Religion as character development

[Approaching Infinity]

Well, maybe we can start with some questions.

First, who are some people who have character? What features of their personality show this? And how do their actions match up with these features? Second, who are some people who we could say DON'T have character?

I'll start with some obvious examples, which could obviously be expanded. Caesar and Cicero. Caesar demonstrated temperance, for example, in his approach to eating and drinking. He borrowed and spent a of money, but considering the goals to which he put this money, I think it shows a gift for practical reasoning: having a goal, and taking the steps needed to reach that goal, even at personal risk. He had boundless energy, a tireless work ethic, and wide-ranging interests. He could get along with anyone, from 'simple' folk to high-born aristocrats. He had courage, which can be confused with rashness. Was he rash? What role did luck or fortune play in the outcomes of his risks? He definitely had a lot of forethought. He could seemingly see all aspects of a problem and find the best choice. He was willing to die rather than compromise himself and capitulate to 'the system'. I think he could probably be held up as an example of what Paul might call "faithfulness unto death". In other words, he died with integrity.

Cicero, on the other hand, had no personal integrity. He said one thing and did another. He exploited people. He slandered Catiline, had people murdered on a fabricated pretext, all for his own aggrandizement. And he couldn't see or understand who Caesar was or what he was doing. (Virtue can only be really recognized by others with virtue?) He had purely selfish motives, but presented them in terms of only wanting the best for Rome. He was a hypocrite.

Anyone want to expand on that, correct me, or add some other examples?

 

[Laura]

I want to come back to the original question.

Anyways, the author, Colin Miller, argues that Paul actually thought it was possible, and very important, to strive to be virtuous. In other words, to develop our character: to become prudent, courageous, just, loving. This is what it meant to "die to the flesh" and become part of the "body of Christ", i.e. a community striving towards the same goal through their individual and collective actions.

There is some discussion among theologians/academics as to whether or not Paul was contradicting himself by declaring, on the one hand, that one could do nothing to earn grace/forgiveness/remission of sins and on the other, exhorting his communities to behave in certain ways. I think Paul's point was that, because they had "put on the mind of Christ" so to say, they would NATURALLY follow certain models of behavior (Paul just had to remind them a bit now and then), and that their activation of these characteristics was evidence of their assimilation to the body of Christ, so to say. In other words, he was subtly challenging them to put their behavior where their claims were (or money where the mouth is).

But the question for me is this: is developing one's character all there is to 'religion', or is there more? Paul seemingly thought there was more to it. It wasn't just that humans are slave to vices, but to sins. I.e., our behaviors actually reflect our relationship with the Divine. Our lives are either in harmony with and energized by the ultimate, the divine 'direction' (leading to 'life'), or they are not (leading to 'death'). Being virtuous is being right with God/the Cosmos/the Ultimate.

I've got my own thoughts on the subject, but I'm wondering what you all think. Is it just important to develop one's character?

Here you have to remember that, despite the fact that Paul broke almost completely with Jewish legalism, he still was convinced that the Jewish god was the creator of the Universe and a loving father thanks to his Pesher-like exegesis of the scriptures. He was also, apparently, much influenced by Greek mystery religions and philosophy either directly, or via Philo. As I mentioned in the Bible thread, there are lines in the writings of Paul that are identical to things that Seneca wrote, as a Stoic, and which raise the question as to how that happened.

In reading Paul, what comes across to me about character development, is that he very much promoted the idea of mutual support, equality, networking and, most of all, love, and that these things would lead to the formation of a sort of super human, or cosmic human, that would inhabit a "new creation". It was a variation on the "Son of Man" theme from Daniel and Enoch. In Daniel, the "Son of Man" was contrasted to the "Beasts" - he describes his visions "one like a beast having... blah blah..." and "One like a son of Man", so you know that they are sort of in the same category as cosmic phenomena.

One COULD suggest that what he was describing, or attempting to create, was what Ra called a "Social Memory Complex" or what the Cs might call a 4D being, a network where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And this Christ that Paul picked to be his figurehead was the "first fruits" of the process of this creation of a new, semi-physical world - the "New Adam" who was in the new creation/reality and should be acting as the template for the new humanity known collectively as the Son of Man. In short, sort of like Gurdjieff's attempt to create a group of 200 awakened individuals to change the course of history and stave off the destruction of mankind. It seems that this may have also been on Paul's mind.

So, for Paul, this "character development" was essentially assimilating to the Son of Man.

