Religion and personal responsibility

[mr friendly guy]

Do certain religions encourage people not to take responsibility for their own actions?

For some reason I am remembering a conversation I had with a friend who later became Christian where he defended the actions of another person with excuses (never mind that they are based on unsupported claims). In any event, the conversation struck me as a similar vein to the "sob stories" lawyers tell to try and get their clients off the hook. You know the ones, where my client was abused or came from a broken home, so lets give him a small penalty. After all, he just robbed and bashed some person. Yeah.

In short, its a failure to take responsibility for your own actions, by blaming society or some other external factor.

To go on, the main site talks about born agains, who forsaking the strict rules of Christian living end up screwing their lives up. Eventually they realise how badly they ruined their lives and turn back to Christ and blame secularism. Obviously such people cannot take responsibility for their own actions, but I wonder how much of this is due to their religious indoctrination.

For example, I find it telling that Christians believe that Jesus absolved them of sin by dying. This cheapens your actions, because you don't have to take any responsibility for them, because Jesus took it for you. If you still have to take responsibility, then Jesus shouldn't have to sacrifice himself or else you will never feel the consequences of your own actions.

This scenario is like that of a spoilt rich kid gambling away money, because he knows his parents would pay his debts.

Another example from Christianity is how some Christians tell us to "judge not, lest you be judge". Personally I have no problems with being judged, as long as they use fair criteria, that is they base their judgment on facts and logic.

Now of course some Christians are quite happy to ignore this axiom, and others (like my friend) are quite happy to use this type of thinking except when it doesn't suit them (ie telling me not to judge George (how) "Dumb are you" Bush because I am not "perfect", then passing negative judgments on Elton John because Elton is gay). But the point is, for those Christians that follow this axiom (even selectively), doesn't it follow that this axiom also encourages people not to take responsibility? It encourages this by decreasing any retribution for your actions since people can't judge. This seems to reinforce the Jesus died for our sins mentalilty. The former gets you off the hook spiritually, the latter gets you off the hook in the material world (if you are convinced people won't judge you).

Thoughts on the matter? I am also interested to see if other religions also discourage personal responsibility.

BTW doesn't telling me not to judge others become a stolen concept fallacy since in doing so he must have passed a judgment on my actions, and ignored the logical antecedents preceding that statement.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I think judge not lest ye be judged is more a warning against hypocrisy, just to cherry pick something.

One of the main tenets of Christianity (and a host of other religions) is that you will face a final judgement for your actions and that you can't cheat or lie your way out of it. So if you KNOW you're guilty of crimes you're in trouble.

I'm not sure if it's accurate to say Christians (or other religions) encourage responsibility anymore than any secular units, but I think it requires a very liberal interpretation of the Bible to argue it advocates less responsibility.

[Darth Wong]

I often get the line about personal responsibility from Christians and I ask them how Christianity supports personal responsibility if you can be forgiven for all your sins by just declaring allegiance to the boss man. I never get a satisfactory answer; I think most Christians recognize that this is a weak spot in their rhetoric but they just try to gloss over it.

As for Final Judgment, that runs directly counter to the doctrine of salvation in Christ. It's a contradiction in the Bible that both Final Judgment and Salvation in Christ are promoted (not that they will ever admit a contradiction). One attempt I saw at explaining this was to say that Jesus is like a Dream Team lawyer and he'll get you off at your Final Judgment trial if you sign up with him. This would make Jesus Christ the Johnnie Cochrane of the afterlife.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I often get the line about personal responsibility from Christians and I ask them how Christianity supports personal responsibility if you can be forgiven for all your sins by just declaring allegiance to the boss man. I never get a satisfactory answer; I think most Christians recognize that this is a weak spot in their rhetoric but they just try to gloss over it.

As for Final Judgment, that runs directly counter to the doctrine of salvation in Christ. It's a contradiction in the Bible that both Final Judgment and Salvation in Christ are promoted (not that they will ever admit a contradiction). One attempt I saw at explaining this was to say that Jesus is like a Dream Team lawyer and he'll get you off at your Final Judgment trial if you sign up with him. This would make Jesus Christ the Johnnie Cochrane of the afterlife.

The way I've been led to see it that doing the bad stuff and pledging allegiance to the Big Man are mutually exclusive concepts. Kinda like, I suppose, pledging allegiance to the nation of the USA and then going off and giving nuclear secrets to the Soviets. The promise would be proven hollow, even IF you did something like that with the best of intentions.

[King Kong]

The Calvinists seem to take this principle to extreme lengths, believing that God is purely in control of all aspects of their lives, predetermining one's actions, beliefs, and their eventual afterlife destination. Free will is nonexistent and God's (seemingly random) choices determine whether or not one is saved.

