research question regarding ethics

[juvenissun]

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your time.
To answer your question the statement "truly attempt" obviously implies a total personal commitment. Does not your offer of "one hour per day" denote a part time attempt?
The reason I bring up the question at all is because I am doing research into the degradation of societal ethics in modern society.
Current Christian dogma does not help enough, perhaps, in dealing with the issue. The concept of Grace builds into the sub-conscious that one need not be "good" to achieve heaven. Why would one bother to try hard at being good (although some obviously will no matter what)?
My personal belief is that one should have to be "good" to achieve heaven. That additional precept might help the cause of societal ethical reform.
But I do not know how many others share my view.
I'm exploring if the addendum of living a good life could be a feasible alteration over time.
Church dogma has be altered when realities cause enough conflict. Look at the Reformation as an example.
If the general consensus is "no" then any further sociological and other areas of research into the arena would be a waste of time.
Thanks again for your answer. Any further thoughts?

Yes, the doctrine is a little bit "unreasonable". As long as you "have faith" in Jesus the Christ, you are saved regardless what you have done and what will you do.

There are many reasons that one would "want to" do better than just accepting the Christ. A practical one is: the better you do, the better off you will be in the future.

I guess that is a good enough reason for a person to become "truly good" .

 

[pshun2404]

Dear docsinner

Thank you for your reply to my posting. It is very much appreciated.

You stated: "If you don't mind me asking about your personal beliefs, it sounds as if you are a Christian without believing in Christ (another way to put it would be God). Is that accurate? If so, may I ask what it is that is holding you back from being a believer?"

You asked so I will provide an honest answer. In this answer I mean no disrespect in any way and that I sincerely believe the path through Christ to be a wonderful path for anyone. That said I would not personally consider myself to be a Christian, exactly, although I believe in almost everything Jesus had to say. I do have some credentials to back up my philosophical and religious positions. I have done extensive graduate work, and study (40 years), in the area of comparative religion and ethics. (does this mean I have the correct and/or only answers, heck no!) The best description for my beliefs, I guess, is that I am an ethical humanist. I tend to glean what I consider the strong points from each of the major systems and have, one ethically driven world system. What is holding me back is found within a couple of areas. (again, I mean no disrespect, this is simply the way I personally see reality)

The first area holding me back is the Christian assumption that the Christian path is the only way to God. (Isaiah 45:21, John 14:6 and others) There are six major religions in the world. Every religion, except Christianity, states that there are multiple valid paths to God. This concept that in essence states my way is the only way, falls within the borders of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentric behavior is a very bad human frailty. Further, the concept that Jesus insists on a path through him shows a God with human failings. In the universally accepted definition of God, God is not capable of such human faults. If Jesus had not made this demand it would be much easier for me to accept him more fully.

The second area holding me back is from my studies of the major religions of the world. These ways of thoughts often have much to offer. The concept of Christianity attempts to make other systems false to Christians. Sometimes Christianity offers more advanced concepts, and sometimes other systems are superior. Take for instance the concept of whether the human is born good or evil. The Christian path teaches us of the concept of original sin. It is sometimes hard to be "good" if you were born evil (over simplified). The Chinese seem to have a better path for ethics by stating that the human is born good and through self-cultivation you keep away incroaching selfish desires. You tell me which system would yield superior results here.

The third area is an area that Christians most will never agree with me. I consider the past to be strewn with many great humans and teachers. I consider people such as Plato, Buddha, Confucius, Mencius, Wang Yang Ming and Jesus to be wonderful examples of great human beings from the past. But, to be honest, I personally find no greater philosophical or ethical insight from Jesus than I do from the other great thinkers. Therefore, to me, he stands on exalted footings equal to the others. (By the way, a curious thing of history is that if break each great thinkers concepts to their core, each has basically the same things to say in terms of assisting humanity.)

My biggest single concern is this. Philosophically, for me, I cannot totally accept that a Supreme Being would behave in the way that Jesus does as described in the Bible.

In conclusion here, I find that these areas of concern together keep me from becoming a sole believer in Jesus as the only path to God. I do though consider Jesus a wonderful historical figure with great things to offer the people of the world. I can easily understand why anyone would choose him as their path in life.