Nevertheless, the title of the thread is "Religion as character development" and the topic can be explored in other directions, such as trying to determine the character development of the Greeks and Romans in relation to their religions. That's an interesting direction. I'll come back to it when I have time.

 

[Joe]

First, who are some people who have character? What features of their personality show this? And how do their actions match up with these features? Second, who are some people who we could say DON'T have character?

I'm not sure this is the best way to restart this topic. I think there are unclear aspects of the original question you asked. So I think those need to be ironed out first before we can understand what you are trying to get at.

You wrote:

I've been reading a book lately called "The Practice of the Body of Christ: Human Agency in Pauline Theology after MacIntyre". The main idea of the book is that Paul actually wrote and operated with a classical account of human agency in mind. In other words, humans can work and act to develop new and better habits of behavior: to become virtuous and overcome vices. The mainstream view of Paul has been that he denies human agency: we have no free will, we can't do anything to improve ourselves, we are and always will be sinners. Therefore Jesus died FOR us in order to wipe the slate clean for us; we're still sinners but because Jesus paid the price, now God can fudge the numbers and pretend we're actually righteous, and presto, we can go to heaven. It's actually God who does everything. Yeah, it's nonsense, but that's pretty much what a lot of Christians and theologians and academics think Paul said (not to mention think it's actually true in principle).

Being a sinner does not preclude the mainstream Christian idea that we can become closer to god, or more like god or Jesus, by living a virtuous life. In fact, to be a good Christian, you must strive always to live a virtuous life. That said, Christianity also teaches that if you are not a Christian, it doesn't matter how virtuous a life you lead, you cannot "go to heaven". Conversely, as long as you are a Christian, even if you live a life bereft of virtue, you can go to heaven as long as you "repent", even at the last minute.

As you noted, this is counter-intuitive to any rational or just natural or divine laws, and is likely nonsense.

You then wrote:

Anyways, the author, Colin Miller, argues that Paul actually thought it was possible, and very important, to strive to be virtuous. In other words, to develop our character: to become prudent, courageous, just, loving. This is what it meant to "die to the flesh" and become part of the "body of Christ", i.e. a community striving towards the same goal through their individual and collective actions.

As I already noted, modern Christianity stresses the need (although not an absolute need) to be virtuous and develop character to be 'more like Jesus'. What you seem to be saying here is that we can dispense with the nonsense of "original sin/savior" and focus on what is left - leading a virtuous life - if we want to understand the real meaning and function of religion and spirituality.

You then wrote:

But the question for me is this: is developing one's character all there is to 'religion', or is there more? Paul seemingly thought there was more to it. It wasn't just that humans are slave to vices, but to sins. I.e., our behaviors actually reflect our relationship with the Divine. Our lives are either in harmony with and energized by the ultimate, the divine 'direction' (leading to 'life'), or they are not (leading to 'death'). Being virtuous is being right with God/the Cosmos/the Ultimate.

I'm not sure you've explained very well what you understand the difference between vice and sin to be here. It seems you are saying that vice is perhaps a learned thing but sin is some kind of ingrained 'nature' from which it is more difficult to divest ourselves. You can simply stop engaging in a vice, but may still be left with some more indelible negative or ungodly trait(s).

So this is now what I understand your original question to be:

Over and above the efforts any human being can make to lead a virtuous and good life - efforts that may not prove sufficient for him/her to truly evolve in a spiritual sense - is there some kind of 'power' or force or energy or information field, in the universe towards which human beings can be led, or into which they can 'tap', that will set them on the path to real spiritual evolution?

It's very important to formulate a clear question if we want to avoid misunderstandings and therefore tangential meanderings. So correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

What you seem to be saying here is that we can dispense with the nonsense of "original sin/savior" and focus on what is left - leading a virtuous life - if we want to understand the real meaning and function of religion and spirituality.

Not quite. That would be a part of the answer to the question. See below.

I'm not sure you've explained very well what you understand the difference between vice and sin to be here. It seems you are saying that vice is perhaps a learned thing but sin is some kind of ingrained 'nature' from which it is more difficult to divest ourselves. You can simply stop engaging in a vice, but may still be left with some more indelible negative or ungodly trait(s).

As far as I understand it (based on reading this Miller book), vice and sin are pretty much the same in terms of behavior. The difference is just in the context in which they are described. So sin would just be a religious term for vice, in general. In other words, vices may have a richer theological reality to them, besides the strictly anthropological/human-based context that 'vices' are usually described in. Based on my reading of Miller and others, this is how Paul saw it. He seems to describe traditional vices, but gives them a religious significance and thus calls them sins. So a 'theological' question would be: what is the 'true nature' of vices? Or, is there a greater, cosmological significance to vice?

