When is good, good enough?

Originally posted by vistesd
Much is sometimes made on here of human fallibility—moral and otherwise. Standards are set that humans seemingly cannot meet. Perfection is taken as a divine norm to which humans are held, though they cannot meet it. Nothing short of errorless perfection is considered acceptable.

Divine standards, it is sometimes asserted, are necessary even for ...[text shortened]... s in some philosophy that I have chosen to commit to.

Why should this not be “good enough”?

Should one not simply accept one’s errors, learn from them as best one can, and move on?

Yes!

Why should this not be “good enough”?[/

Because it won't gain you eternal life.

Originally posted by josephw
Because it won't gain you eternal life.

Is eternal life all that matters to you? What is so important about it? Do you realize that such and attitude is extremely selfish and apparently contradictory to Christs teaching?
Do you act morally or according to what you perceive to be Gods will solely to gain eternal life or do you actually think that is the right thing to do regardless of the rewards/consequences?
If there was no reward/consequence for doing so, would you become a murderer / thief / general all round bad guy?

Originally posted by vistesd
Much is sometimes made on here of human fallibility—moral and otherwise. Standards are set that humans seemingly cannot meet. Perfection is taken as a divine norm to which humans are held, though they cannot meet it. Nothing short of errorless perfection is considered acceptable.

Divine standards, it is sometimes asserted, are necessary even for ...[text shortened]... s in some philosophy that I have chosen to commit to.

Why should this not be “good enough”?

Accept and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a loving forgiving Father, accept and worship his Son as your Lord and Saviour, use your head when necessary and forget that academic crap.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Accept and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a loving forgiving Father, accept and worship his Son as your Lord and Saviour, use your head when necessary and forget that academic crap.

Let's burn a few books then. I think I'll start with Aquinas.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let's burn a few books then. I think I'll start with Aquinas.

Please, don't twist my words.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Accept and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a loving forgiving Father, accept and worship his Son as your Lord and Saviour, use your head when necessary and forget that academic crap.

I can accept what you and I both call the mystery.

I cannot worship what I cannot understand, in terms in which I cannot understand. (Although, because I affirm tradition as well as text, and am not a sola scripturist, what understanding I do have might be a bit closer to yours than to most Protestants; and I’ve always really liked Meister Eckhart.)

However, this question has been placed more in a faith-context in the “Guilt” thread, so I’m probably going to leave this one in the lurch (even though I started it), and move over there. (Although, I was referring here not just to moral standards set in a religious context, but philosophical moral theories as well.)

Nice to see you’re still hangin’ around, by the way... 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is eternal life all that matters to you? What is so important about it? Do you realize that such and attitude is extremely selfish and apparently contradictory to Christs teaching?
Do you act morally or according to what you perceive to be Gods will solely to gain eternal life or do you actually think that is the right thing to do regardless of the rewar ...[text shortened]... eward/consequence for doing so, would you become a murderer / thief / general all round bad guy?

Consequences are a good learning tool, but I agree with you, doing
good is its own reward too. I do think you have a point about how
people can have a selfish attitude toward getting saved, but it isn't
the only attitude people get following Christ. When you lay down your
life for another, is that selfish? When you give up the world's riches
and power to serve is that selfish? When I say give up the world's
riches and power it is the little things that people get not necessarily all
the riches and power the world has to offer. Some can be bought with
next to nothing, while others it takes a little more, but in the end they
are all bought.

There are times that people have rejected the world’s power and
riches denying themselves to follow Christ, it actually happens all the
time. The more established one’s relationship with Christ the more
the world, the flesh, and the devil can throw at them and it will not
matter. To get someone to follow Christ if getting them started is
through the appeal of avoiding pain and suffering, I don’t have a
problem with that as long as the message gets away from that in a
hurry or it is just a selfish appeal that will not grow mature roots
towards one’s relationship with God in Christ.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
I can accept what you and I both call the mystery.

I cannot worship what I cannot understand, in terms in which I cannot understand. (Although, because I affirm tradition as well as text, and am not a sola scripturist, what understanding I do have might be a bit closer to yours than to most Protestants; and I’ve always really liked Meister Eckhar ...[text shortened]... osophical moral theories as well.)

