Will we survive religion?

[Damascus]

Dont Jewish people think that there is such a thing as a just war?

 

[Mirdath]

Dont Jewish people think that there is such a thing as a just war?

I’m not Jewish?

 

[Damascus]

I’m not Jewish?

Sorry. Got you mixed up with Mel. My mistake.

 

[Oneiron]

But that’s not how an absolute thing works.

God is relatively absolute.

The devil is absolutely relative.

See the difference?

Ummm… what exactly does Absolutely relative and Relatively absolute even mean?

 

[nby]

No private messages. If you’re afraid that this thread might get closed down then maybe such a thread should not have been started in the first place.

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.

I hope you realize that you quoted my message not Mr. Ex Nihilo’s. anyway, the interaction between society and religion will never end simply because society is based on religion.

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.

First of all i don’t exactly understand your question. This is my opinion, and I wouldn’t have expressed it if I was not confident in it. Plus, is it not general knowledge or common sense? Think about it. Only when you separate the two, only then do they make sense. Give me a simple example of how you can combine relativism/absolutism and yet still make sense? Denying the existence of both as two separate entities is denying them their true nature. As a result of accepting their true nature, by separating them apart, by respecting them, only then was civilization able to start because nature allowed it to. This is my philosophy. What’s yours?

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.

I did not say you said it. I said Valke2 said it. Believe me, if religion will destroy humanity then it would have destroyed it along time ago. Why has it not happened yet? What is religion waiting for? Religion has been around for thousands of yours. All we have witnessed is an improvement in religion since its beginning. Why do you think that it will suddenly take a turn for the worse and destroy humanity. There is a pattern and that pattern indicates religion has been improving and it has now reached its perfect form of Christianity.

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!

Judaism is part of Christianity. Jesus was Jewish. Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. Jesus said that he did not come to cancel but rather to fulfill the law. So Christianity is in fact 5500 years old, not 2000. Christianity is much deeper rooted than you claim.

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

The lion is humanity. If the lion dies humanity will die. This was my point which was that we are one species. Humans are not different species, or do you disagree with that?

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

Look around you. The most successful cultures are Christian. Look at the gap between the Christian world and the rest of humanity. Christianity is also a foundation of European civilization and no one can successfully argue against that.

 

[Valke2]

I hope you realize that you quoted my message not Mr. Ex Nihilo’s. anyway, the interaction between society and religion will never end simply because society is based on religion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Valke:

1. “Kosher” isn’t in the 10 commandments.
2. “Kosher” was specifically addressed in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter was told that the New Covenant permitted the eating of ‘previously unclean’ foods, just as salvation was now to be given to the ‘previously uncovenanted’ Gentiles.
3. Shabbot is superseded by the New Covenant Lord’s Day which Christians are to keep holy.
4. We have the chalice in which we offer the wine that will become, with the bread, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord.

If you ever decide to come to one of our Masses, you will notice that there is a resemblence to a regular Shabbot service with songs and Scripture.

In our Christian practices we emulate you Jewish people in our fastings, in our concept of the high priest, etc.

Why do you think we refer to “Judeo-Christian” as the foundation for Western Civilization? What we call the Old Testament is a huge part of our heritage and even if we do not ourselves do a mikvah rather than a baptism, for example, even if we don’t have a festival of the Torah, or Purim, we still have knowledge of these. We respect the Torah. We celebrate as Christians that Esther saved the Jewish people from the malice of Mordecai. . .

and by the way, I almost forgot:

Happy Hanukkah!!!

 

[nby]

nby;1740192:

It seems to me that Christianity itself answers my question in the negative. Does it not predict a war that leaves us in ruins?

