Driving Behaviour and Religion

clarkson

magicroundabout wrote:

Apologies in advance for the long explanation. You can't really do half a job of this. You either explain all of it or not bother...

In what way are people who go to church better than other people. What do they do that makes them better?

The answer is nothing. Christians don't DO anything to be "better". Quite a common misunderstanding.

First, let's define "better". Christains, Jews and Muslims all believe in a God who demands absolute perfection from the people he has made. He made you to be perfect, but you've been messed up by the world, and you've chosen to mess up a few times yourself. If we were all perfect, as God demands, then there world would be a pretty amazing place. Peaceful, enjoyable, healthy, with people's differences not mattering (and with everyone driving perfectly, of course!!). We all fall way short of our God's standards!

When people who follow this god try to be better, they're trying to gain the approval of the God. That's what being "better" is for them.

The people of the religions you mention are all trying:

1) to match up to Gods standards - trying to be "better" as defined above
2) to try to encourage the rest of the world to understand this

My understanding of Christianity is pretty good, but of other faiths is not so good, so apologies for that too. My understanding is that the followers of these faiths try to be seen as better by God in the following ways:

Jews: by following the Laws that God laid down to Moses, or interpretations of those laws.
Muslims: by holding to the (5? 7?) main principles of Islam (anything else? not sure what the entry criteria are here)
Christians: by believing that Jesus' death made up for all their wrong. Jesus died in the place of the Christian...in the place of ALL people who will believe in him.

So, given all that, the answer to your question is that people who go to church don't DO anything to be seen as better in God's sight. Their failings are made up for by Jesus' death and all they have to do is believe that and God sees them as being perfect.

The "doing good" bit comes as part of believing. If you believe in Jesus' death then:

1) You must accept his teachings.
2) You owe him one (in fact, you owe him your life!)

So Christians try to become better people in response to what Jesus did. If you're not trying to do good then you can't be believing in Jesus because he told you to do good!

In response to the list of bad things that people of faith ("Better People") do...well, isn't it true that people who don't have a faith do all these things too?

My experience is that:
- the massive majority of religious people I know, of all faiths, are kind, loving, peaceful people, trying to live out high morals in a corrupt society
- the massive majority of nasty people I know, are very anti-religion

Note that I'm NOT saying that there are kind people who aren't religious, or nasty people who are. In fact, the massive majority of non-religious people I know are very nice people. But unlike people of faith, their morals are flexible and unpublished and not up to scrutiny.

I reckon that if you can show me one non-believer who does voluntary work I'll show you 5 believers who do. You show me one non-believer that gives a significant amount to charity and I'll show you 5 belivers who do. I don't have stats to prove it. That's my experience (as a non-believer for about 22 years, and as a believer for less than halfof that). My experience is that the UK would be a much worse place without the church, without the people of Mosque and Temple communities. I believe that the bad is far outweighed by the good.

The idea that we behave morally and ethically through fear of an imaginary being, rather than because we instinctively feel it is the right thing to do, is ridiculous. If your god wasn't looking, would you then feel free to behave as you like?

This raises the idea of having a moral source. Where does that instinctive feeling of right and wrong come from? We could have a nature/nurture discussion but nobody would win it. Here's some questions. Murder is generally construed to be wrong, isn't it? Why? Who says it's wrong? If we're just all just random lumps of atoms who are going to die anyway then why care? What reason is there to have a moral stance on anything? "To improve the quality of life for others?" I hear some say, but why do that? Why should I care about the quality of life of another random bunch of atoms?

I believe that God isn't just looking, he put within us the sense of right and wrong. As the bible says he "made us in his image" - that means that we have some sort of likeness to him. We all secretly long for the same good, right things that he does.

Back on the main topic...

As a Christian, I mess up. Can I square this with my faith? No! Every time I do something wrong God frowns upon me. But he picks me up, forgives me, gives me another chance. It's a battle. The bible doesn't promise you an easy life if you believe - quite the opposite, the Christian life is hard! Loving people is hard.

It's doubly hard on the road as a cyclist OR as a driver. But do something for me. Have a day, when you have no genuine reason to hurry, where you promise yourself to "be better" and drive or cycle politely. Let people into spaces. Give way. Stick to the speed limit. Stop at red lights. Wave people across. Heck, force a smile if you have to. Slow down and be nice. Forget about you, and think about everyone else. It's hard. But see what a sense of wellbeing you get.

Maybe that person jumping a red light has a kid in hospital who's dying. Maybe the person cutting you up is racing to see his first child be born. Maybe the learner in front is REALLY nervous and has panic attacks about being overtaken. Maybe these people are just crap, arrogant, and/or stupid drivers, but who are you to know?

