The Politics of Penance

There is significant disagreement amongst contemporary historic Jesus exegetes about the authenticity of Mark 8:36:

"For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world only to loose his own soul?"

Many exegetes have concluded that said passage was not said by the historic Jesus but was yet another embellishment of the simple preacher man's life.

e.g. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb241.html

There is no confusion from God because he clearly speaks. A Christ-follower follows Christ. Anything else is incidental. "For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world (all the worlds’ power) only to loose his own soul? Or, what will a man trade in exchange for his soul (eternal reality)?

One of the more interesting arguments by atheists is that if man dispenses with the concept of God not only will morality remain at the most positive level it has achieved under the concept of God, but be improved, stand out clearly, in a realm of excellence which never could have been achieved under religion.

Evidence for this interesting assertion typically revolves around speculations concerning animal life, and the life of man extending backwards into ancient and even prehistoric times. To be clearer, the modern biological, evolutionary view is superimposed on the raw material of animal life and not only on the raw material of man's history, but superimposed on his prehistory, which of course (the latter) is not a superimposition at all but an application of concept in pure speculative fashion--an opinion--with no evidence.

So we arrive at--and taking animal life first--at assertions such as animals demonstrate morality and they do not believe in God therefore man does not need God to act morally. Why the atheists would place much stock in animal observations to support their view is quite peculiar when we reflect that for all animal morality (supposing we are not being anthropomorphic and reading into animals our morality) animals are not aware of what they are doing, they are being instinctive, and most important of all, being instinctive they are obviously not only not aware of the difficulties in determining the difference in actions in a much expanded realm of good and evil (the human, which has a much more complex good and evil world than the animal) they do not anticipate their deaths and understand potential meaninglessness--the meaninglessness and suffering of human existence which has led humans into the dilemma of whether to worship or not worship a God.

It is not that animals do not believe in God and yet act morally but that animals are not conscious enough to be plunged into the human dilemma of being potentially faced with meaninglessness and certainly faced with immense problems concerning good and evil and the proper direction to take in life. To say that if humans eliminate the concept of God no problems morally--not to mention problems concerning human meaning--will arise, and in fact that the opposite will occur, humans will be better off, is about one of the most profound misunderstandings imaginable, and clearly calls into question the much boasted of atheist intelligence over "the religious deluded mind". If anyone reading this still thinks man without God will not only be as moral as he ever was under a belief in God but act with even greater moral certitude--and especially with the ease of animals "which demonstrate morality and they do not believe in God"--I suggest a jackass be approached and asked why it does not believe in God and whether it has ever felt meaningless and what was the last difficult moral decision it made. No doubt the atheist will find perfect English (unless it's a Spanish or other jackass) in its braying and a quite intelligable conversation.

Abrupt change of direction, moving away from jackasses atheist and otherwise, we have the observation by atheists that human societies over all of history--and in prehistory as well--must have forged rules so individuals within the group would get along, and the societies that did not forge such rules died out. In other words, what we have here is an atheist attempt to superimpose a biological, evolutionary interpretation on man's moral development after the fact of his actual path of development. This is not to say man has not been subject to the pressures of evolution--in fact I am quite a believer in evolution--but that atheists in this regard (their defense of a quite possible morality without God) superimpose the biological, evolutionary view as if religion never occurred at all, or if occurred occurred quite recently in human history and in fact "hijacked societies which were already moral without a belief in God". Dear atheists, there is zero evidence that human societies had atheistic trends otherwise than in quite recent times--which is to say so far as we know atheistic trends did not exist prior to about two or three thousand years ago. In fact the evidence supports the opposite, that man, no matter what culture, was long religious before he had any notion of atheism. Any jackass can enlighten atheists about the myths which existed in all societies the more they were removed from the modern. I suggest atheists once again visit the barn where our friend the jackass stands and ask him about his myths. Give him some oats and I am quite sure he will bray one out.

Conclusion: atheists seem to operate in human society as if there are no moral complications, questions of meaninglessness without God, etc. They seem to think that human society not only does not need God but did not have God over most of its history--that humans just looked at one another and forged rules in a rationalistic sense, no divine authority spoken of or even considered necessary. Furthermore atheists think even animal life supports their position, that animals have morality but do not believe in God so man has no need of God either. Meanwhile the jackass brays in the barn.

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God;"

so much about omnipotency....

Daniel 12

I do not understand your points. Atheists are people who do not believe in God. For the most part, they do not seek to prove that there is not God. At best, they point out how all the reasons for believimg in God have not convinced them. I would imagine that if you had a good proof for the existence of God, they would then believe in him.

