PDA

View Full Version : Religion



NIN64
12-06-2011, 08:41 AM
I am an Atheist. When I was a kid my parents used to bring me to church. As a child it never made any sense to me, and obviously as an adult it still doesn't. I find myself getting into heated arguments on the topic with friends and family, and I find it very exhausting. Just wanted to put this out there and see how some of you feel about religion in general. . .

icklekitty
12-06-2011, 09:05 AM
I don't have a problem with people being religious (see: granny). I do have a problem with people persecuting for not having the same beliefs, and for using their beliefs to be hateful.

There are two protestant ladies at work who are currently being (passive, when she's around) agressive towards a Jehovah's Witness who for obvious reasons doesn't celebrate Christmas. Now, there are lots of things in the JW religion I don't agree with, but this particular example is really kind, and tolerant and was happy to echo excitement on my birthday when she doesn't celebrate them. But according to these protestants she's a bitch for not wanting to go to the Xmas office party.

The homophobic JW aunt I have though, she can fuck off.



Me? I don't have a religion nor do I believe in an anthropomorphic god. I don't think we're at the top of the food chain though (I think as many theists believe this as atheists and I think it's arrogant) - I don't know if it's a being, a force, or just plain physics, but I think there's something more powerful than mankind in existence, and while that doesn't mean we should sit back and let life happen, we are just as much a subject as anything else in existence. /hippy

Goldfoot
12-06-2011, 09:54 AM
This topic is something I've actually been thinking a lot about recently. When I was a child, I was not baptised, but I was confirmed. I was told that meant that once I got to an age when I could properly decide, I could be baptised and join the church. Other than that, I don't really remember attending church on any regular basis until 4th grade and my parents were divorced. By this time in my life, we were living in a very rural area and it was a small church my dad started taking me and my sisters to. Weekends were our time with him, and it became something we did for a few years. Looking back now, this was actually the perfect time for this to happen for me, as I had just discovered Nine Inch Nails and, as we know, there is at least some degree of doubt in NIN's music. (*chuckles*)

Anyhow, this was a crucial time in my life for deciding what I believe in, and at some point the idea that God is real just became something that I didn't agree with. At this point I never really thought about it much, but I do remember my mom expressing concern over one of my friends because she said he didn't believe in God. This is the same friend who introduced me to NIN. Over the years I just avoided expressing my thoughts on the subject when I was around family, and mostly still do. On a couple occasions, though, I presented a couple issues I have to my mom, and all she could say was that I have a good point. For years I thought of myself as an agnostic and just sort of left it at that.

Recently, though, I realized not only that I'm an atheist, but that I seem to be the only one in any of my extended family. I've only explicitly told this to my two sisters, but I'm pretty sure my mom knows. The rest of my family doesn't know what I believe because it's not something we usually talk about. My grandpa on my dad's side, though, is pretty religious and his second wife is as well, but she is outspoken about it. It bugs me to no end, and I dread going over there on the chance that religion will come up. I feel like I'm at a point in my life where if I'm pushed, I will explain to them how I see things and they won't like it. I don't really want this to happen, but I'm getting tired of being put on the spot when it happens. It doesn't happen all that often, but it came up around one of the recent Raptures that didn't happen. It's not like I've had a hard time with my family because of what I do or don't believe, but I think it's easier to avoid the issue rather than "come out" to my entire family.

About a month ago I finally went to Reddit to see what it was all about and I found r/Atheism. Now I had known I was an atheist before this, but this prompted me to examine religion and figure out just why I have issues with it. And there are so many. The more I think about it, the more none of it makes sense. I realize that people use it as a source of comfort, but I've come to the conclusion that this is because they don't really think about what they believe. It's discouraging to me to think that my family believes in, and worships, a god who is completely ok with most people being punished for eternity simply for their lack of belief. That is such a depressing idea to me and most people I know go through life devoted to such a cruel being.

cashpiles (closed)
12-06-2011, 10:50 AM
The more I think about it, the more none of it makes sense. I realize that people use it as a source of comfort... It's discouraging to me to think that my family believes in, and worships, a god who is completely ok with most people being punished for eternity simply for their lack of belief. That is such a depressing idea to me and most people I know go through life devoted to such a cruel being.

How about in the Old Testament where God commands his believers to massacre whole cities of men, women and children. Or, how God sends down giant hail stones to crush every last "enemy" (non-believer or believer in another God).

In the Bible, Satan is not the source of evil. God can send forth evil at will and has done so. How can that be an all-loving God?

Sorry to bash on Christianity, but that's the only religion I've really looked into. Also, you may have different beliefs (obviously). So feel free not to get upset by my viewpoint.

One last thing. If the Bible is the word of God, how do you explain this:

Jesus talks about the smallest seed on Earth being the mustard seed, when in fact, we now know the mustard seed not to be the smallest seed on Earth. If God is all-knowing (past, present and future), the creator of all things and "perfect", how could an error like this be made?

One one last thing. Jesus died atleast atleast a generation before the first gospels were written. How can the New Testament be considered a first-hand account of part of Jesus' life?

These are very weak, un-detailed arguments. But if you do some Google searching, you will find the more detailed versions of all these questions and arguments.

Goldfoot
12-06-2011, 11:05 AM
I'm aware of those examples, as well as many others. I didn't care to go into a huge list of things I disagree with, I was just making a point about the entire belief system. You could also question how God was disappointed with people so much that he decided to kill them all and start over. He would have known before he ever created the Earth that this was going to happen, so why go through with it. There's plenty of things that don't make sense, and that is my point. People don't really think about what they believe. Not only that, but they don't even read the bible. Religious people who are against homosexuality because of the bible fail to be opposed to other things that are forbidden in the same book of the bible.

And yes, I know that Satan is not the source of evil. Satan isn't Lucifer, as most are led to believe. Satan isn't even the ruler of Hell.

Elke
12-06-2011, 11:51 AM
I don't have a religion nor do I believe in an anthropomorphic god. I don't think we're at the top of the food chain though (I think as many theists believe this as atheists and I think it's arrogant) - I don't know if it's a being, a force, or just plain physics, but I think there's something more powerful than mankind in existence, and while that doesn't mean we should sit back and let life happen, we are just as much a subject as anything else in existence. /hippy

This. Except for the part where I'm actually catholic - this.

Jacob's Ladder
12-06-2011, 01:51 PM
I don't know if it's a being, a force, or just plain physics, but I think there's something more powerful than mankind in existence, and while that doesn't mean we should sit back and let life happen, we are just as much a subject as anything else in existence. /hippy I have $20 that it ends up being a really big rock.

Anywhoo. I'm a pretty die hard atheist, but its gotten to the point where almost all of my closest friends are very religious. I love them to death, I understand their beliefs better than I once did, and because of that I have a lot fewer issues with religion. I still detest the extremists (read, my extended family), but kind, generous people who are made better by religion aren't half bad.

Halo Infinity
12-06-2011, 02:02 PM
This is something that I wanted to ask for quite a while, and I'm sure such questions belong in this thread. I also don't intend to attack Christianity here either. I'm just very curious. I come from a Christian background myself, and I still have a very difficult time comprehending certain aspects of Christianity. I'm also being general here, so I'm not asking about one particular denomination of Christianity either. (However, these questions are based on my experiences with Adventism. It's a Protestant sect.)

1. Why do they only use the words love and hate to address and describe one's positive and negative feelings towards others? Why can't there be apathy, like and dislike? Why are such feelings only measured in love and hatred?

2. If people that don't believe in God and the Bible go to Hell for simply being non-believers, how exactly are those the acts of the unconditional love and perpetual forgiveness I keep hearing about? How exactly is that free will if you have to believe in God and the Bible in order to become saved?

3. Why do some Christians think that atheists are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion? Those assumptions are so far from the truth. Most atheists come across as laid back to me, and they actually have a grasp on accountability and ethics, and are also just as capable of love, forgiveness and compassion like any other person out there. Just like how anybody can be good, anybody can be bad.

NIN64
12-06-2011, 02:36 PM
3. Why do some Christians think that atheists are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion? Those assumptions are so far from the truth. Most atheists come across as laid back to me, and they actually have a grasp on accountability and ethics, and are also just as capable of love, forgiveness and compassion like any other person out there. Just like how anybody can be good, anybody can be bad.
Exactly.
I was once told by a devout Baptist that I must be inherently evil because I an an Atheist. I live my my own moral code, and it has nothing to do with being "good" because I am afraid of going to hell. I treat everyone I know and meet exactly how I would like to be treated myself. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or physically harm people. The most Religious man I know is hard core Catholic. He also happens to be the most deceitful people I have ever met. That doesn't mean that every Catholic I know is deceitful, but he is such a hypocrite. He talks down to me and goes on and on about how "ignorant" I am, but he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. This kind of stuff makes me nuts. . .

icklekitty
12-06-2011, 03:26 PM
How about in the Old Testament where God commands his believers to massacre whole cities of men, women and children. Or, how God sends down giant hail stones to crush every last "enemy" (non-believer or believer in another God).

In the Bible, Satan is not the source of evil. God can send forth evil at will and has done so. How can that be an all-loving God?

Sorry to bash on Christianity, but that's the only religion I've really looked into. Also, you may have different beliefs (obviously). So feel free not to get upset by my viewpoint.

One last thing. If the Bible is the word of God, how do you explain this:

Jesus talks about the smallest seed on Earth being the mustard seed, when in fact, we now know the mustard seed not to be the smallest seed on Earth. If God is all-knowing (past, present and future), the creator of all things and "perfect", how could an error like this be made?

One one last thing. Jesus died atleast atleast a generation before the first gospels were written. How can the New Testament be considered a first-hand account of part of Jesus' life?

These are very weak, un-detailed arguments. But if you do some Google searching, you will find the more detailed versions of all these questions and arguments.

I agree with what you and some other people here are saying about the bible, and as a result I've learned to separate God and the bible. It's a fascinating cultural text (especially for the psychologists!), but it was written by humans. And humans are basically dicks. Even if God told them the utter amazing real truth truth, I am certain that whatever human wrote that down did a little bit of government-style editing to pander to whatever they wanted. Ok, so you hit on some guy and he doesn't love you back - that doesn't mean you should bullshit about how homosexuality is wrong. Ok, you wanted a threesome but your wife said no. That doesn't mean you should vent with some thou shalt not covet crap.

BOO MANKIND

sheepdean
12-06-2011, 06:57 PM
I have no issue with any religion, my issue is with how certain people interpret and exploit certain facets of certain religions to further their own goals.

Also, militant Atheists are probably the most obnoxious people on the planet

Jacob's Ladder
12-06-2011, 07:00 PM
also, militant atheists are probably the most obnoxious people on the planetwake up sheepledean! The bible is only for stupid people, im so much betterrrrrr!

Edit: New ETS won't let me post in all caps :(.

sheepdean
12-06-2011, 07:17 PM
Omg sheepledean

Halo Infinity
12-06-2011, 08:52 PM
Exactly.
I was once told by a devout Baptist that I must be inherently evil because I an an Atheist. I live my my own moral code, and it has nothing to do with being "good" because I am afraid of going to hell. I treat everyone I know and meet exactly how I would like to be treated myself. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or physically harm people. The most Religious man I know is hard core Catholic. He also happens to be the most deceitful people I have ever met. That doesn't mean that every Catholic I know is deceitful, but he is such a hypocrite. He talks down to me and goes on and on about how "ignorant" I am, but he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. This kind of stuff makes me nuts. . .
Such accusations and assumptions drive me nuts true no matter how much I try not to let them get to me as well. I have gotten used to coming across some Christians of any denomination that conduct themselves in such a hypocritical manner. I've just witnessed such spectacles far too much. They also preach against hubris, but somehow manage to embrace nothing but arrogance and narcissism, while labeling non-believers as "darkness" and "lost" when they don't know anything else about them. For all they know, that atheist, or person of another faith might be one of the most gracious and centered people they'll ever encounter.


I have no issue with any religion, my issue is with how certain people interpret and exploit certain facets of certain religions to further their own goals.
Same here. I'm completely with you on this.


Also, militant Atheists are probably the most obnoxious people on the planet
Oh yes, I've certainly noticed that. Various types of fundamentalists can be as obnoxious as one can get, but such atheists are also something else.

ubermensch
12-07-2011, 03:58 AM
Exactly.
I was once told by a devout Baptist that I must be inherently evil because I an an Atheist. I live my my own moral code, and it has nothing to do with being "good" because I am afraid of going to hell. I treat everyone I know and meet exactly how I would like to be treated myself. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or physically harm people. The most Religious man I know is hard core Catholic. He also happens to be the most deceitful people I have ever met. That doesn't mean that every Catholic I know is deceitful, but he is such a hypocrite. He talks down to me and goes on and on about how "ignorant" I am, but he doesn't seem to practice what he preaches. This kind of stuff makes me nuts. . .


Im glad others catch on to this. Why do people believe that all atheists are automatically evil people? I really dont get it. I get bashed all of the time for my lack of beliefs yet its world war 3 if i say something about christianity. I am not an atheist because i am evil or dont want to play by someone elses rules in life. As long as you are a good person, what the fuck does it matter?

Halo Infinity
12-07-2011, 11:12 AM
Im glad others catch on to this. Why do people believe that all atheists are automatically evil people? I really dont get it. I get bashed all of the time for my lack of beliefs yet its world war 3 if i say something about christianity.
While I find both militant theism and atheism to be equally reprehensible, I don't understand that either. Why is it that when Christians make an attempt to spread their beliefs, it's just their right to freely express themselves, but if atheists were to merely share their thoughts, ideas and opinions, they're sometimes subject to accusations of "hate speech" and "bigotry" when they're not even imposing their stances upon others to start with? That's an enormous double-standard, and I'm still shocked to see how overlooked/ignored it is among such Christians.


I am not an atheist because i am evil or dont want to play by someone elses rules in life. As long as you are a good person, what the fuck does it matter?
Precisely. Just do what you got to do, don't hurt anybody, and treat others with dignity and respect if you'd like the same treatment in return. Be good for the sake of being good.

Goldfoot
12-07-2011, 11:21 AM
While I find both militant theism and atheism to be equally reprehensible

Is it your intent that "militant" apply to both sides in this case or do you find atheists reprehensible?

Halo Infinity
12-07-2011, 11:29 AM
Oh no, I'm okay with atheists. I also went for the former, but I didn't mean to say that all atheists or theists are like that. I'm just saying that it's possible for anybody on either side to end up being militant, and I'm just not okay with having somebody else's ideals shoved down my throat and vice-versa. I'm actually a fence-sitter on this issue because I get along with theists and atheists. And just to make sure I've made myself clear, no, I don't find atheists in general to be reprehensible at all.

Elke
12-07-2011, 01:21 PM
3. Why do some Christians think that atheists are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion? Those assumptions are so far from the truth. Most atheists come across as laid back to me, and they actually have a grasp on accountability and ethics, and are also just as capable of love, forgiveness and compassion like any other person out there. Just like how anybody can be good, anybody can be bad.

Why do some atheists think all christians are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion?
Just saying: people iz stupid. All kinds and breeds of people, not just those who don't use their brain properly.

As for your other questions: they're sweeping generalizations, so nobody can answer those questions but the people who said those things to you in the first place. I personally don't know any christian adults who actually believe in Hell, and most of the christians I know (granted, they're all catholics, and we're a shady bunch) are rather nuanced people, who try to be loving and try not to hate. (And fail, obviously, cause we're only human.)

Halo Infinity
12-07-2011, 03:28 PM
Why do some atheists think all christians are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion?
Just saying: people iz stupid. All kinds and breeds of people, not just those who don't use their brain properly.
I'm sure it takes all kinds. That I get though. Not all Christians are like that either. I completely agree with you there.


As for your other questions: they're sweeping generalizations, so nobody can answer those questions but the people who said those things to you in the first place.
Sorry about that, perhaps I should've included the word some in my other questions. (I really try hard not to do that.) I also made sure to mention that I was also asking those questions in reference to Adventism. I was reared in that faith and that's what most of them believe in, and they often measure negative and positive feelings towards others in love and hate only. They also believe in Hell, and I understand that such questions are best asked to the individuals that made such statements. I also wondered if Christians from other denominations also had some similar beliefs.


I personally don't know any christian adults who actually believe in Hell, and most of the christians I know (granted, they're all catholics, and we're a shady bunch) are rather nuanced people, who try to be loving and try not to hate. (And fail, obviously, cause we're only human.)
Oh I see. Advenstists are Protestants, so there's going to be enormous differences/conflicts between the two. And yes, they try to be loving but fail like everybody else. As for me however, every Adventist I know believes in Hell, and some of them use Hell as way to make people feel fear and guilt as attempt to prevent others from leaving their faith. They also say that you can go to Hell for disbelief.

Speaking of love, I also had a lot of trouble understanding what it means to love your enemy. I still don't get it. :confused:

Harry Seaward
12-07-2011, 08:38 PM
Alrighty, this is my kind of thread!

First off, if you believe in any supernatural ideas (gods, ghosts, spirits, auras, chakras, etc.) you're simply foolish. I won't say stupid, because I know a few intelligent people who believe in absurd things, but definitely foolish. Now to clarify, I'm certainly not saying any of these ideas are wrong or impossible, but to believe in anything that has absolutely no proof (scientific or otherwise), you're delusional, foolish, or just ignorant.

Secondly, to the people who think 'militant' atheists (militant in this sense means posting anti-theist ideas on Facebook, as opposed to militant religious fundamentalists who have murdered millions of people across the globe) are obnoxious or cruel or arrogant - why shouldn't we be?! I understand the concept of 'let people believe what they want' and I would love to do just that, but it's simply impossible in this society to ignore the constant bombardment of religion. Some of it is quite subtle. Some of it (see: Rick Perry's new Presidential ad) is horribly up-front. Religion is simply everywhere. And the worst part of it is that people think it's the norm to be religious. They just accept it. I mean, everyone else believes in Jesus, why shouldn't I? It's terribly depressing to see grown, otherwise intelligent people talking about fairy-tale characters and stories as if they're true. The President of the most powerful nation on the Earth doesn't believe two people of the same gender shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals. You know why? Because his interpretation of a 2000 year old book, which was written by many different authors in many different nations, which was endlessly edited and revised, forbids it. If you want to say 'live and let live' to something like that, you must really not care one bit about the intellectual evolution of this species. We've come a long way technologically, but intellectually, we're still cavemen.

Also, I didn't even touch on the horrible, evil, twisted crimes that organized religion has committed. That's not my biggest problem. My biggest problem is the way religion (organized or not) stunts our philosophical growth.

Big Fat Matt
12-07-2011, 11:21 PM
i feel that whatever afterlife awaits you (if there is one), you will surely meet it if you are kind to your fellow man, and take all possible steps to avoid selfishness.

i was raised a roman catholic, meaning that i was baptized, and received communion. i however, have developed a more Zen outlook on life, and i feel that getting hung up on what everyone believes is a waste of time and energy. If you believe in God, Allah, Yaweh, Krishna, I-Ching, Mantra, etc. i am fine with that. it is your spirituality, and you have chosen to go about it as such. We are all children of God (god defined as the power that controls life, be it some cosmic being, fate, the random, or predetermination), and to truly understand the mysteries of existence is something our minds literally cannot comprehend.

Alexandros
12-08-2011, 03:17 AM
Secondly, to the people who think 'militant' atheists (militant in this sense means posting anti-theist ideas on Facebook, as opposed to militant religious fundamentalists who have murdered millions of people across the globe) are obnoxious or cruel or arrogant - why shouldn't we be?!

I am an atheist as well, but I can't agree with you here. You are right, militant atheism is not burdened by the bloody history that religious fanatics have (yet), but that doesn't mean atheists should act like arrogant dicks. It's one thing to defend our ideas and argue about the faults of religious belief, it's quite another to all-out bash religion and believers, essentially grouping them all in the same category, that of ignorant, blithering idiots. The belief in a greater power is multifaceted and there are various degrees of dogmatic belief. Some people identify themselves as religious, yet do not put much faith in thousand year old rules and stories, nor judge people according to their religion, or lack thereof. Atheism should present its case clearly and calmly. Descending into heated, hateful arguments puts atheism in a place which, out of all "religious" (for lack of a better word) value systems, it has a wondeful chance to avoid. I don't want atheism to appeal to fanatics. And it's really a waste of time and energy if you think about it. It's more likely to cause negative reactions than promote its message.

Elke
12-08-2011, 08:41 AM
they often measure negative and positive feelings towards others in love and hate only. They also believe in Hell, and I understand that such questions are best asked to the individuals that made such statements. I also wondered if Christians from other denominations also had some similar beliefs.

Well, in essence, it makes sense. The three abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity and islam) are also called the religions of hope, love and faith. These three aspects are present in all three religions (one could argue: in all religions), and christianity is most commonly strongest associated with 'love'. Christians have the most anthropocentric view of God, who's not completely transcendent and has a lot of 'fatherly' (or in some sects 'motherly') attributes, love being one of them. So the whole 'God is love' spiel is founded in christian theology.
And if God is love, then not-God is not-love or hate.
There is a tendency in christian litterature and theology to always take a firm stance. In general, the idea is to always feel love for everyone and everything, except for sins. And there the drama begins: how do you hate the sin and not the sinner? How do you decide whether the sinner chose the sin and if he did, should you still love the sinner?
The easiest way out is always black and white. It's not, however, what the Bible itself advises.
Which would be this:


Speaking of love, I also had a lot of trouble understanding what it means to love your enemy. I still don't get it. :confused:

It's not quite as straightforward as that. First of all, there are two places where we are commanded to love our enemies.
First there is the story of the Good Samaritan. A man (a scholar of the law, according to the text) aks Jesus what he ought to do to to go to heaven, and Jesus answers by asking what the Tenak says about this. The man repeats (from Scripture): Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, and love your neighbour as you do yourself.
Then the man asks: But who is my neighbour? And Jesus tells the story of a man who was mugged on the road and left to die, naked and wounded. A priest came by and - following the rules - didn't help the man; and a Levite came by and - following the priest's move - didn't help the man. And then a Samaritan came by, an enemy of the people and a heathen, and he does help the man.
Jesus asks: So, who was a neighbour to this dying man? and it's clear that it's the Samaritan. Do as he did, and you will go to heaven is Jesus' sound advice for the man. Which is seventy kinds of shocking to your average jew hearing this story: not only did Jesus say that a heathen and an enemy of the jewish people was an example to a religious jew, but he also implied that the priest and the Levite, following the Law to the letter, were not.
So in this story, your neighbour is your enemy.

Then there's the Sermon on the Mount, which plays on the same theme of How do we deal with the Law? And again, Jesus (or more likely the writers of the gospel do this) pushes his followers to their limits: be better than good, be perfect. This is the concept of imitatio Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitatio_Dei): be holy as God is holy, be good as God is good, love as God loves. And because God's love is universal, transcendent and does not discriminate; neither should ours. God loves all his creation, so should we.

That's the general idea. There's no consensus over whether this means that you cannot feel hatred, or whether turn the other cheek should be taken literally - there's very little consensus over anything within most major religions, so that's no surprise. But anyone trying to be christian does have to struggle with the idea of what it means to love your neighbour as you do yourself. It's not an easy task, but then again - if it leads to God's perfection - it shouldn't be.

God, I'm all in lecture mode. Like I said: ask others, and you'll get very different answers. But this is how I would answer those questions.

Halo Infinity
12-08-2011, 09:50 AM
Thank you for taking your time in giving me a thorough answer. I appreciate it. I noticed that Adventists also believe everything you just said there, despite their differences from Catholicism, as well as the other faiths you've mentioned regarding the religions of hope, love and faith as well. Oh yes, and that's certainly true. I've often received multiple different answers from people that were also of the same denomination. It's like for every 10 Adventists thinking and believing one way, there would be another 10 Adventists to object or merely think and believe otherwise, which clearly goes to show that you can't assume that all people from "Insert Religion Here" are all the same. (But you already covered that point quite well already.)

As a long-time lurker, I'm aware that you're a teacher right? And you said that you were a Catholic? I just wanted to be sure that I got that right. I just remember you for being very knowledgeable of religion, as you have also proven to me right now as well. You often provided a lot of clarification to certain things in religion that made me very confused.

cashpiles (closed)
12-08-2011, 11:13 AM
Then there's the Sermon on the Mount, which plays on the same theme of How do we deal with the Law? And again, Jesus (or more likely the writers of the gospel do this) pushes his followers to their limits: be better than good, be perfect. This is the concept of imitatio Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitatio_Dei): be holy as God is holy, be good as God is good, love as God loves. And because God's love is universal, transcendent and does not discriminate; neither should ours. God loves all his creation, so should we.


Is it God's universal love on display when God utterly destroys countless numbers of people in the Bible? I am not bashing. This is a serious question for a non-believer who tries very hard to accept the Bible as the word of God.

Delusional
12-08-2011, 01:24 PM
God is love...
http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2009/11/25/922700/gay-marriage-420x0.jpg
...proof that god is gay?

Elke
12-08-2011, 01:35 PM
^ Delusional: That would be a false syllogism, like 'I can get in my suitcase, ergo..' But you already knew that. On a less logical note: if all love is mirroring the divine love, then all love is mirroring the divine love, yes. However, some people (and most followers of the three monotheistic religions would in this case be 'some people', so that's a lot of 'some people') will claim that there's divine love and then there's perversions of divine love, and homosexuality is a perversion. They use naturalistic arguments or symbolic arguments (revolving around the relationship of Christ and the Church) to back this up. Those arguments are, by the way, utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level.