So this is now what I understand your original question to be:

Over and above the efforts any human being can make to lead a virtuous and good life - efforts that may not prove sufficient for him/her to truly evolve in a spiritual sense - is there some kind of 'power' or force or energy or information field, in the universe towards which human beings can be led, or into which they can 'tap', that will set them on the path to real spiritual evolution?

It's very important to formulate a clear question if we want to avoid misunderstandings and therefore tangential meanderings. So correct me if I'm wrong here.

Again, not quite. I'll try to rephrase the question:

a) Some people, like Bob Price and other atheists, say that the only important thing in life is to develop one's character (being a 'good person'). Any talk of religion or spirituality is false and unnecessary. As long as you're a 'good person', that's all that matters. There's no need to bring in talk of anything beyond this.

b) Others, like Paul, disagree. (And the reason I included a bit on Paul's thoughts was because many deny that Paul actually thought that character development was important. It looks like they're wrong and that he did argue that character development was very important.) They might say that character development is a necessary aspect of spirituality. They might also say that spirituality is an integral part of character development. Paul doesn't just describe good behavior, he gives a theological basis and justification for it.

So, c) Who is right? Are the atheists missing something important be just focusing on being 'good people' without some spiritual understanding of what they're doing? If so, what exactly are they missing? How does spirituality relate to character development? Or is a spiritual context for living one's life and developing one's character unnecessary?

The reason I thought it might be good to start with some examples of good character is because I think it makes sense to first figure out what real character is. Then we can see if there is an aspect of spirituality that is essential to this process, and the ways in which it might be essential. That would get into the stuff you wrote above, e.g., questions about things beyond our own efforts.

 

[Al Today]

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the "general law". This came to mind when I read about a being is bucking the system... Removing themselves from...

Here is where ignorance may show...
Here, where we are, laws are placed on the books to be followed by the group. If one "removes" itself from those laws, then they are outside of the law. I would say going rogue, not of the norm, opposite and outside of the law. Being within a closed system and going rogue, methinks some sort of "watchers", policing system would "see" this rogue activity and attempt to remove that being from the system. It would then become outcast. This is beyond my knowledge to even consider the ramifications of such activity.
See my ignorance...
Thanks again...

What you describe there is what Gurdjieff calls the "general law", which he says is 'activated' in earnest against someone who tries to remove themselves from it. In short, when you try to remove yourself from those "laws" they have a tendency to 'coincidentally' reassert themselves with force in your life to try and get you 'back in line'.

A major point of this forum is to help members, through networking, navigate the trials of this general law with a little more ease.

 

[mkrnhr]

I think there are a few misunderstandings of some words being used. For example, "character" is being equated to being "good people". If I understand what moderns mean by being good, that is not what I understand by having character at all. So, maybe a few definitions can help?

 

[Redrock12]

Wonderful topic, although I'll leave the discussion to those more adroit and intellectually predisposed to analysis of such a complex subject.
I thought I had it all figured out. Obviously I was wrong.

 

[Al Today]

[...]
However, I would like to suggest that the intellectual wise-acreing stop and ya'll bring it down into practical terms and make it easy for everyone to understand.
[...]

Thank You for the comment. I must admit that a few years ago when I read the online version of The Wave, I had the dictionary excitedly by my side. Since then, my vocabulary has increased profoundly and with help from forum members my written communications have improved to my benefit for life in general.

Many terms and concepts here can be quite intimidating to those who are catching up (me). Those who are up the ladder need to remember those on lower rungs are becoming familiar with terms and concepts never "seen" before. None of us are of equal information accumulated.

I am probably asking too much when I ask that when advanced topic/concepts are presented, a gentle offering be provided as to where additional information can be found.
Then 'tis up to the individual to become familiar with the subject...

I realize there is no free lunch, but where to find the fixins I think would be appreciated...

 

[Chu]

I had a similar thought to mkrnhr.

Again, not quite. I'll try to rephrase the question:

a) Some people, like Bob Price and other atheists, say that the only important thing in life is to develop one's character (being a 'good person'). Any talk of religion or spirituality is false and unnecessary. As long as you're a 'good person', that's all that matters. There's no need to bring in talk of anything beyond this.

b) Others, like Paul, disagree. (And the reason I included a bit on Paul's thoughts was because many deny that Paul actually thought that character development was important. It looks like they're wrong and that he did argue that character development was very important.) They might say that character development is a necessary aspect of spirituality. They might also say that spirituality is an integral part of character development. Paul doesn't just describe good behavior, he gives a theological basis and justification for it.

