Easter celebration

[marshaul]

Hmmmmmm. It's the Christian perspective that love and caring are the antithesis to human nature.

Loving and caring seem to be in agreement with natural law, but the hard part is to get human nature to align with natural law. As children, we need to be taught to care and love. Selfishness rules our early years and all to often, our later years.

Children lack empathy, which is a sense they develop over time (some prodding doesn't hurt, I'll grant you).

Children are effective at feigning empathy ("little Johnny is so sweet!"), but this is an evolved response based on direct self-interest ("good kids" are more likely to be fed, when in general children are more likely to starve than adults).

But true empathy -- the sense which is generally responsible for all spontaneous selfless acts -- develops as the intellect and emotions mature.

I don't believe that religion per se has much to do with this development; whether religion has the chance to contribute positively to the process depends as much on context as does the process itself.

 

[Citizen]

Children lack empathy, which is a sense they develop over time (some prodding doesn't hurt, I'll grant you).

Children are effective at feigning empathy ("little Johnny is so sweet!"), but this is an evolved response based on direct self-interest ("good kids" are more likely to be fed, when in general children are more likely to starve than adults).

But true empathy -- the sense which is generally responsible for all spontaneous selfless acts -- develops as the intellect and emotions mature.

I don't believe that religion per se has much to do with this development; whether religion has the chance to contribute positively to the process depends as much on context as does the process itself.

I don't know that I can agree with that.

I've seen lots of young children who worried or were concerned about friends, siblings, mom, dad, pets.

I think the distinction here is frequency. Can any child act selfishly on a specific occasion? I'm the poster child for that. But, those selfish, unempathetic acts are not so frequent among all children I've observed as for me to be able to say children lack empathy.

Now that I think about it, I'll bet that kids are more empathetic than adults. I've seen way, way too many kids who, while they could be brats from time to time, just up and shared their candy with their friend, or did something nice for their pet, or ask mom to buy such-and-such gift for Sarah because the kid knew Sarah really wanted it for her birthday. Its almost as though, as we grow older and stack up more harms against our fellow human beings we become more callous.

 

[marshaul]

I don't know that I can agree with that.

I've seen lots of young children who worried or were concerned about friends, siblings, mom, dad, pets.

I think the distinction here is frequency. Can any child act selfishly on a specific occasion? I'm the poster child for that. But, those selfish, unempathetic acts are not so frequent among all children I've observed as for me to be able to say children lack empathy.

Now that I think about it, I'll bet that kids are more empathetic than adults. I've seen way, way too many kids who, while they could be brats from time to time, just up and shared their candy with their friend, or did something nice for their pet, or ask mom to buy such-and-such gift for Sarah because the kid knew Sarah really wanted it for her birthday. Its almost as though, as we grow older and stack up more harms against our fellow human beings we become more callous.

The problem is that I remember all too well being a child. Giving gifts was a spontaneous thing, not driven out of any deep appreciation for the feelings of others. I did nice things because they seemed right, not because I really appreciated what the other person might be thinking/feeling/experiencing.

Maybe it's different for some folks. But I remember the revelation of actually putting myself in another's shoes -- not just assuming he or she might want some candy, and giving it in the hopes of making a friend -- but of really considering the feelings they might have, the incentives they face, etc.

In my view, true empathy is encompassing enough to essentially require the experience which comes with adulthood.

As I see it, callous adults are similar to close-minded adults. The fact that children are still learning how to learn, while some adults have shut themselves off to learning, does not change the fact that the "best" adults will have learned more and are capable of bringing to bear greater intellect than any child.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Some are, some are not.

Which can be said of every statistically significantly sized group, I believe.

The difference is that many religious beliefs specifically include teachings to love and care for others. So when a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc isn't full of love and caring, he is living and acting contrary to his professed beliefs.

