Because the gods forbid it!"
From such humble beginnings, the notion the gods are keenly interested in our morals eventually spread  to all the nooks and niches of the earth so that, today, it is second nature for us to believe that every religion goes hand in hand with its own moral code.

Joking aside, though, I think there might be a relationship between priests (or a priestly class) and the notion the gods are concerned with our morals.

Based on my very limited knowledge, I cannot think of a society in which the notion is prevalent that does not have priests.  Although, I can think of at least one society in which I suspect the notion is either quite weak, or simply does not exist, and yet there are priests (Japan).

Moreover, as Jared Diamond somewhere points out, the New Guinea highlanders -- like many other tribal peoples -- do not think of their gods as beings interested in human morals. That is, the notion is not intrinsic to religion, and you can, and do, have religions without it.

So, do you think there might be a relationship of some sort between a presence of priests and the notion the gods are concerned with our morals?  Why or why not?

Can Jesus Christ Empower Us to be True to Ourselves?

I once overheard a young woman all but violently diss her pastor.  He had offered his sermon that Sunday on the commandment of Jesus to "love your neighbor as yourself".  But, while her fool of a pastor thought "neighbor" referred to everyone and anyone, she just knew that Jesus meant by "neighbor" only those folks who were members of her church. "How could her pastor be so wrong?"

When I was younger, I assumed that whatever influence the teachings of Jesus had on people was straight-forward.  That is, I assumed if someone read, say, "love your neighbor as yourself", they would either reject that teaching or accept it, and if they accepted it, they would attempt to live up to it.  What I did not grasp for many years was the extent to which people would interpret the teachings of Jesus, to say nothing of interpreting the rest of the Bible.

The Bible is the book everyone quotes and no one reads.  Hence, ignorance of the Bible might explain how there can be so many interpretations of Jesus' teachings.  But another possibility is a bit more subtle.  We often project ourselves into things without realizing it.  Or, as an old joke has it:
A new patient comes to see a psychiatrist. The doc decides to give the patient a Rorshach Test, and shows him a series of cards with different inkblots on them.

“What do you see on the first one?” asks the shrink.
“That’s a man and a woman making love.”

“And the second one?”

“That’s a couple who just finished making love.”

“And the third one?”

“That’s a man asking a woman to make love, and she’s deciding what to do.”

The shrink asks, “Don’t you think it’s interesting that you see sex in every card?”

“Don’t blame me,” says the patient “they’re your cards.”
So ignorance of the Bible might not be the main culprit here.  Instead, it might well be that many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- interpret Jesus in light of our own selves.  If we love everyone we meet, then we tend to think Jesus meant everyone we meet by "neighbor".  If we love only those we feel a strong commonality with, then we tend to think Jesus meant only a our favorite group by "neighbor".  But whatever the case, we read into the teachings of Jesus as least as much as we get out of them.

I often hear the religious folk among us talk about being "empowered by Christ's message".  And, almost as often, I find myself wondering what that really means.  And, in attempting to answer that question -- "What does it mean to feel empowered by Christ's message" -- I naturally turn to my own experience.  That is, I do exactly what I have suggested many (or most) of us do when interpreting Jesus' teachings: I project myself into the message.

As it happens, I was once a Christian.  My "Christian phase", which occurred during middle school, lasted less than a month, and in the end, I rejected Christianity on the grounds that -- if my unsaved family was going to hell -- I would rather join them in hell than be separated from them, though in heaven.  For a short while, however, I was Jesus-intoxicated, and hour by hour yearned and stretched myself to live up Christian ideals -- as I understood those ideals. 

That experience, however brief, was enough to teach me how strangely empowering it is to feel Jesus is on your side.  For instance, when I was a kid, I valued honesty, but I didn't always feel I was supported in that by my peers and teachers. After I became a Christian, however, I felt immensely supported in that valuation because now Christ was on my side.  If I had any doubts about whether honesty was appropriate in some given circumstance, I had only to ask, "What would Jesus want me to do?"  And Jesus, of course, always wanted me to do what I was inclined at the time to do anyway -- that is, he always wanted total honesty.

Because of my own limited experience, I think there might be some circumstances in which a commitment to the teachings of Jesus can empower us to be true to ourselves.  Or, at least, to be more true to ourselves than we might be otherwise.  Yet, I do not think everyone discovers that a commitment to the teachings of Jesus empowers them to be true to themselves.

I once told my friend Don what a positive experience it had been for me to be a Christian.  Unfortunately, Don's own experience of being a Christian -- an experience that had lasted decades, rather than mere days -- was far from positive.  Christianity, rather than empower him to be true to himself, had too often caused him to feel daunting fear and guilt when he tried to be true to himself.

So,. I suppose it might depend on whether we get past reading our own self into the teachings of Jesus.  I never really did during my short time as a Christian.  Everything Jesus wanted of me was what I myself wanted of me.  Hence, Jesus was emotionally empowering.

But Don got way past reading his own self into the teachings of Jesus.  Then, like many, many other people, he discovered things in the teachings of Jesus -- or things in his religion as a whole -- that were self-alienating, rather than self-affirming.  Consequently, Jesus was not an overall empowering influence in Don's life. 

What do you make of this issue?  Can faith in Jesus empower us to be true to ourselves?  If so, how so?  If not, why not?

______________
(H/T: Was Jesus a great teacher?  Sabio Lantz has begun a promising series of posts on that subject over at his Triangulations blog.  His core question -- "Was Jesus a great teacher?" -- inspired this blog post.)

If God is Incomprehensible...

For the sake of discussion, let us assume there's a god.  And let us further assume that god is incomprehensible.

If we were to now ask the question, "Does god exist", whose notion of god do you suppose would be closest to the truth:
  • The Theist who has an idea of god and thinks his idea represents something that exists?
  • The Atheist who has an idea of god and thinks his idea represents something that does not exist?
  • The Agnostic who has an idea of god and thinks his idea represents something that he is uncertain exists?
  • The young child who has as yet no idea of god and consequently cannot even understand the question?
Any opinion?

Would a Loving God Send Us to Hell?

For the sake of discussion, let us assume there's an able god.  By "able", I mean that god is capable of doing anything that does not violate the rules of logic.  For instance, it can create the universe, but it cannot create a square circle because a square circle is logically impossible.  

Next, let us assume that god unconditionally loves all of creation, including each one of us.

Is that scenario logically possible?

Well, I think it is possible. I would not account it very probable. It's not something I'd bank on.  But possible?  Yes.

Now, let us assume the same two conditions -- an able god and that god's unconditional love -- plus a third condition.

The third condition is there exists a hell that is a part of creation and to which people are sent after their death if they disobey the god.

Is the new scenario logically possible?

I do not think so.  Instead,. I think the new scenario involves a logical contradiction and consequently cannot exist.  That is, it cannot be real.  But what is that contradiction?

Well, how can you logically have an able god that loves you unconditionally and also causes you to go to hell if you disobey that god?

So far as I can see, you cannot.  An unconditionally loving god would neither impose a condition upon it's love ( i.e. if you do not obey me, I will not love you) nor would an unconditionally loving god, if it were able to prevent it, allow it's beloved to come to harm (i.e. if you do not obey me, I will cause or allow you to go to hell). 

But what do you think?  Is it an amusing logic puzzle?  Or have I just had too much caffeine again?