My apologies for the mis-written statement (as I am utterly depraved). Hopefully, however, you can see that the Hindu faith teaches something different than the Christian doctrine of depravity, which was what I was trying to say.
1 Like
Reread your last post and think more about the definition of the doctrine of depravity.
The version of depravity I was taught was that man was sinful through and through, and without God we cannot do ANYthing truly good.
Here is how one website defines depravity
Total depravity frames humans not as good people who sometimes mess up but as messed-up people who, with God’s help, can do some good things—but nothing completely free of selfishness or error. We are unable to make a choice that is unquestionably, entirely good. None of our actions, loves, or thoughts can be truly without sin.
It appears to argue we cannot do anything truly altruistic, and on our own cannot do anything good.
The Smithsonian article appears to refute a totally depraved state of mankind, indicating altruism is hardwired.
Now, Christianity itself raises the issue of just deserts. How can a Christian ever be (truly) altruistic?
One joke goes, why did God create atheists?
There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”
The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs an act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that God commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”
Roman Catholics are not entirely with you on this.
You have still failed to explain why the Christian way of being saved from the effects of our depraved nature is better than the Hindu way.
Here’s a really good book by David Bentley Hart which is very helpful on clarifying the concept of God. I really recommend it, perhaps just as much as Feser’s The Last Superstition . By the way, Hart is Eastern Orthodox, he’s also a universalist, and this book is not particularly written with a Christian viewpoint, but theistic, so it may connect with you more.
I’m actually partway through the Experience of God audiobook before I got distracted with other shiny audiobooks. I should return and finish it at some point.
Btw, do you agree with Hart’s argument against eternal punishment, and how aionios could be temporary/for a period of time?
I don’t believe in a God that created the universe and then “let go”. That’s a post-Enlightenment, modernist, deistic view of God which reduces him to a demiurge. Such a God is not big at all, but very small.
You’d be surprised how gnostic Paul’s teachings are in the bible.
According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness to Simon’s doctrine ( Against Heresies I.23.3), Simon based his sect on the following teaching:
Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following materials: … men are saved through grace, and not on account of their own righteous works. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.
What’s curious is that this is almost exactly the same gospel that Paul teaches in Galatians, particularly in chapters 2–4.
I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (2.21)
Why then the law? … it was ordained through angels by a mediator. (3.19)
But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin… before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. (3.22-23)
…while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. (4.3)
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? (4.8-9)
So both Simon Magus and Paul seem to be basing their gospel on the following:
- Men are saved by grace, and not through righteousness (works under the law).
- The law was given by angels to bring men into bondage.
- The true God has finally made himself known unto men.
- Now people can be freed from the bondage of the law and the “elemental spirits that were not gods” (Paul) or “them who made the world” (Simon), which works out to the same thing in Gnostic theology.
That’s one possible view. But that leads to a sort of Manichean dualism: that even in the beginning, good existed alongside evil. Notice that in this view, suffering and death are also part of the beauty of creation, and it will remain so forever . According to this view, the millions of deaths from COVID are beautiful. And you accuse Christianity of being an insensitive death cult?
[/quote]
That sounds like the original Jewish understanding of God. God brought light and darkness, good and calamity, and Satan as God’s prosecutor, as demonstrated in Job, and how YHWH/Satan tempt King David into performing a census.
But that’s also why true Christians, unlike followers of dualism, weep for those who suffer and die from COVID. And they earnestly seek every means possible - whether medicine, science, prayer, community, or anything else - to relieve suffering and heal. They are a reminder of the brokenness of the world - a brokenness that Christians are called to try to fix as best as they can before Jesus returns and completes it. After all, Christians are aware that we are made in the image of God. Right now, we are the ambassadors and representatives of God on Earth, his hands and feet to accomplish his will.
Unlike followers of dualism? You sound like Feser, saying secular people are morally reprehensible. For a Christian, Feser appears to be quite vitriolic towards those of differing views to him;
I would say that a truly religious man is, all things being equal (and of course they are often very far from equal), for that reason and to that extent a sane and virtuous man; while a man who is irreligious, and especially a man who is positively hostile to religion, is (again, all things being equal) for that very reason and to that extent a bad man, and an irrational man. In short, a religious sensibility, properly understood, is a moral and intellectual virtue; and indifference or hostility to religion is a moral and intellectual vice.
–Feser, The Last Superstition.
Perhaps a bit offtopic, but relevant to the forum is how Feser appears to argue how naturalistic evolution cannot account for life.
It is “natural selection” itself that is now treated as a pseudo-deity, guiding all our fates, with Dennett in particular constantly and shamelessly making reference to the “Good Design,” etc., that evolution manifests, even though “evolution,” as a purportedly blind and purposeless natural process, couldn’t in any true and interesting sense manifest “design” or “guidance” without having godlike intelligence and will. (Again, there are reasons – which we will explore later on – why Dennett has to speak this way in order for his “naturalistic” worldview to come off as remotely plausible, but also why he nevertheless cannot possibly do so in a way that is ultimately consistent with his materialism and atheism.)
