Regular readers of this blog will know I was raised in a strict Southern Baptist home. I gradually evolved from fundamentalist Christian, to skeptical Christian, to deep depression, to agnostic, to happy atheist, finally being at least somewhat intellectually and emotionally fulfilled, and I have never been happier.
It has also been mentioned here that I came to give up Christianity, very literally, by reading the Bible.
I was ten years old when I started reading the Bible. I had been told so many times in the church and home that the Bible is the greatest and wisest book in all of existence, and that accepting its extraordinary truths are the foundation of any sane, rational person’s life. I was ten, I recall, when I started to read the Bible, to discover exactly what this glorious book had in store for me. It took me over a year to reach the back cover, and when I was done, all I remember is a thick haze of confusion in my mind. The single greatest impression I had of the book, as read with a devoutly religious yet genuinely curious perspective, was that it made no sense in even the most trivial way.
Altogether, I’ve read the Bible at least three times all the way through (a second time, later, during my teen years, and a third time during young adulthood). It was during that third read-through, finally read with only objective curiosity, that I decided: Mainstream Christian doctrine is the polar opposite of the logical conclusions drawn from the text, at least on a few key issues. Here, then, is my own brand of Christian Biblical theology.
Disclaimer: If you are a Christian, my interpretation of Biblical theology almost certainly disagrees with yours. It directly contradicts perhaps two of the most important concepts in all of Christian doctrine; the unchanging moral nature of God, and the sacrifice and death of Jesus Christ. Please read with an open mind, and if you have any questions, I would be more than happy to discuss this in the comments.
Disclaimer II: I should perhaps make it clear at the outset that for the purposes of this interpretation, I grant the existence of God, as well as the existence, divine nature, and miracle-working abilities of Jesus Christ. Most of the rest of the plain text of the Christian Bible is granted as well, for the sake of argument. Let it be known that I do not grant these things in a broader sense of actual truth. I am an atheist; I look at the implications of this religious text only as an entertaining thought experiment.
So, after reading the Bible, two significant problems leap out at me (there are many, many other problems I have with the Bible that one could name, but for the purposes of this entertaining narrative, these two big ones will do).
1. The God portrayed in the Old Testament and Jesus as portrayed in the New are very nearly polar opposites in terms of temperament and ideology. The God of the Old Testament is properly described as a crazed, narcissistic tyrant, who’s every action and decree, every desire and every boast, clearly illustrates a desperate, almost pathological love of self. Jesus, on the other hand, though not nearly the greatest and most wise moral teacher of all time, was (relative to his culture) extremely progressive and ethical. Many times, he explicitly rebuts the law of the Old Testament. Nowhere to be found in the Old Testament law is God commanding the rich to give all they have to the poor, instead giving list upon list of seemingly completely arbitrary rules, for which the prescribed penalty is almost invariably death, while scarcely mentioning poverty. Yet this is, if anything, Jesus’ favorite ethical teaching, almost spoken of more than any other concept; the extolling of the rich to give their possessions away to provide for those less fortunate than themselves. Very literally, God commands a violent death for adultery, while Jesus ridicules those who attempt to carry out this commandment.
Why the divide?
If the God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ are one and the same, this is an incredible problem. Yet perhaps there is a way to explain this radical shift in personal ethical ideology, which I will revisit in a moment.
2. The Crucifixion. I’ve expressed this objection to other Christians before, and have yet to receive an answer I can accept as logical and rational. True justice absolutely requires that the wrongdoer is the one who is punished. Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins is often likened to a legal fine, yet the analogy fails miserably. In the case of a crime so heinous that it always requires the death penalty, one cannot substitute oneself for another in the chair. Justice is not a mystical, cosmic balance of scales, it is about protecting society (or even, at its worst, about revenge). It simply does not work if one takes a completely innocent person as a ’sacrifice’ to satisfy some inexplicable blood-toll. One is completely incapable of fulfilling true justice in such a way.
The second problem, then, is that Jesus Christ could not possibly have been atoning for the wrongs of humanity.
Conclusion?
It seems to me that Humanist morality is based, in great part if not in whole, on the concept of respecting the rights of others. All other concepts and ideas in Humanist morality flow naturally from the idea of respecting other persons as deserving equal rights to your own. Naturally, this concept would be completely alien to God. Perhaps only after incarnating himself in human form could God realize the perspective of Humanist morality; thus, the ethical philosophy of Jesus being radically different than that of the God of the Old Testament.
This brings me to my second point. If one grants the text of the Bible to such an extraordinary extent, then we must accept that Jesus sacrificed himself. A more usual Christian theology asserts that Jesus did this to atone for the sins of humanity. This simply cannot be the case; the solemn declaration that Jesus had to sacrifice himself (God) to himself (to God) in order to forgive and atone for the sins of humanity against him (against God) simply is not rational in any way. However, if the moral and ethical worldview of Jesus had undergone such a transformation as a result of his new humanist perspective, he would rightly perceive the horror that he had done to humanity, and, if he were truly ethical, he would wish to make amends.
He did not sacrifice himself to himself to atone for humanity’s sin against him. Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to us to atone for his sin against us.
Contact Ziztur at ZizturIsWrong at gmail dot com.
Follow Ziztur on Twitter 
I’m not touching this one :)
“faulty human brain”.Right when I posted that it occurred to me how that sounded. I wasn’t trying to question someone’s intelligence with that. Only illustrating a point.
