Christianity = delayed gratification?

[Jderrenda]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?

[apothanein kerdos]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?



This is an argument I haven't seen in a while...

The classical argument (as hedonists made this charge against Christians in the 2nd century actually) is that our rewards aren't an end in themselves. Our rewards are bonuses that God has willingly added on to following Him.

We perform good actions in order to glorify God and come closer to Him. Though the relationship can be argued as being "self-interest," I would argue that it doesn't matter. At that point it's irrelevant and it's not selfish self-interest - it's simply fulfilling what has been instilled in us by God.

The delayed material possessions are actually superfluous to the true aim of Christianity and not needed (just added benefits).


If they didn't exist, I'd still follow after God because His glory demands it.

[markinro]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?

It is more blessed to give then to receive.

[*Hope*]

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?

1. The reward is not delayed. Our hope is not in some far off place that we anticipate going someday (i.e. heaven). Yes, that will be the result in the end, but our immediate, intimate relationship with the Creator is the primary "reward".

2. There is "self-interest" to some degree, but God created us with the need for a relationship with Him. Therefore, fulfilling that need brings Him glory, even though it simultaneously meets our need.

3. Knowing God is the reward. If there was nothing else but that, I would still follow Him. It's really an irrelevant question though because God is good. And because He is good, we are the recipients of His goodness whether we seek it or not.

[DaniHansen]

If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?

Yes, absolutely, I would. My relationship with the creator of heaven and earth, right here, right now, is the reward. I could care less what kind of rewards He has for me after I'm gone from here, as long as He is there.

[dljc]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?Hi J,

Jesus gave us two commandments

Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Prior to this on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:44 Jesus said:

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

My point? Jesus instructed us on how we should treat each other. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, and even love your enemies. Look what happened. They killed Him! So which is the better teaching here? Love your neighbor as you love yourself and love your enemies, or kill them.

[Jderrenda]

Thanks for the speedy replies, guys.

The classical argument (as hedonists made this charge against Christians in the 2nd century actually) is that our rewards aren't an end in themselves. Our rewards are bonuses that God has willingly added on to following Him.

We perform good actions in order to glorify God and come closer to Him. Though the relationship can be argued as being "self-interest," I would argue that it doesn't matter. At that point it's irrelevant and it's not selfish self-interest - it's simply fulfilling what has been instilled in us by God.

I guess what I find curious isn't so much that God would reward his followers, but that the Bible seems to describe heaven in such glowing terms, almost as if it were advertising a retirement package. ("Sure, your pagan gods promise you spices and what not, but what say we throw in some eternal bliss...eh?") Disciples seem to wax emotional about Jesus' immanent return and their otherwordly 401k on a pretty regular basis.

"But keep on storing up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in and steal..."

In other words, forget the stuff you've got down here... wait until you see the stuff up there!

A more transparent example of this might be the oft-characatured Islamic belief in the "72 virgins." Here we have men (and by that I mean people with penises) killing each other over hints of infidelity in this world - all in the name of scoring big in the next one. Granted, Christianity isn't quite as crass in this respect, but the same idea applies.

If they didn't exist, I'd still follow after God because His glory demands it.I admire you for sticking to your guns. Though I realized after reading my original question that I should have been more specific here.

Revised version: It's relatively easy to say, even sans reward, that one would continue to follow Jesus' basic moral teachings. But would you also continue to observe the more arcane, abstract rules that don't really bear on quality of life?

If you were certain no heaven awaited you, would you keep the Sabbath, for instance? Or make a big deal out of holidays and church protocol? Baptism as well?

While many of Jesus' teachings directly affect society, the law, morality, etc., a great deal of church doctrine simply deals with ceremony and theater. If you knew no blissful afterworld awaited, would you really care about "the show"?

[DaniHansen]

This is where you have to make a distinction between "Churchianity" and "Christianity." And the two are often not the same.

Christianity means that Jesus (Christ) is the center of everything, and we are following a living Person, not a bunch of rules and outward behaviors and doctrines and pomp and circumstance and this holiday and that observance. He is Life, and that is what He imparts to us. And because He does, we gladly follow.

Heaven only makes sense with God in it (really, it's in Him, but that's beside the point for the purpose of this discussion). Without Him, it would be ... not Heaven. But because we know Him, and have experienced His touch, what awaits after isn't the point. It's the continuation of life with Him that matters. On Earth, in Heaven, on Mars, Jupiter, another galaxy, whatever.

:)

[Saved7]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?

Hmm, I have to ask you the same question then....not to insult you of course, but if you suddenly got turned off based on "delayed gratification" theology, then maybe the issue isn't our faith, but it was your faith was wrong, your heart was wrong.

Sweetheart, my faith and desire is based solely on my desire to be with Jesus, to be in the presence of God, and if....God forbid....God were to judge me faithless and I were to go to hell, then at least I had the joy of knowing and loving God and serving Him in THIS life. Knowing and loving and serving my Lord is my greatest joy, and it saddens me deeply when I see a person walk away from the faith because they failed to learn in their hearts what this faith is truely about.:(:(
Jesus didn't just come to save us from hell, he came to give us life more abundantly in the here and now as well. Abundance of love, and joy, and peace and a loving relationship with our Creator.

[apothanein kerdos]

Thanks for the speedy replies, guys.



I guess what I find curious isn't so much that God would reward his followers, but that the Bible seems to describe heaven in such glowing terms, almost as if it were advertising a retirement package. ("Sure, your pagan gods promise you spices and what not, but what say we throw in some eternal bliss...eh?") Disciples seem to wax emotional about Jesus' immanent return and their otherwordly 401k on a pretty regular basis.

"But keep on storing up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in and steal..."

In other words, forget the stuff you've got down here... wait until you see the stuff up there!

A more transparent example of this might be the oft-characatured Islamic belief in the "72 virgins." Here we have men (and by that I mean people with penises) killing each other over hints of infidelity in this world - all in the name of scoring big in the next one. Granted, Christianity isn't quite as crass in this respect, but the same idea applies.

