Loftus: Today I am pretty much guilt free. That
is, I have no guilt in
regards to the Christian duties mentioned above. I am free of the
need to do most of the things I felt I had to do because I was
expressing my gratitude for what God had done. And yet, I am still
grateful for my present life, even more so in many ways. I love
life. I’m living life to the hilt, pretty much guilt free, primarily
because my ethical standards aren’t as high. In fact, I believe the
Christian ethical standards are simply impossible for anyone to
measure up to. Think about it, according to Jesus I should feel
guilty for not just what I do, but for what I think about, lusting,
hating, coveting, etc. I’d like every person who reads this book to
experience the freedom I have found. It is to you that I dedicate
this book.
regards to the Christian duties mentioned above. I am free of the
need to do most of the things I felt I had to do because I was
expressing my gratitude for what God had done. And yet, I am still
grateful for my present life, even more so in many ways. I love
life. I’m living life to the hilt, pretty much guilt free, primarily
because my ethical standards aren’t as high. In fact, I believe the
Christian ethical standards are simply impossible for anyone to
measure up to. Think about it, according to Jesus I should feel
guilty for not just what I do, but for what I think about, lusting,
hating, coveting, etc. I’d like every person who reads this book to
experience the freedom I have found. It is to you that I dedicate
this book.
16 comments:
Stop searching, Diogenes, we've found an honest man!
Jezu ufam tobie!
You say the standards are lower. Why do you think that? Is there evidence that Christians are more ethical than non-Christians?
Loftus says the standards are lower, not me.
I think it's fair to say that we all have pretty much the same morality. The additional "standards" that Christians have don't relate to behavior. They are about about being made to feel guilty for thoughts that cross your mind. I would also note that this sense of guilt (instilled by your religious handlers) still doesn't prevent you from having these thoughts. It only makes you feel guilty about it.
Victor,
What I find most fascinating about John's confession is that he (apparently) has no problem with controlling his actions, (i.e., the purely external manifestations of what kind of person you are, but balks at making any effort to discipline his interior desires, motivations, attitudes. In other words, he has no interest in bettering himself as a person.
For after all, simply not murdering your neighbor may keep you out of prison, but if you nevertheless do nothing to master your murderous thoughts towards him, then you are you really any better than an actual murderer? Superficially, maybe yes. But you are still a murderer in your heart. You might even be lower than one, for it could be that all that restrains you from carrying out your murderous desires is cowardice, yet another undesirable character trait.
That is why the commandments against covetousness are so crucial. They are the first step towards actually becoming the sort of human being we were meant to be before the fall. Surely a man who does not desire to cheat on his wife is a better person who is faithful solely out of fear of getting caught. Surely a man who has no desire to steal is a better person than one who is merely restrained by security devices. I could go on, but you get my drift.
Loftus,s pathetic whining about "guilt" misses the point totally. It's not "freedom" that he's offering (in his next to last sentence), but rather the exact opposite - it is continued SLAVERY to one's unchecked "lusts, hatreds, and coveting".
As Christ Himself put it, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin." St. Paul says much the same thing in his Letter to the Romans.
Jezu ufam tobie!
it is continued SLAVERY to one's unchecked "lusts, hatreds, and coveting"
And so we return to the question I asked earlier. What evidence do you have that you are any more moral or ethical than Loftus? I think you like to believe that you are somehow better, but there's no objective reason for the rest of us to think that.
im-skeptical:
You say the standards are lower. Why do you think that? Is there evidence that Christians are more ethical than non-Christians?
It is worth noting that Loftus says his life "radically changed" after he converted to Christianity. He says he was arrested six different times before his conversion at the age of 18. Christianity appears to have made him a better person.
I think it's fair to say that we all have pretty much the same morality.
Who is included in this "all"? All humans? All Westerners? All Americans? All readers of this blog?
The additional "standards" that Christians have don't relate to behavior.
As but one example, not killing the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly all relate to behavior.
They are about about being made to feel guilty for thoughts that cross your mind.
Or, perhaps, our beliefs and desires influence our behavior and, so, in order to change our behavior, we need to chage our beliefs and desires.
