Will we survive religion?

[Valke2]

What got changed? The religion part?

And how do you know your interests would not bother anyone? are you serious? On this forum I bet you could find a lot of prudes who would take issue with wich way you put the toilet roll on. And claim there is a moral reason to do it their way.

You are assuming too much here Valke2, as per usual.

Someone took exception that I listed Southpark as one of my interests/hobbies. So I removed it.

 

[Damascus]

Someone took exception that I listed Southpark as one of my interests/hobbies. So I removed it.

See what I mean? This forum is nuts. Someone actually had the audacity to give you the riot act about listing that in your profile?



I dont get it with some people here. How pushy and arrogant.

Its really amazing. Geeze.

 

[nby]

See what I mean? This forum is nuts. Someone actually had the audacity to give you the riot act about listing that in your profile?



I dont get it with some people here. How pushy and arrogant.

Its really amazing. Geeze.

You completely missed my point Damascus. It was not about what Valke2 put down as his interests but rather his hypocrisy. My point was that he is being hypocritical because according to his own values and to some ideas he has expressed in previous messages, he would not put down the Danish Mohammad cartoons as an interest on a Moslem forum. My message had nothing to do with my opinion about what he should or shouldn’t put down as his interests. It doesn’t bother me really whether Valke2 is interested in South ark or not, or whether he does state it on this forum or not. As I said in my original message, I was merely judging him by his own standards. Every time someone says something about Islam Valke2 instantly jumps to the conclusion that they’re bashing Moslems. Is that not arrogance in your opinion? Thanks for being so understanding anyway.

 

[nby]

You know Damascus, I truly believe that the truth is on our side. However, I also think that each one of us has a piece of that truth. Small or large, the size of that piece doesn’t matter. Your piece of the truth might be larger but I still do have some truth on my side too. So, when I express something that might not make sense to you the first time, please give me the benefit of the doubt and try again to make some sense out of it. After all, we are meant to be brothers and sisters, and our respect to each other is very important.

 

[Damascus]

You completely missed my point Damascus. It was not about what Valke2 put down as his interests but rather his hypocrisy. My point was that he is being hypocritical because according to his own values and to some ideas he has expressed in previous messages, he would not put down the Danish Mohammad cartoons as an interest on a Moslem forum. My message had nothing to do with my opinion about what he should or shouldn’t put down as his interests. It doesn’t bother me really whether Valke2 is interested in South ark or not, or whether he does state it on this forum or not. As I said in my original message, I was merely judging him by his own standards. Every time someone says something about Islam Valke2 instantly jumps to the conclusion that they’re bashing Moslems. Is that not arrogance in your opinion? Thanks for being so understanding anyway.

Hey, I did not even know it was you he did it for. I just ASSumed it was someone who had no good reason to do it.

I cant take this thread seriously, forgive me. “Will we survive religion” is just enough for me.

Sorry, I cant take it seriously thats all.

 

[Damascus]

You know Damascus, I truly believe that the truth is on our side. However, I also think that each one of us has a piece of that truth. Small or large, the size of that piece doesn’t matter. Your piece of the truth might be larger but I still do have some truth on my side too. So, when I express something that might not make sense to you the first time, please give me the benefit of the doubt and try again to make some sense out of it. After all, we are meant to be brothers and sisters, and our respect to each other is very important.

Hey, Again - I am sorry. I am telling you right now I think that IMHO taking this thread seriously is scary at best and lunacy at worst. I am just having fun like Valke likes to do on soooo many threads here. Please, understand I had NO CLUE it was YOU that said it, as I did NOT follow this thread. To me, its ridiculous.

But, Valke cracked me up today several times and I think its just the holidays and I am not taking much seriously now at all.

Take a look at the subjects here on the forums, its like you have to have some fun or you would never want to hang here. Its getting crazy.

