At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?
That's like asking if an atheist can be ethical. Sure they can. Why wouldn't they be? The next surgeon to operate on you may be jewish, muslim, buddhist , that does not mean that they are of a different ethnic decent either. Ethnic decent may have nothing to do with a person's religion.
That question almost implies that the only good people in the world are Christians. Do you realize how that sounds? It does not sound very "Christian" that’s for sure. There are a lot of good people in the world who aren't Christian. They are in every walk of life. They have professional careers to homeless people. Christians could be a child molester or not. A person's religion does not always dictate their behavior, most times it does not.
A good person may have no religion at all. If there is a God, and he/she is forgiving and loving I doubt seriously that religion does matter to a loving and forgiving God. If there is a God and he/she is hateful and a punisher then maybe it does. Is a Christian God hateful? Why don't you ask he/she? Thanks for being open minded enough to ask.
I personally do, unarguably. I have stared into the face of God and it has shaken me to the core. It is an experience I am reluctant to repeat (but that is another story).
It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.
Quote:
If you take all of human history (sans modern aethiests), we can see that humanity has recognized an otherness and have explained it in terms of God or gods. Whether it be sun gods, or wind gods, gods of fire, water, planets, love etc...
We have a need to understand and make sense of the world around us. So we develop the axiom that 'any' answer is better than 'no' answer at all. Once upon a time, it made sense to believe in gods. Back when we didn't understand why volcanoes erupted, how tsunamis formed and had no idea about tectonic plates shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know about germs, bacteria, or viruses and had no idea why people got sick and/or died. There was a time where it may have been perfectly reasonable to invent powerful invisible beings/gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.
Quote:
Man in his most intuitive and uncomplicated form has always explained the things they do not understand in terms of otherness (most specifically god(s)), which is something that shouldnt be ignored or explained away as superstitious or primative. To ignore intuition in the light of todays technological and scientific advances would be irresponsible.
I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!
Quote:
As we progress as a species we have been able to understand some of these things and place explanation to them. For example water is no longer a god it is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen. Yet that isnt the answer either, because as we break things down into even smaller parts, we come up with bigger questions that need more answers.
I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.
Quote:
That book DOES contain all one needs to know about how the God of the universe, wants us as a creation, to treat one another.
Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.
I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED the bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!
It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.
What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.
I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!
I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.
Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.
I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!
It's a shame that you're reluctant to talk about it. I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear and learn more about this experience of yours.
I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.
Quote:
What is a much more likely scenario is that man has a need to understand and make sense of the world around him. 'Any' answer is better than no answer at all. It made sense once upon a time when we didn't know why volcanoes erupted, or how tsunamis occurred and had no idea that tectonic plates where shifting miles beneath the earth. We also didn't know germs, bacteria, and viruses existed, so we had no idea of why people got sick. There was a time where it may have even been logical to create powerful and invisible gods to explain the unknown. I wouldn't call this 'intuition' as you seem to suggest. It is merely trying to come up with an answer for that which is unexplained.
I can certainly see how on the surface it would seem so. However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.
The deeper we look the more questions we find. Science has not disproved God, it has merely been able to put better names to processes and create bigger and more profound questions. Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one’s self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue. We are not satisfied with distance, or space, we keep going. Once we name a thing, it is not over, we keep looking, we keep searching, we can’t look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.
A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.
Quote:
I would put this exactly the other way around. It is irresponsible to favor superstitious answers over that of SCIENTIFIC answers, which are based upon observable and testable evidence!
While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.
Quote:
I agree with you here. But just because we don't know an answer to a particular question, doesn't mean we get to make one up. Clearly, man was wrong to create Thor as the answer to why thunder occurs.
They weren’t “making” one up. They used the same tools we have today. They were using reason and logic; they just had less technological tools in their tool box as we have today. We have to stop thinking in terms of right and wrong and start thinking in terms of process. Someday we might find ourselves defending scientific theory in the light of more technological processes, and we will be perpetuating the same problems.
Quote:
Do you really think so? The bible contains some of the most appalling passages ever written on how humans should treat one another. Try reading the biblical chapter of Deuteronomy for example.
I have read and studied the bible in all of its shame and glory. You are absolutely right. But I stand by my statement. I am not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The teachings attributed to the person Jesus of Nazareth are quite profound. I am intentional in separating Jesus from the common belief of the bible as it is my understanding that even his apostles misunderstood him (much like the majority of Christians do today). Add Constantine to the mix and it is very hard to find the true nature of Christianity.
Quote:
I will be the first to agree that the bible also contains some moral pearls of wisdom. But we don't NEED to bible for such enlightenment. In fact, it was secular reasoning that got us to break away from the more hideous biblical passages such as stoning to death anyone who works on the Sabbath, etc. In other words, we use our own moral sense to cherry pick what we should and should not still follow in the bible. Therefore, it follows that the bible is NOT where we get our moral standards from!
I agree. It is mainstream Christian dogma that makes the bible ethically and morally founded. Were they to truly read their bible with open minds they would certainly see that it is not so. However, they have spent centuries justifying their texts and muddling the minds of their followers that it has opened the door to biased subjective interpretation.
The bible wasn’t written to be a hand book for humanity (unless God is an idiot). It is a collection of texts that have been shaped and sorted to fit a theology that was sanctioned by Constantine to keep the religious and political peace in the 3rd Century.
In many instances the bible has profound, moral and ethical truths, but that is not what it is about. It also has some horrendous situations and justifications, but that is not what it is about. The truth is…it is not about anything. At best we can say that the texts are men’s interpretation of the holy or otherness in certain historical, allegorical, situational, literal, and metaphorical instances.
