By Faith Alone

[Tiassa]

A few years ago I posted a thread about a similar circumstance. At least, I recall writing the post but I've just been through the archives but I couldn't find it. So, anyway:

A Florida man admitted to reporters that he killed his wife and five "innocent" children, adding that he wants to be executed "right away" so he can be buried with them on Saturday.

Mesac Damas, 32, said he wanted to take his own life, but did not have the courage to go through with it, "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven." ....

.... Asked by the reporter in Haiti why he killed his family, Damas responded, "Only God knows." Questioned further, he blamed the crime on his mother-in-law. "Her mom pretty much made me do it -- the devil, her spirit, whatever she worships," he said.

Damas added, "When I did it, [my] eyes [were] closed but right now my eyes are open." He repeatedly asked the reporter, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ," and stated, "The devil exists."

(CNN)​

I'm not sure where to start, because the one of the first things to mind is, "No way. Really?"

And there is a caveat to consider: Mesac Damas and his late wife Guerline "had a history of domestic violence", including a January arrest for misdemeanor battery to which the husband pleaded guilty.

Or perhaps that Mesac Damas was arrested in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, claiming that he had gone home to say goodbye to his family and then turn himself in. Except that he flew to Haiti on a one-way ticket.

The urge to say, "This is what religion can do to people," is strong. But it is too superficial. Rather, when we add up the history of domestic violence, the explanation that the Devil made him do it, the notion that he stabbed his wife and children and then slashed their throats, and his strong desire to die in order to be buried simultaneously with the family he just murdered suggest that not all is right in this man's head.

Because look at what else he says. He wants to be executed "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven"°.

There is, of course, disagreement between Christians about what gets one into Heaven, but there is an old argument called sola fide, or, "by faith alone". Many Christians seem to think this means that all you need to do is believe that Jesus will save you, and you're in. Often, you will hear these people say, that, "Works will not get you into Heaven." The problem is that faith and works are interrelated. There are still a few Christians left who speak of "walking in the footsteps of Christ". That is, if you believe, you conduct yourself accordingly. Unfortunately, it does not seem the prevailing outlook, at least in the United States.

For instance, does anyone remember Rock'n Rollen? Or maybe you just know him as the guy in the rainbow wig with the "John 3:16" sign at all those sports events over the years. The passage—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—is at the heart of sola fide. And Rollen Stewart, a.k.a. Rock'n Rollen appears to have taken the narrower view of sola fide. In the 1980s, he hit the Trinity Broadcasting Network, offices of the Orange County Register, Crystal Cathedral, and the Joy Bells Bible Book Store with stink-bombs, and apparently attempted a similar attack against the American Music Awards. His intended message, according to author and prankster Adam Gorightly, was that "God thinks this stinks". He has been married four times—which contradicts the teachings of Jesus—and allegedly assaulted one of his wives, Margaret Hockridge, in 1986, for standing in the wrong place while holding a John 3:16 sign. In 1992, believing the Rapture was coming within days, Stewart and two accomplices attempted to abduct a hotel maid. According to The Gazette of Colorado Springs, Stewart "threatened to shoot at planes flying into LAX and plastered signs that read 'John 3:16' to the hotel room windows". Wikipedia, Stewart rejected a plea deal for twelve years in prison so that he could "spread his message in open court". He was eventually sentenced to three life terms at San Luis Obispo (Kenyon), and was denied parole as recently as 2005.

Sola fide. By faith alone.

And now we look upon a man who has confessed to stabbing and slashing his wife and five children to death, claiming the Devil made him do it, and hoping to be executed so that he can get into Heaven?

Is this sane?

So what issue to pick? There is justice, of course. Should his wish be granted and, upon due process—sorry, it just can't happen by the weekend—quickly execute him so he can "go to Heaven"? Should we send him to prison for the rest of his life in order to punish him by making him wait to "go to Heaven"? And then there is religion. To what degree is religion "responsible" for this atrocious crime? Can we really assert that without Christian brainwashing, he never would have killed anyone? And, of course, there is mental health. Crazy people can twist anything. And does his behavior really sound sane? Yet what of sola fide? We have for years heard that atheism cannot be moral, as it has no basis for morality. Yet, what is the basis for morality in Christianity if sola fide is strictly about belief and has nothing to do with conduct? After all, redemption is forgiveness, right? Or, to turn to that bastion of Christian values, The Simpsons:

Bart: Excuse me, Brother Faith? I've gotta know -- how did you really get the bucket off my Dad's head?

Faith: Well, I didn't, son. You did. God gave you the power.

Bart: Really? Huh. I would think that He would want to limit my power.

Faith: [laughs] Oh, yes, Lord. When I was your age, I was a hellraiser, too. [holds up Bart's slingshot] My slingshot was my cross. But I saw the light, and changed my wicked ways.

Bart: I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by a presto-change-o deathbed repentance.

Faith: Wow, that's a good angle. [contemplates for a second] But that's not God's angle. Why not spend your life helping people instead. Then you're also covered in case of sudden death.

Bart: Full coverage? Hmmm.

("Faith Off", #BABF06)​

I mean, if there is no connection between faith and works, why not kill a few people? Aleister Crowley is said to have kicked a sherpa off a mountain once because, essentially, he recognized a chance to kill someone and get away with it, and thus learn what it is like to take human life. And it's really quite difficult to figure out where he stood with Christ°, as he once threatened to strangle the Christian savior ... while begging for His love.

But if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, why not go on a shooting spree, or rape a few people, or stab and slash your children to death? After all, by faith alone. Believe you will be forgiven, and thus you shall.
____________________

Notes:

° "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven" — This was the basis of the prior thread or post I can't find; a suspect confessed to murder and asked to be executed so he could get to Heaven.

° where he stood with Christ — See Aceldama: A Place to Bury Strangers In, cantos XXXI-Epilogue. "Master! I think that I have found thee now", Crowley wrote in the thirty-first canto. While the electronic copy does not contain the footnote, the Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, in its 1905 edition of The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley, Volume I indicates that the Master is Christ. The threat occurs in the Epilogue.