I think many here would absolutely disagree with Feser here that evolution needs to be guided.
This is also why if you look at when and how Jesus does miracles, it is not done as a general strategy to solve the brokenness of the world. Rather, Jesus performed healings and exorcisms to demonstrate who He is, and motivate people to follow Him and “never be thirsty for eternity”, receiving a “well of water springing up to eternal life”. The miracles are just a means to a greater end.
Sounds like an argument where Jesus performed miracles to show off, rather than Jesus’ compassion.
One thing to remember is that this book was published back in 2008, during the height of the New Atheism. The polemic in the book may seem excessive nowadays, but this was responding in kind to the rhetoric of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.
And please Witchdoc, you yourself just called Christianity a death cult in a previous post. How are you in a position to complain about others being vitriolic towards non-Christians?
You should hold your horses before assuming a Paleyan view of guidance, which is not what Feser means. Feser does hold to an Aristotelian view of teleology, but he’s not an ID theorist or creationist of the same kind as the Discovery Institute, AIG, or others.
Jesus had compassion. “Jesus wept.” (Jn. 11:35). It is because Jesus has compassion that he gave up his life to die for our sins, and he came to earth to try to get us to follow Him to be saved, and performing miracles is one of those ways.
Currently I don’t have the expertise to assess the argument, unfortunately.
OK, but I don’t really see the connection between this and what we were talking about.
1 Like
Note that I said Hitchens calls Christianity a death cult. If you think I called said too, maybe I am a bit unaware of how I might be espousing similar rhetoric and I guess I may have been vitriolic.
A “vitriolic agnostic” doesn’t harbor quite the same ring of hypocriticalness a “vitriolic Christian” has. And, mind you, my secular vices and irrationalness might be why I’m so vitriolic I guess.
But it sounds like I have hit a raw nerve. I’m guessing you AGREE with Feser, that secular irreligious people are both bad and irrational.
Some of the kindest and most rational people I know are agnostic / atheist. But I guess under an exclusivist Christian scorecard, none of that counts anyway (C. S. Lewis and Hart are both notable inclusivists).
Jesus had compassion. “Jesus wept.” (Jn. 11:35). It is because Jesus has compassion that he gave up his life to die for our sins, and he came to earth to try to get us to follow Him to be saved, and performing miracles is one of those ways.
Did Jesus give up His life in the traditional permanent sense, or did Jesus give up His weekend for our sins?
You should hold your horses before assuming a Paleyan view of guidance, which is not what Feser means. Feser does hold to an Aristotelian view of teleology, but he’s not an ID theorist or creationist of the same kind as the Discovery Institute, AIG, or others.
That may also mean that Feser may be committing a teleological fallacy.
OK, but I don’t really see the connection between this and what we were talking about.
You did mention demiurge, which is a gnostic concept.
Yes, you said Hitchens said it, but you also said that my posts “confirm” his contention:
You apparently were aware that the term was incendiary, so you framed it with “dare I say it”. What I said in my post was simply an argumentative move to reverse the accusation. As I said on another thread earlier: if you want to dish out hard criticism, don’t act surprised and offended when others respond in kind.
I don’t endorse everything that Feser says, either in TLS or in other works. That being said, I do think that all humans are bad and irrational, including myself. That doesn’t mean that there is sometimes real goodness and beauty in the world, including from secular people. In Reformed theology it is called
the concept of common grace.
Please stop projecting positions and views that I don’t necessarily hold.
Possibly. But Aristotelian teleology is not a competing scientific hypothesis to evolution in the sense that ID-style arguments are. It’s founded on a completely different metaphysical foundation.
It’s actually terminology I “borrowed” from Hart in The Experience of God. He talks about this a lot, criticizing those who implicitly think of God as a kind of finite superman-like being.
2 Likes
You apparently were aware that the term was incendiary, so you framed it with “dare I say it”. What I said in my post was simply an argumentative move to reverse the accusation. As I said on another thread earlier: if you want to dish out hard criticism, don’t act surprised and offended when others respond in kind.
[/quote]
You appear to have forgotten the context of the argument, in which my reply was to the following
Because a truly godly Christian knows that material health and success in this world is quite inconsequential compared to eternal life and union with God which she is going to receive through Christ.
To people suffering, saying what is most important is what comes after may come off as rather rude and insensitive. Focusing only on the to be is what makes some Christians appear death-cult like.
Many Christians are not, and are kind, generous, focusing on change and salvation today rather than dreaming of a new Heaven and a new Earth.
