Can Christians Do Good For Goodness Sake?

[interchange]

When an Atheist does good deeds, there's similar questioning of motive, it's more or less assured that it wasn't due to fear of eternal damnation.

How do you explain guilt and shame?

If everyone has the same root motivation to altruism, I don't think anyone here has come close to it.

I think that if it helps to attach it to an external framework, this is not a fault in my mind.

 

[interchange]

Perhaps the need to create Him comes from the fact that if we forgot Him it would be necessary to remember Him.

As to celebration of limitations I hear judge not least we be judged. The psychological truth behind that, I believe, is that we project our self hate onto others and judge them to be evil, thus sealing our self contempt in place. It is only in forgiveness of others and appreciation of who they are that we can forgive ourselves at a deep and meaningful emotional level. It opens the door of our prison, the one we do not see we are in.

Are you familiar with the work of Alice Miller? Certainly she would argue that the expectation of forgiveness halts the ability to recover from trauma.

 

[ch33zw1z]

How do you explain guilt and shame?

If everyone has the same root motivation to altruism, I don't think anyone here has come close to it.

I think that if it helps to attach it to an external framework, this is not a fault in my mind.

How would you define guilt and shame?

IMO, guilt and shame are based on perceived moral constructs, and many of those are learned while we grow.

What's deemed acceptable morally has changed frequently and greatly through human history.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lol, ok...whatever. again, you think you really know me....it's obvious you dont. I never claimed to know everything.

Show me a reasonable train of thought proving your beliefs, that doesn't end in faith, and we can continue.

IRL, I am very open to anyone believing what they wish, with the caveat being it doesn't negatively affect the world around them. In fact, it's typically Christians who are the most abrasive, and feel like it's their duty to force salvation on as many people as possible.

I'm not here trying change anyone's mind, I pose the questions I do because everyone should think about it and decide what they want.

Who are you but an evangelist with no Christ? You are no different...yet you apparently perceive you are and a better person for it. Is a "good" person really better than those they perceive to be lesser?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's an all too common and all too transparent argument that anyone opposing the insanity of religion is "just as bad" as the crazies they criticize. No, their ignorance is not just as good as our knowledge. No, their lunacy is not just as good as our reason. Anyone suggesting otherwise implicitly acknowledges the failure of religion to deliver in the marketplace of ideas but wants to justify their purchase to themselves anyway. It's nothing more than sour grapes to cover for buyers remorse.

 

[Moonbeam]

Total horse shit. Nobody's free will was deprived when we were convinced of the existence of the distant planets or microscopic organisms or any other actually existent thing. You're just parroting a bullshit apologist argument without considering it critically.

Who is trying to bullshit whom. I don't believe in distant planets or microscopic organisms or any of your other crap. Nobody is going to fuck with my free will. And besides, all the people who do believe that do so of their own free will. Anybody who takes compelling data for their best opinion does so because they freely admit that compelling is a good reason to believe. You are persuaded by the benefits that reason provides, the tremendous advances in science, etc, that reason provides. You know the value of reason via your own experience of it, by consciously reasoning. Perhaps the reason you don't see a God is because you have never experienced a God conscious state. You keep looking with tools by which nothing will ever be found.



What would some idiot that's mistaken marbles for gum balls all his life know about the real thing. What kind of dunce would allow himself to be told by Christians who God is and then have the gall to claim how superior his reason is.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Who are you but an evangelist with no Christ? You are no different...yet you apparently perceive you are and a better person for it. Is a "good" person really better than those they perceive to be lesser?

You make more assertions like you know me.

I'm no evangelist. You won't catch me going door to door, handing our pamphlets, or preaching on television.

I made no assertion that I think I'm better than others.

Again...call it like I see it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you familiar with the work of Alice Miller? Certainly she would argue that the expectation of forgiveness halts the ability to recover from trauma.

Nope, not familiar with her. I can make a stab at what she might mean but I will try to find out for myself.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You make more assertions like you know me.

I'm no evangelist. You won't catch me going door to door, handing our pamphlets, or preaching on television.

I made no assertion that I think I'm better than others.

Again...call it like I see it.

If you indeed do not perceive your beliefs to be more rational than those of Christians then I'm sorry for wasting your time.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you familiar with the work of Alice Miller? Certainly she would argue that the expectation of forgiveness halts the ability to recover from trauma.