Works Cited:

CNN. "Dad admits killings to reporters, blames crime on 'spirit'". September 23, 2009. CNN.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/23/florida.family.dead/index.html

Gorightly, Adam. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Man". 1999. Pacifier.com. September 23, 2009. http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/rainbow.html

"What he preached, he didn't practice". The Gazette. December 14, 2009. Bnet. September 23, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20051214/ai_n15983433/

Wikipedia. "Rollen Stewart". July 26, 2009. Wikipedia.com. September 23, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollen_Stewart

Kenyon, J. Michael. "Real action in '79 was outside the lines". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. July 6, 2001. SeattlePI.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.seattlepi.com/allstar/30179_1979game06.shtml

SNPP. "Faith Off". Springfield Nuclear Power Plant Episode Guide. 2000. SNPP.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/BABF06

Crowley, Aleister. Aceldama: A Place to Bury Strangers In. 1898. Kobek.com. September 23, 2009. http://kobek.com/aceldama.pdf

——————. Foyers: Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, 1905.

 

[Doreen]

I mean, if there is no connection between faith and works, why not kill a few people?

It would depend on what faith means, at the very least. Notice your assumption also, that only carrots and sticks are motivators. Or possibly only sticks. I mean if you could not go to prison would you rape and kill? If you had diplomatic plates would you park in front of hydrants in front of residential apartment buildings? and so on. Just to be clear, if secular punishments were off the table, would you immediately start a life of mayhem?

Then the other issue: is faith simply that a God exists or is it faith in the goodness of that diety? or to put it another way, is it a connection/recognition. A kid who has faith in his Dad ('s existence) could, I am quite sure, if he realized he could get away with anything, do things that would disappoint his Dad. But if the faith is a recognition of the existence of another with whom one shares certain traits or goals or values, it is another situation. And would be for many kids also.

Aleister Crowley is said to have kicked a sherpa off a mountain once because, essentially, he recognized a chance to kill someone and get away with it, and thus learn what it is like to take human life.

Not the best example of a Christian. I suppose that was part of the point, but a lot of what he said was to shock. It was his schtick.

But if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, why not go on a shooting spree, or rape a few people, or stab and slash your children to death? After all, by faith alone. Believe you will be forgiven, and thus you shall.

See above - but also - you are treating people as if they are only cognitive and as if life is a hockey game without penalties.

A last response on the issue:

whatever reasons that keep you from doing these various acts would hold for a theist also. Or not.

 

[Doreen]

Oh, yes. The man in the article, as you mention, is not simply a theist. He has a lot of problems. For one were I him I would have to wonder if I had faith in God, given that I felt it was necessary for me to kill my family. This seems like a severe breakdown in the faith that there is some plan or whatever his branch of Christianity is likely to have as part of the image of God's universe. His confidence that he has faith is loopy. Pretty much anyone would doubt all aspects of themselves: cognitive/belief issues and morally and emotionally - after such an act.

 

[lightgigantic]

A few years ago I posted a thread about a similar circumstance. At least, I recall writing the post but I've just been through the archives but I couldn't find it. So, anyway:

A Florida man admitted to reporters that he killed his wife and five "innocent" children, adding that he wants to be executed "right away" so he can be buried with them on Saturday.

Mesac Damas, 32, said he wanted to take his own life, but did not have the courage to go through with it, "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven." ....

.... Asked by the reporter in Haiti why he killed his family, Damas responded, "Only God knows." Questioned further, he blamed the crime on his mother-in-law. "Her mom pretty much made me do it -- the devil, her spirit, whatever she worships," he said.

Damas added, "When I did it, [my] eyes [were] closed but right now my eyes are open." He repeatedly asked the reporter, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ," and stated, "The devil exists."

(CNN)​

I'm not sure where to start, because the one of the first things to mind is, "No way. Really?"

And there is a caveat to consider: Mesac Damas and his late wife Guerline "had a history of domestic violence", including a January arrest for misdemeanor battery to which the husband pleaded guilty.

Or perhaps that Mesac Damas was arrested in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, claiming that he had gone home to say goodbye to his family and then turn himself in. Except that he flew to Haiti on a one-way ticket.

The urge to say, "This is what religion can do to people," is strong. But it is too superficial. Rather, when we add up the history of domestic violence, the explanation that the Devil made him do it, the notion that he stabbed his wife and children and then slashed their throats, and his strong desire to die in order to be buried simultaneously with the family he just murdered suggest that not all is right in this man's head.

Because look at what else he says. He wants to be executed "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven"°.

There is, of course, disagreement between Christians about what gets one into Heaven, but there is an old argument called sola fide, or, "by faith alone". Many Christians seem to think this means that all you need to do is believe that Jesus will save you, and you're in. Often, you will hear these people say, that, "Works will not get you into Heaven." The problem is that faith and works are interrelated. There are still a few Christians left who speak of "walking in the footsteps of Christ". That is, if you believe, you conduct yourself accordingly. Unfortunately, it does not seem the prevailing outlook, at least in the United States.

For instance, does anyone remember Rock'n Rollen? Or maybe you just know him as the guy in the rainbow wig with the "John 3:16" sign at all those sports events over the years. The passage—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—is at the heart of sola fide. And Rollen Stewart, a.k.a. Rock'n Rollen appears to have taken the narrower view of sola fide. In the 1980s, he hit the Trinity Broadcasting Network, offices of the Orange County Register, Crystal Cathedral, and the Joy Bells Bible Book Store with stink-bombs, and apparently attempted a similar attack against the American Music Awards. His intended message, according to author and prankster Adam Gorightly, was that "God thinks this stinks". He has been married four times—which contradicts the teachings of Jesus—and allegedly assaulted one of his wives, Margaret Hockridge, in 1986, for standing in the wrong place while holding a John 3:16 sign. In 1992, believing the Rapture was coming within days, Stewart and two accomplices attempted to abduct a hotel maid. According to The Gazette of Colorado Springs, Stewart "threatened to shoot at planes flying into LAX and plastered signs that read 'John 3:16' to the hotel room windows". Wikipedia, Stewart rejected a plea deal for twelve years in prison so that he could "spread his message in open court". He was eventually sentenced to three life terms at San Luis Obispo (Kenyon), and was denied parole as recently as 2005.

Sola fide. By faith alone.

And now we look upon a man who has confessed to stabbing and slashing his wife and five children to death, claiming the Devil made him do it, and hoping to be executed so that he can get into Heaven?

Is this sane?