 

[Valke2]

You completely missed my point Damascus. It was not about what Valke2 put down as his interests but rather his hypocrisy. My point was that he is being hypocritical because according to his own values and to some ideas he has expressed in previous messages, he would not put down the Danish Mohammad cartoons as an interest on a Moslem forum. My message had nothing to do with my opinion about what he should or shouldn’t put down as his interests. It doesn’t bother me really whether Valke2 is interested in South ark or not, or whether he does state it on this forum or not. As I said in my original message, I was merely judging him by his own standards. Every time someone says something about Islam Valke2 instantly jumps to the conclusion that they’re bashing Moslems. Is that not arrogance in your opinion? Thanks for being so understanding anyway.

What is it with you and danish moslem cartoons? I wouldn’t put down “Jesus cartoons/lampoons” as an interest in a Christian chat room either. And your observation that evertime someone mentions Islam I assume they are bashing is not correct. Before you judge me you should walk a mile in my shoes, then shake the dust off your sandals and turn the other cheek. And buy some shades for that glass house of yours. Sometimes I think it would be easier for me to ride a camel through the eye of a needle than to just have a civil discussion here.

 

[Damascus]

What is it with you and danish moslem cartoons? I wouldn’t put down “Jesus cartoons/lampoons” as an interest in a Christian chat room either. And your observation that evertime someone mentions Islam I assume they are bashing is not correct. Before you judge me you should walk a mile in my shoes, then shake the dust off your sandals and turn the other cheek. And buy some shades for that glass house of yours. Sometimes I think it would be easier for me to ride a camel through the eye of a needle than to just have a civil discussion here.

What is with you today Valke???

Either I missed your sense of humor at the get go, or something has changed.

Anyway, thanks for all the laughs I had today. I am telling you its really made me feel better about this stressfull holiday.

I am soooo loooking forward to the end of it.

Dont get me wrong, not the religious aspect, just all the other cra*.

 

[nby]

Hey, Again - I am sorry. I am telling you right now I think that IMHO taking this thread seriously is scary at best and lunacy at worst. I am just having fun like Valke likes to do on soooo many threads here. Please, understand I had NO CLUE it was YOU that said it, as I did NOT follow this thread. To me, its ridiculous.

But, Valke cracked me up today several times and I think its just the holidays and I am not taking much seriously now at all.

Take a look at the subjects here on the forums, its like you have to have some fun or you would never want to hang here. Its getting crazy.

It’s alright. No need for an apology anyway. Yes, I have also decided not to take Valke2 seriously anymore. Take care and God bless.

 

[Mirdath]

It’s alright. No need for an apology anyway. Yes, I have also decided not to take Valke2 seriously anymore. Take care and God bless.

Valke’s a very funny guy, but he’s also a very deep and well-informed thinker and deserves at least as much respect as you would give a Catholic debating someone who disagrees with you; this is the foundation of debate. Without even that modicum of respect for all parties it’s so much name-calling and dung-flinging, more the monkey house at a zoo than a ‘forum’.

This thread started with a serious question from someone who may be having a crisis of faith. And now you and Damascus are taking it as a bad comedy routine? It was supposed to be a serious discussion of ethics, and not necessarily that of non-Catholics vs Catholics. Ranting, trivializing others’ opinions, and ad-hominem attacks have no place in any such discussion.

 

[Damascus]

I hardly think you can easily say Valke has ever had a crisis of faith.

Good God man, I would not have fun here if he was. He has never displayed a “crisis” of anything other than a “crisis” of seeing how Catholics can be too serious about things.

I dont know but, I think Valke has no problem setting people straight if HE feels the need to., but of course, I could be wrong… doubt it.

 

[Mirdath]

I hardly think you can easily say Valke has ever had a crisis of faith.

Good God man, I would not have fun here if he was. He has never displayed a “crisis” of anything other than a “crisis” of seeing how Catholics can be too serious about things.

I dont know but, I think Valke has no problem setting people straight if HE feels the need to., but of course, I could be wrong… doubt it.

