4 ms·

If only this quote also convinced the Church to never do the opposite - accepting Jesus as God but ignoring his moral teachings in favor of more vindictive, spi

If only this quote also convinced the Church to never do the opposite - accepting Jesus as God but ignoring his moral teachings in favor of more vindictive, spiteful ones from the OT or Paul or whoever else.

nicoburns 3y ago
One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority. I can somewhat understand people wanting to reach for a supernatural explanation for the creation of the world: I don't personally find "God" a satisfactory explanation, but I also don't really have a better one. But I really struggle to understand why they would then defer to that creator's (supposed) moral teachings. It's really a completely separate belief to the belief of god as a creator, but the two are often combined into one question of whether one "believes in god".
- troupe 3y ago
  Perhaps the reason the two things are conflated is because there is an assumption that if you knew God exists, your choice wouldn't be to choose to reject doing what he commands. But as you point out that, that is an assumption that isn't necessarily true.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad". Catholics throughout history have written about it in depth (sometimes like REALLY in depth). It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness. Darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God. Therefore, God is good. Too bad we believers have done such a terrible and easy to criticize job of being Christlike. I can't blame anyone for saying Christianity has too much baggage for them to even want to believe.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    I've long had a notion that Christianity should be refactored to be spiritual rather than authoritarian. It's clear that people are wired for worship (for those of no faith, we have celebrities). I liken it to atomic power, potentially beneficial when properly harnessed, or horribly destructive when weaponized.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >for those of no faith, we have celebrities No, we don't. I know this is commonly bandied about as a truism but no one actually worships celebrities in the same way, or for the same purpose, as the religious worshiping deity, except maybe serial killers.
      - pstuart 3y ago
        I was being mildly flippant, but my point is that we want to "look up". And of course celebrities don't threaten you with eternal torture if you don't love them and do what they say, so it's definitely a bit more lighthearted engagement.
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        I believe their point is that humans want an object of devotion in some capacity, religious or otherwise. People LOVE Elon Musk because he's the personality of the microera and while they wouldn't go as far as deifying him, they might consider him better than "regular people". In theological terms we have an infinite capacity for desire, designed that way by God because we were created to be in communion with him, an infinite being. If you are not "filling the gap" with faith, you'll fill it with something else. If you were created to loudly proclaim the gospel, but lose faith, maybe you loudly proclaim whatever you think the world needs to know about your favorite celebrity.
        krapp 3y ago
        Like a lot of religious people, you seem to assume that anyone who doesn't believe in God, as you understand God, has some void in their life they are desperate to fill. The truth is, there are such people both within Christianity and without, and religion can be as much an addiction as heroin, and relationships with God, for those who believe, can be as parasocial as with any celebrity. Nevertheless, many irreligious people are nonetheless perfectly happy, self-actualized and fulfilled without any religion whatsoever.
- gary_0 3y ago
  Especially once you throw the Problem of Evil in there ("Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?") But monotheistic religion is so bothered with God being an ultimate moral authority (beyond just being omnipotent) that it must perform some scary mental gymnastics to reconcile this, which usually goes thusly: evil and suffering are part of God's Plan. Evil serves some purpose that will be revealed in heaven or whatever, so its existence can be tolerated (when it would be inconvenient not to). That's a dangerous place to be. Children slowly dying of cancer, or being murdered in war, for example, can't matter on some ultimate moral level because God allowed it to happen, and anyways they're all happy in heaven now. Any horrifying thing can be handwaved away by religion as not mattering, because otherwise that would mean God messed up. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thinking, either. Political ideology or secular morality can also condone unspeakable things "for the greater good" or because "that's just the way it is". I really think it shouldn't be some bizarre stance that all uncommon suffering is unequivocally bad, but here we are.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority. Aquinas gave a summary in the 1200s: Article 1. Whether God is good?; Article 2. Whether God is the supreme good?; Article 3. Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone? * https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm The late Michael F. Flynn wrote a decent summary of the argument in his five-part series laying out Aristotle's first way argument about the Unmoved Mover: * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-background.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-backgrou... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.h... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-lemmas-make-lemma.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-l... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-kahuna.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca... The Creator also being All-good is in Part IV (Theorem 9).