So what issue to pick? There is justice, of course. Should his wish be granted and, upon due process—sorry, it just can't happen by the weekend—quickly execute him so he can "go to Heaven"? Should we send him to prison for the rest of his life in order to punish him by making him wait to "go to Heaven"? And then there is religion. To what degree is religion "responsible" for this atrocious crime? Can we really assert that without Christian brainwashing, he never would have killed anyone? And, of course, there is mental health. Crazy people can twist anything. And does his behavior really sound sane? Yet what of sola fide? We have for years heard that atheism cannot be moral, as it has no basis for morality. Yet, what is the basis for morality in Christianity if sola fide is strictly about belief and has nothing to do with conduct? After all, redemption is forgiveness, right? Or, to turn to that bastion of Christian values, The Simpsons:

Bart: Excuse me, Brother Faith? I've gotta know -- how did you really get the bucket off my Dad's head?

Faith: Well, I didn't, son. You did. God gave you the power.

Bart: Really? Huh. I would think that He would want to limit my power.

Faith: [laughs] Oh, yes, Lord. When I was your age, I was a hellraiser, too. [holds up Bart's slingshot] My slingshot was my cross. But I saw the light, and changed my wicked ways.

Bart: I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by a presto-change-o deathbed repentance.

Faith: Wow, that's a good angle. [contemplates for a second] But that's not God's angle. Why not spend your life helping people instead. Then you're also covered in case of sudden death.

Bart: Full coverage? Hmmm.

("Faith Off", #BABF06)​

I mean, if there is no connection between faith and works, why not kill a few people? Aleister Crowley is said to have kicked a sherpa off a mountain once because, essentially, he recognized a chance to kill someone and get away with it, and thus learn what it is like to take human life. And it's really quite difficult to figure out where he stood with Christ°, as he once threatened to strangle the Christian savior ... while begging for His love.

But if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, why not go on a shooting spree, or rape a few people, or stab and slash your children to death? After all, by faith alone. Believe you will be forgiven, and thus you shall.
____________________

Notes:

° "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven" — This was the basis of the prior thread or post I can't find; a suspect confessed to murder and asked to be executed so he could get to Heaven.

° where he stood with Christ — See Aceldama: A Place to Bury Strangers In, cantos XXXI-Epilogue. "Master! I think that I have found thee now", Crowley wrote in the thirty-first canto. While the electronic copy does not contain the footnote, the Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, in its 1905 edition of The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley, Volume I indicates that the Master is Christ. The threat occurs in the Epilogue.

Works Cited:

CNN. "Dad admits killings to reporters, blames crime on 'spirit'". September 23, 2009. CNN.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/23/florida.family.dead/index.html

Gorightly, Adam. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Man". 1999. Pacifier.com. September 23, 2009. http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/rainbow.html

"What he preached, he didn't practice". The Gazette. December 14, 2009. Bnet. September 23, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20051214/ai_n15983433/

Wikipedia. "Rollen Stewart". July 26, 2009. Wikipedia.com. September 23, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollen_Stewart

Kenyon, J. Michael. "Real action in '79 was outside the lines". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. July 6, 2001. SeattlePI.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.seattlepi.com/allstar/30179_1979game06.shtml

SNPP. "Faith Off". Springfield Nuclear Power Plant Episode Guide. 2000. SNPP.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/BABF06

Crowley, Aleister. Aceldama: A Place to Bury Strangers In. 1898. Kobek.com. September 23, 2009. http://kobek.com/aceldama.pdf

——————. Foyers: Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, 1905.

Ironically you find a similar argument present in material reductionism.

IOW if everything is determined by genes and dna, on what basis can one lay responsibility for one's actions?

Fortunately the legal system doesn't operate out of such a paradigm however (in fact if anything, the concept of selfhood that it works out of is attributable to theistic influences - eg liability, obligation, etc)

 

[Tiassa]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant ....

Ironically you find a similar argument present in material reductionism.

IOW if everything is determined by genes and dna, on what basis can one lay responsibility for one's actions?

That's an exceptionally superficial way of looking at it that necessarily presumes each human being lives in a psychosocial vacuum. Such a presumption is preposterous.

Yet even in such a vacuum, genetics is not so deterministic as your proposition demands. Even if genes predetermine specific responses to specific stimuli (a nearly absurd theory at least until we can resolve how diverse relationships between the genes of each individual function in this aspect), each individual will be responding to unique combinations and sequences of diverse stimuli.

You cannot reduce so narrowly, because everything in the Universe is connected. Indeed, at some point, those relationships become practically irrelevant insofar as by the time we get down to accounting for a suspect's gravitational relationship to a given neutron star somewhere in the Universe, we've lost sight of the purpose of moral responsibility. But, still, we're a long, long way from that practical boundary, or even understanding how to establish it.

Fortunately the legal system doesn't operate out of such a paradigm however (in fact if anything, the concept of selfhood that it works out of is attributable to theistic influences - eg liability, obligation, etc)

Even among the most advanced legal systems in the world, there is inadequate understanding of human nature and character. In the American legal system, for instance, part of that theistic influence is the presumption of the worst, which ties back to Original Sin. We do attempt to guard against this, by presuming a suspect innocent until proven guilty, but neither the parties involved, the attorneys, the judges, nor juries have the requisite understanding of human nature to always make the correct assessment. Neither do the psychiatrists and other experts who might testify to the processes of the mind and how those relate to culpability in any given case. Just like the physical sciences, behavioral sciences are not equipped to see every detail closely enough. Compared to the physical sciences, though, behavioral sciences are remarkably myopic. I'm not sure what a Freud, Weber, or even Karl Marx or Adam Smith represents in analogous terms to the evolution of physical sciences. I mean, did Freud "invent the telescope"? Did Marx "discover gravity"? Was Adam Smith Leonardo da Vinci or Charles Messier? Behavioral sciences do not have their Hubble Telescope, have not yet met their Albert Einstein.

Attempting to make a science out of moral culpability is, in the present day, an unwieldy task to say the least. Whatever theistic attributions you might assign contemporary assertions of selfhood in a legalistic sense still represent an assertion made from within the confines of superstition.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's an exceptionally superficial way of looking at it that necessarily presumes each human being lives in a psychosocial vacuum. Such a presumption is preposterous.

