Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 05-16-2011, 07:30 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,720
"Live a good life", with or without Gods- quote of Marcus Aurelius

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-- Marcus Aurelius

This pretty much sums up my philosophy of life. For people who disagree, what's your best shot at convincing me I'm wrong?

Last edited by tomndebb; 05-26-2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason: The authenticity of the quotation should be taken up in a separate thread: see posts #7 and #22.
Advertisements
#2
Old 05-16-2011, 07:48 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Wakayama, Japan
Posts: 3,177
The assumption that any god who cares about your level of devotion is fundamentally unjust seems like something that many would take exception to.
#3
Old 05-16-2011, 08:59 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
(Some) Christians believe in salvation by "faith alone" -- which is distinguished from "works."

But I'm not sure whether prayer, worship, etc., would come under the heading of "faith" or "works."
#4
Old 05-16-2011, 09:13 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,523
FWIW, I read somewhere on the backwaters of the internet that M.A. never said such a thing. It's a fake attribution. I recall there being enough links to convince me that the claim's true, but I'll be damned if I can find it all now. It seems like Marcus started getting a lot of internet cred right after Gladiator came out.

Take it with a grain of salt, 's all I'm sayin'.
#5
Old 05-16-2011, 09:26 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,228
It's like the anti-Pascal.
#6
Old 05-16-2011, 09:35 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Can't seem to find it on Wikiquote. Though there is some cool stuff there --

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
The longest-lived and the shortest-lived man, when they come to die, lose one and the same thing.

***

Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect.

***

Men seek retreats for themselves, houses in the country, sea-shores, and mountains; and thou too art wont to desire such things very much. But this is altogether a mark of the most common sort of men, for it is in thy power whenever thou shalt choose to retire into thyself. For nowhere either with more quiet or more freedom from trouble does a man retire than into his own soul.

***

Reverence the gods, and help men. Short is life.

***

The art of life is more like the wrestler's art than the dancer's, in respect of this, that it should stand ready and firm to meet onsets which are sudden and unexpected.
And then some of it is to a modern mind kinda WTF?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
Whatever may befall you, it was preordained for you from everlasting.

***

The man who is honest and good ought to be exactly like a man who smells strong, so that the bystander as soon as he comes near him must smell whether he choose or not.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 05-16-2011 at 09:36 AM.
#7
Old 05-16-2011, 09:35 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,720
Whether or not M.A. said it, I still like the quote. The question in my OP still stands, whoever said the quote.
#8
Old 05-16-2011, 09:40 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by cckerberos View Post
The assumption that any god who cares about your level of devotion is fundamentally unjust seems like something that many would take exception to.
The issue isn't caring about devotion per se; it's caring more about devotion than about actual moral conduct.

We recognize that a mere human who cares more about how much somebody sucks up than about how they behave is a shallow jackass; how much more would the same principle apply to a supposed god?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 05-16-2011 at 09:42 AM.
#9
Old 05-16-2011, 09:43 AM
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,720
cckerberos- The objections are what I'm interested in! Do you object? If so, why? Can you convince me I'm wrong?
#10
Old 05-16-2011, 09:51 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
The issue isn't caring about devotion per se; it's caring more about devotion than about actual moral conduct.

We recognize that a mere human who cares more about how much somebody sucks up than about how they behave is a shallow jackass; how much more would the same principle apply to a supposed god?
What? Gods Need Prayer Badly.
#11
Old 05-16-2011, 09:57 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 24,822
Here's the closest quote by him I can find:

Quote:
Since it is possible that you may depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve you in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence? But in truth they do exist, and they do care for human things, and they have put all the means in man's power to enable him not to fall into real evils. And as to the rest, if there was anything evil, they would have provided for this also, that it should be altogether in a man's power not to fall into it.
So what that quote is saying is, "What ever you do, do it as if you may die the next moment. But, don't be afraid of death, because if there are gods, they'll take care of you, and if there aren't, there's no point in living. But there are gods, and they've made it possible for you to act in such a way to avoid bad stuff happening to you. And, if there's anything bad that may happen to you in the next life/afterlife, they'll make it possible for you to act in such a way as to avoid that too.
#12
Old 05-16-2011, 10:09 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Philosophers from the beginning had been baffled by the purported spiritual value of ritual. From the first book of The Republic, by Plato:

Quote:
Accordingly we went with Polemarchus to his house; and there we found his brothers Lysias and Euthydemus, and with them Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Charmantides the Paeanian, and Cleitophon the son of Aristonymus. There too was Cephalus the father of Polemarchus, whom I had not seen for a long time, and I thought him very much aged. He was seated on a cushioned chair, and had a garland on his head, for he had been sacrificing in the court; and there were some other chairs in the room arranged in a semicircle, upon which we sat down by him. He saluted me eagerly, and then he said:—

You don't come to see me, Socrates, as often as you ought: If I were still able to go and see you I would not ask you to come to me. But at my age I can hardly get to the city, and therefore you should come oftener to the Piraeus. For let me tell you, that the more the pleasures of the body fade away, the greater to me is the pleasure and charm of conversation. Do not then deny my request, but make our house your resort and keep company with these young men; we are old friends, and you will be quite at home with us.

<snip>


Yes, that is very true, but may I ask another question?—What do you consider to be the greatest blessing which you have reaped from your wealth?

One, he said, of which I could not expect easily to convince others. For let me tell you, Socrates, that when a man thinks himself to be near death, fears and cares enter into his mind which he never had before; the tales of a world below and the punishment which is exacted there of deeds done here were once a laughing matter to him, but now he is tormented with the thought that they may be true: either from the weakness of age, or because he is now drawing nearer to that other place, he has a clearer view of these things; suspicions and alarms crowd thickly upon him, and he begins to reflect and consider what wrongs he has done to others. And when he finds that the sum of his transgressions is great he will many a time like a child start up in his sleep for fear, and he is filled with dark forebodings. But to him who is conscious of no sin, sweet hope, as Pindar charmingly says, is the kind nurse of his age:

'Hope,' he says, 'cherishes the soul of him who lives in justice and holiness, and is the nurse of his age and the companion of his journey;—hope which is mightiest to sway the restless soul of man.'

How admirable are his words! And the great blessing of riches, I do not say to every man, but to a good man, is, that he has had no occasion to deceive or to defraud others, either intentionally or unintentionally; and when he departs to the world below he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men. Now to this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes; and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of the many advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this is in my opinion the greatest.

Well said, Cephalus, I replied; but as concerning justice, what is it?—to speak the truth and to pay your debts—no more than this? And even to this are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him? No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition.

You are quite right, he replied.

But then, I said, speaking the truth and paying your debts is not a correct definition of justice.

Quite correct, Socrates, if Simonides is to be believed, said Polemarchus interposing.

I fear, said Cephalus, that I must go now, for I have to look after the sacrifices, and I hand over the argument to Polemarchus and the company.
For all his attention to right and wrong, Cephalus seems to think that the best way to curry favor with the gods is to give them their due sacrifices; and the older he grows, the more important this seems.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 05-16-2011 at 10:10 AM.
#13
Old 05-16-2011, 10:15 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
It was always a challenge, anyway, for any Greco-Roman philosopher to be traditionally pious. A philosopher noticed what the average worshipper would not, namely, that the Greek gods* are very bad role-models. They act just like half-civilized Bronze Age royalty would act if they had supernatural powers. They are vain, greedy, jealous, lecherous, wrathful, petty, spiteful and vindictive. They did not even create the universe, they just took it over after murdering their (murderous) parents.


*Regarding Roman gods there was little actual mythology, save that borrowed from the Greek.
#14
Old 05-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 6,127
Ignoring the part about whether he actually said it, my response is, what exactly does it mean to live a good life? That could have any number of meanings depending upon who you ask, and they could be contradictory. I suppose that most would imply that it means to live a moral and just life, but even certain parts of those concepts are not universal.

That said, I am a theist myself, but I am also generally against ritual, especially that ritual which was clearly derived through tradition. Moreso, a lot of the ritual in religion seems to either be derived through tradition where the initial purpose was either a basic celebration or simply a good idea (eg, passover or sabbath respectively). I don't personally believe in hell, but I've specifically always had issue with the idea that one can live as moral a life as possible, but never had a real opportunity to know God, and he'd be damned, but another man might lead a terrible life and forsake numerous opportunities, but have a deathbed confession, and he'd be saved.