I didn’t say it easily. The tone of the first post – even the mere fact that he seriously asked that question – are what lead me to believe that it is plausible (though not certain unless/until he says so). That’s not a call to treat the discussion like a funeral, though!

Setting people straight is one thing; the condescension and arrogance I’ve seen in this thread is little short of sickening. Nobody asked to be evangelized, or to be told they were hellbound in spite of their best intentions. A question was asked, and I can’t remember seeing more than a couple of people answer it. Instead most posters chose to jump all over anyone who disagreed with their faith, ignoring the original post entirely. Nobody’s converted to Catholicism, Islam, Taoism, agnosticism, or atheism because of this thread, and I doubt anyone ever will, especially if we keep tearing at each other (however ineffectively). So can we just get back to the original question here?

 

[Damascus]

I guess I see your point. Yet, I just re-read your post and I missed the part where I was “evangelizing” anyone.

Musta missed it.

 

[Valke2]

The beginning of faith is not a feeling for the mystgery of living or a sense of awe, wonder and amazement. The root of religion is the question what to do with the feeling for the mystery of living, what to do with the awe, wonder and amazement.
Religion beings with a consciousness that something is asked of us.
It is in that tense, eternal asking in which the sould is caught and in which man’s answer is elicited.
- A.J. Heschel

I don’t believe I am having a crisis of faith. I just think I am profoundly disappointed in our answer.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Natural laws like the law of gravity, perhaps. Natural law as you define it – a system of beliefs – is defined differently for every creed.

And yet there is a nearly universal consensus on many actions which the Judeo-Christian faiths consider either sinful or holy.

For example, various aspect of marriage (if not marriage itself) have been around well before Christianity (and even Judaism) emerged onto the world scene. Although the particulars differ (and there are some minor variations in various parts of the world), there are, nonetheless, very strong elements found within these non-Christian marriages. The traits of these non-Christian marriages easilly lend themselves to the Christian idea of a spiritual union between men and women, social contracts, and tradtional family based dynamics which are almost universally considered sacred.

In other words, there is something innately holy about the family, whether they are Christian or not. And children are a gift from God whether people realize these children are a gift from him or not.

Even though they do not always agree on all particular aspects of what marriage means, and they cannot even agree on what should happen if the marriage should break, the basic idea of marriage as a sacred union between men and women is nonethless highly prevalent in most ancient cultures, religions and philosophies. And many modern day cultures and religions outside Christianity still hold to this sacred opinion.

Likewise, on the issues of muder, lying and theft, we likewise see a very strong concensus that these things were wrong well before Christianity (and even Judaism) emerged onto the world scene. These things can be obsrved in ancient Summeria and China for example.

Again, although there are variations on what exactly consitutues these ‘sins’ amongst the various ancient ancient cultures, religions and philosophies, and there are even disagreements on how to deal with people who have mudered, lied and stole from others, there is still a nearly universal consensus among a wide range of peoples that these things are inherently wrong in some way.

These are not merely opinions. This is the reflection of natural law which is extremely evident within God’s creation…
Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Natural moral law as I define it (and Catholicism too) is a system of beliefs self-evident in nature in such a way which is not much different from the self-evident nature of the law of gravity.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mirdath:

According to your belief, virtuous pagans can be saved even though they do not believe in the Christ. I’m familiar with the ‘noble savage’ discussion.

Yes, but if your going to claim this is just ‘my beleif’, then I think I should at least attempt to get you to present it from a more Catholic perspective.

When one looks as the Catholic concepts of a batism of desire and combines it with aspects of invincible ignorance, it becomes well within the scope of Catholic to believe that these people can be saved by Christ. More specifically, God is capable of judging all people to the point that he would know how they would have reacted if the Gospel had been fairly and lovingly presented to them. In other words, God, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, stands as the Absolute Judge, perfectly positioned to judge the hearts and minds of each individual as the Spirit examines their heart.

As the end of Romans 4:17 states, God is the one who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. This is even more apparent in Jesus’s words regarding the pagan nations of the past.

