Rant on God's Abandonment

[ShortNBitter]

Devote Believers in God Might Not Wanna Read This

We dont even know if God ever even existed. But if he did, you can be sure has hell that he has abandoned us now, and human beings have never been more alone in their entire existence. God is a coward. He made his people. Told them to give him blind faith. And now he's left us. There is no God. At least nobody out there who's listening to any of us anymore. He turned his back to our pleading and begging and crying for even a single strand of damn help long ago. And, now, we're stuck here, on this pathetically small rock which is just degrees away from either frying or freezing to death. God has betrayed his people.

And if there's one thing I do know, its this: If God ever came back, with open arms, welcoming his children back; After all the years and years and years of torture, pain, and suffering he had made us endure; all the years where time and time again we would look up for a single thread of hope and in return see nothing but the cold and black apathy of the night;

After all of that, I would certainly hope that we, as followers of God and his holy scriptures, would as sure as God was standing in front of us, lynch that sorry-excuse-for-a-God, backstabbing bastard, and rob him of every last breathe and diginity, until we get back whatever it is that we, as a people of God, lost because of his abandonment. I certainly hope that after preaching about vengence and judgement, his own time of retribution will come. And then we can say that we truly are the disciples of God, because we are not a people filled with love and compassion, but a vengeful one. Just like God.

And then again God just might have been a hoax all along.

+-.,_SNB_,.-+

[ChinaLama]

I'm not a religious person-- but why say God's abandoned us NOW? If you wanted to make that argument, you may as well say God abandoned us as soon as he made us because after all, we all have to die. and the world was never perfect. There's always been evil as long as there's been a concept of morality (versus when we just lived as amoral, not immoral, animals).

[Tao]

i thought the whole problem with man being smart was that we had the choice to be good or bad. not really god's fault if you think of it that way. God's great to lower life forms, we screwed it all up.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Devote Believers in God Might Not Wanna Read This

We dont even know if God ever even existed. But if he did, you can be sure has hell that he has abandoned us now, and human beings have never been more alone in their entire existence. God is a coward. He made his people. Told them to give him blind faith. And now he's left us. There is no God. At least nobody out there who's listening to any of us anymore. He turned his back to our pleading and begging and crying for even a single strand of damn help long ago. And, now, we're stuck here, on this pathetically small rock which is just degrees away from either frying or freezing to death. God has betrayed his people.

And if there's one thing I do know, its this: If God ever came back, with open arms, welcoming his children back; After all the years and years and years of torture, pain, and suffering he had made us endure; all the years where time and time again we would look up for a single thread of hope and in return see nothing but the cold and black apathy of the night;

After all of that, I would certainly hope that we, as followers of God and his holy scriptures, would as sure as God was standing in front of us, lynch that sorry-excuse-for-a-God, backstabbing bastard, and rob him of every last breathe and diginity, until we get back whatever it is that we, as a people of God, lost because of his abandonment. I certainly hope that after preaching about vengence and judgement, his own time of retribution will come. And then we can say that we truly are the disciples of God, because we are not a people filled with love and compassion, but a vengeful one. Just like God.

And then again God just might have been a hoax all along.

+-.,_SNB_,.-+

Is this your composition? I don't see how devoted believers would not want to read this. It's stuff like the above that motivates me to keep doing what I'm doing. People questioning my faith forces me to argue for it, which ultimately strengthens my faith and forces me to expose the facets of my belief(s) to others. I'm pretty sure your thoughts are not uncommon among nonbelievers (e.g. how can God exist or be loving if there is so much suffering in this world?), because I had these exact same doubts before becoming a Christian. Furthermore, this world has always been rampant with toil and suffering, so like Chinalama said you can't make the argument that God has abandoned us NOW. Finally, if you're a believer, the idea of an abandoning God would be ridiculous since scripture clearly indicates that God will not abandon anyone who chooses to seek and follow him. Actually, if you were a Christian, you would already fully understand why the world is so full of evil in the first place and why such anguish, emotional turmoil, and feelings of emptiness exist. Belief in the existence of a Christian God in itself negates the possibility of wondering whether or not God has abandoned the world and its people due to the living word. If anything, in my eyes it is only God and his warmth and blessings which makes my life worthwhile and makes all the suffering tolerable. My life was not a bed of roses before, but it's getting there simply because of what is happening within me and not because of everchanging outward circumstances. Anyways, don't wanna use this as my preaching ground, so yeah.

[Emperor_Mike]

I think too many of us are under the presumption that God will be there to help us along each and every step of our lives. If everyone were to adopt such a view then of course we'd lose faith and be cynical about religion. He did give us brains and the ability to think for ourselves notwithstanding that old Garden of Eden bit. There is such a thing as misplaced faith and to believe that the Almighty will take you by the hand and lead you to greener pastures without any effort of your own is a trifle absurd.

Of course, you can also say that everything has to happen for a reason. People live for a reason, die for a reason, everything and everyone has a role to play in history. You may think that God as the "author" of the great book entitled "The Trials, Tribulations, & Triumphs of Humanity" has everything charted out, etc. It's hard to say.

Bottom line is, there is a difference between believing in God and believing in God's willingness to intervene in every major and minor thing in the world. The latter point draws back to self-determination, of course, which I think forms the crux of the argument in the first place.

[Fireblade]

sounds like someone doesn't wanna go to church anymore.

[AngryABCGirl]

I don't believe in anything but myself. Narcassitic jokes aside, I look at the world in a way that i'm helping fuck it up if I'm not helping it get better without blaming the things that happened before on anything but the fucked up actions of others and of chance.

[jeesukkie]

"Perhaps the greatest barrier to revival on a large scale is the fact that we are too interested in a great display. We want an exhibition; God is looking for a man who will throw himself entirely on God. Whenever self-effort, self-glory, self-seeking or self-promotion enters into the work of revival, then God leaves us to ourselves."

Ted Rendall

Who are you living for? When I was your age, I didn't have the depth to comprehend what it is to shine the light of God on others. Now, I want to maximize myself as best I can so I can be a strong beneficiary for the oppressed.

We're all out for our piece of the pie, but are you out for it for the right reasons?
Devote Believers in God Might Not Wanna Read This

We dont even know if God ever even existed. But if he did, you can be sure has hell that he has abandoned us now, and human beings have never been more alone in their entire existence. God is a coward. He made his people. Told them to give him blind faith. And now he's left us. There is no God. At least nobody out there who's listening to any of us anymore. He turned his back to our pleading and begging and crying for even a single strand of damn help long ago. And, now, we're stuck here, on this pathetically small rock which is just degrees away from either frying or freezing to death. God has betrayed his people.

And if there's one thing I do know, its this: If God ever came back, with open arms, welcoming his children back; After all the years and years and years of torture, pain, and suffering he had made us endure; all the years where time and time again we would look up for a single thread of hope and in return see nothing but the cold and black apathy of the night;

After all of that, I would certainly hope that we, as followers of God and his holy scriptures, would as sure as God was standing in front of us, lynch that sorry-excuse-for-a-God, backstabbing bastard, and rob him of every last breathe and diginity, until we get back whatever it is that we, as a people of God, lost because of his abandonment. I certainly hope that after preaching about vengence and judgement, his own time of retribution will come. And then we can say that we truly are the disciples of God, because we are not a people filled with love and compassion, but a vengeful one. Just like God.

And then again God just might have been a hoax all along.

+-.,_SNB_,.-+

[ren28]

I gave up on believing long ago and have not looked back. Being open to religion is good unless it's an evil cult, IMO. Listening to the other side of the fence can sometimes provide insight into other peoples' lives. Some people need something to believe in to answer moral/ethical questions and it works out quite well. I use simple logic to answer all of life's small dilemmas.

[Martino]

Sorry, which god is this thread talking about?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think too many of us are under the presumption that God will be there to help us along each and every step of our lives.

Word. God is not a vending machine or genie that spits out something each time you insert a prayer. In fact it is a Christian's duty to live for and serve HIM and meet HIS needs, not vice versa. Ironically, I believe that those who live solely to serve him become more fulfilled and showered with blessings than anyone living to serve oneself. Finally, to me Christianity is all about the perfect intimate relationship more than anything else, more than simply a set of rules to follow or a lifestyle.

[cmar]

God didn't abandon us....he/she/it never existed. Stop trying to connect with some higher being, you will only find disappointment. Set yourself free by abandoning the god mythology.

[Shogun Empress]

Sorry, which god is this thread talking about?
LOL! It would be a mistake to think that he is talking about the God of the 1st Commandment, so it's only natural that his false god would abandon him when it never existed in the first place.

[kitty]

SnB, thank you for posting your thoughts. I think it was really brave of you to confront what you think about God, and his/her/its role in your life. I don't know a lot of people who would be so honest about their feelings of abandonment by God.

I, personally, feel like this whole Christianity thing is one big clique -- you are accepted if you say you believe and shunned if you do not, but there isn't much that draws you to that belief in God other than acceptance into the clique (or fear of being outcast). Many who say they believe may be secretely harbouring doubts that they would get shunned for if they ever addressed.

That being said, I like to believe that there is some form of higher power, but that he/she/it doesn't concern him/her/itself with us. They didn't create us (there's a whole heaping pile of scientific evidence suggesting the existence of evolution), they don't stick their nose into our business, and frankly, they don't care if we worship them or not (or they wouldn't have given us the ability to choose not to).

Perhaps, the reason why there is so much suffering in the world is because of mankind and our nature. If there is a God, he/she/it would have lots of things to be worrying about, especially if there is life on other planets, and this one greater force oversees many other forms of life as well as our own.

I think the Judeo-Christian God has been described as far too self-centered and self-concerned for me to believe in him. And it has cultivated this belief that if you do right by God, God will do right by you, which is then circumvented by the 'God works in mysterious ways' clause. (If God really cared about clocking in worship hours and being devoutly religious, the religious would lead longer, better lives than anyone else, which we know to be simply untrue).

I say, live your life knowing that whatever God there is has already done for you what he/she/it was ever going to (intelligence, consciousness, a sense of general fate and destiny) and the rest is up to you.

[achtungbaby]

Devote Believers in God Might Not Wanna Read This

We dont even know if God ever even existed. But if he did, you can be sure has hell that he has abandoned us now, and human beings have never been more alone in their entire existence. God is a coward. He made his people. Told them to give him blind faith. And now he's left us. There is no God. At least nobody out there who's listening to any of us anymore. He turned his back to our pleading and begging and crying for even a single strand of damn help long ago. And, now, we're stuck here, on this pathetically small rock which is just degrees away from either frying or freezing to death. God has betrayed his people.