I admire you for sticking to your guns. Though I realized after reading my original question that I should have been more specific here.

Revised version: It's relatively easy to say, even sans reward, that one would continue to follow Jesus' basic moral teachings. But would you also continue to observe the more arcane, abstract rules that don't really bear on quality of life?

If you were certain no heaven awaited you, would you keep the Sabbath, for instance? Or make a big deal out of holidays and church protocol? Baptism as well?

While many of Jesus' teachings directly affect society, the law, morality, etc., a great deal of church doctrine simply deals with ceremony and theater. If you knew no blissful afterworld awaited, would you really care about "the show"?


There are way too many strawmen in this argument for it to hold any legitimacy. As it is, however, I just woke up to get something to drink and decided to check online. Thus, I am too tired to put together a complete reply. Regardless, I shall ask a few questions and put forth some replies:

1) So what if there is some self-benefit in the morality? All morality is done at some level for self-gratification. The argument isn't over whether or not morality is self-gratifying, the argument is over what is the chief end of morality?

2) You completely ignored what I said and tried to go back to a strawman. I argued - quite well - that though there are rewards to Christian morality, they are not the chief end. The glory of God is the chief end of morality - the rewards are things He added along the way that are superfluous to the morality itself. That is to say, they simply are not needed.

3) So what if there is talk of an afterlife? How does that make the claims or commands any less true?

4) Don't try to come in with the classical argument of, "Oh, well then your morality is circular." The argument goes as such:

It is immoral to be greedy or to act out of selfish motives
Wanting to accept Christ so you can go to Heaven is selfish
Therefore, the core base of all Christian morality is immoral

As stated in 1-3, this is a strawman argument that doesn't stand. The chief end and motive in Christian morality is the glorification of God, not what we get out of it (this life or the next).

5) The fact we get something out of it means nothing. Why do you choose not to murder? Because you enjoy life and realize if you murder you'll most likely get caught and have to spend life in prison. This, of course, is Hobbes theory on humanity, which is quite dark.

6) What is the main point your driving to? To be honest, if it's just a question then fair enough. However, it comes across as a poorly constructed argument from an undergraduate student who heard it from a professor/television/reading a book and wanted to try it out. ;)

7) Have you read the Bible? You speak of how the reward is constantly mentioned, but no more so than God's glory or living rightly because we've been commanded as such.

8) What do you propose as an alternative? Deontology? Utilitarianism? Pragmatism? Humean Utilitarianism? Epicurean hedonism? All ethical systems - other than Christianity - have man as the center and in some way are constructed to benefit humanity and bring humanity happiness. Christianity, alternatively, has God at the center and all moral actions are directed to please Him first, which by way of His attributes and how He has established and chosen to govern the world, has the benefit of helping humanity.


I'm tired and going back to bed. I'll try to get some rest and respond to this in full later. However, those 8 points should give you something to think about I hope.

[markinro]

Thanks for the speedy replies, guys.



I guess what I find curious isn't so much that God would reward his followers, but that the Bible seems to describe heaven in such glowing terms, almost as if it were advertising a retirement package. ("Sure, your pagan gods promise you spices and what not, but what say we throw in some eternal bliss...eh?") Disciples seem to wax emotional about Jesus' immanent return and their otherwordly 401k on a pretty regular basis.

"But keep on storing up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in and steal..."

In other words, forget the stuff you've got down here... wait until you see the stuff up there!

A more transparent example of this might be the oft-characatured Islamic belief in the "72 virgins." Here we have men (and by that I mean people with penises) killing each other over hints of infidelity in this world - all in the name of scoring big in the next one. Granted, Christianity isn't quite as crass in this respect, but the same idea applies.

I admire you for sticking to your guns. Though I realized after reading my original question that I should have been more specific here.

Revised version: It's relatively easy to say, even sans reward, that one would continue to follow Jesus' basic moral teachings. But would you also continue to observe the more arcane, abstract rules that don't really bear on quality of life?

If you were certain no heaven awaited you, would you keep the Sabbath, for instance? Or make a big deal out of holidays and church protocol? Baptism as well?

While many of Jesus' teachings directly affect society, the law, morality, etc., a great deal of church doctrine simply deals with ceremony and theater. If you knew no blissful afterworld awaited, would you really care about "the show"?

MATT 16 (italics mine)
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him commit his first truly selfLESS act, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Heaven/rewards are a fringe benefit. I think for some believers (e.g. missionaries) whose faith is strong, experience heaven on earth because they ALREADY live in God's presence.

Would you work at your company if they didn't offer a health plan ? If I knew an employee like this, I would be putting an ad in the paper because I doubt he is sincere in his efforts.

Bill Cosby jested about his grandparents to his children "These are NOT the people I grew up with. You are looking at an old person trying to get into heaven now" :lol:

People who follow Jesus so they can go to heaven - these are the religious.
Religion is what man does for God. Christianity is what God DID for man.

[tango]

I'd like to address your questions, and also turn them around.

Firstly, if there was no reward in heaven for us, then God would still be God and we would still be made in his image. We would still have a built-in sense of right and wrong, and to violate that would result in us being unhappy. We would still need to take a break once in a while (hence the Sabbath). Being dunked underwater once in my lifetime is no great burden to bear if it doesn't achieve anything.

I think the issue here is that you are looking at cause and effect the wrong way around. When we have God's spirit within us, we want to reflect God's love for others in the way we live our lives. The Spirit comes first, then the effect of that is the good works. We don't earn the Spirit by our good works.


Now let me ask you, if we are all wrong and there is no reward in heaven, and maybe even no God at all, how do you benefit from not adhering to what we call God's laws? In 100 years time we'll both be six feet underground and anything we might have achieved in our lifetimes will be starting to fade from living memory already. In 500 years we will both be names on gravestones that might not even be standing.

Likewise, if there were a reward in heaven on offer would you be interested in knowing more about it?