So according to you, if I predict a war then I will destroy the world? World history is full of such wars. As long as the world follows in its old footsteps, war is inevitable. And the only way for the world not to follow old footsteps is for it to accept the only truth for humanity: Christianity. And for the world to accept Christianity as humanity’s final and absolute truth, it must learn through experience. Experience is the only way we can learn. It’s not just a matter of gaining knowledge from books, etc. Just as individuals go through painful times before reaching mental maturity, the Bible also predicts painful times for humanity before it reaches its maturity. If the Bible’s message is misunderstood then it is not the fault of Christianity but the fault of who ever misunderstood it. Aren’t there also non-religious predictions of such wars? Personally I don’t know, which is why I am asking. The religious predictions of such a war will simply be replaced by intellectual predictions. The problem isn’t the predictions but the world that is being studied. Such events will have to happen. The Book Of Revelation also predicts a new beginning. Anyway, this is my conclusion not because I use the Bible to predict the future but it is what I am seeing happen with my own eyes.

A long time ago, people willing to kill for their religious beliefs did not have possesssion of weapons of mass destruction. And again, doesn’t revelations essentially say we will be destroyed?

So instead of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, the solution is to get rid of religion? Okay but the weapons will still be there. How about we get rid of the weapons instead? Okay, so you’re saying that the weapons will be used in a religious war? Possible. But it’s also possible that they will be used in a non-religious war. If they are used in the name of Christianity then the only just way for this to happen is in an act of self-defense. If nuclear weapons are used in aggression by Christians then those Christians are not following Christianity and therefore the results of their actions will have nothing to do with Christianity. Nuclear weapons might be used in aggression by Moslems. This is them actually following their religion. But what does this have to do with Christianity? Yes everyone knows that Islam is a destructive religion but again, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Again, the only thing that has changed is that the people who know that the rest of us are inferior and/or acting in a way that is hateful to God, now or soon will have the ability to drag a lot more of us down with them when they do “GOd’s work.” Without arguing about the merits or eveolution of Christanity, I’ll just say that Christanity is not the only religion out there where people are willing to die for rewards in the next world.

There is no reward in the next life for Christians who commit wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with Christianity but only with the way some people understand it. Death in self-defense is another matter. to be honest i don’t even know what rewards Christians have other than heaven on the condition of having done our best to commit the least amount of sin possible. i simply don’t understand how this will encourage me to commit any violent act.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ummm… what exactly does Absolutely relative and Relatively absolute even mean?

The adversary is absolutely relative because he is separated from God’s grace, God who is relatively absolute.

Being separated from God, the adversary has no central frame of reference and, since he did not believe in God’s Word, he is eternally working toward his own self-destruction well outside of God’s grace. In this sense, the devil’s actions amount to nothing more than the nothingness of quantum foam manifested within God’s creation.
Isaiah 66:24:

And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.

And again…

The waves of death swirled about me;
the torrents of destruction overwhelmed me.
The cords of the grave coiled around me;
the snares of death confronted me.

Many feel that the very fabric of space-time is a seething foam of wormholes and tiny black holes a hundred billion billion times smaller than a proton. If so, then, in this sense, sin may be returning to the unguided, seething nothingness of the chaos which is currently held back by God’s grace but nonetheless non-existed in full unhindered force prior to creation.

Interestingly, Jeremiah used words from Genesis 1:2 to describe the effect of the Israelite’s sin. It was as though the Israelites were carrying the earth back to the chaos before creation, destroying all the beauty and order God had made.

My people are fools; they do not know me.
They are senseless children; they have no understanding.
They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good.

I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens, and their light was gone.
I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying.

I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away.
I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

This is what the LORD says: The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely. Therefore the earth will mourn and the heavens above grow dark, because I have spoken and will not relent, I have decided and will not turn back.

 

[Oneiron]

The adversary is absolutely relative because he is separated from God’s grace, God who is relatively absolute.

Being separated from God, the adversary has no central frame of reference and, since he did not believe in God’s Word, he is eternally working toward his own self-destruction well outside of God’s grace. In this sense, the devil’s actions amount to nothing more than the nothingness of quantum foam manifested within God’s creation…

So much blather and you still haven’t explain what realtively Absolute means so I can know what Absolutely relative means. You’ve simply established that they’re opposites and that the devil is Absolutely relative. I get that part. Treat me like an ignorant heathen and actually explain it to me instead of reiterating the same point over and over without thought.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The Crusaders defended their way all across the Middle East. I’ve heard some Muslims use the same argument for their invasion of north Africa and Spain.