Yet even in such a vacuum, genetics is not so deterministic as your proposition demands. Even if genes predetermine specific responses to specific stimuli (a nearly absurd theory at least until we can resolve how diverse relationships between the genes of each individual function in this aspect), each individual will be responding to unique combinations and sequences of diverse stimuli.

so now we can add "its due to my environment" as well as "its due to my genes" as a means of avoiding culpability.

at the end of the day you still have an argument for abnegation of self for as long as you are working with self = an assortment of genes and dna, even if you want to introduce the notion of it being "activated" by environment.

You cannot reduce so narrowly, because everything in the Universe is connected. Indeed, at some point, those relationships become practically irrelevant insofar as by the time we get down to accounting for a suspect's gravitational relationship to a given neutron star somewhere in the Universe, we've lost sight of the purpose of moral responsibility. But, still, we're a long, long way from that practical boundary, or even understanding how to establish it.

I agree that relegating the self to an assortment of genes is ridiculously narrow.

Die hard reductionists may beg to differ.

Even among the most advanced legal systems in the world, there is inadequate understanding of human nature and character. In the American legal system, for instance, part of that theistic influence is the presumption of the worst, which ties back to Original Sin. We do attempt to guard against this, by presuming a suspect innocent until proven guilty, but neither the parties involved, the attorneys, the judges, nor juries have the requisite understanding of human nature to always make the correct assessment. Neither do the psychiatrists and other experts who might testify to the processes of the mind and how those relate to culpability in any given case. Just like the physical sciences, behavioral sciences are not equipped to see every detail closely enough. Compared to the physical sciences, though, behavioral sciences are remarkably myopic. I'm not sure what a Freud, Weber, or even Karl Marx or Adam Smith represents in analogous terms to the evolution of physical sciences. I mean, did Freud "invent the telescope"? Did Marx "discover gravity"? Was Adam Smith Leonardo da Vinci or Charles Messier? Behavioral sciences do not have their Hubble Telescope, have not yet met their Albert Einstein.

Attempting to make a science out of moral culpability is, in the present day, an unwieldy task to say the least. Whatever theistic attributions you might assign contemporary assertions of selfhood in a legalistic sense still represent an assertion made from within the confines of superstition.

I was just making the straight forward point that the issue of being personally culpable for one's actions is built on a theistic (as opposed to reductionist) sense of self.

This same notion of the inherent responsibility of self is voiced by philosopher and mathematician, Roger Penrose

“
The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each of us, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"

 

[Adstar]

A few years ago I posted a thread about a similar circumstance. At least, I recall writing the post but I've just been through the archives but I couldn't find it. So, anyway:

A Florida man admitted to reporters that he killed his wife and five "innocent" children, adding that he wants to be executed "right away" so he can be buried with them on Saturday.

Mesac Damas, 32, said he wanted to take his own life, but did not have the courage to go through with it, "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven." ....

.... Asked by the reporter in Haiti why he killed his family, Damas responded, "Only God knows." Questioned further, he blamed the crime on his mother-in-law. "Her mom pretty much made me do it -- the devil, her spirit, whatever she worships," he said.

Damas added, "When I did it, [my] eyes [were] closed but right now my eyes are open." He repeatedly asked the reporter, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ," and stated, "The devil exists."

(CNN)​

I'm not sure where to start, because the one of the first things to mind is, "No way. Really?"

And there is a caveat to consider: Mesac Damas and his late wife Guerline "had a history of domestic violence", including a January arrest for misdemeanor battery to which the husband pleaded guilty.

Or perhaps that Mesac Damas was arrested in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, claiming that he had gone home to say goodbye to his family and then turn himself in. Except that he flew to Haiti on a one-way ticket.

The urge to say, "This is what religion can do to people," is strong. But it is too superficial. Rather, when we add up the history of domestic violence, the explanation that the Devil made him do it, the notion that he stabbed his wife and children and then slashed their throats, and his strong desire to die in order to be buried simultaneously with the family he just murdered suggest that not all is right in this man's head.

Because look at what else he says. He wants to be executed "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven"°.

There is, of course, disagreement between Christians about what gets one into Heaven, but there is an old argument called sola fide, or, "by faith alone". Many Christians seem to think this means that all you need to do is believe that Jesus will save you, and you're in. Often, you will hear these people say, that, "Works will not get you into Heaven." The problem is that faith and works are interrelated. There are still a few Christians left who speak of "walking in the footsteps of Christ". That is, if you believe, you conduct yourself accordingly. Unfortunately, it does not seem the prevailing outlook, at least in the United States.

For instance, does anyone remember Rock'n Rollen? Or maybe you just know him as the guy in the rainbow wig with the "John 3:16" sign at all those sports events over the years. The passage—"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—is at the heart of sola fide. And Rollen Stewart, a.k.a. Rock'n Rollen appears to have taken the narrower view of sola fide. In the 1980s, he hit the Trinity Broadcasting Network, offices of the Orange County Register, Crystal Cathedral, and the Joy Bells Bible Book Store with stink-bombs, and apparently attempted a similar attack against the American Music Awards. His intended message, according to author and prankster Adam Gorightly, was that "God thinks this stinks". He has been married four times—which contradicts the teachings of Jesus—and allegedly assaulted one of his wives, Margaret Hockridge, in 1986, for standing in the wrong place while holding a John 3:16 sign. In 1992, believing the Rapture was coming within days, Stewart and two accomplices attempted to abduct a hotel maid. According to The Gazette of Colorado Springs, Stewart "threatened to shoot at planes flying into LAX and plastered signs that read 'John 3:16' to the hotel room windows". Wikipedia, Stewart rejected a plea deal for twelve years in prison so that he could "spread his message in open court". He was eventually sentenced to three life terms at San Luis Obispo (Kenyon), and was denied parole as recently as 2005.

Sola fide. By faith alone.

And now we look upon a man who has confessed to stabbing and slashing his wife and five children to death, claiming the Devil made him do it, and hoping to be executed so that he can get into Heaven?

Is this sane?