And if there's one thing I do know, its this: If God ever came back, with open arms, welcoming his children back; After all the years and years and years of torture, pain, and suffering he had made us endure; all the years where time and time again we would look up for a single thread of hope and in return see nothing but the cold and black apathy of the night;

After all of that, I would certainly hope that we, as followers of God and his holy scriptures, would as sure as God was standing in front of us, lynch that sorry-excuse-for-a-God, backstabbing bastard, and rob him of every last breathe and diginity, until we get back whatever it is that we, as a people of God, lost because of his abandonment. I certainly hope that after preaching about vengence and judgement, his own time of retribution will come. And then we can say that we truly are the disciples of God, because we are not a people filled with love and compassion, but a vengeful one. Just like God.

And then again God just might have been a hoax all along.

+-.,_SNB_,.-+

Goddamnit -- I would hope that you recently had some very, very bad shit happen to you to cause you to bitch this much.

[kitty]

LOL! It would be a mistake to think that he is talking about the God of the 1st Commandment, so it's only natural that his false god would abandon him when it never existed in the first place.

I think that's rather insensitive.

[TB4000]

I'm more spiritual than religious, there is a difference between the two. I do believe God exists, but I also don't look to that as my sole means of enlightenment or assistance. I actually think a quote from Futurama said it best, when Bender actually met God. "If you do things for them all the time, they won't think you've done anything at all."

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think that's rather insensitive.

I'm not a big fan of Shogun Empress, but what he/she said is no more insensitive than all these people contrarily claiming there is no God and God does not exist. As a Christian, I don't judge people for saying that, but I do feel insulted and offended regardless (like Cmar's earlier post, to give an example). And yes, I do believe that worshipping any God other than the Christian God is a fruitless attempt, thus feelings of abandonment and a sense that "God isn't really there" are not surprising to me. Maybe I'll get slammed for this, but my position leaves no room for straddling fences.

[kitty]

It seems to me that anyone who tries to unilaterally claim there is, or is not, a God, treads a very thin line. Fundamentally, we don't know -- so yeah, you're right.

However, to me, I think it is pretty insensitive to dismiss SnB for his describing of his own PERSONAL doubts on the existence of a God.

[Martino]

Christianity and Islam are the two religions in the public eye, so to speak, but there are many other faiths out there.

Is a 'newer' religion more relevant then an older one?

Christians (2000 year old faith) dismiss Islam (1400 year old faith) much the same way as Judaism dismisses Christianity (which started life as a Jewish sect). Hinduism, which enjoys a pantheon of gods and millions of highly devout followers, is even older than Judaism, but is rarely discussed in the West at all.

So by what guided means do the Christians here feel the truth has been revealed to them?

I'm curious, not antagonistic.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Christianity and Islam are the two religions in the public eye, so to speak, but there are many other faiths out there.

Is a 'newer' religion more relevant then an older one?

Christians (2000 year old faith) dismiss Islam (1400 year old faith) much the same way as Judaism dismisses Christianity (which started life as a Jewish sect). Hinduism, which enjoys a pantheon of gods and millions of highly devout followers, is even older than Judaism, but is rarely discussed in the West at all.

So by what guided means do the Christians here feel the truth has been revealed to them?

I'm curious, not antagonistic.

I'm not sure what your question is...are you essentially asking me why I have chosen the Christian faith above all other faiths or belief systems/lifestyle? My answer would be the sum of my experiences, feelings, thoughts, and how I have come to believe what I believe as fact and law as a result of not only unexplicable emotions and sensations but also scientific and chronological evidence. Ultimately it would be an extremely long post. But in a nutshell, I don't believe in what I believe in simply because it seems to suit/match my tastes and personality, most importantly I choose to believe in something because I believe it is the truth and no one should believe in anything but the truth. But if you are inquiring as to why I feel this is the truth while everything else isn't...well, once again I would have to go into much greater detail.

And P.S. no, how old a certain religion or belief system is has nothing to do with its validity. Christianity is not the oldest religion after all, yet I believe it is valid and all other religions, whether they be older or younger, are not.

People need something to believe in during dark times. It can be God, it can Fate, Destiny or whatever else is out there. Without some sort of belief to hold on to many simply succumb to misfortune without hope. The only reason why people are disappointed with the higher being that is God is because they come to expect too much. Let's say you get beaten up pretty badly by the stockmarket and lose everything. Believing that God will get you out of this predicament without you having to lift a finger crosses the line between common sense faith and stupidity. Of course you'll end up disillusioned if you expect the Almighty to gallop to your rescue every time you slip up. There's a big difference between being devoted to a particular religion for its teachings and being on the bandwagon in anticipation for a free "Pass GO and collect $2,000,000" a year card.

Yea like I said earlier, God is not a vending machine. If anything, fulfillment as a Christian comes from being God's vending machine and giving him whatever he wants and not vice versa. ^^ People who have this idea that God is someone you pray to whenever you need something are sorely mistaken. God is someone you develop a relationship with and live for and become fulfilled in the process. It's about the perfect relationship really...not simply about having God as a safety net to bail you out of all kinds of shit.

[Emperor_Mike]

God didn't abandon us....he/she/it never existed. Stop trying to connect with some higher being, you will only find disappointment. Set yourself free by abandoning the god mythology.

People need something to believe in during dark times. It can be God, it can be Fate, Destiny or whatever else is out there. Without some sort of belief to hold on to many simply succumb to misfortune without hope. The only reason why people are disappointed with the higher being that is God is because they come to expect too much. Let's say you get beaten up pretty badly by the stockmarket and lose everything. Believing that God will get you out of this predicament without you having to lift a finger crosses the line between common sense faith and stupidity. Of course you'll end up disillusioned if you expect the Almighty to gallop to your rescue every time you slip up. There's a big difference between being devoted to a particular religion for its teachings and being on the bandwagon in anticipation of a free "Pass GO and collect $2,000,000 a year" card.

[coagulated fat]

Word. God is not a vending machine or genie that spits out something each time you insert a prayer. In fact it is a Christian's duty to live for and serve HIM and meet HIS needs, not vice versa. Ironically, I believe that those who live solely to serve him become more fulfilled and showered with blessings than anyone living to serve oneself. Finally, to me Christianity is all about the perfect intimate relationship more than anything else, more than simply a set of rules to follow or a lifestyle.
Way to spout tired Protestant rhetoric, hubert. Your logic for believing in God is clearly circular. :smile: (obligatory dont-hate-me smily face)

[Emperor_Mike]

Christianity and Islam are the two religions in the public eye, so to speak, but there are many other faiths out there.

Is a 'newer' religion more relevant then an older one?

Christians (2000 year old faith) dismiss Islam (1400 year old faith) much the same way as Judaism dismisses Christianity (which started life as a Jewish sect). Hinduism, which enjoys a pantheon of gods and millions of highly devout followers, is even older than Judaism, but is rarely discussed in the West at all.

So by what guided means do the Christians here feel the truth has been revealed to them?

I'm curious, not antagonistic.

To say that Christianity is the only "true" religion is wrong. Fundamentalists of every stripe and colour will claim that their God is the real thing and other deities are false. I believe that this serves as nothing more than a breeding ground for hatred and intolerance. At the end of the day God is God whether you decide to name Him Jehovah, Allah, or whatever.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Way to spout tired Protestant rhetoric, hubert. Your logic for believing in God is clearly circular. :smile: (obligatory dont-hate-me smily face)

Hey, just doing my job and responding to tired anti-Christian rhetoric =) If evidence of the 'truth' was in such black and white, that wouldn't leave much room for 'faith', would it? :wink:

To say that Christianity is the only "true" religion is wrong. Fundamentalists of every stripe and colour will claim that their God is the real thing and other deities are false. I believe that this serves as nothing more than a breeding ground for hatred and intolerance. At the end of the day God is God whether you decide to name Him Jehovah, Allah, or whatever.

Depends on what you mean by "true" religion. I believe that Christianity is the only belief system that promotes the 'truth', or if you wanna get technical, what i see as the truth. Other religions are still 'true religions' in that they are real belief systems upon which people choose to follow. *shrug* Islam is still a true religion even though I think it's misguided. Just because I can accept that other people have their own beliefs doesn't mean that I won't see them as on the wrong path. If I wasn't sure that my religion is the right one, what's the point? I don't believe in choosing belief systems simply because they suit me or because it's the 'spiritual' thing to do or the popular fad of the season. ~

[coagulated fat]

Depends on what you mean by "true" religion. I believe that Christianity is the only belief system that promotes the 'truth', or if you wanna get technical, what i see as the truth. Other religions are still 'true religions' in that they are real belief systems upon which people choose to follow. *shrug* Islam is still a true religion even though I think it's misguided. Just because I can accept that other people have their own beliefs doesn't mean that I won't see them as on the wrong path.
I agree with Gumby here. With many religions, including Christianity, truth is not up for a majority vote and can be objectively defined -- there are correct and incorrect truths/beliefs/opinions.

[Faithless]

I'm not a religious person-- but why say God's abandoned us NOW? If you wanted to make that argument, you may as well say God abandoned us as soon as he made us because after all, we all have to die. and the world was never perfect. There's always been evil as long as there's been a concept of morality (versus when we just lived as amoral, not immoral, animals).
One of the best comments, I think.

Even god is there for us. God is too arbitrary to be relied upon. I think there are worse odds in god's help than there is in winning the super lottery.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

One of the best comments, I think.

Even god is there for us. God is too arbitrary to be relied upon. I think there are worse odds in god's help than there is in winning the super lottery.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Before I turn into a full blown preacher in this thread, I'd just like to say that God helps me during numerous instances of my typical day, and each time I fuck up in life somehow he always makes something good come out of it. And I'm a pretty big fuck-up. I'd hafta say that God has saved my ass a few more times than I've won Quinto, much less the lottery. Before people chastize me again for going into my "Protestant rhetoric" spiel, God is the first guy I try to rely on and not someone I turn to as a last resort even though that often is the case.

[coagulated fat]

God is too arbitrary to be relied upon. I think there are worse odds in god's help than there is in winning the super lottery.
That might be true for you, but a lot of people rely on and trust God and that works quite well for them - example being Gumby.