“This simply cannot be the case; the solemn declaration that Jesus had to sacrifice himself (God) to himself (to God) in order to forgive and atone for the sins of humanity against him (against God) simply is not rational in any way.”In this post I read the usual monologue of Jesus morality vs. God morality and all that, but the above statement really leaps out of me and brings me to the same trademark you and ziztur seem to have in all of your theological arguments. This trademark hasn’t made sense to me yet and I have yet to hear a clear explanation. But the trademarks is that you like to grant for the sake of argument than an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being does in fact exist, but then turn around and deem various actions of His to be “irrational”. Irrational to who? A finite human with a severely limited understanding of what we might call the big picture? You’ve said yourself in the past that even your own understanding of human rights is based on a subjective understanding of reality, and yet still label your morality as having looked at reality objectively. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim on one hand to look at reality objectively to determine morality and then acknowledge later that everyone’s perception of reality is subjective. So how can you be subjective and objective at the same time? And how can someone who has a finite, limited understanding of reality, in fact a subjective understanding of his own reality, the only reality he knows, claim that the actions of an eternal omniscient being is “irrational”? To claim that you would have to claim to know the effects or non effects each action by said omniscient being would have not only in the world you live in but in the world everyone lives in here, now, past, present, future. You only have human understanding, a subjective understanding, but yet that limited understanding, that subjective understanding, according to you, is enough to judge someone very far above that understanding? I think I’ll reject the analysis of the actions of a supreme eternal being who surpasses the understanding of a limited human brain when that analysis is done by that same faulty human brain.
RE: HighBoy”Jesus had to sacrifice himself (God) to himself (to God) in order to forgive and atone for the sins of humanity against him (against God)”Do you believe that the stated actions of Jesus/God is rational? If you do, why should an atheist accept the analysis of your equally “limited human brain”?If you abstain from passing judgement on any actions of any alleged “supreme being” because we do not possess the faculty to do so, how do we take the words of any theologians and prophets to reveal anything about God(s)?Thanks in advance to your reply,G
Very interesting, that second part. I love the thought-experiment. It actually sounds like a fairly decent premise for a revision of the story! God creates everything, declares it good, then sits back and relaxes. Slowly, the feedback begins. After a looong time hearing complaints from all over creation (I guess, something like 6,000-10,000 years? Sorry, couldn’t resist!), God decides to have a look, in order to get rid of this nagging guilt. The trip has the opposite effect, and God commits suicide to make up for the whole thing.(Which is a better ending – although I’m not sure why – than the one where God goes back in time and hits the “undo” button!)Thanks for this!
That makes sense. I’ve never thought of it this way. Even as a christian I had trouble to reconcile the split personality of God in the old and new testament. And the Bible itself admits that there is no logic in Jesus dying on the cross (< HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1:18-31" REL="nofollow">1 Cor 1:18<>).Finally I have an explanation that can put the two questions to rest. Let’s see what my christian friends think about it…
Hi Highboy,Thanks for checking my blog out. I have also visited yours.Also thanks for your reply, especially the candour and humility with which you have expressed yourself.And I believe we share many common grounds. For example, we can both agree that the “plan of salvation” makes no rational sense at all. We can also both agree that our morality is based on our subjective experiences (I do not speak for Flimsy).And I concur that we as humans are all equally fallible. (and you say we have lots to disagree upon :-)So how can supposedly “True” prophets and theologians claim to have been correctly inspired by <>the<> actual God, when they are equally fallible and merely monologuing their subjective experience of their respective gods? How can we as onlookers decide which of them are “divinely inspired” and which of them are severely mistaken (or worst, intentionally misleading)?Thus, if Flimsy preface his above theology with “This blog post is not derived by my ernest attempt to be objective over my youthful years, rather it is the result of an inspiried revelation during prayers last evening”, would you take his theology any more seriously?Thanks,G
Gord: Nothing about the plan of salvation is rational to me. If all of my creation constantly gave me the finger the way His does I’d wipe them out. As far as my finite brain is concerned, it is true that I’m just as fallible as Flimsy. But the difference is I openly admit that my morality is based on my own experience with my God. I don’t admit to being subjective on one hand and then claim to be objective on the other. Its a blatant contradiction. “If you abstain from passing judgement on any actions of any alleged “supreme being” because we do not possess the faculty to do so, how do we take the words of any theologians and prophets to reveal anything about God(s)?”True prophets/theologians would be passing along words inspired by the actual God, not merely giving a monologue of human ideas about God. That is why its called “divinely inspired”. I know skeptics who have come to Christianity, but not based on any well thought, articulate argument in favor of the faith. It just doesn’t happen. People come to Christ through experience.
Hi HighBoy,Not to belabour the point, however you’ve said:<>“the explanation is that God reveals these things to us for those that believe.”<> (theist I presume)and<>“True prophets/theologians would be passing along words inspired by the actual God”<>Given that we agree that all humans are fallible in our comprehension of any supreme beings. How can a theist trust his/her interpretation when “God reveals these things” to them?Similarly, how do true prophets/theologians discern the difference between inspired words from their gods and those of their own monologue? Again they do not have the full capacity to comprehend “the actions of an eternal omniscient being”.Naturally, followers cannot trust any stated doctrines from theologians because “the wisdom God gave (them)” to decide is equally fallible and untrustworthy.I know I am harping on and on about this, but that is because you begin your original comment by questioning Flimsy’s ability to measure the actions and thought processes of Jesus/God who is infinite and perfect.And given that reasoning, we <>must<> question the validity of everything a theologian claims of Jesus/God’s motives and commandments.Isn’t that true?G
That’s really interesting – are you saying that an eternal being does not have thought?And as far as rights go, we have no reason to believe there is a creator, and so we get our rights from other humans.Most of the stuff you say I might be able to agree with you with IF I thought we had a creator and that that creator was triomnied. But we could make that argument for anything. IF Barak Obama was all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal, then the universe would operate at his whim. How would we instruct him that we have any rights at all? Would he be bound by any laws to treat us in a certain way? Well, no. How do we know Obama isn’t all-whatever? Because we observe that he isn’t. But, I might say, our observations are subjective, and we’re judging him by human standards when he’s not human.Once you decide that a given entity is perfect by defining it as such, no one can prove you wrong, because your hypothesis is non falsifiable. The problem is not that we can’t prove you wrong, the problem is that the hypothesis is flawed and does not tell us anything empirically.And, it’s cool if you braindump on my blog, I like it.