Looked her up and was pleased to see that, as expected, she is aware of the danger of forgiveness as a means to deny deeper feelings. The kind of forgiveness I spoke of doesn't come cheap. It requires the terror and rage of acknowledging ones true feelings. Only after that is done, only with self knowledge of how one was made to be sick, seeing the utter sickness and unconsciousness of all of the participants, can one realize that everything that has happened to us is neither our fault or the fault of anybody else. People who are unconscious can't be blamed for the sins they commit. You can neither forgive prematurely nor hold a grudge when you see the true nature of what happened. Forgiveness isn't something you do but proceeds automatically with understanding.

The issue is that reacting to unconscious feelings damages the psyche of others whereas the therapeutic effort to uncover unconscious negative feelings is healing.

 

[sandorski]

...no, he didn't. I just explained why he didn't. He was referring to the commands he was about to give, which often went against the letter of the OT law, as what needed to be obeyed. Did you miss that part of my post? Because you didn't address it.



I'm pretty sure you've never designed a sapient being before. Which would you prefer, for God to force all of humanity to worship him, or to give everyone a choice?

Why the fuck is that the Choice?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why the fuck is that the Choice?

Because God wants to torture at least SOME people in the lake of fire for all eternity.

But don't forget that He loves you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't believe in distant planets or microscopic organisms or any of your other crap. Nobody is going to fuck with my free will.

Yeah ok, I should've known any engagement with you would be futile. That's my mistake.

 

[MajinCry]

...no, he didn't. I just explained why he didn't. He was referring to the commands he was about to give, which often went against the letter of the OT law, as what needed to be obeyed. Did you miss that part of my post? Because you didn't address it.

Just for you, I'll read through all of Matthew. Let's get this figured it out. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV

By and by, you're completely wrong. You're making up context.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Law is the Old Testament. It's a direct translation of Torah. Torah == Law in Ancient Hebrew. Whenever "Law" is referenced, it's the commandments of the Old Testament that are being referenced. To reinforce this, he specifically mentions the Pharisees.

The Pharisees being Jews that explicitly followed every commandment of the Old Testament, and in that same breath, Jesus says that you will not enter the kingdom until you adhere to the commandments better than them. Unless you follow the OT, you won't be going to Heaven; by not following a commandment, you have sinned, which condemns you to hellfire.

The earlier chapters of Matthew 5 are just an autobiography of Jesus.

I'll continue reading on, but your assertion that he's talking about a different "Law" is just you making stuff up.

 

[hal2kilo]

Because God wants to torture at least SOME people in the lake of fire for all eternity.

But don't forget that He loves you.

This is the very argument that made me just sit there is sunday school and role my eyes. Finally, released of this nonsense when I was finally given the choice of going at all when I was eighteen.

Edit: But I know Jesus loves me, cause the Bible tells me so.

 

[Red Hawk]

Jesus set forth the necessary and sufficient conditions for entering the kingdom of heaven, and it he made no mention of grace nor faith, so bullshit.

There's a whole theological discussion to this, but I doubt you're interested.

A choice? Worship me or I will burn you for infinity? That is a choice?

Kind of makes one choice seem much better than the other, doesn't it?

I know. They do it for swag and bragging rights in heaven. That was my initial post where the Christian apologist did an entire web page explaining the reason for good works was to get extra swag in heaven so that Heaven could have a caste system like we have here on earth.

No, they don't. I don't necessarily agree with the "apologist" you linked to, but actually looking at the page you linked to, he's not claiming to speak for all Christians or anything. He's making a theological argument, and he even admits that not all Christians agree with this viewpoint. And nowhere on that web page does he talk about different classes or castes in Heaven, that's you putting words in the writer's mouth.

Just for you, I'll read through all of Matthew. Let's get this figured it out. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV

By and by, you're completely wrong. You're making up context.

The Law is the Old Testament. It's a direct translation of Torah. Torah == Law in Ancient Hebrew. Whenever "Law" is referenced, it's the commandments of the Old Testament that are being referenced. To reinforce this, he specifically mentions the Pharisees.

The Pharisees being Jews that explicitly followed every commandment of the Old Testament, and in that same breath, Jesus says that you will not enter the kingdom until you adhere to the commandments better than them. Unless you follow the OT, you won't be going to Heaven; by not following a commandment, you have sinned, which condemns you to hellfire.

The earlier chapters of Matthew 5 are just an autobiography of Jesus.

I'll continue reading on, but your assertion that he's talking about a different "Law" is just you making stuff up.

It's almost amusing how you are completely missing the point of the passage. Jesus mentions the Pharisees to emphasize how difficult it is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by your own righteousness. Verse 19, the one with the directive to follow "these commandments", does not mention the Law. And again, in the context of what he's saying, it makes no sense for him to mean follow the OT law to the letter. Matthew 5:1 through 7:29 is a single continuous address.