[Emperor_Mike]

Depends on what you mean by "true" religion. I believe that Christianity is the only belief system that promotes the 'truth', or if you wanna get technical, what i see as the truth. Other religions are still 'true religions' in that they are real belief systems upon which people choose to follow. *shrug* Islam is still a true religion even though I think it's misguided. Just because I can accept that other people have their own beliefs doesn't mean that I won't see them as on the wrong path. If I wasn't sure that my religion is the right one, what's the point? I don't believe in choosing belief systems simply because they suit me or because it's the 'spiritual' thing to do or the popular fad of the season. ~

It's all subjective. Followers of Islam can say the same about Christianity and Judaism regarding the "truth" and the "way." What you think is right may be wrong according to another party and vice versa. All this "my faith is the only one that promotes the Truth" fracas unfortunately highlights just how divisive and conflict inducing the power of religion can be. When one faith seeks to assert its dominance over others on the account of an unwritten and unproven religious "manifest destiny" discord and bloodshed usually follow in its wake. Else why did conflicts like the Crusades, the French Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years' War erupt?

In a way I think a good portion of the adherents of the world's major religions are guilty of subconsciously or consciously propagating the "My God's Way is the Only Way." Naturally, people won't like it and odds are they'll preach the same message from their standpoint. Of course, I don't think there's a need to elaborate on just where this is going to lead.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

That might be true for you, but a lot of people rely on and trust God and that works quite well for them - example being Gumby.

See Janice, that's the thing I don't understand. I can understand why some people would not believe in God. I can understand people's doubts. I can understand cynicism, people's reasons for rejecting religion, God, Christianity, etc. However, what I don't understand is how people can actually believe the existence of a Christian God (or any type of loving God as quoted in religious scripture), while at the same time saying he is unreliable or not as loving as he says he is. I don't see how you can have any middle ground there...but I guess obviously people do.

It's all subjective. Followers of Islam can say the same about Christianity and Judaism regarding the "truth" and the "way." What you think is right may be wrong according to another party and vice versa. All this "my faith is the only one that promotes the Truth" fracas unfortunately highlights just how divisive and conflict inducing the power of religion can be. When one faith seeks to assert its dominance over others on the account of an unwritten and unproven religious "manifest destiny" discord and bloodshed usually follow in its wake. Else why did conflicts like the Crusades, the French Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years' War erupt?

In a way I think a good portion of the adherents of the world's major religions are guilty of subconsciously or consciously propagating the "My God's Way is the Only Way." Naturally, people won't like it and odds are they'll preach the same message from their standpoint. Of course, I don't think there's a need to elaborate on just where this is going to lead.

Why does it matter if it's subjective if I believe that a certain way is the truth regardless of what anyone thinks? I think this goes back to the "are there any absolute truths' thread. This is like saying that no political actions are "right" or "wrong" regardless of casualty rates, etc. cause there will always be proponents and opponents of such actions. You can even say that killing people or murdering others simply cause one "feels like it" can't be proven to be a "bad" thing (e.g. the idea that killing people is wrong is not truth) thanks to arguments of "survival of the fittest" etc.

[coagulated fat]

See Janice, that's the thing I don't understand. I can understand why some people would not believe in God. I can understand people's doubts. I can understand cynicism, people's reasons for rejecting religion, God, Christianity, etc. However, what I don't understand is how people can actually believe the existence of a Christian God (or any type of loving God as quoted in religious scripture), while at the same time saying he is unreliable or not as loving as he says he is. I don't see how you can have any middle ground there...but I guess obviously people do.
Maybe these people have been hurt in their lives at times when they believed in God and they attributed what happened to them as coming from God. Or maybe they asked God for help and didn't get the answer they thought they would. I don't really know.

Why does it matter if it's subjective if I believe that a certain way is the truth regardless of what anyone thinks? I think this goes back to the "are there any absolute truths' thread.
To say religions have to respect each other's truths goes almost directly contrary to many of the tenets of those religions. If you want all religions to respect each other and play nice together -- well, with the existing religions, it just won't work. You'd have to eliminate all religions in order to get that kind of tolerance, and that's obviously out of the question. Religions teach objective truth (generally), you can't put that in a subjective context without disobeying the religions' teachings.

[ShortNBitter]

I've read all of your comments and they are very thought-out and challenging to say the least. And now that I've heard it, you all are right. About everything. About God's abandonment long ago, to even God's testing of us, and Satan's play in all of it. Everything you've all said. But... now that I've heard some reactions, I think I was wrong to use "God" because I don't think that is what I was referrring to at all.


I don't believe in God. Sorry again. I don't know what I was feeling or even thinking when I sat down to write this rant. But, I dont even think I meant God at all. I think God was a metaphor for something else, something more personal. I'm sorry.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I don't believe in God, sorry. I don't know what I was feeling or even thinking when I sat down to write this rant. But, I dont even think I meant God at all. I think God was a metaphor for something else, something more personal. I'm sorry.

Other than the fact that you deny the existence of a God I love and trust (which offends me but it's ok cause it is expected), there's no real reason to be sorry. I completely understand the position of nonbelievers simply because I've been a die-hard skeptic in the past as well.

[cmar]

[QUOTE=Gumby]As a Christian, I don't judge people for saying that, but I do feel insulted and offended regardless (like Cmar's earlier post, to give an example). QUOTE]

I did not mean to insult or offend. I should not be telling people what to believe any more than people of religion should be telling me what to believe.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Maybe these people have been hurt in their lives at times when they believed in God and they attributed what happened to them as coming from God. Or maybe they asked God for help and didn't get the answer they thought they would. I don't really know.

But in that case, wouldn't they then cease to believe in the existence of God?

[kuilong]

To say that Christianity is the only "true" religion is wrong. Fundamentalists of every stripe and colour will claim that their God is the real thing and other deities are false. I believe that this serves as nothing more than a breeding ground for hatred and intolerance. At the end of the day God is God whether you decide to name Him Jehovah, Allah, or whatever.

You're a practicing Catholic, right? I'm wondering how you reconcile that belief as a member of the self-proclaimed "one, holy, catholic [universal] and apostolic" church which holds that "outside the church there is no salvation" (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus -- a doctrine that has always been taught by the Church and therefore constitutes an infallible dogma)?

I don't see how dismissing beliefs like that as "fundamentalist" argues against their being true. In fact, the belief that salvation is only through Jesus is pretty common among Christians (not just evangelical Protestants), with John 14:6 often being cited as justification. They might also wonder why God would send Christ in the first place if He wasn't necessary for salvation.

Hey, just doing my job and responding to tired anti-Christian rhetoric =) If evidence of the 'truth' was in such black and white, that wouldn't leave much room for 'faith', would it?

I'm remembering this passage from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... :P Anyway, the same C.S. Lewis in your sig said that faith shouldn't be used to dodge the conclusion presented you by your reason.

It seems to me that anyone who tries to unilaterally claim there is, or is not, a God, treads a very thin line. Fundamentally, we don't know -- so yeah, you're right.

It seems to me that we can show certain conceptions of God are logically contradictory (including several Christian conceptions). By the same token, many Christian (and non-Christian) conceptions of God or gods aren't, one instance being St. Anselm's maximally powerful being (it should be noted though, that there's more than one possible maximally powerful being).

[...] I have come to believe what I believe as fact and law as a result of not only unexplicable emotions and sensations but also scientific and chronological evidence.

I'd be interested in this. Maybe you could elaborate on this in more detail (in another thread if length makes it necessary).

[Emperor_Mike]

One of the best comments, I think.

Even god is there for us. God is too arbitrary to be relied upon. I think there are worse odds in god's help than there is in winning the super lottery.

It depends on how "help" is defined. Moral and emotional aid from having faith is always there (i.e. believing that things will work out in the end.) Tangible aid in the form of a big pile of cash delivered to your doorstep when you need to clear up debts is probably not something you'd want to hold your breath for.

Emotional well being garnered from having strong faith in the Church and the God has helped us through many, many, many situations. I won't elaborate, but 1996 to 2000 was pure hell for me and my family when we had to deal with everything from a string of deaths to near financial ruin. I know that it was our faith in God that helped is through. He didn't give us a miraculous cure-all for our problems, but believing in Him and that a positive outcome will eventually come to pass did give us the fortitude to rectify things instead of throwing in the towel.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

[QUOTE=Gumby]As a Christian, I don't judge people for saying that, but I do feel insulted and offended regardless (like Cmar's earlier post, to give an example). QUOTE]

I did not mean to insult or offend. I should not be telling people what to believe any more than people of religion should be telling me what to believe.

It is a fine line to be sure and an issue of hot debate. Many people tell us (Christians) that it's fine to believe what you believe, but to stop judging others (i.e. if you're Christian, stop judging me and let your God to the judging! etc etc) and pushing beliefs upon others. It is true that Christianity discourages value judgments placed upon other individuals, but at the same time, promotes the spreading and sharing of the word (at one's own discretion obviously since some methods don't work quite as well as others) because Christians believe that it is the most valuable thing we have to offer to other individuals.

[ShortNBitter]

Lol I editted my post... but its already been knocked up 3-4 posts already :D

[Napoleon Chynamite]

To say religions have to respect each other's truths goes almost directly contrary to many of the tenets of those religions. If you want all religions to respect each other and play nice together -- well, with the existing religions, it just won't work. You'd have to eliminate all religions in order to get that kind of tolerance, and that's obviously out of the question. Religions teach objective truth (generally), you can't put that in a subjective context without disobeying the religions' teachings.

To me, "respecting the beliefs of others" simply means understanding why people have come to believe in what they believe. It's just like respecting other people's opinions. It means not seeing them as less of people simply because you think they are mislead, and to acknowledge that I could easily be in that same position given different circumstances. That's how I see it.

[Emperor_Mike]

Why does it matter if it's subjective if I believe that a certain way is the truth regardless of what anyone thinks? I think this goes back to the "are there any absolute truths' thread. This is like saying that no political actions are "right" or "wrong" regardless of casualty rates, etc. cause there will always be proponents and opponents of such actions. You can even say that killing people or murdering others simply cause one "feels like it" can't be proven to be a "bad" thing (e.g. the idea that killing people is wrong is not truth) thanks to arguments of "survival of the fittest" etc.

