Are You Only "Good" Because You Are Afraid Of Being "Bad"?

[Stroopwafel]

No. IMO, there are generally three broad motives for a person to obey a commandment from God: 1) Fear of Punishment; 2) Desire for Reward; and 3) Because the Person Loves God.

[...]

If heaven and hell are "only man-made concepts," then so is "good" and "bad." So your question doesn't really make sense.

[...]

But "justice" would be just as much a fabrication as "right" and "wrong."

How do you quantify a "mistake" where "right" and "wrong" do not exist?

[...]

We are already headed that way, and that's with good people of conscience - including religionists - struggling against that trend.

A nonsensical claim, given that your paradigm calls for the abolishment of the concept of "good."

[...]

That to me seems to indicate a belief that notions such as "good", "bad" or "just" cannot be conceptualized without an appeal to a divine authority.

But I'd like to ask, in the case where there would be no God, what could be the measure, the standard for those notions? Do you think there could actually be any justifiable concept of "good", "bad" or "just" at all?

[rodheadlee]

My belief is that if the elimination of all dogmatic belief occurred, that the world would not melt down into anarchy of selfishness and sin. In other words, I believe that the vast majority of people are good because they like how it feels better than being bad. Only a very few are so messed up that they are dangerously bad.

So the "job" of religion is largely redundant, and most of us fear needlessly because of religious inculcation in childhood....

I reject this statement. I know many people who enjoy being bad, taking advantage of others whenever possible. One only need to look at 3rd world countries where donations to the poor wind up in a dictators bank account. Everybody has an agenda and it usually is to work out to their advantage. I believe true charity of the heart is almost a lost virtue. Absolute power corrupts absolutely is not just a saying.

[smac97]

That to me seems to indicate a belief that notions such as "good", "bad" or "just" cannot be conceptualized without an appeal to a divine authority.

Without God, these concepts become entirely arbitrary.

But I'd like to ask, in the case where there would be no God, what could be the measure, the standard for those notions?

The measure would be ... force. That's all. Whomever has the most power gets to make the rules, In a godless paradigm, Chairman Mao's observation is, sadly, correct: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Do you think there could actually be any justifiable concept of "good", "bad" or "just" at all?

Nope.

I teach courses on the law at a local university. I teach a course on legal research every semester, which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provide the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I ask the class to give me three examples of conduct that is malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, for the past four years, I have received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes vary ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts are always volunteered by students.

I then ask my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

My personal opinion, never shared in class (it's a state school, after all), is that the legal concept of malum in se is one of the purest evidences of God, and of the Light of Christ. Try as we might, secularists just cannot explain away the innate sense of "right" and "wrong" that exists in all but the most depraved of us. We know, in our heart of hearts, that certain things are "wrong" or "evil," such as murder, rape and theft. We also know, in equally unprovable and unarticulated terms, that certain things are "good" or "right," such as the feeling a parent has when tucking blankets around his sleeping child (as I did last night).

Without God, "good" cannot exist. Just look at the definition of the term: "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious." Good cannot be defined without morals, virtue, right and piety. These terms, without God, are left to the definitions of whomever has the most power. That is arbitrary.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Walden]

Where do the concepts of "good" and "bad" come from, if not from religion?

What exactly is religion good for, in your view? Do you believe that we need religion for anything?

As an atheist, I have already embraced the sentiment that "heaven and hell [are] only man-made concepts, that you can in fact do whatever you want to, tomorrow, the day after that, forever, and nothing is going to happen to you permanently, i.e. no "final judgment".....and you know what, I have not since gone out on a raping and pillaging spree. In fact, my lifestyle has changed little since I left belief behind, though I am more proactive in many facets of my life than I was as a believer, due to the fact that I am now convinced that this life is the one shot that we get, there is nothing more.

Sky asks the question, "Where do the concepts of "good" and "bad" come from, if not from religion?" Actually, according to evolutionary biology, the concepts of "good" and "bad", or more simply, ethics and/or morality, are the result of evolutionary mechanisms that have wired our modern society to seek sets of self-perpetuating and ideologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Essentially, the concepts of good and bad are ingrained in our social order as a means to ensure the survival of our species, and these types of concepts were prevalent long before religion entered the scene. In a nutshell, the things that we classify as "moral" or "good" are generally those things that provide possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Human cooperation, codified in our moral order or our collective sense of "good" and "bad", helps to ensure the survival of our species.