With due respect

Michael

The question is not who is the greatest teacher or who are wise teachers, the question is if there is a God how can you have your sins (call it bad Karma if you wish) dealt with? One cannot enter the presence of a pure, holy, and just God with sin so Hinduism and Islam say compensate with your good works, however if you really understand even Hinduism you KNOW this is insufficient to get one off the wheel of life...when ones sins are blotted out (remissed) one is free of it (bad Karma is erased forever). Christ was the answer sent from God to do this. Without the sacrifice He provided and made sufficient you still die in your transgressions and cannot find atonement with or before God. So Christ is God's solution and answer to all the prayers, oblations, sacrifices, and attempts ever made by any man to please, appease, and seek out the approval of this God...so accept God's solution and be free of the wheel of life (become a new creature in Christ being born after the order of the last Adam)...if I may put it in those terms. Buddha, Mohammed, Loa Tze, etc., were all pretty good men as men go but they all died and were buried and their flesh rotted and stank (Christ is risen). Not one of them ever healed the sick, multiplied loaves, revived the deceeased, or had the power or the motivation to remiss the sins of others. None of them could or did offer forgiveness for transgression.

Ethics have very little to do with it. The motivation and inspiration to be what some call "ethical" takes on a whole new meaning in Christ (any atheist can quit drinking or swearing but still die with his sins undealt with and be cast out)

Take their alleged Holy Books or profound writings. Each was predominately one book written by the persons you mentioned so there insights are in agreement with their own minds. Now take the Bible (totally contrary to what comes natural to the godless man)...it is not a boook at all but a biblios of 66 books written over 1500 years by over 30 different authors none of whom claimed to be the answer but all of whom pointed to the answer. They were from three different continents and wrote in a couple of different languages and most of them never met the others or spoke with them (as as to form collusion)...yet when brought together there is an uncanny mathematically improbable unity of theme purpose meaning and plan that all point to one central event (and person) of history...after His death, burial, and bodily resurrection for our sakes all else written pointing back to Him indicates a definite unified purpose and theme which is being fulfilled as we approach His final ultimate purpose. On top of all that this uncanny library is history and over 25,000 details regarding persons, places, and events have been supported by historical reference and archaeological confirmation while not one fact mentioned has ever been controverted by a single find. Wow! If this totally secular reality (even ignoring the spiritual significance for you a sinner) regarding what is the content of this revelation is not the single most amazing phenomena of all ancient writings then I am afraid EG that you are not the scholar you think you are. JMO

Paul

 

[ethicsguy]

I guess what this all comes down to is this. Does the particular person in question need to contain the concept of heaven in their belief system. If one does, than the acceptance of Christ in their life would be a very wise choice. However, not all spiritual people need the concept of heaven as part of their belief structure. Personally, I accept the Confucian rationality to deal with my sins (although I am by no means a Confucianist). And, in my personal belief, ethics has everything to do with spirituality. To me it is the prime objective of spirituality. To me spirituality is not about myself. It is about my efforts to aid all of humankind. Every one sees life through their own set of glasses.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Michael

Michael

 

[Harry3142]

ethicsguy-

I compare the genuine Christian to the viable natural birth. In order for a birth to be seen as viable, and therefore declared successful, there must be a regular heartbeat, respirations, and brain activity. If a child is born with any one of these activites absent, then that birth is seen as either stillborn or one where death is imminent.

In like manner for a person to claim to be born again through having accepted Jesus as both Lord and savior, but for that person to desire what we know to be immoral to the extent that he makes the satisfaction of that desire paramount in his life, indicates that either he has no concept of what is entailed in being a Christian, he has simply mouthed the words as a means of obtaining 'fire insurance' due to a lifestyle he has no intention of abandoning, or he has declared his belief in an attempt to gain the trust of others so that he can more easily victimize them.

 

[pshun2404]

I guess what this all comes down to is this. Does the particular person in question need to contain the concept of heaven in their belief system. If one does, than the acceptance of Christ in their life would be a very wise choice. However, not all spiritual people need the concept of heaven as part of their belief structure. Personally, I accept the Confucian rationality to deal with my sins (although I am by no means a Confucianist). And, in my personal belief, ethics has everything to do with spirituality. To me it is the prime objective of spirituality. To me spirituality is not about myself. It is about my efforts to aid all of humankind. Every one sees life through their own set of glasses.