But even more, the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the belief or non-belief of human beings. Justifications for the necesity of belief are not really relevant to whether God does exist. And portrayals of immorality running rampant and how terrible man's lot would be if there were no God, also are irrelevant to the non-exustence of God.

But even more, politicians who reference God in their apologies for sexual misconduct are either disenguous or else show a primitive and shallow religious belief. This belief is first founded on sexual repression, and then on the premise that sinners must be punished by a loveing but just God, and then on the contorted reasoning on how this all applies to "everyone else" but how somehow, they have mitigating circumstances that they can explain to God, so that he will make an exception for them.

Basically, they have primitive religious beliefs, which they have not bothered to analyzed, which do not match up to or relate to human nature, and then they seek to wiggle out of their own religious inconsistencies, when their own human nature turns out so contrary to what they say they believe.

And finally, they must invoke God in their apologies, in order some way to appeal to voters whom they think may "speak that language" so that they can maintain their positions of political power.

US-conscience,

It is obvious from the excess verbage of Daniel12 that he cannot find concrete proof of god's existence as he relys on the tired cliches of "omnipresent, omniscient et al".

With respect to this omniscient god, Daniel needs to read more from the famous contemporary theologian, Father Edward Schillebeeckx.

e.g. From his book, Church: The Human Story of God,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For
God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And if God does not know the future, Mohammed, Jesus and Isaiah surely did not.

In two sentences of profound common sense, Schillibeeckx has reduced much of the OT, NT and Koran to the wishful thinking of many ancient scribes.

This falls correctly in line with two of God/nature's greatest interdependent gifts, i.e. Free Will and Future.

Pause and think about it!!!

One of the more interesting arguments of atheists is that not only is morality capable of existing without the concept of God, but that it will be improved without God.

A typical line of reasoning by atheists in this matter is that over all of human history (and presumably before recorded history) rules had to exist or human societies would have died out. The more successful societies were those that invented and adhered to rules. In other words, here atheists offer a biological, evolutionary explanation of morality to counter a morality explained by God.

Unfortunately there is a small problem with atheists' reasoning in this regard. Over all of human history (and presumably before recorded history) except in recent times man believed in God or Gods. Man, from his perspective, did not proceed according to the modern biological perspective of reasoning about rules, having rules clearly separate from divine authority. No, man believed in God or the Gods. The very same societies atheists try to say not only could have come into existence without a belief in God but did come into existence without such a belief, and by "rule considerations free of divine authority", actually did come into existence with a belief in God. Therefore all attempts by atheists to say that human societies can not only survive for an appreciable length of time without a belief in God but did do so over all of human history is null and void. Only now, very recently in human history, have we begun to consider whether morality can exist without God.

Another line of reasoning by atheists in this matter of whether morality can exist without God is that animals (many different species) "demonstrate morality" and they do not believe in God, therefore if humans eliminate the concept of God they will proceed morally as the animals. Dear reader, at this point I can only shake my head. The fact is animals operate by instinct--for all "morality" they demonstrate they are not aware of making moral decisions. Name one animal that has a code such as the ten commandments. The fact is animals are not aware of what they do, whether operating "morally" or not. And to say that humans, who are engrossed in moral dilemmas, will proceed with the clarity of "animal morality", which is actually instinct, if the concept of God is removed from human life, is at best irresponsibility and a mere theory and at worst a catastrophic piece of ignorance. In fact I have to laugh at atheists' reasoning in this regard. We all are aware, being human, of all the moral dilemmas in life. But atheists say remove the concept of God and we all will not only have a better morality but move through life with all the aplomb of an animal. Should I bray or should I moo?

What makes it even more amusing, this attempt of atheists to say that man without God will move through life with the ease of "animal morality", is that these very same animals that live without a belief in God and yet have "morality" HAD IT ALL HAPPEN TO THEM--which is to say the more unconscious a creature is of having arrived at demonstrable morality the more the argument is bolstered that the morality came from God and not the animal! In other words, we have a nice little axiom here to the effect that the more unconscious a creature is the less it can claim responsibility for what morality it has and therefore morality must (there is a movement toward "must") have come from outside itself...God.--And vice versa: the more conscious a creature is and the more it strives to not only maintain but improve morality the more it has the right to say morality has come out of its own free decision and is not dependent on anything outside itself, not dependent on...God. But to a great degree the latter is what the religious have been saying for years: man has free choice, can choose either evil or the good--and the more freely man chooses the good the more right he is in the eyes of God...as if correctly having guessed what originated in God in the first place...And when man was largely instinctive, more an animal than man, morality if anywhere was outside of man, located with...God. Man can take morality upon himself all he wants--he is still faced with God.