[Ravencrow]

Some Christians even go so far as to claim that future wrongdoings are also forgiven. There's never such claim in the bible, as far as I can recall, but it was derived as such, that since Jesus died for your sins, it's all of them. Past, present and future. However, it seems like they have skipped that warning about Jesus denying ever knowing them if they ever choose to just slide along till the end and think that everything's good just by acknowledging that they know him.

"Judge not less ye be judge" makes good sense but is near impossible if one tries to put it in practice. The whole section where this phrase is contained is really trying to say, keep to your business and don't go picking on others when you might have bigger problems yourselves, such as that log lodged in your eye.

[Patrick Degan]

For example, I find it telling that Christians believe that Jesus absolved them of sin by dying. This cheapens your actions, because you don't have to take any responsibility for them, because Jesus took it for you. If you still have to take responsibility, then Jesus shouldn't have to sacrifice himself or else you will never feel the consequences of your own actions.

This scenario is like that of a spoilt rich kid gambling away money, because he knows his parents would pay his debts.

You could almost render that as an alternative interpretation to the Prodigal Son parable.

As for Final Judgment, that runs directly counter to the doctrine of salvation in Christ. It's a contradiction in the Bible that both Final Judgment and Salvation in Christ are promoted (not that they will ever admit a contradiction). One attempt I saw at explaining this was to say that Jesus is like a Dream Team lawyer and he'll get you off at your Final Judgment trial if you sign up with him. This would make Jesus Christ the Johnnie Cochrane of the afterlife.

We should actually be praying to Johnnie Cochrane instead?

[mr friendly guy]

"Judge not less ye be judge" makes good sense but is near impossible if one tries to put it in practice. The whole section where this phrase is contained is really trying to say, keep to your business and don't go picking on others when you might have bigger problems yourselves, such as that log lodged in your eye.

So do you still apply it when you don't have bigger problems than the other guy?

[Jawawithagun]

To go on, the main site talks about born agains, who forsaking the strict rules of Christian living end up screwing their lives up. Eventually they realise how badly they ruined their lives and turn back to Christ and blame secularism. Obviously such people cannot take responsibility for their own actions, but I wonder how much of this is due to their religious indoctrination.

I think this can be seen as very similar to the animal that is born and raised in captivity and suddenly given freedom. It has not learned to deal with not being guided by some outside force, not having a predefined place in the world.

[Darth Wong]

We should actually be praying to Johnnie Cochrane instead?

He certainly had better fashion sense.

[Ravencrow]

"Judge not less ye be judge" makes good sense but is near impossible if one tries to put it in practice. The whole section where this phrase is contained is really trying to say, keep to your business and don't go picking on others when you might have bigger problems yourselves, such as that log lodged in your eye.

So do you still apply it when you don't have bigger problems than the other guy?

Maybe not, if you are really sure you don't have bigger problems. I admit I don't know if there's a good and straight answer for your question somewhere. It would be easy to say that a better person wouldn't judge another anyway, but that would be another assumption on one's part.

[mr friendly guy]

"Judge not less ye be judge" makes good sense but is near impossible if one tries to put it in practice. The whole section where this phrase is contained is really trying to say, keep to your business and don't go picking on others when you might have bigger problems yourselves, such as that log lodged in your eye.

So do you still apply it when you don't have bigger problems than the other guy?

Maybe not, if you are really sure you don't have bigger problems. I admit I don't know if there's a good and straight answer for your question somewhere. It would be easy to say that a better person wouldn't judge another anyway, but that would be another assumption on one's part.

Why shouldn't a better person not judge. We need better people to make judgments.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Why shouldn't a better person not judge. We need better people to make judgments.

A better person would know when to stick his head out of something that is none of his business, I imagine. I don't think the judging here refers to implicit crimes, mate.

[Ravencrow]

Why shouldn't a better person not judge. We need better people to make judgments.

Are you asking me for my view or what the religion covers?

The religious doctrine I have commented on, in this case Christianity through the bible, does not state whether or not a "better" person can judge. So I will not answer for it because I cannot.

As for me, I am in agreement that we can certainly use better people to make judgements if that makes a better world, though I myself am unable to say what criteria makes a person better than another nor would I claim to be able to spot such a person.

[Edi]

As for me, I am in agreement that we can certainly use better people to make judgements if that makes a better world, though I myself am unable to say what criteria makes a person better than another nor would I claim to be able to spot such a person.

Don't sell yourself short, Blue. We won't be able to spot who the better people are all of the time, but we sure as hell can spot them most of the time since we actually look at the evidence and use our brains when doing the valuation instead of being bamboozled by a couple of shiny slogans or other smoke and mirrors.

The best way to go about it anyway is identifying those who are not good at judging fairly and elminating them as a whole, then looking at the rest and trying to see which ones are best. That way, even if you get average results (considering the whole), you won't get bad results aside from the occasional error that gets through.

I know you to be a fairly good judge of character, so I'll disagree about you not being able to make such calls.

Edi

[mr friendly guy]

Why shouldn't a better person not judge. We need better people to make judgments.

A better person would know when to stick his head out of something that is none of his business, I imagine. I don't think the judging here refers to implicit crimes, mate.

Firstly gone there are 2 definitions of judgment here, and I want to make sure we are both on the same wave length.

The first definition of judgment I am using is making an analysis. I judge George Bush to be an idiot based on such and such criteria. The second definition is to pass sentence, eg I judge you guilty of this heinous crime and sentence you to such and such a punishment.

Equivocating Christians tend to use these two definitions interchangeably. I am of course using definition one. When I use definition two, I will tell people. Since I am using definition one, it does not follow (as seen in the OP) that my judgments should be limited to crimes, and the fact that Christians accuse me of making judgments on a non-crime topic shows that they KNOW I am applying it in that area.

Since I am using judgment in the context of making an analysis to derive a conclusion, its irrelevant whether its "my own business" or not. The subject I am analysing is independent of being "my business". I am not directly affected by some genocidal actions in Rwanda, and as such can be argued that "its none of my business". Yet I can make an judgment that what is happening is wrong. The argument that its none of your business therefore you shouldn't/can't judge smacks to be of being an ad hominem.

The problems we have with say Christians judging others, say homosexuals is a) their analysis is WRONG and b) they are trying to force this view on others (ie analogous to trying to pass sentence when they do not have the right). The problem does not lie in them making an analysis per se on what is "none of their business".

In short 1) we need better people making judgments. Its just that a lot of those who make judgments aren't better people. And point 2) the Bible may or may not have refered to judgment in the context of crimes, but modern day Christians clearly interpret its use it in the non-crime topics and its a red herring and intellectual dishonesty to suddenly say well it was only refering to crimes.

[mr friendly guy]

As for me, I am in agreement that we can certainly use better people to make judgements if that makes a better world, though I myself am unable to say what criteria makes a person better than another nor would I claim to be able to spot such a person.

I imagine we use the same criteria as we do on SD.net to evaluate claims. Look at the evidence and reasoning presented.

[phred]

We should actually be praying to Johnnie Cochrane instead?

He certainly had better fashion sense.

the only difference between good and bad fashion is the time its being applied in

[Lord Woodlouse]

Why shouldn't a better person not judge. We need better people to make judgments.

A better person would know when to stick his head out of something that is none of his business, I imagine. I don't think the judging here refers to implicit crimes, mate.

Firstly gone there are 2 definitions of judgment here, and I want to make sure we are both on the same wave length.

The first definition of judgment I am using is making an analysis. I judge George Bush to be an idiot based on such and such criteria. The second definition is to pass sentence, eg I judge you guilty of this heinous crime and sentence you to such and such a punishment.

Equivocating Christians tend to use these two definitions interchangeably. I am of course using definition one. When I use definition two, I will tell people. Since I am using definition one, it does not follow (as seen in the OP) that my judgments should be limited to crimes, and the fact that Christians accuse me of making judgments on a non-crime topic shows that they KNOW I am applying it in that area.

Since I am using judgment in the context of making an analysis to derive a conclusion, its irrelevant whether its "my own business" or not. The subject I am analysing is independent of being "my business". I am not directly affected by some genocidal actions in Rwanda, and as such can be argued that "its none of my business". Yet I can make an judgment that what is happening is wrong. The argument that its none of your business therefore you shouldn't/can't judge smacks to be of being an ad hominem.

The problems we have with say Christians judging others, say homosexuals is a) their analysis is WRONG and b) they are trying to force this view on others (ie analogous to trying to pass sentence when they do not have the right). The problem does not lie in them making an analysis per se on what is "none of their business".

In short 1) we need better people making judgments. Its just that a lot of those who make judgments aren't better people. And point 2) the Bible may or may not have refered to judgment in the context of crimes, but modern day Christians clearly interpret its use it in the non-crime topics and its a red herring and intellectual dishonesty to suddenly say well it was only refering to crimes.

Simply put, mate, I don't think the term is designed to be universally applied. The context I'm getting is more of a basis of your neighbours and friends rather than, say, people in a position of power or people doing something unambiguously wrong.

To be fair I don't really know what the contextual origin in a historical context the term has, and if that makes it any different. But I've never personally interpreted it as a universal declaration to blinker yourself to the actions of everyone.

So, I asked a friend, he says:

Lord Woodlouse VI (16:21) :
Incidently, what would you say is the context of the phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?
Forge (16:24) :
The mob who wanted to stone a woman to death for committing adultery. Jesus intervened. He said, let the man who is devoid of sin, cast the first stone. One by one they all left, until He was alone with the adultress. He commands her to go, and sin no more.

