... to render procreation impossible' is intrinsically evil...
I'm curious as to why this is. The phrasing of it is such that it tries to escape criticism and the need to explain. One cannot just say that something is intrinsically such a complicated concept as evil. I would like to know non-procreational sex is evil. How is it bad? How is it that, say, reclining in a comfortable chair not evil, for it is also an indulgence.
The bible can only be properly understood by reading and studying it in its entirety. The the laws present in Leviticus and other books of the Old Testament represent what is called the "Old Law," most of which have been made obsolete by the "New Law" instituted by Christ when He was crucified. In other words, Christians are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament (except those that Christ did not change, like the 10 Commandments.) The Old Law was the ancient Israelite attempt to keep themselves from offending God and basically ended up being a whole list of technicalities that they tried to follow through rote adherence. The essence of the New Law is for mankind to act out of love toward God and each other, whereas the Old Law was created out of fear for calling down God's wrath. The dichotomy between the two sets of laws represents a maturation in mankind's understanding of the relationship between God and His people.
maturation in mankind's understanding of the relationship between God and His people.
This sentence interests me. Most of the edits to the bible were removal of content. While physical edits ended at the King James edition, subsequent discarding of biblical laws has continued throughout the decades.
Even in this century alone, we have seen biblical stances on homosexuality, slavery and women's rights discarded and replaced by "amoral" secularist values.
Now, assuming you accept the above, I propose to you;
How much of the bible do you believe will be left after another 1k years?
Fun thing is that any belief is actually based on hearing about something from someone. There's little to none own thought in this. Just think about how your own beliefs were triggered.
You hear some claim about something and you either accept is as true or not. The word 'belief' on which all religions etc are based actually by definition mean "I know it's true even without being sure". In Christianity there's actually something like "Believe without seeing and you will be blessed". Clever.
Now if you think about it, on how the person telling you this knows this, there are only 3 options:
They heard it from someone else
They made it up (for any reasons)
They had contact with "this" in any form or shape in any way. (And here's the problem because human organism is not that perfect and it always could be some form of misjudge)
Now little about us as beings
I will start with quote that changed my way of looking at everything "Crazy man does not know he's crazy".
Than i asked myself "Who defines 'crazy' then?". It's just matter of one point of view against other. There's no 'normal' or 'different'. There are only individuals which group up with others in this one unificated point of view to become majority which over time affects them to the point that they are sure they are right because they have support of others from their group which actually is generated by the same effect.
So what does this have to do with (current) topic? Everything. Mentioned groups generate beliefs. Why? because members want to find their reality among the others. 1 person is enough to "claim a new fact" and generate feedback which will split the group (due mentioned 'crazy' aspect) or get new allies. The leavers will join other group in same endless search.
I'm not only talking about religions now. It's actually everywhere.
A couple is perfect example of group of minimal size. Never had this situation where you come as guest to some marry couple, do something normal (for you) and they look at you like at 'odd' person? And then you think they are 'odd'? And then you go to your friend to tell him how 'odd' they are and he will either say your right and laugh with you or he will say that they were actually right and the conflict may rise. Your group will weaken and eventually may result in rejecting your friend and eventually finding another one.
(and no it's not a life story, just look around closely)
So what does it have to do with religion actually. Religions are the same groups just in bigger size. They generate same beliefs that promise, expect or claim unification at the 'end'. The 'end' at which you lose this group issue, the reality issue, because at the end reality will be one, and there will be no 'point of view' which is just caused by the fact that we have senses.
Beliefs, by definition, are in the end confirmed or denied. The issue with religion is that is says you will confirm it at the 'end' thus preventing you right from the start from denial. So you either are part of the group or not. It does not mean you have to be enemy with others but it's very vulnerable to create conflict which we can observe right here, right now :) And it's funny because at the end it won't matter. You won't 'think', you won't 'feel' pain in hell or pleasure in heaven. Instead just chill, look at others, tolerate them, understand that no human will ever fully share your point of view.
...Unless you prefer be the 1 who claims.
The only true group which ever should exist is one which isn't actually a group. Which allows everyone to flow thru and does not posses any true form, no beliefs, no claims, no expectations, no requirements, no rules. And this obviously means all people leaving in true honest harmony. ( but it's so hard that we prefer to not )
In order to understand the Catholic perception on sexuality you have to first understand the Catholic perception of evil. Evil is not merely "something bad." Evil essentially represents anything that damages or strains the relationship between a person and God.
The next part of the quote I supplied explains why rendering procreation impossible is intrinsically evil:
'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'
A refusal to be open to life is essentially saying "no" to God, which creates distance between the person and God and is therefore an evil act. It also is a rejection of self-giving love and the true purpose of matrimony, which also strains the relationship between the person and God (any rejection of love will do this.)
I reject slavery and the oppression of women (though I don't consider abortion and contraception to be women's rights,) and I feel that homosexual acts are sinful but don't consider deep-seated homosexual attractions to be sinful (in line with the beliefs of my Catholic faith.)
