Ep. 91: Should you be true to yourself?

[Emery]

Alright, let's make this the first official thread for discussing Don Johnson's radio show and his views. I've moved Aaron's thread to the "general discussion" section.

This week Scott and I begin looking at Don's 8 part sermon series on the "big lies" about Christianity. What interests me most about Don's first sermon is his idea that love should (and can) be selfless. I think loving someone is the most selfish thing you can do, and that's a big part of what makes love so wonderful. Scott agrees, but does not think Don's argument precludes this.

What do you guys think?

[yjoeyh]

Even though I am a fan of Don, I tend to have problems with his word choices a lot of times. For example, he uses the term "supernatural" a lot which is a term I personally abhor. In this case, I 'think' he means to say that agapeo, which is understood in Christian circles as "selfless love" is really just about acting in the interest of another person more than yourself. I think Scott is right that does not necessarily preclude selfishness entirely.
Perhaps it is possible on some level to act from a purely selfless motive, but Emery's point is valid, at least on an intuition level. I have a hard time seeing how any act, no matter how good and noble, could be absent of any kind of selfish motive.

[mitchellmckain]

Alright, let's make this the first official thread for discussing Don Johnson's radio show and his views. I've moved Aaron's thread to the "general discussion" section.

This week Scott and I begin looking at Don's 8 part sermon series on the "big lies" about Christianity. What interests me most about Don's first sermon is his idea that love should (and can) be selfless. I think loving someone is the most selfish thing you can do, and that's a big part of what makes love so wonderful. Scott agrees, but does not think Don's argument precludes this.

What do you guys think?

I think that there are many kinds of love. I have no doubt at all that love can be extremely selfish and if it is the most selfish thing you can do... well then that is a love that is pretty selfish indeed. I have indeed seen some examples of love that are so selfish, they frankly give me the creeps. I have seen some examples that I found so strangling that it seemed crushed the very life out of people that were supposedly being loved. I simply would not be able to tolerate it. The fact is that love does not have to be selfish like that at all. It does not have to be possessive. It does not have to be controlling. It can simply be about wanting another person to be happy even at some extreme costs to oneself. Now if the costs to oneself are so extreme then it is highly possible that this love is unhealthy -- but this is not always the case.

Love can be really twisted. Not only is there the stalker's kind of "love" where one person's love is another person's horror, but even mutual love can be really twisted. Love can be based on mutual torment or even on sharing the torment of others (which is supremely selfish indeed). Sure you can say that these are not real love, but then some would say that this is true to some degree of all human love and that love in its purest form is completely devoid of selfishness all together. I believe there is a self-less love and however much you don't see that kind of love in God as it is described by many so called Christians, that is the love of the God that I believe in.

[scomsjw]

I've been listening to this other series of podcasts featuring Don Johnston. Up against Robert M. Price.

http://www.opposingviews.net/blog/?cat=4

Price seems to be a more knowledgeable biblical scholar in these exchanges.

[Brad]

Not sure I’ll have or take the time to listen to Don Johnson’s sermons, so a query:
Is the essence of his sermon in this case that a person must choose between “doing whatever you want” and being an obedient Christian (presumably as defined by Don Johnson) and that the latter is the superior way to live?
If so, this seems to me a starkly false dichotomy, and on both sides of the equation.

First, while surely a few poorly brought up and educated non-believers think "they can do whatever they want" (as long as they can escape banishment by their fellows or penalties under secular law), no reasonably thoughtful atheist thinks even remotely in this way.
Also, one would think needless to say, there are enormous numbers of religious people of other belief systems and doctrines who also are far from "doing whatever they want," and who don't know the Abrahamic God from Shinola. See, for example, the history and doctrines of Buddhism and Confucianism.*** These clear and irrefutable examples strongly point to the idea that ethics and morals are the products of human beings living in groups (and other animals - see Frans de Waal), rather than "gifts" from any of the innumerable deities that human imaginations have conjured.

Second, a very good argument can be made that Christianity, at least in a large number of its various forms, while imposing behavioral restrictions thought to be "moral," nevertheless does a very, very, great deal of harm to humanity under cover of said "morality."
(And only those who really, really, want and need to believe in a "good" God can suggest that the OT God was moral, but that's another subject altogether.)
Also, Christian beliefs and attempts at godly "obedience" aren't necessarily good barriers to "doing whatever one wants," as demonstrated by, for a couple of a huge number of obvious examples, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Mr. Ted Haggard, or by any number of child-raping priests.
In any event, I think the notion that being a believing, obedient (per Mr. Johnson) Christian is necessarily the, or even a, superior way to live one's life is something that virtually every person on the planet who is not a Christian might argue against. And that, as I understand it, would be about 4 out of 5 people on earth.

