The Religion Discussion Thread

[MilSpecs]

Life is much, much easier with a Daddy-figure to follow.

That's assuming that following whatever the "Daddy-figure tells you to do" is easy. What if Daddy-figure demands sacrifice?

Ask yourself how those systems were maintained over the centuries. Were the ancients really so different from us? Do you assume yourself to be superior in mental capacity or form?

Uncertainty is completely terrifying to humans. We will do anything to feel secure. Even burn our kids alive.

Not at all superior, but we are armed with more knowledge.

That said, I wonder if our greatest fear, one only a god could assuage, is culpability. Gods offer forgiveness and cleansing - some method of dealing with sin. For example, Catholicism wipes the slate clean through confession and the subsequent forgiveness of sins. Eastern religions have rebirth with the opportunity to deal with karma. When there is no god, one has to live with the responsibility of one's actions. There is no second chance and no forgiveness. You can attempt to make amends, but the clock is never reset and the damage is never undone. If you really believe in spiritual growth but not deities, then you have to practice constant self control and accept full responsibility for both your own evil and your own holiness. It is a great argument/basis for religion, apart from belief in a deity.

[Speaker to Animals]

It does not wipe the slate clean. Confession absolves you, if you are earnest, of the eternal consequence of your sins. You still have to satisfy justice by making amends for the temporal consequences of your sin.

[MilSpecs]

It does not wipe the slate clean. Confession absolves you, if you are earnest, of the eternal consequence of your sins. You still have to satisfy justice by making amends for the temporal consequences of your sin.

Te absolvo, yes. I assume you're talking about purgatory, though?

[Speaker to Animals]

It does not wipe the slate clean. Confession absolves you, if you are earnest, of the eternal consequence of your sins. You still have to satisfy justice by making amends for the temporal consequences of your sin.

Te absolvo, yes. I assume you're talking about purgatory, though?

Whatever. Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose the eternal consequences of sin. It doesn't even make any rational sense to claim that a person can just ask God for forgiveness and then suddenly be admitted into Heaven. Surely the same person who committed those sins doesn't belong there without some kind of purification and penance.

The whole point of this exercise is to allow us to choose Heaven which means we choose sainthood. But damned near all of us fail at sainthood in this life even if we, in the end, choose Heaven. For God to somehow instantly make you a saint would violate your free will in that it would essentially be like creating a different person. I think for the most part, you have to spend some time burning off your sinful nature and whatever is left is what goes to Heaven. Anything else would make this life pretty much pointless since all you'd have to do is "accept Jesus" and do whatever you want until you die, and then God will make you into a different person without any sacrifice on your part. That's not even what God said. He said to pick your damned cross and suffer. This isn't a game.

I will grant you that the old pre-Vatican II practice of assigning x number of years for each act of penance was a bit silly, even if legal according to canon law. The idea of this was to reinforce the idea that your penance in this life brings you closer to sainthood, which means less time burning off that sinful nature after you die (if you are incredibly fortunate to be saved).

[MilSpecs]

It does not wipe the slate clean. Confession absolves you, if you are earnest, of the eternal consequence of your sins. You still have to satisfy justice by making amends for the temporal consequences of your sin.

Te absolvo, yes. I assume you're talking about purgatory, though?

Whatever. Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose the eternal consequences of sin. It doesn't even make any rational sense to claim that a person can just ask God for forgiveness and then suddenly be admitted into Heaven. Surely the same person who committed those sins doesn't belong there without some kind of purification and penance.

It’s not ‘whatever’ if you’re catholic. Venial sins are not without consequence, if I remember my catechism.

The sacrament of confession ends with a directive from the priest: perform the tasks the priest assigns. It is the penance and ritual purification of the religion, is it not? I don’t think it’s changed that much over my lifetime.

[Speaker to Animals]

Te absolvo, yes. I assume you're talking about purgatory, though?

Whatever. Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose the eternal consequences of sin. It doesn't even make any rational sense to claim that a person can just ask God for forgiveness and then suddenly be admitted into Heaven. Surely the same person who committed those sins doesn't belong there without some kind of purification and penance.