"Or, perhaps, our beliefs and desires influence our behavior and, so, in order to change our behavior, we need to chage our beliefs and desires."
Very true, Jayman. What Loftus seems to miss in his statement is that there are really only 2 ways we can change our behavior for the better (i.e., "improve ourselves"). The first is through external means: police forces, security measures, fear of getting caught and/or punished... that sort of thing. The second and far more preferable means is to become the sort of person who has no wish to engage in destructive (to either ourselves or others) behaviors in the first place. This can only be accomplished by interior means. This sort of change must come from within.
But not only has Loftus abandoned this interior betterment (his words, not mine*), he actively encourages others to do the same!**
There's no way of getting around the inevitable conclusion. If no one is expected to reign in his own passions (i.e., "feel guilty" about bad behavior), the only alternative is to step up the police state and compel good behavior from without. Interesting definition of "freedom", wouldn't you say?
* "I’m living life to the hilt, pretty much guilt free, primarily because my ethical standards aren’t as high."
** "I’d like every person ... to experience the freedom I have found."
Saint Augustine, Pray for us!
Jayman,
It is worth noting that Loftus says his life "radically changed" after he converted to Christianity. He says he was arrested six different times before his conversion at the age of 18. Christianity appears to have made him a better person.
- Loftus was already a Christian before he "converted" to a different kind of Christianity. It wasn't an atheistic lack of morality that caused his bad behavior.
Who is included in this "all"? All humans? All Westerners? All Americans? All readers of this blog?
- All humans are born with a sense of morality. It doesn't come from God or anything we learn. In addition to that, our society influences our morality. This is learned or acquired beliefs that can vary by time and place. There are also other learned influences, such as religion that may be attributed to specific social groups rather than society as a whole.
As but one example, not killing the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly all relate to behavior.
- The prohibition against killing is part of our natural morality. It's not something we get from religion, even though religious people may claim that is. Abortion might be the exception, because religion teaches that a fetus is actually a person. The only behavioral things Loftus was talking about were related to following the dictates of the religion (prayer, evangelizing), but not what I would call matters of morality.
Or, perhaps, our beliefs and desires influence our behavior and, so, in order to change our behavior, we need to chage our beliefs and desires.
- I agree about that. But religion has little to do with it. Of course, you can attribute an improvement in your behavior to religion, as Loftus did. But you can also decide on your own what kind of person you want to be.
I'm surprised that I'm the first person to bring this up, but as is common with Loftus, he partially gets things right and misses the bigger picture. He is right when he says that it's impossible to not sin--anyone who has read the Sermon on the Mount knows that. What he misses, despite all his Christian education, is the central message of the Gospel! When we accept Jesus' atoning sacrifice all of our sins past, present and future are forgiven. Paul says in Romans 8:1-4 & 37-39, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit...No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." So, when someone inevitably sins all they need to do is confess there sin, thus unloading the guilt we've been speaking of, and move on knowing that they have already been forgiven. If a Christian is wallowing in guilt it is because they have no fully grasped the Gospel.
im-skeptical:
Loftus was already a Christian before he "converted" to a different kind of Christianity. It wasn't an atheistic lack of morality that caused his bad behavior.
You originally asked: "Is there evidence that Christians are more ethical than non-Christians?" You did not mention an "atheistic lack of morality." Going entirely off of Victor's link it sounds like the young Loftus was a Christian in name only. Whatever happened to him at age 18 made him a better person. This is evidence that, at least in one man's case, (serious) Christians are more ethical than non- or nominal-Christians.
All humans are born with a sense of morality. It doesn't come from God or anything we learn. In addition to that, our society influences our morality. This is learned or acquired beliefs that can vary by time and place. There are also other learned influences, such as religion that may be attributed to specific social groups rather than society as a whole.
The fact that all (or at least most) humans have a sense of morality is not the same thing as all humans having "pretty much the same morality" (your original statement). It is not accurate to say that Christians share the same morality with non-Christians.
The only behavioral things Loftus was talking about were related to following the dictates of the religion (prayer, evangelizing), but not what I would call matters of morality.