If I’m not mistaken, Johnson took a swipe at an essentially identical false dichotomy in his interview with Emery when he seemed to suggest that people have a choice between becoming atheists who have no moral foundation and inevitably become nihilistic hedonists or they can become believing Christians.
Lawd have mercy, so to speak.

***Personally, with regard to trust in their ethics and the quality of their hearts, I'd take a Buddhist monk or a devoted student of Confucius or even an average rabbi ANY DAY over all but a couple of the pastors I've known, not to mention a random priest.

[tonyenglish7]

Emery,

I have not finished the podcast yet. I really like what Scott is saying so far... The idea of God creating free creatures and then making them do something is a logical impossibility like square circles is what I have been saying on the board for a long time. So I am glad you go that clear, no matter what the source.

Regarding free beings being in heaven and unable to sin; The Christian message is that those who follow Jesus freely will be given a new body in Glory and that being will be like the nature of God. We will freely have chosen to be there. There will be no more sin. Atheist always use the problem of evil to rail against God. But the answer is evil is not YET conquered. But it will be. Part of the issue of evil being conquered will include a fair judgment for sin and evil. The new universe will be perfect, the way atheist claim it should be if a good and powerful God exists. This is the perfect method to get to a perfect world. We will be the type of people that no longer can choose sin because death, sin and evil will have been conquered and destroyed. The question is, do you want to be there?... it is a free choice....

1 John 3:1 "How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."

[Brad]

Though he didn't know it at the time , in this address Stephen Fry had much to say about this podcast, that is, whether and to what degree we ought to "be ourselves" or to obey an ancient holy book (or some other person's interpretation of said holy book).
Some folks here may enjoy listening to Mr. Fry's talk, which goes on to several additional segments.

[tonyenglish7]

Emery and Scott,

I listened to the rest of the podcast and it was good. I just would like to interject on the idea of the word of God. Jesus said this: John 5:39 " You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me"

He was talking to the religious people and he was pointing out that the scriptures lead to Him. The scriptures are not God or to be worshiped and this is obvious. And the fact that there are various views of how to interpret the scriptures is to be expected. Some think that having a perfect theology is Christianity, they are mistaken. There is nothing in life for which we have a perfect view.

Theology is the systematic study of the word of God in order to find out what is meant by the scriptures which is the revealed truth, at least in the view of the majority of Christians. So, like when we discuss what is more moral, what is more right, what is more true. We can debate that because there is an actually true standard to aspire too. In the same way, we study the scriptures because they testify of Jesus, the person, who is the one who is worshipped and the one who saves.

Also, having various views out there does have a fruitful effect. The major issues are substantially in agreement in Christendom. But the differences cause different types of churches which allows for variety, which allows for more people to be reached. God in his genius allowed minor mistakes with the outcome being more believers of the essentials. I love the essentials and I love the minor issues as well and enjoy seeking wisdom for each of these things and I believe there is value in that. And the more people do that, the more they are in a place to find the actual true Jesus. Jesus said the father is looking for worshippers who will worship in spirit and in truth.

It makes me nervous when someone starts to discount the bible and say men are worshipping it. This happens sometimes when men think they have a deeper secret knowledge, so albeit true technically, that men should not worship the bible, I think it is almost non-existent that this is the case. The meaning of the scripture is what is important because the meaning actually exists and we can move closer to it/him with some effort, wisdom, study and dedication. Theology is a valuable process and the word of God is a special revelation of God that we can rely on. The true and accurate applicaton of theology is a better relationship with the living God through Jesus.

[Brad]

FWIW, I thought Scott’s point that there is no dispute over what the Bible says but rather the problem is found in deciphering what it means was really excellent and a point that, as he mentioned, is not often acknowledged when Christians debate each other.

No doubt most of us non-believers would differ with Scott on the implications of the fact he pointed up, but it’s nevertheless an important and under-appreciated, if seemingly obvious, truth, it seems to me.

Thanks, Scott.

[Brad]

Regarding what it sez vs. what it means, here's an obit of Rev. Peter Gomes that's worth consideration on that count as well as others.

It sounds to me like Rev. Gomes was true to himself, which seems to me to have been a far better thing for him and for every life he touched, than to follow the course advocated by Mr. Johnson, whether framed (disguised?) as love or obedience.

