research question regarding ethics

[ethicsguy]

Hi.
I need some assistance from others who look at religious life differently from the way I do.
I am religious but in a different (not better) way. I do not have the personal resources, as you most likely do, to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. (I have attempted same for 60 years) I have done extensive graduate work, and study, in the area of comparative religion and ethics. The best description for my life is that I am an ethical humanist. For me, attempting to assist our society in an effort to improve the human ethical endeavor fulfills me.
Herein lies my problem. I have a thought regarding a possible enhancement possibility for human ethical behavior. However, I do not want to assume that I know which way a person with a personal relation with Christ would think about this idea.
*Please, if this philosophical side of Christianity does not interest you, please disregard this post, and I thank you for your time.*
The question concerns the Christian concept of Grace ("the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings"). At its base this means that you need not be an ethically "good" person to achieve heaven when you die (although Christian teaching obviously does highly encourage this positive behavior).
The question I put forward is this: 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.
I request just a yes or no response.
(The reasons behind either response are easily understood and well known.
I desire to know how Christians as a whole would feel about this.
*The reason behind my question is because of a base situation found within Christianity itself. Not everyone associated with Christianity is as strong in their belief system as yourselves. The concept of Grace can set up in the "common" Christian a sub-conscious reality that one need not try hard to be "good" since they know they will obtain heaven regardless. I believe that this sub-conscious factor has added to the current (universally accepted) understanding that there is an ever growing degradation of ethics in our society as a whole.
I personally think that adding such a requirement to the afterlife would strengthen both society in general and Christianity in particular. However, I do not want to presume that everyone would agree to this concept. Hence, my question.
I would like to know very much how you feel about this idea. (By the way, I also have a possible solution as to how this alteration could be accepted amongst religious society, if any one is curious.)
I greatly appreciate your time.
If you appreciate thought provoking questions like this, please let me know.
I have one other major question to ask, but will not ask it unless you are receptive to this type of topic.
If I may have offended anyone with this question you have my sincerest apologies. It certainly is not my intention to offend.
Thank you.

 

[juvenissun]

The question I put forward is this: 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.
I request just a yes or no response.

Yes and No.

We live 24 hours a day. If I "truly attempted" to be good one minute, or one hour per day, would that be enough?

In that case, my answer is YES.

If you don't like this answer, then make your question more realistic.

 

[ethicsguy]

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?

 

[seeingeyes]

Hi.
I need some assistance from others who look at religious life differently from the way I do.
I am religious but in a different (not better) way. I do not have the personal resources, as you most likely do, to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. (I have attempted same for 60 years) I have done extensive graduate work, and study, in the area of comparative religion and ethics. The best description for my life is that I am an ethical humanist. For me, attempting to assist our society in an effort to improve the human ethical endeavor fulfills me.
Herein lies my problem. I have a thought regarding a possible enhancement possibility for human ethical behavior. However, I do not want to assume that I know which way a person with a personal relation with Christ would think about this idea.
*Please, if this philosophical side of Christianity does not interest you, please disregard this post, and I thank you for your time.*
The question concerns the Christian concept of Grace ("the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings"). At its base this means that you need not be an ethically "good" person to achieve heaven when you die (although Christian teaching obviously does highly encourage this positive behavior).
The question I put forward is this: 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.
I request just a yes or no response.
(The reasons behind either response are easily understood and well known.
I desire to know how Christians as a whole would feel about this.
*The reason behind my question is because of a base situation found within Christianity itself. Not everyone associated with Christianity is as strong in their belief system as yourselves. The concept of Grace can set up in the "common" Christian a sub-conscious reality that one need not try hard to be "good" since they know they will obtain heaven regardless. I believe that this sub-conscious factor has added to the current (universally accepted) understanding that there is an ever growing degradation of ethics in our society as a whole.
I personally think that adding such a requirement to the afterlife would strengthen both society in general and Christianity in particular. However, I do not want to presume that everyone would agree to this concept. Hence, my question.
I would like to know very much how you feel about this idea. (By the way, I also have a possible solution as to how this alteration could be accepted amongst religious society, if any one is curious.)
I greatly appreciate your time.
If you appreciate thought provoking questions like this, please let me know.
I have one other major question to ask, but will not ask it unless you are receptive to this type of topic.
If I may have offended anyone with this question you have my sincerest apologies. It certainly is not my intention to offend.
Thank you.