Right after prayer and evangelizing Loftus mentions "reading the Bible, tithing, forgiving someone who had done me wrong, or whether it was struggling with temptations of lust, pride, selfishness and laziness." Forgiveness is a behavior and lust, pride, selfishness, and laziness can all effect behavior. Earlier he writes, "I fight for the unborn, the poor and homeless, those victimized by pornography, but especially for those trapped in sin." Most importantly, he says his "ethical standards aren't as high" as they were before.
I agree about that. But religion has little to do with it. Of course, you can attribute an improvement in your behavior to religion, as Loftus did. But you can also decide on your own what kind of person you want to be.
So you admit that the additional standards of Christianity are about behavior and not just to make us feel guilty? And simply asserting that religion has little to do with it is an insufficient response to accounts where religion seems to be the thing that resulted in changed behavior. I'm not denying that someone can change his behavior for secular reasons but it is rather ironic, if atheism is true, that religion seems particularly good at causing quick, radical changes in behavior.
Jayman,
Whatever happened to him at age 18 made him a better person. This is evidence that, at least in one man's case, (serious) Christians are more ethical than non- or nominal-Christians.
- I do not deny that religion is a source of motivation for good behavior. But it is a mistake to think that it is the only or even the best motivation. Furthermore, the improvement that he experienced does not imply that Christians are more ethical than non-Christians. You're using the no-true-Scottsman fallacy. There are plenty of serious Christians who are lacking in morals, and plenty of non-Christians who aren't.
It is not accurate to say that Christians share the same morality with non-Christians.
- I think you're wrong. What substantive difference is there, aside from belief in the teachings of the religion? Do Christians treat people better? Do they kill less often, or steal less often? I don't think so.
Most importantly, he says his "ethical standards aren't as high" as they were before.
- Loftus mentions numerous things. Forgiveness and charity are not uniquely Christian virtues. Don't go thinking that they are. We all experience feelings of lust, pride, and selfishness. Loftus rightly points out that religion makes us feel guilty about having those feelings. But what we do about them is the measure of our morality. I think his use of the term 'higher ethical standards' is unfortunate. What he experienced as a result of his Christianity is a heightened awareness of moral issues, along with a sense of obligation to additional duties that come along with the religion, but are not strictly matters of morality (such as prayer, evangelism, tithing, etc), and a sense of guilt for not measuring up to some religious ideal of morality. One can gain a sense of moral awareness without religion, but the religious duties and the guilt that he mentions are consequences of religion.
So you admit that the additional standards of Christianity are about behavior and not just to make us feel guilty?
- No, I don't.
Keith Rozumalski,
Guilt is natural. We all feel it when we do something that violates our moral sense. However, religion fosters a sense of guilt even when we don't do anything wrong. We are told that we don't measure up to some impossible standard, and made to feel guilty about it. The fact the the religion also offers absolution does not change the basic truth that the religion gave us that guilt in the first place.
THIS says everything that needs to be said on this topic. Just listen to N.T. Wright and compare what he has to say with Loftus's words. Not fair, really - it's like comparing the feeble glow of a firefly with a supernova.
Jezu, ufam tobie!
I couldn't resist. I just listened to Wright's talk a second time. Amazing. It's almost as if he gave the speech with Loftus's words in mind. But then I realized... Loftus has said nothing original. Evil is never really original. "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Again, absolutely amazing. It doesn't matter how old that story is (or even whether it actually happened), evil just never learns anything new. It's nothing more than a colossal one trick pony* that has been deceiving people since the Dawn of Time, without ever feeling the need to come up with a new angle, or any development of substance. Why should it? The old siren song... "Ye shall become as Gods, knowing good and evil." How many numberless tears have resulted from that false promise.
* And how could it be anything but? The Devil himself is derivative. He introduced nothing new to creation, but merely degraded, twisted, and befouled what was already there. Hell is derivative. It's (one reason) why Dante, the supreme poet, depicted its realm as a series of ever smaller, ever more constricted, concentric circles, narrowing and narrowing until reality itself was on the verge of disintegrating.
In contrast, Heaven was depicted as an infinite series of ever-expanding spheres, encompassing all and forever adding to the sum total.
That is the choice that is before us all.
Jezu, ufam tobie!
What's so great about rejecting Christianity?
It gets the monkey off your back.
Post a Comment