Forgiveness.
Forge (16:24) :
And change. Forgiveness without change is blindness.

[Lord Woodlouse]

...an extension on that conversation, by the way. Make of it what you like (I'm not citing it as proof, but it does help understand the context, I think).

Lord Woodlouse VI (16:37) :
Someone's kinda taking it a bit out of context on SDN.
Lord Woodlouse VI (16:37) :
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 11#2180611
Forge (16:40) :
Adultery was a crime punishable by death in the old days.
Lord Woodlouse VI (16:43) :
*nods*
Forge (16:48 ) :
In the context, her sin is not in doubt. The situation was not that of judgment as used in analytics, but judgment as in rendering a sentence. Now, the law is clear in that regard, that she should be executed. However, Jesus was pointing out something remarkable. That if the law was rendered rigidly, then everyone would be devoid of hope, and that everyone was deserving of death, for there is no one who is without sin. However, God is merciful. And in the case of the woman, she is commanded to repent and to sin no more. She has been forgiven this sin.

It is important to note that the sin itself is not forgiven, it is the PERSON that is forgiven. The sin remains a sin, and retains it's penalty.
Lord Woodlouse VI (16:53) :
What's that penalty?
Forge (16:54) :
Death.
Forge (16:56) :
For the wages of sin is death.

God knows we are only human, and we mess up. The thing is, to continue ceaselessly to live a virtuous life. To not sin, by concious choice.
Lord Woodlouse VI (16:56) :
But she was saved from death, right?
Forge (16:57) :
This once.
Forge (16:57) :
It doesn't give her a free pass to continue committing adultery, or she WILL be judged, and sentence be passed. If not on this earth, then in the day of Judgement.
Lord Woodlouse VI (17:00) :
Then is the phrase a kind of one-off? Or should we refrain from judging first time all the time?
Forge (17:08 ) :
I believe that by judgement the term implies the rendering of a sentence. Judge not lest ye be judged can then be taken as 'render not final verdict unless you are willing to have your own final verdict rendered upon you'. It does not say 'don't render final verdict.'

When you condemn someone to death, that's it. They die. There is no redemption, there is no pennance, there is no repentance, there is no reformation, no absolution. No change, no second chance, nothing.

God gives us gobs of second chances, because we screw up all the time. But it does not mean to let convicted murderers go scot free. There is a penalty involved.

The adulteress may have had her life spared, but now she has to continue to live in her society, where everyone knows of her sin. It is a very heavy burden.

Forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive. When you steal something and get caught, you are sentenced to jail. You serve your time and endure your punishment. When you are released, you are in effect forgiven of the crime, for you have received your punishment. Were you not considered forgiven, you would not have been released. You are now given a second chance to redeem yourself and to live a life without further crime.

Forgiveness, again, does not mean a punishment-free-pass.
Forge (17:12) :
Forgiveness is giving someone the benefit of the doubt. It is giving them a possibly undeserved amount of trust. But with it comes the requirement that they prove they are worthy of that trust. That they do not repeat their crime.

[Darth Wong]

That doesn't make any sense at all in light of the fact that it is supposedly impossible to avoid sin. In short, we are constantly sinning and can't help ourselves according to Christian dogma, so all this really means is that we should feel bad about it even if we keep doing it.

[Durandal]

We should actually be praying to Johnnie Cochrane instead?

Him or Joe Pesci.

[Darth Wong]

You know, if you extend this courtroom analogy to its logical conclusion, God is a corrupt judge who comes down incredibly hard on anyone who enters his courtroom, unless he's a friend of the family. If his son says "Hey Dad, this is one of my friends", the judge lets him get off scot-free.

[mr friendly guy]

Simply put, mate, I don't think the term is designed to be universally applied. The context I'm getting is more of a basis of your neighbours and friends rather than, say, people in a position of power or people doing something unambiguously wrong.

Except Christians do apply this term beyond the basis of your neighbours and friends, which was the whole point of my post.

<snip conversation>

In other words, the historical context is even more retarded. Next time someone tells me not to condemn someone, in case I get condemned, I will just say "sure, as soon as you bring me to court and charge me with something. Too bad sinning against a magic man isn't a crime".

This just sums up what I think of the Christian BS line.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Except Christians do apply this term beyond the basis of your neighbours and friends, which was the whole point of my post.

Some do, I'm sure. The matter of them being supposed to is another debate entirely.

<snip conversation>

In other words, the historical context is even more retarded. Next time someone tells me not to condemn someone, in case I get condemned, I will just say "sure, as soon as you bring me to court and charge me with something. Too bad sinning against a magic man isn't a crime".

That's lovely. The example is intended to be a unique one, Mr Friendly Guy. Not a declaration that every single crime is absolved because we might just be guilty of something ourselves. If you are indeed without sin, cast that stone. That's the point of the phrase.