If there was no heaven, would you still want to be a Christian?

[Dorothy Mae]

I can only repeat what I said earlier. I would not change the way I live if I were a Christian (apart from the obvious acts of worshipping etc). So my life as it would be reviewed would be essentially the same. It's not as if I purposely reject all of Jesus' teachings simply because I'm an atheist. I was brought up as a Christian by quite devout parents and what I learned from them about how to live a moral life has served me well. So you could say that I'm as Christian as the next guy. I just don't believe in the existence of deities.

And if God exists then He is fully aware that my lack of belief is absolutely genuine. He knows without any shadow of doubt that the evidence that has been presented (over decades) is insufficient for belief. And me wanting God to prove to me that He exists is as nonsensical to me as it would be to you asking Shiva for evidence that he exists (and I'm really not interested in playing 'What Would Make You Believe!').

I can see the root of godly morality instilled in you. Your Christian parents did well in that regard. Do you live that way because it pleases you or do you find it more closely matches a kind of moral standard you want to measure up to being? I’m asking for the basis for your good (moral) choices. Is this merely personal preference akin to a man preferring bananas over kiwis or is there a moral code in your mind that all men ought to acknowledge as having some call on their choices?

 

[Bradskii]

I can see the root of godly morality instilled in you. Your Christian parents did well in that regard. Do you live that way because it pleases you or do you find it more closely matches a kind of moral standard you want to measure up to being? I’m asking for the basis for your good (moral) choices. Is this merely personal preference akin to a man preferring bananas over kiwis or is there a moral code in your mind that all men ought to acknowledge as having some call on their choices?

The basis for my morality is a lived life. And listening to those who have gone before me. From Socrates and Jesus to Ghandi, Bentham and Hume and...too many to mention.

As far as Jesus is concerned, a lot of what He said made sense to me. Christianity itself doesn't. I find it difficult to understand the position that a lot of people take that 'if it is written it must be true'. Or if he or she said it then it must be true. Or if someone who aligns with my philosophical or politcal or personal position expounds on a specific position then it must be correct.

I take what people say and do my best to take it apart to see what lies behind it. To see why they said it. To see if it's applicable to me. And if it is, to then incorporate it.

I was going to say that I recommend it to you. But maybe you do that anyway.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The basis for my morality is a lived life. And listening to those who have gone before me. From Socrates and Jesus to Ghandi, Bentham and Hume and...too many to mention.

So it’s a personal choice based on your personal view or even tastes, right? Not to make light of it but it means it works for you and if the next man doesn’t appreciate your stands, you haven’t much of anything to say besides you personally like your standard. He is free to choose a different moral standard, right?

As far as Jesus is concerned, a lot of what He said made sense to me. Christianity itself doesn't. I find it difficult to understand the position that a lot of people take that 'if it is written it must be true'. Or if he or she said it then it must be true. Or if someone who aligns with my philosophical or politcal or personal position expounds on a specific position then it must be correct.

I feel the same way as far as fairly ignorant and non-thinking Christians and their blind acceptance of anyone claiming to be “on their team.” There are also way too many who join the church, get their “fire insurance” and turn off the mind. Ask them an intellectual question and you get “Gods ways are higher than ours” end of intellectual pursuit. I have intellectually pursued truth since early 20s (mine, that is, not the decade.)

I believe the Bible to be true in parts I cannot prove (like history) because it matches real life in parts I can prove. What it says match’s what is. It also has great explanatory power.

I take what people say and do my best to take it apart to see what lies behind it. To see why they said it. To see if it's applicable to me. And if it is, to then incorporate it.

I was going to say that I recommend it to you. But maybe you do that anyway.

That is exactly what I do and in spades. I take apart what I, myself, say as well. I’m afraid it’s become a great pleasure. So much so that I keep getting kicked off the threads as well as the site for a time. The church is not used to deep discussion but prefers nice nice. Doesn’t need to be true, just needs to be nice. Sigh!!