Is it God's universal love on display when God utterly destroys countless numbers of people in the Bible? I am not bashing. This is a serious question for a non-believer who tries very hard to accept the Bible as the word of God.

In general, the answer given to that question would be: if you had a kid, and the kid was an addict who stole from you and sold your grandfather's watch for a fix, would you not at some point try some tough love?
Not saying that's a brilliant argument, but it's the most common answer to your very common question. I have yet to meet a christian who actually read the Bible and wasn't worried by the flood and Sodom, all Nineves aside.

@ Kris: Yup, guilty as charged (though that doesn't automatically mean I know all that much more than your average person. I just seem to have absolutely no life, freeing me up to spend time on teh webz to type out lengthy rambling replies). Thanks for the compliment. I realized my earlier response was a bit random, so I figured I might as well give a better answer to that question.

Delusional
12-08-2011, 02:06 PM
^ Delusional: That would be a false syllogism, like 'I can get in my suitcase, ergo..' But you already knew that.

And if God is love, then not-God is not-love or hate.
;)



On a less logical note: if all love is mirroring the divine love, then all love is mirroring the divine love, yes. However, some people (and most followers of the three monotheistic religions would in this case be 'some people', so that's a lot of 'some people') will claim that there's divine love and then there's perversions of divine love, and homosexuality is a perversion. They use naturalistic arguments or symbolic arguments (revolving around the relationship of Christ and the Church) to back this up. Those arguments are, by the way, utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level.
That's what's nice about abstractions like "love", logical analysis doesn't apply.


In general, the answer given to that question would be: if you had a kid, and the kid was an addict who stole from you and sold your grandfather's watch for a fix, would you not at some point try some tough love?
Not saying that's a brilliant argument, but it's the most common answer to your very common question. I have yet to meet a christian who actually read the Bible and wasn't worried by the flood and Sodom, all Nineves aside.
As an atheist I never thought this was a productive argument to make. Really anything incomprehensible by our standards can easily be explained away by our lack of intellectual capacity compared to the supreme being, "god works in mysterious ways". Until you tear down the all powerful all/all knowing/all loving traits, that's a perfectly reasonable and valid response from a believer. *EDIT: To clarify, the argument I'm referring to is cashpiles not your counter argument Elke.

Tea
12-08-2011, 02:12 PM
I live in a holy land where the religion states that strong drinks are forbidden; beer is said to be okay in their scripture yet the majority of practicing Mormons take an even stricter stance and abstain from alcohol completely- even in cooking.
This really pisses me off. Why? This state is number one for anti-depressants- almost twice the national average in the US; with LDS use almost twice as high against non-LDS citizens. This religion pushes perfection so badly that its members (mostly women) are extremely distraught, and many are badly addicted to other prescription drugs. These people think that these complex drugs are okay compared to a glass of wine (or a hot drink; yes, even hot chocolate is not allowed) because drugs aren't mentioned in their scripture.

This has been making me think lately about how religion does not fit in our modern society. Change is quick compared to thousands of years ago; ancient scriptures are completely out of touch with how we run our lives today, and I'm not even bringing scientific evidence vs. religion into this. I actually admire the strictness of most Mormons- what percentage of Christians can say they follow their religion's rules so closely, or even enough to honestly call themselves Christian beyond their belief in Jesus? But it has the same fallacies as all religions- not every rule, tale, or suggestion makes sense in the now, and this is where I think religious following sits on the same line as insanity.

Halo Infinity
12-08-2011, 03:34 PM
I'll admit that the mere thought of that actually happening IRL scares/disheartens me. I can't deny that. :(

Jinsai
12-08-2011, 03:36 PM
In general, the answer given to that question would be: if you had a kid, and the kid was an addict who stole from you and sold your grandfather's watch for a fix, would you not at some point try some tough love?

Tough love... like killing him and all his friends?

theruiner
12-08-2011, 03:50 PM
Exactly. That argument has never made any sense to me. Tough love is grounding your kid in his room for a week, not murdering him in cold blood.

But then, that's the old double standard. If a human kills someone, it's the worst thing in the world, but if the invisible man in the sky does it, well that's not only ok, it's downright moral! It's a weird cognitive dissonance, but then that seems to be a the norm for a lot of religious people, at least the ones in America.*

And by the way, none of this is a knock on you, Elke. I know you were just explaining the way some people would justify it, but weren't necessarily speaking for yourself.



*=Obviously I can't speak for anywhere else, and I know you've mentioned it's not like that where you are, Elke. But that's the way it is in the states, by and large. There are a LOT of people here who take the bible literally. It's scary.

Harry Seaward
12-08-2011, 03:53 PM
I am an atheist as well, but I can't agree with you here. You are right, militant atheism is not burdened by the bloody history that religious fanatics have (yet), but that doesn't mean atheists should act like arrogant dicks. It's one thing to defend our ideas and argue about the faults of religious belief, it's quite another to all-out bash religion and believers, essentially grouping them all in the same category, that of ignorant, blithering idiots. The belief in a greater power is multifaceted and there are various degrees of dogmatic belief. Some people identify themselves as religious, yet do not put much faith in thousand year old rules and stories, nor judge people according to their religion, or lack thereof. Atheism should present its case clearly and calmly. Descending into heated, hateful arguments puts atheism in a place which, out of all "religious" (for lack of a better word) value systems, it has a wondeful chance to avoid. I don't want atheism to appeal to fanatics. And it's really a waste of time and energy if you think about it. It's more likely to cause negative reactions than promote its message.

Well I don't think I said anything that would make me come across as an arrogant dick. Like I said, I don't think religious people are blithering idiots. They just have a fundamental flaw in their critical thinking process. Again, it's not about the severity of their beliefs. It's about the fact that they believe in something without any proof, better known as faith. Faith, to me, seems like a horrible character trait to have. It's a waste of our profound ability of thought that we were lucky enough to inherit.

Halo Infinity
12-08-2011, 04:03 PM
I definitely see both of your points here. If atheists are just explaining their positions, that's not them being arrogant dicks or promoting "hate speech" and "bigotry". And well, I always had trouble with faith too. I just have a hard time in believing for the sake of believing. (No offense to anybody that actually practices faith, but that's what it looks like to me, especially when it comes to the unknown.) However, this doesn't mean that I don't have faith in things that actually happen. (Unless you look at faith a different way, or I'm probably just misusing the word faith.)

Jinsai
12-08-2011, 04:04 PM
The thing is, there are many instances where "militant atheism" is warranted, yet this seems to be presented as a derogatory generalization. When the pope tells people not to wear condoms, or when creationists want a say as to what goes in science text books, it warrants assertive mockery and derision. This isn't even close the most egregious stuff that people do in the name of god. When a group of people are calling for a teacher to be murdered because she named the class teddy bear Muhammad, it's time to be an arrogant dick.

Halo Infinity
12-08-2011, 04:11 PM
That, I completely understand. Such types deserve to be told to fuck off or worse.

Alexandros
12-08-2011, 04:27 PM
Well I don't think I said anything that would make me come across as an arrogant dick. Like I said, I don't think religious people are blithering idiots. They just have a fundamental flaw in their critical thinking process. Again, it's not about the severity of their beliefs. It's about the fact that they believe in something without any proof, better known as faith. Faith, to me, seems like a horrible character trait to have. It's a waste of our profound ability of thought that we were lucky enough to inherit.

No, no, I didn't mean you, apologies if it came across this way. I was referring to the extreme militant atheist types. The guys who will flaunt their atheism in every chance they get, even when there really isn't any cause for it. The guys who will start monologues rather than discussions, basking in the glory of their enlightened viewpoints and mentally masturbating to the sound of their own voice. You know the type.

theruiner
12-08-2011, 08:07 PM
No, no, I didn't mean you, apologies if it came across this way. I was referring to the extreme militant atheist types. The guys who will flaunt their atheism in every chance they get, even when there really isn't any cause for it. The guys who will start monologues rather than discussions, basking in the glory of their enlightened viewpoints and mentally masturbating to the sound of their own voice. You know the type.Listen, if masturbating to the sound of your own voice is wrong, then I should be thrown in jail.

In any event, I agree with you if that's the definition of a militant atheist. But, like Jinsai said (and I know you're not disagreeing), sometimes it's completely warranted. And I do think there is something to be said for "spreading" atheism to a degree. I don't mean walking up to people and just randomly telling them about atheism or yelling at someone for being religious (or even starting a debate if someone mentions something about their religion).

But posting stuff on Facebook about atheism is fine, I think questioning your friends about their beliefs is fine if you have that sort of friendship where you can have those discussions and can challenge each other. Hell, I don't even have a problem with atheist billboards and the like, because our society is generally pretty intolerant of atheism, and I want people to know that it's ok not to believe. I want kids who are questioning religion to understand that being atheist is a perfectly valid viewpoint. I would like to get to a point in this country where people will elect an atheist into high office (though I think that's a long ways away). If we're going to change the perception of atheism in this country, and if we're ever going to get people to reconsider believing in fairy tales, it has to be discussed and brought up. But, like you said, there's a nice way to do that where you're not being pushy and there's a wrong way of going about it where you're being a dick.

Jinsai
12-08-2011, 08:16 PM
if adding comments to this video wasn't disabled, I'd probably be posting something that could be construed as "militant atheism"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

johnbron
12-08-2011, 08:39 PM
Like I said, I don't think religious people are blithering idiots. They just have a fundamental flaw in their critical thinking process. Again, it's not about the severity of their beliefs. It's about the fact that they believe in something without any proof, better known as faith. Faith, to me, seems like a horrible character trait to have. It's a waste of our profound ability of thought that we were lucky enough to inherit.
I'm not planning on participating in this thread much, if at all after this post. I have very little interest in debates and I have very little (no) sensitivity to people's personal religious beliefs.

I think you just said it perfectly regarding faith. Faith in general is a very bad thing for everyone and it sickens me to think of such an irresponsible thing being taught to my daughters as something worthy of praise. It's not honorable. Nothing about it is good.

Blah blah blah, I'm one of those militant atheists and I'm not ashamed. The vast majority of my family is quite religious. I was too until my late teens, even a bit beyond that. I love them and most of us get along well, but I also despise their beliefs and wish they would set aside the things their Bibles said or parents told them, and step into reality for a few minutes.

Many of us are pretty set in our ways, that's cool. If you're not and are walking the fence on the issue, I'd highly suggest reading The God Delusion. It's a beautiful book.

I want this on my headstone.
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
- Richard Dawkins

NIN64
12-08-2011, 08:58 PM
if adding comments to this video wasn't disabled, I'd probably be posting something that could be construed as "militant atheism"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

For the record; Rick Perry is a fucking piece of shit.

Goldfoot
12-08-2011, 09:23 PM
I was reared in that faith and that's what most of them believe in, and they often measure negative and positive feelings towards others in love and hate only. They also believe in Hell, and I understand that such questions are best asked to the individuals that made such statements. I also wondered if Christians from other denominations also had some similar beliefs.

Oh I see. Advenstists are Protestants, so there's going to be enormous differences/conflicts between the two. And yes, they try to be loving but fail like everybody else. As for me however, every Adventist I know believes in Hell, and some of them use Hell as way to make people feel fear and guilt as attempt to prevent others from leaving their faith. They also say that you can go to Hell for disbelief.

In my experience, most (if not all) Christians I know believe in Hell. My grandpa's second wife (I think I mentioned earlier) told my sister that I'm going to Hell, and my mom has expressed concern to this same sister of me going to Hell. They don't think I'm a bad person at all, it is merely because they think I don't believe in God. Well, I'm pretty sure my mom knows now, but my grandpa's wife doesn't for sure know this.


Secondly, to the people who think 'militant' atheists (militant in this sense means posting anti-theist ideas on Facebook, as opposed to militant religious fundamentalists who have murdered millions of people across the globe) are obnoxious or cruel or arrogant - why shouldn't we be?! I understand the concept of 'let people believe what they want' and I would love to do just that, but it's simply impossible in this society to ignore the constant bombardment of religion.

Exactly, there is a double standard when it comes to this. Many, if not all, sects of Christianity preach of spreading their religion to the world. At least in this country, which is what I'm familiar with. Militant theists are acceptable because it is asked of them by their faith, but when we are offended by something religious, we aren't allowed to speak out about it? Please.


The belief in a greater power is multifaceted and there are various degrees of dogmatic belief. Some people identify themselves as religious, yet do not put much faith in thousand year old rules and stories, nor judge people according to their religion, or lack thereof. Atheism should present its case clearly and calmly. Descending into heated, hateful arguments puts atheism in a place which, out of all "religious" (for lack of a better word) value systems, it has a wondeful chance to avoid. I don't want atheism to appeal to fanatics. And it's really a waste of time and energy if you think about it. It's more likely to cause negative reactions than promote its message.

Just as you say faith is multi-faceted, the same is equally, if not more, true for atheists. Atheism simply means a rejection of theism; there is no unifying belief. Atheists don't have to believe in science or anything they don't want to. When it comes to religions, there are many things they have in common, which they can make clear in a way that atheists cannot. Since there are no unifying themes to atheism except the rejection of theism, there really isn't a "case" to be presented. I agree that descending into heated, hateful arguments isn't productive, but when there are certain religious people that are very hateful toward atheists in the first place, it's hard to be civil when it comes to reacting to something like that. Rick Perry has that ridiculous ad about not being ashamed to say he's Christian, yet Christianity is something like a 2/3 majority in this country. I rarely, if ever, hear about Christians being bullied at school, yet I hear about non-Christians being bullied way more than I'd like.


So the whole 'God is love' spiel is founded in christian theology.
And if God is love, then not-God is not-love or hate.

Though it has already been pointed out, you later say this when asked if gay love is godly:


^ Delusional: That would be a false syllogism, like 'I can get in my suitcase, ergo..' But you already knew that. On a less logical note: if all love is mirroring the divine love, then all love is mirroring the divine love, yes. However, some people (and most followers of the three monotheistic religions would in this case be 'some people', so that's a lot of 'some people') will claim that there's divine love and then there's perversions of divine love, and homosexuality is a perversion. They use naturalistic arguments or symbolic arguments (revolving around the relationship of Christ and the Church) to back this up. Those arguments are, by the way, utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level.

I'm not saying we should make up fallacies to prove our point, as was demonstrated, but then why should we accept it when it's given to us that way? The problem here is that it is their interpretation of "divine love." Don't people of these religions believe that, as humans, we cannot comprehend the complexity that is God? If this is the case, how can we begin to interpret what divine love is or isn't? As you say, it's utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level, but that is how non-religious people tend to think. I'm not saying religious people can't think on that level, I'm just saying that we are presented with these arguments as if they are given straight from God, and we are bad people when we question it? Don't you see why we are upset about this double standard?


God loves all his creation, so should we.

If this is true, then why punish so many people, FOR ETERNITY, simply for their lack of belief? Is God's love not unconditional? Why is it that a person can do terrible things, but if they are repentant and accept God as their creator, they will be forgiven, yet someone who never does anything as terrible as the other person is punished for the rest of time simply because they didn't believe a certain thing?

andreas
12-09-2011, 08:23 AM
I personally am an atheist. I sometimes call myself agnostic, ‘cause atheism is fundamentalistic by default, and I don’t trust any fundamentalisms…

Also, I am an apostate (which is not a status easy to get, as it turns out), ‘cause I abhor catholic church

having said that, I am tolerant towards religious people as long as they are tolerant towards me, though I must admit, I don’t really get religion, in any form. It seems to me that sometimes people confuse religion with tradition…

And when I think of the notion of god I always think of what Epicurus said:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

iamanexit
12-09-2011, 11:17 AM
I have no issue with any religion, my issue is with how certain people interpret and exploit certain facets of certain religions to further their own goals.

Also, militant Atheists are probably the most obnoxious people on the planet

I mostly agree with the first point, and more often than not, personify the second.
I know Militant Atheists suck, but sometimes, after having faith shoved down my throat, all I want to do is shove back.

Although, depending on the crowd (friends, family, etc.) I'll bite my tongue or politely suggest a subject change, there are times when a big heated discussion is unavoidable, or someone is asking for it (like when an old coworker started to bitch at me and tell me I was going to Hell because when he blessed me after sneezing, I politely said, "No thank you.").

I wasn't raised around religion, wasn't baptized, or any of that. My mom was Atheist, but never really talked about it. My dad was raised Catholic and also never really talked about it. There is definitely a great divide during family gatherings, so I just keep my mouth shut. Sometimes I'll tilt my head down while everyone prays, just to be respectful. That sort of thing.

Because of my upbringing, it's always confounded me that people could be religious. It's just not something I ever understood. I used to question it a lot, and read holy texts, and try to understand, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's really all too silly to try to understand. So that's that.


.

icklekitty
12-09-2011, 11:55 AM
Sometimes I'll tilt my head down while everyone prays, just to be respectful.

I think that's an important attitude to maintain, no matter what side of the fence/where in the spectrum you are. There are a multitude of faiths in my family and it's sort of unwritten that (for example) you don't take pork to the Muslim households, you bow your head before dinner at the Christian households, and you let the Hindu grandparents smear grey powder on your forehead. At my place you don't trash gays or expect me to cook.

Halo Infinity
12-09-2011, 12:02 PM
At my place you don't trash gays or expect me to cook.
Awesome. That certainly works for me too. :)

sheepdean
12-09-2011, 12:42 PM
I mostly agree with the first point, and more often than not, personify the second.
I know Militant Atheists suck, but sometimes, after having faith shoved down my throat, all I want to do is shove back.
I think there's a difference between militant atheists and simply defending oneself.


Although, depending on the crowd (friends, family, etc.) I'll bite my tongue or politely suggest a subject change, there are times when a big heated discussion is unavoidable, or someone is asking for it (like when an old coworker started to bitch at me and tell me I was going to Hell because when he blessed me after sneezing, I politely said, "No thank you.").

"Bless you" after sneezing is an old tradition from the fact that pre-healthcare, a sneeze could mean you're going to die soon, so it was them clearing you for the afterlife. The whole "no thank you" thing isn't a clever way of saying you have no faith, it's being a dick.

Because of my upbringing, it's always confounded me that people could be religious. It's just not something I ever understood. I used to question it a lot, and read holy texts, and try to understand, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's really all too silly to try to understand. So that's that.
I think that's fine personally, but if you choose to not try to understand, then I hope you also don't debate it with people - a good debater must always be able to see the argument from both sides.

#mytwopenneth

Halo Infinity
12-09-2011, 03:48 PM
But posting stuff on Facebook about atheism is fine, I think questioning your friends about their beliefs is fine if you have that sort of friendship where you can have those discussions and can challenge each other. Hell, I don't even have a problem with atheist billboards and the like, because our society is generally pretty intolerant of atheism, and I want people to know that it's ok not to believe. I want kids who are questioning religion to understand that being atheist is a perfectly valid viewpoint. I would like to get to a point in this country where people will elect an atheist into high office (though I think that's a long ways away). If we're going to change the perception of atheism in this country, and if we're ever going to get people to reconsider believing in fairy tales, it has to be discussed and brought up. But, like you said, there's a nice way to do that where you're not being pushy and there's a wrong way of going about it where you're being a dick.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. You've got it down to a T here. I never understood why it was considered wrong to spread atheism in the first place. It's harmless.

Elke
12-09-2011, 04:19 PM
Don't people of these religions believe that, as humans, we cannot comprehend the complexity that is God? If this is the case, how can we begin to interpret what divine love is or isn't? As you say, it's utterly unconvincing on a philosophical level, but that is how non-religious people tend to think. I'm not saying religious people can't think on that level, I'm just saying that we are presented with these arguments as if they are given straight from God, and we are bad people when we question it? Don't you see why we are upset about this double standard? ... Is God's love not unconditional? Why is it that a person can do terrible things, but if they are repentant and accept God as their creator, they will be forgiven, yet someone who never does anything as terrible as the other person is punished for the rest of time simply because they didn't believe a certain thing?

Why do people judge? Easy: people judge. Almost all of the more commonly practiced religions and philosophies try to weed out some of our baser and less social instincts: to steal, to lie, to cheat, to use violence, to generally be an unpleasant sort of person. Religious and philosophical texts often urge us not to judge others, or to at least treat others as well as we would ourselves want to be treated [the golden rule for instance returns in hinduism, buddhism, confucianism, taoism, judaism, christianity and islam, as well as all thereof derived religions and a couple of still practiced natural spiritualities; but is also promoted by Socrates, Epicurus and philosophically founded by Kant].
So while religions will try to prevent human judgement of others (by institutionalizing it or leaving it to a divine being itself in the afterlife), people will still judge. Just as they'll know it's wrong to steal, and still download CD's illegally (and then make up really good reasons why they should).

I know it's common on this board to assume that all religious people are X, but most people I know who are religious do question aspects of whatever it is they believe in. If they didn't, I wouldn't be able to tell you that the reasoning behind the naturalistic argument against homosexuality is philosophically unsound. I'm a religious person, after all. If I couldn't stand the thought of people questioning dogma's in my particular religion, why would I answer your question accurately.
A lot of theologians are working on papers and books concerning the catholic Church's naturalistic take on sexual ethics, for instance - no lightweight rebels either.
Don't forget that someone Desmond Tutu argued FOR gay rights and FOR the use of birth control in the fight against AIDS. That's bishop Desmond Tutu for you, one of the figureheads of the generally rather conservative African Church.

I think it's also important to understand that no catholic dogmas, and indeed precious few religious dogmas altogether, are actually attributed to God or gods. They're man-made, and most religious people know and understand they're man-made - even if they sometimes believe it was a very special man, or a man who was inspired by an angel or a spirit, or through some kind of revelation in history.

On the other hand I think you give 'non-religious people' too much credit: most of them don't think on a philosophical level. Actually, very few people do, and that's okay. Most people don't think on a molecular level, either, or don't think of the world in terms of harmony or math. But since theology is applied philosophy, it has to follow the rules of thought. And when it doesn't, it's unsound. Again: it's religious people who actually study the theology of their faith, who will find and point out and criticize those flaws. Non-religious people usually don't even know those issues exist.

But, despite all those things, you're right of course: if God's love is what we aspire to achieve, then like God we should be full of kindness and forgiveness. And I see this effort in most religious people I know. In fact, just now I had a chat on the train with a stranger who, after he learned I was a religion teacher, went on to say that he wasn't 'like an American fanatic' (he had American roots, he told me) but he was religious; and that he believed in God as a source of love and of inspiration, but he had a problem with the Pope and the Church. He asked me what I thought of birth control and homosexuality, and he seemed genuinely relieved when I said I was okay with both. I'm sure this man, who said a blessing as we parted and called me 'a sister in God' which is something I know non-christians usually find really odd and a little creepy, was trying very hard to be like God in those respects. I know I do.

But, naturalistic ethics are always problematic. Those few brilliant minds who try to build an ethical system from sociobiological 'findings' (which are nothing more than highly speculative, unconfirmed theories, scientifically speaking) are making the exact same mistake as St. Thomas Aquinas when he came up with his naturalistic ethics.

Tea
12-09-2011, 04:41 PM
On the other hand I think you give 'non-religious people' too much credit: most of them don't think on a philosophical level. Actually, very few people do, and that's okay. Most people don't think on a molecular level, either, or don't think of the world in terms of harmony or math. But since theology is applied philosophy, it has to follow the rules of thought. And when it doesn't, it's unsound. Again: it's religious people who actually study the theology of their faith, who will find and point out and criticize those flaws. Non-religious people usually don't even know those issues exist.
Wait, wait, wait. I know many who are studying or studied theology and are non-religious. You cannot say that more Christians point out flaws in the religion than non-Christians, whether on a philosophical/academic plane or not.
And it really sounds like you want to state a belief that the non-religious are less intelligent than the religious because they don't believe in a popular "philosophy". Go on, just let it out.

My company (run by atheists) lets a priest have an office here free of change. He runs a "Religious Roundtable," where the varied religious leaders of my state meet frequently in the conference room (I have the wonderful chance of hearing every word while attempting to work). If any flaw is ever discussed, it is a flaw of the secular; and it is picked at terribly. There is never any discussion of anything nasty happening in the religious world. The polarization is incredible.

Elke
12-09-2011, 05:35 PM
Uhm, no. I said:

a) most PEOPLE don't think on a philosophical level. So it's a fair assumption that most non-religions people don't, either. Maybe there's a disproportionate amount of non-religious people who are active philosophers in some capacity, but the limited number of active philosophers makes me doubt that somehow. That said: this (logically) means that most religious people are also not philosophically inclined.

b) philosophical problems in theological reasonings are only relevant because theology is applied philosophy. So in itself a philosophical flaw can also be completely irrelevant, like in a work of poetry or Ikea slogans.

c) the case of naturalistic ethics, for instance, is an obvious one. When I say 'Christians believe that God created man and woman to be heterosexuals', the more obvious rebuttals f this statement would be: a) how do we know God's intention of creation; b) God obviously didn't and/or c) God doesn't exist. And not: the naturalistic phallacy is based on the incorrect assumption that all things in nature which resemble order are a) natural and b) order, combined with the notion that all order in nature is divine by definition, hence rendering all things in nature resembling order inherently divine. [For the sociobiological variation, replace 'order' with 'patterned behaviour' and 'divine' with 'useful'.]
So how would someone then prefer option d) it's a phallacy? Because you noticed option d) by knowing what was behind the sentence in the first place. And most non-religious non-scholars don't know this, so they wouldn't notice this; whereas all religious scholars would know this, so if they didn't notice it they would be quacks.
Yes, I just said that religious scholars who defend that God created man and woman to be heterosexuals, are quacks.
But yes, I also said that more christians will point out philosophical problems in christian theology than muslims would, and that more buddhists will point out philosophical prolbems in buddhist theology than christians would. And that more evolutionary scientists would be able to explain why Richard Dawkins is such a hack, than I am (since I'm not an evolutionary scientist).
See how it works? Logics. It's the foundation of all rational thought.