If "good" and "bad" are only concepts that can be derived from religion, how does one explain the cooperation displayed by any number of social animals, from ants to wolves to apes. In many "societies" of numerous social animals, it has been observed that animals do display empathy, and that there are even punishments for individual animals within the community who act out in a manner that threatens the communities stability (as observed in numerous primate societies). For more on this topic, here is an interesting article: http://www.onekind.org/be_inspired/animal_sentience/empathy/empathy_in_chimpanzees/

Regarding the question, "What exactly is religion good for, in your view? Do you believe that we need religion for anything?" Religion is good at providing a certain sense of comfort for those things that are "unknowable", such as death, the meaning of life, etc. I do not contend that religion provides insights into these things, but instead, a certain level of comfort to those who fear such things or ponder those things that are unknowable. Religious institutions also provide a nice outlet for socialization for like-minded individuals, a sense of community.

[Questing Beast]

Oddly, the examiners of my PhD thesis expressed unanimous approval of my 'historical view', but of course it may be that somehow you know more than they do.

Which "piece" of history are you talking about? I am speaking in general trend terms, the world as a whole going back as far as we have knowledge of. Your picture of village vs village, and destroying crops/fields, and spiking heads and eating enemies, etc., is barbarism at its worst, and no civilization could emerge from that, much less anyone live for very long under such conditions. But civilization could be melting down and result in that kind of anarchy, only for a little while, before everything in that afflicted region died out.

If you're going to engage in history, I suggest you may want to contextualise your statements. Where and when are you speaking about? Or have you assumed that 'Christianisation' has been a monolithic process at all times and in all places? I must admit that I'm rather skeptical of your claim of 'absolute control' for any specific location/time period, but until I know the context, I'm in no position to critique such a claim.

That's ironic, since you offered a clear, specifically detailed picture of a slice of history without any context at all.

How about when Christianity became the state religion? "Absolute control" does not mean absolute power. But in case after case, the RCC did implement total control in the end. Right up till the Reformation. No dangerous heresy was allowed to survive. The war might take a generation or even more but the Church Militant always came out on top, and this went on for well over a millennium.

I know several hundred Christians who are grateful to be able to leave their houses each Sunday to walk to church without fear of their heads ending up as trophies, and I rather suspect they're appreciative of all those around them who have sacrificed their 'individual religions' in order to conform to the dogma 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Again, cryptic and without context, after asking me for context. Is this some sort of "twenty questions" game you want me to play with you until I guess the right place and time?...

[bluebell]

I'm definitely afraid of being bad.

I don't like to suffer and i've had enough people in my life who have made bad choices to know that when you make them, the consequences are not fun. Even if they aren't guaranteed, the risk has never seemed worth it for me.

(and just to be clear, i'm talking about consequences in this life.)

Life's hard enough without purposefuly choosing things that can/will cause suffering.

[Questing Beast]

You are vastly overrating the influence of the Catholic Church through history. At no point did it have absolute power or anything approaching it. It did not control the state either.

The state worked for the Church more often than not. That's how the "Inquisition" got powered up. When you have one dogma that is allowed as truth everyone else has to either believe "heresy" in silence or run the very real risk of attracting that deadly attention. When the church and state are effectively the same thing, as often was the case, then the reward for defending the dominant paradigm creates a society of fear, and that often results in absolute power. Did it endure monolithically? No. But in those places and times where the church/state enforced the official religion rigorously you got punished if you were a "heretic"....

[Questing Beast]

Where do the concepts of "good" and "bad" come from, if not from religion?

What exactly is religion good for, in your view? Do you believe that we need religion for anything?

How about "the light of Christ which is in every man"? That is enough to influence good far more than bad, all by itself. Religion is just a power to be abused. I think that the best use for religion is cooperative effort in serving others. Laying down dogma as truth, and worse, exclusive absolute truth, is counterproductive....

[The Nehor]

The state worked for the Church more often than not. That's how the "Inquisition" got powered up. When you have one dogma that is allowed as truth everyone else has to either believe "heresy" in silence or run the very real risk of attracting that deadly attention. When the church and state are effectively the same thing, as often was the case, then the reward for defending the dominant paradigm creates a society of fear, and that often results in absolute power. Did it endure monolithically? No. But in those places and times where the church/state enforced the official religion rigorously you got punished if you were a "heretic"....

In reality the State and the Church were always competing for power. The monolithic church you describe that had the power of life and death could not in reality usually punish people singing dirty songs about the pope.

[Questing Beast]

This problematic has been considered and thought about a lot since at least the time Nietzsche pronounced the words "God is dead" and wondered what is Beyond Good and Evil.

Some existentialist philosophers have since considered how man could find his place in this world where, if indeed there is no God, there would not seem to be any kind of anchor for one's actions. Would it automatically mean that everything goes? Certainly not! For example, there could be meaning found in the relationship human beings have with each other.

Man would be faced with a tremendous responsibility. He is free to act, so how will he go about it? As a certain mister Sartre once said (I translate loosely here): "man is condemned to be free".

Personnaly, I don't think there are much people around who really want bad things. Bad and good things/acts are measured against certain standards, so if these standards change, then the things/acts that are labelled good or bad would as well, at least to some extent. Still, I do believe there are certain acts that will always be bad/evil. So I guess I would keep what the Church brought to my life and try to add to it (which is what I'm actually doing anyways...). What would change maybe would be the absence of guilt when one has shortcomings, and instead of having the reflex to see oneself as unworthy and dwell on imperfections, there would be a sense to do better and realize that falling one time does not make someone bad right away. But then, I think the result of a total absence of guilt would be terrible, as we know how humanity can behave when at least some guilt is not around. Anyways. Also, I think another interesting approach to life would be the Ancients' view on how one should live and their concept of virtue (see Aristotle).

"Hamba Tuhan" illustrated a benighted culture where the men use the little boys as sex slaves. It is ironic that you mention Aristotle, champion of "virtue", whose culture included the very same practice.

You are correct in pointing out that different conditions define "good and bad". But according to our species' "inner light", which our religion teaches is "the light of Christ", over process of time those aberrant practices are eventually viewed for what they are and are abandoned and even punished. If the whole people of the Earth could pass judgment right now on the evils done in certain places by an extreme minority, we would be in consensus about what is "good and bad", but the difficulty would still be what is just punishment....

Edited February 14, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

...

If heaven and hell are "only man-made concepts," then so is "good" and "bad." So your question doesn't really make sense.

You are resorting to false logic. "Heaven and hell" are dogmatic assertions. "Good and bad" are demonstrated every moment of every single day all over this planet. Atheists define "good and bad" largely the same way that religious people do, without even a slight belief in the possibility of "heaven or hell".

...

But "justice" would be just as much a fabrication as "right" and "wrong."

How do you quantify a "mistake" where "right" and "wrong" do not exist?

Your false logic continues: just because a proposition is advanced that the concepts of "heaven and hell" are man-made and manipulative, this does not presume that "right and wrong" and "justice" are equally fabrications. We see all three at work in our midst constantly, and without the least reference to "heaven and hell" required.

...

We are already headed that way, and that's with good people of conscience - including religionists - struggling against that trend.

...

Really, the world is headed toward Korihor's paradigm then? How do you account for the increase in good things that is taking place? Oh, I guess you don't see those....

Edited February 14, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am speaking in general trend terms, the world as a whole going back as far as we have knowledge of.

I know, and yet you are basing your 'general trend' upon a single church, the Roman Catholic Church, in Europe (and then only parts of it) immediately preceding the Protestant Reformation. Not only is this not an accurate image of Christianity (or any other 'dogmatic' religion) for the whole world 'going back as far as we have knowledge of'; it is not, as The Nehor has helpfully already suggested, a historically accurate depiction of the RCC at any point of its history in Europe or anywhere else.

Which "piece" of history are you talking about? ... Again, cryptic and without context.

I provided you with enough context to demonstrate that I was not making sweeping generalisations but rather statements belonging to a specific time and place:

In my corner of the world, before 'dogmatic' religion arrived.

I'm happy to elaborate: in many of the islands of what is now northeastern Indonesia in the 16th century, though also in many other islands in Melanesia/Polynesia much later in time. The socialisation of young boys into providing homosexual services to older men was especially widespread in parts of Melanesia and has only really disappeared in some areas in the last three decades or so as a direct consequence of Christianisation.

Your picture of village vs village, and destroying crops/fields, and spiking heads and eating enemies, etc., is barbarism at its worst, and no civilization could emerge from that, much less anyone live for very long under such conditions.

And yet they did. For many hundreds of years, quite possibly longer. Referring specifically to an area in which I have lived, David Henley has written: 'Endemic warfare, underpinned by hereditary feuds and by headhunting traditions with powerful ritual and religious overtones, prevailed in most parts of the region up to the establishment of Dutch rule'.

How exactly does one stop a cycle of such violence? No doubt there are several ways, but one that shines clearly through my research is specifically tied to dogma ... and to heaven and hell. People who live under conditions of feud-based endemic warfare may wish for peace, but the risk of seeking peace is too great: the first to lay down their weapons are simply slaughtered by their hereditary enemies. Enter Christianity, its commandment against killing, and its emphasis on seeking peace. Those who embraced the faith, however, still faced the exact same risk. If they chose to live according to their adopted beliefs, they were going to die. Which is what they did. Why? Because they had also adopted the hope of heaven, the fear of hell, and a confidence that there was a reward waiting for them. I've read 16th-century accounts of Christian converts who, when captured by their enemies, had bits of their flesh sliced off their legs and grilled in front of them before being consumed in their presence. And so once again the gospel of peace was sown in sorrow and watered with blood ... and specifically by courageous people who had their eyes on the heaven you wish to claim as man-made and useless for anything other than instilling some kind of debilitating fear.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Atheists define "good and bad" largely the same way that religious people do, without even a slight belief in the possibility of "heaven or hell".