For example, he said that if the miracles that were performed in Korazin had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. This is a perfect example of God judging people, knowing exactly how they would have reacted if the Gospel had been fairly and lovingly presented to them.

The same is true of Jesus’ words regarding Sodom too-- they are nearly identical on this matter. For example, he said that If the miracles that were performed Capernaum had been performed in Sodom, Sodom would have remained to this day. This is another perfect example of God judging people, knowing exactly how they would have reacted if the Gospel had been fairly and lovingly presented to them.

Now when one incorporates these Scriptural references to the Catholic concepts of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire, it becomes very clear to Catholics such as Rahner and Pope John Paul II (and even Protestants such as C.S. Lewis) that these people would have desired baptism if they were in a postion to obtain it-- cf. a baptism of desire.

In other words, when we come back to the non-believers ideas about positive things (such as marriage) or negative things (such as adultery, murder, lying and theft), we see that even though they do not necessarilly know God, they are still doing Gods will to the extent that God’s will is accomplished through them. And if this is true, then it remains very likely that they are not closed to God’s Spirit after all.

“With reference to other religions, the Church sees a great difference between them and herself,” Cardinal Arinze said. “The other religions are expressions of the human soul seeking God, with some beautiful spiritual insights, but also not without errors. Christianity is rather God seeking humanity.” Noting that “Vatican II declares the Church … as necessary for salvation,” the former bishop of Onitsha, Nigeria, added that people who do not know Christ are nevertheless included in God’s plan of salvation.

“There are, however, conditions. They must be sincere in their seeking of God. They must be open to the secret but real action of the holy Spirit in them. They should follow their conscience in all matters of right and wrong.” A human’s religious response to God should be free, he said, a principle the Church has not always respected. But he also said, “To say that every individual has the right to religious freedom is not to condone religious indifferentism or irresponsibility, nor is it to promote the installation of a supermarket of religions.”

It stands to reason many may be moving by his Spirit even if they do not know it. Rahner, a very influencial Catholic thinker, really elaborated on this subject, the basic idea that many may believe in God even though they may not recognize it due to their own cultural background and experience.

This is more properly reflected in Lumen Gentium which stated that salvation was possible for those who "seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciences."

You can call this relativism if you want. But I’ve already said from the begining that God is relatively absolute whereas the adversary is absolutely relative. And you can’t really say these things I’m explainig to you are not Catholic teachings either. They are Catholic teaching no matter how much you might attempt to argue otherwise.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I didn’t say it easily. The tone of the first post – even the mere fact that he seriously asked that question – are what lead me to believe that it is plausible (though not certain unless/until he says so). That’s not a call to treat the discussion like a funeral, though!

For the record, I took Valke2’s post to mean that we was questioning the value of his own faith too. So while I wouldn’t necessarily say it was a funeral for his faith (and Valke2 has admited himself that he’s not planning on leaving his faith), I would, nonetheless, say that I did pick up on a bit of disconnect-- a kind of distancing himself from religion in general.

 

[nby]

What is it with you and danish moslem cartoons? I wouldn’t put down “Jesus cartoons/lampoons” as an interest in a Christian chat room either. And your observation that evertime someone mentions Islam I assume they are bashing is not correct. Before you judge me you should walk a mile in my shoes, then shake the dust off your sandals and turn the other cheek. And buy some shades for that glass house of yours. Sometimes I think it would be easier for me to ride a camel through the eye of a needle than to just have a civil discussion here.

Okay, if it is discussion that you really want then I will discuss this silly topic no matter how pointless I find it. I believe that this type of discussion only serves the purpose of confusing people, which is one of the thoughts that anger me most about it. But I will discuss anyway. I will discuss by asking you first, is the belief in the non-existence of absolute truth not itself a belief in absolute truth, since something is being regarded as an absolute truth? The obvious answer is that yes it is, which is why I believe in both relativism and absolutism. I believe in both, and I respect them both equally. But there is a different place for each belief. You can’t mix up the two because then if you do, people will get confused and confusion will lead to disorder.