nicoburns 3y ago

One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority. I can somewhat understand people wanting to reach for a supernatural explanation for the creation of the world: I don't personally find "God" a satisfactory explanation, but I also don't really have a better one. But I really struggle to understand why they would then defer to that creator's (supposed) moral teachings. It's really a completely separate belief to the belief of god as a creator, but the two are often combined into one question of whether one "believes in god".

troupe 3y ago
Perhaps the reason the two things are conflated is because there is an assumption that if you knew God exists, your choice wouldn't be to choose to reject doing what he commands. But as you point out that, that is an assumption that isn't necessarily true.
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad". Catholics throughout history have written about it in depth (sometimes like REALLY in depth). It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness. Darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God. Therefore, God is good. Too bad we believers have done such a terrible and easy to criticize job of being Christlike. I can't blame anyone for saying Christianity has too much baggage for them to even want to believe.
- pstuart 3y ago
  I've long had a notion that Christianity should be refactored to be spiritual rather than authoritarian. It's clear that people are wired for worship (for those of no faith, we have celebrities). I liken it to atomic power, potentially beneficial when properly harnessed, or horribly destructive when weaponized.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >for those of no faith, we have celebrities No, we don't. I know this is commonly bandied about as a truism but no one actually worships celebrities in the same way, or for the same purpose, as the religious worshiping deity, except maybe serial killers.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      I was being mildly flippant, but my point is that we want to "look up". And of course celebrities don't threaten you with eternal torture if you don't love them and do what they say, so it's definitely a bit more lighthearted engagement.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      I believe their point is that humans want an object of devotion in some capacity, religious or otherwise. People LOVE Elon Musk because he's the personality of the microera and while they wouldn't go as far as deifying him, they might consider him better than "regular people". In theological terms we have an infinite capacity for desire, designed that way by God because we were created to be in communion with him, an infinite being. If you are not "filling the gap" with faith, you'll fill it with something else. If you were created to loudly proclaim the gospel, but lose faith, maybe you loudly proclaim whatever you think the world needs to know about your favorite celebrity.
      - krapp 3y ago
        Like a lot of religious people, you seem to assume that anyone who doesn't believe in God, as you understand God, has some void in their life they are desperate to fill. The truth is, there are such people both within Christianity and without, and religion can be as much an addiction as heroin, and relationships with God, for those who believe, can be as parasocial as with any celebrity. Nevertheless, many irreligious people are nonetheless perfectly happy, self-actualized and fulfilled without any religion whatsoever.
gary_0 3y ago
Especially once you throw the Problem of Evil in there ("Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?") But monotheistic religion is so bothered with God being an ultimate moral authority (beyond just being omnipotent) that it must perform some scary mental gymnastics to reconcile this, which usually goes thusly: evil and suffering are part of God's Plan. Evil serves some purpose that will be revealed in heaven or whatever, so its existence can be tolerated (when it would be inconvenient not to). That's a dangerous place to be. Children slowly dying of cancer, or being murdered in war, for example, can't matter on some ultimate moral level because God allowed it to happen, and anyways they're all happy in heaven now. Any horrifying thing can be handwaved away by religion as not mattering, because otherwise that would mean God messed up. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thinking, either. Political ideology or secular morality can also condone unspeakable things "for the greater good" or because "that's just the way it is". I really think it shouldn't be some bizarre stance that all uncommon suffering is unequivocally bad, but here we are.
throw0101b 3y ago
> One of the things I find strangest about religion is the acceptance of God not only as the creator of the world, but as a moral authority. Aquinas gave a summary in the 1200s: Article 1. Whether God is good?; Article 2. Whether God is the supreme good?; Article 3. Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone? * https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm The late Michael F. Flynn wrote a decent summary of the argument in his five-part series laying out Aristotle's first way argument about the Unmoved Mover: * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-background.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-backgrou... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.h... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-lemmas-make-lemma.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/09/first-way-part-ii-two-l... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-kahuna.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/first-way-part-iii-big-... * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca... The Creator also being All-good is in Part IV (Theorem 9).