Here are a few selected bits from the obit:

The Rev. Peter J. Gomes, a Harvard minister, theologian and author who announced that he was gay a generation ago and became one of America’s most prominent spiritual voices against intolerance, died on Monday in Boston. He was 68.

One can read into the Bible almost any interpretation of morality, Mr. Gomes liked to say after coming out, for its passages had been used to defend slavery and the liberation of slaves, to support racism, anti-Semitism and patriotism, to enshrine a dominance of men over women, and to condemn homosexuality as immoral.

In his 1996 best seller, “The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart,” Mr. Gomes urged believers to grasp the spirit, not the letter, of scriptural passages that he said had been misused to defend racism, anti-Semitism and sexism, and to attack homosexuality and abortion. He offered interpretations that he said transcended the narrow context of modern prejudices.

“The Bible alone is the most dangerous thing I can think of,” he told The Los Angeles Times. “You need an ongoing context and a community of interpretation to keep the Bible current and to keep yourself honest. Forget the thought that the Bible is an absolute pronouncement.”

But Mr. Gomes also defended the Bible from critics on the left who called it corrupt because passages had been used to oppress people. “The Bible isn’t a single book, it isn’t a single historical or philosophical or theological treatise,” he told The Seattle Gay News in 1996. “It has 66 books in it. It is a library.”


(BTW, the Amazon customer reviews for the book cited in the obit are unsurprising, yet instructive. Also, if Emery and Scott ever want to return to a book discussion series of podcasts, one of Rev. Gomes books might be good and thought-provoking fodder.)

[Dave B]

The idea of God creating free creatures and then making them do something is a logical impossibility like square circles is what I have been saying on the board for a long time. So I am glad you go that clear, no matter what the source.

I also noted the square circle analogy (probably because I saw Tony mention it a few times in the forum). Having studied mathematics a bit, I happen to be aware of logically consistent square circles. Conveniently, you can read a short explanation on Wikipedia, including pictures of a square circle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry.

Similarly, the seeming contradiction between having free will and being forced to do something does mean that it is necessarily logically contradictory. Assuming that human beings have free will, this doesn't contradict our being forced to eat and sleep. The fact that the way we are raised can have dramatic effects on our behavior presumably doesn't negate free will. Coercion and free will can clearly coexist if human beings have free will at all. This raises the question, why is god so much more concerned with preventing sustained wakefulness than preventing rape and murder?

[mitchellmckain]

The idea of God creating free creatures and then making them do something is a logical impossibility like square circles is what I have been saying on the board for a long time. So I am glad you go that clear, no matter what the source.

The idea of God creating free will creatures responsible for their own actions and then saying that God designed them and that God knows everything they will do before they do it, is what I would call a logical impossibility. God may have guided evolution in role of a shepherd and know the counterfactual/possibilities of what we will do and that would not only be consistent with us having free will but the very fact that we have such possibilities would confirm that we do indeed have free will.

I also noted the square circle analogy (probably because I saw Tony mention it a few times in the forum). Having studied mathematics a bit, I happen to be aware of logically consistent square circles. Conveniently, you can read a short explanation on Wikipedia, including pictures of a square circle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry.

LOL That is exactly why I have avoided that sort of example. Mathematician and physicists know all too well how changing the premises of mathematics also changes its conclusions. But I have never objected to Tony's example because most of the time in discussions we can assume that the usual premises are taken for granted.

This raises the question, why is god so much more concerned with preventing sustained wakefulness than preventing rape and murder?

What makes you say that God is more concerned with that? Are you proposing that mankind and other living things are a product of design? Or are you suggesting that people falling asleep represent an intervention by God? LOL There is actually a story in the Bible that directly contradicts THAT claim! In Matthew 26:38--45, Jesus held his disciples responsible for falling asleep.

[humanguy]

I'm trying to imagine how anything can be "selfless." My conclusion is that it's probably impossible.

[mitchellmckain]

Well I have finally listened to the podcast and Don's first sermon (and intro to the series).

Well first of all I have to absolutely disagree with both Emery and Scott... and humanguy above about nothing being self-less. On this issue I complete agree with Don Johnson and I think that Scott is dead wrong in his attempt to soften what Don is saying in this respect. Frankly, I think Scott has got himself wrapped up in his role of a minister with thinking how do you get people to do unselfish thing by telling them how that will ultimately bring the greater happiness. The problem is thinking that you are going to get there by your own power and reasoning -- for then it is indeed IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot get to selflessness from selfishness. If you have start out with all your motivations for doing things from considerations of what benefits you, then indeed Emery, humanguy and even Scott are all correct -- you can't. But that doesn't mean that selflessness doesn't exist, because it does. I have seen it. You even see how Scott is trapped in this mindset when he considers what Jesus says about the greatest love being to give your own life for another -- because I tell you, I just don't believe what Scott was saying. People don't give their life for another because they are thinking that is better for themselves. It is absurd. People just don't think that way. People can give their life for someone else because they simply care more about that other person than they do for themselves and THAT is EXACTLY what selflessness MEANS!