Since atheism is, technically, a lack of belief in God, it does not include any beliefs whatsoever of itself. Some atheists may choose to adopt and live beliefs about loving and caring for their fellow man. But it is just as rational for an atheist to adopt a Darwinian view of human life and then engage in eugenics and even genocide. The Nazis and communists were/are the preeminent example of just how badly people can treat each other when they choose to adopt belief systems that do not include guiding principles of love and respect.

A bad man can't be a good Christian, but he can be living completely in harmony with what atheism can permit.

This is a thread about Easter. If a focus on the goodness of Christ and the benefits of His teachings to those who try to live them is offensive....

Charles

Oh great so we can now discuss the horrors done in the name of religion? Shall we go into the dark ages? They "rationally" used their faith for atrocities.

Easter is a celebration that existed long before a Jewish carpenter. In fact the only (religious like) celebration that carpenter said should be celebrated was his death.

Atheist acting "bad" are acting against nature. Belief or non belief systems are irrelevant.

 

[OC for ME]

If you are a bad person but do no bad things are you really a bad person?
If you are a good person but do no good things are you really a good person?

If you are a bad person but do no bad things do other folks think you are a good person? Maybe.
If you are a good person but do no good things do other folks think you are a bad person? Maybe.

Anyway, what do you care what other folks think of you. If you don't do bad thing to them and they think you are bad, because you do not do good things, in their opinion, that's their problem.

I have found that folks may be a wee bit more miffed with/at you for doing nothing when they think you should be doing something...that they think is important irrespective of what you think...cuz they don't know what you think and likely did not, or will not ask before thinking what they think about you doing nothing.

Odd, doing nothing is viewed more harshly than doing something, sometimes. You doing nothing, in the vast majority of situations, harms no one...yet...

Happy belated Easter.

 

[georg jetson]

I would submit that those conflicts are not our basic nature. In the sense that the impulses sure seem to arise within from within ourselves, I agree that they necessarily are somehow connected to our nature. But, I would not say they are our basic nature.

Another example. People do way too many things that are not harmful day-in and day-out, decent things, for those occasional conflicts to be our basic nature. If that sort of stuff was our basic nature, we'd still be wearing fur pants, and would all be killing, robbing, raping, and defrauding each other. No, no. I think the good actions and impulses happen far, far, far more often than the conflicts.

We are in disagreement. We have the intellect to mask our human nature by habit and practice. We learn to acclimate socially for our own sake, else we end up in jail or on the street.

 

[utbagpiper]

Oh great so we can now discuss the horrors done in the name of religion? Shall we go into the dark ages? They "rationally" used their faith for atrocities.

I do not care to derail a discussion of the Resurrection of Christ with any such things. But if you'd care to start another thread, I'll happily join you there. Notably, one has to retreat into the dark ages to find significant examples of Christians using their religion to justify atrocities. If one wants to look for major atrocities committed by the officially atheistic communists, we only have to go back about a month. And the raw numbers of innocents murdered in slightly over 100 years of atheistic communisms dwarfs religiously motivated murders committed in all of recorded secular history by several orders of magnitude. Whatever Christianity may have done or may have been 500 or 1000 years ago, Atheistic communism remains as brutal today as it has ever been.

Fortunately, while communism requires atheism, atheism does not require communism.

I'll discuss details and provide citations if you care to start another thread. I won't discuss it further in this one.

Easter is a celebration that existed long before a Jewish carpenter. In fact the only (religious like) celebration that carpenter said should be celebrated was his death.

You are entitled to your beliefs about what obligations Christians are under or what they should or should not hold sacred. You are not entitled to enforce those beliefs against any man. Whatever factual truth there may be to your statement, it is entirely irrelevant.

Atheist acting "bad" are acting against nature. Belief or non belief systems are irrelevant.

I think there is some fine discussion here about what is the nature of man. Certainly no consensus. Belief systems are entirely relevant as they guide conduct.