No, it doesn't matter if it's subjective. I was simply pointing it out. The matter is only applicable if you're in a position to force your views onto others and you have a desire to do so. If you're embarking on a trail like that then the need to prove the fallacy behind such views will be a valid one. But if it's your personal set of beliefs that you have no intention of imposing on other people then it's a non-issue.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

No, it doesn't matter if it's subjective. I was simply pointing it out. The matter is only applicable if you're in a position to force your views onto others and you have a desire to do so. If you're embarking on a trail like that then the need to prove the fallacy behind such views will be a valid one. But if it's your personal set of beliefs that you have no intention of imposing on other people then it's a non-issue.

Yet who is to say that "imposing your beliefs upon other people" is "wrong" in the first place (esp. if you believe you are doing them a service or you have the best of intentions)? Isn't this also subjective as well? I suppose this may be desirable for the sake of keeping the peace, since imposition of beliefs tends to create conflict *shrug* but whether or not conflict in and of itself is undesirable is also..once again, subjective.

[Emperor_Mike]

You're a practicing Catholic, right? I'm wondering how you reconcile that belief as a member of the self-proclaimed "one, holy, catholic [universal] and apostolic" church which holds that "outside the church there is no salvation" (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus -- a doctrine that has always been taught by the Church and therefore constitutes an infallible dogma)?

Yes, I'm a practising Roman Catholic. However, I'm not fanatical about my beliefs and my faith in the Church to the point where I'm a willing subscriber to teachings that negatively affect others who are not within the fold of the Vatican. Naturally, this point of view along with my support for non-Catholic-friendly issues like homosexual marriages has made me *hugely* unpopular at church gatherings. In my view being a practising Roman Catholic does not mean having to accept EVERYTHING the Church teaches because in all honesty, the Catholic Church and Christianity in general endorses (or used to endorse) many issues that either don't make a lot of sense (e.g. don't eat shellfish) or are affronts to what is regarded as common decency to other people.

Yet who is to say that "imposing your beliefs upon other people" is "wrong" in the first place (esp. if you believe you are doing them a service or you have the best of intentions)? Isn't this also subjective as well? I suppose this may be desirable for the sake of keeping the peace, since imposition of beliefs tends to create conflict *shrug* but whether or not conflict in and of itself is undesirable is also..once again, subjective.

What you perceive to be good intentions in the case of religion may not be viewed in the same light by others. The very notion of the forceful imposition of your set of beliefs on unwilling parties violates the concept of self-determination. History has shown us on many occasions just what happens when religion is forced upon those who are not receptive. Again, who are we to say that what's good for us is good for others? We needn't debate on the issue of the imposition of beliefs to stave off conflict because the past has done quite a marvelous job of proving that theory wrong.

[Faithless]

God helps those who help themselves. In that sense is god really helping you? Or are you really doing it yourself?

But if god does indeed help you, consider yourselves extremely lucky, for more times than not god does not help people -- at least not consistently -- around this big blue marble and through out history.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

What you perceive to be good intentions in the case of religion may not be viewed in the same light by others. The very notion of the forceful imposition of your set of beliefs on unwilling parties violates the concept of self-determination. History has shown us on many occasions just what happens when religion is forced upon those who are not receptive. Again, who are we to say that what's good for us is good for others? We needn't debate on the issue of the imposition of beliefs to stave off conflict because the past has done quite a marvelous job of proving that theory wrong.

I was simply making a point about subjectivity. Just because conflict arises due to the imposition of beliefs doesn't mean that such imposition is absolutely wrong, simply because there are obviously many people who believe that such imposition IS acceptable and NOT wrong. That is all ^^ There are even people who feel that the oppression on the part of the white race in the United States and other societies is not "wrong" and in fact a result of the natural order of "Darwinism". So why do entire civilizations and societies seek to eliminate "white oppression"? I'm not supporting white oppression once again. Just making a point.

God helps those who help themselves. In that sense is god really helping you? Or are you really doing it yourself?

But if god does indeed help you, consider yourselves extremely lucky, for more times than not god does not help people.

Once again, there would be no such thing as faith if it could be proven whether or not humans are capable of receiving "divine assistance" for lack of a better term. It also depends on one's definition of help once again. If you equate help with God bailing you out of every shitty situation you find yourself in, that in my opinion is the wrong idea. But I think it's pointless to argue about these points if you don't believe in God in the first place, because we come from two completely different bases. What I see as help, you as a nonbeliever will just attribute to my own efforts or me helping myself. Never mind the fact that I feel blessed in crappy situations even after not doing shit. You can also attribute that to good luck or random coincidental fortune.

[kuilong]

Yes, I'm a practising Roman Catholic. However, I'm not fanatical about my beliefs and my faith in the Church to the point where I'm a willing subscriber to teachings that negatively affect others who are not within the fold of the Vatican. Naturally, this point of view along with my support for non-Catholic-friendly issues like homosexual marriages has made me *hugely* unpopular at church gatherings.

But the point of mass (the eucharist/communion/Holy Supper) is that you're in ideological agreement with everyone else you take it with (one of the reasons why the RCC is a closed-communion church). If you don't accept the infallible dogmas of the Catholic church, you're in effect excommunicated, even if not formally so (if I remember my Catholic theology rightly).

In my view being a practising Roman Catholic does not mean having to accept EVERYTHING the Church teaches

Only the infallible dogmas, i.e. the doctrines the Church has always taught, the de fide statements of ecumenical councils and the ones introduced by ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope (extraordinary magesterium). Non-infallible dogmas don't require the assent of faith, but can't be rejected publically by the faithful.

because in all honesty, the Catholic Church and Christianity in general endorses (or used to endorse) many issues that either don't make a lot of sense (e.g. don't eat shellfish) or are affronts to what is regarded as common decency to other people.

You're thinking of the Jews. Christians since Paul believe that they don't have to keep the ritual purity laws, so eating shellfish isn't any more wrong than cooking meat and milk in the same bowl or picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

[Faithless]

I think you can believe in god without believing that god does things for people.

Many people believe god just is.

Even if believe god does not help you physically, but only emotionally, you have to believe that, here, god's help is artibrary. Look at the people that go insane or are emotionally disturbed.

If for one keep praying that god will plague our President's conscience. But god's not having it. :frown:

[coagulated fat]

I think you can believe in god without believing that god does things for people.

Many people believe god just is.

Even if believe god does not help you physically, but only emotionally, you have to believe that, here, god's help is artibrary. Look at the people that go insane or are emotionally disturbed.

If for one keep praying that god will plague our President's conscience. But god's not having it. :frown:
This is probably a completely different topic, but since there never really was a set topic to this thread anyway: I believe that insanity/emotional "disturbance" is probably closer to enlightenment than sanity anyway. As Emily Dickinson wrote, much madness is divinest sense.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think you can believe in god without believing that god does things for people.

Many people believe god just is.

Even if believe god does not help you physically, but only emotionally, you have to believe that, here, god's help is artibrary. Look at the people that go insane or are emotionally disturbed.

If for one keep praying that god will plague our President's conscience. But god's not having it. :frown:

What's the point of praying if you don't believe in God in the first place? It is still a point of contention for me, but I am not quite sure if God (the Christian God) answers the prayers of those who have not accepted the sacrifice of his son. You can't scoff and deny the existence of God and then expect him to answer your prayers although I believe God undoubtedly wants you to grow to trust him.

[kuilong]

What's the point of praying if you don't believe in God in the first place? It is still a point of contention for me, but I am not quite sure if God (the Christian God) answers the prayers of those who have not accepted the sacrifice of his son. You can't scoff and deny the existence of God and then expect him to answer your prayers although I believe God undoubtedly wants you to grow to trust him.

First of all, "not believing in God" isn't the same as "denying the existence of God" (those who do the latter are a subset of those who do the former). Are you saying God won't answer the prayers of all those who don't believe in God, or only those who deny the existence of God?

I don't know that Christians are united at all on this issue, but Mormons (whether or not you consider them Christians) often encourage investigators (people interested in joining the Church) to pray about the Book of Mormon and search for a "burning in the bosom".

[Faithless]

What's the point of praying if you don't believe in God in the first place? It is still a point of contention for me, but I am not quite sure if God (the Christian God) answers the prayers of those who have not accepted the sacrifice of his son. You can't scoff and deny the existence of God and then expect him to answer your prayers although I believe God undoubtedly wants you to grow to trust him.
Bush jr. says he's accepted Christ. He's probably even prayed everyday for guidance on Iraq and getting through the 9/11 commissions unscathed.

Those Christians against the war have probably voted opposite Bush.

Is god answering Bush's prayers, and ignoring the rest of his believers?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

First of all, "not believing in God" isn't the same as "denying the existence of God" (those who do the latter are a subset of those who do the former). Are you saying God won't answer the prayers of all those who don't believe in God, or only those who deny the existence of God?

I don't know that Christians are united at all on this issue, but Mormons (whether or not you consider them Christians) often encourage investigators (people interested in joining the Church) to pray about the Book of Mormon and search for a "burning in the bosom".

Well then, I change my statement to those who "do not believe in God" as well as those who "deny the existence of God". Both groups do not accept the Christian God's sacrifice via his son Jesus Christ, which is what Christians believe as the crux of their faith, hence the term 'Christian'. Jews and Muslims technically worship the same 'God' and share similar scripture in the Old Testament, yet what sets Christians apart is their belief in Jesus as God come in the flesh. I'm sure you already know this. I also remember reading an article saying that to not believe in God is pretty much the same as denying his existence (at least in God's eyes). I believe there is some truth to this.

Once again however, it is still up for contention at least from my perspective as to whether or not God answers the prayers of those who have not accepted the son. I can't say for sure, obviously, but my inclination leans towards "no" simply due to scripture "Whoever has the son has the father, whoever does not have the son does not have the father". Being the crappy Christian that I am, I can't give a direct quote from scripture at this point ^^;

Bush jr. says he's accepted Christ. He's probably even prayed everyday for guidance on Iraq and getting through the 9/11 commissions unscathed.

Those Christians against the war have probably voted opposite Bush.

Is god answering Bush's prayers, and ignoring the rest of his believers?

Again, you assume that God is a vending machine that should answer each and every prayer like inserting quarters for a candy bar. It's pretty pointless to me to compare the prayers that everyone has made and to see who God has answered how many times and who God hasn't answered. We can't tell where God's will ends and our free will begins or vice versa, but ultimately I think the point is moot simply because one of the focuses of Christianity is not to pay attention to what we have or don't have control over, but to focus on building a relationship with him. For every action or event that has occurred, you can always say "well look, God is helping these people who WANTED this to happen, and neglecting these other people who prayed that it WOULDN'T happen!" Circular argument? Perhaps. But it works for me. Along with all the other arguments for Christianity. As a skeptic I've looked at both sides and made my decision.