I digress, but it seems to me that it sort of does actually have a religious turn, in that I believe that one of the primary purposes of religion, even if it has gotten away from that for a number of people, is to try to determine how to live a good, moral, and just life, and it seems to me that that quote simply says that promise of reward, threat of punishment, or even ultimate meaninglessness should not be motivational factors to which living a good life is a means, but that living a good life is an end unto itself.
#15
Old 05-16-2011, 10:48 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
It was always a challenge, anyway, for any Greco-Roman philosopher to be traditionally pious. A philosopher noticed what the average worshipper would not, namely, that the Greek gods* are very bad role-models. They act just like half-civilized Bronze Age royalty would act if they had supernatural powers. They are vain, greedy, jealous, lecherous, wrathful, petty, spiteful and vindictive. They did not even create the universe, they just took it over after murdering their (murderous) parents.


*Regarding Roman gods there was little actual mythology, save that borrowed from the Greek.
And, by the same token, it was not until the 18th-Century Enlightenment that thinkers began daring to conceive and pose moral criticisms of the (often fierce) deeds of God as recorded in the Bible. And we know where that led . . .

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 05-16-2011 at 10:49 AM.
#16
Old 05-26-2011, 08:57 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Live a good life..."

This pretty much sums up my philosophy of life. For people who disagree, what's your best shot at convincing me I'm wrong?
My objection is that this seems to assume that "a good life" is going to be defined the same in the three scenarios given, (and further that it's going to be defined the same by all people who think this way.) I don't believe that's the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster Master
...my response is, what exactly does it mean to live a good life? That could have any number of meanings depending upon who you ask, and they could be contradictory...
See?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
...If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
This could easily mean, "he killed everyone in the next village, brought back their stuff, and made our lives better. We have a better standard of living, less competition and can increase our tribe. He's a hero and will be remembered through the ages."

The only way that "living a good life" would be the same for you in each scenario is if you live each scenario as if: "...there are gods and they are just..." But, once again someone else will have a different definition of a just god, and that will change what they think is a good life. So, what use is this philosophy if it can't come up with the same code to live by for different people, and can't even come up with the same code for any one person in the different given situations?
#17
Old 05-26-2011, 09:34 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 41,415
I have to admit that I'm suspicious about the authenticity of the quote, too. I've read the Meditations and don't recall this being in there (I used one of the quotes from the Meditations as an epigraph for my Ph.D. thesis. In Physics. If Aurelius said or wrote this, you'd expect it to be in the Meditations). We've had discussions about spurious quotes from famous people many times on this Board before.
#18
Old 05-26-2011, 10:23 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-- Marcus Aurelius

This pretty much sums up my philosophy of life. For people who disagree, what's your best shot at convincing me I'm wrong?
I'm fine with it, and apparently Jesus is too given the good Samaritan parable.
#19
Old 05-26-2011, 11:12 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaster Master View Post
That said, I am a theist myself, but I am also generally against ritual, especially that ritual which was clearly derived through tradition.
Interestingly, I'm an atheist who is generally FOR ritual. Rules are what gives meaning to life.
#20
Old 05-26-2011, 11:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hamster King View Post
Interestingly, I'm an atheist who is generally FOR ritual. Rules are what gives meaning to life.

Interesting statement, as I consider myself a non-religious theist, and I find that rules are what destroys meaning to life.
#21
Old 05-26-2011, 11:46 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 9,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-- Marcus Aurelius

This pretty much sums up my philosophy of life. For people who disagree, what's your best shot at convincing me I'm wrong?
What exactly is a good life? Consider, for instance, that at the time Marcus Aurelius lived infanticide was legal and common. Because boys were economically more valuable than girls, many people killed infant girls. It's estimated that a quarter to a third of girls in ancient Greece and Rome were killed in this way. Now, doubtlessly many ancients Greeks and Romans, after they were done crushing their own child's skull, went right on living what they viewed as a "good life". So if we agree that it wasn't actually good, then clearly the concept of good needs to be defined differently from how people at that time defined it.
#22
Old 05-26-2011, 11:47 AM
Mod Rocker
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,325
I suspect that this thread is going to do quite a bit of wandering, but the specific topic of ritual is really a hijack to this thread. It needs to be dropped or opened in a new thread.

The OP has alreday noted that he is interested in the thought expressed in the quote on the OP, and not in the authenticity of the quote, so that line of discussion is also a hijack.