Atheists can be good people and many are. But nothing in the lack of belief in God actually requires men to act in ways that we would agree is good. On the flip side, to the first order, Christianity teaches men to behave in ways that we would agree are good. Christianity encourages good conduct as the major tenant of the belief system. Atheism encourages nothing officially...but in practice far too often seems to engender a hostility toward the peaceful beliefs of others.

Charles

 

[Citizen]

We are in disagreement. We have the intellect to mask our human nature by habit and practice. We learn to acclimate socially for our own sake, else we end up in jail or on the street.

Well, yes. I do get that. Kinda figured it all along to a certain degree.

Rhetorical question, meaning not really aimed at you personally, more thinking out loud.

If the dark side arises from a person's nature, and the positive side arises from his nature, how does one sort out which is his basic nature? His native nature?

Alternatively, I cannot say his dark side is his nature, without also saying his positive side is his nature. If I credit the one, I have to credit the other. The problem then becomes how to distinguish which is senior, which is closer to the fundamental.

Personally, I think that is pretty easy. I just look around me. Lots and lots and lots of good in the world. Far more good than bad, and across history.

 

[georg jetson]

Children lack empathy, which is a sense they develop over time (some prodding doesn't hurt, I'll grant you).

Children are effective at feigning empathy ("little Johnny is so sweet!"), but this is an evolved response based on direct self-interest ("good kids" are more likely to be fed, when in general children are more likely to starve than adults).

But true empathy -- the sense which is generally responsible for all spontaneous selfless acts -- develops as the intellect and emotions mature.

I don't believe that religion per se has much to do with this development; whether religion has the chance to contribute positively to the process depends as much on context as does the process itself.

I didn't say religion has much to do with any development. I was simply making the point that we start with a selfish human nature and must be taught to align with natural law.

 

[georg jetson]

Well, yes. I do get that. Kinda figured it all along to a certain degree.

Rhetorical question, meaning not really aimed at you personally, more thinking out loud.

If the dark side arises from a person's nature, and the positive side arises from his nature, how does one sort out which is his basic nature? His native nature?

Alternatively, I cannot say his dark side is his nature, without also saying his positive side is his nature. If I credit the one, I have to credit the other. The problem then becomes how to distinguish which is senior, which is closer to the fundamental.

Personally, I think that is pretty easy. I just look around me. Lots and lots and lots of good in the world. Far more good than bad, and across history.

I have an easy answer for you. Which one is the default nature. Which nature do we find easy to follow and which do we find difficult?

As far as there being lots of good in the world, I think my experience is far too limited to speculate.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Men are born with a sinful nature. The conviction a sinner feels when they do wrong doesn't come from 'within,' it doesn't come from 'their nature.'

 

[Citizen]

I have an easy answer for you. Which one is the default nature. Which nature do we find easy to follow and which do we find difficult?

As far as there being lots of good in the world, I think my experience is far too limited to speculate.

I have a feeling we'll just go on disagreeing. Lets shift gears. Lets you and I discuss it, but in the direction of letting other readers decide for themselves rather than trying to persuade one another. I'll go first.

Which one is the default nature. Which nature do we find easy to follow and which do we find difficult?

Depends doesn't it?

For example, I think lots of people find it easy to follow many of their positive impulses. Thus, when an ugly impulse rears its head, I don't think that alone suffices to conclude that the entire core nature of the person is bad. Also, an intention/impulse is an intention/impulse. A strong impulse to do good would be just as hard to restrain as a strong impulse to do bad. No, I don't think the answer lies in ease/difficulty. Not in either direction.

 

[Citizen]

Men are born with a sinful nature. The conviction a sinner feels when they do wrong doesn't come from 'within,' it doesn't come from 'their nature.'

I used to think the same thing, so I do understand.

Today, I can only agree but so far. I can agree that Man is born with the capacity to sin within his nature. My own observations of people foreclose against me being able to testify their nature is rotten/sinful right down to the core. To agree with that, I would have to pretend I had not seen, heard, witnessed many, many positive things in many, many people.