So what issue to pick? There is justice, of course. Should his wish be granted and, upon due process—sorry, it just can't happen by the weekend—quickly execute him so he can "go to Heaven"? Should we send him to prison for the rest of his life in order to punish him by making him wait to "go to Heaven"? And then there is religion. To what degree is religion "responsible" for this atrocious crime? Can we really assert that without Christian brainwashing, he never would have killed anyone? And, of course, there is mental health. Crazy people can twist anything. And does his behavior really sound sane? Yet what of sola fide? We have for years heard that atheism cannot be moral, as it has no basis for morality. Yet, what is the basis for morality in Christianity if sola fide is strictly about belief and has nothing to do with conduct? After all, redemption is forgiveness, right? Or, to turn to that bastion of Christian values, The Simpsons:

Bart: Excuse me, Brother Faith? I've gotta know -- how did you really get the bucket off my Dad's head?

Faith: Well, I didn't, son. You did. God gave you the power.

Bart: Really? Huh. I would think that He would want to limit my power.

Faith: [laughs] Oh, yes, Lord. When I was your age, I was a hellraiser, too. [holds up Bart's slingshot] My slingshot was my cross. But I saw the light, and changed my wicked ways.

Bart: I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by a presto-change-o deathbed repentance.

Faith: Wow, that's a good angle. [contemplates for a second] But that's not God's angle. Why not spend your life helping people instead. Then you're also covered in case of sudden death.

Bart: Full coverage? Hmmm.

("Faith Off", #BABF06)​

I mean, if there is no connection between faith and works, why not kill a few people? Aleister Crowley is said to have kicked a sherpa off a mountain once because, essentially, he recognized a chance to kill someone and get away with it, and thus learn what it is like to take human life. And it's really quite difficult to figure out where he stood with Christ°, as he once threatened to strangle the Christian savior ... while begging for His love.

But if you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, why not go on a shooting spree, or rape a few people, or stab and slash your children to death? After all, by faith alone. Believe you will be forgiven, and thus you shall.
____________________

Notes:

° "because if you kill yourself, you're not going to heaven" — This was the basis of the prior thread or post I can't find; a suspect confessed to murder and asked to be executed so he could get to Heaven.

° where he stood with Christ — See Aceldama: A Place to Bury Strangers In, cantos XXXI-Epilogue. "Master! I think that I have found thee now", Crowley wrote in the thirty-first canto. While the electronic copy does not contain the footnote, the Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, in its 1905 edition of The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley, Volume I indicates that the Master is Christ. The threat occurs in the Epilogue.

Works Cited:

CNN. "Dad admits killings to reporters, blames crime on 'spirit'". September 23, 2009. CNN.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/23/florida.family.dead/index.html

Gorightly, Adam. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Man". 1999. Pacifier.com. September 23, 2009. http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/rainbow.html

"What he preached, he didn't practice". The Gazette. December 14, 2009. Bnet. September 23, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20051214/ai_n15983433/

Wikipedia. "Rollen Stewart". July 26, 2009. Wikipedia.com. September 23, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollen_Stewart

Kenyon, J. Michael. "Real action in '79 was outside the lines". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. July 6, 2001. SeattlePI.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.seattlepi.com/allstar/30179_1979game06.shtml

SNPP. "Faith Off". Springfield Nuclear Power Plant Episode Guide. 2000. SNPP.com. September 23, 2009. http://www.snpp.com/episodes/BABF06

Crowley, Aleister. Aceldama: A Place to Bury Strangers In. 1898. Kobek.com. September 23, 2009. http://kobek.com/aceldama.pdf

——————. Foyers: Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth, 1905.

I believe you must believe Jesus.

There is a differance in believing Jesus then believing that Jesus exists and believing in His atonment for your sins.

A person can disbelieve the teachings of Jesus but at the same time believe that they are saved because they believe in the atonement of Jesus.

The atonment of Jesus is just one part of the message of Jesus.

When a person disbelieves Jesus but believes in the atonement for their sins through Jesus they are believing in a trunkated Jesus, a part Jesus. In other words they believe in ANOTHER JESUS not the true Jesus. Because Jesus is the sum of all His words. Jesus is the entirety of His Words not just the part about atonment.

There are many who want Jesus as their Savior but sadly very few who want Him as their LORD....

Thats why it says in Matthew:

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

So Jesus must be accepted as BOTH Lord and Savior. This is done by Both believing in His word and believing in the Atonment He provided for ones sins.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

so now we can add "its due to my environment" as well as "its due to my genes" as a means of avoiding culpability.

at the end of the day you still have an argument for abnegation of self for as long as you are working with self = an assortment of genes and dna, even if you want to introduce the notion of it being "activated" by environment.

The problem with this complaint is that it presumes a necessarily dysfunctional goal.

If I drop some liquid acid in your milkshake, and you are later arrested for driving while intoxicated, or running naked through the town center while screaming about the bat-demons biting your anus, you have a pretty good defense for your actions. Now, admittedly this is a fairly blatant example. Indeed, if you could prove that I did it, you not only would be acquitted despite the fact that you were disturbing the peace while on LSD, but I would probably end up facing charges—potentially, according to stoner lore (although I've never found the statute) attempted murder.

The question is at what point it becomes too complicated for people in general. It's not a matter of denying culpability, but rather of assigning proper—as opposed to arbitrarily presumed—culpability.

At the beginning of the Bush administration, one thing his critics tagged him for was the handling of the case of Betty Lou Beets. It is established fact that Ms. Beets was convicted of murdering her husband. It is established fact that her husband was violent. It is established fact that she was suspected in other nefarious doings, including, possibly, killing someone else. It is also established fact that she was physically, psychologically, and sexually abused from at least age five. It is not a matter of saying that she didn't do anything wrong; that is, it is not a matter of excusing culpability. Rather, the question is whether it was appropriate to execute her. And, frankly, I think it wasn't. Her age probably precluded rehabilitation to society, but putting her to death was simple bloodlust.

We must necessarily account for genes and environment. But at the end of the day, a person can still be dangerous to society, guilty of a crime, and need to be separated from the general population.

At the end of the day, do we do the right thing? Or do we play Pilate, and wash our hands of it?

I was just making the straight forward point that the issue of being personally culpable for one's actions is built on a theistic (as opposed to reductionist) sense of self.

And all I'm saying is that the practical application of that concept, at least in American society, is still roughly-hewn and superstitious.

And Penrose, for the record, seems to be looking for what we don't already know or understand.

• • •​

Thats why it says in Matthew:

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

I tend to look to Matthew 25 (whatsoever you do or do not do to the least of His brethren), but 7.22-23 is pretty direct. Following in the footsteps of Christ, as I understand it, is not supposed to be easy.

