A discussion about "goodness" (for lack of a better term)

This is an excellent post, Wino, very illustrative of varying points of view. So far, what I have read here is that the priest's goodness, or lack thereof, is relative to the observer. I hear a lot of that. But if that is the case, and we, as a group of reasonable people, in such a clear cut case as this, cannot determine whether this fellow is good or bad, then where does that leave us as a society? How do we make laws for such things? How do we interpret the laws that we make and apply them to specific circumstances that may vary in fact to fact?

So I answer your question, from my own perspective, which is from my own understanding of what good and bad are, which I get from Christian principles. It is great to be able to rely on such principles because you never have to worry about these kinds of questions if you just apply the scriptures and vow to live by them.

Is the priest good? No, of course he is not good. Are the parisioners good? No. In fact none of us are good. According to the principles of Christianity, there is only one source of goodness in the world, and that source is God. The first time we do something that is not good in God's eyes, we are not good. That is because to be good, one must always do what is good in God's eyes. God always does what is good. So any of us fall short of the goodness of God. Now we can do something that are according to God's will, and that would be a good act. But that does not mean that we are good.

Goodness, in God's eyes, according to the scriptures, is an ideal. That is the goal, the ideal, ideal goodness. Anything less than the ideal is less than good. So, to the Christian, this is an easy answer. The answer to the question is to look at things through God's eyes, and using the scriptures try to understand how God would feel about this man. And God feels the same way about him that He feels about any of us. But furthermore, because this man is purporting to convey the Word of God, which because one cannot convey the Word of God falsely, he is also in a special catagory. He risks being judged a false prophet.

Now all that is bad, for us anyway. There is no way that any of us can be judged good based upon our works, works such as this priest is undertaking. I have not read the book. But I expect that there is more than just altruism involved. He derives a living from serving as the neighborhood preiest. So his are not fully honorable intentions anyway, I expect, not having read the book. So he's not good.

So this is great story to illustrate WHY the Christian agrees that man needs a savior. No matter how good we are, no matter what our intentions, we fall short of the glory of God. We are all the priest here. We all do some good stuff and some stuff we don't bring up. So none of us are good in God's eyes, on our own. But the Christian understands that no longer does man have to be judged by God's standards. Now, since the resurrection, we are judged by Jesus' standards. Jesus is the intercessor between man and God. Because Jesus paid the price for our failings, the Father has given Him ALL authority on Heaven and earth. So now Jesus determines judgment. And Jesus spells out in the Gospel exactly how He will make those determinations. He says that all we have to do is turn away from those things we do that are not in keeping with His commandments, which He says demonstrates our love for Him. And He says that instead of being ruled day to day, hour to hour, across our lives by our own wants needs and desires, we should continually work to try to fulfill Jesus's commands, which fulfills His wants, needs and desires, which most of us would agree are the highest standards of conduct anyway. In so doing, by living life according to Jesus's standards rather than our own, we make Him Lord over our lives and not we ourselves. One of those standards is that we repent for when we fail to live up to His standards. When we do that, that cancels out the wrong doing.

So what I tell you in response to the illustration, is what Christianity is all about. Whereas if we depend upon our own standards to make determinations of what is good, or bad, then that standard will vary from day to day, person to person. It means that there are no standards and that good and bad are relative to the observer, as the responses here illustrate extremely well. The Christian does not belive that at all. The Christian believe that good and bad are absolutes and that no man is in control of those standards.

So this was a great post, Wino. I credit you will this, very cerebral, very illustrative of what the scriptures teach us.

Thanks for that, very much.

Hank

 

Yes, I've come face-to-face with demons. But I believe hell is of our own making and can be experienced right here in this life. I've already been there and come out of it. As long as I continue on my current path, there is nothing to fear. Fear is the corroding thread of all life. The Seven Deadly Sins or the equivalent in other religions. The feelings and emotions that prevent us from taking action (insecurity, jealousy, shyness, inadequacy, etc). These are all types of fear or byproducts of being afraid. They are man-made obstacles that block our way to becoming who we were meant to be.

 

I'll get down from my soapbox now.

 

Couldn't agree more...

 

I did not say that Unamuno was writing from a Christian perspective. I said that the story illustrated Christian principles. And from my perspective, there are right answers. I know that you disagree. But in the final analysis, it won't matter what you and I think today. Either I am right, or you are right. These positions are mutually exclusive. You place your bets on your horse, I on mine. We just have to wait.