Enjoying talking to you and please feel free to take apart what I say. I love the challenge.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Since you speak of this is such derisive terms, no we won't find that description of Heaven in the Bible. No one who walked with God wrote of going to be with Him using that kind of decription. They did write of going to Him but not in the way you describe it.
Paul fulled expected to be present with the Lord. You can call that "perfectly fine as long we understand that is not what he said" but your position is not one that Paul had. When Stephen was dying, he saw the Lord standing up to greet him. He wasn't saying "see you later in a few millennia dear Stephen." Revelation describes those whose were martryed complaining to GOd. hummmmmm saints who died and were in his presence complaining...... hummm
I understood you clearly. I think you are wrong.
You clearly do not understand this matter. For you it is like going on vacation and ceasing to exist until we arrive at the destination.
Thanks for the recommendation but does he explain how the dead are standing in numbers demanding God take vengence on men on the earth for what they did to them and God tells them to wait a bit longer? They are the dead, mind you, not the resurrected which makes no sense if you retreat to that line.

Based on this response it's clear that no, you do not understand me clearly. You are arguing a straw man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Based on this response it's clear that no, you do not understand me clearly. You are arguing a straw man.

-CryptoLutheran

I think I understand you more clearly that you would like. Since you do not explain it is very likely I am right. If I were wrong, you would explain the difference.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think I understand you more clearly that you would like. Since you do not explain it is very likely I am right. If I were wrong, you would explain the difference.

You are arguing that there is a conscious existence between death and resurrection--something I agree with. I don't believe that we die, simply cease to exist, and then wake back up at the resurrection; what is often called "soul sleep". I don't believe in soul sleep.

My argument is that the modern, western idea that the point of salvation, the point of God's redeeming work, and God's purposes for us and the world is "to go to heaven". By which I mean, "To go to some place somewhere called heaven, where we float around as ghosts for all eternity".

Yes, St. Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I haven't said otherwise, in fact I thought I was very clear that yes, between death and resurrection there is an intermediate state of being in the presence of Jesus, which I compared to a day spa or a lobby.

The whole reason in the Apocalypse the martyrs under God's altar cry out for God to complete His work is because they are in a state of waiting. They, like us, are hopeful, expectant, anticipating the fullness and completion of God's work.

Allow me to speak more clearly on this matter: They are the great cloud of witnesses who call us onward to run the race in faith, with Christ as the goal. Those who have fallen asleep in the body, those who have reposed in Christ, are still with us in the Communion of Saints, as we with them. It is we, with them; and they, with us, that are looking forward, in Christ, to that time when all shall be as it ought--when God sets the world to rights.

The point of salvation isn't that when I die I go to heaven.

The point of salvation is that God is reconciling the world through Christ, and God has graciously invited us to participate in that by becoming ministers of that reconciliation, preachers of the Gospel.

The gracious salvation of sinners is part of the larger, grander purpose of God in redeeming all of creation. Through our present salvation, in the active working of God's grace in our lives, by which having justified us freely by His grace and now sustaining us with His Word and Sacraments, invites us to now partner with Him, to cooperate with Him, in the hopeful healing of the world. That our hope of what lay ahead of us, "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." (Habbakuk 2:14), is not about failing to live into our mission as the Church here in the world and simply sitting idly by waiting for the end to happen, but to go and actually work in the world while the Master of the vineyard tarries (Matthew 25:14-29).

Jesus' point throughout His teaching is not that He has come to take people into heaven. But that He has come to proclaim the Kingdom of God. The beginning of Mark's Gospel reads that Jesus came preaching, "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel!" (Mark 1:15). What do we suppose Jesus meant by this?

Here is what Jesus does not mean: "Come and repent so that you may go to heaven!"

And what Jesus does mean: "Hear this good news that your minds, hearts, and ways of living and thinking about the world might be transformed by the reality of God's kingdom coming now to you, here in Me, in My words and in what I am doing and showing you."

When St. John the Baptist was imprisoned, he began to doubt, and so sent some of his pupils to ask of Jesus, "Are you the one, or should we look for another?" (Matthew 11:3), and how does Jesus respond? "Come and see".

The way of the kingdom is not hard and difficult because it's hard to "get into heaven"; it's hard and difficult because it demands carrying a cross as a disciple of Jesus, abiding in His way in the world. That means loving our enemies, blessing those who persecute us, praying for those who oppress us. It means denying ourselves, following after Him, taking up our cross, and doing things His way rather than our way. His way is hard, difficult, and few are those who will tread it.

The way toward destruction is easy, not because God is going to send us straight to bitter hateful hell, but because through our own destructive behavior and attitudes in the world we are colluding with our own self-destruction and de-humanization.

That also, by the way, is the meaning of "bearing fruit"; it's not about outweighing bad works with good works so that we can get our celestial trophy; but because what we do in this world matters. How we treat other people matters. How we live, what we say, how we think, the condition of our mind and our heart in relation to others and to the world, and to God, matters. If I am hateful, then I bear the fruit of hate; therefore let my hatefulness perish, through repentance, and in dying to my self. In light of my baptism, therefore, I ought to reckon myself dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:11).

And, again, this is why it is so difficult for the rich person to enter the kingdom, not because "getting saved and going to heaven" is so difficult; but because Jesus' way, and His invitation to come and follow Him, to come and be part of what He is doing in and for the world is hard. To carry our cross, to suffer for the sake of justice in the world, to endure the suffering and labors of this world--ruled and dominated by violence, wickedness, and the thirst for glory and power--is difficult, many are called, few find it.

I am not denying that between death and resurrection we are consciously with Christ.

I am saying that the way so much of the western, contemporary Christian expression of faith and its practice is taught today betrays the biblical and historic Christian hope and preaching, having substituted it with a semi-Gnostic escapist fantasy--that Christianity is about me getting to heaven, Christianity is about me going out and "winning souls", yadda yadda. When Christianity is about Jesus, what He said, what He did, and the call and invitation to be His people in the world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are arguing that there is a conscious existence between death and resurrection--something I agree with. I don't believe that we die, simply cease to exist, and then wake back up at the resurrection; what is often called "soul sleep".

That hasn't been my argument.

So far so good.

My argument is that the modern, western idea that the point of salvation, the point of God's redeeming work, and God's purposes for us and the world is "to go to heaven". By which I mean, "To go to some place somewhere called heaven, where we float around as ghosts for all eternity".

I have been a Christian for over 50 years and I have never heard this explanation in my life. I think you should probably drop it because I do not believe any modern person believes it, especially the floating around bit. Angels don't just float around either you know.

Yes, St. Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I haven't said otherwise, in fact I thought I was very clear that yes, between death and resurrection there is an intermediate state of being in the presence of Jesus, which I compared to a day spa or a lobby.

Pretty sure the "spa or a lobby" is not accurate either.

The whole reason in the Apocalypse the martyrs under God's altar cry out for God to complete His work is because they are in a state of waiting. They, like us, are hopeful, expectant, anticipating the fullness and completion of God's work.

Except they are already dead. Doesn't sound like they are floating around nor enjoy a spa. Still haven't figured our what kind of lobby you think they are not being.

Allow me to speak more clearly on this matter: They are the great cloud of witnesses who call us onward to run the race in faith, with Christ as the goal. Those who have fallen asleep in the body, those who have reposed in Christ, are still with us in the Communion of Saints, as we with them. It is we, with them; and they, with us, that are looking forward, in Christ, to that time when all shall be as it ought--when God sets the world to rights.

So you don't believe we go to be with the Lord but you believe the dead are here with us? Really?

The point of salvation isn't that when I die I go to heaven.

The point of salvation is that God is reconciling the world through Christ, and God has graciously invited us to participate in that by becoming ministers of that reconciliation, preachers of the Gospel.

Why does it have to be either or?

The gracious salvation of sinners is part of the larger, grander purpose of God in redeeming all of creation. Through our present salvation, in the active working of God's grace in our lives, by which having justified us freely by His grace and now sustaining us with His Word and Sacraments, invites us to now partner with Him, to cooperate with Him, in the hopeful healing of the world. That our hope of what lay ahead of us, "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." (Habbakuk 2:14), is not about failing to live into our mission as the Church here in the world and simply sitting idly by waiting for the end to happen, but to go and actually work in the world while the Master of the vineyard tarries (Matthew 25:14-29).

Jesus' point throughout His teaching is not that He has come to take people into heaven. But that He has come to proclaim the Kingdom of God. The beginning of Mark's Gospel reads that Jesus came preaching, "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel!" (Mark 1:15). What do we suppose Jesus meant by this?

Here is what Jesus does not mean: "Come and repent so that you may go to heaven!"

And what Jesus does mean: "Hear this good news that your minds, hearts, and ways of living and thinking about the world might be transformed by the reality of God's kingdom coming now to you, here in Me, in My words and in what I am doing and showing you."

When St. John the Baptist was imprisoned, he began to doubt, and so sent some of his pupils to ask of Jesus, "Are you the one, or should we look for another?" (Matthew 11:3), and how does Jesus respond? "Come and see".

The way of the kingdom is not hard and difficult because it's hard to "get into heaven"; it's hard and difficult because it demands carrying a cross as a disciple of Jesus, abiding in His way in the world. That means loving our enemies, blessing those who persecute us, praying for those who oppress us. It means denying ourselves, following after Him, taking up our cross, and doing things His way rather than our way. His way is hard, difficult, and few are those who will tread it.

The way toward destruction is easy, not because God is going to send us straight to bitter hateful hell, but because through our own destructive behavior and attitudes in the world we are colluding with our own self-destruction and de-humanization.

That also, by the way, is the meaning of "bearing fruit"; it's not about outweighing bad works with good works so that we can get our celestial trophy; but because what we do in this world matters. How we treat other people matters. How we live, what we say, how we think, the condition of our mind and our heart in relation to others and to the world, and to God, matters. If I am hateful, then I bear the fruit of hate; therefore let my hatefulness perish, through repentance, and in dying to my self. In light of my baptism, therefore, I ought to reckon myself dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:11).

And, again, this is why it is so difficult for the rich person to enter the kingdom, not because "getting saved and going to heaven" is so difficult; but because Jesus' way, and His invitation to come and follow Him, to come and be part of what He is doing in and for the world is hard. To carry our cross, to suffer for the sake of justice in the world, to endure the suffering and labors of this world--ruled and dominated by violence, wickedness, and the thirst for glory and power--is difficult, many are called, few find it.

I am not denying that between death and resurrection we are consciously with Christ.

I am saying that the way so much of the western, contemporary Christian expression of faith and its practice betrays the biblical and historic Christian hope and preaching, having substituted it with a semi-Gnostic escapist fantasy--that Christianity is about me getting to heaven, Christianity is about me going out and "winning souls", yadda yadda. When Christianity is about Jesus, what He said, what He did, and the call and invitation to be His people in the world.

-CryptoLutheran

The rest is pretty good. Let me say this, if there were no Heaven, I would still follow him the same.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you don't believe we go to be with the Lord but you believe the dead are here with us? Really?

No, that is not what I believe. That is not what I said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Allow me to speak more clearly on this matter: They are the great cloud of witnesses who call us onward to run the race in faith, with Christ as the goal. Those who have fallen asleep in the body, those who have reposed in Christ, are still with us in the Communion of Saints, as we with them. It is we, with them; and they, with us, that are looking forward, in Christ, to that time when all shall be as it ought--when God sets the world to rights.
-CryptoLutheran

see below

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, that is not what I believe. That is not what I said.

-CryptoLutheran

Allow me to speak more clearly on this matter: They are the great cloud of witnesses who call us onward to run the race in faith, with Christ as the goal. Those who have fallen asleep in the body, those who have reposed in Christ, are still with us in the Communion of Saints, as we with them. It is we, with them; and they, with us, that are looking forward, in Christ, to that time when all shall be as it ought--when God sets the world to rights.
-CryptoLutheran

Certainly sounds like that is what you are saying. So are the dead saints with us here or are they not? WHich is it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Certainly sounds like that is what you are saying. So are the dead saints with us here or are they not? WHich is it?

I tell you what, I'm just going to leave this link here, and then I'm going to go pet my dog and eat a sandwich or something.

Communion of saints - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bradskii]

So it’s a personal choice based on your personal view or even tastes, right? Not to make light of it but it means it works for you and if the next man doesn’t appreciate your stands, you haven’t much of anything to say besides you personally like your standard. He is free to choose a different moral standard, right?

That's true. But aren't we both in the same boat? Except that you take your moral positions from one religion. Or shall I say one denomination of one religion. But I'll bet you have good reasons for holding to any given position as well as the fact that it is part of your religious beliefs. So you'd be able to give a valid argument for any given position other than 'it is written'.

So that's what I do. I have reasons for each of my decisions and I think that they stand up to scrutiny. After very many years on forums such as this I have had the opportunity to test them against people who hold different views. And I have found that there is quite often two ways to approach a problem and my way isn't necessarily the only correct one.

It's a struggle not being set in one's ways. The times they are a-changing (not that that wasn't ever the case). So I do an internal audit now and then to see if something needs fine tuning. There'll be the devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other and I'll be in the middle as an interested observer, throwing in a few comments now and then.

Hey, maybe it's the first sign of schizophrenia...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I tell you what, I'm just going to leave this link here, and then I'm going to go pet my dog and eat a sandwich or something.

Communion of saints - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

Ah, so you don't mean what you write in sometihng close to reality. The living believers are the saints you know. But we can leave it. You see, I do not use words to say thinsg I don't really mean.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That's true. But aren't we both in the same boat? Except that you take your moral positions from one religion. Or shall I say one denomination of one religion. But I'll bet you have good reasons for holding to any given position as well as the fact that it is part of your religious beliefs. So you'd be able to give a valid argument for any given position other than 'it is written'.

We are not quite in the same boat, as least philosophically speaking. I see there being absolutes that are not dependent upon my feelings or understanding or embracing them. They are few but they are rock solid. It is true that I draw my understanding from the teachings of Jesus, all of them, and found his understanding of matters to be equally rock solid. I know the difference between relative positions (personal taste) and absolute truth (independent of my opinion.) I have attended different demoninations, by the way so you won't be able to fix me there.

Can I give a valid argument for my positions? Well, I am not sure as I am still learning. For some, yes for sure. For others I likely have not explored them deeply enough and am unsure of my position in those cases, I think. But you can ask me. On some matters I know that I know the truth. On some matters I know that I do not know the truth and am unsure.

So that's what I do. I have reasons for each of my decisions and I think that they stand up to scrutiny. After very many years on forums such as this I have had the opportunity to test them against people who hold different views. And I have found that there is quite often two ways to approach a problem and my way isn't necessarily the only correct one.

Ah but you believe there is no free will and nevertheless delight in the belief that your wife freely chose you. Do you see the inconsistancy? Please do not use the argumenf from ignorance here. Do not claim that we do not know that we are not free because we are influenced by outside factors we do not know. If we do not know this, then we cannot know that even that position is freely chosen or not.

It's a struggle not being set in one's ways. The times they are a-changing (not that that wasn't ever the case). So I do an internal audit now and then to see if something needs fine tuning. There'll be the devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other and I'll be in the middle as an interested observer, throwing in a few comments now and then.

Hey, maybe it's the first sign of schizophrenia...

No, it is probably more a delightful thought as the one in the middle observing is above the two struggling as a judge is superior to the defendant and to the plantive in a court. Therefore this thought of yours needs fine tuning. No angle is by your side defending against the Devil. That is something you must do.

 

[Bradskii]

We are not quite in the same boat, as least philosophically speaking. I see there being absolutes that are not dependent upon my feelings or understanding or embracing them. They are few but they are rock solid. It is true that I draw my understanding from the teachings of Jesus, all of them, and found his understanding of matters to be equally rock solid. I know the difference between relative positions (personal taste) and absolute truth (independent of my opinion.) I have attended different demoninations, by the way so you won't be able to fix me there.

Can I give a valid argument for my positions? Well, I am not sure as I am still learning. For some, yes for sure. For others I likely have not explored them deeply enough and am unsure of my position in those cases, I think. But you can ask me. On some matters I know that I know the truth. On some matters I know that I do not know the truth and am unsure.
Ah but you believe there is no free will and nevertheless delight in the belief that your wife freely chose you. Do you see the inconsistancy? Please do not use the argumenf from ignorance here. Do not claim that we do not know that we are not free because we are influenced by outside factors we do not know. If we do not know this, then we cannot know that even that position is freely chosen or not.
No, it is probably more a delightful thought as the one in the middle observing is above the two struggling as a judge is superior to the defendant and to the plantive in a court. Therefore this thought of yours needs fine tuning. No angle is by your side defending against the Devil. That is something you must do.

