We live in times that more and more people dont need a strange religion. The most trouble in the world comes from a destructive sexuality and this was for a long time the activity of “great” religion.
I think we are more or less along the same lines of thinking in many ways. In some ways we differ though. What you described above to me, is just a new religion. It’s not the clothes they wear that make it a religion. What you described above, would ultimately amount to the same things as religion. And when the society didn’t agree, it would split up into different sects.
About the sexual comments - I disagree there. This is not a blazing cause for me, and I’m not against people doing their own thing. However, I ever so strongly believe that there is too little commitment in relationships these days. To me it seems like most people want to have a relationship that they could watch from afar on an MTV reality show. So many children are with single parents not because the relationship didn’t work out, but because there was no relationship to begin with. This is where someone has to spread a message to counter the message shown on tv (again, someone has to tug on each end of the rope in the debate). Children who grow up in a single parent home are likely to see it as normal, and it’s self perpetuating. I’m not saying single parents are not good parents. I am saying that to a child, it’s preferable to grow up knowing both parents. Yes people should have the right to do as they choose. However, the message the church spreads, of commitment to the one you love, it’s a respectable and plain common sense message.
My uncle is a catholic Priest. I don’t get to see him often because he’s very busy. I had asked him about his schooling years ago. He has a university degree in theology and also psychology (it might have been philospohy, but I believe it was psycology). I remember him saying it was required because part of being a priest is working with people when they are vulnrable, people look to them for assistance and guidance, etc. I don’t remember if he studied for longer than the minimum amount of time, but I remember being surprised because in the same amount of time he could basically have become a doctor.
It’s why perhaps I’m a bit defensive when people say bad things about priests. I realize there have some very bad priests, but obviously not all of them. He has done so much work, 6 days a week for so many years, and he has nothing to show for it materially. I just see the wear it has taken on him giving himself so thoroughly to the community he works in. It’s not something you just roll out of bed one day and start doing. It takes a damned respectable amount of work and commitment.
What the heck are you on about?
The lack of commitment you reference… that has nothing to do with people’s acceptance of sexuality. It has everything to do with people not putting up with abusive relationships anymore. You have to keep in mind that back in the day, it was alright to beat your woman to keep her in line. These days, that kind of bullshit just isn’t tolerated anymore… and rightfully so.
I would argue that if couples explored the depths of their sexuality more thoroughly before getting married and having kids, they’d avoid the trouble that many couples have had when they realize they’re not sexually compatible. Not only that, but they’d have a happy, more loving, satisfying relationship in the long run. It’s when people get together without first exploring that sexuality that the problem occurs… religion encourages committing to someone before really knowing if you want to (carnally) be with them. It’s insanity.
Your uncle is a fine man.
It actually means a lot that you would say that, thank you.
Helping others is indeed a respectable and lofty goal… one which transcends religion entirely. There are people from all religions that selflessly pursue humanitarian work, as are there irreligious people who do so. Your uncle is indeed a fine man for helping others… it’s just sad that certain people must only strive to help others in the name of Jesus. Why can’t we help others in the name of mankind? When I try to help others, I don’t do it with the adgenda of trying to convert their ideaologies. I do it with the adgenda of bringing them health and happiness so that they may lead a fulfilling live… because as I see it, this life is all we have.
People should not live life with the promise of heaven. People should live life with the realization that as best we know, we are finite… and that this world is finite… and that this is the closest to heaven as we’ll ever get, so we should try to reduce the suffering of as many people as we can while we’re here.
it’s not sad that certain people must only strive to help others in the name of Jesus, if that’s what it is then so be it.
That’s dictating quite a bit man.
For the rest of this, as best we know, we don’t know anything.
opinions, are like mobs. opinionated people are best muted.
I’m sorry, I should have stated “In my opinion” …I’m not trying to dictate anything… I’m simply pointing out that as far as anyone on this planet knows, there is no afterlife. Having no proof of an afterlife, why would one spend their entire life presuming there is one? Furthermore, why would one spend their life trying to avoid eternal damnation, when they could be doing useful things for this world? I mean you can do it if you want, but it won’t stop me from thinking it’s amazingly silly… and quite damaging.
Religious morals have gotten so messed up that many christians think they can get away with anything as long as they confess and repent. It’s more of a carte blanche on life than atheism ever has been.
You say opinionated people should be muted? By your logic, the first thing to be muted should be the church.
I realize you don’t know him, but my uncle was a nice person before he ever became a priest. When someone is doing something positive, it’s positive regardless of what their beliefs are.
