water said:
I am using "belief", "motivation", "motive" "cause" interchangeably here, as in this context, they are generally interchangeable.
Of course you could use them interchangeably in most cases, if you wanted to - although it might confuse the issue when distinctions between those words become necessary. That's not the issue. You implied I was simplifying things - as if I suggested an action would refer to a single, clearly understood belief or motive, and that's that. I, too, would be "skeptical about the idea of one cause ~ one action".
After all, your argument is that one is not aware of each of those 20 causes, but that you can uncover causes by tracing your actions back to them.
But that is not my argument at all!
Where did you get that?!
If it's not your argument, it's at least your premise. This is where I got it: "
Psychologists say there is approximately up to 20 causes for each behaviour -- and if one investigates what has prompted one to act, one can verify this." If you believe the psychologists, you also believe in their method, which was able to trace an action to at least 20 causes (or motives, or beliefs).
If "a tree is knows by its fruit", then this is the same as saying "beliefs (motivations, causes) are reflected in actions". This is apparently your stance, if you take that this is a true statement -- "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him." as if actions are crucial in determining what a person really believes.
Correct, that is my claim: beliefs are reflected in actions, and examining actions or habits may reveal the beliefs behind them.
But there is a third factor here, which we have not really spelled out as such: beliefs may be encoded, as they are in the Bible. With such a reference, it's possible assess the correspondence between core beliefs and the actions they dictate (or preclude). Where actions deviate from the referenced belief, it can be said that the belief is not consistently held, and it may suggest that those actions originated from "alien" motives.
This should be understood over and above the general link between actions and beliefs, which I think psychologists and behaviourists are qualified to study.
You're missing the point. Considering that there are so many motivations behind an action, it is then wrong to assess a person's beliefs by observing their actions. An action cannot be deemed an adequate reflection of a person's beliefs or motivations, precisely because there might be so many motivations at work, including mutually exclusive ones.
A gift can be given in generosity, or as a bribe, and sometimes, both motivations can be present. And outwardly, there is no way of telling the difference.
I understand your objection, but let me explain. I do not propose that all actions have immediately obvious motivations, or that the beliefs informing them would be as evident as the action itself. So, considering that there are so many motivations behind an action, it is then wrong to
generalize about a person's beliefs by observing their actions. Actions are not in themselves adequate reflections, but coupled with a reference, like I described above, it can offer an adequate assessment of the
correspondence.
I should add that just because speculating about the connection between actions and their underlying beliefs may lead to wrong conclusions, does not mean there
is no connection. And I don't claim that every action has a clearly identifiable belief behind it, only that there
is invariably a belief behind it.
Your point? That someone believed that murder was a valid option doesn't explain why they thought murder a valid option.
No it doesn't, but the "fruit" tells us at least two things: 1) that there was a belief that informed the action (a motivation behind the motive); 2) that this belief, whatever it is, is contrary to the principles of Christianity. For if the belief that murder is an offense against God subject to judgment was
truly held, or should I say, truly
held, it would have precluded such an action regardless of the motive or the many reasons that could have made it seem reasonable. Even if it was a so-called crime of passion, judged, payed for, and repented, it still remains a lapse of Christianity and can't be called the action of a Christian.
Hypocrisy is about contradiction between a person's words and words, or their words and actions.
How can you lie with an action? Can one action contradict another action? An interpretation of an action surely can contradict another interpretation of the same or another action.
What about the hypocrisy of
actions? Consider acts of betrayal, treason, espionage, secret affairs... A man acts in one way when his friends are looking, and another way when his enemies are around, without saying a word. One set of actions is a lie, or even both, but behind them lies a belief: belief in the cause, the supremacy of his desires above his vows, perhaps a greater consideration that overrides all others. But when his country or his wife finds out, whatever his reasons were, they will be justified to conclude that those reasons contradict the terms of his allegiance, or their union, under which he pretended to act. It's not his words that betrayed his true beliefs, but his actions.
All kinds of deception are not lying.
Sometimes, given the circumstances (as in chess), "deception" is part of the game, according and allowed to the rules, and is thus not lying, but strategy.
Similar, consider the theatre, films, telling jokes etc.
That's why I said it's possible to narrow down the definition in order to exclude it, but then you've only excluded the narrowe-down definition - not deception in general, and definitely not the kind of deception I'm talking about. An actor is also in effect lying about his identiyy, but because he's being paid for the deception, and everybody expects it of him, there is no harm done; the same is true for a chess strategy: the game allows for it, and both players understand the rules. But I'm not talking about chess, or acting, but about true deception - the kind that betrays someone as
not playing by the rules.
A cat can perform actions, yes? I can see that. So tell me how a cat (whose beliefs and motivations I know nothing about, and can only speculate and infer, so nothing sure here, no direct feedback) can lie with her actions.
There might be examples of cats practicing deception, I don't know. But I don't think it's really relevant. If cats aren't being true to some belief system, they've been consistent enough with their deceptions that for all we're concerned it might just be the way they're supposed to act. The same is not true for humans, whose actions and beliefs have immediate and profound effects on our lives.
If Hitler was indeed a Christian, it has implications for everybody who follows his example of Christianity. On the other hand, if Jesus exemplifies Christianity, then Hitler was inconsistent with the belief system he professed to adhere to. And since we can't know everything that went on in Hitler's mind, the most telling difference must be found in his actions, like Jesus advised.
And where did the tree come from?
Besides, it takes little botany study to know trees without having to wait for the fruit.
Humans are infinitely more complex than trees, mostly because 80-90% of them lie below the surface and in the mind, inaccessible to anyone but God. That means we would have all seemed to be 90% similar, if it weren't for our actions.
I have seen you do this enough times.
Digging though the leaves... When you were busy judging yourself in the way you describe - by telling yourself "a self-righteous or idealistic, or self-deprecating story... in which you interpret your actions" - I was the one who told you "A" doesn't equal "me", remember that? If you felt pinned down in any way, I can only guess that you were expecting some final judgement from me that would never come, and that even know you are sure it was there. I'm not going to turn this into another personal thread, though, so the speculation about who saw the biggest splinter in the other one's eye must necessarily stop here this time.
A non-Christian cannot recognize whether a person who calls himself a Christian "loves the Lord his God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength".
So you say. The Ten Commandments would be a good start, though. Then perhaps examining how Jesus explained the beliefs and attitudes that should inform them, and following how the other epistles connect the dots. It's not difficult at all.
Then again, you don't really need to know. You can simply judge them like you would judge anybody. Just like
you don't expect to be judged by
Christian standards, but by your own. Even when we Christians judge each other, it's by that principle. But ultimately we expect to be judged by God. Maybe Hitler even hoped for the same thing, but considering what Jesus taught, it's doubtful whether He would recognize Hitler as a faithful friend. People may pretend not to know this themselves, but I can't see the point.
It takes a Christian to know one. Many of the rest of us go by believing people to be what they say they are.
You can obviously only speak for yourself here. I honestly don't see any of the people here on sciforums as that gullible, but maybe your neighborhood is different. Such naivete would be a bad idea, even dangerous. It might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the beliefs of people around you a little.
Who is to say what expressions of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience are?
I have met a lot of people who called themselves Christians, and claimed to have these qualities -- but I thought otherwise.
Obviously everybody can have their say. Perhaps you're right about them. Fortunately nobody really has the high ground so that they're in a position to throw the first stone. There are appointed judges, and as you've observed, even they are fallible, so that should keep us humble enough to leave the decisive judgement up to God. In the meantime, the best we can do is to keep the rafters out of our own eyes.