Additionally, it was the Protestants that removed books from the bible during the Reformation (which was really a revolt but let's not split hairs.) The Catholic bible still contains the same books that the ancient church Father's decided to put in there in the 300's (more or less.) Barring a few translation hiccups here and there, the Catholic bible is pretty much unchanged from its conception.
Catholic social teaching is insulated from short-term shifts in common social ethics because of it's reverence for dogma - which is what the Church recognizes as Truth. Any social ethic which contradicts dogma is rejected - such as abortion and contraception.
I could continue to debate with you over whether or not condoms are evil (and what evil is) for no end. That said, I doubt that is worth it or that either of us will really change the others opinion.
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, how is it that Christianity is special? How is it different from any of the other countless religions with people just a certain of their religions as the devout Christians?
You are welcome to have your own opinion about what you think sin and evil means. I'm just giving you my (and the Catholic Church's) understanding of these two concepts to help you understand why we hold the positions that we do.
I think it's important to have, as a rule of thumb, the assumption that all people who have strong opinions hold them for what they think are good reasons. For example, while I disagree with people who are pro-abortion, I recognize that they think it's a good thing and I don't assume they're idiotic barbarians. This is not about me trying to jam my version of truth down everyone's throat, but to explain how I perceive things and remove prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions from the minds of others.
I don't really think Christianity is special, except that I believe it is the most accurate representation of Reality in existence. Other religions and beliefs can represent parts of Reality, but to me only Christianity represents the "fullness" of that Reality. My reasons are intensely philosophical and probably quite boring to most people, actually... Meh :P
I gave you quite a nice list of current evil acts perpetuated by today's religion, and all you did was apologise for the Pope.
I didn't individually respond towards all of them because A) I thought Basharteg had done so and B) my responses to all of them would be the same as the one I gave.
I'm curious, have you actually read the bible? I recommend starting with Leviticus.
While I'm sure you're already typing "But they're metaphors!"; just go ahead and read it. All of it. I'd be entertained if you retained this "bible neutrality" attitude after actually reading the holy book of the faith you're defending.
I haven't read the full thing, but that doesn't mean I don't know the things that are in there (as per your mention, heavy/ridiculous punishments on non-offenses like homosexualism). You're missing my point, though. The bible should come with a big sign saying 'READERS DISCRETION ADVICED'. You can be a Christian and view the bible as 'God's word' without clinging to every sentence in it as the absolute truth.
The way in which you are attempting to link religion to pointless bloodshed is just wrong. Earlier today I watched an episode of Spartacus: Vengeance in which multiple men get slaughtered in a bloody way. Does this mean I should go out and slaughter people because I enjoy the series? No. The right way to treat Spartacus is to take from it what you can in terms of enjoyment and knowledge as long as it is within reason. Religion works the same way. You read the bible, embrace 'god' and live by the rules it states. This does not mean you are supposed to take EVERYTHING literally and cling to EVERY SINGLE LINE OF TEXT. If you do that, ANYTHING can cause bloodshed. People who think this way have FAR larger problems than religion, which I've been dubbing stupidity over the course of this discussion.
I just oppose any ideology that brandishes truths to a point where man is willing to brutalize man over who's truth is divine.
Your wording here kind of sums up my point. Does that mean you also oppose eating cereals? Or heck, since cereal isn't an ideology, science? No clear examples come to mind right now, but I'm pretty adamant people have killed and cheated over who'se theory of natural law was the best.
You are welcome to have your own opinion about what you think sin and evil means. I'm just giving you my (and the Catholic Church's) understanding of these two concepts to help you understand why we hold the positions that we do.
I understand this. Having come from a very secular family, I find it interesting to know how other people who've had very different upbringings and lives feel about some topics. You are quite good at helping me to understand the view of a more fundamentalist Christian due to the fact that you have strong opinions but are quite reasonable with regards to others' opinions. While I may not respect your opinions, I do at least respect how reasonably you act.
And finally, with regards to you last comment, what you said is effectively the one problem with determining a "true" religion. Everyone thinks that they are right, and that all the evidence points to their side being correct. Most of the time, the "evidence" only points towards them due to fallacies, regardless of whether or not they notice them. It's quite easy to only show one side of a story, and from that reach a conclusion which would be quite irrational if reached after viewing all evidence.
Given the declination of religion, I'd say none, or at least very little.
You clearly don't know much about the current situation of religions. Although catholic population might be declining (and I say might because there are huge countries were catholic church is really strong, like Mexico, so we can't say that for sure) there are many new Christian churches popping out and they convert people like a cancer. I can speak for Brazil at least and here that's reality, the bible wont be forgotten because there are so many wannabe prophets gathering people and saying they are the ones that "read the bible right".
I'm not taking part in this whole discussion on religions, that's far off topic and I think its pointless, but I had to add this comment so people know religions are not dying as many think. If this case isn't enough I just need to say muslim families have way more children than other religions/atheists so the muslim population is growing incredibily fast. If you want to think about the far future, think about a muslim future.