Um...yes/no. But let me try and articulate my thinking.

You are certainly right that the 'free ticket to heaven' mentality does no good for anyone (and may, in fact, do evil). Has this idea contributed to the 'degradation of ethics in our society'? Maybe, maybe not. But as a female, I've gotta say that I would not prefer to live in any other time period. I don't believe in the 'good old days'.

The Christian concept of grace is not the free ticket to heaven regardless of one's goodness, nor is it a paid ticket to heaven because of one's goodness. Rather, grace is a gift of love that, once given, inspires but does not obligate reciprocation. Once we have received love, and recognized it as such, we enter into a spirit of giving. We give freely to the One who is love, and we also give freely to those around us based not on what they deserve, but based on how much we love them. That is the love we have been shown, and that is the love that we show.

Rejecting the gift can only be done by rejecting the whole concept of giving.

So, rather than saying that we accept free grace, and then try to be a good person, it is better to say that by accepting the gift we become that good person, and then we act like the good person we have declared to be by God's grace.

Now would a Confucius-style network of ethics keep more people from locking their doors at night? Sure it would. And the church has in many times, in different places, provided just that service for society. (Just as other systems have.) It could do so again in the future, provided that it had enough 'pull' to keep parishioners in line.

But I don't think the church has that pull anymore. You'd be better off looking at another institution to 'enforce' morality.

 

[hedrick]

I share your concern. Jesus was so concerned about how we treat each other that it's hard to see him being happy with Christians who think believing the right thing is enough.

My sense is that for Paul, faith is a whole style of life. Jesus' corresponding concept is love of God and neighbor, since that's what he saw as the basis for our Christian lives.

Both of these things are as much motivation as anything else, but still, Jesus clearly expected actual fruit, to use his most common term. What both Paul and Jesus didn't want, however, was the idea that God counted good deeds. So about all I can say is that Jesus, and I think Paul, was looking for a whole life reflecting our status as Jesus' followers. Ideally it would reflect him in doing God's will all the time. But in passages such as the story of the Pharisee and tax collector in the Temple, Jesus was clear that sometimes this quality of life may be shown more in repentance than accomplishment.

I don't think Jesus thought we could be "good." He rejected applying the term even to himself. And in one of his parables he said that servants who obey don't get any credit for it. They're just doing what they are told. However he does speak several times of people being righteous. My understanding of that term is that it doesn't represent moral perfection, but being justified before God, i.e. to being Jesus' follower and showing it (imperfectly) in our lives by how we treat others and by humility and repentance.

In better Protestant theology grace isn't a replacement for life as a follower of Christ. Rather, grace is an attribute of God, his commitment to saving his people, by calling them to lives as followers of Jesus, no matter how unworthy they are, and grafting them into Christ (using Paul's terminology) to make that happen.

 

[pshun2404]

You said, "I do not have the personal resources, as you most likely do, to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. (I have attempted same for 60 years) I have done extensive graduate work, and study, in the area of comparative religion and ethics."

No wonder you never found a personal relationship with Christ. All of this would have been fine if you were already God's child (born from above) but these things could never, no not ever, get you there. Because the sins you have committed as lord of your own life are still there. It is not about intellectual understanding,. which is predominately opinion, and nothing more. So do you know your mother? Can you deny she is/was a real living being? Did you love her? Did you strive to please her? So it is with God.

Secondly, getting into heaven is not about how many good versus bad works one can do...in fact it is a by-product. The issue is faith (pistis - trusting in, relying on and cleaving to God). Do you believe God (not just in Him)? If you do then you would seek Christ and embrace His finished work on your behalf and go and get Baptized praying for the Holy Spirit...and so on...and that is what matters in regards to eternal life. Whosoever has the Spirit of Christ in them cannot be ethically evil, those who claim to but are ethically evil do not have His Spirit within them and are none of His.

