Religions of APS Members

[MicroBalrog]

Human beings have committed, throughout their history, countless evils – the Holocaust, GULAG, countless freelance murders and rapes, etc. etc. On the other hand, human beings had also created countless great things – the Declaration of Independence, penicillin, heart transplants, skyscrapers and trains. These are morally good things because they enable people to be freer, healthier, or to live better, richer lives where they suffer less. Economic growth is also a positive moral good – it uplifted the condition of many men – we've gotten from farm labor to the cubicle, and frankly, I'd rather be working in a cubicle than working like a medieval peasant and living on rice.

Now, some of us believe that the defining feature of humanity is its capacity for evil. That we are all the relatives of the guys who killed Jesus, who genocided Indians and Gideonites, etc.

Though I am not a Randroid, I do believe Rand was right on this when she believed that this notion was an instrument for the subjugation of man. Consider its extreme application in Leviathan, here, where Hobbes believed humans to be so inherently sinful that we'd supposedly revert to a violent state of warfare if there weren't a mighty government watching over us. A secular application of this is the Lord of the Flies, of course.

Some of us, however, do not believe that evil is the defining feature of humanity. Sure, there are evil people, but most of us aren't. In this notion, we are primarily the relatives of the guys who went to the moon. The guys who built a spaceship in their garage and flew it.  Of Bethoven, Bach, Goethe and Mozart. Of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I happen to believe the latter. If you want to believe the former, that's your choice. But I, for one, do not believe myself to be sinful and evil.

[Kwelz]

Human beings have committed, throughout their history, countless evils – the Holocaust, GULAG, countless freelance murders and rapes, etc. etc. On the other hand, human beings had also created countless great things – the Declaration of Independence, penicillin, heart transplants, skyscrapers and trains. These are morally good things because they enable people to be freer, healthier, or to live better, richer lives where they suffer less. Economic growth is also a positive moral good – it uplifted the condition of many men – we've gotten from farm labor to the cubicle, and frankly, I'd rather be working in a cubicle than working like a medieval peasant and living on rice.

Now, some of us believe that the defining feature of humanity is its capacity for evil. That we are all the relatives of the guys who killed Jesus, who genocided Indians and Gideonites, etc.

Though I am not a Randroid, I do believe Rand was right on this when she believed that this notion was an instrument for the subjugation of man. Consider its extreme application in Leviathan, here, where Hobbes believed humans to be so inherently sinful that we'd supposedly revert to a violent state of warfare if there weren't a mighty government watching over us. A secular application of this is the Lord of the Flies, of course.

Some of us, however, do not believe that evil is the defining feature of humanity. Sure, there are evil people, but most of us aren't. In this notion, we are primarily the relatives of the guys who went to the moon. The guys who built a spaceship in their garage and flew it.  Of Bethoven, Bach, Goethe and Mozart. Of Frank Lloyd Wright.

I happen to believe the latter. If you want to believe the former, that's your choice. But I, for one, do not believe myself to be sinful and evil.

Well said!

[grampster]

Hey Kwelz,

How about when you join the fray in discussing beliefs, whatever they may be, you not demean other's beliefs.  I'm/we're all interested in your opinion but you can do without using derogatory terms.

[Strings]

Grampster: is it acceptable if we the same terms on our own beliefs, too?

Seriously, we're basically having a discussion of who's Invisible Friend can beat up whom's. At least, that would be the perspective of someone completely outside the discussion...

[BrokenPaw]

MicroBalrog:  Yes, I know this only applies to Christian doctrine.  That's what I was talking about.

The point that I was trying to make with regard to the intrinsic sinfulness of every human (in Christian theology) was to point out that, because of that fact, Christianity could be seen as the ultimate coercion: if everyone has sinned (that is, broken the Law), then every person is a "criminal" under that doctrine, and only through adherence to Christian norms can that person be saved from an eternity of torment. 

It's basically saying, "You can do everything right that it is possible for a human to do, and yet you're still a criminal and will suffer eternally, unless you submit yourself to this particular God that this particular book talks about". 

That is a very easy position for a church (which, after all, is made up of corruptible men) to abuse and turn into an excuse for subjugation.  In fact, churches have done so in the past (witness the Inquisition and so forth).

The only way to make sure that everyone must adhere to the church's doctrine is to define it such that everyone is going to suffer eternal torment unless they do.  Which is rather the same point that Rand was making about government:  the only way to ensure power over people is to make as many of them criminals as possible.  An interesting parallel.

On an tangential note:  Grampster posted that children who have not heard and do not understand the Gospel are freed (under some scriptural interpretations) from having to be "saved"; they're covered by Grace until they have the knowledge and capacity to choose salvation.  The logical outcome of that is:  Anyone who has not been told the Gospel (and therefore does not know they must be saved) is still covered by Grace, and it's only hearing about the Gospel that forces them (having had ignorance removed) into making a choice.  So by spreading the Gospel, is it not potentially causing more people to be damned, rather than fewer, since 100% of the not-told would be covered by Grace, but some-number-less-than-100% will choose salvation once informed of its necessity?

-BP