So, c) Who is right? Are the atheists missing something important be just focusing on being 'good people' without some spiritual understanding of what they're doing? If so, what exactly are they missing? How does spirituality relate to character development? Or is a spiritual context for living one's life and developing one's character unnecessary?

That's slightly clearer, but I think that based on different things that were written in this thread, it could still be simplified a bit more. How are you defining "spirituality", and "character development"? Sometimes it seems you are talking about "divine intervention", sometimes about a person simply having faith, when you talk about spirituality. Sometimes you seem to talk about character development as in "positive disintegration", others as simply "becoming a good person", etc. I'm confused.

Perhaps it's the reason why you asked the question to begin with, because it's not clear in your head? Usually the less clear something is, the more your mind complicates it to try and make sense of it. Point c) has 4 different questions, and they all contain these terms which haven't been clearly defined. And what do you mean by "spiritual context"??? Maybe defining those terms clearly would be a better start?

Indeed, I would like to commend AI and Obyvatel for engaging in this discussion. However, I would like to suggest that the intellectual wise-acreing stop and ya'll bring it down into practical terms and make it easy for everyone to understand. I have to admit that my head goes all woozy when trying to sort through ya'll's convoluted sentences.

Mine too. I still don't really know what the real question/topic of discussion is.

 

[Joe]

Many terms and concepts here can be quite intimidating to those who are catching up (me). Those who are up the ladder need to remember those on lower rungs are becoming familiar with terms and concepts never "seen" before. None of us are of equal information accumulated.

I am probably asking too much when I ask that when advanced topic/concepts are presented, a gentle offering be provided as to where additional information can be found.
Then 'tis up to the individual to become familiar with the subject...

Not really in any strict sense. There's a saying that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it in terms that a child can understand. That's perhaps a little extreme, but certainly it should be able to be explained in terms that a person of average intellect can understand, at least theoretically.

 

[mkrnhr]

There was recently a SOTT article about character, its "absence" in modern culture and how to build it: http://www.sott.net/article/298848-What-is-character-Its-3-true-qualities-and-how-to-develop-it
Is this what we are talking about?

 

[Al Today]

Many terms and concepts here can be quite intimidating to those who are catching up (me). Those who are up the ladder need to remember those on lower rungs are becoming familiar with terms and concepts never "seen" before. None of us are of equal information accumulated.

I am probably asking too much when I ask that when advanced topic/concepts are presented, a gentle offering be provided as to where additional information can be found.
Then 'tis up to the individual to become familiar with the subject...

Not really in any strict sense. There's a saying that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it in terms that a child can understand. That's perhaps a little extreme, but certainly it should be able to be explained in terms that a person of average intellect can understand, at least theoretically.

And then that person could continue and do some research, become a tad more familiar so as to be able to ask questions that can further understanding. What we do battle with are those who want to be spoon fed with quick absolute definitive answers. A true seeker has gotta start somewhere. See a starting point on a roadmap.

[...]
I still don't really know what the real question/topic of discussion is.

I agree. Somehow the question has become lost. My brain spins from considering all that could be said...

 

[Laura]

As far as I understand it (based on reading this Miller book), vice and sin are pretty much the same in terms of behavior. The difference is just in the context in which they are described. So sin would just be a religious term for vice, in general. In other words, vices may have a richer theological reality to them, besides the strictly anthropological/human-based context that 'vices' are usually described in. Based on my reading of Miller and others, this is how Paul saw it. He seems to describe traditional vices, but gives them a religious significance and thus calls them sins. So a 'theological' question would be: what is the 'true nature' of vices? Or, is there a greater, cosmological significance to vice?

To start with, I think it would be useful to define terms as precisely as possible. And then understand what Paul considered to be sins.

Vice is commonly defined as : immoral or wicked behaviour., criminal activities involving prostitution, pornography, or drugs.

And sin is defined as: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Right away we run into problems because Paul's idea of sin was heavily dependent on the Judaic law that he has pretty much tossed out as far as it concerned food and ritual purity. But what he did retain from that code was the almost obsessive occupation with sexuality. Well, we know that sexuality is problematical for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is transmission of communicable diseases, transfer of negative energies, modification of one's frequency, etc. Those are all good, practical reasons to carefully evaluate one's sexual behaviors. But as to whether or not sexual behavior can be religiously important, I have my doubts. Though certainly, religions can insist that it is important so as to protect a population from dire consequences of disease, for instance.