In His name

Paul

 

[ethicsguy]

Dear pshun2404,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts/beliefs with me. It is always enlightening to see another person's view into the world especially when those ideas are as foreign as yours are to mine. I sincerely thank you, it is clearly food for thought. I find it pleasant that we have both been able to find spiritual fulfillment even through they are achieved through differing directions.

Is my path correct and yours incorrect? Absolutely not. In my understanding any non harmful approach that provides enlightenment is a good thing for the person's self. You mentioned that my approach is merely "opinion and nothing more", which is interesting because your statement "It is not about intellectual understanding" is definitely an opinion, and a questionable one at that, according to thousands and thousands of clergy, theologians and common Christians.
Anyway, your personal fulfillment strategy is based on faith and mine is based on philosophical religion. I am happy for you that this method has found you peace and contentment. Just as you may yearn for me to find the answer through faith, I yearn for you to give "intellectualism" a chance.

Best of life

Michael

 

[pshun2404]

Hi Michael,

Well I am not against intellectualism in any way, it is just that by it you can never KNOW God. I also have studied Psych, Phil, Anthro, Soc, Comparative Religions was a necessity for me (both studied and even practiced a few before God called me), and I am a Clinical Trial Assistant in my money making profession and have worked at some the worlds largest Biotech and Pharma firms (so I love science also)...but beware there are many wolves with sheepskins...

Also you said You mentioned that my approach is merely "opinion and nothing more" but I did not speak about you personally at all...I merely pointed out that a purely intellectual understanding is often opinion and nothing more (actual experience is also valuable)...that's quite different than accusing your understanding as mere opinion. An intellectual understanding is great thing. I can cook (good I am told) and I also know about cooking (the study of it came later)...which will sustain me? The study of it alone can not feed my household or allow me to be this kind of hospitable even though I could discuss it for hours, but whipping up a yummy chicken/vegie lo mein that tastes as good as a what you buy in less than a half hour and feeding a small multitude of hungry souls gives and entirely different satisfaction.

Do you know there is a God or merely accept the possibility?

In His love

Paul

 

[dysert]

The question concerns the Christian concept of Grace ("the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings"). At its base this means that you need not be an ethically "good" person to achieve heaven when you die (although Christian teaching obviously does highly encourage this positive behavior).

The question I put forward is this: 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.

Seems to me that you've answered your own question. Given that grace is unmerited favor, it means we can't do anything to earn it (or else it wouldn't be grace). So the answer is no. There is no requirement that a person attempt to be good in order to obtain access to heaven. (Incidentally, a Christian will attempt to be good, but that comes after salvation -- it's not a condition for salvation.)

 

[ethicsguy]

Hi Paul,

You appear to be an intelligent sincere and thoughtful individual. Someone I would be honored to know if I ever got the chance.
You asked in your last post "Do you know there is a God or merely accept the possibility?".
I normally would not answer that question because most would not understand my answer and angered over the answer. Your base of existence I believe can handle my answer. So, with fingers crossed, and hoping I do not offend, here goes. (any stated information here is not mere opinion, usually, but the accepted norms of the philosophic and theologic communities.)

The short seemingly stupid answer is yes there is a God and no I only accept the possibility of a God.

When one studies religion/philosophy on an upper level one of the first realities presented is that there is in actuality two tiers to religious belief. All of the six great world religions contain this same phenomena (you most likely know this). There is the religion of the masses and the religion of the theologians/monks/philosophers. The two areas actually have very little in common with each other. Religion of the masses (the common religion) focuses on the realm of solving the psychological needs for the believer. Religion of the theologians/monks/philosophers level ignores the psychological needs and focuses on the underlying "truths" (whatever that may be) of the religion. Let me illustrate with an example. Lets discuss the element of prayer. Prayer for the typical believer may be one of the most beneficial and personally rewarding elements of one's religion. Prayer, very much so, helps them with their daily lives. However, to the other level of adherents, prayer is considered a disrespectful act towards the concept of God (except for prayers of gratitude). By definition God is omnipotent, all knowing. God knows what is happening at all times and has decided exactly what the future brings. All common prayer, except for prayers of gratitude, are asking God for things in one way or the other. For instance, "please don't let my father lose his job," or "let my son's broken bone heal." The prayer is disrespectful to God because God's decisions are already made. On the base level here these prayers are actually either asking God to change his mind on what will be the outcome or the prayers are reminding God to keep the proper decision in place. Either of those realities are disrespectful in their essence. Therefore, prayer on an upper level of belief is avoided.

