Upset about the statue

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

If you believe everyone is an imperfect sinner, you think- "Yes, you were imperfect in that moment, and you still are. You sinned before, and you will sin again. Just like the rest of us, you will sometimes be selfish, or even cruel, and you may even lie about it to avoid punishment." Its kryptonite for cons, long and short. And just like being drunk, it may explain your actions, but it won't excuse them.

 

No?  God forgives.  Even the crimes against others.  It's a miserable doctrine.  

[cuchulain]

i am incapable of being anything but a sinner seems good excuse to cave to temptation.  i dont believe in sin and think i am accountable for my actions, which for me is good reason to refrain from bad action as best i can.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

i am incapable of being anything but a sinner seems good excuse to cave to temptation.  i dont believe in sin and think i am accountable for my actions, which for me is good reason to refrain from bad action as best i can.

 

Don't forget -- "The Devil made me do it."

 

   

[mererdog]

18 hours ago, cuchulain said:

i am incapable of being anything but a sinner seems good excuse to cave to temptation.

The idea being that if you can't be perfect, there is no point in trying to be better? It is a pretty lame excuse, but it does get used by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations, doesn't it? After all, why be the best golfer I can be, if I'll never be good enough to go pro?

Edited December 30, 2017 by mererdog

[mererdog]

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

No?  God forgives.  Even the crimes against others.  It's a miserable doctrine.  

In my experience, the people who forgive are less miserable than the people who don't. I can see how belief that you will be forgiven could make doing bad seem like less of a bad idea. But I know that grudges are a strong motivating force for evil. On balance, encouraging forgiveness seems like a good thing. Not perfect, of course, but what is?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

In my experience, the people who forgive are less miserable than the people who don't. I can see how belief that you will be forgiven could make doing bad seem like less of a bad idea. But I know that grudges are a strong motivating force for evil. On balance, encouraging forgiveness seems like a good thing. Not perfect, of course, but what is?

 

 

If I throw a brick through your window -- and God forgives me -- Your window is still broken.  Whether or not you forgive me, is a separate issue.  God forgiving my crime is not important.  Only your forgiveness matters.  For your own sake.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

The idea being that if you can't be perfect, there is no point in trying to be better? It is a pretty lame excuse, but it does get used by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations, doesn't it? After all, why be the best golfer I can be, if I'll never be good enough to go pro?

 

It depends on the standard.  If going pro is all that matters -- and anything short of perfection is failure -- then it does not make sense to do your best.  Such is the trap of impossible standards.  A religious code that makes people feel bad and guilty and unworthy is a mistake.  IMO

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A religious code that makes people feel bad and guilty and unworthy is a mistake.

Yet you seem to be complaining that forgiveness doctrine helps people avoid feeling guilty. I think that people need to feel bad. I think that if we never feel guilty, there are lessons we will never learn. I think that there are things I am unworthy of, and that this is a healthy thing to know.

Ideally, I think, guilt works to motivate us to do right. So I want guilt to feel bad enough that you avoid it, but not so bad that it is crippling. Specific understandings of Christian doctrine have provided that balance for a lot of people. Are you sure you are not holding Christianity to an impossible standard where it is either perfect or it is horrible?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yet you seem to be complaining that forgiveness doctrine helps people avoid feeling guilty. I think that people need to feel bad. I think that if we never feel guilty, there are lessons we will never learn. I think that there are things I am unworthy of, and that this is a healthy thing to know.

Ideally, I think, guilt works to motivate us to do right. So I want guilt to feel bad enough that you avoid it, but not so bad that it is crippling. Specific understandings of Christian doctrine have provided that balance for a lot of people. Are you sure you are not holding Christianity to an impossible standard where it is either perfect or it is horrible?

 

If you want to bring in standards -- how about if it is based on reality?  Reality is not perfect or horrible.  It is.  When we try to live by arbitrary rules -- based on fantasy -- then things get confusing.  

[Pastor Dave]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If you want to bring in standards -- how about if it is based on reality?  Reality is not perfect or horrible.  It is.  When we try to live by arbitrary rules -- based on fantasy -- then things get confusing.  

 

What rules are you calling arbitrary?

ar·bi·trar·y

ˈärbəˌtrerē/

adjective

adjective: arbitrary

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Certainly Christian rules are not arbitrary. They have reason and are based on a clearly defined system.

It seems to me that, those who decide for themselves what rules they will make up and follow are the ones following arbitrary rules.

Just saying.

 

BTW this post is just to keep me from being deleted for inactivity. I should be good for another quarter now. Thanks

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

What rules are you calling arbitrary?

ar·bi·trar·y

ˈärbəˌtrerē/

adjective

adjective: arbitrary

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Certainly Christian rules are not arbitrary. They have reason and are based on a clearly defined system.

