Thread: What is cheap grace? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030109
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes about cheap grace in his book The Cost of Discipleship (quote here ) and I have heard it bandied about on the ship fairly often.
Granted I have not yet read the book, but from the quote and from instances used in conversation I do not understand the meaning.
Grace is by very definition free - a free gift. How can it then be either cheap or costly?
quote:
It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life."
Sounds like he's saying you will receive the only true life as a gift, but only if you pay for it.
Makes no sense.
So is grace grace or not?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
German people pay a church tax so get baptisms, weddings etc. free. Bonhoeffer thought that baptism was a serious commitment, not something to go through because you paid for it.
Also, baptism is about dying with Christ whereas many Germans were supporting Hitler rather than taking a stand which was dangerous.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes about cheap grace in his book The Cost of Discipleship (quote here ) and I have heard it bandied about on the ship fairly often.
Granted I have not yet read the book, but from the quote and from instances used in conversation I do not understand the meaning.
Grace is by very definition free - a free gift. How can it then be either cheap or costly?
These sorts of paradoxes are common in Scripture, like it or not. And this is one of them. It is both, as the fuller quote explains:
quote:
“Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner… Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son… Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us.” -Cost of Discipleship
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Granted I have not yet read the book, but from the quote and from instances used in conversation I do not understand the meaning.
Grace is by very definition free - a free gift. How can it then be either cheap or costly?
quote:
It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life."
Sounds like he's saying you will receive the only true life as a gift, but only if you pay for it.
Makes no sense.
So is grace grace or not?
Bonhoeffer is ripping off Jesus here:
quote:
“If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.” -- Mark 8:34-35
Jesus and Bonhoeffer are saying that to follow Christ means to give up control of your life-- to give up living life on your own terms, the life you choose, shape and make for yourself. But in return you get, as Bonhoeffer says so well, "the only life worth living." The life you were created for, the life you were always meant to live-- if only you had known it.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
I think Paul deals with this in his letter to the Roman Christians.
Romans 6vv1-3 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"
Seems early Christians felt that because forgiveness is free (albeit at great cost to the crucified Jesus Christ), they could do what they liked and be forgiven over and over again. I have been there also.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Grace is by very definition free - a free gift. How can it then be either cheap or costly?
I would amend that slightly. Grace is by very definition free for the recipient. That's not the same as saying it is totally free, both for the giver and receiver. God's gift of grace came at the cost of Jesus' death.
As I understand it, the target of Bonhoeffer's criticism was those who would say they offered grace, but where there was no cost to them. i.e. grace is never a zero-sum game. It always costs someone, but in this case it is the giver who bears the cost. It's not a commercial transaction (hence why the prosperity gospel is such anathema).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Ah, I remember struggling with Bonhoeffer on this when I was a teenager.
My conclusion is that the Grace of God is actually an paradox, it is both free and costly. Freely given and freely accepted but the cost is everything you've got.
I think what Bonhoeffer was getting at was that in his time it was possible for Germans to see themselves as Christians because they'd ticked all the correct boxes and that they (the German Christians) thought that this was all that was needed or involved in Christian discipleship. Turn up, go to the right number of meetings, shake the right hands, etc.
But for Bonhoeffer, the Christian life meant an inevitable collision with the Powers That Be, and so I think (at least part of) what he was saying was along the lines of "You can't just sit there and smile whilst all this (the escalation of Nazi brutality) is going on around you."
Costly Grace, for Bonhoeffer meant the rejection of the invitation to go and spend time in Gandhi's ashram, the rejection of an academic life in North America and the costly cross of standing in the way of the Nazi regime.
I must read him again, I wonder if I'll see his work in a completely different light now.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Evensong, rather than what it meant for Bonhoeffer, of for other people at other times, for us I think it means that that it's a lie to proclaim grace without the call to amendment of life. Jesus meets us where we are, but so that he can take us to somewhere else. He may accept us as we are, but he does not affirm us as we are. Mr Cheesy has put it rather well,
quote:
the Grace of God is actually an paradox, it is both free and costly. Freely given and freely accepted but the cost is everything you've got.
Is that any help?
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I read the book a little while ago, and my impression of the criticism of cheap grace is similar to this couple of lines from the article you linked to:
quote:
Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession…. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
In other words, it's saying "I believe that Christ died for me, and my sins are forgiven" without any change in behaviour for the better. (Cue further discussion about faith vs works etc etc)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Bonhoeffer's argument is a bit more nuanced than just "salvation by grace v works". He's really talking about the essence of what discipleship is-- it's following Jesus. That that is even an option for us is grace. We don't follow Jesus/pursue holiness because we're trying to earn grace or be "good enough" to deserve God's love/Christ's sacrifice. We follow Jesus because we trust that it is the best possible life for us. So, yes, it costs us everything-- our very lives-- but it is grace, because it gives us, again, "the only life worth living."
Again, Bonhoeffer is just parsing out what Jesus has already said in the parable of the treasure hidden in a field/pearl of great price, and in the passage I quoted above about "the only way to gain your life is to lose it."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yep. That sounds about rightvto me. Easier to give assent, though, than to work out in practice.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Amen to that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thank you all for your considered and insightful responses.
I'm afraid I ain't buying what Bonhoeffer has to sell. It seems to me he is redefining Grace. It certainly aint free.
I sometimes think Reformation theology gets its knickers in such a knot when they propound singular principles like "grace alone" that they have to spend half their time backtracking or redefining when it comes to realtime life.
If the idea of sola gratis comes from Ephesians 2, then it seems to me the free gift of God is the inclusion of the gentiles in the covenant. The free gift is that they can now be part of it. This was nothing to do with their merits, simply something new God decided to do.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Evensong, I don't agree with you there. What else is there apart from grace? We are all dependent on God's grace, his generosity, his goodwill if you like. We only have a place in Christ's kingdom at his invitation.
None of us can say, 'I've qualified; I'm such a fantastic chappie/ess that God is lucky to have me believing in him'.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Bonhoeffer's argument is a bit more nuanced than just "salvation by grace v works". He's really talking about the essence of what discipleship is-- it's following Jesus. That that is even an option for us is grace. We don't follow Jesus/pursue holiness because we're trying to earn grace or be "good enough" to deserve God's love/Christ's sacrifice. We follow Jesus because we trust that it is the best possible life for us. So, yes, it costs us everything-- our very lives-- but it is grace, because it gives us, again, "the only life worth living."
Again, Bonhoeffer is just parsing out what Jesus has already said in the parable of the treasure hidden in a field/pearl of great price, and in the passage I quoted above about "the only way to gain your life is to lose it."
I find this very interesting, and it has parallels in other religions; for example, the idea of self-annihilation is found in some Eastern religions.
One issue is that it's a moving target; I mean, that losing your life can mean anything. I would normally link it with attachment, and letting go of attachments, but that is just one version of it.
The other interesting point for me, is that many people find that life itself does this, that is, it kind of wrecks them, or wrecks their self-image. Hence, from ego to beyond-the-ego.
Then, we are all Christ, no?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Enoch: None of us can say, 'I've qualified; I'm such a fantastic chappie/ess that God is lucky to have me believing in him'.
Yes we can say that. And He'll still be happy that we believe in Him.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid I ain't buying what Bonhoeffer has to sell. It seems to me he is redefining Grace. It certainly aint free.
Maybe you misunderstand him - grave is free but we grow in responding to it and make sacrifices - as he did with his life
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I think the idea is that grace is utterly free but we must accept it on an ongoing basis, which is by no means easy for everyone.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
In some cases, as Bonhoeffer's, this may be perfectly reasonable, and this is in any case a caricature of the case Bonhoeffer is making. Nevertheless, in terms of the way the phrase is actually used now, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
In some cases, as Bonhoeffer's, this may be perfectly reasonable, and this is in any case a caricature of the case Bonhoeffer is making. Nevertheless, in terms of the way the phrase is actually used now, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Nah, it's grace without repentance.
If you've read Bonhoeffer, you'd know that he was also of the opinion that a person has no business standing in judgment over another. In his case, it's strictly a condemnation of a doctrine that leads people to damnation by preaching moral and ethical nihilism on the basis of "I can do as I please because I'm pre-emptively forgiven."
I've heard people say that. I wouldn't judge them personally, because that's not my affair, but it's a horrible teaching and I think Bonhoeffer had a first row seat from which to see how and why.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Evensong, I don't agree with you there. What else is there apart from grace? We are all dependent on God's grace, his generosity, his goodwill if you like. We only have a place in Christ's kingdom at his invitation.
None of us can say, 'I've qualified; I'm such a fantastic chappie/ess that God is lucky to have me believing in him'.
It seems to me those most eager and fervent to pronounce Grace are those also most eager to pronounce Law.
I don't think Bonhoeffer is to be credited with such an idea (Bullfrog provides a good indication of his context), but it has been my experience to an extent and seems to me to be something of a cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
In some cases, as Bonhoeffer's, this may be perfectly reasonable, and this is in any case a caricature of the case Bonhoeffer is making. Nevertheless, in terms of the way the phrase is actually used now, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Nah, it's grace without repentance.
If you've read Bonhoeffer, you'd know that he was also of the opinion that a person has no business standing in judgment over another. In his case, it's strictly a condemnation of a doctrine that leads people to damnation by preaching moral and ethical nihilism on the basis of "I can do as I please because I'm pre-emptively forgiven."
Isn't that judgement of another?
Or is it a fair target because it's a doctrine ? ( Whose doctrine btw?)
[ 07. May 2016, 11:27: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
In some cases, as Bonhoeffer's, this may be perfectly reasonable, and this is in any case a caricature of the case Bonhoeffer is making. Nevertheless, in terms of the way the phrase is actually used now, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Nah, it's grace without repentance.
If you've read Bonhoeffer, you'd know that he was also of the opinion that a person has no business standing in judgment over another. In his case, it's strictly a condemnation of a doctrine that leads people to damnation by preaching moral and ethical nihilism on the basis of "I can do as I please because I'm pre-emptively forgiven."