In large part, that's because atheists have inherited their basic value systems from the faith traditions they now so proudly reject.

[smac97]

You are resorting to false logic. "Heaven and hell" are dogmatic assertions. "Good and bad" are demonstrated every moment of every single day all over this planet.

The concept of "heaven" is "dogmatic," but the concept of "good" is "demonstrated?" How does that work? How do you quantify "good?" How is it defined and measured?

Atheists define "good and bad" largely the same way that religious people do, without even a slight belief in the possibility of "heaven or hell."

Proving what? That there are no atheists in foxholes?

Differentiating "good" behavior from "bad" is an exercise in pointing to an authoritative arbiter. Without such an arbiter, there is no differentiation.

Your false logic continues: just because a proposition is advanced that the concepts of "heaven and hell" are man-made and manipulative, this does not presume that "right and wrong" and "justice" are equally fabrications.

Oh. So you get to dictate which concepts are fabricated and which are not.

Um, good luck with that.

We see all three at work in our midst constantly, and without the least reference to "heaven and hell" required.

We see what? You are presupposing the existence of "good," but you cannot define it.

Really, the world is headed toward Korihor's paradigm then?

The world is already in the thrall of Korihor's paradigm.

How do you account for the increase in good things that is taking place?

The Light of Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

Oh, I guess you don't see those....

To the contrary, I see them every day.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mbh26]

If the whole world woke up this morning knowing that heaven and hell were only man-made concepts, that you can in fact do whatever you want to, tomorrow, the day after that, forever, and nothing is going to happen to you permanently, i.e. no "final judgment" and consignment to "heaven" or "hell", would you still want good things or would you want bad things?

If there were no god nor ultimate justice, nor reciprocity, what is in fact a "good" thing for me as an invididual would change would it not?

If the entire historical edifice defining "good and bad" was stripped away and you had to define it for yourself, what would you judge by?

Whatever makes me happiest right now and in the future as adjusted for present value. What else could possibly matter? The survival of your genes? Perhaps that would be the ultimate value? If you're dead, what difference does it make to you that society is better off because of it? Without eternity, good and bad have no meaning.

I believe that the vast majority of people are good because they like how it feels better than being bad.

I think human beings are very good at lying to themselves and believing they are "good," when they are not.

[Flyonthewall]

I think a good place to look would be the animal world.

Yes, there would be groups that would be socially minded and work towards the good of the group, but for the most part it would be a dog eat dog world.

The strongest would be the leaders until someone stronger came along, or a group banded together and overthrew them.

Pecking orders would be prevelant and deference given to those higher in the pecking order.

Theft would not be a crime...oh yes people would grumble about it but the weak would give way to the strong.

Strangers to the group could be beaten or killed without punishment.

Marriage would be few and far between...raising a family would be a matriarchal affair for the most part as males would be sowing their wild oats...which seems to be more common right now.

That's my thoughts anyway...

[Stroopwafel]

"Hamba Tuhan" illustrated a benighted culture where the men use the little boys as sex slaves. It is ironic that you mention Aristotle, champion of "virtue", whose culture included the very same practice.

You are correct in pointing out that different conditions define "good and bad". But according to our species' "inner light", which our religion teaches is "the light of Christ", over process of time those aberrant practices are eventually viewed for what they are and are abandoned and even punished. If the whole people of the Earth could pass judgment right now on the evils done in certain places by an extreme minority, we would be in consensus about what is "good and bad", but the difficulty would still be what is just punishment....

I'm not exactly sure what I should think about you comparing the Ancient Greek culture with Hamba Tuhan's description of a barbaric people confined behind walls or in treetops, seemingly living in constant fear and violence. Though I can see the resemblance that made you draw that comparison, I still find this at best missing important nuances, and for now simply grotesque.

Now, in light of your making the connection between the Ancients' concept of virtue and Greek pederastry, I'd like to ask you to help me see how exactly you understand the word "virtue" in this context, and also say if you believe it differs from the concept I was intending and referring to. For the sake of good communication, I think this should make things clearer, and should also help avoid inappropriate referencing to concepts at hand, as well as tasteless comments in the future.

Regarding the light of Christ, you referred to its influence being felt over the process of time, resulting in aberrant practices eventually being abandoned and punished "for what they are". But isn't the light of Christ supposed to be "given to every man, that he may know good from evil"? Then how does your portraying of it as occuring over the process of time differ from, let say, Walden's approach to good and evil?