It seems to me that, those who decide for themselves what rules they will make up and follow are the ones following arbitrary rules.

Just saying.

 

BTW this post is just to keep me from being deleted for inactivity. I should be good for another quarter now. Thanks

 

 

 

The arbitrary rules I'm speaking of --  are God's Commandments.  Also, the theology derived from the Bible, the Koran, the Hadith and Talmud. 

 

Defenders of these rules like to call them "objective".  

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

On 12/29/2017 at 5:39 PM, cuchulain said:

i dont believe in sin and think i am accountable for my actions, which for me is good reason to refrain from bad action as best i can.

This is a reasonable approach to my way of thinking.

 

von

[VonNoble]

On 12/31/2017 at 12:39 PM, Pastor Dave said:

 

BTW this post is just to keep me from being deleted for inactivity. I should be good for another quarter now. Thanks

 

THAT truly made me laugh out loud...it was unexpected... and thanks for that

 

von

[VonNoble]

On 12/31/2017 at 3:33 AM, mererdog said:

 I think that if we never feel guilty, there are lessons we will never learn.

I am not sure that is so.

 

I did not need to drink poison to know it is a bad idea to do so.

 

I like how it feels when i am kind to others so... I am selfishly choosing kindness.   I am not kind because I feel bad otherwise - I am kind because it feels better.

 

Still sitting it out but that’s the current pause point

von

[VonNoble]

On 12/30/2017 at 5:44 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A religious code that makes people feel bad and guilty and unworthy is a mistake.  IMO

So far that is my conclusion as well

 

von

[mererdog]

16 hours ago, VonNoble said:

I like how it feels when i am kind to others so... I am selfishly choosing kindness.   I am not kind because I feel bad otherwise - I am kind because it feels better.

Yet you are not always kind. Putting the hat on the statue was not an act of kindness, for example.

The value of guilt lies partly in its ability to cause us to rethink. It forces us to look beyond our motivations and at the consequences our actions have on others. Potential rewards can blind us to probable risk, so it is vital to have a mechanism in place that prompts us to focus on the negative side of every equation... Perhaps even moreso when the potential rewards are selfless in nature.

 

Also, just to be clear, guilt is an inescapable effect of empathy. If you are not a sociopath, guilt has been helping shape your personality since infancy. Looking at the difference between yourself and a sociopath, the influence seems to have been for the better.

Edited January 3, 2018 by mererdog

[VonNoble]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yet you are not always kind. Putting the hat on the statue was not an act of kindness, for example.

I agree.    Not every action is on a kindness meter - so no one can be kind in all actions.

 

I also agree to the extent - I am far from perfect.    Not a secret I readily admit that.  As a not perfect person...even when kindness is an issue ....I do not always choose it.   Sometimes by design I do not choose it ....as on rare occasion ....it is not the wisest or most beneficial or effective option.      Pesky reality rarities cause exceptions... so using an example of one of those moments would be helpful to making the point.

 

I completely disagree that putting the hat on the statue failed to be kind.  

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

I agree.    Not every action is on a kindness meter - so no one can be kind in all actions.

 

I also agree to the extent - I am far from perfect.    Not a secret I readily admit that.  As a not perfect person...even when kindness is an issue ....I do not always choose it.   Sometimes by design I do not choose it ....as on rare occasion ....it is not the wisest or most beneficial or effective option.      Pesky reality rarities cause exceptions... so using an example of one of those moments would be helpful to making the point.

 

I completely disagree that putting the hat on the statue failed to be kind.  

 

von

 

Putting the hat on the statue was kind.  It was an attempt at humor.  In this case, "spreading Christmas cheer" is clearly part of kindness. At least as defined by main stream culture.  

[Key]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Putting the hat on the statue was kind.  It was an attempt at humor.  In this case, "spreading Christmas cheer" is clearly part of kindness. At least as defined by main stream culture.  

I'm with you in this regard. How is any attempt to put a smile on a stranger's face, or friends' and relatives', not an act of kindness?

Simply because one does not share the same type of humor, does not render the act to a definitive judgement. It's really an individual thing as far as perception goes.

What one defines as offensive, may not be offensive to another.

Personally, I would have laughed had I seen Von's display.

Thanks for the thought, Von.

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

I completely disagree that putting the hat on the statue failed to be kind.

I would not say that it failed to be kind. It simply wasnt an act of kindness. According to your story, you were motivated by amusement, not kindness. You were just having some fun, and your later reactions make it clear that you didn't really give much thought to how others would be affected. Kindness is simply not the word for that.