I agree with you. Don't misunderstand: I am fully aware that my set of beliefs cannot be "proven true" any more than another person's set of beliefs - at least until after death ;)
This awareness prevents me from judging those other people harshly. Everyone is in a different place in their beliefs. Even those who share my faith have their own unique take own it. Don't confuse this with relativism. I firmly believe that there is one ultimate Truth containing the fullness of reality. The disconnect is in how we, as individuals, understand that Truth.
The reason I believe in the religion that I've chosen is because of faith, which is the hardest thing to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. The best I've been able to do in explaining faith is to relate it to falling in love. You can't say exactly what falling in love is, but you know when it's happening to you. When I say faith, I don't mean following the rules of a religion because it's what your family does. I mean actually believing that God is the master of the universe and that He has an infinitely deep and personal love for every human person. I like to call this genuine belief "owning the religion." It is not merely an aspect of a person's culture, but a fully integrated component of a person's identity.
Faith is not unreasonable in that I cannot allow myself to have faith in something which contradicts observable natural law. For example, I am unable to hold the belief that gravity does not exist when I can clearly observe that it does. Now, there is certainly the possibility for me to rationalize that what I perceive to be gravity is, in reality, an illusion... yet this possibility exists for any human person, regardless of whether he has faith. It's by faith, however, that I accept the image of Reality which God, and by extension of God the Catholic church, delineates.
I think the Catechism does a much better job of explaining it than I do, though it goes into much greater detail. I'll just link it since it's quite a complex topic: Catechism
In fact, most of my Christian beliefs come straight out of the Catechism. If you don't understand something that I'm talking about you could honestly just look it up in the Catechism for an explanation. It's basically a break-down of the beliefs of the Catholic church.
I haven't read the full thing, but that doesn't mean I don't know the things that are in there (as per your mention, heavy/ridiculous punishments on non-offenses like homosexualism). You're missing my point, though. The bible should come with a big sign saying 'READERS DISCRETION ADVICED'.
I read a little of the bible in both Portuguese bibles and English bibles. What is interesting is that both versions have a lot of different interpretations. For example, on one Portuguese version (based on Latin) I read, the part that talks about homosexuality pretty much says that it's wrong to be promiscuous like a man with a man or a woman with a woman. This "like" means that gay people was just AN EXAMPLE of how one can be promiscuous. They didn't need to give an example of a man with a woman because that was OBVIOUS already. But, differently, in this same part, the English version of the bible is not an example, but a statement. Now, which one is the most accurate translation? The best to know is to read the Aramaic version of the bible, but Aramaic specialists also point out a lot of wrong translations because the old Aramaic is a language that is quite hard to translate (we already lost part of the cultural translations, and the Bible uses slangs of that time).
There's hundreds of different translations of the bible, and a LOT of distorted meanings in those translations. So, every time someone tells me about a "word of god" that is in the bible, I ask which version of the bible and in which language.
But yeah, the bible is quite a harsh book to be rated free while some D&d books are rated 17+. I am totally against any kind of prohibition, but if our society really wants to play with prohibitions, then they should not allow little kids in the church because their brain is not mature enough to deal with all that persuasion.
I remember when I was a kid my parents forcing me to go to church. It was a hell. When they gave me that bread with wine, I spit it on the floor 'cause I HATE the taste of alcohol (I had thought it was grape juice). They thought I had the demon inside me. Oh god, what a bad experience... I can't forget how much they tried to exorcise me. That's much worse than playing Grand Theft Auto. Still, GTA is 17+, but not churches.
A very good point as well. I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if only the most literal translations are the ones with lines such as "homosexuals must be stoned". Interpretation with even finding a 'correct' bible is still a serious problem. To illustrate the example, I'll haul in Machiavelli's Il principe; just a couple of weeks ago I learned that his "The end justifies the means" is written as "Si guarda al fine" in Italian, which can better be translated by "One must consider the end", which has a different meaning entirely.
I haven't read the full thing, but that doesn't mean I don't know the things that are in there (as per your mention, heavy/ridiculous punishments on non-offenses like homosexualism). You're missing my point, though. The bible should come with a big sign saying 'READERS DISCRETION ADVICED'. You can be a Christian and view the bible as 'God's word' without clinging to every sentence in it as the absolute truth.
The way in which you are attempting to link religion to pointless bloodshed is just wrong. Earlier today I watched an episode of Spartacus: Vengeance in which multiple men get slaughtered in a bloody way. Does this mean I should go out and slaughter people because I enjoy the series? No. The right way to treat Spartacus is to take from it what you can in terms of enjoyment and knowledge as long as it is within reason. Religion works the same way. You read the bible, embrace 'god' and live by the rules it states. This does not mean you are supposed to take EVERYTHING literally and cling to EVERY SINGLE LINE OF TEXT. If you do that, ANYTHING can cause bloodshed. People who think this way have FAR larger problems than religion, which I've been dubbing stupidity over the course of this discussion.