Selfish does NOT mean that you are doing something for a reason -- that is ABSURD! I repudiate such a meaningless circularity that equates selfishness to rationality itself. Perhaps this equivocation is how Scott has fallen for this. Because if you say that the Bible is not teaching that you should act against reason itself then I most certainly agree, BUT to say that the Bible is not teaching you to be selfless is beyond unfathomable to me. Now I agree with Emery's observation that this does not have to be an either-or proposition. And so that is part of my reservation when Scott says that selfishness is the root of all evil. Infants are purely selfish creatures but I completely reject the idea that they are evil. It is perfectly natural for infants to be selfish. So perhaps we have to understand that what Scott means by selfishness is more like how I define evil as pursuing ones desires at the expense of the well being of others. But this only comes with power, which the infant has none of. So evil only comes into it when we grow and develop the power to affect the well being of others.

It does seem true that Don is sending out a mixed message with this idea that God has needs and that we exist to serve them. I do not believe in the god that Don is describing there. I cannot worship such a god. I could respect such a being and learn all I can from it, but it just cannot represent the highest ideal to me. So it should be no surprise that I don't accept Scott's argument from this image of God as the jilted lover. I would put that under the category of Scott's later criticism of taking the Bible much too literally. I think these images are simply appealing to what people can relate to in their very pervasive selfishness, but no I don't think that this describes God and our relationship to Him that accurately.

When Emery talks about the difference of Xtian love and the "need to be a Xtian", then I just have to laugh and laugh, because I don't believe in those things AT ALL. There is no "Xtian love". Xtians are just human beings no different from other human beings. If we want to talk about a different kind of love that the Christians are preaching then that would be God's love and that is indeed different. Christians may indeed seek to emulate that love, but does not mean that they are successful. But then Emery challenges the validity of a so called "need to be a Xtian", and I certainly do not believe in THAT -- not for living a better life and not for salvation either. The Christian church is NOT the SAVIOR of the world! God is the savior of the world! I am not a Christian and believe what I believe because I think that is what will save me. LOL Frankly I don't think that is Christianity at all but Gnosticism -- this idea of salvation by a secret knowledge. I believe what I believe for one reason only -- because I think it is the truth, and I am Christian because what I believe seems to agree with the largest consensus about what "Christian" means. I think it is just a tragedy that this Gnostic way thinking has crept into Christianity and turned it into a legalistic religion about what you have to believe in order to go heaven, because that is all diametrically opposed to what I see in the Bible concerning what Christianity is all about, according to Jesus and the apostle Paul.

So yeah I quite agree with Scott when he says something is missing. And I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear what that is. It is the kind of love that God has -- and yes that is a selfless love. You take that out and frankly man, Christianity ain't got nuttin for me -- NOTHING that I can see of value to me.

Scott's criticism of the idea of the Bible being the be all and end all is terrific. The idea that the Bible is the repository of all truth is just plain absurd. To think that the Bible has all that God has to give is also absurd. As Jesus explained in John 5:39, scripture has one purpose and that is to point us in His direction because the answers and salvation we are looking for isn't in the book but in a relationship with Him. On the other hand, I think Sola Scriptura also has a great deal of truth to it and that Don is completely wrong to say that you need a degree in order to make up your mind about the Bible . Sure Sola Scriptura has been twisted a bit in Protestantism and Scott's criticism about Christains saying "the Bible says" when they should be saying "the Bible means" is dead on. But you have to look at where Sola Scriptura came from and why. It is a counter to exactly the sort of thing that Don was trying to do which is basically saying that the Bible needs to be correctly interpreted, for that is how christianity becomes a tool of power and manipulation, where people get in the way of God and usurp his position to make it all about doing what they say rather than what God says. Scott is right to point out that the question of interpretation is not one you can avoid; in this the Catholics are more right than many Protestants. But what Sola Scriptura is really about is whether we need someone to speak for God or whether God can speak for Himself. If you believe Jesus, then you know that Scripture has authority because Jesus affirmed this, and that is what Sola Scriptura is really about -- the one authority that we can really trust. The scriptures are the word of God, because that is what God has to say to EVERYBODY. It's not the end of what God has to say, because God CAN speak for Himself in a relationship with you. But as far as what God has to say to EVERYONE, scripture is IT, and it people pushing their own interpretations of on everyone else is something else. So if you want to know what God says then you do indeed have to read the Bible for yourself.

