At issue is that you are declaring yourself the arbiter of who is or is not an authentic member of a religion. Someone who claims the authority to proclaim the faith of all others has the same problem as someone who acts as their own attorney.
Unless you're a prophet of YHWH, then you're reaching a bit above your station.
Overstating your point a bit?
Up thread I quoted from the Corinthians book a portion that was most relevant to the OP (and thanks be to Google for helping me find it). Here it is again.
And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.
For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
So, while I certainly am not a prophet of ####, this is a quote from one who claimed to be himself and was so approved by several other prophets who themselves claimed to have been personally instructed for years by the incarnation of ####.
On the topic of religion you can't find a statement with more bona fides backing it up.
That Corinthian passage is binding on Christian belief. Logic absolutely demands that it is.
Logic is neither formative to nor binding upon faith. It cannot be, for to apply logic undermines the very idea of faith.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That Corinthian passage is binding on Christian belief.
Merely repeating a wrong statement will not make it correct.
Nor will it convince anyone who recognized it as wrong the first time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I take great comfort in my atheism. Oblivion may not be very sexy, but it holds no terrors. There will be no dreams when we have shuffled off our mortal coils.
And... with apologies to any believers out there... Let's say they are right. There is an eternity of torture waiting for those who are not granted access to Heaven. I would take my comfort in the saying "Hell is the absence of God". A lot written about God in the bible makes this a very important issue to me.
If I were more egocentric, I would call it Sissyl's wager.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who disagree with me have provided neither; except for the attempt at "argument" that can be summarized as:
"Well, everything is true".
Only if the summarizer is very, very, bad at summarizing -- and at understanding.
A better summary is "no one knows, and therefore your `argument' is meaningless."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.I think a significant part of the american left (and the left in general) has an inclination - not always acted upon - for disparaging people when confronted by their arguments regarding hot-button issues.
2.They do this in a leftist fashion, by painting these people they disagree with as morally repugnant and socially retarded.
The conservatives (some of them, at least) have their specific way of disparaging people, but it's more that they tend to find those they disagree with as morally repugnant because of their breaking away from tradition [the (mythical) way things have always have been].
3. Also, on the left, there's (broadly speaking) a tendency to assert one's prejudice in more intellectual terms than on the right: " Those that disagree with me have faulty thinking or a lesser intellectual capacity ; they're dumb."
The more stringent lefties will sometimes describe their opponents as "insane", or some similar term.
4. The people on the right rarely describe the opponents (many on the left) that they want to disparage as "dumb". The lexical field of their condemnation has more to do with religious values.
5.To sum it up, in simplistic terms: the conservatives disparage people by painting these people as breaking away from supposedly traditional values. The leftists disparage people by striking a pose of (unawarranted) intellectual superiority.
I numbered your statements for the purpose of responding to them.
1. Do you really have any idea what left, right, center are or to be more accurate what they used to mean? The Republican Party of of the Twenty-Teens is not exactly the same intellectual mix as that of the Goldwater/Nixon era... it's not even quite the same as during the rule of Reagan Their God. (He'd be rather appalled at some of the things touted in his name but I digress.) America in recent decades doesn't really have any leftist movements, certainly not one backed by the multi-billions of Enron, Fox, and the rest of the Coporate/Christian/Military axis.
2. What exactly is a "leftish fashion"? If you mean painting people who disagree as "morally repugnant and socially retarded", than Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity must be some of the most leftish fashioned people on the planet. Glen Beck was famous for his blackboard dissertations in which he defined "progressivist" as someone deliberately out to destroy America.
3. There really is no such thing as a "left" in this country, at least not on the par with the extreme right wing which dominates both money and conversation in this party... Unless you're going to define your center as Sarah Palin. Otherwise perhaps the reason you're seeing disagreement with the life as being couched in more intellectual terms is because they're using facts instead of hyperbole. Facts, Truth, and Reality do seem to have a liberal bias, when your center is defined by Michelle Bachman. Rachael Maddow is not the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. She's essentially left up there by MSNBC to be their token example of a "leftist commentator".. much like how the Bronx Zoo might have a rare endangered animal on display. And she brings in enough ratings for them not to want to simply turn her off like they've done just about everyone who wasn't a right wing commentator on MSNBC.