I give you sources
I cite atrocities such as preservation of polio and denial of contraception
I reference religion's prolific role in promoting homophobia, slavery and subjugation of women
I quote religious leaders empowering poverty
I highlight wars over who's way of praying to Yahweh is the best
And these are just what is going on today in the name of "god"
All I get in return is apologies, "You can't think of it that way", "You don't understand it" and "You're just wrong".
It's time we, as a species, grew out of this violent, bigoted and arrogant nonsense.
Interpretation with even finding a 'correct' bible is still a serious problem. To illustrate the example, I'll haul in Machiavelli's Il principe; just a couple of weeks ago I learned that his "The end justifies the means" is written as "Si guarda al fine" in Italian, which can better be translated by "One must consider the end", which has a different meaning entirely.
This is one of the reasons why the Catholic church relies on both Sacred Scripture and Tradition when formulating its stances on social issues. It doesn't rely on the currently fashionable translation of the bible or the dictates of a single person, but on the analyses of countless theologians and scholars throughout history, going all the way back to the institution of the religion by Christ Himself.
I have a few points for you, and they're not meant in a derogatory manner, and I hope you won't take them as that. I, as an atheist, and somewhat curious as to why exactly some people, such as yourself, can be so convinced that their religion is true.
1.Firstly, there are many contradictions and generally stupid things in the Bible which make no sense, and if God were perfect (I'd also like to know how God could be perfect, and I wouldn't want any sort of circular logic crap), why would there be these things?
2.Also, your evidence for God being the ultimate source of everything doesn't answer anything. You'd merely be left with a question just as valid as: "What created the multiverse?" That being: "What created God?" That's logic.
3.And one thing about "life" after death, be it torture or bliss, it would be illogical to assume that you would be able to feel or think after you die, for it's a well known fact that the brain is the source of all one's thoughts and emotions and memories etc. How would one be able to be tortured or in bliss if they lack a brain to feel such things?
4.I personally think that believing there is nothing after you die is just incentive to do as much with one's life while they yet live.
These are just my thoughts, though.
5.Also, do you believe the story of Genesis? About how Earth and stars, let alone the universe, was created by God? Do you realize how much of a big middle finger that is to astronomers, geologists, and biologists?
1. You mean the miracles and such?, or the differing and sometimes odd translation errors or?
2.`Time` was created at the big bang. Along with the 11 other dimensions. `Time` itself is an extremely fascinating and difficult concept to understand when you research it in depth. God is eternal
3. I dont know.
4.True.
5.?, Did the astronomers create it?;p(kidding)
What God did was write the code for everything(he wanted) , and then he hit the COMPILE button, and it executed without error.
Do you know what impossible miraculous chances/odds it is for you and us to be here today?. Have you the slightest idea?. How the moon was formed, how water was created on the planet, the formation of protein and DNA?. Ive studied and researched all of that(among other things). Everything just points toward intelligent design, its almost impossible to think otherwise.
Can you really say chance/randomness/luck is the reason for everything?. And what is chance/randomness/luck then?. You have more faith than me then in your belief if you think that.
Personally, I would much rather just die and have nothingness than an afterlife, even if it's bliss.
I felt the same-way and would have liked that also;p
What God did was write the code for everything(he wanted) , and then he hit the COMPILE button, and it executed without error.
Do you know what impossible miraculous chances/odds it is for you and us to be here today?. Have you the slightest idea?. How the moon was formed, how water was created on the planet, the formation of protein and DNA?. Ive studied and researched all of that(among other things). Everything just points toward intelligent design, its almost impossible to think otherwise.
Can you really say chance/randomness/luck is the reason for everything?. And what is chance/randomness/luck then?. You have more faith than me then in your belief if you think that.
Interesting enough that other many people that studied the same things come with the opposite conclusion. And if you are using the argument that chance/randomness/luck couldn't have created us you don't understand evolution. Evolution isn't random, mutations are and its a whole different thing.
What God did was write the code for everything(he wanted) , and then he hit the COMPILE button, and it executed without error.
The human eye is wired backwards and upside down and requires an enormous amount of brainpower to edit out the veins that criss-cross over the top of your eye's photo-receptors (which, for some bizarre reason, point away from the light). Sounds rather erroneous to me.
Do you know what impossible miraculous chances/odds it is for you and us to be here today?. Have you the slightest idea?
A man is taken to be executed. He sees the firing squad before him; 99 of the best marksmen clad with rifles. His mask is pulled over his eyes, and he is thrust against the wall.
With a sudden bang, he hears the shots go off. To his surprise, he feels no impact. How can 99 elite marksmen miss?
He removes his mask in bewilderment, only to see that there were 100 prisoners.
If you seeded life in every crevice of the universe, we would still be alone in this solar system at least, because this is the only place capable of supporting us. We are here because we cannot exist anywhere else. You would not be here to contemplate this if life had originated, and perished, on Venus. The probability of us being here is 1. This is the anthropic principle.
How the moon was formed, how water was created on the planet
I'm not really sure how moon formation nor water formation lend clause to a designer. They're both extremely common occurrences. If moons or water were unique to Earth, I might agree, but they're very, very much not.