That said, you really sound like maybe you would just assume that I would just argue that religious people are more intelligent than the non-religious. Which would be... well, kind of a stupid thing to argue, what with it being completely unverifiable (to begin with).
But you're right: the polarization is incredible. In the minds of those who choose to polarize, that is. I hadn't noticed it myself.

Tea
12-09-2011, 06:55 PM
Uhm, no. I said:
I know what you were attempting to state in the end, but look back at how you worded that paragraph- the absolute basics of your equations there. Honestly, I find discussing any of these issues with you a futile attempt when it comes to reaching any point further down the line. I do find a lot of your opinions interesting, though. So I apologize, Elke, for responding to your post.

theruiner
12-09-2011, 07:19 PM
So, I thought this was actually really wonderful. This whole "War on Christmas" bullshit that Fox News and right wing talk show hosts try to stir up this time of year really gets under my skin. I've tried to explain why it is I find it so repulsive, and why I find people who get upset about "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to be rude, arrogant pricks, but I've never been able to put it as well as John Fugelsang (who is freaking awesome, by the way). So here's a video of him explaining the problem, and the difference between what he calls Christianity and "Christian Supremacy." He's absolutely spot on. It's pretty short and worth a watch. (http://tinyurl.com/7kfxv34[/URL)

YKWYA
12-09-2011, 08:37 PM
I believe in Chaos. Obviously, our world is governed by observable rules. But the outcomes are unpredictable. I believe that the reasons for the existence of religion are control (pre-dating modern government. Although arguably that control still exists) and it is prepetuated by the insecurity and fear of a lot of people, that there really is nothing out there looking out for you. You are not a unique and special snowflake. You are on your own and your life is dependent on your initial conditions of birth. Thats it. Tommorrow you might suffer massive heart failure. You may get hit by a bus. Thats the way it is. Religion is searching for meaning when there isnt any. It is completely and utterly redundant to whatever you want it to mean in any given circumstance. God wants you to have it or not. etc etc etc. This is just one big equasion playing out, until the sun burns out, destroys the earth and every single Human endevour is lost in the heat death of the universe. Nothing lasts forever.

iamanexit
12-10-2011, 02:15 AM
I think that's an important attitude to maintain, no matter what side of the fence/where in the spectrum you are. There are a multitude of faiths in my family and it's sort of unwritten that (for example) you don't take pork to the Muslim households, you bow your head before dinner at the Christian households, and you let the Hindu grandparents smear grey powder on your forehead. At my place you don't trash gays or expect me to cook.

hahahaa! word!!

Elke
12-10-2011, 06:24 AM
I believe in Chaos. Obviously, our world is governed by observable rules. But the outcomes are unpredictable. ... You are on your own and your life is dependent on your initial conditions of birth. Thats it.

Doesn't that make life incredibly predictable though, if everything is set at birth? I'm just curious: do you really believe that everything is predetermined, or was that just hyperbolic?

YKWYA
12-10-2011, 07:11 AM
No, It doesnt make it predictable. But the very nature of chaotic systems is that they are deterministic. I mean, what would your life chances be had you have been born in Zimbabwe? What would your world view be had you been born in Kabul? There are so many factors that interact. The world is a very big system, and sometimes hard for us to comprehend, but it is still a system nonethless.

Elke
12-10-2011, 07:21 AM
I've been reading Freakonomics and a lot of what they do is show statistic outcomes of set variables. The thing I wonder about though is, and this is a genuine question: how do you build a life stance around the concept of a set universe? Are you, for instance, inclined to accept an idea like fate? How do you base an ethical code? If you wouldn't mind explaining that, I would appreciate it.

Timinator
12-10-2011, 07:42 AM
How do you build a life stance around the concept of a set universe? Are you, for instance, inclined to accept an idea like fate? How do you base an ethical code? If you wouldn't mind explaining that, I would appreciate it.I think that there are at least two ways to do this.
1. Practically, behavioural determinism is too big and complicated for us to ever figure out all the variables and predict. So while there might strictly be a formula somewhere that could predict everything we'll ever be, do, or say, we'll never be able to figure it out or use it. From a practical point of view, therefore, you might as well keep going as if you have choices that matter. I do not subscribe to this view, however.
2. Determinism and free will can co-exist. This is the compatibilist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) view, and it is one to which I subscribe. I don't see any reason why we cannot make free choices, made up by all sorts of inputs and factors and experiences and whims that can still be deterministic and - with enough computing power, or in the eyes of God* - predictable. That, combined with an ethical naturalism (which I would not dismiss as readily as you have done), means that it matters what I do.

*Figure of speech.

cheddamash
12-10-2011, 09:56 PM
3. Why do some Christians think that atheists are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion?

If I were to boil down the values of all of the Atheists and Christians I know they would be nearly identical. I think THIS is the problem that some Christians have (consciously or not) with Atheists... coming to the same conclusions as people who haven't devoted their entire life to God. I think they see it as almost cutting in line. "Shit. Did I not have to do all that bullshit?" It discredits their beliefs. Instead, some ignorant Christians (by no means all) rather deny this outright and make ridiculous accusations about Atheists.

littlemonkey613
12-11-2011, 12:06 AM
For the past year I have become consumed with gender roles in Evangelical Christianity in America. (mainly complementarianism). Actually its rather become an intense obsession. I'm even flying to the biggest conference for Women regarding this in the country this summer. All my top tabs are links to my favorite pastors, and I follow more of them on twitter than actual friends. It's been a real experience having such a focus of study on my own time. I even give mock sermons to my family whenever I go home. I'm really just wondering if this is a subject of interest for anyone else? I had no idea this was such a pervasive and organized ideology and it really makes me grateful for my sane and tolerant Christian upbringing.

Harry Seaward
12-11-2011, 12:11 AM
For the past year I have become consumed with gender roles in Evangelical Christianity in America. (mainly complementarianism). Actually its rather become an intense obsession. I'm even flying to the biggest conference for Women regarding this in the country this summer. All my top tabs are links to my favorite pastors, and I follow more of them on twitter than actual friends. It's been a real experience having such a focus of study on my own time. I even give mock sermons to my family whenever I go home. I'm really just wondering if this is a subject of interest for anyone else? I had no idea this was such a pervasive and organized ideology and it really makes me grateful for my sane and tolerant Christian upbringing.

I can't say it's an intense interest of mine, but I find it hilarious to see women trying to defend religions in which their gender is treated like property. A woman being a Christian is like a black joining the KKK. Pure comedy gold.

leo3375
12-11-2011, 12:36 AM
Keep in mind that the sex laws in the Old Testament were skewed against women because they are the ones that get pregnant and give birth, so it's easier to tell when they've been sleeping around, or if they weren't a virgin when they got married. And with the high infant and childhood mortality rates, men had to be sure that they were the biological fathers of the children their wives had. These days, such laws are antiquated and completely unnecessary. Many denominations of Christianity have survived because they were able to adapt to changes in culture and technology. If a man isn't sure he's the father of his wife's child, he can always ask for a paternity test. And whether a woman is a virgin or not on her wedding day is now considered a personal matter in mainstream society. I feel that the denominations of Christianity that take the Bible literally word-for-word will not survive because they simply cannot and will not make the necessary adaptations as our society as a whole continues to evolve.

Harry Seaward
12-11-2011, 12:45 AM
Oh, sorry I forget the word of an omniscient being varies depending on the culture changes of the interpreters of His word. Silly me.

Elke
12-11-2011, 03:05 AM
@ littlemonkey613: It's not my area of expertise (although really it should be, given that I head the gender team at my school) BUT I've always been fascinated by the Dutch Bible belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt_(Netherlands)). The Netherlands are not quite as secularized as Belgium or France, and protestantism is still the inofficial Dutch religion, but this is a region where in some villages people even dress almost Amish-like. Recently there were elections, and they went to some of those villages to ask if the women there would vote for a woman, and they were outraged by the question: A man makes decisions! A woman's just not smart enough to do that!
It's always surprising to me that one of the most ethically liberal countries in Europe would have at its heart such a relatively large, incredibly conservative community - but then again, I guess that makes even more sense: the more things change, the more they stay the same, right?
But I am always amazed by things like that. We associate women embracing their lower status with low-income households, poor education, third world countries... not with one of the richest and most educated countries in the world. Incredibly weird.


Oh, sorry I forget the word of an omniscient being varies depending on the culture changes of the interpreters of His word. Silly me.

Actually, it does. Just check out how God changed his mind between St Paul's letter to the Corinthians and Muhammed taking down Jibra'il's notes that turned into the Quran: from woman being property to women being equal partners in almost every respect. A muslim woman is a lot more sensible than a black member of the KKK or indeed, a gay catholic.

Then again, God seems to have changed his mind about a lot of things even during the writing of the TeNaK: all animals went from vegetarians to being allowed to eat meat; first it was monolatry, then monotheism; Sodom was destroyed without warning while Nineve was warned and given time to repent; first there was no life after death then suddenly *pop* there's things like the Messiah and the Resurrection and Heaven.

YKWYA
12-11-2011, 08:30 AM
God is a kid with an ant farm by the sounds of things.

Anyway, Timinator put it best conceptually. But I would also add that I have difficulty with why subscribers to religious text have a hard time understanding how Atheists/Agnostics construct a moral and ethical code? Many species on this planet create social structures and understanding without reference to religious texts such as the Bible. The structures are inherent to a species evolutionary survival or not. OK, some animals appear to be brutal towards ech other, but animals can be different characters much in the same way as Humans. We too, do some horrible things to each other, and often, it appears to me, driven by, and apparently sanctioned, by whatever dogma that human being subscribes to. A lot of the time, its only the law that keeps us back from doing what religion, or any other impulse, would 'allow' us to do. Witness the views of a lot of religious people towards other religions, homosexuals etc etc. Crusades against others since time imemmorial. Therefore, I dont think that either side has any easier time constructing a view of whats right and what is wrong. Those concepts chnage over thousands of years. Religious dogma has been reigned in by other world views. There are millions of people living peaceful (call it moral, or ethical) lives without religion.

Im simply saying that, again, who we are is defined by factors inside (genetic) and outside of us. 'Religion' is in the mix like any other factor as to how a Human Being behaves. It is not essential, and does not have some upper-hand.

Elke
12-11-2011, 11:07 AM
That's not why I asked. I'm familiar with a couple of philosophies that are formulated in a non-teleological universe, like epicurism, stoicism or even Nietzsche's attempts at a constructive pretense. But just as my christianity isn't everyone's, I was just curious how an individual would phrase it. You mentioned the law, but laws are also based on value systems and philosophies - whether a government leans towards socialism or liberalism, for instance, is visible in the laws they pass. So that's what I was looking for.
It could help me give examples in class of non-religious life stances that are not humanism, materialism or my own former concepts (which was, looking back on it, already a lot like Nietzsche's alternative).

Still, thank you both for answering.

littlemonkey613
12-11-2011, 05:36 PM
Keep in mind that the sex laws in the Old Testament were skewed against women because they are the ones that get pregnant and give birth, so it's easier to tell when they've been sleeping around, or if they weren't a virgin when they got married. And with the high infant and childhood mortality rates, men had to be sure that they were the biological fathers of the children their wives had. These days, such laws are antiquated and completely unnecessary.

I must say this kind of reasoning has always bothered me. For one, this context can be true for a lot of places today so trying to justify those laws and calling them necessary in a different time means that you would have to be calling them necessary in today's setting as well, as the only difference is what year this kind of thinking is taking place. I always hear people use this kind of reasoning for the slave laws in the Old Testament. They'll say something along the lines of "but slavery back then was different than how we understand it today, you are taking it out of context." Except that kind of slavery DOES exist in some places today so defending the practice in any context becomes very morally problematic.

"men had to be sure that they were the biological fathers of the children their wives had".
That's really making it sound sweet and sensible. Don't forget that women weren't even considered proper people, but were property and they basically had no rights because of it. Of course I understand that you are more or less just saying how they would justify their own laws but the wording does imply an acceptance that makes me frustrated. Maybe I am just too emotionally involved and can't think objectively about it.

@Elke Yes! The most interesting thing about this is that I've basically been following people who are middle to upper middle class. Actually this was all brought on because a friend very close to me got taken in by a church who preaches this, and now we are no longer friends because he said that "he wouldn't expect me to live up to those standards and submit to my husband" because I'm not Christian. It was all pretty insane. From what I've gathered a lot of the momentum from this movement comes from a direct backlash of the feminist movement here, which can be expected I guess. Still what disturbs me the most is that its so prevalent and yet barely anyone I know is aware of it. People are always surprised to find for instance that the pastor who did the opening prayer at Obama's inauguration is one of the biggest advocates of complemantiarianism. Now that I am aware of it, I see it everywhere.

Elke
12-12-2011, 04:13 AM
I once had a very interesting discussion about this with a coworker, and she argued that it's actually privilige, not submission.
In the fifties and sixties when the economy in the west boomed women were suddenly allowed to stay at home. They didn't have to work. We think of these patterns as somehow really old, but the truth is that only wealthy women were ever able to not work - women had to work on the land, had to be maids, had to become prostitutes... in order to feed their families. The female teachers who all had to be single often lived with their parents until they died, taking on the burden of care for the elder relatives because she had fewer costs for herself.
If women now choose to submit to their husbands, she argued, it might be in part because it provides them with the luxury of not having to work. They will refer to the Bible to justify their behaviour, which is actually very self-interested. But to cover up the self-interest, they'll often do volunteer work (as noble women have done since the rise of chivalry in the 900s: the new money powerhouses of the 19th century took it upon themselves to do charity work to reflect their social status).
She also pointed out, and I quite agree with her here, that women with lesser educational background or social status will usually submit to their husbands out of fear rather than religious reasons.
I thought that was a very interesting way of looking at it.
Of course, because what happens in the social stratosphere is always copied by us lesser humans, that means upper middleclass and even middleclass women will start doing the same but not being able to actually stay at home exchange their autonomy for absolutely nothing, because they can't enjoy the priviliges that come with a submissive role for an upper class woman.

I was reminded of this discussion in a completely different respect a while back, when I saw Leymah Gbowie on The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/leymah-gbowee). She was talking about the sex strike, and how the urban women were very militant (We're not having sex! We're rebelling!) but the rural women couldn't afford that, so they said they were going to fast and pray for peace, and that meant they couldn't have sex, and their husbands fasted and prayed with them. It struck me that if you're really submissive, such a ruse would never work. So these women have an autonomy all of their own that is respected by their husbands, one that we often don't have.

And I agree about the laws concerning sexuality and gender in the Old Testament (and St. Paul's letters, Paul sucks): knowing where they came from doesn't make them right. I think we can safely say that with what we know now and our current understanding of humanity and sexuality and the likes, we can look back on those rules and say Okay, I get why you thought that was a good idea, but you know what? No. Bad ideas.
That said, Aristotle is still one of the most important and influential philosophers (especially for anyone dealing with exact sciences, oddly enough) and he argued that women never quite matured as men did, because they didn't have an intellectual soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Soul), they only had an animal-like soul. I'm not simply throwing away Aristotle because of his skewed views on women (and sex, God, the man was clueless), but I'm not going to take his views seriously either. They're significant if you're studying his ideas, but I don't know any scolars of Aristotle who would go 'And now I will beat my wife, because you have to train them as you would your donkey'. That'd be totally weird.
People who take those rules and run with them are just intellectually lazy.

Halo Infinity
12-13-2011, 10:24 AM
@Elke: Now the following questions are about Christianity in general, so I hope you can bear with me here. And of course, you can also choose to answer these questions to your knowledge and understanding if you'd like, and I'm mostly basing these questions on my experiences with Adventism again. I wonder what Catholics think of these issues.

1. So am I to understand that Christians are also not supposed to dislike other people even if they're intentionally being offensive and cruel? (In other words, is disliking somebody just as bad as hating somebody?)

I'm not talking about full-blown animosity, revenge and resentment here either. I'm just talking more along the lines of, "I really can't stand this guy. I just want to stay away from him." I've been told that's actually wrong because it contradicts the love of God. Is that simply so in general?

(And yes, I could see how thoughts and actions of dislike can lead to hatred as well, so I could see why they'd want to avoid that risk. But yes, I've basically been told that I'm not supposed to really feel that way towards people that treat my horribly.)

2. Are Christians really supposed to love, forgive and help everybody and not give up on them because God didn't give up on humanity to start with?

I know this is up for theological debates here, and while that's not my intention, I could see how it would be inevitable, but most Adventists have told me that's why I should be always willing to forgive and to help others even if we think they might not deserve it because despite how undeserving humans were for receiving eternal and unconditional forgiveness, support and love, God just didn't decide to give up on us. - Along with how God's love and forgiveness and is supposed to be unconditional and eternal. I can't argue with that being a core belief pertaining to God. (And that Christians are commanded to love like God, etc, etc.)

3. Is forgiveness mandatory or optional?

All Adventists told me that forgiveness is a must. As for me, I always thought that forgiveness is only sincere and authentic if it was done on your own volition. I don't think apologies could be sincere if they're forced, so I can't see why forgiveness would be either.

(I'm all for forgiveness by the way. However, it's just hard for me to think that it can be eternal and unconditional.)

And to the atheists, I've always been curious as to how you'd perceive the following.

1. What do you think about loving your enemies? Is it impossible? (I still can't see myself doing that. If I'm not feeling hatred towards them, they'd just scare me, or merely disgust me.)

2. What do you think about unconditional love? Does it exist? (I'm skeptical about this concept too.)

3. What are your view on forgiveness? (Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that you can forgive without being a Christian.)

sheepdean
12-13-2011, 10:32 AM
Am I the only one who finds discussions on religion, online anyway, are actually just discussions on Atheism v Christianity?

Halo Infinity
12-13-2011, 10:40 AM
That usually seems to happen, and I'd agree with you too, so I suppose you're not alone there.

-Edit-

Sorry about that, I forgot to mention that you'd also come across moments where it's also "Beliefs versus Beliefs" or "Religion versus Religion" as well.

NIN64
12-13-2011, 01:07 PM
http://youtu.be/7T8Y1-VLjGQ

Elke
12-13-2011, 01:29 PM
So am I to understand that Christians are also not supposed to dislike other people even if they're intentionally being offensive and cruel?

Are Christians really supposed to love, forgive and help everybody and not give up on them because God didn't give up on humanity to start with?
Is forgiveness mandatory or optional?

I can’t really answer these questions conclusively. I can’t even really find any Church doctrine about it, for now. (It must be out there, I just simply don’t know where it would be written down.)

I do think that it depends on whether a church or community attaches a great value to the Sermon on the Mount, or not. Jesus gives a speech there that deals with intention or attitude rather than outward action. It also contains the counsel to not pray on street corners like hypocrites, for instance. Here the idea that you shouldn’t think evil about your brother is posited, and the demand to forgive 7 times 70 times.
There are a great number of ways to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, but one validated by St. Augstine is that the Sermon urges us to take on a certain attitude, to cultivate a certain type of purity of heart. This was picked up again by people like Wilhelm Hermann, and there’s echoes of the idea in some of Luther’s writings that while we must act a certain way on the mortal plain, our hearts and minds must already be as if we were with God. Something to that effect.

That said, there’s also the Golden Rule that says love your neighbour as you do yourself. How is it showing self respect to let other people walk all over you or hurt you, if you’re not allowed to do this yourself? That’s not taking care of God’s creation either, because one might argue you’re not actually taking care of yourself. (Some more radical thinkers, like St. Franciscus of Assisi, are radicalists in this respect: they don’t see a difference between what is within our possibilities on earth and what is a given in heaven; and will argue that in order to make God’s Kingdom happen on earth, christians have to act as if they are in heaven already).

Forgiveness is mandatory, and it’s not. We must strive towards forgiveness, but it can’t be hollow. A professor of mine made it a point to always remind us that forgiveness can only be given when it is requested, and I think that’s a very interesting idea. In the Old Testament we see this in the discrepancy between the fates of Sodom and Nineve. Sodom is wiped out, while Nineve is spared. God deemed Nineves grief over what they had done, their request for forgiveness, to be sincere, so they were spared. That again begs the question, though: are we to jugde about whether remorse is real, or is that up to God.

One aspect of our duty to forgive, aside from the concept of God’s love that you already cited, is the idea that we can’t judge – only God can judge. We have to give second and third chances to people, because until death comes knocking, there can be no final judgement. It’s an idea that’s even more pronounced in islam, where any form of judgement over a person is blasphemy, because you’re playing God.

That said, very few christians practice this aspect of their faith. It’s crucial to understanding how a person interprets christianity. I would personally say, and with me Catholic doctrine, that we should aspire to be as perfect as the Sermon of the Mount orders us to be, but that being human and earthbound and mortal and all that rot, we’re also doomed to fail at perfection. We should strive for it, without destroying ourselves.

It’s also interesting to note that the concept of complete altruism and complete compassion are also very important in Buddhism. It’s an aspect of metta and a means of avoiding negative emotion: in letting go of anger or resentment, you free yourself of any desires for revenge or any negative attachments. And the reverse is also true: if you have no attachments, either to yourself or others or objects around you, then nothing that is done to you cannot be forgiven.
In as far as I understand Buddhism, it seems to be a lot more demanding than christianity in this respect.
It also reminds me of the Greek stoa, which was also all about apatheia.

I hope that answers your question somewhat.

I have to say that one of the few things I did struggle with as an atheist was the idea of forgiveness. I wasn’t a typical good child, and I was constantly worried that I would drag all my mistakes with me. As geeks do, I found solace in fantasy: when I read The Lord of the Rings I really liked the character of Boromir and the idea that his honesty and his ability to accept his own failings ultimately redeemed him. I’m still upset with Tolkien for describing him as a traitor. I’m very serious when I say that in my personal, moral development The Lord of the Rings might have been more significant than any philosophy book or any religious text that came after.
I think everyone find things they relate to everywhere around them.

nin5in
12-13-2011, 11:09 PM
I follow LaVey's philosophy, even though I know he borrowed ideas and concepts from Ayn Rand and other philosophers.

Elke
12-14-2011, 06:25 AM
I follow LaVey's philosophy, even though I know he borrowed ideas and concepts from Ayn Rand and other philosophers.

Oooh, if you could find the time, could you try and explain what that means to you? It's different reading about something and seeing how someone puts it into practice, or adepts aspects of it. I would really appreciate that!

nin5in
12-14-2011, 09:08 AM
Oooh, if you could find the time, could you try and explain what that means to you? It's different reading about something and seeing how someone puts it into practice, or adepts aspects of it. I would really appreciate that!

No problem. What Laveyan philosophy means to me is that instead of trying to deny your carnal (base) nature, you spend your life praising and satisfying it, as long as you don't harm yourself or nobody else. How I put it into practice is that I do what I want as long as it doesn't cause any harm to myself or anyone else. I respect those who respect me, I don't waste my love on those who hate me. Instead of squelching my pride, I exalt it, because pride is considered the best of all the virtues, because it keeps all the other desires in check (according to LaVey). Instead of curbing my lust, I give it to the man who deserves it (which is my husband, as long as he doesn't give his lust to anybody else). The biggest thing for me is to do unto others as they have done unto you. If someone shows me kindness, I show them kindness. If some spites me, I spite them right back. You have to be a bit of a hedonist to pratice this philosophy. You also have to be a free thinker, a rebel. I have been happier ever since I decided to practice it. Now that being said I don't pratice all of it blindly, I just pratice what I agree with. I also have an interest in magick. I haven't started praticing it yet, but I'm educating myself about it.

littlemonkey613
12-14-2011, 12:58 PM
And to the atheists, I've always been curious as to how you'd perceive the following.

1. What do you think about loving your enemies? Is it impossible? (I still can't see myself doing that. If I'm not feeling hatred towards them, they'd just scare me, or merely disgust me.)

2. What do you think about unconditional love? Does it exist? (I'm skeptical about this concept too.)

3. What are your view on forgiveness? (Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that you can forgive without being a Christian.)


1. It depends on what kind of enemies? The people in my life that I "hate" most? I'd never want anything bad to happen to them and I'd feel genuine sadness if anything did, but that's partly because I know they have family and friends so its really easy to empathize with other people that know them and would hurt as well. I can't think of any other people that I would consider enemies. It would never make sense for me to ever use the word love with their names though, unless miraculously they all said sorry for hurting people I love and turned into different people. To be honest I'd be uncomfortable because love is quite clearly defined in my mind and it would feel cheapened if I just said I loved everyone.

2. I think it exists. In fact its not hard for me to think of a few examples. It's not always a good thing I don't think....