4. They describe them as "America-haters" "Cop-haters" "Christian or Christmas haters", Evil people out to destroy all that is civilised and good.
5. Conservatives and Right Wingers tend to think of themselves as having a lock on morality to such a degree it becomes that more obvious when the light is shined on them and their deviances from their professed ideal wind up sticking out like sore thumbs because of it. The people looking to impeach Clinton for his clumsy attempts at hiding his adultery included adulterers and at least one man trying to divorce his wife while she lay in critical condition on her sickbed. Part of this is the fault of the left for allowing them to take that ground unopposed.
People who perform religious activities and remain members of religious communities while not believing in a god or gods. There are a variety of reasons this may be compelling.Religious atheists?
How's that?
In those cases, it's generally not about being part of a religious community, but an ethnic or cultural one, such as Albert Einstein embracing his Jewish heritage.
Would you kindly shut up? This used to be an interesting thread.
Would you kindly shut up? This used to be an interesting thread.
You mean, before it turned into:
"Atheists are all misogynist pigs!""No, leftists are just witch hunting, as usual!"
"Ha! See, you ARE a pig! Oink! Oink!"
I'm pretty sure that "I'm rubber, you're glue!" should come next.
I think there's an afterlife if your worldview allows for an afterlife.
I think there's an afterlife if your worldview allows for an afterlife.
My worldview does not disallow the possiblity of an afterlife.
Where the rub comes into play though, is that there is however absolutely no evidence for one, no observation, no fact, no scientific model of the universe that mandates that one exists. The only reason to believe one is to have the view that you can not imagine the universe without your presence within it.
|
I think there's an afterlife if your worldview allows for an afterlife.
Point is that worldview is completely irrelevant, as it is personal and requires belief without evidence. Until there is proof that the afterlife exists, proof that is not "I feel it in my heart" or "I just know there is", I am free to claim, with certainty, that there is no such thing as afterlife. Burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those who claim that there IS an afterlife. No such proof has been provided for thousands of years, since "the bible says so" or similar isn't proof.
I'm not a religious person myself so could someone help me out here with something?
Why does it matter that logically a faith makes no sense?
Its faith, right? Who cares if science, fact or empirical evidence says that what you believe in might be fake and/or non-existent. You have your faith and that should be all you require to justify your beliefs, usually. Why bother tying it to some kind of logic or science?
Pretty sure this a massive philosophical question but any help would be nice.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a religious person myself so could someone help me out here with something?
Why does it matter that logically a faith makes no sense?
It doesn't, as long as that illogical faith does not cause you to take actions that harm yourself or others.
You can have illogical faith in your abusive spouse, but if that means you stay with them even after they break your arm, the illogic of your faith is a very serious matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a religious person myself so could someone help me out here with something?
Why does it matter that logically a faith makes no sense?
Its faith, right? Who cares if science, fact or empirical evidence says that what you believe in might be fake and/or non-existent. You have your faith and that should be all you require to justify your beliefs, usually. Why bother tying it to some kind of logic or science?
Pretty sure this a massive philosophical question but any help would be nice.
I really don't care what anyone else might believe, nor for the most part why they believe as long as they don't try to make their beliefs secular law, or impose them on me in some other fashion.
However if you're going to demand that I conform to your beliefs, model MY view of reality upon them, then you need to give me some very good REASONS to do so. And I'm more likely to give weight on reasons that are based on logic and science.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a religious person myself so could someone help me out here with something?
Why does it matter that logically a faith makes no sense?