Either way, I should point out that when you express that 'there are no right or wrong answers,' you express that as an absolute truth. Because you say that as an absolute truth, it negates itself from being true. And this is how we know truth from fiction. Truth agrees with itself. Fiction doubles back and contradicts itself. That is really amazing if you think about it, that all by itself, with no energy, no intelligence forging this universe, one that exists governed by all of these natural laws, such the law of contradiction, the law of gravity, matter could have created itself out of nothing, not even a gravitational field, and formed such a perfect universe. Order came from disorder, again, defying the laws that govern the universe today. That is purely astonishing.

 

My value system is,'To thine ownself be true'.

 

Intrepid:"Actually, no. It's my opinion only. If I wanted it to be considered an absolute truth I would have said so. That takes us back to the issue of illusory correlation (in which you indulge a lot)..creating a relationship between two variables when there is really none."

So when your child steals some cookies off the counter, and you ask him whether he stole them, and he says no, merely giving you his honest, however mistaken opinion, understanding that opinions cannot be right or wrong, just opinions, then in your home I expect that the matter is over and the issue is satisfied.

 

Guess I'll just step in since I am a minister. He could be deemed a false prophet, but history has shown us that John Wesley became a believer under his own preaching. So he might not be a total loss. Like Wesley, he might feel his heart strangely warmed. I don't know how the book in reference ended so I can't complete this thought.
As a minister standing before Jesus,(and that is the opinion that really matters), the Bible talks about those who would say "Look what we have done for you." Since they are insincere, they are told "Depart from me you workers of iniquity. I never knew you." To us, they cast out demons and lots of other things that we would probably judge as "good" or even "noble", but they were fakes. God has already told us what will happen to them.
Ministers are specifically held to God's standard and it is not the same as man's. What we do should never be done to simply please people. It is Holy God that we are accountable too and His standards are vastly different than mankind's.
(I hadn't planned on joining here, but since the subject was a priest I felt impressed to share something. My intention was to share as a man of God about the unique place we hold before God.)
Peace & Blessings!

 

Hank - for the first time in a while, I agree with almost all of this post.

 

I disagree with your conclusion. Demons are real and if you have ever truly met and battled true evil face to face, you would know that it isn't just man-made, or an obstacle, or fear. It is a darkness that is only possible to fight through the blood of Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Hell can't be of our own making because the real principalities, powers, and darkness will be cast into it. It wasn't meant or created for man, but for Satan and the demons that follow him. I'm kinda with Intrepid on the "I'm safe" attitude. Our foe is seeking whom he may devour and overconfidence could place you in dangerous territory.
I agree that fear is a bad thing. It keeps so many of us bound and helpless. It does keep us from becoming what we should be.

 

I read that way before Khan - I don't remember where but I'm almost positive the source was about 50 years before Trek.

 

Thank you for your kind explanation. My belief will ALWAYS be in God and that will NEVER change. God bless you.

 

Sarita asked me about consequentialism and I haven't addressed that yet - sorry.

I was thinking about consequentialism in general terms rather than Wino's story, but I'll try and discuss generally and specifically.

Generally I was thinking of the Dirty Harry scenario, AKA ticking time bomb. Those two examples usually talk about things like torture (nice!) to extract information, in for example, a hostage situation or a ticking time bomb. So, Dirty Harry can torture Scorpio to find the location of the kidnapped girl to save her before time runs out. BUT the arguments against are - how accurate can information extracted under torture be, will he then be able to prosecute Scorpio having gained information that way, the girl may already be dead, two wrongs not making a right and so on.

For Wino's example I guess we have to look at what the consequences are for everyone. The townsfolk had a priest who ministered to them the same way a believer would have so that's a good consequence for them, the priest knew he was helping people but living a lie, so mixed consequences for him, God's reaction? Well I guess that depends on individual interpretation - would God accept him as a non-believer or cut him some slack for living the best life he could, selflessly. I sometimes wonder why Judas is so villified as he was only playing his pre-ordained role in fulfilling the prophesy of denying Jesus. That had to happen to set the events in train. Judas wrestled with his conscience.

If I were around during the time of the Third Reich should I have murdered Hitler, when I saw how things were going? Would that have saved the Holocaust from occurring or would someone else have stepped in? What would the consequences have been for my "soul"?

So, for all the above I think consequentialism is a mixed bag. But a fascinating area for discussion. I love this thread. It's thought provoking in the best possible way - the examined life. It's also interesting to me that when we talk about ethics, morality, philosophy in this way, it's done in a thoughtful way. Even when religion comes in to the discussion it's from an ethical/moral stand point and with reflection.