And this is why Emery is wrong in thinking that reading the Bible for yourself leads to creating your own denomination. Yes you are likely to have your unique way of understanding the Bible with your own interpretation. But what creates a new denomination is trying to make everyone understand the Bible the same way that you do. It is this impulse to uniformity that is again the problem in this as it is in so many other things.

-------------------------------------------------

Now Don Johnson's sermon.

This was truly difficult to sort out the truth in this case, because it is really mixed up here. There is indeed a truth behind what Don is saying, and I most definitely get it. You can see that I get it in the very way that I understand heaven and hell. I say that hell is where you find your heart's desire, but heaven is where you find God's desire for you. In that you can see that a submission to God's will for you is absolutely essential to what I think that Christianity is all about. Nevertheless, I regret that I MUST say that Don's identification of "be true to yourself" as a lie, is in fact a much bigger lie. The most dangerous lies of all are those that have enough truth mixed in that people can swallow it and think it is the truth. And so I can well imagine an atheist listening to this sermon and feeling very uncomfortable indeed knowing that something is very very wrong here.

But for the sake of the Christians, who don't see it, let me explain. Be true to yourself is not advice that was ever intended to guide you in a relationship with God, but about how you relate to the world. The problem with Don's whole sermon preaching submission is that the virtue of this depends entirely on who you are being asked to submit to. It is a recent stark lesson of history that the submission of the German people to the insanity of Hitler was anything but a good thing, and in fact we find our greatest heroes in those who managed to rebel against that deranged "authority" in whatever way they could. Thus the atheist is well aware that what Don was spelling out in his sermon was a rather horrible recipe for how good people could do very evil things, by going against their own conscience and submitting themselves to what someone else tells them they should do. Now in the interview with Emery, Don was clear that he doesn't think we were meant to be robots, and yet in this sermon, with his "we are designed to serve God", that we are robots is exactly the message he is sending.

When you look up the phrase "be true to yourself" you will find quotes by such people as Hardy D. Jackson and Dr. Seuss. Reading the whole thing by Hardy Jackson and you will find it telling you to put your heart in what you do or don't do it at all, which sounds an awful lot like a quote from Jesus telling us to be either hot or cold but not lukewarm. The one by Dr. Seuss is about being yourself and saying what you feel rather than basically trying to win a popularity contest. "Be true to yourself" was always about following your conscience and doing what you believe is right and so Don is really doing a nasty number when he equates "be true to yourself" with selfishness and doing whatever you want to do without any consideration for anyone else or frankly in his examples without any consideration of what is right and good -- equating it to stupidity and recklessness. Now this is not to say that this "be true to yourself" cannot be twisted as he shows it is in commercials, but in that it is no different than how his own message of submission can be twisted into something very nasty too. And that is why I say that what Don is teaching here is a lie. The situation here is not the black and white thing that he has made it out to be. There are two sides to this and what is needed is not a simple minded rejection but balance. But then that again is the whole problem with Don's culture war approach to things -- it's the usual distortions of war, where the warrior demonizes his opponents and thus badly distorts the truth.

The bridge between these two ideals of "be true to yourself" and "the meekness of submitting to God" is found in one simple fact. We Christians believe that God knows us better than we know ourselves and thus submitting to God is where we will find ourselves better than following any idea that we have picked up from comercials or other people.


P.S. I also must say that I don't agree with Don's attempt to turn "meek" around to mean an arrogant bastard for Christ, because I don't buy that at all. Meek means meek, period. "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." Those convinced of their own rightness are not the meek. The meek are those who are ready willing and able to accept that they are wrong and that they don't have the answers. Well so you may say, that doesn't sound very much like mitchellmckain. Ok, no it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that I am going to change and twist the meaning the words of the Bible until they fit me.

[NH Baritone]

Though he didn't know it at the time , in this address Stephen Fry had much to say about this podcast, that is, whether and to what degree we ought to "be ourselves" or to obey an ancient holy book (or some other person's interpretation of said holy book).
Some folks here may enjoy listening to Mr. Fry's talk, which goes on to several additional segments.

Thanks heaps for the link, Brad. Great ideas, beautifully spoken.

"I won't be told. I will not be told. I will be shown, I will be inspired, I will be led, but I won't be told."