Gord: You hit upon the tricky part. But the explanation is that God reveals these things to us for those that believe. To decide who is misleading and how is telling the truth, we have the wisdom God gave us. If you’re asking me how an atheist would be able to discern, my answer is a big fat I don’t know. Flimsy: I get what you’re saying but you’re not just talking about a being with far superior intelligence. You’re talking about an all-powerful, all knowing being that is eternal. Intelligence, thought, time, all of these things as it pertains to someone like that is so past our comprehension. You didn’t just use the word “immoral” either but “irrational”. This implies a fault in God’s thought process and you can’t even apply the idea of thought to an eternal supreme being. That is my point. You are judging a God by human standards. As for the morality/immorality of God, you are basing your description of His actions based on your own decision as to what human rights should be. My question is what makes you think we have rights at all? How does the creation say to the creator “we have rights”? Who gave you those rights? If you have as subjective a view of reality as the rest of us, how did you objectively determine them? That is why I have a hard time grasping how you determine God’s actions as immoral. You base your morality on what is good/bad for humanity, but if God is real, and our universe operates at His whim, how do you instruct God that you have a right to exist? Is he bound then by some natural law to treat you a certain way? Who decided this natural law? Wouldn’t it be the inventor of the nature from which this law came? If none of this questioning makes sense I won’t take it personally if you refuse to respond. I’m just throwing thoughts out there pretty much as I type them.
No offense taken, Highboy.It’s true that I often grant, for the sake of arguments or thought experiments like this one, the existence of God, while still rejecting his omnicience and moral perfection. The reason that I do this is because a being can be much smarter and stronger than you or I and still be morally wrong.Imagine someone was so incredibly intelligent that you or I could barely comprehend it’s simplest thought processes. Now imagine that this person rapes every child at a randomly-chosen middle school. If this person is intelligent enough to have a justifiable reason for doing this, he/she would also be intelligent enough to explain it to us. If this person does explain it to us, but the explanation doesn’t make sense, then we would conclude that he/she had done something immoral.The only alternative is to conclude that we can never question the moral actions of someone who is more intelligent than us, which would be horrifying.
Flimsy: you’re not answering my points. How can you admit to a subjective perception and claim to have an objective perception at the same time? And how then could I trust the analysis of someone that confused as to the morality of a God he has no comprehension of?
I’m just exploring all possible options; some of which are more interesting, to my mind, than others.1. One possibilty is that Christianity and the Bible are interesting tribal myths, and do not contain any significant degree of supernatural truth to them. In my opinion this is the most likely option.2. Deism; that the Bible is true only so far as that a God of some kind exists, but he has not revealed himself to mankind, nor does he care to involve himself in human affairs. This seems to be, while very, very unlikely, far more likely to be true than these next options.3. The option that I explore here. The Bible could be an accurate description of the words and actions of God and Jesus. This possibility has, among others, two major problems, and my interpretation simply seeks to resolve those problems based on an objective reading of the text.4. Another option; one could agree with you, Highboy, as well as virtually every mainstream Christian today, that the Bible is true, and God is completely accurate in his self-praise.Now, I readily admit that in my interpretation, God is completely self-delusional to describe himself as being all-knowing and perfectly merciful and just. The Bible itself states that God changes his mind (and is thus capable of error) and is capable of evil. To say that God never contemplates doing evil or changing his mind is to flatly contradict the Bible.1 Chronicles 21:15: And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.Exodus 32: 10-14. Here God declares that he will completely destroy Israel, and Moses convinces him to change his mind. Verse 14 clearly says: “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.”Either God was LYING or he changed his mind. I am being CHARITABLE to Christian doctrine in giving him the benefit of the doubt.As for our inability to question or judge such a powerful and complex being, I really do think it’s very simple. I don’t judge a God by human standards, I judge every being that potentially exists by the same standard. Usually this means humans, because we homo sapiens are the only beings with a self-aware moral consiousness that we can genuinely prove to exist. I also apply this standard to God when he is claimed to exist (and certainly if he is claimed to be the basis for our morality), exactly as I would for any other non-human being, like aliens.Here’s an interesting question, if we cannot judge God because he’s so much more intelligent and powerful than us, what about Satan? Don’t we usually judge him by a similar standard as we use for other evil human beings? If we can’t because Satan didn’t create the universe, then what if he did? We have only God’s word on the matter.
Hi HighBoy,<>“You are asking me in a nutshell to explain a spiritual encounter with a supreme God you have no belief in.”<>I didn’t think I was asking you to explain a spiritual experience to me, but nevermind. I guess I didn’t word the questions carefully enough. My bad.Perhaps I should redefine the question like this:If a god decides to reveal certain revelations to a believer. Then is it <>at all possible<> for that believer to somehow misunderstand/misinterpret that message (given that we limited humans are ill-equip to understand such an infinite being to begin with)?If it is <>not<> possible, then Flimsy can assert that the Gospel of <>“Flimsyman’s Blasphemous Biblical Theology”<> is a revelation from up high, and thus beyond reproach. After all, who are we to question the Gospels.If it is possible, then could we then say to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.:<>“how can someone who has a finite, limited understanding of reality, in fact a subjective understanding of his own reality, the only reality he knows, claim that the actions (thoughts, motives) of an eternal omniscient being is XXXX?”<>where XXXX can be (Good, Bad, Loving, Irrational, Merciful, any attribute applicable to gods)I am not seeking to understand the spiritual experience that theists felt. I am merely asking whether it is possible that these experience could be misunderstood by the theist (given we are all fallible).Thanks,G.
I don’t see a problem with granting for the sake of a thought experiment that there is a creator of the world and humankind, but then denying that said creator is infallible.
Gord: You are asking me in a nutshell to explain a spiritual encounter with a supreme God you have no belief in. How exactly would I go about doing this?Ziztur: yes, I already gathered from the title of the website you were an atheist and thus didn’t believe in a creator. But Flimsy granted God’s existence or the sake of argument and that is what I’m addressing.
Flimsy: you’re not answering my points. How can you admit to a subjective perception and claim to have an objective perception at the same time? And how then could I trust the analysis of someone that confused as to the morality of a God he has no comprehension of?