 

great thread Wino--sorry I didn't read it sooner

I knew a Baptist minister who lived his life the way the priest did; i.e., he was not a believer, but he felt his ministry was a way to do good works--he had a small (about 150) conservative congregation, and they really felt he was a good pastor--he actually wasn't an atheist (I don't think), but he never really said he believed in God the way most Christians would--he said all cultures had their mythology and he chose to embrace the Christian metaphor, found it satisfying and a good way to help others--people have already brought up the notion that he will not, in a Christian's perspective, have eternal life with Jesus, but the afterlife could be discussed/debated for "eternity"

someone PMed me about this thread, mentioning in the same PM something about a recent episode of House MD where he tells a "white lie" to help someone find a reason to forgive herself and live--for those House fans, they know this is a remarkable event since he is so wedded to the truth

and rev, ironically, the Baptist minister's first name was Wesley

great topic Wino and good contributions folks--this thread may be an example of how people of diverse beliefs can actually gain someting from hearing from those who see things in a slightly different way--to me, that is a form of "support"

 

I am not sure I would see the conflict here. Some people think and speak in concrete terms, others in metaphors. For some these are in total opposition. To me they are not in opposition at all. I also think that most people go through stages of belief during different periods of their lives. Just like we don't necessarily get divorced the day we wake up not head over heels in love we don't necessarily give up all our religious beliefs the day we (may) no longer see them in the way we did at another time in our life. I would not think it the right thing for a person of religion who has made a vow about how he is going to spend his life to throw it all over and walk out leaving his congregation high and dry the first minute he experiences a question he hadn't entertained 20 years earlier. To me the idea that *I* have to be totally satisfied intellectually, emotionally and in every other way or everyone else's world has to stop til I get my ducks in line is kind of childish. I think the priest is doing the right thing. It may be that at a later stage in his life, he may again be a believer, perhaps not the kind he was in the beginning but a more mature one. Who knows. But I think he has an obligation to other people not just his own psyche.

 

I really do want an good answer for this. How can one believe that consequentialism exists, if they refuse to entertain the notion that God exists? Scott, INS, Sarita, help me with this. What EVIDENCE do we have that consequentialism exists? We can't see it. We can't feel it. We can't measure it. We can't perform scientific experiments to prove it exists. That puts consequentialism in the same realm as God does it not? How can we believe in consequentialism if we refuse to believe in things such as God?

 

The idea that anyone can prove or disprove the existence of or lack of existence of a deity is ludicrous to me.

In fact, in all the time I have been around believers and nonbelievers (whatever one conceives these terms to mean) I have never heard anyone attempt to prove or disprove.

 

Intrepid:"It's a theory. You can't prove it; you can only apply it and see if it fits."

Well, that sounds exactly like the scriptures though. You can't prove them. You just apply them, and see if they fit. That's what Christians do. And this is why I equate consequentialism with God of the scriptures, the point being that with no more evidence of either, we can believe in consequentialism and not God, or God and not consequentialism, both occupying the same position relative to our belief systems, as you have termed these things many times.

So how can one consider the possibility of the reality of consequentialism, but not consider the possibility of God. And I use consequentialism to represent all such theories of man, that cannot be proved, or seen, but seem to apply in some form to explain the human condition.

 

Hank,

No-one "believes" in consequentialism. It's an abstraction - a theory. You can't/don't "believe" in an abstraction. It's merely one prism through which you can view and/or attempt to explain actions and outcomes. I agree you can view the Scriptures in the same way if you like, the difference is that the Scriptures are said to be the word of God. Consequentialism or other theories have no God behind them. Big difference.

 

Imnoscientist:"Hank,No-one "believes" in consequentialism. It's an abstraction - a theory. You can't/don't "believe" in an abstraction. It's merely one prism through which you can view and/or attempt to explain actions and outcomes. I agree you can view the Scriptures in the same way if you like, the difference is that the Scriptures are said to be the word of God. Consequentialism or other theories have no God behind them. Big difference."

One who gives this abstraction credence "believes" that it explains certain aspects of the human condition. The more that they believe in this theory, the more they will rely on this belief and thereby exhibit faith in this belief. And one would believe it, and have faith in it in the same way that someone "believes" and has faith that God is behind these same aspects of the human condition. But one has no EVIDENCE that consequentialism has any validity, any more than God would. You can't see either one. You can't feel either one, measure either one. You just theorize, and subsequently believe, and have faith that they exist. And neither theory can be proven. So there really is no difference. Yet folks who refuse to entertain the existence of God, even as a plausible theory, WILL entertain consequentialism as a plausible theory. So their appears to be a double standard for plausibility here. How else can we explain this?