The Parable of the Absent Parents

[Jeeves]

most Christians don’t view God as absent, or a micro-manager.

The football players falling on their knees on the field seem to think he's a micro-manager; the child-abusing priests seem to think he's paying no attention. Christians are not terribly clear on what they believe.

 

[wegs]

The football players falling on their knees on the field seem to think he's a micro-manager; the child-abusing priests seem to think he's paying no attention. Christians are not terribly clear on what they believe.

I wouldn’t consider child abusers to be following Jesus. People may label themselves all kinds of things, but that doesn’t mean they practice it. I have no idea what football players “falling to their knees” believe, and if we’re honest, neither do you. But, for those who have been outspoken about their faith, they see Him as a positive force in their lives - making them better people. It might be helpful to ask believers what they believe before assuming we know.

Deism tends to suggest a Deity that is like an “absentee landlord,” and an impersonal God. But that’s not the underlying premise of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. That said, once the NT comes into play, these three faiths go their separate ways.

Faith is often times a personal experience (unless one has been indoctrinated.) I think many in the West judge different religions based on the actions of some of the worst, within that religion. If you want to know what a particular faith actually teaches, read their texts in their entirety, then at least you’ll have an accurate idea.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone can ''talk someone into'' believing in God. The reasons why people have ''conversion experiences'' in their adult years (on their own) differ from person to person. To look at a child abusing priest and actually believe that all Catholics for example, are okay with that, would be absurd. To look at Christians who stand outside of Planned Parenthood, shouting to those walking in that they're ''going to hell,'' is also not indicative of Jesus' teachings. It's unfortunate, but the ''Christian'' sector within the US is splintered, and maybe this is why Jesus said ''the gate is narrow.'' (Matthew 7:14 - But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) Only a few find it, which tells me just reading that statement objectively that Jesus doesn't approve of all the in-fighting, and wrong teachings/behaviors of those who claim to believe in God.

Many may say they're Christian, but they don't even know what the New Testament teaches. So, how does one claim to be a follower of any religion at all (not just Christianity) if he/she doesn't know what it actually teaches? There's a lot of that in the West.

Just my $.02

 

[Jeeves]

I wouldn’t consider child abusers to be following Jesus.

Nor do gun-toting, Trump-absolving Republicans, but they think they are Christians.

People may label themselves all kinds of things, but that doesn’t mean they practice it.

We don't know what any of them practice in private. Or what they believe. All we have to go by is their self-designation and their public actions. And in that, they are not very clear, or coherent as a group.

I have no idea what football players “falling to their knees” believe, and if we’re honest, neither do you.

And that is why I said "seem to".

But, for those who have been outspoken about their faith, they see Him as a positive force in their lives - making them better people.

Pence & Romney. Not interchangeable.

It might be helpful to ask believers what they believe before assuming we know.

Helpful to whom? In what endeavour? I don't assume I know or care what people think; I judge their words and actions.
And I think good people behave well and bad people behave badly, regardless of how they label themselves, how others label them or to what source they attribute their virtues and vices.

So, how does one claim to be a follower of any religion at all (not just Christianity) if he/she doesn't know what it actually teaches?

Culture. It's what they're told from infancy, so they wear the label the same way they wear the name on their birth certificate: it's just part of their social identity. That would describe the vast majority of people, everywhere, who belong to any religion.
Atheists have to have given it some thought, because they are generally going against the mainstream of their culture; for Jews, it's often a matter of national loyalty rather than faith; for many Muslims, it's political. But Christian majorities really don't have many challenges to their self-designation, so they don't have to think about it.
I've known a few who were mindful, deliberate, active Christians and they do not fit any more comfortably into the societal norms of nominally Christian countries than do atheists or Druids.

 

[wegs]

Nor do gun-toting, Trump-absolving Republicans, but they think they are Christians.

And, that's unfortunate.