I've heard people say that. I wouldn't judge them personally, because that's not my affair, but it's a horrible teaching and I think Bonhoeffer had a first row seat from which to see how and why.
While the above is no doubt true, I don't believe that really reflects the main point Bonhoeffer is getting at in Cost of Discipleship. Again, if you read the fuller quote I furnished above, I think it is clear that his point is not that you are a better or worse Christian because you do/don't sin. It's not that you need to pursue obedience in order to please God or earn his love. It rather goes to the heart and definition of "discipleship". Discipleship is a free choice in which we freely and joyfully exchange our lives-- the lives we choose and control for ourselves-- for the life God has for us, whatever that might be. We don't do that to be "good enough" or to "be saved." We do that because we believe that pursuing holiness is the only way to gain the life God has for us, and we trust that that life is the best possible life for us. It isn't the life we would choose or make for ourselves-- it's better. It is the life we were created for. Again, I think that's simply a parsing out of the parable of the hidden treasure/pearl of great price/Mark 8:34-35.
Every aspect of Bonhoeffer's life really reflects that belief-- his participation in the resistance and the Confessing Church, but also his choices in smaller, more personal matters and the way he went to his death.
Of course, as Thunderbunk noted, that doesn't stop people from taking the term he's coined and using it in manners quite different from what he intended.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Spose you could think in terms of cheapening grace. Say you mess up, hurt someone - you can receive Christ's forgiveness freely and graciously given. But if you make no effort to make amends, clean your mess up, make restitution (whatever term you prefer) then you've cheapened grace. Grace isn't just about you getting to a happy place with God - it's Christ's life let loose in the world to redeem it.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
In some cases, as Bonhoeffer's, this may be perfectly reasonable, and this is in any case a caricature of the case Bonhoeffer is making. Nevertheless, in terms of the way the phrase is actually used now, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Nah, it's grace without repentance.
If you've read Bonhoeffer, you'd know that he was also of the opinion that a person has no business standing in judgment over another. In his case, it's strictly a condemnation of a doctrine that leads people to damnation by preaching moral and ethical nihilism on the basis of "I can do as I please because I'm pre-emptively forgiven."
I've heard people say that. I wouldn't judge them personally, because that's not my affair, but it's a horrible teaching and I think Bonhoeffer had a first row seat from which to see how and why.
While the above is no doubt true, I don't believe that really reflects the main point Bonhoeffer is getting at in Cost of Discipleship. Again, if you read the fuller quote I furnished above, I think it is clear that his point is not that you are a better or worse Christian because you do/don't sin. It's not that you need to pursue obedience in order to please God or earn his love. It rather goes to the heart and definition of "discipleship". Discipleship is a free choice in which we freely and joyfully exchange our lives-- the lives we choose and control for ourselves-- for the life God has for us, whatever that might be. We don't do that to be "good enough" or to "be saved." We do that because we believe that pursuing holiness is the only way to gain the life God has for us, and we trust that that life is the best possible life for us. It isn't the life we would choose or make for ourselves-- it's better. It is the life we were created for. Again, I think that's simply a parsing out of the parable of the hidden treasure/pearl of great price/Mark 8:34-35.
Every aspect of Bonhoeffer's life really reflects that belief-- his participation in the resistance and the Confessing Church, but also his choices in smaller, more personal matters and the way he went to his death.
Of course, as Thunderbunk noted, that doesn't stop people from taking the term he's coined and using it in manners quite different from what he intended.
That is exceedingly well-stated. I completely agree.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
In some cases, as Bonhoeffer's, this may be perfectly reasonable, and this is in any case a caricature of the case Bonhoeffer is making. Nevertheless, in terms of the way the phrase is actually used now, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Nah, it's grace without repentance.
If you've read Bonhoeffer, you'd know that he was also of the opinion that a person has no business standing in judgment over another. In his case, it's strictly a condemnation of a doctrine that leads people to damnation by preaching moral and ethical nihilism on the basis of "I can do as I please because I'm pre-emptively forgiven."
Isn't that judgement of another?
Or is it a fair target because it's a doctrine ? ( Whose doctrine btw?)
Bonhoeffer states very, very sternly that judging another person is not something any Christian is qualified to do.
Of course, on some level this could be an implicit judgment of anyone who judges. But in the end (and I agree with him on this, so hopefully I'm not just reading this into him) Bonhoeffer was very understanding of people and ruthless when it came to attacking doctrines that he believed had undermined the German church when it was morally imperative to resist Nazism.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I can't locate the passage right now, but somewhere in his letters Paul said, "Who are you to judge another's servant?"
Moo
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Romans 14:4
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I have a nasty feeling that cheap grace is simply grace given to people we don't like.
Agreeing with you that the common usage may not reflect Bonhoeffer's intended meaning of the term.
But isn't that common-use meaning more like "grace given to or believed in by people who haven't earned it by going through the rituals we go through" ?
Which isn't logical of course. Grace is gratis. It's not earned by tithing, by doing good deeds for others we don't like, by sitting through tedious sermons, by performing sacraments, by putting up with any of the stuff we go through in order to buy our way into God's good books.
Workers in t'vineyard and all that.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, if you read the fuller quote I furnished above, I think it is clear that his point is not that you are a better or worse Christian because you do/don't sin. It's not that you need to pursue obedience in order to please God or earn his love. It rather goes to the heart and definition of "discipleship".
Does Grace require discipleship, or is it free to all whether they're disciples or not?
For that matter, have we even defined what we mean by "Grace"?
quote:
Discipleship is a free choice in which we freely and joyfully exchange our lives-- the lives we choose and control for ourselves-- for the life God has for us, whatever that might be. We don't do that to be "good enough" or to "be saved." We do that because we believe that pursuing holiness is the only way to gain the life God has for us,
Isn't "to gain the life God has for us" just another way of saying "to be saved"?
quote:
and we trust that that life is the best possible life for us.
That's a lot easier said than done.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, if you read the fuller quote I furnished above, I think it is clear that his point is not that you are a better or worse Christian because you do/don't sin. It's not that you need to pursue obedience in order to please God or earn his love. It rather goes to the heart and definition of "discipleship".
Does Grace require discipleship, or is it free to all whether they're disciples or not?
For that matter, have we even defined what we mean by "Grace"?
quote:
Discipleship is a free choice in which we freely and joyfully exchange our lives-- the lives we choose and control for ourselves-- for the life God has for us, whatever that might be. We don't do that to be "good enough" or to "be saved." We do that because we believe that pursuing holiness is the only way to gain the life God has for us,
Isn't "to gain the life God has for us" just another way of saying "to be saved"?.
I think these two questions are essentially asking the same thing. Obviously opinions vary.
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship". I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
I believe grace is seen any time God shows up. So it is by God's grace that we are saved. But it is also by God's grace that we are transformed. Grace is acting in different ways in both instances, but both are grace-- God's activity in our lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
and we trust that that life is the best possible life for us.
That's a lot easier said than done.
That point was made (almost word for word) upthread. I agreed then, and do now as well of course.
[ 11. May 2016, 19:45: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship". I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
Discipleship is not an optional extra to salvation. Nobody is saved unless they pick up their cross and follow.
It isn't about salvation-by-works, it is about what the Christian life looks like - and that is a life of self-sacrifice.
quote:
I believe grace is seen any time God shows up. So it is by God's grace that we are saved. But it is also by God's grace that we are transformed. Grace is acting in different ways in both instances, but both are grace-- God's activity in our lives.
I think we talk about God's grace in various ways. For example people use to say "there but for the Grace of God go I". Which sounds pretty horrible to our ears (implying that as I'm not afflicted with something I must be a recipient of God's Grace) but does actually illustrate something useful - namely that sometimes we might not get what we deserve out of the generosity and - yes - Grace of God.
Grace implies a lot of things, but chiefly I think it is about (a) getting things we don't deserve and (b) not getting things we do deserve.
I can't believe that God's unexpected grace can be predicted nor that his hand can be forced.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Originally posted by cliffdweller: quote:
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship". I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
Discipleship is not an optional extra to salvation. Nobody is saved unless they pick up their cross and follow.
Like I said, opinions vary. This is one aspect of the Calvinist/Arminian divide, for one thing. Which is why I prefaced it as I did.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't about salvation-by-works, it is about what the Christian life looks like - and that is a life of self-sacrifice.
Yes-- which, curiously enough, turns out to be "the only life worth having".
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Originally posted by cliffdweller: quote:
I believe grace is seen any time God shows up. So it is by God's grace that we are saved. But it is also by God's grace that we are transformed. Grace is acting in different ways in both instances, but both are grace-- God's activity in our lives.
I think we talk about God's grace in various ways. For example people use to say "there but for the Grace of God go I". Which sounds pretty horrible to our ears (implying that as I'm not afflicted with something I must be a recipient of God's Grace) but does actually illustrate something useful - namely that sometimes we might not get what we deserve out of the generosity and - yes - Grace of God.
Grace implies a lot of things, but chiefly I think it is about (a) getting things we don't deserve and (b) not getting things we do deserve.
I would pretty much agree with all of that, but I think the defining characteristic is "God's activity."
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't believe that God's unexpected grace can be predicted nor that his hand can be forced.
Agreed-- as I expect most everyone here would. Was there someone you thought had implied otherwise?
[ 12. May 2016, 00:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Originally posted by cliffdweller: quote:
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship". I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
Discipleship is not an optional extra to salvation. Nobody is saved unless they pick up their cross and follow.
Like I said, opinions vary. This is one aspect of the Calvinist/Arminian divide, for one thing. Which is why I prefaced it as I did.
No, it really has nothing to do with the Calvinist/Arminian divide. In fact one could argue the same point from both directions:
Calvinist: The normal Christian life is one of self-sacrifice. Therefore a mark of the elect is that they exhibit a self-sacrificial lifestyle. Therefore those who claim to follow the Lord but do not live that kind of life are wolves in lambs clothing and are not part of the Elect.
Arminian: God's salvation is freely offered, and can be freely rejected at any time by the believer. The mark of true acceptance of the salvation of God is in self-sacrifice. God is loving and just, but ultimately if you don't want to pick up your cross, God will take this as a rejection of his offer of salvation.
