To Christians (On Jesus' Offer)

[Dimmesdale]

I don't get it.

If Jesus invites all of us to a life of peace, and humans are at least basically good, why would anyone reject it, if they have the basic understanding that it is for their own good?

Even if you raise the question of free will (which many Christians do not), this still evades the issue as far as I am concerned. This is a mystery, if there is any.

[The Tanager]

I don't get it.

If Jesus invites all of us to a life of peace, and humans are at least basically good, why would anyone reject it, if they have the basic understanding that it is for their own good?

Even if you raise the question of free will (which many Christians do not), this still evades the issue as far as I am concerned. This is a mystery, if there is any.

We all do what we think is good for us to do. The ones who think it is for their own good, don't reject it. The ones who reject it don't think it is for their own good.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I don't get it.

If Jesus invites all of us to a life of peace, and humans are at least basically good, why would anyone reject it, if they have the basic understanding that it is for their own good?

Even if you raise the question of free will (which many Christians do not), this still evades the issue as far as I am concerned. This is a mystery, if there is any.

There are definitely men who would reject a life of peace even just in this world - their power and their wealth are dependent upon war, upon the suffering of others. There are also those who would reject what it takes to get that life of peace. Doing more for others, giving something up for themselves, forgiving, being merciful, loving even one's enemies - and of course hearing and accepting the truth, including about themselves. That can be very uncomfortable, even painful.

I cannot accept your premise that humans are at least basically good, but ignoring that for a moment... your own signature provides an answer to your question:

Yet, by the constitution of his nature, he loved the truth, and loathed the lie, as few men ever did.

Few men love the truth. Many hate the truth and prefer the lie because the lie tells them whatever they want to hear, including what they want to hear about themselves.

But Christ is the Truth. He speaks truth.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Dimmesdale]

I don't get it.

If Jesus invites all of us to a life of peace, and humans are at least basically good, why would anyone reject it, if they have the basic understanding that it is for their own good?

Even if you raise the question of free will (which many Christians do not), this still evades the issue as far as I am concerned. This is a mystery, if there is any.

We all do what we think is good for us to do. The ones who think it is for their own good, don't reject it. The ones who reject it don't think it is for their own good.

So what is good is what subjectively appears good. All men desire the good for themselves, in other words. There must be some rationale for it. And it has to be grounded in subjectivity seeking an objective, as a complement.

On this basis, can we be blamed? Is it not simply ignorance to think one thing is what is good for me, if that thing is not the thing that is good for me, but another thing? How does this square with the idea, that "sin" is deliberate disobedience or willful rebellion against a "good God" that we know we "should" bow down to? If we know we "should" doesn't that imply, in some way, that we are avoiding what is truly good for us?

I am thinking in some ways of Buridan's Donkey. It seems to me that if we are faced with "objective" certainties that do not factor in that mysterious subjective element, we would naturally gravitate to the summum bonum as a matter of pure inference (but this is only because I believe, there is a substantially good, rational "core" to all humans who desire this -- otherwise we would be stuck with a multitude of options). The Christian might say that this subjective element indeed must be introduced to provide that "uncertainty principle" in our choosing power, but for me it obfuscates more than elucidates. It does not seem rational to me why, in a purely rational state of mind, one should not choose the highest good and, if that rationality is somehow obscured, that we are not acting in essentially an intoxicated state, and so should not bear the weight of eternal responsibility.

[Dimmesdale]

Peace to you,

There are definitely men who would reject a life of peace even just in this world - their power and their wealth are dependent upon war, upon the suffering of others. There are also those who would reject what it takes to get that life of peace. Doing more for others, giving something up for themselves, forgiving, being merciful, loving even one's enemies - and of course hearing and accepting the truth, including about themselves. That can be very uncomfortable, even painful.

I cannot accept your premise that humans are at least basically good, but ignoring that for a moment... your own signature provides an answer to your question:

Yet, by the constitution of his nature, he loved the truth, and loathed the lie, as few men ever did.

Few men love the truth. Many hate the truth and prefer the lie because the lie tells them whatever they want to hear, including what they want to hear about themselves.

But Christ is the Truth. He speaks truth.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

In my worldview we all come from truth, and so are parts of that very same truth. How can like things not be attracted to each other?

I do not have time to go through all the things you listed here. Please refer to my response to Tanager for a clearer idea of my position.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #4]

So what is good is what subjectively appears good. All men desire the good for themselves, in other words.

I agree that we desire what appears good to us. I don't think "good" itself is subjective because I think we can be wrong about what would be objectively good for us.