To quote part of his post:

...according to evolutionary biology, the concepts of "good" and "bad", or more simply, ethics and/or morality, are the result of evolutionary mechanisms that have wired our modern society to seek sets of self-perpetuating and ideologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation.

[Questing Beast]

... I know many people who enjoy being bad, taking advantage of others whenever possible. One only need to look at 3rd world countries where donations to the poor wind up in a dictators bank account. Everybody has an agenda and it usually is to work out to their advantage. I believe true charity of the heart is almost a lost virtue. Absolute power corrupts absolutely is not just a saying.

"Many" people? What estimated percentage do you think are "bad" people enjoying being "bad"? It would only take one percent to keep things stirred up for the other ninety nine percent. That's what laws are for, so that the vast majority of people who don't "enjoy being bad" can give those who do "time out". Your example in non sequitur in that the "dictators" constitute far less than even one percent, even counting their minions who do their bidding for they own reasons. Your view of the expanding world, via contact with today's instantaneous and intimate communications networks, appears very bleak, imho....

[Questing Beast]

...

Without God, "good" cannot exist. Just look at the definition of the term: "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious." Good cannot be defined without morals, virtue, right and piety. These terms, without God, are left to the definitions of whomever has the most power. That is arbitrary.

...

Why does a suggestion that "heaven and hell" do not exist automatically presume "no God"?

Where did I suggest that there is "no God"? Or that that is what I believe?

Interestingly, it seems that most of those responding believe in the "light of Christ" in every man, yet hold a view that the world is largely populated with "bad" people who enjoy being "bad", and that the "light" is going out all over the world. I propose that religious indoctrination in a belief of prophecy and the "last days" has corrupted the world view of many people for many generations. The reality, which is supported by evidence everywhere, cannot be seen through such a "dark glass" as a dogmatic belief in apocalyptic fulfillment. And the reality is and always has been that people, being manifestations of "God", are not ever disconnected from that Cause, and that is why we have advanced and continue to advance toward a more joyful, civilized cohabitation with each other in spite of cultural differences. We are capable of "seeing eye to eye" without any "help" from the "gods of our fathers". In fact, when we behave ecumenically toward each other, all religious differences become trivial and can easily be ignored. That is because we do agree in the main on what "justice" Is. Punishment is variable by cultural norms, but as the world continues to shrink through communication we are working out those differences of opinion through a lengthy process that is hastened in this day and age of instantaneous communication....

[sdc999]

My BIL and I had this conversation recently. He had a great response.

"If there would be no consequence (No God), I know three people that would be dead tomorrow."

[Questing Beast]

In reality the State and the Church were always competing for power. The monolithic church you describe that had the power of life and death could not in reality usually punish people singing dirty songs about the pope.

LOL! That was never a crime, only an impropriety. All Fools Day, in fact, was instituted in recognition of the fact that everyone held rude, disrespectful notions about those in power, especially religious power. Anyone could make fun of anyone on that day with complete impunity and immunity.

Since the Church's leadership often held the secular power as well, your separation into "competing for power" was always highly fractured. This played into making the Church more powerful, not less. By the 11th century "Rome" was on a definite campaign to become the eminent political power in Christendom. This was a very bad move and resulted in the Reformation through process of time. Perhaps the first really big mistake made by the popes was to back the Angevin cause in S. Italy and Sicily against the local inhabitants' wishes. So invested in its political stance did the Vatican become that it could not back out, yet it had backed the wrong horse, resorting eventually to declaring "crusade" against its enemies in Spain and their allies. Not long afterward, the Plague descended upon Europe and put the final nail in the coffin of "infallibility" doctrine, since the Church asserted that people dying so horribly were being struck down by God for wickedness. Yet anyone could see almost perfect people succumbing to the Black Death as readily as the wicked. The Church was politically corrupt, and now it was also without revelation, impugning innocent people as wicked and deserving of their sufferings. People lost all confidence in the Vicar of Christ and his priesthood. They didn't speak it aloud much, but the groundswell of rebellion was growing until it burst in the Religious Wars that liberated our ancestors from religious oppression. That momentum is continuing, as people reject dogmatic religion in favor of their own unique connection to "God".

People are not becoming less religious, they are increasing in religious curiosity and inquiry. That superstitions increase at the same time is inevitable, since "authority" has diminished in their eyes and all questions about God and Cause of Existence are back on the table. You need to trust people's innate sense of "right and wrong", since it has always been there and always will be....

