I think that most morals (and legal systems) are just common sense stuff anyway -- most likely what happened is that people need to be reminded and someone just had the foresight to actually write it down.
We can for sure agree on that one. I wish more people could understand this idea; then we'd have fewer people like Richard Dawkins ranting that religion causes murder, and fewer people like Ben Stein claiming that lack of religion causes murder.
I would make one exception, though -- a lot of legal codes have nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with power and finance. The tax code, for example, isn't "moral" or "immoral" (as much as people like to call it the latter) -- unfortunately, there's precious little common sense to it, either.
I think it's interesting that people see an afterlife as necessary, because people would otherwise behave badly. Why do people think this? I have thought long and hard about the question, and I see no such necessity.
The basic issue is one of reward and punishment. I get that people enjoy thinking the one who plagued them during life gets thrown into eternal torture. I understand that people want to feel like they can live forever, and that they will eventually meet all their loved ones in Heaven. But rewards come because we do good acts in this life as well. Hold the door at the bus for someone, and you usually get a smile, for a low-level example. Certainly, not everyone takes time to smile at us, but then, we don't act well to get a reward, do we? Rather it's more of a feeling that by doing this, the world perhaps becomes a tiny bit brighter. This is where I feel the idea of Heaven becomes problematic. If it's an utterly just reward, and its existence is a certainty, doing those good acts doesn't really impress. You're just "making partial payments for Heaven access", using other people to grab the greatest prize of all, eternal bliss. I am much more impressed by someone who takes time of day to help someone when there ISN'T a certain reward forthcoming.
As for the Hell part of it, do we need it to behave? I say no. People who do bad things DO end up paying for them. It's not coincidence that most cultures have sayings like "what goes around, comes around". As a fact of life, ever since the first recorded societies, a massively important task of those societies have been to punish those who do bad things to others. We know from studies on humans, and on many animals, that the need to punish someone for a perceived injustice is a deeply rooted need. Certainly, there are those who DO get off easy, but they are very few and extremely far between. And does failure to punish some bad-thing-doers hurt the rest of us? A little, usually. A bit more, rarely. Again, revenge is not seen as a popular thing in many cultures, for example the christian culture.
Finally: Certainty of an afterlife is a HUGE problem. I have met many christian people who see this eartly existence only as a preparation for life in heaven. This means that what happens to this world is basically irrelevant, and giving up everything in this life such as happiness, responsibility, freedom and so on means nothing. To my thinking, NOT having an afterlife would force us to do better than we do. If people only have this one life, we couldn't say things like "kill them all and let God sort out his own" or "who cares whether you suffer, you'll get your reward in Heaven". With just one life, I believe we'd have to show one another some respect, and start valuing lives a bit better than we do.
|
So, if God is the source of those morals (as many religious people assume), ...
Slightly off-topic...
My wife is reading The Year of Living Biblically which is an interesting experiment. The author has decided to see what would happen if he followed every commandment/rule found in the Bible for a year. It appears that he has some Jewish teachings/background, but was not/is not a Christian. He is doing a really good job with researching and asking rabbis and other people in the various fields what certain texts mean. One thing that my wife shared with me from the book is when he came to stoning criminals in the Old Testament. Apparently it wasn't about a bunch of people picking up stones and pelting the poor guy to death -- they "just" shoved him off a cliff and would land on rocks -- thus being "stoned". More importantly, however, is that this apparently happened very rarely and only after a complicated trial process that COULD NOT be unanimous. The logic there is that if it was ever unanimous then that was a sign that people were swayed to one side or the other. This little tidbit seems to be missing from the Bible and is probably found in some Hebrew/Jewish texts of old. Divinely inspired or just common sense? I have no idea, but I found it interesting.
|
|
I think it's interesting that people see an afterlife as necessary, because people would otherwise behave badly. Why do people think this? I have thought long and hard about the question, and I see no such necessity.
I don't know that it is a necessity. I think that most people hope that there is more to "life" than this life. I really don't think that it is any more complcated than that.
Well then, see my third point. An afterlife GIVES us excuses to behave badly. Some people send their children to blow themselves up in the face of a lot of people they don't know. They typically do this so that their children will come to heaven.
