Fred Phelps is only the tip of the religion iceberg!

Great Debates
81

You deserve far better than the sarcastic answers that first came to mind to respond to your post, Kal, and if any tinge of asperity enters this, chalk it up to my own human frailty.

First, all humans sin, in the eyes of the church. It’s inherent in our nature to be less than perfect, to make mistakes, sometimes even to willfully do something proscribed because it’s enjoyable. What’s called for is repentance – “I did something stupid, and I’m sorry I did. Please forgive me” or words to that effect. (Tom~ or I or some other scholarly type can dig out the words of the old Confiteor if you want to see a formal, formulaic way of saying that.) But the key point is an interior change of attitude expressed in words and behavior. No, you can’t undo an abortion. But if your church considers abortion a sin, and excommunicates you for it, you can come to the decision that they were right and you did sin, ask God’s forgiveness for it (through His ministers), and be absolved of having done it. In that sense, think of it as like a (proper) Presidential pardon: the person may well have done the crime, but in the eyes of the President and his consultants, he has done enough time, had a change of heart, and is appropriately now restored to his role as a productive member of society.

As for the other, the idea that all sin, consider these commandments:

  1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.
  2. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
  3. Whatsoever thou willest that another should do unto you, in like manner do thou unto him.
  4. Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto me.
  5. Be ye perfect, as the Father in Heaven is perfect.
  6. If someone smite you upon the cheek, turn the other cheek.

And so on. None of them are laws in the strict sense of “Don’t break the speed limit” or “Don’t trespass on posted property.” Rather, they’re ideals to which people aspire, and recognize that they inevitably fall short of attaining those ideals. Taken in the strictest sense, moral theology claims that nothing is a morally neutral act, because it is either the best thing that you can do in the given circumstances or it isn’t – and if the latter, it falls short of the goal of always doing the right thing.

Naturally, this can put one in a self-flagellating frame of mind. However, seen as a “I’m doing passably well, but I can do better” aspiration to goals, it can also be part of a healthy, self-accepting life.

Catholicism as a faith, by the way, tends to do elaborate codes of behavior, so that no matter how far-fetched a hypothetical scenario may be, there are principles spelled out so that the reasonable Catholic may apply the laws of the church and know (at least theoretically) the proper behavior he should apply in it.

For other churches, it may be the application of the Bible taken as a moral codebook, or the holding up of those basic ideals taught by Jesus as the Law and Prophets comprised in a nutshell (and yes, we know he borrowed them from Hillel; think of it as monarch embracing and enforcing scholar’s wisdom).

=============

Valteron, many Christians (and members of other faiths too) are quite well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of religion. But we feel that there is much good in proper following of the faith, as opposed to using it as a weapon with which to beat others. Because a bunch of racists in the original Scotsdale trial unfairly condemned a group of black men is grounds, not for throwing out the entire criminal justice system, but for making radical changes to ensure that it does its job right and never permits such an atrocity to happen again.

I for one am prepared to debate intelligently with someone opposed to the principle of believing in God and allowing his precepts to shape one’s life. But I have never played in a “Wizard of Oz” summer stock, and I resent being cast as a straw man or heartless robot. There are some fascinating debates in the back pages of GD on just this subject, and I’ve given my reasons for belief in them. I have no problem in repeating that with someone who is seriously interested in intelligent discussion. But I’m equally peeved at someone who impugns my motives for not accepting (his interpretation of) miscellaneous random Bible passages as the absolute guide to behavior and someone who impugns my integrity and rationality for holding a belief system that he does not agree with. If you’re willing to play on an even field, without straw men or the waving of a red shirt to enrage a lluB, I’ll happily engage in that exchange with you.

82

:dubious: Atheism and environmentalism have no particular connection.
My bad; should have been “Greens”.

Regards,
Shodan

83

I think valid comparisons can be made. That’s not the point. What** Der Trihs** does is claim organized religion is the source of the world’s greatest evil and when someone mentions Communist atrocities he claims it’s a religion that doesn’t call itself a religion. It’s a disingenuous method of defending his ridiculous exaggeration. There may be a certain brainwashing uniformity element in both but that is not the only aspect of either. I think the conclusion is that it is a certain thing within man and organizations that cultivate the “us vs. them” factor that leads to atrocities. The element of belief in God or not probably isn’t a relevant factor.

84

So is the assumption that we’d be better off without religion. You might as well say the world would be better off without mankind because mankind has fucked things up and destroyed the balance of nature. What’s the point of the question?

85

Nah…you’re fine, as per usual! :slight_smile:

Ok, I get that. But humans are fallible in the eyes of HUMANS, as well. I just don’t see where the “added value” is. Most of us (including the believers) are taught right from wrong by our parents. All but those most morally bankrupt citizens feel a pang of guilt when they willfully do something wrong and most will apologize when they slight someone. We forgive each other (or not, depending on the infraction) and move on with our lives. It almost seems like the believers don’t trust themselves to correct bad behavior on their own (which the church expects them to do anyway…go figure) and need an extra dose of guilt to get the job done.

That’s pretty much what the Parental Units taught us…except without the “thys” ( :wink: ) and without the perfection part. “Do your best” was usually how it was put to us.