We don't know what any of them practice in private. Or what they believe. All we have to go by is their self-designation and their public actions. And in that, they are not very clear, or coherent as a group.

People usually don't walk around in everyday life, in groups. If you were to take a survey of say 100 Christians, and started asking them (individually) what they actually believe and why, you might be able to draw a better conclusion.

Helpful to whom? In what endeavour?

Helpful to anyone wishing to have a discussion about what others believe and don't believe, instead of generalizing and showing bias against an entire group.

I don't assume I know or care what people think; I judge their words and actions.
And I think good people behave well and bad people behave badly, regardless of how they label themselves, how others label them or to what source they attribute their virtues and vices.

I agree, but it shouldn't bother anyone if a believer leads a good life of service to others, etc...and attributes their good intentions to God. I have issues when people become zealots who wish to push their beliefs onto others, or hurt others because they've convinced themselves this is ''God's plan.'' One of my aunts often says ''God's not crazy, but people are.'' lol But, when we look at Christians behaving badly, we assume God is the problem. Or belief in God, is the problem. Maybe some people are the problem, and they'd still behave badly, even if they were atheists.

Culture. It's what they're told from infancy, so they wear the label the same way they wear the name on their birth certificate: it's just part of their social identity. That would describe the vast majority of people, everywhere, who belong to any religion.

Somewhat agree.

Atheists have to have given it some thought, because they are generally going against the mainstream of their culture; for Jews, it's often a matter of national loyalty rather than faith; for many Muslims, it's political. But Christian majorities really don't have many challenges to their self-designation, so they don't have to think about it.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I think that Christians face more prejudice in the US, than any other religious group. (by atheists)

I've known a few who were mindful, deliberate, active Christians and they do not fit any more comfortably into the societal norms of nominally Christian countries than do atheists or Druids.

Sorry, I'm not following you, here.

 

[Jeeves]

Christians face more prejudice in the US, than any other religious group. (by atheists)

Aw, the poor powerful majority is suffering prejudice from a handful of powerless misfits!
Be that as it may, the majority never have to think about why they're the majority. They don't need a reason or justification to stay where they've always belonged. An individual who departs from the majority needs a reason to take that step - to take a chance on pissing off their relatives and being despised by their neighbours.

People usually don't walk around in everyday life, in groups.

They live in families, communities and nations; they vote for a shared representative; they go to church together. They're a group, not because of their walking around habits but by self-designation.
Christians are a religious group. Muslims are a religious group. Rastafarians are a religious group. Methodists are a religious group. Any number of people from a minyan to all the 500+ million Buddhists can be referred-to as a group.

If you were to take a survey of say 100 Christians, and started asking them (individually) what they actually believe and why, you might be able to draw a better conclusion.

I don't think so. My sample size was much bigger.

[deliberate Christians] Sorry, I'm not following you, here.

Evidently. I'm saying that anyone who hasn't bothered to question the religion they were born into will automatically claim to believe the tenets of that religion, even if they are ignorant of, or don't take seriously, its teachings.
People who have given serious consideration to what Jesus wants from them and made a commitment to do that, do often find himself opposing the majority of Christians-in-name-only, and that can be very costly. Think early abolitionists, just as an example. Or conscientious objectors, or the Dutch family who hid Ann Frank in their attic.

But, when we look at Christians behaving badly, we assume God is the problem. Or belief in God, is the problem.

Which "we" are you speaking for?
The character of gods is spelled out in their scriptures. The laws they carve in stone and the punishments they mete out are recorded in the holy texts that their followers are supposed to believe, that they claim to be guided by.
The character of Jehovah is described in the book all Christians profess to revere. I do not find that character attractive; it's not a god I could worship.
But I don't think he's "the problem" in Christians, Jews and Muslims behaving badly. People create gods who reflect themselves and tell them to do what they want to do. Jehovah is a projection of Abraham that just kept on growing as he collected more adherents.
Good Christians ignore him and listen to Jesus, because he makes a better god for them: he reflects their character and tells them to do what they want to do. Bad Christians justify their bad actions by ignoring Jesus and going back to the OT.