There is a big difference in saying that morality comes from god as opposed to morality comes from the bible. I don’t have a problem saying that morals come from God as I believe them to be hardwired, much like our instincts to love and search for meaning. People get confused on this issue when religious people make the mistake of making God synonymous with the bible. The Hebrew oral tradition out dates the written text by as much as 5000 years and it would be ludicrous to presume that people prior to the bible had no morals.
I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I agree, but it's even worse than that. They put their interpretation of the Bible above God. I call it bibliolatry.
I am not reluctant, I gladly tell it. To tell it truthfully, it is a long story, too long to write in a thread it encompasses many years of my life.
Feel free to PM me. I'm sincerely interested.
I can tell from your posts that you're thoughtful and intelligent, but you've made a glaring error here. I'd like to ask you to stop and think this through...
Quote:
However, the point is... there is no “Answer” scientific or not, we presume we are right just as they did back then as it makes sense to us today as it made sense to them then.
Clearly, this assertion of yours can't be correct. Either there is a god, or there isn't a god. One of these propositions must be true. So there most definitely IS an answer! Whether we know what it is, or not.
Quote:
The deeper we look the more questions we find.
This is a good thing and we should expect nothing less.
Quote:
Science has not disproved God,...
Nor will it ever. Science has not disproved gremlins, fairies, or unicorns either. This doesn't mean we have any compelling reason to think they exist, however.
Quote:
Intuitively, humanity recognizes something other/beyond one’s self. We look into the heavens and we are not satisfied with naming it…sky or blue.
You keep bringing up the word 'intuitively'. I wonder what you mean by that? I further wonder why you seem to be implying that intuition should override logical conjecture from observable evidence? Perhaps I'm just not as impressed by intuition as you are.
Quote:
we can’t look back at people of history and say that they were wrong in their presumptions when they, like us, are just a part of the same process.
Of course we can! And I'm sure if you take moment to think about what you're saying, you'd agree...
You don't think we learn and progress as time goes on? You don't think our understanding of things improves? Are you suggesting that we cannot now say the previous presumption that the earth is flat was wrong?!?! Or that we shouldn't dismiss the notion that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, instead of the other way around? Think about what you're saying here. You don't strike me as a fool, yet this is an incredibly foolish statement. Please re-think it, or re-explain what you mean.
Quote:
A hundred years from now what we scientifically theorize may seem as simplistic and superstitious as Thor.
This is no doubt correct. One hundred years from now we will be proven wrong about many things, I am sure. But I fail to see your point. What has this got to do with the fact that earlier people were wrong about many things such as Thor and what caused thunder, or the shape of the earth? Surely, you don't think this is an argument for god, do you? If so, that's some very poor logic on your part. No offense... Your entire position on this needs to be re-thought out.
Quote:
While I completely agree that it is irresponsible for people to favor what we consider the "superstitious" over scientific as we know it today, the truth is that there is no superstition. That is my point. Those were merely their process of understanding just like ours is scientific, but even today quantum physics threatens and theoretically has the potential to make scientific theory look as remedial as the things we consider superstition. Yet it is all just another step in the same process.
I'll give you some slack here. What we now consider superstition, was a 'theory' back then. Predicting an all-powerful super being was probably as close to a scientific theory as they could come up with back then. Like science today, it was a 'prediction'. But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...
Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.
There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.
I love watching all this debate, but what does any of this have to do with the question "Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?"
Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether or not the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets ya through the night, I guess.
Haha, I see. But to be fair, being that it is all a matter of faith, doesn't the term speak for itself. Faith. So, there really is no verifiable source of truth, just a faith that it is there. I know a lot of people use a book of their religion, such as the bible as a reference, but no person in the world could know if it has been tampered with by man. I mean, it was wirtien by man. So, then, the question, technically can never be answered on that basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
Because before we can answer this (or any) question, we should examine the source(s) from which we obtain our answer from. Unless of course, you don't actually care about whether or not the answer you get is true. That might sound silly, but it's become increasingly obvious to me, that many believers don't actually care about 'truth'. Rather, they seem much more concerned with finding answers that console them. Even if they have to make one up, or ignore mounds of evidence to the contrary. Whatever gets ya through the night, I guess.
Copy me on that PM, scott, if you send it. I'm interested too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
But here is a very important point that you're overlooking...
Many of these primitive predictions have been falsified! That's what science is all about and how it progresses. The prediction of Thor has been falsified. The prediction that it took a supreme being to create the vast complexity we see in life has been falsified by The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. As time goes on, more and more things that at one time seemed to require a supernatural explanation no longer do and can be explained in other ways.
There's a name for what you're doing. It's called 'argument from personal incredulity'. Any time YOU don't understand something, you want to plug in god for an answer, which I assume you find satisfying. But that does absolutely nothing to make god any more likely to be true. Whether you, I, or anyone else has the right answer or not.
This is a good debate, guys, and I think I agree with you both, but on this particular point, I have to come to scott's defense. If I understand correctly, he's not plugging God in for answers that he doesn't have. And I don't think he's saying that the explanations of antiquity are just as factually correct as our "scientific" ones. He's just pointing out that our craving for an explanation is not different in kind than the one that drove them, and that for all it's technological, mathematical, and logical sophistication, the process we go through these days to arrive at our explanations is not fundamentally different from what humans have done ever since we developed the capacity to wonder "Why does that happen?". Obviously, there are still plenty of people around who are quite satisfied with the answer "God did it. Now quit asking." But scott doesn't strike me as one of them.
If I've misrepresented your idea, scott, I apologize in advance. It's a fair statement of my idea, at least.
Linear Mode