I’m just exploring all possible options; some of which are more interesting, to my mind, than others.1. One possibilty is that Christianity and the Bible are interesting tribal myths, and do not contain any significant degree of supernatural truth to them. In my opinion this is the most likely option.2. Deism; that the Bible is true only so far as that a God of some kind exists, but he has not revealed himself to mankind, nor does he care to involve himself in human affairs. This seems to be, while very, very unlikely, far more likely to be true than these next options.3. The option that I explore here. The Bible could be an accurate description of the words and actions of God and Jesus. This possibility has, among others, two major problems, and my interpretation simply seeks to resolve those problems based on an objective reading of the text.4. Another option; one could agree with you, Highboy, as well as virtually every mainstream Christian today, that the Bible is true, and God is completely accurate in his self-praise.Now, I readily admit that in my interpretation, God is completely self-delusional to describe himself as being all-knowing and perfectly merciful and just. The Bible itself states that God changes his mind (and is thus capable of error) and is capable of evil. To say that God never contemplates doing evil or changing his mind is to flatly contradict the Bible.1 Chronicles 21:15: And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.Exodus 32: 10-14. Here God declares that he will completely destroy Israel, and Moses convinces him to change his mind. Verse 14 clearly says: “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.”Either God was LYING or he changed his mind. I am being CHARITABLE to Christian doctrine in giving him the benefit of the doubt.As for our inability to question or judge such a powerful and complex being, I really do think it’s very simple. I don’t judge a God by human standards, I judge every being that potentially exists by the same standard. Usually this means humans, because we homo sapiens are the only beings with a self-aware moral consiousness that we can genuinely prove to exist. I also apply this standard to God when he is claimed to exist (and certainly if he is claimed to be the basis for our morality), exactly as I would for any other non-human being, like aliens.Here’s an interesting question, if we cannot judge God because he’s so much more intelligent and powerful than us, what about Satan? Don’t we usually judge him by a similar standard as we use for other evil human beings? If we can’t because Satan didn’t create the universe, then what if he did? We have only God’s word on the matter.
Hi HighBoy,<>“You are asking me in a nutshell to explain a spiritual encounter with a supreme God you have no belief in.”<>I didn’t think I was asking you to explain a spiritual experience to me, but nevermind. I guess I didn’t word the questions carefully enough. My bad.Perhaps I should redefine the question like this:If a god decides to reveal certain revelations to a believer. Then is it <>at all possible<> for that believer to somehow misunderstand/misinterpret that message (given that we limited humans are ill-equip to understand such an infinite being to begin with)?If it is <>not<> possible, then Flimsy can assert that the Gospel of <>“Flimsyman’s Blasphemous Biblical Theology”<> is a revelation from up high, and thus beyond reproach. After all, who are we to question the Gospels.If it is possible, then could we then say to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.:<>“how can someone who has a finite, limited understanding of reality, in fact a subjective understanding of his own reality, the only reality he knows, claim that the actions (thoughts, motives) of an eternal omniscient being is XXXX?”<>where XXXX can be (Good, Bad, Loving, Irrational, Merciful, any attribute applicable to gods)I am not seeking to understand the spiritual experience that theists felt. I am merely asking whether it is possible that these experience could be misunderstood by the theist (given we are all fallible).Thanks,G.
Thanks Ziz. I just dun wanna pester people like a yappy puppy.
I totally welcome you here Gord – there’s no such thing as speaking (eh, typing) out of turn in my blog. If anything, I want more discussions!:)Highboy is one of the few regular theists on my blog, so he’s a welcome addition too.
Hi HighBoy,I understand you guys are having a one-on-one discussion, so please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.(Sorry Flimsy).Firstly, I am wondering if you like to explore the new questions that I posed above? I assure you I am in no way pestering you for the sake of it. If I am mistaken for any reason please elaborate.The question again is:<>“Is it possible for a limited human being to misunderstand a communication from an infinite supreme being?”<>Secondly:<>“And how then could I trust the analysis of someone that confused as to the morality of a God he has no comprehension of?”<>Who, in your opinion, has comprehension of the morality of God? Why do you hold that opinion?Thirdly:<>“I’m confused as to what significance you think there is in “changing God’s mind”.”<>If God has held a position of X, then later on changes his mind to a position of ~X. Which is the correct position: X or ~X? Or both?Is he mistaken in the first position or in the second? Is he mistaken at all?Much Thanks,G.(Sorry to speak out of turn Flimsy)
I just thought I’d add that the two Scriptures you referenced were rather weak in illustrating your point. “Evil” the word is used in few illustrations and stems for ancient Hebrew that refers not to immoral behavior, but calamity, catastrophy. “15And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the LORD saw and (A)was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, “It is enough; now relax your hand.” (NASB)As for Exodus, I’m confused as to what significance you think there is in “changing God’s mind”.
Thanks Ziz. I just dun wanna pester people like a yappy puppy.
I totally welcome you here Gord – there’s no such thing as speaking (eh, typing) out of turn in my blog. If anything, I want more discussions!:)Highboy is one of the few regular theists on my blog, so he’s a welcome addition too.
Hi HighBoy,I understand you guys are having a one-on-one discussion, so please forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.(Sorry Flimsy).Firstly, I am wondering if you like to explore the new questions that I posed above? I assure you I am in no way pestering you for the sake of it. If I am mistaken for any reason please elaborate.The question again is:<>“Is it possible for a limited human being to misunderstand a communication from an infinite supreme being?”<>Secondly:<>“And how then could I trust the analysis of someone that confused as to the morality of a God he has no comprehension of?”<>Who, in your opinion, has comprehension of the morality of God? Why do you hold that opinion?Thirdly:<>“I’m confused as to what significance you think there is in “changing God’s mind”.”<>If God has held a position of X, then later on changes his mind to a position of ~X. Which is the correct position: X or ~X? Or both?Is he mistaken in the first position or in the second? Is he mistaken at all?Much Thanks,G.(Sorry to speak out of turn Flimsy)
I just thought I’d add that the two Scriptures you referenced were rather weak in illustrating your point. “Evil” the word is used in few illustrations and stems for ancient Hebrew that refers not to immoral behavior, but calamity, catastrophy. “15And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the LORD saw and (A)was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, “It is enough; now relax your hand.” (NASB)As for Exodus, I’m confused as to what significance you think there is in “changing God’s mind”.