I think it comes down to whether one focuses on the dark side of people, or looks at both sides.

 

[HPmatt]

Jeremiah 17:9 sums up the Bible's view of man -
"The heart is deceitful above all things , and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Acceptance of the Holy Spirit when taken to heart is the only way to truly change it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Jeremiah 17:9 sums up the Bible's view of man -
"The heart is deceitful above all things , and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Acceptance of the Holy Spirit when taken to heart is the only way to truly change it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hang on a minute.

Jeremiah 17:9 sums up the Bible's view of man? How about Jeremiah 17:9 sums up the view of the author of Jeremiah 17:9?

Acceptance of the Holy Spirit when taken to heart is the only way to truly change it? Really? By accepting the Holy Spirit, I suddenly change my heart/core/nature? Sorry, ain't buying it. Been there, done that. It didn't happen that way. Certainly, it started me on a path to changing it, but it did not actually suddenly cause any change in nature in and of itself. In fact, now that I think about it, it was because I was dissatisfied with myself that I accepted Christ as my personal savior. I was disappointed to find that acceptance alone changed little (but eventually came to understand that was because I was expecting too much.) All it did was open the door to changes; it emphatically changed nothing about my personal nature in and of itself.

Also, it totally overlooks and expressly rejects that people can and have changed themselves even without Christian religion. Essentially, your argument is saying the thief, the unfaithful husband, whatever, when he one day realizes all on his own the harm he is doing to himself and others, and decides to abandon that path, he did not truly change his heart on that point. Not one athiest, Bhuddist, Taoist ever truly changed his heart without acceptance of the Holy Spririt?

Oh, I think that is a stretch. A really, really big stretch.

Sorry. I just cannot accept your statements at face value.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Citizen, did you read the PM I sent you? It touches on this topic, perhaps significantly...

I can agree that Man is born with the capacity to sin within his nature. My own observations of people foreclose against me being able to testify their nature is rotten/sinful right down to the core. To agree with that, I would have to pretend I had not seen, heard, witnessed many, many positive things in many, many people.

Couple of things... First, the capacity to sin isn't eradicated once the sin nature is addressed. The capacity to sin isn't really indicative of the nature of the man. Secondly, nor is the ratio of good to bad actions taken by the man. This isn't a matter of a person that consistently works evil works being rotten to the core and another that consistently works good works having any less a sin nature.

Hang on a minute.

Jeremiah 17:9 sums up the Bible's view of man? How about Jeremiah 17:9 sums up the view of the author of Jeremiah 17:9?

Acceptance of the Holy Spirit when taken to heart is the only way to truly change it? Really? By accepting the Holy Spirit, I suddenly change my heart/core/nature? Sorry, ain't buying it. Been there, done that. It didn't happen that way. Certainly, it started me on a path to changing it, but it did not actually suddenly cause any change in nature in and of itself. In fact, now that I think about it, it was because I was dissatisfied with myself that I accepted Christ as my personal savior. I was disappointed to find that acceptance alone changed little (but eventually came to understand that was because I was expecting too much.) All it did was open the door to changes; it emphatically changed nothing about my personal nature in and of itself.

Also, it totally overlooks and expressly rejects that people can and have changed themselves even without Christian religion. Essentially, your argument is saying the thief, the unfaithful husband, whatever, when he one day realizes all on his own the harm he is doing to himself and others, and decides to abandon that path, he did not truly change his heart on that point. Not one athiest, Bhuddist, Taoist ever truly changed his heart without acceptance of the Holy Spririt?

Oh, I think that is a stretch. A really, really big stretch.

Sorry. I just cannot accept your statements at face value.

A person is a triune consisting of a body, soul, and spirit. When Adam sinned, he experienced spiritual death immediately. We are born in Adam's likeness, meaning that our spirit is dead. We still have the capacity to do "good works," even before accepting Christ. No matter how many "good works" we do, we are still condemned. We cannot have eternal communion and fellowship with God.