[Jderrenda]

Heh. I think some of you may have gotten the idea I'm trying to construct some grand alternative spiritual economy when all I'm doing is pointing out that Christianity isn't free from a certain circle of exchange.


1) So what if there is some self-benefit in the morality? All morality is done at some level for self-gratification. The argument isn't over whether or not morality is self-gratifying, the argument is over what is the chief end of morality?

I'm not arguing morality should (or could) be completely divorced from self-interest. I'm arguing a truer test of our morality or love for god wouldn't be one that relied (at least partially) on the dangling of a heavenly carrot.

I asked the question because, having posed this question to a number of my Christian friends, I've received far different answers than this group has given me. One friend flat out said, "No, if there is no heaven, the deal's off..." So I was merely testing the waters.

2) You completely ignored what I said and tried to go back to a strawman. I argued - quite well - that though there are rewards to Christian morality, they are not the chief end. The glory of God is the chief end of morality - the rewards are things He added along the way that are superfluous to the morality itself. That is to say, they simply are not needed. As I mentioned in the last answer, my goal was to gauge your reactions and compare/contrast them with my face-to-face conversations. Perhaps I should have been clearer about this.

My reason for responding was simply to point out that preaching against rewards in this life (shunning material possessions, following god even at the cost of alienating one's own family, or, say, observing rigid sexual prescriptions...) while simultaneously appealing to people's hopes for an idyllic afterlife where all their earthly desires will either be fulfilled or no longer required seems just a little too convenient.

3) So what if there is talk of an afterlife? How does that make the claims or commands any less true? You're correct. Truthfulness doesn't hinge on the incentives of the proposal here. Although, in this case, when we're dealing with unprovable claims about posthumous rewards, it's worth remembering the adage: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is."

I'm not suggesting one can't follow Jesus for reasons totally unrelated to those we're discussing; I'm only highlighting the strangeness of promoting a selfless ideal while essentially saying, "Following the Lord is its own reward... but wait there's more!"

5) The fact we get something out of it means nothing. Why do you choose not to murder? Because you enjoy life and realize if you murder you'll most likely get caught and have to spend life in prison. This, of course, is Hobbes theory on humanity, which is quite dark. Indeed. It's for this reason I would argue the atheist who behaves responsibly is, in fact, the most moral.

Let's take an example that isn't a common law: giving blood. No law requires me to give blood, but I'm free to do so for whatever reason. Which reason is more admirable? Giving blood because a fellow human being needs it or because I'm following the orders of a sky god (and thereby inching myself closer to heaven and further from hell)? Both involve self-interest; in the case of the former, a personal momentary satisfaction, and for the later, goodwill with an added bonus.

Likewise, who really sacrifices the most when, say, leaping in rapids to save a drowning man - an atheist who expects no reward should he die in the process, or the Christian who may have identical moral leanings but believes he has a shot at heaven afterward?

6) What is the main point your driving to? To be honest, if it's just a question then fair enough. However, it comes across as a poorly constructed argument from an undergraduate student who heard it from a professor/television/reading a book and wanted to try it out. ;)I'm far out of school and just an avid reader of philosophy and religion, but thanks for previewing the coming ad hominem. ;)

That's about all I have time for at the moment... on break at work... ;)

BBL

[tango]

I asked the question because, having posed this question to a number of my Christian friends, I've received far different answers than this group has given me. One friend flat out said, "No, if there is no heaven, the deal's off..." So I was merely testing the waters.


If there is no heaven what difference does it make how we live our lives for the 70-odd years we have?



Indeed. It's for this reason I would argue the atheist who behaves responsibly is, in fact, the most moral.

Let's take an example that isn't a common law: giving blood. No law requires me to give blood, but I'm free to do so for whatever reason. Which reason is more admirable? Giving blood because a fellow human being needs it or because I'm following the orders of a sky god (and thereby inching myself closer to heaven and further from hell)? Both involve self-interest; in the case of the former, a personal momentary satisfaction, and for the later, goodwill with an added bonus.

Likewise, who really sacrifices the most when, say, leaping in rapids to save a drowning man - an atheist who expects no reward should he die in the process, or the Christian who may have identical moral leanings but believes he has a shot at heaven afterward?


You've still got the cause and effect mixed up.

We don't earn ourselves a "shot at heaven" by helping other people. My place in heaven is secure because Jesus is my personal Saviour - whether I dive into the rapids to save your drowning man makes no difference to that. I don't need to earn a certain number of points to "make it" into heaven.

The thing is, when we have God's Spirit living within us we seek to love God and to love our fellow man. Sometimes loving our fellow man might mean diving into freezing rapids to save them, other times it might mean sitting and talking with someone, it might mean fixing a widow's car because she can't afford to pay a mechanic, and so on.

The Spirit comes first, and the good works are the effect. We don't earn the Spirit by doing good works. Getting this mixed up is a bit like arguing that wet sidewalks cause rain.

[markinro]

Heh. I think some of you may have gotten the idea I'm trying to construct some grand alternative spiritual economy when all I'm doing is pointing out that Christianity isn't free from a certain circle of exchange.



I'm not arguing morality should (or could) be completely divorced from self-interest. I'm arguing a truer test of our morality or love for god wouldn't be one that relied (at least partially) on the dangling of a heavenly carrot.

I asked the question because, having posed this question to a number of my Christian friends, I've received far different answers than this group has given me. One friend flat out said, "No, if there is no heaven, the deal's off..." So I was merely testing the waters.



As I mentioned in the last answer, my goal was to gauge your reactions and compare/contrast them with my face-to-face conversations. Perhaps I should have been clearer about this.

My point in responding simply to point out that preaching against rewards in this life (shunning material possessions, following god even at the cost of alienating one's own family, or, say, observing rigid sexual prescriptions...) while simultaneously appealing to people's hopes for an idyllic afterlife where all their earthly desires will either be fulfilled or no longer required seems just a little too convenient.