Moving down the road...we arrive at the big atheist claim that individuals in human society and not believing in God will work toward the betterment of the group as humans mostly have through all human history. What a big claim this one, sheer hypothesis. Let me see, God not believed in and therefore nothing of ultimate goodness behind existence, no possibility of really being good...No possibility of really being good and therefore progress at best is only a going around in circles, making things better only to see them grow worse, but the individual in society will be goody two shoes and work as best he can for the benefit of the group!

Lord, where are you when reason is wanted? Oh, yes, I see: you exist in me lord, you move my tongue, you are my morality and reason. Would that it would be the reason of man and not just me, a strange kind of animal....

the one morally correct, intelligent and coherant reply to the question has somehow disappeared from the list ( Al Mohlers reply) so...I will post the link to his reply
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php

by the way CCNL, you really hate it when someone ( Daniel 12 ) is more apt at writing and conveying their ( cohereant and intelligent ) thougts than you, dont you ?

Oh yeah, God is not late for the meeting, he is just a lot more patient and merciful than you (or I ) can comprehend.

And in conclusion, The Big Bang and the Gib Gnab are a more logical explanation for creating, expanding and recyling of the Universe. And when we find those living exoplanets and we will, god will simply be discarded as another myth generated by humankind to explain the unknown.

And remember this Big Bang/Gib Gnab will destroy the Earth in about a billion years when the Sun starts its "death" expansion heating the Earth to an unliveable temperature. (assuming some meteor /asteroid does not finish the job before that).

On the other hand, there are some human beings who have transcended "the puny human mind" and have met God or have proven its existence and are waiting for its return as per Paul's imminent return prediction 2000 years ago. Talk about being late to a meeting!!!!

Atheism. All the challenges atheists make to the conception of God. Among these challenges we have 1) that the term "God" has no explanatory value, that we should discard the concept because it is no worthwhile concept at all, and delve deeper into the mystery of existence.

Perfectly logical this criticism by atheists. The problem is the concept of God does have great explanatory value. It explains the beginning and ending of things with respect to man no matter how incorrect many of the physical descriptions of nature by the God fearing have been. That the concept "God" has no explanatory value is a completely relative statement--"God" perhaps of no value to the scientist, but of great value to those called religious.

2) That all the attributes of God such as omniscience, omnipotence, absolute goodness are next to impossible (according to mathematical calculation, chance) individually, and taken together and compressed into one being which is divine for such utterly impossible. Again, perfectly logical. The problem is if the above is correct the human race must abandon the pursuit of perfection in any one of these qualities let alone the pursuit of all of them as if they can be compressed, synthesized into one being. In short, this perfectly logical argument by atheists strikes accurately against the concept of God, but at the price of working toward human futility.

3) That if God truly existed and were truly good then the existence humans now live would not only be free of evil but be the best possible existence--and of course common sense tells us we are not living the best possible existence. Perfectly logical, but this argument leads to the same result of argument #2 in that it is a declaration of the futility of existence. In fact this argument depends on existence remaining futile, demands that atheists work toward making life worse and not better, because if atheists work toward making life better and continually succeed they ironically work toward demonstrating that a being of ultimate goodness lies behind existence. Every movement toward a better life is a movement toward proving the existence of God. Every movement toward a worse, more painful life, supports the atheists' position that there is no God.

4) That God, having such immense and incredible qualities, cannot be understood by the puny human mind--in fact, over all history we see demonstrated not only the most various conceptions of God (and his demands) but a clear difficulty in determining the direction to God,--which is to say attempts toward God have just as often resulted in what humans call the demonic as the good. Again, perfectly logical. The problem is if the above is the case, then how do we know whether we are using reason as the prefered path over religion or not? In other words, if an examination of religion over all of human history reveals conflicting interpretations of God's demands, then how can we not arrive in abolishing religion and moving toward reason at conflicting interpretations of reason?--especially because in discounting God by reason, discounting an ultimate good, we discount an absolute, perfect reason? Reason as the price of its success against God becomes perfectly relative...therefore how can we keep from arriving at a world which demonstrates more relativity in reason than it ever did as to God and religion?