At best this is a debate which is framed around salvation by works vs unearned salvation by faith, but even that is misleading as I've suggested above. It is perfectly possible to believe that the Christian life is one marked by self-sacrifice whilst being a Calvinist or Arminian (or anything else) without needing to believe that God is somehow weighing up good deeds to see if one is good enough.
quote:
I would pretty much agree with all of that, but I think the defining characteristic is "God's activity."
That's just circular reasoning.
What is Grace? The Activity of God in our lives.
How do we know those Activities are full of Grace? Because God is good.
How do we know God is good? Because God is the origin of all goodness.
How do we know God is the origin of all Goodness? By direct experience of his activity in our lives.
Also it is just a silly thing to say. When Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, was that a Graceful act of God - or was it a vindictive spiteful act by an all-powerful being against an individual who had a moment of indecision?
The only way one could really argue that this is an example of Grace would be to argue that all actions of the deity are Grace, which then degenerates the meaning to the point that it has no meaning beyond "the actions of God".
And I refuse to believe that. I believe that the God we see in Jesus Christ is kind and graceful, with deep feeling for the oppressed, the dispossessed and the weak. If he was hard and vindictive, ignoring the cries of the poor then we couldn't describe that in all seriousness as graceful.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't believe that God's unexpected grace can be predicted nor that his hand can be forced.
Agreed-- as I expect most everyone here would. Was there someone you thought had implied otherwise?
Yes, in the effort to stamp a claim of a saving salvation moment wholly apart from the sacrificial life, I believe that's exactly what you were doing. Utterly wrong.
[ 12. May 2016, 07:43: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Originally posted by cliffdweller: quote:
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship". I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
Discipleship is not an optional extra to salvation. Nobody is saved unless they pick up their cross and follow.
Like I said, opinions vary. This is one aspect of the Calvinist/Arminian divide, for one thing. Which is why I prefaced it as I did.
No, it really has nothing to do with the Calvinist/Arminian divide. In fact one could argue the same point from both directions:
Calvinist: The normal Christian life is one of self-sacrifice. Therefore a mark of the elect is that they exhibit a self-sacrificial lifestyle. Therefore those who claim to follow the Lord but do not live that kind of life are wolves in lambs clothing and are not part of the Elect.
Arminian: God's salvation is freely offered, and can be freely rejected at any time by the believer. The mark of true acceptance of the salvation of God is in self-sacrifice. God is loving and just, but ultimately if you don't want to pick up your cross, God will take this as a rejection of his offer of salvation.
At best this is a debate which is framed around salvation by works vs unearned salvation by faith, but even that is misleading as I've suggested above. It is perfectly possible to believe that the Christian life is one marked by self-sacrifice whilst being a Calvinist or Arminian (or anything else) without needing to believe that God is somehow weighing up good deeds to see if one is good enough.
quote:
I would pretty much agree with all of that, but I think the defining characteristic is "God's activity."
That's just circular reasoning.
What is Grace? The Activity of God in our lives.
How do we know those Activities are full of Grace? Because God is good.
How do we know God is good? Because God is the origin of all goodness.
How do we know God is the origin of all Goodness? By direct experience of his activity in our lives.
Also it is just a silly thing to say. When Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, was that a Graceful act of God - or was it a vindictive spiteful act by an all-powerful being against an individual who had a moment of indecision?
The only way one could really argue that this is an example of Grace would be to argue that all actions of the deity are Grace, which then degenerates the meaning to the point that it has no meaning beyond "the actions of God".
And I refuse to believe that. I believe that the God we see in Jesus Christ is kind and graceful, with deep feeling for the oppressed, the dispossessed and the weak. If he was hard and vindictive, ignoring the cries of the poor then we couldn't describe that in all seriousness as graceful.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't believe that God's unexpected grace can be predicted nor that his hand can be forced.
Agreed-- as I expect most everyone here would. Was there someone you thought had implied otherwise?
Yes, in the effort to stamp a claim of a saving salvation moment wholly apart from the sacrificial life, I believe that's exactly what you were doing. Utterly wrong.
Don't even know where to start. You are way way way off in pretty much all of the above-- reading into what I'm saying things I never said, and insisting on a blind universal agreement on fundamental questions of soteriology where there is diversity. I'm not sure if you're doing that intentionally as a foil for an argument you want to make irregardless of what others are saying, or if you really misunderstand what I'm saying to that large a degree.
Again, just can't even begin to unpack all the missteps there. Just: no. Not what I said. Not what I meant. Not there. No.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
These sorts of ideas often lead me to a different question: the universal one.
Where is the Grace of God in the unbeliever's life? Or the person that has never known Christ?
Rather seems to matter. Because it informs ours.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship".
So would I. Salvation is important in its own right, whereas discipleship is only important if it is an essential prerequisite for salvation.
quote:
I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
For sure. But if salvation is given anyway, why should we bother to choose all that tedious and difficult discipleship business?
quote:
I believe grace is seen any time God shows up. So it is by God's grace that we are saved. But it is also by God's grace that we are transformed. Grace is acting in different ways in both instances, but both are grace-- God's activity in our lives.
The question is, do we have to be transformed in order to be saved, or is it an optional extra in the salvation package?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
These sorts of ideas often lead me to a different question: the universal one.
Where is the Grace of God in the unbeliever's life? Or the person that has never known Christ?
Rather seems to matter. Because it informs ours.
Yes, a big question. It was through meeting people of different faiths, who struck me as full of grace, or God-intoxicated, or some phrase like that, that I changed. Well, I didn't do the changing of course. The barriers came down.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship".
So would I. Salvation is important in its own right, whereas discipleship is only important if it is an essential prerequisite for salvation.
quote:
I believe salvation is a free gift to all (possibly "all" all-- i.e. universal). Discipleship is a choice-- we choose to follow-- made possible by God's grace.
For sure. But if salvation is given anyway, why should we bother to choose all that tedious and difficult discipleship business?
quote:
I believe grace is seen any time God shows up. So it is by God's grace that we are saved. But it is also by God's grace that we are transformed. Grace is acting in different ways in both instances, but both are grace-- God's activity in our lives.
The question is, do we have to be transformed in order to be saved, or is it an optional extra in the salvation package?
Yes, that is the question. In part because we tend to think of discipleship precisely as you said above-- " tedious and difficult"-- something to be avoided if at all possible. Which, again, is why Bonhoeffer is writing. Bonhoeffer's contention, which I agree, is that discipleship-- while costly-- is anything but "tedious and difficult". Well, difficult, maybe, but certainly not tedious. It is, rather, the life we were meant to live-- the only life worth living.
Again, this is what the parable of the treasure hidden in the field and the pearl of great price are all about. Discipleship costs you everything-- your entire life-- but you don't (or shouldn't) hand it over reluctantly as the bribe for salvation. Salvation is a free gift. Rather, we trade everything in order to gain the only thing that matters-- the life God has for us. Difficult, but certainly not tedious.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship".
I wouldn't. The only way the word 'salvation' makes sense to me, is when I think of it as being saved from our selfishness and egoism.
"Why would I do discipleship if it isn't necessary for salvation?" First of all, that's a "What's in it for me?" question, exactly the type salvation saves you from. And secondly, in a sense discipleship is salvation.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: I would distinguish between "salvation" and "discipleship".
I wouldn't. The only way the word 'salvation' makes sense to me, is when I think of it as being saved from our selfishness and egoism.
"Why would I do discipleship if it isn't necessary for salvation?" First of all, that's a "What's in it for me?" question, exactly the type salvation saves you from. And secondly, in a sense discipleship is salvation.
In one way I'd agree with you-- the biblical word "salvation" is used quite broadly, as you suggest, and can include a variety of things such as "saved from my enemies", "saved from an untimely death", etc. as well as "saved from eternal punishment." In that sense I'd agree-- discipleship is choosing to follow Jesus, to give up your life for the life he offers, the only life worth living. And that is salvation-- in the "saved from a fruitless way of life" sense.
But in the sense we generally use "salvation"-- the sense it seems to be used here, the narrower sense of "saved from eternal damnation/ separation from God"-- I think it is different from discipleship (or sanctification). But again, that's an old dispute-- some traditions, particularly my Wesleyan traditions, distinguish between salvation/redemption and discipleship/sanctification-- others, most notably Lutheran or Calvinist traditions-- see the two events happening concurrently so there's no distinguishable distinction.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: But in the sense we generally use "salvation"-- the sense it seems to be used here, the narrower sense of "saved from eternal damnation/ separation from God
I don't ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think this is a useless way to think of the term 'salvation'.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: But in the sense we generally use "salvation"-- the sense it seems to be used here, the narrower sense of "saved from eternal damnation/ separation from God
I don't I think this is a useless way to think of the term 'salvation'.
Well, unless others are concerned about it and specifically asking about it. Although I may be jumping to the conclusion that that is how others on this thread are using it due to my evangelical context.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Nobody on sof believes that. Nobody.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nobody on sof believes that. Nobody.
mr cheesy does, apparently
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No he doesn't.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well, if that's the case, then I'm really confused about what his objection to my earlier post was about. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's de rigueur on this thread.
Grace made manifest to us is the Crucifixion.
That cost.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The cost isn't to us. If we claim it is, we're deluded. As in ALL claims. Which of us suffers, sacrifices in any meaningful way for Christ?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: But in the sense we generally use "salvation"-- the sense it seems to be used here, the narrower sense of "saved from eternal damnation/ separation from God
I don't I think this is a useless way to think of the term 'salvation'.
Well, unless others are concerned about it and specifically asking about it. Although I may be jumping to the conclusion that that is how others on this thread are using it due to my evangelical context.
That's certainly how I'm using it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: That's certainly how I'm using it.
So, my answer to your questions on this thread would be: that's not a very helpful definition of salvation.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: But in the sense we generally use "salvation"-- the sense it seems to be used here, the narrower sense of "saved from eternal damnation/ separation from God
I don't I think this is a useless way to think of the term 'salvation'.
Well, unless others are concerned about it and specifically asking about it. Although I may be jumping to the conclusion that that is how others on this thread are using it due to my evangelical context.