But the absolutes, presumably gleaned from your religious beliefs, are ones with which you agree. And I might agree with them as well. In fact, the chances are that I will agree with them. But as I said, we'd have reasons, other than 'it is written' for holding to them. So I'd suggest that even without your religious beliefs you would hold to them. There's a reason why different religions have a common moral thread running through them. It's because they are common to all of us.

If frustrates me no end when someone declares that 'do unto others...' and other lessons from scripture are specifically Christian messages. If one is an atheist (or a Jew or a Muslim) then you can still listen to the moral teachings of Jesus and take them on board without the necessity of affording him divine knowledge. If you read nothing else but His words then they will stand you in good stead. But if you do even a small amount of investigation into the basis of moral thought then you will find that what He was teaching is pretty much universal across all peoples and throughout time. He wasn't bringing anything new to the table. When He encouraged all to abide by the golden rule, be wasn't formulating a new means of achieving a moral existence. He was reminding us of what had actually got us to that point in the first place. And to consciously apply that universal rule at all times.

And lacking free will does not mean you cannot make choices. It's just that the choices you make are based on circumstances beyond your control. So when I saw this good looking girl across the crowded bar and recognised her as a friend of a friend...she ends up sitting across from me as I type this 41 years later. If I found myself in that bar again then free will would mean that I wouldn't have walked over to her. I would have made a different choice. But if the circumstances were exactly the same, how could I?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

But the absolutes, presumably gleaned from your religious beliefs, are ones with which you agree. And I might agree with them as well. In fact, the chances are that I will agree with them. But as I said, we'd have reasons, other than 'it is written' for holding to them. So I'd suggest that even without your religious beliefs you would hold to them. There's a reason why different religions have a common moral thread running through them. It's because they are common to all of us.

If frustrates me no end when someone declares that 'do unto others...' and other lessons from scripture are specifically Christian messages. If one is an atheist (or a Jew or a Muslim) then you can still listen to the moral teachings of Jesus and take them on board without the necessity of affording him divine knowledge. If you read nothing else but His words then they will stand you in good stead. But if you do even a small amount of investigation into the basis of moral thought then you will find that what He was teaching is pretty much universal across all peoples and throughout time. He wasn't bringing anything new to the table. When He encouraged all to abide by the golden rule, be wasn't formulating a new means of achieving a moral existence. He was reminding us of what had actually got us to that point in the first place. And to consciously apply that universal rule at all times.

PRetty good but I did not get my abolutes from my religious beliefs. I have learned them from comparing various options and testing them in real life. I also walk with God and have learned a great deal from Him directly. That is pretty rare but God started talking to me as a child and that is a long time ago and lots of years to learn.

I have heard that other faiths teach "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found in other religions but when I searched the teachings of other religions, I could not find it anyway. So I am not sure that this is not solely a Christ teaching. But it does appeal to the moral code within us and resinates within.

And lacking free will does not mean you cannot make choices. It's just that the choices you make are based on circumstances beyond your control. So when I saw this good looking girl across the crowded bar and recognised her as a friend of a friend...she ends up sitting across from me as I type this 41 years later. If I found myself in that bar again then free will would mean that I wouldn't have walked over to her. I would have made a different choice. But if the circumstances were exactly the same, how could I?

Isn't lacking free will mean you cannot really make choices? Aren't those two incompatible? You know, I only need a handful or even one example so show that we can make choices and they are based on circumstances that are within our control. When you walk over to her or not is your choice. I don't see how free will is affected by you choosing or not choosing to walk over. What ended the freedom? Knowledge? How does knowledge or experience end the freedom to choose? I don't see that connection.

 

[Bradskii]

PRetty good but I did not get my abolutes from my religious beliefs. I have learned them from comparing various options and testing them in real life. I also walk with God and have learned a great deal from Him directly. That is pretty rare but God started talking to me as a child and that is a long time ago and lots of years to learn.

I have heard that other faiths teach "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found in other religions but when I searched the teachings of other religions, I could not find it anyway. So I am not sure that this is not solely a Christ teaching. But it does appeal to the moral code within us and resinates within.
Isn't lacking free will mean you cannot really make choices? Aren't those two incompatible? You know, I only need a handful or even one example so show that we can make choices and they are based on circumstances that are within our control. When you walk over to her or not is your choice. I don't see how free will is affected by you choosing or not choosing to walk over. What ended the freedom? Knowledge? How does knowledge or experience end the freedom to choose? I don't see that connection.