You're correct. Truthfulness doesn't hinge on the incentives of the proposal here. Although, in this case, when we're dealing with unprovable claims about posthumous rewards, it's worth remembering adage: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is."

I'm not suggesting one can't follow Jesus for reasons totally unrelated to those we're discussing; I'm only highlighting the strangeness of promoting a selfless ideal while essentially saying, "Following the Lord is its own reward... but wait there's more!"



Indeed. It's for this reason I would argue the atheist who behaves responsibly is, in fact, the most moral.

Let's take an example that isn't a common law: giving blood. No law requires me to give blood, but I'm free to do so for whatever reason. Which reason is more admirable? Giving blood because a fellow human being needs it or because I'm following the orders of a sky god (and thereby inching myself closer to heaven and further from hell)? Both involve self-interest; in the case of the former, a personal momentary satisfaction, and for the later, goodwill with an added bonus.

Likewise, who really sacrifices the most when, say, leaping in rapids to save a drowning man - an atheist who expects no reward should he die in the process, or the Christian who may have identical moral leanings but believes he has a shot at heaven afterward?



I'm far out of school and just an avid reader of philosophy and religion, but thanks for previewing the coming ad hominem. ;)

That's about all I have time for at the moment... on break at work... ;)

BBL

I get the impression your real question is: Why does God send good and moral people to hell ?

Answer: They didn't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour

[Whispering Grace]

If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example?

Absolutely!

If you don't mind me quoting an entry from my blog, it expands my thoughts a little:

If God never offered me anything, I would still love Him.

If I knew for a fact that I was just going to die and turn to dust forever with my last breath, I would still follow God and worship Him and do everything I could to please Him.

Isn't this our purpose in life? To love God and know Him and to enjoy Him and all that He is? Shouldn't we love God because He is wonderful and not because of what He can give us?

Shouldn't we be more concerned with adoring God and singing His praises than we are about our own wants and needs, and even our own salvation? Shouldn't we follow God because we have a deep passion for Him and not for what it will earn us?

Shouldn't we live to please God because we intensely desire to and not out of a sense of obligation? Shouldn't we worship Him because He is worthy to be worshiped as the sovereign Lord of the universe? Shouldn't we live for God's glory and not our own?

If I had to choose between living one minute with God or an eternity without Him, I'd choose that precious minute with God, and I would spend that 60 seconds drinking in His beauty and His majesty and His glory and filling myself with every delightful bit of who He is. And if, after that glorious minute, I ceased to exist, I would die the happiest and most fulfilled person in the world.


Oh Lord, my beautiful Lord, how glorious You are! How marvelous are Your works! How rich is Your majesty! How bountiful is Your love! How infinitely wise and wonderful You are!

Draw me closer, Lord, I beg You! Fill me with Your good things! I am longing to set aside the cares of this world and delight in You!

[Whispering Grace]

Let me add that I never became a Christian because of what it would earn me. I became a Christian because I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ and fell desperately in love with Him.

If I learned this minute that I would just turn to dust with my last breath, if anything, it would cause me to be more devoted to the Lord, knowing my time to share love with Him and enjoy Him would one day end.

[livingwaters]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?

What other path are you on???? As far as, "agape and humility," maybe you should do some research on them, before you "throw" them around. Jesus said we were to crucify "self" when we became new creatures in Christ at the time we were born-again~~ So, yes, we should be "selfless and Christ-like", since we were made in HIS image!!!!

I would encourage you to read the Word of God with an open mind..Put all that "stuff" you are, either running from or do not understand, in God's, more than, capable HANDS~~~ HIS love, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, justice and, especially, the sacrifice of HIS only begotten SON for us, who were destined to HELL without the Blood of Jesus, is truly pretty clear in HIS Word!!! My prayer is that your heart will be softened to the HOLY SPIRIT and you will accept Christ as your Savior!! God can do that, also. HE did it all through the Old Testament!!! Check it out. Amen.:)

Bless you!!:hug:

[Jderrenda]

I get the impression your real question is: Why does God send good and moral people to hell ?

Answer: They didn't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour

Not quite. (Although the answer you supplied shows just how peculiar and esoteric god's moral demands really are, when you stop and think about just what kind of justice this deity is interested in.)

[Jderrenda]

Let me add that I never became a Christian because of what it would earn me. I became a Christian because I came to know the Lord Jesus Christ and fell desperately in love with Him.

If I learned this minute that I would just turn to dust with my last breath, if anything, it would cause me to be more devoted to the Lord, knowing my time to share love with Him and enjoy Him would one day end.

I realize no one here is likely to come out and say, "Yes, my belief is predicated upon my receiving an everlasting reward." (Perhaps this is like asking an employee to walk up to his boss and casually remark, "You know, I'm only in this for the money.")

Having been a Christian for about 10 years, and having witnessed the devotion of my peers, I do not doubt anyone's sincerity on this thread one iota. When you recast the question as one of a personal relationship with Jesus, I get it. You don't see heaven as an incentive, nor do you consider daily acts of kindness as points you're earning towards some ultimate goal.

All I'm doing is asking you to do is consider this question:

How successful do you think Christianity would have been if it included no mention of rewards in the afterlife?

[Saved7]

Not quite. (Although the answer you supplied shows just how peculiar and esoteric god's moral demands really are, when you stop and think about just what kind of justice this deity is interested in.)


Wow! Did you actually just sit in judgement of God?:o

[markinro]

Not quite. (Although the answer you supplied shows just how peculiar and esoteric god's moral demands really are, when you stop and think about just what kind of justice this deity is interested in.)

1 PET 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

[watchinginawe]

I realize no one here is likely to come out and say, "Yes, my belief is predicated upon my receiving an everlasting reward."I have no problem saying that. For me, that is part and parcel to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Eternal life is the answer to the problem. When one understands the problem, then the cure, if to be a cure, must result in something like the above.

Here is the problem:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Now, the recognition that there is death is not so much a problem. That isn't understanding the problem. The problem is that there IS a God and there IS an eternity and that there IS a component of us that will stand before God in judgment, for eternity, even after our temporal life and natural death that we may face bravely and without fear.