I also don’t think that most people that do work for the church spending so much time on humanitarian issues do it to get something out of it for themselves. (ie - go to heaven). I think they do it because it speaks to their heart.
I think that is why anyone would do it, religious or non-religious. (Although I do also believe in Karma, fill in any word you want for it, boils down to the same thing).
karma is an interesting one. I reckon every action is 100% karma neutral, regardless of our moral infliction.
to create something you have to destroy something else (in physical terms: no free energy, no creation of new matter allowed, no perpetuum mobile)
which makes the entire universe one big karma neutral machine, and the gods are very pleased at the beauty of this
I don’t doubt it.
I couldn’t have put it more simply myself. This is what I’ve been trying to say the whole time.
That in mind, why does the fear of god need to be there?
This is the most wonderful sentence I have read in a long time.
Everybody is the Best Ever!
I can’t believe I remember this (and actually I don’t remember all the details). In grade 8 in catholic school you have your confirmation. There are these 7 things you have to study. I can’t remember any of them anymore except for one. A long time ago one of those things had been ‘fear of god’. It had already been changed way back then (decades ago) from ‘fear of god’ to ‘awe of the lord’.
I think the general emphasis taught currently by the doctrine is ‘love for’ and not ‘fear of’ god. The fear of god thing is outdated.
The fear of god thing is only outdated in certain churches… catholicism is surprisingly more tolerant than most protestant churches. Whether or not these churches still use the term, I was referring more to the concept of eternal damnation… the idea that god will banish you to hell for sinning. I don’t understand why this concept is needed at all. If you do good, should it not be done of your own will? If you’re doing it simply of fear of eternal damnation, then isn’t the gesture somewhat empty? Also, chances are pretty great that those who do bad on a regular basis don’t care about eternal damnation anyway… aren’t we just oppressing the righteous here?
Most importantly, why should the church be the orginization that decides what’s good and what’s bad?
You apparently don’t understand how strawman arguments work. You post a video that addresses creationists, but then you make no distinction between creationists and christians (neither does the video), as you have pointed out yourself. The implication is against christians.
Okay, so you post a video about creationists and then attack the social implications of religion. Thats a strawman, or at least a non sequitur.
And you still are missing the point. You aren’t making any serious arguments by criticizing the “social implications” of religion, because on a whole, there is good and bad, as there is with science or anything else. Social implications aren’t fundamental arguments against a belief in god. I don’t think christians care about whether or not the idea of hell displeases you.
From what I understand, the idea of hell/inferno/fire & brimstone is a relative truth. In that it was used as a way to deter many of the things going on during those times. Those that would now be considered by many as very heinous crimes, and even a large facet these days as acceptable actions.
Nothing is a crime, there is no right or wrong, these things are created by man to make a functional society.
Religion helped in that, a long time ago, instilling the fear of wrong into people when crime fighters weren’t as equipped to deter…
But there is no universal law that runs through everything, governing it with these polars.
What we consider an optimum condition- sun, clean air, warmth, is mirrored by bacterias love for cool damp places. Which one is correct? Neither, they simply function that way.
The same can be applied to the human psyche.
None are wrong (under the hammer of a universal court), they just simply function that way.
The idea of right and wrong is just about creating an efficient environment for us as a race, most people could do without the threat of death, or loss weighing down on them. And since we are (thought to be) the most intelligent species, we were able to create that by manipulation…for positive reasons of course.
Who are we to say what is right or wrong in the entire universe though…just cos its best for us.
The non sequitur is quite obviously in your mind… I didn’t bring up christianity (as a whole) at all until hektic brought it up (and technically he just brought up catholicism)… which was well after you did… and after I had stated my confusion about you attacking me for apparently confusing the two (despite the fact that I hadn’t brought christianity up yet). The video took quotes from a christian fundamentalist forum… NOTE THE “FUNDIMENTALIST”, ITS IMPORTANT, MMKAY? … and its the fundies who are quite often creationists. Most christians don’t qualify as fundamentalists because most christians are moderates.
So by your logic, there is good and bad with genocide, therefore it’s pointless to even discuss the social implications thereof. You’d make a great philosofucker. Philosofuckery can prove anything, you know. 
I don’t have anything against a belief in god… which I’ve stated quite a few times. Are you even reading this thread? I’ve been directly attacking religion… NOT spirituality.
I don’t think athiests care about whether or not the idea of [enter anything from the plethora of things atheists think are completely normal but christians tend to bitch about] displeases christians, but that doesn’t stop most christians from bitching about it.