Friday, September 18, 2009

Good Being v. Good Actions

The word “good” seems to be an ambiguous term at times especially when it is used without reference to a constant anchor. When we speak of the “good” or “right” with regard to morality there are multiple levels of discussion that can ensue. I will not be covering them all in this post. We could discuss how we can know the good, or how we can’t, or how we decide that in each society, or how it is artificially created versus being discovered and uncreated by humans. . . Even then we could discuss the reality of some of what we consider moral as being artificial and some as being discovered and how to unravel what are cultural mores and what are timeless truths.


Most debate for any of these discussions will have some truth. One can’t say that all rules of living were discovered, because we have obviously as humans invented prudish or practical rules of living that have been abandoned by other generations. However, we also have true good principals for living that have been abandoned at times and rediscovered. Thus, abandoning them doesn’t equate with their artificiality.


It is human to be moral beings concerned with right and wrong in some form or fashion whether in extreme or in balance. Thus, we transfer our desire to “be a good person” to a God who we extrapolate to think like we do who equates goodness with moral actions. In reality, God does not equate goodness with good actions. He equates goodness with His life and He gives us that goodness so that we can live a new life from righteousness instead of as slaves to unrighteousness. So we no longer have to pattern our lives trying to figure out whose rules to follow to be good, but we begin a life learning how to live from the goodness of the life within us. We learn to live from His life rather then by rules. That doesn’t exempt a person from the goodness of the rules; it just means the person goes about it by a different method. Good actions become a by product of knowing the Lord rather than the moral goal of life.


Now this is why there is not much use in morally condemning people because of their sinful actions. A person is not morally “bad” or “good” based on their actions. Goodness doesn’t come from “good actions” it comes from a good God. Bear with me for a minute, I know this has not been proven to you and that many of you do not believe it is possible, but I am trying to help you understand the Christian position before you argue against it, or for the sake of argument, my Christian position. We need not divert on debating whether or not every Christian sees it this way.


Now, like I indicated above, the discussion of the good is multifaceted. There is a difference between not condemning and not helping a person doing something that is not good for them or others. For example, a friend of yours is cheating on all of his college exams. If you condemn him you may say something like, “Frank you are a despicable person cheating like that you should be ashamed of yourself—you are so stupid.” Then think to yourself how much better you are because you don’t participate in such sinful things. Of course, most who think this way are doing a plethora of their own “bad” things they fail to see. However, the non-condemning, but helpful option might be to talk to him about how he is hurting himself by not learning the material legitimately and offer to help him study. The second option is out of love and concern for your friend where the first would be an indignant tongue lashing that only leaves him feeling terrible and worthless. The first response might cause him to continue his behavior, where the second might set him on a new course of life that validates his learning ability and keeps him from a life of cheating.


So while cheating or not cheating doesn’t make people more “good” in their being, there are life problems that are caused by making bad choices and doing bad things. So it wouldn’t be love to ignore a loved ones bad choices or to keep them from consequences of them by enabling them. This is to say that there are times where consequences for actions that harm others or oneself is necessary especially in a society where laws are established to protect the society and enforce obedience to those laws. However, laws are not always matters of right and wrong, but matters of legality as we have agreed. Sometimes they correspond to something really wrong, but most of the time they are a matter of safety of the individual or group rather than ethics. Love isn’t blind to a person’s faults, but loves despite of them.


RECAP:
God isn’t after us to earn moral goodness

We become righteous when His life merges with ours

God gave external laws and wrote them into our consciousness so that those who did not know Him could keep from doing things that harmed them – not as a rule book for gaining goodness. This was for our well-being.

We don’t have to live by laws when we know Him for He promises to show us how to live from our new identity as righteous beings which will manifest externally as we grow

It’s not necessary to condemn someone who lives in sin (at any level of sin). This does not mean a person who harms another should be brought to justice according the laws of the land. But it means our heart attitude is forgiving despite the necessity of the person enduring consequences for the sake of justice, for the good of the society, and for their own good.


