Would you do something morally repugnant in order to be saved?

[Simon Anders]

as a kind of aside: I think we each have different vulnerable points, for whatever nature or nurture reasons. So certain invitations that are easier for one person to cease making are harder for others. And then the reverse may be true with the next invitation in question.

and I am not putting the whole cause of the situation on the person who is inviting. I think the cause of the 'situation where one invites' may not have been that person's responsibility. It just has seemed so far that now, at least, I seem to be able to stop inviting with real (felt) effect in some important cases. Something I am surprised to find.

 

[greenberg]

I wondered - really! - if you would think this, so I am glad you said this. This seems like another sticking point where one must resolve something: could a loving God want to rush us through something like this? What value is the panic-saturated response we make - gun to our head?

Of course - as the line goes, We're worthless little creeps anyway, so any attention we get from God is more than we deserve. Our faith in God isn't really worth anything, so what does it matter if we are rushed through it all?!

Here's a nice read - http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm

When is it all right to no longer allow a thought to torture us? I do think one can no longer give permission to such a thought to be present because phenomenologically I have found that I invite it in. But this can also be a question: is this possible? Further: is it smart or moral? Obviously I think 'yes'. But I do not think it is easy. I think the invitation has to be focused on and what made us think we needed to send it out.

Sure, I agree there are such invitations, we make them more or less consciously. But then there is the question - If we do not make such invitations, are we not deliberately deluding ourselves?

Thanks. Do you have enough control to perform this act? Can you perform it intentionally?

Of course not. And of course the Christians claim the opposite.

I just feel very sad here. No because of the specific points, but because, I think, I am reminded that at times I think these religions were made precisely to box us in and weaken us. I tend to think Jesus was a real person and had some special knowledge, though I do not think he was infallible. But what was built up around him was built up precisely to keep us docile and impotent and half alive. I am beginning to think with greater confidence that a lot of things I have seen as misunderstandings or well meaning but damaged theories have actually be much more intentionally and consciously used to do us harm.

Thing is - while I can still bear the thought of all sorts of misery if we were all equal before God, what troubles me is that there is an elite who somehow successfully evades the whole misery part. What is it about those people that they can accept Jesus as their savior, and I cannot? What is it about those people that they can carry out the ten actions I have listed earlier, while I cannot? It's as if those people are taking the credit for being created superior than me.

 

[Nasor]

Although I don't believe in god or that I need to be "saved," if I take the OP at face value and assume that I am being faced with the choice of either going to hell or doing something that I think is morally wrong, I would probably cave in and go along with whatever I had to do to avoid hell. Although there a lot of people here saying that they would refuse, I strongly suspect that for most of them if they truly believed that their only options were to do something that they thought was morally wrong or be tortured for all eternity, they would probably go along with almost anything to avoid eternal hell. Doing otherwise would be borderline insane.

It's rather like asking "Would you punch your best friend in the face if someone pointed a gun at you and threatened to kill you if you didn't, and you were 100% certain that they would actually kill you if you refused?" Yeah, you would probably feel bad about it, but you would also probably do it. Most people would agree that it would be noble to refuse, but they would probably also agree that refusing would be idiotic.

To put it another way, when faced with this sort of decision you have to weigh the penalty for caving in and doing something that you think is morally wrong against the penalty for refusing. In any sort of real-life scenario the worst that can happen to you if you refuse is that you die or are tortured for some finite amount of time or something. That's pretty bad, but there are certainly hypothetical things that people would rather die than give in and do. But since the penalty for refusing when you are facing hell is basically infinite in value, there probably isn't anything that could outweigh it. You might feel bad about burning down that orphanage (or whatever), but there is some hypothetical amount of time in hell that will cause you to suffer more than the pain that you experience from your conscious from performing an act that you believe is wrong. The whole "penalty of infinite value" thing sort of screws up most ordinary decision-making processes.

 

[greenberg]

To put it another way, when faced with this sort of decision you have to weigh the penalty for caving in and doing something that you think is morally wrong against the penalty for refusing. In any sort of real-life scenario the worst that can happen to you if you refuse is that you die or are tortured for some finite amount of time or something. That's pretty bad, but there are certainly hypothetical things that people would rather die than give in and do. But since the penalty for refusing when you are facing hell is basically infinite in value, there probably isn't anything that could outweigh it.