This being stated then our initial question actually exists on two levels. So lets examine the standard religion level, religion for the masses, first. From the philosophical school of pragmatism it is stated that if there are measurable results of a thing then that thing must by definition be real. Since common religion gives substantial benefit to the adherent then God must be real, and I whole heartedly endorse God. In fact it goes deeper for me. Seeing the wonderful benefits that are produced for people I have the greatest admiration and respect for God. Unfortunately for God I have more respect for this being than most true believers have. For instance, a common expression used when surprised is "oh my God." I find that very disrespectful to the concept of God. My children were raised to never use that phraseology. Another example is that of how one dresses to attend church. While actually believing that one need not attend church to worship, I do believe that if one attends he should dress in a respectful manner. Yet how many times do we see jeans and a tee shirt in church. One should worship as they see fit. I just wish they had a little more respect for the concept. In conclusion here I very much believe in God on this level.

The second level, the supreme being concept, for the second tier, my answer is I merely accept the possibility. The second tier of religion is a very unique, and somewhat bizarre, place. It is by no means a place to be taken lightly, is very difficult to attain, and many who think they have attained it have not. And, very few people can comprehend how it changes the view of reality with all of its ramifications. Your example with cooking is what made me decide to have this conversation with you. I believe you "get it." I tend to use the analogy with tennis. There are millions who play tennis, but there are very few tennis players. The same goes for philosophy but it is more involved. There are people who study philosophy and then there actual philosophers. By far most never attain the "flip of the switch." At my university I was associated with 32 philosophy professors over the years. Most thought they obtained the level. In reality, only 1 did (he was a theologian by the way). To dig deeper. There are two levels of knowing. One is knowing the definition of a thing. The other is understanding the essence of the thing. As part of my comparative religion studies I had two courses in Hinduism, one undergraduate and one graduate. On one of the exams as an undergraduate I had to explain Hindu concepts. I did so and received an "A." In the graduate course, years later, the exam again asked for explanations of Hindu concepts. I left the blue book blank with the explanation that if one truly understands the concepts they could not be put down in simple words. I not only received the "A" but was told I was the only one of his students who ever really "got it." Another university observation. I once had a graduate seminar on Plato. There were no lectures. We were assigned to read Plato's writings and then had group discussions in class on what we read. There were two grades for the class, a research paper and a grade on how you carried your end of the discussions in class. I received the lowest grade in the class. I led every discussion, carried my points of discussion well, and received the highest grade in the class on the paper. I did not understand the grade. I asked the chairman of the department if he understood. He explained this to me. In the beginning of every class discussion the professor opened with "assuming there is a soul discuss this reading." Well, since philosophy means explore everything that statement did not sit well with me. So each class I respectfully said, professor assuming things in philosophy is counterintuitive. Perhaps we should explore the concept of soul within Plato's usage of the concept. The chairman explained that that was why I received the lowest grade. I said, I got the lowest grade because I requested to explore a philosophical concept? The chairman said, you do not understand. You questioned the concept of the soul to a monk. I did not know he was a monk. But it should not matter. A true student of philosophy should be above the pettiness of standard human behavior. The bottom line here is that just because one knows does not actually mean they truly know. I might be, but I doubt it, on that second tier of religion. When one explores at this depth one eventually comes to the realization that something is extremely intertwined, that actual "good" may be a result, but that this concept is much more involved and complex than merely a psychologically enhancing level of God. Therefore, on this level, there is definitely something, it is just too simple to call it
God.