Jesus put it like this:

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Now, look at the first two passages again with the rest of the verse:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The cure. I place my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. That solves the problem. The problem was solved by God Himself and offered to mankind in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Verse 28 says why Christ was offered. It is because or our problem.

So who am I to toss aside that which Jesus Christ paid such a high price for? I am not eternally greedy, I am eternally grateful.
Having been a Christian for about 10 years, and having witnessed the devotion of my peers, I do not doubt anyone's sincerity on this thread one iota. When you recast the question as one of a personal relationship with Jesus, I get it. You don't see heaven as an incentive, nor do you consider daily acts of kindness as points you're earning towards some ultimate goal. Perhaps that is why you are here. Maybe there is a part of you that desires that sincerity again. Maybe there is a part of you that understands that it is worth another thread on a Christian forum to investigate what you believe.

A poster before mentioned how we might replace Christianity with a human based ethic. That is what I did when I replaced Christianity (which I confessed but did not really have the testimony of) ultimately with atheism. I looked upon these kinds of arguements as a maturation of sorts in my thinking. Said another way, I felt that I had outgrown Christianity as I matured. I sort of put God in the same closet as Santa Claus. My deliberations were continuous and always towards building and defending a superior ethic to what I saw in Christians. Ultimately I thought of myself as honest and somewhere deep down inside me I felt that was the solution to the problem and that it would be respected by "god", if he existed.

God Bless!

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm not arguing morality should (or could) be completely divorced from self-interest. I'm arguing a truer test of our morality or love for god wouldn't be one that relied (at least partially) on the dangling of a heavenly carrot.

I asked the question because, having posed this question to a number of my Christian friends, I've received far different answers than this group has given me. One friend flat out said, "No, if there is no heaven, the deal's off..." So I was merely testing the waters.

Now that I see where you're coming from, I think you're approach Christian morality from the wrong direction.

All of Christian morality hinges upon two laws (one greater and the other second):

Love of God and love of fellow humans.

In other words, we do all good deeds that match up with the above two (in the order they are listed). The benefit to said morality is irrelevant to the goodness or reason for following said morality.

In fact, when Christians teach that we should do x because of a perceived future reward - as apparently you were taught - that Christian is betraying a distinct lack of knowledge on the purpose of morality.

Everyone here has done an excellent job explaining the purpose of Christian morality, so I won't belabor this point.

You're correct. Truthfulness doesn't hinge on the incentives of the proposal here. Although, in this case, when we're dealing with unprovable claims about posthumous rewards, it's worth remembering the adage: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is."

Everything is ultimately unprovable, so to me that's an irrelevant argument. Because you've negated any form of theism (or so I'm assuming) you've put yourself in quite the bind on this point. Without going into too much detail (as it would derail this thread), there is no way for you to prove you are conscience. If we call the Christian hope in a better afterlife a leap of faith, then we must say the atheist acknowledging that he is actually conscience is an equal leap, for both are unprovable empirically.

Thus, if you are justified in believing that other thinking human beings actually exist, then I too am justified in believing in the afterlife. Feel free to start another thread on this issue if you're interested. :)

I'm not suggesting one can't follow Jesus for reasons totally unrelated to those we're discussing; I'm only highlighting the strangeness of promoting a selfless ideal while essentially saying, "Following the Lord is its own reward... but wait there's more!"

Right, the circular argumentation I pointed out.

What I was arguing, however, is that it's a misrepresentation. The rewards are superfluous. If anything, you're correct in attacking how Christian morality is presented, but you're incorrect in assuming the presentation of Christian morality actually is Christian morality.

As stated, there are two anchor points for it and neither one mention benefits or rewards.

Secondly, the rewards are mentioned in the Bible solely to let us know that God is just and loving and chooses to compensate us for what we do. You're placing this issue in a vacuum, ignoring that because God is just He will reward good behavior done for His glory in due diligence. If there were no "rewards" then it would mean we were wrong about the nature of God.

Indeed. It's for this reason I would argue the atheist who behaves responsibly is, in fact, the most moral.

Let's take an example that isn't a common law: giving blood. No law requires me to give blood, but I'm free to do so for whatever reason. Which reason is more admirable? Giving blood because a fellow human being needs it or because I'm following the orders of a sky god (and thereby inching myself closer to heaven and further from hell)? Both involve self-interest; in the case of the former, a personal momentary satisfaction, and for the later, goodwill with an added bonus.

Likewise, who really sacrifices the most when, say, leaping in rapids to save a drowning man - an atheist who expects no reward should he die in the process, or the Christian who may have identical moral leanings but believes he has a shot at heaven afterward?

If a Christian acted off those motives then he wouldn't be acting within Christian morality. Christian morality dictates that he should give blood, jump into that water for a rescue, or other things because:

1) Humans are made in the image of God and therefore hold intrinsic value

and

2) God has commanded us to be a light for this world and to aid people when we can

We don't help humans for results - though results will follow - we instead help them simply because they are human. At least, that is true Christian morality. So your example is a false one. ;)

Likewise, the atheist might do those things, but he has no proper justification or warrant for doing those things. He does these things on a leap of faith, but ultimately he has no justification for doing these good works, no proper explanation. To me, that is a bigger problem than what you bring up about Christianity.

[Mograce2U]

Hi all. I'm a (respectful) nonbeliever just here with a question.

I was raised Methodist and have since decided to take another path in life. One of the things that turned me off about Christianity was the moral "incentives" it offered. This may sound odd, but follow me...

In church and youth group, I would hear words like "agape" and "humility" thrown around often. The image I came away with of Christianity was one of selflessness and "Christ-like" love.

But the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. I learned that right and wrong were fixed things, and the rightness of an action was its own reward. The parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to suggest that we shouldn't quibble about rewards. But God's entire system is built on just this kind of economy. Over and over again, we're reminded how we're building up treasures in heaven, going on to our eternal reward, etc. Isn't this just really delayed gratification?