Edited February 14, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Maidservant]

If the whole world woke up this morning knowing that heaven and hell were only man-made concepts, that you can in fact do whatever you want to, tomorrow, the day after that, forever, and nothing is going to happen to you permanently, i.e. no "final judgment" and consignment to "heaven" or "hell", would you still want good things or would you want bad things?

If the entire historical edifice defining "good and bad" was stripped away and you had to define it for yourself, what would you judge by?

I would continue as I am. Because I know my feelings steer me rightly toward that which is just. I make mistakes. But I correct them instantly, as I can, and never put off correction even for a moment of self indulgence. That is my paradigm of living by Justice.

But I allow that some people don't know good and bad, right and wrong, by their feelings alone. They are dark creatures, yet, and require guidance. And thus we have dogma in place, and the coercion that powers the dogma, otherwise known as religion.

My belief is that if the elimination of all dogmatic belief occurred, that the world would not melt down into anarchy of selfishness and sin. In other words, I believe that the vast majority of people are good because they like how it feels better than being bad. Only a very few are so messed up that they are dangerously bad.

So the "job" of religion is largely redundant, and most of us fear needlessly because of religious inculcation in childhood....

I don't use the word dogma a lot as it doesn't have a lot of meaning either way in my worldview. So I don't equate dogma with religion. What is your definition of dogma?

Because for me anyway, if you replace "dogma" with "teaching" then we can see that there is always "teaching" of some sort involved in the cultures of humanity and in the individual life/progression of a human from child to adult and onward.

So it is difficult to question THAT there is some kind of teaching or dogma--there always is. The critical question becomes: is this a life-giving, freedom-giving [i.e. good] teaching [insert: dogma/religion/paradigm/culture/information system/cosmos/ethics rules/state sponsored propaganda/Disney movie etc etc etc if desired]? or is it an oppressive, death-dealing [i.e. bad] teaching [insert: ditto on the list]?

If you are equating dogma and religion with the fact that the TEACHING is going to include community and ritualistic duties, that is also an interesting question. I.e. the question could be, is tithing necessary to goodness/being human? is chakra meditation necessary to goodness/human? is baptism necessary? are the last rites necessary? is prayer five times a day necessary to human goodness? is the cosmological idea of a binary heaven/hell necessary to human goodness?

Which last one is what you specifically introduced; without noting, I might add, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the very beginning challenged this paradigm and still does. (Does anyone remember who gave the Conference Talk within the last maybe 10 years about 4 or so reasons to serve or something like that; lesser reasons v greater reasons?) The Church and the gospel as restored by Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith does not subscribe to a binary hell/heaven cosmos nor does it teach fear as the basis for action. So you are asking us to defend a skin we are not wearing.

As you know, the world is full of great brutality, oppression: i.e. children subject to sex trafficking, people's constant hunger, etc etc etc. So whatever as a humanity we have and have not done in terms of teaching and choice-making is still in a failure mode for a lot of people; speaking of the world as a whole, not smaller groups or individuals who seem to have been able to make choices of peace and human love on whatever basis. This is not about smoking, not making it to church, boating on Sunday, or things like this. We are talking about true fear, injustice, brutality and such that is still too widespread in this world and what is the healing for that?

I actually agree on my personal understanding (and what I believe my Father in heaven has taught me thus far) that there is no particular necessity for a particular religion, at least as the great traditional religions of the world stand, in terms of human love, unity, peace and right/good/free/love peace choices and communities. I believe that in order for there to be good in the world and in an individual they need to be able to make a CHOICE to be good. That's it. Just a choice. Consent, agree, believe, be willing--to be good. And I acknowledge that they can realize that choice from a lot of different places, not necessarily from one of the great standard religions. Even though I continue to participate in religion, *I* make choices that I understand to be good by referencing my own humanity NOT by referencing my religious teachings per se; and I expect other human beings to do the same. (Note: God is human per the restored knowledge of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith; God is my fellow traveller and my master teacher.)

Having said that, I also think that good is not necessarily natural--that we have to taught it. Or even more plainly--output equals input. Again, does that input NEED to be a standard religion? I don't think so, and I agree that for many people that could be an obstacle not a support. But what choices people think they have, or that they actually do have, is based on their paradigm, and their paradigm is taught/INPUTTED. From somewhere--parents, tv, hegemonic culture, family heritage, a religion, from watching The Secret video, from a great school teacher. What is good and what is possible in the realm of good has to be introduced in some manner, at least for most of us. Perhaps there are some really great souls that come with their wisdom already intact and that remains intact through being treated evilly (i.e. by abusive parents etc). But most of us have to be taught.