Yes. And Muslim invaders had already conqured by the sword all across the Middle East too. As such, it’s a defensive reaction from invaders who were butchering many Christians, non-Christians, and even fellow Muslims in the name of Allah.

You keep equating the termination of life with muder, more conflation of teminologies. But murdering innocent people and terminating the life of someone who is willingly and deliberately attempting to murder you and your family are not the same thing.

Murdering is evil.

But terminating the life of an aggressoer who is fully cognizant of the morality of their actions and persists in their attempts to muder you or your family is not evil. It’s a just form of self-defence.

Murdering does not equal killing. And God has often commanded those who believe in him to terminate the lives of those who try to kill them.

Within the New Covenant as espoused within Christianity, the former punishments have been fulfilled in Christ since he died on our behalf for our sins– so there is no more killing as a form of capital punishement.

But he has never forbidden us from defending ourselves against an evil aggressor. In fact, Christ himself will return to destroy evil as I’ve already clearly pointed out in this very thread-- so any arguments for the complete passiveness of Christ flounder about like a fish out of the water on this point.

He really will return to destroy those who have been attacking God’s people, whatever culture, ethnic, or philosophy they may belong too. You might not beleive this will actually happen. But you cannot deny that Catholicism actually believes this either.

Mirdath:

You’re probably right, there’s no way we’re going to agree those are morally equivalent

Maybe so.

However, I am curous as to why you can’t see this distinction, even though you do see a difference between athiests wo are evil and atheists who are good.

Mirdath:

Not at all! If not for the Crusades Europe wouldn’t have developed the spice trade, for one; and while that led to a great deal of harm itself, it also had undeniable benefits for everyone. We simply disagree on the motive for the Crusades: you say good, I say otherwise. Let’s just move on

So then you are saying that some things were good and some things were bad, right?

Mirdath:

So, is a ‘just’ war still sinful because it involves killing, then?

This is loaded question, not much different from asking someone of they stopped beating their wife yet.

A just war is not sinful.

A war is **just **to the extent that people are sincerely attempting to save the lives of those who are being slain-- and employing equivalent force in proportion to the actions of the those who are attacking the innocent.

A war is unjust to the extent that people are attempting to end the lives of innocent people who have done nothing wrong-- and employing evil, bloody force in order to oppress and enslave the innocent, rape them, and steal their possesions.

Mirdath:

Where have I claimed to speak for anyone else?

Here’s a good example…

Mirdath:

Not yours, perhaps? Maybe even the actual standards of the Catholic Church which you’re misrepresenting here?

Here’s another gem…

Mirdath:

However, you are a Christian and I was speaking to you. As a Christian, you cannot believe that the Mosaic Law still holds or you must accept that there are other paths to salvation. One or the other. It’s not that hard to understand the question, is it?

So, yes, you really are claiming to speak for me-- and you really are claming that I’m not actually explaining things as Catholicism actually teaches while you claim to speak for me.

See what I mean?

Mirdath:

Your reputation is your own, it’s not my responsibility. I might be able to slander it – something I’ve been quite careful to avoid, it’s not good for civil debate – but only you can tarnish it.

Then why are you trying to tarnish my reputation by saying that I’m misrepresenting the actual standards of the Catholic Church?

Slandering one’s reputation is tarneshing their reputation Mirdath.

Then again, you’ve already conflated a lot in this thread.

If you don’t see a distinction between fanaticism and evil, neither a distinction between defensive and offensive actions which terminate lives, nor the distinction in Jesus’s style and approach between his first and seond coming, then I supsect that you will not grasp how much you are not understanding that slandering one’s reputation is the same thing as tarneshing their reputation too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

So much blather and you still haven’t explain what realtively Absolute means so I can know what Absolutely relative means. You’ve simply established that they’re opposites and that the devil is Absolutely relative. I get that part. Treat me like an ignorant heathen and actually explain it to me instead of reiterating the same point over and over without thought.