[/Moderating ]
#23
Old 05-26-2011, 11:56 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 16,506
That could sum up my philosophy as well, except that bit about living on in the memories of friends and loved ones. Don't much care about leaving a mark, or whether the good I do (if any) is buried with my bones. While I'm here to watch, doing good is it's own reward. Because I'm a narcissist
#24
Old 05-26-2011, 12:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 15,368
This is Pascal's Wager, but for actions rather than beliefs. And frankly, it sits better with me than Pascal's because of the last line. Belief by itself means nothing except for you and a god who can read your thoughts, should one exist. Actions are what have effect.
#25
Old 05-26-2011, 01:25 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under the rainbow
Posts: 6,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-- Marcus Aurelius

This pretty much sums up my philosophy of life. For people who disagree, what's your best shot at convincing me I'm wrong?
That sounds an awful lot like Socrates in one of Plato's books (Crito? The one where he's dying...).
#26
Old 05-27-2011, 06:29 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 87
We are the custodians of life’s meaning.

Humans have a tendency to project our nature onto Nature. Deities, meanings etc are human concepts and only valid insofar as they pertain to the human experience.
The question of what constitutes a good life has probably been asked since the dawn of man and will continue to be so until the last man.
#27
Old 05-28-2011, 06:52 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
But there are gods, and they've made it possible for you to act in such a way to avoid bad stuff happening to you.
Then Marcus Aurelius was just another fool.
#28
Old 05-28-2011, 11:27 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
-- Marcus Aurelius

This pretty much sums up my philosophy of life. For people who disagree, what's your best shot at convincing me I'm wrong?
Amusing, considering the quote was by an emperor who murdered thousands simply for refusing to worship him.
#29
Old 05-28-2011, 03:14 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,851
[hijack] The quote is all over the internet. In google books, it is listed in a 2010 book of quotations by Sean Gallacher. It is also on page 298 of The Tale of the Last American, Part II (2010): a character in that work of fiction sources it to Marcus Aurelius. Amazon only lists reviews for Part I. Tate Publishing, who released both works, appears to be a Christian vanity house. But there are no cites before that. [/hijack]

The OP presents a variant of the Atheist's Wager which shares some vulnerabilities with Pascal's original. Neither are entirely robust to the full range of metaphysical possibilities. A mostly benevolent God might be a jealous one. It's not clear whether a powerful creator who made the world isn't due some respect, even if His views and morality don't match perfectly with those creatures operating within an entirely different environment or context. Furthermore, to simply assume that virtue is its own reward is facile. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to applying decision theory to such metaphysical questions, provided it is done at a minimal level of detail.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 05-28-2011 at 03:16 PM.
#30
Old 05-28-2011, 03:20 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 16,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
Amusing, considering the quote was by an emperor who murdered thousands simply for refusing to worship him.
Cite ?
#31
Old 05-28-2011, 08:35 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Cite ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...arcus_Aurelius
Quote:
Belonging to the later Stoical school, which believed in an immediate absorption after death into the Divine essence, Marcus Aurelius considered the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with its moral consequences, as vicious and dangerous to the welfare of the state. A law was passed under his reign, punishing every one with exile who should endeavor to influence people's mind by fear of the Divinity, and this law was aimed at the Christians. At all events his reign was a stormy time for the church, although the persecutions cannot be directly traced to him. The law of Trajan was sufficient to justify the severest measures against the followers of the "forbidden" religion.
#32
Old 05-28-2011, 09:04 PM
Mod Rocker
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi View Post
Amusing, considering the quote was by an emperor who murdered thousands simply for refusing to worship him.
Your subsequent post has done nothing to provide evidence that he "murdered" anyone for failing to worship him.

The law passed in his reign, (with no citation regarding his influence over the Senate's decision), imposed exile, not death.
Nothing indicates that he sought to be worshipped.

I rate your quoted statement a failure.
#33
Old 05-28-2011, 09:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Your subsequent post has done nothing to provide evidence that he "murdered" anyone for failing to worship him.

The law passed in his reign, (with no citation regarding his influence over the Senate's decision), imposed exile, not death.
Nothing indicates that he sought to be worshipped.

I rate your quoted statement a failure.
http://johnreilly.info/maraur.htm
Quote:
This is more than a little odd. The author recites for us the history of the Roman attitude toward Christianity, of which the most striking feature is the general trend toward toleration under the Good Emperors. Trajan endorsed the policy of one of his governors of requiring reputed Christians to sacrifice to the Olympians to prove their loyalty, but forbade that the governor (Pliny the Younger, to be precise) to hunt down Christians to question. Hadrian and Antonius had required strict standards of proof for the fantastic crimes of which Christians were routinely accused; local persecution of the sect was clearly disfavored by the imperial government, even if not quite forbidden. Then Marcus the humane philosopher came to power, a man who believed that logos governed the world, and persecution broke out everywhere. In some places, notably Lyon in Gaul, there were horror-shows in which hundreds of people were sent to the arena without a shred of due process. In other places, little Pilates tried to weasel their way around the law by offering the accused technicalities to snatch at, which even more disconcertingly the accused often refused to do.