Depends on the faith, perhaps obviously. Some religions -- certain branches of Buddhism are the most obvious examples here -- are actively anti-logical and deliberately paradoxical, because they consider direct experience and participation in the 'now' to be more important than logical reasoning. Some religions try to be more logical, to varying degrees of success. Most religions are not uniform enough that you can even say "<this> religion does <that>," as you can get entirely different approaches depending upon which building you worship at.
Catholicism tends to focus more on logic than experience (which is one reason that Catholic theology is so well-developed), but Catholic theology also explicitly states that the magisterium of the Church is the definitive guide to interpreting the Bible (which, incidentally, is Catholicism's definitive response to QB's inane argument---his argument is not in line with the magisterium and therefore invalid; that he doesn't understand the importance of the magisterium is simply more proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about). Some of the more hard-line Protestant denominations insist on sola scriptura---by Scripture alone---and that no human interpretation trumps the words of the Bible. (The Catholics, in turn, point out that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium as well as the writing of the Bible, but that the continuing revelation of the magisterium is more up to date precisely because it is a continuing revelation. So it goes, back and forth.)
The answer becomes that the amount of importance a faith puts on logical consistency -- and how important it is that it makes sense -- varies from faith to faith.
{In response to Drahliana and Hama}
I'll explain.
My father was born in a culture with an ancestors' cult (in Madagascar).
In this society, you exist because of your ancestors - and vice versa : if you have no children, you won't become an ancestor. There will be no continuation of your existence after death - and your existence would have been severely diminished in meaning.
So, for the inhabitants who cling to the traditional malagasy way of life, life is not conceivable without ancestors enduring after death.
Their worldview not only allows, but commands that there's life after death.
The only reason to believe one is to have the view that you can not imagine the universe without your presence within it.
You believe in the afterlife for the same reason you believe in anything: it makes sense to you, or (if your beliefs change) it comes to make sense to you ; i.e it is consistent with your worldview.
I'm not a religious person myself so could someone help me out here with something?
Why does it matter that logically a faith makes no sense?
It doesn't, as long as that illogical faith does not cause you to take actions that harm yourself or others.
You can have illogical faith in your abusive spouse, but if that means you stay with them even after they break your arm, the illogic of your faith is a very serious matter.
That's pretty much my own view. Having people adhere to the harm principle is important after all.
Still, the drive to tie logic to science and logic just feels a waste of time that I just don't get. Maybe its just a consequence of a more educated, and perhaps materialistic, world that demand more grounded reasons to belief in something. Hell, I stopped believing in God myself the moment I realized praying to him to wouldn't give me magic wishes.
I really don't care what anyone else might believe, nor for the most part why they believe as long as they don't try to make their beliefs secular law, or impose them on me in some other fashion.However if you're going to demand that I conform to your beliefs, model MY view of reality upon them, then you need to give me some very good REASONS to do so. And I'm more likely to give weight on reasons that are based on logic and science.
Incidentally, and I don't mean to sound sarcastic, the malagasy don't care if anyone not of their group believe in the afterlife or not.
I think the view about spiritual matters of many members of the judeo-christian civilisation is skewed by the religious dogma inherent in that civilisation, and the demand imposed upon their beliefs.
{In response to Drahliana and Hama}
I'll explain.
My father was born in a culture with an ancestors' cult (in Madagascar).
In this society, you exist because of your ancestors - and vice versa : if you have no children, you won't become an ancestor. There will be no continuation of your existence after death - and your existence would have been severely diminished in meaning.
So, for the inhabitants who cling to the traditional malagasy way of life, life is not conceivable without ancestors enduring after death.
Their worldview not only allows, but commands that there's life after death.
Yes, but what if their worldview is wrong? It makes little sense that the existence of life after death should depend on whether or not the person themselves believes, especially when there are dozens of equally or more fervent believers that believe either that there is a universal afterlife or that there is, universally, NO such afterlife.