With respect

Michael

 

[pshun2404]

When one studies religion/philosophy on an upper level one of the first realities presented is that there is in actuality two tiers to religious belief. All of the six great world religions contain this same phenomena (you most likely know this). There is the religion of the masses and the religion of the theologians/monks/philosophers. The two areas actually have very little in common with each other. Religion of the masses (the common religion) focuses on the realm of solving the psychological needs for the believer. Religion of the theologians/monks/philosophers level ignores the psychological needs and focuses on the underlying "truths" (whatever that may be) of the religion. Let me illustrate with an example.

Okay! I do know this view already, as you suggested. But I have issue with the assumption on the part of SOME scholars that the religion of the masses is merely their fear or insecurity stemming from their unmet needs (psycho-emotional-physical-social and so on). For example when Jesus told us pray thus and so this included or covered a great many essential needs but the focus was still LORD based beginning with recognition/praise toward and ending with recognition/praise toward this being. So if there is a real and living God, this God may foreknow what prayers will or will not be answered (sometimes differently than we expected or in His timing not ours) according to His will and purpose but indeed sometimes does appear to answer. Now some would say this is mere coincidence (not that this is what you are saying) but I cannot conclude that, being that so many prayers I have offered have been answered against all odds and just the sheer number of answered prayers alone (let alone those millions of people who have similar testimony through time) is beyond the acceptable range probabilities.

And then there are experiences like (one of the many I’ve had) when Baptized. Before this day I had suffered for years with a life-long blood condition of acidosis (at least according to science and all the doctors) and was to be on Zyloprim or some other supplemental alkali for the rest of my life after continuous bouts with kidney stones and the risk of near death PH balance many times growing up.

Well when Christ made Himself known to me and I could no longer deny the reality of God or His Messiah I went forth to be Baptized (I was 32 years old and was raised by a naturalist father)…when plunged under the water suddenly a still small voice within very distinctly said “throw away your medicine you no longer need it, you are healed”. After being raised, as if compelled with no thought or argument from within, I went to my clothes and threw away my medicine…and to this day I have never had a problem with my PH and have not passed any more Kidney stone…coincidence? I think not. There is not “reason” other than God for why from that day this problem is gone. Certainly no empirical study can say why. I never told the pastor or members of that congregation.

Lets discuss the element of prayer. Prayer for the typical believer may be one of the most beneficial and personally rewarding elements of one's religion. Prayer, very much so, helps them with their daily lives. However, to the other level of adherents, prayer is considered a disrespectful act towards the concept of God (except for prayers of gratitude). By definition God is omnipotent, all knowing. God knows what is happening at all times and has decided exactly what the future brings. All common prayer, except for prayers of gratitude, are asking God for things in one way or the other. For instance, "please don't let my father lose his job," or "let my son's broken bone heal." The prayer is disrespectful to God because God's decisions are already made. On the base level here these prayers are actually either asking God to change his mind on what will be the outcome or the prayers are reminding God to keep the proper decision in place. Either of those realities are disrespectful in their essence. Therefore, prayer on an upper level of belief is avoided.

This would be the ultimate view of a Calvinist or a Wahhabist Muslim who see God as a divine puppet master pulling every string so that in effect one could actually say even if I rape your family females and torture and kill all of you, it was God’s will, but it is not the case if man (according to His purpose) has free will, because though God KNOWS what will happen that does not equal His causing it. In other words, before the creation of the world God foreknew all the requests, choices, and actions of all His free will creatures (some angelic beings and humans) and worked all this into His plan (according to His sovereign will) all those requests, choices, and actions of all these creatures. He accomplished His will because this freedom of volitional choice was His will but the choice was determined freely according to (in most but not all cases) their mind, heart, circumstance, etc. In this equally possible scenario prayer is not disrespectful at all but one of the wisest of paths (seek His will and His guidance and assistance)…