If you have a person or a society who is living in some sort of depravity--mistreatment of women, toxic sexuality, poverty and hunger, etc etc--SOMETHING must be introduced to them to lift them. When the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is introduced to them, then they change (if they choose to subscribe to what they are offered therein). They get their education, they realize what women are, they become sexually clean, etc etc etc.

Is this gospel the ONLY way to introduce goodness to people? I personally don't think so; and I don't think God thinks so, I think he uses all ways, any way (including atheism) that will bring any good to his children for what they personally need.

Is this gospel a POWERFUL way to introduce goodness to people? Absolutely.

Is this gospel the BEST way to introduce goodness to people? I don't think I'm smart enough to say; for myself at least, I trust that it is and I let other people make a choice about it for themselves. But when I connect with other humans it is due to a paradigm that for me is largely informed by the gospel (for better or worse, but I think better based on my experiences of good).

Is the gospel the creation of Jesus Christ and HIS way his wants to introduce good to the world, at least speaking overall? Yes, I think that.

Remember, in accepting the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, we are automatically challenging other religious creeds and non-religious creeds that exist--not challenging the people nor challenging people's right to choose what they will; but challenging the error in these creeds that does oppress people (or as claimed by this restoration). So if you then make a question lumping the restored gospel in with all religion, you certainly have the right to do that if that's what you think, but that is not acknowledging an important distinction perhaps.

While I understand that many have been taught fear due to teachings that were branded with religion, please realize that many have been taught to release their fear due to their relationship with God which was introduced to them or taught them by religion. Can ONLY religion do that? I don't think so. Is religion a POWERFUL way to release fear and live in peace, love, confidence, justice, etc? YES.

For me, the bottom line is human choice. WE choose what we get out of what is available. I expect that of myself, I expect that of other human beings no matter what paradigm they subscribe to; but I honor their paradigms. But the bottom line is WE choose to be good or bad; and then we justify either of those in some manner based on the justifications we have available to us in the paradigms that were transmitted to us or that we later chose or created.

So I agree with you in many ways, but I did want to add in what I felt were critical notes to thinking about this whole issue.

[smac97]

Why does a suggestion that "heaven and hell" do not exist automatically presume "no God"?

Where did I suggest that there is "no God"? Or that that is what I believe?

Oh, so you're being coy. Well, what do you believe?

Interestingly, it seems that most of those responding believe in the "light of Christ" in every man, yet hold a view that the world is largely populated with "bad" people who enjoy being "bad", and that the "light" is going out all over the world.

You speak as one lacking much familiarity with LDS beliefs about the nature of man.

There are many good people on the earth, and many bad people on the earth. They become that way not by an innate nature, but through their environment and through the choices they make.

I propose that religious indoctrination in a belief of prophecy and the "last days" has corrupted the world view of many people for many generations.

I propose that you label whatever you dislike with pejoratives (like "indoctrination"), and that you are overly fond of broadly-worded jabs at "religion" (ironic, since you appear to have your own set of religious beliefs - no doubt originating from "indoctrination").

The reality, which is supported by evidence everywhere, cannot be seen through such a "dark glass" as a dogmatic belief in apocalyptic fulfillment. And the reality is and always has been that people, being manifestations of "God", are not ever disconnected from that Cause, and that is why we have advanced and continue to advance toward a more joyful, civilized cohabitation with each other in spite of cultural differences.

Uh ... this is from the guy who doesn't like dogmatism?

We are capable of "seeing eye to eye" without any "help" from the "gods of our fathers". In fact, when we behave ecumenically toward each other, all religious differences become trivial and can easily be ignored.

That sounds nice, but godlessness does not lead to this result, notwithstanding your dogmatic (ha!) assertion to the contrary.

That is because we do agree in the main on what "justice" Is.

We agree on it because of the Light of Christ. Because we have inklings of Before, of where we came from. Because God has given us sufficient wisdom to discern basic concepts like "justice."

All this reminds me of an ongoing bit of banter I've been having with one of my sons. Several weeks ago I ate some potato chips in the cupboard which turned out to be his. He has repeatedly demanded (in good humor) that I reimburse him for the loss of those chips. I respond by noting that my salary from my job paid for those chips, but that I will reimburse him for the chips as soon as he reimburses me for all the other things which I pay for and let him have for free: room and board, clothing, transportation, access to computers, the Internet, TV and DVDs, etc. My son refuses this deal (again, in good fun) by simply refusing to acknowledge the source of all the things he has, and which things he takes for granted. In his mind, these things just are. They are not the result of my wife and I working for many years to build a home environment and accumulate some things which make life enjoyable. No, sir! All of my son's stuff is his. It belongs to him. He is not the beneficiary of any "help" from his parents.

