I’m pretty sure that in many cases, their certainty/devotion is a requirement, or at least a goal of adherence*. The system is often set up so that half measures are frowned upon as worthless, or even worse than complete disbelief.
Well, that’s one of my major beefs with formal religion. I mean, if you haven’t given me enough to COMPLETELY CONVINCE ME, I have to question the church’s validity. You’re either holding back or it just ain’t there. I wonder how many people lie? Just so’s they don’t get kicked out altogether.
I’m sure people do lie; maybe to themselves also. And you’re obviously completely free to have your beef with it, but maybe that’s just the way it has to be.
Sure it’s social. In Phelps case it’s mostly family. I think people have certain styles that appeal to them. I prefer something informal. Others like larger groups and something more ritualized. It’s also often a matter of heritage Some inherit their parents denomination and the attachment is as much emotional as spiritual. For me it’s the spirit in the room that’s most important. Religions that are very ritualized don’t appeal to me much but I’d give it a try. People need to seek what is meaningful for them. If that is atheism I’ve got no problem with that.
It is a social club in part that helps people feel good. I went to a Universalist church and they read from a variety of books rather than just the Bible. It seemed more like a general spirituality rather than a specific dogma. I liked it.
It isn’t easy to separate the social aspect from the actual spiritual search. One can be part of the other.
I’m curious as to how often this is true. I know the Church of Christ used to teach that any variation from their beliefs meant you were going to hell. If you played a musical instrument in church then you were damned.
Other churches I know allow for varying beliefs in some areas but I’m sure there are limits. No one ever questioned me on my beliefs. Some I’m sure don’t care too much about your beliefs as long as you show up and put some money in the plate. It also depends on your position in the church and areas of responsibility.
Really? What church did Mao Tse-tung belong to? What church did Joseph Stalin belong to? Each of them managed to kill far more people than ALL churches in human history combined.
So, are atheists more bloodthirsty than believers? Or are they just much better at killing than the believers?
This is what I’ve been trying to understand my entire life too. Learning about religions certainly is fascinating, but it can sure be depressing at times. To bad you can’t unlearn stuff, huh?
I believe it has to do more with reason than anything. Refering to Mao and Stalin are classic comebacks to the old “religion kills” routine.
Think of it like this. All religions are unreasonable. They all make a claim to a truth that they can’t possibly know, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. Looking back there are the witch hunts, the inquisition, and many other attrocities of religion.
Hitler didn’t invent anti-semitism, Christians hated the Jews way before Hitler, and paved the way for him to single them out for persecution. He had unreasonable views about Jews and other minorities. Mao and Stalin were also had unreasonable beliefs.
In fact, anywhere you hear of a group of people killing other people who aren’t armed, you can be sure they are holding some very unreasonable beliefs about the world, or the people in it.
Atheism and Communism are not the same thing. As I’ve said before, I regard communism as a religion that doesn’t admit it’s a religion. Stalin and Mao were just doing what religious tyrants typically do; kill the unbelievers.
Well, certainly in most of the Christian denominations, discipleship seems to be the general aim. It’s not so much a question of who believes what and is or is not damned, but rather a question of intent and destination (i.e. do you want to move on in)
I don’t know a single catholic who adheres to the basic rules of their religion. I have catholic friends who have been on the pill for years, have had abortions, have had sex (and children) out of wedlock, who eat meat on Friday (although I think that rule has since been lifted), who have divorced, smacked their wives around, engaged in homosexual sex, done illegal things, NEVER go to church anymore, and on and on. And yet they call themselves Lifelong and Forever Catholics.
Now, they must know that under their belief system god already knows about all these infractions and as far as HE’S concerned, they’re kicked out of the club. Or do they just say, “Sorry…I was wrong” and all is forgiven? And if THAT’S the case, why make any rules at all?
Can you understand why I’m skeptical? If they’re not buying into it, how can I take it seriously?
Not a single one? You either know very few Catholics or a particularly odd bunch of them.
As to your list of actions that would be considered sins (some of which would actually not be considered sinful, depending on context), it has been the tradition of both Christianity and Judaism before it that all people sin. Sinning does not get one thrown out of the body of believers, it simply means that one is supposed to ask God for help to work harder to avoid such sins in the future.
Beyond that, not one of the actions you mentioned is or offends a core belief of Catholicism. None of them are “the basic rules of Catholicism.” Certainly, several of them would be condemned by the church and some of them might be considered grounds for excommunication. However, even excommunication is not considered a way of “chucking the beggar out” so much as a notice that the person has separated himself or herself from the Sacraments and the community and, if they recognize that separation, should take the steps necessary to re-enter the community.
I am making no claim that the church is correct or that the people you have known are Catholics “in good standing.” I am pointing out that the entire religious tradition, going back at least to Isaiah and Amos almost 2,700 years ago (or, in tradition, to Moses 3300 years ago) is that God continues to call people to Himself and the people continue to falter and fall away from Him. Pointing out the inconsistencies or apparently irrational beliefs of religion are certainly legitimate objections to religion; pointing out that people fail to measure up to what religion calls them to do is merely restating the position that religions, themselves, have always held.