[Faithless]

(All, please realize that I have used an even tone throughout this discussion. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and I can't cut them down.)

I've made my decision, too, on what god is.

God just is. God the creator. But not god the intervener. Not because god won't, but because god can't. I believe in the freewill concept as well.

This belief makes god a simpler concept to understand, and realize less on the mental game one must have to play to justify why god would and would not do certain things.

[kuilong]

"Whoever has the son has the father, whoever does not have the son does not have the father". Being the crappy Christian that I am, I can't give a direct quote from scripture at this point ^^;

1 John 2:23?

Again, you assume that God is a vending machine that should answer each and every prayer like inserting quarters for a candy bar. It's pretty pointless to me to compare the prayers that everyone has made and to see who God has answered how many times and who God hasn't answered. We can't tell where God's will ends and our free will begins or vice versa, but ultimately I think the point is moot simply because one of the focuses of Christianity is not to pay attention to what we have or don't have control over, but to focus on building a relationship with him. For every action or event that has occurred, you can always say "well look, God is helping these people who WANTED this to happen, and neglecting these other people who prayed that it WOULDN'T happen!" Circular argument? Perhaps. But it works for me. Along with all the other arguments for Christianity. As a skeptic I've looked at both sides and made my decision.

I've always wondered about petitionary prayer. F'rinstance, why do we need to pray if God already knows what we want? And we deserve it, why don't we get it even if we don't pray? And how can humans praise an infinite God, seeing as praise entails description, and who really knows anything about God? (Assuming an Abrahamic conception of God in all these cases) I'm aware that many Christians don't believe in petitionary prayer either, and instead view prayer as a relationship, in which case of course the above problems don't apply.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I've always wondered about petitionary prayer. F'rinstance, why do we need to pray if God already knows what we want? And we deserve it, why don't we get it even if we don't pray? And how can humans praise an infinite God, seeing as praise entails description, and who really knows anything about God? (Assuming an Abrahamic conception of God in all these cases) I'm aware that many Christians don't believe in petitionary prayer either, and instead view prayer as a relationship, in which case of course the above problems don't apply.

This is a good question. I've wondered this myself. If I so strongly believe that God will take good care of me, why would I feel the need to tell God what I specifically want or what I specifically would like for others (e.g. praying for the well-being or safety of friends or family)? I've reconciled myself with the answer that God desires us to pray simply because prayer is communication with him (nothing more nothing less, and not restricted to requesting for support or help), and an intimate relationship with God (or anyone) is impossible without constant prayer/communication. Constant prayer and communication shows God that people enjoying feeling his presence, trust him, value him, and see him as a friend, partner, and father for eternity. I see it as developing a relationship with a girlfriend or other loved one. The relationship and lifestyle resulting from such a relationship can't be healthy or fulfilling without communication, or what Christians call as prayer when simply talking to God. Yet beyond this is the fact that Christians should see God as a father figure, which entails asking for assistance, support, and help if and when we feel desperate or in trouble. It's just like how we trust that our parents love us and will do what is best for us, but that doesn't mean we won't ever feel the need to request additional or specific aid.

[Yeahman]

To say that Christianity is the only "true" religion is wrong. Fundamentalists of every stripe and colour will claim that their God is the real thing and other deities are false. I believe that this serves as nothing more than a breeding ground for hatred and intolerance. At the end of the day God is God whether you decide to name Him Jehovah, Allah, or whatever.
If you are a Christian of course you should believe that Christianity is the only true religion! WTF would be the point of being a Christian then? That isn't what breeds hatred an intolerance. To breed hatred an intolerance you would have to believe that your religion is the only true religion and that every other religion should be hated and not tolerated. One in no way necessarily leads to the other.

It's all subjective. Followers of Islam can say the same about Christianity and Judaism regarding the "truth" and the "way." What you think is right may be wrong according to another party and vice versa. All this "my faith is the only one that promotes the Truth" fracas unfortunately highlights just how divisive and conflict inducing the power of religion can be. When one faith seeks to assert its dominance over others on the account of an unwritten and unproven religious "manifest destiny" discord and bloodshed usually follow in its wake. Else why did conflicts like the Crusades, the French Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years' War erupt?
"It is not merely true that a creed unites men. Nay, a difference of creed unites men - so long as it is a clear difference. A boundary unites. Many a magnanimous Moslem and chivalrous Crusader must have been nearer to each other, because they were both dogmatists, than any two agnostics. "I say God is One," and "I say God is One but also Three," that is the beginning of a good quarrelsome, manly friendship." - GK Chesterton

I'm sorry that you think that diversity of creed leads to hatred.

Yes, I'm a practising Roman Catholic. However, I'm not fanatical about my beliefs and my faith in the Church to the point where I'm a willing subscriber to teachings that negatively affect others who are not within the fold of the Vatican. Naturally, this point of view along with my support for non-Catholic-friendly issues like homosexual marriages has made me *hugely* unpopular at church gatherings. In my view being a practising Roman Catholic does not mean having to accept EVERYTHING the Church teaches because in all honesty, the Catholic Church and Christianity in general endorses (or used to endorse) many issues that either don't make a lot of sense (e.g. don't eat shellfish) or are affronts to what is regarded as common decency to other people.
So basically you're a Kerry Catholic. Catholic by name, not by faith.
Because homosexual marriage can be debated solely as a civil institution, a Catholic can be for it.
But Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is an infallible teaching reaffirmed by the Church over and over again. It is as true as the Eucharist you receive at Mass. If you are a practicing Catholic then you should look into these things with humility. If the Church is true then a good Catholic would examine his own understanding to see if he himself is wrong.

From the Catechism (on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus):
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."[338]

See it wasn't so bad was it?

Bush jr. says he's accepted Christ. He's probably even prayed everyday for guidance on Iraq and getting through the 9/11 commissions unscathed.

Those Christians against the war have probably voted opposite Bush.

Is god answering Bush's prayers, and ignoring the rest of his believers?
I'm sure more Christians voted for Bush than against him.

I'm more spiritual than religious, there is a difference between the two. I do believe God exists, but I also don't look to that as my sole means of enlightenment or assistance. I actually think a quote from Futurama said it best, when Bender actually met God. "If you do things for them all the time, they won't think you've done anything at all."
I'm just the opposite. I'm more religious than spiritual. I don't like all that touchy-feely "look inside yourself" new-age mumbo-jumbo. IMHO, spirituality is a safety net for the religiously bankrupt. It lets people throw out everything about a religion that they don't agree with and still claim to be "one with God." It's an excuse for being religiously lazy.

[Emperor_Mike]

I was simply making a point about subjectivity. Just because conflict arises due to the imposition of beliefs doesn't mean that such imposition is absolutely wrong, simply because there are obviously many people who believe that such imposition IS acceptable and NOT wrong. That is all ^^ There are even people who feel that the oppression on the part of the white race in the United States and other societies is not "wrong" and in fact a result of the natural order of "Darwinism". So why do entire civilizations and societies seek to eliminate "white oppression"? I'm not supporting white oppression once again. Just making a point.

I believe that the restriction of self-determination in matters of religion is all that's needed to make it wrong in my eyes. However, this only holds true for me when religion is the topic of the discussion. There's no such thing as black and white situations in any case and to hold the same standard to everything else makes no sense. That having been said, there's a major difference between being sympathetic to a particular ideal and actively working toward pressing it on the unwilling. Beliefs and opinions? Everyone is entitled to them.

But the point of mass (the eucharist/communion/Holy Supper) is that you're in ideological agreement with everyone else you take it with (one of the reasons why the RCC is a closed-communion church). If you don't accept the infallible dogmas of the Catholic church, you're in effect excommunicated, even if not formally so (if I remember my Catholic theology rightly).

Only the infallible dogmas, i.e. the doctrines the Church has always taught, the de fide statements of ecumenical councils and the ones introduced by ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope (extraordinary magesterium). Non-infallible dogmas don't require the assent of faith, but can't be rejected publically by the faithful.


Well, then I'll consider myself excommunicated along with all the other non-Catholic Christians of the world. So long as from now until the day I die I continue my works of mercy by donating time, money, and resources to the needs of the poor and the suffering it's good enough for me. If God casts me aside in spite of all the good I'm doing to relieve the anguish of the destitute on the account that I didn't follow the teachings of the Church in its entirety then...well...then so be it. Who am I to argue? I'll leave the final judgement up to Him.



You're thinking of the Jews. Christians since Paul believe that they don't have to keep the ritual purity laws, so eating shellfish isn't any more wrong than cooking meat and milk in the same bowl or picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

I stand corrected then.

[kitty]

If you are a Christian of course you should believe that Christianity is the only true religion! WTF would be the point of being a Christian then? That isn't what breeds hatred an intolerance. To breed hatred an intolerance you would have to believe that your religion is the only true religion and that every other religion should be hated and not tolerated. One in no way necessarily leads to the other.

You lost me.

Are you saying that Christians are justified in believing that their religion is the one true faith? And that hatred and intolerance is believing that their religion is the one true faith? But that Christians do not practice this hatred?

[ChinaLama]

You lost me.

Are you saying that Christians are justified in believing that their religion is the one true faith? And that hatred and intolerance is believing that their religion is the one true faith? But that Christians do not practice this hatred?

I think what he's saying is: believing one's religion is the only true one DOES NOT NECESSARILY lead to hating other religions and hating others.

[Emperor_Mike]

If you are a Christian of course you should believe that Christianity is the only true religion! WTF would be the point of being a Christian then? That isn't what breeds hatred an intolerance. To breed hatred an intolerance you would have to believe that your religion is the only true religion and that every other religion should be hated and not tolerated. One in no way necessarily leads to the other.

I don't know about other Christians, but I was drawn to the faith because of the teachings of Christ and not because I was under the impression that it was the ONLY true religion. Come to think of it, it didn't even have to be the Catholic Church. It could have been a Protestant one for that matter or Islam too if I understood it well enough.