3. It's really easy for me to forgive people who apologize to me. I have what my friends call "selective memory". They always have to re-tell me shitty things because I have a pretty awesome filter. I'm actually waiting on a few people to apologize but I know they are just scared. That's too bad, we could be really good friends again if they packed up the courage. That being said I could forgive people who don't apologize but I will always pity them for not being able to do the right thing. Also, I'm really young so who knows what kind of great things these people could end up doing.

I think all these ideas are ambiguous in nature, I don't think anyone can be right or wrong in answering them. Really my answer would change depending on my mood so this might have been pointless. Haha.

Goldfoot
12-14-2011, 01:54 PM
Actually, it does. Just check out how God changed his mind between St Paul's letter to the Corinthians and Muhammed taking down Jibra'il's notes that turned into the Quran: from woman being property to women being equal partners in almost every respect. A muslim woman is a lot more sensible than a black member of the KKK or indeed, a gay catholic.

Then again, God seems to have changed his mind about a lot of things even during the writing of the TeNaK: all animals went from vegetarians to being allowed to eat meat; first it was monolatry, then monotheism; Sodom was destroyed without warning while Nineve was warned and given time to repent; first there was no life after death then suddenly *pop* there's things like the Messiah and the Resurrection and Heaven.

See, now I have a serious issue with this and I don't understand how you can reconcile a subjective definition of omniscient. Isn't the idea that God is all knowing one of the main things we are supposed to know about God? It seems to me that changing how you perceive this notion in order to fit what is simply a way to ignore the inconsistencies within an "infallible" text. However, ff you do accept that the Bible (or any such other text) has errors and contradictions in it, then how can you know what is "true" in order to know what you believe? In this instance it would all come down to personal interpretation, and that is fine, but members of church usually all believe the same interpretation, right? Even though I don't agree with a theistic world-view, I can appreciate someone determining their own beliefs. I'm getting side-tracked here, but I don't see how it is acceptable to say that God can change his/her/its mind under the omniscient pretense. If you know everything that is ever going to happen, then you should know how to react to those things at all times. Are we to believe that God has mood swings? If this is the case, considering only one book has been written explaining the will of God, how is anyone to know how their deity of choice is feeling on any particular day? What if he's feeling particularly sadistic one day and wants to see a bunch of people kill each other. On that day, everyone who killed someone else would be carrying out this divine will, and should be rewarded for it, no? It just seems to me that introducing the idea that God can change his/her/its mind is a way to gloss over weakness in your faith.


And to the atheists, I've always been curious as to how you'd perceive the following.

1. What do you think about loving your enemies? Is it impossible? (I still can't see myself doing that. If I'm not feeling hatred towards them, they'd just scare me, or merely disgust me.)

I don't think it's impossible, but I'm of the same mind as littlemonkey and I think to love everyone, including your enemies, would be to cheapen the emotion. I think the same could be said about any emotion. I feel empathy for someone who loses their life partner to some sort of fatal accident, but I don't really feel empathy for someone who drops their Rolex in a puddle while taking if off so it doesn't get wet in the rain. Sure there are levels to the emotions we feel, but certain emotions are too important to waste on people that don't deserve it. Since I don't believe in God's perfect and unconditional love, there's no reason for me to even like someone that isn't deserving of it. One of my great-grandma's daughters died within the last couple years and I didn't feel any sort of sadness about it. I felt sad for my great-grandma and the people in my family who were affected by her death, but she was never nice to my grandpa and felt that everyone in his line of family shouldn't exist. He had a different father than the rest of the kids so she was very spiteful toward him and his family. So even though she was part of my extended family, I had no positive feelings for her and felt nothing when she died. Now I didn't hate her, but if I didn't have any sort of love for someone like that in my own family, I'm sure not going to feel any kind of love toward someone I'd call an enemy.


2. What do you think about unconditional love? Does it exist? (I'm skeptical about this concept too.)

I think it exists, but in limited situations. I think the best example would be parents and their child(ren). Granted, this may not be applicable to every parent, but from what I've experienced, even when their children do some awful things, the parents still love the child(ren) anyway. A second cousin of mine was involved in the murder of someone a couple years ago. She was always hanging out with sketchy people and it ended up leading to her being involved in murdering someone. Her mom still loves her and calls and writes to her in prison. One of my great-grandma's sons was addicted to heroin for years and was constantly in jail or prison for stealing to pay for the habit and she always loved him. My uncle can be a real asshole to my grandma, but she always loves him. It's hard for parents to go through things like that when it comes to their child(ren) but, at least from what I've seen, they endure it and the love never goes away.


3. What are your view on forgiveness? (Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that you can forgive without being a Christian.)

While I haven't had every possible betrayal done to me, my current stance is that if the other person apologizes for it (and means it), then I would forgive them. I think there would be a limit to how many times I would accept the same thing happening before I would require a really solid assurance against future indiscretions, but I try to look at things through the lens of the Golden Rule. If I wronged someone and I was truly sorry for it, I'd want them to forgive me. How could I ask for forgiveness if I wasn't willing to give someone else the same courtesy?

Elke
12-15-2011, 03:46 PM
Thanks nin5nin, that was interesting!


Isn't the idea that God is all knowing one of the main things we are supposed to know about God?

That sort of depends heavily on who you’re talking to.

First of all, the abrahamic God is often described as transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. However, we can’t actually think any of those concepts. That is: we have theoretical notions of those concepts, but it’s impossible to actually think them, imagine them. Which is precisely the point.

JHWH was at first a god amongst many tribal gods, and the earliest jews distinguished him from the others by serving and worshipping only him (hence the first commandmend). From there, he was placed in a hierarchical position over all the other gods, ultimately becoming their creator (Genesis 1 is in part a satire on the Babylonian deities who were, amongst others, the Sun and the Moon) and the sole actual God.
In that journey, JHWH went from a fairly random tribal deity associated with fertility to completely transcendent.
He is in all respects the complete other. That also means that if we are mortal, he is immortal; if we are limited in space and time, he is eternal and universal; if we are sinners, he is just and good; if we are uneducated and fearful, he is omniscient and omnipotent; if we are hateful, he is love.
God was removed so far from the anthropomorfic template of the surrounding cultures, that it became impossible to actually say anything about him apart from the things he did, the way he intervened (or was percieved to intervene) in the history of the jewish people. Godhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_(Judaism)) is a concept that expresses this.

God’s omniscience is just another attribute (like his transcendence) to show us how God is the complete other of everything on earth. It’s not actually meant to be understood, it’s meant to set him apart.

In all three monotheistic traditions there are mystic sects that refuse to describe God of attribute any aspects to him, because God is the great unknowable. To pretend to know God, know anything about God, is pretentious. God has to be experienced, felt even, not described and analyzed. God’s supposed omniscience means absolutely nothing to them, because we are humans and so we cannot imagine the knowledge of an omniscient being.

There’s also the problem of theological fatalism$ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/#5): how do we understand omniscience in relation to free will. Some philosopher and theologeans argue that they are inherently contradictory, others say that God’s omniscience is about what currently is not what will be, yet another solution is to see God’s knowledge as a knowledge of all possible outcomes in any given scenario (like a great chess player) without actually knowing what the eventual outcome will be.

And that’s just the theology of the three monotheistic traditions. I’m not well acquainted with Pramānavāda and Hetuvidya, but given the importance of logic especially in Buddhism, I’m sure the concept of omniscience is also discussed there.
In Hinduism especially it should be an interesting subject to study, because of the all-inclusive idea of God as Brahman.

So: No, it isn’t.


It seems to me that changing how you perceive this notion in order to fit what is simply a way to ignore the inconsistencies within an "infallible" text.

Again, no.
Theologically speaking, very few sects of christianity and judeaism post the infallibility and/or inerrancy of the TeNaK or Bible. In fact, very few sects even cultivate biblical literalism.


However, ff you do accept that the Bible (or any such other text) has errors and contradictions in it, then how can you know what is "true" in order to know what you believe?

As a catholic, I’m very familiar with this problem. The answer is: you never know. But then again, you were never supposed to. The Jewish method of PRDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaRDeS) to read the Torah and, slightly better known, the midrash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash), emphasize that reading the holy texts is an interpretative and constructive work, where the reader and the text work together to reveal that which is to be revealed about God or his work in our world.
Similarly, the mediaeval catholic method of lectio divina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina) seeks interpretation and communion with the texts, through interpretation and forming a relationship with every single idea in the text.
In Islam, even the very rational and borderline literalist text-analysis exegesis of tafsir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir) relies on interpretation; while the much more mystic practice of Ta’wil is rooted in the mysticism of sufism.

Holy texts aren’t meant to be taken literally. They try to speak of something that escapes human understanding. So in order to speak of God (and death, and life, and wonder, and horror – the entirety of the human experience is described in holy texts), people take to poetry and myth, symbolism and story.
Literalism is a rather recent invention.

You never know what’s true, but you read the words, try to understand what they mean – what they meant to those who wrote them down or heard them first, what they mean to you here and know, how they relate to other portions of the text.
Some elements are easily dismissed – bats aren’t birds of prey. Does that knowledge make eating kosher food stupid? Maybe.
Human beings can’t walk on water. But Peter did. Does that mean people actually thought Peter was hip like Jesus? Did Jesus make Peter walk on the water? Did God make Peter walk on the water? But no: Peter was walking himself, until he looked down and noticed what he was doing. And so on, and so forth…


Are we to believe that God has mood swings? If this is the case, considering only one book has been written explaining the will of God, how is anyone to know how their deity of choice is feeling on any particular day?

Again: not really. We consider the Bible as ‘one book’, but it’s actually two books written over a period of hundreds of years. That aside, there are a shitload of secondary texts about God. There’s mediaeval poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrijs) that tought me more about God than some of the Psalms… why not look there?
And the reason why jews starting worshipping JHWH above all others was because he was steadfast, he was loyal to them, he was just… Those attributes of God didn’t come out of nothing. The historical experience of God in the monotheistic traditions is that he’s not all that fickle. Of course, my individual experience of God is that really sometimes he’s a son of a bitch.

I hope this makes you feel a little less like I was ‘glossing over’ anything – even though I admit the post itself was rather tongue-in-cheek.

Space Suicide
12-15-2011, 04:12 PM
I'm agnostic with atheistic tendencies.

I might have to jump into discussion in this thread when I have more time.

theruiner
12-15-2011, 04:36 PM
I'm agnostic with atheistic tendencies.Heh...I describe myself as 'agnostic leaning toward atheist.'

Space Suicide
12-15-2011, 07:03 PM
Heh...I describe myself as 'agnostic leaning toward atheist.'

I meant the same thing, just in a flashier title.

littlemonkey613
12-16-2011, 06:17 PM
I once had a very interesting discussion about this with a coworker, and she argued that it's actually privilige, not submission.
In the fifties and sixties when the economy in the west boomed women were suddenly allowed to stay at home. They didn't have to work. We think of these patterns as somehow really old, but the truth is that only wealthy women were ever able to not work - women had to work on the land, had to be maids, had to become prostitutes... in order to feed their families. The female teachers who all had to be single often lived with their parents until they died, taking on the burden of care for the elder relatives because she had fewer costs for herself.
If women now choose to submit to their husbands, she argued, it might be in part because it provides them with the luxury of not having to work. They will refer to the Bible to justify their behaviour, which is actually very self-interested. But to cover up the self-interest, they'll often do volunteer work (as noble women have done since the rise of chivalry in the 900s: the new money powerhouses of the 19th century took it upon themselves to do charity work to reflect their social status).
She also pointed out, and I quite agree with her here, that women with lesser educational background or social status will usually submit to their husbands out of fear rather than religious reasons.
I thought that was a very interesting way of looking at it.
Of course, because what happens in the social stratosphere is always copied by us lesser humans, that means upper middleclass and even middleclass women will start doing the same but not being able to actually stay at home exchange their autonomy for absolutely nothing, because they can't enjoy the priviliges that come with a submissive role for an upper class woman.

I was reminded of this discussion in a completely different respect a while back, when I saw Leymah Gbowie on The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/leymah-gbowee). She was talking about the sex strike, and how the urban women were very militant (We're not having sex! We're rebelling!) but the rural women couldn't afford that, so they said they were going to fast and pray for peace, and that meant they couldn't have sex, and their husbands fasted and prayed with them. It struck me that if you're really submissive, such a ruse would never work. So these women have an autonomy all of their own that is respected by their husbands, one that we often don't have.


That's a very interesting take on it. I see a lot of truth in that. It's also a cultural bubble of madness. Still, there is an aspect of pure victimization and brainwashing (because it is such a clearly defined and organized dogma) so I'm afraid to refer to it as privilege myself. The movement's strength I bet is partly a result of financial privilege but on a personal level I see it as blatant oppression by the more powerful group. This kind is so interesting, horrible and complicated because people are quite litearlly sleeping with and loving their oppressor. I also feel terrible for any man that grows up into this and does not fit their definition of what a man should be.

Then there's more ambiguity because who am I to criticize people if they so choose to live that way? Am I dehumanizing them by saying that their choice is irrelevant and its still just horrible?

The way that I've come to terms with that is I have the attitude that I don't care what someone personally chooses because its none of my business. I do however, think its evil to ever try and limit someone in such a fashion because of their gender, teach this to children and preach this to other women saying it is God's will. This works out great since, without fail everyone I have been following does in fact do this. There is a whole lot of difference between being a submissive woman and preaching that women should be submissive because they are women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM

This guy is kind of the head honcho as of late. His popularity is so scary.

Goldfoot
12-20-2011, 12:15 PM
Elke, I will properly respond to your post, but I haven't had time yet. I'm listening to God Is Not Great and I want to share this with the class. I found it impeccibly worded and, ultimately, hilarious.



There are many disputes between evolutionists as to how the complex process occurred, and indeed as to how it began. Francis Crick even allowed himself to flirt with the theory that life was "inseminated" on earth by bacteria spread from a passing comet. However, all these disputes, when or if they are resolved, will be resolved by using the scientific and experimental methods that have proven themselves so far. By contrast, creationism, or "intelligent design" (its only cleverness being found in this underhanded rebranding of itself) is
not even a theory.
In all its well-financed propaganda, it has never even attempted to show how one single piece of the natural world is explained better by "design" than by evolutionary competition. Instead, it dissolves into puerile tautology. One of the creationists' "questionnaires" purports to be a "yes/no" interrogation of the following:
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
Do you know of any fainting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES for any of the above, give details.

We know the answer in all cases: these were painstaking inventions (also by trial and error) of mankind, and were the work of many hands, and are still "evolving." This is what makes piffle out of the ignorant creationist sneer, which compares evolution to a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard of parts and coming up with a jumbo jet. For a start, there are no "parts" lying around waiting to be assembled. For another thing, the process of acquisition and discarding of "parts" (most especially wings) is as far from a whirlwind as could conceivably be. The time involved is more like that of a glacier than a storm. For still another thing, jumbo jets are not riddled with nonworking or superfluous "parts" lamely inherited from less successful aircraft. Why have we agreed so easily to call this exploded old nontheory by its cunningly chosen new disguise of "intelligent design"? There is nothing at all "intelligent" about it. It is the same old mumbo-jumbo (or in this instance, jumbo-mumbo).

Elke
12-20-2011, 01:02 PM
Ugh, God, I hate God Is Not Great with the burning fire of a thousand suns, and I mean it. It's as unphilosophical AND as unscientific as any religious text, proving absolutely nothing but that those who can read books can make lists of stupid shit people think and do. The book is not so much an argument for either the general harmfulness of religion or even one specific religion, because facts can never be arguments. Hitchens argues throughout the book (like in the segment you quoted, one of the very few where I actually agree with him) that the main reason why religion 'poisons everything' is a combination or irrationality disguised as reason, and forced ignorance. However, it's exactly what he does in his book: for almost every example of a poisonous practice or idea one can easily dig up a positive counterexample, sometimes even based on the same practice or idea. Instead of presenting both sides of the story, it presents one side, not allowing his readers to make up their own mind and knowing full well that the argument he does make is so persuasive that a lot of his readers won't bother to look for more information on certain topics he deals with, because religion is not reasonable, so no sense can be made of it. At the same time almost all his examples appeal to the readers sense of justice or repulsion, neither very rational in nature. For his argument to take hold (and it does this very well) he needs very irrational sentiments to attach themselves to those examples he gives.
Moreover, some of his examples are blatantly false, whether it's just that his sources already fed him biased information or he simply knowingly misrepresented facts. When he attributes the apparant lack of explanation for the inconsistencies in the New Testament to the Church's history of censorship, he completely dismisses the fact that those inconsistencies were the topic of discussion and even heated debates at the earliest universities, and the topic of writings by people like St. Augustinus and Thomas Aquinas. Dei Verbum, a very recent Catholic document on the inerrancy of the Bible for instance, also talks about those inconsistencies, and the relationship between factual truth and divine truth. A lot of efforts have been made, since the very origins of the texts themselves, to explain those differences - which actually requires at least an acknowledgement of those inconsistencies, and a liberty to theorize about them.
Hitchens views especially the abrahamic religions through contemporary glasses, reducing them to the worst examples he can find, and dismissing the mystical traditions for instance (the things I talked about in my earlier reply to Goldfoot's post).

It's excellent polemic writing, but it's as hypocritical as its long, and its most fundamental idea (that I don't disagree with, on the contrary) is that ideology is dangerous, and provides a mechanism for imbalance of power through use of apparently reasonable irrationality and forced ignorance. But other people have made those points in much more substational, rational and general ways.
And in a way I feel it does a great disservice to atheism as an actual, valid, philosophical concept.

Sorry for the rant.

Goldfoot
12-20-2011, 01:20 PM
facts can never be arguments.

And in a way I feel it does a great disservice to atheism as an actual, valid, philosophical concept.

The first part I quoted really surprised me. How can facts not be an argument for something? It seems to me that facts should be the basis for ALL arguments. As for the bulk of your post, I cannot really comment as I'm only 1/3 of the way through right now. It wouldn't be fair to respond without having finished. As for that last part, I see the book as more anti-theist than atheist. There is a distinction and even if what you say about the book is true, I don't see it as being a disservice to atheism as a whole. The only unifying idea behind atheism is that it is a rejection of theism. Not all atheist believe religion is as harmful as Hitchens is presenting it. I even said "amen" after grace at my grandpa's the other night out of respect. I think the level of devotion to the church they have is crazy (and potentially harmful to their personal relationships), but I still conduct myself in a respectful manner. There is no set belief structure that atheists follow, and as I said, I think this book falls into the anti-theist category, which has structure and definite purpose.

Elke
12-20-2011, 01:24 PM
Well, the thing is that it doesn't present itself as anti-theist, and entire chapters are devoted to disproving the notion of a deity (or, in Hitchens' very narrow view of religion, the monotheistic God). But that's a very personal idea of mine, which is why I didn't elaborate on it.

However, as you said: facts are the basis of an argument, but you still have to make the argument. Which he just doesn't do.

Elke
01-14-2012, 02:16 PM
Golden States of Grace (http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Photography/Golden_States_of_Grace/)
Gorgeous pictures that tell a rather interesting story of inclusion.

Jinsai
01-14-2012, 02:49 PM
this shit is going viral, and it's incredibly stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Somehow he avoids the fact that Christianity is a religion... when he goes about endorsing Christianity and explaining the difference between Jesus and religion in such vague and meaningless ways that it drives me insane. In other words, the "meaning" behind this meandering BS (when you strip away his bad poetic affectations and get to the point) is that his religion is true, so therefore it's not a religion.

The fact that so many people find this horse shit "inspiring" sucks. Jesus wasn't a republican? No shit. Thanks for the info.

Elke
01-14-2012, 04:11 PM
Hadn't seen that one yet. Did some digging, and found this (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really). Ironically, the author seems to agree with you Jinsai.

However, I kinda see what he's trying to do. It's pretty easy to focus on one part of the message (don't pray on street corners, eat with sinners, shame the Pharisees and act like a Samaritan in order to go to heaven), and see the delightful construct that is everything after the gospels as man-made and exactly the thing Jesus seems to rally against.

I also think this demonstrates a transformation of christianity, as western civilization moves further into secularized public territory and removes religion out of the public forum and into individual preference and autonomous reflection. All religions change and adapt to new circumstances, and young christians in secularized societies are looking for ways to be christians in a modern world. Letting go of hierarchal, intrinsically public structures seems to be a logical way to adapt to secularization without losing the essence of the faith.

Halo Infinity
01-16-2012, 01:47 AM
Hadn't seen that one yet. Did some digging, and found this (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really). Ironically, the author seems to agree with you Jinsai.
I've found that to be rather ironic myself. I would've have ever guessed that either.


However, I kinda see what he's trying to do. It's pretty easy to focus on one part of the message (don't pray on street corners, eat with sinners, shame the Pharisees and act like a Samaritan in order to go to heaven), and see the delightful construct that is everything after the gospels as man-made and exactly the thing Jesus seems to rally against.

I also think this demonstrates a transformation of christianity, as western civilization moves further into secularized public territory and removes religion out of the public forum and into individual preference and autonomous reflection. All religions change and adapt to new circumstances, and young christians in secularized societies are looking for ways to be christians in a modern world. Letting go of hierarchal, intrinsically public structures seems to be a logical way to adapt to secularization without losing the essence of the faith.

I can see what you mean here, but I just have a hard time not seeing Christianity and going to church as things that aren't and/or have absolutely nothing to do with religion. They're all one and the same to me. However, I'm aware of the argument some Christians use when they say the following line: "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship with God." Even when I didn't have any doubts in the existence of God, I've always known Christianity as a religion that involves a relationship with God. It's also hard for me to believe that one would hate religion while liking, supporting and promoting Christianity and going to church, and anything to do with church. It just doesn't seem right to me at all.


Somehow he avoids the fact that Christianity is a religion... when he goes about endorsing Christianity and explaining the difference between Jesus and religion in such vague and meaningless ways that it drives me insane. In other words, the "meaning" behind this meandering BS (when you strip away his bad poetic affectations and get to the point) is that his religion is true, so therefore it's not a religion.

The fact that so many people find this horse shit "inspiring" sucks. Jesus wasn't a republican? No shit. Thanks for the info.I don't know what you think of TheAmazingAtheist on YouTube, but while he has his moments, I thought that his response to bball1989's poem was very spot on. You probably might like it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBo7Z_abiLE

Elke
01-16-2012, 11:00 AM
You go to church to be with your community, to pray with fellow-believers and - if you're catholic - to commune with Christ, to recieve Christ. More and more young christians I know don't do this anymore, because they feel the people in the church aren't their community and aren't their fellow-believers. They find other ways to commune with Christ, by reading the Bible, by studying christianity and other religions, by helping their relatives, by travelling with like-minded young people, by doing volunteer work...

The way the hierarchy of the catholic Church, for instance, presents itself is as a moral compass; rather than a guardian of tradition or - what she actually is - an administrative structure. But the strongest appeal in the gospels is one of personal, reflective morality and one that condemns human judgement. So studying christianity leads a lot of people to leave their church if it's in the business of contradicting Jesus' teachings. It does make perfect sense, only there is little to no vocabulary available to talk or think about religion-without-structure.
In effect, it's very similar to the lutheran and early protestant criticism of the catholic Church.

WorzelG
01-23-2012, 07:24 AM
I'm pretty much agnostic, coming from the UK. Though nobody really cares and i've had a fair few religious friends to have discussions / arguments with over the years, all in good humour mostly (I would probably have a very different view if I wasn't European and lived in the US for example). Only about 3% of our population go to Church regularly. (although this amount might be bumped up by people getting their kids into faith schools as it is the only way to get your kids a decent education unless you go private, this is one situation that really pisses me off about religion, they're happy to take kids of hypocrites and liars pretending to go to church/ believe, personally I'd outlaw them)

Another beef I have with religion is how dumbed down it has become in the UK - my dad used to say there were some great things brought about by religion like great art, architecture and music but you should have heard some of the godawful songs we had to sing at school

We had 'Water of life' to the theme of Rupert the Bear - some song to the tune of Match of the Day, like they were saying only stupid people with no taste in music need apply.
I also went to a Christening a while back where they had some band with an acoustic guitar singing a song with the chorus 'my God is a great big God' with hand movements - it was awful

I don't understand why anyone would want to exist forever either in heaven or wherever, I'm happy to think of death as being just that and your molecules become one with the Earth. I'm sure you'd grow tired of your loved ones over the billennia not to mention yourself. I think immortality would be a curse and this is without throwing hell into the mix, burning forever is just a bit harsh isn't it?

Anyway sorry to ramble but I find it quite difficult to put a viewpoint down in a coherent manner

Bluegirl
01-26-2012, 02:37 PM
I don't understand why anyone would want to exist forever either in heaven or wherever, I'm happy to think of death as being just that and your molecules become one with the Earth. I'm sure you'd grow tired of your loved ones over the billennia not to mention yourself. I think immortality would be a curse and this is without throwing hell into the mix, burning forever is just a bit harsh isn't it?

Anyway sorry to ramble but I find it quite difficult to put a viewpoint down in a coherent manner

This is exactly how I always felt. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and they always taught that some people go to heaven and some stay in a paradise on earth. Every time I would try to imagine what it would be like to live forever it would seem more like a twilight zone episode where you think you got what you wanted but it turns out to be hell. What do you do forever? After the first lifetime, after you learn everything there is to know? You will just be there siting around forever.