This being stated then our initial question actually exists on two levels. So let’s examine the standard religion level, religion for the masses, first. From the philosophical school of pragmatism it is stated that if there are measurable results of a thing then that thing must by definition be real. Since common religion gives substantial benefit to the adherent then God must be real, and I whole heartedly endorse God. In fact it goes deeper for me. Seeing the wonderful benefits that are produced for people I have the greatest admiration and respect for God. Unfortunately for God I have more respect for this being than most true believers have. For instance, a common expression used when surprised is "oh my God." I find that very disrespectful to the concept of God. My children were raised to never use that phraseology. Another example is that of how one dresses to attend church. While actually believing that one need not attend church to worship, I do believe that if one attends he should dress in a respectful manner. Yet how many times do we see jeans and a tee shirt in church. One should worship as they see fit. I just wish they had a little more respect for the concept. In conclusion here I very much believe in God on this level.

I agree with you here. And I would also love to be able to personally sit with you and pick your brain and discuss many things, so if I disagree on this or that issue or point do not think I do not have great respect for you or for the philosophical approach which ultimately asks can we demonstrate a truth or not and what makes this position probable or inprobable, etc. And yes I know there is a “common” religious approach to God (“common” in terms of the regular and uneducated masses doing as they are taught or have had modeled etc…I call this a simple faith…they just believe without any reasoning have been involved and follow the rituals and often this is strictly due to family tradition or culture) and I agree that there are those who want to really seek and know and experience the presence of God and these latter persons end up comprehending what can be understood of Him in a different way.

Our problem Michael is that if we really try and get into the details and implications of what we would discuss the posts (as these last two for example) would be too long for the board (though we have a few here that could get deeply engaged in the finer nuances of these points. So finally here, I am not a person who believes prayer is disrespectful (but desired by this God) because I do believe God made us with free will and that argument has been the substance (with some great points on both sides…mostly Biblical because this is a Christian forum) of many debates and hundreds of posts. In these there are basically three positions…one with God being as you described, another totally the opposite where man is the determiner of his destiny, and a third among a particular type of synergist that sees it as God’s initiation but requiring man’s response. Perhaps you might read some of these in the general theology section or even in other threads here if you are interested. But as for ethics, I do believe they are greatly determined or influenced by modeling, cultural mores, religious teaching, etc., but I also believe there is a commonality intrinsically programmed based on the reality of God and the two most basic drives (self- preservation and procreation) that He institute. I find in the most obscure cultures and most ancient civilizations there is a respect for the dead and prohibition against murder and stealing etc., and fell this is more than just learning…it is something instinctual (an innate tendency toward a kind of morality shared in common that strict materialistic determinism is inadequate to explain)

See now I am going long winded again…oh well…

The Lord bless…

Paul

 

[ethicsguy]

Hi Paul

I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. This is one of the reasons why I joined this forum. Your ideas have provided a new (to me) path to knowledge and understanding that I never would have contemplated on my own.

I wish you well

Michael

 

[Harry3142]

ethicsguy-

Your question implies Christianity as being an organization. However, it is better seen as a living organism. And just as the birth of a viable organism is measured by pulse and respiration proceeding from that birth, the rebirth in a spiritual manner is measured by the newness of our focus. So it's not a matter of accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior, and then in addition to this acceptance accepting that we must follow certain laws and commandments as being necessary for our salvation. Instead, it is an accepting of Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior's itself causing our old nature to be subdued, and then replaced with a new nature whose motivations culminate in actions which conform to what God wants of us.

Being a Pharisee St. Paul recognized this better than many of us give him credit for. He was brought up to obey commandments because they were written in Torah. Those which were positive commandments he was to perform; those which were negative commandments he was to refrain from performing. But in both cases the underlying motivation was purely legalistic, rather than its being from the heart.

After his conversion St. Paul came to the realization that in order to truly perform the actions which God wants of us, the motivation for those actions must also be what God wants of us. IOW, it was not enough to do the right things; they must also be done for the right reasons.