So here's my real question. Christians say Jesus' advice for living brings out the best in human beings. If you KNEW you wouldn't be receiving a reward (heaven) for your troubles, would you still follow his example? If not, it would seem your morals are ultimately based on self interest. If so, why?People usually do what they want and very little that they do not - at least willingly. And if there were not consequences one could anticipate, probably very little of what we would want to do would be good - at least where others are concerned. So the idea that man responds to rewards and punishment, and this is part of our human nature is not too far fetched nor hard to understand.

Like you said, you chose to follow another path. What was the deal offered to you that made you choose it?

[tango]

How successful do you think Christianity would have been if it included no mention of rewards in the afterlife?

If everybody lived on the basis of two simple rules:

1. Love God
2. Love each other

how much better do you think society would be? On that basis, Christianity provides an ideal backdrop for a successful society regardless of whether we receive a reward in heaven.

[apothanein kerdos]

Another thing I wanted to add...

Christian morality is based upon the salvific act of Sanctification - that is, growing in Christ. This means justification has already occurred. To sum this up - justification means we have already received all we will ever receive. We can't do anything to increase or decrease the amount of love God has for us, the rewards already promised, etc.

Thus, when we are sanctified we only do so in order to fall more in love with God and to reveal His glory more to society.

[VelociRapture]

Hey guys-

This is actually "Jderrenda" again. I'm having trouble logging in to my old account. *Sigh*

Anyway, I wanted to thank the posters here for the polite, honest responses. As Bill Maher says to a group of worshippers in a truckers chapel in Religulous, thanks for being not just Christian but Christ-like.

I have to start with the most provocative answer...

Everything is ultimately unprovable, so to me that's an irrelevant argument. Because you've negated any form of theism (or so I'm assuming) you've put yourself in quite the bind on this point. Without going into too much detail (as it would derail this thread), there is no way for you to prove you are conscience. If we call the Christian hope in a better afterlife a leap of faith, then we must say the atheist acknowledging that he is actually conscience is an equal leap, for both are unprovable empirically.

Thus, if you are justified in believing that other thinking human beings actually exist, then I too am justified in believing in the afterlife. Feel free to start another thread on this issue if you're interested. :)

I'm interested in the notion that believing in my own consciousness is commensurate with believing the Bible is the one true word of the creator of the universe. (Descartes might have choked a bit on that one.)

I'll grant you this one point up front: Nothing is 100 percent provable. What we must deal with, consequently, are varying levels of probability. While I cannot prove I'm not in the matrix right now (neither can you by the way), the only option I see open is investigation into the evidence at hand. Surely the gravitational constant is harder, for instance, to doubt than the Garden of Eden story.

By your reasoning, it would seem all ideas are equally founded in faith - Christianity, the afterlife, Hindu creation myths, the Big Bang - and since one cannot escape this fundamental unknowability of the universe, all proposals carry equal weight, or are, to put it another way, equal when it comes to "the leap."

Allow me to replace one phrase in the above paragraph and see if it still works...

If we call the Christian hope in a better afterlife a leap of faith, then we must say the Scientologist acknowledging that he is actually inhabited by thetans is an equal leap, for both are unprovable empirically.Eh?

We don't help humans for results - though results will follow - we instead help them simply because they are human. This is interesting. So you wouldn't seek to justify saving another human on the grounds that you want the other human to live? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

Let's take an another example, one the Bible doesn't address so directly. Animals. Now, I don't recall any scripture that specifically lays out any rules on how we are to treat, say, higher apes. (I may be barking up the wrong tree here if you're not an animal person...) We have the bit in Genesis about having "dominion" over them, and later on how to sacrifice them, but no real hard and fast guidelines on just how important particular species are in the scheme of things.

If you saw a gorilla (just go with me) ailing on the side of the street, with kids pelting it with rocks, would you act to save the gorilla? If so, what reason would you give? It certainly isn't human, so that's a nonstarter. The Bible doesn't seem to weigh in on gorilla mistreatment either way, so no dice there. Wouldn't this, at the end of the day, come down to your own moral decision?

If someone is nice to me or loves me not because of what they've observed in the world, the golden rule, or because of the intended result, but because an ancient text commands them to love humans, that's a pretty poor reason, isn't it? I'd want my friends and loved ones to be results-oriented myself.

Likewise, the atheist might do those things, but he has no proper justification or warrant for doing those things. He does these things on a leap of faith, but ultimately he has no justification for doing these good works, no proper explanation. To me, that is a bigger problem than what you bring up about Christianity.If all these things are unprovable as you said, do I really need "ultimate" justification? This seems like am incredibly high bar. What ultimate justification are you proposing? A book that says it's the ultimate justification? I'm not sure this holds up any better.

My proper justification can't be that I'm a human, I've lived on this earth a while, I know how pain feels, and so I don't wish it on others? Because I see that love is better than hate?

I want to quote a bit from Sam Harris on this topic, as I heartily agree with his assessment.

Consider the phenomenon of "honor-killing": throughout much of the Muslim world at this moment, women are thought to "dishonor" their families by refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, seeking a divorce, committing adultery — or even by getting raped. Women in these situations are often murdered by their fathers, husbands, or brothers, sometimes with the collaboration of other women. Is honor-killing wrong? I have no doubt that it is. But is it really wrong?

There seems to be no question that we are wired in such a way that love is more conducive to happiness than hate, fear, and shame are. If this is true, honor-killing would be wrong even if a majority of human beings agreed that it was right. It would be wrong because this practice (along with the intentions that give rise to it) reliably diminishes human happiness: it creates immense suffering for women and girls; it conditions men to feel that their personal dignity is predicated upon something that it need not be predicated upon; it deranges the relationships between men and women, making them far less loving and compassionate (and therefore a lesser source of happiness) than they might otherwise be. While these are claims about human subjectivity, they are also, at bottom, objective claims about the real foundations of human happiness.