I think that without easily available excuses, we will have to learn responsibility for ourselves and our actions.
More importantly, however, is that this apparently happened very rarely and only after a complicated trial process that COULD NOT be unanimous. The logic there is that if it was ever unanimous then that was a sign that people were swayed to one side or the other.
That really is interesting! The only flaw I can see is this: if the judges/jury had been swayed and the decision actually was unanimous, it would be easy enough to pick a token dissenter just to make the verdict stick. You'd have to trust every member of every jury to be totally and completely honest, which, given that they are mortal men, seems a vain hope.
|
|
Well then, see my third point. An afterlife GIVES us excuses to behave badly. Some people send their children to blow themselves up in the face of a lot of people they don't know. They typically do this so that their children will come to heaven.
I think that without easily available excuses, we will have to learn responsibility for ourselves and our actions.
As I said before, people will use all kinds of sources to justify poor behavior. I don't think that any group is immune to this entirely and has little to do with an afterlife.
As I understand it, even the Koran advocates being good to your neighbor and not blowing up your kids.
People who want to behave badly will behave badly -- an afterlife is only one possible excuse to do so. And most religions that I am aware of seem to push the being good to get to heaven rather than do bad.
But those sources have something in common: they are either religious or ideologically utopian. All these writings provide so-called higher goals that can be used as the ends for any means you like.
Without ALL those sources, both religious and ideologically utopian, humanity will be forced to accept that all we really CAN do is use our lives to make this world perhaps a little bit better. And it's not really a question of removing those sources, it's just a question of viewing them as sometimes interesting historical documents. That should make us able to ignore them when what they say is monstrous, incomprehensible, stupid or just plain bizarre. We can still view the good parts as relevant.
We hear about suicide bombings in the news every few weeks, typically in Iraq or Israel. Trust me, the Tamil Tigers aren't the ones blowing themselves up in those countries.
But hey, what the heck do I know? Perhaps they've opened a new franchise or something?
Without ALL those sources, both religious and ideologically utopian, humanity will be forced to accept that all we really CAN do is use our lives to make this world perhaps a little bit better.
Without those sources, men still divide themselves into tribes or clans in order to butcher one another. It's an instinctive drive, to conform to a local group and then out-compete other groups for resources.
|
|
Without ALL those sources, both religious and ideologically utopian, humanity will be forced to accept that all we really CAN do is use our lives to make this world perhaps a little bit better. And it's not really a question of removing those sources, it's just a question of viewing them as sometimes interesting historical documents.
So since we shouldn't look at any of those documents as anything more than historical reference material, what do you think should be the moral "baseline"? Who or what determines what would "make this world perhaps a little bit better"? There are many things that I could come up with to "make this world (more than) a little bit better" and very little would be "moral" or "good".
Lots of comments since I was last on and I don't think I can respond to them all, so I'll just note these few things...
For morality being nature or nurture, the very earliest posts in this thread were regarding the concepts of Natural Law, both from a philosophical and religious perspective. A re-read there might interest folks engaging in the current morality debate. It plays somewhat into the following as well
For Christianity, there is a fundamental misunderstanding that we must do certain things and must not do other things, either as a sign of our commitment or as some means of working our way into heaven. Both are false. Christians are, by nature of being transformed to the image of Christ, not subject to "the Law" at all. By this, I mean that Christians are not judged by God based on compliance or lack thereof to any given code. In truth, as a Christian becomes more and more transformed, they do by nature the things required by the Laws of God, not because we must but because our very being is conformed to God's desires.
So what does that mean? Can Christians ignore the laws of the state because they're free from the law? Can Christians brow-beat others into accepting the faith? No, not at all.Why don't you see this more often displayed by those professing Christianity? Why are there so many churches that have an obvious list a mile long of do's and don'ts? Because the above is not easy. Following a checklist every day is easy. This is hard:
Struggling each day to love more honestly and openly when no one else around you cares at all
Being filled with joy even in the face of tragedy (and to be clear joy is not some false happiness that never allows honest sadness)
Being at peace with those that have hurt you
Patiently enduring hardship and struggles
Showing kindness to someone when there is no "return on investment"
Showing excellence in your work to a boss that doesn't care, and doing so out of your own goodness rather than for some compensation
Dealing honestly with everyone, even when a "little bending the truth" wouldn't hurt anyone and would gain you something
Displaying gentleness in all things, from driving in traffic to disciplining your child
Having self-control when faced with someone provoking you to anger
The above is a Christian--but again not because they do these things. Actions do not lead to transformation or salvation. Salvation/transformation leads to action.
The above is a Christian--but again not because they do these things.
Heh. I read your list, and thought "this is very Buddhist." But we look at it as a positive feedback loop: acting in accordance with those principals deepens your spiritual commitment, which in turn causes you to act in those ways.
While al-Qaeda terrorists are twice as likely to be from a country where radical Salafist/Wahhabist Islam is widely practiced, they are ten times more likely to have come from a country that has US troops stationed in it. Most people resent US troop occupation of their home country, and they have no say in having the troops leave.
Though I agree with many of your points, I also note that there are very few Korean suicide bombers, and very few German suicide bombers. So I'd maybe clarify that the U.S. troops need to be occupying the said locale, not merely be stationed there. And even then we're not quite finished, because of the statistical lack of suicide bombings against the U.S. troops that occupied Japan after WWII. So maybe the troops have to be occupying, and not making overt progress in rebuilding.
The above is a Christian--but again not because they do these things.Heh. I read your list, and thought "this is very Buddhist." But we look at it as a positive feedback loop: acting in accordance with those principals deepens your spiritual commitment, which in turn causes you to act in those ways.
Others greater than I have made that same association in the past. And a Christian can, in truth, deepen his faith by actively practicing things like peace, love, and goodness. The important distinction Christians need to understand is that these practices in no way determine God's judgement.
Others greater than I have made that same association in the past. And a Christian can, in truth, deepen his faith by actively practicing things like peace, love, and goodness.
So, let it not be said that either of us should declare one of the two traditions to be "right," and the other "wrong."
Others greater than I have made that same association in the past. And a Christian can, in truth, deepen his faith by actively practicing things like peace, love, and goodness.So, let it not be said that either of us should declare one of the two traditions to be "right," and the other "wrong."
Heh, as I noted earlier, unless you profess Christianity, I do not judge you at all...so in that we are agreed. We obviously believe our own to be "right" at least to some degree, else we wouldn't follow our beliefs. But I definitely have no desire to tear down your (or anyone's) faith and so in that sense we are most certainly agreed.
Christ himself said we'll be surprised at the judgement God lays down and I fully expect that to be true.
Heh. I read your list, and thought "this is very Buddhist."
Funny, I was going to say they sound very humanist. ;-)
I think that most people hope that there is more to "life" than this life.
I'm sure I've said it here before, but I'll say it again: There is more beauty and wonder to experience here on Earth than one persona can imagine, and yet people have the audacity to ask "Is there more to life than this?". There's just no pleasing people.
Re: My previous comments on 'love'. I think our discussion is semantic rather any actual disagreement; the word 'love', in English has too many meanings, not all of them synonymous. I only meant to say that we are all fallible - which is why we need to stick together and not (as some ideologies claim) be divisive.
Funny, I was going to say they sound very humanist. ;-)
I'm starting to come around to my wife's view, that when you boil away the trappings, misconceptions, and nonsense, there's no difference between the three.
We hear about suicide bombings in the news every few weeks, typically in Iraq or Israel. Trust me, the Tamil Tigers aren't the ones blowing themselves up in those countries.
But hey, what the heck do I know? Perhaps they've opened a new franchise or something?
I think NPC Daves point is that it really does not require religion to justify killing yourself. There does not really need to be a promise of some kind of eternal reward. Atheists are as capable as anyone else when it comes to dying for some cause they believe in.
Actually what confuses me more then dieing for a cause is that we seem to have logical fallacies built into our societies if we presume a better afterlife. Namely we seem to get all worked up about dieing when, presumably, a murderer (or enemy soldier, or hurricane etc. ) has done us a favour helping us shuttled off this mortal coil. Afterword one gets to go to a better place. Presumably its an even greater act of kindness if its done to children since they never really get the chance to mess up and deny themselves access to heaven.