No decree or rescript from Marcus survives ordering a general persecution of Christians, but it is certain that he knew what was happening. Some of the victims were locally prominent Roman citizens, and in any case, Marcus would have received many queries about these proceedings as an ordinary part of his legal work. Furthermore, there was a flurry of sophisticated “apologies” for Christianity, some of them addressed to the emperor himself. Even some of the Christians seemed to believe that the emperor would relent if only someone told him the tenets of their religion and that they prayed for him daily. We know for a fact that at least one person did tell him: Athenogoras delivered his apology to Marcus in person at Athens in A.D. 176. It did no good. The persecution eased under Commodus partly because he had a Christian mistress and partly as an aspect of the general paralysis of government during those years.

The author argues, persuasively, that the persecution of Christianity was the correct thing to do in the context of Marcus's world view. There were second-century Romans who opposed metaphysical monotheism; Tacitus comes to mind. However, the empire was willing to tolerate the monotheism of the Jews, even though the Jews had launched two catastrophic revolts against the empire, since it was the monotheism of a self-limiting sect. The Church, in contrast, claimed to be a cosmopolis in just the way that Epictetus's empire was cosmopolis: an eternal community that rightfully laid claim to the final loyalty of all mankind. In the light of such claims, it was irrelevant that Christians prayed for the emperor. To promise to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's is to imply that there are things that are not Caesar's. That is the sort of claim against the state that the Classical world, from first to last, was never able to accommodate.
#34
Old 05-28-2011, 10:59 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,851
(hijack)

Sigh. Qin. 1. It's good form to retract or clarify when you find works that fail to back up your claims.

2. John J. Reilly, the book reviewer you linked to, is no expert. That's ok, but he didn't substantiate his claims, though they appear credible to me (who assuredly knows less about these matters than J.J. Reilly). Anyway, the accusation is that M.A. looked the other way, not that he signed warrents against Xtians himself.

3. The Catholic Encyclopedia thinks that "Marcus Aurelius was one of the best men of heathen antiquity", although, "Christian blood flowed freely in all parts of the empire. The excited populace saw in the misery and bloodshed of the period a proof that the gods were angered by the toleration accorded to the Christians, consequently, they threw on the latter all blame for the incredible public calamities. Whether it was famine or pestilence, drought or floods, the cry was the same (Tertullian, "Apologeticum", V, xli): Christianos ad leonem (Throw the Christians to the lion)." FWIW. http://newadvent.org/cathen/02109a.htm

4. M.A. didn't write the OP anyway.
#35
Old 06-01-2011, 08:41 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
(Some) Christians believe in salvation by "faith alone" -- which is distinguished from "works."

But I'm not sure whether prayer, worship, etc., would come under the heading of "faith" or "works."
The new testament constantly tells Christians to do good works. The distinction is that you are not saved by them. You don't go up to God and say, "sure, I hated you, I didn't want to do good things, (really wanted to do the bad things,) but I did good, so you HAVE to reward me." You do not save yourself. King David was a terrible father, an adulterer, and a murderer. But his attitude when shown his mistakes has him listed as "a man after God's own heart." Conversely, Jesus berated the Jewish leaders who felt self-righteous because they followed the letter of the commandments, calling them adulterers and murderers in their hearts.
#36
Old 06-01-2011, 09:02 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ch4rl3s View Post
The new testament constantly tells Christians to do good works. The distinction is that you are not saved by them. You don't go up to God and say, "sure, I hated you, I didn't want to do good things, (really wanted to do the bad things,) but I did good, so you HAVE to reward me." You do not save yourself. King David was a terrible father, an adulterer, and a murderer. But his attitude when shown his mistakes has him listed as "a man after God's own heart." Conversely, Jesus berated the Jewish leaders who felt self-righteous because they followed the letter of the commandments, calling them adulterers and murderers in their hearts.
Faith cause works.