There must be some rationale for it. And it has to be grounded in subjectivity seeking an objective, as a complement.

On this basis, can we be blamed? Is it not simply ignorance to think one thing is what is good for me, if that thing is not the thing that is good for me, but another thing? How does this square with the idea, that "sin" is deliberate disobedience or willful rebellion against a "good God" that we know we "should" bow down to? If we know we "should" doesn't that imply, in some way, that we are avoiding what is truly good for us?

Sometimes I think we know the good and don't do it, but I also agree that we are often ignorant about what is good for us. That's part of why we need a relationship with God. Rationally, we should know that we are limited beings and what is good for us is often too complex for us. God invites us to trust Him, with His omniscience and love for us to experience the good, rather than trusting something we know we can't trust (ourselves and, by extension, other limited humans). I think that's the deliberate disobedience part, where we know we don't know it all, but act as though we do instead of relying on the One who does know. It's a vulnerable place to be in, but I think it is the most rational one we could put ourselves in.

I am thinking in some ways of Buridan's Donkey. It seems to me that if we are faced with "objective" certainties that do not factor in that mysterious subjective element, we would naturally gravitate to the summum bonum as a matter of pure inference (but this is only because I believe, there is a substantially good, rational "core" to all humans who desire this -- otherwise we would be stuck with a multitude of options). The Christian might say that this subjective element indeed must be introduced to provide that "uncertainty principle" in our choosing power, but for me it obfuscates more than elucidates. It does not seem rational to me why, in a purely rational state of mind, one should not choose the highest good and, if that rationality is somehow obscured, that we are not acting in essentially an intoxicated state, and so should not bear the weight of eternal responsibility.

I don't think that rationality (that good is too complex for us) is obscured, but plainly evident. If we ignore this, then I think we are choosing to intoxicate ourselves with illusions and, thus, do bear the weight of eternal responsibility.

[Dimmesdale]

I agree that we desire what appears good to us. I don't think "good" itself is subjective because I think we can be wrong about what would be objectively good for us.

The way I see it, "good" is a type of gestalt, something over and beyond the sum of its parts (reasons, which may be objectively sound or faulty). This gestalt has a unity which the will assents to, and is, on that basis, inviolable for the subject, simply by virtue of the fact that one wills it. This is what I mean by subjectivity finding an objective complement. There is the seer, the seen, but what dwells in the interim is the "sight" which, I think is the key decisive factor. Now, if one has sight of God, or garbage, on that basis, how does one choose? Based on that gestalt, that life with God is the superior vision, one ought to default to God, if such is the gestalt most fitting to the seer's correspondence.

[Dimmesdale]

Sometimes I think we know the good and don't do it, but I also agree that we are often ignorant about what is good for us. That's part of why we need a relationship with God. Rationally, we should know that we are limited beings and what is good for us is often too complex for us. God invites us to trust Him, with His omniscience and love for us to experience the good, rather than trusting something we know we can't trust (ourselves and, by extension, other limited humans). I think that's the deliberate disobedience part, where we know we don't know it all, but act as though we do instead of relying on the One who does know. It's a vulnerable place to be in, but I think it is the most rational one we could put ourselves in.

In all honesty, much of this sounds to me like a lot of verbiage that does not substantially touch upon the points I've made. What you are talking about is more along the lines of epistemology, "how do we know?" I am more interested in how the will, not the intellect, decides, for or against God, assuming that God is indeed a viable object for a self. Epistemology is irrelevant at this point. How does one truly decide? If one always wills what is good for oneself, what is the supreme objective complementary good, than that must entail God is not good enough, from the seeker's point of view, otherwise one would have chosen him.

Now I understand that one's vision of God may be obscured. But, that does not bode well for responsibility of action. Deliberate disobedience must have a reason for itself. Why is that reason any worse than the will to obey God? You cannot say it is irrational, because then you are talking intellect again, not will. And as you say later, we discern some rationality; it is not wholly obscured. So how does one decide?

[Dimmesdale]

I don't think that rationality (that good is too complex for us) is obscured, but plainly evident. If we ignore this, then I think we are choosing to intoxicate ourselves with illusions and, thus, do bear the weight of eternal responsibility.

I do not deny that the will does have rational objects for it to settle upon. There is always some form of goodly gestalt. What I deny is that intellect and will are identical, assuming that Christianity is true and we can actually avoid our highest good. If God truly presents himself as the best object, then the intellect is simply a hoop. It is the will that is the deciding factor.

[Dimmesdale]

Will follows emotion.
Reason follows thought.

Both, however, co-here in gestalt good.

And that is One. One Love.