Consider the following set of (hypothetical) people:
* A believes in what you've just described; there is an afterlife iff the person has kids
* B believes in traditional hardline Christianity; there is an afterlife for everyone, and person A is going to Hell in theirs, as a pagain.
* C believes that there is no afterlife for anyone.
Whose view controls, and why?
Normally, we don't consider matters external to the believer to be controlled by that person's belief. If I consider a sperm whale a mammal while someone else considers it a fish, the sperm whale's blood temperature doesn't vary depending upon who's measuring it. If I consider antibiotics to be the proper treatment for syphillis, while someone else considers prayer appropriate, and a third plumps for bloodletting, only one of those will actually have a good outcome -- that's the whole point of "medicine."
I can't really take seriously any version of "belief defines reality." The whole point of reality is that it doesn't care whether or not you believe in it.
Catholicism tends to focus more on logic than experience (which is one reason that Catholic theology is so well-developed), but Catholic theology also explicitly states that the magisterium of the Church is the definitive guide to interpreting the Bible (which, incidentally, is Catholicism's definitive response to QB's inane argument---his argument is not in line with the magisterium and therefore invalid; that he doesn't understand the importance of the magisterium is simply more proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about). Some of the more hard-line Protestant denominations insist on sola scriptura---by Scripture alone---and that no human interpretation trumps the words of the Bible. (The Catholics, in turn, point out that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium as well as the writing of the Bible, but that the continuing revelation of the magisterium is more up to date precisely because it is a continuing revelation. So it goes, back and forth.)
The answer becomes that the amount of importance a faith puts on logical consistency -- and how important it is that it makes sense -- varies from faith to faith.
The guy who wrote the Corinthian passage that I quoted lived several hundred years before there was a Roman Catholic Magisterium.
What he wrote was plainly written, carefully argued, and approved by his contemporaries who had all made claims of having been under the tutelage of God-incarnate for several years.
Since the "magisterium" is predated by the founding texts left by the founders of the Christian sect of Judaism, I'll go with what they taught as the authoritative version. I've got several hundred years (nearly a millennium actually) of the "magisterium" making decisions and approving actions that are flat-out contradicted by a plain reading of "New Testament" as well as the current Pope. So yeah, "magisterium".. ffft! Who cares what they think.
... which "is simply more proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about," and I'm sure I can find a Catholic priest to pray that the Holy Spirit provides you with enough revelation to achieve the theological sophistication of an aloe vera plant.
|
|
{In response to Drahliana and Hama}
I'll explain.
My father was born in a culture with an ancestors' cult (in Madagascar).
In this society, you exist because of your ancestors - and vice versa : if you have no children, you won't become an ancestor. There will be no continuation of your existence after death - and your existence would have been severely diminished in meaning.
So, for the inhabitants who cling to the traditional malagasy way of life, life is not conceivable without ancestors enduring after death.
Their worldview not only allows, but commands that there's life after death.
You believe in the afterlife for the same reason you believe in anything: it makes sense to you, or (if your beliefs change) it comes to make sense to you ; i.e it is consistent with your worldview.
The only reason to believe one is to have the view that you can not imagine the universe without your presence within it.
Ok, so? I demand for a random stranger to hand me a suitcase full of money, at least 10 million dollars. But nothing happens. Because a worldiwiev and demands don't matter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't care what anyone else might believe, nor for the most part why they believe as long as they don't try to make their beliefs secular law, or impose them on me in some other fashion.However if you're going to demand that I conform to your beliefs, model MY view of reality upon them, then you need to give me some very good REASONS to do so. And I'm more likely to give weight on reasons that are based on logic and science.
Incidentally, and I don't mean to sound sarcastic, the malagasy don't care if anyone not of their group believe in the afterlife or not.
I think the view about spiritual matters of many members of the judeo-christian civilisation is skewed by the religious dogma inherent in that civilisation, and the demand imposed upon their beliefs.