5) That God cannot exist because he cannot know for certain he is God--which is to say everything in the universe is uncertain about its own existence, cannot achieve certainty, perfect knowledge with respect to anything outside itself let alone itself. Again, perfectly logical, but at a terrible price: that humans are ultimately doomed to futility, uncertainty. We cannot become certain so why pursue certainty of knowledge at all? Furthermore, this gives the lie to argument #1, that God possesses no explanatory value. In comparison to argument #5, atheists' assertion that humans are doomed to uncertainty, of course God has explanatory value: our belief in him gives certainty to our existence. All may be uncertain but God, but the certainty of God is certainty in our existence.

6) That some of God's defining qualities such as being the purpose provider of existence cannot exist because, for example, we can find no purpose to existence. Do I first have to state that this is a perfectly relative argument, that for all evidence of no purpose to existence millions over the centuries (and no doubt over the centuries to come) have found purpose in God? Furthermore, if the atheists are correct here, that no purpose to existence can be found...well then what purpose do we have? Why not do anything we wish in the attempt to find purpose (such as murder, rape, etc.)? In fact if there truly is no purpose, then everything is allowed. How can a court prosecute someone when it is universally acknowledged there is no purpose to existence?

Conclusion: the argument of atheists against believers proceeds virtually in every instance in an either/or fashion as if, obviously (to most of us and especially the religious), the religious have a perfectly unassailable position, and less obviously (to most of us) as if the atheists can just trot out some arguments, demolish religion, and proceed with perfect equanimity, as if there are no tradeoffs, let alone clearly disturbing ones. It is this writer's contention that the evidence for and against God and the arguments pro and con reveal the argument will probably never end, which is to say there will always in human existence be atheists and believers. Which will win out in the end only God or nothing knows. But if nothing knows why give up a belief in God?

The only thing worse than the sanctimonious hypocrisy of Sanford, Ensign and whomever is next is their pernicious exploitation of scripture to justify it....Sanford cites King David's continued monarchy as reason to stay in office....does he really want to take the hits David did to psyche and family in order to stay in a position he little deserves?

goodgodforus.com

"Why do so many American politicians -- from Bill Clinton to Mark Sanford -- use religious language when they make public confessions of marital infidelity?"

Because it sometimes works.

"Are they truly penitent or just pandering?"

Probably varying degrees of both.

"How can we tell the difference?"

There's no need to.

THE QUESTION

"Why do so many American politicians -- from Bill Clinton to Mark Sanford -- use religious language when they make public confessions of marital infidelity?"

The "why" is up to them and is their choice not ours.

"Are they truly penitent or just pandering?"

I imagine that there are some in each category.

"How can we tell the difference?"

Maybe, instead of trying to "tell the difference", we should look at our own selves.

It seems as if the "pettiness" of these questions might say more about the "times" than whatever answer someone may come up with.

Sure seems that the "holier than thou" attitude is alive and well and is most definitely not restricted to those that believe in God as some would have other's believe is the case.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Daniel12:
"How is right right without God? By consensus? How long will that hold up as the nonexistence of God truly sinks in? "

If a man lives on a deserted island, or very remote location, and does not come in contact with others, then what does it matter what he thinks or how he behaves? Would adultery be listed in the ten commandments? Murder? Theft? No, there would be no need if there were only one man.
However in and societal grouping, even if it is just with one other person, rules become necessary. There might still not be any problem with adultery, but the others would need to be established... don't steal from me, I won't steal from you, don't kill me, I won't kill you.
As groups of people grew larger and closer together more rules need to be applied. Those that would not adhere to the rules would be punished for the good of the group. Groups that did not establish such rules would Darwin themselves out of existence rather quickly. Societies without rules for behavior regarding the lives, safety and property of others would be key to survival of the group and the individuals in that group. The most successful, harmonious groups would survive to reproduce at a higher rate, thus evolving societally. Still, not everyone born into these groups adhere to the rules, those that do not are punished by the group.
We don't need a wisp of flame on a shrubbery to instill these basic morals into us, Dogs do it, cats do it, monkeys do it, every social animal in existence has these basic rules and severe consequences. This in essence makes humans not at all that different from the other social animals, we have learned through trial and error and attrition what works and what does not.
Does a wolf need a god to know to only kill what he needs to eat rather than just killing everything that comes into view? Does the wolf have a soul? Does the wolf need a god and commandments to know to play nice with those in his pack or to protect the pack?