Blather?

Reiterating the same point over and over without thought?

When have I claimed anyone was an ignorant heathen?

I’ve actually argued in this thread that the ‘heathens’ were not as ignorant as many claim they were.

So good luck with your request and approach Oneiron.

How’s this for an answer?

"No. Why don’t you go figure it out for yourself. It’s really not that complicated."

Or is this yet another example of blathering, reiterating the same point over and over without thought, and an additional claim that non-Christian people are nothing more than ignorant heathens?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

It seems as though you already changed your mind, but if in the future you offer this again, I guess I’ll just decline the offer in advance right here in the open.

I think it’s better to discuss these things out in the open so that everyone can judge for themselves who has the more persuasive arguments.

**

Apperently so.

Mirdath:

Not true.

Yes. True.

You’re looking at the exceptions of the rule and calling them the standard, just like you’re conflating all forms of fanaticism with evil even though there are many forms of fanaticism that are not evil.

First of all, as I already said before, 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.

Anyway, let’s get back to your points…

Mirdath:

Consider the mostly-stamped-out religious practice of sati/suttee, in which widows throw themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres.

And how does this prove that they did not believe that marriage was a sacred union between men and women?

Mirdath:

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.

This is an exception to the rule and not seen universally among almost all nations like the concept of marriage is. And where it is seen, there’s a healthy dosage of criticism against it too. The same thing cannot be claimed about marriage.

Mirdath:

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.

First of all, the patriarchs did this against God’s will, since he did actually speak out against it within the Mosaic law.

Likewise, you are still looking at the exception to the rule-- and even then, there is still beleived to be a sacred union even though they shared this union with more than one.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

continued

Mirdath:

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.

Many ‘heathens’ considered marriage holy-- so I’m not sure what you’re getting at by calling yourself a heathen. If you wan’t to call youself a heathen-- fine. But I haven’t called you a heathen. You have called yourself this for some reason. And I don’t think the ‘heathens’ are as bad as some make them out to be anyway.

Back to the point, the societies that stay together as a family (including heathens too) seem to have a higher percentage of surviving peacefully than those who do not (and this includes heathens too). Although there are exceptions to the rule, staying together as a family generally provides more stability than not staying together.

Mirdath:

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

You can call it whatever you want to call it. It doesn’t change the fact that there is a nearly universal agreement concerning it’s validity. Consequently, espousing the benevolent value of ‘society knowing what’s good for it’ – in other words, the social contract – is exactly what natural law points toward.

I think I’m starting to see why you left Catholicism. Based on what I’ve read so far, there’s apparently very little about it that you actually do understand-- at least, regarding the topics we’ve been discussing so far, seems that way to me anyway.

Mirdath:

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

Yes, and you’re leaving out BIG sections that I’ve already posted in order to explain this in advance.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

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.

Could you at least address these points?

And could you effectively frame them as a Catholic would so that you can prove to me that you actually do understand what the Catholic Church believes?

Instead of claiming that I’m distorting the Catholic position, why don’t you just explain to me what the Catholic position actually is?

Sound fair?

Mirdath:

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.

Only popping up in one ot two cases?

That’s insane.

Are you actually familiar with Catholic concepts of natural law?

Mirdath:

Occam’s Razor favors the secular in this case.

Occam’s Razor dulls itself in hindsight, not being able to effectively predict what scientific discoveries would have hindered or outright prevented if these scientists in question had actually listened to what Occam’s Razor said they could or could not accomplish by their scientific inquiry.

Mirdath:

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.

It’s only categorically different because you are working from your own faith perspective, with little more except what you already believe to be true. You are essentially subscribing to a form of scientism which ‘believes’ that materialistic forces can (and will eventually) explain all things. Sounds that way to me anyway.

But, according to Catholicism (and Judaism too), the moral is the physical, and the actions of the physical can have an everlasting effect on our souls too.