You have successfully presented the existence of a belief in an afterlife. That is not the same as proving the EXISTENCE of an afterlife itself. I could go on how the Egyptians stuffed their pyramids with food and goods for the pharohs to use after death, but like yours that would only be an anecdotal story of the existence of a belief.
I can't really take seriously any version of "belief defines reality." The whole point of reality is that it doesn't care whether or not you believe in it.
For the record, what I deeply believe in - what my time on this earth, and the experiences I've had therein, and the sum of my reflexions point to - is "Nothing is true". Except love - I hope.
"Nothing is true" doesn't preclude a reality, but it rather postulates - for me - that any worldview is false, at least in part. Meaning we are all wrong - and/or grossly incomplete - about several things in the way we view the world.
And that includes the scientific method, which is simply a (grossly incomplete) way of deciphering the world, and so is in error about the fundamental nature of reality.
On the other hand, I use logic as much as the next (occidental*) person, and I appreciate it. Meaning I see your ABC point. And I like science, with the necessary adjunct of epistemology that so many (so-called ?) scientists despise.
But I much more rely - and trust - my personal experience than materialistic science in matters of spirituality. I grok the non-logical Buddhists you alluded to earlier.
My personal experience, and the snippet of malagasy culture I have inherited from my father, and a good deal of mystical readings and perusing make me think there's an afterlife, of sort. But I'm unsure what exactly persists (if anything) of us beyond Death's door.
But it would sure be nice to understand it a little bit more before passing the threshold :-).
*Fun fact: there's no exact translation for the world "logic" in Mandarin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. What exactly is a "leftish fashion"? If you mean painting people who disagree as "morally repugnant and socially retarded", than Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity must be some of the most leftish fashioned people on the planet. Glen Beck was famous for his blackboard dissertations in which he defined "progressivist" as someone deliberately out to destroy America.
This was cute:
2. What exactly is a "leftish fashion"? If you mean painting people who disagree as "morally repugnant and socially retarded", than Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity must be some of the most leftish fashioned people on the planet. Glen Beck was famous for his blackboard dissertations in which he defined "progressivist" as someone deliberately out to destroy America.This was cute:
It was a wonderful intersection of the cute and bizarre, the Hatfield and the McCoy.
You have successfully presented the existence of a belief in an afterlife.
Indeed.
That is not the same as proving the EXISTENCE of an afterlife itself.
Correct. I'm not sure that proofs can be provided regarding spiritual matters. At the least, I think that the kind of "scientific" - meaning materialistic - proofs that you seem to require concerning the afterlife are hard to come by. But not impossible to produce.
However, I have not endeavored to provide these kinds of scientific proofs because a) I'm not a scientist, b) they aren't really useful to me, c) these kind of experiments would take time to devise and accomplish, time that I'd rather pass by engaging in my mystical (and unabashedly subjective) researches.
I could go on how the Egyptians stuffed their pyramids with food and goods for the pharohs to use after death, but like yours that would only be an anecdotal story of the existence of a belief.
How come contemporary westerners all too often find the unique, marvelous and joyful personal exploration of the spiritual side of life "anecdotical" ?
Search, and thou shalt find ;-)*.
*Haha-only serious
You have successfully presented the existence of a belief in an afterlife.
Indeed.
That is not the same as proving the EXISTENCE of an afterlife itself.Correct. I'm not sure that proofs can be provided regarding spiritual matters. At the least, I think that the kind of "scientific" - meaning materialistic - proofs that you seem to require concerning the afterlife are hard to come by. But not impossible to produce.
However, I have not endeavored to provide these kinds of scientific proofs because a) I'm not a scientist, b) they aren't really useful to me, c) these kind of experiments would take time to devise and accomplish, time that I'd rather pass by engaging in my mystical (and unabashedly subjective) researches.
I could go on how the Egyptians stuffed their pyramids with food and goods for the pharohs to use after death, but like yours that would only be an anecdotal story of the existence of a belief.
How come contemporary westerners all too often find the unique, marvelous and joyful personal exploration of the spiritual side of life "anecdotical" ?