Some Christians take it a step further, though: If you do accept Jesus because you want to avoid hell, you will still go to hell for all eternity, because you should have accepted Jesus freely, and not with some personal gain in mind.
Basically, it seems that it is impossible to avoid hell.

You might feel bad about burning down that orphanage (or whatever), but there is some hypothetical amount of time in hell that will cause you to suffer more than the pain that you experience from your conscious from performing an act that you believe is wrong.

It's not only about weighing penalties; what is more, there is the question of how one could be happy if this happiness required immoral actions to be brought about.
Or whether the notion of happiness and the desire for happiness should be discarded altogether.

The whole "penalty of infinite value" thing sort of screws up most ordinary decision-making processes.

It does, yes.

 

[Simon Anders]

Of course - as the line goes, We're worthless little creeps anyway, so any attention we get from God is more than we deserve. Our faith in God isn't really worth anything, so what does it matter if we are rushed through it all?!

The rush also is magic. I mean this literally. If you can rush a person through to a 'decision' to believe, they have a knot in place. They denied portions of themselves. So there is an extra burden if they want to unravel this knot: they must face the pain of that denial of self and all its scary implications AS WELL AS their own doubts about the decision to leave the church or belief.

I think much more is magical ritual and magical contract based then I earlier realized. And I think this is known, not by the local priest, but by those who are shaping these religions.

Here's a nice read - http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm

[/QUOTE] Looks very interesting, actually. I will come back to it.

Sure, I agree there are such invitations, we make them more or less consciously. But then there is the question - If we do not make such invitations, are we not deliberately deluding ourselves?

If we do make these invitations are we not deliberately deluding ourselves?
I do not think the 'possiblity' if we try to view it 'objectively' can be evaded either way.

Thing is - while I can still bear the thought of all sorts of misery if we were all equal before God, what troubles me is that there is an elite who somehow successfully evades the whole misery part. What is it about those people that they can accept Jesus as their savior, and I cannot? What is it about those people that they can carry out the ten actions I have listed earlier, while I cannot? It's as if those people are taking the credit for being created superior than me.

Then study them. What are they? What are they made of? How do they function? What arises in your mind - guilt, for example - if you truly analyze them? I think that line of investigation is very scary especially if one trusts oneself.

But then is there any way to avoid trusting oneself? If there is does it not involve a paradox and isn't any lifestyle based on it tainted? Might not hell also be found at the end of every path that involves self-distrust as an epistemological and moral foundation stone?

I think, exhausted, I fell out partially for this reason also. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't. For all I know. Why not have as a foundation self-trust and build from there?

Why do we not treat certain thoughts as toxins?
What if certain beliefs are pollution?
What if there is an intentional war going on to make us small and filled with self-loathing?
(I think this war cuts across the science/theist divide with pollution and toxins being released both intentionally and unintentionally to keep us down. Sort of like putting thorazine in the drinking water.)

 

[Simon Anders]

Some Christians take it a step further, though: If you do accept Jesus because you want to avoid hell, you will still go to hell for all eternity, because you should have accepted Jesus freely, and not with some personal gain in mind.
Basically, it seems that it is impossible to avoid hell.

I think there is a more subtle response by some Christians. First one does the form and this gets the soul used to it. Later it becomes real. I do not say this to defend Christianity, but in a way as a warning. The trap is more subtle and they are ready for some of the logical paradoxes.

 

[Nasor]

Some Christians take it a step further, though: If you do accept Jesus because you want to avoid hell, you will still go to hell for all eternity, because you should have accepted Jesus freely, and not with some personal gain in mind.
Basically, it seems that it is impossible to avoid hell.

Shrug. That certainly wouldn't seem fair, but then again the entire concept of facing eternal torture because one of your ancestors 6000 years ago ate a forbidden magic apple seems pretty unfair. You have to toss "fair" out the window to ponder any of it.