The questions you are asking have been answered right from the dawn of civilization. Imo, it is the separation of the two beliefs in the first place that paved the way to the beginnings of civilization. Therefore, imo, believing that no absoluteness exists within religion and humanity is taking a step backwards for mankind.

I am sure you have plenty of suggestions as what to replace our existing religious system with. However, none of your suggestions have been tested enough. However, what has been tested by time, which is the ultimate decider, is what we currently have as our religious institutions especially the Catholic Church.

No other religion has survived the way Christianity has. It seems to be by far the most efficient religion on the face of our planet. The truth is that Christianity is simply the best.

You can apply relativism to nature and see how it works. Evolution and the idea behind it state that the fittest species survive. Let me ask you, what is the fittest in your opinion? What does the word “fittest” in this context mean? Can there be more than one fittest? The correct answer is yes there can. But how? Simple. The lion is the fittest species in the lion’s environment, and the cheetah is the fittest species in its environment. Now, this is a matter of environment then? Yes it is. However, there is just one problem here: cheetahs and lions are DIFFERENT SPECIES. This is why cheetahs and lions can both be the fittest species. We as human beings are meant to be one species. For a single species, obviously there is only one environment and therefore only one truth. Therefore there is absolute truth. In the lion’s environment the best thing to be is a lion not a cheetah.

So yes, both relativism and absolutism exist. However, both cover different fields, which is why you simply cannot mix them up the way you do.

Christianity is the best. The Catholic Church is the best. Our religion is simply the best.

 

[Mirdath]

Last one, I’d be happy to go on in private messages if you like – but I think this thread’s seen enough of your dissembling and my disassembling

For example, various aspect of marriage (if not marriage itself) have been around well before Christianity (and even Judaism) emerged onto the world scene. Although the particulars differ (and there are some minor variations in various parts of the world), there are, nonetheless, very strong elements found within these non-Christian marriages. The traits of these non-Christian marriages easilly lend themselves to the Christian idea of a spiritual union between men and women, social contracts, and tradtional family based dynamics which are almost universally considered sacred.

Not true. Consider the mostly-stamped-out religious practice of sati/suttee, in which widows throw themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres. Or how several ancient Greek cultures sent young boys to be tutored by older men who also took them as lovers, even if they were married themselves. Or, for that matter, polygamy, which has been practiced by many cultures the world over – from Tibet to Israel in the time of David and Solomon to Utah.

In other words, there is something innately holy about the family, whether they are Christian or not. And children are a gift from God whether people realize these children are a gift from him or not.

Holy I’d question, heathen that I am, but I’ll say iconic – after all, kids pop out when certain things happen (and that I will say is a natural law ) and they have to be raised somehow.

Likewise, on the issues of muder, lying and theft, we likewise see a very strong concensus that these things were wrong well before Christianity (and even Judaism) emerged onto the world scene. These things can be obsrved in ancient Summeria and China for example.

Yes, and you call that natural law; I call it ‘society knowing what’s good for it’ – in other words, the social contract.

Again, although there are variations on what exactly consitutues these ‘sins’ amongst the various ancient ancient cultures, religions and philosophies, and there are even disagreements on how to deal with people who have mudered, lied and stole from others, there is still a nearly universal consensus among a wide range of peoples that these things are inherently wrong in some way.

Different cultures have different opinions on what is immoral or illegal and what to do about people who break the social contract.

These are not merely opinions. This is the reflection of natural law which is extremely evident within God’s creation…

.

Or it’s opinions on the nature of the social contract which are extremely evident throughout human civilizations. And some of those opinions aren’t very evident either, only popping up in one or two places. Occam’s Razor favors the secular in this case.

Natural moral law as I define it (and Catholicism too) is a system of beliefs self-evident in nature in such a way which is not much different from the self-evident nature of the law of gravity.