And yes consensus works, where it is allowed to. Is it perfect? Of course not, but neither are those of theocratic societies. Even the wrath of god doesn't foment strict adherence to the laws of the land.
What makes God's laws any better than man's? It took man's law to abolish slavery, god didn't seem to care.
Even ancient societies that weren't even aware of your god had rules against theft, murder, etc. The only near-unique commandments are god's self serving ones, No other gods before me, graven images, etc.
Maye YOU need a mystical force or being to shame you into behaving nicely around others, but many of us do not. The fact is, being respectful of others and working with others is just a more successful way of living, both as individuals and as groups. Why make it more complicated than that?

Daniel12 strikes again as god's 21st century messiah/prophet/know-it-all!!!

One of the most laughable things about atheists is that in order for them to prove God does not exist they have to strive to make the world worse than it is--in fact strive to make it as bad as possible--for if they do the opposite, if they say things like "life can get better", they are fulfilling hope, they are aiming exactly at what they say cannot exist, a being of ultimate goodness behind the universe. Every success of atheists to make the world better paradoxically proves them wrong, for the world cannot get better without a being of ultimate goodness behind it--it only goes around in circles, sometimes good sometimes bad. So atheists, will you work to make the world better than it is or worse? If better, thank God for people like you....

When people feel penitent or feign penitence why do they use religious language? Why with reference to God?

In what other language to be penitent? If God does not exist why be penitent at all? Without God all one has to fear for doing wrong is other people finding out...and what argument do they have for doing right as opposed to wrong? That the world can be made better? How can the world be made better if it is a world in which a beautiful woman (Farrah) dies of cancer of the anus?

How can the world be made better when the theory of evolution according to natural selection (Mr. Dawkins) reveals that man has become what he is now by if any method one of incredible violence, incalculable numbers of protohumans wiped out by nature and something of their own kind...Talk about a whole new meaning to genocide.

How can the world be made better when one of the atheist's arguments is that it is virtually impossible (according to chance) that a being (God) could have all the qualities of being omnipotent, omniscient, etc.--In other words, all those qualities found in one being? Does this not mean that is it useless for humans to attempt a synthesis of the more admirable traits?

How can we know we are being reasonable, using reason, when one of the atheist's arguments is that God, if he exists, is so beyond us that we cannot determine what is God or not?--which is to say we are uncertain of the direction to God, cannot possibly be sure of the direction, and if uncertain of such uncertain of being reasonable. In fact we speak all too often of reason as if it exists in totality and this totality, reason is the path to more reason, more totality. But how can reason be a totality in the first place if God is a totality we can never be sure we are moving toward (never know for certain if we are moving toward good or evil)?

All the games that open up if there is no God! We can pursue murder, rape, as arts such as chess, poker...we just have to elude the authorities which really have no authority if God does not exist. How is right right without God? By consensus? How long will that hold up as the nonexistence of God truly sinks in?

And what are we waiting for? The theory of evolution shows that if there is any right it is the right of the fittest. Why not just wipe out the peoples--even races--that are lagging behind? Why be moral when all of evolution shows no such thing--except in the mere foreground? The long view shows success by violence and nothing more. So much for the neanderthals. Why not so much for black people? Because that does not fit the liberal view? Because it is racist, wrong? How so? Because everyone deserves freedom and the pursuit of happiness, etc.?

What freedom and happiness when the world in the long view shows no such progress? Progress. Progress without God. Name one person that has really thought about what the word progress means without a belief in God. Why not help atheists prove God does not exist? Why not get guns and shoot atheists so the atheists can win the argument and say "if God existed such wicked things would not come to pass"?

You better believe humans at least have to feign penitence, have to at least act as if there is more to life than...no real reason not to be penitent. In fact perhaps an atheist can explain to us how exactly a human can be penitent without God. And if succeeding at such, how such could have come about without a belief in God first? But first attempt to succeed at such...

I am unrepentant in these words.

Test.

These "christian" politicians also rely on two important but historically questionable passages from the NT to save their jobs:

: Luke 6:38c = Matt 7:2b

/6:37/ "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; /38/ give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

= Matt 7:2b
/7:1/ "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. /2/ For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

John 8:7
"When they persisted in questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

And since most contemporary historic Jesus exegetes after exhaustive review have declared these passages as being simply more embellishments, Billy et al can thank the semi-fictional authors, Luke, Matthew and John for saving their jobs.

Jesus had nothing to do with it!!!

What we should rely on in judging these fellows and gals is the more probable historic passage:

"1) Mark 9:42

If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.

= Matt 18:6
If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

= Luke 17:2
It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble.