Mindaugas
This is Mindaugas. He was the last pagan king in Europe. He was baptized but later renounced Christianity. That's hot.Here's something I don't understand. I know that technically Protestantism holds that faith alone guarantees entry into the kingdom of heaven. Then people fall into a few different groups. There are those who perform good deeds who were always predestined to go into heaven. The righteousness of their souls shows through. There are those who perform good deeds who are not predestined to go into heaven. Hard luck stories. And there are those who are evil. I doubt you can find many Protestants who would say that some of the evil people are going to heaven anyway, and are just funning it up in their time on earth. (But the prospect is titillating).
Now Catholics generally hold that some combination of faith and deeds is necessary. It's kind of an improvement but here is what troubles me.
I think that living your life for some treat at the end really reduces people to dogs. I mean its a great technique to write into a book to get people to behave, but isn't it a morally higher position to live live compassionately and promote good deeds without any prospect of reward? Or in fact believing that they are their own reward? If the only reason you do good deeds is because you want to be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven, I would argue that you haven't quite shaken the deadly sins. Now I recognize that some of the best Christians do good deeds for the doing of them alone. This is a wonderful thing. But something about believing in the "happy ending" rubs me the wrong way. It seems to demote your time on earth, which is all we really have empirical evidence for, to second class.
What say you Mindaugas?
posted by Ranger | 6:52 AM
13 Comments:
Tough question. I think that "the reward will come to you in the kingdom of heaven" idea is just a starting place. Most of the practicing Christians that I know operate within the "faith is its own reward" system. We know that to be closer to God, we must act in accordance with God's will. Catholic social teaching is a great equalizer, actually. In a nutshell: God's will is that we all take interest in reducing suffering. I don't think about being rewarded. I think about feeling closer to God. Faith is a very comforting thing. If having faith means that I'm delusional but have something to comfort me in times of crisis? So be it. I'm delusional.
What a horrible starting place. It is belittling.
I don't think I could understand what god's will is except through erecting a false construct of what I believe god's will to be.
Reducing suffering is a wonderful aim. I only lament the number of Christians who seem more interested in perpetuating suffering.
I am not sure I understand entirely what faith is. It is a mystery as they say. I find the idea that bad times have a finite end very comforting with or without the intercession of god.
I can't care about god much lately. It's as much as I can do to live with myself, much less the Infinite. It surprises me how many people ares still at least nominally religious, something like 70% of those with a graduate degree, I believe I read somewhere.
The revelation of God's plan is not to motivate you with a reward (although it often does), but to explain in clear terms moral law. It is assumed that once you know what is good you will desire to do it. The apparatus of the Church (the sacraments, rituals, etc.) are to help you do the good, help you recover from failing to do good, help you to praise God for His goodness, build communities where the strong aid the weak, etc.
You may be confused because you seem to have a 'Calvinist' conceptualization of heaven. There is a theological belief that heaven and hell are the same place; the difference is your individual reaction to it. If you are of strong character, it is heaven; if you are of weak character, it is hell.
Prayer, good deeds, suffering, self-denial - these are all tools to make us better *here*, *now*, to strengthen the will, sharpen the mind, and strengthen the character. Feeding the poor is inherently good, so you do it for that reason, not to 'punch a ticket'.
heaven and hell aren't a carrot and stick; they are happiness and shame.
Well, I generally reject moral absolutes because it presupposes that everything is purposeful, which if you don't really beleive in god, you don't believe. I do think you can attempt to attribute a value to things long after the fact, but through the application of reason.
Even if I knew what the right thing to do was, I wouldn't always desire it. I accept my imperfection and in fact kind of enjoy it from time to time.
I have no interest in self-denial. And yet I am no hedonist.
And I have even less interest in suffering. Sure a little suffering is necessary from time to time, in order avoid suffering, but other than that, I don't much see the point.
My will is strong, my mind is sharp, and I am quite the character.
I reject much of the Christian teaching of shame. It is overused and unproductive. It ruins more lives than it saves.
You reject moral absolutes? So.... when is cold-blooded murder for profit OK? How about sexual abuse of a child - when is that acceptable?
You enjoy doing that which you know to be wrong? The Nicomachean Ethics discusses this at length. The Virtuous Man does good because it is its own reward. The Developing Man does good because he fears doing wrong and wishes to grow to where he inherently enjoys the good. The Corrupted Man does evil and knows that it is evil. The Depraved Man does evil and believes it to be good.
Doing wrong while knowing it is wrong is, by definition, self-destructive and immoral. Yet you enjoy it. Do you wish to be good and do good?
you deny yourself nothing, yet are not a hedonist. What are you, then? Certainly no stoic.
Your will is strong... but you fail to do the good and know it. Your mind is sharp... yet you do not realize that doing wrong is inherently corrupting. Hmmmm.
Suffering is part of life. It is not to be sought, but when it occurs it can be made into something good.
Christians didn't invent shame, nor do they impose it. Shame is the proper realization that you have done wrong. If you don't like the word, try remorse; same thing, once upon a time. Hurt someone's feeling because *you* were in a bad mood? That feeling should be remorse, not satisfaction.