That's certainly how I'm using it.
Yeah but do you believe it?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: That's certainly how I'm using it.
So, my answer to your questions on this thread would be: that's not a very helpful definition of salvation.
Helpful for what?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but do you believe it?
That salvation means "saved from eternal damnation"? Yes. That's exactly what I believe it means.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Helpful for what?
For anything.
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
[ 13. May 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but do you believe it?
That salvation means "saved from eternal damnation"? Yes. That's exactly what I believe it means.
Didn't you just insist that no one on this thread held that view???
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Absolutely. Still do.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Nobody here is an ancient Egyptian.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I think that at this stage in the discussion, it would be very hepful if that meaning makes no sense to you, that you could explain what "salvation" does mean to you. It will avoid a lot of talking at cross purposes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Nah Honest, that would spoil the fun. There is no confusion. Only pre and post modernism. The fun being the pre pretending that it doesn't know what the post is talking about. Know what I mean?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
No - sorry - absolutely no idea.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nah Honest, that would spoil the fun. There is no confusion. Only pre and post modernism. The fun being the pre pretending that it doesn't know what the post is talking about. Know what I mean?
Accusing another poster of deliberately pretending not to understand constitutes a personal attack. Being deliberately obscure about it constitutes jerkdom.
Both are against our Ten Commandments.
Persisting down this road will attract Admin attention. Know what I mean?
/hosting
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sir.
Back to the thread if I may: postmodernly salvation is from the human condition. Weak, ignorant, fearful, innocently feckless mortality aka 'sin'. From meaninglessness apart from what we're deluded and privileged enough to come up with. In Christ we have the PROMISE that all will be well. In Him we have NOTHING absolute or authoritative or known in ANY way about life after death, apart from OUR dispositional response to the completely culturally constrained metaphoric words He used and imputation of His actual thoughts and motives in using them.
Reading Steve Chalke's Radical he compares the Christian take on God - love - with the Muslim - merciful.
Any take that takes the meaning of salvation as being in any way from eternal damnation (unless that just means the failing of consciousness) is not the take of love. Which is the take of historical, traditional and dominant Christianity even now. Islam is cleaner.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Back to the thread if I may: postmodernly salvation is from the human condition. Weak, ignorant, fearful, innocently feckless mortality aka 'sin'.
Humans are not always 'innocently feckless': they can be deliberately cruel and malicious.
quote:
Any take that takes the meaning of salvation as being in any way from eternal damnation (unless that just means the failing of consciousness) is not the take of love. Which is the take of historical, traditional and dominant Christianity even now. Islam is cleaner.
Islam also has doctrines of hell, damnation and judgement. I'm not seeing why it should be spared critique.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Our deliberate cruelty and malice IS fecklessly innocent.
Islam is cleaner BECAUSE of hell, damnation and judgment. It isn't pretentious, hypocritical the way half-baked Christianity is. Allah is a God to fear and obey that one might receive His mercy. As He was to the Jews.
The Christian God, the pre-Islamic, post-Jewish, Allah in fact, all too often, historically and currently in the very main, offers NO alternative, no transcendence of that.
Justin, Andrew and George are pious, just warmongers. Watered down Jews and Muslims.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but do you believe it?
That salvation means "saved from eternal damnation"? Yes. That's exactly what I believe it means.
Didn't you just insist that no one on this thread held that view???
No, that was Martin.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but do you believe it?
That salvation means "saved from eternal damnation"? Yes. That's exactly what I believe it means.
Didn't you just insist that no one on this thread held that view???
No, that was Martin.
It's a bit like explain plan in SQL. Start with the innermost indent and step down left.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
Marriage? Dude.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Justification (being saved by faith through grace) is followed by sanctification (discipleship, living faithfully). They are two different things.
An example from a local driving custom: when you show another driver mercy, for example by letting him into your lane when he's stuck behind a stalled car, he would be expected to acknowledge this small mercy with a hand wave. Letting the guy in is justification by grace; the hand wave is discipleship. If the driver knows this custom and does it, grace is acknowledged. But if the driver knows it and doesn't give a fuck, guess what? He still has grace; he is still ahead of you, enjoying the mercy shown while being a douchebag.
In theological language, his deliberate lack of acknowledgment communicates his belief in cheap grace. Saying "thank you" for a gift is a recognition that it is a gift; not saying "thank you" when you know better still does not change the nature of the gift or its receipt. It just means you're a douche.
Really, I don't understand why people think sanctification is such a burden, or discipleship, or living a Christian life, or whatever you want to call the acknowledgment bit. You might be called on to take up a cross, but for most things it's as easy as the driver's handwave of acknowledgment! Why would you not want to do it?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
Are we going to have a serious discussion here?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
What if it turns out that it's the same as asking what is the minimum I should do to be happy?
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Spose you could think in terms of cheapening grace. Say you mess up, hurt someone - you can receive Christ's forgiveness freely and graciously given. But if you make no effort to make amends, clean your mess up, make restitution (whatever term you prefer) then you've cheapened grace. Grace isn't just about you getting to a happy place with God - it's Christ's life let loose in the world to redeem it.
Thank you! This makes a good deal of sense to me as I am going through something similar in my own life at the moment. Sigh...I guess this means that I can't avoid the person to whom I must make amends with...I'm such a chicken sh*t that I don't want to talk with this person, even though I am getting a strong push from God that this is exactly what S/He wants me to do!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but do you believe it?
That salvation means "saved from eternal damnation"? Yes. That's exactly what I believe it means.
Didn't you just insist that no one on this thread held that view???
No, that was Martin.
It's a bit like explain plan in SQL. Start with the innermost indent and step down left.
Sorry my bad. In my defense I just had cataract surgery yesterday so hopefully reading ability will improve
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
An example from a local driving custom: when you show another driver mercy, for example by letting him into your lane when he's stuck behind a stalled car, he would be expected to acknowledge this small mercy with a hand wave. Letting the guy in is justification by grace; the hand wave is discipleship. If the driver knows this custom and does it, grace is acknowledged. But if the driver knows it and doesn't give a fuck, guess what? He still has grace; he is still ahead of you, enjoying the mercy shown while being a douchebag.
I think that in order to make the analogy work you'd have to require the driver who has been let in to subsequently let any other stuck drivers he might meet go ahead of him.
And to fully complete the analogy you'd also have to say that if he chooses not to wave or not to let others in ahead of him then he gets his tires slashed and his fuel tank filled with sugar so that he can't go anywhere ever again. Because being given the grace to continue on his journey wasn't really a free gift, it was conditional on him behaving "properly" afterwards.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
Are we going to have a serious discussion here?
If meeting an assertion with another assertion isn't serious discussion, then by all means feel free to explain why you think it isn't helpful rather than simply repeating the assertion over and over again.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
What if it turns out that it's the same as asking what is the minimum I should do to be happy?
Your question assumes that "what is the minimum I should do to be happy?" is a nonsensical question, but I'm not convinced that it is. I certainly don't think that happiness requires constant lifelong effort to achieve.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
What if it turns out that it's the same as asking what is the minimum I should do to be happy?
The problem with both versions is it assumes that the "doing" is onerous-- a dreary duty that is undertaken to obtain some future good. But the Christian belief is that the "doing" itself is life-- the only life worth living. It is the "doing" itself which is the end goal, the reward itself.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The problem with both versions is it assumes that the "doing" is onerous-- a dreary duty that is undertaken to obtain some future good.
Yep. Must be all that self-denial and avoidance of the many pleasures this world has to offer that does it.
quote:
But the Christian belief is that the "doing" itself is life-- the only life worth living.
That's a belief for which there is little evidence. There are a great many non-Christians who have lives that appear to very much be worth living.
quote:
It is the "doing" itself which is the end goal, the reward itself.
If it was really so rewarding then we wouldn't need religion to convince us to do it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The problem with both versions is it assumes that the "doing" is onerous-- a dreary duty that is undertaken to obtain some future good.
Yep. Must be all that self-denial and avoidance of the many pleasures this world has to offer that does it.
quote:
But the Christian belief is that the "doing" itself is life-- the only life worth living.
That's a belief for which there is little evidence. There are a great many non-Christians who have lives that appear to very much be worth living.
Agreed. Generally, by doing the things that precise same things-- caring for others, service, etc.-- that are considered onerous when one is objecting to Christian discipleship.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are a great many non-Christians who have lives that appear to very much be worth living.
Agreed. Generally, by doing the things that precise same things-- caring for others, service, etc.-- that are considered onerous when one is objecting to Christian discipleship.
I was thinking more along the lines of people like Hugh Hefner, Bernie Ecclestone, Roman Abramovich and so on. The sort of life that gets one branded as a "millionaire playboy" seems eminently worth living to me!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Yes, as all the great philosophers say, "a life of excess and shagging is the only one worth living."
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are a great many non-Christians who have lives that appear to very much be worth living.
Agreed. Generally, by doing the things that precise same things-- caring for others, service, etc.-- that are considered onerous when one is objecting to Christian discipleship.
I was thinking more along the lines of people like Hugh Hefner, Bernie Ecclestone, Roman Abramovich and so on. The sort of life that gets one branded as a "millionaire playboy" seems eminently worth living to me!
I suppose that's the mystery, eh? Some seem to relentlessly pursue a life of carnal pleasure, while others relentlessly pursue a life of discipline and discipleship. And others, like Augustine, seem to willingly trade the one for the other. We can but speculate on who is truly happy.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, as all the great philosophers say, "a life of excess and shagging is the only one worth living."
I don't recall making any comments about any one lifestyle being the only one worth living. What's wrong with there being many different lives that are worth living?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't recall making any comments about any one lifestyle being the only one worth living. What's wrong with there being many different lives that are worth living?
I think pretty much all the philosophers have had thoughts about which life is worth living (and which not) at least since Plato/Socrates. The unexamined life and all that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, as all the great philosophers say, "a life of excess and shagging is the only one worth living."
I don't recall making any comments about any one lifestyle being the only one worth living. What's wrong with there being many different lives that are worth living?