Japan is a very special case with no insurgency occuring after the US occupied it at the end of World War II. I have never seen this reported elsewhere and only know of it through an expatriate American who lives in Japan.
At the end of World War 2 the Japanese heard their Emperor for the first time on the radio. He had never before spoken to them, and of course, to them he was their living God.
He said, "Bear the unbearable."
No one in Western Civilization or Islamic civilization has the authority to their people that Emperor Hirohito had with his people. The only one I can think of in history with that level of authority would be the Egyptian pharaohs, who were also gods to their people.
The Americans left the Emperor and the Royal Family in place. The Japanese have had Shoguns before. A foreigner as Shogun was unique but it would seem that they easily adapted to that idea without much difficulty. Quite possibly they were nearly the perfect society for occupation by a foreign power. A people with a cultural outlet that would serve to explain why it was acceptable to serve foreign masters and cultural mores that were already so hierarchal that it was positively easy for them to view occupying American Soldiers is intrinsically fairly high up the hierarchy ladder. Essentially all the scrapping and bowing to occupying soldiers was not really that different to scraping and bowing that one would have been doing with Japanese soldiers prior to the occupation.
Beyond this some places are just a lot harder to occupy then others. The Germans and Italians had a hell of a time dealing with partisans in Yugoslavia. The Netherlands and Denmark, on the other hand, rarely did much to really trouble occupying German forces.
Nonono. It's not an act of kindness to kill a child, because that child has ORIGINAL SIN. Obviously a theological necessity for this very reason, but also a rather odd idea that tells us that children are, basically, evil. This is, of course, due to the fact that Eve disobeyed God a very long time ago.
Needless to say, it's something most non-religious people find very hard to accept.
Needless to say, it's something most non-religious people find very hard to accept.
And many religious people reject that notion as well (I am religious, but not a Christian; contrary to popular U.S. belief, the two terms are not synonymous).
As Charles points out, it isn't actually appropriate to associate children going to hell with Christianity as a whole. There are indeed subsets of Christians that would support such a statement, but as a whole you will find great disparity in that concept. I have a 4 year old son. I do not believe, based on my understanding of scripture, that he is doomed to hell because he has not spouted out some random prayer at a youth rally after the age of 12. My son was baptized as an infant. My son partakes of the eucharist, meaning I consider him (and he considers himself, in his own innocent way) as a part of the body of Christ. Neither of these outward things, however, are what "saves" my son. They are simply manifestations of our faith community supporting him as he grows up.
Even outside my own concepts here, you'll find other theological constructs dealing with the damnation of children. Many in the Baptist tradition, for instance, will tell you about an "age of accountability" at which a child understands his own sinful nature and is then subject to damnation.
Basically, take care with your understanding of Christians and the implications of original sin. It is very easy for non-Christians to sensationalize this particular point, taking it out of context without understanding. This, to me, is just like cultural Christians taking statements from Islam out of context to generalize that all Muslims are terrorist killers.
As Charles points out, it isn't actually appropriate to associate children going to hell with Christianity as a whole.
Whatever happened to Limbo? Did the Catholics abolish it, or what?
|
|
Using words like "obviously", "of course", or "needless to say" does not automatically mean you know what you are talking about. You bounce all over the place, mixing and matching half-assed facts with a variety of religious beliefs making conclusions that are far from true.
Nonono. It's not an act of kindness to kill a child, because that child has ORIGINAL SIN. Obviously a theological necessity for this very reason, but also a rather odd idea that tells us that children are, basically, evil. This is, of course, due to the fact that Eve disobeyed God a very long time ago.
At this point are you talking about whether or not or why people "sin"?
Are you talking about the existence of "heaven" and who ends up there?
Are you talking about what is "evil"?
Are you talking about whether or not it is right to kill a child?
If you have a question then ask a question -- but please do not tell everyone what I believe when you are wrong about it in the first place as if it is "fact". Especially when you don't believe it or know what you are talking about. That is not the purpose of this thread.
|
|
Basically, take care with your understanding of Christians and the implications of original sin. It is very easy for non-Christians to sensationalize this particular point, taking it out of context without understanding. This, to me, is just like cultural Christians taking statements from Islam out of context to generalize that all Muslims are terrorist killers.