But, of course, Paul was concerned about other things than just sex, though he spent a lot of time on that because his pagan converts didn't see sex the same way the ordinary Jew did. The Jews, I think, on this topic were partly right, but for the wrong reasons, mainly because they didn't understand the reasoning behind their "law" which was mostly borrowed from Pythagoreans/Orphism (and that's a whole other topic).

a) Some people, like Bob Price and other atheists, say that the only important thing in life is to develop one's character (being a 'good person'). Any talk of religion or spirituality is false and unnecessary. As long as you're a 'good person', that's all that matters. There's no need to bring in talk of anything beyond this.

I think that some of these folks toss the baby out with the bathwater though, again, it may not be religiosity or even spirituality exactly that is at stake. Perhaps it is simply that there are energies to be considered and that can be scientifically described. I've heard that Satanists can be ascetic and self-denying of all the things Paul railed against and they think they are spiritual and, from their point of view, perhaps they are. And perhaps they are religious as well about it. But it still doesn't get one to the important points about energies within and what the Cs call FRV.

b) Others, like Paul, disagree. (And the reason I included a bit on Paul's thoughts was because many deny that Paul actually thought that character development was important. It looks like they're wrong and that he did argue that character development was very important.) They might say that character development is a necessary aspect of spirituality. They might also say that spirituality is an integral part of character development. Paul doesn't just describe good behavior, he gives a theological basis and justification for it.

Well, I have a problem with your term "character development". What exactly does this mean? And that's where we will have just a little fun when I get a few minutes to put together some stuff on Roman religion. You've already described the differences between Caesar and Cicero and I think it will be very useful to understand the context in which these character traits were formed and how they were understood.

So, c) Who is right? Are the atheists missing something important be just focusing on being 'good people' without some spiritual understanding of what they're doing? If so, what exactly are they missing? How does spirituality relate to character development? Or is a spiritual context for living one's life and developing one's character unnecessary?

I think it is asking a question that is not precisely founded nor asked in the simplest way. This is probably the fault of the author of the book that concerns you here. He has things horribly muddled and nothing else can come out of it the way it is formulated. I don't think you need a "spiritual context" for living and being decent and having the Universe respond positively to that. Of course, and obviously, what "being decent" is will vary from context to context and trying to lock it into a Christian context is not going to get anyone anywhere.

The reason I thought it might be good to start with some examples of good character is because I think it makes sense to first figure out what real character is. Then we can see if there is an aspect of spirituality that is essential to this process, and the ways in which it might be essential. That would get into the stuff you wrote above, e.g., questions about things beyond our own efforts.

Well, I think that Gurdjieff covered this topic quite well in his discussions on being conscious and having conscience, and on good and evil. I don't think it can even be discussed adequately in the context presented here. Paul got some things right, and some things wrong mainly because he was relying on the OT and related texts for his inspiration and mixing it up with other things. Of course, what we know - or think we know - is based on texts that have been undoubtedly somewhat modified so we have to infer a lot from what is left. That IS a promising path to follow.

Mainly, I see Paul as being concerned to get people who had no freaking idea what LOVE actually was to try to behave in loving ways toward one another. He got some of that right, and some of it wrong; again, because of the source of many of his ideas, the OT. The ONLY way to even try to understand things that Paul said was to really grok the context of the time and what was going on, the conditions, etc. That is a far more fruitful path to take in understanding what Paul was trying to do, I think.

 

[Laura]

There was recently a SOTT article about character, its "absence" in modern culture and how to build it: http://www.sott.net/article/298848-What-is-character-Its-3-true-qualities-and-how-to-develop-it
Is this what we are talking about?

Very useful article. It makes it clear that this question is not so simple.

 

[Joe]

So this seems to be your question:

Are the atheists missing something important be just focusing on being 'good people' without some spiritual understanding of what they're doing? If so, what exactly are they missing? How does spirituality relate to character development? Or is a spiritual context for living one's life and developing one's character unnecessary?

Can you not see how my summation of your posts so far:

Over and above the efforts any human being can make to lead a virtuous and good life - efforts that may not prove sufficient for him/her to truly evolve in a spiritual sense - is there some kind of 'power' or force or energy or information field, in the universe towards which human beings can be led, or into which they can 'tap', that will set them on the path to real spiritual evolution?

Is more or less the same as your question above?

I think that in cases like this you should try to formulate your question as fully and simply as possible at the very beginning, with all of your thoughts about it. If you don't make the effort to do that, it can become a process of attempting to discover what your question actually is, rather than discovering the answer to your question/thoughts.