“How then can you declare that His creation has rights that trumps His will for them?”Easy; if those human rights are objective, then they exist completely independent of the will of a creator.I’m thinking of similar situations here . . . Take an engineer who creates a robot with artificial intelligence. Take a geneticist who creates artificial biological life. Or even take a parent who gives birth to a child. In any of these circumstances, does the creator have total moral authority over the creation? I would say no, because if the created has the moral consciousness to understand “rights,” they qualify (in my opinion) as having them, and just as importantly are responsible for respecting these rights in others.Perhaps this is our disconnect: I totally admit that the term “human rights” is actually a pretty stupid term. The thing is, no matter how fervently someone (myself included, as well as anyone else I know) claims to care for ‘human rights,’ they will still probably agree with me that artificial intelligence or alien life (if either possesses a moral consciousness) should absolutely deserve the same rights as me. So yeah, it’s pretty stupid that we call them human rights when we would probably all agree that an alien society or completely mechanical artificial intelligence should receive the same rights. So why do I use the term? Because I still care about the concept that it represents, even I think it should be more accurately termed ‘moral rights,’ or something similar. I only use it because it’s the term that means what I want to convey to others, who will be using the term “human rights.”As for animals, just having a nervous system isn’t enough. You’ve heard me use the phrase “sentient, self-aware moral consciousness.” This is just my short-hand for trying to convey that the I believe the test for whether something deserves “human” rights is whether they are sentient/self-aware/morally conscious enough to respect the rights of others.I think that this is the reason for the misunderstanding. You’ve said before that in a humanistic worldview “less intelligent beings are given less rights.” That is an effect, but it is not the actual principle involved. The motivating principle is that things/beings that do not possess a moral consciousness have no conception of respecting the rights of others, therefore they have no rights themselves.This is NOT “similar to the answers to the question as to why God can do what He wants with His own creation.” I have to ask WHY a creator has complete moral authority over the creation. I completely disagree that this follows, either naturally or ethically.
Sorry if I left anyone out, but with my son I have limited time online so I just try to answer what I can. Gord: No, I don’t believe its possible for me to misunderstand a divine revelation. It is possible however to claim to have one and be a liar. Your second question: “Who, in your opinion, has comprehension of the morality of God? Why do you hold that opinion?”A Christian who walks with Christ on a regular basis and spends his/her life trying to grow in a relationship with Him would grasp to an extent God’s morality. As to why I hold that opinion, it is merely based on my own experience with Him coupled with Biblical truths I grasp better each time I read. God grants that wisdom to those who ask. (I don’t mean that to sound as arrogant as it did but really have no better way of putting it) “If God has held a position of X, then later on changes his mind to a position of ~X. Which is the correct position: X or ~X? Or both?”He didn’t change His position. How do you figure He did? Changing His mind on whether or not to grant mercy on someone isn’t changing the position of what is morally right or wrong. The very word “mercy” is the idea that people do not get what they deserve. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. “But since every single human being has similar limitations, not one single claim or belief can be said to be completely objective. So how do we determine whether something is reasonably objective, as opposed to subjective?”I wouldn’t have the first damn clue so I hope you don’t expect me to answer that with anything that makes sense. “Mainly, if you apply this kind of standard, then ALL human opinions are subjective. The words subjective or objective only even have any meaning if we accept that opinions can potentially be verified enough to consider them objective.”I get that but you’re morality is based on what is best for humans. How then is that objective at all? In your humanistic world view that would make a little sense but in this argument you are granting that the creator of humans actually exists. How then can you declare that His creation has rights that trumps His will for them? If He doesn’t exist, than you are left again with simply getting your rights from other humans. Is this not narcissistic? Youmay not demand that an inferior race worship you, but you assert that what is best for humans and humans alone defines your morality. The world is ours. Why? Because we can. That is why in the past I repeatedly brought up animals. In your humanistic worldview, humans rule. Morality revolves around what is best for humans. Animals have less rights because they don’t have the intelligence to grasp morality like we do. Therefore, less intelligent beings are given less rights. If God is immoral and guilty of usurping rights, than so are you. The only argument to this would be to somehow explain rationally why humans deserve more rights than animals. The answers you come up with would be similar to the answers to the question as to why God can do what He wants with His own creation. For future notice, if it takes me a while to respond to comments its for many reasons, none of them to be rude or to ignore. I try not to spend too much time online and spend more time with my family, and I also have my own blog which I tend to neglect. Rest assured I enjoy the conversation and don’t mean to be rude.
P.S. Gord, you’re welcome to chime in anytime. Whenever you have anything to say, don’t hesitate to throw it out there. The more interesting discussion from different perspectives we get here, the better!
@ Highboy:Oh. Sorry, I was going to let you answer Gord’s questions regarding this.We’ve discussed this before. I try to make my opinions as objective as possible, given the limitations of my intellect and observation. No doubt you do to. But since every single human being has similar limitations, not one single claim or belief can be said to be completely objective. So how do we determine whether something is reasonably objective, as opposed to subjective?We know not to drive into an overpass support pylon at eighty mph because it will probably kill us. Would we call this a subjective statement, because we rely on our own intelligence and observation to verify it (since we do literally rely on our intelligence and observation for everything)? We technically could, but that would be a pretty meaningless statement.We all work within our limited powers of intelligence and observation.What if someone insisted that hitting a concrete wall at eight mph will NOT harm you or damage your car. When you explain why they’re wrong, they tell you that your intelligence and observation are limited, so your ‘belief’ that they will get hurt if they do such a thing is only subjective. You could similarly point out that their opinion must therefore be subjective, as well.The point being that in a case like this, we can demonstrate with science, reason, and experimental observation that they are wrong. Simply pointing out that their opinion is, in the strictest sense of the word, subjective (limited by their own intelligence and observation), doesn’t actually demonstrate that they are wrong, because our opposite opinion is subjective in that same way. The way to genuinely prove that they are wrong is to use a logical explanation to actually demonstrate this.Our powers of intelligence and observation ARE limited, but they are all we have and are reliable if applied correctly. When they are applied incorrectly, one can logically explain why (as you or I could do with the speeding car and concrete wall). This is what we have to do to support our opinions if we disagree, because when it comes to our powers of intellect and observation being finite, therefore making our opinions, in the strictest sense of the word, subjective, we’re all in the same boat.Mainly, if you apply this kind of standard, then ALL human opinions are subjective. The words subjective or objective only even have any meaning if we accept that opinions can potentially be verified enough to consider them objective.