Also David was not punished/disciplined by God for adultery, neither was Bathsheba as far as the scriptures state. Only for David's murder of Bathsheba's husband to cover up her pregnancy was David disciplined. For Bathsheba's act of adultery God seemed to reward her by making her a queen and her son the wisest king ever to live. Yes the child by David and Bathsheba was lost but that was clearly stated from the bloodguilt of the murder, not the act of adultery. Bloodguilt was David's only real infraction that prevented David from building the temple.

Also note that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery.

David showed great compassion for this child and for his son Absolon, so I would say that he was a great father under very difficult circumstances.

Last edited by kanicbird; 06-01-2011 at 09:06 AM.
#37
Old 06-02-2011, 08:07 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 442
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Faith cause works.
exactly, James 2:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Also David was not punished/disciplined by God for adultery, neither was Bathsheba as far as the scriptures state.
I only said he was an adulterer, not that he was punished for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Also note that Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery.
But, he did tell her to go and sin no more. He confirmed sin. As when he said to look on a woman for the purpose of lust is still adultery in your heart. The point of David, and this woman, and his deriding the Jewish leaders, is that sin can be forgiven... if you don't continue to entertain it in your heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
David showed great compassion for this child and for his son Absolon, so I would say that he was a great father under very difficult circumstances.
And being compassionate is enough? Compassionate parents all know how to properly raise a child? You can look at the accounts and say that David had no fault in how any of his children turned out? My whole point really is not any particular sin of his, but that David was a flawed man who could be forgiven when people who never commited the same acts could be condemned for the same sins.
#38
Old 06-02-2011, 08:50 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by ch4rl3s View Post
exactly, James 2:17


I only said he was an adulterer, not that he was punished for it.
OK, my take is under the new covenant the act of physical act of adultery is not necessarily a sin, as God judges the heart, not the act. But under the old covenant, the law that leads to death, yes it would be a sin.

It is also my belief that the new convent was always available for those who sought God, and David was under the new covenant and knew God personally.


Quote:
But, he did tell her to go and sin no more. He confirmed sin.
Yes, Jesus did not say to her don't commit adultery, but not to sin. Jesus did not identify the adultery as the sin, only the pharisees did that. The sin may very well have been what lead to the outcome of what we call adultery. It is possible to violate the written Law and yet found not guilty by God.

Quote:
As when he said to look on a woman for the purpose of lust is still adultery in your heart.
What about looking at a woman for the purpose of Love?

Quote:
The point of David, and this woman, and his deriding the Jewish leaders, is that sin can be forgiven... if you don't continue to entertain it in your heart.
When one sins they are a slave to the sin, only God can remove that. The entertaining it in your heart may have one try to stop doing that, but without God it is doomed to failure. The answer is Love of God, not trying to stop in your own efforts.



Quote:
And being compassionate is enough? Compassionate parents all know how to properly raise a child? You can look at the accounts and say that David had no fault in how any of his children turned out? My whole point really is not any particular sin of his, but that David was a flawed man who could be forgiven when people who never commited the same acts could be condemned for the same sins.
Yes part of the point is that we are all flawed, but Jesus promises, though Paul's writing for one, to make everything we do turn out for the good if we are truly seeking Him, even with all David's flaws he was perfect because God made it so.

Last edited by kanicbird; 06-02-2011 at 08:53 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: real horse penis sealed ecosystems afrocentrism is bullshit simpsons episode 300 fucking in window beer tomato juice best sword steel ikea message board airplanes names blowjob definition gym water fountains ones or one's urail king santana winds cat drinking beer tacky furniture vanilla bottle sink wrench lowes christopher shea death dead rooster dr strangelove explained pecan mudslide raid kills roaches malachite worth yak shi mash sexualy active non iodine salt hood latch stuck ledbetter family cheer synonym saving private ryan hand shaking any car in the aisle buffalo wild wings or wing stop entry level separation army national guard how to remove a skin tag with dental floss how fast does a fart travel second floor addition to ranch house phone headphone jack loose rhino stomping out fire two guys fucking each other best frozen food at walmart eggs flour sugar butter recipes how to withdraw money with account and routing number does howard stern wear a wig hard to believe in god the beatles vs. the bee gees turn off sent from my iphone cabinet to cover electrical panel tv tropes omnidisciplinary scientist skydiving or bungee jumping double trouble matching game sexy sax man saxagrams what stores sell propylene glycol in propria persona sui juris i'm sorry john denver why do ants bite how do you know if a pineapple is bad what my line mystery guests list why do women scream? what do musicians wear in their ears on stage server ram vs pc ram what is the legal drinking age in korea