Thanks again for your thoughts.


Michael

Michael

The problem here is that totally non-spiritual people can be what the world or their culture considers ethical (by choice and public pressure), so I must disagree that that is an essential to being spiritual, but it is true in most cases that people see through their own set of glasses (but not me of course...lol).

Paul

 

[ActionJ]

Interesting observations on your part. You seem to be more "in tune" than many Christians are.

Part of the fault for our decaying society and its failing, ethical standards rests on the shoulders of our Christian pastors and ministers. Most churches are 501c3, tax exempt institutions that are petrified to preach anything that might ruffle the feathers of the IRS or other governmental agencies. "Political correctness" has become the norm. We mustn't anger our masters else we may lose our tax exempt status.

Many pastors spent lots of money to earn their seminary degrees. In order to pay those loans back they need to build a large, prosperous congregation. In order to keep that congregation "happy" and willing to tithe the sermons must be pleasing to the ear and must avoid the topics of sin, repentance, fallen man, sin nature, personal responsibility, damnation, hell, and the like. Folks want their "ears tickled." They want to hear happy, rosy, and easy sermons so they can go home and feel that they did their duty by going to church and dropping some cash in the plate.

The bottom line is that the Bible calls Christians to repentance for their sins. They are urged to "put off the old man and put on the new." They are urged to be good and do good. They are urged to raise their moral and ethical standards in the face and presence of a righteous God. The first step in creating an ethical society is to create and ethical self. Our personal example should be a shining one.

 

[Petrus Romanus]

Hi and thanks for your thoughts.

I think that the respondents might not be deeply understanding the base attempt behind the idea of adding an extra requirement to try to do "good". First though, the idea here is not meant to discredit a great religion. Second, I am not talking, in any way, about removing the concept of grace.

The actual reasoning here is a thought about a possible way to contribute an action that might aid society in their personal, and by extension, their societies ethical lives.
You might be forgetting that you are part of the cream of the crop of Christian adherents. You do not think, and behave, as the common Christian does (the proof for this is the fact that you contribute yourself to this forum). The common Christian, the vast majority, are losing their ethical resolve.

Societal ethics is at close to containing the worst ethical standard in recorded history. A quick example was a recent radio commercial in Philadelphia (I heard this personally). A strip club was running a radio ad offering a special of two for one lap dances.

I believe it is our Christian responsibility to help find a way to deal with this disintegrating ethical reality. A way, I believe, must be discovered to aid the common man in their ethical improvement.

Part of the contribution to this ethical disintegration unfortunately (but not intentional in any way) is the concept of grace. (Remember we are discussing the common Christian, not the superior Christian.)
Grace by saying that one need only accept Christ to go to heaven (over simplified explanation) sets up a very real psychological reality. To the common thought process, on a sub-conscious level, one knows they not need to try hard in the area of ethical behavior since they will achieve heaven regardless. There is no compelling reason to make them do so. The concept of original sin only deepens the problem (why should I try hard to be good if it is an accepted norm that I am bad). As the overall Christian religion is slowly becoming less Christian trained (a given reality) proper adherence is in major decline and the growth of the grace situation becomes much more of a factor.

My concept of the addition that one must truly attempt to do good to achieve heaven is an attempt to partially fight the degradation of the current ethical reality. As Christ said, love thy neighbor. Could this additional guideline not be an act of love to help your neighbor to be a better person? Food for thought.

Responses welcome. Maybe there might be a better way than my idea, or maybe a refinement to my idea might be in order.

Thanks for your time.

Point taken. A famous quote by St. Francis of Assisi is, "Preach the Gospel (good news) always, and if necessary, use words."

 

[ethicsguy]

Paul
Something you said really struck a nerve (I'm sure it was not meant to be derogatory on your part).

You stated: "...you are not the scholar you think you are."

I would never, ever consider myself on the level of a scholar. I consider that you think that I claim to be a scholar is totally false and unjustified. I never said in these writings anything to that idea or affect. I consider the term scholar (in its best usage) to mean someone far superior than others in terms of knowledge. This I definitely claim not to be.