That was much more diplomatic than what I said. Thank you for seeing the same thing I did.
Whatever happened to Limbo? Did the Catholics abolish it, or what?
That depends on which Catholic you talk to, conveniently enough!
It is a good tie into Original Sin, as Limbo was indeed one of the theological constructs that was used to account for the judgement of children. By my understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I am not Roman Catholic, as a note, so my understanding is academic rather than experiential) Limbo is considered a theory, and an acceptable one, but not doctrine. So, the Pope is not telling Roman Catholics they must believe in Limbo, but neither is it stated as being improper to hold Limbo as a possible state after death. This is why I say it will vary by the person with which you happen to have the conversation.
And, as a note for those less familiar with Christianity as a whole, outside the Roman Catholic Church the concept of Limbo is not widely held at all.
Nonono. It's not an act of kindness to kill a child, because that child has ORIGINAL SIN. Obviously a theological necessity for this very reason, but also a rather odd idea that tells us that children are, basically, evil. This is, of course, due to the fact that Eve disobeyed God a very long time ago.
Needless to say, it's something most non-religious people find very hard to accept.
I wanted to note another important distinction. When talking about Original Sin, this in general refers to the state of man, i.e. being "sinful" or separate from the holiness of God. This is not the same as being "evil," at least by my understanding of the term, as being evil is to willfully forsake the ways of God--you know the way and yet do not do it. Again by my understanding of scripture, we are indeed all sinful, separated from God and in need of reconciliation. We are not all evil. The confusion of these two terms, along with the theology behind both, has confused both non-Christians and Christians for centuries.
It is a good tie into Original Sin, as Limbo was indeed one of the theological constructs that was used to account for the judgement of children. By my understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (I am not Roman Catholic, as a note, so my understanding is academic rather than experiential) Limbo is considered a theory, and an acceptable one, but not doctrine.
Yes, that's why I mentioned it. I've attended a few Sunday school classes, and remember being a bit unhappy with the concept -- it seemed at the time like a quick application of duct tape to try and shore up some shoddy construction. The Presbyterians I later went to didn't hold with it at all, and two of the pastor/instructors had a big argument about whether babies went to Hell. I think I pointed out that an omnibenevolent God wouldn't kill them and then consign them to eternal torment just for fun, and that the baby lacked free will -- Eve's transgression notwithstanding. One of them nodded sagely; the other threw up his hands and said, "Just accept it; you're wrong!" I opted not to go back the next summer.
I recall hearing something about the new Pope abandoning the Limbo theory, but it was quickly lost among the news of his "declaring" seven new deadly sins.
"Just accept it; you're wrong!"
Now that sounds like some solid theological arguing right there! ;^)
I recall hearing something about the new Pope abandoning the Limbo theory, but it was quickly lost among the news of his "declaring" seven new deadly sins.
Yes, he caught some flak over that one as I recall. However he was (again as I understand it from the "outside") only reaffirming what had been in the Catechism for years--that Limbo is a theory rather than a truth. I always love the spin the media gives things to get a good headline and grab folks' attention...unfortunately the entertainment factor of comparing what's reported to what was actually done is minimized by the negative effect from those that latch onto the headline itself as some sort of truth.
I always love the spin the media gives things to get a good headline and grab folks' attention...unfortunately the entertainment factor of comparing what's reported to what was actually done is minimized by the negative effect from those that latch onto the headline itself as some sort of truth.
Tangent alert:
That is interesting, even if it is a tangent...
To bring it back around as a "legit" topic for the thread, that would perhaps be analogous to those surface members of a belief system that do not make the effort to truly understand their beliefs. They may have a lot of "headline" knowledge about their beliefs, but do not take the time to dig into the truths behind them (and back to the news, this would be someone obsessively reading articles on murders deciding that such activity must be getting rampant without taking the time to understand murder rates and trending). Perhaps it is illustrating that having a breadth of knowledge without having the relevant depth can be more troublesome than having no knowledge at all.
No religious foundings for the above, just me rambling between meetings at work!