DigitalChaos
01-26-2012, 03:44 PM
Being trapped in eternity with the people who think they are going to "heaven" is my own version of hell.

littlemonkey613
01-26-2012, 05:05 PM
This is exactly how I always felt. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and they always taught that some people go to heaven and some stay in a paradise on earth. Every time I would try to imagine what it would be like to live forever it would seem more like a twilight zone episode where you think you got what you wanted but it turns out to be hell. What do you do forever? After the first lifetime, after you learn everything there is to know? You will just be there siting around forever.

hahaha I could never share this view. I would love to live forever, play music forever, read and learn forever. But the Christian idea of Heaven has always been unappealing to me. I'd rather be on Earth.

Delusional
01-26-2012, 07:43 PM
hahaha I could never share this view. I would love to live forever, play music forever, read and learn forever.

Forever is a long fucking time, what do you do after you have learned everything, read everything, played everything, and not just once but an infinite number of times...
I suppose if you could keep only a limited amount of information at any one time you could be guaranteed to always have something "new" to experience, that would be cool.

Elke
01-27-2012, 01:02 AM
I guess the appeal of living forever is just the fact that you don't have to die.
Don't forget that in hinduism and buddhism 'living forever' eventually means reconnecting to Brahman/Atman; and that in christianity and islam a great number of people believe that after death you lie in wait in a sort of sleep until the Day of Judgement, where the Earth is made new. It's only then that you are resurrected. Theologically speaking heaven, quite literally, is mostly a place on Earth for the Abrahimic religions.

Also, in almost every religion save a handful (like the Germanic/Norse mythologies and the Egyptian ideas about the afterlife) you lose your body completely, and so you also lose the human passions and emotions that distract (eastern concept) or tempt (western concept) us. Eternity for our freed or resurrected souls would be an entirely different experience than for our embodied souls.

And there is the fact that our human brain can't really understand the concept of eternity, only use it. So whatever we would imagine eternity to be, it's only a vague estimate at characteristics of it, not an understanding of the thing itself. Whether we value those characteristics as positive or negative doesn't depend on eternity itself, but on our associations with those characteristics. Just like all our individual concepts of dragons and gods are approximations, so are our concepts of eternity or nothingness.

Yeah, I know, tl;dr.

littlemonkey613
01-27-2012, 05:28 AM
Forever is a long fucking time, what do you do after you have learned everything, read everything, played everything, and not just once but an infinite number of times...
I suppose if you could keep only a limited amount of information at any one time you could be guaranteed to always have something "new" to experience, that would be cool.

I guess I'm thinking of it from the standpoint of, whenever your on your deathbed, you could always keep on living. I feel like people always say "well I wouldn't want to live thaattt long. But I really don't think dying becomes any easier now matter what age you are at least from my standpoint. Idk. I also am someone who never gets bored so its just how i view things. Drunk bitch over here. Ignore all.

Edit: Is it bad I just think of playing with my dog forever? I don't think she would ever get bored. :D I love her :(
Omg I wish I could delete all of this

Unrelated shit I'm obsessed with :http://www.challies.com/christian-living/a-picture-perfect-marriage-ii
AAAAAAAA! probably belongs in the feminism something thread but the religious aspect (core and foundation really) is the most interesting (and diabolical) part.

theruiner
01-27-2012, 09:37 AM
Unrelated shit I'm obsessed with :http://www.challies.com/christian-living/a-picture-perfect-marriage-ii
AAAAAAAA! probably belongs in the feminism something thread but the religious aspect (core and foundation really) is the most interesting (and diabolical) part.
God calls you to submit to your husband with joy and freedom.
Um...I don't think that word means what you think it means, dude.

And anyone who teaches their children that that kind of garbage is ok is fucking sick in the head. Period. End of story.

YKWYA
01-27-2012, 10:27 AM
Don't forget that in hinduism and buddhism 'living forever' eventually means reconnecting to Brahman/Atman


Im not sure that is correct from a Buddhist point of view, that there is a body soul or a universal counterpart. Or at least, Im not so sure that the concept or life after death/rebirth can be said to be the same for both beliefs.



Also, in almost every religion save a handful (like the Germanic/Norse mythologies and the Egyptian ideas about the afterlife) you lose your body completely, and so you also lose the human passions and emotions that distract (eastern concept) or tempt (western concept) us. Eternity for our freed or resurrected souls would be an entirely different experience than for our embodied souls.

And there is the fact that our human brain can't really understand the concept of eternity, only use it. So whatever we would imagine eternity to be, it's only a vague estimate at characteristics of it, not an understanding of the thing itself. Whether we value those characteristics as positive or negative doesn't depend on eternity itself, but on our associations with those characteristics. Just like all our individual concepts of dragons and gods are approximations, so are our concepts of eternity or nothingness.


The part that interests me though is the correlation between some concepts in quantum physics (i.e the singularity, heat death etc) that the Universe will end up at one distinct point and the concepts of 'eternity' and there being something 'bigger' in religious beliefs. Probably the closest we ever come to experiencing anything that may be like death is the loss of the concept of time when we sleep, and that place you go to where it seems we lose all awareness of our physical existence.

Elke
01-27-2012, 10:47 AM
I think in ultimo the idea of leaving samsara is not so dissimilar in buddhism and hinduism - it's where you leave to that's different, but what you leave behind (any sense of self or individuality) I think is the same. Of course, there are so many different interpretations that you can't say anything in general about a religious onthology that's correct for everyone.

Do we really lose the concept of time when we sleep? I always seem to wake up five minutes before my alarm is due to go off, whether it's my regular hour or not. I wonder where time goes, then.

theruiner
01-27-2012, 11:11 PM
I can't believe there are people in this world who try to argue the existence of god by saying, "Prove to me he DOESN'T exist." Honestly, my brain wants to pop my eyes out of their sockets, jump out of my head and commit suicide every time I hear that from the sheer, unimaginable absurdity of that argument. Believe what you want, and I'm open for a discussion, but don't use the single dumbest argument ever that can be dismantled completely in about two sentences.

Elke
01-28-2012, 08:29 AM
You know, my students ALWAYS do the reverse. They've been raised in a secularist society, so for them organized religion is often unfamiliar and at worst dangerous or silly. So when they comment on it by saying that only really stupid or naive people believe in God (somehow always managing to hump me into the second category because they know saying the first to your teacher would be kind of weird), it's usually followed by: Can you prove he exists?
Which inevitable ends in me trying to explain that the essence of faith is that you cannot prove it, and they usually go: Oh, isn't that convenient.

On the other hand, over three quarters of them believe that there's life after death, that their dead grandparents are with them in moments of crisis, that ghosts exist (and can be summonned using candles, glasses and little pieces of paper) and that their boyfriend/girlfriend loves them eternally and sincerely. But those things are real, and God isn't. *le sigh*

carpenoctem
01-28-2012, 09:41 AM
And there is the fact that our human brain can't really understand the concept of eternity, only use it. So whatever we would imagine eternity to be, it's only a vague estimate at characteristics of it, not an understanding of the thing itself. Whether we value those characteristics as positive or negative doesn't depend on eternity itself, but on our associations with those characteristics. Just like all our individual concepts of dragons and gods are approximations, so are our concepts of eternity or nothingness.

Good point. But though eternity is mind-boggling and something I cant really wrap my brain around, I think subconsciously I already live as if I am immortal; like right now I'm typing this I never think that in five minutes I could be dead, I just assume that I will wake up every day and go about business as usual because I have never experienced anything that tells me any different. I can count on one hand the amount of deaths that have actually affected me; none of the people were super close to me and one was a celebrity that I'll never know at all. I've never been in any accidents or been close to death. (This is really common in young white middle-class Americans probably.) So as much as I can think about the concept of me dying, and imagine people going to my funeral, and imagine all my friends and family going about their daily lives with me not in it and maybe thinking about me and missing me, I also can't fathom the idea of not being exactly as I am right now because it's all I've ever known. So I kind of live every day as if I'm going to just wake up tomorrow and get on ETS and check for updates. This is naive to the extreme, it's just the truth. I often think death has not really hit me yet, even though I'm obsessed with it and it's the principal quality that draws me to certain types of books and movies and music. Like, we just lost someone at work, he had a stroke a couple months ago and HR wouldn't let him come back because it was a terminal case, and we all knew he was going to die soon, and then it just happened and I'm not affected at all by it. I didn't know him that well so that probably helps. But I'm just very detached from it.

I wouldn't mind death being an endless sleep. I don't think it will be, but I quite often think, "I could go for a coma right now."

Elke
01-28-2012, 10:51 AM
I think I'm the opposite of you: I've been suicidal on-and-off since I was 14, so death - to me - is something that I live with. Times like now I even live with it 24/7. I guess that's also why it doesn't scare me. I think I want to live, because I want to accomplish things - and sometimes I'm completely panicked because I'm over 30 and I haven't accomplished a lot of what I've set out to do, yet. But then again, it's also the 'out' that's always at hand. To me death is a bit like the idea of quitting your job cause your boss is an ass. You want to keep doing your job, you want to fix it so you can stay, but if he really ruins the fun for you, you can always leave. Beyond that, it's nothing.
Thinking about it, I guess that also explains why I don't believe in life after death: I've always defined death as the exit door, the opposite of being in this life. I've always defined it as a negative, an absence of something.

That's not to say that I'm not scared of other people dying. People who did die are always still very present in my life, in pictures and stories I tell about them, and things I do or expressions I use or ways I cook a meal that remind me of them. Being religious, I guess, makes me vulnerable to ritualizing everything. Or maybe being religious is so easy to me because I'm so prone to ritualizing things.

Amaro
01-28-2012, 10:52 AM
You know, my students ALWAYS do the reverse. They've been raised in a secularist society, so for them organized religion is often unfamiliar and at worst dangerous or silly. So when they comment on it by saying that only really stupid or naive people believe in God (somehow always managing to hump me into the second category because they know saying the first to your teacher would be kind of weird), it's usually followed by: Can you prove he exists?
Which inevitable ends in me trying to explain that the essence of faith is that you cannot prove it, and they usually go: Oh, isn't that convenient.

On the other hand, over three quarters of them believe that there's life after death, that their dead grandparents are with them in moments of crisis, that ghosts exist (and can be summonned using candles, glasses and little pieces of paper) and that their boyfriend/girlfriend loves them eternally and sincerely. But those things are real, and God isn't. *le sigh*

No. Also not real. There's nothing.

After this life.

Elke
01-28-2012, 10:58 AM
I think the point of that was to say that all of those things cannot be proven to exist or not exist (at least for now). They're all a matter of faith. *cue pointless discussions about faith*

Amaro
01-28-2012, 11:05 AM
I think the point of that was to say that all of those things cannot be proven to exist or not exist (at least for now). They're all a matter of faith. *cue pointless discussions about faith*

I follow.

From that point I just felt like chiming in with what I believe to be true.

Elke
01-28-2012, 12:55 PM
Oh okay, that wasn't clear to me. Thanks for clearing it up :)

carpenoctem
01-28-2012, 01:24 PM
I think I'm the opposite of you: I've been suicidal on-and-off since I was 14, so death - to me - is something that I live with.

Thanks for sharing that. I'm in the same camp, since around the same age, maybe fifteen or sixteen I think. It's always on my mind - different ways of doing it, the most effective way, the best place to go, would I leave a note or etc. But sometimes I stop and think, "Okay. So if you really are going to do it, why haven't you done it?" And I think the answer is always just the fear of the unknown, and the fear of repercussions. (It's never because of who I will hurt by doing this - being suicidal, at least for someone like me, presupposes being intensely selfish.) Death can be something you experience (and for morticians, EMTs and ER nurses, for instance, maybe even every day) but it's never your own; you only have that once, so there's no way to approach it as an expert, and the only way to do it with confidence is to have faith, whether that faith is in an afterlife, reincarnation, or nothing at all. Anyway death is just this enormous truth that can be hard to understand, and I know from hearing other people that no matter how long you've seen it coming, like for those who are terminally ill, it's always a shock. So for something so widely acknowledged by the human race, for it to still be a shock time after time, I think just shows how difficult death is.

cashpiles (closed)
02-01-2012, 02:19 PM
Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS (Romans 13)

These verses stand out the most as proof of The Bible's falsehood. Let's take a closer look.

All authority (governments and figures) are in those positions because God has put them there.

Now, people must follow the authorities or receive condemnation from God. Let's take a look at Hitler and the Jews that obeyed his authority. Right. They, the innocent multitudes, received for their obedience the sentence of death by horrific means.

This consquence is absolutely reprehensible. But what's more is that what Paul seems to be doing here is writing this to please the Romans and other authorities.

The above-quoted verses alone are enough to demonstrate the falsehood of The Bible to any thinking person.

Timinator
02-02-2012, 02:21 AM
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS (Romans 13)
The above-quoted verses alone are enough to demonstrate the falsehood of The Bible to any thinking person.Even amongst the religious people who post here, I don't believe you'll find any Biblical literalists.

Elke
02-02-2012, 10:43 AM
Indeed.

Also, if you do what is good and you still have to fear authorities, then something's rotten in the state of Denmark, so to speak.

cashpiles (closed)
02-03-2012, 07:47 AM
So, if the Bible is not to be taken literally... are you really sure that is the way to interpret the Bible if you are a Christian?

"Thou shalt not kill"... the Christians on here should not take that literally right?

Volk
02-03-2012, 10:24 AM
If the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, what standard do Christians use to decide which parts are taken literal, and which parts get reinterpreted?

Bluegirl
02-03-2012, 10:30 AM
So, if the Bible is not to be taken literally... are you really sure that is the way to interpret the Bible if you are a Christian?

"Thou shalt not kill"... the Christians on here should not take that literally right?
Even among Biblical literalists your not going to find to many people who agree on what the Bible is saying which is why there are many different sects of Christianity.


Flaccid Member[/COLOR]]If the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, what standard do Christians use to decide which parts are taken literal, and which parts get reinterpreted?

Convenience, the interpretation which let them do what they want while impending others, the interpretation that gives them the most power.

Elke
02-03-2012, 04:01 PM
The same standards that anyone uses to interpret any text ever: the one that you think help you deduce what the author tried to say.
As for which parts of the text you should follow: the parts that you think are meant to be followed in a changed environment, in a different culture and a different time. The things that you think are timeless, and in correspondence to what you think is at the heart of the text, at the centre of the religion. This means different things to different people.

And no, that doesn't mean that what Bluegirl wrote isn't correct; but that's not a christian interpretation, that's a political (in the broadest sense of the word) use / abuse of the text. I can take Buddhist writings to mean we should burn all heathens, too. I can take Marx to justify killing the religious as well as the wealthy. I can take Richard Dawkins to justify killing the religious and raping women. I can take whatever I want and manipulate it into meaning whatever I want it it mean. But that is not what most religious people do.

Bluegirl
02-04-2012, 12:10 PM
The same standards that anyone uses to interpret any text ever: the one that you think help you deduce what the author tried to say.
As for which parts of the text you should follow: the parts that you think are meant to be followed in a changed environment, in a different culture and a different time. The things that you think are timeless, and in correspondence to what you think is at the heart of the text, at the centre of the religion. This means different things to different people.

And no, that doesn't mean that what Bluegirl wrote isn't correct; but that's not a christian interpretation, that's a political (in the broadest sense of the word) use / abuse of the text. I can take Buddhist writings to mean we should burn all heathens, too. I can take Marx to justify killing the religious as well as the wealthy. I can take Richard Dawkins to justify killing the religious and raping women. I can take whatever I want and manipulate it into meaning whatever I want it it mean. But that is not what most religious people do.

Most people don't interpret religious text at all or at least not in a way that is not bias toward what they were already taught. Religion maybe a large part of many peoples lives but most would never dig deep into it. That is why people do things against there own religion all the time. Now, personally I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Not everyone needs to dig into theology as long as they are respectful of others. However, out of the people who do study a religion there are plenty who will try to exploit it and they are usually the ones who dictates the tenets of a religion. And when I say that I don't mean in a "lets go blow people up" way. I mean the controls that are apart of a religion in order to give them power over the worshipers. How many religions will use guilt and fear and even the concept of faith to discourage questions or other interpretations and to get people to go to church. Encouraging marrying and socializing in your faith in order to make the religion harder to leave, ect. These things are apart of many religions and are small controls to keep people in a faith. It maybe that I am particularly sensitive to noticing these things because in the religion I grew up in it was very blatant and as I began looking at other religions I realized it was everywhere.

Elke
02-04-2012, 12:31 PM
Well, as someone who doesn't only study but actually teaches religion (catholicism, in my case), I can only say that my job is to make people realize what it is they're reading, give them tools to interpret texts and discern between historical/cultural context and philosophical/ethical/spiritual/religious ideas and apply these ideas to every day life; and then give them the space to formulate their own ideas vis ŕ vis the text.

It's the job of teachers, not just religion teachers, to give kids those tools (instead of preparing them for tests or turning them into parrots). Once someone's mind is sharpened, religious control as you describe it is gone, unless someone chooses it. In which case: it's their life, it's their choice. Some people feel safer in submission.

carpenoctem
02-04-2012, 01:30 PM
However, out of the people who do study a religion there are plenty who will try to exploit it and they are usually the ones who dictates the tenets of a religion. And when I say that I don't mean in a "lets go blow people up" way. I mean the controls that are apart of a religion in order to give them power over the worshipers. How many religions will use guilt and fear and even the concept of faith to discourage questions or other interpretations and to get people to go to church. Encouraging marrying and socializing in your faith in order to make the religion harder to leave, ect.

I hear this sort of thing a lot and I find it confusing. For one, you seem to be talking about religions as if they are self-aware tyrannical dictators who are knowingly using their powers to control the weak-minded ("religions will use guilt and fear... to discourage questions or other interpretations" etc.), rather than systems of belief that were inspired by one person or a group of people a long time ago and survive today through their texts. Religions don't do anything - they are intangible ideas; their followers do things. It would be wrong to blame the religion itself; it would be more appropriate to blame those who use the religion for achieving these ends, as we know many people have done. I would just say be careful about anthropomorphizing religion and making it a target - it reminds me of what America has done in perpetuating the belief that all Muslims are extremist terrorists.

Timinator
02-05-2012, 01:24 AM
Religions don't do anything - they are intangible ideas; their followers do things. I take issue with this; it's not so simple. People say this, but it's not the way it works in practice.

In the same way that crowds of people will do things that none of the individuals in it would do any collection of people can do things with a will that seems to come from somewhere. Political parties, corporations, angry mobs, even romantic couples: they can become more than the sum of their parts, or they can descend below the lowest common denominator. Sometimes there are leaders edging the group in certain directions.

We are social animals, and things happen when we get together. Wonderful, frightening things. You cannot reduce the credit or blame to individuals.

dolemite
02-05-2012, 04:03 AM
Dogmatism, not religion, is one problem. It's possible to be religious but still believe in things like science and freedom. Unfortunately, for many people, dogmatism and spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) go hand in hand. And, dogmatism and politics often go hand in hand as well. The second problem is that social, political, and religious groups are made up of humans. Humans are bound to be corrupt and power hungry at some point in time, and war is often the result in both religion (e.g. the crusades) and politics (e.g. Nazism).

Religious and political ideas are, by themselves, harmless. It's how humans decide to interpret and execute those ideas that are dangerous. So for me, mankind, and our flaws, are the problem - not religion, politics, or any other social organization or construct through which our ideas are socialized. Interpretation, socialization, and execution of ideas are all related, but different animals.

Elke
02-05-2012, 04:19 AM
You know Tim, I take issue with that idea. If the impact of masses is so inevitable, then how come during the Nazi occupation so many people from so many different walks of life risked their lives, often in very private and simple ways, to go against the stream? How come a single human being could start the Prague Spring, the Arabian Spring? It's individuals that change the tide, it's individuals that are the rocks on which the waves of apathy and laziness break.

And that's, to me, exactly what it is: apathy and laziness. The by-stander effect, the idea that you only act when the group acts, disappears when you know what it is and how it works. Yet I see students who I personally taught at the beginning of the year about bullying and how it works and how to break it, go along with the group. Are you really implying that what happens there is beyond their control? Because it isn't. They allow it to happen - and usually for very good reasons. But they're not passive, they're not an element in a process they can't control.

I guess in that respect I am a true child of Enlightenment: human beings do have the moral responsibility to act, to better themselves, to take responsibility and decide for themselves upon careful reflection what the right thing to do is. And however much science can explain why we don't do that, that is not an excuse.

So yes: religious groups often take the wrong turn. And yes, often lack of education is at fault here. But if your holy text explicitely states that you cannot judge others before you are perfect yourself, and that you should love your enemy, and that the kingdom of heaven is not for those who have any wordly posessions left - you cannot possibly be Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum, or Fred Phelps. And you cannot possibly follow them. And if you do, you do this because you want to - for whatever scientifically describable and probably justifiable reason.

Sorry, rant. I'm just so tired of people making excuses for bullshit actions.

Bluegirl
02-05-2012, 10:19 PM
I hear this sort of thing a lot and I find it confusing. For one, you seem to be talking about religions as if they are self-aware tyrannical dictators who are knowingly using their powers to control the weak-minded ("religions will use guilt and fear... to discourage questions or other interpretations" etc.), rather than systems of belief that were inspired by one person or a group of people a long time ago and survive today through their texts. Religions don't do anything - they are intangible ideas; their followers do things. It would be wrong to blame the religion itself; it would be more appropriate to blame those who use the religion for achieving these ends, as we know many people have done. I would just say be careful about anthropomorphizing religion and making it a target - it reminds me of what America has done in perpetuating the belief that all Muslims are extremist terrorists.

Unless you have your own personal religion chances are your religion is being run by a governing body. They decide what is goes on, what is taught and how things are interpreted. You as an individual can decide to follow these ideas but that does not change what the religion is. That is why there are so many religions. People disagree and break off. There are people actively deciding what the beliefs of the religion are and it affect the beliefs of the worshipers. Even in early Christianity there were councils that decided what Christians believed. They decided what the religion was and anyone who did not share there beliefs were no longer Christian. The definition of religion is very different from the practice. If it was just about the beliefs of people from long ago then organized religion would look completly different then it does today. Most of the ritual, most of the dogma and most of the holidays would not exist.

Can you judge worshipers and not the religion they worship? Can you judge some of them and not all of them? Is it even fair to say that extremist are even in the same religion as non-extremists when they claim to believe the same thing? I don't know but I don't think it is as simple as saying the concept is separate from the people who create and/or live by the concept.

Timinator
02-06-2012, 01:22 AM
Elke: if I were to go back to edit my previous post I would clarify the last sentence as "You cannot always reduce the credit or blame to individuals."

I never said that the mob is inevitable, nor did I say that individuals cannot act, nor that they cannot be the triggers for the mob (in fact, they often are). I only said that mob mentality, groupthink, strength in numbers, are real. I was taking issue with the fact that carpenoctem said that religion is all down to individuals. That doesn't mean I think individuals are blameless either.

littlemonkey613
02-06-2012, 05:27 AM
this shit is going viral, and it's incredibly stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Somehow he avoids the fact that Christianity is a religion... when he goes about endorsing Christianity and explaining the difference between Jesus and religion in such vague and meaningless ways that it drives me insane. In other words, the "meaning" behind this meandering BS (when you strip away his bad poetic affectations and get to the point) is that his religion is true, so therefore it's not a religion.

The fact that so many people find this horse shit "inspiring" sucks. Jesus wasn't a republican? No shit. Thanks for the info.

FUCK THIS GUY DUDE.

His fucking pastor is THE ONE AND ONLY MARK DRISCOLL.

THIS GUY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR5pHqoab1g


Fuck this shit to hell. I can't believe this man is all over my newsfeed now. UGH. His new spoken word video on love and marriage he says was actually "inspired" by the book on marriage that MarK Driscoll wrote. What are the odds?! I've been reading Driscoll's stuff all year long. Fuck this dude!

Riddle me how you could hate religion and admit to this douchebag being your freaking pastor. I can't believe he literally goes to the Church I've been focusing on most in studying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8SqBRTpHwg&feature=related

#Religiongenderspamdonefortoday

Dra508
02-07-2012, 07:05 AM
Speaking of newsfeeds: I have a FB friend (former co-worker) who posts a lot of religious stuff which I actually like - he's starting to get into Humanism and has exposed me to thought I had not been before. Interesting stuff.

theruiner
02-07-2012, 05:26 PM
FUCK THIS GUY DUDE.

His fucking pastor is THE ONE AND ONLY MARK DRISCOLL.

THIS GUY.I can't believe there are people in the year 2012 that still believe this crap. I remember Candace Cameron, of all people, clinging to the tiny thread of relevance she still had (or thought she had) making the news a few years ago with her declaration that all wives should submit to their husbands, and that "submission" gets a bad name, because "husbands will still have to deal with their nagging wives...ha ha ha ha." Yes, Candace. That's it. You're not equal to your husband and you don't have equal say, but at least you can whine about it and maybe the great, big, manly man will listen to the thoughts of wittle old you. Made me sick.

Space Suicide
02-07-2012, 05:41 PM
LOL. Funny shiz.

joplinpicasso
02-07-2012, 06:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8SqBRTpHwg&feature=related

Did I just witness him circling around the doctrine of women being submissive in the household by saying that most men who aren't the breadwinners were losers? He can go fuck himself. Can't even go in this thread.

theruiner
02-07-2012, 06:11 PM
Did he actually imply that people who are in a relationship but not married don't love each other?