Christ didn't die just to give us the power to do more "good works," much less to immediately halt our works of sin, he died and rose so that we could be saved from eternal condemnation. That is what the Easter story is about. Does the holy spirit empower us to overcome sin? Yes. Does that mean we may determine a person's status of condemnation by the ratio of good to bad works? Absolutely not. If one looks to immediately transform into a saint by simply saying a single prayer, they are indeed setting themselves up for disappointment, because experiential sanctification is indeed a process.

 

[since9]

A person is a triune consisting of a body, soul, and spirit. When Adam sinned, he experienced spiritual death immediately. We are born in Adam's likeness, meaning that our spirit is dead. We still have the capacity to do "good works," even before accepting Christ. No matter how many "good works" we do, we are still condemned. We cannot have eternal communion and fellowship with God.

Christ didn't die just to give us the power to do more "good works," much less to immediately halt our works of sin, he died and rose so that we could be saved from eternal condemnation. That is what the Easter story is about. Does the holy spirit empower us to overcome sin? Yes. Does that mean we may determine a person's status of condemnation by the ratio of good to bad works? Absolutely not. If one looks to immediately transform into a saint by simply saying a single prayer, they are indeed setting themselves up for disappointment, because experiential sanctification is indeed a process.

Beautiful summary, stealthy, but "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." - 1 Cor 2:14.

Nothing wrong and everything right with sharing the gospel. If a person is ready, they'll accept it. If they not ready, they won't, and it's time to move on. Just remember, people are won over by the Holy Spirit as they open their hearts, and not by crafty arguments, so that no one may boast. That, however, should never discourage us from sharing.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I do not care to derail a discussion of the Resurrection of Christ with any such things. But if you'd care to start another thread, I'll happily join you there. Notably, one has to retreat into the dark ages to find significant examples of Christians using their religion to justify atrocities. If one wants to look for major atrocities committed by the officially atheistic communists, we only have to go back about a month. And the raw numbers of innocents murdered in slightly over 100 years of atheistic communisms dwarfs religiously motivated murders committed in all of recorded secular history by several orders of magnitude. Whatever Christianity may have done or may have been 500 or 1000 years ago, Atheistic communism remains as brutal today as it has ever been.

Oh suddenly you don't want to derail the thread with an off topic analogy you brought up?

Atheism, commumism, is an ideology, the states have been brutal including the US.

Fortunately, while communism requires atheism, atheism does not require communism.

Utter nonsense, the pilgrams who first arrived were communist and devote christians, who also later burned people at the stake.

You are entitled to your beliefs about what obligations Christians are under or what they should or should not hold sacred. You are not entitled to enforce those beliefs against any man. Whatever factual truth there may be to your statement, it is entirely irrelevant.

Vice versa.

I think there is some fine discussion here about what is the nature of man. Certainly no consensus. Belief systems are entirely relevant as they guide conduct.

Atheists can be good people and many are. But nothing in the lack of belief in God actually requires men to act in ways that we would agree is good. On the flip side, to the first order, Christianity teaches men to behave in ways that we would agree are good. Christianity encourages good conduct as the major tenant of the belief system. Atheism encourages nothing officially...but in practice far too often seems to engender a hostility toward the peaceful beliefs of others.

Your belief doesn't "require" you to act in any manner. Sad attempt at painting the "godless" as less than the "believers".

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Using the bible as an appeal to authority to those who may not believe in the bible?

 

[OC for ME]

Using the bible as an appeal to authority to those who may not believe in the bible?

Well, the bible is there...what its content is open for debate as to its veracity. Believers should know that the bible is a decent history book...sort of, when compared to other historical records. Especially the selfishness of our fellow man and the lengths sinners may go to to impose their will upon you. Some folks got the government to kill him for them cuz they were to chicken to face the man himself.