SoulPancake

I suppose I find myself at some middle ground here. I don't find myself excusing my own bad behavior often. When I come to terms with my mistakes, I am truly inspired to "do better". However, I do continue to make those mistakes even when I have determined to turn away.

Strangely, I believe this is a symptom of perfectionism. When I have those epiphanic moments, I suddenly desire to become a perfect person. In those times, I view "success" as nothing less than ridding myself of sin altogether. Obviously this goal isn't realistic, and leads me to my own Perfectionist's Dilemma. The next time I make that mistake (and I unavoidably will), I put myself in a position where I have ruined my new chance at perfection. At this point, I abandon being "better" altogether. "If I can't be perfect, why try?"

I have only recently come to the realization that it is not perfection that my faith calls me to, but the pursuit of perfection. God wants me to genuinely keep trying. If I slip up, it isn't okay, but it also shouldn't stop my pursuit.

Relient K released their new album a few weeks ago and the title track "Forget and Not Slow Down" talks about this issue. The song talks about messing up and moving on with life, with the pursuit, instead of getting caught up in the mistakes you have already made.

I think the important thing for people of any faith or moral belief system to realize is that they cannot be perfect and that that isn't the problem. The problem arises when we give up the fight for perfection and lean back on our "Get Out of Hell Free" cards.

I don't excuse my bad behavior for a second. I have immoral thoughts, and I make mistakes. As a Christian, I am very grateful that my sins will not be held against me in eternity, but that doesn't excuse them. There is always room for improvement, and I actively make an effort to overcome my sinful nature and be more Christ-like. Sometimes I fall short, but I try to not repeat the mistakes I make, and I try to make the time between them greater as I grow.

@YouDontKnowHIM

"there seems to be more and more religious sects popping up. People are inventing religion, inventing new belief systems, inventing new rules to live by, inventing new god's"

Clearly you can see new sects springing up around you, people inventing new religions, and understand all the while that these things are entirely human inventions. Surely you can imagine the same thing happening in the past. Surely you can imagine that some of these human inventions didn't just disappear. Surely you can imagine that some of these continued to spread and grow. Some examples you might accept to fit this description would be the ancient Norse, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian faiths. They were invented, they grew, they spread, and eventually they vanished.

Perhaps you can even imagine that later on in human history the same thing happened again, and that these new inventions were named Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Maybe you can even imagine that one day they will share the fate of the ancient religions, ursurped and replaced by newer, more relevant belief systems.

@UDRF

"The question is where do you draw the line on relativism'

lol Ironically, the answer to that would be entirely relative as well.

I'm well aware of the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments but the other two are new to me. Good examples of an acts that were 'good' in their intentions, though viewed to be 'bad' in hindsight by most.

I think the point I am trying to make though is that good and bad are relative terms, defined and delineated by people. There are no absolutely good or bad acts (unless every single individual's view is aligned) as there is no frame of reference other than the individual. If you count as equal every individuals moral beliefs then any given act can be simultaneously good and bad, so long as there are people ready to label them as such.

An example might be the act of execution. To a many people, executions are required, needed, just, and therefore 'good' (or maybe 'righteous' would be a better term). Many others believe that the killing of a person is never justified, and therefore the act is 'bad'.

In an ethically relativistic framework, outside the perspective of an individual, the act is -both - good and bad. And from within the perspective of an individual it becomes one or the other.

I think this question needs to be communicated in more specific terms and broken into separate ideas in order to be answered properly. First, the idea of “excusing bad behavior” seems to be more in relation to absolving guilt than justifying wrongdoing. In other words, the excusing of “bad behavior” is more likely the picture of a Christian asking for the forgiveness of sins, rather than a jihadist claiming mass murder to be the righteous course of action. I’ve arrived at this conclusion in part from the second idea - that our beliefs should inspire us to “do better” - which specifies the context of the first idea. Now we see a contrast between the two interpretations of the first idea. The Christian recognizes “bad behavior” as such (leaving room for inspiration to “do better”), where the jihadist justifies the behavior by putting forth their beliefs as legitimate reason to murder (feeling no qualms over the issue, no desire to act “better”). If this is an accurate estimation, then surely this question is directed at people who believe in grace, or otherwise the concept of being forgiven.