There's a song: "...kindness is better than any sort of terror or any kind of spite/sometimes that means some come before you/what's gone returns in mystery, love and light"

Perhaps after a day of trying to do right, you'll understand why Christians try to be better. The bit of God in us that helps us know right and wrong also makes us feel good when we do right! And you'll have taken a step towards God's perfect world.

more or less true about the christian bit. god isnt trying to make us perfect, the idea of christianity iss to become more like jesus. fogiving, loving, just, selfless, living for other people, etc.

if everyone were already perfect, no-one would have any reason to believe in god, or and incentive to be let in to the kingdom of heaven, and so no-one would take any notice of him/believe in him. God has a plan, and we're part of it, whether religious or not.

cant really say much about the others, as i dont really know much aobut them.

sylvanus

Could I politely suggest that you could be even more perfect (!) if you didn't such massive chunks of text in your replies?

ademort

In the last 25 years i,ve been fortunate enough to have ridden on the roads in the U.K.,ITALY,BELGIUM,SPAIN AND THE NETHERLANDS. As you can imagine i,ve seen a lot of bad driving from a wide variety of road users, cars, wagons, motorbikes, you know, at the end of the day its the person driving the vehicle, and their actions that will ultimately lead to an accident. I would like to comment, it has nothing to do with religion, colour or ethnic background. Its the moron behind the wheel 1) driving through a red light.2) Overtake and leave no space on the road for you . 3)Pulling out in front of you and driving off without so much as a sorry but you were riding so fast.4)ovetake and brake immediately to turn, leaving you no time to brake, so hit back bumper of their vehicle.I could go on, but the point is there are and always will be a very small minority of road users who do not drive and give consideration to other road users, unfortunately for the cyclist, we are so vulnerable in traffic that even a minor bump can have major consequences. Does anybody have any similar experiences, does this sound familiar. Greetings Ademort

redddraggon

ademort wrote:

4)ovetake and brake immediately to turn, leaving you no time to brake, so hit back bumper of their vehicle.I

My first accident! I put a rather large dent into his boot - it was my fault for being in primary position - apparantly you're supposed hug the kerb.

ademort

My only ever accident was caused by a post office wagon, it overtook me and then braked suddenly, i hit the back bumper and fell off. Iwas lucky there were no injuries to me and my bike was ok. The driver of the wagon turned out to be a good friend of my father and he was very apologetic.This incident worked in my favour, because everytime i ordered cycle parts from J.D. Whisker in London then the friend of my father would bring them personally to my house as soon as they were brought in to the sorting depot, great stuff. This accident took place in 1982. Do hope i havent shot myself in the foot by saying this. regards Ademort

ademort

Hi i would just like to add, that the only accident i have had (see above) i mean its the only accident i have had when cycling alone. In 1979 i was involved in an accident with a car and several club members, this went to court and the driver was fined for driving without due care and attention. Mind you, on reading some of these threads i count myself lucky 2 accidents in 20 odd years aint bad, again hope i am not tempting fate here. Will probably be writing my next thread from a hospital casualty ward bed, regards Ademort

portuguese mike

sylvanus wrote:

I understand your point but lets agree that there is no perfect answer. I'll freely accept that religion is far from perfect and as you point out it can even be a source of evil. However in general, religion and spirituality are a force for good despite their earthly defects.

You must though tackle the central "hole" in rationalist atheism which is that it has no method of defining an objective moral direction or a social structure. Lets adopt a cycling metaphor to illustrate what I mean.

Lets assume there are two sorts of cyclists in London, club-members and non club-members. Lets call the non club-members "individualists". The club-members have many advantages since they are motivated by organised club and training runs and meet other club members that introduce them to sportives and racing. The peer pressure and encouragement of belonging to a club tend to cause them to train and race more and so become fitter and faster.

The individualists have advantages too since they can train whenever they wish and can be entirely self-motivated. Many individualists are uncomfortable with being part of a group or with the apparent arrogance of clubs like London Dynamo or Agiskoviner with all their club kit nonsense and competition. The individualists however, tend to train and race much less often than the club members and have less peer encouragement and example to follow. As a result they tend to be slower and fatter. The individualists however deny that and say cycling clubs are pointlessly oppressive. Some even claim that British Cycling does not exist and that racing is a waste of time.

I'm a member of a cycling club just as I'm a member of a church and I believe, perhaps wrongly that one helps me be thinner and faster, the other helps me to be calmer, more spiritual and probably more thoughtful about morals. I have to be honest though and admit I spend a multiple of more time on a bike than in a church....

I really don't see how you can say this. It may be the case in this country today but probably only because we have a secular state. in a society where the church has no real power then its devotees who do seek to better themselves (whatever proportion they may be) can and do make a positive contribution, be it through charitable work or just trying to be kind, patient and tolerant. But in societies where religion is intrinsically a part of the state then the evidence as niedermeyer lists would suggest that far more harm than good is the result.