Search, and thou shalt find ;-)*.
*Haha-only serious
You do understand that anecdotal is not a put down? It simply means that it's a story without corrobative evidence.
Yet the Corinthian passage I quote is emphatically structured and the argument goes forth in a classic logical structure.Logic is neither formative to nor binding upon faith. It cannot be, for to apply logic undermines the very idea of faith.
That Corinthian passage is binding on Christian belief. Logic absolutely demands that it is.
That doesn't matter. Logic and faith are not linked.
For example, there are plenty of lists of contradictions in the bible. If logic mattered to faith, this would lead to questioning the validity and reliability of the bible. There are also multiple known forged parts of the bible. This too presents an issue when viewed logically. Additionally, it is accepted that none of the four gospels of the Christian bible were written by first person witnesses to the events, let alone the apostles for which they are named. This is a near absolute condemnation of them when considered logically. (To say nothing of the logic of the events within the bible.)
Logic is neither a basis for faith, nor can it control faith.
You do understand that anecdotal is not a put down? It simply means that it's a story without corrobative evidence.
Fair enough. Still seems a little restrictive to me, but your point is taken.
You've obviously have never met a Unitarian Universalist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And note that the part of the post you quoted wasn't directly in response to you or to this issue, but to the more general concept of scripture somehow being meaningful without interpretation.I suppose but with the degree of skepticism I'm detecting from you, and especially a few others, language itself stops having meaning.
I'm no arbiter of Christian doctrine. Only that belief in a literal bodily resurrection seems rather obvious. Me saying that to believe otherwise presupposes ignorance, disorder, or obstinance are the only logical choices on this very particular topic. Other aspects of Christianity or other religions? Well, we aren't on those topics in this thread.
Your posts say otherwise, as you keep declaring what is and isn't Christian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take great comfort in my atheism. Oblivion may not be very sexy, but it holds no terrors. There will be no dreams when we have shuffled off our mortal coils.
And... with apologies to any believers out there... Let's say they are right. There is an eternity of torture waiting for those who are not granted access to Heaven. I would take my comfort in the saying "Hell is the absence of God". A lot written about God in the bible makes this a very important issue to me.
If I were more egocentric, I would call it Sissyl's wager.
When we look at the ideas of hell and heaven, I think in many ways you may be right.
In Christianity, there are very few stories that describe hell, with the only one that comes to mind off the bat being a parable about the rich man who was sent to hell and was burning. He had denied helping a beggar in life, and saw the beggar in heaven and wanted to have some relief.
Other than that, most of the time, the references are in regards to the absence of the Lord, however it also references at times another being which seems to attain some type of dominance or control. It seems that it indicates that we only have a choice of two paths in this life, each with it's own master.
However, I tend to agree that as per one form of Christian understanding of the afterlife, hell may be more the absence of the Lord, rather than the denial of the Lord.
You could always observe the Mormon belief of Heaven (as the Mormon mentioned above briefly), which is unique in and of itself. In that one, almost everyone eventually gets to heaven.
They refer to the idea that in heaven are many houses, those ranging from the lowest to the highest. In order to attain the highest, you of course need to do all the things the LDS religion requires. However, to get the lowest...all you need to do is not go be like Cain (of the story Cain and Abel), aka...become a son of perdition as they term it.
In order to become a son of perdition...you have to KNOW that the Lord and Heaven are real, and absolutely know of their power, and then after that, choose to side with the adversary and do everything you can to defeat and destroy the Lord and heaven.
As far as I know, most don't have that type of knowledge...so in essence, almost everyone eventually goes to heaven (though Mormons also have a sort of purgatory where you suffer for the things you've done on earth, but eventually you can get out of that if you choose and live in an earthlike paradise where there's always peace, love, and whatever else goes with that).
It's a little different than the typical Christian idea of heaven which for some, is sort of a more binary concept rather than a gradual access line concept.