If that’s true, then the answer is simple! People fail to meet the standards they’ve set for themselves all the time, whether those standards are derived from religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or some other source of moral judgment. Naturally, given the option of being absolved of those failures, people will ask for forgiveness, and certainly some people will take advantage of it. People use God’s grace to be excused from their sins, then fail to change their minds, hearts, and actions for the better because their sinful nature still holds sway. It’s hard to make the right decision, especially considering our natural tenancy is to be selfish and do wrong.

However, if the idea is intended as a broad reference to any and all beliefs (the Christian and jihadist included), then it raises a much more interesting question that needs answering: what determines “good” and “bad” behavior? Surely good and bad are just subjective descriptors, right? Good for you is not necessarily good for me, and vice versa. In the context of this question, I think “bad” could be equated with “evil”- a more universally agreed upon form of “bad”. “Better” would then have to be “less evil”, wouldn’t it?

In this thread, I have read arguments stating that it is impossible for there to be only one God in existence, that all forms of belief are just as valid and just as valuable as all the rest. I’ve read that truth is relative and not absolute. I’ve read that the moral fiber of a human being is determined simply by their conscious observation of the world and humanity itself.

When I look at this world and the people who inhabit it, I see incredible layers of complexity, both in the physical world and the intangible nature of mankind. I also see strings of continuity in the existence of all life and the laws of physics and nature. The universe exists in a delicate balance; each element, regardless of size or significance, working and living in harmony to define everything we know. It seems to me none of this would have been possible without a highly intelligent and wonderfully artistic creator, but that is a whole other debate. What I really want to know is this:

How does a person determine right and wrong? And, is there such a thing as universal (or absolute) truth?

@Skippy - I do not want this to get out of hand or impose my belief's on anyone, my apologies if this is the case. In addition, i do want to offend anyone because that is not what i am trying to do. As i said in my first thread, i was just trying to give my point of view as a Christian with no ill intent to anyone.

I guess in the end, when i look at the growth of spirituality in the last 2,000 years, there seems to be more and more religious sects popping up. People are inventing religion, inventing new belief systems, inventing new rules to live by, inventing new god's, it just does not make sense to me. Where did all this start? and with whom? That's what I have a conflict with as a Christian.

This thread started off relatively vague in asking the question "why do we use our beliefs to excuse bad behavior instead of as inspiration to do better?" Immediately everyone started to associate this with morality...good and bad. But for me, who gave us the blue print for good and bad? something or someone had to put all of this into action. I can't understand why people think that we as humans have the power to make all the rules and have control over this world. that's non-sense. We are destroying our world and its resources, we rape and pillage the poor, we have endless acts of selfishness, we shouldn't be in a position to establish any norm of good.

@Skippy The question is where do you draw the line on relativism. I'm a bahá'í so for me the bahá'í scriptures serve as guidance in such matters but as a common frame of reference I usually like to point to the UN declaration on human rights.

On the other hand people are quite capable of doing bad things in the name of their belief even though they are aware of the deed's "badness." Examples of this are the Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment, the Kitty Genovese case, and the tragedy of the commons (if you don't recognize them you can look them up on wikipedia).

I'm a bit familiar with Bible scripture though not at all an expert. I'm not sure that Moses Himself ordered such a thing considering His historical circumstances but I know there are a few examples of such orders being given in the old testament.

@UDRF

"The atrocities of the soviet union were based on their beliefs even though they were professedly atheists"

Remember that they are atrocities only in that people like you and I find the sort of things that the Soviet's did to their own as profoudly inhumane.

In ethically relativistic terms, if the perpetrators actually believed that what they were doing was 'right', then arguably, it was.

