|
Catholics are outraged...again (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
You see, whether or not Jesus existed is barely even relevant: he could well be an entirely fictional character, because it's his ideas that matter. Jesus, in that sense, would bring cohesion to the body of ideas just like an actual person. For example, suppose Socrates and Confucius didn't exist: Does it make their legacies any less valid? |
From an epistemological point of view, it does matter.
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
|
I've found it quite disgraceful that every single media outlet that I've read or watched that has covered this labels Dawkins and Hitchens as "atheists", suggesting that their motivations to bring Ratzinger to justice are purely out of religious intolerance. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
From an epistemological point of view, it does matter. |
Not really. Religion is not about "what's true and what isn't", but "what's good/moral and what isn't" in order to bring social cohesion. Even if archeologists find out that Paul made it all up (in Jesus' case), this may make everything else look much more awkward to outsiders but, it's irrelevant to believers because, if you ask them, they're likely to say "their beliefs make them better people".
I know I wouldn't care if someone found out Plato created Socrates, because it's the ideas that matter, not the thinker.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Disagree... it's actually Paul's reflection on what he was told of Jesus' teachings that have had the greater influence on Christianity. The same is true of Socrates... it's not him but Plato's views on him that are of any consequence. |
Well, sure, but Jesus and Socrates are supposed to be the basis of their thinking to some extent. Aren't they? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Well, sure, but Jesus and Socrates are supposed to be the basis of their thinking to some extent. Aren't they? |
Sure they are; however, it isn't Jesus' ideas that shaped Christianity; rather, it was the specific ideas attributed to Jesus that Paul chose to focus on and perhaps even moreso Paul's conclusions regarding the person of Jesus based on what he was taught by others. Similarly, it's not the thoughts of Socrates that matter but what Plato felt compelled to record. Socrates could have been a bumbling idiot 99% of the time; however, if all we know of him is a few really kick ass dialogues he managed to pull out of his ass then that's how the world sees him... not as he was but as Plato choose to portray him, which says at least as much (if not more) about Plato then it does about Socrates. Jesus may well have been absolutely nothing other then a working class dude who got fed up with being marginalized, put down the tools and started preaching rebellion to Judea's outcasts, tried to incite a revolution, failed miserably, and got killed for it but Christians don't see him this way because rather then portraying him as an poor angry insigificant wondering preacher Paul saw him as God come to earth as man. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Not really. Religion is not about "what's true and what isn't", but "what's good/moral and what isn't" in order to bring social cohesion. Even if archeologists find out that Paul made it all up (in Jesus' case), this may make everything else look much more awkward to outsiders but, it's irrelevant to believers because, if you ask them, they're likely to say "their beliefs make them better people". |
I'm not so certain on this one. I agree in most cases (say Jainism vs. Hinduism) but part of the core of Pauline Christianity is that Jesus was God and by living and dying as man he has invited man to exist with God. If you remove the person of Jesus from the equasion then you remove that invitation; if you remove that invitation then Christianity becomes more a reformation of Judaism then a religion unto itself. Make no mistake, many Christians would hold to their ideals and beliefs; however, if there had been no Christ figure from the beginging there would be no Christianity; rather, Pauline Judaism. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Not really. Religion is not about "what's true and what isn't", but "what's good/moral and what isn't" in order to bring social cohesion. |
That's a bit naive, because every religion claims to have the ultimate truth. With a special "do as we tell you or be damned for all eternity" clause, too. At the core of every religion, there is not a goal of "social cohesion" but rather what happens to people after the die. Sure, some degree of social cohesion might be achieved by religion but that is only incidental. The life that matters is the eternal one that begins with a person's physical death, so they say.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Even if archeologists find out that Paul made it all up (in Jesus' case), this may make everything else look much more awkward to outsiders but, it's irrelevant to believers because, if you ask them, they're likely to say "their beliefs make them better people".
I know I wouldn't care if someone found out Plato created Socrates, because it's the ideas that matter, not the thinker.
Well, sure, but Jesus and Socrates are supposed to be the basis of their thinking to some extent. Aren't they? |
Socrates and Plato weren't offering eternal rewards to those who subscribed to their ideas and eternal damnation to those who rejected them, were they? If you remove the person from the equation (i.e. someone proves Jesus is an entirely fictional character), you come close to proving that the core supernatural beliefs of Christianity are completely without ground. And even better, it might convince some believers that they don't need a deity in order live a good/moral life. There is some irony to it though, because while it would debilitate the Christian churches (in principle), it would also strengthen the beliefs of Jews and Muslims. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
That's a bit naive, because every religion claims to have the ultimate truth. With a special "do as we tell you or be damned for all eternity" clause, too. At the core of every religion, there is not a goal of "social cohesion" but rather what happens to people after the die. Sure, some degree of social cohesion might be achieved by religion but that is only incidental. The life that matters is the eternal one that begins with a person's physical death, so they say. |
meh, there are numerous religions that focus on this life as opposed to any afterlife. Judaism, while it does allude to an afterlife is almost entirely focused on this life. Confucianism, Falun Gong, and I'm pretty sure Taoism have no position on the afterlife. Additionally, there are actually very few that contain your eternal damnation if you don't subscribe to our faith clause; Catholocism, Baha-i, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Rastifari, Sikhism, none of them contain such a clause or proscribe such a damnation.