Many of these things I am talking about may be foreign concepts and some may seem preposterous. I am not asking for you to believe this is true, but to understand this in the way you would seek to understand a view point on a topic for a college essay. It doesn’t mean you agree with the view, but you would be seeking to explain it fairly. Once I see there is understanding, then it is much easier for you to give a counter argument. Please ask questions so I can clarify anything that needs to be explained more fully.

15 comments:

GCT said...

So, it seems that you are claiming that god doesn't care whether I rush into a burning building to save someone or not. What he really cares about is whether I'm his buddy. How can you claim that that is moral?

I also see a bid difference between cheating on a test and committing genocide. Responses to both should be different, as responses to any moral or ethical dilemma will depend on the event and the people involved. It's too black/white and generic to claim that we should 'respond with love.' Love for whom? Love for the genocidal maniac (which you seem to have in regards to god) or love for the victims and potential victims (which you don't seem to have in regards to god's treatment of the human race)?

Karla said...

Doing "good" things doesn't earn you favor with God. The whole system of basing our goodness on "good v. evil" actions came from our fallen knowledge of good and evil. God's way is to cleanse us by fusing us with His life which pulls us out of the life of law (the life that trys to figure out good things and do those versus bad things to feel better, or earn His favor, etc.) and set us free from that struggle to living a life from goodness.

GCT "It's too black/white and generic to claim that we should 'respond with love.' Love for whom?"

So what are you saying here? I don't want to assume anything, please elaborate more.


GCT "Love for the genocidal maniac (which you seem to have in regards to god) or love for the victims and potential victims (which you don't seem to have in regards to god's treatment of the human race)?"

So do you think it is wrong to show love and forgiveness to say a murderer? And that one should love the victim, but not the one who made them a victim?

GCT said...

"Doing "good" things doesn't earn you favor with God. The whole system of basing our goodness on "good v. evil" actions came from our fallen knowledge of good and evil. God's way is to cleanse us by fusing us with His life which pulls us out of the life of law (the life that trys to figure out good things and do those versus bad things to feel better, or earn His favor, etc.) and set us free from that struggle to living a life from goodness."

So, you are saying that god doesn't care whether we rush into a burning building to help someone or whether we started the fire so long as we are his friend. Why do I feel like you're describing a god that is mired in high-school clique-ishness?

Let me ask you this. Would a serial rapist/murderer be worthy of heaven so long as he believes in Jesus?

"So what are you saying here? I don't want to assume anything, please elaborate more."

Elaborate more? I laid it out probably as well as I can. To simply say that we must respond to all situations with one response is too black/white.

"So do you think it is wrong to show love and forgiveness to say a murderer? And that one should love the victim, but not the one who made them a victim?"

Sometimes. Would it be considered loving to not help the victims of genocide because you simultaneously don't want to upset the person committing the genocide? What do you do when the idea of loving persons X and Y are in contradistinction to each other? (IOW, what if you must attack or punish X in order to do what is right for Y? This falls under the idea of just war, which you seem to have indicated that you support.)

Karla said...

GCT "So, you are saying that god doesn't care whether we rush into a burning building to help someone or whether we started the fire so long as we are his friend. Why do I feel like you're describing a god that is mired in high-school clique-ishness?"

God cares that we help people and all, it just isn't the way to becoming righteous. We can't conflate the two.

GCT "Let me ask you this. Would a serial rapist/murderer be worthy of heaven so long as he believes in Jesus?"

No he wouldn't be worthy of heaven, none of us are. But Jesus provided the way for even such a person to find forgiveness and eternal life in Christ. Jesus took our place for paying for all sins.

GCT "
Elaborate more? I laid it out probably as well as I can. To simply say that we must respond to all situations with one response is too black/white."

It seems you want it both ways. You want God to overlook and not respond in justice to any and all sin and you dispute that someone as bad as a murderer deserves to be loved.



GCT "Sometimes. Would it be considered loving to not help the victims of genocide because you simultaneously don't want to upset the person committing the genocide?"


Love doesn't mean ignoring sin, or not seeking justice. Punishment or restraining the perpetrator can be a loving act. Unconditional love, doesn't mean unconditional enablement.