Furthermore the most common elements of this universe are hydrogen and oxygen (disregarding Helium because it's inert). Does it then really surprise you that water forms?
the formation of protein and DNA?. Ive studied and researched all of that(among other things). Everything just points toward intelligent design, its almost impossible to think otherwise.
I'm a biochemist. You're in my ballpark now, welcome.
I could write a thesis on this, but I'm going to ask you a simple question instead. If your DNA is designed, why then do you retain all the genetic information of your whole ancestry, right back to fish?
DNA is quite possibly the most conclusive proof of evolution. You should be extremely careful about using it to support creationism.
Can you really say chance/randomness/luck is the reason for everything?. And what is chance/randomness/luck then?. You have more faith than me then in your belief if you think that.
Interesting enough that other many people that studied the same things come with the opposite conclusion. And if you are using the argument that chance/randomness/luck couldn't have created us you don't understand evolution. Evolution isn't random, mutations are and its a whole different thing.
You do realize `Evolution` is only a very small part/aspect of the development of the species of earth, right?. You still cant fathom the processes that occurred at the big bang and during the evolution of the universe which was entirely perfect to create the precise conditions for life on earth. Research, and be in awe.
As for `Evolution`. I do not entirely discard the theory(Though some of it is a lot of bull). Of course there is evidence to it and such. Still no direct link between the ape-man(one minute caveman then next minute building pyramids and mapping out the solar system) , but yea.
The bible says God created the animals and man on the earth. It doesn`t go into the scientific processes behind it(that would fill books, and nobody at that time would understand or care). So did animals and man magically appear in a puff of smoke?, probably not. Did we evolve systematically?, perhaps.
Its interesting, if you read the genesis account of creation. And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
Prior to that vegetation and land was created etc. But you`ll notice that life was first created in the `waters`, and then `let there` be birds/flying creatures in the `air`, and after that `let the land produce creatures`.
Pretty much what evolution states. That primordial life and creatures began in the water, and then evolved into creatures of the air, and finally we have the land life forms and everything afterward. Man was created after the animals.
Its also interesting that water is critical to the survival of all animals and everything above water(cant survive without liquids for 3-4 days, food is 5 weeks).
So did we evolve from the water and other things that evolution states?. Heck possibly. The difference is still that I attribute it to intelligent design and will.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm curious as to why this is. The phrasing of it is such that it tries to escape criticism and the need to explain. One cannot just say that something is intrinsically such a complicated concept as evil. I would like to know non-procreational sex is evil. How is it bad? How is it that, say, reclining in a comfortable chair not evil, for it is also an indulgence.
@Eiviyn: Go
The bible can only be properly understood by reading and studying it in its entirety. The the laws present in Leviticus and other books of the Old Testament represent what is called the "Old Law," most of which have been made obsolete by the "New Law" instituted by Christ when He was crucified. In other words, Christians are no longer bound by the laws of the Old Testament (except those that Christ did not change, like the 10 Commandments.) The Old Law was the ancient Israelite attempt to keep themselves from offending God and basically ended up being a whole list of technicalities that they tried to follow through rote adherence. The essence of the New Law is for mankind to act out of love toward God and each other, whereas the Old Law was created out of fear for calling down God's wrath. The dichotomy between the two sets of laws represents a maturation in mankind's understanding of the relationship between God and His people.
This sentence interests me. Most of the edits to the bible were removal of content. While physical edits ended at the King James edition, subsequent discarding of biblical laws has continued throughout the decades.
Even in this century alone, we have seen biblical stances on homosexuality, slavery and women's rights discarded and replaced by "amoral" secularist values.
Now, assuming you accept the above, I propose to you;
How much of the bible do you believe will be left after another 1k years?
Given the declination of religion, I'd say none, or at least very little.
Fun thing is that any belief is actually based on hearing about something from someone. There's little to none own thought in this. Just think about how your own beliefs were triggered.
You hear some claim about something and you either accept is as true or not. The word 'belief' on which all religions etc are based actually by definition mean "I know it's true even without being sure". In Christianity there's actually something like "Believe without seeing and you will be blessed". Clever.
Now if you think about it, on how the person telling you this knows this, there are only 3 options:
Check Wiki ( i recommend reading entire page )
Now little about us as beings
I will start with quote that changed my way of looking at everything "Crazy man does not know he's crazy".
Than i asked myself "Who defines 'crazy' then?". It's just matter of one point of view against other. There's no 'normal' or 'different'. There are only individuals which group up with others in this one unificated point of view to become majority which over time affects them to the point that they are sure they are right because they have support of others from their group which actually is generated by the same effect.
So what does this have to do with (current) topic? Everything. Mentioned groups generate beliefs. Why? because members want to find their reality among the others. 1 person is enough to "claim a new fact" and generate feedback which will split the group (due mentioned 'crazy' aspect) or get new allies. The leavers will join other group in same endless search.
I'm not only talking about religions now. It's actually everywhere.