"It is not merely true that a creed unites men. Nay, a difference of creed unites men - so long as it is a clear difference. A boundary unites. Many a magnanimous Moslem and chivalrous Crusader must have been nearer to each other, because they were both dogmatists, than any two agnostics. "I say God is One," and "I say God is One but also Three," that is the beginning of a good quarrelsome, manly friendship." - GK Chesterton

I'm sorry that you think that diversity of creed leads to hatred.

No, diversity of creed does not lead to hatred. The imposition of one upon the unwilling party of the other does.



So basically you're a Kerry Catholic. Catholic by name, not by faith.
Because homosexual marriage can be debated solely as a civil institution, a Catholic can be for it.
But Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is an infallible teaching reaffirmed by the Church over and over again. It is as true as the Eucharist you receive at Mass. If you are a practicing Catholic then you should look into these things with humility. If the Church is true then a good Catholic would examine his own understanding to see if he himself is wrong.

Sure, Kerry Catholic it is. "Catholic" is only a label. Quoting religious texts and extracts doesn't serve you any purpose in this matter in any case except perhaps demonstrate to others how well versed you are in religious matters and/or your proficiency with Google. Regarding homosexual marriages, it's erroneous to believe that you can separate that from religion. As an indication of this, consider that my local archdiocese started a letter writing campaign a few months prior to the earlier BC decision to allow for same-sex marriages. In theory (and just barely at that) the two issues should not be intertwined. In practise, however, they are.

At the end of the day, I believe actions speak louder than words. Show me a Catholic who donated about $150,000 USD to church sponsored events for the needy last year, a Catholic who devotes every Saturday jumping between three homeless shelters helping with a wide assortment of tasks, and a Catholic who gives up every Christmas Day to help the local mission feed the poor and I'll show you a person who can do without the company of rulebook following, self-righteous Christians who sit around preaching the word of God while closing their eyes to the suffering of the poor. If I'm going to burn in Hell in spite of my efforts then let me burn. A Heaven that's filled with people who got in there on a technicality by "following the rules" to the exclusion of everything else is not a place I want to be in at any rate.

[kitty]

I think what he's saying is: believing one's religion is the only true one DOES NOT NECESSARILY lead to hating other religions and hating others.

okay, i see. but ... if you're the only one who's right, doesn't that make everyone else... wrong?

[Emperor_Mike]

I think what he's saying is: believing one's religion is the only true one DOES NOT NECESSARILY lead to hating other religions and hating others.

It depends on the degree of one's perception and the character of the individual in question.

okay, i see. but ... if you're the only one who's right, doesn't that make everyone else... wrong?

Sure. Everyone's entitled to their own views. So long nothing bad emerges as a result of said views (which then affect other people) it's no harm at all.

Take for example individuals who walk about proclaiming that the end of days is upon us. Words alone in such a case won't harm anyone but if said individuals proceed to beat on people who won't listen to them then I believe we have a situation there.

[kitty]

Take for example individuals who walk about proclaiming that the end of days is upon us. Words alone in such a case won't harm anyone but if said individuals proceed to beat on people who won't listen to them then I believe we have a situation there.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, if you think you're right, doesn't that necessarily make you intolerant of the possible veracity of everyone else? I mean, almost every religion asserts a basic 'truth' -- that their version of god is the right version. can you be tolerant of another religion while still holding true your basic truth? because if you believe YOU'RE right, then you are fundamentally saying that the other religion is wrong, misguided, or whatever.

[ChinaLama]

re: KG, Well, maybe by a technicality, that would be intolerant. However, I think what YW meant by intolerant was more along the lines of "I'm not going to hang out w you because your beliefs are different" intolerant.

Also, I agree w/ gumby that there's nothing wrong w/ imposing one's beliefs on others. After all, that's what LAWS are-- imposing society's beliefs on everyone.

[Emperor_Mike]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, if you think you're right, doesn't that necessarily make you intolerant of the possible veracity of everyone else? I mean, almost every religion asserts a basic 'truth' -- that their version of god is the right version. can you be tolerant of another religion while still holding true your basic truth? because if you believe YOU'RE right, then you are fundamentally saying that the other religion is wrong, misguided, or whatever.

I suppose there are varying degrees of (in)tolerance. There could be slight intolerance resulting in a dismissive attitude towards other religions but not amounting to outright hatred. Of course, then you have intolerance that *does* end up with parties engaging in a veritable battle royale.

Well, no one ever said religion is an easy topic to tackle in spite of the fact that many individuals try to dumb it down. The "absolute truth" of the matter is, no one is right or wrong because everyone believes that their way is correct.

[ChinaLama]

At the end of the day, I believe actions speak louder than words. Show me a Catholic who donated about $150,000 USD to church sponsored events for the needy last year, a Catholic who devotes every Saturday jumping between three homeless shelters helping with a wide assortment of tasks, and a Catholic who gives up every Christmas Day to help the local mission feed the poor and I'll show you a person who can do without the company of rulebook following, self-righteous Christians who sit around preaching the word of God while closing their eyes to the suffering of the poor. If I'm going to burn in Hell in spite of my efforts then let me burn. A Heaven that's filled with people who got in there on a technicality by "following the rules" to the exclusion of everything else is not a place I want to be in at any rate.

I think that's a bit too cynical. I mean I'm sure most of the so called "self righteous" Christians are righteous people, as well. It's not an either-or situation like you're painting; it's not a person either does works or has faith; I think the two are mostly likely positively correlated.

[kitty]

Also, I agree w/ gumby that there's nothing wrong w/ imposing one's beliefs on others. After all, that's what LAWS are-- imposing society's beliefs on everyone.

Well, that's to promote order in society (like, don't kill each other)... to maintain a citizen's rights. But if the Christians are in power, does it make sense for them to impose their beliefs on the Buddhists? Telling one what one should or should not believe?

To me, that is intolerant of the beliefs of the Buddhists, to believe that they are wrong.

AFter all, the only difference is that one person believes you are wrong, and the other one wants to do something about it.

[Yeahman]

I don't know about other Christians, but I was drawn to the faith because of the teachings of Christ and not because I was under the impression that it was the ONLY true religion. Come to think of it, it didn't even have to be the Catholic Church. It could have been a Protestant one for that matter or Islam too if I understood it well enough.
So are you even a Christian? One who believes in the Trinity?
I thought I read a post by you, a while back that said you go to Mass for the Eucharist.

No, diversity of creed does not lead to hatred. The imposition of one upon the unwilling party of the other does.
I agree.

Sure, Kerry Catholic it is. "Catholic" is only a label. Quoting religious texts and extracts doesn't serve you any purpose in this matter in any case except perhaps demonstrate to others how well versed you are in religious matters and/or your proficiency with Google. Regarding homosexual marriages, it's erroneous to believe that you can separate that from religion. As an indication of this, consider that my local archdiocese started a letter writing campaign a few months prior to the earlier BC decision to allow for same-sex marriages. In theory (and just barely at that) the two issues should not be intertwined. In practise, however, they are.

At the end of the day, I believe actions speak louder than words. Show me a Catholic who donated about $150,000 USD to church sponsored events for the needy last year, a Catholic who devotes every Saturday jumping between three homeless shelters helping with a wide assortment of tasks, and a Catholic who gives up every Christmas Day to help the local mission feed the poor and I'll show you a person who can do without the company of rulebook following, self-righteous Christians who sit around preaching the word of God while closing their eyes to the suffering of the poor. If I'm going to burn in Hell in spite of my efforts then let me burn. A Heaven that's filled with people who got in there on a technicality by "following the rules" to the exclusion of everything else is not a place I want to be in at any rate.
"Catholic" is only a label? Actually it's the name of a religion.
The purpose of quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church was to show you that a Catholic doesn't have to believe that all non-Catholics go to hell as it looks like you mistakenly thought judging by your reaction to kuilong's post about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
The Catholic Church is opposed to gay marriage. But it isn't an infallible teaching of the Church. Catholics may support gay marriage and remain Catholic.

At the end of the day, I believe actions speak louder than words. Mother Teresa, St. Fransis of Assisi, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross... Are these the Catholics who got into heaven on "technicallities?"

[ChinaLama]

But I don't think a Christian state necessarily means a state where all people have to be Christian. Sure that's the way it was done in the past, but back then everyone was like that. You think there was religious freedom in Lamaist Tibet?

[Emperor_Mike]

Also, I agree w/ gumby that there's nothing wrong w/ imposing one's beliefs on others. After all, that's what LAWS are-- imposing society's beliefs on everyone.

The imposition of beliefs on others would depend on just how receptive the other party is to the concept in question and the manner in which the subject is approach and carried out. Are we talking about forceful imposition (e.g. complete indoctrination with a "resist or die" ultimatum) or are we dealing with coercion not amounting to heavy handed physical or emotional tactics? Missionary work could be seen as a way of gently "imposing" the idea of Christianity on others but at the same time giving the other party an opportunity to decline should it suit them.

With that in mind, is the term "impose" even appropriate when we're dealing with religion?

[ChinaLama]

Like I said, Mike. Laws are an imposition of belief. For instance, i might feel that revenge killings are totally moral and even a matter of duty, but my society feels it's wrong. Society imposes its will on me and forces me to confirm to its belief that I can't do revenge killings. If I do, then I must bear the consequences.

I don't see how imposition of belief in the way a missionary does is really intolerant or wrong. And it seems that's the ONLY imposition Christians do. Sure they tell you you'll go to hell, etc, but that's still simply words. One can take 'em or leave 'em. I choose to leave 'em.

And while it may not be smart to bully someone into thinking the way I think, and it may be inefficient, I don't see how that's *wrong.*

I agree in normal circumstances, we can't physically force others to believe as we believe. But we CAN apply pressure, etc. That's all a part of the democratic process. It's what we're supposed to do. :-)

[Yeahman]

AFter all, the only difference is that one person believes you are wrong, and the other one wants to do something about it.
That is a HUGE difference.
Besides it isn't any different from secularists who believe that the religious right is wrong and want to do something about it (ie. ban all mention of any religion in public).
There is nothing wrong with me believing that you are wrong so long as I don't infringe on your right to be wrong and so long as your wrong doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

[kitty]

With that in mind, is the term "impose" even appropriate when we're dealing with religion?

Yes. I would argue that America imposes Judeo-Christian beliefs on its citizenry. With every connotation that the word 'imposes' brings.

[Yeahman]

Yes. I would argue that America imposes Judeo-Christian beliefs on its citizenry. With every connotation that the word 'imposes' brings.
OK then America also "imposes" English on its citizenry.