How can feeling remorse for your wrong actions "ruin" your life?
Well I guess I would have to say the cold blooded murder of Hitler for profit, probably would have been in the greater good. And notwithstanding punishment for doing so. I can't imagine a scenario where the sexual abuse of a child is in the greater good.
Well I guess Nicomacheus would say I'm virtuous when in a good mood, and corrupted when in a bad one. I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that doing wrong is self-destructive, I just think people are self-destructive. I'm actually pretty good with that. Destruction and renewal are part of my nature.
You're right I'm no stoic, but most things that people consider pleasurable, I do not seem to crave in the same way. I don't think the hedonists valued quiet relaxation.
Suffering does not always lead to the good. It cannot always be made into the good. Sometimes it just leads to more suffering.
Well, I'm aware that sometimes I do wrong. But I don't really fault myself for it, I just try and move on. How can guilt or remorse ruin a life? Well if you acknowledge that not everyone has an infallable concept of what's wrong then they could have done right and still be racked by guilt.
Murdering Hitler for profit would have been immoral.
So sexual abuse of a child is always imoral? Surprise! You may have absolute morals.
No, Aristotle would say you are corrupt, and I would agree. You do not do good for its own sake, you simply do as you wish whether it is good or bad and account it acceptable. Your tendency to actually enjoy doing wrong means you are slipping into depravity.
Good is an aspect of reality; doing evil and calling it good is a denial of reality. Depravity is, at essence, a denial of reality in favor of your own illusions.
Funny thing about self-destruction; if you survive it, renewal comes from utside oneself.
Suffering can always result in a good. It doesn't *have* to, and often doesn't, but the capability is there.
Well I guess I will have to live with Aristotle's condemnation and yours. Unfortunately if I agreed, the far easier choice is in for a penny in for a pound. Complete evil. That's really the problem with condemnation in my view.
So I'll keep trying to do the right thing, even when it's not the easy thing. Regardless of whether anyone else thinks its the right thing, including the church. I could be right, I could be wrong. If there are consequences, I'll face them, alone. No one else needs to worry about it.
Its not a "condemnation", it is a description; translations from Greek can be odd because words they see as descriptive we see as loaded with emotion. You seem conflicted - one time you say you do wrong and kinda' like it, another you say you will continue to try to do good. Which is it?
Someone saying that you may be occasionally doing wrong is no excuse to do wrong, its a cop out. Inciting to riot is no excuse for a riot, after all. It reminds me of someone I counseled once; "Why did you lose the job I got you? You were wll qualified" "Well, my mom told me once when I was 4 that if I didn't straighten up I'd be a bum." "Uh, have you considered straightening up?" Your claim that being told you made an error is an excuse to purposefully perform greater errors is nonsensical.
No one needs to face consequences alone; other people do care what happens to you, even total strangers. They even worry about what happens to you. That's what community is really about, its what civilization is really about, and it certainly is what Christianity is really about.
Well color me conflicted, and nonsensical.
If I take your example as allegorical, I guess my response would be: yeah, I've considered straightening up, I don't think its for me. What are my other options counselor?
The good news is I've found out I am actually a lot more straightened up than a lot of people who are allegedly straightened up but are actually bums. And I've discovered my mom's conception of what a bum was was in error. And I know so much about being straightened up that a lot of straightened up people either are surprised I know so much or think I know more than other people who are straightened up. Sometimes I think so too.
But nevertheless, I don't think straightening up is for me. And people who know me agree, whether they are straightened up or bums. I'm better off being a bum. But I'm going to try to be the best bum I can. Maybe I can even try and invent a third option.
Being rewarded for kindness is an inner high that might not get you anywhere but in a positive frame of mind for that instant. It's not a way into the pearly gates. If you believe that the human spirit makes you do good things and no other power helps with it or rewards you for it, you are simply a loving person.
This reminds me of a story: In the dead of winter, I was on the highway and was merging onto the interstate. There was a car almost at the bottom of the ramp in a very bad position. My first thought was -'I'd run into him if I hadn't paid attention.' Second thought was, 'I better see what I can do.' So I stopped, took him to the gas station, brought him back and dropped him off. I even went around again to see if he needed anything but gas, even though it was snowing hard and my family was waiting at home worrying about me. Looks like he didn't need anything else..because he was gone. I felt great for doing what I did, but also never mentioned it to anyone until now. After all was said and done, I was not expecting that God or Jesus or the great Buddha(or whoever you believe in) would shine the light down on me and 'raise me up' for doing what I did. I didn't want a reward, but I did possibly save this man's life. Maybe that's all I wanted. It's good enough for me.
On the off chance you are searching for a response. Thanks for reading. I agree with you. good deeds should be their own reward regardless of the existence or absence of an afterlife of which we have no empirical evidence.
I hope I made my point clearly which was that I hold the person who does good deeds not believing in life after death in somewhat higher esteem than someone who is making calculated choices based on a reward-scenario of heaven. Now certainly you can argue that even the non-believer is likely hedging their bets. But even if you are an incredibly devout religious person, unless you find the non-believing good samaratan doomed (how sad) it must at least be a confusing scenario.
Thanks for sharing your story.
Post a Comment
<< Home