Actually, I don’t know of a single religious person who never breaks any rules (though I’m sure they’re out there somewhere). I was unaware that a person could get “un-excommunicated”. How does one go about that? The definition I’m going by:
excommunication
n 1: the state of being excommunicated [syn: exclusion, censure] 2: the act of banishing a member of the Church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church; cutting a person off from a religious society [syn: excision]
I’d say that if an act gets you excommunicated, it’s pretty basic. Is it in the bible? Probably not. But it’s a basic understanding that catholics live and fall by all over the world every day. And I’m sure there’s something in the bible that the pope uses to base this rule on.
So, how do you “un-do” an abortion? What steps would a woman take to get back in the church’s good graces? Is all forgotten after you say some words over a rosary?
Yes, I understand the church has no choice but to let stuff slide. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have a flock. We’re all tempted and we all falter. The only purpose I see in being human in a religious context vs. human and secular is the external guilt force. Amazingly, I don’t feel the need to have my nose rubbed in the mistakes and/or choices I make throughout my life. I generate my own guilt just fine, thankuverymuch.
Then you haven’t really talked to enough believers. Spiritual growth us a life long process and though it pretty common for people to occasionally “break the rules” or backslide that doesn’t mean people don’t progress.
I know this is a tangent on the thread but one comment on this would be that the yes, the Church says it’s moral to not deliberately prevent conception. But there are plenty of ways to be together in a marriage during that fertile window. To say that people have no control over their need for sex is expecting very little, and belittling to those people, isn’t it? Somehow folks in the developed world can do this, why not everywhere?
Another would be that maybe the rest of the world has an obligation to its poorest and that there are resources throughout the world to support people, it’s just that their immoral choices prevent the just distribution of resources. Catholic groups throughout the world work to change this.
So speaks the “apologist”. 
I never said they don’t progress. I think my point is that they progress as human beings *despite * the church’s limiting rules.
As for the believers in my life: Aside from family, I’m only aware of one atheist friend. My middle-class suburban neighborhood where I grew up (and where my dad still lives) was overwhelmingly catholic. Out of 15 households, we had secular “us”, two jewish families, one methodist, seven catholic, and the remaining “unknown”. My three best friends outside the immediate neighborhood were all catholic.
Now…of these catholics (starting at the end of the block so I don’t miss anyone), we had a suicide, a divorce, a hooker and drug addict, an out-of-wedlock birth, an alcoholic wife-beater, a before-marriage copulator, an out-of-wedlock birth and a homosexual, another wife-beater, another out-of-wedlock birth, more alcoholics, two more out-of-wedlock births, abortions, a group of teenagers who got caught having group sex (this was my favorite, as I was present when said teenagers ran out of the house naked with the dad chasing them down the street), more alcoholics, more divorces, a cheater and another suicide. I won’t go into who did what, but I’ve included all “scandals” that I know of and they span all of the religious affiliations. My family is in there as well. As far as I know, none of these people attend church. All but one jewish family identify strongly with their religion.
Of my outside-the-neighborhood catholic friends, two had abortions (one was funded by me) and one has been on the pill for 35 years – no children by choice. Alcoholism, drug use/abuse were rampant, as was sex-out-of-wedlock, and one was sexually abused by a catholic relative between the ages of 8 and 12. Two were children of alcoholics.
In looking back on the relationships with the believers in my life, I fail to see how their faith benefitted them in any way. The rules and guidelines were tossed aside when it suited them. And I’m not passing judgement. I’m no better and no worse than them. Will any of this behavior keep anyone out of heaven? If not, then why bother? If so, then it appears heaven will be a very lonely place.
Now YOU’RE playing the old “No True Scotsman” game.
You claim that only religion could lead people to atrocities. I point out that the greatest mass murderers in history were, in fact, atheists. And you try to pretend that those guys weren’t “true” atheists.
You’re embarrassing yourself. You can’t re-write the definition of religion to include everyone you disapprove of.
Like it or not, WHATEVER we believe in (or don’t believe in), there are going to be some repulsive people who share our beliefs. If, as a Catholic, I have to answer for Torquemada, then you have to answer for Stalin and Mao.
Or, we could just judge each other and our beliefs on an individual basis.
I agree that religion has been behind some really bad things and that many of those bad things are done in the name of god, but I lay fault at secular humans as well, as pointed out in the above examples. My gripe is that for some reason, many religious people think religion makes the world better than it would be without, and I simply don’t see any evidence of that. It’s a false assumption.
Mao and Stalin were atheists insofar as they didn’t believe in God. However, one can make a valid parallel between, say, Stalin’s communist regime and organised religion in that they both represent a near total abdication of reason. Take, for instance, Stalin’s championing of Lysenko’s ‘socialist biology’. It’s a prime example of the regime putting ideology before fact, with disastrous results. Organised religions have been doing this since time immemorial. In this narrow sense, Stalin’s communism was similar to religion.
Sure, you CAN (although it’s always a gamble), but why should you have to? For instance…another close catholic friend…her dad was an OTR trucker. When he came home, he wanted “it” and his wife dutifully obliged him because he was gone for weeks at a time. She was always knocked up.