It’s not ‘whatever’ if you’re catholic. Venial sins are not without consequence, if I remember my catechism.

The sacrament of confession ends with a directive from the priest: perform the tasks the priest assigns. It is the penance and ritual purification of the religion, is it not? I don’t think it’s changed that much over my lifetime.

Penance after confession is sort of like ritual purification in the old Jewish sense (like the original Jews you read about the Gospels rather than the rabbinic Jews today). I wouldn't say it's exactly the same, though.

Interestingly, at least some Jews had some concept of purgatory as well. You can read Jews in Maccabees discussing it when they discovered their fallen comrades found with pagan idols hidden on their bodies. I wonder if there were some other group who thought this way. I don't think the Pharisees though like this (from them I think contemporary Jews all come). The Sadducees didn't even believe in an afterlife. That's why they wanted to kill Jesus so badly after reviving Lazarus. The Essenes were extremophiles living out in the wilderness. Maybe they believed in it? I am not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a link between the Essenes and the Maccabean revolt leaders.

Anyhoo.. it doesn't somehow erase the temporal consequences of your sins. You can pay for those consequences with penance in this life, though, which I suspect is far superior to doing it after we die, but we are all too lazy and obstinate to become saints like that (most of us anyway).

[heydaralon]

This video set off a chain reaction that led to me announcing my atheism to my parents on facebook in march of 2009. Everything I was taught in Sunday school was a lie. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a cold and unfeeling man, who only cared about himself. He was not a man of faith. By all accounts, his anti-authority and anti-religion message should have gotten him KO'd with a mudhole for a stomach. Yet in 1996, Jake Roberts, an avid Bible reader and Christian, was decisively beaten by Steve Austin. Austin cruelly mocked the Snake's convictions, and would have torn his Bible to shreds if given half a chance. Yet Austin became King of the Ring in 1996. That's when I realized that god could not exist in the same universe as WWF, rewarding doubters and scoffers and punishing the good. The beating and humiliating that Roberts faced in the arena surpassed the entire book of Job. God went well beyond testing him, and simply abandoned his most faithful servant in all of pro wrestling.

At first I was furious at Austin's attack on my faith. I kept getting into fights with people sporting Austin 3:16 shirts, and the Texas Rattlesnake became a trigger word for me. But then it hit me: Stone Cold was a living embodiment of Nietzsche's uebermensch. Stone Cold had a belt sized hole in his heart, and he used this anger and despair to go on to become one of the most prolific athletes in all of televised sports. He did not forgo glory in this world for the mirage of glory in the next. He knew that the cold leather and metal of his belt would be his salvation, not a man on the cross. Stone Cold reasoned that jettisoning organized religion would lead to an existential crisis, and a quick pile driver of all liberal judeo-values out of the intellectual ring was immenent. To fight the onset of this ideological void, Austin went on to create his own meaning. His new verse, Austin 3:16: "I just whooped that ass (AIV (Austin International Version)," reflects the new values he created. Since these values are not bound by any sort of antiquated morality, who are any of us to say whether Austin's actions in or out of the ring are wrong? They are wholly justified and necessary. At this point, Stone Cold Stunning was the only thing between me and a nihilistic vortex. I held on for dear life, and disregarded all of the past follies I practiced in church. The final straw was when I gave my youth minister the People's elbow during Bible Camp. I can no longer sit by and pretend that John 3:16 which rejects the physical world and the life in front of us, is more salvific than Austin 3:16. I have seen the truth. Some people watch the 700 club. I watch Redneck Island, a show that Austin frequently makes guest appearances on. I know who I am. Thank you, Texas Rattlesnake.