To bring it back around as a "legit" topic for the thread, that would perhaps be analogous to those surface members of a belief system that do not make the effort to truly understand their beliefs. They may have a lot of "headline" knowledge about their beliefs, but do not take the time to dig into the truths behind them
One of the bedrock principles of Buddhism is that no amount of thought or study, however well-intentioned, can substitute for direct experience. Intellectual understanding of causation is one thing: "Yes, I understand that by not latching onto things so much, I'll be less stressed out" -- and some people get quite into the philosophy and construct elaborate theories to cover it -- but actually working at it, and then seeing how it actually works, in one's daily life, is another thing entirely.
To put it another way, one's spiritual depth comes from actual practice, not from rationalizing. Very much like the difference between those who actually follow Christ, and the "cultural Christians" you've referred to. (And bringing us back to the earlier topic of discovering morals empirically, instead of glomming them from the nearest book or televangelist.)
So I can't state that some people hold something as a fact without BELIEVING IT MYSELF???
Let me just state that I have done my searching, and I found religion wanting. The answers were never that impressive, at least to me. And while asking and seeking a truth about original sin, whether babies go to hell, and so on, I was more or less handed only "just accept it".
As for the view of Hell that most scares me in its utter wickedness, perhaps a quote from Tertullian could be a good example:
"At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness…"
The doctrine of Hell is a singularly wicked thing, and trying to repair the issue by adding ideas of original sin, of limbo and the like and so on does not help it.
|
|
Let me just state that I have done my searching, and I found religion wanting.
So why are you here? You are not currently searching (asking questions) and you are not providing any answers. In fact, the few "answers" you have provided have been largely incorrect.
You are not listening to anything that either I or Erian are saying, so what exactly is your point?
|
|
So I can't state that some people hold something as a fact without BELIEVING IT MYSELF???
It's "obviously" a fact, then, that the moon is made of cheese.
You didn't state that "some people" hold something as fact. You said that this was fact. You don't say what "people". And you are making huge leaps of logic without any kind of reference or backing.
I'm looking to learn something and gain some new knowledge. All you seem to be looking to do is tear things down.
I'm sorry about the "just accept it" responses you got in the past. Neither Erian nor Kirth nor I are doing that. I don't think that we have ever done that throughout this entire thead. If you want real answers to your questions you never got answered, then ask the question and look for an answer. Don't just tell us how crappy our answers are when you haven't even asked a question or listened to the responses.
So why are you here? You are not currently searching (asking questions) and you are not providing any answers.
I'm not sure I totally agree; dissonant opinions, even ones that might seemingly add nothing, can help enliven the conversation, and bring up new points for discussion -- as long as the discussion remains civil, on everyone's part, I see no harm in it.
Let me just state that I have done my searching, and I found religion wanting.
Here, again, you're apparently using the word "religion" when you mean "Christianity."
There are religions that do not involve Hell or God or an afterlife.|
|
I dunno; dissonant opinions, even ones that might seemingly add nothing, can help enliven the conversation, and bring up new points for discussion ...
Maybe it's just me. I just feel like he keeps harping on about how wrong things are without listening to anything "right". I'm sure that we could all do that. I just don't want that to happen here.
So I can't state that some people hold something as a fact without BELIEVING IT MYSELF???
I'm not sure what this references, exactly? If to my statements above, you'll note that I am cautioning against broad generalizations of all Christianity based on external understanding. You can indeed state that some people, for instance, believe baby's are condemned to Hell from birth. My concern was that from your statement I inferred that all religious (specifically Christian) people would support baby's condemned to hell and non-religious people would reject such notions.
Let me just state that I have done my searching, and I found religion wanting. The answers were never that impressive, at least to me. And while asking and seeking a truth about original sin, whether babies go to hell, and so on, I was more or less handed only "just accept it".
That sounds to me like you had discussions (as Kirth above) with someone that had either a limited understanding of the topic(s) or a limited ability to communicate that understanding. An unfortunate occurance, and perhaps one too common in Christianity (and most subjects, for that matter) but again an issue endemic to the person rather than the religion.
As for the view of Hell that most scares me in its utter wickedness, perhaps a quote from Tertullian could be a good example:
"At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness…"
You do know that many Christians consider Tertullian to be a heretic, correct? I can assure you that the above statement is not in line with my understanding of Christianity.