Moral and physical are categorically different. Social contracts evolve due to a society not wanting to kill itself off – thus establishing prohibitions on actions its members can take without being punished or exiled. Murder and theft are two common targets, no more. It’s no more natural than bathing regularly; both are matters of hygiene, one personal, the other social.*

 

[Mirdath]

You can call this relativism if you want. But I’ve already said from the begining that God is relatively absolute whereas the adversary is absolutely relative. And you can’t really say these things I’m explainig to you are not Catholic teachings either. They are Catholic teaching no matter how much you might attempt to argue otherwise.

I do not call the treatment of baptism of desire morally relative. What I called morally relative was your insistence that murder is sinful yet that there are also such things as just wars if the situation is proper, among other logical discrepancies.

This is the third time you’ve brought up ‘relatively absolute/absolutely relative’. I still can’t tell what you mean by that and I have no idea how the meaning I think it has connects with any Catholic teaching. Is not the devil absolutely evil? Relativism is merely a philosophy, not a moral teaching; it can be incorrect, but not evil.

nby:

Okay, if it is discussion that you really want then I will discuss this silly topic no matter how pointless I find it. I believe that this type of discussion only serves the purpose of confusing people, which is one of the thoughts that anger me most about it.

The question at hand is a pretty simple yes-no-maybe. Nobody’s asked which religion is best, simply whether and how the interaction between society and religion in general will end.

The questions you are asking have been answered right from the dawn of civilization. Imo, it is the separation of the two beliefs in the first place that paved the way to the beginnings of civilization. Therefore, imo, believing that no absoluteness exists within religion and humanity is taking a step backwards for mankind.

Has anyone said that? There’s been plenty of back-and-forth on absolutism/relativism, but I doubt anybody’s claimed neither has any human representative.

I am sure you have plenty of suggestions as what to replace our existing religious system with. However, none of your suggestions have been tested enough. However, what has been tested by time, which is the ultimate decider, is what we currently have as our religious institutions especially the Catholic Church.

Again, not part of the question, and I haven’t seen or made any suggestions at all. Religion’s been around a while, sure, but we’re debating whether human society will get over it without killing itself. And by ‘get over it’ I do not necessarily mean ‘drop it entirely’; Valke might, but I can imagine a future world in which religion is not a cause for conflict in my wildest utopian dreams.

No other religion has survived the way Christianity has. It seems to be by far the most efficient religion on the face of our planet. The truth is that Christianity is simply the best.

Hey, Judaism’s been around for 2500 years more than your young church, and it’s still doing fine. Zoroastrianism even longer, and while it’s not as vigorous as Judaism it’s hanging in there. Hinduism is also older, as is Buddhism. So if time is the sole determining factor, all hail Ahura Mazda!

And as for efficiency, given the sheer alarm in this forum over Islam I dare say they’ve got you whipped

You can apply relativism to nature and see how it works. Evolution and the idea behind it state that the fittest species survive. Let me ask you, what is the fittest in your opinion? What does the word “fittest” in this context mean? Can there be more than one fittest? The correct answer is yes there can. But how? Simple. The lion is the fittest species in the lion’s environment, and the cheetah is the fittest species in its environment. Now, this is a matter of environment then? Yes it is. However, there is just one problem here: cheetahs and lions are DIFFERENT SPECIES. This is why cheetahs and lions can both be the fittest species. We as human beings are meant to be one species. For a single species, obviously there is only one environment and therefore only one truth. Therefore there is absolute truth. In the lion’s environment the best thing to be is a lion not a cheetah.

And when the lion dies or kills, the vultures and hyenas have a pretty good time of it. So the best thing is to be a vulture or a hyena, unless you want to run roughshod over the living as well as the dead. Or better yet – be a parasite! See, different perspectives can all have a certain truth to them

Christianity is the best. The Catholic Church is the best. Our religion is simply the best.

Prove it. In private message if you’d like, let’s talk about what we supposedly came here to talk about.