How can one person be so wrong on so many things?

Space Suicide
02-09-2012, 10:00 AM
I watch the 700 Club for shits n giggles when I'm bored. This morning a woman asked advice on whether or not her beginning to watch the Twilight movies (argh) is really demonic and witchraft practicing as someone told her. Good old Pat said that the Twilight movies are evil and allow demonic penetration as you welcome it for watching such movies. He then said vampires aren't real (no shit). His black co-host then said that the eyes are window to the soul to which Pat said not to watch as it'll allow you to be possessed. He then went on about soem girl being possessed by a demon or some shit.

My question is, how can Twilight and vampires be demonic and life changing if he himself said they aren't real? If they're not real they hold no physical power no? His sentences were void of thought.

Harry Seaward
02-14-2012, 09:54 PM
I watch the 700 Club for shits n giggles when I'm bored. This morning a woman asked advice on whether or not her beginning to watch the Twilight movies (argh) is really demonic and witchraft practicing as someone told her. Good old Pat said that the Twilight movies are evil and allow demonic penetration as you welcome it for watching such movies. He then said vampires aren't real (no shit). His black co-host then said that the eyes are window to the soul to which Pat said not to watch as it'll allow you to be possessed. He then went on about soem girl being possessed by a demon or some shit.

My question is, how can Twilight and vampires be demonic and life changing if he himself said they aren't real? If they're not real they hold no physical power no? His sentences were void of thought.

My question is, 'How can people believe in these things after the age of 5?'

I will never, ever understand it.

NINmuffin
03-05-2012, 08:46 PM
http://www.av1611.org/crock.html - About mid way down the page.. interesting snippet that made me laugh..

NIN64
03-08-2012, 03:11 PM
http://www.av1611.org/crock.html - About mid way down the page.. interesting snippet that made me laugh..

There are some bat shit crazy weirdos behind that site there. . .

NINmuffin
03-08-2012, 11:02 PM
SERIOUSLY.. but when it comes to anything involving religion you are going to encounter bat shit crazy people. I think that's why I am so interested in religion in general.. it makes people insane! I was talking to someone recently who asked me if i had been saved.. I mean wtf.. who just asks a random stranger offensive shit like that? He was telling me about being in the hospital and a figure coming to his bedside in white and blue and asking him if he was afraid to die.. he told the figure no and when he turned his head back.. she was gone.. sounds like too much morphine to me.. and I would like him to share.

Elke
04-30-2012, 06:56 AM
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transce ndence.html

I thought this was a very interesting TED talk, offering a different kind of explanation for the evolutionary roots of religion. I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of evolutionary theory in explaining cultural phenomena, but at least this seems to take in a lot more aspects of the complexities of religion.

YKWYA
04-30-2012, 05:49 PM
Could you explain to me what you just said there because I dont understand.

"evolutionary roots of religion" what do you mean by this?

"I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of evolutionary theory in explaining cultural phenomena" What do you mean?

And would you mind for a second answering me

a) is your God a capitalist?
b) do animals (of any species) appear 'religious' to you?

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
04-30-2012, 06:02 PM
Watching the video would be a useful preliminary, before the question and answer period begins.

YKWYA
04-30-2012, 06:12 PM
Does the video invalidate any of those questions?

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
04-30-2012, 06:14 PM
No, but it provides the context that could allow you to answer the first two for yourself.

The second pair of questions are invalid on their own.

YKWYA
04-30-2012, 06:22 PM
If its so easy - It should be easy for you to show me why then?

Corvus T. Cosmonaut
04-30-2012, 07:23 PM
There are two working definitions for 'capitalist':

1) a person of wealth who does business and makes investments in a 'capitalist' economic system. Whatever one might say about the relationships between religion and wealth around the world, this one clearly does not apply. God is not a tangible entity acting as an individual, independent agent within an economy. There's no Conglomerated Jesus, Inc., with CEO: God.

2) a advocate of a 'capitalist' economic system. The first problem is, of course, that the time of the Bible some 2000 years ago, and our last "Word" from God, didn't have a capitalism on which to comment or pledge support. Even if we interpret the available documents as supporting a capitalist economy, we cannot read God as being an advocate of capitalism: were this really the case, there would be no question about it.

As for your second question, the answer is Yes because humans are animals, however, we cannot have this insight about other species because our ideas of religious expression are limited to those we understand in our own, and religion as we've defined it requires means of transmission for culture & belief systems that may or may not be present or even possible in other animals.

At best I'd say the question could be better worded as, "Do you believe animals have a sense for 'divinity'?"

Elke
05-01-2012, 09:59 AM
"evolutionary roots of religion" what do you mean by this?

Evolution researchers having been debating the roots of religion since Darwin (or thereabouts, check Nietzsche), and the usual reply is different from the one in the video. Hence, the proper answer to those first two questions would be: watch the video. It's truly excellently interesting.


And would you mind for a second answering me
a) is your God a capitalist?
b) do animals (of any species) appear 'religious' to you?

Euh....
a) God is... God? I'm sorry, weird question. I guess if you're going by biblical sources, then the judeo-christian tradition would be a lot more leaning towards socialism than capitalism, if that's a reply?
b) No, but I'm not such an animal. I don't know what a herd of elephants is thinking or feeling or doing when they bury a baby elephant, so... Animals definitely have rituals, so that might be some sort of common trait... Don't know.

littlemonkey613
05-02-2012, 02:27 AM
the judeo-christian tradition would be a lot more leaning towards socialism than capitalism


Please tell this to Amercuh!

Elke
05-02-2012, 12:19 PM
I would love to, but they wouldn't believe me. If you can interpret 'the workers of the latest hour' to mean that Jesus was against minimal wages, you're a lost cause. Sadly.

Jinsai
05-02-2012, 05:57 PM
this evangelical pastor's comments have been floating up onto some news circuits and causing some (deserved) controversy, but holy shit... It's still surprising to see people making statements like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKDWdfTkr-o

theruiner
05-02-2012, 07:22 PM
this evangelical pastor's comments have been floating up onto some news circuits and causing some (deserved) controversy, but holy shit... It's still surprising to see people making statements like this I saw that earlier today. Disgusting.

carpenoctem
05-03-2012, 02:14 PM
The hate and misunderstanding makes me want to cry.

halloween
05-03-2012, 02:19 PM
I saw that earlier today. Disgusting.

I thought these crazy people were smart enough to hide behind the mask of the internet.

No more i see.

Elke
05-24-2012, 02:43 PM
Just had a really interesting class (I'm doing a Master in World Religions, Interreligious Dialogue and Religion Studies, so I don't mean a class I'm teaching :)) about islam and authority and what European islam could be, and I stumbled across something I really don't understand. So maybe someone knowledgeable about islam or smarter than me could help.

We were discussing how a person can be more or less traditional / progressive in their approach to knowing how to behave a s a good muslim. Academic discourse would have us believe that more and more people are progressive in their approach to this, ranging from simply asking the imam or a scholar what to do (very traditional) to reading and interpreting the Quran yourself. This is the practice of ijtihad.
Our results from our mini-survey however, showed quite different results: almost everyone was halfway between traditional and progressive, and no one was really progressive in their approach.

So I asked the teacher (a doctoral researcher) if it wasn't simply inherent to revealed religions, where a truth is shared with people through a divine revelation. Because you can't read the Bible without mediation either (well, you can, but the most progressive approach to reading the Bible in that case would be literalism).
My hypothesis was that jews or christians would also rarely score above halfway between, and not usually fluctuate towards progressive; because you simply need those classic approaches and tools and explanations, to make sense of what the book says.

He went on to explain that the parallel is wrong, because classically the Quran is equalled with Jesus Christ (in that they are both divine acts of revelation), whereas the christian Bible is equalled with Mohammed because he's a guide to understand the divine revelation.

But doesn't that mean my point is still valid, namely that christians don't approach the divine revelation in an unmediated way either?

My head is dizzy trying to figure this out. Sometimes I worry I'm just not sharp enough to actually succeed at uni again. The other students seemed to agree with him, but I still don't get it.

Elke
08-11-2012, 04:24 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-9-2012/joanna-brooks

I love the way she explains how people balance liberalism with religious values.

aggroculture
08-11-2012, 05:24 AM
Just had a really interesting class (I'm doing a Master in World Religions, Interreligious Dialogue and Religion Studies, so I don't mean a class I'm teaching :)) about islam and authority and what European islam could be, and I stumbled across something I really don't understand. So maybe someone knowledgeable about islam or smarter than me could help.

We were discussing how a person can be more or less traditional / progressive in their approach to knowing how to behave a s a good muslim. Academic discourse would have us believe that more and more people are progressive in their approach to this, ranging from simply asking the imam or a scholar what to do (very traditional) to reading and interpreting the Quran yourself. This is the practice of ijtihad.
Our results from our mini-survey however, showed quite different results: almost everyone was halfway between traditional and progressive, and no one was really progressive in their approach.

So I asked the teacher (a doctoral researcher) if it wasn't simply inherent to revealed religions, where a truth is shared with people through a divine revelation. Because you can't read the Bible without mediation either (well, you can, but the most progressive approach to reading the Bible in that case would be literalism).
My hypothesis was that jews or christians would also rarely score above halfway between, and not usually fluctuate towards progressive; because you simply need those classic approaches and tools and explanations, to make sense of what the book says.

He went on to explain that the parallel is wrong, because classically the Quran is equalled with Jesus Christ (in that they are both divine acts of revelation), whereas the christian Bible is equalled with Mohammed because he's a guide to understand the divine revelation.

But doesn't that mean my point is still valid, namely that christians don't approach the divine revelation in an unmediated way either?

My head is dizzy trying to figure this out. Sometimes I worry I'm just not sharp enough to actually succeed at uni again. The other students seemed to agree with him, but I still don't get it.

I don't understand your question. Wasn't Luther and Calvin's objections to Catholocism partly to do with taking back interpretation of the bible from the church to the individual? The catholic church told you what the bible said, partly by keeping things in Latin, and partly through the strong role of priests. Protestantism is more about trying to get back to a more direct link with God via your own study of the bible, without a priest directing you as much. At least that is my understanding of the schism. Don't know enough about Islam, maybe I should take a class on it at some point. I ordered that free Quran on the net, but it never came.

Elke
08-11-2012, 06:28 AM
No, yes, that's what I was referring to - which is why the most fundamentalist approaches to the Bible can be found amongst protestants, with literalism as one of the most progressive ways of reading the Bible. (Meaning, in terms of how far removed you are from traditional tools.)

aggroculture
08-11-2012, 07:11 AM
Talking of interpretation, and how selective contemporary readings of the Bible tend to be, here is this text that a friend of mine posted on FB (apologies if it's already been discussed):


On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

Makes me feel that better knowledge of the bible might be of use to those who seek to limit the political and social influence of religion and strengthen the divide between church and state.

Sutekh
08-11-2012, 07:20 AM
Most muslims are sunni, and most sunni accept the authority of hadith (commentary), and in addition to that, guidance and interpretation from scholars and imams. Pretty far removed imo! Considering the emphasis on quran being the sole legitimate text, its divinity and perfection etc, I have always found it odd that most muslims aren't quranists. I mean hadith? Who are these people!? "muhammad said this, trust me". I think the parallell you made is dodgy (but to be honest, so is the teacher's, I wouldn't make the equations he/she did), but your point is pretty much correct, bearing in mind that christianity is a lot older and has had more time for cultural cross pollenation than islam, so it will be further down the line in terms of plurality of approach. I don't really know much about Judaism, except it does fall into the familiar subdivisions (fundie, modern).Don't think I really answered your question there, but I had a stab!

Out of interest- long shot perhaps, but was the teacher branislav radeljic?

Elke
08-11-2012, 07:37 AM
No, Stef Van den Brande (http://theo.kuleuven.be/page/researchers/638/).

Could you explain why my parallel is dodgy? I kind of know there's something wrong in my reasoning, but I can't point it out.

(Thanks for replying, I'm going to work on that a bit.)

botley
08-11-2012, 08:48 AM
So I asked the teacher (a doctoral researcher) if it wasn't simply inherent to revealed religions, where a truth is shared with people through a divine revelation. Because you can't read the Bible without mediation either (well, you can, but the most progressive approach to reading the Bible in that case would be literalism).
My hypothesis was that jews or christians would also rarely score above halfway between, and not usually fluctuate towards progressive; because you simply need those classic approaches and tools and explanations, to make sense of what the book says.
I don't think that "the most" progressive approach (in the way your teacher defines it) is Biblical literalism. A traditionalist interpretation would be: follow the laws exactly as they are written to the letter, but when it comes to finding God you need more than just the words, you need scholarly interpretation. A progressive reading would be: you must find from searching within yourself how everything in the revelation, including the laws, will apply to your personal quest for divinity.


He went on to explain that the parallel is wrong, because classically the Quran is equalled with Jesus Christ (in that they are both divine acts of revelation), whereas the christian Bible is equalled with Mohammed because he's a guide to understand the divine revelation.

But doesn't that mean my point is still valid, namely that christians don't approach the divine revelation in an unmediated way either?

My head is dizzy trying to figure this out. Sometimes I worry I'm just not sharp enough to actually succeed at uni again. The other students seemed to agree with him, but I still don't get it.
Well, I'm no Islamic expert. But when I was at Uni, sometimes professors would throw out dodgy parallels and metaphors and everyone in the class would nod their head like it was some profound insight but it actually didn't shed that much light on what was being discussed, it just sounded deep.

If Divine Revelation is in front of you, literally on the page, your experience could be unmediated. However, if you need a guide to understand it, and that guide is dead or unreliable, then you are less "progressive" by nature of needing prophecies as an access point. Prophecies are epochal, they speak to the time and place when they were delivered because they came through people living in those times. Only true prophets alive in the world are real "progressives". I think that goes for all religions.

Jinsai
11-01-2012, 08:34 PM
Fuuuuuuuck this. Tax exemption for churches (all of them) needs to be revoked now. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/01/1120731/catholic-bishop-who-compared-obama-to-hitler-orders-anti-obama-letter-read-from-pulpit/?mobile=nc)

When the other churches come crying about it, you can all thank Bishop Daniel Jenky captain asshole here for getting the ball rolling. Enough is enough. Wipe that smug look off your face, put on some normal fucking clothes, and start paying taxes you crazy motherfucker.

Aaron
11-02-2012, 03:42 AM
I don't think that "the most" progressive approach (in the way your teacher defines it) is Biblical literalism. A traditionalist interpretation would be: follow the laws exactly as they are written to the letter, but when it comes to finding God you need more than just the words, you need scholarly interpretation. A progressive reading would be: you must find from searching within yourself how everything in the revelation, including the laws, will apply to your personal quest for divinity.
I find it very interesting that what could be considered the most "progressive" approach is fundamentalism. Something expressly postmodern like seeking a new way to approach religious text is, in effect, anti-modern, and the anti-moderns (fundamentalists) wish to do exactly the same thing. They claim they are traditionalists, going back to the "pure" religion from the beginning, but really, all they are doing is creating an entirely new approach, one that has never before been seen.


Well, I'm no Islamic expert. But when I was at Uni, sometimes professors would throw out dodgy parallels and metaphors and everyone in the class would nod their head like it was some profound insight but it actually didn't shed that much light on what was being discussed, it just sounded deep.

If Divine Revelation is in front of you, literally on the page, your experience could be unmediated. However, if you need a guide to understand it, and that guide is dead or unreliable, then you are less "progressive" by nature of needing prophecies as an access point. Prophecies are epochal, they speak to the time and place when they were delivered because they came through people living in those times. Only true prophets alive in the world are real "progressives". I think that goes for all religions.
The reason, Elke, that Christians cannot have an unmediated relationship with their divine revelations, and Muslims (pretty much) can, is precisely that the Qur'an is the actual, recited word of God. Muhammad wrote down everything that God (in the form of the angel Gabriel, who is GOD, just manifested to a point that Muhammad could comprehend) actually said. Sutekh makes a good point; namely, that hadith is often considered almost as important (sometimes just as important) as the Qur'an, as it is simply the most reliable (as chosen by early Muslim scholars) stories of Muhammad's life. But the Qur'an stands on its own as a religious text; it IS the perfect WORD of GOD. In Arabic, so you must read it in Arabic or it becomes just an interpretation (because if God spoke in Arabic, the infinite meanings of the words can only be expressed in the exact sounds that God spoke). Divine revelation is, as botley says, "in front of you, literally on the page."

I guess the difference in modes of interpretation--if there really is one--between Islam and Christianity/Judaism, is that the Bible is billed not as the perfect word of God, but true (symbolic) stories about God. More like the hadith. So it naturally requires constant study and evaluation to suss out what the "real" or "important" bits are, and what they mean. Of course this is true in Islam, but the way it is gone about is somewhat different, as Muslim scholars generally believe that the words of God in the Qur'an are necessarily filled with an infinitude of meaning, because nothing God does or says can be limited. In this way, Islam is truly the most rigorous monotheism from the very beginning. It goes, immediately, further than theologians from Augustin to Aquinas in an articulation of radical monism. However, if God's word must be God's word for all time (because it's God's word, and trust me, that's not a cop-out) then the smartest scholars would always be able to find the correct meaning for their time, place, personality, culture, everything.

Jinsai
12-25-2012, 12:11 PM
Merry Christmas from the Vatican (http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/12/25/pope-benedict-denounces-gay-marriage-during-his-annual-christmas-message#.UNnriY6etvd)

I'm an atheist, but I think I have a better grasp on this whole "spirit of Christmas" thing.

Fixer808
12-25-2012, 01:17 PM
Well the Pope IS a monster...

slave2thewage
12-26-2012, 09:04 AM
So, I'm a threat to world peace. AWESOME.

Elke
12-29-2012, 06:43 AM
Can someone please tell me why non-catholics should care about what the Pope says?

botley
12-29-2012, 08:52 AM
Because, historically, his office has been that of a world leader as well as an important religious figure to people of other faiths worldwide? Are you saying that that should count for nothing if you don't believe in transubstantiation? That Roman Catholicism should never be allowed to influence other value systems, unless everyone it influences converts themselves? Not saying I disagree with that in principle, but practically that's not how it works.

Elke
12-29-2012, 10:13 AM
Well, historically, the worldly power of the Vatican was completely founded on corrupted worldly leaders and bishops who also happened to be nobility with small pieces of land in their care. Ever since the rise of the nation state in the 19th century, the worldly power of the Vatican has been receding, to the point of almost being gone in Western Europe... until the big explosion of mass media in the mid seventies.
To give you two great example that are dear to my heart because they're Belgian examples: Father Damian flipped the Vatican a big fucking bird when he went to the lepper colony and started to live between his parishoners. He wasn't allowed to do that, but he did it anyway and he was so popular for it and garnered so much attention and respect world wide that the Vatican couldn't do anything but sanction his actions.
Adolf Daens, a priest in the late 19th century in the industrial town of Aalst, was elected into parliament to defend 'his' workers, living in exceedingly poor conditions. The Vatican, having at that point embraced the benifits of the seperation between Church and state, were anxious to see him kicked out. He changed the course of Belgian politics, enabling a more left wing socialist wing of the catholic party to tear itself away and change worker's rights. He was bloody brilliant. And again, the Vatican was absolutely powerless.
I could go on, but the point is simply this: the Vatican doesn't do anything. Local leaders either lazily ape the Holy See, use papal letters to their own advantage or flip the Vatican off and do exactly what they want. In fact, the only instance of the Vatican actually managing to change something locally was when it kicked out liberation theology, which was such an incredibly big mistake we're still lamenting it today. But it simply went underground, and most latin American priests are still every bit as political as they were before the Big Ban. They're just not so loud about it anymore.

If the Pope's non-ex cathedra speeches seem to hold some sort of 'power', it's because the media present them unedited and - more importantly - without any context. Frankly, he can say whatever the bloody hell he wants non-ex cathedra, and I can ignore him with the pleasure of all ages. And I do. And I work for him.
In recent years, it's become even worse: like with anything, sound bytes have been travelling the blogosphere at record speed, and the more shocking something is, the more it will be repeated.

At this point, I think Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter are far more dangerous idiots than Pope Benedict, in some part because Benedict isn't exactly an idiot but mostly because hardly anyone listens to him. Yes, he is referred to to ligitimize certain practices, absolutely. But do you really, honestly think that if he'd gone on record saying 'You know what, all this silliness about the gays, let's leave it behind us. Let's concentrate on pollution.' world wide people would have gone 'Oh, okay, I no longer am disgusted by gay people, and will recycle?'

In a world where opinions have become consumer goods and individualism has taken on an incredible voidness of meaning, we monitor who we believe. We don't follow our leaders, our leaders either follow us or they're kicked out of our proverbial 'Book of Great Ideas'. We've all become bricoleurs. And none more than the catholics, who were never particularly prone to listening to anyone in the first place. Where do you think thousands of saints come from? They come from religious practices the Church couldn't erradicate, so they decided to sanction them. Like with 80% of catholicism. Which is, frankly, what I love about it.

People have gone berserk over the catholic Republican presidential candidates, specifically Rick Santorum, but the guy is about as catholic as you. He's not following Rome, he's not clinging to doctrine. Nobody is.

So again, why do so many people care? At this point, the Pope has become a religious troll. And like with all internet trolls, people should just ignore him. You'll see: he'll go away. Not because he stops talking, but because when people stop listening, you'll find you never noticed him in the first place.

Jinsai
12-29-2012, 02:12 PM
So again, why do so many people care? At this point, the Pope has become a religious troll. And like with all internet trolls, people should just ignore him.

The problem is that a large group of people do not ignore him, and unlike Coulter and Glenn Beck, these people take what he has to say as divinely inspired.

Elke
12-29-2012, 05:00 PM
The problem is that a large group of people do not ignore him, and unlike Coulter and Glenn Beck, these people take what he has to say as divinely inspired.

A whole shitload of people also believed that the Mayans predicted the end of the world, and actually prepared for it. People believe Sarah Palin when she says climate change isn't happening. We just elected a party into several regional and city councils that claims all our problems will be solved if we just seperate from Wallonia, stop immigration and not subsidize wastrells like artists and people who study philosophy.
And why do people believe this stuff? Because those opinions our copied and spread without too much context, and hardly any journalists actively trying to debunk or explain them properly.

It seems to me that the vast majority of people who just can't ignore him, are not part of his Church. But by repeating everything he says like it's gospel (which it's not) and then assuming that this is what all catholics believe or are even supposed to believe, the reaction of a great many catholics is to develop a victim complex.

Look, if we're going to pretend that what the Pope says is going to be followed by so many impressionable catholics world wide, let's also assume then that millions of muslims are hungry to kill the infidels, every single Mormon believes that corporations are people and the majority of hindus would consider a hindu peacefully working together with a muslim as an act of heresy worthy of the death penalty.

So many good, positive, open and worth while things are being said by spiritual, religious and intellectual leaders world wide. But by all means, let's pretend that the media are not at all full of sensationalist bullshit and endlessly reporting on papal nuttery is a worth while endeavour.

I do wonder: if not for those media, how do you think all those impressionable little catholics hear about the Pope's latest speech? It's a genuine question.

Jinsai
12-29-2012, 06:04 PM
A whole shitload of people also believed that the Mayans predicted the end of the world, and actually prepared for it.

And now that that's over and done with, we can all move on. Thankfully, there isn't an elected head Mayan who's going to keep announcing bullshit to people.


People believe Sarah Palin when she says climate change isn't happening. We just elected a party into several regional and city councils that claims all our problems will be solved if we just seperate from Wallonia, stop immigration and not subsidize wastrells like artists and people who study philosophy.

Yes, and Sarah Palin sucks, even without supposed divine authority. The reach of her comments are not limited to news sources reposting the crazy shit she says either. She shows up at Tea Party rallies and has way too many Twitter followers. She has her own TV show, and by extension, so does her daughter. All in all, she's a source of bullshit that gets spread through various means, and ignoring her won't make her go away.


And why do people believe this stuff? Because those opinions our copied and spread without too much context, and hardly any journalists actively trying to debunk or explain them properly.

... and here we're moving on to the comparison to the pope right? The statements aren't lacking context, and I'm not sure how putting them in the proper context would in any way enhance them.


It seems to me that the vast majority of people who just can't ignore him, are not part of his Church. But by repeating everything he says like it's gospel (which it's not) and then assuming that this is what all catholics believe or are even supposed to believe, the reaction of a great many catholics is to develop a victim complex.

The recognition of the pope is one of the most important factors that separates the Catholics from the Anglicans/Episcopalians. I'm not sure how relevant it is that Catholics may feel persecuted for feeling obligated to owe allegiance to the Vatican, but it's a defining aspect of the religious affiliation.


Look, if we're going to pretend that what the Pope says is going to be followed by so many impressionable catholics world wide, let's also assume then that millions of muslims are hungry to kill the infidels, every single Mormon believes that corporations are people and the majority of hindus would consider a hindu peacefully working together with a muslim as an act of heresy worthy of the death penalty.

Well, for one, if a muslim LEADER were to announce a jihad against someone or a certain people, it is big news. They still execute homosexuals in some Muslim countries because of religious beliefs. You can be executed in Iran for apostasy. If these decrees required the approval of some religious authority, that would be worth drawing attention to, but since there's theocratic law in many of these nations we instead concentrate on politicians.