I dunno…it just all seems like overkill to me. I believe most kids will follow their parents’ example before they’d follow the church’s. Those examples may or may not be in line with each other, but for the most part, the parental message is essentially the same. Don’t be a jerk, try to help those less fortunate than yourself, be a good neighbor, and do your best.

86

But I never made the assumption that we’d be better off without religion. You’re reading something into my statement that simply isn’t there. I’m saying that religion doesn’t function as designed. It doesn’t make the world a better place. The religious and the secular are running about neck and neck regarding both good and bad behavior. I attribute that to the fact that we’re all human and we generally try to be good but fuck up frequently…sometimes on an enormous scale. I don’t see a mass intervention that’s stopping the believers from being assholes any more than I see a huge group decision by the secular bunch to collectively behave themselves. Do you?

87

I was making a statement not assuming something about your attitude. I agree religion for the most part doesn’t function as designed but the cycles continue. Now the anger and hypocrisy of the religious right is a catalyst for others to look at their own beliefs and make choices about what they believe and what those beliefs mean in the way of actions. Didi you mean “divine” intervention?
I like the Gandhi quote “You must be the change you hope to see in the world” It applies to either the believer or non believer.

I expect to see the same kind of growth in a society as I see in individuals. Sometimes we backslide but that’s part of the cycle. In society so is religion and those who challenge it.

88

Yes…I meant divine intervention.

And I agree with Gandhi…all the good and all the bad in the world is due to human beings. We are the most powerful force in the known universe and we have to learn how to use those powers for good instead of evil.

89

You are moving the goalposts, although perhaps not intentionally.

First, you provided a list of very specific actions, claiming that you knew no one who had never violated those. I know a number of people who have never violated any of them, even the easiest one to “pass”, having sex outside marriage. That is a separate issue from whether I know anyone who has never sinned in some (other) way. I do not.

The (Catholic) Church (and the overwhelming number of Christian churches) does not consider everyone who has sinned to be excommunicated. For the sins you have listed, I believe only staying away from church entirely and performing (not undergoing) an abortion would bring automatic excommunication from the RCC. Most of them are considered serious so that one would need to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until one had repented, of course.

The rules to remove excommunication are probably a bit arcane, but there is no excommunication that cannot be lifted. My point in mentioning excommunication, at all, was only to point out that its purpose (in the Catholic Church) is to call back the person to the church. Other groups may consider excommunication to be an ultimate casting out, but I cannot address their beliefs.

You have turned the issue on its head, here. It is not a matter of the church letting anything slide. Rather, the church presumes that people will fail at attaining perfection all the time. The “rules” are to provide guidance to let people know when they have stepped outside the bounds and the Sacraments (and the whole purpose of the church) is to invite them to repent of their errors and try to do better. From the perspective of the church, a church filled with perfect people would have no purpose.
The purpose of pointing out error is to provide a means by which people can reconcile themselves to their errors and move on. Providing rituals in which people can recognize their errors and put those errors behind them is a legitimate psychological function even if one does not believe in the “god” part of it. This is not to claim that every person needs such ritual or that the various religions provide a good means to do so, but religion does provide that function.

My point, here is not to persuade you that the church (or religion) is the right way to go, it is simply to point out that your particular arguments in this particular case are missing the point.

90

And in the learning we will discover exactly what those powers are.
The beauty of that quote is that it applies to those who strive as part of their spiritual journey and those who don’t believe they’re on one. It can be argued {but not proven} that those who serve as part of their spiritual journey are that divine intervention.

91

What I said was, "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. " That’s a little different than what you said I said, and I stand by it.

Ditto on those of other religions. I didn’t want to appear to be singling out the catholics.

According to this site, http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm women receiving abortions, in most cases, are immediately excommunicated. The exceptions are listed there. While it’s good that they make at least some concessions, they take away the woman’s right to decide for herself if abortion is best for her and/or her family. And unless she admits she was wrong (even if she doesn’t feel she was) she’s out.

I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

I may have digressed a bit from the topic, but not by much. The fact remains that the church has stringent rules that people are supposed to aspire to, even though those rules have nothing to do with the kind of person they are (i.e., a person’s decision to divorce or abort gets them either kicked out or marginalized within the church). You can be in church every week, doing good at every turn, but grow apart from your husband? No Eucharist for you! One Lifetime!

I don’t see that I’m missing the point. The point is that all the parental functions put upon people by the church are already being accomplished by the natural parents. It’s redundant and many of them sound to me like they’re there for the sake of being parental and have little or nothing to do with what kind of person you are.

We could go back and forth on this all day, but it still appears that the church is adding an unnecessary layer of Big Brotherism on people who, for the most part, are quite capable of understanding right from wrong, feeling guilty when they screw up, and making amends if the situation calls for it. I just don’t see the purpose in adding all the pomp and circumstance. We are what we are.

92

Sorry…I forgot to set your final paragraphs off in quotes. Can you fix that for me? D’oh!

93

The problem with your position, Lord Ashtar, is that to my knowledge no Pope ever participaes in debates or public discussions, or gives anyone a chance to debate their viewpoints. Because to the, it is not their viewpoint, but THE TRUTH?