Many other religions agree with this too-- so atheism is really arrogant to claim that all other religions are wrong in this regard. No one can even fully explain human consciousness in purely biological terms. In fact, I don’t think we’ve even begun to seriously do so either.

Most research I’ve read seems to conform to the body/spirit duality that almost all religions subscribe to in some form or another. And the research I’ve read against the claim of a body/spirit duality seems to only indicate a form of belief and not an actual test per se.

 

[Oneiron]

Blather?

Reiterating the same point over and over without thought?

When have I claimed anyone was an ignorant heathen?

I’ve actually argued in this thread that the ‘heathens’ were not as ignorant as many claim they were.

So good luck with your request and approach Oneiron.

How’s this for an answer?

"No. Why don’t you go figure it out for yourself. It’s really not that complicated."

Or is this yet another example of blathering, reiterating the same point over and over without thought, and an additional claim that non-Christian people are nothing more than ignorant heathens?

Awesome, you can take what I said, mold it to your own desires, and then still not manage to defend what you said. I have no clue whatsoever what absolutely relative means. You said it, I’d figure you knew what you were talking about. Apparently I was wrong.

And you have this thing for thinking we non-Christians believe you think us all heathens. I told you to treat me like one, and explain it to me. Stop taking my words and making it sound like I have some anti-Christian agenda.

 

[Mirdath]

mh, sorry Valke. Can we get a namechange to ‘Religious catfighting, this month only, tickets $20’ up in here?

No private messages. If you’re afraid that this thread might get closed down then maybe such a thread should not have been started in the first place.

I hope you realize that you quoted my message not Mr. Ex Nihilo’s. anyway, the interaction between society and religion will never end simply because society is based on religion.

Yes, I did quote you. I even hand-typed in your username to make it completely obvious what I was doing. And no, societies are not usually based on religion; rather the religion often appears as a function of society, except in the case of theocracy. The clergy have a distinct social function, but except in theocracies they weren’t there before everyone else.

First of all i don’t exactly understand your question. This is my opinion, and I wouldn’t have expressed it if I was not confident in it. Plus, is it not general knowledge or common sense? Think about it. Only when you separate the two, only then do they make sense. Give me a simple example of how you can combine relativism/absolutism and yet still make sense? Denying the existence of both as two separate entities is denying them their true nature. As a result of accepting their true nature, by separating them apart, by respecting them, only then was civilization able to start because nature allowed it to. This is my philosophy. What’s yours?

Arg, I mistyped ‘any’ for ‘no’. I’m not perfect

I did not say you said it. I said Valke2 said it. Believe me, if religion will destroy humanity then it would have destroyed it along time ago. Why has it not happened yet? What is religion waiting for? Religion has been around for thousands of yours. All we have witnessed is an improvement in religion since its beginning. Why do you think that it will suddenly take a turn for the worse and destroy humanity. There is a pattern and that pattern indicates religion has been improving and it has now reached its perfect form of Christianity.

So, why are you guys more afraid of Muslims than ever? And while I’ll agree that there’s been a general trend toward improvement, I’m seeing a dip.

Judaism is part of Christianity. Jesus was Jewish. Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. Jesus said that he did not come to cancel but rather to fulfill the law. So Christianity is in fact 5500 years old, not 2000. Christianity is much deeper rooted than you claim.

Judaism is not part of Christianity; it is Christianity that had its origins as a radical sect of Judaism. As you said, Jesus was a Jew. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

And Christianity is only 2000 years old: the Christ did not have a secret zeroth coming when God made the covenant with Abram, that was God the Father. Christianity originated with the teachings and death of Jesus in the first century. Its ‘deeper roots’ are Judaism. Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers, claimed to fulfil the Christian covenant and to be the second coming; and you guys are still here…

The lion is humanity. If the lion dies humanity will die. This was my point which was that we are one species. Humans are not different species, or do you disagree with that?

I thought the lion was one ‘perspective’

Look around you. The most successful cultures are Christian. Look at the gap between the Christian world and the rest of humanity. Christianity is also a foundation of European civilization and no one can successfully argue against that.

Japan? China? All the Middle Eastern members of OPEC? India in a few years? Wow, we buy almost all our stuff from them! That’s quite a gap, you’re right

Christianity is a foundation of modern Western civilization. But it’s not the only thing upon which that is founded, nor is Europe the only civilization out there.

 

[Mirdath]

But terminating the life of an aggressoer who is fully cognizant of the morality of their actions and persists in their attempts to muder you or your family is not evil. It’s a just form of self-defence.

It is still regrettable, is it not? Remember what happened when Peter cut off the slave’s ear in Gethsemane.

Murdering does not equal killing. And God has often commanded those who believe in him to terminate the lives of those who try to kill them.

Yeah, the Old Testament God was a pretty scary guy. He didn’t just command his followers to kill aggressors, he actively sent them up to commit genocide against the Caananite tribes! Somehow I fail to see the good in that.

But he has never forbidden us from defending ourselves against an evil aggressor. In fact, Christ himself will return to destroy evil as I’ve already clearly pointed out in this very thread-- so any arguments for the complete passiveness of Christ flounder about like a fish out of the water on this point.

I’ve said it before, Catholic teaching is that by committing a mortal sin one severs oneself from God’s grace. Jesus is just rubberstamping it.

He really will return to destroy those who have been attacking God’s people, whatever culture, ethnic, or philosophy they may belong too. You might not beleive this will actually happen. But you cannot deny that Catholicism actually believes this either.

If you get your philosophy from Michelangelo (it’s a great painting, but it isn’t the word of God). According to John he’s going to send two prophets who are going to be killed and resurrected after a few days, and sometime after that the world ends as angels pour things out over it. John himself makes incredibly heavy use of metaphor – the Beast as Nero Caesar, seven horns for the hills of Rome, etc. etc. If you take him absolutely literally, there are only 144,000 elect (who are, by the way, all Jews) who get to go to Heaven. Given just how many Jews and Christians there have been, I’d say trying to get in now just doesn’t offer very good odds. The Apocalypse is not a book to take at face value, but rather what lies beneath it.

So then you are saying that some things were good and some things were bad, right?

That would seem to be the case. I do actually think there’s good in everyone

So, yes, you really are claiming to speak for me-- and you really are claming that I’m not actually explaining things as Catholicism actually teaches while you claim to speak for me.

I was speaking to you, not for you. I’ve asked you to clarify, presenting the options I think there are. Sure, life isn’t multiple-choice, but there can be yes-no questions as in what I presented to you re: Judaism still being considered valid by Christians, or one religion having the same power to save as another. You still haven’t answered, by the way.

Slandering one’s reputation is tarneshing their reputation Mirdath.

It’s only tarnishing if it’s true Yeah, I’ve been calling you out, simply because I believe the Church teaches differently. If you can reconcile what you’ve said with that, or prove to me that it teaches otherwise – be my guest!

If you don’t see a distinction between fanaticism and evil, neither a distinction between defensive and offensive actions which terminate lives, nor the distinction in Jesus’s style and approach between his first and seond coming, then I supsect that you will not grasp how much you are not understanding that slandering one’s reputation is the same thing as tarneshing their reputation too.

Did you read where I defined fanaticism as something that is without question evil? And where I said that there are people who are incredibly devoted and dedicated, but are not foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics?

 

[Mirdath]

You’re looking at the exceptions of the rule and calling them the standard, just like you’re conflating all forms of fanaticism with evil even though there are many forms of fanaticism that are not evil.

I was not calling exceptions the standard. You said that non-Christian practices of marriage (for an example) easily fit into Christian morality. I gave examples showing otherwise.

Also, what are those forms of fanaticism then?

And how does this prove that they did not believe that marriage was a sacred union between men and women?

It does nothing of the sort. It shows that some Hindu ideas about marriage are not so easy to fit into the Christian form.