I suppose worth is always in the eye of the beholder. So, having chosen one life over another, if one is happy with their choice, they're always going to think there's was the one that was "worth it." And the higher the stakes, the more entrenched that belief will be. But there's really no way of measuring-- even if we could somehow measure "happiness" or "joy" (assuming that's the definition of "worth it"-- which it might not be) it's impossible to measure on an individual basis what that happiness quotient would be in some hypothetical other life.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And the higher the stakes, the more entrenched that belief will be.
well, there's the rub. If Grace (and salvation) are freely given to all then there are no stakes, because there is no gamble.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And the higher the stakes, the more entrenched that belief will be.
well, there's the rub. If Grace (and salvation) are freely given to all then there are no stakes, because there is no gamble.
(sigh) Again, only if you view discipleship as "tedious" or burdensome. If, however, you believe (as I do) that the life of discipleship is the best possible life for you, then you will pursue it, even if you believe (as I do) that grace and salvation are freely given to all.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
What if it turns out that it's the same as asking what is the minimum I should do to be happy?
Your question assumes that "what is the minimum I should do to be happy?" is a nonsensical question, but I'm not convinced that it is. I certainly don't think that happiness requires constant lifelong effort to achieve.
It's not that I assume it's nonsensical, it's that I think you are assuming that there is nothing more to salvation than a binary "saved" vs. "not saved." It is binary, but there very well could be a lot more to it than that. Do you think that everyone saved will be equally happy in whatever form of eternal life there is? That how happy each saved individual will be will have nothing to do with that person's choices?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your earlier questions seem to come down to: what is the minimum I should do to get what I want, and why would I want to do anything more than that? I don't think this is a helpful approach to Christianity.
Why not? It works in most other areas of life.
What if it turns out that it's the same as asking what is the minimum I should do to be happy?
The problem with both versions is it assumes that the "doing" is onerous-- a dreary duty that is undertaken to obtain some future good. But the Christian belief is that the "doing" itself is life-- the only life worth living. It is the "doing" itself which is the end goal, the reward itself.
As far as I can tell, that's a conclusion that some people manage to reach only after struggling to live according to their beliefs rather than according to their nature. I don't think any of us manages to start off with that view. In fact, my belief is that one way to describe what we need to be saved from is the natural inclination we are each born with to mistakenly believe that our happiness is something we can best figure out and achieve on our own.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The problem with both versions is it assumes that the "doing" is onerous-- a dreary duty that is undertaken to obtain some future good. But the Christian belief is that the "doing" itself is life-- the only life worth living. It is the "doing" itself which is the end goal, the reward itself.
As far as I can tell, that's a conclusion that some people manage to reach only after struggling to live according to their beliefs rather than according to their nature. I don't think any of us manages to start off with that view. In fact, my belief is that one way to describe what we need to be saved from is the natural inclination we are each born with to mistakenly believe that our happiness is something we can best figure out and achieve on our own.
Absolutely, totally agree-- and an excellent point IMHO. The kick back that we've seen here on this very thread-- the way it continually defaults to discipleship = onerous, burdensome, dreary obligation-- is evidence of precisely that. I think what you've just described is really what this life is really all about-- learning thru trial and error that the life God has for us really is the best possible life for us, so that ultimately we can freely choose to enter the Kingdom and that abundant life he has.
[ 20. May 2016, 13:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I just don't see what's so great about it other than the promise of salvation. Without that reward what is there to make me consider living a life of self-denial and abstinence?
Clearly you have found something else. I'd like to know what it is.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
You know, that's a very good question. I want to think a bit about how to answer it. Not because I don't have an answer, but because I want to think about how to articulate it in a way that is communicable to someone else with different life experiences. That probably sounds like an evasion... but I really think this is an important question that I want to give more than an off-the-cuff answer to.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Really, if we're honest, I think we have to admit that Marvin's attitude is pretty normal. I don't think you have to be some sort of mercenary monster to feel that way, at least some of the time
Certainly, without the spur of missing out on the chance of eternal bliss with God and His saints, there are moments when I personally just don't think I could muster the effort to love my neighbour as myself. Sorry, but there it goes.
The hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell are deeply motivational. If they help keep us on the right track, let's not knock 'em.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell are deeply motivational. If they help keep us on the right track, let's not knock 'em.
And that's where the concept of free grace becomes a problem, because it takes away both the hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell are deeply motivational. If they help keep us on the right track, let's not knock 'em.
I have little hope for heaven (I hardly believe in it any more) and no fear of hell at all (I do not believe there is such a place)
But I keep on the right track because I want to! So do many, many of my non-believing friends.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell are deeply motivational. If they help keep us on the right track, let's not knock 'em.
I have little hope for heaven (I hardly believe in it any more) and no fear of hell at all (I do not believe there is such a place)
But I keep on the right track because I want to! So do many, many of my non-believing friends.
So, if a non-believer is able to find reasons to live a good and purposeful life w/o the threat or promise of eternal destiny as carrot/stick, then why is it so hard for some here to understand that Christians are able to do the same?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell are deeply motivational. If they help keep us on the right track, let's not knock 'em.
I have little hope for heaven (I hardly believe in it any more) and no fear of hell at all (I do not believe there is such a place)
But I keep on the right track because I want to! So do many, many of my non-believing friends.
Most people keep on the right track for a complex combination of reasons. But you guys must be much better people than I am if you are never seriously tempted to put yourself before others and if the only spur you ever need to put another first is the pure abstract concept of the good. Truly, if this is the case, I have nothing but admiration for you. I do not think it can be so with very many people, however.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well, if the benchmark is "never messed up", much less "never tempted", then I assume we're all out of the running. That's different though from a decision to pursue holiness as a goal-- even if we often or even usually fall short.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The hope for Heaven and the fear of Hell are deeply motivational. If they help keep us on the right track, let's not knock 'em.
I have little hope for heaven (I hardly believe in it any more) and no fear of hell at all (I do not believe there is such a place)
But I keep on the right track because I want to! So do many, many of my non-believing friends.
Most people keep on the right track for a complex combination of reasons. But you guys must be much better people than I am if you are never seriously tempted to put yourself before others and if the only spur you ever need to put another first is the pure abstract concept of the good. Truly, if this is the case, I have nothing but admiration for you. I do not think it can be so with very many people, however.
Of course everyone puts themselves before others sometimes. And so they should, we can't look after others if we don't look after ourselves.
But guilt/fear given by religion is not a good motivator imo. In fact it often leads to all sorts of compartmentalism.
Most people want the best for others. You wouldn't get so many people living in enormous cities in (relative) harmony if this were not so.
Upbringing plays a huge part in how we treat others, of course.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So, if a non-believer is able to find reasons to live a good and purposeful life w/o the threat or promise of eternal destiny as carrot/stick, then why is it so hard for some here to understand that Christians are able to do the same?
Exactly.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Chesterbelloc - I 'expect' better of my kids. I'm not going to burn them for not living up to my expectations. Especially as they are utterly unjustified. As God's would be. Apart from His eternal, infinite one that is constantly being realised.
I sat in helpless privilege last night, after a lousy week at work - which could be my last, again, again, the fear just won't go away - that ended badly, late, surrounded by a few of the city's marginal people whilst an earnest young woman 'led' in exploring a verse or two from Ephesians, in the muffled background a bipolar ex-Hell's Angel mildly harangued a 30 year old guy with a mental age of 6 and a broken young Balt for an hour in the foyer (and yes, I'd hung around for a while while they were more agitated as she tried to herd them until an agitated member of the true flock summoned her in to the God slot as they were sitting around waiting)). I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I managed an inclusive prayer.
She managed to comfort the afflicted with the rich not entering heaven. Utterly missing the point of the kingdom, NOW. Not entering it herself, through no fault of her own, under likewise clergy.
We are so brief and feeble, like mole rat pups from beginning to end.
On the way home I fantasized about blessing the boss of bosses when he sacks me next week. No really.
And yes it's all because of Jesus. Not because of Hell. I couldn't give a DAMN about Hell. It's in the Lake of Fire isn't it? Gone?
There is NO condemnation in Christ Jesus.
Only endless grace.
Soon to be realised for me but ... not soon enough
[ 21. May 2016, 09:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
]Of course everyone puts themselves before others sometimes. And so they should, we can't look after others if we don't look after ourselves.
But guilt/fear given by religion is not a good motivator imo. In fact it often leads to all sorts of compartmentalism.
I tend to think that hope of heaven and fear of hell are more than just inadequate motivators; I wonder whether they run, or risk running, contrary to the Gospel.
Motivation based on reward/punishment still makes it all about me—I do this and don't do that based on what I get out of it or what I avoid. Is that really what God wants, or what Jesus preached? Seems to me that the motivation endorsed by Jesus is love, both of God and of neighbor.
Granted, allowing myself to be motivated by love will also lead to change and reward. I do get something out of it. But then again, I fall in with those who believe salvation is about much more than what happens after one dies.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Motivation based on reward/punishment still makes it all about me—I do this and don't do that based on what I get out of it or what I avoid. Is that really what God wants, or what Jesus preached? Seems to me that the motivation endorsed by Jesus is love, both of God and of neighbor.
If someone never gets beyond the idea of reward and punishment, then yes, it is all about me. However, those who give and share usually discover that these actions bring their own deep satisfaction. The concept of reward and punishment serves to get some people started. It is not where they should end up.
When my daughters were small, I told them that they didn't have to share their toys with each other. However, if they didn't share, they couldn't play with the other child's toys. This is a very crass reason for sharing, but they came to realize that sharing had its own rewards.
Moo
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If someone never gets beyond the idea of reward and punishment, then yes, it is all about me. However, those who give and share usually discover that these actions bring their own deep satisfaction. The concept of reward and punishment serves to get some people started. It is not where they should end up.
When my daughters were small, I told them that they didn't have to share their toys with each other. However, if they didn't share, they couldn't play with the other child's toys. This is a very crass reason for sharing, but they came to realize that sharing had its own rewards.
Sure, which is part of what I was getting at in the last paragraph of my post.