A couple is perfect example of group of minimal size. Never had this situation where you come as guest to some marry couple, do something normal (for you) and they look at you like at 'odd' person? And then you think they are 'odd'? And then you go to your friend to tell him how 'odd' they are and he will either say your right and laugh with you or he will say that they were actually right and the conflict may rise. Your group will weaken and eventually may result in rejecting your friend and eventually finding another one.
(and no it's not a life story, just look around closely)
So what does it have to do with religion actually. Religions are the same groups just in bigger size. They generate same beliefs that promise, expect or claim unification at the 'end'. The 'end' at which you lose this group issue, the reality issue, because at the end reality will be one, and there will be no 'point of view' which is just caused by the fact that we have senses.
Beliefs, by definition, are in the end confirmed or denied. The issue with religion is that is says you will confirm it at the 'end' thus preventing you right from the start from denial. So you either are part of the group or not. It does not mean you have to be enemy with others but it's very vulnerable to create conflict which we can observe right here, right now :)
And it's funny because at the end it won't matter. You won't 'think', you won't 'feel' pain in hell or pleasure in heaven. Instead just chill, look at others, tolerate them, understand that no human will ever fully share your point of view.
...Unless you prefer be the 1 who claims.
The only true group which ever should exist is one which isn't actually a group. Which allows everyone to flow thru and does not posses any true form, no beliefs, no claims, no expectations, no requirements, no rules. And this obviously means all people leaving in true honest harmony. ( but it's so hard that we prefer to not )
@Nebuli2: Go
In order to understand the Catholic perception on sexuality you have to first understand the Catholic perception of evil. Evil is not merely "something bad." Evil essentially represents anything that damages or strains the relationship between a person and God.
The next part of the quote I supplied explains why rendering procreation impossible is intrinsically evil:
'Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of the husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving one-self totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.'
A refusal to be open to life is essentially saying "no" to God, which creates distance between the person and God and is therefore an evil act. It also is a rejection of self-giving love and the true purpose of matrimony, which also strains the relationship between the person and God (any rejection of love will do this.)
@Eiviyn: Go
I reject slavery and the oppression of women (though I don't consider abortion and contraception to be women's rights,) and I feel that homosexual acts are sinful but don't consider deep-seated homosexual attractions to be sinful (in line with the beliefs of my Catholic faith.)
Additionally, it was the Protestants that removed books from the bible during the Reformation (which was really a revolt but let's not split hairs.) The Catholic bible still contains the same books that the ancient church Father's decided to put in there in the 300's (more or less.) Barring a few translation hiccups here and there, the Catholic bible is pretty much unchanged from its conception.
Catholic social teaching is insulated from short-term shifts in common social ethics because of it's reverence for dogma - which is what the Church recognizes as Truth. Any social ethic which contradicts dogma is rejected - such as abortion and contraception.
@BasharTeg: Go
I could continue to debate with you over whether or not condoms are evil (and what evil is) for no end. That said, I doubt that is worth it or that either of us will really change the others opinion.
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, how is it that Christianity is special? How is it different from any of the other countless religions with people just a certain of their religions as the devout Christians?
@Nebuli2: Go
You are welcome to have your own opinion about what you think sin and evil means. I'm just giving you my (and the Catholic Church's) understanding of these two concepts to help you understand why we hold the positions that we do.
I think it's important to have, as a rule of thumb, the assumption that all people who have strong opinions hold them for what they think are good reasons. For example, while I disagree with people who are pro-abortion, I recognize that they think it's a good thing and I don't assume they're idiotic barbarians. This is not about me trying to jam my version of truth down everyone's throat, but to explain how I perceive things and remove prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions from the minds of others.
I don't really think Christianity is special, except that I believe it is the most accurate representation of Reality in existence. Other religions and beliefs can represent parts of Reality, but to me only Christianity represents the "fullness" of that Reality. My reasons are intensely philosophical and probably quite boring to most people, actually... Meh :P
I didn't individually respond towards all of them because A) I thought Basharteg had done so and B) my responses to all of them would be the same as the one I gave.
I haven't read the full thing, but that doesn't mean I don't know the things that are in there (as per your mention, heavy/ridiculous punishments on non-offenses like homosexualism). You're missing my point, though. The bible should come with a big sign saying 'READERS DISCRETION ADVICED'. You can be a Christian and view the bible as 'God's word' without clinging to every sentence in it as the absolute truth.
The way in which you are attempting to link religion to pointless bloodshed is just wrong. Earlier today I watched an episode of Spartacus: Vengeance in which multiple men get slaughtered in a bloody way. Does this mean I should go out and slaughter people because I enjoy the series? No. The right way to treat Spartacus is to take from it what you can in terms of enjoyment and knowledge as long as it is within reason. Religion works the same way. You read the bible, embrace 'god' and live by the rules it states. This does not mean you are supposed to take EVERYTHING literally and cling to EVERY SINGLE LINE OF TEXT. If you do that, ANYTHING can cause bloodshed. People who think this way have FAR larger problems than religion, which I've been dubbing stupidity over the course of this discussion.