[kitty]

OK then America also "imposes" English on its citizenry.

it does indeed, because government forms are not, in fact, mandatorily translated into other languages.

which they should be.

but religion is in another class by itself, because it's the dictating of personal, fundamental faiths vs. language.

[ChinaLama]

sorry KG, no matter how much you lobby, the US gov't is not about to translate good ol' American English docs into degenerate Imperial English (aka we're not going to write colour instead of color. Down with the Empire! The resistance lives!)

[Yeahman]

but religion is in another class by itself, because it's the dictating of personal, fundamental faiths vs. language.
They're both part of the American culture.

But you're right that they're in different classes. The government forces you to read and write English. They don't force you to believe in any religion.

[Emperor_Mike]

So are you even a Christian? One who believes in the Trinity?
I thought I read a post by you, a while back that said you go to Mass for the Eucharist.

Of course. I'm just not one who believes that to be a "proper" Catholic you MUST adhere to everything the Church teaches. To be sure, it goes against what all good Catholics have been taught, but it doesn't find ground with me. I admit that I'm the skeptical type and one who believes in questioning the status quo either to confirm why the current establishment should remain as it is or to satisfy or strengthen my doubts. But that's how I learn and that's probably the reason why I'm reaping the fruits of academic and financial success.

Of course, you can always say that Satan has found his way into my life following my casting aside of the Church and is now guiding me toward fulfilling a destiny that will be to the detriment of humanity. However, I prefer to think that God is telling me to continue doing what I'm currently engaged in with respect to good works. :wink:



"Catholic" is only a label? Actually it's the name of a religion.
The purpose of quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church was to show you that a Catholic doesn't have to believe that all non-Catholics go to hell as it looks like you mistakenly thought judging by your reaction to kuilong's post about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
The Catholic Church is opposed to gay marriage. But it isn't an infallible teaching of the Church. Catholics may support gay marriage and remain Catholic.

"Catholic" is but a label for me as I designate myself to be. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, but I am doing so now.



At the end of the day, I believe actions speak louder than words. Mother Teresa, St. Fransis of Assisi, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross... Are these the Catholics who got into heaven on "technicallities?"

The Saints have their own merits. Mother Teresa's works of mercy are unparalleled, Francis of Assisi founded an Order of friars that would result in much good for the world, St. Anthony gave up the wealth of his family in the name of God, and St. John of the Cross likewise devoted his existence to God. Technicalities? Of course not. These were selfless men and women who took up the duty to serve God and they rightly deserve their status within the Church. However, show me your every-day church attending Christian who doesn't give a damn about the needs of others and who fully expects to gain entrance to the Kingdom of God by compliance of teachings alone and I'll show you the largest glaring technicality to be had if their belief is realised.

Like I said, Mike. Laws are an imposition of belief. For instance, i might feel that revenge killings are totally moral and even a matter of duty, but my society feels it's wrong. Society imposes its will on me and forces me to confirm to its belief that I can't do revenge killings. If I do, then I must bear the consequences.

I don't see how imposition of belief in the way a missionary does is really intolerant or wrong. And it seems that's the ONLY imposition Christians do. Sure they tell you you'll go to hell, etc, but that's still simply words. One can take 'em or leave 'em. I choose to leave 'em.

And while it may not be smart to bully someone into thinking the way I think, and it may be inefficient, I don't see how that's *wrong.*

I agree in normal circumstances, we can't physically force others to believe as we believe. But we CAN apply pressure, etc. That's all a part of the democratic process. It's what we're supposed to do. :-)

I think we're all getting a bit lost in the resulting mire. Laws can be interpreted as impositions of belief, yes, and it brings to mind the question of whether imposition of concepts/ideals that have a positive effect on society (e.g. no murdering your neighbour) is justifiable. Another topic for another time.

As I said before, missionary work is not "imposition" per se. It's more of a gentle coercion that gives the other party an option to accept or decline, which is why I'm questioning the word "impose." To impose brings to mind force, which I believe has no right as far as promoting one's religion is concerned.

Yes. I would argue that America imposes Judeo-Christian beliefs on its citizenry. With every connotation that the word 'imposes' brings.

I'd have to disagree with you there. I don't think the United States has reached a point where it is actually imposing religious beliefs on its citizenry. Of course, I say this as an outsider looking in, but as far as I know there's no mandatory order to celebrate Christmas or Easter nor is there one to force everyone to go to church on Sundays regardless of religion. Certainly, there is a coercive factor in there with the commercialisation of the aforementioned holidays but citizens who do not wish to partake in the festivities can just as well turn a blind eye to it.

[kuilong]

Well, that's to promote order in society (like, don't kill each other)... to maintain a citizen's rights. But if the Christians are in power, does it make sense for them to impose their beliefs on the Buddhists? Telling one what one should or should not believe?

To me, that is intolerant of the beliefs of the Buddhists, to believe that they are wrong.

AFter all, the only difference is that one person believes you are wrong, and the other one wants to do something about it.

How is believing someone's beliefs are wrong intolerant? For instance, you probably (correct me if I'm wrong) think fundamentalist Christians, flat-earthers and all are wrong, are you intolerant of their beliefs? I would argue that you're not. Tolerance means not disliking someone for their beliefs and allowing other people to believe what they want unmolested, not holding every possible belief to be true (which isn't possible in the first place).

Yes. I would argue that America imposes Judeo-Christian beliefs on its citizenry. With every connotation that the word 'imposes' brings.

Interesting, I've never experienced any such imposition. What do you mean by "America" (the government? American society as a whole?) and how does it impose Judeo-Christian beliefs on us in every sense of the word? To me, imposition isn't telling someone what they should believe, but more like the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity in Spain ("New Christians") or the denial of rights to religious minorities, like in some radical Islamic countries today.

Well, then I'll consider myself excommunicated along with all the other non-Catholic Christians of the world.

The position of the church was clarified in Dominus Iesus (2000) which stated (from memory) that Protestants are "in communion, albeit imperfect, with Rome" (the RCC considers the Eastern Orthodoxy to be in a state of schism, but not heresy -- the former being a lesser crime against the faith). There's some dispute whether this is an infallible dogma, and a lot of Catholics have deplored its negative effects on ecumenism.

It's always admirable when someone does good things, though I don't see what morality has to do with God at all. I suppose that there are still divine-command ethicists out there, but it lost a lot of prestige since Socrates and the Euthyphro Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma) (see my sig for the original). The field of ethics has moved beyond where morality is seen as tied in any way to divinity.

[Emperor_Mike]

The position of the church was clarified in Dominus Iesus (2000) which stated (from memory) that Protestants are "in communion, albeit imperfect, with Rome" (the RCC considers the Eastern Orthodoxy to be in a state of schism, but not heresy -- the former being a lesser crime against the faith). There's some dispute whether this is an infallible dogma, and a lot of Catholics have deplored its negative effects on ecumenism.

It does bring to mind the question how this decision to recognise Protestants as being in communion with Rome (albeit imperfect as you pointed out) can be reconciled with the Church's Reformation Era attitude toward Protestantism and the resulting excommunication of adherents to the then-new branch of Christianity. Let it be clear that my intention is not to cause you cast doubts on the Catholic Church, but merely one to get a few things clarified. I, too, have been taught that the Church is infallible but I have difficulty reconciling infallibility with Rome's (or rather, the Vatican's) change in attitude toward Protestants from the one adopted in the early days of the Reformation. Would you not characterise this going back on a bad judgement a mark of fallibility? Since you seem well versed in the Church (far more than me in any case) perhaps you can share your thoughts on the matter.




It's always admirable when someone does good things, though I don't see what morality has to do with God at all. I suppose that there are still divine-command ethicists out there, but it lost a lot of prestige since Socrates and the Euthyphro Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_Dilemma) (see my sig for the original). The field of ethics has moved beyond where morality is seen as tied in any way to divinity.

I believe that morality has much to do with religion, else what are we to use it for? Pomp and ceremony? The teachings of Jesus are evident enough along with the Ten Commandments. If not moral lessons and honest-to-goodness-acts-toward-humanity then what else can we obtain from being a follower of Christ? If Heaven is the sole reward and there are no moral prerequisites then even the most evil of men and women can gain access to the Kingdom of God by observing the rituals of the faith alone. It doesn't make any sense to me.

[Yeahman]

Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism teaches that salvation is through faith AND WORKS. And unlike Protestantism where one is "saved," Catholics have no expection to "gain entrance to the Kingdom of God."

Well, then I'll consider myself excommunicated along with all the other non-Catholic Christians of the world. So long as from now until the day I die I continue my works of mercy by donating time, money, and resources to the needs of the poor and the suffering it's good enough for me. If God casts me aside in spite of all the good I'm doing to relieve the anguish of the destitute on the account that I didn't follow the teachings of the Church in its entirety then...well...then so be it. Who am I to argue? I'll leave the final judgement up to Him.
Woah, I didn't see this post till kuilong pointed it out. My quote from the Catechism is VERY relevant to this!
A Catholic must hold to the infallible teachings of the Church which includes Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Failure to follow those teachings means that you are not in communion with the Catholic Church and therefore cannot present yourself for Communion.
Now, though the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, there are a number of loopholes. Baptized Protestants are in an imperfect communion with the Church and non-Christians may be covered by "invincible ignorance." A very liberal Catholic can theoretically believe that everyone goes to heaven.
But what's more disturbing is your willingness to excommunicate yourself! That suggests that you probably don't hold to a bunch of the infallible teachings of the Church.

[Faithless]

Should this thread really be merged with this one:

do you believe? (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=12182)

[kitty]

They're both part of the American culture.

But you're right that they're in different classes. The government forces you to read and write English. They don't force you to believe in any religion.

american culture revolves around god as much as it revolves around english. that bible that you have to put your hand on? not there by accident.

here's what i think, and i know i'm going to be flame-basted for it. the fact that america emphasizes religion, prayer in school, and that god's name is invoked every time a dollar bill trades from one hand to another is america (the entity) condoning not only religion, but one religion over another.

sure no one is holding a gun to my head and saying 'be christian', but i AM forced to invoke god's name when (if i were american) i say the pledge of allegiance. i AM forced to swear on a holy bible (if i were to testify) when i testify. i AM forced to take Christmas, Easter, etc off, but am NOT forced to take any other religious holiday off.