A religious example of this would be Moses' direction to his people to kill another group of people en masse, effectively ordering genocide (apologies, I don't know the exact scripture reference). In terms of the morality of the act, if Moses was taking his cue from the word of God, then surely what he did was 'right', though to my mind genocide is pretty thoroughly inexcuseable.

@YouDontKnowHIM "Even you as an atheist have demonstrated moral framework in your comment. So maybe you're not completely an atheist, just not spiritual."

No, I am a thorough atheist. I do not believe in the existence of a higher power. And while I understand the conundrum many encounter when they consider morality in an atheistic context, it's not something I found difficult to resolve.

"I know as an atheist, that the scripture references really have no impact, but what other reference is there"

Scripture is highly relevent to me by simple virtue of the fact that so many people around me base their personal reality on it. Scripture provides an atheist with a window (however opaque) into the minds of others.

Morality is a human construct that is defined and delineated in human terms and as such the 'other' reference is humanity itself.

A simplistic way of describing one of the foundations that an atheist bases a moral framework on is the old golden rule. While it's espoused in Luke 6:31 it's the sort of principle that anybody who thinks for two minutes about the basis of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong' would arrive at on their own. It carries no requirement for the existence of a higher power and speaks directly to our instinctual ideas about human interaction.

"yes there are bad people in this world, but why?"

I would explain it in terms of behavioral tendencies being incorporated into human instinctiveness due to the reproductive benefits that come from 'bad' behavior, balanced of course the benefits that being 'good' brings.

"I read a statistic that should that more than 30% of suicides are because people do not find the spiritual purpose in their life."

Sounds a bit dodgy. It's not like you can take a survey of people who've killed themselves.

"In the culture we are in, I want to be saved, saved from this world of evil"

We are human members of human culture. I for one am happy to be here.

"For those who don't respond to scripture, what else can you respond to?"

Reason.

"For me it is much harder to be a non-believer and have no reference for what I believe than to be a believer and have the answers to all my questions in the book of the bible."

The problem I have with this statement is that you express it as though it's a choice. I don't know how other people's minds work, but I can not just flick a 'belief' switch in my head. I do not believe in God. And I can't just pretend I do (well of course I could pretend to other people, but if God did/does exist, it's not like I could fool it).

@YouDontKnowHIM

I don't mean to disrespect your theology or your belief system, it's not mine and your belief is yours. I do not understand, however, how you can say that you respect other religions when you start talking about who came first. First of all, I don't believe Christianity is the oldest religion, I believe that Hinduism is the oldest religion but that does not make neither of them any more accurate than the other. What I am trying to tell you is that it really does not matter if my beliefs are different than yours.
It just seems like your beliefs are very technical, you believe in the bible because it is the oldest religion (according to you) and you feel like you must believe the bible because it is the "oldest book" or the word of god.
Religion to you might be about historical perspective and that is maybe why you believe in God. I have spiritual beliefs which I follow because they appealed to me and because I feel like I can go on a quest to find my truth, not the truth, MY truth.
I see that you believe in hell because it is mentioned in the Bible. That is where I lose mostly all Christian believers, sir. I don't understand why such great intellect should be stalled at the belief of something written, especially if you know it was ages ago. I also don't understand why SO many religious people, including Christians, find more things to "Not do" than to do. For example, why is that some Christians attack homosexuals? I just don't understand. With all do respect, however, I have the utmost respect for those Christian people who use their beliefs in Christ to help the poor and help whoever and whatever.
My point is that we both have different beliefs, I respect your beliefs up until the point where you tell me that what I believe is wrong, I don't think that is playing fair.
If you believe that your beliefs are inspiring you to become a better person, then thumbs up, your beliefs even in my eyes hold nothing wrong. If your beliefs are however an attempt to prove to yourself or others that your religion is older than mine or your religion is better than mine, then in my perception you have lost the concept of god.

Again, I hold nothing against Christians and I respect the history and the Bible, I just don't believe it to be the word of God.