| quote: | | If you remove the person from the equation (i.e. someone proves Jesus is an entirely fictional character), you come close to proving that the core supernatural beliefs of Christianity are completely without ground. And even better, it might convince some believers that they don't need a deity in order live a good/moral life. There is some irony to it though, because while it would debilitate the Christian churches (in principle), it would also strengthen the beliefs of Jews and Muslims. |
Given that the Qu'ran claims it's validity can be proven by it's consistancy with the Torah and the Gospels and that Jesus is the second highest prophet of that faith (edit: maybe 3rd, I'm not certain if they put Moses above Jesus... where's Fahad when you need him) then one must presume that Islam would be delt an equally devestating blow if one were to disprove the existance of Jesus. Of course, proving that an individual never existed is nigh unto impossible. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
there are numerous religions that focus on this life as opposed to any afterlife. |
You forgot atheism. :p |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
meh, there are numerous religions that focus on this life as opposed to any afterlife. Judaism, while it does allude to an afterlife is almost entirely focused on this life. Confucianism, Falun Gong, and I'm pretty sure Taoism have no position on the afterlife. Additionally, there are actually very few that contain your eternal damnation if you don't subscribe to our faith clause; Catholocism, Baha-i, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Rastifari, Sikhism, none of them contain such a clause or proscribe such a damnation. |
OK, I should have stressed that I meant all theistic religions. Including Judaism.
The afterlife in traditional Judaism is a promise to be resurrected after death and being given the reward of experiencing the Olam Ha-Ba, the "World To Come" given that you lived a righteous life. They view this life as the "waiting room" where one must prepare before being allowed entrance to the Olam Ha-Ba. The wicked souls will not be resurrected. It is quite obvious that it is implicit in their teachings that the failure to live a righteous life translates into eternal death.
I know that you're a liberal Catholic and have very different ideas regarding Catholicism, but the fact that you believe that there is no eternal damnation in your religion does not change the fact that it is explicitly stated in the official doctrines of the Catholic church:
| quote: | Article 12 - I Believe In Life Everlasting - I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.590 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.591
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593--or immediate and everlasting damnation.594
.
.
.
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."6 |
I honestly don't know why there are people that flat out disagree with things like the above and still identify themselves as Catholics.
Many of the "religions" that you mentioned at the end are actually just philosophies on what life is and how to live it. Even so, most of them still allude to a kind of afterlife based on how you behave on this one, be it through reincarnation (Hinduism, Buddhism) or a "heaven on earth" (Rastafarianism), or other different concepts. I am still unaware of any religion (it's kind of hard to keep track these days :p ) that teaches that you should live a good/moral life for the sake of humanity or for the sake of being good, rather than for a supernatural reward.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Given that the Qu'ran claims it's validity can be proven by it's consistancy with the Torah and the Gospels and that Jesus is the second highest prophet of that faith (edit: maybe 3rd, I'm not certain if they put Moses above Jesus... where's Fahad when you need him) then one must presume that Islam would be delt an equally devestating blow if one were to disprove the existance of Jesus. Of course, proving that an individual never existed is nigh unto impossible. |
I meant it in the sense that it would strengthen their belief of Muhammad being "the one" above all other prophets but I guess you are right. Didn't really stop to think about it when writing that.
With Jews it's much different though. I can imagine them going "See? We told you he wasn't the messiah!" :p |
|
|
| adi_hanson |
| Can anyone imagine a homosexual god figure.No wonder the jews get a hard time ,they have terrible dress sense. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | | quote: | Originally posted by woscar
That's a bit naive, because every religion claims to have the ultimate truth. With a special "do as we tell you or be damned for all eternity" clause, too. At the core of every religion, there is not a goal of "social cohesion" but rather what happens to people after the die. Sure, some degree of social cohesion might be achieved by religion but that is only incidental. The life that matters is the eternal one that begins with a person's physical death, so they say. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'm not so certain on this one. I agree in most cases (say Jainism vs. Hinduism) but part of the core of Pauline Christianity is that Jesus was God and by living and dying as man he has invited man to exist with God. If you remove the person of Jesus from the equasion then you remove that invitation; if you remove that invitation then Christianity becomes more a reformation of Judaism then a religion unto itself. Make no mistake, many Christians would hold to their ideals and beliefs; however, if there had been no Christ figure from the beginging there would be no Christianity; rather, Pauline Judaism. |
|
This is something underlying every religion there is, and its main raison d'etre, the way I see it: it provides an adamant set of rules to a given society, with an all-encomposing system of metaphysics to back it all up.