All of this implies, of course, that morality is a potential branch of scientific inquiry—not merely that science will one day describe our moral judgments at the level of the brain, but that science may one day be able to tell us what is good (that is, it will tell us which psychological intentions and social practices are truly conducive to the deepest happiness).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time. I know this is supposed to be a debate forum per se, but I was interested in everyone's responses and couldn't help but reply.

Cheers.

[mcgyver]

Hello Jderrenda/VelociRapture...

Unfortunately I'm going to have to lock this thread temporarily until we get the sign in and account issue straight.

[mcgyver]

Admins have taken care of the issue, thread is now open...User name will be VelociRapture. :)

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm interested in the notion that believing in my own consciousness is commensurate with believing the Bible is the one true word of the creator of the universe. (Descartes might have choked a bit on that one.)

I'll grant you this one point up front: Nothing is 100 percent provable. What we must deal with, consequently, are varying levels of probability. While I cannot prove I'm not in the matrix right now (neither can you by the way), the only option I see open is investigation into the evidence at hand. Surely the gravitational constant is harder, for instance, to doubt than the Garden of Eden story.

You stated that the claims were unprovable. I was stating that just because something is unprovable it doesn't mean it can't be knowledge or truthful. Our own existence - much to Descartes' tears - cannot be proven through the use of evidence. Rather, we accept it on a priori warrant. Our intuition tells us that we are actually existing and, for all intents and purposes, we trust our intuition to be reliable (because, again a priori we know it to be reliable).

With this in mind, I have the same level of justification for believing that other thinking humans exist as I do when I state God exists. I don't have time to expound on this, but you may want to check out God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga if this idea interests you. Right now, in the field of epistemology (at least in America), Christians are beginning to reign supreme because of this argument.

You'll have to wait a few years before it's applied to ethics though. I haven't been accepted to a PhD program yet, but when I am my dissertation is going to cover Reformed Epistemology and its application to ethics...so this thread is really helping in my application.
Let's take an another example, one the Bible doesn't address so directly. Animals. Now, I don't recall any scripture that specifically lays out any rules on how we are to treat, say, higher apes. (I may be barking up the wrong tree here if you're not an animal person...) We have the bit in Genesis about having "dominion" over them, and later on how to sacrifice them, but no real hard and fast guidelines on just how important particular species are in the scheme of things.

If you saw a gorilla (just go with me) ailing on the side of the street, with kids pelting it with rocks, would you act to save the gorilla? If so, what reason would you give? It certainly isn't human, so that's a nonstarter. The Bible doesn't seem to weigh in on gorilla mistreatment either way, so no dice there. Wouldn't this, at the end of the day, come down to your own moral decision?

Excellent question, but again, this boils down to the two issue: Love God and love humans. So, does this mean we hate the ape?

No, because love for God extends to loving His creation as well. For instance, suppose you have a child and that child makes a painting for you. Can you say you love that child and at the same time rip apart the painting for your own enjoyment? Likewise, can the Christian claim love of God if he watches God's creation needlessly suffer, merely for the enjoyment of children?

I would argue that by loving God, we show respect to the environment so long as we don't place it above His Will or human necessity. In other words, I think Christians should watch out for God's creation; Christians should be the biggest environmentalists and animal rights activists (though we don't have to give up eating meat) in the world. We don't live up to this, but that is the Biblical ethic based upon the two greatest laws.

If someone is nice to me or loves me not because of what they've observed in the world, the golden rule, or because of the intended result, but because an ancient text commands them to love humans, that's a pretty poor reason, isn't it? I'd want my friends and loved ones to be results-oriented myself.

Do you not murder people because the law says not to murder, or because you have a general love for your fellow humans?

The answer is - both. Let's be honest with ourselves, we get so angry at times that, if given the opportunity, we would kill the person angering us (at least I would).

When the Bible says to love our fellow humans, it's more than "do not murder." It's also more than obligatory or deontological law. It's more than Kant's "doctrine of right." It's also choosing to follow these codes out of love. We aren't commanded not to kill - we're commanded to love. You can't force yourself to love in the obligatory sense. Love has to actually come from the heart, which is what makes this a superior commandment (and it has the justification that atheism lacks).

If all these things are unprovable as you said, do I really need "ultimate" justification? This seems like am incredibly high bar. What ultimate justification are you proposing? A book that says it's the ultimate justification? I'm not sure this holds up any better.

My proper justification can't be that I'm a human, I've lived on this earth a while, I know how pain feels, and so I don't wish it on others? Because I see that love is better than hate?

It's unprovable when one works from a nontheistic understanding of the world. It becomes "provable" under theism (due to Plantinga's theory on warrant).

As an atheist, you don't have any justification for being moral other than, "I like how it makes me feel" or "it helps prolong the species."

As for the Sam Harris quote - mate, if you're going to claim atheism, use a real atheist! Use some Hume, or Berkley, or Russell, or Flew (pre-theistic conversion), or even some Nietzsche or Kant (yeah, I know he's a Deist...but let's be honest...he's practically an atheist). Harris...just doesn't carry the intellectual weight that real atheism does. ;)

To deal with Harris' quote, the main problem is he alludes to the happiness principle without fully explaining the justification. Why is it that x would be universally wrong even if everyone agreed that x produces happiness? Happiness is a very subjective state of being (which is why his last sentence is truly laughable) and therefore cannot be applied as a universal component. What makes BTK happy makes many other people sick. What makes me happy makes other people bored. Furthermore, happiness doesn't work as a universal principle, even in a Utilitarian setting. This is due to the fact that some people are just happy when the majority suffers. Now, we can argue that the majority would overrule this minority, but what if the majority gets pleasure out of hurting the minority?

The fact is, I don't think Harris as truly thought through his quasi-Utilitarian format, at least not in the same way Hume (Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals) or Mill (Utilitarianism) do.

Don't get me wrong, I like Utilitarianism to a certain extent, but just not the way Hume or Mill (or even Bentham) present it. Harris is on the right path, but again, he lacks justification for even his most basic premise (that happiness is good).