I consider myself to be a fairly well studied person who seeks objectivity when I do research. I do say this cautiously though because no one is truly objective in their thoughts. I merely strive for that goal.

I think, perhaps, my writings within these Christian forums points to my mere search for knowledge and objectivity. I stated up front in the initial posting that I do not have the personal relationship with Christ that you folks have and wanted your view on something. I further stated that I did not want to presume that my opinion would also be the "Christian" opinion. Enough said.

An interesting aside here though. To my amazement I found myself insulted to even be associated with the word scholar. On personal reflection of why I found it so personally objectionable, I was stunned. I realized, for the first time, that I have a very low opinion of most people who would fit the general term scholar. Now I only speak to the fields of philosophy, comparative religion, sociology and psychology as these are typically the only fields I do research in. I consider the term scholar to mean extremely knowledgeable in their field, to be cross educated as to see how other fields interplay into their own, to attempt to advance credible and practical (usable) knowledge in their field, to publish, to not act superior to others, to assist others in their quest for knowledge and to be as objective as possible. Most of those, but not all, can't even muster half of those things on my list. The standard scholar lives in the "ivory tower," is arrogant, has an air of self-importance, has no interdisciplinary desires, write on minutia instead of relevant topics, can't see the forest for the trees and has very little sense of objectivity. (Other than that I think they'er swell people!) Seriously, other than using them to pick their brains, I usually find I have very little use for most of them. I, personally think (and this may be unfair I admit) that people capable of superior thought should be held more accountable then us mere mortals in how they conduct their scholarly life.

(By the way, the most objective thinker on religion I have run across is Huston Smith. His book, "The World Religions" is a wonderful introduction to the main ideas and points of each of the six major world religions. I think it should be required reading for any one who considers himself religious.)

Respectfully

Michael

 

[pshun2404]

What I said was sort of rhetorical...I said, "If this totally secular reality (even ignoring the spiritual significance for you a sinner) regarding what is the content of this revelation is not the single most amazing phenomena of all ancient writings then I am afraid EG that you are not the scholar you think you are."

I apologize if it seemed I was insulting you. I would not intentionally do that. What I was saying (and by the way I have Huston's book) was that in light of what we know "comparatively" (even comparing the Historiographical evidence between these texts and other ancient texts) the uncanny almost inhuman elements surrounding the Bible is pushed aside (not necessarily by you). So what I was saying was that IF you knew the facts I had revealed and disregard such things THEN you would not be demonstrating quality scholarship (again I apologize as I thought you were a scholar, though doing your grad work), and I should have said "not the scholar I thought you were."

Paul

 

[ethicsguy]

Hi Paul (and others)

This will be my last entry to your forum.
My visit with you all has been both enjoyable and informational. You have been all very kind and you have aided me in my quest for greater understanding. I thank you all and especially Paul.

Paul you did question my scholarship, so lets talk scholarship a little before I go.

You made some points while questioning my scholarship so lets look into them. You have a wonderful religion. You need not distort the fact or mislead by omission to defend it. The religion stands tall and highly respected with the story told objectively. Distorting the presentation is not fair to your fellow followers of Christ. Because they respect your scholarship they will not bother to question your details. That said, here we go. (The following quotes are from your posting in this thread from the 19th of Feb 2013, 09:33 AM)

“Buddha, Mohammed, Loa Tze, etc., were all pretty good men as men go but they all died and were buried and their flesh rotted and stank (Christ is risen).” You are correct these particular men have not been resurrected from the dead. But the statement misleads. If you follow history objectively you will notice that Christ, by far, was not the only resurrection story. It is repeated often throughout the world throughout history. None of the others, however, has the great eternal significance of Jesus. THAT is the remarkable fact for Christianity in my opinion.

“Not one of them ever healed the sick, multiplied loaves, revived the deceased”… Again misleading of the actual truth. Even in Christ’s own time, as well as though out history, miracles were being performed quite often. To quote Huston Smith’s writings on Christianity in his book “The World’s Religions” he states: “More-over, other writings of the time contain accounts of miracles in profusion.” Again, an important reality, is that his miracles have gained merit over time while the vast multitude of other miracles have not. The fact itself that he performed miracles does not in any way make him unique in that regard.