 

[lightgigantic]

The problem with this complaint is that it presumes a necessarily dysfunctional goal.

If I drop some liquid acid in your milkshake, and you are later arrested for driving while intoxicated, or running naked through the town center while screaming about the bat-demons biting your anus, you have a pretty good defense for your actions. Now, admittedly this is a fairly blatant example. Indeed, if you could prove that I did it, you not only would be acquitted despite the fact that you were disturbing the peace while on LSD, but I would probably end up facing charges—potentially, according to stoner lore (although I've never found the statute) attempted murder.

The question is at what point it becomes too complicated for people in general. It's not a matter of denying culpability, but rather of assigning proper—as opposed to arbitrarily presumed—culpability.

At the beginning of the Bush administration, one thing his critics tagged him for was the handling of the case of Betty Lou Beets. It is established fact that Ms. Beets was convicted of murdering her husband. It is established fact that her husband was violent. It is established fact that she was suspected in other nefarious doings, including, possibly, killing someone else. It is also established fact that she was physically, psychologically, and sexually abused from at least age five. It is not a matter of saying that she didn't do anything wrong; that is, it is not a matter of excusing culpability. Rather, the question is whether it was appropriate to execute her. And, frankly, I think it wasn't. Her age probably precluded rehabilitation to society, but putting her to death was simple bloodlust.

We must necessarily account for genes and environment. But at the end of the day, a person can still be dangerous to society, guilty of a crime, and need to be separated from the general population.

At the end of the day, do we do the right thing? Or do we play Pilate, and wash our hands of it?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a dysfunctional goal. If its all genes and environment, punishment is just as absurd as reward. If its all genes and environment, there is no "proper" culpability, only action determined by genes and environment.

And all I'm saying is that the practical application of that concept, at least in American society, is still roughly-hewn and superstitious.

the practical application of selfhood being reduced to issues of genes and environment is completely absurd.

And Penrose, for the record, seems to be looking for what we don't already know or understand.

perhaps, but more central to his comments is an ineffable requirement for a "self" lying beyond all such influences .... such as genes and environment.

 

[Tiassa]

We will find our way

It doesn't necessarily have to be a dysfunctional goal. If its all genes and environment, punishment is just as absurd as reward. If its all genes and environment, there is no "proper" culpability, only action determined by genes and environment.

Theoretically speaking, yes, you are correct. But practically speaking, I must disagree.

What led to the execution of Betty Lou Beets were laws of our society. Humans come together into societies for a reason. Were we not social creatures, we would not form these complex social groups and networks. In the evolutionary context, we have selected as social creatures.

The erasure of culpability would severely undermine social function, because culpability would be assigned entirely arbitrarily. Look in the third world, which can often be described as "lawless", and cycles of blood vendetta carry on over generations.

The distance 'twixt the modern first world and a society that can survive despite the erasure of culpability is at present incalculably vast. I would suggest that we humans have a better chance of actually getting off this rock and finding someplace else in the Universe to live before the changing Sun makes human life in this solar system untenable.

the practical application of selfhood being reduced to issues of genes and environment is completely absurd.

I think we can agree on that, but such severe reduction is a bit of a straw man. After all, its introduction to the discussion seems a bit of a non sequitur, as I'm hard-pressed to see the connection 'twixt the topic post and the counterpoint.

It could be that you know more die-hard material reductionists than I do. In truth, I don't think I know any. As with many such seeming caricatures, I hear more about them from people who disagree with them than from these alleged fanatics themselves.

perhaps, but more central to his comments is an ineffable requirement for a "self" lying beyond all such influences .... such as genes and environment.

And yet it is the research into genes, environment, and the mind that is making the best progress toward identifying that self.

In the Wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I.
It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts.
All life is choked.
This desert is the Abyss wherein is the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste.
Yet this desert is but one spot accursèd in a world of bliss.
Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go.
As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower.
See! five footprints of a Camel! V. V. V. V. V.

(Perdurabo)​

We will find our way, eventually, so long as we keep searching.
____________________

Notes:

Perdurabo, Fr. "Dust Devils". Book of Lies. 1913. PuggryDuckling.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.puggryduckling.com/uncle_al/lies/45.html

 

[lightgigantic]

Theoretically speaking, yes, you are correct. But practically speaking, I must disagree.

Huh?

Practically you think issues of reward and punishment are not as viable as they are theoretical?

What led to the execution of Betty Lou Beets were laws of our society. Humans come together into societies for a reason. Were we not social creatures, we would not form these complex social groups and networks. In the evolutionary context, we have selected as social creatures.

we have selected nothing

its all genes and environment ... or so they say

The erasure of culpability would severely undermine social function, because culpability would be assigned entirely arbitrarily. Look in the third world, which can often be described as "lawless", and cycles of blood vendetta carry on over generations.

hence the notion of culpability being simply a convenience of language, yes?

The distance 'twixt the modern first world and a society that can survive despite the erasure of culpability is at present incalculably vast. I would suggest that we humans have a better chance of actually getting off this rock and finding someplace else in the Universe to live before the changing Sun makes human life in this solar system untenable.

I guess it all depends on how our genes interact with the environment.

I think we can agree on that, but such severe reduction is a bit of a straw man. After all, its introduction to the discussion seems a bit of a non sequitur, as I'm hard-pressed to see the connection 'twixt the topic post and the counterpoint.

You suggested that the notion of being bereft of culpability is some sort of theistic contribution. I am reminding you that it comes more clearly to the table in a reductionist paradigm.

It could be that you know more die-hard material reductionists than I do. In truth, I don't think I know any. As with many such seeming caricatures, I hear more about them from people who disagree with them than from these alleged fanatics themselves.

funnily enough, you start heading that direction at the end of this post.
:shrug:

And yet it is the research into genes, environment, and the mind that is making the best progress toward identifying that self.

best progress?

I think you have to explain yourself given your self stated distance from die hard material reductionism

In the Wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I.
It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts.
All life is choked.
This desert is the Abyss wherein is the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste.
Yet this desert is but one spot accursèd in a world of bliss.
Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go.
As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower.
See! five footprints of a Camel! V. V. V. V. V.