He made that clear in his letter to the Galatians, in which he identified those motivations which are to be seen as the continuation of the old, sinful nature, as well as the motivations which are to be seen as a true rebirth into the new nature:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

The motivations listed under the heading of 'the acts of the sinful nature' are those which culminate in the commission of sinful acts. Motivations such as hatred, fits of rage, selfish ambition, etc. can only lead to actions which are contrary to God's will, since the motivations themselves are contrary to God's will. This applies even to those actions which people attempt to cloak in the garb of pietism. Just as a poisoned tree cannot yield good fruit, actions which have these motivations at their core cannot be seen as righteous.

It is only when the motivations which are the origin of our actions are those listed under the heading of 'the fruit of the Spirit' that the actions which they culminate in our performing are assured of conforming to God's will. It is these motivations which make up the new nature, and so to claim to be a Christian without having them is akin to claiming to be an airline pilot without ever having sat in the pilot's seat of an aircraft. Their importance is made clear by the words which immediately follow the listing of these 'fruit': "Against such things there is no law." So long as they are the core motivations which lead to our actions, those actions will conform to God's will.

 

[bricklayer]

Creatures are to creation the characters of a novel work.

Ask the same questions about characters and you will have all of your answers about creatures.

Grace can only eminate from sovereignty.

 

[docsinner]

Hi.
I need some assistance from others who look at religious life differently from the way I do.
I am religious but in a different (not better) way. I do not have the personal resources, as you most likely do, to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. (I have attempted same for 60 years) I have done extensive graduate work, and study, in the area of comparative religion and ethics. The best description for my life is that I am an ethical humanist. For me, attempting to assist our society in an effort to improve the human ethical endeavor fulfills me.
Herein lies my problem. I have a thought regarding a possible enhancement possibility for human ethical behavior. However, I do not want to assume that I know which way a person with a personal relation with Christ would think about this idea.
*Please, if this philosophical side of Christianity does not interest you, please disregard this post, and I thank you for your time.*
The question concerns the Christian concept of Grace ("the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings"). At its base this means that you need not be an ethically "good" person to achieve heaven when you die (although Christian teaching obviously does highly encourage this positive behavior).
The question I put forward is this: 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.
I request just a yes or no response.
(The reasons behind either response are easily understood and well known.
I desire to know how Christians as a whole would feel about this.
*The reason behind my question is because of a base situation found within Christianity itself. Not everyone associated with Christianity is as strong in their belief system as yourselves. The concept of Grace can set up in the "common" Christian a sub-conscious reality that one need not try hard to be "good" since they know they will obtain heaven regardless. I believe that this sub-conscious factor has added to the current (universally accepted) understanding that there is an ever growing degradation of ethics in our society as a whole.
I personally think that adding such a requirement to the afterlife would strengthen both society in general and Christianity in particular. However, I do not want to presume that everyone would agree to this concept. Hence, my question.
I would like to know very much how you feel about this idea. (By the way, I also have a possible solution as to how this alteration could be accepted amongst religious society, if any one is curious.)
I greatly appreciate your time.
If you appreciate thought provoking questions like this, please let me know.
I have one other major question to ask, but will not ask it unless you are receptive to this type of topic.
If I may have offended anyone with this question you have my sincerest apologies. It certainly is not my intention to offend.
Thank you.

The answer to your question in it's most simple form would be yes (in my opinion). Of course there is much more understanding (gained from reading the bible) and definition to the term "good" that would be required.

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?

 

[docsinner]

Um...yes/no. But let me try and articulate my thinking.

You are certainly right that the 'free ticket to heaven' mentality does no good for anyone (and may, in fact, do evil). Has this idea contributed to the 'degradation of ethics in our society'? Maybe, maybe not. But as a female, I've gotta say that I would not prefer to live in any other time period. I don't believe in the 'good old days'.

The Christian concept of grace is not the free ticket to heaven regardless of one's goodness, nor is it a paid ticket to heaven because of one's goodness. Rather, grace is a gift of love that, once given, inspires but does not obligate reciprocation. Once we have received love, and recognized it as such, we enter into a spirit of giving. We give freely to the One who is love, and we also give freely to those around us based not on what they deserve, but based on how much we love them. That is the love we have been shown, and that is the love that we show.

Rejecting the gift can only be done by rejecting the whole concept of giving.