… “or had the power or the motivation to remiss the sins of others.” Just because you do not agree with something does not mean it does not exist. I will use Confucianism here because it is the system I am most familiar with, it is not the only religious example by far. The remission of sins IS the main objective of Confucianism. The difference (a very big one) is the approach. In Christianity (to oversimplify) you are born a sinner and it is up to God to forgive your transgressions. The Confucianists look at this very, very differently. To them (again oversimplified) you are born good (Mencius and an uncounted multitude of past Confucian writers) and it is YOUR OWN responsibility to self-cultivate to keep down the transgressions where in the end your positives well make up for your negatives (greatly oversimplified). If you do this exceptionally well you transform from mere human to sage. This is (mostly unobtainable) the real life goal of a Confucianist.

“None of them could or did offer forgiveness for transgression.” This is very, very true. But again, misleading. You seem to suggest that the topic, or concept, does not exist in the rest of the world. Every great religion of the world grapples with the concept. The main difference here, sorry but this is a universal fact, ask your theologian for verification, say that this is of primary importance, but it is up to the individual to make his life acceptable, not to accept transgressions and wait for absolution from Christ as Christianity does.


“Take their alleged Holy Books or profound writings. Each was predominately one book written by the persons you mentioned so there insights are in agreement with their own minds.” Flat out incorrect. But let us notice something here. These thinkers DID write in an effort to aid others in their human quest. In fact, Jesus himself never wrote anything, let alone a book, to assist anyone in their aid in how to carry out their life. Not that this is bad, it is just food for thought.

it is not a book at all but a biblios of 66 books written over 1500 years by over 30 different authors none of whom claimed to be the answer but all of whom pointed to the answer.” This is wonderful but not different from the other belief systems. Again take Confucianism as an example. First there are nine primary texts (not just one). The multitude of Confucian texts makes the amount of Christian writings seem tiny. The tradition is three thousand years old not two thousand. However, all that means nothing. You seem to say that size and bulk of literature has meaning. It means nothing. What the words Say is important. In Christianity the words have tremendous meaning and insight. Pushing volume is irrelevant. It misleads the reader of your writings.

So, Paul lets be cautious of statements about scholarship.
Christianity is a great and sound belief system. Let the facts stand on their own. Christianity is fabulous it can bear the weight. Misleading others as you do here, or even misleading yourself perhaps, does not do Christianity a just service. You are a very wise and intelligent man. I respect you very, very much. My only advice, if I may be permitted to add it here, is for you to let a little objectivity creep into your thoughts. It will not hurt your cause in the slightest.

If email reception can be set up in the preferences, I will make mine accesible to any who would like to converse with me further. Any and all thoughts, observations or questions (except derogatory) are welcome.

I sincerely appreciated the time and conversations with you all.

I respectfully wish you all the best.

 

[pshun2404]

Likewise EG...also for more on the resurrection stories check out Scholar (Historian and Professor) Edwin Yamauchi's Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History...an excellent article and well supported with many sources...Yamauchi found that aside from Osiris's resurrection to the abode of the righteous dead all other accounts are only supported after the Christ events...and points out that what the Bible calls resurrection (anastasis neckron, the standing up of the corpse) and what the Osiris tale describes is in no way related or like one another. Please believe me...after a life as an agnostic it really took a bit of convincing regarding the details of Christianity (other than the salvation concept or that God really is) but it was only as a result of many years of study in archaeology and history and other religious views that for me Christianity was confirmed. I would like to thank you also for your willingness to discuss this important subject and if you would like to PM me I would be glad to share my e-mail address and dialogue further...but I know it is not necessary. If you will, let it be so...otherwise may the LORD continue to work with you and to lead you into all He would like for you...keep up the good work and stay reasonable, a faith with no questions is blind.

In His name

Paul

 

[MacFall]

Would it be appropriate to add the concept that a person must truly attempt to be a "good" person (although not have to succeed at it) to be able to obtain access to heaven.

Yes.

Salvation comes through the acceptance of Christ. To accept Christ is to accept his commandments. To accept his commandments is to attempt goodness (i.e., the love of others) in one's personal conduct.