Regarding the Mormons, yes, they believe the head of the church speaks to god, so it's worth noting what crazy stuff he might be saying. However, Mitt Romney is not the head of the Mormon church, so that comparison doesn't really apply.


So many good, positive, open and worth while things are being said by spiritual, religious and intellectual leaders world wide. But by all means, let's pretend that the media are not at all full of sensationalist bullshit and endlessly reporting on papal nuttery is a worth while endeavour.

Yes, and when they say these things to the people who are listening, nobody has an issue with it. The Dalai Lama gets quite a bit of credit for saying good and positive stuff. If he turned around tomorrow and said "but gays are an abomination" that would be worth taking note of.


I do wonder: if not for those media, how do you think all those impressionable little catholics hear about the Pope's latest speech? It's a genuine question.

I think the answer to that would depend on what part of the world we're talking about. After all, the Vatican is a city.

botley
12-29-2012, 07:48 PM
But do you really, honestly think that if he'd gone on record saying 'You know what, all this silliness about the gays, let's leave it behind us. Let's concentrate on pollution.' world wide people would have gone 'Oh, okay, I no longer am disgusted by gay people, and will recycle?'
Yes. If he was able to demonstrate a real commitment to those principles, and speak eloquently about them, I absolutely believe he would influence people in that direction, world wide. Because that is what world leaders are SUPPOSED to do. Trolls don't go away when you ignore them, they go away when they GROW THE FUCK UP and turn into rational people capable of meaningful, productive interaction with the rest of the world.

Elke
12-30-2012, 06:29 AM
And now that that's over and done with, we can all move on. Thankfully, there isn't an elected head Mayan who's going to keep announcing bullshit to people.

You seem to think that the 'election' of the Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave)is anything like a democratic process, and that the 1 billion catholics world wide have anything of a say in anything.
The sad fact is that the only people elegible to 'vote' are cardinals, and it's the Pope who appoints them. By appointed cardinals wisely, a pope can pretty much secure the vote of his cadindate of choice. In the case of John Paul II, who was Pope for a long ass time, the 'election' was absolutely rigged in favour of one of three carbon copies of Joh Paul II, of which they eventually chose the least evil one. Yes, Benedict XVI, for all his fault, is the lesser of three evils (from a Western catholic point of view, of course).

The Pope is no more 'elected' than the German kings in the Middle Ages, who were 'chosen' by aristrocracy but in the end always ended up being sons or at least relatives of previous kings.

By hammering the point that he's 'elected' without taking into consideration that that process doesn't actually mean anything, you give his views a legitimacy they don't have: his office is a divine office, his 'election' is based on 'the whispers of the Holy Spirit' and he has a couple of important ritualistic but mostly hierarchical tasks in the Church. He isn't a 'leader' like a cult leader is, and very little of what he says and writes actually trickles down to catholics. I'll get back to that.


The reach of her comments are not limited to news sources reposting the crazy shit she says either. She shows up at Tea Party rallies and has way too many Twitter followers. She has her own TV show, and by extension, so does her daughter. All in all, she's a source of bullshit that gets spread through various means, and ignoring her won't make her go away.

Ah, well, I'd consider all of that (aside from the Tea Party meetings) to be media. I'm not just talking about the news. To clarify that point.
But yes, ignoring her would make her go away. How much have you heard about Rick Perry or Rick Santorum, or John Huntsman for that matter, since Romney was chosen as presidential candidate? What about the incredible rise of Joe the Plumber?
Are you seriously trying to argue here that media coverage played no part at all in their sudden rise and then almost disappearance from the U.S. public debate?


... and here we're moving on to the comparison to the pope right? The statements aren't lacking context, and I'm not sure how putting them in the proper context would in any way enhance them.

Well, given how you seem to think they're the alpha and omega of catholic doctrine, yes: I do think some context is merrited.

First of all, the Pope can say whatever he wants whenever he wants, and I can ignore it to my heart's content. Like I said. Lumen Gentium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Gentium), one of the key texts of the Vaticanum II, clearly restores the Pope as a bishop amongst bishops, with only a symbolic and administrative hierarchical function, but not a theological one.
Do you really think local bishops don't know this? Don't have their own regional and local policies?

Secondly, the Church's official doctrine on homosexuality is non-existent. It's derived from its official doctrine on sexuality as a whole, which is seen as the holy union of man and woman, symbolizing the covenant of God with the jews and the relationship between Chris and his Church, as defined by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians.
If Benedict XVI really wanted to say something different about it, he could. He already said that within a marriage condoms may be used as a means of protecting your partner from diseases (even though it mingles with 'natural fertility' and thus goes against official doctrine), and that gay prostitutes may also use it because they are so much more at risk. Even though prostitution is amongst the cardinal sins. So if he wanted to, he could.

The main reason why he doesn't want to, is because he knows his Church: the fastest growing catholic population is situated in central Africa, with Central and East Asia not lagging too far behind. There's also a surge of catholic conversions in Russia. All these regions have very traditional views on gender and sexuality. Those views are cultural, and if the Church wanted to change that she would have to work quite slowly and carefully.

But why would she? The Pope's views of homosexuality as a sin (but homosexuals as people to be loved and welcomed regardless of their sins) is already a lot more liberal and open than the views of most Central and South African bishops (I'm not counting Desmond Tutu here, because as amazing as the man is, he's not exactly representative of African catholicism). I'd personally be thrilled if people world wide would move forward to the idea that a person can be a sinner in your eyes, but still needs to be treated with respect and dignity - as stated, I want to stress this, quite obviously in all four gospels.

You don't think any of that context is important?


The recognition of the pope is one of the most important factors that separates the Catholics from the Anglicans/Episcopalians. I'm not sure how relevant it is that Catholics may feel persecuted for feeling obligated to owe allegiance to the Vatican, but it's a defining aspect of the religious affiliation.

As explained above, the Church is recognized as an administrative leader with a clear ritual function. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Anglican Church, but has no more theological weight than bishops or archbishops.

And I do think it's important, because when people feel misunderstood and holed together, they radicalize. That's not what you want.


Yes, and when they say these things to the people who are listening, nobody has an issue with it. The Dalai Lama gets quite a bit of credit for saying good and positive stuff. If he turned around tomorrow and said "but gays are an abomination" that would be worth taking note of.

Actually his views don't differ much from catholic doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#Sexuality), aside from the fact that - as usual - he makes a clear difference between buddhists and non-buddhists, whereas the Church doesn't make that distinction (and it should).


I think the answer to that would depend on what part of the world we're talking about. After all, the Vatican is a city.

Aw pish, you're better than that. In fact, it's only since the Vatican has its own website where it publishes all its documents pertaining theology, that common catholics (and non-catholics) have access to what the Pope says. Up until the mid-nineties, all catholics recieved theological guidance by their priest who - in the case of a strong bishop - were instructed by said bishop to emphasize this or that. And in 40% of the world, that's still the case.

To give you a simple example that I gave before (so many times): I'm a catholic religion teacher, and I have a lesson plan sanctioned by the Belgian bishops - ALL Belgian bishops. It includes teaching at least three things that go against central catholic doctrine: Jesus' resurrection was strictly spiritual and symbolic; the Church offers just one way of living amongst a vast range of other life views, all of which are equal and deserve respect; and it's okay to be gay.
I teach this. My local bishops have ordered me to teach this.

That's a significant thing to remember: there may be one doctrine, but there are millions of interpretations, and local bishops and priests play an extremely significant role in that.

So, again, I don't give a shit about the Pope. And if I, as a catholic, don't care - why should the media?

Elke
12-30-2012, 06:33 AM
Yes. If he was able to demonstrate a real commitment to those principles, and speak eloquently about them, I absolutely believe he would influence people in that direction, world wide. Because that is what world leaders are SUPPOSED to do. Trolls don't go away when you ignore them, they go away when they GROW THE FUCK UP and turn into rational people capable of meaningful, productive interaction with the rest of the world.


If that's true, explain Rick Santorum and his ilk.

botley
12-30-2012, 07:47 AM
Career politicians? Constantly shifting their views so they pander to an accepted norm in their party/voter base? Il Papa doesn't have to do that anymore once he's in power — he has the post for LIFE and can say whatever he wants. This toe-the-line bullshit shouldn't apply to him.

Elke
12-30-2012, 10:52 AM
You said that catholics would change their minds about homosexuality (that is: those catholics who don't like homosexuality and think it's a hanging offense) if the Pope changed his mind.

This implies that catholics now follow the Pope.

So why do some catholics, priding themselves on their catholicism as a means of making them just and fair and awesome, spout the most goddamned anti-catholic bullshit I've heard in ages? Hardly 20% that comes out of Santorum's mouth is even 'catholic' in the sense of 'adhering to doctrine'. Yet a lot of Americans seemed to think he was a stand-up guy, and really devout and into Jesus and whatnot. [See, for an example, abortion. The goddamned catholic Church has more liberal and compassionate views on abortion than Rick Santorum.]

If catholics care so much about what the Pope thinks that him changing his views on homosexuality would change their views on homosexuality, then why don't more catholics fast during lent, do charity work, go to mass, respect sinners and love their neighbours? Oh, and recycle. Why don't more catholics recycle?

My point is STILL: because of how much media attention the Pope gets, there's a disproportionate amount of weight placed on what he says that is not actually there.

marodi
12-30-2012, 11:12 AM
This implies that catholics now follow the Pope.

Well, I'm a Catholic and I certainly does not. In fact, I really dislike the guy and I roll my eyes at everything he says. He is not a popular pope, not like John Paul II was before him; he doesn't have his charisma and his energy. Benedict is a troll and he looks like one. It's very very easy to dismiss what he says. In fact, by keeping with his retard attitudes towards matters that are important to many Catholics (contraception, homosexuality, the place of women within the Church to name just a few) he is contributing to the slow agony of the Church. Why do you all think the Church needs all those new "recruits" Elke was talking about? It's to replace all those who are leaving the Church en masse.


My point is STILL: because of how much media attention the Pope gets, there's a disproportionate amount of weight placed on what he says that is not actually there.

To further her point: I'm a Catholic and the first I heard about the pope Christmas message was by reading about it from the link Jinsai posted. Yeah, we really care about what he has to say...

And about that link: it's from the Richard Dawkins site. They're not the pope's biggest fan, are they? Isn't it a bit like us watching the Phelps and pointing out to them screaming "look what the crazies are saying?".

Am I the only one who sees the irony about me, being a Catholic, hearing about one point of the pope Christmas message (I now kind of wonder what else he had to say but I don't care enough to look for it) from an anti-pope (sort of) site?

What am I doing in this thread again? Man I'm bored...

Jinsai
12-30-2012, 01:43 PM
blah double post

Jinsai
12-30-2012, 01:43 PM
By hammering the point that he's 'elected' without taking into consideration that that process doesn't actually mean anything, you give his views a legitimacy they don't have: his office is a divine office, his 'election' is based on 'the whispers of the Holy Spirit' and he has a couple of important ritualistic but mostly hierarchical tasks in the Church. He isn't a 'leader' like a cult leader is, and very little of what he says and writes actually trickles down to catholics.

But isn't that "worse" in a sense? He's ordained by divine providence, which in the eyes of many, is greater than the popular vote of men.

Bringing up royalty is actually relevant in a lot of ways. The pope and the queen of England are both, at least in my opinion, anachronistic seats of power. The fact that their relevance is outdated doesn't completely strip them of influence. If the queen of England went on a homophobic tirade, it would be news as well. The main difference there is that practically nobody is deluded into perceiving the British monarchy as little more than a charade rooted in tradition, and that it's mostly all for show. Still, the whole world gets really excited when a prince decides to get married, but whatever.

I'll hold to my right to bash the shit out of the royal family if they say something incredibly stupid and ignorant, and I don't need to be English to be qualified to comment on it.


Ah, well, I'd consider all of that (aside from the Tea Party meetings) to be media. I'm not just talking about the news.

Twitter is "the media?" Either way, if we're seeing the media in such broad terms, you're basically bemoaning the functionality of the modern world. You're basically arguing that everybody ignores the pope anyway, but he isn't going away because "the media" is giving him a soap box. I would disagree, and I would argue that he already has a soap box and that's what's attracting the media, but regardless, "the media" is not going anywhere.


To clarify that point.
But yes, ignoring her would make her go away. How much have you heard about Rick Perry or Rick Santorum, or John Huntsman for that matter, since Romney was chosen as presidential candidate? What about the incredible rise of Joe the Plumber?

Exactly! Rick Santorum went away not because we collectively made a concerted effort to ignore him, but because the possibility of him attaining a seat of power vanished. He no longer has a soap box.

Joe the plumber however was a misinformed puppet that was used during an election cycle and then discarded. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel here with our comparisons.


Are you seriously trying to argue here that media coverage played no part at all in their sudden rise and then almost disappearance from the U.S. public debate?

Mitt Romney is gone too. If he had won the election we'd be hearing a lot more from him.


Well, given how you seem to think they're the alpha and omega of catholic doctrine, yes: I do think some context is merrited.

You're the one saying that no Catholic cares what the pope thinks. You speak on behalf of a Catholic consensus in many ways, to the point where you insist that nobody cares what the appointed head of the Catholic church has to say. I can promise that I have spoken to Catholics who don't openly disregard the pope, but I understand that since that's anecdotal it carries no weight. I can only insist that you're overstating his irrelevancy.


The main reason why he doesn't want to, is because he knows his Church: the fastest growing catholic population is situated in central Africa, with Central and East Asia not lagging too far behind. There's also a surge of catholic conversions in Russia. All these regions have very traditional views on gender and sexuality. Those views are cultural, and if the Church wanted to change that she would have to work quite slowly and carefully.

Oh, for a second there I thought you were going to say it was "because he knows his audience." I would say "what's the difference," but why get into semantics.

Again though, you don't think it would make a difference at all if he were to say something to the effect of tolerance towards homosexuals? You don't think that would be received as a surprise that might give some people in "his church" pause?


You don't think any of that context is important?

Not particularly, no. The idea that homosexuality is a sin but "homosexuals as people need to be loved and welcomed regardless of their sin" doesn't gel with what he was saying. I also don't think the general concept there is really that radically progressive or tolerant in the 2010s.



As explained above, the Church is recognized as an administrative leader with a clear ritual function. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Anglican Church, but has no more theological weight than bishops or archbishops.

Except the queen is not even traditionally viewed as divinely appointed, but at least she isn't saying when we can and cannot use contraception, nor is she calling gays a "threat." If she did, I'd take the same exception that I take here if someone from England has said "why does anyone who isn't English care what the queen has to say?"


Actually his views don't differ much from catholic doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#Sexuality), aside from the fact that - as usual - he makes a clear difference between buddhists and non-buddhists, whereas the Church doesn't make that distinction (and it should).

But the Dalai Lama is a clear example of something you claim isn't happening: a religious/philosophical leader getting media attention for saying stuff that's for "good, positive, open and worth while things." The pope should try it some time.


So, again, I don't give a shit about the Pope. And if I, as a catholic, don't care - why should the media?

Because you might not speak on behalf of all Catholics?

Also, to @marodi (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=125), the article I linked to was from Dawkins' site, but he links in the beginning to the source. He's not the only one reporting and harping on it.

allegro
12-30-2012, 01:53 PM
Choosing to "not follow" the Pope does not negate the fact the Pope is chosen by the College of Cardinals to be the leader of the Roman Catholic church for a specific purpose.

From here (http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp):

Many people think that Vatican II's primary vision of the Church as a communion was summarized in the phrase, "The People of God," but the Old Testament roots for that phrase, "People of God," "am' Yahweh" actually has as its primary meaning, "Family of God." That term "people," am' literally denotes kinship, so it could be translated "kinsmen" or "Family of God," and that's how most Old Testament scholars translate it. So when we look at the Pope, as we will this morning, we are going to be looking at him, not as some tyrant, not as some authoritarian "know-it-all" and not as some magician who can just kind of concoct a new revelation to satisfy all parties, or anything like that. We are going to be looking at a father figure that Christ has established over the family that He has purchased with His own blood.

Now, there are many misconceptions that people have. They sometimes think that the teaching of the Church is that the Pope is infallible; therefore, he can't sin. That's nonsense, although the present Pontiff goes to confession, I understand, at least once a week. He's got to have something to confess for it to be a valid sacrament administered to him. Others think that he always says the best thing at the right time. No, the Church has never insisted upon the fact that the Pope will always say the best thing at the right time. Rather, the teaching of the Church would allow for the Pope perhaps to postpone out of cowardice, a right thing. Or when he says the truth, when he teaches the truth, he might do so in a way that includes an ambiguity.

So we are responsible as Catholics to understand, not only what the Church teaches, but what the Church doesn't teach to help clear up these misconceptions. The Church teaches in a simple summary that the Holy Father, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to Peter and the Vicar of Christ, when he speaks as the universal teacher from the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an infallible charism or an infallible gift through the Holy Spirit so that we can give to him the full assent of our intellect and our will, and we can hear the voice of Christ coming to us through the voice of the Pope when he is speaking in this capacity.

Now we are going to flush off on the meanings of this as time goes on, but there are three basic issues or problems. First of all, can we prove Papal Primacy, that is, that the Pope is not just the first among equals but that he has a certain primacy, a unique supremacy in relation to all of the Bishops. We have to begin by showing that Jesus conferred this gift upon Peter. Then secondly, we have to establish the doctrine of Papal succession. If we can prove from the Bible that Peter was granted by Jesus a certain primacy, that doesn't go far enough. We then have to go on to establish Papal succession; that is, Peter had successors to whom would be entrusted the same gift or charism. Then thirdly, we have to establish evidence for Papal infallibility, that is that God grants a gift to the successors of Peter for them, not to give new revelations. The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error.

Elke
12-30-2012, 04:40 PM
This is going to be one of those insane back-and-forths where we both completely lose the plot and end up disliking each other just a little bit more than we did before, isn't it?


But isn't that "worse" in a sense? He's ordained by divine providence, which in the eyes of many, is greater than the popular vote of men.


Well, yes and no. It's 'worse' in the sense that it's rubish. But it also means, and let's not stray from the point here, that no ordinary catholics chose him. So the whole 'elected' thing you've mentioned about a gazillion time - probably in a misguided attempt to point out that catholics are under any sort of obligation to feel represented by the guy - is absolutely misleading. Brining me back to my point about context. [Notice how hard I'm trying not to drift here?]


The main difference there is that practically nobody is deluded into perceiving the British monarchy as little more than a charade rooted in tradition, and that it's mostly all for show.

Except both marodi and I just pointed out that for catholics, the Pope has a strictly symbolic and administrative function. Just like the queen. In fact, the Queen has a lot more power because she still has to sign laws and dissolve governments. The Pope isn't even really responsible for appointing bishops anymore, it's just the cardinals where he still has something to say.
After the disaster (for the curie, not for the people obviously) of Pope John XXIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XXIII)single handedly kickstarting the modernisation of the Church (a process still very much getting kickstarted at the moment, no thanks to John Paul II), the office of Pope was severely limited.
That guy, btw, is my kind of Pope. I'd have loved him.


I'll hold to my right to bash the shit out of the royal family if they say something incredibly stupid and ignorant, and I don't need to be English to be qualified to comment on it.

Did I say that? I wrote a lot of stuff, but I don't think I said you couldn't comment on it. I think my main point is that by repeating it so often in the media (and in the blogosphere and on teh interwebz) those ideas get legitimized as if they mean something they don't.


Twitter is "the media?"

Let's not pretend that Twitter is anything like other user based social media. It's the media. Half of it is politicians, celibrities, spin doctors and trend watchers.


Either way, if we're seeing the media in such broad terms, you're basically bemoaning the functionality of the modern world.

How is this news?


Exactly! Rick Santorum went away not because we collectively made a concerted effort to ignore him, but because the possibility of him attaining a seat of power vanished. He no longer has a soap box.

Who gave him the soap box? I did not hear that much of John Huntsman, who I thought was a rather interesting politician. Why's that? Because he had less possibility of attaining power? And does this explain why even in the Belgian press I still have to suffer through every single fart Sarah Palin makes? Because she still has such a large chance at controlling the universe?

You know what I think? I think you're being willfully thick here. I'm not inventing sliced bread, I'm just applying basic media theory on one particular example. Granted, one that irks me more than your average John Huntsman vs. John Perry problem because it's my neck of the woods, but still.


Joe the plumber however was a misinformed puppet that was used during an election cycle and then discarded. We're scraping the bottom of the barrel here with our comparisons.

No, actually, I'm not. My point was about how opinions get bloated because of sensationalist tendencies, and how this is dangerous because lack of context (or in this case: lack of knowledge of how the Church works, as admirably demonstrated by yourself - and this is not meant as an attack, just as an observation) means that non-catholics are inclined to see this as some kind of baromator of what catholics think. While the essence of the catholic Church is that it is incredibly varied and diverse. Haiti, for example, counts roughly 80% of its population as Catholics, baptized and all. Only, at least half of those Haitians practises vôdou. Those are catholics. They really, really don't care about the Pope.

What happened with Joe the Plumber? The media pounced on him, making him interesting for the presidential candidate and his team to pick him up and trot him out. Which the media loved, and paid a lot of attention to. Which made him even more interesting.
And all this time, moderate and left wing democrats (and Belgians, because yes, Joe the Plumber made our headlines as well) saw all their beliefs about hillbilly America justified. Which is grossly unfair. I'm quite certain there are a lot of Republicans (including John McCain) who thought Joe the Plumber was an airhead, and had nothing of value to say.

The Pope used to be someone that people switched the tv on for around Easter, to recieve the papal blessing. They had little prayer cards to go with their rosaries. And they had a vague idea that he was the leader of the catholic Church. But when it came to their religious education, they turned to priests who were instructed by bishops to spin Jesus a certain way. And sometimes those priests came up with a completely different story.
Now the Pop is televized all year round, like an old wrinkled Tilla Tequilla. His speeches and letters are monitored sharply, hoping for some controversial things. When he says something actually worthwhile, like all his talk of the environment and the dangers of capitalism, it gets minimal coverage and causes little debate. But when he says something about sex or gays or condoms: there's the headlines, there's the controversy.
But people still get their religious education from priests, and in school. They don't know the Pope, and they don't listen to him. It's non-catholics who listen, it's non-catholics who get upset and it's catholics who are then told that they're all bigotted assholes. Which in turn doesn't create a lot of love between communities.

Again, if my bishops order me to teach my students that it's okay to be gay, doesn't that mean that the Church's stance on homosexuality isn't one thing?


You're the one saying that no Catholic cares what the pope thinks. You're much more the self appointed representative of the Catholic consensus than I am, and you speak on their behalf.

Let me correct that: I know exactly one catholic who cares what the Pope thinks, and that's my bishop. Also, this is no reply to my comment.


Oh, for a second there I thought you were going to say it was "because he knows his audience." I would say "what's the difference," but why get into semantics.

Well, what do you know. You're postmodern after all!


Again though, you don't think it would make a difference at all if he were to say something to the effect of tolerance towards homosexuals? You don't think that would be received as a surprise that might give some people in "his church" pause?

No. Because so many people already do it on a very local and personal level. And even more people say the reverse on a very local and personal level. If the Pope says gayz are evil and your local priest with whom you have a personal relationship and can discuss these ideas say never mind him, God is love, who are you going to listen to? And sadly, the reverse is also true.

So no.


I also don't think the general concept there is really that radically progressive or tolerant in the 2010s.

You're the one who mentioned Iran. I think we could do a whole lot worse with an archaic institute like the Church. And, as I pointed out earlier in this post, we're still kickstarting modernisation. It's going to take a while. I'm not going to see it happen in my life time, but in my tiny tiny way I'm definitely working on it.


Except the queen is not even traditionally viewed as divinely appointed, but at least she isn't saying when we can and cannot use contraception, nor is she calling gays a "threat." If she did, I'd take the same exception that I take here if someone from England has said "why does anyone who isn't English care what the queen has to say?"

Jinsai, you can read. Okay? Don't play retard. You know perfectly well what I meant: it's a symbolic and administrative function, it has no theological extra weight. PERIOD.


But the Dalai Lama is a clear example of something you claim isn't happening: a religious/philosophical leader getting media attention for saying stuff that's for "good, positive, open and worth while things." The pope should try it some time.

Name ten others, without googling. I dare you.

Also: even he's said some pretty good, positive, open and worth while things. The fact that you think he hasn't further proves my point, really.


Because you might not speak on behalf of all Catholics?

No, I don't. I definitely don't. I don't speak on behalf of the Haitians, or Opus Dei, or the Greek Orthodox Catholic communities, or the Chinese catholics, or the monks of Taizé, or liberation theologists in Colulmbia, or bishops urging witches to be burned in Uganda. But just like me, they're doing whatever the fuck they want. The fact that they do, so loudly and openly, demonstrates that I have a point, I should think.

Because if we all listened to the Pope, don't you think we'd all think the same thing, and have the same faith?

Elke
12-30-2012, 04:45 PM
Choosing to "not follow" the Pope does not negate the fact the Pope is chosen by the College of Cardinals to be the leader of the Roman Catholic church for a specific purpose.