So it is with you. You claim the fruits of wisdom, but deny the source of that fruit. I reject that notion. You may as well be praising the health benefits of apples while denying that they grow on trees.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 14, 2013 by smac97

[Questing Beast]

I know, and yet you are basing your 'general trend' upon a single church, the Roman Catholic Church, in Europe (and then only parts of it) immediately preceding the Protestant Reformation. Not only is this not an accurate image of Christianity (or any other 'dogmatic' religion) for the whole world 'going back as far as we have knowledge of'; it is not, as The Nehor has helpfully already suggested, a historically accurate depiction of the RCC at any point of its history in Europe or anywhere else.

No I am not basing the general trend of religion to become the "absolute power" on the history of Europe under the RCC. The religious power gains control over the secular in virtually all civilizations. The king is often the "high priest" figure, immortal in bodily form, etc. The RCC is actually fairly benign compared to other examples from antiquity the world over. Yet look what happened to the RCC because of its grab for total control of Christendom.

I provided you with enough context to demonstrate that I was not making sweeping generalisations but rather statements belonging to a specific time and place:

I'm happy to elaborate: in many of the islands of what is now northeastern Indonesia in the 16th century, though also in many other islands in Melanesia/Polynesia much later in time. The socialisation of young boys into providing homosexual services to older men was especially widespread in parts of Melanesia and has only really disappeared in some areas in the last three decades or so as a direct consequence of Christianisation.

And yet they did. For many hundreds of years, quite possibly longer. Referring specifically to an area in which I have lived, David Henley has written: 'Endemic warfare, underpinned by hereditary feuds and by headhunting traditions with powerful ritual and religious overtones, prevailed in most parts of the region up to the establishment of Dutch rule'.

How exactly does one stop a cycle of such violence? No doubt there are several ways, but one that shines clearly through my research is specifically tied to dogma ... and to heaven and hell. People who live under conditions of feud-based endemic warfare may wish for peace, but the risk of seeking peace is too great: the first to lay down their weapons are simply slaughtered by their hereditary enemies. Enter Christianity, its commandment against killing, and its emphasis on seeking peace. Those who embraced the faith, however, still faced the exact same risk. If they chose to live according to their adopted beliefs, they were going to die. Which is what they did. Why? Because they had also adopted the hope of heaven, the fear of hell, and a confidence that there was a reward waiting for them. I've read 16th-century accounts of Christian converts who, when captured by their enemies, had bits of their flesh sliced off their legs and grilled in front of them before being consumed in their presence. And so once again the gospel of peace was sown in sorrow and watered with blood ... and specifically by courageous people who had their eyes on the heaven you wish to claim as man-made and useless for anything other than instilling some kind of debilitating fear.

I wondered if the Pacific Islanders were who you were talking about. Yet you said "been there done that", as if these atrocious conditions were contemporary. You know "hundreds of Christians" who are grateful to be able to walk safely to church, etc. Sounds like liberated Balkan states to me, in which case I would have been addressing the false logic of making anecdotal evidence into "proof" in that regard.

However, the scattered yet similar cultures of Polynesia are also a case of drawing conclusions for the wrong reasons. The actual cause of the end of Polynesian culture as self-rule was conquest, not conversion. Without the conquest, no amount of missionary work would have accomplished squat, anywhere in the S. Pacific.

And your assertion that those conditions went on for centuries is flawed by your original description, which paints a picture of continual warfare, when in fact it was the usual tribal vendetta kind, not invasions and "total war". The Maoris came close to inventing a form of "total war", and it is presumed by some theories that such a war got started on Easter Island and could not be stopped, resulting in the virtual annihilation of the estimated 20K population, iirc. So what I said is true: no civilization can rise out of such conditions, but that civilization that descends to such levels, unchecked, can and will destroy itself quickly. The fact that the Islanders had been preying upon each other, hunting heads, ritually eating their fallen enemies, spitting their heads on pikes, destroying crops, molesting little boys, enslaving their females, etc. and etc., for countless generations, is proof that it was all limited to a desultory, supportable kind of existence. Only the Maoris were on the verge of entering into that kind of "total war" which probably would have resulted in annihilation had not the conquering Europeans showed up when they did, and ended it all. But it was not religion which ended it, it was superior technology, population/resources and imperialization at work.... (there, I have succumbed to my weakness to engage, and derailed my own thread )

[Questing Beast]

In large part, that's because atheists have inherited their basic value systems from the faith traditions they now so proudly reject.

Or, atheists are part of the human race, which is inherently "evolved" to consider the existence of such things as essential. And "God" is behind all Existence In The First Place, and that includes atheists. You seem, here, to deny the doctrine of "the light of Christ is in every man", and ascribe any moral underpinnings that atheists hold to the legacy of Judeo-Christianity alone....