Your wording here kind of sums up my point. Does that mean you also oppose eating cereals? Or heck, since cereal isn't an ideology, science? No clear examples come to mind right now, but I'm pretty adamant people have killed and cheated over who'se theory of natural law was the best.
I understand this. Having come from a very secular family, I find it interesting to know how other people who've had very different upbringings and lives feel about some topics. You are quite good at helping me to understand the view of a more fundamentalist Christian due to the fact that you have strong opinions but are quite reasonable with regards to others' opinions. While I may not respect your opinions, I do at least respect how reasonably you act.
And finally, with regards to you last comment, what you said is effectively the one problem with determining a "true" religion. Everyone thinks that they are right, and that all the evidence points to their side being correct. Most of the time, the "evidence" only points towards them due to fallacies, regardless of whether or not they notice them. It's quite easy to only show one side of a story, and from that reach a conclusion which would be quite irrational if reached after viewing all evidence.
You clearly don't know much about the current situation of religions. Although catholic population might be declining (and I say might because there are huge countries were catholic church is really strong, like Mexico, so we can't say that for sure) there are many new Christian churches popping out and they convert people like a cancer. I can speak for Brazil at least and here that's reality, the bible wont be forgotten because there are so many wannabe prophets gathering people and saying they are the ones that "read the bible right".
I'm not taking part in this whole discussion on religions, that's far off topic and I think its pointless, but I had to add this comment so people know religions are not dying as many think. If this case isn't enough I just need to say muslim families have way more children than other religions/atheists so the muslim population is growing incredibily fast. If you want to think about the far future, think about a muslim future.
@Nebuli2: Go
I agree with you. Don't misunderstand: I am fully aware that my set of beliefs cannot be "proven true" any more than another person's set of beliefs - at least until after death ;)
This awareness prevents me from judging those other people harshly. Everyone is in a different place in their beliefs. Even those who share my faith have their own unique take own it. Don't confuse this with relativism. I firmly believe that there is one ultimate Truth containing the fullness of reality. The disconnect is in how we, as individuals, understand that Truth.
The reason I believe in the religion that I've chosen is because of faith, which is the hardest thing to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. The best I've been able to do in explaining faith is to relate it to falling in love. You can't say exactly what falling in love is, but you know when it's happening to you. When I say faith, I don't mean following the rules of a religion because it's what your family does. I mean actually believing that God is the master of the universe and that He has an infinitely deep and personal love for every human person. I like to call this genuine belief "owning the religion." It is not merely an aspect of a person's culture, but a fully integrated component of a person's identity.
Faith is not unreasonable in that I cannot allow myself to have faith in something which contradicts observable natural law. For example, I am unable to hold the belief that gravity does not exist when I can clearly observe that it does. Now, there is certainly the possibility for me to rationalize that what I perceive to be gravity is, in reality, an illusion... yet this possibility exists for any human person, regardless of whether he has faith. It's by faith, however, that I accept the image of Reality which God, and by extension of God the Catholic church, delineates.
I think the Catechism does a much better job of explaining it than I do, though it goes into much greater detail. I'll just link it since it's quite a complex topic: Catechism
In fact, most of my Christian beliefs come straight out of the Catechism. If you don't understand something that I'm talking about you could honestly just look it up in the Catechism for an explanation. It's basically a break-down of the beliefs of the Catholic church.
I read a little of the bible in both Portuguese bibles and English bibles. What is interesting is that both versions have a lot of different interpretations. For example, on one Portuguese version (based on Latin) I read, the part that talks about homosexuality pretty much says that it's wrong to be promiscuous like a man with a man or a woman with a woman. This "like" means that gay people was just AN EXAMPLE of how one can be promiscuous. They didn't need to give an example of a man with a woman because that was OBVIOUS already. But, differently, in this same part, the English version of the bible is not an example, but a statement. Now, which one is the most accurate translation? The best to know is to read the Aramaic version of the bible, but Aramaic specialists also point out a lot of wrong translations because the old Aramaic is a language that is quite hard to translate (we already lost part of the cultural translations, and the Bible uses slangs of that time).
There's hundreds of different translations of the bible, and a LOT of distorted meanings in those translations. So, every time someone tells me about a "word of god" that is in the bible, I ask which version of the bible and in which language.
But yeah, the bible is quite a harsh book to be rated free while some D&d books are rated 17+. I am totally against any kind of prohibition, but if our society really wants to play with prohibitions, then they should not allow little kids in the church because their brain is not mature enough to deal with all that persuasion.
I remember when I was a kid my parents forcing me to go to church. It was a hell. When they gave me that bread with wine, I spit it on the floor 'cause I HATE the taste of alcohol (I had thought it was grape juice). They thought I had the demon inside me. Oh god, what a bad experience... I can't forget how much they tried to exorcise me. That's much worse than playing Grand Theft Auto. Still, GTA is 17+, but not churches.