Sin has consequences, but even when a parent spanks a child they aren't doing it because they don't love the child, but because they do love the child (unless there is abuse going on and they are doing something wrong by spanking).

GCT said...

"God cares that we help people and all, it just isn't the way to becoming righteous. We can't conflate the two."

It doesn't sound like he cares. How can you claim that he cares and then turn around and claim that god will denounce an atheist as unrighteous for being moral and claim a Xian is righteous even if that person is very immoral?

"No he wouldn't be worthy of heaven, none of us are."

How hateful. Do you really believe that we are all worthy of eternal torture? C'mon, you're better than that.

But, I think you understood the question and this is just evasion. Can a serial rapist/murderer go to heaven so long as that person believes in Jesus?

"It seems you want it both ways. You want God to overlook and not respond in justice to any and all sin and you dispute that someone as bad as a murderer deserves to be loved."

No, I'm calling for situational ethics (and claiming that I want it both ways is pretty rich coming from you considering that you want to claim that god is good but commits genocides, we have to assume that god is good but we don't have enough information to decide he's not good, and god cares about our good deeds but doesn't because he only cares about whether we believe in Jesus, just for 3 quick examples).

"Love doesn't mean ignoring sin, or not seeking justice. Punishment or restraining the perpetrator can be a loving act. Unconditional love, doesn't mean unconditional enablement."

If the only way to save millions of people is to bomb a house that contains the genocidal leader, then how is that loving to the genocidal leader if we have to kill the genocidal leader? Look, I like the Beatles as much as the next guy (All you Need is Love, ba ba dah dah dah) but we live in a world where you can't simply make hard and fast rules that are black and white.

"Sin has consequences, but even when a parent spanks a child they aren't doing it because they don't love the child, but because they do love the child (unless there is abuse going on and they are doing something wrong by spanking)."

Actually, that is abuse. Parents generally don't cast their children out or torture them either.

Either way, what we are talking about is that you keep trying to come up with innocuous examples, while I'm talking about big stuff. You keep avoiding talking about what I'm bringing up, because you know you can't defend your black/white stance. Stop playing at the kiddy table and step up to the adult table and take on some of these instances that I'm talking about.

Karla said...

GCT “It doesn't sound like he cares. How can you claim that he cares and then turn around and claim that god will denounce an atheist as unrighteous for being moral and claim a Xian is righteous even if that person is very immoral?”

It’s not about intellectual belief; it is about a real symbiotic relationship with God through Jesus. It is God that is righteous and when we are living with Him we are made righteous and when we are not no amount of good deeds makes us righteous. This is because “good deeds” have no bearing on the righteousness or goodness of a person.

"No he wouldn't be worthy of heaven, none of us are."

GCT “How hateful. Do you really believe that we are all worthy of eternal torture? C'mon, you're better than that.”

It’s not hateful. God provided the way for everyone including the must depraved murderer to find salvation and life in Him. He said that He didn’t send His Son to condemn the world, but so that we can have life. We are already separated from Him, and yet we mean so very much to Him that despite we cannot earn His love by our good needs, He loves us anyway and paid the price for our unrighteousness Himself. What greater love is there than this?


GCT “No, I'm calling for situational ethics (and claiming that I want it both ways is pretty rich coming from you considering that you want to claim that god is good but commits genocides, we have to assume that god is good but we don't have enough information to decide he's not good, and god cares about our good deeds but doesn't because he only cares about whether we believe in Jesus, just for 3 quick examples).”

Situational ethics? I think love should reign supreme in all situations. Again, love is not patting a murderer on the back and ignoring the injustice and the victim. A person can have love in their heart toward both the victim and the murderer and testify in the trial and grieve the victims death and yet not hold bitterness and unforgiveness in their heart. Love doesn’t mean we ignore evil. But it sounds to me like you keep wanting God to ignore evil.

Also, just to clarify, when you say “believe in Jesus” are you talking about intellectual facts, or do you understand that when I use the phrase I mean much more tangible and experiential and not merely intellectual assent?