So, rather than saying that we accept free grace, and then try to be a good person, it is better to say that by accepting the gift we become that good person, and then we act like the good person we have declared to be by God's grace.

Now would a Confucius-style network of ethics keep more people from locking their doors at night? Sure it would. And the church has in many times, in different places, provided just that service for society. (Just as other systems have.) It could do so again in the future, provided that it had enough 'pull' to keep parishioners in line.

But I don't think the church has that pull anymore. You'd be better off looking at another institution to 'enforce' morality.

I think this is very well stated, I agree!

 

[ethicsguy]

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

 

[Petrus Romanus]

I think you answered your own question, Ethicsguy.

''The question concerns the Christian concept of Grace ('the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings). At its base this means that you need not be an ethically 'good' person to achieve heaven when you die (although Christian teaching obviously does highly encourage this positive behavior).

The question I put forward is this: 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. I request just a yes or no response.''

NO. Consider the Apostle Paul who persecuted Christians with zeal and was dumbfounded by his Damascus road experience.

One of the best and most honest answers to the question, ''How did you become a Christian?'' is, ''I fought him for as long as I could before I surrendered.''

Regardless of one's lot in life, I think it's healthy to keep the conversation with God going, even if it's profanity-laced versions of Psalm 22. ''What hast thou forsaken me, you ^&&%$#!!,,,'' The Psalms are full of laments like that.

 

[ActionJ]

Hi.
I need some assistance from others who look at religious life differently from the way I do.
I am religious but in a different (not better) way. I do not have the personal resources, as you most likely do, to obtain a personal relationship with Christ. (I have attempted same for 60 years) I have done extensive graduate work, and study, in the area of comparative religion and ethics. The best description for my life is that I am an ethical humanist. For me, attempting to assist our society in an effort to improve the human ethical endeavor fulfills me.
Herein lies my problem. I have a thought regarding a possible enhancement possibility for human ethical behavior. However, I do not want to assume that I know which way a person with a personal relation with Christ would think about this idea.
*Please, if this philosophical side of Christianity does not interest you, please disregard this post, and I thank you for your time.*
The question concerns the Christian concept of Grace ("the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings"). At its base this means that you need not be an ethically "good" person to achieve heaven when you die (although Christian teaching obviously does highly encourage this positive behavior).
The question I put forward is this: 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.
I request just a yes or no response.
(The reasons behind either response are easily understood and well known.
I desire to know how Christians as a whole would feel about this.
*The reason behind my question is because of a base situation found within Christianity itself. Not everyone associated with Christianity is as strong in their belief system as yourselves. The concept of Grace can set up in the "common" Christian a sub-conscious reality that one need not try hard to be "good" since they know they will obtain heaven regardless. I believe that this sub-conscious factor has added to the current (universally accepted) understanding that there is an ever growing degradation of ethics in our society as a whole.
I personally think that adding such a requirement to the afterlife would strengthen both society in general and Christianity in particular. However, I do not want to presume that everyone would agree to this concept. Hence, my question.
I would like to know very much how you feel about this idea. (By the way, I also have a possible solution as to how this alteration could be accepted amongst religious society, if any one is curious.)
I greatly appreciate your time.
If you appreciate thought provoking questions like this, please let me know.
I have one other major question to ask, but will not ask it unless you are receptive to this type of topic.
If I may have offended anyone with this question you have my sincerest apologies. It certainly is not my intention to offend.
Thank you.

I think Christ answers your general question in two ways. First, He commands us to "love thy neighbor." He tells us to treat others as we would have others treat us. It's really that simple, in my opinion.

Matthew 7:12, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22:36-39, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 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. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Secondly, He answers your general question in the manner by which He lived His own life. He became a living example by literally helping folks who were truly in need. He healed the sick, the blind, folks possessed with demons, and the like. He also laid down His life on behalf of countless souls (past, present, and future).

He said this:

John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

So ... to answer your question, I do believe that Christians are called to be good. I do believe that some "good" organizations have manifested themselves as a result of sound, Christian theology:

The Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity are a couple that come to mind.

 

[ethicsguy]

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.