But personally, I draw the line at the reward of heaven/punishment of hell as motivation, even as a starting point. We never used that as a motivation in teaching our own children. I don't think God wants our love or our choices to do the right thing to be motivated by fear.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
tangent: Martin: praying for you in what sounds like a very difficult week and challenging situation, as well as for your ministry in a very important (and challenging) context.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I'll add an "amen" to cliffdweller's last, Martin. Best wishes for a better next week.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thanks guys. I'll let you know if I get to bless Kean!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thanks guys. I'll let you know if I get to bless Kean!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Motivation based on reward/punishment still makes it all about me—I do this and don't do that based on what I get out of it or what I avoid. Is that really what God wants, or what Jesus preached? Seems to me that the motivation endorsed by Jesus is love, both of God and of neighbor.
If someone never gets beyond the idea of reward and punishment, then yes, it is all about me. However, those who give and share usually discover that these actions bring their own deep satisfaction. The concept of reward and punishment serves to get some people started. It is not where they should end up.
When my daughters were small, I told them that they didn't have to share their toys with each other. However, if they didn't share, they couldn't play with the other child's toys. This is a very crass reason for sharing, but they came to realize that sharing had its own rewards.
Moo
And how is hell connected with sin?
I think for a lot of non-Christians and at least some Christians, hell has become such a disconnect that it feels like a random and arbitrary thing. Are you X! God will punish you! Don't be X?
When X is a seemingly benign activity, it's really hard to understand how activity leads to hell in a way besides "piss off our arbitrary and capricious God and He'll have it in for you!!!" and if that's the case, I think a lot of us do feel like it's the way that parents deal with very small children who exist in a rather kafkaesque universe where cause and effect aren't exactly nailed down yet (my kids at ~2, 4, and 8; somewhat speaking from observation here.)
I think that Dante's work tried at least to connect the experience of hell to particular sins, so that you could kind of see how, say, lust creates misery. But I think that culture has been lost in many churches until it's just a vague existential reference to incineration, which is really scary but also really hard to make any reason out of.
And I think if you want to say God created an ordered world, and that this God is loving, and just, and fair; to turn God's existential universe into a kafkaesque nightmare of random punishments from a wrathful bully seems inconsistent on many levels.
Either God is ordered and just, or God sets people on fire for growing up in the wrong religious tradition. It's kind of hard to reconcile these two visions.
[ 22. May 2016, 02:46: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bullfrog. Rejoice! They are reconciled in the trajectory from the latter to the former. This is what evolution does.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't see what's so great about it other than the promise of salvation. Without that reward what is there to make me consider living a life of self-denial and abstinence?
Clearly you have found something else. I'd like to know what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You know, that's a very good question. I want to think a bit about how to answer it. Not because I don't have an answer, but because I want to think about how to articulate it in a way that is communicable to someone else with different life experiences. That probably sounds like an evasion... but I really think this is an important question that I want to give more than an off-the-cuff answer to.
I'm tempted to just leave this loose thread, but that feels cowardly. The more I think about it, the more I realize my reluctance to answer your very reasonable question is simply a fear of sounding trite and mundane and hopelessly subjective. But there you have it: the "something else" is for me (ta-da! big surprise!): a relationship with Christ, and the life in the Kingdom. For me it's worth it-- as it was for the disciples, even those who died for it (which makes any sacrifices I make look pretty miserly). And for me (unlike the disciples) the burden is light. But I do find joy, daily (well, most days) in knowing Christ. And I do find my life happier, easier, more enjoyable, when I strive toward the fruits of the Spirit-- love, joy, peace, patience. e.g. When I set aside unforgiveness and bitterness, I don't know if the offending party experiences any benefit/increased peace, but I sure as heck know I do. e.g.: When I set aside extramarital carnal pleasures (mostly theoretical for me) and am rewarded with a marriage & family I adore, it's worth the sacrifice.
Of course, nonbelievers make similar choices for similar reasons all the time. I think that supports rather than contradicts what I'm saying-- that life in the Kingdom (whether that's your express goal or just what happens) is better than life outside the Kingdom.
That probably doesn't sound very persuasive because I'm not really saying anything new, but I felt like I owed you an answer, however paltry it might be.
[ 22. May 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I appreciate it. You're right that it doesn't convince me, but I don't think you expected it to.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Forgive me, but this seems to be a false dichotomy of the deaf. What have abstinence and self denial and 'limiting' oneself to marriage and family or not got to do with the screaming need for social justice? For Christians to die for opposing evil AKA violence with good?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
Well it is self-denial, but I think might be more helpful to think of it as an investment in something more lasting, more ultimately satisfying, more uplifting and so on.
Satisfying an immediate craving obviously has something going for it, but it doesn't last and may upset the chances of longer-lasting satisfaction. Looked at like that, it is like leaving money in the bank rather than taking it out to spend now. Yes, there are things I could do with the money which would (might?) make me happy now. But I'd rather think of the long term.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't see what's so great about it other than the promise of salvation. Without that reward what is there to make me consider living a life of self-denial and abstinence?
Clearly you have found something else. I'd like to know what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You know, that's a very good question. I want to think a bit about how to answer it. Not because I don't have an answer, but because I want to think about how to articulate it in a way that is communicable to someone else with different life experiences. That probably sounds like an evasion... but I really think this is an important question that I want to give more than an off-the-cuff answer to.
I'm tempted to just leave this loose thread, but that feels cowardly. The more I think about it, the more I realize my reluctance to answer your very reasonable question is simply a fear of sounding trite and mundane and hopelessly subjective. But there you have it: the "something else" is for me (ta-da! big surprise!): a relationship with Christ, and the life in the Kingdom. For me it's worth it-- as it was for the disciples, even those who died for it (which makes any sacrifices I make look pretty miserly). And for me (unlike the disciples) the burden is light. But I do find joy, daily (well, most days) in knowing Christ. And I do find my life happier, easier, more enjoyable, when I strive toward the fruits of the Spirit-- love, joy, peace, patience. e.g. When I set aside unforgiveness and bitterness, I don't know if the offending party experiences any benefit/increased peace, but I sure as heck know I do. e.g.: When I set aside extramarital carnal pleasures (mostly theoretical for me) and am rewarded with a marriage & family I adore, it's worth the sacrifice.
Of course, nonbelievers make similar choices for similar reasons all the time. I think that supports rather than contradicts what I'm saying-- that life in the Kingdom (whether that's your express goal or just what happens) is better than life outside the Kingdom.
That probably doesn't sound very persuasive because I'm not really saying anything new, but I felt like I owed you an answer, however paltry it might be.
Well said.
God gives us The Way to live not to make our lives miserable, but to make them better. Both for ourselves and for others.
Mr cheesy hits on it above too. We know about "Emotional Intelligence" or delayed gratification for a greater good. One might think of The Way as "Spiritual Intelligence".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
That makes it better for me. For us all.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
Well it is self-denial, but I think might be more helpful to think of it as an investment in something more lasting, more ultimately satisfying, more uplifting and so on.
Satisfying an immediate craving obviously has something going for it, but it doesn't last and may upset the chances of longer-lasting satisfaction. Looked at like that, it is like leaving money in the bank rather than taking it out to spend now. Yes, there are things I could do with the money which would (might?) make me happy now. But I'd rather think of the long term.
In the long term, I'd still be worse off. The whole point of social justice is that I'd never get back to the position of relative wealth I currently enjoy - especially on the global scale - because social justice is all about eliminating such differences.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In the long term, I'd still be worse off. The whole point of social justice is that I'd never get back to the position of relative wealth I currently enjoy - especially on the global scale - because social justice is all about eliminating such differences.
Injustice is corrosive. We'd all be better if there was more social justice. I really believe that.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
That makes it better for me. For us all.
I disagree. In crude terms, having my purchasing power reduced such that I can only afford one holiday a year rather than two or three makes my life worse, regardless of how many other people can afford to go on one holiday rather than zero as a result.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Injustice is corrosive. We'd all be better if there was more social justice. I really believe that.
How are you defining "better"? I know what I mean by the word - being able to do more of the things that make me happy and not having to do as many of the things that don't.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How are you defining "better"? I know what I mean by the word - being able to do more of the things that make me happy and not having to do as many of the things that don't.
As we used to say to our three year old daughter, too many sweets makes you sick.
Living in a world where some live in luxury, where a large number live lives where they can experience good things a lot of the time and an even larger number live in ways that we can't even imagine is sick. Even those who are so focussed on themselves and hedonism that they can no longer hear the cries of pain cannot be unaffected by the sickness.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Injustice is corrosive. We'd all be better if there was more social justice. I really believe that.
How are you defining "better"? I know what I mean by the word - being able to do more of the things that make me happy and not having to do as many of the things that don't.
You're so funny. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I live to please.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Evensong, I don't agree with you there. What else is there apart from grace? We are all dependent on God's grace, his generosity, his goodwill if you like. We only have a place in Christ's kingdom at his invitation.
None of us can say, 'I've qualified; I'm such a fantastic chappie/ess that God is lucky to have me believing in him'.
Yes. Please. I'm so far behind the work some of you do, like Martin. If we're going to be graded on a curve I'm way out of luck and I'll know who to blame!
As I get older I don't meet much temptation, so when Marvin the Martian says "things I want to do," I can barely think of an example, but along with that tamping down of any desire to do anything bad, is the lack of energy to do anything good. The fear of never being able to do enough is a kind of fear of failure that can keep me from even leaving the house.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
Well it is self-denial, but I think might be more helpful to think of it as an investment in something more lasting, more ultimately satisfying, more uplifting and so on.
Satisfying an immediate craving obviously has something going for it, but it doesn't last and may upset the chances of longer-lasting satisfaction. Looked at like that, it is like leaving money in the bank rather than taking it out to spend now. Yes, there are things I could do with the money which would (might?) make me happy now. But I'd rather think of the long term.
In the long term, I'd still be worse off. The whole point of social justice is that I'd never get back to the position of relative wealth I currently enjoy - especially on the global scale - because social justice is all about eliminating such differences.