In any case, the thing that you have to remember is that many christians simply believe whatever they want to be true, and don't see anything wrong with that. So if you want Jesus and heaven etc. to be real, you just believe that it is, and you're fine. They might then go out and try to find evidence or logical arguments to support their beliefs, but they're generally just digging around for support for what they already "know" is true. You see this reflected all the time in their arguments; christians will often say things like "You don't believe in God?? But don't you want eternal life?!?" as if what you wanted had any bearing on what is actually true. Or they'll say things like "People who go to hell chose to reject god," as if the sinners in hell who made the mistake of not believing in god simply decided to have that belief.

If they started with the premise that our beliefs are forced upon us by reason and evidence rather than simply "chosen", they would run into the issue of how a just god could send someone to hell simply because they made an honest mistake about what was true.

 

[greenberg]

The rush also is magic. I mean this literally. If you can rush a person through to a 'decision' to believe, they have a knot in place. They denied portions of themselves. So there is an extra burden if they want to unravel this knot: they must face the pain of that denial of self and all its scary implications AS WELL AS their own doubts about the decision to leave the church or belief.

I think much more is magical ritual and magical contract based then I earlier realized. And I think this is known, not by the local priest, but by those who are shaping these religions.

If you read Influence by Cialdini that I mentioned earlier elsewhere, this phenomenon is not so magical at all, and instead has to do with some automatic behaviors that we engage in, and which for the most part work well, but which can also be exploited by compliance professionals.

What goes on in some processes of religious conversion is no different than when a salesperson successfully gets us to buy something we initially didn't want to buy at all, nor do we want to buy it now. The main principles are called commitment and consistency: The salesperson gets us to commit to a trivial request, we do it, and then a greater request comes which we find difficult to reject, given that we had already complied with the smaller one. (Like when at stores they have dirt-cheap items, so we buy them because they are so cheap and affordable - and then we feel bad, because after all, we've been practically given a gift, so we feel obligated to reciprocate, so we shop for more. But this is only one of the scenarios.)
In religious conversion terms, the equaivalent would be that the person commits to reading the Bible every day for only five minutes or coming to church once a week - after all, this isn't much, is it, and who would think that a small thing like that could seriously affect one? So a person does it, but in doing so, they likely reate the causes and conditions for further commitments and further pressure of consistency.

If we do make these invitations are we not deliberately deluding ourselves?

And this too, yes ...


I do not think the 'possiblity' if we try to view it 'objectively' can be evaded either way.

Then study them. What are they? What are they made of? How do they function?

I did. The majority of them from my experience appear to be not much different than the usual run-of-the-mill people. They go to work, engage in, condone, or at least don't severely condemn meat-eating, illicit sex, taking intoxicants and gambling, also hunting. They have big egos, they make claims of I-me-mine all the time. They claim to love me and to be my friends, yet they mostly side with those who are against me. They treat me as if I am stupid, and if I point this out, they make it look as if I caused and deserved such treatment to begin with. They have a keen interest in art or popular culture. As a form of entertainment, they watch television or go to the movies. They appear to have no system in the way they approach matters of spiritual practice, they go by "flow".

What arises in your mind - guilt, for example - if you truly analyze them?

There are several feelings and stances that arise in my mind then. Dominantly, there is a feeling of disgust, repulsion and disappointment - If they know God, then why do they engage in or condone run-of-the-mill activities? If they know God, then why do they seek pleasure in things that don't seem to have anything to do with God, or even seem contrary to what God ordained in the scriptures?
There is also a feeling of guilt - if they can have belief in God despite acting in run-of-the-mill ways, why can't I? And a feeling that I am missing something crucial about them -some crucial way in which they are superior to me- and am wrong to judge them as being run-of-the-mill.

But then is there any way to avoid trusting oneself?

I don't think so, but there are suggestions that this is possible.

If there is does it not involve a paradox and isn't any lifestyle based on it tainted? Might not hell also be found at the end of every path that involves self-distrust as an epistemological and moral foundation stone?

Absolutely, on all counts.

I think, exhausted, I fell out partially for this reason also. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't. For all I know. Why not have as a foundation self-trust and build from there?

But that would require knowing the self, no? Things brings up a host of difficult issues of what exactly is the self and what can rightfully be considered the self, and what not.

Why do we not treat certain thoughts as toxins?
What if certain beliefs are pollution?