It is not forced, but it is certainly imposed. Imposed in the sense that Christianity is inextricably linked to not only American culture, but American politics and governance, and the latter is the problem that I have.

[ChinaLama]

I believe that morality has much to do with religion, else what are we to use it for? Pomp and ceremony? The teachings of Jesus are evident enough along with the Ten Commandments. If not moral lessons and honest-to-goodness-acts-toward-humanity then what else can we obtain from being a follower of Christ? If Heaven is the sole reward and there are no moral prerequisites then even the most evil of men and women can gain access to the Kingdom of God by observing the rituals of the faith alone. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The most moral person I know is an agnostic or atheist, so I don't feel morality has to be tied to religion. Confucianism, for instance, was originally conceived as a secular but moral system.

Should this thread really be merged with this one:

do you believe? (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=12182)

Good idea. For some reason, I can't do it. Oh well maybe someone more competent than I can perform the merge. :)

[Emperor_Mike]

Catholicism teaches that salvation is through faith AND WORKS. And unlike Protestantism where one is "saved," Catholics have no expection to "gain entrance to the Kingdom of God."

Even if faith in the subject in question is in obvious conflict with what is morally correct? Personally, I don't subscribe to this. I'd much rather accomplish more through good works and having faith in the teachings of the Church that aren't blatantly non-sensical and an affront to decency. The final say, of course, belongs to God and not to the Pope or any mortal for that matter.



Woah, I didn't see this post till kuilong pointed it out. My quote from the Catechism is VERY relevant to this!
A Catholic must hold to the infallible teachings of the Church which includes Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Failure to follow those teachings means that you are not in communion with the Catholic Church and therefore cannot present yourself for Communion.
Now, though the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, there are a number of loopholes. Baptized Protestants are in an imperfect communion with the Church and non-Christians may be covered by "invincible ignorance." A very liberal Catholic can theoretically believe that everyone goes to heaven.
But what's more disturbing is your willingness to excommunicate yourself! That suggests that you probably don't hold to a bunch of the infallible teachings of the Church.

I have friends like you who are staunch believers in the infallibility of the Church and the Popes. They're quite harmless, really. To be honest, you are correct in saying I don't believe in the infallibility of the Church. Only the infallibility of God is relevant here and it's quite difficult to understand that it was God's hand that directed the Church to embark on the Crusades and other sundry wars of religion. If we are to adopt the rhetoric of Reformation Era Protestants then it wouldn't be erroneous to say that the Church had been corrupted in the past and if this corruption had tainted the once infallible properties of the institution it would be difficult to use reason to reconcile the notion of infallibility with the past sins of Rome. Better yet, perhaps you can address this point. How is infallibility infallible if past evidence proves that there was indeed fallacious reasoning by the Popes and Church officials? If there were grave errors in decision making then and mistakes were evidently made, what is there to say that it won't happen again or indeed, that it's not happening now?

Naturally, the problem would solve itself if God just gave us His two cents on the issue. Sadly, it's not forthcoming so it is up to us mere mortals to interpret the subject at hand.

As for excommunication, obviously I can't excommunicate myself. The Church needs to do that and if one day the Pope says, "Michael, because you're such a renegade Catholic I'm going to excommunicate you" I'll just say, "Holy Father, I understand." God has the final say on such matters so I'll leave it to Him. No point in worrying about the prospect of eternal damnation while others are living in their own personal Hell on Earth and need aid.

Religion is a funny thing. No one is right or wrong because all we have are opinions. You say I'm going to Hell, I say, "No, YOU'RE going to Hell" and so on and so forth. I suppose we'll all find out one of these days.

The most moral person I know is an agnostic or atheist, so I don't feel morality has to be tied to religion. Confucianism, for instance, was originally conceived as a secular but moral system.


No, morality isn't tied to religion but it does, in my opinion, play a very important role in it. Like I said before, if religion exists without a moral element why would we need it or continue to adhere to it? For the Heavenly reward? And if so, how would one go about attaining it if not by acts based on morals?

Then again, you can always have a religion where salvation is gained by killing as many people as you can. Even then it's a question of *immoral* prerequisites to get into Heaven.

Or Hell. Whichever.

[ChinaLama]

I guess I just misunderstood you, then. I thought you meant "one must be religious to be moral," but if that's not the case, I agree with you. I don't think there's any religion without a moral framework built into it.

[Yeahman]

I agree with both chinalama and emperor mike. You don't have to be religious to be moral. That is not even the purpose of religion. A religion exists because people believe it to be true, not because its moral code benefits society.
However, religion can fostor moral behavior. That is why I find religiosity more important than spirituality. WTF is the point of spirituality? To find peace with oneself? I don't need that. But the enviroment of religious insitutions encourages moral behavior. It's like an Alocoholics Anonymous. There is a moral support network.

Even if faith in the subject in question is in obvious conflict with what is morally correct? Personally, I don't subscribe to this. I'd much rather accomplish more through good works and having faith in the teachings of the Church that aren't blatantly non-sensical and an affront to decency. The final say, of course, belongs to God and not to the Pope or any mortal for that matter.
Faith would never be in conflict with what is morally correct, practically by definition. The final say belongs to God who expresses this through the Vicar of Christ.

I have friends like you who are staunch believers in the infallibility of the Church and the Popes. They're quite harmless, really. To be honest, you are correct in saying I don't believe in the infallibility of the Church. Only the infallibility of God is relevant here and it's quite difficult to understand that it was God's hand that directed the Church to embark on the Crusades and other sundry wars of religion. If we are to adopt the rhetoric of Reformation Era Protestants then it wouldn't be erroneous to say that the Church had been corrupted in the past and if this corruption had tainted the once infallible properties of the institution it would be difficult to use reason to reconcile the notion of infallibility with the past sins of Rome. Better yet, perhaps you can address this point. How is infallibility infallible if past evidence proves that there was indeed fallacious reasoning by the Popes and Church officials? If there were grave errors in decision making then and mistakes were evidently made, what is there to say that it won't happen again or indeed, that it's not happening now?
There are strict guidelines to what is fallible and what is infallible.
The Holy Spirit prevents the Pope and Ecumenical Councils in communion with the Holy See from erring on matters of faith and morals where there is a clear teaching that is to be held by the entire faithful.
I disagree with the Church on a wide variety of matters such as women ordinations and priestly celibacy. But those are not infallible teachings of the Church. I can freely disagree with them. However, I cannot say that I deny the Immaculate Conception and still claim to be a Catholic. It is an infallible teaching that the entire faithful are required to hold.

Infallibility also does not mean sinlessness. The Pope can rape and kill. It has nothing to do with his infallibility. President Bush can rape and kill, but as long as he's president he retains his presidental authorities.
Corruption within the Church also does not affect the infallibility of the teachings. Just as corruption within the government does not invalidate laws.

Naturally, the problem would solve itself if God just gave us His two cents on the issue. Sadly, it's not forthcoming so it is up to us mere mortals to interpret the subject at hand.
God's 2 cents is expressed through the Vicar of Christ.

Religion is a funny thing. No one is right or wrong because all we have are opinions. You say I'm going to Hell, I say, "No, YOU'RE going to Hell" and so on and so forth. I suppose we'll all find out one of these days.
Somebody is right and the rest are wrong. Or everybody's wrong. Either way, they aren't just opinions. Is "Thou shalt not kill" an opinion?

[Emperor_Mike]

Faith would never be in conflict with what is morally correct, practically by definition. The final say belongs to God who expresses this through the Vicar of Christ.

It will be for God to judge then and not the Church, which is my point all along in any case.



There are strict guidelines to what is fallible and what is infallible.
The Holy Spirit prevents the Pope and Ecumenical Councils in communion with the Holy See from erring on matters of faith and morals where there is a clear teaching that is to be held by the entire faithful.
I disagree with the Church on a wide variety of matters such as women ordinations and priestly celibacy. But those are not infallible teachings of the Church. I can freely disagree with them. However, I cannot say that I deny the Immaculate Conception and still claim to be a Catholic. It is an infallible teaching that the entire faithful are required to hold.

Now we have a distinction between religious infallibility and moral infallibility notwithstanding the prospect of both being crossed at some point. With such a separation of the topic it becomes a bit easier to come to a conclusion. It is not from the religious standpoint the contention is to be found but from the claims of adherents to the faith to have moral infallibility that is troubling (e.g. everything the Church does is right.) That I cannot accept and will not accept. As far as the basis of the Church is involved like the Miraculous Conception and the Resurrection, that I have no trouble with else I'd sooner be an atheist.



Infallibility also does not mean sinlessness. The Pope can rape and kill. It has nothing to do with his infallibility. President Bush can rape and kill, but as long as he's president he retains his presidental authorities.
Corruption within the Church also does not affect the infallibility of the teachings. Just as corruption within the government does not invalidate laws.


If it is moral infallibility of the Church that is the root of the discussion as opposed to its religious infallibility then my question can be circumvented by dividing the issue, but only just barely on the account there may be occassions when both camps will meet in the middle.



God's 2 cents is expressed through the Vicar of Christ.


For this we have to rely on faith. Since Christ has not taught anyone to go out and kill for God, exploring hypothetical scenarios in that vein (i.e. immoral, ungodly acts) is pointless. As it relates to other subjects of moral or religious infallibility not having to do with Christ, however, there is ample room for debate.



Somebody is right and the rest are wrong. Or everybody's wrong. Either way, they aren't just opinions. Is "Thou shalt not kill" an opinion?

Technically speaking, that commandment can be interpreted as an "opinion" or guideline that doesn't take into consideration any exigencies that may occur such as war and defence. It is perhaps treading a fine line between a common sense interpretation of the word and an overly analytical approach bordering on the absurd, but from a technical standpoint it's true. However, if my memory serves me correctly I believe that was dealt with in some fashion.

Opinion wise, since there is no way to prove 100% that one party is right (or wrong) any statements we make are only opinions until such a time that either one of us can be proven otherwise.

[Fireblade]

sure no one is holding a gun to my head and saying 'be christian', but i AM forced to invoke god's name when (if i were american) i say the pledge of allegiance. i AM forced to swear on a holy bible (if i were to testify) when i testify. i AM forced to take Christmas, Easter, etc off, but am NOT forced to take any other religious holiday off.

It is not forced, but it is certainly imposed. Imposed in the sense that Christianity is inextricably linked to not only American culture, but American politics and governance, and the latter is the problem that I have.

ok... you just kinda made a contradiction. Do you believe it's