 

[wegs]

I'll reply later.

 

[DaveC426913]

Since the point of this is ultimately to draw a comparison to God, it has to be analogous.

A pre-teen boy has no idea who his parents are.

The boy knows a lot about his parents. His family, caregivers and history is built upon teaching him about his parent.

They have never been a part of his life.

While they may not be physically present, he is surrounded by a preponderance of knowledge from the rest of his family caregivers and community about them.

During his childhood, his carers gave him a book and told him it contained all his parents' rules

And they walk through all of it with his family and friends, at least once a week, throughout his development.

Over time, as he grows up, the boy starts to wonder about the book. He starts to question whether his parents are alive, and whether they really wrote the book at all.

Why would he do that? See above points.

He has met people who assure him that, yes, the book was written by his parents.

His whole community revels in his parents.

That he can't verify the writers of the book is one problem.

It's not book; it's a culture. It is his world.

He is as likely to question the wisdom in his world as we atheists are to question the scientific method. We grew up with it; it's in our blood as having been corroborated innumerable times.

And, yes, we do question it. There are things we can't touch - such as black holes and galaxies and the Big Bang - but we're comfortable with our gathered knowledge of them. And we come back to the same conclusion: "Yup. It's logical and bears out in the real world."

His conclusion is the same.


etc. etc.

This is why I'm saying this is a terrible analogy. Yes. If any kid were stranded in the jungle with nothing but a single book and no one to guide him, he would certainly wonder.

And that's the kind of straw man atheists love.
"Here's a book. Read it. Learn it. Believe it. See you when you're eighteen."

We can do better than to build our own faulty model and then attack it. We're above strawman arguments.

 

[Jeeves]

If any kid were stranded in the jungle with nothing but a single book and no one to guide him, he would certainly wonder.

I doubt it. He would treasure the book as a relic of his lost parents, read over and over, not for guidance (because there's nothing in there about poisonous mushrooms or boa constrictors) but to try to recapture a happier time. For all matters practical, he'd look to the apes. At least until he met Jane.

 

[kx000]

Here follows the Parable of the Absent Parents - a story of my own invention (credit goes to DaveC for providing a similar tale that was inspiration for this one).

A pre-teen boy has no idea who his parents are. They have never been a part of his life. During his childhood, his carers gave him a book and told him it contained all his parents' rules - i.e. the rules that set out how his parents expect him to behave. Rule no. 217 says "When you're at home on your own, don't drink the alcohol and destroy the place." Elsewhere in the rule book, it says "Rule 2001. If you disobey any of the rules in this book, your parents will punish you. The punishment will be life in prison." The book also says things like "Rule 1. Your parents love you" and "Rule 13. It is wrong to disobey your parents' rules."

Over time, as he grows up, the boy starts to wonder about the book. He starts to question whether his parents are alive, and whether they really wrote the book at all. He has met people who assure him that, yes, the book was written by his parents. Some of them even claim to have met his parents, themselves, perhaps even receiving private communications from them. On the other hand, he has met other people who tell him the book is a lie: his parents died when he was a baby, and the book contains words of others that are merely attributed to his parents.

That he can't verify the writers of the book is one problem. Another is that after reading it many times, talking to other people and educating himself independently, the boy starts to think that maybe some of the rules aren't very good. For instance, Rule no. 31 says "All homosexual people are evil and must be killed by stoning" and Rule no. 87 says "Some people are meant to be slaves. If you want to take and keep slaves, there's no problem with that."

One night, when his guardians have gone to a film, the boy drinks the alcohol from the booze cabinet and destroys the house.