I've not heard of anyone who claims moral absolutes that doesn't align them with their religion. And by absolutes I mean those moral 'commands' that allow for no consideration of situations and conditions. So 'Do not kill' is a moral absolute whereas 'Do not murder' is not - it's killing under certain conditions.

And my definition of free will is the ability to make a different decision if the conditions were exactly the same. So if I chose to walk across the bar to speak to that girl and we literally reran the situation like we were rerunning a film clip then could I decide not to walk over to her? I say no. Because the reasons I had to do so would be exactly the same. If I chose not to then I would have made that choice for different reasons in which case the situation wouldn't be exactly the same.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've not heard of anyone who claims moral absolutes that doesn't align them with their religion. And by absolutes I mean those moral 'commands' that allow for no consideration of situations and conditions. So 'Do not kill' is a moral absolute whereas 'Do not murder' is not - it's killing under certain conditions.

I said I did not get them from religion, not that the moral absolutes I understand do not align with my faith. And "do not kill" is not the absolute. "Do not murder" is the absolute.

And my definition of free will is the ability to make a different decision if the conditions were exactly the same. So if I chose to walk across the bar to speak to that girl and we literally reran the situation like we were rerunning a film clip then could I decide not to walk over to her? I say no. Because the reasons I had to do so would be exactly the same. If I chose not to then I would have made that choice for different reasons in which case the situation wouldn't be exactly the same.

In this argument you present, you are making the preconditions change depending upon your later decision. That is, if you chose B instead of A, then the conditions between the two changed before hand. You then cannot acknowledge what real life teaches and that the exact same conditions can be in place and the same person chooses differently. Now these conditions are one that affect the matter. The passage of time is not one. So the conditions that are relevant can be exactly the same but the day is Tuesday and not Thursday. That difference plays no role. The thing is, the whole idea of learning in life is negated if all depends upon conditions outside of us and nothing depends upon us learning from past mistakes. We cannot learn if the reason we choose differntly is always conditions outside of us and outside of our control. Your position desroys the possibilty of learning.

 

[Bradskii]

I said I did not get them from religion, not that the moral absolutes I understand do not align with my faith. And "do not kill" is not the absolute. "Do not murder" is the absolute.
In this argument you present, you are making the preconditions change depending upon your later decision. That is, if you chose B instead of A, then the conditions between the two changed before hand. You then cannot acknowledge what real life teaches and that the exact same conditions can be in place and the same person chooses differently. Now these conditions are one that affect the matter. The passage of time is not one. So the conditions that are relevant can be exactly the same but the day is Tuesday and not Thursday. That difference plays no role. The thing is, the whole idea of learning in life is negated if all depends upon conditions outside of us and nothing depends upon us learning from past mistakes. We cannot learn if the reason we choose differntly is always conditions outside of us and outside of our control. Your position desroys the possibilty of learning.

I don't agree that 'do not murder' is an absolute in the sense in which I believe we are discussing it. If it is then any statement is an absolute. You can add as many individual and specific conditions to any event and include as many conditionals and qualifications as you want to make it so. But the definition of absolute is that it contains no qualifications. Do not murder does. It means 'Do not intentionally kill someone in a premeditated and unlawfull fashion'. It is not an absolute by definition.

And you can learn from past experiences. From making mistakes. Your past experiences make up the conditions under which you make decisions. They form part of the new conditions under which you make them. If I walked across the room and made a crude joke to the girl and got a drink thrown over me, then the next time the situation arises in almost exactly the same circumstances then I will have that past experience as part of the new conditions and won't make the same mistake again.

The only way we could truly make a free will choice would be if we were aware we were reliving a moment and thought we'd try for a different outcome. Think Phil in Groundhog Day. He was the only person who had free will available to him. Everyone else made exactly the same choices under the same circumstances.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ah, so you don't mean what you write in sometihng close to reality. The living believers are the saints you know. But we can leave it. You see, I do not use words to say thinsg I don't really mean.

I said what I mean. It just seems that you misunderstood what I meant.

-CryptoLutheran