That's what the "claims of knowledge" are for, Woscar. It gives purpose to the moral laws in the community (and makes themselves feel better too - aren't you much more comfortable being aware that, if you do what you're told, you're going to get some sort of reward and/or contribute to the larger scheme of things?).
That's why I think God was such an amazing insight: who would you rather follow? A foreigner you've never seen or an almighty God that loves you even if everyone else thinks you're a bastard?
Next time you talk about science to a religious fundamentalist (sorry, Craig, you don't count, you're too smart :p) tell them they should ditch God because it is stupid. One of the most popular counter-arguments for the preservation of God is the following: Without God, there's no morality.
Religion IS the reification of morality for these people, and God as a cornerstone of monotheist religions could well be considered its most concrete personification, though platonists did their best to dehumanise God and turn him into something a lot more "cosmic".
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sure they are; however, it isn't Jesus' ideas that shaped Christianity; rather, it was the specific ideas attributed to Jesus that Paul chose to focus on and perhaps even moreso Paul's conclusions regarding the person of Jesus based on what he was taught by others. Similarly, it's not the thoughts of Socrates that matter but what Plato felt compelled to record. Socrates could have been a bumbling idiot 99% of the time; however, if all we know of him is a few really kick ass dialogues he managed to pull out of his ass then that's how the world sees him... not as he was but as Plato choose to portray him, which says at least as much (if not more) about Plato then it does about Socrates. Jesus may well have been absolutely nothing other then a working class dude who got fed up with being marginalized, put down the tools and started preaching rebellion to Judea's outcasts, tried to incite a revolution, failed miserably, and got killed for it but Christians don't see him this way because rather then portraying him as an poor angry insigificant wondering preacher Paul saw him as God come to earth as man. |
Fair enough, your way of putting it is far more accurate than mine :)
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Socrates and Plato weren't offering eternal rewards to those who subscribed to their ideas and eternal damnation to those who rejected them, were they? |
Well, they did think that the more philosophically inclined one is, the better for them, and Socrates did help create the idea of what the immortal soul is in the Phaedo.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
If you remove the person from the equation (i.e. someone proves Jesus is an entirely fictional character), you come close to proving that the core supernatural beliefs of Christianity are completely without ground. And even better, it might convince some believers that they don't need a deity in order live a good/moral life. |
Now you're thinking too much like an atheist.
If you tell a Christian that her beliefs are completely nonsensical and that she's taking too much for granted, she'll be quick to point out that you assume far too much: that the universe is purposeless, and that your bleak description of reality is so meaningless as to be outrageous.
"But, such is life", you may say. But, to her, a life with faithful meaning is much more important (and closer to reality) than a cautious meaningless view of the universe.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
There is some irony to it though, because while it would debilitate the Christian churches (in principle), it would also strengthen the beliefs of Jews and Muslims. |
Huh? Muslims belief in Jesus too, a blow on Christianity would eventually a(n albeit minor) blow to Islamic faith as well :conf: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
OK, I should have stressed that I meant all theistic religions. Including Judaism.
The afterlife in traditional Judaism is a promise to be resurrected after death and being given the reward of experiencing the Olam Ha-Ba, the "World To Come" given that you lived a righteous life. They view this life as the "waiting room" where one must prepare before being allowed entrance to the Olam Ha-Ba. The wicked souls will not be resurrected. It is quite obvious that it is implicit in their teachings that the failure to live a righteous life translates into eternal death.
I know that you're a liberal Catholic and have very different ideas regarding Catholicism, but the fact that you believe that there is no eternal damnation in your religion does not change the fact that it is explicitly stated in the official doctrines of the Catholic church:
I honestly don't know why there are people that flat out disagree with things like the above and still identify themselves as Catholics.
Many of the "religions" that you mentioned at the end are actually just philosophies on what life is and how to live it. Even so, most of them still allude to a kind of afterlife based on how you behave on this one, be it through reincarnation (Hinduism, Buddhism) or a "heaven on earth" (Rastafarianism), or other different concepts. I am still unaware of any religion (it's kind of hard to keep track these days :p ) that teaches that you should live a good/moral life for the sake of humanity or for the sake of being good, rather than for a supernatural reward.
I meant it in the sense that it would strengthen their belief of Muhammad being "the one" above all other prophets but I guess you are right. Didn't really stop to think about it when writing that.
With Jews it's much different though. I can imagine them going "See? We told you he wasn't the messiah!" :p |
Sometimes I don't know if you don't understand or you simply disregard the finer points. I stated that the afterlife does't figure prominately in judaism which is true. I also stated not that Catholics don't believe in hell but that they don't believe that Christianity is the only path to God, this there is no join us or go to hell condition. With regard to whether or not some of those I mentioned are religions or philosophies we're probably into a semantics thing. So I hope this eithe cleared up your confusion or corrected your attempt at misdirection, whichever applies.
Man, posting from my blackberry sucks. F-you Mike and Jim! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Man, posting from my blackberry sucks. |
You're a brave one! |
|
|
|
|