And that function, as your quote (with which I have some issues regarding the interpretation of Vaticanum II, but whatever) illustrates, is symbolic and administrative. A 'leader' who doesn't lead, a representative of Jesus on Earth (while Christ is still very much with us, which also makes it a completely superfluous job) and - most of all - bishop of Rome.

But it does give me the excuse to repeat the reason why I chose to be catholic, and that's tradition. The Church is the only christian institution that actually takes into acount all of tradition, including the fallacies and the failures. I find that delightful.

miss k bee
12-30-2012, 07:56 PM
Went to a Hillsong service today. Wow some bands would kill for the stage production and sound they had there. Bit like XFactor church. Was an experience.

Jinsai
12-30-2012, 09:12 PM
This is going to be one of those insane back-and-forths where we both completely lose the plot and end up disliking each other just a little bit more than we did before, isn't it?

Well, I'll make this short then.


Let's not pretend that Twitter is anything like other user based social media. It's the media. Half of it is politicians, celibrities, spin doctors and trend watchers.

Twitter is not "the media," it's a means by which to speak to people who choose to listen to what you have to say. The fact that you're not acknowledging the distinction here is telling.


Who gave him the soap box?
Rick Santorum got a soap box when he became a viable candidate for the Republican primaries. It meant he might become president, so we all wanted to hear what he had to say. Then, when he turned out to be crazy, he got discarded and we all stopped listening. This is a poor comparison.


I did not hear that much of John Huntsman, who I thought was a rather interesting politician. Why's that? Because he had less possibility of attaining power?

YES! Huntsman was not winning state primaries! Nobody thought he had a chance!

Also, Santorum gained traction because he had the backing of a demographic that you insinuate doesn't exist.


You know what I think? I think you're being willfully thick here.

Great.


No, actually, I'm not. My point was about how opinions get bloated because of sensationalist tendencies, and how this is dangerous because lack of context (or in this case: lack of knowledge of how the Church works, as admirably demonstrated by yourself - and this is not meant as an attack, just as an observation) means that non-catholics are inclined to see this as some kind of baromator of what catholics think.

Ok, for one, you're being presumptuous. Just because I'm an atheist now doesn't mean I wasn't indoctrinated into a church at some point, or that I wasn't sent to religious schools. I've grown up surrounded by Catholics, and I was raised (and forced to confirm as) Episcopalian, which is within spitting distance of the Catholic faith. You're the one who is repeatedly assuring me that no Catholics believe what many Catholics I've met believe.


What happened with Joe the Plumber? The media pounced on him, making him interesting for the presidential candidate and his team to pick him up and trot him out. Which the media loved, and paid a lot of attention to. Which made him even more interesting.

Ok, you can call me thick all you want, but can we stop comparing the attention and fame of Joe the Plumber to the pope regarding relevancy and media attention (and resulting impressions)? Really.


But people still get their religious education from priests, and in school. They don't know the Pope, and they don't listen to him. It's non-catholics who listen, it's non-catholics who get upset and it's catholics who are then told that they're all bigotted assholes. Which in turn doesn't create a lot of love between communities.

and Catholics choose to continue to be catholics. What are the things stopping you from becoming an Episcopalian? In general, they're more progressive, and unlike the Anglican version, there's no monarchy attachment.


Again, if my bishops order me to teach my students that it's okay to be gay, doesn't that mean that the Church's stance on homosexuality isn't one thing?

It means that they're saying something different than the pope. This doesn't need to be unnecessarily complex.


No. Because so many people already do it on a very local and personal level. And even more people say the reverse on a very local and personal level. If the Pope says gayz are evil and your local priest with whom you have a personal relationship and can discuss these ideas say never mind him, God is love, who are you going to listen to? And sadly, the reverse is also true.

You mean the priests who regurgitate the Vatican's stances on issues? Like most of the catholic priests I've met?


You're the one who mentioned Iran. I think we could do a whole lot worse with an archaic institute like the Church.

Sure, because they openly execute homosexuals in Iran, I should give the pope a pass for being a backwards jackass.


Jinsai, you can read. Okay? Don't play retard.

Again, great.


Name ten others, without googling. I dare you.

You dare me?


Also: even he's said some pretty good, positive, open and worth while things. The fact that you think he hasn't further proves my point, really.

I've heard his anti-capitalism stance, accompanied by the ludicrous "solution" he proposed. Cue the golf clap.


No, I don't. I definitely don't. I don't speak on behalf of the Haitians, or Opus Dei, or the Greek Orthodox Catholic communities, or the Chinese catholics, or the monks of Taizé, or liberation theologists in Colulmbia, or bishops urging witches to be burned in Uganda. But just like me, they're doing whatever the fuck they want. The fact that they do, so loudly and openly, demonstrates that I have a point, I should think.

Because if we all listened to the Pope, don't you think we'd all think the same thing, and have the same faith?

I never said all catholics listen to and obey the pope. You're the one who implied that none of them do.

Elke
12-31-2012, 03:24 AM
Well, I'll make this short then.

I'm going to make this a hell of a lot shorter.


Twitter is not "the media," it's a means by which to speak to people who choose to listen to what you have to say. The fact that you're not acknowledging the distinction here is telling.

2009 (http://product.ubion.co.kr/upload20120220142222731/ccres00056/db/_2250_1/embedded/2010-www-twitter.pdf)
2012 (http://books.google.be/books?id=ZcVxGdegAJ8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)


Rick Santorum got a soap box when he became a viable candidate for the Republican primaries. It meant he might become president, so we all wanted to hear what he had to say. Then, when he turned out to be crazy, he got discarded and we all stopped listening. This is a poor comparison.

This was well established in 2005 (http://books.google.be/books?id=wVDonTgvLKsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=rick+santorum&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=GVPhUJ7TEY2WhQf9vIHIBA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA)


YES! Huntsman was not winning state primaries! Nobody thought he had a chance!

Really? (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/weaver-huntsman-was-the-electable-conservative-150650.html)


Also, Santorum gained traction because he had the backing of a demographic that you insinuate doesn't exist.

Oh, you mean those catholis who follow catholic doctrine so well?

This is Rick Santorum. (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/rick_santorum_channels_st_augustine/singleton) This is why he's not a by-the-book catholic. (http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/americas_christian_hypocrisy/singleton)
This is why 98% of American catholic women aren't. (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/singleton)



Ok, for one, you're being presumptuous. Just because I'm an atheist now doesn't mean I wasn't indoctrinated into a church at some point, or that I wasn't sent to religious schools.

So were most of these people (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm) .


Ok, you can call me thick all you want, but can we stop comparing the attention and fame of Joe the Plumber to the pope regarding relevancy and media attention (and resulting impressions)? Really.

Sure.


and Catholics choose to continue to be catholics. What are the things stopping you from becoming an Episcopalian? In general, they're more progressive, and unlike the Anglican version, there's no monarchy attachment.

The closest thing in Belgium to an Episcopalian Church is the Dutch Eposcopalian Church which, you guessed it right, isn't in Belgium.


You mean the priests who regurgitate the Vatican's stances on issues? Like most of the catholic priests I've met?

No, I mean the priests who work in parishes and talk to actual real life people. The ones who tell you what to do when you have a question. I a way, our priests function pretty much like mufti, if you disregard the theological difference between islam and christianity.


Sure, because they openly execute homosexuals in Iran, I should give the pope a pass for being a backwards jackass.

No. Did I say that? You're on a roll with the straw man's today, aren't you?



You dare me?

I challenge you. I kindly ask you. I invite you. I'm sorry if once in a while something gets lost in translation.


I've heard his anti-capitalism stance, accompanied by the ludicrous "solution" he proposed. Cue the golf clap.

Ah, please, by all means, enlighten me. What is his "solution" and why is it ludicrous? (And I do mean this Pope, not communist hunter John Paul II.)


I never said all catholics listen to and obey the pope. You're the one who implied that none of them do.

You're the one who stated that what he's saying non-ex cathedra is relevant because he's the 'elected' head of the Church, and all catholics acknowledge the Pope, so that should mean something, right?

It doesn't. That's my point, and my only point: it doesn't matter, and I dislike the fact that he's actually being legitimized by media outside the Church. That was my observation.

[Oh, and get over yourself with the 'great'. Either you're being wilfully thick, or you're being thick. And I may not like you very much (given that I don't know you and all our interactions seem centered on this type of no-wins discussions) but I respect you enough to know that you're not actually thick. You've called me far worse than wilfully thick over the past seven years (so before you go 'great', I'm relatively sure given the gathered evidence and limited inferences I can make from this, that you don't like me much either but still consider me above the average internet troll). Perhaps that's why I'm so ready to toss in a veiled compliment or backhanded insult once in a while.]

allegro
12-31-2012, 10:31 AM
I just keep thinking about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&).

Jinsai
12-31-2012, 01:15 PM
I'm going to make this a hell of a lot shorter.

Alright I'll top that. Let's get to the point.


Oh, you mean those catholis who follow catholic doctrine so well?

This is Rick Santorum. (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/rick_santorum_channels_st_augustine/singleton) This is why he's not a by-the-book catholic. (http://www.salon.com/2012/04/20/americas_christian_hypocrisy/singleton)
This is why 98% of American catholic women aren't. (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/singleton)

I don't give a flying fuck if they "follow catholic doctrine" in what you or anyone else considers to be the proper way. I don't care if you would call them "good catholics." They are self described Catholics, and they're part of the demographic that pays attention to the Pope's bullshit. Somehow, we've managed to bring up Rick Santorum repeatedly in this thread without mentioning the time that he said Kennedy's speech (the one where he insisted that as president he would not bow down to the pope) made him "want to puke." This guy isn't a relic from a bygone era, he was hoping to be elected president of the United States last month, and a frighteningly large demographic (comprised mostly of "bad Catholics") was pushing for that.

So I do not care if all the "real" Catholics out there are the ones who see the pope as a ridiculous symbolic figure, think gays are groovy, and have a generally progressive outlook on things. If the pope had said "gee, you know, it's about time this church moved into the 21st century, so enough with the anti-gay stuff already. Grow up." I would have gladly given Rick Santorum his soap box back for another fifteen minutes just to hear him respond, and I would hope the media would be there when it happens.

That's why I care what the pope has to say about it, even though I'm neither a catholic nor a homosexual.


I challenge you. I kindly ask you. I invite you.

How about this first. Name me ten other Catholic religious figures who hold more international sway and power than the pope. I dare you. I challenge you. I also don't really care anymore, but I kindly ask you while I'm at it. I beseech thee.


Ah, please, by all means, enlighten me. What is his "solution" and why is it ludicrous? (And I do mean this Pope, not communist hunter John Paul II.)

Google it. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pope+capitalism+%22financial+times%22) This conversation is already too long.
...and just to clarify, I don't dislike you Elke, even if I've gotten extremely frustrated during these sorts of arguments. At the end of the day, I take the vast majority of this, including disagreements which I find highly disagreeable, with a grain of salt.

allegro
12-31-2012, 01:35 PM
I was raised by a Super Catholic mom who was excommunicated after she remarried and who doesn't even really recognize the current American Roman Catholic church. The Catholic "traditions" of her time are pretty much gone. There were still Latin Masses when she was growing up. Not that we NEED Latin Masses, and not that some change isn't good. HOWEVER, certain rules of the Catholic church will NEVER change and the Pope is there to make sure of that.

From the above link that I quoted (i guess I shoulda used highlighter pen):

"The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error."

So, you can go ahead and be pro-gay marriage or pro-choice or pro-female priest or whatever, but the Pope will tell you that you aren't Catholic. Hell, the head priest at G's family's Catholic church says that AT EVERY MASS. (G won't set foot in a Catholic church except for necessary family funerals. But I digress.)

Not that Catholic Popes don't have a history of changing the rules for their own convenience or special purposes. Eating meat on Fridays and celibacy comes to mind.

But people here travel all the way to Italy to get stuff blessed at St. Peter's and they cry when they see the Pope. I saw JP II do a outdoor Mass in Hamtramck Michigan entirely in Polish and I was surrounded by fainting weeping people, so maybe the U.S. is breeding a different kind of Catholic (what with all the Latino and Polish we have, here, who follow Catholic rules and the Pope TO THE LETTER).

Elke
01-01-2013, 01:56 PM
Nevermind. [/exit]

allegro
01-01-2013, 08:01 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/17335152-418/cardinal-george-urges-catholics-to-oppose-gay-marriage-law.html

Elke
01-02-2013, 01:14 PM
Saudi religious leader calls for gang rape of Syrian women (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/saudi_religious_leader_calls_for_gang_rape_of_syri an_women/)

Apparently, the Qur'an would back this. (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam#Rape_in_the_Qur.27an) However, it seems like this is also Zina (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic)) so I'm not sure how the former is tenable as a position. I also found this (http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/rape_in_islam.asp)interesting.

edit: While I'm at it:

The Global Religious Landscape: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Major Religious Groups as of 2010 (http://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-exec.aspx)

edit 2: And why not test your knowledge of Christmas traditions world wide (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2012/1219/How-well-do-you-know-global-Christmas-traditions-Take-the-quiz/Tree?nav=603299-csm_blog_post-promoLink)? I scored a very disappointing 8/16, but learned a lot. Quite interesting!

Ryan
01-02-2013, 09:07 PM
Vatican Christmas Shocker! Pope says child rape isn't that bad, was normal back in his day (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-porn-normal-claim-sparks-outrage-among-victims-15035449.html)

allegro
01-03-2013, 08:40 AM
Saudi religious leader calls for gang rape of Syrian women (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/saudi_religious_leader_calls_for_gang_rape_of_syri an_women/)[SIZE=2][FONT=arial]
dead link?

Ugh, Islam is so not good for women.

marodi
01-03-2013, 11:12 AM
dead link?

Ugh, Islam is so not good for women.

I read the original story. This is why it was taken down: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/cleric_gang_rape_story_debunked/

Deus Ex Machina
01-03-2013, 11:27 AM
So, you can go ahead and be pro-gay marriage or pro-choice or pro-female priest or whatever, but the Pope will tell you that you aren't Catholic.


My 2 cents on Catholicism and Catholics, even though you've already heard it before.


Allowing the Pope or the Catholic heirarchy to define Catholicism is a lot like allowing the Ayatollah or Amedenijhad to define all Iranian Muslims. Yes, these people are leaders, and yes, these people do enjoy support from large groups of the people they claim to speak for. But letting them speak for all the constituents they claim to speak for ignores an enourmous amount of people.


Just as there are many many Iranian Muslims that hate the direction their country has taken (remember the Iranian Green Revolution ?) There are many many self-identified Catholics that don't care much for what the Pope has to say or has a lot of respect for the heirarchy in general. Take these nuns for example:


http://jezebel.com/5915210/reps-for-all-those-crazy-feminist-nuns-strike-back-at-the-vatican


Those are Catholic nuns, outfits and everything, nunning it up day in and day out, and they say that God calls them to stand up for gay rights, and that they are still Catholics. They say that this is something their whole church should be doing. In my mind, they're right, so why would I classify them as non-Catholic because the Pope, who I don't particularly respect, tells me to?


The Catholic church is a fractured organization. You've got the Conservative hierarchy and their adherents in one area, and you've got the Social Justice and Progressive movement in the other. It's a generalization to describe the hierarchy as conservative, there are some progressives that have made their way up the ladder, but it's more or less true the further up the chain you go.


So the idea that the Catholic church is a unified monolith, all thinking the same thing or tacitly complying isn't a very accurate picture of what's really going on. While it may not be the norm, there's a big precedent for someone self-identifying as Catholic but not sharing the views of the conservative hierarchy. They consciously choose to identify as Catholic in a bottom up, 'This is Our Church' method to change the church. It may not work, but not including that phenomenon in a description of the Catholic church is a major omission in my opinion.

allegro
01-03-2013, 12:17 PM
It may not work, but not including that phenomenon in a description of the Catholic church is a major omission in my opinion.
The Pope and the heirarchy's main purpose has always been to "define" because it's always been assumed that parishioners are unable to interpret scripture and the holy word on their own.

Have you been to Catholic church, lately? Each time I have, in the last few years (again, for family stuff, not by my own choice), it is STRESSED beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you are not down with the church's stance against gays and against abortion, you cannot even receive the sacraments unless you confess your sins of going against the church and even then if you constantly go against the church you ain't getting away with it.

marodi
01-03-2013, 12:36 PM
Why are you there if you can't even respect it and you're forced to lie to your own church?

Hope. That it will see the light, eventually.
Faith. That things can change even if it takes time and efforts.
Stubbornness. The good old "I'm right and you're wrong" thing.
Laziness. It takes effort to learn a new way or worshiping.

Meh.

edit: allegro: never forget that we're Catholics; it's ingrained in us that we have to suffer for our faith. ;)

allegro
01-03-2013, 12:41 PM
Suffer yeah, well whatever.

Elke
01-04-2013, 05:21 AM
I read the original story. This is why it was taken down: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/cleric_gang_rape_story_debunked/


Now I'm really glad that I looked all that backinfo up. Thanks marodi.

Elke
01-04-2013, 05:23 AM
Have you been to Catholic church, lately? Each time I have, in the last few years (again, for family stuff, not by my own choice), it is STRESSED beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you are not down with the church's stance against gays and against abortion, you cannot even receive the sacraments unless you confess your sins of going against the church and even then if you constantly go against the church you ain't getting away with it.

But that was the essence of what I was trying to say: that is your local priest /bishop interpreting it that way. My bishops make me teach students that homosexuality is something to be accepted, and that anticonceptives are really important. I have to teach sex ed as part of my catholic religion course.

Local ideas, local inspiration and interpretation. Deus said it really well.

Elke
04-13-2013, 09:00 AM
An excerpt from Frans De Waals The Bonobo and the Atheist was published on Salon.com, and it is an interesting read: Has militant atheism become a religion? (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/militant_atheism_has_become_a_religion/) is - unlike its title implies - a serious examination of the question of dogmatism.


Why “sleep furiously” unless there are inner demons to be kept at bay? In the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion? Take Christopher Hitchens, the late British author of “God Is Not Great.” Hitchens was outraged by the dogmatism of religion, yet he himself had moved from Marxism (he was a Trotskyist) to Greek Orthodox Christianity, then to American Neo-Conservatism, followed by an “antitheist” stance that blamed all of the world’s troubles on religion. Hitchens thus swung from the left to the right, from anti–Vietnam War to cheerleader of the Iraq War, and from pro to contra God. He ended up favoring Dick Cheney over Mother Teresa. Some people crave dogma, yet have trouble deciding on its contents. They become serial dogmatists. Hitchens admitted, “There are days when I miss my old convictions as if they were an amputated limb,” thus implying that he had entered a new life stage marked by doubt and reflection. Yet, all he seemed to have done was sprout a fresh dogmatic limb.

Amaro
07-20-2013, 04:10 PM
Is this the closest thing we have to a spirituality type thread? I wanna hear what people here think about The Collective Unconscious and maybe Idealism. And other shit.

Space Suicide
08-05-2013, 10:20 PM
This can be misconstrued as ignorant but just about every person I see, hear or read that has been Born Again are super annoying and never shut about about religion for a second. A perfect example is a girl I went to college with, who was an incredible designer, took years at the Art Institute in our state and made great grades but she quit out due to being Born Again and "God's calling wasn't in design work." I find that odd because you have a talented gift but throw it away for nothing. Seems like a real waste to me. Even in religious argument, didn't God give you that wonderful gift? Everything she says now relates to God, the bible, religion and doing work for Churches. Her latest endeavors find her in Africa for a whole year to translate Bibles? Her nice tattoo work of a pin-up zombie has also been re-worked and inked to be that of a lantern and a scripture quote.

I hate seeing people waste their potential and swear everything they do in the day, week, month and probably years to religion. It makes you lack an identity and makes you rather dull to be with unless you're more of the same. I just don't see why some people overdo it or get fanatical when they're Born Again. Anyone else have thoughts on people like this?

Amaro
08-06-2013, 04:18 PM
This can be misconstrued as ignorant but just about every person I see, hear or read that has been Born Again are super annoying and never shut about about religion for a second. A perfect example is a girl I went to college with, who was an incredible designer, took years at the Art Institute in our state and made great grades but she quit out due to being Born Again and "God's calling wasn't in design work." I find that odd because you have a talented gift but throw it away for nothing. Seems like a real waste to me. Even in religious argument, didn't God give you that wonderful gift? Everything she says now relates to God, the bible, religion and doing work for Churches. Her latest endeavors find her in Africa for a whole year to translate Bibles? Her nice tattoo work of a pin-up zombie has also been re-worked and inked to be that of a lantern and a scripture quote.

I hate seeing people waste their potential and swear everything they do in the day, week, month and probably years to religion. It makes you lack an identity and makes you rather dull to be with unless you're more of the same. I just don't see why some people overdo it or get fanatical when they're Born Again. Anyone else have thoughts on people like this?

I think when somebody believes in something as significant as God and subscribe to specifics of a religion, they ultimately believe their consciousness isn't all directed by what they naturally think. They take signs of internal changes or even moods as God speaking to them from within, as they submit to the idea that there's another controller. For someone on the outside looking in at this person--that belief system is just distracting from whatever they once thought highly of and took to, such as a strong talent like that.

Elke
08-07-2013, 04:53 AM
Is this the closest thing we have to a spirituality type thread? I wanna hear what people here think about The Collective Unconscious and maybe Idealism. And other shit.

Yeah, this is the closest thing we have. Sadly. (See post you responded to, which I'm not going to respond to, because I'm not actually a masochist.)

Do you mean idealism Idealism, as in: Hegelian philosophy? If not, I'm kinda interested in knowing what you mean.

Amaro
08-07-2013, 09:57 AM
Yeah, this is the closest thing we have. Sadly. (See post you responded to, which I'm not going to respond to, because I'm not actually a masochist.)

Do you mean idealism Idealism, as in: Hegelian philosophy? If not, I'm kinda interested in knowing what you mean.

Can you please explain the masochist angle for you here? I'm not into the general subject much apart from my Christian upbringing, nor would I claim to study religion recreationally, though still I may know what you meant.

RE: idealism/Idealism... I'm just not sure, because both articles bring up Hegel, one far less than the other. I'm just starting to venture into these theories, hence why I brought it up here. One night I was web-surfing about consciousness & death and came to theories of the like, and they struck a chord for me. Maybe you can help differentiate the two for me (idealism & Idealism).

Elke
08-09-2013, 12:22 PM
I only know the traditional philosophical angle, so this might not be what you have in mind, but in general idealism is the philosophical idea that a thing exists because it exists in someone's mind. This can be far reaching, like Berkeley's theory that everything that exists, exists only in the mind of God. There are no seperate material entities, there is only God's mind, and within it we are. But it can also be really open, like when you sincerely doubt that we can ever know the world as it is, because we'll always be locked up in our own subjective minds.

Idealism with a capital I refers to the German idealism of (amongst others) Kant and Hegel. Kant stated that while things might exist outside our mind, we have no access to those things: das Ding an sich ist ein Unbekanntes, the thing itself is unknown. We know it through our own categories of space and time, of subject and object, and so forth.
Hegel goes a step further and he sees the entire universe as a manifestation of a single mind, Geist, that doesn't know itself until man began to philosophize. The world-mind awakens to itself because the human mind provides it with the possibility of examining itself.

Does any of that sound familiar?

[As for the masochist comment: I don't like it when people find me a waste of my potential because I happen to believe something different from them. And I've learned not to argue with them, because while they usually think of me as the ignorant one who's unwilling to learn, almost unfailingly it's them. So.]

aggroculture
06-23-2014, 03:01 PM
Can someone explain to me the Christian concept of judgement day?
Everyone will be judged, the good sent to heaven, and the bad sent to hell. Doesn't this already happen when people die?
Is it that all living humans will also be killed and judged, and then there will be no more humans after that? Christ will come again and the world will end?

Timinator
06-23-2014, 03:47 PM
On Judgment Day the souls of the dead will be reunited with their physical bodies and ultimate Judgment will be carried out on them and those living.
Note that this varies across all the many forms of Christianity, though. The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment) is pretty decent.

Nyx
06-23-2014, 03:48 PM
I think it's more something along the lines of "bad" people having no afterlife at all and "good" people rejoicing in paradise on earth and hanging out with God forever and ever. I may be grossly oversimplifying.

Edit: what Timinator said.

Jinsai
02-08-2015, 01:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFIctFKnZKQ

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! You want to restrict my freedom to fucking oppress people in the name of religious freedom! Your condemnation of bigotry is an assault on my Christian faith!!!!

theimage13
12-14-2018, 05:13 AM
Recently seen in a comments section about how parents discuss Santa with their kids:


This was much less about being holier-than-thou super-Christians and more about differentiating between The Magical Guy From Up There Who Knows How We Behave And Still Loves Us Anyway to Give Us Good Gifts and well, Jesus. If one's exposed as a lie, the other becomes suspect.

This should really make the poster sit back and reexamine things. If you can't explain the difference between how you "know" God exists and how you know that Santa doesn't, maybe you shouldn't be telling your kid that one of them is unquestionably real and one of them unquestionably isn't.

Haysey_Draws
01-12-2021, 03:29 AM
This is both enlightening and heartbreaking!


https://youtu.be/tpMjgarN7VQ

Erneuert
04-09-2021, 03:19 AM
Let’s just ignore this one.

Erneuert
04-09-2021, 06:52 AM
This is another good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6AHcv19NIc (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w6AHcv19NIc)