Nice to see you’re still hangin’ around, by the way... 🙂

I sometimes pop in .... and try to spot any progress ...... know what I mean ..... ? 😀 😵 😛

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I sometimes pop in .... and try to spot any progress ...... know what I mean ..... ? 😀 😵 😛

I've told you before, Ivanhoe: You and I always understand one another perfectly. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Standards no matter where you get them are simply that, standards
are they not? You can claim Christian roots to your standards, or some
other foundation, but in the end it is all the same, it is you doing
something that gets you in, because you were doing good by X
whatever X is or was. If you fail to live up to X does it matter if X was
from t ...[text shortened]... life!

This I agree with. We undoubtedly disagree about “the source of life”, however. 🙂[/b]

When we are following a set path of rules/laws it is because we
believe them to be true and just, they suit reality as we believe it to
be, we put our faith in it to walk accordingly. As you said, we accept
those rules/laws and make them our own, which again is placing our
faith in the them and the outcome they bring. Faith simply puts you
where you need to be, and faith in God does that. It isn't a matter of
guilt management. Restoring the relationship with God through Christ,
guilt management can be done by simply denying sin it doesn't really
deal with sin and the stain it leaves on a life, simply calling it
something different or ignoring it all together doesn’t deal with what it
is, breaking with reality. So what is the goal of our laws/rules, it is to
be just, is it to please God, is it to be accepted by God?

The source of life, is not a matter of agreement in my opinion, and
I do not try claim to be able to explain God to anyone, only point to
Him the best I can. God can and does make Himself real, which is
in my opinion the most important truth there is, He can be found by
those that seek Him.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
When we are following a set path of rules/laws it is because we
believe them to be true and just, they suit reality as we believe it to
be, we put our faith in it to walk accordingly. As you said, we accept
those rules/laws and make them our own, which again is placing our
faith in the them and the outcome they bring. Faith simply puts you
where you ne ...[text shortened]... my opinion the most important truth there is, He can be found by
those that seek Him.
Kelly

...what it is, breaking with reality.

I’ll accept that, because I think that the root of “sin” is illusion, not rebelliousness. Both the Hebrew and Greek words translated as sin (as well as the English word, originally) include all human error and failure and imperfection—including, but not limited to, acts of moral wickedness.

The source of life, is not a matter of agreement in my opinion...

I disagree. 😉

The thing is, Kelly, when I use the word “God” (except when, strictly for the purposes of discussion, I accept someone else’s understanding)—and I do still use it—I do not mean what I think you mean. I do not mean a supernatural being external to the universe, who created the universe from outside, so to speak. If I say God is the source of life, and you say God is the source of life—we are not talking about the same thing.

When I use the word, I mean something like Protestant theologian Paul Tillich’s “trinitarian” phrase: ground-of-being, power-of-being, and being-itself. I do not mean a being. I remain agnostic about the conditions under which the word “personal” might be ascribed to such being...

Originally posted by vistesd
I've told you before, Ivanhoe: You and I always understand one another perfectly. 🙂

😉😀

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, but you still have to interpret those texts. And you are quite aware of the varying interpretations by different people of faith on here.

Do you not, consciously or unconsciously, bring your own moral sensibilities to that task? For example, slavery as an institution is never specifically denounced in the Biblical texts. Does that mean that you ca ...[text shortened]... ally, to mean trust in the moral “template” laid down by the Bible. Hence my questions above...

The implication of "interpreting" scripture carries with it the implication that it is unavoidable grasping its origianal and/or intended meaning. Using only your own reasoning power I would say this is problematic, however, with God all things are possible. For example, once I became saved the scriptures seemed to speak to me as where before they simply confused me. Where I used to see contradictions I now see coherency. Therefore, you could say that my moral template that my faith is generated from is placed in my heart by my God so that I am now able to hear from him in different ways including the scriptures that he has provided.

As for the slavery issue, I would say that not all slavery is equal. For example, in Mosaic times slaves were freed after so many years of service. In effect, they worked for food which is better than the alternative. Much can be said for the person earning a minimum wage. Not much can be done with such a salary other than meeting basic needs as if that is even possible on such a salary. In a way, are they not slaves as well? You could even argue that the slave in Biblical times was better off than the average worker for minimum wage. After all, the slave had their masters protection and often became intergral members of the family they served.