@RodrigoAlves: Go
A very good point as well. I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if only the most literal translations are the ones with lines such as "homosexuals must be stoned". Interpretation with even finding a 'correct' bible is still a serious problem. To illustrate the example, I'll haul in Machiavelli's Il principe; just a couple of weeks ago I learned that his "The end justifies the means" is written as "Si guarda al fine" in Italian, which can better be translated by "One must consider the end", which has a different meaning entirely.
I give you sources
I cite atrocities such as preservation of polio and denial of contraception
I reference religion's prolific role in promoting homophobia, slavery and subjugation of women
I quote religious leaders empowering poverty
I highlight wars over who's way of praying to Yahweh is the best
And these are just what is going on today in the name of "god"
All I get in return is apologies, "You can't think of it that way", "You don't understand it" and "You're just wrong".
It's time we, as a species, grew out of this violent, bigoted and arrogant nonsense.
Sigh...
This is one of the reasons why the Catholic church relies on both Sacred Scripture and Tradition when formulating its stances on social issues. It doesn't rely on the currently fashionable translation of the bible or the dictates of a single person, but on the analyses of countless theologians and scholars throughout history, going all the way back to the institution of the religion by Christ Himself.
1. You mean the miracles and such?, or the differing and sometimes odd translation errors or?
2.`Time` was created at the big bang. Along with the 11 other dimensions. `Time` itself is an extremely fascinating and difficult concept to understand when you research it in depth. God is eternal
3. I dont know.
4.True.
5.?, Did the astronomers create it?;p(kidding)
What God did was write the code for everything(he wanted) , and then he hit the COMPILE button, and it executed without error.
Do you know what impossible miraculous chances/odds it is for you and us to be here today?. Have you the slightest idea?. How the moon was formed, how water was created on the planet, the formation of protein and DNA?. Ive studied and researched all of that(among other things). Everything just points toward intelligent design, its almost impossible to think otherwise.
Can you really say chance/randomness/luck is the reason for everything?. And what is chance/randomness/luck then?. You have more faith than me then in your belief if you think that.
Personally, I would much rather just die and have nothingness than an afterlife, even if it's bliss.
I felt the same-way and would have liked that also;p
Interesting enough that other many people that studied the same things come with the opposite conclusion. And if you are using the argument that chance/randomness/luck couldn't have created us you don't understand evolution. Evolution isn't random, mutations are and its a whole different thing.
The human eye is wired backwards and upside down and requires an enormous amount of brainpower to edit out the veins that criss-cross over the top of your eye's photo-receptors (which, for some bizarre reason, point away from the light). Sounds rather erroneous to me.
A man is taken to be executed. He sees the firing squad before him; 99 of the best marksmen clad with rifles. His mask is pulled over his eyes, and he is thrust against the wall.
With a sudden bang, he hears the shots go off. To his surprise, he feels no impact. How can 99 elite marksmen miss?
He removes his mask in bewilderment, only to see that there were 100 prisoners.
If you seeded life in every crevice of the universe, we would still be alone in this solar system at least, because this is the only place capable of supporting us. We are here because we cannot exist anywhere else. You would not be here to contemplate this if life had originated, and perished, on Venus. The probability of us being here is 1. This is the anthropic principle.
I'm not really sure how moon formation nor water formation lend clause to a designer. They're both extremely common occurrences. If moons or water were unique to Earth, I might agree, but they're very, very much not.
Furthermore the most common elements of this universe are hydrogen and oxygen (disregarding Helium because it's inert). Does it then really surprise you that water forms?
I'm a biochemist. You're in my ballpark now, welcome.
I could write a thesis on this, but I'm going to ask you a simple question instead. If your DNA is designed, why then do you retain all the genetic information of your whole ancestry, right back to fish?
DNA is quite possibly the most conclusive proof of evolution. You should be extremely careful about using it to support creationism.
No respectable scientist on Earth thinks that.
You do realize `Evolution` is only a very small part/aspect of the development of the species of earth, right?. You still cant fathom the processes that occurred at the big bang and during the evolution of the universe which was entirely perfect to create the precise conditions for life on earth. Research, and be in awe.
As for `Evolution`. I do not entirely discard the theory(Though some of it is a lot of bull). Of course there is evidence to it and such. Still no direct link between the ape-man(one minute caveman then next minute building pyramids and mapping out the solar system) , but yea.
The bible says God created the animals and man on the earth. It doesn`t go into the scientific processes behind it(that would fill books, and nobody at that time would understand or care). So did animals and man magically appear in a puff of smoke?, probably not. Did we evolve systematically?, perhaps.
Its interesting, if you read the genesis account of creation.
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
Prior to that vegetation and land was created etc. But you`ll notice that life was first created in the `waters`, and then `let there` be birds/flying creatures in the `air`, and after that `let the land produce creatures`.
Pretty much what evolution states. That primordial life and creatures began in the water, and then evolved into creatures of the air, and finally we have the land life forms and everything afterward. Man was created after the animals.
Its also interesting that water is critical to the survival of all animals and everything above water(cant survive without liquids for 3-4 days, food is 5 weeks).
So did we evolve from the water and other things that evolution states?. Heck possibly. The difference is still that I attribute it to intelligent design and will.