Not necessarily. It is more often about providing opportunity for those who would not have it. On the local level might be about ensuring access to grocery stores within affordable transport costs for those living in unserved areas. Or special low cost funding to jobs training to able but poor students. Or public funding of counselling and social services. These will cost the better off some taxes that they've paid to government. But the amounts are small.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As I get older I don't meet much temptation, so when Marvin the Martian says "things I want to do," I can barely think of an example
Some of the things I was thinking about when I typed that are:
Playing golf and cricket
Going on holidays to hot places with nice beaches
Visiting preserved railways
Relaxing in the back garden with a glass of wine
Of course, in order to do all of those on anything like a regular basis one needs to have a certain amount of money available.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
That makes it better for me. For us all.
I disagree. In crude terms, having my purchasing power reduced such that I can only afford one holiday a year rather than two or three makes my life worse, regardless of how many other people can afford to go on one holiday rather than zero as a result.
True, but, Marvin, we have a word for that attitude. Two actually, no make that three - Greed, Selfishness, Sociopathy.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Evensong, I don't agree with you there. What else is there apart from grace? We are all dependent on God's grace, his generosity, his goodwill if you like. We only have a place in Christ's kingdom at his invitation.
None of us can say, 'I've qualified; I'm such a fantastic chappie/ess that God is lucky to have me believing in him'.
Yes. Please. I'm so far behind the work some of you do, like Martin. If we're going to be graded on a curve I'm way out of luck and I'll know who to blame!
As I get older I don't meet much temptation, so when Marvin the Martian says "things I want to do," I can barely think of an example, but along with that tamping down of any desire to do anything bad, is the lack of energy to do anything good. The fear of never being able to do enough is a kind of fear of failure that can keep me from even leaving the house.
I do nowt Twilight. 1% quantitatively. And that's 1% effective. May be 5%. 0.05% And I alienate MtM.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
Some of the things I was thinking about when I typed that are:
Playing golf and cricket
Going on holidays to hot places with nice beaches
Visiting preserved railways
Relaxing in the back garden with a glass of wine
Of course, in order to do all of those on anything like a regular basis one needs to have a certain amount of money available.
It's not just about money, though, is it? You need time to do these things as well. The trend nowadays is for companies to employ fewer people and work them harder. Maybe they pay you a bit more so you won't complain about being expected to make yourself available 24/7... it's worth it from their point of view because it's cheaper than employing more staff to cover the work properly. But that means you don't get as much time to do things you want to do; and by the time your employers have finished with you you probably don't have the energy either.
Playing cricket, visiting preserved railways (or giant train sets, as I like to call them ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
), having a glass of wine in the back garden... these activities don't require vast amounts of money. Just time, and friends to do them with.
[ 24. May 2016, 10:29: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As I get older I don't meet much temptation, so when Marvin the Martian says "things I want to do," I can barely think of an example
Some of the things I was thinking about when I typed that are:
Playing golf and cricket
Going on holidays to hot places with nice beaches
Visiting preserved railways
Relaxing in the back garden with a glass of wine
I see. I thought you were wanting to do things that were considered sinful but it's just ordinary enjoyment. Karl finds these things greedy, even sociopathic. Really, Karl?
I don't go on holidays at all, but it's not so others can. It's partly that inertia I've mentioned and partly responsibilities at home, but I'm positive I'm not less greedy than Marvin.
So we're back to how much is enough? If Martin, who likes holidays, cuts back to only one a year will Karl be satisfied? The cost of one holiday could feed quite a few starving people in a third world country. The cost of that bottle of wine in the back garden could buy milk for a hungry baby.
When Jesus told us to give to the poor and care for the sick did he consider that by 2016 the media would make us aware of every hungry person on the planet, every child with a disease? Love thy neighbor has become so huge with our neighbors numbering in the billions.
How comfortable can we be in our own lives or must we all sell our houses and live in tents somewhere after giving the money away? I'm afraid the answer is yes, so I'm back to not even wanting to know.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I find the attitude of only caring that I can have the things I like and bugger anyone else selfish and sociopathic, yes.
How far we should go is a question for us to figure out, but Jesus did bang on about if we've got two coats it's too many if there's someone with none, so he probably had a view on the matter that we might find uncomfortable.
I suspect Marvin isn't actually that at all. But it is the persona he sometimes seems to project over here.
[ 24. May 2016, 11:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think this comes down to Kant's Categorical Imperative.
Can we live with the idea that all people everywhere ought to be able to play golf and cricket?
I think we probably can, although possibly not when taken to extremes (perfect greens in Dubai, etc).
Can we live with the idea of all people everywhere going on holidays to hot places with nice beaches?
Probably not. I think holidays are a good thing, I think all people ought to be able to have recreation and vacation time, whoever they are. But when we're getting into the business of jetting around the world.. well, I don't think we could really cope with the whole planet of people doing that.
Can we live with the idea of everyone having the possibility to visit a preserved railway?
I think we probably can, although there are some issues with running ancient vehicles on coal.
Can we live with the idea of everyone relaxing in the back garden with a glass of wine?
This is a bit difficult to parse as land is at a premium for many people. But in principle, I think we ought to be able to imagine everyone having a bit of land they have free access to where they can sit and enjoy a drink. Possibly wine might be awkward if grown for the whole population of the world, I'm not sure about that.
So I think the only fundamental issue I have with any of these ideas is the wish to go on multiple flights for holiday.
And I think all of these desires could be achieved sustainably without really requiring others to go without them, albeit possibly with a bit of negotiation about the detail.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
That makes it better for me. For us all.
I disagree. In crude terms, having my purchasing power reduced such that I can only afford one holiday a year rather than two or three makes my life worse, regardless of how many other people can afford to go on one holiday rather than zero as a result.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Injustice is corrosive. We'd all be better if there was more social justice. I really believe that.
How are you defining "better"? I know what I mean by the word - being able to do more of the things that make me happy and not having to do as many of the things that don't.
I think what Marvin is describing is simply the "way of this world"-- the notion that is deeply engrained in each of us that the world is a zero-sum game, and that the more happiness one person has- whether rendered thru sex, vacations, gin, or chocolate-- the less is available for everyone else. My neighbor's gain must inevitably equal my loss. It's deeply rooted in each of us, because it makes sense. It underlies our social, political and economic policies and informs our individual decision making. After reading Marvin's post, I looked back over my day and acknowledge that virtually all my decisions about how I spent my time & money over the last 24 hours were driven by just that sort of thinking.
Which I think is why Jesus' teachings are so full of seemingly nonsensical paradoxical sayings. Why Jesus is always saying things like "the first shall be last" and "the way to gain your life is to lose it." Because what Jesus is asking us to do does not make sense-- at least to us. Jesus is suggesting that there is a Kingdom where the "rules"-- the way things work-- is precisely upside down from what we think. He is asking us to trust in a very counter-intuitive, counter-cultural belief that the world does not have to be like that.
The prosperity gospel get this half right by recognizing that giving money (usually to some already wealthy televangelist) doesn't equal misery. What they get wrong is not really changing the underlying zero-sum thinking. They've just switched out who's on top. Instead of the hedge fund managers or the dirty pols being on top, it's the one who prays the most or gives the most or does the right spiritual voodoo to make sure they win the zero-sum game. It's really not all that different than the ways of this world, the assumptions of this world, it's just adding a bit of magic-lite to the equation.
I think Jesus is asking us to believe that there is a Kingdom where generosity and sacrifice and all those fruits of the Spirit lead to the best possible life for us. Not because we get everything we want-- or think we want-- but because we get something we never knew we wanted because it is so beyond our imagining. We get a different sort of world. I don't know if we'll have four annual holidays in that world or one or none or if it's a 24/7 holiday. But Jesus is asking me to trust and believe that that Kingdom, with or without holidays, is the best possible one-- the one that will satisfy the deepest desires of my heart-- in part or in whole, because it will also satisfy the deepest desires of my neighbor's heart.
Again, if I look back over my daily decisions, I find scant evidence that I'm actually living as if that were true. But I want to live that way. Or I want to want to live that way. Or I want to want to want...
[ 24. May 2016, 13:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Superb. And your prayers have worked so far ... which confirms me in my 'incompetence' being just a drop in the ocean. But it will have been filed away to be used against me when necessary in many months time. They have previous ...
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Excellent post, Cliffdweller.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
True, but, Marvin, we have a word for that attitude. Two actually, no make that three - Greed, Selfishness, Sociopathy.
I guess it's a good job we have cheap grace then.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Do you require an eternal reward to do the Jesus things?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you think that making life worse for yourself so that it can be better for others isn't self-denial?
That makes it better for me. For us all.
I disagree. In crude terms, having my purchasing power reduced such that I can only afford one holiday a year rather than two or three makes my life worse, regardless of how many other people can afford to go on one holiday rather than zero as a result.
I should have responded to this. Sorry. Put in those terms, that's nearly reasonable! I take the point made elsewhere that this is a possibly a chosen persona speaking and I thought that from the word go actually, that this is an 'act', you doing an Alf Garnett, with a bit too much 'method'. Done it meself many a time. Usually with a Cockney accent. That you are being the common middle class man's advocate.
Wot evva.
I'm sitting in the front room of my young wife's Georgian house opposite a C13th church surrounded by the richest farmland in England (we're actually moving up market by over ... 100%) and last year we did London twice (and no, I don't mean a weekend), Nerja, Malaga, Cenarth and Cley next the Sea. This year we've only managed Cley next the Sea and London once so far, but Nerja and Malaga loom and then perhaps Blakeney ... and London twice more. It will be tedious and worse when we can't do these things.
Which WILL come soon enough, I promise. With a vengeance.
As will the fire next time unless we achieve social justice. For Muslims. Starting yesterday would be good.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do you require an eternal reward to do the Jesus things?
Yes, that is the question we've been discussing for the last few days.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm afraid I'd have to agree. I need Jesus and all He stands for, pared down of all ... crap: all will be well so you can afford to be nice.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As I get older I don't meet much temptation, so when Marvin the Martian says "things I want to do," I can barely think of an example
Some of the things I was thinking about when I typed that are:
Playing golf and cricket
Going on holidays to hot places with nice beaches
Visiting preserved railways
Relaxing in the back garden with a glass of wine
Of course, in order to do all of those on anything like a regular basis one needs to have a certain amount of money available.