Karla said...

GCT “If the only way to save millions of people is to bomb a house that contains the genocidal leader, then how is that loving to the genocidal leader if we have to kill the genocidal leader? Look, I like the Beatles as much as the next guy (All you Need is Love, ba ba dah dah dah) but we live in a world where you can't simply make hard and fast rules that are black and white.”

I don’t mean love as an emotional happy heart feelings toward someone. Love forgives. So say American soldiers have orders to take out a house where some dangerous terrorist lives who is responsible for many children suicide bombers—most would see this as a very justified killing. However, the question of love comes in when these soldiers hold hate in their hearts towards the person they were sent to kill and they grow bitter and unforgiving. Maybe then they turn that bitterness towards other people of the same nationality and hate continues to grow. This would be a response without love. Love wouldn’t have tried to protect the terrorist for that would have just continued the evil against these children, but a heart of love would have protected itself from hate, bitterness, and unforgiveness. Are you familiar with the story of Corrie Ten Boom?


GCT “Actually, that is abuse. Parents generally don't cast their children out or torture them either.”

My point was that Love doesn’t mean not doing something about evil. Love doesn’t mean not seeing to justice (not revenge – but justice). It means forgiving though. It doesn’t mean that murderer or kidnapper will ever be your friend and welcome at your table, but it means that one doesn’t burn in hate against them. And that’s a process. People don’t usually forgive overnight. And I can’t blame anyone who has been a victim for not forgiving. Love is patient. But there is a difference between love being a happy go lucky emotion of the heart and being a way of living and thinking and being.

GCT “Either way, what we are talking about is that you keep trying to come up with innocuous examples, while I'm talking about big stuff. You keep avoiding talking about what I'm bringing up, because you know you can't defend your black/white stance. Stop playing at the kiddy table and step up to the adult table and take on some of these instances that I'm talking about.”

Okay. See my terrorist example above, is that better?

GCT said...

"It’s not about intellectual belief; it is about a real symbiotic relationship with God through Jesus."

So it is about whether you are buddy buddy with god or not. Thanks for clearing that up.

"This is because “good deeds” have no bearing on the righteousness or goodness of a person."

Yup, it's who you know, not how you act. I'm glad that your god is so moral as to notice that having connections is better morally than doing what is right.

"It’s not hateful."

Yes. Yes it is. You are saying that all humans are deserving of torture simply for being born. It is an anti-human sentiment and one that is painfully hateful.

"God provided the way for everyone including the must depraved murderer to find salvation and life in Him. He said that He didn’t send His Son to condemn the world, but so that we can have life."

So, god made us such that we will go to hell unless he also does something to save us? Sorry, but this is not much better. IOW, god is doing for some people what he should have the common decency to do for all, and we're supposed to think that this omni-max being is somehow worthy of worship because it is only fulfilling some of it's moral obligation?

"We are already separated from Him, and yet we mean so very much to Him that despite we cannot earn His love by our good needs..."

I suppose you meant "deeds" there. You are confirming what I said, however, that god does not care about moral actions but whether we are buddy buddy with him.

"He loves us anyway and paid the price for our unrighteousness Himself. What greater love is there than this?"

How about not making us bound for hell in the first place? How about actually appearing and showing that love instead of hiding in the shadows and then torturing those who don't believe in him? You worship a monster, and you shouldn't apologize for such a monstrously immoral character.

"Situational ethics? I think love should reign supreme in all situations."

What I'm saying is that you can't simultaneously love both the victim and the oppressor sometimes. I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand that in your black/white world.

"But it sounds to me like you keep wanting God to ignore evil."

How many times are you going to beat that straw man?

"Also, just to clarify, when you say “believe in Jesus” are you talking about intellectual facts, or do you understand that when I use the phrase I mean much more tangible and experiential and not merely intellectual assent?"

I understand that you don't understand what you are talking about. In order to "believe in Jesus" the way you mean it, you first have to believe that Jesus exists and is truthful and talks to you, etc. Of course, you extrapolate that to having to also conform to what you interpret god's will to be (and think that all have to follow that to truly "believe in Jesus.")