“How then can you declare that His creation has rights that trumps His will for them?”Easy; if those human rights are objective, then they exist completely independent of the will of a creator.I’m thinking of similar situations here . . . Take an engineer who creates a robot with artificial intelligence. Take a geneticist who creates artificial biological life. Or even take a parent who gives birth to a child. In any of these circumstances, does the creator have total moral authority over the creation? I would say no, because if the created has the moral consciousness to understand “rights,” they qualify (in my opinion) as having them, and just as importantly are responsible for respecting these rights in others.Perhaps this is our disconnect: I totally admit that the term “human rights” is actually a pretty stupid term. The thing is, no matter how fervently someone (myself included, as well as anyone else I know) claims to care for ‘human rights,’ they will still probably agree with me that artificial intelligence or alien life (if either possesses a moral consciousness) should absolutely deserve the same rights as me. So yeah, it’s pretty stupid that we call them human rights when we would probably all agree that an alien society or completely mechanical artificial intelligence should receive the same rights. So why do I use the term? Because I still care about the concept that it represents, even I think it should be more accurately termed ‘moral rights,’ or something similar. I only use it because it’s the term that means what I want to convey to others, who will be using the term “human rights.”As for animals, just having a nervous system isn’t enough. You’ve heard me use the phrase “sentient, self-aware moral consciousness.” This is just my short-hand for trying to convey that the I believe the test for whether something deserves “human” rights is whether they are sentient/self-aware/morally conscious enough to respect the rights of others.I think that this is the reason for the misunderstanding. You’ve said before that in a humanistic worldview “less intelligent beings are given less rights.” That is an effect, but it is not the actual principle involved. The motivating principle is that things/beings that do not possess a moral consciousness have no conception of respecting the rights of others, therefore they have no rights themselves.This is NOT “similar to the answers to the question as to why God can do what He wants with His own creation.” I have to ask WHY a creator has complete moral authority over the creation. I completely disagree that this follows, either naturally or ethically.
Sorry if I left anyone out, but with my son I have limited time online so I just try to answer what I can. Gord: No, I don’t believe its possible for me to misunderstand a divine revelation. It is possible however to claim to have one and be a liar. Your second question: “Who, in your opinion, has comprehension of the morality of God? Why do you hold that opinion?”A Christian who walks with Christ on a regular basis and spends his/her life trying to grow in a relationship with Him would grasp to an extent God’s morality. As to why I hold that opinion, it is merely based on my own experience with Him coupled with Biblical truths I grasp better each time I read. God grants that wisdom to those who ask. (I don’t mean that to sound as arrogant as it did but really have no better way of putting it) “If God has held a position of X, then later on changes his mind to a position of ~X. Which is the correct position: X or ~X? Or both?”He didn’t change His position. How do you figure He did? Changing His mind on whether or not to grant mercy on someone isn’t changing the position of what is morally right or wrong. The very word “mercy” is the idea that people do not get what they deserve. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong. “But since every single human being has similar limitations, not one single claim or belief can be said to be completely objective. So how do we determine whether something is reasonably objective, as opposed to subjective?”I wouldn’t have the first damn clue so I hope you don’t expect me to answer that with anything that makes sense. “Mainly, if you apply this kind of standard, then ALL human opinions are subjective. The words subjective or objective only even have any meaning if we accept that opinions can potentially be verified enough to consider them objective.”I get that but you’re morality is based on what is best for humans. How then is that objective at all? In your humanistic world view that would make a little sense but in this argument you are granting that the creator of humans actually exists. How then can you declare that His creation has rights that trumps His will for them? If He doesn’t exist, than you are left again with simply getting your rights from other humans. Is this not narcissistic? Youmay not demand that an inferior race worship you, but you assert that what is best for humans and humans alone defines your morality. The world is ours. Why? Because we can. That is why in the past I repeatedly brought up animals. In your humanistic worldview, humans rule. Morality revolves around what is best for humans. Animals have less rights because they don’t have the intelligence to grasp morality like we do. Therefore, less intelligent beings are given less rights. If God is immoral and guilty of usurping rights, than so are you. The only argument to this would be to somehow explain rationally why humans deserve more rights than animals. The answers you come up with would be similar to the answers to the question as to why God can do what He wants with His own creation. For future notice, if it takes me a while to respond to comments its for many reasons, none of them to be rude or to ignore. I try not to spend too much time online and spend more time with my family, and I also have my own blog which I tend to neglect. Rest assured I enjoy the conversation and don’t mean to be rude.
P.S. Gord, you’re welcome to chime in anytime. Whenever you have anything to say, don’t hesitate to throw it out there. The more interesting discussion from different perspectives we get here, the better!