In addition, Feser comes off just as bad as any of the new atheists himself; it appears he is right down at the level of those he condemns
Well, when we consider: (a) the fact that secularism is little more than an animus against religion, without any positive content; (b) the fact that its adherents are often committed to ideas as superstitious and/or mad as any that the most corrupt forms of religion exhibit (ideas which, though not essential to secularism per se and thus not accepted among all secularists, nevertheless usually tend to follow upon the rejection of religion as a substitute for it); and (c) the fact that they also typically manifest toward religion and religious believers exactly the sort of ignorance, intolerance, and dogmatism they attribute to religion itself; when we add all these factors together, it is surely plausible to regard secularism as something that is as much a “religion” – as much, that is to say, the very sort of thing it claims to oppose – as anti-communism can be said to have become the very thing that it opposed. Indeed, more so, since (as I have said) the charges against anti-communists are mostly unfair. And since secularists themselves were so often the loudest makers of those false charges against anti-communists (communism having been one of the sacred cows of an earlier generation of secularists), it is only fitting that they should be hoist with their own petard.
I would agree. I would certainly not say that to someone who is actually suffering, because it would be insensitive. And if you remember, since the beginning of this thread I’ve repeatedly spoken about how I don’t disagree with NT Wright on the importance of Christians making positive change in the here and now as well. But I assumed that we are discussing the problem of evil and suffering as an intellectual, not existential or personal problem. And I do want to remind you that in Christianity, unlike in the naturalist picture, this world is not the end of the story. In the end all things will ultimately be made right and all suffering will disappear.
1 Like
Yes, that was my understanding, as well. The Catholic Church does not generally teach the doctrine of depravity, which is one way it differs from some Protestant teachings.
I have explained part of why I believe what I believe. I am not here to criticize other faiths. You are free to decide which belief system you would like to adhere to.
@Michael_Okoko, To expound a bit more, I find the idea that God saves me (rather than me needing to do all the right things in order to save myself) to be quite freeing. It frees me to be myself (a person with many short comings) and to make mistakes. It frees me to keep trying to do better even after I have failed so many times. Anyone who comes to God for forgiveness, no matter how badly they have failed, can be completely forgiven, because God is not weighing our good deeds versus our bad deeds on a scale to determine who gets into heaven. Instead, God is able to uphold His perfect justice by taking my sin upon Himself. Seeing God love me in that may inspires me to love, worship and serve Him out of gratitude in return.
3 Likes
Again, how is this better than the Hindu stance, since it also leads to eternal life. Interestingly, Hindus make mistakes too, but they cleanse themselves of sin through whatever methods they have. These methods may be less convenient than simply praying to God for the forgiveness, but they work well for them.
Even Osama Bin Laden, Stalin and Ted Bundy?
The perfect justice of the Hindu gods stipulates Hindus cleanse themselves of sin. Different approach, but the same goal in mind.
AFAIK, Hindus are not complaining and they serve their gods with love and gratitude too.
If the doctrine of depravity is correct, then nothing we as people could do would be sufficient to please God.
here is an excerpt from Isaiah 64:5-6 that reflects this idea of depravity:
How then can we be saved?
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
I am not worshiping the Hindu gods, I am following Jesus. It is not possible to adhere to all religions at the same time, because as you have seen, they are different. Are Hindus hoping for the same heaven for which Christians hope, or are they hoping to improve their karma to get into a better condition when they are reincarnated into their next life?
How do Hindu practitioners know when they have cleansed enough? Do they feel free and have assurance of their salvation after their cleansing? That assurance and freedom is what Jesus offers.
I’m not here to criticize other religions, but am describing Christian doctrine. I never said that Hindus lack gratitude, I am responding to you with what my personal experience is as a follower of Jesus.
How do we know?
I never asked you to.
I think they are hoping for Nirvana. Not sure though, but whatever it is, it must be some pleasurable state like the Christian heaven and eternal life.
I am not a Hindu adherent so I don’t know how their religion works. Got an interesting article though
Other religions offer assurance and freedom too. There is no monopoly here.
Personal experience is not good enough for me, so its likely we have arrived at an impasse.
How do you know that to be true? Have you asked followers of other religions if they feel freedom and assurance?
I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I am answering your questions about why I believe in Jesus, and I am responding with genuine descriptions of how I think about these things.
That’s an accurate summary. Vitriol and arrogance are his two main weapons! and condescension … and an almost fanatical devotion to the previous Pope … I’ll come in again.
1 Like
Judaism offers assurance, same with Islam and others, are you denying this?
Are you asking whether Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others feel freedom and assurance from their respective religions?
I know. I was only pointing out it’s inadequacy in determining truth.
I am not making any claims about whether other religions offer assurance. I am asking how you know that other religions offer assurance and how you know that practitioners of other religions feel freedom and assurance, because you claim to know that to be true.
Why are you trying to do that? Are you trying to say faith is invalid?
I think you misunderstand me here. I am not saying I know other religions actually offer assurance to worshippers, rather I meant they claim to offer assurance just like Christianity. I don’t know how you mistook my intent.
As for the how I know whether adherents of other religions feel assured or free, I don’t know (and I never claimed they did). But we can ask them. @Roels_Major, does Islam offer you assurance and freedom?
1 Like
To assert Christianity is true or holds the truth, then you would need more than faith to show why. You would need concrete, hard evidence. Something like what happened between Elisha and the prophets of Baal.
2 Likes