5:1-2:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

And 7:28-29:

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes

And in that continuous message, he hits point after point that contradicts OT law. For example, from 5:38-42:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Which is explicitly in contradiction to Deuteronomy 19:21:

Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

So we've established that:

--Jesus is not necessarily talking about the Law as "these commandments" in verse 5:19.
--Jesus directly contradicts the Law in 5:38-42.
--Both are in the context of the same sermon.

With that in mind, it would be exceedingly obtuse to insist that Jesus was referring to the OT Law when he said "these commandments" and thus was saying that OT law must be followed to the letter in 5:19. The only interpretation consistent with Jesus' own words is that "these commandments" was in reference to the sayings he was about to give.

 

[MajinCry]

It's almost amusing how you are completely missing the point of the passage. Jesus mentions the Pharisees to emphasize how difficult it is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by your own righteousness. Verse 19, the one with the directive to follow "these commandments", does not mention the Law. And again, in the context of what he's saying, it makes no sense for him to mean follow the OT law to the letter. Matthew 5:1 through 7:29 is a single continuous address.

You're making up context that isn't there, and are completely removing context from the verse, in lieu of your fabrication. I'm addressing the additional commandments he made, up to 5:32 at the mo', and he's not made any contradiction thus far. Hold your horses, I'm taking all the context into consideration seeing as how you aren't. But I'll look at what you've quoted.

5:1-2:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

And 7:28-29:

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes

They're surprised that they're being taught commandments first hand, rather than through prophets and such. That doesn't supersede the OT at all. You're explicitly nullifying that whole monologue from Paul, by the way, if you're giving Jesus more authority over the Law than others.

And in that continuous message, he hits point after point that contradicts OT law. For example, from 5:38-42:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Which is explicitly in contradiction to Deuteronomy 19:21:

Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

That doesn't invalidate Deuteronomy at all. You're taking that verse out of context.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 19

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime

17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time.

18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite,

19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.

20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.

21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Jesus is talking about those who wrong you. Deuteronomy is about making false witnesses undergo what they clamored for the other party. You've taken Deuteronomy out of context.

So we've established that:

--Jesus is not necessarily talking about the Law as "these commandments" in verse 5:19.
--Jesus directly contradicts the Law in 5:38-42.
--Both are in the context of the same sermon.

With that in mind, it would be exceedingly obtuse to insist that Jesus was saying that OT law must be followed to the letter in 5:19. He just doesn't.

1. Yes he is.

2. No he doesn't.

3. Your assertions are not.

You're being dishonest, taking verses out of context to justify your preconceptions. That's a dangerous game to play.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There's a whole theological discussion to this, but I doubt you're interested.

No, there isn't. There's only elaborate mental gymnastics that attempt to pile on a bunch of unnecessary bullshit to keep the church leaders in power, and simpletons like you just lap it up and beg for more.

 

[bshole]

No, they don't. I don't necessarily agree with the "apologist" you linked to, but actually looking at the page you linked to, he's not claiming to speak for all Christians or anything. He's making a theological argument, and he even admits that not all Christians agree with this viewpoint. And nowhere on that web page does he talk about different classes or castes in Heaven, that's you putting words in the writer's mouth.
.

You are correct that he didn't directly state it. I inferred it. If you are in plane of existence where some humans have more "treasures" than others then you have a caste system and you have greed and you have materialism. The concept of giving people more material possessions for eternity sounds more like a capitalist system that appeals to one greed.... is greed good in some contexts?

 

[MajinCry]

@Red Hawk

Right, let's look at these supposed commandments that follow, that you say invalidate the OT.

Murder
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a]">[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’

This isn't a commandment. He's prefacing his next sentence, by saying "You have heard that some people were told xyz". He doesn't even say that it was said by God, but that some people were just told that by...Someone or some people.

What you're insinuating, is that breaking a commandment no longer involves you being killed. That's false; murder is an unjust killing. A just killing would be in accordance to the commandments.

Next.

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterb]">c]">[c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d]">[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

So if your sibling does something evil, and you are not okay with that, you are going to hell. If you publicly condemn them (e.g, if Jimmy Saville's brother wasn't an evil shit, and denounced him), you're going to hell.