[VelociRapture]

This is why I enjoy posting at forums such as these - interacting with people who are most probably smarter than me. ;)

... I have the same level of justification for believing that other thinking humans exist as I do when I state God exists.

Does the Scientologist have the same level of justification for thetans?

You'll have to wait a few years before it's applied to ethics though. I haven't been accepted to a PhD program yet, but when I am my dissertation is going to cover Reformed Epistemology and its application to ethics...so this thread is really helping in my application.

Glad to help! I'm just a lowly radio disc jockey with an amateur interest in philosophy, so I probably won't be able to formulate any impressive arguments here, but you gotta start somewhere, right?

No, because love for God extends to loving His creation as well. For instance, suppose you have a child and that child makes a painting for you. Can you say you love that child and at the same time rip apart the painting for your own enjoyment? Likewise, can the Christian claim love of God if he watches God's creation needlessly suffer, merely for the enjoyment of children?

If God were this concerned about tending to his creation, why did he inaugurate a natural order (natural selection) that constitutes just about the most brutal system possible? Then, to rub some more salt in the wound, condone the sacrifice of these feeling creatures to atone for the sins of others?

Your example is instructive here. What if we replaced "you" with God and the "child" with Koko the gorilla? Can God claim love of his own creation if he watches his creation needlessly suffer? Hardly, since he has allowed a nature red in tooth and claw to dominate this planet for the majority of its existence.

When the Bible says to love our fellow humans, it's more than "do not murder." It's also more than obligatory or deontological law. It's more than Kant's "doctrine of right." It's also choosing to follow these codes out of love. We aren't commanded not to kill - we're commanded to love. You can't force yourself to love in the obligatory sense. Love has to actually come from the heart, which is what makes this a superior commandment (and it has the justification that atheism lacks).

I think this calls for a little Christopher Hitchens (another one of your favorites, I'm sure). I'll paraphrase for the sake of space:

Do Christians, Jews and Muslims imagine, he asks, that before Moses received the Ten Commandments, he thought murder and theft were good ideas?

Prior to God's injunctions to love, did no love exist? Did people not seek it out on their own? It seems to me religious codes of behavior are mere reflections of the evolving consensus we call "morality," not sources of morality. The atheist may not enjoy the authoritarian anchor God provides in this respect, but he can plainly observe the long, hard path that's led us to cooperate with one another and maximize happiness.

To come to Harris' defense, he has elaborated on the subject of happiness and, knowing charges of scientism would surely arise, painted a wider horizon for the term. Indeed, happiness for a nun bears little resemblance to happiness for a body modification enthusiat. This doesn't, however, preclude an investigation into normative claims that can be made about states of mind and whether they are conducive to general well-being. Our entire moral project has been evolving toward greater and greater understanding of this spectrum of well-being - different for individuals, but not infinitely so.

As he says, lines can still be drawn. Like food, there may be many different combinations that bring satisfactoy nourishment, but there will always remain a distinction between food and poison.

Cheers,
Josh

[mcgyver]

Note for all CA Mods


VelociRapture is the new SN for the OP of this thread...Slug1 changed his sign in, so VelociRapture is OK to post here.

Thanks! :hug:

[jeffhagen]

A mature Christian follows God's commands because he/she loves and respects God and considers God to be worthy of obeying. It's a bit like a child who follows the desires of his/her parents simply because the child believes that his/her parents are worthy to be obeyed. Surely, a loving father will feel compelled to reward an obedient child, but this does not mean that the child is being obedient just to receive said rewards.

Likewise, in the work relationship, a morally upright worker will honor all of his/her employer's requests, not because they are getting paid to do so, but because the employer is deemed worthy of respect.

Personally, I'm not motivated to follow God's commands because of rewards. It's more of a relationship in which I respect God and want to be humble and obedient before Him. Similarly, in my relationship with my wife, I'm not motivated to follow my wife's desires because I will reap some sort of reward. Rather, I desire to make her happy because I love and respect her.

I don't think that the success of Christianity stems from the promise of reward... unless you consider peace, happiness, and fulfillment (in the midst of trials and tribulations) to be the reward ;). The irony of Christianity is that through foregoing self interest, one finds happiness and joy. However in seeking joy by pursuing pleasure, one ultimately finds misery and sadness. "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it" (Luke 17:33). It's a bit like looking frantically for that lost piece of jewelry... you will never find it. Suddenly, one day when you've long forgotten about it, that lost piece of jewelry suddenly appears.

Responding to an earlier comment, yes it is true that many atheists likewise follow a moral law. I wouldn't conclude that they are somehow superior for living ethically without the promise of reward. Rather, I'd conclude that there is a universal moral law given to us by God that even atheists recognize and follow. However, the atheist is living a life disconnected from the one who instilled that very moral law in them.

CS Lewis uses examples from everyday life to show just how deeply moral law is embedded into our lives. For example, when a person cuts in line in front of another and the victim confronts the offender, the offender will not respond by saying that it was not wrong to cut in line. Rather, the offender will try to justify his/her breach of the moral law by providing some sort of excuse.


I realize no one here is likely to come out and say, "Yes, my belief is predicated upon my receiving an everlasting reward." (Perhaps this is like asking an employee to walk up to his boss and casually remark, "You know, I'm only in this for the money.")

Having been a Christian for about 10 years, and having witnessed the devotion of my peers, I do not doubt anyone's sincerity on this thread one iota. When you recast the question as one of a personal relationship with Jesus, I get it. You don't see heaven as an incentive, nor do you consider daily acts of kindness as points you're earning towards some ultimate goal.

All I'm doing is asking you to do is consider this question:

How successful do you think Christianity would have been if it included no mention of rewards in the afterlife?

[jeffhagen]

Remember, true love is not a reward-based relationship; true love is selfless. Indeed, this type of love describes the relationship between man and God, as much or more so than the relationship between husband and wife. A reward-based relationship is an aberration of love.