GCT said...

"I don’t mean love as an emotional happy heart feelings toward someone. Love forgives."

Love forgives? Tell that to god who is right now torturing people in hell.

"So say American soldiers have orders to take out a house where some dangerous terrorist lives who is responsible for many children suicide bombers—most would see this as a very justified killing. However, the question of love comes in when these soldiers hold hate in their hearts towards the person they were sent to kill and they grow bitter and unforgiving."

Whatever the justification, is it loving to actually kill the terrorist?

"Love wouldn’t have tried to protect the terrorist for that would have just continued the evil against these children, but a heart of love would have protected itself from hate, bitterness, and unforgiveness."

Love for the children, but it's not loving for the terrorist to kill him in order to stop him. That's what I mean by black/white.

"Are you familiar with the story of Corrie Ten Boom?"

Never heard of it.

"My point was that Love doesn’t mean not doing something about evil."

It means (potentially) that you are not responding to the individual with love.

"Love doesn’t mean not seeing to justice (not revenge – but justice)."

Too bad your god doesn't understand the difference (hell is revenge, not justice).

"It means forgiving though."

Again, your god doesn't know the meaning of this.

"It doesn’t mean that murderer or kidnapper will ever be your friend and welcome at your table, but it means that one doesn’t burn in hate against them."

Hell...need I say more?

But, back on topic, whether you kill and forget or not, the actual act of loving the terrorist is not to kill that individual, but it might be the best course of action in order to help others (at least for us fallible non-omnipotent humans...for god, all bets are off since anything is possible for god, including resolving issues without death and destruction).

Karla said...

Okay it looks like I need to clarify more.

I am not saying God doesn't care that we do right and good just so long as we are His friend. What I am saying is that being is His friend is how we find righteousness and from that place of righteousness we do the right thing.

Doing good things is good. They won't fix the internal self and give a person righteousness. Only God can do that. That doesn't mean the person ought to stop doing good things. It does mean they still need God no matter how many good things they do. Because God is the one who transforms the person to righteousness not their actions.

A person still is to do the right thing because it is the right thing, that doesn't stop, but they do it from a place of righteousness instead of unrighteousness.


I understand you are really upset about the existence of hell and want to bring this back to that, but we have discussed that topic at length already. Is it possible to reserve that at the moment? We can come back to it, but I think we need to get to the original issue of the difference between good v. bad actions and becoming righteous.

Karla said...

Also check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom

It gives a brief synopsis of Corrie, pay attention to the section at the end about her meeting one of her captures later in life.

Karla said...

Also check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom

It gives a brief synopsis of Corrie, pay attention to the section at the end about her meeting one of her captures later in life.

GCT said...

"I am not saying God doesn't care that we do right and good just so long as we are His friend. What I am saying is that being is His friend is how we find righteousness and from that place of righteousness we do the right thing."

I'm sorry, but you are contradicting yourself in the space of these two sentences. What makes us righteous and "worthy" of being "saved" is that we are buddies with god. If I save a person from a burning building, god will yawn because I am not "saved" and his friend. If you sit there and pray instead of actually helping, god will be more impressed with you, since you'll be going to heaven. This is the god that you seem to think is righteous, moral, just, etc. To think that, however, you must have a very warped moral compass.

"That doesn't mean the person ought to stop doing good things. It does mean they still need God no matter how many good things they do. Because God is the one who transforms the person to righteousness not their actions."

This is exactly what I've been telling you, that you claim god cares more about who we are friends with than what we do. If I do what is right for the sake of what is right, that makes me no better in god's eyes than any other infidel that rapes and murders. I will not be going to heaven. If a Xian rapes and murders, however, they will go to heaven simply because they are god's friend. Is this just, fair, or moral to you?

"A person still is to do the right thing because it is the right thing, that doesn't stop, but they do it from a place of righteousness instead of unrighteousness."

What does this even mean? Who I'm friends with doesn't make me more moral when it comes to whether I act IAW moral ideas. If I do what is right because it is right, it doesn't matter whether I believe in god or not, at least it shouldn't. You seem to claim that it should and that god is correct for making that tenuous connection.