Marv, I've recently been reading The End of Poverty, and one of the things that really struck me is that Sachs explicitly states that economics is a game that everyone can win.
It's easy to have the perspective that there is a finite amount of 'stuff', and so if someone else is to have more, then I have to have less. His point is that, given the right opportunities, everyone can thrive. You don't have to have less for others to have more.
Two hundred years ago, by today's standards, all but a tiny percentage of the world lived in abject poverty. That's no longer the case. Everyone's standard of living has improved, but in differing degrees. Apparently, economically speaking, improving the lives of other people doesn't necessarily mean making your life worse, or so says one of the world's leading economists.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Zero sum game is a good description cliffdweller. And great post.
If it is a zero sum game then there is no grace.
If it is simply a matter of reward and punishment there is nothing more: there is no Grace.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do you require an eternal reward to do the Jesus things?
Yes, that is the question we've been discussing for the last few days.
I have had this discussion with you previously some years ago and recall being astounded by it.
I have mused on it over the years and have concluded that perhaps for some people, fear and reward are the only things that make sense.
But hey, if that keeps you on the straight and narrow, and even if you can't see the benefit of that now, it's much better than the other options.
Which was something of a revelation to me. Because I refuse to live in fear.
Fear is the opposite of what Jesus gives me.
But if it works for you. Great. We are all different. Maybe God gives us what we need and I have too much fear and you have too little.
[ 25. May 2016, 12:30: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As I get older I don't meet much temptation, so when Marvin the Martian says "things I want to do," I can barely think of an example
Some of the things I was thinking about when I typed that are:
Playing golf and cricket
Going on holidays to hot places with nice beaches
Visiting preserved railways
Relaxing in the back garden with a glass of wine
Of course, in order to do all of those on anything like a regular basis one needs to have a certain amount of money available.
Marv, I've recently been reading The End of Poverty, and one of the things that really struck me is that Sachs explicitly states that economics is a game that everyone can win.
Just an aside to note how much I, too, appreciated and have been influenced by Sach's work. Definitely worth a read.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Marv, I've recently been reading The End of Poverty, and one of the things that really struck me is that Sachs explicitly states that economics is a game that everyone can win.
It depends on what you consider winning to be. I think for me it would be having enough saved up to never have to work again, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why it's impossible (not to mention undesirable) for everyone to achieve that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Marv, I've recently been reading The End of Poverty, and one of the things that really struck me is that Sachs explicitly states that economics is a game that everyone can win.
It depends on what you consider winning to be. I think for me it would be having enough saved up to never have to work again, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why it's impossible (not to mention undesirable) for everyone to achieve that.
True. Sach's goal is to end extreme poverty-- which he defines as being able to provide for one's basic needs-- food, shelter. His point is that moving everyone out of extreme poverty is a realistic and viable goal-- if we have sufficient motivation.
So it really comes down to that: do we have sufficient motivation? Is the relative unhappiness we might experience if we have to work a few years longer or forgo a holiday greater or less than the relative unhappiness we might feel knowing that a significant percentage of the world's population does not have sufficient food or housing today?
[ 25. May 2016, 15:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is the relative unhappiness we might experience if we have to work a few years longer or forgo a holiday greater or less than the relative unhappiness we might feel knowing that a significant percentage of the world's population does not have sufficient food or housing today?
Greater, by a reasonable amount. I'm sure you'd consider it a failing of mine, but I just don't particularly care what happens to a bunch of random strangers in my own country, never mind random strangers in Chad or Laos or Ecuador.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Is the relative unhappiness we might experience if we have to work a few years longer or forgo a holiday greater or less than the relative unhappiness we might feel knowing that a significant percentage of the world's population does not have sufficient food or housing today?
Greater, by a reasonable amount. I'm sure you'd consider it a failing of mine, but I just don't particularly care what happens to a bunch of random strangers in my own country, never mind random strangers in Chad or Laos or Ecuador.
I think that's honest. And again, if I look at the decisions I make everyday it would certainly appear that's true of myself as well.
Which, perhaps, is what the work of sanctification is about. Perhaps as our hearts are transformed, as the Kingdom grows, the equation slowly shifts, and our ability to be complacent with our own pleasures in the face of suffering diminishes.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
I think that's honest. And again, if I look at the decisions I make everyday it would certainly appear that's true of myself as well.
Which, perhaps, is what the work of sanctification is about. Perhaps as our hearts are transformed, as the Kingdom grows, the equation slowly shifts, and our ability to be complacent with our own pleasures in the face of suffering diminishes.
I think this happens as our hearts are broken. I've seen this happen to many people, as the shell behind which they have lived, cracks, via their own suffering. And then they become able to see others. One's own passion (= suffering), leads to com-passion.
I don't think this happens only in Christianity, but I do think the cross is a profound symbol of this. God loves a broken heart, or really, God is a broken heart.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It depends on what you consider winning to be. I think for me it would be having enough saved up to never have to work again, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why it's impossible (not to mention undesirable) for everyone to achieve that.
This explains something, if you dislike your daily labours so, that you want to escape them permanently. It sounds bleak if not bitter. If money is the motivation and work is awful and merely attended for the paycheque. I would say, in our affluent societies that making a life of meaningfulness is fully a personal responsibility in societies as affluent as ours'.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
I think that's honest. And again, if I look at the decisions I make everyday it would certainly appear that's true of myself as well.
Which, perhaps, is what the work of sanctification is about. Perhaps as our hearts are transformed, as the Kingdom grows, the equation slowly shifts, and our ability to be complacent with our own pleasures in the face of suffering diminishes.
I think this happens as our hearts are broken. I've seen this happen to many people, as the shell behind which they have lived, cracks, via their own suffering. And then they become able to see others. One's own passion (= suffering), leads to com-passion.
I don't think this happens only in Christianity, but I do think the cross is a profound symbol of this. God loves a broken heart, or really, God is a broken heart.
Beautifully said.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think this happens as our hearts are broken. I've seen this happen to many people, as the shell behind which they have lived, cracks, via their own suffering. And then they become able to see others. One's own passion (= suffering), leads to com-passion.
I don't think this happens only in Christianity, but I do think the cross is a profound symbol of this. God loves a broken heart, or really, God is a broken heart.
This sounds Panglossian if you're not careful. You can decide that our suffering is somehow ordained and necessary, and even (God-forbid) that God causes our suffering. We must never put that forward.
I don't think God really loves a broken heart more or less than any other. Rather, God will provide comfort, at least some of the time, though it is not there like fruit in a grocery store, always available. Sometimes the fruit we seek is out of season or not available at the store we're shopping at. We gotta go to another store, or eat something else. I also think it is a little flat to say God loves us especially well when we continue to live Christian lives when the store is empty and there is no food for us (you didn't suggest this, but 'tis where my thoughts bounce to). But our lives entwine with others' lives and we cannot see what is going on sometimes when we experience pain and abandonment.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think this happens as our hearts are broken. I've seen this happen to many people, as the shell behind which they have lived, cracks, via their own suffering. And then they become able to see others. One's own passion (= suffering), leads to com-passion.
I don't think this happens only in Christianity, but I do think the cross is a profound symbol of this. God loves a broken heart, or really, God is a broken heart.
This sounds Panglossian if you're not careful. You can decide that our suffering is somehow ordained and necessary, and even (God-forbid) that God causes our suffering. We must never put that forward.
I don't think God really loves a broken heart more or less than any other. Rather, God will provide comfort, at least some of the time, though it is not there like fruit in a grocery store, always available. Sometimes the fruit we seek is out of season or not available at the store we're shopping at. We gotta go to another store, or eat something else. I also think it is a little flat to say God loves us especially well when we continue to live Christian lives when the store is empty and there is no food for us (you didn't suggest this, but 'tis where my thoughts bounce to). But our lives entwine with others' lives and we cannot see what is going on sometimes when we experience pain and abandonment.
fyi: that was quetzalcoatl, not me. Although I appreciated the comment.
I don't think it's a given from what quetzalcoatl said (or what I said earlier) that suffering is God-ordained. Certainly that would not be my belief (Open Theism is pretty much predicated on that not being the case). But I do think when we grow in compassion, which may or may not be an outgrowth of our own suffering, we are aligning our hearts with the heart of God.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It depends on what you consider winning to be. I think for me it would be having enough saved up to never have to work again, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why it's impossible (not to mention undesirable) for everyone to achieve that.
Useful, productive, enjoyable work is far preferable to lazing around imo. A little lazing around to re-charge the batteries is great, but a life of total leisure isn't anything like as much fun as you'd imagine (I am now retired with enough income to live easily on, but find myself working really hard. As a volunteer, yes, but with as many rules and as much supervision as any paid work)
On the subject of Grace - I'd say it's all 'cheap' or, more precisely, free or it's not grace at all. The word is 'unconditional'. Isn't it? Humans are no capable of this imo, but God is.
[ 26. May 2016, 07:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This explains something, if you dislike your daily labours so, that you want to escape them permanently. It sounds bleak if not bitter. If money is the motivation and work is awful and merely attended for the paycheque.
Actually, I quite like my job. Given that I have to have one, it's the one I'd choose.
What I hate is the whole "have to have one" thing. The fact that, even though it's something I generally like doing, I have to do it every day. I'd much rather be free to do whatever I want to do every day.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Actually, I quite like my job. Given that I have to have one, it's the one I'd choose.
What I hate is the whole "have to have one" thing. The fact that, even though it's something I generally like doing, I have to do it every day. I'd much rather be free to do whatever I want to do every day.
Be careful what you wish for. Being alone in the endless days full of promise but never reaching any kind of summit is, sometimes, a form of torture.
If one cannot be satisfied when living in the life structures given by employment, one is very unlikely to be satisfied when all those structures are removed, in my experience.
Of course, you might be one chilled-out dude who can buck the trend and make sense of the endless possibilities. If so, you're in luck - long retirements appear to be the norm.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0