Even in ostensibly secular states such as the USA the influence of religous zealots led by George Bush has given rise to an ill advised and ill planned democratic crusade on iraq and afghanistan. On this last point i am prepeared to concede that this is probalbly just a smoke screen and that the 'crusade' is really about securing access to oil but the fact that its perpetrated by those who would otherwise purport to live by christian values i feel reinforces my point.

i do also take issue that you need some kind of structured moral framework to follow in order to be, or try to be, good. i was raised a catholic until i could no longer take the hypocrisy yet, since then, i have not suddenly degenerated into a worse person without having 'Jesus' as my example. The ideals of charity, justice and tolerance are by no means a religous preserve.

nwallace

I realised recently that despite the requirement that the US government does not promote one faith over another they proudly state "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America"

These statements require there to be one true god, a requirement that many religions don't meet.

While the Monarch is head of the Church of England they are also a member of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

flattythehurdler

You can't blame religion for gwb.

spen666

flattythehurdler wrote:

You can't blame religion for gwb.

Why not?

sylvanus

ill planned democratic crusade on iraq and afghanistan. .... but the fact that its perpetrated by those who would otherwise purport to live by christian values i feel reinforces my point.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Are you saying that the fact that Christians can do bad things or make mistakes proves that Christianity / religion is a bad thing? Surely human imperfection is a fact whether atheist or believer? For example, do the misdeeds or Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung who killed over a hundred of million people between them prove that all socialist atheists are deranged psychopaths and that atheism is intrinsically bad?

i do also take issue that you need some kind of structured moral framework to follow in order to be, or try to be, good. i was raised a catholic until i could no longer take the hypocrisy

This too seems a really odd statement. Are you suggesting that humanity is intrinsically good and that no framework is necessary? Or is it just you who through force of reason can decide whats right or wrong without reference to a framework?

I always find the reference to "Christian hypocrisy" weird. I'm a Christian but I sin and make mistakes all the time. Does that make me a hypocrite? Why should it be wrong to believe in normative standards which you might never actually fully achieve? Surely moral absolutes are targets which inevitable fallible humans may not reach. Isn't that what forgiveness etc is all about?

Lucky Luke

I ride past a mosque on my way to work . A few weeks ago a car missed me by inches turning in to the car park . I thought 'that's not a very Christian thing to do now is it?'

spen666

Lucky Luke wrote:

I ride past a mosque on my way to work . A few weeks ago a car missed me by inches turning in to the car park . I thought 'that's not a very Christian thing to do now is it?'

boom boom

portuguese mike

sylvanus wrote:

ill planned democratic crusade on iraq and afghanistan. .... but the fact that its perpetrated by those who would otherwise purport to live by christian values i feel reinforces my point.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Are you saying that the fact that Christians can do bad things or make mistakes proves that Christianity / religion is a bad thing? Surely human imperfection is a fact whether atheist or believer? For example, do the misdeeds or Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung who killed over a hundred of million people between them prove that all socialist atheists are deranged psychopaths and that atheism is intrinsically bad?

i do also take issue that you need some kind of structured moral framework to follow in order to be, or try to be, good. i was raised a catholic until i could no longer take the hypocrisy

This too seems a really odd statement. Are you suggesting that humanity is intrinsically good and that no framework is necessary? Or is it just you who through force of reason can decide whats right or wrong without reference to a framework?

I always find the reference to "Christian hypocrisy" weird. I'm a Christian but I sin and make mistakes all the time. Does that make me a hypocrite? Why should it be wrong to believe in normative standards which you might never actually fully achieve? Surely moral absolutes are targets which inevitable fallible humans may not reach. Isn't that what forgiveness etc is all about?

Firstly, I was contending your point that on the whole religion is a force for good. The comment about the USA was a secondary one - it seems to me that if George Bush didn't play on his Christianity to such a degree then he would not have garnered enough votes to be in power and we wouldn't have invaded iraq and afghanistan. My point here is that indirectly and however unwittingly religion may have been used as a tool to further the agenda of Bush and his cohorts. My main point, however, is that, throughout the world, tensions between various religious groups give rise to conflict and that there are also many incidents of persecution and oppression committed in religions name.

Secondly i should have said that you don't need a structured moral framework based on religion. Of course all our points of reference come from the upbringing and culture we are raised in - as a society we have evolved a shared sense of what is right and wrong but you do not have to believe in (a) god in order to be able to discern this and want to be a 'good' person.

Finally, the hypocrisy i was referring to related specifically to my experiences with the catholic church where i found there to be a disturbing inconsistency between the teaching of love and forgiveness and the intolerent attitude towards homosexuals.

Basically, you would like me to believe that, overall, religion does more good than harm but, for me, the evidence leaves me unconvinced.

term1te

I have a friend who grew up to be a vicar. Before he took the cloth, he refused to put a fish sticker on his car, because with his driving he knew he'd start a thread like this.

pipsqueak

religion is devils work

clarkson

sylvanus wrote:

Could I politely suggest that you could be even more perfect (!) if you didn't such massive chunks of text in your replies?

ah well, people can get over that!

passout

All motorists are evil and will go to hell. (Which hell in particular is decided by their faith or lack thereof.) Coversely all cyclists will go to Heaven, Nirvana etc. If you are cyclist who also drives then you face pergatory but it's not too late to repent your motoring sins and follow the two wheeled path.

Yours always,

Christ on a bike.