The doctrine of Hell is a singularly wicked thing, and trying to repair the issue by adding ideas of original sin, of limbo and the like and so on does not help it.
I would be interested to know your defintion of Hell. Mine is very simple--separation from God. All things beyond that are superficial window-dressing, and no amount of physical pain or abuse can compare to that separation.
Maybe it's just me. I just feel like he keeps harping on about how wrong things are without listening to anything "right". I'm sure that we could all do that. I just don't want that to happen here.
Yes, I can certainly sympathize with your annoyance there. But, in all fairness, it's probably hard for you to see it from the non-Christian side of the fence: your whole life, you're told by well-meaning evangelists how wrong you are, and how stupid, and how sorry they are for you, and how obvious it is how right they are, and how you're ruining society with your stubborn refusal to submit. It gets tiresome very quickly, and an opportunity to turn the tables for once might be hard to pass up.
Yes, there are a vocal minority in the spotlight (Harris, Dawkins, et al.) saying the same thing about Christians -- and I wish they'd stop -- but the fact is that in many of the towns and most of the countryside of the U.S., a non-Christian is a second-class citizen unless he keeps his mouth shut.
I dunno; dissonant opinions, even ones that might seemingly add nothing, can help enliven the conversation, and bring up new points for discussion ...Maybe it's just me. I just feel like he keeps harping on about how wrong things are without listening to anything "right". I'm sure that we could all do that. I just don't want that to happen here.
As Kirth, I'm okay with the dialogue thus far. Yes, I have built the assumption from the conversation thus far that Corian is adamantly against at least Christianity, if not all religions. I'm okay with that. It's also my assumption that Corian has had some negative encounter(s) with religion in the past that have influenced him to this present state. My singular goal is to demonstrate that those experiences, while not invalid, are not representative of either all religious people in general or all Christians in specific. Many good things can come from even the bitterest of comments, so long as we are agreed to discuss these things with an understanding and respect for one another. I do not view Corian's statements as a personal attack, and indeed they are perhaps better seen as an indictment of the failures of the organization too often seen as Christianity when Christianity is in truth a personal and communal experience that has nothing to do with hierarchies and laws.
And many more consider Tertullian one of the fathers of the catholic church. I brought him up because he was one of those who helped form the christian view of Hell.
Now, as for my run-ins with priests, theologists, and religious people during my years of searching, I can say it wasn't just one person. They ALL gave me those answers, either standard noncommittal fare like "it's okay, Jesus loves you", or simplistic references to various scriptures, or things that basically amounted to "just accept it". Seeing how religious people treated me when I wanted to believe did give me a sour aftertaste.
Back to Hell: It may be that you could clothe the doctrine of Hell in more pleasant clothes today, things not as monstrous as eternal torture. But again, Hell in the eyes of the catholic church isn't like that. I have discussed this with many catholics, including priests, and what I took away from those meetings has generally been that Hell in catholicism is a very real place, with very concrete punishments. And if you look at it throughout history, it's even more concrete, told of in loving, overflowing detail how horrible its physical punishments are. There are even children's books about the horrible punishments that small children endure in Hell.
Sum total: If we accept that God made this world, both physically and metaphysically, and the doctrine of Hell is correct, we get a God who designed a Hell for us to burn in if we didn't choose the right way to honour him. And just to make it easier, he told a lot of different people about this stuff in different ways, resulting in thousands of religious movements that all claim to be the One True Path. If Hell is the absence of a guy like that: count me in.
Moff Rimmer: You want the questions that I want answered?
I'll just give you one: If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does the world look like it does, with lynch mobs, food riots, murder, corruption, torture, mass executions, pollution and so on?
And before you start on the free will argument: that isn't a problem for an OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT God. It's just one of "those answers", you know?
Throughout my searching, I found things in all the religious movements I looked at that made me cringe. I am an intellectual person; I want to have answers before I "just accept it". Now, many have told me belief isn't an intellectual process, and I acknowledge it isn't. However, I put in all the effort I possibly could, for a good long time, and I got nothing. Perhaps I am not equipped with "belief circuits", but if so, must I burn in Hell forever for being who I am?