@ Highboy:Oh. Sorry, I was going to let you answer Gord’s questions regarding this.We’ve discussed this before. I try to make my opinions as objective as possible, given the limitations of my intellect and observation. No doubt you do to. But since every single human being has similar limitations, not one single claim or belief can be said to be completely objective. So how do we determine whether something is reasonably objective, as opposed to subjective?We know not to drive into an overpass support pylon at eighty mph because it will probably kill us. Would we call this a subjective statement, because we rely on our own intelligence and observation to verify it (since we do literally rely on our intelligence and observation for everything)? We technically could, but that would be a pretty meaningless statement.We all work within our limited powers of intelligence and observation.What if someone insisted that hitting a concrete wall at eight mph will NOT harm you or damage your car. When you explain why they’re wrong, they tell you that your intelligence and observation are limited, so your ‘belief’ that they will get hurt if they do such a thing is only subjective. You could similarly point out that their opinion must therefore be subjective, as well.The point being that in a case like this, we can demonstrate with science, reason, and experimental observation that they are wrong. Simply pointing out that their opinion is, in the strictest sense of the word, subjective (limited by their own intelligence and observation), doesn’t actually demonstrate that they are wrong, because our opposite opinion is subjective in that same way. The way to genuinely prove that they are wrong is to use a logical explanation to actually demonstrate this.Our powers of intelligence and observation ARE limited, but they are all we have and are reliable if applied correctly. When they are applied incorrectly, one can logically explain why (as you or I could do with the speeding car and concrete wall). This is what we have to do to support our opinions if we disagree, because when it comes to our powers of intellect and observation being finite, therefore making our opinions, in the strictest sense of the word, subjective, we’re all in the same boat.Mainly, if you apply this kind of standard, then ALL human opinions are subjective. The words subjective or objective only even have any meaning if we accept that opinions can potentially be verified enough to consider them objective.
Well, it’s obviously not a matter of “what they don’t know won’t hurt them,” of course I don’t think it’s okay to infringe on a person’s rights simply because they aren’t aware of the infringment.It’s because a being with a self-aware, moral consciousness does not just have *rights* – it also has a *responsibility* to respect the rights of others. Once we’ve determined that a given being does not respect the rights of others, then we immediately destroy that beings rights (a police officer shooting a criminal who is a direct and pressing threat to others, fining or imprisoning a hardened criminal, or in extreme cases the death penalty for murder/rape). A being that literally has no conception whatsoever of respecting the rights of others has no rights itself.There are practical considerations too. If comprehension of moral responsibility is not the determining factor in whether a being deserves rights, then what is? Biological organisms, including trees? Possession of a nervous system? What kind of nervous system? Simple organisms have bodily structures that perform a very general nervous system-ish function, yet is completely unlike our human nervous system.Will we let God decide? Why? Which god? How do we know how God defines a ‘person’? If we can determine this, why does God use the criteria that he does? Is it just his whim? Or is he obeying a higher order of morality himself?I’d be an idiot to claim that my opinions on this topic are perfect, I simply happen to think that my criteria are likely to be the least shitty out of a plethora of shitty choices.
So we’ll never agree, but in the interest of philisophical discussion let me ask this: in your opinion or worldview, why does a being have to have a moral awareness to be treated morally? Why does someone/something have to know what rights are before you grant them? In keeping with the animals theme, eating animals in your worldview would not be immoral because despite that they are living creatures they have no moral awareness so what they don’t know won’t hurt them.
Well, it’s obviously not a matter of “what they don’t know won’t hurt them,” of course I don’t think it’s okay to infringe on a person’s rights simply because they aren’t aware of the infringment.It’s because a being with a self-aware, moral consciousness does not just have *rights* – it also has a *responsibility* to respect the rights of others. Once we’ve determined that a given being does not respect the rights of others, then we immediately destroy that beings rights (a police officer shooting a criminal who is a direct and pressing threat to others, fining or imprisoning a hardened criminal, or in extreme cases the death penalty for murder/rape). A being that literally has no conception whatsoever of respecting the rights of others has no rights itself.There are practical considerations too. If comprehension of moral responsibility is not the determining factor in whether a being deserves rights, then what is? Biological organisms, including trees? Possession of a nervous system? What kind of nervous system? Simple organisms have bodily structures that perform a very general nervous system-ish function, yet is completely unlike our human nervous system.Will we let God decide? Why? Which god? How do we know how God defines a ‘person’? If we can determine this, why does God use the criteria that he does? Is it just his whim? Or is he obeying a higher order of morality himself?I’d be an idiot to claim that my opinions on this topic are perfect, I simply happen to think that my criteria are likely to be the least shitty out of a plethora of shitty choices.
So we’ll never agree, but in the interest of philisophical discussion let me ask this: in your opinion or worldview, why does a being have to have a moral awareness to be treated morally? Why does someone/something have to know what rights are before you grant them? In keeping with the animals theme, eating animals in your worldview would not be immoral because despite that they are living creatures they have no moral awareness so what they don’t know won’t hurt them.