Sure. Yet why do I have this ghastly drive to think that unless the person who promotes such a poisonous view agrees with me and changes their mind, I am obligated to treat that person and that view as superior to myself and true. Unless I convert all the fire and brimstone Christians, I am obligated to think they are right.
It seems impractical and impossible, yet I feel driven to do just that.

What if there is an intentional war going on to make us small and filled with self-loathing?
(I think this war cuts across the science/theist divide with pollution and toxins being released both intentionally and unintentionally to keep us down. Sort of like putting thorazine in the drinking water.)

This could be possible, yes.

 

[Orleander]

There is a case here going to trial where some men broke into a home, gang raped/sodomized a mother. Then they told her to perform oral sex on her son or they would kill them. She did.
To save my son, I would do it. To save just myself I wouldn't.

Would I do something morally repugnant to save myself? no. To save my children, yes.

 

[nietzschefan]

There is a case here going to trial where some men broke into a home, gang raped/sodomized a mother. Then they told her to perform oral sex on her son or they would kill them. She did.
To save my son, I would do it. To save just myself I wouldn't.

Would I do something morally repugnant to save myself? no. To save my children, yes.

Pay attention - most people do not consider God a gangraper and sodomist, never mind child molester...

 

[Orleander]

I was just thinking of the most morally repugnant thing I could think of. Hell, god asked Abraham to kill his son. Why wouldn't he ask a mom to have sex with her kid? Which is worse?

 

[nietzschefan]

Ok shit, you actually got me there - I just remembered about Lot screwing his daughters...nevermind and carry on.

 

[Nasor]

I was just thinking of the most morally repugnant thing I could think of. Hell, god asked Abraham to kill his son.

That story would have been soooo much better if Abraham had refused, and god congratulated him for sticking to what he knew was right even in the face of tremendous pressure. As it is, the story only proves that Abraham was too much of a coward to defy his magical new friend.

 

[Simon Anders]

But that would require knowing the self, no? Things brings up a host of difficult issues of what exactly is the self and what can rightfully be considered the self, and what not.

Well, you know me to the extent that I think we must depend on intuition. And I certainly agree it is not easy. Perhaps it is easier to conceive of moving away from self-distrust - not that this is easy but it requires less definition of self from the outset.

Sure. Yet why do I have this ghastly drive to think that unless the person who promotes such a poisonous view agrees with me and changes their mind, I am obligated to treat that person and that view as superior to myself and true. Unless I convert all the fire and brimstone Christians, I am obligated to think they are right.
It seems impractical and impossible, yet I feel driven to do just that.

Wow. And I know the feeling/thought/urge, though I am not sure I am so ambitious. They then become the measure of your own intelligence, correctness and skill rather than you yourself or how it would be if they were 'out of the picture' and not thought of much.

Perhaps they are a mirror image of what you think you would be like if you trusted yourself. In any case I am sure you know all the practical and theoretical problems with giving them this role in your life.

What is the role of the religious idea in their lives? What role does it play in their mental ecology? in their actions?

What is the difference between a belief for them and a belief for you?

I would guess you know the answers and have already thought along those lines. Those questions came up when I read it.

Perhaps the 'morally repugnant thing' you are being presented with that will save you
is to reject them as your equals?

Or that is the 'hard place' MRT and what they tell you to do is the 'rock' MRT.

It might be that we all need to answer that question, secular and religious alike. We can hope that there is an option that is actually not morally repugnant, but I would guess most of us don't believe this yet and tend not to like thinking about the issue to much. (our dependence on murderers and torturers for the safety to eat our daily bread, for example)

 

[greenberg]

Perhaps the 'morally repugnant thing' you are being presented with that will save you
is to reject them as your equals?

Interestingly, this is what I have arrived at today too, when I was thinking about it earlier.
That the whole notion of Jesus and Christianity actually isn't so bad - were it not for the implicit request that by accepting Jesus I become like the common Christians and then associate with them. Who have no problems with meat-eating, making empty promises and so on.
I don't want to think of these people as my equals or as my superiors - and it appears that my inner Christian and my inner Libertarian have a huge problem with that. A huge problem with me being willing to sacrifice being a doormat.

I seem to be on the top of a spiral now - things are looking relatively good. I hate it that there is probably going to come a down.