(Perdurabo)​

We will find our way, eventually, so long as we keep searching.
____________________

Notes:

Perdurabo, Fr. "Dust Devils". Book of Lies. 1913. PuggryDuckling.com. September 29, 2009. http://www.puggryduckling.com/uncle_al/lies/45.html

I am a machine . You are a machine. The only difference is that some of us dance better than others

 

[Sarkus]

It doesn't necessarily have to be a dysfunctional goal. If its all genes and environment, punishment is just as absurd as reward. If its all genes and environment, there is no "proper" culpability, only action determined by genes and environment.

But then it would only be "genes and environment" that inflict the punishment, or meter out rewards.

It is not a case of people choosing one philosophy over another - and with one choice doing away with the established systems or with our notion of free-will, justice, fairness etc.
Either everything is just "genes and environment" or it is not.
Either everything is determined or it is not.

But whichever is true now has always been true. And if it is the former then we live our practical lives with the illusion of free-will, justice etc... and we can do nothing else - either through choice or through determined action.

To think that one can suddenly "choose" to live as though not liable, as though it is all "genes and environment" is logically inconsistent - as you are "choosing" to say that there are no choices... and thus no culpability.

In these issues it is clear that the underlying truth of the matter - whether it is "genes and environment" or not - is irrelevant at the extremes.
It is only whether the "genes and environment" were demonstrably strong enough as an influence to override the (illusion of) free-will that we all perceive ourselves to have.

 

[Tiassa]

When you start from fallacy ....

Practically you think issues of reward and punishment are not as viable as they are theoretical?

How did you get your own statement backwards?

The practical disagreement is that such reduction is untenable in practice.

Theoretically, if it is all genes and environment, there is no proper culpability. In practice, however, consider what that would do to civilized society.

we have selected nothing

Perhaps part of your confusion, then, stems from a rejection of evolution, which would hamper your consideration of the effects thereof.

hence the notion of culpability being simply a convenience of language, yes?

Try this:

Ted Bundy should not have been executed. He wasn't culpable for the murders. Jeffrey Dahmer should not have been imprisoned. He wasn't culpable for those murders.​

Turn all the murderers, all the rapists, all the fiends of society loose again if they're not culpable. And tell me what happens to society.

And don't tell me vigilantes would have hunted them down. Perhaps they would have, but we wouldn't have investigated if nobody was responsible; thus, the vigilantes wouldn't know who to string up.

I guess it all depends on how our genes interact with the environment.

Er ... if you say so?

You suggested that the notion of being bereft of culpability is some sort of theistic contribution. I am reminding you that it comes more clearly to the table in a reductionist paradigm.

Okay, how about this? I'm perfectly happy to continue with this secondary discussion, but I would greatly appreciate your answer to the proposition underpinning the topic post. If you simply believe that you will be saved, will you? That is, will Mesac Damas go to Heaven? Could Hitler go to Heaven? Who, aside from the Devil and his angels, would not go to Heaven as long as they believed they would?

That's a pretty significant theistic contribution to the degradation of culpability. Doesn't matter who you kill, doesn't matter who you rape or maim or steal from or whatever. Just believe, and you will find your reward in Heaven.

funnily enough, you start heading that direction at the end of this post.

This should make for an interesting explanation.

best progress?

I think you have to explain yourself given your self stated distance from die hard material reductionism

Is it really so hard to understand? Without various sciences, the explanation would still be either that "God did it", or that stones have falling properties. Mental illness would still be an effect of the Devil and his minions.

Compared to psychology, anthropology, and even harder sciences like neurology, what has theism done for us lately in the quest to identify and understand the self?

I am a machine . You are a machine. The only difference is that some of us dance better than others

We are exquisite machines.

You are blurring the line between what you believe and what you denounce.

The problem is that you're starting from a ridiculous fallacy:

"so now we can add 'its due to my environment' as well as 'its due to my genes' as a means of avoiding culpability"​

It's not about avoiding culpability; I mentioned this earlier:

"It's not a matter of denying culpability, but rather of assigning proper—as opposed to arbitrarily presumed—culpability."​

If you're going to dismiss that point, at least make the effort to dismiss it. Simply ignoring it and reiterating your argument is rather quite rude, don't you think?

 

[lightgigantic]

But then it would only be "genes and environment" that inflict the punishment, or meter out rewards.

It is not a case of people choosing one philosophy over another - and with one choice doing away with the established systems or with our notion of free-will, justice, fairness etc.
Either everything is just "genes and environment" or it is not.
Either everything is determined or it is not.

Or alternatively, one philosophical assertion is actually capable of contextualizing the claims of another

But whichever is true now has always been true. And if it is the former then we live our practical lives with the illusion of free-will, justice etc... and we can do nothing else - either through choice or through determined action.

.... and alternatively, if its the later ....

To think that one can suddenly "choose" to live as though not liable, as though it is all "genes and environment" is logically inconsistent - as you are "choosing" to say that there are no choices... and thus no culpability.

Its more to do with what is the wider truth of the matter ... namely whether we actually have an essential element that can operate out of deterministic paradigms (and thinking otherwise is due to illusion) or vice versa.

In these issues it is clear that the underlying truth of the matter - whether it is "genes and environment" or not - is irrelevant at the extremes.
It is only whether the "genes and environment" were demonstrably strong enough as an influence to override the (illusion of) free-will that we all perceive ourselves to have.

if you are already alluding to the self (and its concomitant issues of culpability, etc) being a mere convenience of language, its begging the question (and also under-riding the epistemological authority one is using ... unless there is some sort of reductionist workings of selfhood or consciousness in the discipline of physics) .

 

[lightgigantic]

How did you get your own statement backwards?

The practical disagreement is that such reduction is untenable in practice.

sorry

the way you expressed yourself made me think that reward and punishment only held theoretical merit.

Theoretically, if it is all genes and environment, there is no proper culpability. In practice, however, consider what that would do to civilized society.

considering the needs of society is not sufficient to establish something as valid, since society has a real need for numerous conveniences of language.

Perhaps part of your confusion, then, stems from a rejection of evolution, which would hamper your consideration of the effects thereof.

if the "we" in "we have selected nothing" is a mere convenience of language, there's nothing to do the choosing. Introducing or deriding claims of evolution doesn't change anything.