Sorry HighBoy,I didn’t have the time to write a follow-up to your answers. Though I have following your conversation with Flimsy with certain interest.—Back to our own discussion, you’ve said:<>“Gord: No, I don’t believe its possible for me to misunderstand a divine revelation. It is possible however to claim to have one and be a liar. <>I am glad you have absolute certitude of your communication with your god. Though this does not come close to answering my question. My original question is:<>If a god decides to reveal certain revelations to a believer. Then is it at all possible for that believer to somehow misunderstand/misinterpret that message (given that we limited humans are ill-equip to understand such an infinite being to begin with)?<>What I want to know is: can an <>arbitrary<> believer mistake a divine relevation somehow, not you specifically.I believe you when you say you can’t mistake any communication with God, thus making you infallible when God reveal his insights to you. But are other theists as infallible as yourself?—<>A Christian who walks with Christ on a regular basis and spends his/her life trying to grow in a relationship with Him would grasp to an extent God’s morality… God grants that wisdom to those who ask.”<>This really points to my original question about God-to-human communication. As far as I can tell there are as many Christian Anti-abolitionist as there are Christian Pro-abolitionist. So is God Pro or Anti-abolition?Half of those Christians are mistaken in either understanding or following His commands, whichever commands He gave in the beginning. But you must agree that somewhere along the line, the God-to-Human communication channel is faulty. Isn’t that correct?—<>“If God has held a position of X, then later on changes his mind to a position of ~X. Which is the correct position: X or ~X? Or both?He didn’t change His position. How do you figure He did? Changing His mind on whether or not to grant mercy on someone isn’t changing the position of what is morally right or wrong.”<>I think you misunderstood my usage of the word “position”, or perhaps I was lazy in its usage. By using “position”, I was not questioning God’s moral position, I was saying a “position” as in:X = destroy Jerusalem~X = don’t destroy JerusalemSo according to 1 Chronicles 21:15, God wanted to destroy the city. Then he changed his mind and granted mercy (after the destruction has begun mind you).My original question still stand: Was X correct or was ~X correct? Or was both X and ~X correct? (Or both incorrect?)May I preempt you and guess that you would reply that God was right to destroy the city and He was right to grant mercy. But this does not solve the conundrum that He was momentrary devoided of that tiny smidgen of mercy when he held the position of X (destroy Jerusalem).In his infinite wisdom and love, he granted mercy, that makes X a wrong position to hold in the beginning. Wouldn’t you agree?With kind regards,G—And much thanks to Ziztur and Flimsy for being such gracious host. I promise to wipe my shoes each time I come in to your domain. :-)
Sorry HighBoy,I didn’t have the time to write a follow-up to your answers. Though I have following your conversation with Flimsy with certain interest.—Back to our own discussion, you’ve said:<>“Gord: No, I don’t believe its possible for me to misunderstand a divine revelation. It is possible however to claim to have one and be a liar. <>I am glad you have absolute certitude of your communication with your god. Though this does not come close to answering my question. My original question is:<>If a god decides to reveal certain revelations to a believer. Then is it at all possible for that believer to somehow misunderstand/misinterpret that message (given that we limited humans are ill-equip to understand such an infinite being to begin with)?<>What I want to know is: can an <>arbitrary<> believer mistake a divine relevation somehow, not you specifically.I believe you when you say you can’t mistake any communication with God, thus making you infallible when God reveal his insights to you. But are other theists as infallible as yourself?—<>A Christian who walks with Christ on a regular basis and spends his/her life trying to grow in a relationship with Him would grasp to an extent God’s morality… God grants that wisdom to those who ask.”<>This really points to my original question about God-to-human communication. As far as I can tell there are as many Christian Anti-abolitionist as there are Christian Pro-abolitionist. So is God Pro or Anti-abolition?Half of those Christians are mistaken in either understanding or following His commands, whichever commands He gave in the beginning. But you must agree that somewhere along the line, the God-to-Human communication channel is faulty. Isn’t that correct?—<>“If God has held a position of X, then later on changes his mind to a position of ~X. Which is the correct position: X or ~X? Or both?He didn’t change His position. How do you figure He did? Changing His mind on whether or not to grant mercy on someone isn’t changing the position of what is morally right or wrong.”<>I think you misunderstood my usage of the word “position”, or perhaps I was lazy in its usage. By using “position”, I was not questioning God’s moral position, I was saying a “position” as in:X = destroy Jerusalem~X = don’t destroy JerusalemSo according to 1 Chronicles 21:15, God wanted to destroy the city. Then he changed his mind and granted mercy (after the destruction has begun mind you).My original question still stand: Was X correct or was ~X correct? Or was both X and ~X correct? (Or both incorrect?)May I preempt you and guess that you would reply that God was right to destroy the city and He was right to grant mercy. But this does not solve the conundrum that He was momentrary devoided of that tiny smidgen of mercy when he held the position of X (destroy Jerusalem).In his infinite wisdom and love, he granted mercy, that makes X a wrong position to hold in the beginning. Wouldn’t you agree?With kind regards,G—And much thanks to Ziztur and Flimsy for being such gracious host. I promise to wipe my shoes each time I come in to your domain. :-)
This is in response to Flimsy’s overall post. Flimsy and I have engaged in a long debate concerning the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. I would like to interject here and provide some insight from the purview of Catholic theology. Obviously I have a bias towards this issue given the fact that I have experienced Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (Communion). Jesus, as true God and true Man, the embodiment of unconditional love and compassion, suffered the greatest human evil (the torture, humiliation, and killing of love incarnate) in order to condemn and pay for all the wrongs done by humanity through His death and to overcome sin through His subsequent Resurrection. The cross was a mirror used to increase the awareness of humanity’s faults and teach us humility. Jesus’ sacrifice was to arouse the collective consciousness of humankind to spread peace through forgiveness; just as God forgave us through the death and resurrection of his Son. “Forgiveness is the greatest presence of peace” – Mother Teresa. “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Ergo, the justice that was carried out in Christ’s death and resurrection was such that God’s plan was to reform humankind towards purity and goodness through the giving of atonement and salvation. This is what Hegel referred to as revealed religion vs natural religion. I would argue that Christianity encompasses both. Thomas Aquinas asserted that both reason and faith are components of Christianity. Here are some excerpts from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:603 – “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all,” so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son.”654 – The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.” We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.”
This is in response to Flimsy’s overall post. Flimsy and I have engaged in a long debate concerning the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. I would like to interject here and provide some insight from the purview of Catholic theology. Obviously I have a bias towards this issue given the fact that I have experienced Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (Communion). Jesus, as true God and true Man, the embodiment of unconditional love and compassion, suffered the greatest human evil (the torture, humiliation, and killing of love incarnate) in order to condemn and pay for all the wrongs done by humanity through His death and to overcome sin through His subsequent Resurrection. The cross was a mirror used to increase the awareness of humanity’s faults and teach us humility. Jesus’ sacrifice was to arouse the collective consciousness of humankind to spread peace through forgiveness; just as God forgave us through the death and resurrection of his Son. “Forgiveness is the greatest presence of peace” – Mother Teresa. “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Ergo, the justice that was carried out in Christ’s death and resurrection was such that God’s plan was to reform humankind towards purity and goodness through the giving of atonement and salvation. This is what Hegel referred to as revealed religion vs natural religion. I would argue that Christianity encompasses both. Thomas Aquinas asserted that both reason and faith are components of Christianity. Here are some excerpts from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:603 – “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all,” so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son.”654 – The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God’s grace, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ’s brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: “Go and tell my brethren.” We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.”