This isn't loving. That's evil. Next.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

So if someone takes issue with you, roll over and do whatever they say. So if a man wants to rape you, and will not change his mind, let him do it. How loving. Next.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

If you see an attractive woman, gouge out your eyes. If you masturbate to the thought of her, cut off your right hand. Jesus is fuckin' gnarly. I rather like the sentiment, of having potentially rapacious lads mutilating themselves, but this is far more draconian. Got a crush? Time to make yourself blind.

Not exactly loving, eh? Next.

Divorce
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Great, women are broken goods. The husband will be killed if he divorces her, and the woman and her new partner will be killed if she remarries. The solution? Don't let your wife divorce you. Easy to do, as many abusive men in relationships have shown.

33-38 Talks about oaths. Far as I know, there is no possible way of making this into some invalidation of an OT law.

Just covered 38-42 in my previous post: you completely took it out of context; the victim is to comply with what the false witness wants, and is to not fight back. Meanwhile, the judges are to create a suitable penance for the false witness. If you read the whole chapter, you'd know that.

I suspect you did, but you want to pick and choose, and throw context to the wind, to justify your falsehoods.

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

These verses do not absolve detractors from adherence to the commandments. It just isn't there. You can love someone, and still seek "justice" (punishment in accordance to the commandments that they broke). Otherwise, you're disobeying God.



At no point has the OT been invalidated. You're simply lying. Do you have other verses to justify your claim? Because, so far, the verses you provided have proven the opposite.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah ok, I should've known any engagement with you would be futile. That's my mistake.

Yes and you picked the part of my post that mirrored back to you your own stupid beliefs, as if not believing in an impossibly stupid notion of God and flattering yourself as being rational for it is any less gullible than believing in it literally.

You have progressed to the astoundingly advance state that the God so many believe is is totally preposterous conception and from that conclude that no God at all can exist. Nobody can prove that one is three or five so lets ignore that one may exist. You can't prove to a rock that you're sad or to the blind there's a color we call red. Knowledge of God requires a knowledge of the science of states of awareness, and about which you know next to nothing. Any engagement with you is impossible because of your abysmal state of ignorance.

I don't really care, you understand, but you can be so arrogant with your certainty I can barely tell you from the religious.

 

[Red Hawk]

You're making up context that isn't there, and are completely removing context from the verse, in lieu of your fabrication. I'm addressing the additional commandments he made, up to 5:32 at the mo', and he's not made any contradiction thus far. Hold your horses, I'm taking all the context into consideration seeing as how you aren't. But I'll look at what you've quoted.

I'm making up context? So you disagree that the context is a single sermon from chapter 5 through 7?

They're surprised that they're being taught commandments first hand, rather than through prophets and such. That doesn't supersede the OT at all. You're explicitly nullifying that whole monologue from Paul, by the way, if you're giving Jesus more authority over the Law than others.

My point was not their surprise, my point was to show that chapters 5 through 7 is a single sermon. Not sure why this seems beyond your comprehension.

That doesn't invalidate Deuteronomy at all. You're taking that verse out of context.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 19

Jesus is talking about those who wrong you. Deuteronomy is about making false witnesses undergo what they clamored for the other party. You've taken Deuteronomy out of context.

And it still ends up making a general statement about retaliation. "You must purge the evil from among you". Jesus' wording is specifically meant to evoke that passage from Deuteronomy, and he delivers a contradictory commandment

1. Yes he is.

2. No he doesn't.

3. Your assertions are not.

You're being dishonest, taking verses out of context to justify your preconceptions. That's a dangerous game to play.

I guess we've found that you're exceedingly obtuse, then. At this point I'm pretty sure you're debating in bad faith and thus there's not a whole lot of point in continuing the discussion.

 

[MajinCry]

I'm being obtuse? You're the one that just poo-poo'd the arguments away, and are fixating on just parts of verses from completely different parts of the book, and saying "See? Invalidated". You really have to read more than just one line.

Concerning the context of the verses, stop being fatuous. I covered that already; you're taking snippets of verses, taking them out of context, and making a completely new meaning for them. Stop trying to warp the book to your preconceived notions, and actually read what is written.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread has merit. It shows that most people have real hate here. Well the Christians are already here. Let's ban the Muslims from coming in because they tend to be devout. I mean let's be fair and join in with Trump and hate them too. Fair is fair.

What enlightenment we find here.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This thread has merit. It shows that most people have real hate here. Well the Christians are already here. Let's ban the Muslims from coming in because they tend to be devout. I mean let's be fair and join in with Trump and hate them too. Fair is fair.

What enlightenment we find here.

What world do you live in where "your ideas are nonsense" equals "you don't have a right to be here"?