Try this:

Ted Bundy should not have been executed. He wasn't culpable for the murders. Jeffrey Dahmer should not have been imprisoned. He wasn't culpable for those murders.​

Turn all the murderers, all the rapists, all the fiends of society loose again if they're not culpable. And tell me what happens to society.

once again, a convenience of language is simply that : convenient.

And don't tell me vigilantes would have hunted them down. Perhaps they would have, but we wouldn't have investigated if nobody was responsible; thus, the vigilantes wouldn't know who to string up.

the need to string some one up is directed by the same thing that directs a person to (so-called) criminal activity.

Er ... if you say so?

If genes are calling the shots on whatever we do in the name of self preservation, what else could it be?

Okay, how about this? I'm perfectly happy to continue with this secondary discussion, but I would greatly appreciate your answer to the proposition underpinning the topic post. If you simply believe that you will be saved, will you? That is, will Mesac Damas go to Heaven? Could Hitler go to Heaven? Who, aside from the Devil and his angels, would not go to Heaven as long as they believed they would?

basically you find two extremes of argument.

One is "baby monkey" philosophy ("I've got to hang on for dear life, and its all about what I do")

The other is baby kitten philosophy ("there's no question of doing anything and I just get dragged around by the nape of the neck")

I tend to think that moderate philosophy lies somewhere in between.

Could hitler go to heaven?
Sure.

Just that he's got quite a few hard yards ahead of him.

That's a pretty significant theistic contribution to the degradation of culpability. Doesn't matter who you kill, doesn't matter who you rape or maim or steal from or whatever. Just believe, and you will find your reward in Heaven.

such an idea is totally incongruous to the idea of god being the father of all living entities. Religiousity often has the tendency to gravitate towards teh tragic narrative of describing some sort of race or creed being outside of god's domain, so it doesn't matter what you do them. That due to more of a political influence due to bodily identification ("my family, community, place of birth" being special) coming to the helm.

Is it really so hard to understand? Without various sciences, the explanation would still be either that "God did it", or that stones have falling properties. Mental illness would still be an effect of the Devil and his minions.

whatever the alternative may be, the various sciences are telling us its all genes and environment.

Compared to psychology, anthropology, and even harder sciences like neurology, what has theism done for us lately in the quest to identify and understand the self?

the softer sciences tend to share a closer parallel to theism in this regard since you certainly don't get a sense of culpability from physics

We are exquisite machines.

You are blurring the line between what you believe and what you denounce.

The problem is that you're starting from a ridiculous fallacy:

"so now we can add 'its due to my environment' as well as 'its due to my genes' as a means of avoiding culpability"​

It's not about avoiding culpability; I mentioned this earlier:

"It's not a matter of denying culpability, but rather of assigning proper—as opposed to arbitrarily presumed—culpability."​

If you're going to dismiss that point, at least make the effort to dismiss it. Simply ignoring it and reiterating your argument is rather quite rude, don't you think?

the problem is that your use of the word "proper" is as much a misnomer as "exquisite".

Of course its human nature that we can't help but slip into spells of awe or whatever ... even if its only about our analysis of neurons and the like.

 

[Jenyar]

I like Doreen's point, about faith that God exists vs. faith in a good (compassionate, just, forgiving, etc.) God. I'd like to unpack that if I can.

Firstly, there are laws for a reason, and it matters little whether they are religious or secular. Justice must come before religion for one simple reason: We will run into people long before we run into God. And if someone arrives at God's doorstep with a trail of blood and dead bodies, He is liable to tell him he's come to the wrong place. If we believe God recognises criminal behaviour, so should we. Hammurabi, Moses, arguably all stable societies, have recognised that some kind of artificial system for culpability is necessary to preserve social order.

Getting into heaven was an afterthought, a logical conclusion. The Israelites only spoke of heaven (the "world to come") as a place where shalom reigns absolutely, where the oppressed and afflicted would find justice and final rest (of which the sabbath was to be both reminder and foretaste). But for most this hope was only possible if there was justice after death, and therefore their faith that a righteous God reigned there. "Salvation" refers to this faith rewarded, when the innocent get to enjoy their innocence. But the emphasis was always to get it right in this life, because that's where guilt makes its difference. So their challenge was to get the Law out of heaven - to establish peace on earth.

Our challenge is more about getting heaven out of the law.

In orthodox faith, which is always communal, there is no such thing as being accountable only to God. The law of Moses made clear: loving God (four commandments) and loving your neighbour (six commandments) are two sides of the same law. Jesus said it in so many words (Matthew 22:38-40). He also extended neighbourship to include even (and especially) one's enemies, as they are to you what you once were to God, and you owe them what you owe God (Matt. 18:32).

1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.​

It might be possible to lie to people about your faith, to fool them into thinking it's the kind of faith that saves, but not to God. Saving faith has a specific quality about it. As the saying goes: grace may be free, but it's not cheap.

I think that two factors contribute to gross misapplications of faith:

1) the (self-)isolation of some Christians from functional faith communities and responsible peers who would censor immature behaviour. (Unfortunately, the most controversial people often will not allow criticism, and in fact experience it as "persecution of the righteous".) A sense of unity despite disagreement is woefully absent among many Christians, and combined with post-modern relativism breeds self-righteousness and intellectual arrogance. And since the threat of excommunication no longer poses serious problems, there's no sting in being "thrown out" of the church anymore.)

2) Compounded by the above problem: Everyone who can read or watch TV now claims authority to understand the Bible, and the maturity to wield "it" - as if it doesn't represent 6000 years of foreign history, cultural nuances and diverse perspectives. It masks the fact that reliable, responsible and practical spiritual education is actually hard to come by. Christians as well as non-Christians are far too comfortable and willing to deal with absolutised reductions and simplifications. "If we want to believe it, we must swallow it whole; If we can't swallow it whole, it must mean it's not trustworthy enough to be believed".

Religion has checklists - do this or that, believe this or that, then you will pass the test. There is always somewhere else you must look and something more to do. It makes for an easy God to believe in or to dismiss. It's harder to accept that your role in salvation is non-existent, because that means following God to it. There's no mention of not doing the walking, it just means you don't have to worry where you're going.

The bottom line for me is that someone's faith in a fair Judge should be good news for everyone around him. Anything else would put the believer on the wrong side of his own faith.

But whether the existence of a fair Judge is good news for everyone is debatable.