One year later, there is a knock on the door. The boy opens it. Standing there are a man and a woman, carrying handcuffs, which they slap on the boy. "We are your parents!" they tell him. "We are arresting you for breaking the rules in the Parent Rule Book. You will spend the rest of your life in prison!" The boy is dragged away and lives out the rest of his days in a concrete cell.

Here endeth the parable.

I first posted this parable in a different thread, but I think it makes for an interesting-enough discussion to deserve its own thread.

Let us consider the moral behind the parable.

Suppose that the man and the woman who turned up out of the blue at the end of the story really were the boy's parents. The parents were real all along. The Book of Rules really was written by them, and all the people who had told the boy both the facts about the parents and the book were speaking the truth all along.

Here are the questions I would like you to consider:

Were the parents in my little story evil or manipulative for setting the boy up to fail? Or did they set him up with an opportunity to succeed?

Were the parents justified in exacting punishment on the boy for doing something that they gave him the freedom to do? It's not like they didn't warn him what the consequences would be. It's right there in Rule 2001. The boy, having read the book many times, and having been assured it was all genuine, could hardly plead ignorance.

According to some, the moral of this story is that it shows that people are given freedom to make the right decisions, but they sometimes ignore them and go their own way, to their own detriment. Those who allow the freedoms are not to blame for how others choose to exercise the free will they were allowed. Thus, it wasn't the parents' fault that the boy chose to drink and trash the house. They weren't even there at the time.

According to others, maybe the parents were at fault in some way, though not necessarily because they allowed the boy his freedom. Can anybody suggest how the parents might have been at fault?

Finally, I chose to post this parable is in the Religion forum. Is anything in this story applicable to God's morality?

Forgive me of my tresspasses as I forgive those who trespass against me. Maybe God will let his angels write a new bible for modern man with modern values. It seems that God has transgressed over hatred. Adam eats that apple and that single sin leads up to the biblical atrocities.

 

[Jeeves]

Adam eats that apple and that single sin leads up to the biblical atrocities.

It wasn't the eating so much as the passing of blame, through Eve back on to God.
Genesis 3:12 “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

 

[kx000]

It wasn't the eating so much as the passing of blame, through Eve back on to God.
Genesis 3:12 “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

Jesus ask for you to forgive him.

 

[Jeeves]

Jesus ask for you to forgive him.

It's not up to me to forgive either Adam or God, as they have not trespassed against me. It's not up to Jesus to intercede for either of them, as he wasn't conceived for another 800-1000 years. He had to wait out Daddy's temper tantrums: the flood, the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, that showdown in Cairo, the massacre of Jericho and another one at Masada.

 

[davewhite04]

Forgive me of my tresspasses as I forgive those who trespass against me. Maybe God will let his angels write a new bible for modern man with modern values. It seems that God has transgressed over hatred. Adam eats that apple and that single sin leads up to the biblical atrocities.

How can God transgress?

 

[Jeeves]

How can God transgress?

I should think the question would be: What can God transgress?

 

[davewhite04]

I should think the question would be: What can God transgress?

Do you actually think the 600+ commandments given to man applies to the God of the bible(I presume)?

 

[wegs]

600+ commandments?

 

[davewhite04]

600+ commandments?

613 I think. That is the Jewish religion, same God as the Christian one has one commandment.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

600+ commandments?

The 600+ is possibly in reference to the 613 Commandments in the Old Testament.
See : http://gods-word-first.org/bible-study/613commandments.html

edit : saw davewhite04's Post after Replying...so disregard "possibly".

 

[Jeeves]

Do you actually think the 600+ commandments given to man applies to the God of the bible(I presume)?

No. You asked How can God transgress?
Trans(across)gression(stepping) require a line to step over. In order for anyone to step over it, there must first be a line. So I'm asking: what limits does God have on His behaviour?

 

[davewhite04]

No. You asked How can God transgress?
Trans(across)gression(stepping) require a line to step over. In order for anyone to step over it, there must first be a line. So I'm asking: what limits does God have on His behaviour?

No limit but he is good.