"I understand you are really upset about the existence of hell and want to bring this back to that, but we have discussed that topic at length already."

I was simply using it to point out even further how unjust, immoral, etc. your god is. Until and unless you can actually defend the notion of hell, you have no right to call your god moral or good.

"We can come back to it, but I think we need to get to the original issue of the difference between good v. bad actions and becoming righteous."

"Becoming righteous" as you define it is simply believing in god in the correct way, and it's of no use to us in determining who is or is not moral. It's a meaningless concept. I just find it interesting that god is so wrapped up in a meaningless concept instead of actual morality, yet god is supposed to be the final authority on morality.

Oh, and it occurs to me that all this talk about being "righteous" and "moral" from having a relationship with god means that you are indeed a moral relativist, and not an objectivist or absolutist.

Lastly, I don't see the relevance of Corrie ten Boom.

Karla said...

Okay it seems like we are on a merry go round on this topic. But I’ll try again, by making a new post.

I think I cover it all in the new post, except for talking about hell. On that topic I will once again say, that separation from God in this life would make sense to continue in the next. Why would someone want to live a life without God and be forced to live one with him when they die. Total complete separation from God is hell. It's not a happy existence for anyone. But it isn't God who sends people there, it is our separation from Him and our refusal of Him. I think all will have ample opportunity to chose life and permission to reject it.



Also to address what you said here “Oh, and it occurs to me that all this talk about being "righteous" and "moral" from having a relationship with god means that you are indeed a moral relativist, and not an objectivist or absolutist.”

I’m still an objectivist and still believe there is an absolute good. I think we haven’t reached the point where we fully understand each other yet.

“Lastly, I don't see the relevance of Corrie ten Boom.”

She suffered a great deal, lost her whole family in the concentration camps, and after being released she came in contact with one of her very cruel guards who held her captive in the camps and she walked up to him and forgave him. This is love. She didn’t stop thinking his actions wrong, she didn’t have warm fuzzies for him, but she did what love does, and she forgave.

GCT said...

Karla,
I'll look at your new post.

"On that topic I will once again say, that separation from God in this life would make sense to continue in the next."

This doesn't make any sense. You claim that the only reason we aren't in hell is because we aren't separated from god. You can't have it both ways.

"Why would someone want to live a life without God and be forced to live one with him when they die."

False dichotomy that it's either be forced to live with god and not want to or be tortured for eternity. One could simply cease to exist instead of go to hell. god could actually try and win the person over instead of demanding blind obedience and blind faith, etc.

"Total complete separation from God is hell. It's not a happy existence for anyone."

Then why would a omni-benevolent being that supposedly loves us do that to anyone?

"But it isn't God who sends people there, it is our separation from Him and our refusal of Him."

Weren't we all born separated from him? Is that our fault for being born? Do you think that anyone actively chooses to be tortured?

"I think all will have ample opportunity to chose life and permission to reject it."

And, you would be wrong. Perhaps Allah is the true god. Would you conclude that you've had ample opportunity to choose Allah? Perhaps you should try and see if you can choose Allah for a day. Try it today or tomorrow. See if you can believe in Allah for a day.

"I’m still an objectivist and still believe there is an absolute good. I think we haven’t reached the point where we fully understand each other yet."

That would make you an absolutist, but it's simply not so. You claim that you are, but you aren't, due to your views which clearly show you are not.

I can see why you feel like this is a merry-go-round though, it's because you refuse to deal with the objections and criticisms brought forth. All the things you've said in this post have already been said, by you, and they didn't become more true by you repeating them. All the objections I bring up here I've previously brought up. They haven't been answered and they haven't gotten closer to being answered by you simply repeating that which I objected to in the first place.

Maybe you shouldn't feel too badly though, because no apologist has an answer to these objections and questions. It's because Xianity simply doesn't make sense, it is inconsistent, and always relies (in the end) on simply having faith - an irrational process for an irrational belief system. You can't rationally argue for something that is inherently irrational.