This is an exception to the rule and not seen universally among almost all nations like the concept of marriage is. And where it is seen, there’s a healthy dosage of criticism against it too. The same thing cannot be claimed about marriage.

See above.

First of all, the patriarchs did this against God’s will, since he did actually speak out against it within the Mosaic law.

Likewise, you are still looking at the exception to the rule-- and even then, there is still beleived to be a sacred union even though they shared this union with more than one.

See above x2.

Back to the point, the societies that stay together as a family (including heathens too) seem to have a higher percentage of surviving peacefully than those who do not (and this includes heathens too). Although there are exceptions to the rule, staying together as a family generally provides more stability than not staying together.

That’s been true since the caveman days. Actually, since before then – animals stay in packs and family units too. It protects against predators, allows more efficient gathering of food and resources, provides genetic security, and (hopefully) makes everyone happy.

You can call it whatever you want to call it. It doesn’t change the fact that there is a nearly universal agreement concerning it’s validity. Consequently, espousing the benevolent value of ‘society knowing what’s good for it’ – in other words, the social contract – is exactly what natural law points toward.

And in Sparta, what society knew was good for it was brainwashing, leaving ‘unfit’ babies out on mountains to die, pederasty, and complete concentration on military strength. That was their social contract, and it actually worked for them until the Peloponnesian Wars! But I doubt you’d agree with any of the facets of it I just mentioned. Social contracts are different between cultures, and while they have some similarities most points contained in them are quite variable.

I think I’m starting to see why you left Catholicism. Based on what I’ve read so far, there’s apparently very little about it that you actually do understand-- at least, regarding the topics we’ve been discussing so far, seems that way to me anyway.

Like I said, I left because I didn’t believe it, not because I don’t understand it.

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.

Fine, I’ll take the bait. There is a nearly universal consensus among a wide range of peoples that some few things such as murder, theft, and arson are inherently wrong. This social prohibition doesn’t even extend as far as rape, for crying out loud. Women are chattel in some societies even today, and can actually be punished for having been raped. And you’re expecting me to present a case for a ‘natural law’ that dictates morality on such relatively un-pressing and indirect moral questions as contraception, homosexuality, drug use…?

Only popping up in one ot two cases?

That’s insane.

Are you actually familiar with Catholic concepts of natural law?

I’m familiar with your concepts. I think you’re overreaching yourself in your definition of them.

Want some examples of social constructs only appearing in a couple places? Berdache, a ‘third gender’ in some native American cultures. Inuit wife-lending. Monotheism (it was vanishingly rare until Christianity took off – only Zoroastrianism, Atenism, and Judaism before that, and Zoroastrianism was really more dualist).

 

[Mirdath]

It’s only categorically different because you are working from your own faith perspective, with little more except what you already believe to be true. You are essentially subscribing to a form of scientism which ‘believes’ that materialistic forces can (and will eventually) explain all things. Sounds that way to me anyway.

Little more than what I already believe (which isn’t a whole lot) and a relatively open mind (it’s still picky though). I don’t believe the physical world is necessarily all there is; but I haven’t seen a whole lot of evidence for it.

But, according to Catholicism (and Judaism too), the moral is the physical, and the actions of the physical can have an everlasting effect on our souls too.

I agree on the second point but I question the first. I would say that in those belief systems the physical is the acting component of the moral – the intent.

Many other religions agree with this too-- so atheism is really arrogant to claim that all other religions are wrong in this regard. No one can even fully explain human consciousness in purely biological terms. In fact, I don’t think we’ve even begun to seriously do so either.

I’m not an atheist either!

And nobody can fully explain human consciousness at all yet – even to religion the soul is essentially a black box. Theologians don’t know how it works; they simply say ‘it works’, and scientists say the same thing about the mind.

 

[Bishopite]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

1. Your assertion equals chaos.
2. What good have the non-religious done?
3. If there is no “religion” thus no God then who cares what will happen in the future since we all become non-existent?

Dostoyevski said, “If God does not exist, everything is permissable.”