[LVH2]

[Ex-California]

This video set off a chain reaction that led to me announcing my atheism to my parents on facebook in march of 2009. Everything I was taught in Sunday school was a lie. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a cold and unfeeling man, who only cared about himself. He was not a man of faith. By all accounts, his anti-authority and anti-religion message should have gotten him KO'd with a mudhole for a stomach. Yet in 1996, Jake Roberts, an avid Bible reader and Christian, was decisively beaten by Steve Austin. Austin cruelly mocked the Snake's convictions, and would have torn his Bible to shreds if given half a chance. Yet Austin became King of the Ring in 1996. That's when I realized that god could not exist in the same universe as WWF, rewarding doubters and scoffers and punishing the good. The beating and humiliating that Roberts faced in the arena surpassed the entire book of Job. God went well beyond testing him, and simply abandoned his most faithful servant in all of pro wrestling.

At first I was furious at Austin's attack on my faith. I kept getting into fights with people sporting Austin 3:16 shirts, and the Texas Rattlesnake became a trigger word for me. But then it hit me: Stone Cold was a living embodiment of Nietzsche's uebermensch. Stone Cold had a belt sized hole in his heart, and he used this anger and despair to go on to become one of the most prolific athletes in all of televised sports. He did not forgo glory in this world for the mirage of glory in the next. He knew that the cold leather and metal of his belt would be his salvation, not a man on the cross. Stone Cold reasoned that jettisoning organized religion would lead to an existential crisis, and a quick pile driver of all liberal judeo-values out of the intellectual ring was immenent. To fight the onset of this ideological void, Austin went on to create his own meaning. His new verse, Austin 3:16: "I just whooped that ass (AIV (Austin International Version)," reflects the new values he created. Since these values are not bound by any sort of antiquated morality, who are any of us to say whether Austin's actions in or out of the ring are wrong? They are wholly justified and necessary. At this point, Stone Cold Stunning was the only thing between me and a nihilistic vortex. I held on for dear life, and disregarded all of the past follies I practiced in church. The final straw was when I gave my youth minister the People's elbow during Bible Camp. I can no longer sit by and pretend that John 3:16 which rejects the physical world and the life in front of us, is more salvific than Austin 3:16. I have seen the truth. Some people watch the 700 club. I watch Redneck Island, a show that Austin frequently makes guest appearances on. I know who I am. Thank you, Texas Rattlesnake.

I'd follow a Stone Cold Steve Austin religion

And that's the bottom line

[katarn]

You want to waste your potential to help him with a science experiment? I've got other things to do.

As for 'how it works', look up Determinism, for a start. Or, a thought experiment: If God can see the future, then he already knew that a creation of his would grab Mommy's gun, and murder a bunch of elementary schoolers. Therefore, the murderer never had a choice - his action was pre-determined, he was simply going through the motions, along with the rest of us. Does he deserve punishment then?

At the very least, you have to concede that there is absolutely no active hand in our daily lives. Therefore, why bother asking for healing, or safety? There are no atheists in a foxhole. Yet, any foxhole can catch an artillery shell, regardless of prayer intensity.

I am intrigued by this passage from Boethius's The Consolation of Philosophy:

What? you will say, can I by my own action change divine knowledge, so that if I choose now one thing, now another, Providence too will seem to change its knowledge? No; divine insight precedes all future things, turning them back and recalling them to the present time of its own peculiar knowledge. It does not change, as you may think, between this and that alternation of foreknowledge. It is constant in preceding and embracing by one glance all your changes. And God does not receive this ever-present grasp of all things and vision of the present at the occurrence of future events, but from His own peculiar directness. Whence also is that difficulty solved which you laid down a little while ago, that it was not worthy to say that our future events were the cause of God's knowledge. For this power of knowledge, ever in the present and embracing all things in its perception, does itself constrain all things, and owes naught to following events from which it has received naught.

Same argument as Okee and StA, really. Hand-wave covers all logical faults, with the assumption of Supreme Knowledge.

Like I said, there's no way to know anything outside of our physical reality, so it's a good idea to stick with that. The fact that a few delirious desert tribesmen came up with visions and rules for humanity should not dissuade logical thought.

I think it's more that we disagree on what constitutes a logical fault. For me at least, I do not see the logical flaw in what has been presented. No hand-waving required.