In modern times our example of slavery are the slaves in the deep south during the 1800's. Men and women were taken by force half way around the world and whipped into submission in order to further fuel the extravegant lifestyles of their rich masters on large plantations. These men and women were also never given their freedom and were even made to feel less than human to help rationalize their treatment. Such exploitation for material gain is without a doubt morally bankrupt. Conversly, the slaves in Mosaic times were simply trying to survive in hard times. There were no particular race of people made to feel inferior so that they could be treated as such, rather, the slaves had rights and mistreatment of them was punishable under Mosaic law. Then after so many years they were free to give it a go once again to see if they could survive without their master who had helped sustain them for so many years. Conversly, the slaves of the South had no rights. In fact, they were often treated worse than livestock and their end was as certain as their beginning

So to sum up, I would say that comparing slaves in Biblical times to that of modern times are like comparing apples to oranges.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...what it is, breaking with reality.

I’ll accept that, because I think that the root of “sin” is illusion, not rebelliousness. Both the Hebrew and Greek words translated as sin (as well as the English word, originally) include all human error and failure and imperfection—including, but not limited to, acts of moral wickedness.

The source of ...[text shortened]... agnostic about the conditions under which the word “personal” might be ascribed to such being...

[/b]I agree we can use the same words and say different things even
though we are using the same words, but truth is what it is, no matter
what I or you think.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree we can use the same words and say different things even
though we are using the same words, but truth is what it is, no matter
what I or you think.
Kelly[/b]

Yes. Most of the time I don’t think we are arguing about what spiritual truth is, but what it looks like from our perspective.

I was trying to get some sleep, when I had a crazy thought. I’m not sure I can get it out right. But I thought of it in terms of a spiritual exercise, a spiritual askesis that is indirectly, like psychological ju jitsu, an exercise in self-confrontation. And the exercise is this—

___________________________________

Make every theological, doctrinal, scriptural argument that you make and have made on here—and make it to God, in just exactly the same way and the same terms as you make it to others on here. (That is a general “you”, and I am not aiming this at you, KJ; it’s for anyone/everyone, including myself. I’m also being very serious and in earnest.)

Tell God precisely what conditions you expect him to adhere to, and why. Quote scripture to God. If you think the Bible is inerrant, for example, tell God that if it isn’t you can’t trust him—or whatever. If you think your reading of a particular part of scripture must be correct because your reading is inspired by the Holy Spirit, tell God that it darned well had better be that way. Tell God how salvation works. If you adhere to certain church authorities as well as scripture, tell God he had better, too. Insist to God exactly the same way you insist to others. Tell God how it is, how it must be. With every single theological, scriptural, moral, soteriological position you argue on here, in exactly the same way. Write it down just that way—but addressed to God—and read it out to God.

This goes, I think, a bit beyond something like Abraham’s arguing with God over Sodom. It actually goes to telling God who he is, who he’d darn well better be. If you have argued to others that God must be X, Y or Z—tell God that he must be that. Not just your opinion, but the truth—tell God what the truth is, and he’d better stick to it. Don’t ask, tell.

Etc., etc. Again, exactly the way you do with others, including but not limited to co-religionists with whom you disagree and are trying to enlighten.

______________________________________

The point is that I suspect a great deal of what we argue on here has that very flavor. We act as if God is out of earshot, so to speak. Or we assume that God is in our corner, must be in our corner (well, tell him that, too). When, in fact, I think we are often subconsciously doing what that exercise is intended to make conscious. That’s why it is ultimately a hard exercise in self-confrontation. And sometimes that’s when we best learn things about ourselves.

I have my own biases, of course, and it would be easy for me to sit back and imagine someone telling God how and why the slaughtering of innocents is righteous, and that he darned well better have done it exactly like the book says. But that’s not fair. I can’t make the suggestion, and then let myself off the hook. So I’ll have a hard day tomorrow; since I have argued both from within and from without the Judeo-Christian paradigm, I’ve got a lot of ground to cover.

We’ll see how it goes...