SSo I don’t suppose it would matter how respectfully I approached the Pope. He ould not debate with me or anyone else.

94

I think the “overall, religion is positive/negative” debate seems to be lacking what I observe about those around me: faith makes the world at least seem a better place.

I can point to hundreds of people I know who are emotionally comforted by their faith (Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims). Further, most of them would say that they are “better people” because of their faith - not “better” than someone else, but “better” in the sense that practicing their faith - whatever it is - makes them more disciplined and, basically, better equipped to handle life’s bullshit.

In my observation, what that faith is seems unimportant; everyone could just as easily be Confucian or seekers of the IPU. For many, many people who struggle just to slog through everyday life, having something supernatural to believe in helps them. Having a long-standing religious tradition helps those who want to feel like they are part of something much larger.

Naturally, you can say that they are just delusional, and we might as well simply administer mind-altering drugs; it is just as good as their reliance on fiction. I don’t have an answer for that. But to the question “is religion, overall, a Good Thing”, I submit that religion helps millions of people get through each day, rather than going bonkers. Opiate of the masses, maybe; but it keeps the masses productive, and being an opiate doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be true.

95

Agreed. But I do find it sad that so many people don’t have faith in themselves or who don’t feel a connection to “something bigger”, i.e., the tangible world we live in. Not to put any particular emphasis on the current Hollywood Hype surrounding Brangelina, but they are an example of people who feel a real connection to the Big Picture and are working toward making lives better, feeling that they are capable of being part of a positive force. Now, I don’t claim to know what their religious leanings are, but I’ve never heard them attribute anything to a higher power. They use the available resources to help the less fortunate.

96

You are the one who proposed the debate with the Pope, not Lord Ashtar. The only position he took was in response to your hypothetical. What would your logic professor say about this tactic?

I submit that if you were truly interested in serious debate you would engage tomndebb, or Polycarp, as you have been invited to do. I guarantee you will be treated with all the courtesy, respect, and consideration you deserve. You might even learn something from them. I have! This is spoken as an atheist who has little use for organized religion.

97

If people are doing just that. Helping others and trying to make the world a better place, does it matter what their spiritual beliefs are or aren’t?

If I’m working along side an atheist to help the poor or whatever I don’t care about his lack of belief in God. I respect his choice and appreciate his actions. I would hope the feeling would be mutual.

We are a varied humanity inside and out. We don’t need to spend time looking for reasons to separate ourselves from each other. We can respect the individuals inner journey and focus on how whatever is happening inside is expressed on their actions. That’s where the rubber meets the road.

IMO that’s what Jesus was trying to teach. He kept urging people to look at what’s inside of themselves and others and talked of the fruits of the spirit which were compassion, kindness, humility etc expressed in our day to day lives.

98

This is ridiculous. Are Contrapuntal and Lord Astar not capable of understanding a figure of speech? I did not say that I wanted to walk up to the Pope and challenge him to a debate. What I said was this:

“If the Pope visits Latin America (both the present one and John Paul II were consumate showmen) he will hold and kiss little unwanted orphans and everyone will call him a saint. But if you get up and ask if there would be fewer unwanted children were it not for his Church’s campaigns against the availability of contraception in Latin America and Africa(. . . . . . .), you are considered an anti-Catholic bigot. How dare you attack the Holy Man from Rome?”

Note that I said “If you get up and ask” not, “if you get up and try to push your way past the security guards and jump over the security fence and ask that he talk to you about his position on birth control”.

Perhaps it is my fault for using the figure of speech “get up and ask” but as a former journalist, I was probably thinking more about the fact that the media sucks up to the Pope, especially during the grand publicity blitzes that are Papal visits. By “get up and ask” I meant how likely is it that a journalist in Latin America (or even the USA) would write an article asking how many fewer unwanted orphans there would be if his church were not actively involved in political moves to make contraception unavailable in developing countries. How likely would it be that a newspaper would run such an article next to the pictures of the Pope kissing and hugging unwanted orphans?

I meant that the Pope gets a free ride in the media from lazy or gutless journalists who find it easier to write enraptured articles about “the Holy Father” than to seriously question the social effects of his conservative doctrines.

By the way, Lord Ashtar I noted your coment that you have to show respect to get respect. If I were to say that the Pope has a “grave moral disorder” and that his lifestyle is “an intrinsic moral evil”. . . . if I were to send a letter around saying that it is all right to discriminate against Catholics in some forms of employment and housing. . . . if I were to fight for laws making marriage between Catholics illegal or laws that refuse to recognize the validity of Catholic marriage. . . .would you consider me lacking in respect? Because that is EXACTLY the level of respect that the present and former Popes have shown to gay and lesbian people. Exactly

99

Again, you’re reading things into my statement that aren’t there. I never said I had a problem with people using religion to find purpose in their lives. I said it was sad.

100

If this–

means this–

I submit that you would be better served to say what you mean, at least in Great Debates. Figures of speech are all well and good for adding a little flavor to your argument, but when they obscure the main point they become counter productive. How is a reasonable person to derive an attack on “lazy or gutless journalists” from your first statement?